Jump to content
Islamic Forum
hamza81

Life Impossible Without A Creator-proof Of God

Recommended Posts

It is absolutley IMPOSSIBLE that the earth and the universe and everything it contains could have been created from thin air or randomly and without purpose. That is in itself unscientific aswell as inconcievable and unthinkable.

 

It is crystal clear for anyone who ponders and contemplates about life and the universe that EVERYTHING around us on the earth and in the universe is is created to support life and has a creator,designer,controller and regulator who has so perfectly and intricley and with absolute precision created EVERYTHING around us so in order for life to live and survive.

 

Here are just some of the countless proofs of the existance of a creator,regulator,designer,nourisher and sustainer of life and the universe and everything it contains!

 

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 was 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.

 

The Qur’an states:

 

The kingdom of the heavens and earth belongs to Allah. Allah has power over all things. In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are Signs for people with intelligence.

(Qur’an, 3:189-190)

 

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.

 

ORBITS AND THE ROTATING UNIVERSE

 

One of the most important reasons for the great equilibrium in the universe is the fact that celestial bodies follow specific paths. Stars, planets and satellites rotate around their own axes and also rotate together within the system of which they are a part of.

 

The universe functions within a finely-tuned order, just like the wheels in a factory.

 

There are more than 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe and each small galaxy contains approximately a billion stars. Furthermore, each big galaxy contains more than a trillion. Many of these stars have planets and many of those planets have satellites. All these celestial bodies follow the most finely calculated paths and orbits. For millions of years, each one has been moving in its own path in flawless harmony with all the others. In addition to these, there are also a great many comets moving along in their own pre-determined paths.

 

In addition, the paths in the universe are not restricted to a few celestial bodies. The Solar System and even other galaxies also exhibit considerable motion around other centres. Every year, Earth, and the Solar System with it, move some 500 million km from where they were the previous year. It has been calculated that even the slightest deviation from celestial bodies' paths could have drastic consequences which might spell the end of the entire system. For example, the consequences of the earth's deviating from its course by a mere 3 mm have been described in one source as follows:

 

While rotating around the sun, the earth follows such an orbit that, every 18 miles; it only deviates 2.8 millimetres from a direct course. The orbit followed by the earth never changes, because even a deviation of 3 millimetres would cause catastrophic disasters: If the deviation were 2.5 mm instead of 2.8 mm, then the orbit would be very large, and all of us would freeze. If the deviation were 3.1 mm, we would be scorched to death.

 

Another characteristic of heavenly bodies is that they also rotate around their own axes. The verse which reads "[i swear] by Heaven with its cyclical systems," (Qur'an, 86:11) indicates this truth.

 

Naturally, at the time when the Qur'an was revealed, people had no telescopes with which to study bodies millions of kilometres away in space, advanced observation technology or our modern knowledge of physics and astronomy. It was therefore impossible to establish that space had "its oscillating orbits," (Qur'an, 51:7) as described in the verse. The Qur'an however, revealed at that time, provided clear information concerning that fact. This is proof that this book is indeed Allah's Word.

 

 

He is the master of the universe the almighty self sufficient most compassionate most merciful and sustainer of all life and without him we would be no more. Ponder and think to yourself look around you and you will realise that all life and everything around you is proof of his existance.Ask of him with sincerity to show you signs and i promise you he will in some way or another and if you fail to see it then it is only your own ignorance and pride that is preventing you from wanting to believe his signs.Be open and ask of him with humility and sincerity and he WILL show you sings and the truth!

 

"It is We Who have created you. Why, then, do you not accept the truth? Have you ever considered that (seed) which you emit? Is it you who create it? Or are We the Creator?"

(The Qur'an, 56:57-59)

 

 

"Does man reckon he will be left uncontrolled (without purpose)? Was he not once a drop of ejected semen?"

(The Qur'an, 75:36-37)

 

Source used for my article: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmiraclesofthequran(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmiraclesofthequran(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php[/url]

Edited by hamza81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Abu Hamza, none of this is evidence of a creator. All it is saying is that things are as they are. Of course we have the correct conditions for our life on this planet - we evolved to fit them. And life's requirements changed as conditions changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course we have the correct conditions for our life on this planet - we evolved to fit them. And life's requirements changed as conditions changed.

 

:sl: Melliodora, so living things mutate uniformily and with extreme wisdom to match their environment? What is the guiding force for that? I think we both can agree that it is unanimous in science that nothing and no effect happens without an applied force. Even gravity bothered Einstein because it was "pulling" until he developed the warped space theory that "pushes" objects towards each other. So what drives the mutation? As a matter of fact, before the instinct of survival kicked in (a complex multi-cellular organism feature), why do you suppose "Life" was trying to make it anyway? And I think you will find that I asked this last question elsewhere as well: Why is it that this amazing mutative ability does not conquer the one and most destructive true ailment of life: reversal of growth and repair tendency at a certain age for all living things, leading to certain death, even though biochemically there is no barrier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:sl: Melliodora, so living things mutate uniformily and with extreme wisdom to match their environment? What is the guiding force for that? I think we both can agree that it is unanimous in science that nothing and no effect happens without an applied force. Even gravity bothered Einstein because it was "pulling" until he developed the warped space theory that "pushes" objects towards each other. So what drives the mutation? As a matter of fact, before the instinct of survival kicked in (a complex multi-cellular organism feature), why do you suppose "Life" was trying to make it anyway? And I think you will find that I asked this last question elsewhere as well: Why is it that this amazing mutative ability does not conquer the one and most destructive true ailment of life: reversal of growth and repair tendency at a certain age for all living things, leading to certain death, even though biochemically there is no barrier?

 

No, there's no "wisdom" involved at all. If a species of bacteria (the planet's dominant life-form for billions of years) finds that the planet is suddenly too hot or too cold for it to survive (which has happened many times), it becomes extinct. If some members of that species are not as affected by the change in temperature as others, those will be able to survive, and that species will have become a slightly different species.

 

There's no need to postulate intervention by a supernatural being, much less evidence of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, there's no "wisdom" involved at all. If a species of bacteria (the planet's dominant life-form for billions of years) finds that the planet is suddenly too hot or too cold for it to survive (which has happened many times), it becomes extinct. If some members of that species are not as affected by the change in temperature as others, those will be able to survive, and that species will have become a slightly different species.

 

There's no need to postulate intervention by a supernatural being, much less evidence of one.

 

Packham, you're denying that "wisdom" was involved, but you aren't really doing much to explain why it wasn't. You're explaining the steps without invalidating the argument that God is the creator.

 

What I'm getting from your post is that "it just does". "It just happens". Well, that's not enough of a counter-argument.

 

Secondly, please refrain from making such bold statements as "there is no wisdom involved". That is your opinion and on this forum, we would appreciate it if you do not state such things as fact.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Packham, you're denying that "wisdom" was involved, but you aren't really doing much to explain why it wasn't. You're explaining the steps without invalidating the argument that God is the creator.

 

What I'm getting from your post is that "it just does". "It just happens". Well, that's not enough of a counter-argument.

 

I have explained how it happens. But more importantly, if there is a viable explanaton of how something happens, and someone adds something extra (such as "wisdom"), it's up to them to explain how it works. How life has evolved is explainable (and verifiable) without the need to add an interventionist creator - in fact the way the whole universe has reached its current state is explainable without any need to propose a creator. More, there is no evidence for a creator. If there is, let's see it.

 

I can say "there is no wisdom involved" if no-one presents any evidence of this "wisdom" and I show that "wisdom" is not required, as in my bacteria example. It isn't merely my opinion, it is the current state of scientific knowledge.

