If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...
- Thread starter Dr Lou Natic
- Start date
James R said:
But how can they miss such simple conclusion after disecting the problem to the smallest of bits and pieces....The least they should have done is to atleast ask the bigger question, instead of dragging us all to a powerless unconscious atom then resting their scientific case.
How about looking at the chance of life. The probability of formation of life based on the evolution model. This could be clearly computed. Any reliability study on the model? What's the chance of occurance of our universe the way it is? Have the model been tested by probability to show us the chance of it's correctness. How can Atheists believe in a model that may have a chance of occurance of 1 to the power negative zillionth or less. I believe that the chance of evolution is zero. The chance of me being here typing this post is 100%. I dare you to argue with me that my chances are 100%. At the least I would expect a model that supposidely being used to describe me to show me that the my chance of occurance is 100%, because damn it, I'm here......How can you call something so inexact science? How dare evolutionists open their mouth and call something so stupid science?
Whether defined according to the principles of classical physics or new physics, matter is obviously changeable and susceptible to external interventions; it cannot be eternal or capable of origination. Also, matter is deaf, blind, lifeless, ignorant, powerless, and unconscious; how can it be the origin of sensible life, knowledge, power and consciousness? It is evident that something cannot impart to others what it does not possess.
Last edited:
Proud_Muslim said:
Don't sell out PM. We muslims don't believe in evolution PERIOD. We are 100% sure that we were created by god and we have no knowledge whatsoever on how god created us. The Quran may shed some light on creation, but the true detailed knowledge is with god.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Dr. Lou; While I agreed with the idea behind your original post, and therefor didn't originally speak against it, I personally disagree with much of the details in that post. for instance:
why? I do not believe that you have backed up this assertion in your original or subsequent posts. PM, for one believes in a post-creation evolution, which includes heredity as a mechanism for change, within the animal sect of life, at least.
again, belief in original creation by a Godly figure does not require that his design precludes the ability for reproduction to occur without his hand. I can create a robot which is able to create more robots without my assistance. That does not remove me from the original creation.
This does not absolutely follow. While heredity suggests evolution, there are many possible explanations for heredity which do not include evolution. for example, the idea that God creates babies for couples based on what would fit best for them. Therefore, dark-skinned couples have dark skinned babies because having a white-skinned baby may cause problems. Can you prove that this is not the case? that God is not using genetics to drive the existance of what he desires?
no, all of these items are factors included in the postulations proposed by the theory of evolution, and things which have been shown to happen. This, however, could always be the physical manifestation of God's hand in the universe. Not being a 4th spacial-dimensional being, you cannot see anything but the mouse itself. (hitchhiker's guide reference)
while this is funny, and their are people who seem to believe this, even PM doesn't fall into that category.
that is very good advise for everyone, IMO. Including scientists. those of us with science and logic-based philosophies need to remember something: if scientific theory is flexible to change when the evidence changes, what does it do when there is no evidence?
Does it rule against the possibilities which present no evidence? Or does it state that "there is no evidence to support this theory." The first is *significantly* different from the second.
You and I like evidence for things. We like testable hypotheses, using standard, agreed upon methods. We like to prove things for ourselves.
PM has faith. He does feel the need to prove things for himself. He doesn't need more to be content in his world than the written word of his God.
You do not have evidence that God doesn't exist-you have evidence that evolution *does.* do not confuse the two.
PM:
again, I, as many others here would ask you for your answer to a few questions. You have a great faith in your religion. I ask you, if your religion is true, and evolution does not exsist, then how do Dog breeds exsist? How can I take two versions of a dog, and create a new type of Dog which didn't exist before? This is done all the time around the world, and has been for thousands of years. If evolution does not exist, how is this possible?
If man was created perfectly by god from day one, then why are there different types of man? Asians, Caucasians, Native Americans, Africans? If we are perfect, why are we different? Why, when an african and a Caucasian mate, do hybrid children result? Why do their children only display (on average), 1/8th of their minority ancestry?
As for the sites you have posted, there are many factual errors in the reports. The video which proves the falsity of evolution does so by simply stated that the idea is "absurd" without providing any reasoning for that assertion.
