Isn't Science really Proving God today?


Many atheists today try to say that science is disproving God's existence, simply because we are understanding how the universe works. i.e. in the past people thought that the Sun only rised because 'God did it', and now people know that its because the sun is rotating on its axis using science.

In Islam, we know that God/Allah tells us to reflect on the creation and to understand how it functions in harmony with each other - as a sign that it is controlled and designed by God. Wasn't it the Muslims who revived science into Europe, finally causing the Rennaissance?


Atheists can't answer with scientific proof the most crucial points which support their beliefs;



What occurred before the Big Bang.


Theists do really and sincerely want to know who caused the beginning of all matter, but atheists will tell us to accept that 'they dont know' - so why should we prefer their belief over ours? The Big Bang infact proves God more than disproves God, because in the past philosophers argued the universe was eternal [in the state it is in today] forever, but the Big Bang proved that it had a beginning point and therefore more lenient towards an Originator. why should we believe that something which does not have an intellect controls the different forces to form things which could have only been formed by control and one with an intellect? Chaos by itself cannot cause control or a greater harmony - a harmony which is prevalent in the universe we live in today.

they might argue that there are eternal crunches and big bangs to allow this universe to come into existence, and the planet earth allows life to survive within it due to this 'chance' - but we say that you have no proof for this claim that there have been eternal crunches and big bangs, so why should we believe this claim without any evidence on your part? [something u claim to depend upon].



Furthermore, the idea of the big bangs' has to have an ending point due to laws of Entropy,

Refuting the Oscillating Model Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed.

Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy* to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every "opening" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing.

*entropy: For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. (i.e. which isn't useful.) Thus, every process occurring in the world results in an overall increase in entropy (thermodynamic heat which isn't useful) and a corresponding degradation in energy. entropy: Definition from Answers.com

source: 1) William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19

Powerpoint by Bassam Zawadi; 3 Atheism And Materialism - refutations - SlideShare

Which means that the universes' big bangs will again, need a starting source of energy to begin the cycles once all over again. So this refutes the claims of eternal Big Bangs'.




The First Cause


We know that anything which begins to exist, has a cause. Allah says (translation of meaning):

Were they created by nothing? Or were they“ themselves the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create the heaven and earth? Nay, but they are not sure.” (Quran 52: 35-36)

The thing which caused the universe has to be a being with freewill and knowledge, or no freewill and no knowledge [to do what he wished.] If he was to have no freewill and no knowledge, there would be no universe or matter created because he wouldn't have the will to do so. So it could only have been an agent with freewill and knowledge who caused matter to come into existence, and controlled it in a way to produce and sustain life. The evidence for this is well known and apparent.


Some examples of this include the earth being in the EXACT location to sustain life, for millions of years. There are mentions in the Qur'an of the earth being dead, and Allah/God sends rain from the skies and suddenly fruits of all colours and tastes grow from this earth for our benefit and use, this is further emphasised to show that the same way God gives life to the dead earth - He will bring humans back to life for the ressurection on Judgment Day in a similar way.

People may disagree with such a point by stating that it was just by chance that this planet sustains life, and that there are millions of others which do not. To argue against this, one can simply say that scientists are still unsure of whether life exists on Mars (the closest planet to us), so how can we be so confident in claiming that other planets do not also support life by God's control? If the person replies that this should be mentioned by God in your book sent by God, you can explain that the book is sent for guidance to be successful in this life and the next, and God/Allah has given us our senses to use them to advance in science to make more discoveries. It does not increase or decrease us in faith to believe that there are also other life forms existent on other planets and solar systems.


Some people may argue that we cannot see God, however - theists can say that they believe this based on logical reasoning. Scientists have never seen the atom, electrons, and gravity, however - based on their reasoning and theories - they have come to the conclusion that they exist. So why should you be criticised for believing in God based on reasoning?




