U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-11-2009, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,411 posts, read 15,963,384 times
Reputation: 8722

Advertisements

Even presupposing there were a God, whose 'story' of creation would we choose to believe? There are a multitude of religions, each with a variation of creation.
Which brings to mind that only one would be the correct 'take' on creation, but how would we choose which one?
Or, conversely, they could all be wrong, man-made guesses of an earlier peoples, with whatever knowledge that they had at the time - the problem being that, as our knowledge changed and man grew the religious theory of creation did not.

So, either there is a God or not, and if there is one we have no way of knowing what It did to create all that is, perhaps part of It's 'game' is to train us to think logically, through exploring It's works through scientific discovery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2009, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Egypt
125 posts, read 258,898 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by socal4now View Post
Now show me this "lotsa proof" that life was created by accident. Till now i see evamples of evolution but have yet to see anything that came remotely close to explaining how that first life containing cell started. Then explain how it became functioning. then explain how it found a mate to reproduce another cell to carry on the work. Then explain why these two compatiable sexually cells developed into something different because according to your theory they were already surviving so why the need to change. Then explain why every other cell didnt change like the first 2 did. I think you get my point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
I don't see how complex things like the human eye could have evolved. It's too complex. It's too big of a jump to go from nothing, to even simple eyes, to what we see now.

The fossil record also does not support the ideas of evolution between species. We see fully formed species in the fossil record...but not much in between.
Thanks for your posts,

The argument will never end,

We religious see the universe very intelligently designed, cause every thing in it follow very accurate laws, from the stars, planets, molecules, atoms, from the single cell to the heart and eyes of every creature, every thing is so complex and very intelligently made.

We don’t need evidence, that’s the main point, atheists do not agree, this is their choice,

Our heart beats with love for God, He is there in our awareness, it’s simply the fact that does not need evidence, cause it’s in every creature’s heart, and persons try to hide, it's their choice.

And why always the argument is evolution against intelligent design, evolution is not against intelligent design, cause this evolution (if true) followed very accurate intelligent laws to upgrade the cell to another creature, though it's debatable that God chose evolution to create all things, it also does not relate to the very accurate laws from the atom to the stars and planets in the universe.

The argument will never end, each side chose it’s opinion, may be threads like this allow each side to express his point of view, anyway, but they are repeated.

By the way, Islam agrees with the theory of Big Bang,

Quote:
The holy Qur'an agrees with the theory of Big Bang, it simple says that God made it, He is the creator of the universe.

holy Qur'an, chapter 21, verse 30

30. Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Religion does not necessary tells you that if you do not believe you'll go to hell for eternity.

It simply tells you that if you stay a disbeliever to the last second of your life you'll go to hell for a long time not knowing when you'll get out, then you go to heaven at the rank you deserver depending on your heart.

Or if your heart does not have a single atom of good, you'll stay in hell for eternity, after the punishment, you will stay not in torture, but not in joy either.

You can go to heaven directly without going to hell at all if God wants, depending on the goodness of your heart.

God gives all options for himself alone.

It also tells us that if you died not meeting a prophet, or did not meet someone who discuss with you, you will probably go to heaven.
You can see the analysis from my effort to summarize and analyze this topic from the holy Qur'an and the prophet (pbuh) traditions.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/6516740-post19.html

God knows best


Peace
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2009, 08:46 AM
 
1,403 posts, read 3,056,058 times
Reputation: 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahmoud mrt View Post

We donít need evidence, thatís the main point, atheists do not agree, this is their choice,
...YES EXACTLY....intelligent design does not have any evidence in support of it, and therefore is NOT a theory. Since its not a theory, then it should not be taught in schools or be considered an alternative explanation to the theory of evolution. Controversy solved

You want to believe in your gods, ghosts and untestable explanations for how the world works....fine. That's your choice and right. But lets not give it more credence than what it deserves by calling some of the things you believe a THEORY just because your faith tells you that it is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2009, 11:15 AM
 
2,633 posts, read 4,453,991 times
Reputation: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbill View Post
...YES EXACTLY....intelligent design does not have any evidence in support of it, and therefore is NOT a theory. Since its not a theory, then it should not be taught in schools or be considered an alternative explanation to the theory of evolution. Controversy solved

You want to believe in your gods, ghosts and untestable explanations for how the world works....fine. That's your choice and right. But lets not give it more credence than what it deserves by calling some of the things you believe a THEORY just because your faith tells you that it is true.
Indeed. Why would the religious call their beliefs science if it doesn't follow the scientific principles?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2009, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,692 posts, read 11,443,104 times
Reputation: 3685
Michael Medved, Sr Fellow of Discovery Institute
Quote:
The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.
George Gilder, interviewed in the Boston Globe, July 27, 2005.
Quote:
"'I'm not pushing to have [ID] taught as an 'alternative' to Darwin, and neither are they," he says in response to one question about Discovery's agenda. ''What's being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there's a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content."
Paul Nelson, interviewed in Touchstone vol 17, July/August, 2004.
Quote:
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We donít have such a theory right now, and thatís a real problem. Without a theory, itís very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, weíve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ďirreducible complexityĒ and ďspecified complexityĒóbut, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
Phillip Johnson, quoted in Berkeley Science Review, Spring 2006.
Quote:
"I also donít think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory thatís comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that itís doable, but thatís for them to proveÖNo product is ready for competition in the educational world."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top