To all Creationist/Geocentrist/Flat earthist

[McBell]

Lol actually on another thread i gave a long list of names anyways just google it you'll find many

Yet none of them converted to Islam.
So once again, please present a list of scientists who have converted to Islam.

No, I am not going to do your homework.
Either present your list or retract your blatant lie.



EDIT:
nevermind.
You have just made the ignore list.

 

[skydivephil]

I thought I had already mentioned this but why dont I remind you?
Fritjoff Capra was theoreticla physicist who wrote the Tao of Physics:
Fritjof Capra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
you may want to cvheck out Neils Bohr's coat of arms, he designed it himself around the Taoist symbol:
Coat-of-arms of Niels Bohr (1885-1962) - Numericana
Bohr was a Nobel Prize winning founder of Qauntum physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagelin
The Maharishi Univirisyt promotes Taosim and the Vedic teachings:
http://www.tm.org/blog/meditation/laozi-and-the-tao-te-ching-the-ancient-wisdom-of-china/
it was founded by John Hagelin who was a professional theoretical physcists
John Hagelin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
they have several scienitsts promoting their Vedic/Toaist beliefs:
Faculty of Physics at Maharishi University of Management

Do you have any evidence of the story you tell us re Keityh Moore and the Canadian government? Or is it somethign you made up?Bottom line is you have just admitted he is not a Muslim and perhpas have invented a story to explain it. Yet a few posts ago youve criticiised my links beucase the said authors perhpas did not convert to the relevant religions. Perhaps you might want to consider a consistent aproach ?

 

[Gloone]

As a former christian, I should tell you that if you reject the scientific consensus that the earth is round and/or revolves around the earth and/or depute the merit of theory of evolution, that you're doing your cause a disservice. By holding such anti-scientific positions, you alienate many liberal christians and cause them to reevaluate their positions on scientific truths and how that ties into with their religious beliefs. Some of us find it harder to swallow stories like jonah being swallowed by fish, the 6 days creation and noah's arc as literal truths in comparison to the scientific truths (with the mountains of evidence supporting it). Others come to the conclusion that the bible is merely mythology and lose their faith.

I, for one, lost my faith talking to a YEC and thus reevaluating my position on religion. Just looking out.

Well I hear a lot of Atheist say religion is manmade and scrutinize it, so can the same not be said about science? Science is capable of errors through all of its philosophies, theories, hypothesis and evaluations.

You mentioned someone getting swallowed by a fish and the first thing that came to mind was a shark killing someone. So I don’t see how that is hard to believe and I don’t even know who Jonah is or the story behind that person. Also, someone making a new discovery such as the earth being round only last for two seconds before its old news today, while it was probably a remarkable discovery a few hundred years ago.

I understand a lot of these are just your personal views or opinions. My counter argument to your complaint about people disagreeing with science would be, I don’t think people should take science religiously. It isn’t supposed to be taken that way. Science is supposed to be subject to criticism even though most people who take it to the extreme don’t think it is capable of being hindered. Yet that is how new discoveries and progression is made through science. By someone saying, “no the earth isn’t flat. It happens to be round.” or by someone saying, “no people are not primates or monkeys, they just happen to be descendants of Neanderthals.”

If you have an interest or passion for science then that is good, but criticizing religion because you find science fascinating doesn’t help your cause…. I think you said that or something similar.

 

[Atomist]

Well I hear a lot of Atheist say religion is manmade and scrutinize it, so can the same not be said about science? Science is capable of errors through all of its philosophies, theories, hypothesis and evaluations.

Nice try... but if you don't know why Science is different from mythology... then... I'm not going to educate you... but suffice to say evidence exist for one and not the other.

You mentioned someone getting swallowed by a fish and the first thing that came to mind was a shark killing someone. So I don’t see how that is hard to believe and I don’t even know who Jonah is or the story behind that person. Also, someone making a new discovery such as the earth being round only last for two seconds before its old news today, while it was probably a remarkable discovery a few hundred years ago.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence is there that humans can live in a whale (or large fish) for days. much less seconds.

I understand a lot of these are just your personal views or opinions. My counter argument to your complaint about people disagreeing with science would be, I don’t think people should take science religiously.

I don't think anyone takes science religiously... specifically that all we can say about the current scientific model is that it's the least wrong answer. Not the right answer.

