Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


What music are you listen...
Today at 08:35 PM

New PM incoming
by zeca
Today at 06:37 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Today at 02:08 PM

'Islamic State' a.k.a. IS...
Today at 01:50 PM

Attack on Jewish store in...
Yesterday at 11:57 PM

Blasphemy Case of Junaid...
Yesterday at 11:50 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Yesterday at 10:52 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 09:23 PM

Protests in Iraq
by zeca
December 11, 2019, 07:40 PM

Are Hijabs really a choic...
December 11, 2019, 02:35 PM

Kashmir endgame
December 11, 2019, 02:13 PM

Iran uprising - is the en...
by zeca
December 11, 2019, 02:06 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves

 (Read 82493 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 11 12 1314 15 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #360 - August 14, 2015, 08:03 AM

    You're just being silly now.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #361 - August 14, 2015, 08:36 AM

    Honestly, I'm not sure going to the trouble of finding scientific papers would be worth it, because I don't think you can understand the contents; and if you can and you're deliberately misrepresenting the contents, that's even worse. Your highest level of intellectual discussion right now seems to be quoting wikipedia. Don't get me wrong--wikipedia can be a good place to start your research. But it's not where to end your research. It's not where you should call it a day from, it's not where you should stop researching, because it's not going to be the most accurate and comprehensive analysis of any given topic. And if you can barely understand and/or accurately represent the contents of wikipedia, then I don't see how any further discussion on matters of science is going to be fruitful. Instead, like Quod, I think it would be more advantageous to just examine your beliefs on theology and how you back up those beliefs, instead of simply continuing to feed you science that you won't/don't understand.


    Please quote me where I have been wrong regarding the creation of life and dust gathering to form stars and planets...I dare you.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #362 - August 14, 2015, 09:02 AM

    What are those hadiths that you accept? Can you name them?

    Hi Ted. Can we have an answer to this?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #363 - August 14, 2015, 09:11 AM

    Please quote me where I have been wrong regarding the creation of life and dust gathering to form stars and planets...I dare you.


    Every time you've typed something on the subject of science you've either misrepresented the data, claimed the data is wrong (without providing any evidence to substantiate your claim), claimed the data leads to a different conclusion than the experts say it does (which only you in your magical brain know, because goodness knows people who have dedicated years of their life to a given subject are far less educated about it than you and the power of your magical thinking), claimed there is no data, or denied that the data you are presented is actually relevant (when it is, but for reasons only your magical brain knows, you think it's not).

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #364 - August 14, 2015, 09:14 AM

    No need as the similarity of their DNA allows these hybrids to exist. You are asking for a predictive analysis as evidence but this is not required when we have a solid example in the two hybrids I mentioned. Where as a Human and a Chimp can not as Chimps are missing a chromosome, which contains the DNA during reproduction. You seem to never have taken grade school biology


    Excellent work bogart. Let's take your understanding a little further. So you are saying similarity in DNA allows for hybrids to exist and that you can't have human and chimp hybrids because chimps are missing a chromosome.

    You are rather vague on "similarity in DNA" although you did give an example of "missing a chromosome". Let's take a look at the "missing a chromosome" claim as many many people misunderstand or don't correctly get across what they are trying to say.

    Are you saying that if there is a difference in chromosomes between 2 similar or in fact the same species of living organism this would mean the two living organisms would not be able to produce offspring. You're probably not aware but some humans don't have the same number of chromosomes as others.


  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #365 - August 14, 2015, 09:16 AM

    Hi Ted. Can we have an answer to this?


    Sorry I don't see how that is relevant.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #366 - August 14, 2015, 09:19 AM

    Every time you've typed something on the subject of science you've either misrepresented the data, claimed the data is wrong (without providing any evidence to substantiate your claim), claimed the data leads to a different conclusion than the experts say it does (which only you in your magical brain know, because goodness knows people who have dedicated years of their life to a given subject are far less educated about it than you and the power of your magical thinking), claimed there is no data, or denied that the data you are presented is actually relevant (when it is, but for reasons only your magical brain knows, you think it's not).


    As I said before, please quote me. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm open to being corrected.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #367 - August 14, 2015, 09:30 AM

    Sorry I don't see how that is relevant.

