science proves the existence of god

[sugaray21]

I came across a documentary on youtube. It is 1.5 hours long and for the first 1hr 20mins or so it proves,without doubt,that there has to be a designer of the universe. But it doesnt do this in any other way but giving facts figures and evidence from the scientific world.it references physics,quantum theory,mathematics,biology,touches on evolution and dna,it is utterly fascinating.there is so much to learn from the scientific aspect of intelligent design from this doc.lots of scientists get interviewed saying it is mathematically impossible that there wasnt a creator of some kind.it mentions nothing of religion until a few minutes towards the end when it shows some scientific aspects of the quran and clips of scientists saying how they are unable to refute the koran.although the person who made the doc is muslim,this is not a biased video in the slightest because there is no mention of religion until the end plus it is pure science throughout and as some would say you cant argue with science and facts right?! there is so much in this documentary regarding scientific formulae,fibonnaci sequence many many more things that id love to hear responses and opinions from any scientists on this forum.particularly atheists.the world has waited so long to have actual hard scientific evidence to prove or disprove god and the information in this documentary is groundbreaking and since atheists will only accept science as proof of god,it is there for everyone to see.it has to be watched from beginning to end because there is so much information to take in and a lot of it is advanced maths and physics.it is fascinating please watch.its youtube and its called the signs of gods existence.the picture that you see when it comes up on youtube is a head with a blue brain.cant wait to hear what others make of it.

admins: please please dont throw out this post,please watch the doc if you feel the need to before posting my thread.the doc goes hand in hand with islam there is nothing that contradicts islam in it,it was made by a muslim anyway.and mentions bits about koran at the end and plays a couple of surah recitations.please allow this thread! It would make an excellent dawah tool :-) Jazakallahkhair

[greenhill]

I see the site... will check it out sometime...


:peace:

[Independent]

Can someone post a link?

[MustafaMc]

The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[greenhill]

Exactly! Very nicely put. Fairly comprehensive coverage and well presented.

But it is rather long....... it talks about mind and material, the cause (agent), about life (creation), and evolution. I'm sure I have missed something out and in all, it 'scientifically' explains its stance/ findings.

Thanks for the share.


:peace:

[sugaray21]

Exactly! Very nicely put. Fairly comprehensive coverage and well presented.

But it is rather long....... it talks about mind and material, the cause (agent), about life (creation), and evolution. I'm sure I have missed something out and in all, it 'scientifically' explains its stance/ findings.

Thanks for the share.


:peace:

Yes it is long....but I quite liked that personally.there was just SO much information to absorb. Thanks for taking the time to watch.now I wait to hear from others particularly anyone knowledgeable enough who can refute any of the scientific information shown because I do want to be fairminded and hear a scientific critique of it,if that's even possible,since science speaks for itself!!.

[sugaray21]

Salam...it says on your occupation 'scientist'. I don't want to put you on the spot here,but as I'm not a scientist myself and educated to honours degree in languages (therefore quite far removed from that discipline) Could you maybe comment on the documentary? Is the information in it fair and balanced? Do you see any contradictions at all? Jazakallahkhair.

[Muhaba]

Jazak-Allaho khairan for posting.

[Independent]

the person who made the doc is muslim,this is not a biased video in the slightest because there is no mention of religion until the end plus it is pure science throughout and as some would say you cant argue with science and facts right?! there is so much in this documentary regarding scientific formulae,fibonnaci sequence

With respect, unfortunately I have to disagree. I can understand why you might like it. However, it seriously misrepresents both science and individual scientists throughout. I'll give an example:

Many of the issues in the video have been the subject of threads before. But one I haven’t seen, and which you mention specifically, is Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Mean.

This sounds impressive as described in the video. How could so much of Nature be built around the same mathematical sequences, if not by Intelligent Design?

What the video entirely fails to mention is that this mathematical configuration is important because it confers direct a evolutionary benefit. For instance, it helps the leaves on a plant to maximise sunlight for photosynthesis. Elsewhere it optimises the number of seeds on a circular seed head.

