Welcome to The Islamic Forum

We are pretty sure you will enjoy your stay wih us here

We welcome all people from around the world, regardless of their faith system.

Our discussions cover a wide range of topics.

So, what do you want to discuss today?

 

Jump to content

     

Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

The Documentary That Convince Atheists To Believe In God


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#21 andalusi

andalusi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:04 PM

Oh your back with your video's :)

You still havent learned anything i see :(


then you can teach me maybe :)

the funny thing is here, when i post scientific evidence of God's creation, not atheist explain how nature create natural engines with fuel, darwinism does not explain that, but what can they do , yes they can say, propaganda, brainwashing, but never explaing how natural engines can be created by nature(wich does not have brain nor intelect)...

The problem with you atheists that you dont think deep here, but my advcie to you is, think think and think again...;)


God says to you in quran:

19:67 Does man not remember that before We created him he was nothing?

We created you, why will you not believe!
Have you thought about the sperm that you ejaculate?
Do you create it, or We are its creator?


DO YOU CREATE MOTOR IN SPERM CELLS WITH PROPELLER, AND STATOR, AND ROTOR, AND FUEL FOR IT? DO YOU???


God says in quran:

16:38 They(unbelievers) have sworn by God with their strongest oaths that He will not raise the dead to life. But He will- it is His binding promise, though most people do not realize it-

39 in order to make clear for them what they have differed about and so that the disbelievers may realize that what they said was false.

40 When We will something to happen, all that We say is, ‘Be,’ and it is.


#22 StopS

StopS

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:12 PM

i tell you why when you explain to me how nature can create an enigine with rotor, stator, propeller, fuel and all other parts like you can see in those sperm and bacteria cell


Enter evolution flagellum into a search engine and you get >100000 answers and explanations.
Example: http://www.millerand...n2/article.html

When anti-evolutionary arguments featuring the bacterial flagellum rose into prominence, beginning with the 1996 publication of Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996a), they were predicated upon the assertion that each of the protein components of the flagellum were crafted, in a single act of design, to fit the specific purpose of the flagellum. The flagellum was said to be unevolvable since the entire complex system had to be assembled first in order to produce any selectable biological function. This claim was broadened to include all complex biological systems, and asserted further that science would never find an evolutionary pathway to any of these systems. After all, it hadn't so far, at least according to one of "design's" principal advocates:


There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. (Behe 1996a, 185)


As many critics of intelligent design have pointed out, that statement is simply false. Consider, as just one example, the Krebs cycle, an intricate biochemical pathway consisting of nine enzymes and a number of cofactors that occupies center stage in the pathways of cellular metabolism. The Krebs cycle is "real," "complex," and "biochemical." Does it also present a problem for evolution? Apparently yes, according to the authors of a 1996 paper in the Journal of Molecular evolution, who wrote:


"The Krebs cycle has been frequently quoted as a key problem in the evolution of living cells, hard to explain by Darwin’s natural selection: How could natural selection explain the building of a complicated structure in toto, when the intermediate stages have no obvious fitness functionality? (Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)


Where intelligent design theorists throw up their hands and declare defeat for evolution, however, these researchers decided to do the hard scientific work of analyzing the components of the cycle, and seeing if any of them might have been selected for other biochemical tasks. What they found should be a lesson to anyone who asserts that evolution can only act by direct selection for a final function. In fact, nearly all of the proteins of the complex cycle can serve different biochemical purposes within the cell, making it possible to explain in detail how they evolved:


In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete design was a very clear case of opportunism. . . . the Krebs cycle was built through the process that Jacob (1977) called ‘‘evolution by molecular tinkering,’’ stating that evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists. The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells." (Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

