Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World

[Ruggedtouch]

<i>First of all, are you really open for such discussion or you are only here to bash our beliefs and show disrespect? </i>



Actually yes. I am open to open discussion. I’m less open to baseless claims of the supernatural. You take the unfortunate position of assuming that anyone who disagrees with your “because I say so”, dogma is necessarily attacking your god(s).


The Quote function is not working so I detailed your comments in blue.


<b>You once again called my God cruel</b> in which we have warned you before not to abuse our God, Islam and our prophet pbuh. So how will you ever verify and study the facts of God’s existence if you have no respect for us and our beliefs?



Whether I respect your beliefs or not has little to do with your assuming that everyone must agree with your dogma. Humans have, for much of their tenure on earth, had gods, so such projections of a spirit world are integral to the human condition itself. Specific religions merely evidence cultural bias, a predilection for organization, sanctioned approved behavior, etc. People always get religion wrong because they are fallible humans.


Monotheism is currently in vogue in the Islamic neck of the woods.


Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, but it will go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.


You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.


Can you prove that you exist? Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine that you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things that He has created and the way that He cares for things and sustains us, to know that there is no doubt of His existence.



That’s a terribly inept analogy. You make many false assumptions. Despite your willingness to use existence as a blanket "evidence" as to your theistic beliefs, you do realize that one <i>can</i> interpret existence as not having a supernatural cause, and be within the realms of possibility (matter uncreated: if there is enough matter in the universe to put into motion an oscillating universe, then existence has always existed <i>ad infinitum</i>.


Given that (and I most assuredly am assuming here, and with great trepidation as I sense you may just embrace a double standard), I'd suggest you find the threads that delve into this topic and post <i>your</i> proof of your assertion that there is in fact a god and that god is the one you espouse.


I look forward to this with anticipation.


Think about this the next time that you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect that it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.



Are you attempting to make a point with the above? God as an assertion is very extraordinary and it would require <i>proof</i> to support the existence of such a being. I would be interested in a sound theory to start off that process, and, in fact, there are already some theories extant-- although all of the theological theories ask the subscriber to them to exempt the Prime Mover from the rules the theory seeks to lay the groundwork for. I'd say that qualifies them as "unsound" by definition, and I'm at a loss to understand theists conceding their supernatural pronouncements are undemonstrable, yet they still adhere to them. It’s a form of self-delusion.


And then consider if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.



Another terrible example. Why would anyone think that junks cars could be turned into a new Mercedes? I understand you’re trying to somehow connect this with natural selection but your analogy makes no sense.


Interesting don’t you think, your faith by definition supersedes observation and reasoning where here you are, claiming that people should base their beliefs on faith, not observation.


Here’s a thought - I have to acknowledge that “Positive, negative, good, and bad can be creations of man”, no doubt about that. However, god being the creator of all ultimately makes him responsible for all. Things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are <i>essential</i> to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.


And so the next argument is, "Well, this is the way existence is!" Except that argument has no reply against: "Yes, but why does god create it "the way it is" when he <i>just as easily could create it differently?</i>


There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the god that cobbled it together. God doesn't cause an earthquake? Yes, he establishes the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth’s crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.


God doesn't cause a tornado? Yes, he establishes the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, he <i>could</i> have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.


What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory.


Can a fast food restaurant operate itself without any people there? That's crazy for anyone to even think about.



You’re on a roll, now. Another terrible analogy.


After considering all of the above, <b>how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the molecules in a microscope and then think that all of this came about as a result of some kind of accident or came about by chance? </b> :conf06:



After considering all of the above, you’ve offered nothing more than hyperbole and unsupported opinion. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of a designer. Mass extinctions have little to do with natural selection. Natural selection can not act in the context of a catastrophic event like an asteroid impact. Survival through these events is based on luck, not adaptation. Less dogma and more Darwin generally provides a more realistic assessment of the objective state of nature.


You confusion here lies in the fact that you have uncritically accepted the idea that certain sectarian writings such as (in this case) the Qur’an are reliable guides to the end zone of a “creator”. This is all well and good, but it provides no compelling reason for anyone else to accept that same belief.


