Atheism/Lets talk about GOD!

[5]

Like totally!

 

This is like so much fun, but I have to go watch paint dry. It is, of course, much more exciting than having to continuously spoon-feed the opponent.

 

"given a resounding trashing in this thread" "they keep coming back" Continue watching WWE, little boy. Then maybe, one day, when you're old enough, you can CRUSH us with your SPEED RACER hot wheels car or, or, OPTIMUS PRIME or MEGATRON! Yaaay

 

Unfortunately auntie 5 has to go now. She has to baby-sit real kids tomorrow. *Expects some kicking and crying*

[Cicero]

In all fairness, the lopsided nature of this debate was a forgone conclusion.

 

Raamsade's task, namely, arguing for the soundness of biological evolution seems easy, even effortless - because it is!

 

To give a crude analogy, Raamsade has the appearance of a prosecutor who has an open-and-shut case: forensic evidence, confession, witness testimony, prior history, and other corroborating evidence. Thus, it's going to take more than the courtroom theatrics of a desperate defense attorney to persuade the jury to disregard the damning evidence.

 

2+2=5 finds herself in the unenviable position of having to launch an asinine assault on well-established science in favor of (and here's the kicker) just-so stories and creation myths.

 

Evolution by natural selection, the 'cornerstone of modern biology', is a hoax; God magically puffing life into a mush of mud, well, that's a fact.

[ElPunto]

Open and shut case akhaaro ha idin ka sarto! Good luck lads.

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by Castro:

I love this thread. Not for all the back and forth or the "scientific" balderdash it contains but for its elegant demonstration that without our egos, we could never take a severe and unambiguous licking yet keep coming back for more.

 

LOL.

Originally posted by Raamsade:

[QB] ^Exactly! Muslim creationists have been given a resounding trashing in this thread. And yet they keep coming back for more which leads me to believe that there is more at play than mere ego.[QB]

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Like totally!

 

This is like so much fun, but I have to go watch paint dry. It is, of course, much more exciting than having to continuously spoon-feed the opponent.

 

"given a resounding trashing in this thread" "they keep coming back"

Continue watching WWE, little boy. Then maybe, one day, when you're old enough, you can CRUSH us with your SPEED RACER hot wheels car or, or, OPTIMUS PRIME or MEGATRON! Yaaay

 

Unfortunately auntie 5 has to go now. She has to baby-sit real kids tomorrow. *Expects some kicking and crying*

So you're fleeing from a debate that you initiated?

 

I always thought that was your best options. Don't know why it took you so long.

 

Run along.

[ailamos]

Originally posted by guerilla:

quote:Originally posted by Sherban Shabeel:

My question for this debate is one I have asked on multiple occasions on this board, only to have it ignored time and time again.

 

Why is evolution automatically associated with atheism? Why the refusal to reconcile belief in a Higher Being with the mechanism of life?

Because dear boy, God created Adam from clay and Eve from Adams ribs. This I'm assured by many, is only to be taken literally and if you've an ounce of common sense you would throw god and his stooges to the dogs and say 'I will not equate rational, reasoned, scientific argument to magical thinking, they're not as valid as each other, they're not as valid as each other, they're not as valid as each other, they're simply NOT as valid as each other' after which you'll take a healthy swig of whiskey (any will do) for even further clarity and smack yourself for ever thinking religion was a necessary precursor to you leading a happy existence.

I don't think Sherban was alluding belief in a higher being as necessarily believing in that particular bit of scripture you mentioned guerilla but as a more general belief in a higher being (say... God, Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, etc.) that created life through evolution.

 

Anyway, that's not why I posted but rather to play devil's advocate and post the comparison between the clay theory of abiogenesis and the Quranic version of the origin of humans.

 

"Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life" - New Scientist, October 2003

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4307

 

[23:12] Translation: "And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay."