Since this paper appeared, a study based on genomic DNA sequences has confirmed the validity of this approach (Huynen, Dandekar, and Bork 1999). By contrast, how would intelligent design have approached the Krebs Cycle? Using Dembski's calculations as our guide, we would first determine the amino acid sequences of each of the proteins of the cycle, and then calculate the probability of their spontaneous assembly. When this is done, an origination probability of less than 10 -400 is the result. Therefore, the result of applying "design" as a predictive science would have told both groups of researchers that their ultimately successful studies would have been fruitless, since the probability of spontaneous assembly falls below the "universal probability bound."
We already know, however, the reason that such calculations fail. They carry a built-in assumption that the component parts of a complex biochemical system have no possible functions beyond the completely assembled system itself. As we have seen, this assumption is false. The Krebs cycle researchers knew better, of course, and were able to produce two important studies describing how a real, complex, biochemical system might have evolved – the very thing that design theorists once claimed did not exist in the scientific literature.


to give proof to people like you that there is a God


So you think that quoting a crazy Christian is proof? For which god?


whaaaaaaaaaaaat, what propaganda man, are you joking with me, this is scientific stuff


No, this is pseudo-science, used by someone, you, who has zero idea of what science is. I have shown this to you so many times, why don't you stop this nonsense???

God says:

19:67 Does man not remember that before We created him he was nothing?


No, you are not stating facts.

A sperm is not "created from nothing". The Koran does not mention sperm or embryology.

All you are doing is making a copy of what Christians have said and what has been disproved long ago.

#23 AHMAD_73

AHMAD_73

    Advanced Member

  • IF Guardians
  • 1,188 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:EGYPT
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:52 PM

i tell you why when you explain to me how nature can create an enigine with rotor, stator, propeller, fuel and all other parts like you can see in those sperm and bacteria cell

Sure, nature can't create a sewing needle and sting, but even if we assume that it can create an engine composed of 1000s of fine accurate tollerence parts and assume that it can assemble every tiny part in its perfect place, and assume that it supplied it with the proper fuel, and assume that it got the operating and maintaining manulas and operate it,......ETC, still it's can't move, it can rotate in place while can't move like bacteria.
it still in urgent need to the other specialized nature in transmission to provide a matched one and the structure nature to provide the chasite and structure and suspenssion and wheels and ....and ...and....

Have you ever seen that wind, fire, water, and dust create a car engine in nature like above? i dont think so, so who creted those motors in sperms and bacteria cells in the first place? did nature constructed it without having an intelect or brain?

not wind, it may distruct New Orliens but not to build a single seat
not fire as well, it's only used by the nature superstusious people to do whatever
water!!! depends on its purity
dust, no, not dust, sure, the nature have to build a durst free area first. the first step in creation, nature have to isolate an enclosed dust free facility, tons of masks, white jackets, head covers,.......every anti-dust measurments, before even think about the first imagenery prototype layout ideas.

then nature can create every thing, sure, not even a single doubt in that, can't you see!!!

#24 andalusi

andalusi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:22 PM

Enter evolution flagellum into a search engine and you get >100000 answers and explanations.
Example: http://www.millerand...n2/article.html

When anti-evolutionary arguments featuring the bacterial flagellum rose into prominence, beginning with the 1996 publication of Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996a), they were predicated upon the assertion that each of the protein components of the flagellum were crafted, in a single act of design, to fit the specific purpose of the flagellum. The flagellum was said to be unevolvable since the entire complex system had to be assembled first in order to produce any selectable biological function. This claim was broadened to include all complex biological systems, and asserted further that science would never find an evolutionary pathway to any of these systems. After all, it hadn't so far, at least according to one of "design's" principal advocates:


There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. (Behe 1996a, 185)


As many critics of intelligent design have pointed out, that statement is simply false. Consider, as just one example, the Krebs cycle, an intricate biochemical pathway consisting of nine enzymes and a number of cofactors that occupies center stage in the pathways of cellular metabolism. The Krebs cycle is "real," "complex," and "biochemical." Does it also present a problem for evolution? Apparently yes, according to the authors of a 1996 paper in the Journal of Molecular evolution, who wrote:


"The Krebs cycle has been frequently quoted as a key problem in the evolution of living cells, hard to explain by Darwin’s natural selection: How could natural selection explain the building of a complicated structure in toto, when the intermediate stages have no obvious fitness functionality? (Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)


