Why Science Fails To Explain God

[Sherban Shabeel]

Nope sxb

 

Evolution is a fact.

 

It's a theory in the context of explaining the origin of life, but the mechanism itself is a FACT.

 

Brown eyes, blue eyes, shapes of noses, skin color, gene selection, selective breeding. Everywhere you look there is proof that biological evolution is a fact.

 

Just because you choose to blindfold yourself doesn't make it less than fact.

 

Learn some biology before you tell me to go read

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

Originally posted by rudy-Diiriye:

evolution is not fact but theory saxib. And just because u believe in it does not make it fact.

 

its just a theory, go and read some more about it to refresh yourself. thnx

Can you define scientific theory? Let me help you:

"

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory."

[Nur]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution- The Premise

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection

 

While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

 

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

 

DNA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity

 

The DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First

described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries.

 

DNA Double Helix: The "Basics"

 

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine © and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell.

 

The DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function.

 

Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.

 

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

 

DNA Double Helix: Its Existence Alone Defeats any Theory of Evolution

 

The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.

[Sherban Shabeel]

^It's so creepy, the double helix bit came on the documentary just as I was reading your post on the double helix!

 

I really think there's a problem of communication here. The Double Helix DOES NOT in any way defeat Evolution. It just proves that someone must have programmed evolution.

 

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along.

[rudy-Diiriye]

evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory period. Its just a biologist idea.

 

i believe in the creator, Allah (swt).

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by Naxar Nugaaleed:

quote:Originally posted by Norf 2:

... ‘Religious people’ AS WELL AS many non-religious members of the scientific community oppose the evolution theory because it has failed to stand up to the many questions thrown at it from all quarters. 51:47.

NO, you few mormons and Solers believe this, sane people except evolution, scientific debate about some the details is one thing, ignoring facts is another. [/QB]

What FACTS am I ignoring? Show us these FACTS.

 

I get the feeling you guys believe in evolution because in your opinion it equates to intellect and advancement more than anything else.

 

ps leave this to those who will at least try to prove something to us. Repeating the same line won't achieve anything.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

Misconceptions about evolution and the mechanisms of evolution

 

Unfortunately, people have misconceptions about evolution. Some are simple misunderstandings; ideas that develop in the course of learning about evolution, possibly from school experiences and/or from the media. Other misconceptions may stem from purposeful attempts to interfere with the understanding of evolution.

Below you will find a series of common misconceptions about evolution that link to responses which correct these misconceptions.

 

 

Misconceptions about evolution and how it works:

 

 

Misconception:

"Evolution is a theory about the origin of life."

 

Response:

Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

 

 

Misconception:

"Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better."

 

Response:

It is true that natural selection weeds out individuals that are unfit in a particular situation, but for evolution, "good enough" is good enough. No organism has to be perfect. For example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence.

 

Other taxa may have changed and diversified a great deal — but that doesn't mean they got "better." After all, climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and what was "better" a million years ago, may not be "better" today. What works "better" in one location might not work so well in another. Fitness is linked to environment, not to progress.

 

 

Misconception:

"Evolution means that life changed 'by chance.'"

 

Response:

Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

 

For example, some aquatic animals are more likely to survive and reproduce if they can move quickly through water. Speed helps them to capture prey and escape danger. Animals such as sharks, tuna, dolphins and ichthyosaurs have evolved streamlined body shapes that allow them to swim fast. As they evolved, individuals with more streamlined bodies were more likely to survive and reproduce. Individuals that survive and reproduce better in their environment will have more offspring (displaying the same traits) in the next generation. That's non-random selection. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture.

 

 

Misconception:

"Natural selection involves organisms 'trying' to adapt."

 

Response:

Natural selection leads to adaptation, but the process doesn't involve "trying." Natural selection involves genetic variation and selection among variants present in a population. Either an individual has genes that are good enough to survive and reproduce, or it does not — but it can't get the right genes by "trying."

 

 

Misconception:

"Natural selection gives organisms what they 'need.'"

 

Response:

Natural selection has no intentions or senses; it cannot sense what a species "needs." If a population happens to have the genetic variation that allows some individuals to survive a particular challenge better than others, then those individuals will have more offspring in the next generation, and the population will evolve. If that genetic variation is not in the population, the population may still survive (but not evolve much) or it may die out. But it will not be granted what it "needs" by natural selection.

 

 

 

Misconception:

"Evolution is 'just' a theory."

 

Response:

Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory — a "guess" or "hunch." These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution.

 

 

Misconception:

 

"Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it."

 

Response:

Scientists do not debate whether evolution (descent with modification) took place, but they do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes and mechanisms are vigorously debated. Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide.

 

 

Misconception:

"Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution."

 

Response:

The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record.

 

Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.

 

 

Misconception:

"Evolutionary theory is incomplete and is currently unable to give a total explanation of life."

 

Response:

Evolutionary science is a work in progress. New discoveries are made and explanations adjusted when necessary. And in this respect, evolution is just like all other sciences. Research continues to add to our knowledge. While we don't know everything about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life's diversity.

