:-)

Thank you Charlie for your response

I didn't mention a purpose or denied its existence
The reason for a stone rolling down the hill is gravity. In another word gravity causes the stone to roll down the hill. I didn't pre-assume that the universe was caused on purpose at this point. Ok
?
Again Charlie, you cannot deny that there is a purpose. Not knowing that their is a purpose doesn't mean that there isn't right
?
Lets not pay attention to the point if this cause C is on purpose or not

About Dr Hossam, If I can interfere
His reply was a response to your statement that you are 100% sure there is no God
Being 100% sure means you have evidence. Again about your example of Mickey Mouse, yes If you told me that Mickey Mouse is living somewhere on a planet out there is most likely wrong but I cannot say I am 100% that he is not out there. I will just say ok you said so prove it to me
But I will not say I am sure that 100% he is not there
get my point
?

Again Charlie, Lets try to be objective, I will not say Darwinism is wrong because I don't like it or because I feel that Darwin is not handsome.
I still look at Darwinism as a paradigm. This is something you can discuss with Dr Hossam and Br Ahmed.

Lets stick to our point
C is a cause of our universe to exist right
So what causes C another cause
C2
?
and so on
?
Do you think there is no problem in that
?

Thanks Charlie

Hi again Ibn Alssunah,
Ok. let's bring the ball to the ground again ans simplify the discussion.
I am not sure we talk about the same thing when we talk about alternative C. I am talking about something made the big bang happen, but I don't mean there was a purpose with it. Just like... if a stone starts rolling down the hill, it did because it had to do in certain circumstances. It does not mean someone wanted it to roll down. If you accept this way of view at alternative C, than I am in it. Than I agree. If C means that someone wanted the stone to start rolling, or the big bang to happen, than i disagree completly. o
Note 1: I am glad to talk to such an expert as Dr Hosam. I am curious to see what new facts he can show me. o
Note 2: I would be very surprised if people in this forum know much about QM, but never mind. For me this is too deep water. Let's stay at the shallow. o
Note 3: I am sorry if it disturbs you that I look at religion as something like old fashion, but that is my opinion and I stand for it. Some people here talk about Darwinism as a foolish idea, that modern science denies. This is a complete lie. As I showed in the previous message, moderns science celebrates Darwin and they use his teaching. Not because they believe he was right, but because they know. Since his ideas are being treated like a joke here , I feel i have the right to talk in the same way about religion. And I have much better reasons for that, than the guys who joke about Darwin. Best regards from Charlie

HI Hosam, Thanks a lot for answering my questions. I feel sometimes that my questions are being ignored, while I try my best to answer all the questions when I can. So I try to answer your questions straight on. If I miss some, I apologize. You really wrote a long mail, so i might miss something.
About evidence that god does not exist. You have to be aware that it is very difficult to show evidence to a negative fact. In the court you are never asked to show evidence that something did not happen, before the other part shows evidence that it did happen. For example, If I say that Mickey Mouse lives at a planet out there how can you show I am wrong? It is not very likely.... it is unbelievable, but you can not give me evidence that it is not true. Can you? Same with God. You have to give me evidence that he DOES exist, before you ask me for evidence that he does not exist. So please go on. Give me evidence 1 and 2 that god exists. No one has yet succeded... so good luck...
The other central question is about the book and my son.#Well, I really hope I will not have a stupid son. I am sure he wil believe in the most logic thing. Not book being crated by wind, mixing the paper with glue. If I tell him I put it there he would believe I hope because it is the most logical answer. If he says he did not see me, than I tell him, "of course you did not... you were not in the room" and I am sure he would understand that. Kids are not stupid. He would take the most likely answer before those that are very unlikely. In the same way, I can not accept the idea of god, because it is very unlikely. You have to convince me I am wrong. If Quran would have included evolution and said "God started it all and started the evolution some billions of years ago", than it would be difficult to debate against it. But Quran does not say that. It says God created the species the way they are. And we know for sure that they changed a lot throughout geological history of earth and they change even today. It happens slowly so you can not see it at first view. The book is being brought into the room too slowly.. so you can not see it moving, unless you pay attention.
Anyway... about Darwin. It is funny how people like to concentrate on what Darwin believed or not.... did he regret his book or not... Did he believe in God or not. That is absolutely not important. Ok, I did read an article about his wife and she clamed till the end that Darwin was an atheist till his dead. She was not. She blamed the christian church to mislead the public by spreading wrong information about him. But this is absolutely not important. If I tell you I found water in the desert and show you the place, than you know it is there. It does not help if I deny it later. I opened your eyes and the water is there, no matter what I say later. So is the teaching of Darwin. Even if he would 100 times say "I was wrong" it would not change the fact that his teaching is correct. Species do change and we use the same principals to change the species.
It is also true that he was not the only one to come to the same conclusion. He even mentions that in the introduction of his book. I did read parts of it. It is very intresting that more than one person comes to the same conclusion that is very advanced, if it is wrong. This also shows that even if Darwin never would have been born, his ideas would see the daylight some day anyway. Can you say the same about Mohammad and the Quran? O
You guys always claim that modern science do not confirm evolution of species, but denies them. Well, check any website of any famous university of the world and see it by yourself. I hate to send links, but in this case I will make an exception. You don't even have to read it. Just take a look. Oxford university near London, maybe the worlds most famous is celebrating 200 years of birth of Charles Darwin as one of the most famous scientist of the world. Check it here http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stori.../090210_2.html
Finally about the eagle and the evolution. You ask me "Again, why do you assume that real world works in favour of its success not its extinction?! " Well a simple answer is that if it works against than it can not spread it genes further. This is basic in the evolution. If it does not work, than it goes under. If it is successful, than it works and live on. About the bird with a third wing. It is a well known fact that animals mob out their mates that significantly differs from themselves. This happens among bird, among wolfs or any other animal that are living in groups. Not so strange actually. Usually it means that that something is wring with the individual. Better stay away from it. But even if it would find a female this bird would be very vulnerable. A third wing would make it more difficult to fly and make it an easy prey to a hawk. Even if it get chicks... and they also get the 3rd wing, it would cause them same problems. Such genes would not survive in the long run, but be erased very soon.
Finally, about what "works or does not work" for the evolution. This is very simple. If the animal (or a herb) has genes (construction) that stays alive and can reproduce themselves to next generation, than it works. No matter what tactics they use. If it works in given conditions, it will continue existing. If it does not work, meaning the individual will not survive to spread it's genes to the next generation, than it is out of the game and such genes stop existing. They die with the individual that had them.
Thanks for your questions. I hope you will see it is not so difficult to understand the evolution. You only have to be open to listen to the idea. You will see it explains a lot more than any religion ever will. Best regards from Charlie