 

edit - by the way, the OP to this thread begins: "It is absolutley IMPOSSIBLE that the earth and the universe and everything it contains could have been created from thin air or randomly and without purpose. That is in itself unscientific aswell as inconcievable and unthinkable.". You aren't bothered that that does not contain the phrase "in my opinion:"?

 

{Moderator note}

This post has violated forum rule #14. Action taken.

For more details, please read our (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?act=boardrules"]Forum Rules[/url].

Edited by Redeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Melliodora,

 

Please don't take this the wrong way, we're not attacking you or your views, you are free to have them, but since you are in this discussion then the debate continues.

 

Now, I asked three very specific questions, and since you seem to have attempted to answer only one, I may think you are actually then contemplating the others in your sub-consciense, because as you can see you did address them. But I think that you actually thought your answer covers everything, which pushes me to explain further.

 

What you are referring to is natural selection, that is NOT evolution. When a less adapted group of organisms die out of a change in environment and the stronger more adapted group thrive, you can say this is the way things are. What I was asking about and referring to in terms of wisdom is evolutionary claims that the MUTATION occurs haphazardly based on what works best, yet this enormous direct service to that organism required complex calculations and intention into that mutation to make it useful, so how can it be haphazardly? To stick to your example, it is ignorant to say that a single-cell organism is simply resistant to temperature out of "fortitude" of its tissue. A resistent bacteria actually exhibits complex changes to its inner workings, changes the number and intensity of its mitochondria and alters its cytoplasm while changing its membrane osmosis abilities while bringing down its own water needs and therefore metabolic activity, all in a precise balance that if not maintained the cell will fail out, and carries that across to its offspring. THAT is the wisdom that I am asking about and that its existence is plain to see, yet unexplained by your argument.

 

I KNOW that a trilubite with eyes function and live better than one without eyes, and will outlive it. But the question is: Where is the driving force and planning wisdom in directing cells to create a ball of transparent tissue, line the inside wall of one side with 11 layers of cells in precise order and function, lace it with complex photosensetive yet resistent biochemicals, and on the other side secrete and harden a lens out of gelatin that Carl Zeis would be proud of? Evidence shows trilubites had full functioning eyes, and those are the first generation of multi-cellular organisms.

 

Regarding the other two questions I asked, let me use your own example so as not to seem insistent on mine: You chose a single cell plant organism that survived for billions of years, ok. Why did the first generation of cells exist with full reproduction capability in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have explained how it happens.

 

But have you been able to refute that someone makes it happen? No, you haven't. You're using a lot of words to cover up the fact that although you are able to claim that there is no Divine force behind the creation of the universe, the only thing you have done is to point out the "science" of how the universe functions and use that as proof that God is not the creator.

 

Assume that you have dominos lined up outside. If the wind hits the first one, it will fall over and start a chain reaction.

 

Your case is of one who is explaining the process and claiming that since it happens the way it does, that means that "no wisdom" was responsible for arranging the dominos in the first place.

 

Yeah, that certainly is a solid argument!

 

I can say "there is no wisdom involved" if no-one presents any evidence of this "wisdom" and I show that "wisdom" is not required, as in my bacteria example. It isn't merely my opinion, it is the current state of scientific knowledge.

 

In other words, you're claiming that God didn't create the universe because there is no proof that He did. What a lacking argument. As for your bacteria example, refer to the dominos scenario.

 

You aren't bothered that that does not contain the phrase "in my opinion:"?

 

It might have something to do with the fact that those words do not break the forum rules. Yours do.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you are referring to is natural selection, that is NOT evolution.

 

Natural selection is the process by which evolution "works" (to use a misleadingly anthropomorphic term).

 

based on what workd best

 

You are misreperesenting evolution. No biologist claims that. Random mutation by definition isn't predictive or "for" anything. It just happens. Billions of mutations that are not useful or are actually harmful happen all the time. It's just a lucky coincidence when they are useful. You are also misprepreenting evolution when you say that mutation "required complex calculations and intention ... to make it useful". No biologist claims that.

 

I KNOW that a trilubite with eyes function and live better than one without eyes, and will outlive it. But the question is: Where is the driving force and planning wisdom in directing cells to create a ball of transparent tissue, line the inside wall of one side with 11 layers of cells in precise order and function, lace it with complex photosensetive yet resistent biochemicals, and on the other side secrete and harden a lens out of gelatin that Carl Zeis would be proud of? Evidence shows trilubites had full functioning eyes, and those are the first generation of multi-cellular organisms.

 

Trilobites were not the first multicellular organisms. They appeared billions of years after the first multi-cellular organisms appeared. Phototropism (from which eyes eventually evolved) was present a very long time before eyes appeared.

 

Regarding the other two questions I asked, let me use your own example so as not to seem insistent on mine: You chose a single cell plant organism that survived for billions of years, ok. Why did the first generation of cells exist with full reproduction capability in the first place?

 

The short answer is "because it did". However, you seem to be agreeing that once life appeared on earth its evolution can be explained by non-supernatural means. (Which is, I understand, a perfectly acceptable position for Muslims to hold, with the single exception of humans.) I don't agree that a supernatural being was neccessary to create the first amoeba, but I'm happy to leave the question of the appearance of life until later. What is certain is once the first amoeba existed chance and mutation explain all subsequent species.

 

I've said many times on other threads that as we do not and possibly cannot know what happened at the Big Bang, it's as valid to postulate that the BB was caused by a supernatural being as it is to postulate that it was caused by anything else. However, since the BB everything that has happened in the universe can be explained without the need to postulate intervention by a supernatural being.

Edited by melliodora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But have you been able to refute that someone makes it happen? No, you haven't. You're using a lot of words to cover up the fact that although you are able to claim that there is no Divine force behind the creation of the universe, the only thing you have done is to point out the "science" of how the universe functions and use that as proof that God is not the creator.

 

Actually, all I mean to say (apologies if I have not made this clear) is that there is neither evidence of a supernatural being nor the neccessity for the inclusion of a supernatural being in explanations of the universe post Big Bang.

 

Assume that you have dominos lined up outside. If the wind hits the first one, it will fall over and start a chain reaction.

 

Your case is of one who is explaining the process and claiming that since it happens the way it does, that means that "no wisdom" was responsible for arranging the dominos in the first place.

 

Your example assumes that the dominos were "arranged", thus you are assuming an outside intelligence in the example. So your example is not valid, as it requires that the point that you are trying to prove is accepted a priori. As a counter-example, if a tree falls over in a forest it will often bring down other trees and those other trees often bring down yet other trees (don't worry, the whole forest doesn't fall over as a falling tree can only bring down a tree smaller or weaker than itself). It is a chain reaction. Is it neccessary to postulate an outside intelligence to explain it? No.

 

In other words, you're claiming that God didn't create the universe because there is no proof that He did.

 

Yes, precisely. How could I believe in something for which there is no evidence? There is no evidence that Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe either. If there was evidence that Allah or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe of course I would believe that they had.

 

edit - by the way, there are two slightly different arguments happening here - whether or not a supernatural being created the universe, and whether or not a supernatural being has intervened in the universe since it has existed. As I said earlier, I have no problem with someone postulating that a supernatural being caused the Big Bang. I do have trouble - because of a total lack of evidence - with someone claiming that a supernatural being has subsequently intervened in the universe.

Edited by melliodora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, all I mean to say (apologies if I have not made this clear) is that there is neither evidence of a supernatural being nor the neccessity for the inclusion of a supernatural being in explanations of the universe post Big Bang.