Abiogenesis (life from non life)


How the first cell came into existence. One cell contains over 1000 pages of information*[i.e. the DNA (within each cell) contains ALL the information of the body's makeup, from the colour eyes you will have to how tall you can be]. So to claim that it was formed by chance is a lie. Otherwise it can easily be said that an encyclopedia was written correctly by chance, which is false.

*Lee M. Spetner, Not by Chance, 1998, p. 30

W.H.Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist acknowledges that "the most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man." [W.R.Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, pp.298-99.]

Those who claim that abiogenesis occurred may quote Miller's Study, however - its well known that Miller was mistaken in the environment that he performed the experiment in.



National Geographic, a well-known scientific magazine, wrote as follows:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry (hardly any) amount of organic molecules. [organic molecules are what make up life i.e. proteins, fats, carbohydrates etc.]

"The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998

In 1995, Jon Cohen gave an enlightening interpretation in an historic article in Science magazine, saying that scientists researching the origins of life did not take the "Miller Experiment"' into account. He outlines the reasons for this as follows: "the [real] early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.

Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 21

Lately, scientists have tried to produce cell proteins i.e. cell membranes to try to prove that abiogenesis (life from non life) can occur. However, they are unable to produce the DNA/RNA of the cell - which is the most important part of the cell! (as explained above, the DNA of the cell contains ALL the information of the body i.e. what colour eyes the person will have, the hair colour, the persons height etc. - all the characteristics of the being) Like mentioned before, even the most basic of cells (i.e. bacteria) cannot have come into existence by chance, simply because they contain so much information within them and are "more complex than any machine thought up by man." So if man himself can't imagine a greater machine than the cell, how can he think it came into existence by chance?


This is why theists believe in Intelligent Design.




Prophecies which convince me Islam is the truth;
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/42701-prophecies.html

Humans evolved from monkeys? 'common ancestor'? because we have similar dna?

Asalaam alaikum


Some Monkey's which evolved into Humans?

Here's a discussion on some examples of skulls scientists have found, and how they thought they were monkeys evolved into humans, and how it was found out that these weren't really evolved; but simply humans or monkeys. He says:
The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another. That is off course uncertain. Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. The similarity does not prove one belief to be more likely than the other. Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:

* Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago

* Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago

* Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago

* Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago



The false claims from Richard leakey and Donald C Johanson that the australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and it seems the Australopithecus is closely related with urangutans which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then the one mankind origenated from.

* Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erecte and used tools). New discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus habilis. So it's just another extinct african ape.


* Homo rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago. It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenia. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus habilis.

* Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago. Although this skeleton is exactly the same as human, evolutionists have classified it as a transendiery specie, based on the small skullcontents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skullcontents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aborigenals)! So there is no reason to assume these skelletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excelent article of how Homo erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.

* Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago. Again there's no reason to assu?me they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aborigenals. They even found skeletons of them showing that they lived up to recently in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hary human-like apes you found in schoolhandbooks are just indulgance into imagenation, remmeber we've only found skelletons.

* Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago. Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of mexico writes: detailed study of the skelleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intelect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm

Now I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these unfound missing links that they start to see things that aren't there.


Are monkeys related to humans because they have a similar immune system?


The atheists then argue that some monkeys have similar immune systems to humans, and this might be a link to how they're related to each other. But the response given by the same brother is:

Yeah there are some interesting things to say there. For example, humans are more vulnerable to pig diseases as opposed to monkey diseases, so are we closer to pigs than to monkeys on the alleged tree of evolution or is their a flaw in their argument?

read; [to understand how scientists are using pigs genes to find cures for humans]
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-4/1123203757326970.xml&storylist=national
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2210306.stm


Also immune system is only partially DNA-Dependant, part of the immune grows as we develop based on our environment. So any similarities could just as well be environment-based as opposed to DNA based. This shows again you cannot really debate evolution unless you're looking at DNA. Problem is though, we still haven't figured out DNA, we might have already decoded it, but there's so many genes we don't know the function of, so many things we haven't figured out. The science is way to immature to have this debate.



