Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 6,151-6,200 of 12,463

[Shanna]

Why would you think I'm embarrassed?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: So, can you give me an example of 'god' that is there wether we understand/ have proof of it or not?
..."

I don't think I used the word god, did I?"

you did.

[cerebus]

Carol wrote: "Yes, development is hard to admire and would be difficult to do without."
All development is hard to admire? Medicine?

[cerebus]

cHriS/cs wrote: "I think your sarcasm had backfired. Never mind it's not the first time. "
So can you clarify what you meant by "There was a time when there was no prescence of gravity but we still remained stuck to this planet."
I would read "no prescence (sic) of gravity" as meaning there was no gravity. So when was this time of "no gravity" yet with a planet for us to remain stuck to?
If you meant "There was a time when people didn't know what gravity was" then that's different, it doesn't mean there was "no prescence (sic) of gravity".
You are being disingenuous, again, and resorting to personal attacks when picked up on it...again.

[cerebus]

cHriS/cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I misread nothing, .."

Ok so you deliberately chose misinterpret what I said. Either way its rather petty."
Ah cs, you still have that whole kettle/pot thing going on. After your dummy-spit of earlier when you said you were no longer going to participate, was the lure of trolling too much for you?

[cerebus]

Travis wrote: "That reminds me: did we ever get an answer about an example that proves the quaraan having knowledge that pre-dates man that didn't use the quaraan as it's sole piece of evidence?"
We did get a response to our question on which passages Isabelle was referring to, for which she should be congratulated, since she made a claim and then provided her evidence to back that claim up. There has been discussion on whether the evidence is convincing or not, but that is fine, that's the way these discussions should go....it's those hit-and-run trolls like cs who make claims and then dodge every request to provide evidence for their claims that are the issue.....

[cerebus]

Janice wrote: "A world without either would deny humanity it's core traits, exploration, and would be unrecognizable."
Which core traits are you saying a lack of religion would deny us?

[cerebus]

cHriS/cs wrote: "Once again Hazel to the rescue, with a slight of hand and a hearty Hi Ho silver and a cloud of dust and Shanna is saved ..."
And once again cs obfuscates and tries to avoid answering the issues he has been picked up on. Troll.

[Lee Matthew]

I think science and a faith in God can and should exist together. They compliment each other perfectly fine. What frustrates me is the word religion, and how groups use it as an excuse to control others, or even start wars using its name. :(

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: So, can you give me an example of 'god' that is there wether we understand/ have proof of it or not?
..."

I don't think I used the word god, did I?"

you did."

unless you mean this comment: 'and just because science is not able to prove the existence of a god, it does not mean that there is not a God'.

...nothing wrong with that, and it was not my example of a god that the comment was suggesting. There is a lot more stuff out there as yet undiscovered, but not necessarily un-thought of.

Gravity has only been discovered in the last 3 centuries, but I'm sure many people watched apples and other things fall to the ground and wonder why this happened the way it did. Until Mr Newton solved the mystery.

Same thing could happen with god being the answer, just as gravity was.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "Why would you think I'm embarrassed?"

You had become very defensive with your replies, suggesting that you were covering up the fact that you were embarrassed, thats all.

[Shanna]

Defensive?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: So, can you give me an example of 'god' that is there wether we understand/ have proof of it or not?
..."

I don't think I used the word god, did I?"

you..."

So, you can give an example of ancient people 'observing god' that isn't just science?

[cerebus]

Janice wrote: "Exploration. Religion has always been about explanation, as has science.. Curiosity - we are curious creatures :)"
Religion is about explanation only as far as it involves not questioning the explanation. God did it, that's all you need to know. That is not exploration, science is exploration....asking how and why, finding answers, testing them, changing if the evidence requires....the curious gravitate towards science, if you are gravitating towards religion you are not curious, you are looking for reassurance.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: So, can you give me an example of 'god' that is there wether we understand/ have proof of it or not?
..."

I don't think I used the word god..."

I do, but I'm not 'that' ancient.

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "Gravity has only been discovered in the last 3 centuries, but I'm sure many people watched apples and other things fall to the ground and wonder why this happened the way it did. Until Mr Newton solved the mystery."
Explained, not discovered. Yes, people wondered, and some were satisfied with "it's god's will" or "god works in mysterious ways" and surprisingly they weren't the people to begin to explain gravity. That took science. And guess what, even with that explanation, science still hasn't stopped asking questions and is still working to further our understanding of gravity, and to put our current best understanding to tests. Where is religion assisting in this?

