Ask About Islam

[KWED]

Science can't prove evolution

Evolution is an observable fact. It is something that happens, and we can see it happening.
It's like saying "you can't prove gravity".

"The theory of evolution" is an explanation for how evolution works, just as the "theory of gravity" is an explanation for how gravity works. It has so much supporting evidence that it is as close to "fact" as science gets (science never makes claims of absolute certainty in such things).
If you believe gravity can be dismissed as "just a theory", feel free to jump out of a high window.

because of the possibility of irreducible complexity in binary systems.

Not sure what you've been reading, but I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood it.

For example, say the mind is irreducible complex as a system.

The mind isn't a physical system.

That is mind cannot arise from non-mind systems,

It clearly does. The mind arises from the physical brain, which is not a "mind".

As far as I know, no one has explained mind arising from non-mind nor even solved the hard problem of consciousness. No one has surveyed all systems in nature and proven how they arise in transitional small steps.

This appears to be nothing more that "argument from ignorance" and "god of the gaps".

That means evolution (full wise) can be proven false and so the burden of proof is on the people to prove it false.

Indeed. If you claim that all the evidence and argument for evolution is wrong, you need to show that.

Whether some people have or not in the scientific community, I don't know. It maybe some people have but the scientific community power structure is too vested in atheistic theories to accept it.

Nice "argument from conspiracy" there.

But since it has something that can prove it false, then just one binary irreducible complex system in nature is needed to prove it false.

Thee are several ways in which evolution is falsifiable (which support its strength as a scientific theory). However, falsifiability does not mean something is false.

I personally believe mind as in ghost in the machine is a proof of a Creator and can't arise from non-mind systems through small mutations picked by natural selection. Actually, I am sure of it.

Good for you. However, all the evidence thus far suggests that the mind is a product of the physical brain. How does that fit with your position? Do you simply dismiss the evidence because it is inconvenient?

 

[stevecanuck]

It has certainly changed the course of history.

Who would have thought that a tiny desert community, would have ended up being the basis for a substantial civilisation?

Naturally, those who oppose G-d will claim that belief was/is forced on people with violence.

G-d knows all about the violence of mankind.
Those who start aggression without good reason, cannot ultimately succeed except temporarily. That is not true success.

True success, is in gaining G-d's forgiveness and standing up for truth and justice for all.

The preaching hall is two doors down to the left.

 

[muhammad_isa]

all the evidence thus far suggests that the mind is a product of the physical brain..

It hardly makes any difference..
If the sum total of life was just 'brain tissue', then it implies that we aren't really individuals in the true sense of the word.

It implies that awareness is just an illusion, that is due to electrons in a piece of meat.
You might as well be telling me that "life is just a bowl of All-Bran"

 

[KWED]

But until someone comes up with some actual demonstration that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, it is necessarily an argument from ignorance fallacy.

An evolutionary path for the rotary flagellum has been explained. It is demonstrably not irreducibly complex, despite what uninformed apologists might claim. Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex | New Scientist

They started with the eye. Then the rotary flagellum. Soon it will be something else, until that is explained, and so on. "Irreducible complexity" is just a fancy way of saying "god of the gaps".

 

[KWED]

Animals do have instinctive behaviors but they do not evolve into humans. Humans have yet to prove they even ever saw an ape transform. This should mark a massive change in history if it ever came into being-but it did not. We did not evolve from animals. Allah created us and he created all animals.

This is supposed to be satire, yes? Have we been Poed?

I think you should look more into the Quran and its sciences may do you some good

Every claim of "scientific miracle" in the Quran has been roundly debunked. It is just propaganda aimed at the gullible.

 

[KWED]

It has certainly changed the course of history.

Hitler changed the course of history. As did Cecil Rhodes. So did the Black Death. Was there a point there?

Who would have thought that a tiny desert community, would have ended up being the basis for a substantial civilisation?

Every civilisation and empire has humble beginnings.
A better way of putting it would be "Who would have thought that the group that gained the most power would have been behind an expansionist empire?"
Or "Who would have thought that a tiny, cold, wet island would end up owning 25% of the planet and controlling nearly all its seas?"
It is a nothing argument.

Naturally, those who oppose G-d will claim that belief was/is forced on people with violence.

Not always, but sometimes it was. You don't build an empire by asking nicely if you can take over a country. Both the Quran and sunnah talk about using violence or the threat of it to encourage submission.

G-d knows all about the violence of mankind.

"The outcome of all events is determined by Allah's decree".
If Allah doesn't like violence, he should stop decreeing it.

Those who start aggression without good reason, cannot ultimately succeed except temporarily. That is not true success.

Indeed. The Islamic empires, like all empires, enjoyed success for a while but are all now vanished into history.

True success, is in gaining G-d's forgiveness and standing up for truth and justice for all.

The problem is that Allah and "truth and justice for all" are mutually incompatible.
You gotta pick one or the other.

 

[KWED]

It hardly makes any difference..
If the sum total of life was just 'brain tissue', then it implies that we aren't really individuals in the true sense of the word.

No it doesn't!
That's like saying that because every painting is just "paint on canvas", they are all the same.
Every mind seems very different.