Where intelligent design theorists throw up their hands and declare defeat for evolution, however, these researchers decided to do the hard scientific work of analyzing the components of the cycle, and seeing if any of them might have been selected for other biochemical tasks. What they found should be a lesson to anyone who asserts that evolution can only act by direct selection for a final function. In fact, nearly all of the proteins of the complex cycle can serve different biochemical purposes within the cell, making it possible to explain in detail how they evolved:


In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete design was a very clear case of opportunism. . . . the Krebs cycle was built through the process that Jacob (1977) called ‘‘evolution by molecular tinkering,’’ stating that evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists. The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells." (Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

Since this paper appeared, a study based on genomic DNA sequences has confirmed the validity of this approach (Huynen, Dandekar, and Bork 1999). By contrast, how would intelligent design have approached the Krebs Cycle? Using Dembski's calculations as our guide, we would first determine the amino acid sequences of each of the proteins of the cycle, and then calculate the probability of their spontaneous assembly. When this is done, an origination probability of less than 10 -400 is the result. Therefore, the result of applying "design" as a predictive science would have told both groups of researchers that their ultimately successful studies would have been fruitless, since the probability of spontaneous assembly falls below the "universal probability bound."
We already know, however, the reason that such calculations fail. They carry a built-in assumption that the component parts of a complex biochemical system have no possible functions beyond the completely assembled system itself. As we have seen, this assumption is false. The Krebs cycle researchers knew better, of course, and were able to produce two important studies describing how a real, complex, biochemical system might have evolved – the very thing that design theorists once claimed did not exist in the scientific literature.




So you think that quoting a crazy Christian is proof? For which god?




No, this is pseudo-science, used by someone, you, who has zero idea of what science is. I have shown this to you so many times, why don't you stop this nonsense???



No, you are not stating facts.

A sperm is not "created from nothing". The Koran does not mention sperm or embryology.

All you are doing is making a copy of what Christians have said and what has been disproved long ago.


let me ask you in simple language, who had motor before sperm and bacteria cells? so it could evolve to what we have today...nobody.



A sperm is not "created from nothing".


where was sperm before big bang? it was nothing...



The Koran does not mention sperm or embryology.


whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

are you kidding me.

what is this?

Quran
16:4 He created man from a drop of sperm and yet he is an open challenger!


or embryology


what is this then

http://www.islam-gui...frm-ch1-1-a.htm

#25 andalusi

andalusi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:24 PM

So you think that quoting a crazy Christian is proof?


whaaaaat are you talking about, this is islamic forum not christian forum. it has nothing to do with christianity.

For which god?


there is only one God, there is no "wich" God.

#26 StopS

StopS

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:06 AM

let me ask you in simple language, who had motor before sperm and bacteria cells? so it could evolve to what we have today...nobody.


I have no idea what you are asking. It is a nonsensical question. "Who had motor"? Answer: the Japanese. "Before sperm and bacteria cells"? Answer: the Italians. "It could evolve". What? from what? Into what? "Nobody"????? Look, I have given you perfectly good advice before: stay away from science and biology.

where was sperm before big bang? it was nothing...


You are embarrassingly ignorant of anything biological.


whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

are you kidding me.

what is this?

Quran
16:4 He created man from a drop of sperm and yet he is an open challenger!

what is this then

http://www.islam-gui...frm-ch1-1-a.htm



What this is? I have no idea. Probably some illiterate 7-year-old pretending to make drawings. And then garble up some texts.

It has nothing in common with what I would recognise as embryology.

16:4 He hath created man from a drop of fluid

Where in the Koran do you find the word sperm or gamete or spermatozoon? This is all about creation, not embryology.

#27 StopS

StopS

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:16 AM

whaaaaat are you talking about, this is Islamic forum not christian forum. it has nothing to do with christianity.


Thank you for this amazingly useless information.

You are quoting Behe or Craig or whatever, all Christian apologists and all are - in my eyes at least - totally crazy.
Christians like Behe or Craig think they provide proof for their god: Jesus. And you quote them.
So my question is: which god are you proving to be correct when you apply arguments developed by Christians? If a bacteria should prove to be irreducibly complex or designed, would that prove Jesus correct or Allah?

there is only one God, there is no "wich" God.