    Don't you think your Muhammad's version is relevant to your own perception that Islam's GOD exists?

    He is the founder of this religion, a very important character.  The  Quran was dictated by GOD to him, along with all these scientific miracles, right?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #368 - August 14, 2015, 09:58 AM


    Well it's not Islam's God. It's  everyone's God regardless of what religion you believe in. Mohammed is no more than a messenger. What he thought about God may be different to what I think about God. Mohammed did not have the scientific discoveries we have made today.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #369 - August 14, 2015, 10:14 AM

    Don't be afraid Ted, tell us those hadiths that you accept.  I'm sure many here are curious to know yours version of MO.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #370 - August 14, 2015, 10:24 AM

    Excellent work bogart. Let's take your understanding a little further. So you are saying similarity in DNA allows for hybrids to exist and that you can't have human and chimp hybrids because chimps are missing a chromosome.


    Yes similarity in chromosomes, contains DNA itself, allows for different species of the same genus to mate.  Tigers and Lions both have 38 thus during reproduction chromosomes can form pairs. This is required to form the zygote which becomes the offspring. Humans have 46 while Chimps have 48. The 2 Chimp chromosomes do not pair up thus can not form a zygote.

    Quote
    You are rather vague on "similarity in DNA" although you did give an example of "missing a chromosome". Let's take a look at the "missing a chromosome" claim as many many people misunderstand or don't correctly get across what they are trying to say.


    I am not vague at all if you understand DNA is contained in chromosomes along with a grade school understanding of biology. It's not a vague guess, it is a fact.

    Quote
    Are you saying that if there is a difference in chromosomes between 2 similar or in fact the same species of living organism this would mean the two living organisms would not be able to produce offspring. You're probably not aware but some humans don't have the same number of chromosomes as others.


    Difference in number of chromosomes but also functions contain within the genes of each chromosome. If genes are not matched up properly by chromosome pairs at different points the offspring could fail. It could be at a cellular stage, fetus, etc.

    Humans that do not have the same number of chromosomes as others can not reproduce properly. You are pointing out a genetic abnormality which is accounted for. Usually this type of condition is fatal. Also people that survive are not actually missing chromosomes but that their paired bounded together. Just as with the Human and Chimp difference, a pair bounded together to form a new chromosome containing information contained within 2. However your point is irrelevant as a rebuttal as this is a known mechanic of evolution.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #371 - August 14, 2015, 10:25 AM

    Don't be afraid Ted, tell us those hadiths that you accept.  I'm sure many here are curious to know yours version of MO.


    So you want me to list some hadiths of which there could be lots and lots and then you are going to go through each one to see if there is a problem with it or maybe you are just curious?

    I think you have a problem with some hadiths. If that's the case why don't you just state a few of them and we can go through them? Would be far more efficient don't you think?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #372 - August 14, 2015, 10:37 AM

    As I said before, please quote me. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm open to being corrected.


    OK, I'll go through every point on the main debate and assign a number code to the error you've made:
    1. misrepresented the data
    2. claimed the data is wrong (without providing any evidence to substantiate your claim)
    3. claimed the data leads to a different conclusion than the experts say it does (which only you in your magical brain know, because goodness knows people who have dedicated years of their life to a given subject are far less educated about it than you and the power of your magical thinking)
    4. claimed there is no data, or
    5. denied that the data you are presented is actually relevant (when it is, but for reasons only your magical brain knows, you think it's not)
    In rereading your comments, also adding code 6: redefining terms to mean the opposite of what they actually mean and using your own weird definitions to "prove" things are "wrong" without providing any evidence.

    I'm doing it with that thread and not this one because that thread is shorter (2 pages vs 13).