 

To learn more about the nature of science go here.

 

 

Misconception:

"The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won't admit it."

 

Response:

Scientists have examined the supposed "flaws" that creationists claim exist in evolutionary theory and have found no support for these claims. These "flaws" are based on misunderstandings of evolutionary theory or misrepresentations of evidence. Scientists continue to refine the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean it is "flawed." Science is a very competitive endeavor and if "flaws" were discovered, scientists would be more than glad to point them out.

 

 

Misconception:

"Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable."

 

Response:

Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.

 

 

Fossils such as Archaeopteryx give us snapshots of organisms as they adapt and change over time.

 

Studying modern organisms such as elephant seals can reveal specific examples of evolutionary history and bolster concepts of evolution.

 

Artificial selection among guppies can demonstrate microevolution in the laboratory.

 

Laboratory experimentation with fruit flies demonstrates the power of genetic mutation.

 

Visit the PBS Evolution Web site to learn about John Endler's research on wild guppies, a great example of direct experimentation.

Learn more about lines of evidence for evolution.

 

 

Misconception:

"Most biologists have rejected 'Darwinism' (i.e., no longer really agree with the ideas put forth by Darwin and Wallace)."

 

Response:

Darwin's idea that evolution generally proceeds at a slow, deliberate pace has been modified to include the idea that evolution can proceed at a relatively rapid pace under some circumstances. In this sense, "Darwinism" is continually being modified. Modification of theories to make them more representative of how things work is the role of scientists and of science itself.

 

Thus far, however, there have been no credible challenges to the basic Darwinian principles that evolution proceeds primarily by the mechanism of natural selection acting upon variation in populations and that different species share common ancestors. Scientists have not rejected Darwin's natural selection, but have improved and expanded it as more information has become available. For example, we now know (although Darwin did not) that genetic mutations are the source of variation acted on by natural selection, but we haven't rejected Darwin's idea of natural selection — we've just added to it.

 

 

Misconception:

"Evolution leads to immoral behavior. If children are taught that they are animals, they will behave like animals."

 

Response:

Humans are members of the animal kingdom. We share anatomical and biochemical traits with other animals, and there are many behaviors that we share — we care for our young, we form cooperative groups, etc. There are other behaviors that are specific to particular animals. In this sense, humans act like humans, slugs act like slugs, and squirrels act like squirrels. It is unlikely that children, upon learning that they are related to all other animals, will start to behave like jellyfish or raccoons.

 

Evolution does not make ethical statements about right and wrong. It simply helps us understand how life has changed and continues to change over time. It is up to us, as societies and individuals, to decide what constitutes ethical and moral behavior.

 

 

Misconception:

"Evolution supports the idea that 'might makes right' and rationalizes the oppression of some people by others."

 

Response:

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a philosophy called "Social Darwinism" arose from a misguided effort to apply lessons from biological evolution to society. According to this view, society should allow the weak and less fit to fail and die, and that this is not only good policy, but morally right. Supposedly, evolution by natural selection provided support for these ideas. Pre-existing prejudices were rationalized by the notion that colonized nations, poor people, or disadvantaged minorities must have deserved their situations because they were "less fit" than those who were better off. This misapplication of science was used to promote social and political agendas.

 

The "science" of Social Darwinism was refuted. Biological evolution has stood the test of time, but Social Darwinism has not.

 

Visit the Talk Origins Archives for more information on Social Darwinism.

 

 

Misconception:

"Evolution and religion are incompatible."

 

Response:

Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

 

The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.

 

For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE Web site.

 

 

[

Misconception:

"Teachers should teach 'both sides' and let students decide for themselves."

 

Response:

Given the wide variety of religious views about creation, there are not simply "two sides" to be compared — and, in any case, these views are not science and do not belong in a science classroom. In science class, students should have opportunities to discuss the merits of arguments within the scope of science. For example, students might debate exactly where birds branched off of the tree of life: before dinosaurs or from within the dinosaur clade. In contrast, a debate pitting a scientific concept against a religious belief has no place in a science class and misleadingly suggests that a "choice" between the two must be made. The "fairness" argument has been used by groups attempting to insinuate their religious beliefs into science curricula.

 

 

Misconception:

"Evolution is itself 'religious,' so requiring teachers to teach evolution violates the First Amendment."

 

Response:

Evolution is science. The study of evolution relies on evidence and inference from the natural world. Thus it is not a religion. Supreme Court and other Federal court decisions clearly differentiate science from religion and do not permit the advocacy of religious doctrine in science (or other public school) classes. Other decisions specifically uphold a school district's right to require the teaching of evolution.

 

For additional information on significant court decisions involving evolution education, visit the NCSE website.

Read more about evolution and the nature of science.

Back to top

 

 

Archaeopteryx and elephant seal photos courtesy of Dave Smith, UCMP; Guppy photos courtesy of Cara Gibson and Katie McGhee; Fruit fly image courtesy of Jean-Michel Muratet, Syndicat National des Ophtalmologistes de France (SNOF)

 

 

 

 

 

[rudy-Diiriye]

so your final option is copy/paste what some moran wrote. Haji, why not rejoice and go back to what Allah provide u for so u will find the correct path.