In other words, this isn’t some kind of arbitrary, magic number. Instead it leads to the single most efficient structures for Nature to use. It therefore makes sense as a consequence of natural selection, in the same way as any other advantage is selected over time.

If they had included that infomation but argued against it, then fair enough. But to fail even to mention this aspect of the story is not acceptable in a video production that purports to be scientific or in any way objective.

[greenhill]

In other words, this isn’t some kind of arbitrary, magic number. Instead it leads to the single most efficient structures for Nature to use. It therefore makes sense as a consequence of natural selection, in the same way as any other advantage is selected over time

I think it did stress the impossibility to have things so fine tuned to the 120th decimal places or whatever and to achieve that by chance from what would be a 'random' universe from a 'scientific' point of view. There there must be an 'intelligent designer'

On another note the idea of 'natural selection' is also debated out as being false.


:peace:

[Scimitar]

i was in tears listening to this - I mean, atheists need faith after watching the following, even if it is without any logic.



that's where islam differs from atheism, we have both - faith, and logic... eventually they lead to conviction!

[Independent]

I think it did stress the impossibility to have things so fine tuned to the 120th decimal places or whatever and to achieve that by chance from what would be a 'random' universe from a 'scientific' point of view. There there must be an 'intelligent designer'

I'm not sure whether you can really measure the position of a plant leaf so exactly. In any case, in some species the figure is an average, not exact in every leaf. And there are a minority of plants that don't show a Fibonacci pattern at all. The case is not so simple or clear cut.

From a TOE viewpoint, there is a logical reason for plants to adopt these particular patterns. In order to be objective the video must at least discuss the evolutionary benefit that this arrangement confers. Without it, the video is being at best disingenuous (and that's being kind).

By the way, natural selection is anything but random: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...is-random.html

Lots of interesting information here: http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted...at.html#plants

[MustafaMc]

i was in tears listening to this - I mean, atheists need faith after watching the following, even if it is without any logic.

Assalamu alaikum, that was a fabulous video. I loved how he put probability of forming a single 150 amino acid as so minutely small as to be an impossibility. This is assuming that the amino acids themselves had spontaneously appeared in such an environment for them to coalesce into a functional protein. A single protein in and of itself is practically worthless without other biochemicals and cellular structures in order to convey a function.

[greenhill]

Originally Posted by Scimitar
i was in tears listening to this - I mean, atheists need faith after watching the following, even if it is without any logic.
Assalamu alaikum, that was a fabulous video. I loved how he put probability of forming a single 150 amino acid as so minutely small as to be an impossibility. This is assuming that the amino acids themselves had spontaneously appeared in such an environment for them to coalesce into a functional protein. A single protein in and of itself is practically worthless without other biochemicals and cellular structures in order to convey a function.

....and I on the fine tuning of gravity'(?) to the accuracy of having an archer calculating how to hit a target measuring 1cm square placed at 15 billion light years away... without such accuracy the world would cease to exist!

:peace:

[MustafaMc]

Salam...it says on your occupation 'scientist'. I don't want to put you on the spot here,but as I'm not a scientist myself and educated to honours degree in languages (therefore quite far removed from that discipline) Could you maybe comment on the documentary? Is the information in it fair and balanced? Do you see any contradictions at all? Jazakallahkhair.

Assalamu alaikum, I watched a portion of the video, but not all of it yet as it is quite long.

[MustafaMc]

....and I on the fine tuning of gravity'(?) to the accuracy of having an archer calculating how to hit a target measuring 1cm square placed at 15 billion light years away... without such accuracy the world would cease to exist!

Assalamu alaikum, can you clarify what you are trying to say here? I think I missed your point.

[Muhaba]

I'm not sure whether you can really measure the position of a plant leaf so exactly. In any case, in some species the figure is an average, not exact in every leaf. And there are a minority of plants that don't show a Fibonacci pattern at all. The case is not so simple or clear cut.