Why do you insult Hindus, Zoroastrians, Taoists, Rastafarians and all other believers? They all believe in different gods.

#28 StopS

StopS

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 20 April 2012 - 10:11 PM

Well, I suppose that settles it.

#29 andalusi

andalusi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 21 April 2012 - 10:22 AM

Thank you for this amazingly useless information.

You are quoting Behe or Craig or whatever, all Christian apologists and all are - in my eyes at least - totally crazy.
Christians like Behe or Craig think they provide proof for their god: Jesus. And you quote them.
So my question is: which god are you proving to be correct when you apply arguments developed by Christians? If a bacteria should prove to be irreducibly complex or designed, would that prove Jesus correct or Allah?



Why do you insult Hindus, Zoroastrians, Taoists, Rastafarians and all other believers? They all believe in different gods.



You are quoting Behe or Craig or whatever, all Christian apologists and all are - in my eyes at least - totally crazy.


i dont know what they are, but if they have information wich i can use for islamic purpose i use it then, even if it was info from Satan himself.


Christians like Behe or Craig think they provide proof for their god: Jesus. And you quote them.


then they are deluded, beacuse Jesus is not God, even according to bible


So my question is: which god are you proving to be correct when you apply arguments developed by Christians? If a bacteria should prove to be irreducibly complex or designed, would that prove Jesus correct or Allah?


this God





Why do you insult Hindus, Zoroastrians, Taoists, Rastafarians and all other believers? They all believe in different gods


beacuse God says in quran He is only one God, of all people, there is no other gods than HIm.

#30 StopS

StopS

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 21 April 2012 - 02:06 PM

beacuse God says in quran He is only one God, of all people, there is no other gods than HIm.


Which god?



Your god is the god of Muslims who wrote the Koran. You believe this.

But 80% of the world's population disagree with you. That is what reality says.

This thread is about something that makes atheists believe in the existence of a god. So far, you have not managed anything but special pleading and appeals to emotion. You have not managed to bring up anything based on facts. You have shown that you blindly copy/paste all sorts of nonsense from the Harun Yahya website and don't even understand what you are copying.

Isn't it time you started thinking about what you are trying to do and how you are trying to do it?

#31 andalusi

andalusi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 21 April 2012 - 10:30 PM

Which god?



Your god is the god of Muslims who wrote the Koran. You believe this.

But 80% of the world's population disagree with you. That is what reality says.

This thread is about something that makes atheists believe in the existence of a god. So far, you have not managed anything but special pleading and appeals to emotion. You have not managed to bring up anything based on facts. You have shown that you blindly copy/paste all sorts of nonsense from the Harun Yahya website and don't even understand what you are copying.

Isn't it time you started thinking about what you are trying to do and how you are trying to do it?


did you ever read quran?

#32 StopS

StopS

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 21 April 2012 - 11:40 PM

did you ever read quran?


Do you still have no idea who I am? Do you ask a question after you do some research on who you are talking to or do you pretend you have no knowledge of anything?

#33 EasternQibla

EasternQibla

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nottingham, UK
  • Religion: Christianity

Posted 22 April 2012 - 06:08 AM

Just jumping in - isn't it clear that no matter what points are brought forward such topics like this (god vs. no god) are going to go on and on without reaching any agreement? And both sides asking the other to do more research and to open up ... (!)

The true difference between believing in god or not believing is merely an emotional state. It is necessary to address this first. (That is why these ‘debates’ go on and on, each trying to force the other to open up emotionally, except that this rarely happens)

Given any piece of evidence for or against any intelligent designer, it will be interpreted by someone’s prior emotional attachment.

Two minor points on ‘theism’ and ‘atheism’:

To say that you believe in god SOLELY based on physical evidence is a very poor level of faith in god. Properly speaking, the existence of our Creator is known from deep within our being, but we have to find this by opening up our hearts to love our neighbour as ourselves. Without doing this, our faith in god will be skewed. To quote from a ‘holy book’ (Bible or Quran) is pretty pointless, unless you accept the superstitious belief that quoting from it will magically force your god to act upon the reader.