It isn’t supposed to be taken that way. Science is supposed to be subject to criticism even though most people who take it to the extreme don’t think it is capable of being hindered. Yet that is how new discoveries and progression is made through science. By someone saying, “no the earth isn’t flat. It happens to be round.” or by someone saying, “no people are not primates or monkeys, they just happen to be descendants of Neanderthals.”

Science is suppose to be subject to criticism when the criticism is relevant. "It would be like me saying the earth is flat because look if it was round we'd all fall off." it would be one thing to say that... but it would be another thing to try to teach a (science) class how the earth is flat because if it were not we'd all roll off and not accept any rebuke to that extraordinary claim when the evidence contradicts it, yet is accepted for the sole reason a holy book claims it... (the analogy is obvious).

If you have an interest or passion for science then that is good, but criticizing religion because you find science fascinating doesn’t help your cause…. I think you said that or something similar.

Wrong... I have a hatred for anti-science people, specifically those with their anti-scientific views rebutted and still continue going on regurgitating the same non-sense for the sole purpose of lying to people to propagate your mythology.

And if I did criticize religion because I find science fascinating then we'd be in a problem, but I didn't. I'm thanking religious people for being so anti-scientific so I can review their/my position and realize how absurdly stupid their position is (mine was). So as a favor I'm showing them why that's not helping their cause.

I think dawkins said it best though "science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f*** off""

 

[Gloone]

Nice try... but if you don't know why Science is different from mythology... then... I'm not going to educate you... but suffice to say evidence exist for one and not the other.

If science isn’t manmade then what is it? Would you consider it some sort of natural observation? All experiments do not occur naturally because some are predetermine with likely outcomes. I would like to agree with you though and say Science is totally different than religion and they should not even be compared or placed in the same category. Something like the bible talks about real world events. The world back then was nothing like it is today and if you disagree then I don’t know what to tell you. Some people say parts are allegories, or symbolic stories, not mythology.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence is there that humans can live in a whale (or large fish) for days. much less seconds.

That does seem to be a little farfetched. Though it could have happened naturally, air could have been in the whale’s stomach and it could have spit Jonah out when he wasn’t getting digested properly. Since you don’t believe anything about the bible I will spare you any explanations of miracles or people being resurrected. A few hundred years from now who would believe that someone landed a Jumbo jet in the Hudson without anyone dying? If something like that isn’t a miracle then I don’t know what is.

I don't think anyone takes science religiously... specifically that all we can say about the current scientific model is that it's the least wrong answer. Not the right answer.

There are a lot of people that try to use science as a crutch to rebut religious claims.

Science is suppose to be subject to criticism when the criticism is relevant. "It would be like me saying the earth is flat because look if it was round we'd all fall off." it would be one thing to say that... but it would be another thing to try to teach a (science) class how the earth is flat because if it were not we'd all roll off and not accept any rebuke to that extraordinary claim when the evidence contradicts it, yet is accepted for the sole reason a holy book claims it... (the analogy is obvious).

A holy book such as the Bible isn’t a book based around myth. It is based around events and the past lives of people. People were executed for doing no wrong, for not being pagans, for speaking out and against corruption. It is a book where people became less savage and learned to live with one another in a meaningful light or way of life without taking this world and all of its inhabitants for granted.

Wrong... I have a hatred for anti-science people, specifically those with their anti-scientific views rebutted and still continue going on regurgitating the same non-sense for the sole purpose of lying to people to propagate your mythology.

And if I did criticize religion because I find science fascinating then we'd be in a problem, but I didn't. I'm thanking religious people for being so anti-scientific so I can review their/my position and realize how absurdly stupid their position is (mine was). So as a favor I'm showing them why that's not helping their cause.

I think dawkins said it best though "science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f*** off""

Science is taught all throughout the public education system in the United States. People have to deal with it whether they like it or not. If people get sick of studying it then why does it concern you? It is no different than math, language and history. People get sick of studying it after a while and move on to other things that interest them. There is a lot to grasp when it comes to science and religion. Teaching it to kids only goes so far before it becomes excessive to some.

 

[Meow Mix]

There are a lot of people that try to use science as a crutch to rebut religious claims.

It's perfectly reasonable to put religious claims that cross into the realm of empirical evidence to the test.

Some are verified, such as the existence of the cities of Jericho and Troy, etc.

Others are falsified, such as the myth about humans descending from two individuals, a global flood, and the manner in which the earth and the diversity of life were formed.

It isn't a "crutch" to examine things that are perfectly examinable under the scrutiny of science.