Is there any scientific proof behind the claim that ALL beings evolved off a 'common ancestor'?

No. There is no proof for that in science. It's just hypothetical and not based on fact.




http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/monkeys-evolved-humans-1193.html

Islam was NOT spread by the sword

"He (Muhammad) said: "Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn't it time that you recognize that I am God's apostle?" He answered, "As to that I still have some doubt." I (Abbas) said to him, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head," so he did so. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 547)

The Response:

The Muslims came in the fath of makkah [opening of makkah] because the quraysh broke the treaty of al hudaiybiyah which implied that they and their allies shouldn't fight each other - but the Quraysh did (by supporting the Bakr [Quraysh's allies] against the Khuza'ah [Muslims allies].)

Since fath al makkah never had still occured [the muslims still encamped outside Makkah, they were still in a state of war. So when Abu Sufyan came out to see which army had settled outside Makkah, he found out it was the Muslims. Since they never had no peace treaty now, he could be killed - since they were in a state of war against each other. Furthermore due to his continuous warfare against the Muslims [with him being the commander of Quraysh in the battles of Uhud, Ahzab, and many more.]

So his death would be justified, and he only wasn't killed because he became Muslim (so his past errors were forgiven.) If they did kill him, it wouldn't be because he rejected Islam, but because of his war crimes and him still being in a state of war with the Muslims. [the war ended when the Muslims opened Makkah, not before this.]

Abu Bakr said: "You asked me for the best advice that I could give you, and I will tell you. God sent Muhammad with this religion and he strove for it until men accepted it voluntary or by force." (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 668-669)

The Hadeeth you mentioned is weak, as Imam al-Haithami said in, Majma` az-Zawa-id (5/186). One of the narrators, Esa Ibn Sulaiman, is weak, while Esa Ibn Atiyyah, another narrator, is unknown.

Even if the Hadeeth is held as authentic, it is not what the enemies of Islam wish it means. All what the Hadeeth says is that some people became Muslim on their own, meaning they did not fight against Islam and Muslims before accepting Islam. Some others, meanwhile, became Muslim after they were defeated in battle. Thus, they accepted Islam ‘Kurhan’. It is well-known that Mu`awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, may Allah be pleased with him and with his father, accepted Islam willingly. Yet, another unsubstantiated Hadeeth claims that Sa`d Ibn Qais said to Mu’awiyah that he and his father became Muslim ‘Kurhan’; [Siyaru A`lami an-Nubalaa, by adh-Dhahabi].

This word, ‘Kurhan’, does not mean by force, but it pertains to ‘dislike; hatred; discomfort’. Obviously, one can dislike Islam but still become Muslim for different reasons, such as seeking financial compensation or to be hypocrite, or for simply knowing Islam is the truth and wishing to practice it so that they may love it later on. There is another meaning found in another Hadeeth collected by al-Haithami in, Majma az-Zawa-id (9/77), which states that Abdullah Ibn Abbas said to Umar Ibn al-Khattab, “The Messenger of Allah died while he was pleased with you. You then supported the Caliph after him, following the way of Allah’s Messenger. You then used those who came willingly against those who turned away, until people entered Islam willingly or Kurhan.” Obviously, this Hadeeth, which is Hasan, is in reference to fighting reverts from Islam during Abu Bakr’s Khilafah. Proof: Ibn Abbas said next, “Then, the Caliph (Abu Bakr) died while he was pleased with you.” It is well-known historically that Abu Bakr’s Khilafah was almost entirely spent fighting reverts from Islam (al-Murtaddun). These are people who entered Islam outwardly but their hearts did not enter Islam completely. When the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, died, they reverted from Islam thus committing a major crime for which they were fought and forced to reenter Islam or be killed for committing the crime of reversion from Islam.

