The Obvious Existence Of God

[Hazams]

Also, about the fastest growing religion. Peoplle in that area of the world have like 10-20 kids sometimes. Of course, with numbers like that it's going to be the fastest growing religion. Bin laden himself I think has like 40-50 brothers. Talk about a bunch of barbarians.

[radiyah]

Hazams I think we warned u before about saying anything offensive about Allah(SWT),


the Quran Or the Prophet(PBUH), U do not beleive fair enough it is up to u u r the loser, then just leave this forum, u will never change our faith and u will never prove that God does not exist. Behave and hold your tongue or u will be banned for good . I have been keeping quiet trying not to debate with both of u, because u both are useless cases, u debate only for the sake of wining a debate. This is a teaching board u wish to learn u r welcome, if u do not then just leave, or if u keep that dirty language then u will be kicked out . Consider this your last warning.

[islam_enlightment]

"prove it"


ok, darwin invented evolution, so people carelessly thought God didnt exist because of evolution, today evolution is false there is no proof that we came from monkeys and apes or the idea of a blob turning into bactaria then into a fish and so on to man... that idea again is false. how about the first life? scientists says that its impossible for life to form out of non-living matter. meaning life could not start coincidently, again proving darwinism false about natural selection. So aethiestic ideas are false, God is very real Hazams, stop running and embrace God.

[islam_enlightment]

Thats right, always be in denial, just keep running from God, u just cant understand...

[Hazams]

"prove it"
ok, darwin invented evolution, so people carelessly thought God didnt exist because of evolution, today evolution is false there is no proof that we came from monkeys and apes or the idea of a blob turning into bactaria then into a fish and so on to man...  that idea again is false. how about the first life? scientists says that its impossible for life to form out of non-living matter. meaning life could not start coincidently, again proving darwinism false about natural selection. So aethiestic ideas are false, God is very real Hazams, stop running and embrace God.

First of all, Darwin makes NO statement to disprove God's existence because of evolution, that's number one.


I assume that by the first "life", you are trying to emphasize how life was created on earth. Due to your obvious need of a "decent" education (which should be placed as far away from Islam as possible) I will try to explain to you the simple anomaly that is the uncertainty of how life arose.


Did you know that scienctist have discovered how planets form? Yes, ........, they have. Want to know how?


All stars form from clouds of gas and dust which roam our galaxy. Eventually, gravity causes the cloud to collapse; since the cloud is spinning, material falls in along the "poles" faster than it does near the "equator". This flattening results in a disk-like object. Material slowly wends its way into the center of this disk, forming a new star. While the star continues to grow, lumps form in the disk which will ultimately become planets.The disk eventually thins as more material falls onto the star and the protoplanets. A hole in the disk near the star forms as material is completely incorporated into the star and planets.Now fully formed planets exist within the hole, even as new planets are still under construction in the outer parts of the disk.Ultimately, the remaining dust clears completely, leaving a fully formed solar system like our own.


Life arose on this planet by chance. There are certain things that are required for life to spawn on a particular planet. What basically happend here is what is called chemical evolution where mixtures like H2O, CH4, and NH3 were electrically discharged to form what are called simple organic compounds. This has actually been proven in the laboratory. Certain functional groups then formed, and if you have taken any organic chemistry you would realize that these functional groups are the basis for which all the drugs we are synthesizing are formed.


Dude, your lack of intellectual curiousity is due to the fact that you blindly believe in Islam. The uncertainties of this world can never be fulfilled by religion, and one day, the world will realize this and slowly but surely move away from the forsaken religion that is Islam.

[islam_enlightment]

But evolution encouraged aethiesm and contradict with religion, and your right Darwin made no statement to disaprove God's existance, but did i say that? as for reading his books, all i would learn is that the white race are evolved since all the other races (black, asians, etc..) are still in the evolutionary process, sounds familiar? as for the big bang theory, tell me, what was the force before the Universe was created? GOD!!! If you think otherwise, then tell me. As I said before, dont always be in Denial, stop running from GOD u force yourself not to understand the truth...


Renowned atheist philosopher Anthony Flew says:Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. (Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salla IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241).

[Hazams]

But evolution encouraged aethiesm and contradict with religion, and your right Darwin made no statement to disaprove God's existance, but did i say that? as for reading his books, all i would learn is that the white race are evolved since all the other races (black, asians, etc..) are still in the evolutionary process, sounds familiar? as for the big bang theory, tell me, what was the force before the Universe was created? GOD!!! If you think otherwise, then tell me. As I said before, dont always be in Denial, stop running from GOD u force yourself not to understand the truth...
Renowned atheist philosopher Anthony Flew says:Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. (Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salla IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241).

White race evolving, while the other races are in the process? Um...that's completely wrong. There is no other way to say it; it's just wrong. How about educating yourself on the topic before trying to slam it in the face?


This forum is suppose to be about learning from each other and all I continue to see is utter paragraphs of absolute nonsense.


My discussion has nothing to do with the big bang theory. I noted how planets form, and why the theory of evolution is the only logical conclusion to our existence. I did not say that God did not create the universe at what scientists call the singularity in which all the laws of math and physics break down. This is something that I really don't know. But to say that a man named Muhammad or any other "prophet" came down to spread "God's" word is absolutely ridiculous in the strictest sense of the word. I suggest that you read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene to catch up on all the mystifying and breathtaking discoveries that have been made in physics. It is a book that takes us beyond our own universe and tells of possibilities of there being an infinite number of them.