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "Defensive?"

.............see your doing it again.

[Hazel]

one has to ask, based on the current evidence that we have and the best explanation that can be given, why is anyone actually conversing with cs?

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "Same thing could happen with god being the answer, just as gravity was. "
And until there is evidence that god is the answer, the rest of us have zero reason to suppose there is a god. The Flying Spaghetti Monster could be the answer, do you believe in the FSM? Shiva could be the answer, do you believe? Or is it just the one that happens to belong to the religion you were born into?

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Defensive?"

.............see your(sic) doing it again."

Nah, just curious how you drew that conclusion care to share?

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "one has to ask, based on the current evidence that we have and the best explanation that can be given, why is anyone actually conversing with cs?"

nuthin' good on tv...

[cerebus]

Janice wrote: "@cerebus - I really don't need someone to tell me what I am doing. I am quite self aware. I wasn't looking for a debate on this topic. It was an opinion based question, with an opinion based ans..."
Fine, if you want to drop by and leave your opinion, go for it. You can expect in a public forum, in a thread with over 6000 posts in it, that you may well be questioned on that opinion. If you don't like that, fine, feel free to not engage, but don't complain about those who do. And for the record, religious belief is no more protected from discussion, debate, ridicule, than any other opinion you or I hold.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "one has to ask, based on the current evidence that we have and the best explanation that can be given, why is anyone actually conversing with cs?"
Sheer bloodymindedness on my part, can't speak for anyone else. He came out with plenty of nonsense last time, he's doing the same now, and I'm more than happy to pick him up on it, where I perceive it to be. He's free to engage and disagree with whether it's nonsense or not, but it tends to be avoided and followed up with more of the same.

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Defensive?"

.............see your doing it again."
Troll.

[cerebus]

Janice wrote: "I'm not complaining about anything. It's just an opinion - you can't really question an opinion - it's not an assertion of fact - it's relative to the individual. I don't care if we ridicule peo..."
Stop posting, easily done. Seeya.

[cerebus]

Lee wrote: "I think science and a faith in God can and should exist together. They compliment each other perfectly fine. What frustrates me is the word religion, and how groups use it as an excuse to control o..."
How do they compliment each other? One demands evidence and constant questioning of what you think you know, the other requires being told once and not asking any more questions or expecting any evidence.

[cerebus]

Shanna wrote: "Hazel wrote: "one has to ask, based on the current evidence that we have and the best explanation that can be given, why is anyone actually conversing with cs?"

nuthin' good on tv..."
Aussie tv eh? Sometimes I wonder why they bother.....

[Hazel]

Janice wrote: "so just tell me how to unsubscribe from this and I'll gladly do it. "

Underneath the last post in a thread is a grey bit of writing with a green edit next to it, that shows you are following the discussion. Hit edit, and tell it to stop giving you notifications.

On a side note, of course you can question an opinion, thats why its an opinion, its open to change, we should even question our own opinions, and inform them with fact as much as possible.

Anyway, have a nice day, janice.

[Shanna]

Cerebus wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Hazel wrote: "one has to ask, based on the current evidence that we have and the best explanation that can be given, why is anyone actually conversing with cs?"

nuthin' good on tv....."

Yeah Home and Away, sad indictment....

[cerebus]

Shanna wrote: "Yeah Home and Away, sad indictment.... "
Ouch...the kind of show where you look forward to the ad breaks for some intellectual stimulation....

[Shanna]

The ads are enough for me, don't think I could watch an entire episode.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: So, can you give me an example of 'god' that is there wether we understand/ have proof of it or not?
..."

I don't think I us..."

and that evidence is?

[Travis]

Shanna wrote: "The ads are enough for me, don't think I could watch an entire episode."

I got rid of cable and just do all my TV watching through netflix.
When i go somewhere that has regular TV, I chuckle at the commercials, but otherwise don't really miss it.

It means I am hopelessly behind on the lives of the Kardassians, but am able to watch old episodes of the Bill Bixby Hulk series whenever I want.
Seems a fair trade off.