Dear Brothers: always challenge those who claim that Islam supports forced mass-conversion to it to bring real evidence to one incident in which the Prophet of Allah, salla allahu alaihi wa-sallam, or the Four Khulafaa forced any nation or tribe to become Muslim under threat of death. ‘Kurhan’ does not only pertain to physical force, it also applies to dislike and discomfort. If ‘Kurhan’ only means being forced under threat of physical pain or death, then what meaning would that give to Allah’s Statement, {We commanded man to be kind to his parents, his mother carried him Kurhan and gave birth to him Kurhan}.

As-salamu alaikum warahmatullah
Jalal Abualrub


http://www.islamlife.com/forum/viewt...&thread_id=370

... When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination. Someone said to him. "The messenger of Allah's Apostle is present here and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck." One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, "Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. (Bukhari: volume 5, book 59, number 643, Khan) "

if we see the hadith - we come to realise that Jarir (radhiAllahu anhu) actually warned this fortune teller once not to carry on with his evil or he would be killed - then he was left alone, but again he continued - thats why the 2nd time he was actually going to be killed, unless he repented [by becoming Muslim].

So the man was warned against this evil practise, since magicians and witches also face the death penalty in Islam. The hadith also shows that he never got killed straightaway. But when he continued, then he had to repent or face the death penalty. Because we know soothsayers do spoil peoples lives and make them doubt their faith, like magicians and witches cause evil.


http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?p=18108#post18108

arab dress clothes 7th century + miswak / siwak / siwaak

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/200px-PLATE8CX.jpg

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/200px-PLATE8DX_foruth_sixth.jpg

7th century arab clothes / dress

islam spread by sword?

This response, by a non muslim (christian evangelist i think) further strengthens a muslims stance [which might be useful for copying and pasting in debates inshaAllah]:

In this formulation the claim was that jihad was better than secular conquest. Unlike Alexander the Great, Mohammed incorporated people in a polity in which they had the option of being saved, in which they had the ability to see for themselves, in which they could choose to become true believers. But it left inner conviction as something over which the individual had full control.

This argument ought to be easy for modern people to understand, or at least Americans, for they also tend to think that war can be legitimated by a high moral purpose - as long as that purpose hasn’t got anything to do with individual faith. The moral purposes they have in mind are wholly secular, not the lower level of religion, and the salvation they talk about is in this world. But they too tend to be eager to rescue other people by enabling them to become more like themselves: richer, freer, more democratic.


What do you do when your fingers are itching to intervene, when you have the power to do it, when you are sure you are right and you are convinced that the victims will be grateful - quite apart from all the advantages that may redound to yourself from intervening? Aren’t you allowed to use force? Indeed, aren’t you obliged to use it? Is it right to save people against their will? Should you force them to be free? If you say yes to these questions, you are in effect a believer in jihad.

“Jihad”: idea and history - Patricia Crone

9 year old young woman mother with child

9 year / yr old young woman mother with child

thai





http://www.archive.org/details/9YearOldYoungThaiWomanMotherWithChild

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/thaigalhx9.jpg












http://www.scribd.com/doc/12868006/Refuting-the-Islamaphobes-Claim-that-Prophet-Muhammad-was-a-Pedophile

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/quran-hadith-prophet-muhammad/book-refuting-islamaphobes-claim-prophet-muhammad-pedophile-1441.html

http://forums.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=32081&page=1

Physical Descriptions of the Four Imams from 'Siyar A'lam an-Nubala''

Physical Descriptions of the Four Imams from 'Siyar A'lam an-Nubala''

1 - Abu Hanifah an-Nu'man bin Thabit:

Abu Yusuf said: "Abu Hanifah was well-formed, was from the best of people in appearance, the most eloquent of them in speech, the sweetest in tone, and the clearest of them in expressing what he felt."

Hamad bin Abi Hanifah said: "My father was very handsome, dark, had good posture, would wear a lot of perfume, was tall, would not speak except in reply to what someone else had said, and he - may Allah have Mercy upon him - would not involve himself in what did not concern him."

[6/535]


2 - Abu 'Abdillah Malik bin Anas:

'Isa bin 'Umar said: "I never saw anything white or red that was more beautiful than the face of Malik, or any clothes whiter than Malik's."