[lifutushi]

All stars form from clouds of gas and dust which roam our galaxy

<b>“ Then He turned to the heavens when it was smoke...” (Al-Qur'an 41:11)
</b>


"At the earliest time it can provide us with, modern science has every reason to maintain that the universe was formed from a gaseous mass principally composed of hydrogen and a certain amount of helium that was slowly rotating" (Big Bang Theory) -Dr. Maurice Bucaille , French Scientist-


Didn't the Qur'an say that the Heaven was smoke before its creation? Dr. Bucaille explains the connection between his description and that of the Qur'an as follows: "Smoke is generally made up of a gaseous substratum, plus, in more or less stable suspension, fine particles that may belong to solid and even liquid states of matter at high or low temperature"


He therefore sees no contradiction of the Quranic use of the Arabic word dukhan (translated smoke) and a modern interpretation of that word as a gaseous mass with fine particles when speaking of the formation of the universe.


We notice here two remarkable features of the Qur'an. The first feature is that it expresses scientific truths that will be verified many centuries later. The second feature is that the Qur'an expresses those truths using terms and expressions that would avoid confusing its first readers in the seventh century. The seventh century reader of the Qur'an can easily relate to the image of smoke, and the twentieth century scientist can easily interpret the word as a gaseous mass.


“The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates


that,


” (i.w. An opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition)


at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a <b>CLOUD</b>


OF SMOKE - The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Oringin of the Universe, Weinberg, Page: 94-105-

[lifutushi]

LOL, dude you're the most ignorant poster that I've ever seen commenting on evolution. How about actually reading Darwin's book for a change to really appreciate what evolution is before recklessly spewing your foul vile about what you THINK it is. Embrace God? Certainly not the Muslim one

i've read the Darwin's book.. and i've read more books on evolution than you ever did, plus i read from both sides...


now, if you consider yourself as non-ignorance person, why don't you read this e-book. and if you cannot accept the content of this book, please give an acceptable explaination, scientifically, since you said you're not ignorant..


here's the book:


http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/...ewresearch1.php

[lifutushi]

By the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful


EVOLUTION:THE LARGEST MYTH OF SCIENCE!!!



“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” – Charles Robert Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859 –


Since there are Darwinists in this forum, let us talk about Darwinism so we are clear about this “Greatest Myth of Science”, the medieval superstition, The Theory of Evolution.


Evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According to this scenario, four billion years ago various chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.


The first thing that must be said is that the claim that nonliving materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.


The theory of evolution claims that a living cell—which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought to bear—nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on the earth. Now, we will examine why this claim is contrary to the most basic principles of science and reason. Shall we move further, members of islammesage.com forum?


An Example of the Logic of "Chance"


If one (some of the members of this forum) believes that a living cell can come into existence by chance, then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate below. It is the story of a town.


One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land, becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. Although exposed to storms, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to form. When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions," with perfect timing, and creep between the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact.


Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, and cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "natural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called glass would be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems, which are also later to be formed by chance. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design.


That’s the analogy of "how the first cell originated" according to Darwinism. Any comment, Darwinists from this forum? But please, let me continue further.


Let us now put aside the question of "how the first cell originated" and ask a much easier question: How did the first protein originate? The theory of evolution has no answer to this question either. Proteins are the building blocks of the cell. If we compare the cell to a huge skyscraper, proteins are the bricks of the skyscraper.


However, they do not have a standard form and structure as the bricks do. Even the simplest cells have roughly 2,000 different types of proteins. If cells can survive, it is thanks to the extraordinarily harmonious functioning of these distinct proteins. Proteins are made up of smaller structures, or molecules, called "amino acids", which are formed by the different combinations made by carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen atoms. There are 500-1,000 amino acids in an average protein. Some proteins are much bigger.


The important point is that amino acids have to line up in a certain sequence to form a protein. There are 20 different amino acid types used in living organisms. These amino acids do not combine at random to form proteins. Every protein has a certain amino acid sequence and this sequence must be precisely matched. Even the deficiency or the replacement of a single amino acid renders that protein a useless lump of molecules. For this reason, every amino acid must be just at the right place in the right sequence. The instructions for this sequence are stored in the DNA of the cell and, according to them, the proteins are produced.


The theory of evolution claims that the first proteins formed "by chance". Probabilistic calculations, however, show that this is by no means possible. For instance, the probability of the amino acid sequence of a protein made up of 500 amino acids being in the correct order is 1 in 10(with the power of)950. 10(with the power of)950 is an incomprehensible figure formed by placing 950 zeros after 1. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 10(with the power of)50 is considered to be almost IMPOSSIBLE!!!


Briefly, even a single protein cannot form by chance. Evolutionists also admit this fact from time to time. For instance, Harold Blum, a famous evolutionist scientist, states that


"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."


So, what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, gives the answer:


“When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.”


The theory of evolution, which claims that life came into existence by chance, is no less absurd than our “town story”, for, with all its operational systems, and systems of communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than a city. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the molecular biologist Michael Denton discusses the complex structure of the cell:


“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?”


So, my fellow members of the forum, do you still believe in this superstitious theory? If you do, I can give more evidence (I told you, I’ve read a lot about evolution). We can talk until we reach hundreds of pages, if that what you wish. It has been about 150 years since this theory was written, science had advanced since then, we knew better than the amateur naturalist, Charles Robert Darwin, the one who claimed that his ancestors were apes.