From a TOE viewpoint, there is a logical reason for plants to adopt these particular patterns. In order to be objective the video must at least discuss the evolutionary benefit that this arrangement confers. Without it, the video is being at best disingenuous (and that's being kind).

By the way, natural selection is anything but random: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...is-random.html

Lots of interesting information here: http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted...at.html#plants

Is that all you could find in the video to object to? What about all the other stuff the video talked about?

[greenhill]

I loved how he put probability of forming a single 150 amino acid as so minutely small as to be an impossibility.

There was another comment relating to the probability of the dispersement of matter (if I am not mistaken) following the Big Bang that had the gravity field changed even in the slightest degree(?) the universe would have formed differently. The accuracy required to 'tune' the gravitational field is equivalent to the analogy of the archer.

But then again, I am trying to understand all the scientific explanations from my layman's understanding..^o)

Hope it makes sense....


:peace:

[MustafaMc]

Oh, that must have been in the longer video. My comments were on the short video posted by Brother Scimitar.

[greenhill]

By the way, natural selection is anything but random: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...is-random.html

It says in the article, yes and no (on the randomness of evolution) and it states that only the first step is random, the mutations and chance events. The second part is the natural selection.

On the first point, on the mutations and chance events. It was already stated the probability of creating protein(?) was nearly impossible and that is relatively simple stuff compared to other building blocks. How would the probability stack against everything being created by chance? Let alone for natural selection to take place after.

The video also talks about the need of an 'agent' to make things happen like the example that was cited, doing sums does not produce money. i.e, to build things, it needs to follow the laws of physics, we need the building material. Even then it would not come into being without the 'maker' making it.

On another note, the fact that it is not random surely paves the way into the belief of a 'grand design' and an intelligent source, especially if the 'golden ratio' etc shows a common denominator for all created stuff that governs the laws of creation. Not randomness of chance occurrence.

:peace:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Nobody appears to have informed the scientific community that God's existence has been proven. You'd have thought such a staggering result would have made the news all over the world.

Peace

[Scimitar]

Define what constitutes for proof - coz if its observable verification for a God, then hah - you have to wait a looooooooooong time.

If it's circumstantial evidences, mathematical proofs, logic, debunking of bad science in order to arrive at a more honest truth - then we can go some ways to making atheist feel like they've invested a lot of faith in something that remains to be proven also :D

Scimi

[sugaray21]

Lol...it all depends who is in charge,who monopolises what is shown and told to the world....do you think that the corporate elite/the powers that be/the Illuminati etc (Ie.the families and corporations that truly run things) with all their money and power over the mainstream media,would ever let this type of information out to the mainstream,in the way it is presented? Of course not,because then the masses may begin to become curious and do their own research,and educate themselves of all sides of every story -where will that lead to? =A massive shift in societal dynamics and most fearfully for the elite,a looser grip of control of the masses.this possibility is absolutely unacceptable to them,they have been socially engineering the masses for decades for their own agenda so any diversion to that end is a no no.especially if everyone suddenly decides they must follow a God and no longer want to be subordinate to (corrupt) human beings....

[sugaray21]

That last post of mine was directed at Cz gibson

[Independent]

Is that all you could find in the video to object to? What about all the other stuff the video talked about?

i found plenty to object to but it's 1.5 hrs long. If you want to ask something specific I'll give you my view.

Not all of it is worthless, there are some genuine issues raised. But overall it is not a serious scientific document as you can tell in the first few seconds, when it drifts off immediately into conspiracy land (new world order - yawn).

I commented on the Fibonacci numbers because they make such a big deal of it in the video. The fact that they omit to tell us the real signficance of the number is unforgivable from a science point of view and renders the video as pure propaganda.

[Independent]

Lol...it all depends who is in charge,who monopolises what is shown and told to the world....do you think that the corporate elite/the powers that be/the Illuminati etc (Ie.the families and corporations that truly run things) with all their money and power over the mainstream media,would ever let this type of information out to the mainstream,in the way it is presented?

Isn't this video doing exactly that? Telling another story?

With regard to the issue of science censorship, many of the scientists featured in the video work for Creationist institutions such as the Biologic Institute. Their mission is to research into and find proof for Intelligent Design. They have been founded on the notion that research built on Creationist principles will actually produce better science than 'normal' science.

So far, they have published very little and made no important contribution to scientific advance. It would seem that they prefer to spend their time criticising others rather than achieving anything for themselves. They are typical of the overwhelmingly negative, defeatist trend of Creationist scientists who find a problem and say 'This is a problem. It's really hard. Let's give up.'

[جوري]

will actually produce better science than 'normal' science.

You know very little on science and much less on how research actually works. Makes me wonder under whose name you speak here?
Have you ever filed IRB form? Do you have membership to any research body? Do you know of the procedures involved, consent process, clinical studies, types of studies even?
If not, please do take your closing statement into consideration before your next post!

best,

[sugaray21]

independent:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and observations.

What do you mean exactly? I thought science (according to atheists) was the explanation for every thing...unless it’s pseudo science, which i don’t believe it is...how can it be subjective then as you say?

Ok, it’s telling a story. But I thought since all the information in there was scientific, doesn’t that change things? I mean a story is usually fiction isn’t it. Or fact presented in a way that the reader has their own agenda, yes. So are you saying this doc is a manipulation of scientific facts? They are either correct or they’re not.
Ok, so the scientists you say are funded by creationist institutes...they are paid to prove intelligent design. So they will talk about it as if they have concrete evidence. But isn’t that exactly what they are saying? In front of cameras? Wouldn’t they look a bit silly in the scientific community if they said there is a God, and they have proof, but then somehow that proof could be overturned, wouldn’t they have already thought of eliminating the impossible, or no? But i thought that’s what they did? I’m confused!
What about the evolution part, the DNA part....

Do you mean that you completely refute the idea they are implying based on all the evidence presented? (if you yourself would call it scientific evidence).
Is the science in the video wrong? Did they get it wrong? (genuine question, as you seem to be more knowledgeable).
You don’t accept what they are saying, that, based on the mathematical probability there must have been a designer of some form or another?
Remember, they are not saying what they think God is, they are not describing God in any way, they are not pretending to know what is God, but they are simply stating that the probability of a higher intelligence is 100%....they are not telling anyone to believe in god or follow a religion (just to be clear). These scientists are clearly atheists bordering on agnosticism, that’s all...
Everyone has their own version of what God is....the word God for non religious people has become a somewhat inconvenience..a backwards/fairytale/man in the sky notion/concept..

If you removed all of your current knowledge about religion, the western societal stigma attached to it, others’ views of what God may/may not be, societies idea of what God may/may not be, Television and media’s view of what God may/may not be...and in particular remove any images in your subconscious/conscious mind about what you think God might look like IF there was a God...if you removed all that from your mind and looked at the documentary with a blank canvas so to speak, and instead considered the possibility of God as just another word for higher intelligence/being/entity/grand designer, and importantly neither male or female, would you still come to the same conclusion?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Lol...it all depends who is in charge,who monopolises what is shown and told to the world....do you think that the corporate elite/the powers that be/the Illuminati etc (Ie.the families and corporations that truly run things) with all their money and power over the mainstream media,would ever let this type of information out to the mainstream,in the way it is presented? Of course not,because then the masses may begin to become curious and do their own research,and educate themselves of all sides of every story -where will that lead to? =A massive shift in societal dynamics and most fearfully for the elite,a looser grip of control of the masses.this possibility is absolutely unacceptable to them,they have been socially engineering the masses for decades for their own agenda so any diversion to that end is a no no.especially if everyone suddenly decides they must follow a God and no longer want to be subordinate to (corrupt) human beings....