 

If that was what you were trying to say, then my argument is not necessary. It sounded as though your goal was to present some sort of proof that God doesn't exist or that the universe was not Divinely inspired on the basis that the universe and everything within it run the way that they do. If however, that IS what you meant, then my point still stands.

 

Your example assumes that the dominos were "arranged", thus you are assuming an outside intelligence in the example.

 

No, I never made that assumption. I haven't even stated my beliefs or opinions on the issue of God's existence and His role in the universe. It's not necessary for me to.

 

The example was to show you that just because something can happen on its own (the toppling of each domino triggered by that of the previous), it does not automatically mean that there was no external influence on the dominos. Does it mean that there WAS external influence? It doesn't matter. That's beside the point.

 

As I said earlier, I have no problem with someone postulating that a supernatural being caused the Big Bang. I do have trouble - because of a total lack of evidence - with someone claiming that a supernatural being has subsequently intervened in the universe.

 

What do you mean by intervened? I'm guessing you don't mean created?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that was what you were trying to say, then my argument is not necessary. It sounded as though your goal was to present some sort of proof that God doesn't exist or that the universe was not Divinely inspired on the basis that the universe and everything within it run the way that they do. If however, that IS what you meant, then my point still stands.

 

If a supernatural being caused the Big Bang (before which the universe did not exist), it might be possible to argue that everything that followed from the Big Bang could not have happened in any way other than it did, and in that sense I have some sympathy for the view 'the universe happens the way it does because of a god'.

 

However there are some problems with that. Firstly, just because a god might have caused the BB does not mean that there is any evidence that a god chooses to intervene or not since the Big Bang. Secondly, if a god did cause the BB and the universe happens inevitably as it does, we are no further along the road of havng any proof of that god's intentions for humans (or WHICH god it was, or even if the god still exists). Thirdly, and unfortunately most importantly, I think (I'm not 100% sure) that current physics/mathematics says that it is not possible - no matter how much information is available - to have predicted exactly how the universe would turn out after the BB. This is partly because of the amount of information which would be required - I think there's some calculation that to hold all that information would require more energy/matter than exists - partly because genuinely random events DO occur at a sub-atomic level. By "genuinely random" I mean that they could not have been predicted by anyone/thing.

 

 

The example was to show you that just because something can happen on its own (the toppling of each domino triggered by that of the previous), it does not automatically mean that there was no external influence on the dominos.

 

Indeed not. The problem for theists is that we are unable to detect any supernatural forces, and we can identify the forces which do cause things to happen.

 

By 'intervened' I mean acted in any way. Everythng that has happened since a few micro-seconds after the BB can be explained non-supernaturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that necessarily means we have "proof" of a God. I think something CREATED us...and does that something watch over us? That's not so easy to answer, but I do for sure think that something has CREATED us, it's just hard to decide what makes that being a "God" or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that necessarily means we have "proof" of a God. I think something CREATED us...and does that something watch over us? That's not so easy to answer, but I do for sure think that something has CREATED us, it's just hard to decide what makes that being a "God" or not.

 

Just so we can define our terms a bit (which is always a major problem in this sort of discussion), at what point did this 'creation' happen? And to whom did it happen? I mean, is every ant individually 'created' by supernatural means, or did the supernatural being just set up the conditions by which all ants are hatched?

 

If the latter, at which point did the supernatural being just allow the system to run itself? After it had created the first pair of ants, or after it had created the first bacteria which would eventually evolve into ants? Or after it had created the solar system, which would eventually lead to the conditions where the first bateria would develop? Or after it had created time, space and energy, which would eventually become stars and planets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my personal opinion? I think this "creator" could have set the initial stage, therefore creating the universe and conditions which inhabit it, but after that I think things are left in our control. What do I mean by that? I believe our universe had to have been created somehow, by something (although I do not plan to know what) however that doesn't necessarily mean "God" is watching over us. Just because something created us, it doesn't meant it actively watches and governs us.

 

While I realize this is far-out...for all I know, we could have been created by aliens, (for the sake of the argument) and just because they created us, it doesn't necessarily mean they watch us, listen to our prayers, and have an active hand in our lives. What I'm getting at here is this: just because something CREATED us, it doesn't mean it's necessarily a "God" figure. To be a "God" figure implies that that it's omnipotent and and all knowing, yet we have no way of knowing if these properties fit our creator or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my personal opinion? I think this "creator" could have set the initial stage, therefore creating the universe and conditions which inhabit it, but after that I think things are left in our control. What do I mean by that? I believe our universe had to have been created somehow, by something (although I do not plan to know what) however that doesn't necessarily mean "God" is watching over us. Just because something created us, it doesn't meant it actively watches and governs us.

 

So are you saying that "created us" means "created the universe" (which preceded "us" by billions of years) and because we are a product of the universe, whatever caused the universe can also be said to have caused "us"?

 

I agree that there is no evidence about who or what caused the Big Bang (which was the beginning of the universe), so you could just as well argue that a god caused it as anything else. And I agree that there is no necessity (or evidence, for that matter) for a supernatural being having any involvement with the universe since then.

 

While I realize this is far-out...for all I know, we could have been created by aliens, (for the sake of the argument) and just because they created us, it doesn't necessarily mean they watch us, listen to our prayers, and have an active hand in our lives. What I'm getting at here is this: just because something CREATED us, it doesn't mean it's necessarily a "God" figure. To be a "God" figure implies that that it's omnipotent and and all knowing, yet we have no way of knowing if these properties fit our creator or not.

 

i agree. On a side-note, there was a hypothesis that life (ie single-cell organisms) arrived on earth via meterorites or comets, but I think (I'm not up on this) that it has been proven to be extremely unlikely. The current consensus is that life arose from chemical/physical reactions on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foxgarden, Melliodora, here you approach the area where you need to ask yourselves: If you agree that someone created us, and then sent us several messages describing that, why would it be refuted?! If you refute that, then you need evidence, don't you?

 

Look, your earlier argument was that there is no God and the World existed by co-incidence and the effects are just natural, which goes with your desire to see proof of the creator. But if you say that you believe some entity DID create the Universe, then you need some evidence to explain why would an entity be so powerful to create the Universe and set its physics, and then the cease of its existence! I mean you are saying "I think, could have, we don't know", sounds to me like lack of knowledge with no evidence, but somehow you think you should give it a higher value than proven knowledge?

 

It's like you live in a city, it has one corporation where everyone works. You walk in and are TOLD by an employee's handbook, signed and stamped by the board of directors, that all those who apply to work at HR department will get an automatic job, but they need to report to work at 9 everyday. It also says if you live in one of the company's houses you will owe rent and if you take food from the cantine you will need to settle the cheque at the end of the month, but not to worry because your job has a monthly salary.

 

Your response is like saying "No, I don't believe this corporation is being managed by this board, or any of that. It might have been created by one, but now for some reason it is just running on its own." Moreover, you are living in a company home, and you are taking food from the cantine. You get warned by your colleagues that this company's VERY existence is testament enough to a board of business men being behind it, and that there would be NO REASON for a group of business people to open a corporation and give away homes and food if the person is not doing what they are charged with, and your answer is that there is no proof of that. However, when they DO show you the employee handbook as the source of all this specific information, you simply say you don't believe in it. So you don't come at 9 am and you don't do any work, and you don't apply at HR.

 

What do you think will happen at the end of the month?