And who claimed that "the sum total of life is just brain tissue"? The STOL includes all the products of all the imagination of everyone who ever lived.
However, it is all ultimately meaningless once humanity has disappeared. So enjoy it while you can!

It implies that awareness is just an illusion, that is due to electrons in a piece of meat.

Pretty much, yeah.

You might as well be telling me that "life is just a bowl of All-Bran"

Well, it is there every morning when I wake up...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Indeed. The Islamic empires, like all empires, enjoyed success for a while but are all now vanished into history.

Yes .. empires rise and they fall.
That is of the life of this world. It is "empirical"

"The outcome of all events is determined by Allah's decree"..

Ultimately, yes. What will be, will be.
I, for one, would rather not be complacent and be easily led.

 

[muhammad_isa]

However, it is all ultimately meaningless once humanity has disappeared. So enjoy it while you can!

A bad philosophy.
Nothing is meaningless, except for absurdities.

 

[KWED]

Yes .. empires rise and they fall.
That is of the life of this world. It is "empirical"

Once again, you ignore the bulk of my responses to your arguments and claims, and focus on a minor issue.

Ultimately, yes. What will be, will be.

So you admit that under Islam, there is no free will in at least some circumstances.

I, for one, would rather not be complacent and be easily led.

Blind adherence to dogma is the definition of "easily led".

 

[KWED]

A bad philosophy.

1. It is not a philosophy. It is an observation.
2. Why is it bad?

Nothing is meaningless, except for absurdities.

1. Absurdities can provide insight into people's way of thinking, so not meaningless.
2. While everything has imparted or acquired meaning for now, it is all ultimately meaningless once all evidence that humanity ever existed has disappeared, and there is no one to notice our absence.

 

[ppp]

. It is not a philosophy. It is an observation.

For once I agree with Muhammad. The statement about meaning is not a philosophy, but what you should do in response is.

While everything has imparted or acquired meaning for now, it is all ultimately meaningless once all evidence that humanity ever existed has disappeared, and there is no one to notice our absence.

Right. Things do not have meaning. Meaning is only generated by thinking beings.

 

[Sheldon]

Just try and read the Quran with an open mind instead of an Atheistic one

Do you think we won't notice you've assumed bias on the part of atheists, it's called a poisoning of the well fallacy.

It might surprise you .

I'll go you one better, quote the most compelling part of it that convinced you there is a deity. You can have three tries if you want, and I will read your posts with an open mind, as I always do. Try to practice brevity though, I have a pizza on the way.

The world is full of beautiful gifts that were made for us to ponder over. The beauty of the skies, the oceans, the mountains, the weather, the human body and much more. It was not accidental.

Begging the question fallacy, you don't just get to assume these were "made", and a straw man fallacy, as no one is claiming those things are "accidental", species evolution is driven by complex mechanisms, like natural selection. As of course are weather patterns.

No human, no ape could ever have come up with the complexities that are involved.

This claim is demonstrably false, since human science has done just that, and it is a fact that we are apes.

Science can prove the Quran is legit and some scientists have already.

Nonsense.

But there are people out there that just can't open their hearts and minds to see it.

This is a very tired old canard, and you'd have to be an idiot to believe this had happened, but that only adherents of that religion had noticed. This is not how scientific explanations are evidenced.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Meaning is only generated by thinking beings.

Funny that..
I wonder why we can all agree on a meaning, if it has no universal connotations.

 

[ppp]

Funny that..
I wonder why we can all agree on a meaning, if it has no universal connotations.

We disagree on meaning all the time.have you not seen posts on this forum? Have you not turned on the news?

 

[Sheldon]

It has certainly changed the course of history.

So did the flushing toilet, what's your point?

Naturally, those who oppose G-d will claim that belief was/is forced on people with violence.

No true Scotsman fallacy, and it's asinine to pretend Islam never used violence to establish itself.

G-d knows all about the violence of mankind.

If one accepts that a deity with omnipotence and omniscience created everything, then it would have to be culpable for the outcome, that is axiomatic.

True success, is in gaining G-d's forgiveness and standing up for truth and justice for all.

Argument from assertion fallacy, you're consistent I will give you that.

 

[Sheldon]

Funny that..
I wonder why we can all agree on a meaning, if it has no universal connotations.

We? All? Agree?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Sheldon]

Science can't prove evolution because of the possibility of irreducible complexity in binary systems.

Odd, there is nothing on any news channel about the scientific theory of evolution being falsified? I even checked Al Jazeera and the Catholic Herald. It's almost as if that is complete BS, that you are parroting, from a long discredited tired old creationist canard.

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design

Evolution remains an accepted scientific theory, with a global scientific consensus based on the overwhelming objective evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If one accepts that a deity with omnipotence and omniscience created everything, then it would have to be culpable for the outcome, that is axiomatic..

Of course.
Isn't it amazing how so many of those that insist on G-d being responsible have trouble with being responsible themselves?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
If one accepts that a deity with omnipotence and omniscience created everything, then it would have to be culpable for the outcome, that is axiomatic..

Of course.
Isn't it amazing how so many of those that insist on G-d being responsible have trouble with being responsible themselves?

Not as amazing as how many straw man fallacies you post, like that one?

You haven't addressed what I've said at all, just implied a claim that I have never made. A pretty silly one as well, given you know I am an atheist.