I pride myself on being scientific - I believe what appears to be the case. I have no problem is changing my beliefs and admitting that I was wrong if I am shown to be. You have not used logical proofs to show evolution wrong, nor have your sources. I have a lot of evidence all around me which supports evolution - plant hybrids, pet breeds, fossils, homologous structures, atrophied organs, etc.
Despite what your famed "destroyer of evolution" states, a half-formed eye *can* see. Ask anyone born with eye birth defects. They can see with a half-formed eye. Just not well.
I would have no problem believing in Islam, your profett, your God, if you can show it to me. God, if he exists, decided to imbue me with no faith when I was born. As such, if you want me to change my view on the evidence I have, bring me new evidence. Give me accurate evidence which agrees with what I can see by looking out my window. Spouting scripture will not work on me - I need faith first to believe what is said in a book written by "God."
Flores:
Easy. What if you are truely already in heaven, but God/Allah wanted you to see something, so right now his is giving you the illusion that you are here. You are still in heaven, currently with God, but his omnipotance allows him to cause you to believe that you are here, now, expiriencing this life.
Can you prove to me that this is not the case? If not, then you cannot be 100% sure that you are here, now.
Last edited:
river-wind said:
WHat are you smoking riverwind? It doesn't matter where I am, in heaven, here, or there, I'm still 100% REAL and existing.
Obviously you have never experience labor pains, cause if you have you'd never question the reality of your existance?
Life is a symphony of mutual helpings....You can't ask the apple if it's real, without asking the air it breathes, the water that nourishes it, the sun that gives it light and warmth, the worm that feeds of it, the tree that it grows out of, the soil that the tree is rooted in, the leaves, the seeds, ect.....ect...
Don't ask me to proof that I'm real, ask the sun to proof that it's real, because I have some of it's energy right here with me. Ask the soil to proof that it's real, because my waste is decomposing in it. Ask the river to proof that it's real, because I have some of it's water in me.
Bells
Staff member
Then can't it be true that God created the 'big bang' and let things take it's course? Couldn't 'the creation' have been the 'big bang' which started our universe and allowed us to be where we, as humans, are today through the process of evolution? Why would God create a man and a woman and then let evolution take place from there? If man and woman are created by God as homo sapiens sapiens, then that would be the end of evolution as far as we humans are concerned, would it not?Proud_Muslim said:
How have we evolved from the perfect specimen of Gods work in the creation of Adam and Eve? Do you mean that we've evolved by developing new technologies? From your whole argument in this thread, all you've been saying is that God created man as we are today in form, structure and substance, but animals were allowed to evolve around us. So how can you now say that God created Adam and Eve and then let them evolve? How have we evolved from what God created?
Could it not be at all possible that God started it all and then let things run its course? Is it so abhorrent to you to think that God may have had a plan in starting the 'creation' of the universe to allow us to be where we are today? God, we are told, loves all of Earth's creatures, yet you find it disgusting to think that we could have descended from one of God's own created creatures. I don't get that at all in your whole argument. Through all of the creation of the universe and our solar system and our planet forming over billions of years, growing and flourishing, giving the nourishment to allow life to begin, developing and growing, evolving, leading on to what we have today, couldn't that be Gods work? Wouldn't it be spectacular to think that God created the beginning of the universe and through it's process of growth and formation, that we could be here today? Don't you think that thought is beautiful? That God could have created such a thing and through its course, through the evolution of all species including our own, that we are here today? If you believe in God PM, don't you find such a thought inspiring?
I don't know for sure what's out there PM, but if there is a God, then what he's created from the 'big bang', allowing suns to form from such pure energy, allowing planets to evolve from all that dust and gas and energy, allowing some of these planets to have the ability to sustain life, allowing such life to evolve on their own from mere microbes to what we see as life today, wouldn't that be amazing? Couldn't it be at all possible that a God did such a thing? Couldn't it be at all possible that God allowed evolution to take place in all species? Couldn't it be at all possible that God allowed life in its most minute form to grow and eventually evolve in what would turn out to be us? Couldn't Gods creation be the creation of the universe through the 'big bang' and evolution take place after such a creation?