 

For those of you who are not familiar with abiogenesis, here's an excellent primer from Jelle Kastelein of the University of Amsterdam:

http://student.science.uva.nl/~jckastel/html/abiogenesis.pdf

 

In the end it falls down to personal choice, although religion fueled many if not all of the strife humanity underwent over the last 2000 years, there are many people who lead righteous and peaceful lives based on their faith and who are educated professionals of science while being practicing religionists.

 

Personally though and as a Somali, I think the issue of secular, scientific thinking is crucial to us Somalis should we have a stable homeland again. Islamic fanaticism has usurped our country; I do not want to go back to a Somalia that has Shariah as the main mode to disseminate justice even if we have peace.

 

Check out this interesting interview where Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, a Chandler Professor of Law at Emory University and author of "Islam and the Secular State" advocates the secularization of governments in Muslim countries: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2009/06/05/VI2009060501276.html

[Rayyan]

 

What I find very amusing in all human arguments is that its not merely the truth that humans are after, but somehow the 'missing link or truth' becomes the very exercise of 'countering the other'. And slowly by slowly, the need for truth itself becomes redundant since it doesn't either support one or another side of the argument.

 

Perhaps we should find the hidding place of the truth?

 

BTW, I don't think this forum exists, it is the constract of my imagination. I somehow created it. Now counter that.

This forum does exist. Because of a reason, if you take away the causes how can anything happen? As you mentioned above you applied your good imagination, but can you? show us where is that imagination lies!

 

It’s in your intellect for sure, is't touchable? and can it be found?, it's in your brain which houses your imagination - hayee ma taaban karata caqligaaga xaaji? The missing link you’ve mentioned above, and where the truth lies is the awareness of God, that connects your imagination to the infinite intelligence and to higher power.

 

When the moments of truth in life dawns and the realisation that you’re totally alone, and no one helps you but yourself and God – is for sure certain and plenty, and whence you go through that door there is no turning back. It’s simple and it’s when you realise you're going to die, as there is No clever scientist ever tricked or cheat that moment of truth. Once the enlightment flashes – it’s all over! But nevertheless, My question is how a microscopic little sperm that found another microscopic sperm holder, that become a man or a woman by the grace of God, can see and reckon what is beyond the cosmic stars when he or she cannot see what is beyond the wall next door? how can a creature who sees only black and white could ever understand what green means, but still God wants us to be intelligent and to love him what he done for us between the heavens and earth, all easy for human being to ponder and harness the knowledge and technology cos they carry between their eyes and temples the spirit and light of God.

 

Albert Einstein said in one of his technical essays- when ever we harness and mount a grand telescope we found in the horizon a new stars came to being never before we knew.

 

Sir Isaac Newton once said also that after the whole of his lifetime’s study, he had been just like a boy playing with pebbles on the beach while a whole vast ocean lay before him.

 

Keith Moore the Canadian imminent embryologist – couldn’t believe when some Muslims shows him the ayah in the Quraan, says that: “The we made the sperm into a colt of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create.” (See a meeting between Zandani and K.Moore in Icjaz al cilmi.)

 

When he heard that he said how an unlettered man in the desert 1500 years ago, without say techno-Lab of modern science know all this without revelation and inspiration from the above. So Islam is pro Creationists without taking everything from them, and also we are with Science, exploration and learning – so science must increase our faith. Without believing we came straight from apes, and darwins tadha badha. “He is the one who created who created for you hearing, sight, feeling, and understanding. Yet you are not very thankful”. Quraan is our measuring Guide.

 

So then "False gods cannot create a fly - nor could they ever get back what a fly could take from them. - Ducfal a taalib wal matluub” – Feeble are those who petition and those whom they petition.” Quraan – 22:73

 

 

Generally - The ungodly souls in SOL, Quraan is a must read.

 

Wa ila liqaa al qaadim in sha Allah.

[genius pauper.]

!!##what on earth. when does a blind blame others for not seeing, waa yaabe.!!

 

waa duni aakhiru samaan ah, runti.

 

personally i feel, ramsaade should question himself why s/he is here on earth, than go round preaching that,, the ipod is the product of someone, but the universe just came by chance.