There is divine truth in atheism. Consider this emotive line of reasoning: If there is a god then god is all loving (else why bother to create?). Eternal punishment is said to exist (and there is certainly much pain in this life), so therefore god cannot be all loving because he clearly is not trying to stop pain nor will he end the eternal torment. Therefore god cannot exist. If such a person thinks like this BUT keeps an open heart towards his fellow human, I say he will be accepted on the Last Day: “Well done, you good and faithful servant, because you refused to ascribe evil intentions to me - even if this caused you to disbelieve in me - yet by loving your fellow human as best you could you showed true devotion to me”. I guess about 3% of the time, it could be better for people to be atheists than to believe in a god who desires some of his creation to suffer eternally (as some on this forum believe …).


The whole debate should not be about whether there is a god or not, but whether we are encouraged to love our fellow human – and that means also trying not to give in to emotions which may cause us to slander someone else’s beliefs.

Right, I’ve said my bit, you can throw e-stones at me now …

Richard

#34 andalusi

andalusi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 22 April 2012 - 01:59 PM

Do you still have no idea who I am? Do you ask a question after you do some research on who you are talking to or do you pretend you have no knowledge of anything?


how can you discuss with me if you dont know what argument i have in my hands, if you are an atheist and you come to islamic forum, you should have read quran in the frist place and then come here to discuss with us what we have.

#35 StopS

StopS

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 22 April 2012 - 02:58 PM

Right, I’ve said my bit, you can throw e-stones at me now …


Well, all you get from me are e-Kudos.....

Andalusi is frantically copying all sorts of things from Harun Yahya and all I'm trying to do is show how this is nonsense. Any god is based on faith and there is no way to prove the existence of one, least of all using Kalam or KCA or anything picked up from Harun Yahya.

#36 andalusi

andalusi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:37 PM

Well, all you get from me are e-Kudos.....

Andalusi is frantically copying all sorts of things from Harun Yahya and all I'm trying to do is show how this is nonsense. Any god is based on faith and there is no way to prove the existence of one, least of all using Kalam or KCA or anything picked up from Harun Yahya.


Any god is based on faith and there is no way to prove the existence of one


yes based on faith with logical evidence for his existence

#37 Padre5

Padre5

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upper Connecticut River Valley in New Hampshire
  • Interests:Politics, religion, the Boston Red Sox, my family and wine.
  • Religion: Atheism

Posted 23 April 2012 - 12:19 AM

Sorry, but this is utter rubbish. It just convinces me of what I have already concluded; belief in any god is delusional!
There is no creature up there, somewhere, talking to us. Never has been, never will be!

#38 andalusi

andalusi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:51 AM

Sorry, but this is utter rubbish. It just convinces me of what I have already concluded; belief in any god is delusional!
There is no creature up there, somewhere, talking to us. Never has been, never will be!


the how caused tyhis universe to exist? if it was not God

How created those motors in bacteria and spermcells?

How can nature give you brain and intelect and nature itself does not have it?

Do you think you are here without any purpose? that maybe even a spike in a chair has purpose and you as human being dont have it?


The Messenger described the questioning in a speech reported by Imam Muslim that the prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) said: "Allah (S.W.T.) will meet a person and ask him: "O person, Wasn't I generous with you, and made you with a spouse, and made the horses and camels at your disposal? The servant will reply "yes"! Allah (S.W.T.) will then ask “Did you think that you will meet me?” He will reply: "No!" Allah (S.W.T.) will say: "I will forget you like you forgot me"! Then Allah (S.W.T.) will meet another person and his reply will be the same as the first person. Then Allah (S.W.T.) will meet a third person and will ask similar questions, and the person's reply will be: "O Lord I believed in you, in your books, and in your messengers. I prayed, I fasted, and I gave charity. And he will praise Allah as much as he can. Allah (S.W.T.) will say: "Hold on to your words, Now we will bring the witnesses. The person will ask himself “Who will testify against me?” Then that persons mouth will be sealed, and his thighs, flesh and bones will be asked to speak. They will speak about his bad deeds. He will know that he has no excuse. That is the hypocrite Allah (S.W.T.) will be furious with!”