 

[Atomist]

Gloon... This is a list of facts
1) Science is different than religion
2) science has evidence
3) Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world.
4) Extraordinary claims of science has evidence, extraordinary claims of the bible has circular reasoning
5) Science has practical application... namely improvement on technology which is why it's taught
6) Religious people attack scientific theory without understanding the theory and makes themselves look moronic
7) "Atheist" that "attack" religion understand the religion they're attacking better than most religious people.

 

[Gloone]

It's perfectly reasonable to put religious claims that cross into the realm of empirical evidence to the test.

Some are verified, such as the existence of the cities of Jericho and Troy, etc.

Others are falsified, such as the myth about humans descending from two individuals, a global flood, and the manner in which the earth and the diversity of life were formed.

It isn't a "crutch" to examine things that are perfectly examinable under the scrutiny of science.

Sure some studies might be capable of building enough “scientific evidence” to disprove the likeliness of an event from actually occurring. However, a lot of scientists do not have the same moral principles that are taught or expect of those that would like to follow the teachings of Christ. Scientist create Atom bombs to destroy civilizations, religion (Christianity in particular) doesn’t.

7) "Atheist" that "attack" religion understand the religion they're attacking better than most religious people.

There is not set standard for religion like there is for other studies, so I can see why. If religion was taught in school based on everything we know about the current curriculum, I’m sure it would have its purpose and be taught differently, there would probably be less bullying in schools, less suicides, less fights, more people getting along, etc.

6) Religious people attack scientific theory without understanding the theory and makes themselves look moronic

Really? Is everyone just supposed to stop what they are doing and bow down before the holy grail of science?

5) Science has practical application... namely improvement on technology which is why it's taught

I would disagree and say science has many uses and can be so scattered that it has no one particular purpose.

4) Extraordinary claims of science has evidence, extraordinary claims of the bible has circular reasoning

You are trying to applying the practical meaning of science with ones own misunderstanding of religion and not the practical meaning of religion. And in terms, it is like trying to compare a Cow to a football.

3) Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world.

I don’t disagree. Science has its uses. But I don’t think it is possible to classify science into a category of its own without using more than one statement.

2) science has evidence

You said that a few times already.

1) Science is different than religion

Agree.

 

[Atomist]

Gloone,
Hmmm I don't get what your trying to do, but I think your trying to point out I'm guilty of "pot calling the kettle back" to that I respond... I don't give a crap, I'm just stating that religious people's goals are to convince others of their beliefs and that they're doing a horrible job at it with the methodology they're using.

Many atheist/scientist and I on the other hand just don't care if you think the way we think, we're not trying to convert you. So it doesn't matter if we're guilty of the exact same thing that we claim religious people are doing, since we have different goals.

I'm just looking out for the theists.

 

[Meow Mix]

Sure some studies might be capable of building enough “scientific evidence” to disprove the likeliness of an event from actually occurring. However, a lot of scientists do not have the same moral principles that are taught or expect of those that would like to follow the teachings of Christ.

Scientific evidence doesn't lie and is available for anyone to replicate. Perhaps you aren't aware of the fact that scientific studies are published in journals which are peer-reviewed by other [competing] scientists who would love nothing more than to shoot it down if it's false for their own gain -- but they can't if the methods and data are true.

Scientist create Atom bombs to destroy civilizations, religion (Christianity in particular) doesn’t.

I'm pretty sure that when the mostly secular Roman government fell and religion (Christianity in particular) took over it was called the "Dark Ages" for a reason.

Einstein didn't reveal that mass can be converted to energy for the sake of killing millions of people; he did it for the sake of utilizing as an energy source. It isn't scientists that explicitely create bombs for science's sake but rather politicians and scientists on their payroll.

Science itself is neither benevolent or malevolent; it depends on the user. TNT can be used to blow up a warehouse full of people or it can be used to blow up rock to construct a highway. The science itself isn't the cause of suffering and death.

Likewise religion itself doesn't inherently cause suffering and death; though it has been used to such ends (the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, 9/11, etc.)

Both things depend on who is wielding it. Science just uncovers what's true about reality; and the truth is that things like the myth of Adam and Eve and a global flood are not reality because the evidence is extremely against them. It isn't that scientists sit around and say "how can we make up lies to make the Bible/Quran/Whatever false" but rather they look at the world as it really is and ask themselves "what is true?"

Turns out a literal interpratation of the Bible isn't true. Deal with it.