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "Lee wrote: "I think science and a faith in God can and should exist together. They compliment each other perfectly fine. What frustrates me is the word religion, and how groups use it as an excuse ..."

along with waiting for cs's 'evidence', I'm still waiting to get an example of what religion brings to this 'partnership' that can't be gotten from science.
starting to get quite a list, I probably should start writing this down, on the off chance I ever get an answer.

[Michelle]

Religions or Science?

In the case of religions, everything stems from one's belief which in turn stems from their religious beliefs. If you think about it, all ethics and moral beliefs that anyone holds today all stems from their knowledge of good and bad that may be influenced by their religion (even atheists because they too receive outside influence whether they like it or not). In my opinion, in a world without religion the idea of ethics and morality would cease to exist because Jesus imparted his people the idea of God wanting a more compassionate and sincere society, Prophet Muhammad acted as Allah's mouthpiece and spread the idea of peace and love to the Muslims, and other icons and what have you whose purpose in life was to spread good to the world. It is true in your (whomever) stance that without religion, ethics and morals may exist — but at a meager level because for example if a young boy is taught not to be rude to other people, he would say "why can't I? Who says I cannot?" and it would be puzzling to just say "because it is not right," simply because the idea of "right" is not clear without religions and their teachings. So in a way, the social aspect of humanity is indebted to religions (both for the good and for the bad).

Science on the other hand, is 'a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation' as defined in the dictionary. I should like to think of science as something inevitable. Science takes an idea and tries to refute them but, in the process of it, uncovers something colossal that may disrupt the course of humanity (be it for good or for worse). If it were to be erased from history, I believe it will (to put it simply) come back. The human mind is filled with curiosity and some would stop at nothing to make ideas come to life, to push the brain's capabilities. I believe that even if we wake up tomorrow to find ourselves back in our primeval days, evolution is bound to take place. The human brain will develop further even against our permit. To eradicate science is to try killing a tree that is capable of regenerating after every blow. Hence, I believe that science is impossible to remove from history - or to live without.

Overall, I think religion is responsible for the humane and compassionate side of humanity while science is its technical counterpart that gives humanity the sense of security it needs, to reason occurrences and provide it with a shelter. So to have one without the other would only result in chaos one way or another. After all, things are the way they are for a reason right?

[Hazel]

When you read the bible, Michelle, how do you decide which bits you should pay attention to, and which you shouldn't. For example, how do you decide that "love thy neighbour" is a worthwhile teaching, whereas "stone naughty children to death" is not?

[cerebus]

michellé wrote: "In my opinion, in a world without religion the idea of ethics and morality would cease to exist because Jesus imparted his people the idea of God wanting a more compassionate and sincere society, Prophet Muhammad acted as Allah's mouthpiece and spread the idea of peace and love to the Muslims, and other icons and what have you whose purpose in life was to spread good to the world."
This is a concept that has come up again and again in this thread, so again let me say it is entirely possible to have morals without religion, and that morals don't begin with religion. If you don't know that murder is wrong without some deity telling you that, or you only refrain from immoral acts to either avoid punishment or gain some reward, then you are not moral.

michellé wrote: "Overall, I think religion is responsible for the humane and compassionate side of humanity"
Do you maintain that if religion were to disappear tomorrow so would compassion? Do you only show compassion because your religion tells you to? If you were to become an atheist would you lose all that compassion?

[Drew]

michellé wrote: "Religions or Science?

In the case of religions, everything stems from one's belief which in turn stems from their religious beliefs. If you think about it, all ethics and moral beliefs that anyone..."

Here we go with this bs again. I worry about you people that think that if it wasn't for religion, nothing would hold you back from being a criminal or a psychopath. If you need the threat of eternal punishment to make you a moral person then you aren't safe to be around to begin with.

[Travis]

Drew wrote: "michellé wrote: "Religions or Science?

In the case of religions, everything stems from one's belief which in turn stems from their religious beliefs. If you think about it, all ethics and moral be..."

Which is weird, as you'd think if that was holding all the believers back, the earth would be a less violent place.

Or maybe the earth is the way it is because they read the 'book of choice' and found all the parts full of sex and violence?