#39 andalusi

andalusi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 23 April 2012 - 07:52 AM

the who caused this universe to exist? if it was not God

Who created those motors in bacteria and spermcells?

How can nature give you brain and intelect and nature itself does not have it?

Do you think you are here without any purpose? that maybe even a spike in a chair has purpose and you as human being dont have it?

The Messenger described the questioning in a speech reported by Imam Muslim that the prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) said: "Allah (S.W.T.) will meet a person and ask him: "O person, Wasn't I generous with you, and made you with a spouse, and made the horses and camels at your disposal? The servant will reply "yes"! Allah (S.W.T.) will then ask “Did you think that you will meet me?” He will reply: "No!" Allah (S.W.T.) will say: "I will forget you like you forgot me"! Then Allah (S.W.T.) will meet another person and his reply will be the same as the first person. Then Allah (S.W.T.) will meet a third person and will ask similar questions, and the person's reply will be: "O Lord I believed in you, in your books, and in your messengers. I prayed, I fasted, and I gave charity. And he will praise Allah as much as he can. Allah (S.W.T.) will say: "Hold on to your words, Now we will bring the witnesses. The person will ask himself “Who will testify against me?” Then that persons mouth will be sealed, and his thighs, flesh and bones will be asked to speak. They will speak about his bad deeds. He will know that he has no excuse. That is the hypocrite Allah (S.W.T.) will be furious with!”

#40 andalusi

andalusi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:19 AM

THE FINE TUNING IN THE UNIVERSE

He Who created the seven heavens in layers. You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again-do you see any gaps? Then look again and again. Your sight will return to you dazzled and exhausted! (Qur'an, 67:3-4)

Do you not see how He created seven heavens in layers? (Qur'an, 71:15)

He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. (Qur'an, 25:2)

Materialist philosophy emerged with the claim that all the systems in nature and the universe were like machines that functioned on their own, that the flawless order and balance within them were the work of chance. However, today, the false nature of materialism and of Darwinism, its so-called scientific foundation, has been scientifically demonstrated. (See Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit, 8th ed., Taha Publishers, 2004 and Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Books, 2003.)

The scientific discoveries of the 20th century that followed swiftly, one after the other, in the fields of astrophysics and biology have proved that life and the universe were created. As the theses of Darwinism collapsed, the Big Bang theory has shown that the universe was created from nothing. Discoveries have revealed that there is a great design and fine-tuning in the material world and this has categorically demonstrated the groundless nature of the claims of materialism.

Considering the conditions necessary for life, we see that only the Earth meets these particular conditions. For an environment suitable for life, there are innumerable conditions taking place simultaneously and unceasingly all around us. There are some hundred billion galaxies, each with-on average-a hundred billion stars. In all the galaxies, there are perhaps as many planets as stars.8 In the face of such overpowering numbers, one can better comprehend the significance of the formation of such an exceptional environment on the Earth.

From the force of the Big Bang explosion to the physical values of atoms, from the levels of the four basic forces to the chemical processes in the stars, from the type of light emitted by the Sun to the level of viscosity of water, from the distance of the Moon to the Earth to the level of gases in the atmosphere, from the Earth's distance from the Sun to its angle of tilt to its orbit, and from the speed at which the Earth revolves around its own axis to the functions of the oceans and mountains on the Earth: every single detail is ideally suited to our lives. Today, the world of science describes these features by means of the concepts of the "Anthropic Principle" and "Fine-Tuning." These concepts summarise the way that the universe is not an aimless, uncontrolled, chance collection of matter but that it has a purpose directed towards human life and has been designed with the greatest precision.

Attention is drawn in the above verses to the measure and harmony in Allah's creation. The word "taqdeeran," meaning "to design, measure, create by measuring," is employed in Qur'anic verses such as Surat al-Furqan 2. The word "tibaqan," meaning "in harmony," is used in Surat al-Mulk 3 and Surah Nuh 15. Furthermore, Allah also reveals in Surat al-Mulk with the word "tafawutin," meaning "disagreement, violation, non-conformity, disorder, opposite," that those who seek disharmony will fail to find it.