In fact, the first geologists to determine that the earth is much older than the Bible indicates were themselves out to attempt to prove the [literal interpretation of the] Bible. Instead, they had the intellectual integrity to clearly see that the Bible, as literally interpreted, does not tell true stories. The human species did not descend from a mere two individuals and a global flood never occurred.

 

[Gloone]

Scientific evidence doesn't lie and is available for anyone to replicate. Perhaps you aren't aware of the fact that scientific studies are published in journals which are peer-reviewed by other [competing] scientists who would love nothing more than to shoot it down if it's false for their own gain -- but they can't if the methods and data are true.

I never said science lies, I just said information can be skewed and altered. Just like when people claimed global warming was going to cause the polar ice caps to melt and flood the earth. Years later they discovered there isn’t enough ice on the earth for that to happen. So my guess is their only logical explanation is that a global flood couldn’t have occurred right?

I'm pretty sure that when the mostly secular Roman government fell and religion (Christianity in particular) took over it was called the "Dark Ages" for a reason.

I wouldn’t know, I’m not a history buff, but I did just read something that said it was called Dark ages because of its lack of Christianity.

Einstein didn't reveal that mass can be converted to energy for the sake of killing millions of people; he did it for the sake of utilizing as an energy source. It isn't scientists that explicitely create bombs for science's sake but rather politicians and scientists on their payroll.

Science itself is neither benevolent or malevolent; it depends on the user. TNT can be used to blow up a warehouse full of people or it can be used to blow up rock to construct a highway. The science itself isn't the cause of suffering and death.

Likewise religion itself doesn't inherently cause suffering and death; though it has been used to such ends (the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, 9/11, etc.)
Both things depend on who is wielding it. Science just uncovers what's true about reality; and the truth is that things like the myth of Adam and Eve and a global flood are not reality because the evidence is extremely against them. It isn't that scientists sit around and say "how can we make up lies to make the Bible/Quran/Whatever false" but rather they look at the world as it really is and ask themselves "what is true?"

Turns out a literal interpratation of the Bible isn't true. Deal with it.

I would agree. We live in the 21st century, why has the rest of the world not caught on right?

In fact, the first geologists to determine that the earth is much older than the Bible indicates were themselves out to attempt to prove the [literal interpretation of the] Bible. Instead, they had the intellectual integrity to clearly see that the Bible, as literally interpreted, does not tell true stories. The human species did not descend from a mere two individuals and a global flood never occurred.

I’m not real sure how anyone could take some parts of the Old Testament literally. I mean it is what it is. I almost want to laugh at people needing to do scientific research on it, but at the same time it is kind of sad that people would waste all that time doing it.

 

[Atomist]

I wouldn’t know, I’m not a history buff, but I did just read something that said it was called Dark ages because of its lack of Christianity.

Lol... Quite the opposite... it was because Christianity dominated everything and suppressed reason and logic for faith... and destroyed books and such.

 

[Gloone]

Lol... Quite the opposite... it was because Christianity dominated everything and suppressed reason and logic for faith... and destroyed books and such.

… Well I think those days are over. So are the days of creation so why waste time arguing over it?

 

[rusra02]

As a former christian, I should tell you that if you reject the scientific consensus that the earth is round and/or revolves around the earth and/or depute the merit of theory of evolution, that you're doing your cause a disservice. By holding such anti-scientific positions, you alienate many liberal christians and cause them to reevaluate their positions on scientific truths and how that ties into with their religious beliefs. Some of us find it harder to swallow stories like jonah being swallowed by fish, the 6 days creation and noah's arc as literal truths in comparison to the scientific truths (with the mountains of evidence supporting it). Others come to the conclusion that the bible is merely mythology and lose their faith.

I, for one, lost my faith talking to a YEC and thus reevaluating my position on religion. Just looking out.

The Bible states that the earth is a circle or sphere. It certainly does not say the sun revolves around the earth. The Bible emphatically states that God created animals and plants according to their kinds; the ToE denies this. The Bible does not say the earth was created in six 24 hour days. Neither does it place an age on the earth, so scientific estimates are not contrary to the Bible.
I encourage you to make an examination of what the Bible REALLY teaches and not what creationists claim that it teaches. I agree that the unscriptural teachings of YECs has brought discredit (undeserved) to what the Bible really says.
ToE advocates point to these unscriptural YEC teachings as proof that the Bible is wrong. It is the YEC and the evolutionists who are both wrong, not the Bible.

