Atheism/Lets talk about GOD!

[Mr. Somalia]

Originally posted by Norfsky:

Not much has been offered from the resident Atheists I see. All we have had is confusion dressed as conviction written in blabber hoping it would be mistaken for

intellect

.

 

Waxba islama haysaan

Norf, I single-handedly negated his shallow statement that "God does not exist". To date no one has produced any evidence that proves God does not exist. He doesn't really know what does and does not exist anyway. A long time ago germs did not exist (so said some 'smart' people); now they do. What happened?

 

Atheists just deny the proof that most people of faith can see. To the average person, it is absurd to deny God's existence; most people on earth believe in the existence of God, because His existence is undeniable.

 

Atheists are obsessed maniacs who spin a web of self-deceit that allows them to deny the proof of God's existence to themselves ONLY; their self-deceptions are NOT even necessarily scientific in nature. There are enormous problems with their so-called "scientific" explanations for all that exists and for all that occurs in God's Creation, but the web of self-deceit is large enough and complex enough that they can deceive themselves if they choose to do so. The average Muslim has no wish to do so.

[Johnny B]

Mr.Somalia, i'm sorry to have misled you and few others who did miss my rebuttal on your argument regarding the burden of proof, In an attempt to both safeguard the religious sensibilities of some people i care for on this Forum and to give you an honourable exit,I thought, since I've no need of preaching, by hiding the decisive part of the rebuttal,I'd skip writing it on your (their) nose, so to speak.

 

Now i accept the fact that did not turn out to be the case, so my apologies , please re-read the blank in both my previous posts and reply accordingly.

 

Now , let me incisively thread the ground once and for all regarding your travesty with which the whole argument of 'the burden of proof is on the Atheists' is based upon, It is terribly sad that,this very argument unluckily happens to be Brother Norf's,and your last resort in a line of reasoning as to why you harbour a Faith you so passionately claim to devote your lives to.

 

Gentlemen, its regrettable that one needs to explain 'the Burden of Proof in Epistemology and Scientific Methodology' at this age, but since my previous attempts of pointing at the fallacy of demanding a negative proof either failed or did not sink in for a reason or another,let me spill it on you.

 

The claim that a particular God ( Allah , in this case ) exists is an extraordinary positive claim made by the Theists.

Arguing that it is on the others(the Atheists in this case) to disprove that extraordinary claim is committing the fallacy of demanding a negative proof, Again, here is the example of the logical fallacy of demanding a negative proof that i used to sum Nrof's argument.

 

(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!

(2) No one has ever refuted (1).

(3) Therefore, God exists.

 

Now, to figuratively apply it here, let's exchange the meaningless claim of (1) with ' My God exists' and we've the following.

 

(1) My God exists!

(2) No one has ever refuted (1).

(3) Therefore, my God exists.

 

As you can see the conclusion just affirms the proposition by shifting the burden to those who don't share the belief in assertion (1), hence the fallacy of demanding of the Atheists to have gone every corner of the universe and made sure that my God does not exist.

 

in short "X is true because there is no proof that X is false.". Q.E.D

 

Now, Is it really true that one can't disprove 'Allah's existence?, well, it depends.

First we must know what an 'Allah' is?,and only after those who claim to know what an 'Allah' is define 'Allah' to us and show us where in the known universe 'Allah' exists, can we evaluate that question.

 

Now , one might wonder why all this fuss about a particular God's existence?,well,reme mber my black swan example?,the fact of the matter is Theists harbour irrational beliefs of different imaginary Deities based on, among other things, child indoctrination, ,As irrational as it is , they accept the fact that it is Faith they have and not a reasonable or rationally justifiable Belief, therefore this futile attempt of shifting the burden of proof.

 

Need i say more?!

[N.O.R.F]

^Thanks for removing the blabber (see how easy and clear your message was there?).

 

Now, this issue of burden of proof is really quite simple. Are you an Atheist or an Agnostic?

 

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

 

Agnosticism: someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

 

If the latter you will obviously have a point however you have openly committed to the former thus making the burden of proof yours. What you're doing is saying I believe in X because Y can't be proven to me whilst at the same time claiming to have the intellectual upper hand. If you're an agnostic this thread can move forward. If you're an atheist then please explain how you have come to such a conclusion whilst highlighting the 'rational' used.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it

[Somali09]

Hey,

 

I guess I have missed out on some entertaining debate while I was away, but then again who would log on here when you are in beautiful Barbados.

 

First of all - THANK YOU "Raamsdaye" for beautifully elaborating on the theory of Evolution, the evidence and its wonders!