The term "fine-tuning," which began to be used towards the end of the 20th century, represents this truth revealed in the verses. Over the last quarter-century or so, a great many scientists, intellectuals and writers have shown that the universe is not a collection of coincidences. On the contrary, it has an extraordinary design and order ideally suited to human life in its every detail. (See Harun Yahya, The Creation of the Universe, Al-Attique Publishers, November 2002 and A Chain of Miracles, Global Publishing, May 2004.) Many features in the universe clearly show that the universe has been specially designed to support life. The physicist Dr. Karl Giberson expresses this fact thus:

In the 1960s, some physicists observed that our universe appears to have been fine-tuned for the existence of human life. 9

The British astrophysicist Professor George F. Ellis refers to this fine-tuning in these terms:

Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word "miraculous" without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word. 10

The speed of the Big Bang explosion:

The balances established with the Big Bang, the instantaneous formation of the universe, are one of the proofs that the universe did not come into being by chance. According to the well-known Adelaide University professor of mathematical physics Paul Davies, if the rate of expansion that took place following the Big Bang had been just one in a billion billion parts different (1/1018), the universe could not have come into being.11 In his book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking recognises this extraordinary precision in the universe's rate of expansion:

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. 12

The Four Forces:

All physical motion in the universe comes about thanks to the interaction and equilibrium of the four forces recognised by modern physics: gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. These forces possess extraordinarily different values to one another. Michael Denton, the famous molecular biologist, describes the extraordinary equilibrium among these forces thus:

If, for example, the gravitational force was a trillion times stronger, then the universe would be far smaller and its life history far shorter. An average star would have a mass a trillion times less than the sun and a life span of about one year. On the other hand, if gravity had been less powerful, no stars or galaxies would have ever formed. The other relationships and values are no less critical. If the strong force had been just slightly weaker, the only element that would be stable would be hydrogen. No other atoms could exist. If it had been slightly stronger in relation to electromagnetism, then an atomic nucleus consisting of only two protons would be a stable feature of the universe-which would mean there would be no hydrogen, and if any stars or galaxies evolved, they would be very different from the way they are. Clearly, if these various forces and constants did not have precisely the values they do, there would be no stars, no supernovae, no planets, no atoms, no life. 13

The Distances between Celestial Bodies:

The distribution of celestial bodies in space and the enormous spaces between them are essential to the existence of life on Earth. The distances between celestial bodies have been set out in a calculation compatible with a great many powerful universal forces in such a way as to support life on Earth. In his book Nature's Destiny Michael Denton describes the distance between supernovae and stars:

The distances between supernovae and indeed between all stars is critical for other reasons. The distance between stars in our galaxy is about 30 million miles. If this distance was much less, planetary orbits would be destabilized. If it was much more, then the debris thrown out by a supernova would be so diffusely distributed that planetary systems like our own would in all probability never form. If the cosmos is to be a home for life, then the flickering of the supernovae must occur at a very precise rate and the average distance between them, and indeed between all stars, must be very close to the actual observed figure. 14

Gravity:

- If gravity were stronger, excessive ammonia and methane would collect in the Earth's atmosphere, which would have a most damaging effect on life.

- If it were weaker, the Earth's atmosphere would lose excessive quantities of water, making life impossible.

The Earth's Distance from the Sun:

- If this were any greater, the planet would grow very cold, the water cycle in the atmosphere would be affected, and the planet would enter an ice-age.

- If the Earth were any closer to the Sun, plants would burn up, the water cycle in the Earth's atmosphere would be irreparably damaged, and life would become impossible.-

The Thickness of the Earth's Crust:

- If the crust were any thicker, then an excessive amount of oxygen would be transferred to it from the atmosphere.
- If it were any thinner, the resulting amount of volcanic activity would make life impossible.

The Speed at which the Earth Revolves:

If this were any slower, the temperature difference between day and night would grow enormously.