    The next thing we need to clarify is the understanding of "science". I don't want to get into petty, meaningless, misguided arguments about "proofs" and "prove" and certainty in science. Some atheists are simply deluded and not living in the real world when they come out with crap like "you can't prove anything in science". Error 3

    I like the Wikipedia definition of science - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Error 1

    To clarify, when I am talking about proving something scientifically I am talking about being able to do experiments and make real observations in order to verify explanations, ideas, hypotheses, etc. I fully understand that what we currently observe could turn out to be false later on or change so we can never know the absolute truth of something. However I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that we can be certain of things based on the observations we have made. Error 3

    For example we are certain that the earth orbits the sun based on the modern observations we have. Later on that may turn out to be false (and most likely it will when geocentrism is proven to be correct) but it's reasonable to assume that based on or current understanding that the heliocentric model is correct as it explains a lot of things. Error 3

    When I use words such as "prove", "proof", "certain", etc. I am using the meanings/definitions as described in the public dictionaries. Error 3 I tend not to use personal private meanings which some deluded individuals use who think that you can't prove anything in science. Error 3



    I think the problem is with understanding word usage/meaning. If you look up the definition "prove" in the common dictionary it simply means to demonstrate the truth of something using evidence. Error 3



    One of the most obvious evidence of God is the scientific fact that life cannot be created by humans from scratch, from atoms and molecules. Error 4 Numerous scientific experiments have been done are being done and have been planned to create life from scratch.

    Generally it is considered that life is a "naturally" occurring phenomena, especially by atheists.  Error 6However there is a bit more to this which most people don't consider. Life is not a natural phenomena. When I say it is not a natural phenomena I mean it is not something replicated by humans using natural processes. Error 6 For example we know that if we combine hydrogen and oxygen we get water. This is an example of a natural processes. Error 6 We are also able form other more complex molecules by using our understanding of chemistry and physics. These complex molecules and structures are created using the natural laws of physics and chemistry that we know of.

    However the creation of life has proven to be extremely difficult. Numerous experiments show that forming the simplest known living organism is not possible using the current technology and understanding we have. Error 4 and subsequently error 5 Experiments show that certain structures are simply not stable or just don't behave the way we expect them to. Error 4 Now if life was truly a naturally occurring phenomena Error 6 then it should be straight forward to replicate it just as we can replicate complex molecules Error 6.

    Now I know some will say that we may be able to create life in the future from scratch and that is a valid point. Error 4 However the fact still stands today that humans are not able to create life from scratch.Error 4 This also needs to be taken a step further to investigate why it's not possible to create life. Extra error: jumping from faulty premise to faulty conclusion


    As a believer in God I have to accept that God created absolutely everything. The earth, heavens, gravity, light, "nothing", animals, water, humans, plants, trees, etc. Problem is if everything is created by God then how do I distinguish between what is creation and what is not creation. I can't do that since there is no such as a non created entity or concept in my reality. Yet God says look around and learn to know that God exists and that he created everything.

    In order to find evidence of God most people are looking for something supernatural. Something that does not conform to our known understanding of the universe or what we refer to as "natural". So for example if I drop a pen it will fall until it hits the ground. We give that phenomena a name. We call it gravity and can do all sorts of experiments to learn more about it. As a believer I understand that it's God who created gravity (as well as the pen...more on that later). Another less thoughtful believer may just say it was the will of Allah which made pen hit the ground and if you don't believe it then you are going to hell. Convoluted and rambling error 4

    However if I drop a pen and it becomes suspended in mid air or maybe even goes up then we'd consider that as being supernatural or very unusual since it doesn't conform to what we see and know around us. non sequitur: this does not matter because this does not happen; but if it did, there are other causes we could examine, eg magnetism or invisible, inaudible (to humans) sound waves This will be confirmation for the believer that yes God exists and they have just witnessed a miracle, especially if I had said something like "God will suspend this pen in mid air". Some weak agnostics or weak non-believer may be convinced that yes they have just observed a miracle and that God really does exist. They then may incorrectly go about blindly following the believers and accept everything they say and begin to call themselves Sunnis, Shias, Salafis, Christians, etc. However there may be more cautious, skeptical atheists who will want to investigate more to make sure there isn't a "natural" explanation or that it's not some kind of David Copperfield stunt.

    Now if the phenomena of the pen being suspended in air only happened once even though it had been witnessed by thousands/millions of people there would still be some doubt in the non-believers mind that there could have been a natural explanation or that it was a hoax. This is perfectly reasonable thinking. So let's assume we witnessed pens being suspended mid air all over the world at random times or even during certain times of the day. We did thousands of experiments to figure out why but were not able to figure out why the pens suspend themselves in mid-air and are not able to replicate the phenomena.