 

dont believe whatever u read, just let it mesmerize u without losing your guiding light.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

Originally posted by rudy-Diiriye:

so your final option is copy/paste what some moran wrote. Haji, why not rejoice and go back to what Allah provide u for so u will find the correct path.

 

dont believe whatever u read, just let it mesmerize u without losing your guiding light.

Don't call other moron because you disagree with, foolishly so, because you think Allah wants you to ignore certain facts of realty.

You say that Evolution is not not observable, thats one Misconception right there, look it up. aspects of Evolution are observable.

[rudy-Diiriye]

well if you believe that u evolved from a monkey, i guess u can observe that. i will stick with grandpa adam cuz i dont look like a freaking monkey. lol.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

Another misconception, humans and Monkeys are related, does not mean human have monkey ancestors.

[Nur]

Johnny B.

 

You asked:

 

"Now let me ask you what a God is? can you kindly answer me in a cogently manner?

 

A good question indeed, I really missed your response, but just found it, and inshAllah, I will come back with a detailed answer to the question, I apologize for the delay.

 

Nur

[Nur]

Johnny bro.

 

The word God in Arabic is translated as Ilaah, and on many occasions before, i have explained it in detail, let me repost the definition once more.

 

 

The root meaning of the word ILAAH comes from the Arabic word (ALIHA) the masdar of this word means among others:

 

1. To seek a protection ( Like an infant seeks mother's love , warmth and protection)

 

2. To seek a rescuer ( in times of distress)

 

3. To seek the highest authority, no one escapes from ( Jurisdiction and Sovereignty).

 

4. It meant leadership. ( ZACIIM UL QOWM)

 

5. Any thing one follows even desires is called ilaah

 

 

So, from the above linguistic background, in Islam when we say Laa ilaaha illaa Allah" we mean, there is no entity that is entitled to the above attributes except Allah. In other words, Allah is the ONLY ilaah.

 

 

Nur

[Johnny B]

Sheikh Nurow,

 

I've no problem with what certain Arabic word means or can mean in different contexts , my question is what a God ( an 'ilaah',if you must) is?.

 

As you may know,in the history of Mankind different types of Deities have been presented at different ages.

 

What I'm questioning is your very knowledge of the Islamic God (your Deity of choice), such knowledge that you're so certain you can with pure sincerity , based on your knowledge about that Deity, define that Deity and present it to us.

 

Remember, if you can't define the Deity you claim to devote your life to, it's neither honest to accuse the Atheists of 'denying' it's existence, nor appropriate or just towards other religions that worship other Deities.

 

Once again , What is a God?

[Nur]

Johnny Bro

 

We are having a linguistic problem here. God as I have explained above is Ilaah, and the attributes humans give to a God are listed above.

 

I am assume that you actually mean, Who Is Allah?

 

 

From the Quraan Allah introduces Himself as follows:

 

Allah is One!, Allah Is Sovereign, He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him.

 

 

Allah! (no other diety but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists. Neither slumber, nor sleep overtake Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission? He knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them in the Hereafter . And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. And He is the Most High, the Most Great. [This Verse 2:255 is called Ayat-ul-Kursi.]

 

Allah is the One "Who has created (everything), and then proportioned it";

 

He created man (Adam) from sounding clay like the clay of pottery.

 

He taught him eloquent speech.

 

Allah is the one "Who has taught (the writing) by the pen".

 

And the earth He has put for the creatures

 

The Day when they shall come forth [from death], with nothing of themselves hidden from God. With whom will sovereignty rest on that Day? With God, the One who holds absolute sway over all that exists!

 

 

AND YOUR GOD is the One God: there is no deity save Him, the Most Gracious, the Dispenser of Grace.

 

Your God is the One God: but because of their false pride, the hearts of those who do not believe in the life to come refuse to admit this [truth]. [15]

 

And God has said: "Do not take to worshiping two [or more] deities. [58] He is the One and Only God: hence, of Me, of Me alone stand in awe !" [59]

 

They have taken their rabbis and their monks-as well as the Christ, son of Mary-for their lords beside God, [47] although they had been bidden to worship none but the One God, save whom there is no deity: the One who is utterly remote, in His limitless glory, from anything to which they may ascribe a share in His divinity!

 

Joseph to prison inmates: "O my companions in imprisonment! Which is more reasonable: [40] multiple gods, each of them different from the other" [41] -or [in] the One God, who holds absolute sway over all that exists?

 

[His promise will be fulfilled] on the Day when the earth shall be changed into another earth, as shall be the heavens [63] and when [all men] shall appear before God, the One who holds absolute sway over all that exists.

 

THIS IS A MESSAGE unto all mankind. Hence, let them be warned thereby, and let them know that He is the One and Only God; and let those who are endowed with insight take this to heart!

 

Selections from Holy Quraan

 

 

Nur