Drought and floods: did prayer completely fail? Or was it an overwhelming success?......Now I get the Noahs ark thing:)

BLUE

Foyle you write:
"Grateful and runner,
You both dispute in one way or another evolution claiming it is not a proven theory or that it doesn't apply to humans. "

In the case of evolutionary theory i do not have the expertise and so i defer to Sheikh Nuh for his guidance (author of the article cited in my last post). He has presented an argument against evolutionary theory as it applies to human beings, so if you'd like to undermine my position then focus on finding fault with his position. I'd be happy to respond as best i can, so please do your best to demonstrate where his argument is flawed. Here is the article once more: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

Shaykh Nuh examined the theory from 4 perspectives: "coherence, logicality, applicability, and adequacy". Perhap we can begin with the first.

His argument relating to the theory's "coherance" is as follows:

<<It seems to me that the very absoluteness of the theory's conclusions tends to compromise its "objective" character. It is all very well to speak of the "evidence of evolution," but if the theory is thorough- going, then human consciousness itself is also governed by evolution. This means that the categories that allow observation statements to arise as "facts", categories such as number, space, time, event, measurement, logic, causality, and so forth are mere physiological accidents of random mutation and natural selection in a particular species, Homo sapiens. They have not come from any scientific considerations, but rather have arbitrarily arisen in man by blind and fortuitous evolution for the purpose of preserving the species. They need not reflect external reality, "the way nature is", objectively, but only to the degree useful in preserving the species. .....cont

cont...

That is, nothing guarantees the primacy, the objectivity, of these categories over others that would have presumably have arisen had our consciousness evolved along different lines, such as those of more distant, say, aquatic or subterranean species. The cognitive basis of every statement within the theory thus proceeds from the unreflective, unexamined historical forces that produced "consciousness" in one species, a cognitive basis that the theory nevertheless generalizes to the whole universe of theory statements (the explanation of the origin of species) without explaining what permits this generalization. The pretences of the theory to correspond to an objective order of reality, applicable in an absolute sense to all species, are simply not compatible with the consequences of a thoroughly evolutionary viewpoint, which entails that the human cognitive categories that underpin the theory are purely relative and species-specific. The absolutism of random mutation and natural selection as explanative principles ends in eating the theory. With all its statements simultaneously absolute and relative, objective and subjective, generalizable and ungeneralizable, scientific and species-specific, the theory runs up on a reef of methodological incoherence. >>

How would you respond to this argument?

salaams

Foyle you write

'You need to read the evidence.'

The evidence is greatly lacking after millions and millions of fossils and many fraudulent claims by evolutionist. Sorry to disappoint you but the 'missing link' just does not exist. Keep claiming your chance god is science but the obvious stares you in the face (a Creator). No amount of unproven theories such as the hopelessly inept evolution theory will change that.

Oh runner...tis,tis,tis.....i thought you were a person of worldly understandings:)
Here,s a little help for you.

http://tinyurl.com/4uh3mfl

http://tinyurl.com/4e6k8l7

http://tinyurl.com/4cow9gf

http://tinyurl.com/4n73jyn

The power, or not, of prayer......simple! If you think it is, then it will be.

All in your head that is:)

BLUE

I think there needs be a distinguishing mark drawn between a personal religion and organised religion for the sake of debate. Organised religion has a lot to answer for on many fronts, but not all fronts by any means.

“Grateful” is obviously grateful of his/her newfound faith and advertises a personal gain by it: That’s how the world should be.

Runner feels the need to defend the faith; I find the perceived need for that stand interesting, since what is to be gained and for whom. I feel compelled to ask though, what peace does runner derive from a religious belief, to feel the need to defend the cause so constantly?

Myself, I have a favourite explanation to explain the fall of bad events; IE “We dwell not in the garden of Eden”, so it is about expectation.
But to dwell on the negatives of life is depressing, which turns attention to the positives; when one reflects on the good times “surprise” , good times are in the majority, judged over the long run:
Conclusion? On average, there is more in life to be thankful for than not, so who do we thank, ourselves or God? Personally, I’ll choose God! And there it is; religious faith is more a question of gratitude not want!