    For the first generation of observers this is a new phenomena and is strange. For subsequent generations this would be classed as a natural phenomena since it has been happening for ages and it's nothing special for them. They've grown up seeing and knowing about this and it has become a part of the natural world.

    So, the dilemma is how do we determine whether something is part of the natural world? How do determine life is part of the natural world we know.
    Extra error (which has now become error 7): jumping from faulty premise to faulty conclusion

    For me it comes down to determining the base line. About distinguishing what we have power to do and what is beyond our capability. This is the tricky part. It's tricky because history has shown that humans have progressed to learn more about the universe they live and things which were deemed impossible/unimaginable are now possible and have come into existence. This I believe is one of the areas we need to understand and convince ourselves of in order to have tangible evidence of God. Another long, rambling error 4



    Try thinking about whether life is made up of mysterious elements that we have no knowledge of or control over. Error 1--no it isn't Science shows Error 1 we know exactly what we are made of and up to a certain point how it works. Error 7



    I think we can go further and be able to get to point where we can say that it's very unlikely for life to have come into existence through natural processes. non sequitur: the universe/multiverse is incredibly, maybe infinitely, huge and so the incredibly improbable happens all the time, and it would be more incredible if the improbably never happened. On top of that we can also reach a point where we can say that it's not possible to create life through artificial means with the current technology we have. Error 5--I know I presented this data, and you rejected it without explanation and keep posting the same claim

    Having the argument that something may be possible to do in the future is not scientific and is just conjecture. Error 5 and non sequitur We need to deal with the here and now. Whether we accept the current science and conclusions is up to the individual considering it. This is false. Truth does not depend on your belief in it, truth is independent. Some may be convinced easily others may never be convinced and die with those thoughts and opinions. non sequitur: the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to the truth of that thing; also, appeal to your magic brain.

    Like I said before, the interesting point is not that we can't create life it's why we can't. Error 5 and 7


    A related point is how do you confirm that being who claims to be God is in fact God. You see a being covered in light, with billions of angels around him. Are you convinced that he is God or do you need some further evidence? Assuming you know that you're not hallucinating why should this be assumed how do you confirm that this being has infinite power and knowledge why should this be assumed to be a characteristic of a god? How do you measure those things given that you have limited capabilities? There either needs to be a level of reasonable observations Error 6 that you can make and be convinced Error 6 or you will never be convinced non sequitur: truth is not dependent on who believes it, truth must be sought independently and judged on its merits.



    I accept my definition/explanations of natural are confusing. I will try to explain.

    As a believer I believe that everything is created. Absolutely everything that you can observe or imagine is creation. God has made our reality such that we can distinguish between what God is capable of doing and what we humans are capable of doing. This is so that we can use science to confirm his existence. I don't think it's correct to say that the evidence of God is the supernatural as there kind of is no such thing. The supernatural is just things that we don't understand and/or doesn't happen all the time. Error 6

    If we take the example of life Error 6 we know what life is made up of and how it works however we are not able to create it ourselves even though we have the capabilities of manipulating atoms and molecules Error 4. If I called life supernatural Error 6 then it doesn't sound right since there is an abundance of life.

    Maybe if i referred to things created by God as divinely inspired may help?



    Where did I say that? You missed it when I said several times that everything is created by God.

    Let me use the analogy of a role playing video game in a virtual world such as GTA. You'll understand this a lot better if you're a software developer/programmer. You design the video game. You have to write all that is possible and that can happen in the virtual world. You set the gravity, the size of the world, what a player can and cannot do, what the player looks like, what emotions they can feel, what is good, what is bad, etc. Now the players of the video game are all limited to what has been given to them however you as the software developer can do as you please in the virtual world as you can change gravity, the things in the world like shape, colour, texture, etc. anything. Players can lose lives, you have the power to give them life as many times as you want. You have no fear or worry in that virtual world as you can recreate everything in an instant. So if certain players decide to do evil and break the rules (which you have defined and told them about) what is the worst they can do? They can't do anything which is permanent since you have the power to reverse it or make it better than before. If those bad players decide to destroy a country which is populated by thousands of other players you can simply recreate that country in an instant. non sequitur but there is an important point you are missing here: although we may have already created computer programs that are alive (like computer viruses, which are likely alive in the same way that biological viruses are alive: they can reproduce themselves, they can interact with their environment, some can change over time to adapt to threats), we have probably not yet created computer programs that are fully sentient in the way that we are. However, if we had, would we allow the kinds of atrocities and abuses that God allows in our world? Would we create or allow whatever the equivalent of spina bifida, childhood cancer, pedophilia, murder, and other pointless suffering would be for them? It's different to run a program like the sims than it is to run a world with sentient beings, because sentient beings can experience psychological harm, whereas an automaton cannot.

