Jump to content
Islamic Forum
parvez mushtaq

Nothing Created Everything .....a Question To Atheists

Recommended Posts

Obviously it is a pattern of molecules of 4 amino acids that replicate. It isn't a set of codes written by anyone or anything, or least they be found wanting in its imperfections.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Obviously it is a pattern of molecules of 4 amino acids that replicate. It isn't a set of codes written by anyone or anything, or least they be found wanting in its imperfections.

 

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about and obviously you are clueless on what DNA is..you claim to subscribe to science, to substantiate your statement above you need to demonstrate and proof that a set of codes can arise without a mind behind it..it is obvious that you can't.. end of thread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My posts seem to have a problem actually getting on to the thread. I will see what happens with this one.

 

Don't worry about it, posts sometimes mutate and start taking the life of their own and sometime 'interacting' between themselves, all on their own .. :sl: your words not mine..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The language we are using is confusing the communication of the ideas here. We however do not have a better language to use.

 

A scientist will describe DNA as the instructions for a life form to build it's self. However what he would say if he thought that the reader would interperate his writing the way you do is "that the pattern of DNA causes the formation of protiens which cause the life form to grow in specific ways".

 

Because that is a bit of a mouthful and to stress what DNA dose he uses words which get the idea across easily.

 

The "code" of DNA is extreemly badly written. If you picture a highly complex instruction manual thousands of pages thick and shred it with another 100 such manuals and then stick the lot together randomly, then put lots of lines in which read now go to page...line... most of which are wrong you have half an idea as to how well written the DNA code is. This botched up mess is what you would expect for a product of randomness and selection. It does not look like the elegant simple product of intelegent design.

 

P.S. What are we traveling at 500,000mph relative to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chalenge:-

 

If you saw a sign saying "Tim was here" you would say that is the product of design. Correct. If you saw a sign whic read "kehTjlcwzc######erveasa ccmlbs z.hz[##][/##]'kib.k'k" you would think what a mess. If you then had another sign which read 4,14,34,13,18,19,delete14,3,20-18,2,15,reverse last pair. And you had to apply that to the origonal message to read it you would not consider it an attempt to make clear communication.

 

DNA is much worse. Almost all of DNA is not used and is rubbish carried along by evolution. DNA is the best example of randomness and selection producing useful good results the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The language we are using is confusing the communication of the ideas here. We however do not have a better language to use.

 

A scientist will describe DNA as the instructions for a life form to build it's self. However what he would say if he thought that the reader would interperate his writing the way you do is "that the pattern of DNA causes the formation of protiens which cause the life form to grow in specific ways".

 

Because that is a bit of a mouthful and to stress what DNA dose he uses words which get the idea across easily.

 

The "code" of DNA is extreemly badly written. If you picture a highly complex instruction manual thousands of pages thick and shred it with another 100 such manuals and then stick the lot together randomly, then put lots of lines in which read now go to page...line... most of which are wrong you have half an idea as to how well written the DNA code is. This botched up mess is what you would expect for a product of randomness and selection. It does not look like the elegant simple product of intelegent design.

 

Yea sure, the fact that we have night and day and 4 seasons only require a few lines of simple codes and DNA is extremely badly written codes..

Not only these statements have no basis as far as science stand, sadly it also demonstrate the arrogance of atheists..

The fact that you are hearing, breathing, seeing, is it due to you or is it due to the so called 'badly written codes'..?

 

 

P.S. What are we traveling at 500,000mph relative to?

 

Still not getting it? The sun according to science, is in the orbit and moving at a speed of close to 900,000km/hour, since the sun is at the centre of our solar system, all the planets as well as moving around the sun, also move along with the sun on its orbit..why is this so difficult to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about and obviously you are clueless on what DNA is..you claim to subscribe to science, to substantiate your statement above you need to demonstrate and proof that a set of codes can arise without a mind behind it..it is obvious that you can't.. end of thread...

Easy. A code is a human invention that requires a mind to interpret it. Without human beings dna existed and will continue to exist. The problem is your equivocation with assigning meaning to a ' code '. I have already shown you that we can assign meaning to any repetitive pattern. But as we pointed out, let's assume that you are right. That means that mind is responsible for multiple scrolisis, genetic disorders, down syndrome, our appendix, our weak knees, our bad eyes, diabetes, genetic deformities, heart diseases, on and on. That mind is responsible for these things and therefore shares in the responsibility for the pain and suffering its created on this world. I don't think you want to take that step.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The four seasons are a code. A very simple repeating code of average temperatures and humidity, these four seasons along with differences in sea temperature and humidity produce a hugely complex code that even computers have a hard time modeling, known as a hurricane or typhoon. now which human created the hurricane? No one. Chaos theory shows that complex systems can arise out of simple building blocks. The idea that complex creatures can arrive from simple ones has been proven repeatedly until know it has more evidence behind it than the theory of gravity. How life arose in the first place , abrogenesis, is anyone's guess.