And a number of people relate that he was tall, firm, serious, blond, had a white beard and hair, had a large beard, was balding, and would not shave his moustache, as he considered this to be a form of mutilation.

It is said that he had blue eyes, and some of this was narrated by Ibn Sa'd from Mutarraf bin 'Abdillah.

Muhammad bin ad-Dahhak al-Hizami said: "Malik's clothes were clean and soft, and he would constantly wear different clothes."

al-Walid bin Muslim said: "Malik would wear white clothes, and I saw he and al-Awza'i wearing black and green caps."

Ashhab said: "When Malik would wear a turban, he would wrap part of it under his chin and would leave the ends of it hanging between his shoulders."

Khalid bin Khidash said: "I saw Malik wearing a cap, and I saw him wearing woven clothes."

Ashhab said: "If Malik would wear kohl for a necessity, he would remain in his house."

Mus'ab said: "Malik would wear 'Adani clothes, and he would wear perfume."

Abu 'Asim said: "I never saw a Muhaddith with a more handsome face than Malik's."

It is said: "He was so light colored that he was blond. He had wide eyes, a raised, pointed nose, and he would let his moustache grow long based on 'Umar's curling of his moustache."

Ibn Wahb said: "I saw Malik dying his hair with henna once."

Abu Mus'ab said: "Malik had the most handsome face of the people, the widest of eyes, the whitest skin, and was the greatest of them in height - all in the strongest body."

al-Waqidi said: "He was well-formed, would not dye his hair, and would not enter the public baths."

Bishr bin al-Harith said: "I entered upon Malik and saw him wearing a cap that was worth about 500 dirhams."

Ashhab said: "When Malik would wear a turban, he would wrap part of it under his chin and would leave the ends of it behind his back, and he would scent himself with musk and other scents."

[7/396-397]


3 - Abu 'Abdillah Muhammad bin Idris ash-Shafi'i:

Ibrahim bin Buranah said: "ash-Shafi'i was serious, tall, and noble."

[8/391]

az-Za'farani said: "ash-Shafi'i visited us in Baghdad in the year 95. He stayed with us for a few months, then left. He would dye his hair with henna, and he had thin cheeks."

Ahmad bin Sinan said: "I saw him with a red beard and hair - i.e. he used to dye them."

[8/415]


4 - Abu 'Abdillah Ahmad bin Hambal:

Ibn Dharih al-'Ukbari said: "I requested to see Ahmad bin Hambal. So, I greeted him, and he was an old man who dyed his hair. He was tall and extremely dark."

Muhammad bin 'Abbas an-Nahwi said: "I saw Ahmad bin Hambal with a handsome face, well-formed, and dyeing his hair with henna that was not too dark. He had black hairs in his beard, and I saw his clothes extremely white. When I saw him, he was wearing a turban and an izar."

[9/438]

'Abd al-Malik al-Maymuni said: "I do not know that I have ever seen anyone who wore cleaner clothes, was more attentive to trimming his moustache and grooming the hair on his head and body, or wore purer and whiter garments than Ahmad bin Hambal."

[9/454]

One man said: "In Khurasan, they did not think that Ahmad resembled a human being. They thought that he resembled the Angels."

[9/456]

al-Fadl bin Ziyad said: "I saw Abi 'Abdillah in the winter, and he was wearing two shirts with a colored vest between them, and maybe he was wearing a shirt with a heavy sweater. And I saw him with a turban over a hood and heavy outer garment. So, I heard Aba 'Imran al-Warkani saying to him: "O Aba 'Abdillah! All of these clothes?" So, he laughed and said: "I cannot stand the cold," and he would also wear the hood without a turban."

al-Fadl bin Ziyad said: "I saw Abi 'Abdillah in the summer wearing a shirt, trousers, and robe."

[9/461]



http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-history-biographies/134265875-physical-descriptions-four-imams-siyar-alam-nubala.html