 

Moreover, how valuable will conjecture at what some of those people think the company was and what it's for, be to the other people who did read the book and therefore have an exact answer as to what the company is and why they're there? They can see very clearly a signature and stamp and can see that such an official document is being sent to every new employee and is addressed from "the board of directors", and includes particular information that can ONLY be known by the creators of the company. Meanwhile the first group of people decided to agree on the most convenient probability that it is a charity foundation, and that the employee handbook is from self-serving bad executives of the foundation who are trying to get something for themselves.

 

We live in a World that is impossible to have existed on its own, that much you subscribe to Melliodora, at the time of the Big Bang. We come to this World and find two things: a meticulously marvelously built Universe with amazing features showing incredible balance and harmony, and we find a book that has information that could not have been available to humans from that time and supported by mathematical statistics within to show that humans could not have written it. If you want to try and disprove, then go ahead, show me the proof that it is wrong and that the Universe is created on its own. Don't say we're the one with an outrageous claim and the ones who need further proof.

 

And Melliodora, even though life existed 3 billion years ago, evidence shows that diversity occured within 100 million years of the first sign of life, showing complete ecosystems and evidence of multicellular organisms. ANd as you yourself said, trilobites were not the first multi-cellular, so why depend on that whole "billions of years for bacteria to adjust to temperature" argument earlier? Even though, phototropism in itself is not something that is simple and can come up on its own!!! You think that detection of light, putting that feature on a spot on the outside, and then COMMUNICATING information related to that to the central brain is a simple mutation?

 

Regarding your claim of thousands of mutations occuring all the time, please tell me EVIDENCE of the last useful mutation that happened in the last 10000 years to humans?

 

Additionally, the atmosphere composition and Earth's temperature throughout the whole period was the same as it was today, averaged out that is to include ice age variations and slow warming eras. Also that same atmosphere composition "Oxygen and Nitrogen" would NOT have allowed amino acids to form proteins from lightening.

 

That is proven evidence, so you'll need to re-examine your information. Think Melliodora, when was it that a broken down Ferrari could be fixed on its own if you leave it alone long enough, let alone get built?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Foxgarden, Melliodora, here you approach the area where you need to ask yourselves: If you agree that someone created us, and then sent us several messages describing that, why would it be refuted?! If you refute that, then you need evidence, don't you?

 

Actually, I don't agree that someONE created us. The immediate process that caused our species to be as it is, is evolution. My point in the previous post is that you could possibly think that a supernatural being set the Big Bang in motion, and from that you might - at a stretch - say that the supernatural being was responsible for everything as it is.

 

Look, your earlier argument was that there is no God and the World existed by co-incidence and the effects are just natural, which goes with your desire to see proof of the creator. But if you say that you believe some entity DID create the Universe, then you need some evidence to explain why would an entity be so powerful to create the Universe and set its physics, and then the cease of its existence! I mean you are saying "I think, could have, we don't know", sounds to me like lack of knowledge with no evidence, but somehow you think you should give it a higher value than proven knowledge?

 

I don't argue that there is no god, I argue that there is no evidence for a god, nor any need to include a supernatural explanation for anything that has happened since the Big Bang.

 

Your response is like saying "No, I don't believe this corporation is being managed by this board, or any of that. It might have been created by one, but now for some reason it is just running on its own." Moreover, you are living in a company home, and you are taking food from the cantine. You get warned by your colleagues that this company's VERY existence is testament enough to a board of business men being behind it, and that there would be NO REASON for a group of business people to open a corporation and give away homes and food if the person is not doing what they are charged with, and your answer is that there is no proof of that. However, when they DO show you the employee handbook as the source of all this specific information, you simply say you don't believe in it. So you don't come at 9 am and you don't do any work, and you don't apply at HR.

 

The problem with that analogy is that it would be simple to prove (in the scientific sense of the word) that there either was or there wasn't a board. I'm entirely open to proofs of the existence of supernatural beings - i just haven't seen any that work.

 

We live in a World that is impossible to have existed on its own, that much you subscribe to Melliodora, at the time of the Big Bang.

 

Erm, how do you mean? Yes, the world (and everything else) wouldn't have existed if the Big Bang didn't happen. but I don't see that that says anything for (or against) the exsitence of supernatural beings.

 

 

We come to this World and find two things: a meticulously marvelously built Universe with amazing features showing incredible balance and harmony,

 

That is not true. Unless you already believe in a supernatural creator, you do not see the universe as "built". So you are attempting to prove the existence of a supernatural being with an argument that relies on assuming a supernatural being. That is literally illogical.

 

Secondly, nothing that has happened in the universe since a few micro-seconds after the Big Bang needs to be explained by anything but fairly simple physics and chemistry. It isn't "meticulous", it's just what happens in a certain set of circumstances.

 

and we find a book that has information that could not have been available to humans from that time and supported by mathematical statistics within to show that humans could not have written it.

 

Well, this is the crux. If that was the case it would be proof of a supernatural being (or intervention by aliens). However I have not seen anything in the Koran which could not have been available to humans at the time. If you have any, let's see it. I have, however seen a lot of misleading claims and frankly dishonest attempts to misrepresent the Koran and science.

 

And Melliodora, even though life existed 3 billion years ago, evidence shows that diversity occured within 100 million years of the first sign of life, showing complete ecosystems and evidence of multicellular organisms. ANd as you yourself said, trilobites were not the first multi-cellular, so why depend on that whole "billions of years for bacteria to adjust to temperature" argument earlier? Even though, phototropism in itself is not something that is simple and can come up on its own!!! You think that detection of light, putting that feature on a spot on the outside, and then COMMUNICATING information related to that to the central brain is a simple mutation?

 

Wot? I didn't say it would take bateria billions of years to adjust to temperature, I said that the trilobyte was not the first multi-cellular organsim, as had been claimed. Evolution of simple organisms occurs much faster than thet - new species of simple insects can (and have) evolved in laboratories in a few years.

 

Regarding your claim of thousands of mutations occuring all the time, please tell me EVIDENCE of the last useful mutation that happened in the last 10000 years to humans?

 

No idea, but I can tell you about the useful mutations that happen to animals with much shorter life-spans (thus making it much more easily observable). For example, species of bacteria have evolved to be no longer susceptible to certain pathogens such as penicillin.

 

Additionally, the atmosphere composition and Earth's temperature throughout the whole period was the same as it was today, averaged out that is to include ice age variations and slow warming eras. Also that same atmosphere composition "Oxygen and Nitrogen" would NOT have allowed amino acids to form proteins from lightening.

 

WHICH "whole period"? You mean since life has been on earth? Sorry, but that's completely wrong. There was much less oxygen and much more CO2 in the atmosphere until plants evolved. Mammals could not have survived in that atmosphere. And without abundant oxygen you don't have an ozone layer, which means much higher levels of cosmic radiation (useful for mutating things) reaching the earth's surface.

Edited by melliodora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with that analogy is that it would be simple to prove (in the scientific sense of the word) that there either was or there wasn't a board. I'm entirely open to proofs of the existence of supernatural beings - i just haven't seen any that work.

 

Really?! you actually would be SEEKING a proof of a board. You didn't actually see from the analogy that I was simply trying to show you that you're not OWED a proof more than currently available, it's you who needs to explain why you wouldn't accept something so obvious to start with. If you say you don't accept the employee handbook and demand to meet the board in person, you'll be turned down flat.

 

No idea, but I can tell you about the useful mutations that happen to animals with much shorter life-spans (thus making it much more easily observable). For example, species of bacteria have evolved to be no longer susceptible to certain pathogens such as penicillin.

 

Melliodora now you're starting to make me lose interest in this whole discussion. Building resistance towards chemical toxins is a feature of all living things dude, give a child some bee toxin in measured doses and in less than a year will be practically immune. That's NOT mutation!!