If it has been proven repeatedly can you please answer some questions I have?

 

1. Sacrifice..It is very known that some animal mothers and obviously most human mothers will choose to die over their offspring in essence sacrificing themselves. This is not in line with natural selection or survival of the fittest as they are letting themselves get killed which is a loss of survival. Where would this evolve from and for what reason would a trait that reduces fitness carry on?

 

2.How does evolution explain emotions?

 

3.Homosexuality?

 

4.altruism?

 

5. If you can prove these through evolution please tell me the biological origin of these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We know a lot about stars. They are not commets. Very different

 

really Tim ,do we know about stars , for you information , we even don't know what had hit the Jupiter on July 19, 2009. they generally called it a comet

my question to you is , immaterial of its composition , was not that comet acted like a fire ball when it hit the Jupiter

Stars are huge balls of gas which due to the extreem pressure in the middle have continious fusion reactions going on which change mass into energy. The sun destroys 2,000,000Tonnes of mass every second changing it into energy.

 

Commets are bits of rock and ice in non-circular orbits which as they get close to the sun boil. The dirty steam, gas and dust is iluminated by the sun and blown away from the sun by the pressure of sunshine. Sunshine is powerful stuff outside the earth's magnetic field. Commets are small.

 

i agree with you about the composition of stars and comets

but tim,

quran is not talking about their composition rather about their nature of being objects of adornment as well as fire balls

as i told you , people in the past use to look at the sky and they do knew about comets , meteors and asteroids

does comets ,meteors, asteroids behave like fire balls or not ......the answer is "yes" they do behave like fire balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it has been proven repeatedly can you please answer some questions I have?

 

Sure finally home from work so it should be a little easier to answer. Lets look at the difference between a theory and mythology. A theory from wikipedia

 

Theories are analytical tools for understanding., explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter. There are theories in many and varied fields of study, including the arts and sciences. A formal theory is syntactic in nature and is only meaningful when given a semantic component by applying it to some content (i.e. facts and relationships of the actual historical world as it is unfolding). Theories in various fields of study are expressed in natural language, but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a theory as it is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic. Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic

 

Mythology

 

In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[5][6][7] Many scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[7][8][9] In a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.

 

The theory seems a little dry and cold while the mythology, if you notice, basically says the same thing. Both are used to explain and make sense of the world around them. Mythology has certain liberties that theories don't. This relates to the theory of evolution because people tend to equate the two and see it as some kind of alternative explanation of life on earth or the creationist story. Which it isn't. It is an attempt to match naturalistic facts of the past and base predictions on that facts, which it so far has done with amazing accuracy. this is what is meant that there is more evidence for evolution that the theory of gravity ( which we still don't have a complete understanding of).

 

1. Sacrifice..It is very known that some animal mothers and obviously most human mothers will choose to die over their offspring in essence sacrificing themselves. This is not in line with natural selection or survival of the fittest as they are letting themselves get killed which is a loss of survival. Where would this evolve from and for what reason would a trait that reduces fitness carry on?
The question answers itself as to why the gene of trait of sacrifice would continue, because the one saved carries the gene of sacrifice. But what about a selfless action of sacrifice for strangers you might add. Well it turns out that the reaction and willingness to sacrifice oneself increases highly with immediate family, lesser with secondary family, and lessens still with strangers. The more the stranger appears like the "sacrificer" the higher the likely hood that one would sacrifice them self. I am sure you can imagine why there is a correlation with how close the person genetically.

 

2.How does evolution explain emotions?
I am assuming you mean the existential ideas of " what does love mean, jealously etc.?" and the answer of course is no with a yes. That is the realm of mythology, literature, etc. Science may tell us that love is a chemical reaction of the purpose of pair bonding a couple on average for 8 years in order to copulate and create offspring and watch over them and evolution tells us that those emotions helped propagate the species in the past, but you and I know that "answers" the question but it doesn't answer the question in the "but what is love?" sense. But yes there is an evolutionary and biological purpose for emotions. You'll find that the more social the creature and the larger its brain the more emotional capacity it has. Emotions were a way to convey and receive complex information within the social hierarchy and to interpret psychological phenomenon happening in order to analyse it.