    The question then become more about how you want players to behave in your virtual world. If you tell them to behave and they refuse to do so you can either change their abilities so they can no longer destroy things, kick them out of the game, replace them, etc. Are you really concerned about them or the players which are behaving the way you want them to behave. Those that listen to you you may want to reward them. Those that go that extra step and actually do some difficult things just to please you you may want to give them an extra reward. Going back to my previous point, the god you believe in is less moral than we are.



    Yes, you can't control gravity. Error 4--you can't make a cosmological constant like gravity go away but by applying a lot of energy, you can create temporary environments where an individual within them will temporarily experience higher gravity or lower gravity--eg vomit comet for the experience of 0 G and fighter jets for 2-5 or higher G As in you can't make things float by suspending the laws of gravity Error 6. Just because gravity is all over the place does not make it natural Error 6. Again it comes down to understanding "natural". Error 6



    Can humans create life from scratch? Error 5 Should it be possible for humans to create life from scratch? non sequitur Is life created through natural processes? Error 6 You can test all of this. Error 4 Feel free to use "God of gaps" for that. Those gaps are forever increasing lie they are not getting any smaller lie.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

    The above links is what I'll use as the reference to evolution and human evolution.

    Generally the two most notable scientific evidences of common ancestry are fossils and DNA. Lots of fossils have been collected and cataloged. Lots of DNA has been studied. The media unimportant and irrelevant and scientists describe these as solid irrefutable evidence lie of evolution. They portray evolution to be a fact true, but still error 3 and that if you deny it then you are denying science lie and irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth Error 2. Some of the best known scientists were and are religious irrelevant--truth still doesn't depend on who believes it.

    Anyway, the first question any reasonable person or scientist should/must ask is how fossils and DNA support common ancestry. Error 3 First you need to define what common ancestry is. The basics, the fundamentals, the most obvious things about common ancestry or common descent as described by trusty ol' Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent.

    Common descent as defined by Wikipedia is "Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor". What Wikipedia does not mention explicitly is that the process/mechanism of common descent is sexual/asexual reproduction between a chain related living organisms. irrelevant non sequitur--wikipedia is not scientific literature, nor is it a comprehensive examination of any topic This is the most crucial process that is taken for granted lie, accepted implicitly by scientists and believers of evolution/common decent Errors 3, 4 AND 5--you're on a roll here. So what evidence do we have that certain populations of living organisms are/were inter-fertile and actually reproduced with one another non sequitur--common descent doesn't mean that current species can interbreed, it means that in the past, the ancestors of two species were the same, and that because of some factor, the species differentiated into two families. For example, you and your cousins share a common ancestor, whether or not you share common descendants.. The evidence that is cited is fossils and DNA. Tons of fossils and DNA will be thrown at the sceptical scientist who is this? and poor religious person who is this? and they will often be brow beaten by whom? into believing it non sequitur--truth STILL does not depend on who believes it.

    So here's the question how do fossils and DNA prove that certain living organisms are able to reproduce with one another? Error 6 The scientific fact, undeniable truth is that fossils and DNA do NOT provide evidence that certain living organisms are able to reproduce with one another. Error 7

    If there is any scientist or science paper which can prove this then please cite me the research.

    I will leave you with that for now as I'm sure there's going to be some back and forth clarification of the above before reality sets in and the atheists succumb to the truth. lol



    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #373 - August 14, 2015, 10:41 AM

    Yes similarity in chromosomes, contains DNA itself, allows for different species of the same genus to mate.  Tigers and Lions both have 38 thus during reproduction chromosomes can form pairs. This is required to form the zygote which becomes the offspring. Humans have 46 while Chimps have 48. The 2 Chimp chromosomes do not pair up thus can not form a zygote.

