Before I continue to my main point, I will address a few things which were said since my last post.

My religion does not tell me or anyone to kill non-believers. In fact the Quran specifically forbids killing anyone on the basis of their beliefs.

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (Quran 5:32)

There is a death penalty in Islam for murder, and for treason, and it is allowed to kill in a war, but it also limits this to those who are fighting against you.

Sahih Al-Bukhari 4:258 (‘Alim)
Narrated Ibn Umar
“During some of the battles of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.”

This is very unfortunate that some Muslims do not follow their own religion's rules.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors." (Quran 2:190)

The Quran clearly limits war to situations where others have attacked, or committed great injustice. It does not allow Muslims to go starting wars. You will find many people (even some Muslims) quoting the Quran out of context, showing that it supports a very violent agenda. Remember what I said about it explaining itself. It always explains that the other people being fought against are the aggressors, i.e. they attacked. I don't think there's a country existing that has forbidden itself from conducting a defensive war.

My main point is this: I have been listening to you people. Since coming to this forum, I have read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I am now a few chapters into 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin. You like to picture me as someone who closes his eyes and ears, just in case he might hear something that disproves his faith. It's not true, I started off as an agnostic.

I am telling you that the Quran is the proof you are looking for. How have you responded? By telling me it's fairy tales, without even reading it... very scientific.

I could treat your arguments the same way, it would sound like this:

Atheist: Charles Darwin wrote about evolution, he proved that animals evolved slowly over time.

Me: Charles Darwin wrote children's fairy tales! Your a fool.

Atheist: No, really, read his book, it's really true...

Me: I will not waste my time reading nonsense! Your a fool!

You want evidence, but you're not willing to look at it when I've given it. What would you like the evidence to look like?

You keep telling me to look at today's science... I do read about today's science. I don't have a problem with it. Again you are assuming that it contradicts my beliefs, but it doesn't.

Another thing, I said that the science examples were 'evidence' that the Quran is a book of truth. I did not say 'It is a book of truth, therefore it is true'

The verses of the Quran are not written in a way which can be interpreted any old way. I agree, some of the explanations from "http://www.quranandscience.com" are not that clear, which is why I started with the one about mountains.

The Quran described mountains as 'pegs'. What is unclear about this? This implies that they reach deep into the ground, like a peg is set with most of it's body under the ground. Instead of responding to the example I gave, you responded that the website was not good enough. I even warned you against making this assumption



It seems like no one even read about the Muslim scientist who described a theory similar to evolution 1000 years before Charles Darwin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz

Now I will step back, and admit something I have gotten wrong (strange for a religious person?) I think Lukas mentioned that they did not teach any theories of how life began in science class, so why should they teach intelligent design.

I was not aware of this point. In my science classes in the USA, they taught us that life evolved from some ancient mixture of amino acids and lightning, and sited the 'Miller-Urey' experiments as 'proof'.

The problem with these experiments is that they used ammonia as a base ingredient. Ammonia is a byproduct of decaying organic matter, so it would not have been present in the earth's atmosphere without life having already been there.

There's nothing wrong with such experiments, but they have not come close to proving that life generated spontaneously out of inorganic chemicals. This is why science is still coming up with different theories, the Miller-Urey experiment didn't prove anything. Yet it was still used to 'prove' to young impressionable kids that life was generated randomly.

In this situation, I would have appreciated them giving other theories, and mentioning 'intelligent design' as one. Your teacher seems more unwilling to site flimsy experiments as 'proof' that there is no need for God, and perhaps that is a better approach.