 

mathematicaly, in a basket of green, yellow, and red marbles, numbering 100,(assumethat each is in proportion to the other,till when they number 30 forfeit the others on prorata respectively, because picking is but a afucntion of time) what is the chance of continuously picking red marble till you finish picking all the red marbles in the basket????

if you feel your clever enough to question, it beats logic if you fail to answer this. lol

 

ailamos, why bring your secularity issues everywhere? i thought u started a thread to that effect??

[Mavericksky]

In the name of Allah the most Magnificient.

 

It is quite incredible how some people congratulate themselves on a so called 'open & shut case'. Nothing from what i read here amounts at all close to open & shut debate.

 

Its very easy to go and copy & paste blindly from the most dubious of sources, just because they are of 'evolutionery orientation'.

 

The idea of Evolution of species as introduced by Darwin was/is the product of its time. I wonder what would have he made of the cell, the DNA and quantum physics theory that challenges our whole understanding of the nature of matter/energy (which all came way after him)?

 

The idea of spontaneous/ undesigned (yet some how intellegent & efficient to know the best possible outcome for any mutation) is at best deeply embaressing in this day and age and at worst an outright madness cloaked in the unholly cover of 'science'.

 

Quating left and right from the most ambigous of sources will i am afraid not help in advancing real and contemplative scientific enquiry.

 

Far from being over the inquiry for the truth hasn't even started from the side of

The blind evolution extremists.

 

I bare witness in the Miraclous nature of Allah's creation, and I bare witness in the truthfulness message of His Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). I also bare witness the deceit and lies as perpetuated by the oft-misguided feeble minds.

[Cara.]

1. Darwin was aware of cells, and the cell theory was actually proposed before he wrote On The Origin of Species. But at any rate, how would cells pose a challenge for him?

 

2. Darwin would have been thrilled with the discovery of DNA, since it supports his central theory that all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor. In fact, part of the impetus for discovering DNA was that biologists were trying to identify how heritability, an essential component of natural selection, occurred at the cellular level. How were genes passed down to the next generation? The discoverers of DNA, and the first person to crack the genetic code and pretty much every scientist since knows that evolution by natural selection is the single most powerful theory in the field of biology.

 

3. So we are shooting down basic biology but embracing quantum physics? I guess that makes sense :confused:

[genius pauper.]

IF DARWIN HAD KNOWN ABOUT DNA

 

The Darwinism That Developed in a Climate of Ignorance

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Aspect of The Cell Discovered In the 20th Century

 

In the second half of the 20th century, advances in the field of molecular biology entirely altered our perspective on the miniaturized world inside the cell. With today's rapidly developing technology, biologists have become aware of the flawless and complex mechanisms possessed by the cell, realizing that these could not have come into being by chance or spontaneously. Most of the systems that constitute the cell are smaller than the wavelength of visible light. Some details in the cell can be examined only by advanced techniques such as X-ray crystallography. However, at the time when Darwin launched his theory, the level of science was extremely backward. Not even the basic structure of the cell had been revealed, let alone the discovery of the helix structure and data capacity of the DNA molecule, which James Watson and Francis Crick revealed nearly 100 years after the publication of Darwin's book The Origin of Species

 

Darwin had no means of foreseeing the advances that molecular biology would subsequently make. Clearly, his theory of evolution built on fundamentally flawed knowledge and hypotheses cannot account for the existence of a structure like DNA, which amazes scientists.

 

The well–known Cambridge University philosopher Dr. Stephen C. Meyer compares modern science with that of Darwin's day:

 

During the last half of the twentieth century, advances in molecular biology and biochemistry have revolutionized our understanding of the miniature world within the cell. Research has revealed that cells--the fundamental units of life-store--transmit, and edit information and use that information to regulate their most fundamental metabolic processes . . . biologists now describe cells as, among other things, "distributive real-time computers" or complex information processing systems. Darwin, of course, neither knew about these intricacies nor sought to explain their origin. Instead, his theory of biological evolution sought to explain how life could have grown gradually more complex starting from "one or a few simple forms" . . . in the 1870s and 1880s, scientists assumed that devising an explanation for the origin of life would be fairly easy. For one thing, they assumed that life was essentially a rather simple substance called protoplasm that could be easily constructed by combining and recombining simple chemicals such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen.5

 

However, some scientists, the heirs of Darwin, still consider that atoms spontaneously combined to give rise to complex living things. In the light of the extraordinary advances made in the field of molecular biology especially over the last 50 years, it is quite astonishing that Darwin's claim should have survived this long. This state of affairs is admitted in a statement by Dr. Richard Lewontin, an evolutionist and Harvard University biologist and geneticist:

 

. . . evolution is not a fact, it's a philosophy. The materialism comes first (a priori), and the evidence is interpreted in light of that unchangeable philosophical commitment. 6

 

Because of their devotion to materialism, the inheritors of the theory of evolution are generally unable to accept scientific facts. They therefore insist on trying to carry an outdated 19th-century scientific conception into the present day. However, the facts are too evident to be covered up by any superstitious philosophy.

 

In the Qur'an, Allah reveals that there will be those who "use fallacious arguments to deny the truth" (Surat al-Kahf, 56). In another verse, He tells us:

 

Rather We hurl the truth against falsehood and it cuts right through its brain and it vanishes clean away! Woe without end for you for what you portray! (Surat al-Anbiya', 18)

 

 

The Cell Is More Complex Than a Major City

 

Some four billion years ago, according to the evolutionist scenario, various inanimate chemical substances entered into reactions in the primitive Earth's atmosphere; these then combined with the effects of lightning and earthquakes–and thus the first living cell emerged. The fact is, however, that the structure of the cell is more complex that even the most populous and technologically advanced city. A great many systems operate non-stop with a flawless organization, from power stations that produce energy inside the cell to protein-producing factories, from a freight system that transports raw materials to decoders that translate DNA, and a dense and constant communications system.

 

For evolutionists to believe that the cell came into being by chance is as illogical and nonsensical as claiming that all the buildings, roads, transportation systems, electricity and water networks in a city such as Istanbul, with its almost 15 million population, came into existence spontaneously as the result of such natural phenomena as storms and earthquakes.

 

Prof. Gerald L. Schroeder, an Israeli scientist working in the fields of physics and biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) describes the order inside the cell:

 

 

DARWIN WAS IGNORANT OF DNA

 

In advancing his theory, Charles Darwin could not account for the variety of species. In any case, he would have not been unable to, being ignorant of DNA. Darwin knew neither genetics, nor biomathematics nor microbiology–branches of science that emerged only after Darwin's death. He made illusory deductions based on the limited means at his disposal and on visible similarities among living things. Since the above branches of science had not yet emerged, he had no opportunity to investigate the cell. The period in which the claims of the theory of evolution were put forward is therefore important in terms of our seeing the dimensions of the ignorance concerned.

 

The human body acts as a finely tuned machine, a magnificent metropolis in which, as its inhabitants, each of the 75 trillion cells, composed of 1027 atoms, moves in symbiotic precision. Seldom are two cells simultaneously performing the same act, yet their individual contributions combine smoothly to form life. 7

 

Despite being an evolutionist, the late astrobiologist Carl Sagan speaks of the amazing order in the cell as if it were a work of art:

 

 

1- Nucleus

2- Centrioles

3- Mitochondria

4- Endoplasmic reticulum

5-Ribosome

6- Golgi body

7- Chromatin

8- Micronucleus

9- Microvilli

10- Lysosome

11- Cell membrane

12- Cophula

13- Cell pore

14- Pyroxysome

15- Cell skeleton

In its complexity, the cell resembles the structure of a large city. Yet the order within it, far too small to be seen with the naked eye, exists in every one of the 100 trillion cells in the human body.

 

 

A living cell is a marvel of detailed and complex architecture. Seen through a microscope, there is an appearance of almost frantic activity. On a deeper level it is known that molecules are being synthesized at an enormous rate. Almost any enzyme catalyzes the synthesis of more than 100 other molecules per second. In ten minutes, a sizeable fraction of total mass of a metabolizing bacterial cell has been synthesized. The information content of a simple cell had been estimated as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica. 8

 

The nucleus inside the cell bears the DNA, the most important genetic material. Mitochondria inside the cell turn glucose (in the form of food products) into energy packets. Microscopic tubes extend throughout the cell, constituting vital pathways along which proteins and other required substances can be carried to the appropriate location. In addition, the billions of cells in our bodies build all their systems out of molecules, at the same time consistently maintaining and repairing themselves. As well as performing their own tasks, they also renew themselves.9 They also obtain their own energy.

 

Prof. Werner Gitt, director of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, emphasizes how the cell is far superior to any machinery made by human beings: "The biological energy conversion system is brilliantly and cleverly designed that energy engineers can only watch, fascinated. Nobody has yet been able to copy this miniaturized and extremely efficient mechanism."10

 

In his book Blind Faith: Evolution Exposed, the science writer Howard Peth states that there is no such thing as a simple cell:

 

Formerly, it was thought that a cell was composed of nucleus and a few other parts in a "sea"' of cytoplasms, with large spaces in the cell unoccupied. Now it is known that a cell literally "swarms."' That is, it's packed full of important functioning units necessary to the life of the cell and the body containing it. The theory of evolution assumes life developed from a "simple"' cell - but science today demonstrates that there is no such thing as a simple cell.11

 

 

1- Tissue

2- Cell

3- Cell nucleus

4-DNA strips packaged as chromosomes

5- DNA helix

 

 

All the details of the body are coded in the DNA in every cell of every living thing, whether it be a flower, a chick or a child.

 

 

In conclusion, cells are not simple sacs of jelly, as was imagined in Darwin's day. On the contrary, as the 20th century physicist and astrobiologist Prof. Paul Davies puts it, they resemble computers with the most highly advanced technology, or complex cities.

 

 

 

 

---------------Chapters----------------- FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE UNIVERSE TO THE DNA MOLECULE THE MOST ADVANCED DATA BANK KNOWN: DNA ASPECTS OF THE CELL DISCOVERED IN THE 20TH CENTURY THE SOURCE OF THE DATA OF LIFE THE DNA MOLECULE'S MIRACULOUS STRUCTURE DNA'S EXTRAORDINARY DATA-STORAGE CAPACITY THE CRYPTOGRAPHY IN THE DNA MOLECULE PROTEIN SYNTHESIS: THE MATCHLESS PRODUCTION SYSTEM RECORDED IN DNA THE WORLD'S MOST ADVANCED COPYING TECHNOLOGY THE BUILDING PLAN RECORDED IN HUMAN DNA DARWINIST-MATERIALIST ERRORS REGARDING THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT THE INFORMATION IN LIVING STRUCTURES AND THE END OF MATERIALISM SOME OF DARWINISM'S ERRORS ON THE SUBJECT OF DNA HOW THE MIRACLE OF DNA INVALIDATES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DNA IS AN EXAMPLE OF OUR ALMIGHTY LORD'S CREATIVE ARTISTRY

 

5. Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs, From First Things 102, April 1, 2000

6. Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds, InterVarsity Press, Illionis, 1997, p. 81

7. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden face of God, Free press, 2002, p.49

8. Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, 1974, pp. 893-894

9. David S. Goodsell, The Machinery of Life, Springer-Verlag, New York Inc., 1993, p. 45

10. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, Mas­ter Books, 2006, p. 243.

11. Howard Peth, Blind Faith: Evolution Exposed, Amazing Facts Inc., USA, 1990, p. 77

 

 

 

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/if_darwin_had_known/if_darwin_had_known03.php

[Mavericksky]

Bismillah,

 

Thnx Cara. Point taken with regard to the time of the cell discoverey being before darwin.

 

1. However, the full complexity displayed by the living cell, on the otherhand (which is what i intended), was NOT known in Darwins day. This simply was because of the rumdimentary nature of the microscopic technology of the day.

 

Today's cellular knowledge reveals a mind buggling organised 'system' at work within the scope of this infinitesimally small entity we call the 'cell body'. The workings of a single cell has been compared to the functioning of a fully fledged metropolous.

 

The above mentioned complexity makes the idea of accidents that lead to 'natural' selection HIGHLY DUBIOUS AND QUESTIONABLE.

 

Further, among the primary components of the cell it self is the PROTEIN molecule and here we reach another milestone. To my knowledge NO protein has ever been produced in any lab any where. This is for a VERY GOOD REASON protein can not be accidently/spontaneouslly manufactured from nothing.

 

Since its impossible to have even a single protein molecule arisen accidently/blindly/intellegently from NOTHING, then it renders the whole idea of the development of the CELL thereafter with the mentioned immense complexity TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

 

Why then bounce into a whole new AREA OF TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITIES - by jumping into the idea of whales mutating into polar bears and Dinasours through (a meticlous/progressive) process of trial and error learning to develop wings (!!!) and flying up high in the sky????

 

---put a side this crazy speudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo-hoax pox business and EMPLOY A COMMON SENSE!!----

 

finally, we are happy to refer to quantum mechanics. It supports our belief that matter is not ALL that there is and indeed there is more the UNIVERSE then what is concieved or possibley measured with the naked eye, microscope, telescope or any other visual scope. which renders the old idea of 'show me and i'll believe' totally SO OUT OF DATE.

 

There are dimensions beyound our comprehension and that is A REAL SCIENTIFIC FACT.

 

O Allah grant me serenity, patience and the wisdom to know the difference. May peace & blessings be upon the Chosen (saw)

[Cara.]

Mavericksky,

 

Cells are amazingly complicated and fascinating, I agree. But there ARE levels of complexity in cell structure, with different organisms possessing certain features to different degrees. Bacteria, for example, don't have a nucleus, mitochondria, golgi bodies, endoplasmic reticulum, etc. The differences in cellular organelles, their presence or absence in some organisms, their inter-relationships, all point to an evolutionary origin. If they didn't, cell biologists would be complaining, believe me!

 

"Proteins don't arise from NOTHING" is a red herring. Even if you disagree with a theory, the least you can do is understand its basic ideas. No biologist suggests that modern proteins arise spontaneously, if anything theories of special creation are guilty of promoting the oh-so-scientific explanation known as "POOF, and then there were fully formed adult animals in an instant". Proteins evolved, just as DNA has evolved, over millions of years. Each protein in your body can be analyzed for similarity to other proteins, and the level of divergence correlates remarkably well with what we know about common descent. Just as you're more genetically similar to your family than to Kim Jung Il, so too humans are more similar to other great apes than to kangaroos or sharks. Why do you think monkeys and chimpanzees are used to test medicine before approval for humans?

 

I see what you mean about quantum mechanics. Of course, the laws of physics at the quantum level also apply at the macro-level. If quarks are unpredictable and hard to pin down, that applies equally well to everyday experiences. If I throw myself out of a building, there's just as a good a chance I'll disappear and reappear on Mars as that I'll hit the ground outside the window. After all, that's predicted by quantum mechanics, right?

 

which renders the old idea of 'show me and i'll believe' totally SO OUT OF DATE.

So what's the alternative? Don't show me and I'll believe? Tell me babies come from storks and that's just as good an explanation as theories on human reproduction? What exactly is the practical outcome of insisting reality is not what it seems?

[Mavericksky]

Bismilah,

Cara, thanx for the reply.

 

Putting aside the 'controversy of the theory organic evolution aside' for a minute.

 

Is the above comment your only understanding of the laws of quantum mechamics and their paradigm shifting implications?

[Cara.]

^I know very little about quantum mechanics. Are you a physicist?