    I am not vague at all if you understand DNA is contained in chromosomes along with a grade school understanding of biology. It's not a vague guess, it is a fact.


    "grade school understanding of biology" huh? OK let's see how much you really do understand and whether you actually understand scientific research and empirical evidence.

    So let's clarify. Are you saying that because tigers and lions both have 38 chromosomes this means pairs can form hence tigers and lions can reproduce? So if tigers had let's say 20 chromosomes and lions had 38 then it would not be possible for them to reproduce as in the example of humans and chimps?

    If that's the case how do you explain the existence of mules where they are the product of a horse and donkey who have 64 and 62 chromosomes respectively? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule



  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #374 - August 14, 2015, 11:11 AM

    galfromusa,

    Please jump in any time if you think I have made an error -  Afro.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #375 - August 14, 2015, 12:16 PM

    I explained your error in thinking we should be able to create life from scratch. You also made errors in your definition of natural, which, again, I explained to you.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #376 - August 14, 2015, 12:23 PM

    So you want me to list some hadiths of which there could be lots and lots and then you are going to go through each one to see if there is a problem with it or maythose you are just curious?

    I think you have a problem with some hadiths. If that's the case why don't you just state a few of them and we can go through them? Would be far more efficient don't you think?


    Ted. I'm by no means an expert in hadiths. But there are some folks here which are.  Now, many of here reject any hadith. There is no point to discuss hadiths that you and people here don't accept, it's a waste of time of course. That's why if you name those hadiths that you said you accept we can discuss your version of MO head on.

    As quran is based on MO's revelations we must estabilish very clear that muhammad is a very trustable and honest character,  don't you think? So we must learn about MO. I see some kind of reluctance from you, common don't be shy let us know those hadiths.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #377 - August 14, 2015, 12:48 PM

    "As quran is based on MO's revelations we must estabilish very clear that muhammad is a very trustable and honest character,  don't you think? So we must learn about MO. I see some kind of reluctance from you, common don't be shy let us know those hadiths."

    Hold on for one second here, let's not get ahead of ourselves dear sir. Why does Mohammed have to be a very trustable and honest person? How do you verify someone is honest and trustable? Can you really take other peoples word for it? What if they are lying? What if they are just being nice about Mohammed? What if they are bias since they are following Mohammed? etc. etc. Mohammed could have indeed been trustable and honest but maybe he was being delusional? Maybe he was not sane or maybe he was just joking around? Maybe he believed he was speaking the truth because it sounded right but in fact it was not true, etc.

    So over to you again...
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #378 - August 14, 2015, 12:49 PM

    I explained your error in thinking we should be able to create life from scratch. You also made errors in your definition of natural, which, again, I explained to you.


    Are you saying galfromusa got it wrong and we can and do know how to create life?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #379 - August 14, 2015, 01:27 PM

    You're just being silly now.

      Hello Ted ., who is silly and who is being silly now??

    Are you saying galfromusa got it wrong and we can and do know how to create life?


    no one is saying anything to you Ted.. you are a believer and a BLIND BELIEVER.,   I don't blame you for your rubbish posts, or for  your actions in real life.

    I blame that allah god who created you....who created everything and anything in the universe  and that also goes to the   bad smell/ poop in your posts

    it is all allah/god

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #380 - August 14, 2015, 01:36 PM

    Are you saying galfromusa got it wrong and we can and do know how to create life?

    I'm assuming this is humour.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #381 - August 14, 2015, 01:46 PM

    Hey Ted,

    I was still curious as to why it is so important for you to “disprove” human evolution or to “disprove” that planets formed through the attraction of particles in space? I don’t understand why you would need for those things to be false in order to maintain your faith in God.

    Does it mean that if those things were suddenly proven to be true beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, you would instantly lose your faith?

    The reason I ask is because, as I stated above, there are numerous instances in the Qur’an where a literal understanding of the verses contradict what we now know to be true about our world and universe. These instances do not seem to shake your faith. As I mentioned, the Qur’an is literally wrong on the origin of semen, it is literally wrong on the formation of the human embryo, it is literally wrong on the sun setting in a fetid spring, it is literally wrong there being 7 earths, etc. While you have taken the bizarre step of arguing for the plausibility of the geocentric model, it seems as though you will continue to back yourself into an untenable corner if you insist on taking the Qur’an's descriptions literally and continue to insist on denying scientific consensus in order to do so.