[Yasmeen]

Maria wrote: "Yasmeen - no one is attacking you. Disagreeing with you and even contradicting you, yes, but there is no need to get upset - forgive me if I'm "hearing" you incorrectly, but your posts seem to be ..."

i never said or thought anyone is attacking me or my religion. so, sorry if you believe so. i welcome difference, always. and i'm not actually defending myself so there is no need to be aggressive in the first place. having said that, of course Christianity has scientific lines, in fact, what i said confirms it. christianity is originally devine. but i believe that humans missed with so many concepts of christianity. anyone who's read Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code and has a little piece of knowledge regarding the three dominating religions in the world, would know that. sorry again about my rush :) this is no more than a discussion to me.

[Yasmeen]

Gary wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "i agree with the last line you wrote- because religion was sent to instruct man, so why would it be if ther's no one to instruct??"

Good question. Also if it's true that religion ..."

Travis wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.

Science is something..."

yes i can. lots of examples actually. but first, i need to say, you got me wrong. i meant that the Quraan spoke of scientific things that has been discovered very very recently 1433 years ago.

1. ﴿فَمَن يُرِدِ اللّهُ أَن يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلإِسْلاَمِ وَمَن يُرِدْ أَن يُضِلَّهُ يَجْعَلْ صَدْرَهُ ضَيِّقاً حَرَجاً كَأَنَّمَا يَصَّعَّدُ فِي السَّمَاء كَذَلِكَ يَجْعَلُ اللّهُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ﴾ (الأنعام:125)
simple translation: Whomever God desires to guide, He spreads open his heart to Islam; and whomever He desires to misguide, He makes his heart narrow, constricted, as though he were climbing up the sky. God thus lays defilement upon those who do not believe.

it's now common knowledge that if you're space-travelling or climbing very high mountains- which i think you must know they couldn't try 1433 years ago because they neither had the science nor the kit they needed- your chest narrows and your breath shortens because the higher you go, the less oxygen there is for you to breathe. how on earth would Mohammad have known that back then??

2. (فَإِذَا انْشَقَّتِ السَّمَاءُ فَكَانَتْ وَرْدَةً كَالدِّهَانِ) [الرحمن: 37].
simple translation: When the sky splits apart, and becomes rose, like paint.

With the development of technology in the twentieth century, scientists are able to see the sky and the stars more clearly through ground telescopes, telescopes in space, scientists found that the stars are at different stages where generates the third generation of stars because of intensified violent explosions of stars waste giant precedent, which in turn lights up and shines to a certain period (for) and then collapse the star occurs followed by a massive explosion when the star die and extreme violence. Like earlier as indicated below.
The following image is of the star ended his age ... Like a rose ... Like it was drawn with a brush paint as the location of the US space agency that represents the last moments and Curt ... But glorious star similar to our Sun 's!

“The Cat’s Eye (NGC 6543) represents a final, brief yet glorious phase in the life of a sun-like star ... Of course, gazing into the Cat’s Eye, astronomers may well be seeing the fate of our sun, destined to enter its own planetary nebula phase of evolution ...“
Obviously, the Surat Rahman is an example or a definition of the event is “ split the sky most so show us the verse that if an explosion occurs, any star in the sky in the defection of Star, in the case of this image, and also says the location of the US space agency, this star has specifications similar to our Sun in size specification and may be the end of our Sun-like.
these are two simple examples and a start of so many that i would offer if i fel you're willing to consider that i'm not hullicinating.
to Gary: 1. sorat Thunder(13) aya 2: "God is He who raised the heavens without pillars that you can see, and then settled on the Throne. And He regulated the sun and the moon, each running for a specified period. He manages all affairs, and He explains the signs, that you may be certain of the meeting with your Lord.

it has nothing to do with the explanation you offered, i don't know what you're talking about!

2. i believe you were referring to The Bees 16:69:
"Then eat of all the fruits, and go along the pathways of your Lord, with precision. From their bellies emerges a fluid of diverse colors, containing healing for the people. Surely in this is a sign for people who reflect.
this is a misconception regarding weakness of understanding quraan's original language, arabic: using OF was to show the fact that the bees shall eat a certain part OF THE FRUIT not "all the fruits" themselves. which is the pollen you were referring to.

3. the cave 18:68 "And how will you endure what you have no knowledge of?”
i believe as you can see it has nothing to do with what you're saying, you must be mistaken.