However, I am sure you realise that most religious people are not willing to open their minds or be critical of their faith regardless of what evidence is laid out to them.

 

The terms "muslim children" or "born muslim" have been used several times on this post and I would like to point out that it is wrong. Children are too young to determine what they believe in let alone what religion to follow. And its not like there is a religious trait in our genes that makes one "muslim".

The correct terms is children of muslim parent.

 

I dont understand why someone will view a culture of doubt in the west as a negative trait. Surely this is a mark of intelligence. All religions by nature favour mysteries, sort like dont bother with trying to find out about anything in this world, just attribute it to God period!

Thankfully early scientists had the courage to seek knowledge (evidenciary) beyond what was in holy books. Lets not forget many where tortured and killed because they found contradictory facts.

 

I have always been baffled by the most over-used God explanation: God is capable of anything and beyond natural realm. In effect, you can make any fantastical stories (Noah's ark, parting the sea, virgin births..etc) because all he needs to do is snap his fingers.

And thats why I said earlier that no amount of evidence is sufficient because to you no natural laws/evidence/explan ations can be used to prove or disaprove God's existance. What a childish belief!!!

 

Someone on here suggested that it is sad that I have forgotten my heritage by abondaning Islam. It is funny how Islam (or correctly religious & cultural colonialisation) has become our heritage.

Unfortunately our history and heritage did not start when we our people adopted Islam.

Surely, prostrating yourself five times a day towards arabia is the ultimate symbol of this colonisation.

 

I will reiterate that I have no problem with religion but dont hold the Quran to me as "facts" or "scientific". It is simply a record of hearsay not revelations. It is a revelation to the first person (Muhammad - pbuh) and hearsay to every other. There is nothing scientific about the Quran, half of its supposed facts are false and the other half copied from previous works.

E.g: Sperm & reproduction - copied from Galen, Aristotle, Hippocrates etc

 

No doubt religion does provide some measure of comfort or consolation in people's lives but lets not forget the evil's it incites. If you take a minute and make a list of wars or ethnic cleansings you can remember - I promise you the majority of them would be due to religion. From Rwanda, Northern Ireland, Iraq, bosnia, to Sudan etc.

Lets not also forget other evils such as slavery, child abuse, subjugation of women etc, endorsed and encouraged by religion.

 

In addition, Islam (any religion) always try to impose itself on everyone. There is no such thing as personal freedom, never was and never will sadly. I am an Apostate, and in Saudi Arabia I would be put down or sent to prison in Pakistan. Islam tries to control every aspect of your life.

 

There is a lot of evidence from various fields supporting the theory of evolution that is why it accepted.

 

I have also come across some references to "proofs in the Quran" - What proofs???

I am well acquainted with the quran and never came across any. Please can someone do so!

 

Yes Muhammad (pbuh) did change the arabian peninsula, not through his words of wisdom or peace but by the point of sword.

Most muslims are quite ignorant about the quran and the story of the prophet from muslim sources such Bukhari, Al-Tabari etc.

There was no anarchy before Muhammad from historical sources.

 

And in terms of his exellent moral character, what about his infamous history of myriads of cruelties, killings, plundering, pillages, enslavements, sexual lusts of ludicrous proportion??? Or did that escape you.

Lets start with simple examples:

- when he was sending out raiding parties to rob merchants on the way to Persia, a bandit?? Actually he led the first 2 raids which failed.

- The khyabar episode?

- the massacre of the jewish tribe (Banu Quraiza) who welcomed him in Medina when he left Mecca. about 600/700 people on the marke square and after retire with Ryhana - a woman whose entire male family he just killed!

- The spoils of war: killing most males, children into slavery, gave women to his soldiers to "enjoy" and some he kept as his concubines.

-marrying his adopted son's wife?

- the famous story(and to me very telling of human desire)when the prophet was caught in bed by one of his wife with Mary the slave girl. PLEASE look into this.

- what he did to those who opposed him? Look into what he did to the woman who wrote poetry against the him!

 

Chew into above and I will list some more interesting later.

 

 

I am sure some people will be quick to point out that the environment back then was quite different and we cant judge him by modern standards........ If you do then you open yourself to further questions. Most of the actions of the prophet were sanctioned by revelations he supposedly received before or after the acts. Islam requires people to take the Quran literally and thus I can critique it literally.

 

Atheism is not a religion. We believe in evidence and if tomorrow we found out something new or contrary to current knowledge about something - then we change our mind. Science and our current knowledge is ever expanding while religion only aims to drag or hold us back. It is slowly becoming redundant. Today christian churhes are dwingling, tomorrow it would be mosques!