If you want to talk about social engineering, religion is one of the most effective ways to control a society. This is why I believe it was a necessary part of human development. Without religion, our species could well have murdered itself to extinction. Today, though, most of us are aware that there are better reasons not to kill other people than to maintain the approval of a deity.

On the whole, I think our leaders would be very happy if we all believed in God.

Peace

[M.I.A.]

disagree, your observation is right.

religion is a powerful tool that affects the entire world.

but if your clever enough to realise how it could be manipulated then you already know the main factors you should be worried about.

i encountered a recent trend of people saying things are just social constructs.. which is correct, but it does not make them any less real to the people.

even without religion, there would be god.

..well i mean a real creator of mankind rather than people appointed to represent other peoples views.

..which is government lol.


so maybe religion is not a way of controlling the people, rather a way of making them aware of who they choose to represent them.

mankind would not have murdered itself into extinction, look at any lesser species.


the paradox is that how can you question authority when you know it can only be god given?

..god exists, but those days seem gone.

each person gets his own day i suppose.

[جوري]

religion is one of the most effective ways to control a society

You should replace that comment with any of the corrupt man made systems- communism, capitalism etc.
Not only is the killing and immorality more rampant than ever as they're more allowing in iniquity while being quite intolerant of virtue..
What is the ethical dilemma here save for the number of prison cells to erect to hold the criminals like animals and where no actual rehabilitation takes place but more of the same empty vicious cycle and the same dark cast system under more acceptable terminology exists.
I do wonder what is your 'better reason' not to kill or how it is that you can quantify your ethical code- I mean honestly what is your baseline? I ask in rhetoric of course given how many sovereign nations your 'know better' boys have subjugated in the name of a 'lesser evil'

best,

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Long time no see. :)

You should replace that comment with any of the corrupt man made systems- communism, capitalism etc.

While I agree with you that both of those man-made economic systems frequently involve corruption, I have to ask whether you think they have been more effective than religion in controlling societies? I think it is religion's emphasis on the moral code that has made it so effective in controlling people's behaviour.

Not only is the killing and immorality more rampant than ever as they're more allowing in iniquity while being quite intolerant of virtue..

Capitalism is certainly capable of being blind to morality. I'm not sure that there is more killing now than ever, though.

What is the ethical dilemma here save for the number of prison cells to erect to hold the criminals like animals and where no actual rehabilitation takes place but more of the same empty vicious cycle and the same dark cast system under more acceptable terminology exists.

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but can't really see how it's relevant.

I do wonder what is your 'better reason' not to kill or how it is that you can quantify your ethical code- I mean honestly what is your baseline?

Among people, whatever maximises human flourishing is good; whatever does not is evil. There are certain moral facts that we just know. Is it better to live in a place where disease is rife and life expectancy is low, or in a place where the opposite conditions exist? Our instinct for survival makes the answer obvious, and there is no need for a supernatural explanation to see the truth of it.

I ask in rhetoric of course given how many sovereign nations your 'know better' boys have subjugated in the name of a 'lesser evil'

Is it sensible to assume that I represent a large number of people who all think the same way and who all agree on every course of action?

(That might also be a rhetorical question.)

Peace

[Independent]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and observations.

You're welcome. I'm also appreciative of the Mods for allowing me to say (most) of what i want, even if some of the debates are curtailed at highly unfavourable moments.

are you saying this doc is a manipulation of scientific facts? They are either correct or they’re not.

Many years ago I worked for short time in a sales job in New York. It was the toughest job I ever had but it was a formative experience. One of the techniques they used was to work gradually towards the real message. Don’t come right out with it at the start, you’ll scare them off.

That’s what this video does. It’s a carefully constructed sales technique, glossily and expensively produced. The annoying angelic voices should warn us of where we’re going to end up.

The fact that it uses slick sales techniques doesn’t necessarily invalidate the message but it certainly gets my back up when they themselves start to accuse others of ‘propaganda’. There is a phrase they use in England – ‘The pot calling the kettle black’.

But I thought since all the information in there was scientific, doesn’t that change things?