4. The Ant 27:61: ". Or, who made the earth habitable, and made rivers flow through it, and set mountains on it, and placed a partition between the two seas? Is there another god with God? But most of them do not know.
the aya never said the earth was fixed still. the original: أَمَّن جَعَلَ الأَرْضَ قَرَارًا وَجَعَلَ خِلالَهَا أَنْهَارًا وَجَعَلَ لَهَا رَوَاسِيَ وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ حَاجِزًا أَإِلَهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لا يَعْلَمُونَ
appropriate translation by one of Quraan's greatest scientists: Or, who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable, and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, most of them know not.

5. The Originator sora 35 verse (aya) 13 translation: He merges the night into the day, and He merges the day into the night; and He regulates the sun and the moon, each running for a stated term. Such is God, your Lord; His is the sovereignty. As for those you call upon besides Him, they do not possess a speck.
appropriate simple explanation by Ibn Katheer (the same one i quoted last): He merges Night into Day, and He merges Day into Night, and He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His Law): each one runs its course for a term appointed. Such is Allah your Lord: to Him belongs all Dominion. And those whom ye invoke besides Him have not the least power.

i really hope you're satisfied, but if you're not, i'm always ready to persuade. the thing about Quraan that makes it absolutely perfect is that it's 100% devine because it could have never been missed with, unlike other "Ibrahimic" books if you might call it. i'm always ready to answer if you're ready to open your mind.

[Yasmeen]

sorry i forgot to mention the link to example 2:
http://fussilat.org/2012/03/07/%D8%A7...
the star's picture is the red one.

[cHriS]

Janice, you are not really allowed to have an opinion on this thread. If you believe in a God then you must be able to prove it. Free speech or going off the subject is frowned upon.

Gary, Hazel, Cerebus, are the guardians of this thread and they set the rules as to what is permissible in the debate and what is not. If you do not follow their line of reasoning then you could be branded a troll. The guardians are quite knowledgeable when is comes to religion and science, they must read a lot or rely on google , I guess the latter because some of their replies if put back into google can be tracked back word for word.

Philosophy is their tool of choice when debating. This is quite a simple tool to use in a debate because philosophy does not really produce answers it is used to question. In other words it is up to you to come up with a solution or answer not them.

The sad thing is when you or I leave this bit of the forum they will wait for their next victim to say the word God or religion and the cycle starts over again. They do come across as quite arrogant and with little sense of humour, you only have to read back the posts on this page to see that. But I am sure the arrogance is caused by frustration that not all of us are playing by their rules. Oh, and don’t go off topic that will only wind them up, unless they do, then that’s ok to join in. It helps a bit if you know who Mr. Bean is. J

One more thing, they do a lot of name calling, don’t reciprocate, they will only ask for evidence.

[Travis]

Yasmeen wrote: "Gary wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "i agree with the last line you wrote- because religion was sent to instruct man, so why would it be if ther's no one to instruct??"

Good question. Also if it's true t..."

So, the quaraan was written before mountain climbing, pollen and the color red appeared in the sky ( so before the invention of sunset and sun rise)?

This stuff is interesting, but none of the examples are 'divine' merely bits of science, easily observed phenomenon and a couple vague statements that can be interpreted several ways.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Janice, you are not really allowed to have an opinion on this thread. If you believe in a God then you must be able to prove it. Free speech or going off the subject is frowned upon.

Gary, Hazel, ..."

Free speech is allowed. It's why we are also able to say what we think after you say what you think.
Weird huh? It's like everybody can use that free speech stuff.
What you are thinking is that saying 'free speech' gets you a magic shield of some kind.

Philosophy does not produce answers to any questions?
Kind of like religion or cs that way.
I can see how that'd be frustrating.

I also love how you say 'they must read alot' in a sarcastic tone.
Curse, those literate types! They ruin everything.

[Yasmeen]

Travis wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "Gary wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "i agree with the last line you wrote- because religion was sent to instruct man, so why would it be if ther's no one to instruct??"

Good question. Als..."

quite a mocker, huh Travis? i didn't bring up these topics. Gary did. all i did is answer his doubts. if you had certain doubts of your own, i'd be ready to answer. otherwise, if you just want a proof of Quraan's devinity, you're gonna have to deal with my choices.

[Travis]

Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "Gary wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "i agree with the last line you wrote- because religion was sent to instruct man, so why would it be if ther's no one to instruct??"

Good..."

Not mocking and sorry I mixed up who said what, but all the verses/lines listed in the above post are either vague enough to be open to several interpretations or just basic parts of nature that take no advanced science to know/learn.

Most cultures from the middle east focused more on studying science through the world around them, so were ahead of the game to a lot of other cultures.
What is being presented as divine word, can just as easily be explained by smart people watching the world around them.

cool and interesting, but not divine.

I just tend to find it frustrating that anyone who presents the idea that their religion's book is divine, use only that same book as their proof. It's a circular argument.
Nearly all religions have a document of some kind.

[Yasmeen]

Travis wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "Gary wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "i agree with the last line you wrote- because religion was sent to instruct man, so why would it be if ther's no one to instruct??"

Good question. Als..."

(حَتَّى إِذَا أَتَوْا عَلَى وَادِ النَّمْلِ قَالَتْ نَمْلَةٌ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّمْلُ ادْخُلُوا مَسَاكِنَكُمْ لَا يَحْطِمَنَّكُمْ سُلَيْمَانُ وَجُنُودُهُ وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ)[النمل: 18].
simple translation: Until, when they came upon the Valley of Ants, an ant said, “O ants! Go into your nests, lest Solomon and his troops crush you without noticing.”
now anyone who's familiar with arabic would notice this at first sight, but in English it might not be so clear. the use of the word " يَحْطِمَنَّكُمْ " (crush you) is odd in this verse and some might even consider it incorrect cosidering that ants are living creatures and not glass or some rough material that can be crushed and broken (which is pretty much the true meaning and use of the arabic word. some scientists faulted Quraan for it with no good defense from muslim scientists. so here's the subject in detail:
Ants speak
Scientists study proved to the world after long studies of the Ant civilization that it's one of the most organized insects. they connect remotely through secretion of materials that spread their distinguished and easily recognized aroma in each direction, therefore the Qur'an spoke of scientific fact that satisfied no one until recently, the communication and speech recognition in the world of ants.
Ant is alerting CTR
Of proven scientific facts that no one had known when the Quran was...let's say "created" that female ants are the ones to perform defending the colony and protection from any sudden danger [1], making references to the rest of the colony to alert to the danger. the femininity is not showing in the english words but it very obvious to anyone in Arabic. now who had known at the time of quraan's "start" that it is female ants who take lead in defense? only their creator. Allah.

Scientists proved that ants speak their own language, and proved that the female Ant that is alert to any line is coming, males play no part in it.
Ant crashing!
At the time of the revelation of the Qur'aan is not one capable of studying the Ant's body composition or find out any information about it, but after many studies scientists confirmed that ants very solid external skeleton called an exoskeleton [2] therefore, Ant to the exposure to any pressure they shatter, so he exalted by Ant (don't they break you Solomon and his troops) so the words (they destroy you) very accurate scientifically.
Scientists discovered that the Ant's body coated with very viable hardcover, crash has no flexibility make it bend, for example, even as glass break, so divine statement came to talk about the word (they destroy you) aren't these Qur'anic miracle?
From the Qur'an numerical community
Although ants more than 11,000 different type, they all have only three types:
1. Queens.
2. as ants perform workers.
3. ants masculine.
Wonder that ants in the Quran three times only Ant species [3].
Margins: [1] Ants, www.en.wikipedia.org
[2] http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7...
[3] المعجم المفهرس لألفاظ القرآن الكريم.
i think you've had enogh with the ant thing, huh?

[Hazel]

Although ants more than 11,000 different type, they all have only three types:
1. Queens.
2. as ants perform workers.
3. ants masculine.

Not true, actually. Ants have 4 castes. Some have subdivisions of castes. They have the queen, the worker, the breeding male and the soldiers. And one example, leaf cutter ants, have the queen, the winged breeding males, and 3 different castes of worker ants, and one soldier caste.

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "Janice, you are not really allowed to have an opinion on this thread. If you believe in a God then you must be able to prove it. Free speech or going off the subject is frowned upon.

Gary, Hazel, ..."
Answer the questions you are asked. Provide evidence to support your position. Troll.