 

Another person stated that there is no hope in the theory of evolution, what do you prefer? a faith that relies in crudelity, ignorance and lies???

Evolution is exactly why you should realise how lucky you are to have been born and you only have this life - make the most of it!

As Napoleon once said - "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quite".

 

Science has disapproved the existance of God by disapproving the claims made in holy books (word of god) in terms of creation of universe, man, nature etc. It is as if you are challenging science to disapprove his existance NOT his claims/revelations.

If god's messages are disapproved then he either does not exist OR he does but for some reason choose to lie to his prophets.

 

In any case, shouldnt you be the first to provide evidence of his existance since you are making the claim that he does?

If a scientist comes up with a theory, he would have to provide evidence before it gets to be accepted. Therefore, religion should not be left to get away with its fantasy stories.

 

I do not make any apologies in any of my opinions above, I believe in free speech. We should be able to evaluate, debate & criticise any idea whether it is Polital, Moral, Economical or Religion.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Garmaqaate:

I understand them because the idea of "God" automatically comes with "life after death", "Justice and punishment and rewards".

Exactly! Theists preach and attempt to convert others with the expectation of heavenly rewards. They believe that if they don't try to convert heathens, they may end up in hell. It's sort of done under coercion. What, then, is there to "understand?" These proselytizers are mere automatons following the directives and commandments of others without exercising an iota of independent thought.

 

 

Originally posted by Garmaqaate:

What i do not understand and can not understand are the preachers and the clergy of this "atheist" religion.

You're feigning incredulity. What you can't fathom doesn't exist. There are no atheist preachers and clergy I know of and certainly there is no atheist religion.

 

Atheism is mere personal statement of disbelieve in any defined God/s. Nothing more; nothing less. It is also the only logically defensible position regarding the existence of God. Any rational and objective inquiry into the existence of God would require Atheist position otherwise, and if you take Theist position, you'll be committing confirmation bias.

 

There is no Atheist: theology, orthodoxy, holy texts, prayers and rituals, no heaven and hell schemes, no prophets, no miracles etc. Everything we normally associate with religions is absent in Atheism. You yourself are an atheist vis-a-vis other Gods except Allah; atheists go one step further and reject your Allah was well.

 

This equating of Atheism with religion smacks of desperation from you and shows you've ran out of arguments against Atheism.

 

 

Originally posted by Garmaqaate:

I call it a religion because why else will they preach, pontificate and try to explain and emphasise the righteousness of their stand when in essence they are telling anyone who listens to them "life is not important", or essentially "there is no reason to life".

Yeah, Atheists preach so much so that this 6 page long thread was started by a rabid atheist!

 

While we're at it, many groups "preach, pontificate and try to explain and emphasis the righteousness of their stand" but you don't call them religions. Think of the NRA, NCAA, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and so on. So, preaching and articulating one's positions and views doesn't constitute as belonging to a religion.

 

And you're lying when you assert Atheists say "life is not important." I've never met or heard of ANY atheist ever express such view. Why would they? Atheists KNOW that this life is all they have. On the other hand, theists DO believe that THIS life is not important; the important life is the hereafter. That's why they fly planes into buildings hoping to earn a place in the afterlife and boast how they hate this life and love the afterlife.

 

 

Originally posted by Garmaqaate:

If there is no life after death then essentially you are saying you are here for the duration you are here on earth... In essence what the atheist is telling you is we have evolved into what we are because our parents were lucky to survive disasters and reproduce and in the end their survival was futile because we will all perish anyway. Meaning life on earth is meaningless.

Life has very profound meaning to me as an Atheist and I hope to every other human being. The problem is that most people have a little understanding of their world and how it operates. This ignorance leads them to be narcissists believing the whole universe is there just for them and think of themselves as pinnacle of all living organisms. It is this human narcissism informed by ignorance that has originally led to desires for the afterlife.

 

In reality most potential humans who had a chance in this life never made it as most fertilized eggs never implant. Those of us who are fortunate to experience life are the privileged few; we shouldn't even be here. And if we shouldn't be here, why the desire to live on in another life? Who entitled you to this or any other life? And when it comes time for me to depart this world, I'll think of all those who didn't make it and how privileged I am.

 

 

Originally posted by Garmaqaate:

What "hope" is there in such an idea?

The hope is: living this life is an honor; this life is all you got and should make most of it instead of wasting your energy and time preparing for imaginary afterlife.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Mr. Somalia:

Raamsade

, how did you come to your conclusion that there is no God?

By the same way that led you to reject all Gods except Allah.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by G G:

3-D colouring and designing the iris of the dinosaurs and cashing in on them in various museums and shows and et cetera is indeed using imagination.

Sorry to burst your bubble but science relies on objective and verifiable facts not on cartoons and drawings. The fossil record is REAL and deadly for Creationism.

 

Creationists are fond of employing red herrings and straw man arguments. I guess when you can't handle the evidence and powerful arguments for Evolution you try your luck at anything.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Artificially joining a human skull and jawbones of an orang-utan on the other hand is good old lying. Or to be more specific in this case: forgery.

I'm not sure the specifics of the forgery you describe above but there have been a number of supposed fossils that were clear forgeries. Forgeries notwithstanding, science has the built-in mechanism for correcting its own mistakes and forgeries.

 

Science is tentative and subject to revision. It is also open discipline where questioning and critical scrutiny form integral pillars. If scientists are shown a particular data/evidence is bogus, they have no qualms rejecting it. Thus, when some scientists do fudge the numbers/data of their experiments, they're ultimately found by NONE other than their peers, i.e. other scientists. That's exactly what happened with those few cases of forgeries. Scientists ultimately exposed them and were rejected as forgeries.

 

Contrast that to Theism where ideas are accepted on authority and dogma even when the evidence contradicts it.

 

Originally posted by G G:

It raises the question, why do it, hmm?

For the same reason Theists fabricate bogus evidences for their believes.

 

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

I agree with you. It is no wonder evolutionary theory saw daylight in Europe which was the capital of Christianity.

Yes, it's no wonder because Europe produced such people as Voltaire, Descartes, Spinoza, Comte, Kant, Hume etc who defanged Chritianity and stripped it of all respectability with their piercing intellect.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

The Bible is inconsistent, has factual errors and very few believe it to be the true words of God.

Many Christians would disagree with you and it's wonderful so few believe it to be the true word of God. It would be disconcerting if that wasn't the case.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

I challenge you to find lies in the Quran however.

Why would I? The Quran is just a book written by mortal men. There is nothing special about it. I only care about claims made by Islamic apologists about miraculous scientific facts in the Quran.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Even better; I urge you to find anything that supports the view that prophet Muhammed (sas) was a dishonest man or had bad character -

Again, why would I? You know I reject the whole notion of prophet-hood. Mohammed was just 7th century arab leader albeit extraordinary one. His conduct can only be judged by the moral standards of his time not ours. Since I'm not a person calling for people to emulate Mohammed in the 21st century, I don't need to find faults with his actions and believes; it's actually you who has to defend him.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

unlike that old chap Darwin who was quite bit of a racist and sexist,

Darwin was a man of his time and reflected the common views back then. So it's not surprising that he held some views that would today be considered bigoted. Having said Darwin was ahead of his time in other respects and liberal in that he was an ardent abolitionist. Muslims of his time were busy dealing in slavery, specially black Negros like yourself.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

"I look different from my parents - frankly, I'm much better looking - therefore my ancestors must have looked like real apes!"

Since that is NOT what Evolution theory postulates, let me know when you're interested in discussing the facts.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

You gotta give it to some evolutionary geneticist though, since without their awesome imagination we wouldn't have my favourite comic X-Men!

I'm not gonna respond to this but let it hang there. It will come in handy later in showing us GG's entire understanding of genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish as it is gleaned from cartoons.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

1. Does the fact that something is thought to have evolved from something, in your opinion, constitute for a scientific fact?

If there is objective and verifiable (falsifiable) evidence for it exists, absolutely yes.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

2. Why do you claim Archaepteryx to be an intermediate when evolutionary scientist don't agree upon it? SJ Gould called it an odd mosaic if I remember correctly, and according to evotheory Arch is an extinct subbranch which doesn't lead to modern birds.

Archeopteryx IS an intermediate fossil, the so-called missing link Creationists ask for. Well, now you got it. Rather than be graceful in defeat, Creationists become sour losers denying even the evidence they asked for. Second, SJ Gould (and scientists in general) did NOT say Archeopteryx was not an intermediate. Stop copy and pasting discredited Creationists lies.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Whales have structures which evolutionist interpret as hind legs.

Nonsense. Whales have vestigial hind limbs that are leftovers from when they walked on land. But this is just one evidence from morphology/anatomy. Another evidence that whales once were land dwelling animals comes from their hearts. All fish have 2 chambered heart while Whales, formerly terrestrial mammals, have 4. Do you think that is mere coincidence?

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Please provide some from your mountain of evidence, and we'll have a closer look at that.

Here is non-exclusive list: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis (my favorite), Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

So you may be able to use some of that conclusive and "irrefutable" evidence and tell us whether, according to evolutionary theory, Australopithecus is actually humans' ancestor or not? Australopithecus, you know, those ape-like creatures?

There were different kind of species of Australopithecus, which one are you referring. Lets take, for arguments sake, Australopithecus Afarensis. This species was clearly an intermediate between apes and humans. For instance, its brain was about the size of chimpanzee but it was bipedal and had anatomical features resembling more closely humans as opposed to apes. Furthermore, its teeth looked more human than apes. And the date of the fossils predate fossils for modern humans.

 

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

"Their bodies were not made of hard stuff?" Whatever is that supposed to mean, did they not have bones? You do now how fossilization works, don't you? And why there are plant fossils - or is your answer perhaps that their "bodies were made of hard stuff"?

Yes, they did not have bones since most animals are insects. This is why most fossils consist of hard stuff like bones, teeth, claws. We rarely find skin or tissue. The species that leave best and most fossils are those that: lived for long time, had hard body parts, were numerous and lived over large geographical area. Plant fossils are discovered, far less than animals, precisely because they're more ubiquitous and live in many different ecosystems.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

This is ill-informed. A mutation is a mutation. It doesn't "slowly add to the genetic diversity" because mutations are off-shoots, and they do not transmit to descendants. A person who has a mutation isn't a new species, but a patient.

This is what I meant when earlier I said GG's conception of Genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish. Mutations are merely mistakes from copying the genetic material during cell division (reproductive cells). These mutations add to the genetic diversity by adding new mutations on top of inherited mutations. Perhaps GG should stop watching X-Men and start reading High School biology textbook.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Weren't you just arguing that birds evolved from dinosaurs? If an asteroid hit Earth and caused the mass death of dinosaurs (as the most popular theory goes), wouldn't there be more evidence of intermediates? Since at the time of their death they'd be already in the mutation process into another species (more those Arch birdies than Rexes). The fact that there are more dinosaurs than intermediates implies that freak-show birds like the Arch were a species of their own (just like many evos think) and not descendants of dinos.

I don't completely follow what you're saying but let me correct a couple of mistakes. First, there are more and more evidence for intermediates between dinosaurs and birds. I just gave you an incomplete list including some recent findings in China. Second, Archeopteryx were their own species (as are all species) but they had features that were not completely dinosaur or completely bird, hence their status as intermediate species.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

We have different genetic make-up which makes us look different from our parents, this is NOT the same thing as mutation.

They're not? Please, enlighten us. For example, tell us where we look for those mutations?

 

You're clueless, aren't you?

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

This is news, seeing as life apparently evolved from a single cell.

There are still single celled organisms. That alone demonstrates Evolution doesn't proceed ahead from less complex to more complex. Today we have both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells co-existing; simple and complex organisms co-inhabiting this planet. There is no discernible trend of complexity.

 

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

DNA changes, but the number of chromosomes does not increase (can miss).

Actually both can and do change although chromosomal increase is both rare and often lethal.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Shock horror! Oh no! Does this mean I'm a mutant?

Yes, like in the X-Men cartoons.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Why not?

Because omniscient, omnipotent creator knows the outcome before the test on earth. Before God creates you, He already knows your destiny otherwise he's not omniscient. He chose, out of His free will, to create you knowing ahead of time where you will end up. Thus, the test on earth is meaningless and free will is an illusion. It's like a teacher who pre-assigns grades before the students take the test; the act of taking the test will have no impact on the grades you get.

[Mr. Somalia]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

Mr.Somalia....

 

Arguing that it is on the others(the Atheists in this case) to disprove that extraordinary claim is committing the fallacy of demanding a negative proof, Again, here is the example of the logical fallacy of demanding a negative proof that i used to sum Nrof's argument.

 

^^

 

Is that right, that no one can prove a negative? I beg to differ very much saaxiib. A very long time ago, a Greek philosopher by the name of Democritus proposed that matter was made up of tiny, indivisible particles which he called atoms, or in Greek "a-tomos". The reason why he assumed this, was that he believed, nothing could come from nothing. But by and large, his remained a theory for ages, and in fact, many prominent scientists over the years treated it as pure hogwash because there never was strong evidence to prove such a thing. It was only in the recent 19th century, that a scientist called John Dalton was able(based this time on research and experiments)to prove that matter was indeed composed of atoms. And thanks to him, we now ALL know that atoms do exist, period. At one time in the past we did not. Now, when I asked you to prove God does not exist-- you called it proving a negative, just because you do not BELIEVE that God exists. You are no different than ALL the people in the past who did not believe atoms existed.

 

With every negative there is a positive to consider, and both can mean the same thing, so you will have to prove both positive and negative. This is universally true, Johnny B. For instance; you can prove God does or does not exist by using the positive and the negative(i.e God does exist, yes or no. God does not exist, yes or no)... If God does not exist is true, then God does exist is false. Both assertions are correct. Conversely, If God does not exist is false, then God does exist is true. This is a perfectly obvious verbal truism.

[Mr. Somalia]

Originally posted by Raamsade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Somalia:

Raamsade

, how did you come to your conclusion that there is no God?

By the same way that led you to reject all Gods except Allah.

^^

 

Nice to hear from you, Raamsade. You have broken your silence. Why? I do not scare you, do I? I certainly hope I don't. Honestly sxb, I haven't heard one person asking you to prove God does not exist. I figured if certain people of atheistic persuasions such as yourself, could bandy about the simple statement that "no one can prove the existence of God," then surely, they should be able to prove that the following simple sentence is false: To date no one has produced any evidence that proves God does not exist. Methinks, no one has succeeded so far, because they just do not know and cannot prove it.

[Somali09]

"Mr Somalia"

I have to say, you have amazing evasive abilities when it comes to answering points in discussions.

You should be a politician!

 

What evidence would you consider sufficient to prove God does not exist????

If the holy books (like the Quran) is the literal word of God, then by proving the claims it contains as FALSE - doesnt that tell you something????

 

Have you read (hopefully not from creatinist or religious sites/books) about the Evolution Theory & The Big Bang etc???

Or you are in league with your christian counterparts at the Creation Museum showcasing Dinosaurs and humans living side by side in some eden.

[Abtigiis]

Somalia09 and his ilk are on mission here. Saaxiibayal, if you came here to do sermons, it is not the forum. If you came to offend muslims, it is not wise to do so. Keep your faith or lack of it,and leave the people alone.

 

I AM shocked and disappointed to learn Johnny B is indeed a non-beliver. Subxaanallah! What a waste! Ninkaa waan jeclaa. May Allah forgive me!

[Mr. Somalia]

Originally posted by Somali09:

"Mr Somalia"

I have to say, you have amazing evasive abilities when it comes to answering points in discussions.

You should be a politician!

 

What evidence would you consider sufficient to prove God does not exist????

If the holy books (like the Quran) is the literal word of God, then by proving the claims it contains as FALSE - doesnt that tell you something????

 

Have you read (hopefully not from creatinist or religious sites/books) about the Evolution Theory & The Big Bang etc???

Or you are in league with your christian counterparts at the Creation Museum showcasing Dinosaurs and humans living side by side in some eden.

^^^^

 

 

Somali09, if I make a claim that God exists and you make a claim that he does not exist, we are both making claims. Are we not? Why then, do you think that I should believe, you are exempt from proving your claim just because you say that you are exempt from proving your claim? Is it a law of nature that makes you exempt from providing proof that God does not exist? No.

 

Now I know as an atheist, you do not believe in God, but you cannot prove that God does not exist either. How can you then be certain of anything you do not know, unless of-course you believe you know all. And I for one, do not believe atheists know everything that exists. People who simply proclaim God does not exist as if it were a truism, should be required to prove what they say is true. This is just a part of critical thinking, saaxiib. I WILL not accept a simple assertion as a substitute for truth.

 

There... now that we're back on an equal and rationally intellectual footing and we agree no one can DISPROVE the existence of God; and there clearly aren't any intellectual or scientific tools available to do so. So the question then becomes, "who has the better case?". In my opinion, it is far more rational and supportable to argue for the existence of God than to argue against it.

 

I worship the All-Mighty-- Creator of the universe with ALL its enormous mass and energy, and gravity, and ALL the amazing natural processes and laws that govern our world. Your Big Bang argument on the other hand; would seem to be things "coming into existence" as reformulations of existing mass and energy acting on each other, based on existing physical laws, correct? Well... even if we posit that the Big Bang was simply the explosion of matter that already existed, we still come back to an ULTIMATE Cause issue; WHY did they exist, how did matter and energy AND the laws that govern them come into existence? Scientific reasoning requires a cause for every effect; what was the cause of the Big Bang? The idea that the creation of the Universe did not require a Creator(a causal agent) is rationally untenable.

 

Many great minds, from Avicenna(Ibn Sina)to Kant to Descartes have offered persuasive philosophical arguments for their faith and the existence of the one true God; I have yet to see even one argument for Atheism that doesn't boil to the simple declaration, "I don't see Him, so He does not exist."

[5]

RAMSAADE WROTE:

 

"Sorry to burst your bubble but science relies on objective and verifiable facts not on cartoons and drawings. The fossil record is REAL and deadly for Creationism."

 

I guess you just didn't read my post well. What "objective and verifiable facts" have you got on the skin colour of dinosaurs? Or the shape of the iris? That's what I meant.

Oh and by the way, about cartoons and drawings: I applaud evolutionary theorists for their excellent and groundbreaking scientific visualization abilities, as they managed to sketch a whole pre-human and his family (complete with skin and hair - in colour) from 2 teeth. Which then unfortunately had to belong to a stopid pig. This wasn't of course forgery, this was a serious misunderstanding (I'm seriously not being sarcastic). If the teeth had been human, it would have made all the difference.

 

"Creationists are fond of employing red herrings and straw man arguments. I guess when you can't handle the evidence and powerful arguments for Evolution you try your luck at anything."

 

I know, the evidence is just overwhelming.

Wait, what evidence? (Btw I really don't like being called a creationist)

 

"For the same reason Theists fabricate bogus evidences for their believes."

 

I agree, evoscientists are as reliable as the writers of the Bible. Are they related?? That's the new hot question, my friend!

 

"Again, why would I? You know I reject the whole notion of prophet-hood. Mohammed was just 7th century arab leader albeit extraordinary one. His conduct can only be judged by the moral standards of his time not ours. Since I'm not a person calling for people to emulate Mohammed in the 21st century, I don't need to find faults with his actions and believes; it's actually you who has to defend him. "

 

Fair enough.

 

"Muslims of his time were busy dealing in slavery, specially black Negros like yourself. "

 

Muslims can't be slaves, soz bruv.

 

"Since that is NOT what Evolution theory postulates, let me know when you're interested in discussing the facts"

 

I think I already asked you; please explain/clarify to me what evolutionary theory is. See, I even asked you nicely

 

"I'm not gonna respond to this but let it hang there. It will come in handy later in showing us GG's entire understanding of genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish as it is gleaned from cartoons."

 

Thanks! I agree with you, that is pretty cartoonish! Thank you for agreeing with me. Unfortunately that was actually what De Vries suggested in early 20th century. And he was the developer of mutation theory of evolution. :'( That's why my knowledge of genetics is so cartoonish and naive. I blame him, it was the swieetie man. Fooking Dutch and his prawnmen!

 

Nonsense. Whales have vestigial hind limbs that are leftovers from when they walked on land.

 

That's what evolutionists think. I just read today in the Guardian that T-rex has a tiny older brother, and it has just been found:

 

"The discovery overturns scientists' thinking about how Tyrannosaurus rex evolved. Many of the most striking features of the beast, such as its puny forearms, were thought to be a trade-off during the evolution of its enormous size, but Raptorex shows these features had already evolved more than 60m years earlier."

 

Scientists sure seem to think a lot.

 

"Here is non-exclusive list: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis (my favorite), Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba."

 

You know what, I actually googled that list in that exact order and guess what came up? A thread called "Finally, tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION". Let me guess your search words: "TANGIBLE PROOF OF MACRO-EVOLUTION, HELP!"

Now what did you say about copy&paste, you old hypocrite? Shame on you. I doubted you knew anything, because even in spite of your eloquent use of fancy words, you dangerously confuse things and are not even familiar with the basics.

 

"There were different kind of species of Australopithecus, which one are you referring. Lets take, for arguments sake, Australopithecus Afarensis. This species was clearly an intermediate between apes and humans. For instance, its brain was about the size of chimpanzee but it was bipedal and had anatomical features resembling more closely humans as opposed to apes. Furthermore, its teeth looked more human than apes."

 

This is exactly what I mean with "confusing things". Australopithecus (both aferensis and africanus) is (supposedly) the forefather of modern chimpanzees. The fact that you say they resemble more humans than apes just sealed it for me.

 

"And the date of the fossils predate fossils for modern humans"

 

And this is your explanation? Because they came earlier, they must be their ancestors?

Let me ask you something in that case: who came first the floresiensis or the neanderthal? And now: which resembles more the modern human?

 

And by the way, how does one get the date of fossils?

 

Yes, they did not have bones since most animals are insects. This is why most fossils consist of hard stuff like bones, teeth, claws. We rarely find skin or tissue. The species that leave best and most fossils are those that: lived for long time, had hard body parts, were numerous and lived over large geographical area. Plant fossils are discovered, far less than animals, precisely because they're more ubiquitous and live in many different ecosystems

 

Please read what you wrote. "They didn't have bones since most animals were insects"? That is utter nonesense. The reason fossils are discovered rarely is because their remains decompose. It has nothing to do "bodies made of hard stuff" but everything to do with the body being covered with sediment in order to preserve.

 

"This is what I meant when earlier I said GG's conception of Genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish."

 

Yay! I know, right?!

 

"Mutations are merely mistakes from copying the genetic material during cell division (reproductive cells). These mutations add to the genetic diversity by adding new mutations on top of inherited mutations."

 

Dear God. Delete this post before you start regretting it. It's really embarrassing.

You haven't got the faintest of idea of what you're talking about. it's not even funny. We don't all carry mutant genes, if we did we'd be facking retards. (No offense to those who have inherited diseases)

 

"Perhaps GG should stop watching X-Men and start reading High School biology textbook. "

 

Perhaps you should cut the pseudo-intellectual crap, and have a look at that biology book. Mutations add to the genetic diversity... on top of inherited mutations... Lol.

 

"Second, Archeopteryx were their own species (as are all species) but they had features that were not completely dinosaur or completely bird, hence their status as intermediate species."

 

So a group of guys had a look at this bird that looked funny, and in their all-powerful wisdom, they declared it an intermediate? Yeah, sure, sounds good by me.

 

"They're not? Please, enlighten us. For example, tell us where we look for those mutations?"

 

Why genetic make up and mutation are not the same thing:

 

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.

Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.

 

This is from Wikipedia. You could have just typed 'mutation' and saved me the trouble and yourself the embarrassment.

 

You're clueless, aren't you"

 

I am.

 

"There are still single celled organisms."

 

And where did they come from? Or have they always been, and we've solved the mystery of life, and these single celled organisms are the origin of all life, our forefathers?

 

"Yes, like in the X-Men cartoons. "

 

Totally. I like the films better though.

 

"Because omniscient, omnipotent creator knows the outcome before the test on earth. Before God creates you, He already knows your destiny otherwise he's not omniscient. He chose, out of His free will, to create you knowing ahead of time where you will end up."

 

Of course He does. It's no secret, you know?

 

"Thus, the test on earth is meaningless and free will is an illusion."

 

Life on Earth (material pursuits etc) is meaningless and ultimately an illusion. The test however is real. The realness of free will can be seen in our discussion: you don't believe in God, I do. Because God has created you so that you will never be able to predict tomorrow; knowing your future is impossible for you. Therefore free will is real for you and not for Him. Just like this world is the reality for you and not for Him.

[Cara.]

^Have you ever heard of DNA fingerprinting? If you and your older sibling were the only suspects in a crime, would it be possible to distinguish between the two of you based on a DNA sample found at the scene of the crime? What about you and your mother or father? You and your identical twin sibling? You and the Dalai Lama? Or would that be only possible if the two of you are "retards" or have a genetic disorder?

 

Are all mutations deleterious? Is it possible to have a mutation that's beneficial to an organism, or a mutation that is neutral? Ever heard of a "silent mutation"? What is the process by which bacteria and viruses become resistant to antibiotics/antivira ls?

[5]

Originally posted by Arac:

^Have you ever heard of DNA fingerprinting? If you and your older sibling were the only suspects in a crime, would it be possible to distinguish between the two of you based on a DNA sample found at the scene of the crime? What about you and your mother or father? You and your identical twin sibling? You and the Dalai Lama? Or would that be only possible if the two of you are "retards" or have a genetic disorder?

Do you deliberately misread or do you suffer from dyslexia? I can't see how those questions follow. The fact that we have different DNA from our parents (or anyone else) is due to our genetic make-up, which is not the same thing as mutation. DNA changes, and sometimes (rarely) these changes result in mutation. I can't believe you too can be arguing we all have mutations in our genes.

 

Originally posted by Arac:

Are all mutations deleterious? Is it possible to have a mutation that's beneficial to an organism, or a mutation that is neutral? Ever heard of a "silent mutation"? What is the process by which bacteria and viruses become resistant to antibiotics/antivira ls?

This is irrelevant. Mutation is rare - an exception and not the rule.