 

3.Homosexuality?
yes and no. I haven't researched enough to have a conclusive opinion on the subject, but here is what I do know. Homosexuality occurs in nature with various animals. Type in Wikipedia "homosexuality in nature" if you want to have a look. I am also a friend of the animal coordinator at a zoo that has penguins, who exhibit homosexual behavior, if you want to get in touch I am sure I could contact. Second, we do know that homosexuality does have a genetic component. The more males a mother has the more likely that each successive son will be homosexual. Why? I don't know. We do know that it is part hormonal as well. Recently they found that increasing a male hormone ( don't ask me which one) eliminated certain defects, but had the side effect of making the female fetus more "masculine". The other side effect is that all fetus's that had the treatment never exhibited any signs of lesbianism, which should arise in an approximate percentage of all females born. So they found a way to "cure" lesbianism, which lead the religious to an interesting quandary. Do they eliminate something they consider immoral or do they mess with God's creation?

 

4.altruism?
Altruism was vexing to scientists for a long time because they couldn't figure out why a creature would act selflessly. Turns out that even selfness acts are selfish in the end. Monkeys do small acts of altruism, and expect other monkeys to follow suit. In fact they show anger at those who don't show acts of altruism when they "should" ( you understand this all the time when driving when you let someone cut in front of you and then feel anger when someone won't let you into the lane when you need to). The reasoning behind it is that altruistic animals "give up" something to help another because they expect others to do the same if they find themselves in similar situations. Again the desire for altruism is correlated with family and perceived likeness with the altruistic person.

 

5. If you can prove these through evolution please tell me the biological origin of these things.
Hopefully that helps out some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The chalenge:-

 

If you saw a sign saying "Tim was here" you would say that is the product of design. Correct. If you saw a sign whic read "kehTjlcwzc######erveasa ccmlbs z.hz[##][/##]'kib.k'k" you would think what a mess. If you then had another sign which read 4,14,34,13,18,19,delete14,3,20-18,2,15,reverse last pair. And you had to apply that to the origonal message to read it you would not consider it an attempt to make clear communication.

 

DNA is much worse. Almost all of DNA is not used and is rubbish carried along by evolution. DNA is the best example of randomness and selection producing useful good results the hard way.

 

This is getting funnier by the minutes..If you saw: 'Tim was here' 'kehTjlcwzc######erveasa ccmlbs z.hz[##][/##]'kib.k'k" , and another sign which read 4,14,34,13,18,19,delete14,3,20-18,2,15,reverse last pair." Would any sane person would ever conclude that a river was responsible for that? or Animals? Even the most stupid person would never arrive to that conclusion. The point being, chaos can NEVER do that. We may not understand the message but rationality and reason would tell us that a person with a mind that has certain skill was responsible for that.

 

You are dismissing DNA as lots of rubbish, what a huge chip you have on your shoulder.. DNA is responsible for your hearing, seeing, the beating of your heart, it is the blueprint of you..I wonder if you were to lose any of that, how much would you give up to get it back..

 

My challenge was for you to show me a map, a literary masterpiece, a set of instructions, codes, WITHOUT a mind behind it. You merely displaying your ignorance by trying to dismiss DNA , which science has clearly established as codes that contain massive information, the blueprint of all living creatures as rubbish, insignificant etc..You can dismiss a map, or a novel as rubbish but that does not prove that that map or novel do not have a mind behind them..

 

 

Here is a short lesson on DNA, please spend a few to watch the short presentation on what DNA is:

 

[iframe]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/dna/tour_dna.html[i'm not allowed to use this tag yet]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salom,

 

Fungus's do not use cells. They live.

 

Who has died over a scientific dispute?

 

In ancient times who had archers, javelinmen, slingers, etc. These were the missile men. The word missile means thrown or projected object. Stars are not projected.

 

DNA is very badly organised as a code. That it works is due to the process of selection. Continious random bodge jobs have created it.

 

If you define code as the product of a mind then it is of course impossable to porduce it without thought. Science does not use the word code in this way when talking about DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salom,

 

Fungus's do not use cells. They live.

 

 

Tim, you claimed to subscribe to Science, yet your statements so far can only be considered as gross embarrassment to science.

Fungal do not use cells?

 

Here's a quote from a simple google search:

 

Fungal Cell Structure

 

A typical fungal cell has complex protoplasm containing microvesicles, microtubules, ribosomes, mitochondria (1.0 to 1.5 mm in diameter) Golgi apparatus, nuclei and a double membrane cytoplasmic reticulum. The nucleus is enclosed by a defined nuclear membrane with all its DNA and has a nucleolus rich in RNA.