 

WHICH "whole period"? You mean since life has been on earth? Sorry, but that's completely wrong. There was much less oxygen and much more CO2 in the atmosphere until plants evolved. Mammals could not have survived in that atmosphere. And without abundant oxygen you don't have an ozone layer, which means much higher levels of cosmic radiation (useful for mutating things) reaching the earth's surface.

 

Sorry but I didn't say the same amounts of gases, I said same general temperature and same composition, which is Nitrogen, oxygen and CO2. I am referring to that it was NOT composed of ammonia and chlorine as some evolutionists claim, a claim which was made after discovering that amino acids synthesising proteins is IMPOSSIBLE in an Oxygen/nitrogen/carbon dioxide atmosphere. Thanks for explaining that plants SOMEHOW was first and BY CHANCE produced the oxygen rich environment without which life would be impossible for the animals that came after, but yet MAINTAINED their existence and state as such conveniently acting like the lungs of the earth and allowing a much higher level of metabolism in the complex and active animals to function. All the while cosmic radiation is turning photosynthesising plants into snarling beasts that can move and immediately would need blood circulation, movement organs, sensory perception and a nervous system, non-existent in the plants from which they came from! Oh yes, I can see the logical probability of that as much as a blinding hurricane flicking around wrecks in a dumpyard into perfectly tuned race cars!

 

Evolution of simple organisms occurs much faster than thet - new species of simple insects can (and have) evolved in laboratories in a few years.

What scienc-fiction movie were you watching when you thought of that?! Melliodora, making up stuff is a very good way to lose credibility and further lose respect. If you want us to debate with you, you will need to rise to a much higher standard. Evolutionists themselves will tell you no one was ever capable of watching evolution, only natural selection.

 

Erm, how do you mean? Yes, the world (and everything else) wouldn't have existed if the Big Bang didn't happen. but I don't see that that says anything for (or against) the exsitence of supernatural beings.

 

First off, don't depend so much on "supernatural being" being improbable. A platypus was supernatural and called "a texidermist joke" when scientists first encountered it. From that sense, supernatural is only something you don't understand at the moment. What I meant regarding the Big Bang is that it is physically impossible to create or destroy energy, so the Big Bang is proof of directed energy manipulation, as it could not happen in a stable or even chaotic environment. Either energy was created and exploded everything, or the forces involved in the explosion were deliberately compressed to that level. Both cases require a driving factor.

 

However I have not seen anything in the Koran which could not have been available to humans at the time. If you have any, let's see it. I have, however seen a lot of misleading claims and frankly dishonest attempts to misrepresent the Koran and science.

 

Hearing that from the one who thinks insects were evolving in laboratories, I wouldn't really care to repoint the plethora of factual statements that was not available to humans at the time. You search for yourself if you care, you can find tons on this forum, and the rest in hundreds of websites by just googling for "scientific facts in Koran". But when you say you saw a lot of misleading claims and dishonest attempts, that is where I am going to have to ask that you show me what YOU have.

 

Your arguments have been failing and non-sensical for a while now, and honestly I don't mean or like to assume things but I am starting to guess that you are more arguing to convince yourself and making up stuff rather than genuinely debating to gain understanding and provide understanding.

 

Show me those false claims and dishonest attempts Melliodora. Show me how everything you read about the Koran scientific statements was basic knowledge to humans of 630 A.D. or made up today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really?! you actually would be SEEKING a proof of a board. You didn't actually see from the analogy that I was simply trying to show you that you're not OWED a proof more than currently available, it's you who needs to explain why you wouldn't accept something so obvious to start with. If you say you don't accept the employee handbook and demand to meet the board in person, you'll be turned down flat.

 

If it is "obvious" it must be "obvious" for logical reasons. It must be "obvious" because experiments can be made showing it to be the case. you yourself have suggested an experiment: if there is a board it will probably fire someone who doesn't accept the employee handbook. That can be tested experimentally.

 

Melliodora now you're starting to make me lose interest in this whole discussion. Building resistance towards chemical toxins is a feature of all living things dude, give a child some bee toxin in measured doses and in less than a year will be practically immune. That's NOT mutation!!

 

If that resistence is able to be passed to offspring (which it is in the case of the bacteria; which it isn't in the case of the child and the bee toxin) it shows that a genetic change has taken place and that a new species has evolved.

 

Sorry but I didn't say the same amounts of gases, I said same general temperature and same composition, which is Nitrogen, oxygen and CO2. I am referring to that it was NOT composed of ammonia and chlorine as some evolutionists claim, a claim which was made after discovering that amino acids synthesising proteins is IMPOSSIBLE in an Oxygen/nitrogen/carbon dioxide atmosphere.

 

Plenty of things live at volcanic vents at extremely high temperature and in an extremely sulphur-rich atmosphere. There are lots of micro-ecolological niches on earth which are nothing like the general conditions.

 

However, you now seem to be talking about the first emergence of life. Evolution says nothing about that - it's a separate discussion.

 

 

Thanks for explaining that plants SOMEHOW was first and BY CHANCE produced the oxygen rich environment without which life would be impossible for the animals that came after, but yet MAINTAINED their existence and state as such conveniently acting like the lungs of the earth and allowing a much higher level of metabolism in the complex and active animals to function. All the while cosmic radiation is turning photosynthesising plants into snarling beasts that can move and immediately would need blood circulation, movement organs, sensory perception and a nervous system, non-existent in the plants from which they came from! Oh yes, I can see the logical probability of that as much as a blinding hurricane flicking around wrecks in a dumpyard into perfectly tuned race cars!

 

Yes, chance. You'd do much better to stop presenting a false caricature of evolution and argue against what evolution actually says.

 

What scienc-fiction movie were you watching when you thought of that?! Melliodora, making up stuff is a very good way to lose credibility and further lose respect. If you want us to debate with you, you will need to rise to a much higher standard. Evolutionists themselves will tell you no one was ever capable of watching evolution, only natural selection.

 

No, evolution has been observed in the laboratory; that is, new species of insects have appeared. New species of flu virus appear regularly.

 

What I meant regarding the Big Bang is that it is physically impossible to create or destroy energy, so the Big Bang is proof of directed energy manipulation, as it could not happen in a stable or even chaotic environment. Either energy was created and exploded everything, or the forces involved in the explosion were deliberately compressed to that level. Both cases require a driving factor.

 

I am getting tired of saying this: As we do not and perhaps logically cannot know what happened prior to the BB, it's just as feasible to postulate that a supernatural being caused it as anything else. However everything that has happened since a few micro-seconds after the BB is explainable without the need for a supernatural being. We keep pushing back those microseconds, and hopefully CERN will allow us to push back a few more.

 

Please at least try to use objective language. There's no reason whatsover to use words like "deliberately" any more than you would say than an egg "deliberately" falls if you drop it.

 

Show me those false claims and dishonest attempts Melliodora. Show me how everything you read about the Koran scientific statements was basic knowledge to humans of 630 A.D. or made up today.

 

Who said it was basic knowledge? For a good example of a dishonest claim about the Koran, go to the 'Islam & Science' section and scroll down to the post 'Misleading videos'.

Edited by melliodora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is "obvious" it must be "obvious" for logical reasons. It must be "obvious" because experiments can be made showing it to be the case. you yourself have suggested an experiment: if there is a board it will probably fire someone who doesn't accept the employee handbook. That can be tested experimentally.

 

Good, you go on ahead and wait for someone to "fire" you. I for one along with logical people figure out that there's everything to lose with that approach if we were right, and nothing to gain with your approach if you were right. Let alone that since the employee handbook was properly signed and sealed AND the logic of the whole environment even without the handbook suggests a business corporation when looking at the building and the facilities and the sign and therefore naturally would consider it as such, it would be stupid to assume and ACT on the opposite while feining ignorance. Remember that everyone will get fired together, and since like I said it is ONE AND ONLY corporation, fired is really the "end" of it all for them, and the only reason for them in going to the extreme impossibility would be to buy themselves an excuse for just laziness and immoral existence.

 

If that resistence is able to be passed to offspring (which it is in the case of the bacteria; which it isn't in the case of the child and the bee toxin) it shows that a genetic change has taken place and that a new species has evolved.

 

Make up science in your own crazy World, evolution was defined by Darwin as a mutation in the creature structure triggered by a need. Your "version" basically says that Africans sold to slavery and transported onto ships, and underwent natural selection pressures from the journey combined with developed physical fitness from their hardship, which translated to stronger and healthier offspring are a "new species" of human beings.

 

However, you now seem to be talking about the first emergence of life. Evolution says nothing about that - it's a separate discussion.
Yes, chance. You'd do much better to stop presenting a false caricature of evolution and argue against what evolution actually says.

 

Evolution is and cannot be separated from the its proposed holistic theory: That the first creation of life was by lightening striking amino acids and forming the first proteins which gained life and originated the first micro-organism, which over time developed into all creatures on Earth. It has been categorically disproven by agnostic and non-muslim professors and scientists using accurately recorded experiments, including Louis Pasteur, Sir Fred Hoyle, Charles Wickramasinghe and others, let alone that Darwin himself professed that we need evidence of intermediary fossils to back up the claim (none was found across 150 years except for the skull that turned out to be manufactured and half of a modern orangutan's) and that he based it on the thought that maggots were mutations of dead flesh, rather than they were laid in by flies. I am not presenting a false caricature of evolution, IT IS a caricature now based on current knowledge, and like I said before, you believe in a disproven theory that defies the Second law of Thermodynamics, yet demand evidence to God. You call it a possible postulation only because there's no other way to start the Big Bang but are perfectly satisfied to cover your ears and eyes because everything a few milliseconds afterwards can have some imaginated way to explain it, as if those milliseconds are not the WHOLE importance of existence within themselves "Oh look, it's a car at the dealer, it exists just by itself, let me show that it does not need a car designer or manufacturer by pointing how it CONTINUES to work and years later it will NATURALLY slowly rust and break down". Dude, you're seriously gone, and have no debatable argument left.

 

No, evolution has been observed in the laboratory; that is, new species of insects have appeared.

No it hasn't! What you might be referring to was using radiation to force mutated wings that had no muscles, tendons or function is a miniature Hiroshima effect, and the flies died. They were not new species, they were the same species with extra useless extremities. That's mutilation, not evolution.

 

Please at least try to use objective language. There's no reason whatsover to use words like "deliberately" any more than you would say than an egg "deliberately" falls if you drop it.

 

Hahahaha, that is EXACTLY the language Newton used to discover gravity!!!! He didn't say "Oh, the apple just drops" he said "WHY is this apple dropping? What is driving it? There needs to be a deliberate force." You think you actually have a scientific approach? Do you even know what it is to think? I know you can't debate, and I know you don't differentiate between fact or fiction or made up propaganda, but at least don't preach what you have no idea about. YOU need to learn objective language and understand when to know when an argument has been defeated, acknowledge and actually think about it for your own sake.

 

Who said it was basic knowledge? For a good example of a dishonest claim about the Koran, go to the 'Islam & Science' section and scroll down to the post 'Misleading videos'.

 

And there is your closing, a post from a guy who's jumping at a video titled "part 8", saying that this scientific fact that is CORRECTLY mentioned in the quran, MAY under some wild imagination JUST POSSIBLY have been known to some genius at the time, and therefore despite it being correct, it just might not be miraculous, just that one! Couldn't get anything on parts 1, 2, 3, thru 7, or any of the parts afterwards, and just thought that maybe he can make a claim on this one that has at least a chance of being plausible. This video is about the quran mentioning that Iron was sent down to Earth, indicating clearly that it wasn't part of the Earth's periodical table, and modern science found that it cannot be created on Earth and has to come on meteorites from very hot stars that create the element. Your suggestion is that there MIGHT be someone then who knew that. Interesting... so in the seventh century when Earth was thought to be a flat rectangle by "educated individuals" with big waterfalls at the edges (and an island on the back of a great fish by Arabs) and while everyone was confident that stars and the sun and the moon were all flatly stuck on the inside a big dome, at that time illiterate miners would pick up meteorites, realize that they are meteorites, and not only analyze the composite minerals in it and detect iron (maybe they had primitive but effective spectro-analytic computers) but also correctly assume that the large deposits UNDER the ground is a huge gigantic meteor, decide without any geological knowledge that Earth is really old and has cooled down and earth deposits have covered the iron ore creating the mines, and more importantly come to the completely unindicated conclusion that ALL iron on Earth HAD to come from the stars, when 95.3% of meteorites are actually stone meteorites.

 

So EVEN if we come to that wild conclusion as possible, it still takes NOTHING away from the quran in that it was true. Like I said however as clearly shown that is one wild imaginated assumption for that to consider, but more importantly it is not a dishonest claim of Quran's containment of scientific knowledge. Melliodora you prefer to subscribe to that based on this, and you cannot answer to any of the other hundreds of scientific truths mentioned, most of which cannot be considered something known at the time EVEN by a wild stretch of the imagination, but yet you choose to say "ALL what you see are dishonest claims". Was it regular knowledge at the time that planets, Earth, and the moon are floating celestial bodies in their specific orbits? Did they know at the time that stars would explode at the end of their lives and would recess back to a much smaller version? Was it general knowledge to know the precise description of human zygote and development as a microscopic embryo till it becomes alive? Did they know about floating tectonic plates and that mountains acted as anchors? Did they know about deep sea waves or the separation of light colours under water?

 

Melliodora, forgive me for this, but enough of this penniless broke useless argument. If this was a debate you would not be given any more room by neither the moderator nor even your coach. You have no responses anymore except persistence driven retorts that are either ignorant, self-contradicting, or straight up fiction. This last note regarding the "misleading video" was weaker than a mosquito's wing. If you think you are a man of science and want to improve as a person of knowledge, go find out about that specific insect body part, and I'll tell you when you come back why I used it as an example. Until that time however I will take my leave of this argument and consider the debate closed. I don't see you have anything genuine left to ask, or anything learned left to say. Enough said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good, you go on ahead and wait for someone to "fire" you. I for one along with logical people figure out that there's everything to lose with that approach if we were right, and nothing to gain with your approach if you were right. Let alone that since the employee handbook was properly signed and sealed AND the logic of the whole environment even without the handbook suggests a business corporation when looking at the building and the facilities and the sign and therefore naturally would consider it as such, it would be stupid to assume and ACT on the opposite while feining ignorance. Remember that everyone will get fired together, and since like I said it is ONE AND ONLY corporation, fired is really the "end" of it all for them, and the only reason for them in going to the extreme impossibility would be to buy themselves an excuse for just laziness and immoral existence.

 

As I said, you have suggested many tests by which one could detrermine whether or not there is a board. There are no equivalent tests for a supernatural being's existence. (Your analogy isn't terribly good, though - for a start it assumes a creator, the point it is trying to prove. And it would be better to say that everyone was handed thousands of employee handbooks with different rules, to go along with the thousands of religions.)

 

 

Make up science in your own crazy World, evolution was defined by Darwin as a mutation in the creature structure triggered by a need. Your "version" basically says that Africans sold to slavery and transported onto ships, and underwent natural selection pressures from the journey combined with developed physical fitness from their hardship, which translated to stronger and healthier offspring are a "new species" of human beings.

 

No. I didn't say that and I specifically refuted that. It isn't what happens to an individual which defines a species, it's whether or not new genetic traits re passed to their offspring.

 

Evolution is and cannot be separated from the its proposed holistic theory: That the first creation of life was by lightening striking amino acids and forming the first proteins which gained life and originated the first micro-organism, which over time developed into all creatures on Earth.

 

Nonsense. Darwin's book is called 'The Origin of the Species', not 'The Origin of Life'. And it is not the case that biologists claim that there is just one possible way that life appeared. Research continues. Try reading some.

 

It has been categorically disproven by agnostic and non-muslim professors and scientists using accurately recorded experiments, including Louis Pasteur, Sir Fred Hoyle, Charles Wickramasinghe and others, let alone that Darwin himself professed that we need evidence of intermediary fossils to back up the claim (none was found across 150 years except for the skull that turned out to be manufactured and half of a modern orangutan's) and that he based it on the thought that maggots were mutations of dead flesh, rather than they were laid in by flies

 

When did Fred Hoyle - an astronomer - perform a biological experiment? If it was the case that there was not enough evidence for evolution to be the best current hypothesis about the development of life, it's odd that the vast majority of biologists, genetecists, palaeontologists etc think that it is. (There's no point in using the Argument from Authority - almost all the Authority supports evolution.)

 

You call it a possible postulation only because there's no other way to start the Big Bang but are perfectly satisfied to cover your ears and eyes because everything a few milliseconds afterwards can have some imaginated way to explain it, as if those milliseconds are not the WHOLE importance of existence within themselves

 

Please read what I write. If you are saying that a supernatural being caused the BB, there's no evidence against that. If you are sayiing that because a supernatural being caused the BB and therefore the universe behaves in a certain way, there's no evidence against that. However there is no evidence whatsoever that the supernatural being has acted in any way in the universe since then. There isn't even any evidence that the supernatural being still exists.

 

No it hasn't! What you might be referring to was using radiation to force mutated wings that had no muscles, tendons or function is a miniature Hiroshima effect, and the flies died. They were not new species, they were the same species with extra useless extremities. That's mutilation, not evolution.

 

Nope, genetic changes that are passed onto offspring have been observed. (You don't seem to be up on current genetics - it isn't simply a matter of bombarding things with radiation and see if they change - individual genes can be manipulated.) I'm not sure if the inability to interbreed with the non-changed members of the population has been observed, but the mechanism by which the inability to interbreed arises has been found.

 

Hahahaha, that is EXACTLY the language Newton used to discover gravity!!!! He didn't say "Oh, the apple just drops" he said "WHY is this apple dropping? What is driving it? There needs to be a deliberate force."

 

Maybe English isn't your first language, in which case you don't realize that the word "deliberate" means that there is intention, which in turn means that there is consciousness. Newton did not say that there was a "deliberate" force, he said there was a force. If English is you first language you need to seriously consider how you misuse it.

 

You think you actually have a scientific approach? Do you even know what it is to think? I know you can't debate, and I know you don't differentiate between fact or fiction or made up propaganda, but at least don't preach what you have no idea about. YOU need to learn objective language and understand when to know when an argument has been defeated, acknowledge and actually think about it for your own sake.

 

You've tried Argument from Authority - fail Now you're trying ad hominen - fail.

 

This video is about the quran mentioning that Iron was sent down to Earth, indicating clearly that it wasn't part of the Earth's periodical table, and modern science found that it cannot be created on Earth and has to come on meteorites from very hot stars that create the element. Y

 

Wrong. Earth has always had iron - most of the centre of the earth is iron. The video's point is that all the iron on the surface of the earth arrived there via meterors. (Which is not strictly true, as some iron got to the surface from the centre of the earth.) The video claims that no-one in 7th century Arabia could have known that meterorites are sometimes composed of iron, and thus the Koran mentioning it is miraculous. You don't have to think very hard to see that that is not so. Humans mined and worked iron for thousands of years before the 7th century, and humans have been interested in meteorites for longer. Some peoples collected meteorites (and what is the Black Stone if it isn't a meterorite?). It is not surprising, much less miraculous, that someone in 7th-century Aabia had heard that there were iron meteorites.

 

.. so in the seventh century when Earth was thought to be a flat rectangle by "educated individuals" with big waterfalls at the edges (and an island on the back of a great fish by Arabs) and while everyone was confident that stars and the sun and the moon were all flatly stuck on the inside a big dome, at that time illiterate miners would pick up meteorites, realize that they are meteorites, and not only analyze the composite minerals in it and detect iron (maybe they had primitive but effective spectro-analytic computers) but also correctly assume that the large deposits UNDER the ground is a huge gigantic meteor, decide without any geological knowledge that Earth is really old and has cooled down and earth deposits have covered the iron ore creating the mines, and more importantly come to the completely unindicated conclusion that ALL iron on Earth HAD to come from the stars, when 95.3% of meteorites are actually stone meteorites.

 

If "everyone" thought the earth was flat, they had forgotten what the Greeks had determined not very long before. The Greeks even calculated a pretty good diamter of the earth.

 

You are on a false trail assuming that humans knew little about iron and could not know it when they saw it. Humans were very good at extracting and working iron. Metallurgy weas one of the earlier skills to be learned.

 

As I said, it is not the case that all of the Earth's iron came from metorites - the Earth's core is mostly iron.

 

So EVEN if we come to that wild conclusion as possible, it still takes NOTHING away from the quran in that it was true.

 

You are misrepresenting me. I am not trying to take anything away from the Koran, I am complaining about people (through stupidity or dishonesty) making false claims about the Koran.

 

Melliodora you prefer to subscribe to that based on this, and you cannot answer to any of the other hundreds of scientific truths mentioned, most of which cannot be considered something known at the time EVEN by a wild stretch of the imagination, but yet you choose to say "ALL what you see are dishonest claims". Was it regular knowledge at the time that planets, Earth, and the moon are floating celestial bodies in their specific orbits? Did they know at the time that stars would explode at the end of their lives and would recess back to a much smaller version? Was it general knowledge to know the precise description of human zygote and development as a microscopic embryo till it becomes alive? Did they know about floating tectonic plates and that mountains acted as anchors? Did they know about deep sea waves or the separation of light colours under water?

 

I've given you an example of a claim made about miraculous knowledge in the Koran and demonstrated that this claim is false. I'm happy to do the same for the "hundreds" of other claims if you bring them up one by one - a new thread for each would be appropriate. (Although I cannot let pass the "mountains are anchors" thing - that's simply ludicrously untrue! Maybe we also need to talk about the claims of scientific 'facts' in the Koran which are not scientific facts.)