Mr. Charlie

First of all you are welcome in the forum, hoping that you will know more about Islam.

May be you know that the doctrine that Mr. darwin came with in the "origin of species" , which is an incomplete work as Darwin himself stated, isn't new. Species transformation into another was adopted , in different ways of course, many centuries before Darwin was born. But, Did Darwin himself was an atheist?? Did he find his theory opposite to presence of God?!

Geoffroy, Erasmus Darwin, his grandson and Lamarack , as evolutionists, rejected direct independent creation of species but they didn't reject God. So, why atheists today claim that darwin got them their salvation from belief in God while Darwin himself didn't claim that?! Have they ,atheists, got a new evidence that God doesn't or didn't exist?? Have you such an evidence Mr. Charlie?!

If you have that evidence , I wish you put it in the form of:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
So, God doesn't exist!

You put a book in your living room and left. Your son enters and see the book but he didn't know that you came in. So, he starts postulating some assumptions. First, let's say that the wind carried the book and put it on the table through that open window. And , of course, the issue of how the wind carries the book only is out of question now!! May be some future discoveries about the nature of the wind will answer it. Secondly, He ,your little son, assumes that the papers and glue on the table mingled together and the result was that silly book! And, again, there is no reason to omit that assumption because the mechanism of mingling will be answered in the future!

In that example, your son builds his "scientific" assumptions upon a base that you didn't exist! He didn't see you coming in! I don’t know how you will react in this situation and how will you ,as an evolutionist, prove that the little kid is wrong!?

To sum that example in a direct question I may say, how can you prove that direct independent creation of species is impossible?! How can you be so dead sure that independent creation didn’t exist??

You to your son: I was there and it is me who put the book!
Your son: I didn't "see" that!

Me to you: God created all species as he told us!
You "may" say: I didn't "see" that!

Your answer to your son is my answer to your belief in evolution!


Is it that simple?! Yes indeed! But the struggle was between evolution and Christianity which had been corrupted and old myths got its way to its texts! That weak Christianity couldn't offer that simple logic as Trinity is no way a simple logic neither a logic in any way!

Back to the son, what did your son do?! He put assumptions that doesn't require your being and he did succeed! What did "atheist evolutionists" say?! They say they put assumptions that doesn't require God. Did they succeed?!

Here I quote your saying "evolution doesn't work with complete random". How do you deal with "evolution"?? What is that "evolution" that works and doesn't work?! Who or What made it work that way and what or who makes it doesn't?! Your "evolution" still needs God and doesn't omit the presence of God and that is why Darwin and his ancestors "couldn't" abandon the presence of God!

That bird that got a third wing! How can you be so "scientifically" sure that it can't have offspring?! "such bird wouldn't be attractive to other sex!" you say! How do you know?! On the other hand that "new look!" may attract another curious female! You just say so because you know it didn't occur so you fill it with the suitable answer but that is in no way a scientific method!

Another example is that eagle with the wings. Why the wings don't get longer and longer?! You say "in real world it is not sure that our eagle male would be so successful" .. Again, why do you assume that real world works in favour of its success not its extinction?! It is another answer based on what already happened not what would happen if you were in the position to predict. You answer , or Darwin's sexual selection answer, is not a scientific law!


Sorry for that long reply. I may sum it up in few questions:
* If you have that evidence , I wish you put it in the form of:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
So, God doesn't exist!

* How do you answer your son in the above-mentioned example?