 

The amount of DNA in a single fungal cell is about 4-10 times that of a bacterium but only 1/1000 times that of a plant or animal cell. A membrane known as plasmalemma, composed of glycoproteins, lipids and ergosterol encloses the entire protoplasm.

Source: (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 yetmicrobiologyprocedure(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/soil-microorganisms/fungal-cell-structure.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmicrobiologyprocedure(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/soil-...-structure.html[/url]

 

 

Salom,

Who has died over a scientific dispute?

 

And perhaps you can explain what's that has anything to do with the topic and the point of discussion? People die by the thousands everyday..

 

Salom,

DNA is very badly organised as a code. That it works is due to the process of selection. Continious random bodge jobs have created it.

 

If you define code as the product of a mind then it is of course impossable to porduce it without thought. Science does not use the word code in this way when talking about DNA.

 

Tim, here's a scientific statement uttered by renowned Scientist: The only way we can understand a cell is to scale it up to the size of a mega city of a size of aproximately 5km across. Think of all the faculties that run a mega city, a power plant, a waste disposer, a highway system, computing facilities etc etc.."

 

Think about millions of cells that formed our nails, how they process the right nutrient and materials to form nails, not as hard as bone or soft as hair but just right hardness to scratch the itch away. If you watched the three slides on DNA above, you would have heard that each cell contains a set of complex instructions, so that each cell knows their places on the grand scheme of things, to form components, components that enable you to hear, to see, to smell, your heart pumping..Yet, in your arrogance, you have failed to even ponder upon this fact. The fact that you were breathing, a few times a minutes,last night in your sleep, was that due to YOU or randomness botched job or what? Think about that for a second.

 

Whatever you say about how badly DNA is ete etc does not disprove the fact that DNA contain a set of instructions, a blueprint. We know from reason and logic that instruction, blueprint etc can NEVER appear from randomness and chaos as they require a MIND and certain level of intellect behind it. Your challenge is to proof me wrong on this point by bring just one example..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salom,

 

Fungus's do not use cells. They live.

 

 

Tim, you claimed to subscribe to Science, yet your statements so far can only be considered as gross embarrassment to science.

Fungal do not use cells?

 

Here's a quote from a simple google search:

 

Fungal Cell Structure

 

A typical fungal cell has complex protoplasm containing microvesicles, microtubules, ribosomes, mitochondria (1.0 to 1.5 mm in diameter) Golgi apparatus, nuclei and a double membrane cytoplasmic reticulum. The nucleus is enclosed by a defined nuclear membrane with all its DNA and has a nucleolus rich in RNA.

 

The amount of DNA in a single fungal cell is about 4-10 times that of a bacterium but only 1/1000 times that of a plant or animal cell. A membrane known as plasmalemma, composed of glycoproteins, lipids and ergosterol encloses the entire protoplasm.

Source: (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 yetmicrobiologyprocedure(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/soil-microorganisms/fungal-cell-structure.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmicrobiologyprocedure(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/soil-...-structure.html[/url]

 

 

Salom,

Who has died over a scientific dispute?

 

And perhaps you can explain what's that has anything to do with the topic and the point of discussion? People die by the thousands everyday..

 

Salom,

DNA is very badly organised as a code. That it works is due to the process of selection. Continious random bodge jobs have created it.

 

If you define code as the product of a mind then it is of course impossable to porduce it without thought. Science does not use the word code in this way when talking about DNA.

 

Tim, here's a scientific statement uttered by renowned Scientist: The only way we can understand a cell is to scale it up to the size of a mega city of a size of aproximately 5km across. Think of all the faculties that run a mega city, a power plant, a waste disposer, a highway system, computing facilities etc etc.."

 

Think about millions of cells that formed our nails, how they process the right nutrient and materials to form nails, not as hard as bone or soft as hair but just right hardness to scratch the itch away. If you watched the three slides on DNA above, you would have heard that each cell contains a set of complex instructions, so that each cell knows their places on the grand scheme of things, to form components, components that enable you to hear, to see, to smell, your heart pumping..Yet, in your arrogance, you have failed to even ponder upon this fact. The fact that you were breathing, a few times a minutes,last night in your sleep, was that due to YOU or randomness botched job or what? Think about that for a second.

 

Whatever you say about how badly DNA is ete etc does not disprove the fact that DNA contain a set of instructions, a blueprint. We know from reason and logic that instruction, blueprint etc can NEVER appear from randomness and chaos as they require a MIND and certain level of intellect behind it. Your challenge is to proof me wrong on this point by bring just one example..you failed miserably..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reply is DNA it's self. It is the produce of selection of positive random outcomes.

 

To take the example of the stone age man looking at a car.