 

[Meow Mix]

I never said science lies, I just said information can be skewed and altered. Just like when people claimed global warming was going to cause the polar ice caps to melt and flood the earth. Years later they discovered there isn’t enough ice on the earth for that to happen. So my guess is their only logical explanation is that a global flood couldn’t have occurred right?

That there isn't enough water on earth to cover it is only one reason among thousands. There is no geological evidence of a global flood, nor does a flood explain why fossils appear in a sequence through the strata rather than being found all willy-nilly like we would expect from a flood, etc. -- there is literally a mountain of evidence against the existence of a flood.

It isn't that the information is skewed or altered, it's that there is no possible way to rationally believe the flood happened with all the evidence saying it didn't.

I wouldn’t know, I’m not a history buff, but I did just read something that said it was called Dark ages because of its lack of Christianity.

That's exactly the opposite -- it was indeed the Dark Ages because Rome wasn't around to protect people anymore and religion took over and oppressed people severely. I only brought this up because you seemed to insinuate that Christians don't do wrong -- well, they do.

I’m not real sure how anyone could take some parts of the Old Testament literally. I mean it is what it is. I almost want to laugh at people needing to do scientific research on it, but at the same time it is kind of sad that people would waste all that time doing it.

We wouldn't have modern geology if it weren't for the guys that set out to prove the Biblical flood, so at least something useful came from it.

 

[painted wolf]

I never said science lies, I just said information can be skewed and altered. Just like when people claimed global warming was going to cause the polar ice caps to melt and flood the earth. Years later they discovered there isn’t enough ice on the earth for that to happen. So my guess is their only logical explanation is that a global flood couldn’t have occurred right?

Not to be a stick in the mud... but no one ever claimed that the whole world would be flooded. (unless you count Kevin Costner)
What has been and is still being said, is that certain low-laying coastal areas like Tuvalu and Bangladesh will be flooded and/or have their aquifers intruded by seawater making life there impossible for humans.

What has been debated is the extent of the localized flooding. Such as: Will places like Manhattan and Florida be in danger?

wa:do

 

[Atomist]

The Bible states that the earth is a circle or sphere. It certainly does not say the sun revolves around the earth. The Bible emphatically states that God created animals and plants according to their kinds; the ToE denies this. The Bible does not say the earth was created in six 24 hour days. Neither does it place an age on the earth, so scientific estimates are not contrary to the Bible.
I encourage you to make an examination of what the Bible REALLY teaches and not what creationists claim that it teaches. I agree that the unscriptural teachings of YECs has brought discredit (undeserved) to what the Bible really says.
ToE advocates point to these unscriptural YEC teachings as proof that the Bible is wrong. It is the YEC and the evolutionists who are both wrong, not the Bible.

I don't really care what "the bible states" since people interpret that however the want... I'm saying there are people that think the earth is flat/ sun revoles around earth and that are creationism... and adhere to the bible strictly.

 

[Gloone]

Not to be a stick in the mud... but no one ever claimed that the whole world would be flooded. (unless you count Kevin Costner)
What has been and is still being said, is that certain low-laying coastal areas like Tuvalu and Bangladesh will be flooded and/or have their aquifers intruded by seawater making life there impossible for humans.

What has been debated is the extent of the localized flooding. Such as: Will places like Manhattan and Florida be in danger?

wa:do

I have heard that argument too. Localized flooding could have been referred to as global flooding. People stayed together, colonized, and didn’t travel very far because they mainly walked everywhere, and were limited to the information they had available at the time. Mass local floods could have happen especially in areas that were capable of producing monsoon type weather. Weather patterns change over time, so does the geography of an area, and many of the places that were once thriving places to live are now vast desert landscapes.

If the elements were some of the people’s greatest fears back then, then I can see why people would pray to different Gods, a god for the weather, the sun, the moon, the heavens, war, conquest, etc.

 

[Autodidact]

I will repeat it again , there are no scientific errors in Quran

Repeat it all you like, it's still baloney.

 

[rusra02]

I don't really care what "the bible states" since people interpret that however the want... I'm saying there are people that think the earth is flat/ sun revoles around earth and that are creationism... and adhere to the bible strictly.

If they adhere to the Bible strictly, as you say, then they cannot believe the lies you mention. I have found only one faith that adheres to the bible strictly. If you don't really care what the Bible states, that is your right. But again, the Bible does not teach the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, or that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days.