    That is well within your right if you want to do that. It just seems like a very odd and difficult position to maintain.

    Alternatively, couldn’t you maintain your faith in God and just accept that the Quran could just be, as it claims to be, in the language of the people to whom it was first revealed?

    Language is more than just the words themselves, it is the conveyance of a culture, a reflection of the mode of understanding.

    Just as you would never expect to find references to iPhones or twitter or supersonic jets in the Qur’an, why would you expect to find confirmations of scientific knowledge that we’ve only now begun to understand? And why should that be a problem for you? Isn’t the Qur’an just a means pointing people to something far greater than itself? God?

    Never does the Qur’an present anything more about the cosmos and creation than the prevalent understandings of its time. Why would it? It was “the words of a noble messenger,” right? And that messenger was dealing with a certain people in a certain context. Was the goal to get people hooked on the Quran itself, or to get them engaged with God? As Bruce Lee said, “It is like a finger pointing away the moon. Don’t concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." The Qur’an is the finger pointing. God is the moon. The Qur’an is not God.

    Why must you restrict your god to this small, limited, 7th century box? Wouldn’t it be far more interesting and mysterious if, every time we learned or observed something new about our universe, it pushed our understanding of God even further? If you maintained your faith, wouldn’t that truly make your god akbar. Isn’t he actually greater than just a flawed and literal understanding of one religious book?

    When Muhammad died and many of the people who believed in him began to lose their faith, it’s reported that Abu Bakr stood up and reminded the people that Muhammad was just a man. “Whoever worshipped Muhammad, Muhammad is dead. But whoever worshiped God, then God is living and never dies.”

    Can’t we say the same thing today to those who insist on worshiping a literal understanding of the Qur’an? The Qur’an is just a book." Whoever worshiped a literal understanding of the Qur’an, then a literal understanding of the Qur’an is dead. But whoever worshipped God, then God is living and never dies.”
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #382 - August 14, 2015, 01:47 PM

    OK, I'll go through every point on the main debate and assign a number code to the error you've made:
    1. misrepresented the data
    2. claimed the data is wrong (without providing any evidence to substantiate your claim)
    3. claimed the data leads to a different conclusion than the experts say it does (which only you in your magical brain know, because goodness knows people who have dedicated years of their life to a given subject are far less educated about it than you and the power of your magical thinking)
    4. claimed there is no data, or
    5. denied that the data you are presented is actually relevant (when it is, but for reasons only your magical brain knows, you think it's not)
    In rereading your comments, also adding code 6: redefining terms to mean the opposite of what they actually mean and using your own weird definitions to "prove" things are "wrong" without providing any evidence.

    I'm doing it with that thread and not this one because that thread is shorter (2 pages vs 13).



    Add these into the list:
    1. Misrepresent what science, scientific experiment, or scientific process is.
    2. Uses data to further his misunderstanding in hope that "atheists" (or other believers who believe in science) will finally succumb to the "truth" (that only exist in his brain).
    3. Misuses words like "natural" to further his misunderstanding - instead of choosing to use the right word for his statements he prefers to use his own definition of "natural".
    4. Have no regards to other religions / philosophy. Thinks that there could possibly be no truth in other religions with different concepts of universe. He accepts 1 definition of God and in his magical world that only he lives there, everybody agrees to that God. He does not accept that not everybody agree with Islamic God. Islamic God is not universal God.
    5. Still refuses to answer why evolution or even geocentrism is even related to being evidence for God. I claim it strengthens the evidence that Pharaoh was indeed God.
    6. Doesn't understand hadith and its relation to Quran and why muslims think hadith is important - however it is still everybody else's fault. Bends Islam to suit his definition of God, bends everything to suit his definition of universe.
    7. On the main thread, claims that Quod have no understanding of science + scientific experiments when he didn't get the answer exactly like he wanted. His magical brain refuses to think that anybody who graduated from high school knows what allele is. Jumps on conclusion and insults when he wants - he needs to feel superior at all times - nobody understands science like he does!
    8. Atheists still need to succumb to his personal evidences of 'ze truth'.

    In all seriousness, you are probably one of the most deluded muslim I have ever seen.