 

He would be impressed by the complexity and power of the car. It's ability to move fast. The elegance of the design of it. How the brake pads were made of different materials of the brake disks etc.

 

However if he compaired the car to the deer he has just killed he would find that the deer was incredibly more complex. That the car had just one system to do a particular job where as the deer had many. If the wheel bearing of one wheel failed then the car was usless where as the deer could hobble along with a single muscle damaged and wait for it to heal.

 

He would also be suprised to find that the deer shared 75% of it's DNA with the grass on which it fed.

 

Complexity is a symptom of randomness. Design results in simplicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reply is DNA it's self. It is the produce of selection of positive random outcomes.

 

To take the example of the stone age man looking at a car.

 

He would be impressed by the complexity and power of the car. It's ability to move fast. The elegance of the design of it. How the brake pads were made of different materials of the brake disks etc.

 

However if he compaired the car to the deer he has just killed he would find that the deer was incredibly more complex. That the car had just one system to do a particular job where as the deer had many. If the wheel bearing of one wheel failed then the car was usless where as the deer could hobble along with a single muscle damaged and wait for it to heal.

 

He would also be suprised to find that the deer shared 75% of it's DNA with the grass on which it fed.

 

Complexity is a symptom of randomness. Design results in simplicity.

 

Tim, what are you on about? DNA is the produce of selection of positive random outcomes? In your river example, we eould not even expect a river to carve out ABC, let alone a library load of genetic codes..Stone age man finding deer more complex than a car? He was surprised to find the deer’s DNA is almost similar to that of a grass??

Look, let’s not waste each other’s time, obviously I have the next point to make but we would only get there if you are honest with youself by answering a simple question:

 

Can you show me an example of a set of instruction, a map, a literary piece, a code, a language WITHOUT a mind and certain amount of skill behind it? YES or NO.

 

Can you give me a straight answer without going off tangent and further confused and contradicting yourself..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you define code/instructions/map as: "A delberate communication of ideas from one thinking individual to another".

 

Then of course there has to be an intelegent creator of the code.

 

If you look at DNA it does not fit with the deliberate communication of ideas part. What it does is to form a framework for the synthasising of variuos protiens within a living organisim. Most of the protiens needed to build the organisim are made either directly or indirectly in this way. Some are made by the similar RNA and most are made as a response to other chemicals synthisised by DNA or other sources.

 

It is extreemly complex. To get a better description of the preciese mechanics of it you will need a molecular biologist.

 

A molecular biologist who believes in a God creator will be hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure finally home from work so it should be a little easier to answer. Lets look at the difference between a theory and mythology. A theory from wikipedia

 

Theories are analytical tools for understanding., explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter. There are theories in many and varied fields of study, including the arts and sciences. A formal theory is syntactic in nature and is only meaningful when given a semantic component by applying it to some content (i.e. facts and relationships of the actual historical world as it is unfolding). Theories in various fields of study are expressed in natural language, but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a theory as it is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic. Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic

 

Mythology

 

In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[5][6][7] Many scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[7][8][9] In a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.

 

The theory seems a little dry and cold while the mythology, if you notice, basically says the same thing. Both are used to explain and make sense of the world around them. Mythology has certain liberties that theories don't. This relates to the theory of evolution because people tend to equate the two and see it as some kind of alternative explanation of life on earth or the creationist story. Which it isn't. It is an attempt to match naturalistic facts of the past and base predictions on that facts, which it so far has done with amazing accuracy. this is what is meant that there is more evidence for evolution that the theory of gravity ( which we still don't have a complete understanding of).

 

The question answers itself as to why the gene of trait of sacrifice would continue, because the one saved carries the gene of sacrifice. But what about a selfless action of sacrifice for strangers you might add. Well it turns out that the reaction and willingness to sacrifice oneself increases highly with immediate family, lesser with secondary family, and lessens still with strangers. The more the stranger appears like the "sacrificer" the higher the likely hood that one would sacrifice them self. I am sure you can imagine why there is a correlation with how close the person genetically.

Yes it decreases the further away genetically the sacrificee is, but it is still present that some animals will sacrifice themselves for strangers. This goes against fitness completely. Can you now answer how this gene for sacrifice would come about in the first place? It is redundant to save one over yourself when both of you are capable of passing the gene.

 

I am assuming you mean the existential ideas of " what does love mean, jealously etc.?" and the answer of course is no with a yes. That is the realm of mythology, literature, etc. Science may tell us that love is a chemical reaction of the purpose of pair bonding a couple on average for 8 years in order to copulate and create offspring and watch over them and evolution tells us that those emotions helped propagate the species in the past, but you and I know that "answers" the question but it doesn't answer the question in the "but what is love?" sense. But yes there is an evolutionary and biological purpose for emotions. You'll find that the more social the creature and the larger its brain the more emotional capacity it has. Emotions were a way to convey and receive complex information within the social hierarchy and to interpret psychological phenomenon happening in order to analyse it.

But how did emotions start? what did emotions evolve from? Why would they evolve in "loner" lifeforms which have no need to convey or receive complex social information? And how did emotions specifically increase fitness of an organism?

 

yes and no. I haven't researched enough to have a conclusive opinion on the subject, but here is what I do know. Homosexuality occurs in nature with various animals. Type in Wikipedia "homosexuality in nature" if you want to have a look. I am also a friend of the animal coordinator at a zoo that has penguins, who exhibit homosexual behavior, if you want to get in touch I am sure I could contact. Second, we do know that homosexuality does have a genetic component. The more males a mother has the more likely that each successive son will be homosexual. Why? I don't know. We do know that it is part hormonal as well. Recently they found that increasing a male hormone ( don't ask me which one) eliminated certain defects, but had the side effect of making the female fetus more "masculine". The other side effect is that all fetus's that had the treatment never exhibited any signs of lesbianism, which should arise in an approximate percentage of all females born. So they found a way to "cure" lesbianism, which lead the religious to an interesting quandary. Do they eliminate something they consider immoral or do they mess with God's creation?

I dont believe that there is a gay gene that is the cause of homosexuality,there may be a gene that is associated with homosexuality but is not the cause of it. But lets go with your view. There is a gay gene..why would a gene that is the ultimate destroyer of survival of a species continue to be passed down? It would have been weeded out of the gene pool long ago.

 

Altruism was vexing to scientists for a long time because they couldn't figure out why a creature would act selflessly. Turns out that even selfness acts are selfish in the end. Monkeys do small acts of altruism, and expect other monkeys to follow suit. In fact they show anger at those who don't show acts of altruism when they "should" ( you understand this all the time when driving when you let someone cut in front of you and then feel anger when someone won't let you into the lane when you need to). The reasoning behind it is that altruistic animals "give up" something to help another because they expect others to do the same if they find themselves in similar situations. Again the desire for altruism is correlated with family and perceived likeness with the altruistic person.

Hopefully that helps out some.

Now for this explanation to work, altruism needs to be redefined to mean any act that decreases the altruist’s ability to survive and reproduce and which increases the recipient’s ability to survive and reproduce. Still I would love to know how they come to conclusions such as altruism is really a selfish motive. Where do they come up with this? . Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism.

 

And you also did not show me the biological origin of these traits and what predated these traits.

 

Tim, being an atheist I thought you would have more knowledge of science and biology. Did you really try to assert that fungus is not made up of cells?

Edited by Skenderbeu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you define code/instructions/map as: "A delberate communication of ideas from one thinking individual to another".

 

Then of course there has to be an intelegent creator of the code.

 

Tim, please do not constraint yourself with limited definition and assign yourself as a thinking person. Were you the one responsible for the construction and formation of your organs? Your eyes, your lung, your brain etc? The definitions for a set of instructions, a map, a blueprint etc are well defined and dictionaries are well available for us to refer to. The fact is, a complete mapping of human genome DNA was completed just over decade ago. Science, as advance as we think we are, is only at less than 5% of an understanding of the information mapped. That would show us how much we actually don't know.

Then of course there has to be an intelegent creator of the code.

 

A set of instructions, a language, a map, a blueprint cannot possibly arise from chaos, randomness & disorder.

 

Our faculty of reason and the entire human experience tell us that there must be a ‘MIND’ behind them, The fact that one language is inferior to another, or one map is better looking than the other can only prove the character of the ‘mind’ behind them, not disproving their existence. The fact we understand very little of it does not disprove that a mind existed either.

 

The problem with atheism is that, they put themselves high above everything else and resorted to double standard and irrationality when anything or something goes beyond the human limit. A couple of example, let say we are going scuba diving into the sea, we would need to use an oxygen tank. An atheist would readily accept that someone with a mind, skills and know how was responsible to fill up that tank with the right mixture of breathable air. He would NEVER conclude that acts of randomness, chances and what not has anything to do with filling up the tank so that he can breath underwater. Now, in the case of where the entire surface of the planet is filled with just the right combination of breathable air that allow the survivals of trillions of species, man, animals, plants, since no way humans can be responsible for that, an atheist would resort to double standard and assign it to randomness and chances and conclude that noone was responsible for it.

 

We have man made satellites, ranging from a kilo to tons, going around our planet performing various functions. An Atheist would never accept that nobody designed, launched and maintained those satellites, but the ‘satellite’ is billions of tomes bigger, perform functions that is beyond any human endeavor, they would take a completely opposite view and resorted to irrationality.

 

We have seen and learned about how DNA is ‘responsible’ for our bodily functions such hearing, seeing, smelling, thinking etc. If an atheist was put in the situation where his eyesight is to be taken away, wouldn’t he be down on his knees, crying and begging for it not to be taken away? Perhaps he would give all that he ever owned in exchange for his eyesight. How much would any of us give up to be able to breath again should we find ourselves unable to breath?

 

Ponder upon these thing Tim. It is due to sheer arrogance and ignorance that you keep ridiculing and dismissing your own DNA as a product of chance, randomness, and even worse when you know that SOMEONE was behind it and you choose to ridicule and describe that Someone as imcompetence and do not even deserved a simple thank you and gratitude..

 

There is a deeper side to Islam, to get there one needs a certain level of humbleness and be willing to admit that we are just human and sometimes we make mistakes. Without it, none of it will make sense…Are you willing to proceed to the next point?

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim, please do not constraint yourself with limited definition and assign yourself as a thinking person. Were you the one responsible for the construction and formation of your organs? Your eyes, your lung, your brain etc? The definitions for a set of instructions, a map, a blueprint etc are well defined and dictionaries are well available for us to refer to. The fact is, a complete mapping of human genome DNA was completed just over decade ago. Science, as advance as we think we are, is only at less than 5% of an understanding of the information mapped. That would show us how much we actually don't know.

Then of course there has to be an intelegent creator of the code.

 

A set of instructions, a language, a map, a blueprint cannot possibly arise from chaos, randomness & disorder.

 

Our faculty of reason and the entire human experience tell us that there must be a ‘MIND’ behind them, The fact that one language is inferior to another, or one map is better looking than the other can only prove the character of the ‘mind’ behind them, not disproving their existence. The fact we understand very little of it does not disprove that a mind existed either.

 

The problem with atheism is that, they put themselves high above everything else and resorted to double standard and irrationality when anything or something goes beyond the human limit. A couple of example, let say we are going scuba diving into the sea, we would need to use an oxygen tank. An atheist would readily accept that someone with a mind, skills and know how was responsible to fill up that tank with the right mixture of breathable air. He would NEVER conclude that acts of randomness, chances and what not has anything to do with filling up the tank so that he can breath underwater. Now, in the case of where the entire surface of the planet is filled with just the right combination of breathable air that allow the survivals of trillions of species, man, animals, plants, since no way humans can be responsible for that, an atheist would resort to double standard and assign it to randomness and chances and conclude that noone was responsible for it.

 

We have man made satellites, ranging from a kilo to tons, going around our planet performing various functions. An Atheist would never accept that nobody designed, launched and maintained those satellites, but the ‘satellite’ is billions of tomes bigger, perform functions that is beyond any human endeavor, they would take a completely opposite view and resorted to irrationality.

 

We have seen and learned about how DNA is ‘responsible’ for our bodily functions such hearing, seeing, smelling, thinking etc. If an atheist was put in the situation where his eyesight is to be taken away, wouldn’t he be down on his knees, crying and begging for it not to be taken away? Perhaps he would give all that he ever owned in exchange for his eyesight. How much would any of us give up to be able to breath again should we find ourselves unable to breath?

 

Ponder upon these thing Tim. It is due to sheer arrogance and ignorance that you keep ridiculing and dismissing your own DNA as a product of chance, randomness, and even worse when you know that SOMEONE was behind it and you choose to ridicule and describe that Someone as imcompetence and do not even deserved a simple thank you and gratitude..

 

There is a deeper side to Islam, to get there one needs a certain level of humbleness and be willing to admit that we are just human and sometimes we make mistakes. Without it, none of it will make sense…Are you willing to proceed to the next point?

Mashallah brother excellent post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mashallah brother excellent post!

 

All the good from Allah, all mistakes are mine..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim, please do not constraint yourself with limited definition and assign yourself as a thinking person.

 

Were you the one responsible for the construction and formation of your organs? Your eyes, your lung, your brain etc? The definitions for a set of instructions, a map, a blueprint etc are well defined and dictionaries are well available for us to refer to. The fact is, a complete mapping of human genome DNA was completed just over decade ago. Science, as advance as we think we are, is only at less than 5% of an understanding of the information mapped. That would show us how much we actually don[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]'t know.

Then of course there has to be an intelegent creator of the code.

 

A set of instructions, a language, a map, a blueprint cannot possibly arise from chaos, randomness & disorder.

 

A + on the word play. Christian Intelligent Designers do a better job though. I would suggest reading Signature in the Cell, a ID proponent that proposes the same ideas as you, but of course it is the Christian God that is the designer. I[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]'m sure that isn[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]'t a problem. Now keep in mind that no one in science has it been shown that DNA is a code. Why is that? Well because to have a scientific definition you must narrowly define the word [##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" code[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" which is not done here. If the meaning of code is to transmit information from one mind to another such as the map, blueprint, or instructions then DNA is not a code. There isn[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]'t another mind to transmit data to in this definition of code. If it is meant a physical means of replicating data then DNA is a code but language is not.

 

In fact, implicate in the idea of a code is the idea of human observers. The only people who can recognize a code for a code in the sense of containing meaning. It appears the definition of data being used is simply something that transmits data, but as it has already been explaining natural phenomenon such as seasons and storms can [##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" transmit[##][/##][##][/##][##][/##]" data is there is a human mind there to interprate data, otherwise it is just a natural occurring.

 

Now this leads us to what ID are really saying, that DNA is a tool by which to replicate data ( DNA). Now you may say, aha! A tool must be designed, but you would be wrong. A rock can be used to scrape leather, a tree branch as a club, both of which were not designed to be tools.

 

Now take the example of the first synthetic life form created by scientists where they created a self replicating new species of life ( not life itself but a new species). The scientists embedded in the DNA a list of all the scientists and the universities where they worked at though code that so it would be recognizable to other minds. Now that is a code because it is transited from one mind to another.

 

 

 

Our faculty of reason and the entire human experience tell us that there must be a ‘MIND’ behind them, The fact that one language is inferior to another, or one map is better looking than the other can only prove the character of the ‘mind’ behind them, not disproving their existence. The fact we understand very little of it does not disprove that a mind existed either.

 

No but it does show a worse designer than another. And yes human beings have a tendency to assign purposefulness where there is none.

 

The problem with atheism is that, they put themselves high above everything else and resorted to double standard and irrationality when anything or something goes beyond the human limit.

 

*rolls eyes*

 

 

A couple of example, let say we are going scuba diving into the sea, we would need to use an oxygen tank. An atheist would readily accept that someone with a mind, skills and know how was responsible to fill up that tank with the right mixture of breathable air. He would NEVER conclude that acts of randomness, chances and what not has anything to do with filling up the tank so that he can breath underwater. Now, in the case of where the entire surface of the planet is filled with just the right combination of breathable air that allow the survivals of trillions of species, man, animals, plants, since no way humans can be responsible for that, an atheist would resort to double standard and assign it to randomness and chances and conclude that noone was responsible for it.

 

We have man made satellites, ranging from a kilo to tons, going around our planet performing various functions. An Atheist would never accept that nobody designed, launched and maintained those satellites, but the ‘satellite’ is billions of tomes bigger, perform functions that is beyond any human endeavor, they would take a completely opposite view and resorted to irrationality.

of course not because we have seen them being made, recognize man made vs naturally made.

 

We have seen and learned about how DNA is ‘responsible’ for our bodily functions such hearing, seeing, smelling, thinking etc. If an atheist was put in the situation where his eyesight is to be taken away, wouldn’t he be down on his knees, crying and begging for it not to be taken away? Perhaps he would give all that he ever owned in exchange for his eyesight. How much would any of us give up to be able to breath again should we find ourselves unable to breath?

 

Responsible is in quotes because you want to give DNA the human quality of responsibility when it has none. Responsibility would imply a consciousness where DNA has none. It simply is a replication of data.

 

Ponder upon these thing Tim. It is due to sheer arrogance and ignorance that you keep ridiculing and dismissing your own DNA as a product of chance, randomness, and even worse when you know that SOMEONE was behind it and you choose to ridicule and describe that Someone as imcompetence and do not even deserved a simple thank you and gratitude..

 

*yawn*

 

There is a deeper side to Islam, to get there one needs a certain level of humbleness and be willing to admit that we are just human and sometimes we make mistakes. Without it, none of it will make sense…Are you willing to proceed to the next point?

lol no. But this does bring up another point. If DNA was created by Allah then the designer must take responsibility and culpability for the defects of his creation. That means Allah is responsible for all the biological suffering in the world. A claim I am sure no advocate of a designer is willing to take.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A set of instructions, a language, a map, a blueprint cannot possibly arise from chaos, randomness & disorder."

 

True. That would take intelegence.

 

DNA does not fit with this deinition. It is something else.

 

The next point:-

 

OK this thread is yours so ask your next question.

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


×