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Flores said:
I agree with you that life is an interconnected web of beings. however, part of that idea is that nothing is an island in and of itself. How would you define existance? Before you cas say you 100% exist, we must first agree on what you mean by exist. Do you mean physically? Where do you end and the air around you begin? What mmolecules are yours, and what belong to the world around you? When you eat an apple, when does it stop being an apple, and start being you?
There are no clear divisions, as you state. So where is this 100% you that you speak of?
James R said:
Yes....I have no problem with evolution AFTER creation..and this evolution is about animals not HUMANS because Allah created us as we are now.
Fine with me.
Actually, you do not...river-wind said:
You seem to think the original post was aimed at PM, not true, it was aimed at anybody who did NOT believe in evolution.
I don't even need to quote all these, it seems there was just minor missunderstanding that I cleared above.
If heredity is played backwards you see evolution, its as clear as mathematics.
Again, was never addressing anyone that believed in creation followed by evolution. Although I do not agree with that, its more feasible to just continue playing evolution backwards in your mind untill you reach the basic building blocks of life which have been recreated under laboratory conditions using a device that imitates the natural precipation cycle of the planet earth and the suns rays.
Thats a relevent debate against me actually, because I do believe I can "see backwards through time" by seeing the method occuring today and logically playing it backwards repeatedly in my mind, lets just say I believe I am a 4th spacial-dimensional being
My point was, if someone doesn't believe in evolution, they have to believe something like that, as they can not believe in what actually happens in real life, if sex producing babies who are birthed is an undeniable truth, I argue that evolution is an undeniable truth by extension.
I really really don't care what pm believes in, in fact if he does indeed believe in evolution I am angry that he replied to this thread the way he did.
I never did.
Obviously there was a minor miscommunication, hopefully now you can see that there is nothing to disagree with in the first post.
Flores:
There are many people working on abiogenesis. Scientists freely admit they don't have all the answers. This is a problem which is still an open question. There are many such questions in science, and science is still progressing.
Actually, this is a very complex problem. Think about what factors you would need to take into account to make such a calculation. Have you considered this problem at all, or are you just jumping to conclusions?
I'm not sure what you're refering to here. Can you please elaborate?
The chance of evolution is 100%. We can observe it directly. Are you different from your parents? Why?
Every contingency is always 100% in retrospect.
There was a lottery draw last week. Let's say 1 million people bought tickets. What was the chance that Barney would buy the winning ticket? 1 in a million, right? But right now, there's <b>somebody</b> holding the winning ticket and the prize money. It probably isn't Barney, but it is somebody. What is the chance that <b>somebody</b> would win the lottery? 100%
As you type your post you're looking at things backwards. You think you're special. You're like the person holding the winning lottery ticket who says "Show me the theory that predicts a 100% chance that I would hold the winning ticket!"
A car is made of bits of steel, rubber, plastic and so on. These things are deaf, blind, lifeless, powerless, etc. How is it, then, that they can combine to form something as complex as a car? The car as a whole has properties which are quite separate from the properties of its components taken piece by piece. Similarly, atoms in combination can have properties very different from their properties in isolation. These include things like consciousness, knowledge and so on.
But wait! The car was designed by an intelligent designer, you say. How could such a thing come about without such a designer? Well, that's where the theory of evolution comes in. It provides the scientific explanation which is otherwise lacking for complex life. There is no comparably powerful theory. The explanation "God did it!" is not a viable alternative, because it prompts the question "<b>How</b> did God do it?", for which we need a scientific theory - and evolution is the only one available which explains all the facts.
There are many people working on abiogenesis. Scientists freely admit they don't have all the answers. This is a problem which is still an open question. There are many such questions in science, and science is still progressing.
Actually, this is a very complex problem. Think about what factors you would need to take into account to make such a calculation. Have you considered this problem at all, or are you just jumping to conclusions?
I'm not sure what you're refering to here. Can you please elaborate?
The chance of evolution is 100%. We can observe it directly. Are you different from your parents? Why?
Every contingency is always 100% in retrospect.