 

For a brief introduction to debunking these false claims, go back to the Islam & Science forum and look at the 'Some Scientific Truths of the Koran' thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly Melliodora, like I said before: all you're belting out now is Bla bla bla persistent penniless retorts that don't address the points bla bla bla change the words and misrepresent them to crab-walk around the rebuttal bla bla bla make up false information about evolution theory like we didn't read the book bla bla bla display further ignorance by not knowing the Earth's core of iron IS the main deposit of iron that was proven to have been sent by a giant meteor and without which we wouldn't have had the EM field or a working compass and that it was proven by agnostic scientists that, indeed, ALL iron came down, not some, , and again taking an unproven suggestion that has very little chance of being true, that people might have known about it, to treat as "fact" and say that it makes the whole scientific mention of iron being brought down as "false" bla bla bla reduce Hoyle's credibility being an astronomer when Darwin himself was an amateur non-specialist to start with and trying to suggest that only biology can disprove evolution, and again crab walking around the other scientists mentioned bla bla bla throw a couple of terms to defend pride regarding not knowing debate rather than acknowledging the silliness of own statement bla bla bla again arguing that despite having no explanation for BB other than God, chooses the opposite set of standards and demand experimental proof for it before acceptance, yet disproven theory of evolution and anything that gives the lazy rationalizing of no God and therefore no charge requires an endless amount of disproving evidence and is still adjusted around with wild postulation and conjecture to keep it alive, playing "go fetch" with all its components, bla bla bla displaying further ignorance and attempting to use false information to negate practial common knowledge that mountains are much deeper than their height at the surface, and showing lack of understanding to see that because of the mass and shape of mountains they act like stakes or anchors for tectonic plates, without which the shock waves at faults every time plates collide or grind would ripple cracks and devastation across thousands of miles, and without which plates would be floating on magma and slamming into each other like pieces of wood in a stormy sea.

 

Like I said in the last post. It's becoming penniless broke series of arguments that is delivering nothing but half-truths and stubborn denial, which really is your choice to believe in on your own, but I have no further interest to waste words in here, I see nothing from your side more than a losing attempt at feining and forcing an argumentative stalemate. There's no further need to debate this with you, my points were made, and you had hardly anything substantial to come back with. Good night.

Edited by Sampharo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly Melliodora, like I said before: all you're belting out now is Bla bla bla persistent penniless retorts that don't address the points bla bla bla change the words and misrepresent them to crab-walk around the rebuttal bla bla bla make up false information about evolution theory like we didn't read the book bla bla bla display further ignorance by not knowing the Earth's core of iron IS the main deposit of iron that was proven to have been sent by a giant meteor and without which we wouldn't have had the EM field or a working compass and that it was proven by agnostic scientists that, indeed, ALL iron came down, not some, , and again taking an unproven suggestion that has very little chance of being true, that people might have known about it, to treat as "fact" and say that it makes the whole scientific mention of iron being brought down as "false" bla bla bla reduce Hoyle's credibility being an astronomer when Darwin himself was an amateur non-specialist to start with and trying to suggest that only biology can disprove evolution, and again crab walking around the other scientists mentioned bla bla bla throw a couple of terms to defend pride regarding not knowing debate rather than acknowledging the silliness of own statement bla bla bla again arguing that despite having no explanation for BB other than God, chooses the opposite set of standards and demand experimental proof for it before acceptance, yet disproven theory of evolution and anything that gives the lazy rationalizing of no God and therefore no charge requires an endless amount of disproving evidence and is still adjusted around with wild postulation and conjecture to keep it alive, playing "go fetch" with all its components, bla bla bla displaying further ignorance and attempting to use false information to negate practial common knowledge that mountains are much deeper than their height at the surface, and showing lack of understanding to see that because of the mass and shape of mountains they act like stakes or anchors for tectonic plates, without which the shock waves at faults every time plates collide or grind would ripple cracks and devastation across thousands of miles, and without which plates would be floating on magma and slamming into each other like pieces of wood in a stormy sea.

 

That's a pretty offensive rant. Luckily I am not as quick on the "report" button as some. You aren't being very coherent, but I'll summarize thae arguments (again) and we'll see if you can respond to them without losing your temper.

 

1. The earth's core is mostly iron. Look at any textbook or science website if you need proof of this. As ususal, Wikipedia has a succinct summary. It is not the case that the iron in the earth's core "came down", as it was present when the earth formed - there was no planet for it to "come down" to.

 

2. I'm not saying that the Koran is wrong when it says that iron arrived on earth via meterorites (the earth itself was a sort of a proto-meteor at one time), I'm saying that the fact that some meteroites are iron would have been known at the time. The Koran in fact does not claim that it is presenting new knowledge, it is offering a religious explanation for the phenomenon. The people who claim that it is miraculous are the frauds and the ignorant who damage Islam by making false claims about it.

 

3. Humans sought, mined and worked iron for thousands of years. they also sought, mined and worked many other metals. They knew how to make bronze long before the 7th century. They even knew how to make steel long before the 7th century. Worked iron was common on the Arabian Peninsula long before the 7th century. I have no idea if the Arabs made their own iron or bought it, but either way, they were familiar with iron and other metals.

 

4. Hiumans have long been interested in meteorites. Collections of meteorites by various ancient peoples have been found across the world. A human who knew about iron and who knew about meteorites would have no trouble determining if a meteroite was made of iron. It would have been the sort of fact that was passed around the iron-working community and also the astronomical community.

 

5. Here's the Abstract of a scientific paper about evolution observed in the laboratory. At the website (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpnas(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/105/23/7899"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpnas(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/105/23/7899[/url] you can read the full paper, details of the experiments and so on. If you can find fault with their methods and reasoning they would welcome it. That's how science works.

 

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski

 

Author Affiliations

Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

 

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

 

6. Mountains are not in any sense "anchors". Mountains are mostly formed either by the pushing up of the edges of colliding tectonic plates (for example, the Himalayas, which are young mountains), by volcanic activity (there are very old and very new volcanic mountains), or the wearing down by erosion of ancient plateaus (for example, most non-volcanic mountains in Australia - these are very old).

Edited by melliodora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1, I already said that Earth's core is made of Iron, you say

Look at any textbook or science website if you need proof of this.
as if I wasn't the one saying it first
Earth's core of iron IS the main deposit of iron

 

Second half of 1, 3, and 4 are all your personal conjectures that goes against what other scientists have theorized based on their evidence and here you state your personal thoughts as scientific fact. Iron according to scientists cannot form on Earth and could not have formed even at its hottest, it needed star temperatures to create the element. Further, the core analysis was found to be a single crystal of iron-nickel alloy that matches meteorites which suggests it came down. All this again and you crab-walked around the invalidity of your statement that ALL you saw about the quran presenting scientific wonders are "dishonest claims".

 

5- again giving silly experiements of natural resistance building, adaptation, or natural selection as evolution. You fail in addressing that over and over again. Show an actual bodily mutation, a useful fifth finger when there were 4, creation of an organ when there were none, or an actual transition from one family of fish into a land-walking air-breathing lizard.

 

6- So in number 2 you say you are not saying the Koran is wrong, but in number 6 you say the Koran IS wrong and dictate those statements like scientific facts, and based on your own assumptions - that has no basis whatsoever and actually go against what geophysicists say - that mountains are not stakes? That's another example of self-contradiction that makes it useless to continue this debate. I am sorry though I cannot resist coming back and pointing out the otherwise-obvious.

 

That's a pretty offensive rant. Luckily I am not as quick on the "report" button as some.

 

I don't think I have offended you (yes maybe rediculed your arguments and lack of sense, sure) but I did not directly insult or assault you. As a matter of fact I think you have broken so many rules and were making false claims towards the quran that SHOULD be taken offence to. You did not make subjective observations but presented self-contradicting statements and misrepresented information as fact when they weren't. Do me a favour, how about you DO go ahead and report the posts and see if the moderator thinks I offended you? :sl: Fair enough?

 

Enough of this, this is no longer productive and a waste of time. I promise I'll restrain myself from doing this again no matter how rediculously senseless and the next posts are. :sl:

Edited by Sampharo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×