    I have never really seen someone who misrepresents research and science like that. And I live in Indonesia -,-
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #383 - August 14, 2015, 01:50 PM

    Are you saying galfromusa got it wrong and we can and do know how to create life?

    I'm assuming this is humour.


    I'm assuming he didn't really read what you or galfromusa said.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #384 - August 14, 2015, 02:05 PM

    Add these into the list:
    1. Misrepresent what science, scientific experiment, or scientific process is.
    2. Uses data to further his misunderstanding in hope that "atheists" (or other believers who believe in science) will finally succumb to the "truth" (that only exist in his brain).
    3. Misuses words like "natural" to further his misunderstanding - instead of choosing to use the right word for his statements he prefers to use his own definition of "natural".
    4. Have no regards to other religions / philosophy. Thinks that there could possibly be no truth in other religions with different concepts of universe. He accepts 1 definition of God and in his magical world that only he lives there, everybody agrees to that God. He does not accept that not everybody agree with Islamic God. Islamic God is not universal God.
    5. Still refuses to answer why evolution or even geocentrism is even related to being evidence for God. I claim it strengthens the evidence that Pharaoh was indeed God.
    6. Doesn't understand hadith and its relation to Quran and why muslims think hadith is important - however it is still everybody else's fault. Bends Islam to suit his definition of God, bends everything to suit his definition of universe.
    7. On the main thread, claims that Quod have no understanding of science + scientific experiments when he didn't get the answer exactly like he wanted. His magical brain refuses to think that anybody who graduated from high school knows what allele is. Jumps on conclusion and insults when he wants - he needs to feel superior at all times - nobody understands science like he does!
    8. Atheists still need to succumb to his personal evidences of 'ze truth'.

    In all seriousness, you are probably one of the most deluded muslim I have ever seen.

    I have never really seen someone who misrepresents research and science like that. And I live in Indonesia -,-


    Typical. Just gibberish. People like yourself have no clue. So far only dr sloth and bogart have made any effort to do some research which they actually understand. Whereas people like yourself have no clue and would rather talk gibberish.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #385 - August 14, 2015, 02:14 PM

    "As quran is based on MO's revelations we must estabilish very clear that muhammad is a very trustable and honest character,  don't you think? So we must learn about MO. I see some kind of reluctance from you, common don't be shy let us know those hadiths."

    Hold on for one second here, let's not get ahead of ourselves dear sir. Why does Mohammed have to be a very trustable and honest person? How do you verify someone is honest and trustable? Can you really take other peoples word for it? What if they are lying? What if they are just being nice about Mohammed? What if they are bias since they are following Mohammed? etc. etc. Mohammed could have indeed been trustable and honest but maybe he was being delusional? Maybe he was not sane or maybe he was just joking around? Maybe he believed he was speaking the truth because it sounded right but in fact it was not true, etc.

    So over to you again...


    Ted you believe the Quran was dictated directly by God to Muhammad? Yes or No?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #386 - August 14, 2015, 02:17 PM

    Yes.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #387 - August 14, 2015, 02:59 PM

    Very good then. Given that you are so strongly believe this, it means that you trust this MO, so you know something about this man, that he is a trustable, honest man, an example for all mankind as many Muslims would say. So let us learn about MO from you Ted. Lets start with those Hadiths that you accept and are the source of your trust in him.

    Because I will confess to you Ted, I'm sure of nothing about this man and I want to learn.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #388 - August 14, 2015, 03:17 PM

    Did you not read my other post about trusting?


    ....I take it all back when I said there were so many intellectual ex-muslims on this forum.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #389 - August 14, 2015, 03:23 PM

    Typical. Just gibberish. People like yourself have no clue. So far only dr sloth and bogart have made any effort to do some research which they actually understand. Whereas people like yourself have no clue and would rather talk gibberish.



    I need to buy you a big, fat mirror.

    You seem to not be able to realize that even if I point your mistake directly at you. Galfromusa already did, several times already and they were all ignored.

    Evolution or geo/heliocentrism does not prove anybody's God, though it might disprove some scripture that supports it. If your God can be disproven by evolution, then we don't even need this discussion in the first place.
  • Previous page 1 ... 11 12 1314 15 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »