You have most likely been saying that very thing long before I ever joined this forum.
Does God exist?
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
I used that example to try and express the difference between insects adapting (some die off and others have adapted to take advantage of (usually some 'new' food) the now missing insects, but they are still all insects.
This particular thought came from somebody having a response to Dawkin's theory. Religion is faith based in that it is founded on something that cannot be seen, something that cannot be seen cannot be proven to exist. Someone asked the same about evolution, if you cannot provide visual proof that it happens then it is faith based
This link might explain the controversy better than I have so far.
Operation 513 - Apologetics Blog: Dr. Richard Dawkins accepts Evolution by FAITH!
(I am only referencing the 1st part of the link)
Another view that is basically the same thought.
Evolution Fact or Faith
Of course they adapt, that's the first step towards speciation. A separate population adapts to new environmental parameters and after sufficient time isolated from other populations can give rise to new species. Do you know how long it takes for populations to shift, even for non-mutated traits? A populations genetic equilibrium takes many generations to form, think like 40, and that's just for introducing a new breeding program on a dairy farm, not anything near as complex as brand new geneotypes...
What's really important here, and is a point on which many tend to lose perspective, is that you people are awfully damn lucky that I exist...because if I didn't, then none of you would mean anything to me...
Christians interpret those as being about the coming of Jesus. Names, dates, and places, are not given, except for the prediction that somebody will be called Emmanuel, which doesn't seem to have happened.
By what conceivable argument could that be read as referring specifically to the Baha'is? Again, no names, no dates, no places, are mentioned, that could equally well apply to Joseph Smith, the founding "prophet" of the Latter Day Saints, in most particulars.
Religious belief sure does cloud the mind.
I nice guy I believe In god any way .:lol:
We already covered what you were. Go back and read your posts. You supported murdering and abusing people that weren't Muslim - that isn't nice by any definition. :lol:
As for the rest of your post: I couldn't understand it. It seemed like back peddling but I don't know for sure. One thing I recognize is that when your desperate you start quoting that damn book of yours.
I don't care what the Qur'an says. It is the mutterings of a madman. :lol:
Agreed.
ahmadabdalrhman is trying to justify killing non Muslims right now.
In all fairness to him I have also talked to Christians that were trying to justify killing Muslims.
The whole thing is really gross.
Last edited:
Just because the Bible is gobbly-gook to you doesn't make it a fact that it is that way to begin with and it should read that way for everybody. It isn't and it doesn't. Stick with what you think you know best, because when it comes to Scripture you are a mistaken in some parts and that makes you mistaken on the big picture even more so.
Since Jesus didn't teach that then it must be Atheists pretending to be somebody they are not, no doubt in some hope of delaying their own deaths should somebody discover that 'not to hard to expose' lie.
Lets cover the mass murders committed for things other than religion, say conquest for land and riches, those are Atheist objectives are they not? Anything to do with money is an Atheist program is it not? That can be the route cause of much pain and suffering. Greed, is that restricted on to people who have a religion or are there more than one Atheist that suffers from that also? Any corruption in politics, that is an Atheist program? (because not one form promotes the idea that the ones who have the most should do with less so the ones who have the least can have more)
I'm not arguing against adaptation within a species, I'm arguing that one species cannot change into another species.
Even with that there could be one exception. Whales, if birds and fish evolved at about the same time which species would have to go through the least amount of changes.
Since I would argue that birds would go through the least amount of change here is a short list. They are already warm-blooded, they already breathe air, their spines move in the same direction, and their fins move in the same direction that a wing does when flying.
Is that a shorter route than what a fish would have to go through?
you are Idiot ??!!
read what god say : -
Sahih International: Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.
What a completely absurd thing to assume!
Do you really think religious people aren't motivated by money and greed?
Do you really think religious people aren't motivated by money and greed?
It seems religionists are mostly (if not only) motivated by it!
On top of that religion (blind faith) is a primal force for motivating people to do evil things!
I'm not going to tell you there aren't evil atheists. Common sense tells me there must be, however the historical record clearly demonstrates that religion is the primary motivating force behind large scale actions of evil, not atheism.
Religionists are in no position to point fingers considering the immense evil they have committed in the name of their gods through history.
I can't understand any of this :-?
Here, you read what your god say:
A. The Proof from the Qur'an for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate
Here I wish briefly to offer proof that will quiet the doubt in the hearts of those who, for lack of sources of information, may think that perhaps the punishment of death did not exist in Islam but was added at a later time by the "mawlawis" (religious leaders) on their own.
God Most High declares in the Qur'an:
But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief -- Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist. (9:11,12)[1]
The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H. 9 God Most High ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God's religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword. In this connection it was said: "If they repent and uphold the practice of prayer and almsgiving, then they are your brothers in religion. If after this, however, they break their covenant, then war should be waged against the leaders of kufr (infidelity). Here "covenant breaking" in no way can be construed to mean "breaking of political covenants". Rather, the context clearly determines its meaning to be "confessing Islam and then renouncing it". Thereafter the meaning of "fight the heads of disbelief" (9:11,12) can only mean that war should be waged against the leaders instigating apostasy.[2]
B. Proof from the Hadith (Canonical Tradition) for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate
After the Qur'an we turn to the Hadith. This is the command of the Prophet:
1. Any person (i.e., Muslim) who has changed his religion, kill him.[3]
This tradition has been narrated by Abu Bakr, Uthman, Ali, Muadh ibn Jabal, Abu Musa Ashari, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Khalid ibn Walid and a number of other Companions, and is found in all the authentic Hadith collections.
2. Abdullah ibn Masud reports:
The Messenger of God stated: In no way is it permitted to shed the blood of a Muslim who testifies that "there is no god except God" and "I am the Apostle of God" except for three crimes: a. he has killed someone and his act merits retaliation; b. he is married and commits adultery; c. he abandons his religion and is separated from the community.[4]
3. Aisha reports:
The Messenger of God stated that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim other than for the following reasons: a. although married, he commits adultery or b. after being a Muslim he chooses kufr, or c. he takes someone's life.[5]
4. Uthman reports:
I heard the Messenger of God saying that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three situations: a. a person who, being a Muslim, becomes a kafir; b. one who after marriage commits adultery; c. one who commits murder apart from having an authorization to take life in exchange for another life.[6]
Uthman further reports:
I heard the Messenger of God saying that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim with the exception of three crimes: a. the punishment of someone who after marriage commits adultery is stoning; b. retaliation is required against someone who intentionally commits murder; c. anyone who becomes an apostate after being a Muslim should be punished by death.[7]
All the reliable texts of history clearly prove that Uthman, while standing on the roof of his home, recited this tradition before thousands of people at a time when rebels had surrounded his house and were ready to kill him. His argument against the rebels was based on the point of this tradition that apart from these three crimes it was unlawful to put a Muslim to death for a fourth crime, "and I have committed none of these three. Hence after killing me, you yourself will be found guilty." It is evident that in this way this tradition became a clear argument in favour of Uthman against the rebels. Had there been the slightest doubt about the genuineness of this tradition, hundreds of voices would have cried out: "Your statement is false or doubtful!" But not even one person among the whole gathering of the rebels could raise an objection against the authenticity of this tradition.
5. Abu Musa Ashari reports:
The Prophet appointed and sent him (Abu Musa) as governor of Yemen. Then later he sent Muadh ibn Jabal as his assistant. When Muadh arrived there, he announced: People, I am sent by the Messenger of God for you. Abu Musa placed a cushion for him to be comfortably seated.
Meanwhile a person was presented who previously had been a Jew, then was a Muslim and then became a Jew. Muadh said: I will not sit unless this person is executed. This is the judgement of God and His Messenger. Muadh repeated the statement three times. Finally, when he was killed, Muadh sat.[8]
It should be noted that this incident took place during the blessed life of the Prophet. At that time Abu Musa represented the Prophet as governor and Muadh as vice-governor. If their action had not been based on the decision of God and His Messenger, surely the Prophet would have objected.
6. Abdullah ibn Abbas reports:
Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh was at one time secretary to the Messenger of God. Then Satan seized him and he joined the kuffar. When Mecca was conquered the Messenger of God ordered that he be killed. Later, however, Uthman sought refuge for him and the Messenger of Allah gave him refuge.[9]
We find the commentary on this last incident in the narration of Sad ibn Abi Waqqas:
When Mecca was conquered, Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abi Sarh took refuge with Uthman ibn Affan. Uthman took him and they presented themselves to the Prophet, requesting: O Messenger of God, accept the allegiance of Abdullah. The Prophet lifted his head, looked in his direction and remained silent. This happened three times and he (the Prophet) only looked in his direction. Finally after three times he accepted his allegiance. Then he turned towards his Companions and said: Was there no worthy man among you who, when he saw me withholding my hand from accepting his allegiance, would step forward and kill this person? The people replied: O Messenger of God, we did not know your wish. Why did you not signal with your eyes? To this the Prophet replied: It is unbecoming of a Prophet to glance in a stealthy manner.[10]
7. Aisha narrates:
On the occasion of the battle of Uhud (when the Muslims suffered defeat), a woman apostatized. To this the Prophet responded: Let her repent. If she does not repent, she should be executed.[11]
8. Jabir ibn Abdullah narrates:
A woman Umm Ruman (or Umm Marwan) apostatized. Then the prophet ordered that it would be better that she be offered Islam again and then repent. Otherwise she should be executed.[12]
A second report of Bayhaqi with reference to this reads: She refused to accept Islam. Therefore she was executed.
Source
So stop lying!!!!
You're just not getting it. Neither would make the transition...A bird might become more and more whale like, or a fish might become more and more whale like, but it's not like turning on a light switch. In between the whales we have today and the ancestors that they evolved from, there would be many many species in between. You're talking about a change from one class to another...that is not how it works at all. Evolution produces related species...only after millions of years do you get large scale genetic drift like that you're talking about...
First, what is the question. It has been stated by more than one person that evolution is based on science, that means it has proof and that it has been proven, faith is not part of its foundation. Faith is restricted to religion and that means it is not valid in any form.
Evolution, as you say, takes millions of years, if not longer for a trans species change. That is Darwinism is it not? All species of life from one single source. Creationism is a set sequence of events that were 'manipulated' to happen a certain way and the 'manipulator' would be constantly around. Death seems to be a deviation from that straight path. One species stayed as that species.
On one of the more basic levels any bacteria has a natural predator that sees them as 'food'. When all the 'food' is eaten the virus dies, it does not adapt. A change in the name of a virus is not a species change, can that be called evolution? It would seem that one species is gaining in number, that is not evolution.
That virus is dangerous only to that one single bacteria. That is why Phage medicine is so effective, there is no such thing as immunity if you are a bacteria, there is a virus that sees you as food.
Evolution also follows a food-chain relationship. Food being in place before the species that uses that food comes along, once in place, they can also become food for an even newer species.
The Ark was about 3,500 years ago and there was a list of 'beasts of the field, and several types of birds'. Those are still around as a species today. I assume they look/act the very same over that time. That either points to adaptation or things are pretty much same old same old. Does that point to evolution or a spurt of new living creatures and then that stopped? Time since then has basically been the same species without any 'new species' being added in the last 4,500 years. Every variation that has existed since then will fit into a species list.
If a bird fell into the water and could not take-off it would either be sink or swim. If it found food and lived and had babies is that a new species and would that be a light switch event even if the body continued to change a bit during the next generations.
If adaptation is a gradual process then can past and present looks determine what any species will look like in the future. If the grass grows taller will lions develop longer legs?
"Quoting MHz
"
What types of violence/dishonesty is committed by atheists today?
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/75612-does-god-exist-31.html#post1000967 That can be the route cause of much pain and suffering. Greed, is that restricted on to people who have a religion or are there more than one Atheist that suffers from that also? Any corruption in politics, that is an Atheist program? (because not one form promotes the idea that the ones who have the most should do with less so the ones who have the least can have more)
I can't understand any of this
What types of violence/dishonesty is committed by atheists today?
I said millions of years for the changes you're talking about. You were talking about Classes of organisms, not species. You know how organisms are classified? Class is four levels of organization above species. That certainly takes millions of years, you can see that in the fossil record lineages.
Yeah, populations get separated. Adaptations occur. Niches form. More adaptations. Genetic drift. Mutations that are favourable to new conditions. Then more adaptations. New niches form. And before you know it, the one population that remained in the original location is quite different from the population in the frontier regions.
A virus doesn't eat. A virus is a package of DNA that is completely inert except for when it contacts cells with the precise conditions, and then it directs the host cell to process it's DNA or RNA for it. After lysis, the virus waits until it contacts another cell with the right conditions, typically this means it has the correct three dimensional shape which fits the protein structures on the viral envelope. If there are no more organisms, the virus will exist in it's form until something destroys it, or until a favourable host happens along. It doesn't dies except for extreme environmental conditions...a lack of hosts won't kill it.
If the virus is changed enough to warrant a new name, it is a species change, at least under the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. Just as it is for other life forms in Linnaean Classification.
And any other organism which happens to share common cell membranes with that bacterium. There are plenty of virii that can infect multiple species, from different classes of organisms.
Again, a virus doesn't need food. It doesn't have a digestive tract. It doesn't have enzymes. It's a packet of genetic material.
It sure would be nice to have a list of all those animals, you know so we could compare. I guess we'll have to take people on their word, yet again... I mean Noah had what, 800 years or something like that. What did he do to pass time? He could have classified them himself...
Besides the point, 3500 years is a blink of an eye when any one species in the fossil record exists for millions of years...
You really are obtuse.
There's no way to see into the future, because we don't know which mutations and recombinations will be favourable. We can make guesses. But without knowing what the environmental changes are, or what the mutations are, it's a blind guess.
Good answer, Tonington. There are so many fundamental misapprehensions in Mhz's post it's hard to see where to begin answering it. Despite all evidence to the contrary, for instance, he believes there was a global flood 3500 years ago. I have no idea how to get past such a denial of reality; reason and evidence obviously aren't enough. People who operate from mysticism can utter more bunk in a few paragraphs than can be adequately debunked in hundreds of paragraphs. Selected readings from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable perhaps, accompanied by a guided tour of a good natural history museum...