-If it were any faster, then atmospheric winds would reach enormous speeds, and cyclones and storms would make life impossible.

The Earth's Magnetic Field:

- If this were any more powerful, very strong electromagnetic storms would arise.

- If it were any weaker, then the Earth would lose its protection against the harmful particles given off by the Sun and known as solar winds. Both situations would make life impossible.-

The Albedo Effect (Ratio between the amount of light the Earth reflects and the amount of light that is absorbed):

- If this were any greater, an ice-age would rapidly result.

- If it were any less, the greenhouse effect would lead to excessive warming. The Earth would first be flooded with the melting of the glaciers, and would then burn up.-

The Proportion of Oxygen and Nitrogen in the Atmosphere:

- If this were any greater, vital functions would be adversely accelerated.

- If it were any less, vital functions would adversely slow down.

The Proportion of Carbon Dioxide and Water in the Atmosphere:

- If this were any greater, the atmosphere would overheat.

- If it were any less, the temperature of the atmosphere would fall.

The Thickness of the Ozone Layer:

- If this were any greater, the Earth's temperature would fall enormously.

- If it were any less, the Earth would overheat and be defenceless against the harmful ultraviolet rays emitted by the Sun.

Seismic Activity (Earthquakes):

- If this were any greater, there would be constant upheaval for living things.

- If it were any less, the nutrients at the sea bottom would fail to spread into the water. This would have a damaging effect on life in the seas and oceans and all living things on Earth.-

The Earth's Angle of Tilt:

The Earth has a 23 degree angle of inclination to its orbit. It is this inclination that gives rise to the seasons. If this angle were any greater or any less than it is now, the temperature difference between the seasons would reach extreme dimensions, with unbearably hot summers and bitterly cold winters.

The Size of the Sun:

A smaller star than the Sun would mean the Earth would freeze and a larger star would lead to its burning up.

The Attraction between the Earth and the Moon:

- If this were any greater, the powerful attraction of the Moon would have extremely serious effects on atmospheric conditions, the speed at which the Earth revolves around its own axis and on the ocean tides.

- If it were any less, this would lead to extreme climate changes.-

The Distance between the Earth and the Moon:

- If they were just a little closer, the Moon would crash into the Earth.

- If they were any further, the Moon would become lost in space.

- If they were even a little closer, the Moon's effect on the Earth's tides would reach dangerous dimensions. Ocean waves would inundate low-lying areas. The friction emerging as a result of this would raise the temperature of the oceans and the sensitive temperature balance essential to life on Earth would disappear.

- If they were even a little further away, the tides would decrease, leading the oceans to be less mobile. Immobile water would endanger life in the seas, and the level of the oxygen we breathe would be endangered. 15

The Temperature of the Earth and Carbon-Based Life:

The existence of carbon, the basis of all life, depends on the temperature remaining within specific limits. Carbon is an essential substance for organic molecules such as amino-acid, nucleic acid and protein: These constitute the basis of life. For that reason, life can only be carbon-based. Given this, the existing temperature needs to be no lower than -20 degrees and no higher than 120 degrees Celsius. These are just the temperature limits on Earth.

These are just a few of the exceedingly sensitive balances which are essential for life on Earth to have emerged and to survive. Yet even these are sufficient to definitively reveal that the Earth and the universe could not have come into being as the result of a number of consecutive coincidences. The concepts of "fine-tuning" and the "anthropic principle" that began to be employed in the 20th century are further evidence of Allah's creation. The harmony and proportion therein were described with magnificent accuracy fourteen centuries ago in the Qur'an.


8. Carl Sagan, Cosmos (Avenel, NJ: Wings Books: April 1983), 5-7.
9. Karl Giberson, “The Anthropic Principle,” Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 9 (1997).
10. George F. Ellis, "The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments,” The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press: 1993), 30.
11. Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, 184.
12. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (London: Bantam Press: 1988), 121-125.
13. Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (New York: The Free Press: 1998), 12-13.
14. Ibid., 11.
15. http://www.pathlight.....htm#Elemental Forces