Your particular sectarian version of “god(s)” is essentially the form of many other god(s) that have come and gone before who rule with supreme (even if arbitrary) authority and power. You understand “submission” to mean choosing to follow “his” (often arbitrary, capricious and cruel) rules of behavior for the purpose of either receiving a supernatural reward or avoiding a supernatural paddling on the behind.


I have trust in science, medicine, and the law, personal freedoms, self expression, etc., all those rational (and ultimately knowable) elements within and part of the natural world. I make no assertions about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this assertion relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The religionist asserts that "logic and reason have a crack in them" and are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "being behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.


Now I already conclude I have made my assertion logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do religionists assert?


That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!


If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napolean (to use the cliche)?

"The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory, has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers, imperfect in scientific faith. (Marjorie Grene, Encounter, November 1959, p.48.)

Quote mining again, are we?


Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?-<i>arl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World)</i>


the theory of evolution has been discredited in scientific circles.



Yet quite revealingly, you can offer not a shred of substantiation for this nonsense claim.


Since this theory first appeared, a large number of scientific findings have invalidated its claims one by one. The development of the electron microscope, new knowledge of genetic laws, the discovery of the structure of DNA, the revelation of the complexity of every living organism, and other modern advances have defeated Darwinism and will continue to oppose it.



More nonsense claims. Ah – you’ve employed the “because I say so”, argument.


Care to share with us what “scientific circles” you speak of? That’s actually a rhetorical question because in my experience creationists almost never provide any valid points at all. It can be time consuming to address the confusions and errors inherent in creationist rhetoric, but the actual content very rarely includes anything at all of genuine scientific interest. If you have a specific valid point in mind, you might like to bring it to the table.


It's very easy for creationists or ID’ists to pursue this matter in the proper way.


First, establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "materialist" realm (i.e., the "supernatural"). Then, establish a theory that relies on the established theory and shows a <i>correlation</i>. Then the ID’ists and creationists will have something worth reviewing.


Personally, I for one would welcome it.


Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a <i>supernatural cause</i> to function at all and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:


A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)


B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?


When Darwin proposed this theory, he left room for the possibility that he could have made a mistake. In his book <b>The Origin of Species</b>, he often began his expositions with the words, <i>"If my theory be true." </i> In his investigations it can be seen that Darwin accepted certain scientific criteria and proposed some ways his theory could be examined. For example, he wrote about the fossil record:



The numberless intermediate varieties mentioned by Darwin have never been found, and today many evolutionist paleontologists have had to concede this. When taking into account Darwin's condition for <i>"if my theory be true,"</i> his theory must be rejected. If he were alive today, perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his theory for this very reason.


You’re quote mining in the wrong circles, Wael and your “argument” suffers because of it. While Grene seems pretty schooled, she is <i>not</i> a biologist, and her degree does not coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving biological dissertation on life origins.


Yours is just standard boiler plate quote mining. As usual with creationists, the fields of syudy of those you quote mine from are suspiciously detached from the sciences most needed to establish an understanding of the very area in which they seek to explore.


Indeed, the evolution dogma is a superstitious religion that holds masses of people under its sway, but it is definitely not science. If what evolutionists say in their writings is closely scrutinized, you will easily be able to read between the lines and perceive that they speak of a religion. here again what one of the greatest historian of science, <b>Marjorie Grene</b>, has to say on this subject is not surprising:



The reason for this dogmatic approach can only be to avoid the truth they would find if they abandoned evolution, <b>the truth that Allah created the universe and all living things. This cannot be accepted by those who understand the world from a materialist and atheist point of view.</b>


That’s brilliant, Wael. Using a couple of quotes from a non-scientist, you seek to dismiss our best and most complete understanding of the natural world. How utterly silly.


Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of the philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the extensive assistance of both philosopher and theologian in this task) and carried much of this lofty battle to a less friendly scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.


It does us well to remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bible.


Assuming a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of God, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations noble. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, surging up even to the gates of the Original Origin itself.


The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of this creator is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.


Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.