There was a lottery draw last week. Let's say 1 million people bought tickets. What was the chance that Barney would buy the winning ticket? 1 in a million, right? But right now, there's <b>somebody</b> holding the winning ticket and the prize money. It probably isn't Barney, but it is somebody. What is the chance that <b>somebody</b> would win the lottery? 100%
As you type your post you're looking at things backwards. You think you're special. You're like the person holding the winning lottery ticket who says "Show me the theory that predicts a 100% chance that I would hold the winning ticket!"
A car is made of bits of steel, rubber, plastic and so on. These things are deaf, blind, lifeless, powerless, etc. How is it, then, that they can combine to form something as complex as a car? The car as a whole has properties which are quite separate from the properties of its components taken piece by piece. Similarly, atoms in combination can have properties very different from their properties in isolation. These include things like consciousness, knowledge and so on.
But wait! The car was designed by an intelligent designer, you say. How could such a thing come about without such a designer? Well, that's where the theory of evolution comes in. It provides the scientific explanation which is otherwise lacking for complex life. There is no comparably powerful theory. The explanation "God did it!" is not a viable alternative, because it prompts the question "<b>How</b> did God do it?", for which we need a scientific theory - and evolution is the only one available which explains all the facts.
PM:
So, you say animals evolved to their present forms, but not humans. Humans were specially created and have not evolved.
Why are there no fossils of humans among the dinosaur bones? Were humans only created after the dinosaurs, or is there some other explanation?
Also, why would Allah set up the amazing process of evolution for all life forms, and then leave humans out of the process. Why make an exception?
When, in your opinion, were human beings created? What about Neandertals; do they count as human? How about Homo erectus? Australopithecus?
So, you say animals evolved to their present forms, but not humans. Humans were specially created and have not evolved.
Why are there no fossils of humans among the dinosaur bones? Were humans only created after the dinosaurs, or is there some other explanation?
Also, why would Allah set up the amazing process of evolution for all life forms, and then leave humans out of the process. Why make an exception?
When, in your opinion, were human beings created? What about Neandertals; do they count as human? How about Homo erectus? Australopithecus?
Bells said:
And I am still waiting to hear your answers about the EYE evolution question and about the DNA !!
James R said:
Yes...ADAM was created as Human.
The Noble Qur'an reveals that Allah created man from mud molded into shape, like unto pottery. Mud (clay) molded into shape over millions of centuries, with the required presence of water, whose percentage decreased imperceptibly, not inexorably, with creation of each new specie, was the material used by God for creation of amoebae and protoplasm, the first animal life out of which the human form evolved (Quran 15:26, 23:12, 32:7, 55:14). The word Badaa (Q 32:7) without the 'ain' has been used byGod for beginning the creation of man with clay.
The same word "Bada'a" - but with the 'ain" was used for beginning the creation of the heavens and the earth(Q 2:117). These acts of Allah imply initiation of creation, in the one case of the Universe (s) and in the other of Man.
In both cases creation has followed in the pattern of further growth
("Khalaqa"), evolution ("Ja'ala, Istawa, Baraa") and development ("Qada,
Sawwa,Sawwara"). "Baraa" implies making of new forms or designs through
or by evolving them from old ones or liberating a former circumstance from the possible rigidities inherent in it. "Sawwara" suggests completion of forms or colours or fashioning them in due proportion. It is in this context that God has presented Himself as "the Creator, the Evolver (Maker, Liberator), the Bestower of Forms (or Colours)" in Q.59:24).
The Quranic Verses are absolutely clear about the creation ("Khalaqa" of
the human form being neither synonymous nor synchronic with the appointing ("Ja'ala") of God's vicegerent on earth (Q. 2:30)., or with giving it shape ("Sawwara" - Q. 7:2), or with fashioning it in due proportion ("Sawwa" - Q. 15:29, 32:9).
As why no human bones were found with the dinosaurs, I would assume that life for humans at that time was not possible, I would think(personal opinion ) that humans were created after.
Because Allah Almighty honoured the humans by distingushing them from animals.
Neandertals and others are names used by ILLUSIONISTS ( evolutionists ) to advance their nonesense, let me put this myth to rest forever by presenting this small nuclear bomb that sank the evolution for ever:
New Fossil Discovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories
A newly found fossil skull in Chad has confounded the proponents of the theory of evolution. Darwinist scientists confess that this fossil has rocked the very foundations of the theory of evolution. The fairy tale of "an evolutionary chain stretching from ape to man" has once again collapsed.
The new fossil skull found in the central African country of Chad has dealt a heavy blow to the evolutionary claims regarding the origin of man. Given considerable space in world-renowned scientific journals and newspapers, this new fossil has shattered the claim that "man evolved from ape-like creatures" so doggedly maintained by Darwinists for the last 150 years. Discovered by the French scientist Michel Brunet, the fossil was given the name Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution."
Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."
The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million years old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteria evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old Australopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest ancestor."
Ever since the 1920s, evolutionists have claimed that some characteristics of the Australopithecus genus resembled those of human beings, for which reason they have portrayed these extinct creatures as "man's most primitive ancestor." A great deal of evidence disproving that thesis has emerged. For instance, research in the 1990s revealed that Australopithecus did not walk upright, as had been claimed, but walked with a stooped posture just like other apes. The newly-discovered Sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil, another ape species that lived 2 million years before Australopithecus, is actually more "human-like" according to evolutionary criteria. In other words, it demolishes the "evolutionary scheme."
The essence of the matter is this: There are a large number of very different ape species that once lived in the past and are now extinct. The skull or skeletal structures of some of these show similarities to those of man. Yet those similarities do not mean that these creatures have any relationship to man.
Evolutionists line up the skulls from these extinct species in a manner required by their theory and try to come up with "a ladder from ape to man." Yet the deeper research into the subject goes, the more it is realized that there is no such ladder, simply different species of ape lived at different times in the past.
Moreover, it emerges that man came about all of a sudden, with no evolutionary process behind him: In other words, that he was created.
John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington:
"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.
The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:
Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.
"THE VERY IDEA OF THE MISSING LINK, ALWAYS SHAKY, IS NOW COMPLETELY UNTENABLE."
Henry Gee, editor of Nature
In brief, the drawings of the "evolutionary ladder that stretches from ape to man" that we so frequently encounter in newspapers and magazines have no scientific value at all. They are merely propaganda from certain circles that are blindly devoted to the theory of evolution. At the same time as this propaganda is carried out, evidence that conflicts with the theory of evolution is kept hidden away. In his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, which caused a great stir in America when it was published in 2000, the U.S. biologist Jonathan Wells summed up that propaganda mechanism in these terms:
The general public is rarely informed of the deep-seated uncertainty about human origins that is reflected in these statements by scientific experts. Instead, we are simply fed the latest version of somebody's theory, without being told that paleoanthropologists themselves cannot agree over it. And typically, the theory is illustrated with fanciful drawings of cave men, or human actors wearing heavy makeup.
The Darwinist myth is now finally about to collapse. The mistaken nature of Darwinism, itself merely a 19th century superstition, is becoming ever clearer as science advances. The world of science is arriving at the most important truth of all: It was God who created the universe we live in, and everything, living or inanimate, within it.
Proud_Muslim:
You have trotted out a standard article which has been copied around the internet and now appears on many Muslim Creationist sites. It was written by Harun Yahya, who himself runs a Creationist website.
I could take the time to refute it point-by-point, but fortunately that has already been done for me, by an Indonesian biologist named Andya Primanda, who is also a Muslim (one who works at the University of Indonesia and who is actually educated). He writes:
"As a scientist and a Muslim I cannot let Harun Yahya and his twisted propaganda gain approval from the uninformed Muslim communities all over the world."
I suggest you widen your reading, PM, to include non-Muslim and non-Creationist web sites. Get a good text on biology or evolution and read it without the bias that people like Harun Yahya are pushing.
You have trotted out a standard article which has been copied around the internet and now appears on many Muslim Creationist sites. It was written by Harun Yahya, who himself runs a Creationist website.
I could take the time to refute it point-by-point, but fortunately that has already been done for me, by an Indonesian biologist named Andya Primanda, who is also a Muslim (one who works at the University of Indonesia and who is actually educated). He writes:
"As a scientist and a Muslim I cannot let Harun Yahya and his twisted propaganda gain approval from the uninformed Muslim communities all over the world."
I suggest you widen your reading, PM, to include non-Muslim and non-Creationist web sites. Get a good text on biology or evolution and read it without the bias that people like Harun Yahya are pushing.
The flash animation on Harun Yahya's page is hilarious.
http://www.harunyahya.com/
"Learn about how dolphins can see a coin from far away"
"And learn how it is evidence of creation"
"And then buy some of my DVDs"
Weh you click on the 'interactive presentation' it gets even funnier. It sounds as if the guy is reading from a 3rd grade book report.
"Dolphins and their miracle sonar system"
This is material that should be in the religious version of The Onion... not being actually followed.
http://www.harunyahya.com/
"Learn about how dolphins can see a coin from far away"
"And learn how it is evidence of creation"
"And then buy some of my DVDs"
Weh you click on the 'interactive presentation' it gets even funnier. It sounds as if the guy is reading from a 3rd grade book report.
"Dolphins and their miracle sonar system"
This is material that should be in the religious version of The Onion... not being actually followed.
I know James addressed this but I'd like to add some further thoughts:
Still, if we make up a minimal list of functions something must possess we can make some sort of approximation; I won't get into it here as there are many different ways to approach the question each of which contain some arguable assumptions. There are however, some facts that should be considered when one is speculating:
1. The organic chemicals necessary for life to occur form naturally and are found throughout the Universe. We're not talking just a few liters here or there we're talking vast quantities, planetary nebula larger than our Solar system abundant with organic compounds. The Universe is 'seeded' with the necessary components for life to develop.
2. The thresholds within which life may occur and thrive are much broader than we previously imagined. Science has discovered life that thrives in ecosystems that derive no energy from sunlight and thrive in nearly boiling sulfuric acid, life that thrives in sub-zero temperatures, without oxygen, in rock, in ice, in 100s of atmospheres of pressure, etc. Called extremophiles, these forms of life demonstrate that contrary to popular opinion life does not need a 'perfect' set of conditions to develop and thrive.
3. If one can speculate even an infinitesimal possibility of life occurring by chance that chance is basically assured. When we consider that it is likely that life on Earth developed in the oceans we must consider the magnitude of this 'laboratory'. There are literal oceans of chemical interactions taking place over about a billion years. The chance of a particular random event occurring or even a large series of such events is almost certain.
~Raithere
It's not that the question of the origin of life was missed, it wasn't. Simply, the question isn't within the scope of Evolutionary science. The predicate of current Evolutionary theory is the existence and function of DNA, every fact, law, theory, and hypothesis regarding Evolution begins here. The question of how DNA came to be has no bearing on the fact of its existence and its role in the evolution of life. Thus the question of how life and DNA originated, Abiogenesis, became a separate, though obviously related, science.Flores said:
We cannot answer such a question with our limited knowledge. We have only this one universe as it now exists from which to speculate. How does a universe happen? Is the process random, allowing for every possible configuration of physical laws to occur or are there limitations within which a universe can happen and beyond which it cannot? Indeed, there is some evidence that for a universe to exist its physical laws must occur within a certain range of possibility which is not infinite. But is there only one universe, a thousand, or an infinite number of universes? We don't know and therefore cannot compute such a probability. What we do know is that this universe exists and it has certain properties. Only from within these boundaries we can begin to compute the probability of the development of life.
First we need to define what life is. We do not classify self-replicating molecules as life, although they do perform one of the most essential functions of life. On the other side of a short scale we have bacteria, which we do classify as life. Somewhere in between are prions and viruses. Life, it seems, is not easily classified or defined, there is a fuzzy area of indeterminacy.
Still, if we make up a minimal list of functions something must possess we can make some sort of approximation; I won't get into it here as there are many different ways to approach the question each of which contain some arguable assumptions. There are however, some facts that should be considered when one is speculating:
1. The organic chemicals necessary for life to occur form naturally and are found throughout the Universe. We're not talking just a few liters here or there we're talking vast quantities, planetary nebula larger than our Solar system abundant with organic compounds. The Universe is 'seeded' with the necessary components for life to develop.
2. The thresholds within which life may occur and thrive are much broader than we previously imagined. Science has discovered life that thrives in ecosystems that derive no energy from sunlight and thrive in nearly boiling sulfuric acid, life that thrives in sub-zero temperatures, without oxygen, in rock, in ice, in 100s of atmospheres of pressure, etc. Called extremophiles, these forms of life demonstrate that contrary to popular opinion life does not need a 'perfect' set of conditions to develop and thrive.
3. If one can speculate even an infinitesimal possibility of life occurring by chance that chance is basically assured. When we consider that it is likely that life on Earth developed in the oceans we must consider the magnitude of this 'laboratory'. There are literal oceans of chemical interactions taking place over about a billion years. The chance of a particular random event occurring or even a large series of such events is almost certain.
No, it wasn't. Consider that thousands of generations of your ancestors had to survive, meet, and procreate in order to beget you. This alone makes your existence almost impossible. If any one of them along the way had died or even simply moved to a different place before they met their spouse and had a child you would not be here. Now take into consideration the number things that had to happen but might not have in order for computers and the internet to exist. Now calculate the probability for Porfiry to exist and decide to create SciForums. Also for James to exist and write the post that you're responding to. Then multiply all these tiny little probabilities together. The chance that you are here right now reading my reply to your post is so impossibly unlikely, yet it did occur.
At some point all reduction reaches this very point. Something must be eternal. Some assume it must be God and stop at this point in the reduction. But we also know that energy is eternal. Its form may change but it never goes away. We also know that energy can be converted into matter. What's to say that this is not the only infinity we need?
Ah, but consider the properties of computation and 'memory' that your computer possesses, even a level of self-awareness. We don't normally consider 'dead' matter to possess such properties, yet a computer is made up of nothing more.
~Raithere
Flores, to me these lines say one thing. You who do not believe what I believe are wrong and you worship/serve a false god.Flores said:
Lets dissect these lines:
[109.1] Say: O unbelievers!
This suggests that the writer is right and the readers that do not believe as the writer are wrong.
[109.2] I do not serve that which you serve,
[109.3] Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
This says even if you worship a God it isn’t the one that I worship.
In Islam what does that then leave for unbelievers to be worshiping? Nothing? What do you think that Hindis are worshiping when they pray to Shiva? What about the Shinto Japanese Monks? How about Buddhists? Is it that the devil is tricking them? As Islam only believes in “one” true God it would seem that these other religions are all completely and utterly wrong.
Wouldn’t you agree that’s archetypal of Islam regarding the worship of other deities?
[109.6] You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
Again, it all adds up to you have your wrong way of thinking and I have my correct way of thinking?
Being atheist doesn’t really put me in a position to give you an answer that is all that great.Flores said:
There are many others here that could explain the pros and cons of religious tolerance regarding each religion.
However, I do like to learn about religious beliefs and I can say that (if I remember correctly – this was years ago) one of my Buddhist friends said that yes there may be a God and maybe God created this one of maybe many universes. He seemed to think that there could be many Gods or one and he didn’t worry about it either way because gods were just that – gods and JUST like people god should maybe fortunate enough to find true enlightenment. If anything he suggested that God(s) have an even higher likelihood of be stuck in the karma cycle than people because of the seduction of bliss that comes with having people adore them. Basically he suggested that people go ahead and worship however they like – maybe your way will lead you to enlightenment and that’d be great. It’s you life only you can come to enlightenment. At least I think it went along those lines. It’s been awhile.
This was in response to P_M suggesting that because Islam considers Judaism and Christianity to be OK (albeit wrong) that it therefore is a better “more tolerant” religion. I agree Islam is more tolerant than those two. Christianity especially is bad. Nevertheless, I simply said, if you’re going to take THAT moral high ground then why not go all the way and go for a religion that says ALL of the world’s religions are OK?Flores said:
Wouldn’t you agree? I mean you seem like a Buddhist in some ways. A sort of “each to their own” sort of life philosophy – I think my friend would say you were a Muslim Buddhist.
I like to think of countless rain drops hitting the ocean and each of these representing countless universes. In some there is life. In one there is you. As you are here there is a 100% chance of you happening. And in an infinite number of universes there’s another you dong exactly what you are doing. And another and another . . . . . . . In one of these universes I may be Muslim and you Atheist!Flores said:
If you go to the water pick up a stone and skip it across the water, what are the chances you could do that exactly as you did again? Hitting each and every water molecule as you had? 1 in a zillion? But wow – you just did. And the “did” is what’s important.
James R said:
That is not true, similar articles appeared on National Geography, The Independent (UK) and the Guradian (UK).
Oh I see, so it is now personal attacks on Harun Yahya himself for exposing the ILLUSION (evolution ) nonesense !!
I read alot about this, the more I read about evolution, the stronger I become in my CREATION belief, come on, no one with LOGICAL RATIONAL FUNCTIONING brain will believe the evolution nonesense.
Beside, Harun Yahya's article contains many statements for famous scinetists, for example:
The article quote Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University who said that "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."
Source: D.L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil From Chad Forces Rethinking of Human Origins", National Geographic News, July 10, 2002
The article also quote the world-renowned journal Nature which admitted that "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution."
Source: John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found", Nature, 11 July 2002
Also: John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington:
"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated''
And also in the same harun yahya's article:
The comments of Henry Gee the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:
''Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable''
Source: The Guardian, 11 July 2002
Also:
In his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, which caused a great stir in America when it was published in 2000, the U.S. biologist Jonathan Wells summed up that propaganda mechanism in these terms:
''The general public is rarely informed of the deep-seated uncertainty about human origins that is reflected in these statements by scientific experts. Instead, we are simply fed the latest version of somebody's theory, without being told that paleoanthropologists themselves cannot agree over it. And typically, the theory is illustrated with fanciful drawings of cave men, or human actors wearing heavy makeup''
Source: , Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 225
So you see James, it is NOT only about Harun Yahya, it is about all the above distinguished scientists and their discoveries....faced with all that, you have ONLY one option left james and that is to raise the white flag.
Last edited:
Alas your hero Harun Yahya has been scamming you all along. Later on, I have been kind enough to provide links to every quote used, and every article mentioned. It shows Harun Yahya for the blatant fraud that he is. Hey but don't take my word for it, keep reading and you'll have the opportunity to read the actual articles, instead of the one sentence here and there that Harun wants you to hear.
You know, you can shout silly little words all you like, it doesn't change the way things are. Harun Yahya brings it all upon himself with his severe incompetence, and deceitful nature. He is a liar, plain and simple. You want to look up to and admire a liar, that's your perogative. I am now giving you the chance however, to actually learn something- and to read the full articles that he quotes from, instead of just using one sentence which he can use well out of context to try and backup his worthless little boy claims.
Very odd... Daniel Lieberman is a firm supporter of evolution. The quote used has been taken vastly out of context to try and portray him to your liking. Here is some more about Daniel Lieberman and what he does: Here
Tell me PM, do you know what that specific quote is in relevance to? Look down and you'll find out...
Check this, which is the actual article you speak of.
link
Read it all the way down... eventually you'll come to the 'nuclear bomb' quote. Oh dear me PM, seems you've been had by that Harun Yahya idiot.
I suggest you read the entire article before trying to use it against evolution. Seriously, stop being a halfwit.
You can read it here
If you can't be bothered clicking the link, I shall give some quotes from that article:
Are you reading this, PM? Harun Yahya slides off down the toilet hole in embarrasment.
--------
Now go and read the rest of it.... Want the link again?? Here it is: Click me, I might be able to teach you something real.
Let me guess.. you haven't read the article? Want me to quote some for you??
Here goes...
This does more to show evolution than to debunk it. Man you really need to read more. Tell you what... to save all this quoting, why don't I just give you the link? See what a nice guy I am? Here it is
I suggest you read this site concerning Mr Wells' book, (Icons of evolution). Here
With the exception of Wells, who is hardly a distinguished scientist, all the other scientists concur with evolution and support it to its fullest. YOU only have one option left, and that is to crawl out of your ignorance infested pit and start studying. Instead you sit and listen to Harun Yahya who would quite frankly have trouble getting into art college let alone anything else.
Last edited: