*Kails*:


dear i am not trying to sell anything though.
it's a fact.

theism + science together were the foundation for every great civilization there was in the ancient world. once egos came to play it all went down hill.

I am becoming a bigger fan as the days go by.

maclatunji:

The Qur'an has already guided science. One of the greatest social scientists ever was born on this day in 1332 - Ibn Khaldun http://www.coolstuff49ja.com/2013/05/today-is-ibn-khalduns-birthday.html?m=1

Islam provided the basic framework on which he made many discoveries.

Can Islam accept Science and its trials? Can islam accept human evolution? Can islam accept that man probably is more related to other apes than to God? Can islam suspend its belief in God, for an experiment?

Science is a rebel, it can hardly be tamed even to our ethical restraints.

Kay 17:

Can Islam accept Science and its trials? Can islam accept human evolution? Can islam accept that man probably is more related to other apes than to God? Can islam suspend its belief in God, for an experiment?

Science is a rebel, it can hardly be tamed even to our ethical restraints.

It kinda puts Lucifer's rebellion in heaven in the proper perspective, doesn't it?

^
Similar to lucifer

Uyi Iredia:

Poor examples.

They were your examples though.

You started out by making the claim that huge information can be extracted from a tooth. Here is a case that fails at that and you exclaim 'Good examples'.

Please don't misrepresent me. I stated clearly that the conclusions of the original scientist in the Nebraska man case were wrong. And BTW, it was by examining that same tooth that other scientists were able to determine that it wasn't human, and identify the correct animal. A huge amount of information can be extracted from a tooth. That you don't know how its done doesn't mean it isn't possible. It just means you don't know how its done.

Your words.

"If you'd bothered to read any of the original papers describing such fossils, you'd know that scientists go to extreme lengths to support every little detail of their
claims with evidence. Whenever they make guesses, they
always clearly indicate so."

Do the examples I cited follow this supposed claim ? Clearly not. You see that. Instead of owning up to the error of the case in point, you brag about how science caught the errants - after years had passed in a system that supposedly has 'zero tolerance for hidden conjectures'. You claim a victory that was at best, pyrrhic, at worst, a failure.

In both cases, the scientists involved did back up up their claims with evidence as I stated earlier. In the Nebraska man case, the scientist who examined the tooth failed to consider other possible explanations for his findings and thus failed to realize that all his evidence was inconclusive. There was evidence, just that it was too weak to meet generally accepted standards. He may have been too eager to publish due to the magnitude of what he thought he had discovered. Or maybe he just was't competent enough. In any case, his paper was immediately torn to shreds by his fellow archaeologists who quickly exposed all its flaws. The Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community and was conclusively debunked within 4 years which, by the way, is extremely fast given what it takes to gather data, analyse it, make conclusions, then write, peer review and publish a scientific paper.

The Piltdown man skull was an extremely well done hoax made by someone who had significant knowledge of human anatomy, knew how to age bones to fool archaeologists and spent a considerable amount of time and effort to make the skull look real. And even in that case all the conclusions drawn from the skull were backed by evidence. The problem is that those conclusions were all based on the assumption that the skull was real, while it wasn't. You can blame the scientists for being too naive and not looking hard enough for signs of forgery, but you cant blame them for a fraud perpetrated by someone else.

Anyway, thanks to the Piltdown man, every major new fossil find is now assumed to be fake until proven otherwise.

Actually, I am well aware of the opposition and even I am aware that without gaining like-minded supporters the theory couldn't possibly have flourished. Group think is the similarity in the thoughts of a group of people on an issue. That is needed to propagate any theory. Darwin proposed the theory, Huxley is popularly known to have gained support by aggressively promoting it,

You are throwing around a word like groupthink yet you clearly don't know what it means. A group of people of disparate opinions coming to accept a new idea which has stood up to intense scrutiny and experimental testing is not what Orwell meant when he coined the term. Groupthink is more like when a bunch of people believe that the ancestors of all land animals were once stuffed in a tiny boat for a year because a bunch of other people believed it going back all the way to some bronze age goat herders in the desert. Groupthink is when the group discourages individuals from questioning commonly held beliefs or exploring alternatives. If you want to see groupthink in action, tell your pastor that you're starting to doubt whether Jesus really worked miracles and watch how fast your fellow church members rally round to herd you back unto the beaten path.

the result is the brainwashing of generations of humans including fellows such as yourself

I'm sorry, is Pastor Chris an evolutionary biologist? What about TB Joshua? Those are two foremost brainwashing experts in Nigeria and I doubt the evolutionists could have succeeded in washing so many brains without their input.

State the testable predictions made by Darwin.

This question deserves a separate post. Hopefully, I'll get round to answering it today. Meanwhile, why don't you try googling it? There are plenty of online materials covering this.

Of course, you wouldn't state anything about Freud because his theory was a fraud.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Freud a fraud. After all, he didn't steal anybody's money. He just made too many unsupported assertions is all.

Since you claim psychology isn't a science, don't let me catch making silly statements on how morality and religion evolved, since their explanations are derived from evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary psychology is not derived from mainstream psychology, it's from evolutionary biology. An organism's behaviour is simply another aspect of its phenotype as determined by its genes. You should read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype.

Artists also work for science journals, magazines and textbook publishers so that's not an excuse. The discovery of the Nebraska man along with claims of it being the remains of an ancestral species were published in Science. Verify this on Wikipedia. So as you can see in this case, scientists can publish flawed conclusions. While your points on the media are note-worthy, this in no way precludes the fact that scientists give them a free rein by not correcting them, using the media which they also have access to, or even make mistakes of their own.

You're telling me to "verify on Wikipedia", but if you had take your own advice and read the wikipedia article, you'd have seen that the picture of Nebraska man was published not in Science, or any other scientific journal, but in a British newspaper. Also the scientist involved complained about it and publicly dismissed the picture as made-up bullshiat (not his exact words); yet the picture is still heavily associated with his work. Creationists like you are dishonestly using the picture to accuse scientists of making things up when you know fully well that it was an unscrupulous British newspaper artist that did so.

I have stuff to do tonight. I might post more later if I have time.

Kay 17:

Can Islam accept Science and its trials? Can islam accept human evolution? Can islam accept that man probably is more related to other apes than to God? Can islam suspend its belief in God, for an experiment?

Science is a rebel, it can hardly be tamed even to our ethical restraints.

Please explain this your theory of evolution from the beginning.

[/b][b]

ayobase: Why hasn't this made it to the front page yet.....Oga Seun, pls go edit ur duplicated post biko!

Science can prove anything to be through, that what Thomas wanted. PROVE IT TO ME AND I WILL BELIEVE.

The fact u don't believe in God makes is so easy to counter anything SUPERNATURAL.

As far as I'm concerned, God hasn't changed, but we.

God created rain, sun, thunder, lightning, snow, fog and the likes, but we still have to protect ourselves from them in some ways.

If God has used just simple rain (water) to wipe out the earth before, then I don't see why he can't use others to do the same, besides He is gonna use fire later. That's left for you to believe or not!

I LIVE BY FAITH, and not by SIGHT!

God is the greatest scientist, Engineer, Author, Builder, Architect........ A creator begat creator!

Have you asked yourself why the INVENTORS are predominantly Christians or Jews?

ayobase: Why hasn't this made it to the front page yet.....Oga Seun, pls go edit ur duplicated post biko!

Science can prove anything to be through, that what Thomas wanted. PROVE IT TO ME AND I WILL BELIEVE.

The fact u don't believe in God makes is so easy to counter anything SUPERNATURAL.

As far as I'm concerned, God hasn't changed, but we.

God created rain, sun, thunder, lightning, snow, fog and the likes, but we still have to protect ourselves from them in some ways.

If God has used just simple rain (water) to wipe out the earth before, then I don't see why he can't use others to do the same, besides He is gonna use fire later. That's left for you to believe or not!

I LIVE BY FAITH, and not by SIGHT!

God is the greatest scientist, Engineer, Author, Builder, Architect........ A creator begat creator!

Have you asked yourself why the INVENTORS are predominantly Christians or Jews?

ayobase: Why hasn't this made it to the front page yet.....Oga Seun, pls go edit ur duplicated post biko!

Science can prove anything to be through, that what Thomas wanted. PROVE IT TO ME AND I WILL BELIEVE.

The fact u don't believe in God makes is so easy to counter anything SUPERNATURAL.

As far as I'm concerned, God hasn't changed, but we.

God created rain, sun, thunder, lightning, snow, fog and the likes, but we still have to protect ourselves from them in some ways.

If God has used just simple rain (water) to wipe out the earth before, then I don't see why he can't use others to do the same, besides He is gonna use fire later. That's left for you to believe or not!

I LIVE BY FAITH, and not by SIGHT!

God is the greatest scientist, Engineer, Author, Builder, Architect........ A creator begat creator!


Have you asked yourself why the INVENTORS are predominantly Christians or Jews?

Next time back you claim with evidence.

Nonbelievers Who Received the Nobel Prize
* Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists, Humanities Humanists, Scientific Humanists, or Unitarians
These guys are the greatest mind that ever lived and they didn't believe in god.
Source: http://philosopedia.org/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize_Winners#Nonbelievers_Who_Received_the_Nobel_Prize

[b]
*Jane Addams
*Norman Angell
*Klas Pontus Arnoldson
*Svante August Arrhenius
*Aung San Suu Kyi - Buddhist
*Emily Green Balch and also was a Unitarian and Friend - Emily Greene Balch who won the 1946 prize for founding, along with Jane Addams, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.
*John Bardeen- won the prize in physics in 1962 and also in 1972
*Etienne-Emile Baulieu
*Samuel Beckett
*Baruj Benacerraf
*Bjornstjerne Bjornson
*Paul D. Boyer
*Albert Camus
*Rene Cassin
*Francis Crick
*Marie Curie
*Pierre Curie
*Christian René de Duve
*Albert Einstein
*William Faulkner
*Richard P. Feynman
*Edward H. Fisher
*Dario Fo
*Anatole France
*John Galsworthy
*Murray Gell-Mann
*Herbert Hauptman
*Ernest Hemingway
*Harold W. Kroto
*Selma Lagerlof
*Sharles Laveran
*Jean-Marie Lehn
*John Levermore
*Sinclair Lewis
*André Lwoff
*Naguib Mahfouz
*Niels Bohr
*Thomas Mann
*Robert Millikan
*Mario José Molina
*Theodore Mommsen
*Herbert J. Muller
*Ferad Murad
*Alva Myrdal
*Fridtjof Nansen
*Eugene O'Neill
*Carl von Ossietzky
*Linus Pauling
*Octavio Paz
*Henrik Pontoppidan
*Ludwig Quidde
*Charles Richet
*Ronald Ross
*Bertrand Russell
*Andre Sakharov
*José Saramago
*Jean-Paul Sartre
*Erwin Schrödinger
*Albert Schweitzer
*George Bernard Shaw
*Charles Scott Sherrington
*Jens Christian Skou
*Michael Smith
*Wole Soyinka
*John Steinbeck
*Jack Steinberger
*James Dewey Watson
*Steven Weinberg
[/b]

maclatunji:


You know the Nile and Amazon are now salty after you mixed them with salt water. #LOL

Keep telling yourself you are special. #Hehehe

Did you do any basic Chemistry in school? There is something called a physical and chemical change and I find it difficult that people go to school to learn stuffs, see evidence and yet decide to maintain some stone age reasoning just because a book said so. It is really sad and disappointing.

2good: [/b][b][b][/b]

Next time back you claim with evidence.

Nonbelievers Who Received the Nobel Prize
* Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists, Humanities Humanists, Scientific Humanists, or Unitarians
These guys are the greatest mind that ever lived and they didn't believe in god.
Source: http://philosopedia.org/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize_Winners#Nonbelievers_Who_Received_the_Nobel_Prize

[b]
*Jane Addams
*Norman Angell
*Klas Pontus Arnoldson
*Svante August Arrhenius
*Aung San Suu Kyi - Buddhist
*Emily Green Balch and also was a Unitarian and Friend - Emily Greene Balch who won the 1946 prize for founding, along with Jane Addams, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.
*John Bardeen- won the prize in physics in 1962 and also in 1972
*Etienne-Emile Baulieu
*Samuel Beckett
*Baruj Benacerraf
*Bjornstjerne Bjornson
*Paul D. Boyer
*Albert Camus
*Rene Cassin
*Francis Crick
*Marie Curie
*Pierre Curie
*Christian René de Duve
*Albert Einstein
*William Faulkner
*Richard P. Feynman
*Edward H. Fisher
*Dario Fo
*Anatole France
*John Galsworthy
*Murray Gell-Mann
*Herbert Hauptman
*Ernest Hemingway
*Harold W. Kroto
*Selma Lagerlof
*Sharles Laveran
*Jean-Marie Lehn
*John Levermore
*Sinclair Lewis
*André Lwoff
*Naguib Mahfouz
*Niels Bohr
*Thomas Mann
*Robert Millikan
*Mario José Molina
*Theodore Mommsen
*Herbert J. Muller
*Ferad Murad
*Alva Myrdal
*Fridtjof Nansen
*Eugene O'Neill
*Carl von Ossietzky
*Linus Pauling
*Octavio Paz
*Henrik Pontoppidan
*Ludwig Quidde
*Charles Richet
*Ronald Ross
*Bertrand Russell
*Andre Sakharov
*José Saramago
*Jean-Paul Sartre
*Erwin Schrödinger
*Albert Schweitzer
*George Bernard Shaw
*Charles Scott Sherrington
*Jens Christian Skou
*Michael Smith
*Wole Soyinka
*John Steinbeck
*Jack Steinberger
*James Dewey Watson
*Steven Weinberg
[/b]

While it is true that there are many godless nobel laureates, it goes without saying that the majority of those who made the scientific discoveries on whose foundation modern science was laid were CHRISTIANS.

The bottomline is simple - intelligence is not restricted to the godless alone.

2good: [/b][b][b][/b]

Next time back you claim with evidence.

Nonbelievers Who Received the Nobel Prize
* Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists, Humanities Humanists, Scientific Humanists, or Unitarians
These guys are the greatest mind that ever lived and they didn't believe in god.
Source: http://philosopedia.org/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize_Winners#Nonbelievers_Who_Received_the_Nobel_Prize

[b]
*Jane Addams
*Norman Angell
*Klas Pontus Arnoldson
*Svante August Arrhenius
*Aung San Suu Kyi - Buddhist
*Emily Green Balch and also was a Unitarian and Friend - Emily Greene Balch who won the 1946 prize for founding, along with Jane Addams, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.
*John Bardeen- won the prize in physics in 1962 and also in 1972
*Etienne-Emile Baulieu
*Samuel Beckett
*Baruj Benacerraf
*Bjornstjerne Bjornson
*Paul D. Boyer
*Albert Camus
*Rene Cassin
*Francis Crick
*Marie Curie
*Pierre Curie
*Christian René de Duve
*Albert Einstein
*William Faulkner
*Richard P. Feynman
*Edward H. Fisher
*Dario Fo
*Anatole France
*John Galsworthy
*Murray Gell-Mann
*Herbert Hauptman
*Ernest Hemingway
*Harold W. Kroto
*Selma Lagerlof
*Sharles Laveran
*Jean-Marie Lehn
*John Levermore
*Sinclair Lewis
*André Lwoff
*Naguib Mahfouz
*Niels Bohr
*Thomas Mann
*Robert Millikan
*Mario José Molina
*Theodore Mommsen
*Herbert J. Muller
*Ferad Murad
*Alva Myrdal
*Fridtjof Nansen
*Eugene O'Neill
*Carl von Ossietzky
*Linus Pauling
*Octavio Paz
*Henrik Pontoppidan
*Ludwig Quidde
*Charles Richet
*Ronald Ross
*Bertrand Russell
*Andre Sakharov
*José Saramago
*Jean-Paul Sartre
*Erwin Schrödinger
*Albert Schweitzer
*George Bernard Shaw
*Charles Scott Sherrington
*Jens Christian Skou
*Michael Smith
*Wole Soyinka
*John Steinbeck
*Jack Steinberger
*James Dewey Watson
*Steven Weinberg
[/b]

Until this so-called intelligent atheists use their intelligence to save themselves from death... They are fools

I.Joan:


Until this so-called intelligent people use their intelligence to save themselves from death... They are fools

when will god/religion save you from death?

9jadelta: when will God/religion save you from death?

He has saved me and my family many times than you can immagine!

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)

Contrary to the claims of the new atheists, most scientists do not necessarily see religion and science as always being in conflict. Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund and coauthors studied the responses of scientists at 21 elite U.S. universities, finding that only 15% thought that science and religion were always in conflict. About half expressed some form of religious affiliation.

Evil Brain:

They were your examples though.

Which you implied were good examples of zero-tolerance for hidden conjectures. Yet are poor examples because they were not only conjectures but were published to the masses.

Evil Brain:
Please don't misrepresent me. I stated clearly that the conclusions of the original scientist in the Nebraska man case were wrong. And BTW, it was by examining that same tooth that other scientists were able to determine that it wasn't human, and identify the correct animal. A huge amount of information can be extracted from a tooth. That you don't know how its done doesn't mean it isn't possible. It just means you don't know how its done.

I didn't misrepresent you. The errors I was referring to were those made in vetting the fossils. State the information that can be extracted from a single tooth.

Evil Brain:
In both cases, the scientists involved did back up up their claims with evidence as I stated earlier. In the Nebraska man case, the scientist who examined the tooth failed to consider other possible explanations for his findings and thus failed to realize that all his evidence was inconclusive. There was evidence, just that it was too weak to meet generally accepted standards. He may have been too eager to publish due to the magnitude of what he thought he had discovered. Or maybe he just wasn't competent enough. In any case, his paper was immediately torn to shreds by his fellow archaeologists who quickly exposed all its flaws. The Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community and was conclusively debunked within 4 years which, by the way, is extremely fast given what it takes to gather data, analyse it, make conclusions, then write, peer review and publish a scientific paper.

Your thinking is muddled. Please call yourself Spoilt Brain. Your words.

"If you'd bothered to read any of the original papers describing such fossils, you'd know that scientists go to extreme lengths to support every little detail of their claims with evidence. Whenever they make guesses, they always clearly indicate so."

Since reasoning (properly) is a challenge lett me help you.

• Did the scientists make guesses ? Yes. Your words: '. . . the scientist who examined the tooth failed to consider other possible explanations for his findings and thus failed to realize that all his evidence was inconclusive.' If he failed to see his evidence was inconclusive then . . . yes . . . he guessed.

• Did he clearly indicate those guesses ? No. Your words: 'The Nebraska man was a peccary tooth that was misidentified as human by the people who discovered it.' Can you clearly indicate as a guess what you misidentified . . . no . . . it's not possible.

Your excuses are lame. Go and read. The Wiki article again. The discovery and conclusion of the Nebraska man was published months afterward in a supposedly tedious data collection and review process. BTW it took over 4 years to refute it.

Oohray presented the case of the Nebraska man. Instead of admitting the error you went of on a tangent. Now you are making rationalizations for errors. Bros, in this regard, you are like the religious folks you condemn.

Evil Brain:
The Piltdown man skull was an extremely well done hoax made by someone who had significant knowledge of human anatomy, knew how to age bones to fool archaeologists and spent a considerable amount of time and effort to make the skull look real. And even in that case all the conclusions drawn from the skull were backed by evidence. The problem is that those conclusions were all based on the assumption that the skull was real, while it wasn't. You can blame the scientists for being too naive and not looking hard enough for signs of forgery, but you cant blame them for a fraud perpetrated by someone else.

Yeah ! Just don't say there is 'zero-tolerance for hidden conjectures' when lots where made from forged data.

Evil Brain:
Anyway, thanks to the Piltdown man, every major new fossil find is now assumed to be fake until proven otherwise.

Really ! Cite where this principle is documented. I won't take it on face-value.

Evil Brain:
You are throwing around a word like groupthink yet you clearly don't know what it means. A group of people of disparate opinions coming to accept a new idea which has stood up to intense scrutiny and experimental testing is not what Orwell meant when he coined the term. Groupthink is more like when a bunch of people believe that the ancestors of all land animals were once stuffed in a tiny boat for a year because a bunch of other people believed it going back all the way to some bronze age goat herders in the desert. Groupthink is when the group discourages individuals from questioning commonly held beliefs or exploring alternatives. If you want to see groupthink in action, tell your pastor that you're starting to doubt whether Jesus really worked miracles and watch how fast your felluow church members rally round to herd you back unto the beaten path.

I hijacked the term and defined it in my own way, which I suspect, is similar to how Orwell defined it.
I agree with how you define groupthink. Let's see the parallels in evolution. Enjoy the story.

Evolutionists think proto-cells somehow evolved in 'plausible conditions' then became living cells (patently ignoring the cascading sets of chemical systems required), they believe fish walked on land and became reptiles which became dinosaurs. Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Mammals evolved then some 'decided' to evolve into aquatic mammals. Creationists say they once posited the coecelanth to be the progenitor of humans (this was dropped after a living coecelanth was found). You believe humans now evolved from an ancestral ape species. You believe this evolution is a gradual process. But you also believe it can occur very fast (in discrete jumps) hence 'punctuated equilibrium' by Gould. And more wonderfully this process is continuing. I wonder what mutants humans will make, probably X-men.

It gets better.

People who are skeptical of a widely-held belief in evolution, or even have issues with its mechanisms and present alternatives are censured, mocked or persecuted. No Intelligence Allowed (if I recall the title correctly) by Ben Stein documents this. I'm so sure you've never heard of the semi-meiotic hypothesis by John Davison or Symbiogenesis by Lynn Margulis or Richard Sternberg's approach. It is even more interesting that the problems don't mean the theory isn't true they just have to be fleshed out. Read this

But it gets more interesting !

Wanna see evolutionist groupthink. See the trials of Richard Sternberg. A self-described atheist. Though I think his is a very subtle deism. Even the fact that most atheists believe in evolution further highlights the groupthink involved. Wanna see an evolutionist raving mad. Let a tenured biology professor publicly admit to disbelieve evolution. He/she could be sacked. Let's even assume all that is not true. The passion with which you and many evolutionists (mostly atheists) preach the gospel of evolution would make Darwin NSBUH (Natural Selection Be Upon Him) smile.

Evil Brain:
I'm sorry, is Pastor Chris an evolutionary biologist? What about TB Joshua? Those are two foremost brainwashing experts in Nigeria and I doubt the evolutionists could have succeeded in washing so many brains without their input.

The TOE has been brainwashing people for more than a century before these men were born. And you blatantly ignore numerous examples in the West where the clergy endorse evolution brainwash people with evolution (some by preaching it, some by publicly stating they believe it)

Evil Brain:
This question deserves a separate post. Hopefully, I'll get round to answering it today. Meanwhile, why don't you try googling it? There are plenty of online materials covering this.

I have stacks of web pages and pdf's to read on the major sides (YEC, ID & Neo-Darwinian Theory) of the evolution debate. Hence, I won't make it a priority.

Evil Brain:
I wouldn't go so far as to call Freud a fraud. After all, he didn't steal anybody's money. He just made too many unsupported assertions is all.

Unsupported assertions that were tolerated. In a sphere that has 'zero-tolerance for hidden conjectures'. That is an ideal and you must be naïve to think that is the reality in a world of errors and bias.

Evil Brain:
Evolutionary psychology is not derived from mainstream psychology, it's from evolutionary biology. An organism's behaviour is simply another aspect of its phenotype as determined by its genes. You should read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype.

I know that. But it applies techniques from mainstream psychology in particular. I've read 'The Blind Watchmaker', 'God Delusion' and currently reading 'The Greatest Show On Earth'. Dawkins' writing style (in those books) is just like Darwin. A fantastic mix of facts and fairy tales. Whilst I intend to get the books you mentioned I must say I expect the same in those books. University textbooks (e.g Evolutionary Genetics by Maynard Smith) do a better job albeit being more technical.

Evil Brain:
You're telling me to "verify on Wikipedia", but if you had take your own advice and read the wikipedia article, you'd have seen that the picture of Nebraska man was published not in Science, or any other scientific journal, but in a British newspaper. Also the scientist involved complained about it and publicly dismissed the picture as made-up bullshiat (not his exact words); yet the picture is still heavily associated with his work. Creationists like you are dishonestly using the picture to accuse scientists of making things up when you know fully well that it was an unscrupulous British newspaper artist that did so.

I am not a creationist. Was, but no more. I didn't use the picture to make an accusation. Revise my replies. You my friend [and not me] are the one not reading well. I did not say the picture of the Nebraska man was published in Science. Here's what I said:

'The discovery of the Nebraska man along with claims of it being the remains of an ancestral species were published in Science.'

[url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man#Discovery_and_Examination]Read here for it in Wikipedia[/url]

Evil Brain:
I have stuff to do tonight. I might post more later if I have time.

Okay.

maclatunji:

Please explain this your theory of evolution from the beginning.

No, that's totally unnecessary. But the question remains can Islam stand with Science?

I.Joan:


He has saved me and my family many times than you can immagine!

But he refused to save thousands in Nigeria that were killed almost weekly as they go to worship in his place of worship(churches) by Boko Haram?. . .

I.Joan:
Contrary to the claims of the new atheists, most scientists do not necessarily see religion and science as always being in conflict. Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund and coauthors studied the responses of scientists at 21 elite U.S. universities, finding that only 15% thought that science and religion were always in conflict. About half expressed some form of religious affiliation.

Religion and science are not the same and will never be. . . .

2good:

Did you do any basic Chemistry in school? There is something called a physical and chemical change and I find it difficult that people go to school to learn stuffs, see evidence and yet decide to maintain some stone age reasoning just because a book said so. It is really sad and disappointing.

There is also something called reality. The reality is that you cannot survive on salty water. Hence, your having fresh water to drink is an act of mercy from God, the fresh water which you so eagerly describe with "science" could easily turn salty and you and science would be left looking stupid. The case of people like you is like a football commentator who says because he can describe events on the field so accurately, he has become the highest goal scorer of the season.

#Boring and not #Insightful.

I.Joan:


Until this so-called intelligent atheists use their intelligence to save themselves from death... They are fools

Until you Christians use your God's power to save yourselves from death, you are all fools too. Try and think things thoroughly before you type because I think you sound very dumb!
Tell me one christian you know that have lived forever. Just one..

maclatunji:

There is also something called reality. The reality is that you cannot survive on salty water. Hence, your having fresh water to drink is an act of mercy from God, the fresh water which you so eagerly describe with "science" could easily turn salty and you and science would be left looking stupid. The case of people like you is like a football commentator who says because he can describe events on the field so accurately, he has become the highest goal scorer of the season.

#Boring and not #Insightful.

And this obvious truth is the brilliant, scientific truth allah so graciously left us with?

What in whargarbl is your point? God pitied us maggots and therefore made fresh water? Does all life survive on fresh water? Since there's a hell of a lot more salt water available, why didn't he in his infinite mercy grant us the ability to survive on salt water as well? He didn't love us enough, I get it. I mean he was just being merciful to scum like us. In the meantime, the deluded scientist will continue to look for ways to make salt water drinkable. You know, because it could potentially save A LOT of lives.

Perhaps we should abandon the scientific method and just use the koran to figure out these issues? Toss out your computing device so we can begin, we don't want to look like hypocrites. And of course should they succeed, you make sure to never drink any water purified by these stupid godless scientists.

@Seun you used lightning strikes to lay claims that religion and science differs. I would like to use the evolution of scientific thought (AKA the Enlightenment), to show the reason why I feel that some people just exaggerate about this.

Aristotle propounded many theories as well as concepts. Some of these theories and concepts are still being used. However, many of his ideas were challenged in between 1400-1600 AD. Aristotle was among those who believed the "Earth was the centre of the universe, and everything revolves around it."
Aristotle lived centuries before Christ. In his time, there wasn't any sophisticated equipment in use, as the case was in the 1400s and later. However, his belief gained ground, became widespread, and was even supported by the Holy Bible. In the Bible, there is the story about a man who prayed for the Sun to stand still, and, according to it, it did.
However, in the 1400s and later, people like Galileo started challenging Aristotle's beliefs, but the influence of the Church in those centuries made these challenges unpopular. I won't go further into this, u can Google it if you want.
But the point am making is that the world evolves. Even the Bible can be referenced here: the Old Testatament and the New Testatament. The New Testatament builds upon what has being said in the Old Testatament, but in a more contemporary way. The Church in these centuries were very conservative and powerful: they didn't want to believe anything outside the Bible and they had influence over the lives of people. Infact if not for the Reformation, England in this case, no one aside from the church hierarchy would have had the opportunity to interpret or even hold the Bible. Therefore it is more of the conservation of the church, and not Christianity as a whole, that is to blame for this topic being discussed.
I'll find time to share my views on a new thread one of these days.

mazaje:

Religion and science are not the same and will never be. . . .

Nobody said they were the same. However, people just exaggerate that they are always in conflict.
@Kay 17 life is all about adaptation. People are doing so many things now and claim that they are right. The main reason for Christ's coming was for reform. Christ came and answered troubling questions like one man one wife, adultery, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Christ also came and showed us the way to heaven : through him.
However, the time of Christ and Muhammed has been over 1000 years now. Crazy things are happening and have happened. Homosexuality, WMDs, racism, terrorism, HIV, AIDS and other complex diseases. We all try to interpret the teachings of our religion the best way we can, but it is flawed by these new developments.
I believe religion and science are not conflicting, but the understanding of how to go about the two is were the conflict lies. We need science so we won't be vulnerable to an evolving earth, and we need religion so as to maintain morality and other social vices.

davidylan:

While it is true that there are many godless nobel laureates, it goes without saying that the majority of those who made the scientific discoveries on whose foundation modern science was laid were CHRISTIANS.

The bottomline is simple - intelligence is not restricted to the godless alone.

Where did you put the Arabs that made lots of scientific progress when Europe was still in the dark age?

2good:

Until you Christians use your God's power to save yourselves from death, you are all fools too. Try and think things thoroughly before you type because I think you sound very dumb!
Tell me one christian you know that have lived forever. Just one..

Why shouldn't you live forever? Who or what is stopping that? You are the god of your life right! You should decide when your life starts or end but somehow that decision is not in your hands.
As humans, the only key decision we get to make is how we will live our life. We don't get to decide when it starts or end.
The fact that we can't decide when(how or where) we are born or when(how or where) we die shows there is a superior force making these decisions.

One would think as precise and perfect the big bang was, it would have made provision for ETERNAL LIFE but No! we all are still gonna die. It is better to make DEATH your god than to foolishly say their is no God.

I.Joan:
One would think as precise and perfect the big bang was, it would have made provision for ETERNAL LIFE but No! we all are still gonna die. It is better to make DEATH your god than to foolishly say their is no God.

I swear.. please will you marry me?? Moreso, the Big Bang theory is the most stupid i ever heard in my entire life.. Imagine, Nothing exploded from Nothing.. It's definately strange that we all gonna die someday..

Misunderstood_G: I swear.. please will you marry me?? Moreso, the Big Bang theory is the most stupid i ever heard in my entire life.. Imagine, Nothing exploded from Nothing.. It's definately strange that we all gonna die someday..

The big bang does not state that nothing exploded from nothing. . .Know what you are talking about before attacking it. . .Anyway, how is it different from the claim that an imaginary god created things using words(hebrew words supposedly). . .

hmmm... I see this thread moving on nicely. *watching*

2good:

Where did you put the Arabs that made lots of scientific progress when Europe was still in the dark age?

Do you need a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word "majority"?

I.Joan:


Why shouldn't you live forever? Who or what is stopping that? You are the god of your life right! You should decide when your life starts or end but somehow that decision is not in your hands.
As humans, the only key decision we get to make is how we will live our life. We don't get to decide when it starts or end.
The fact that we can't decide when(how or where) we are born or when(how or where) we die shows there is a superior force making these decisions.

this is quite a profound statement, i wonder if the godless would read it.

mazaje:

T[b]he big bang does not state that nothing exploded from nothing[/b]. . .Know what you are talking about before attacking it. . .Anyway, how is it different from the claim that an imaginary god created things using words(hebrew words supposedly). . .

So exactly what does the big bang say? What exploded from what?