Well, that depends on how accurate it is. As I described with the Fibonacci number example, they have been deceptive in leaving out the key fact (that this ratio has an evolutionary advantage). This is dishonest. The video is aimed at the general public, not scientists. They know most people won’t know and won’t check.

Ok, so the scientists you say are funded by creationist institutes...they are paid to prove intelligent design.

There are a mix of scientists in here. Some are Creationists – nothing wrong with that. But for the sake of objectivity they should declare their interest camera. They are mixed in with other genuine but entirely outdated scientists (eg Solley Zuckerman) and even someone like Richard Dawkins, a pronounced anti Creationist (who has been edited to make it look like he can’t answer a question). The video also name-drops ‘A’ list stars like Mendel and Pasteur and informs us they have ‘refuted’ Darwinism – well that’s news to the scientific world!

These scientists are clearly atheists bordering on agnosticism

The professional Creationist scientists are manifestly not atheists. (Neither are some of the other scientists).

Is the science in the video wrong? Did they get it wrong? (genuine question, as you seem to be more knowledgeable).

As I said before, the video covers a wide area and some of it raises genuine questions – for instance about the origin of the universe and abiogenesis. (Both have been discussed heavily in other threads). No one thinks these two issues are fully understood or explained. For instance, although i enjoy reading someone like Dawkins i don't agree with everything he says and i think the debate is less certain than he suggests.

Both are at the cutting edge of scientific discovery, so whatever you can say today will be out of date 12 months from now. But I can’t see any reason why we should give up and say ‘we can’t explain something right now, so God must have done it’. I hate that defeatist, negative attitude. And if there is a God, I’ll bet he hates it too.

if you removed all that from your mind and looked at the documentary with a blank canvas so to speak, and instead considered the possibility of God as just another word for higher intelligence/being/entity/grand designer, and importantly neither male or female, would you still come to the same conclusion?

Underlying your question is the notion that I am ‘blinded’ by my education or some other form of bias, whereas you are miraculously clear-sighted. This a vacuous debate because, obviously, I can say that about you and you can say it about me and nothing will ever progress. So let’s leave that alone.

To answer your question directly: you are making a mistake if you assume that I don’t want to find a Designer behind Nature’s work. For me, such a discovery would be the most exciting thing I have ever come across in my life.

It would be, literally, life-changing and i welcome that event, if it ever happens to me.

i do think there are things about the universe which have the potential to provide that but I'm not going to find them in this dishonest video.

[جوري]

While I agree with you that both of those man-made economic systems frequently involve corruption, I have to ask whether you think they have been more effective than religion in controlling societies? I think it is religion's emphasis on the moral code that has made it so effective in controlling people's behaviour.

I don't think of religion in terms of 'control' - There's a certainty and a gradation of transcendence, enlightenment and reason that you'd have to experience to understand. I can't follow your premise because I don't subscribe to it!

Capitalism is certainly capable of being blind to morality. I'm not sure that there is more killing now than ever, though.

You'll have to work in a shock trauma in a community hospital in a down trodden area of the western world to have a better and clearer understanding of that, and of the vicious cycle these people live whilst their equally untalented counterparts drown in millions for taking their clothes off!
At the end of the day they both take their clothes off - 90% of those who do receive two dollars to get shot or raped while the others get air time. Certainly if one doesn't subscribe to a religion at all but lives in a society that doesn't reward either types of behavior then such behavior wouldn't be so rampant. Every man made system has equally failed to address the needs of the people and their spiritual needs are siphoned into some detrimental behavior which is a topic for another day!

Among people, whatever maximises human flourishing is good; whatever does not is evil. There are certain moral facts that we just know. Is it better to live in a place where disease is rife and life expectancy is low, or in a place where the opposite conditions exist? Our instinct for survival makes the answer obvious, and there is no need for a supernatural explanation to see the truth of it.

Statistics are made to comfort people such as yourself. If you think a little bit about it, you might surprise yourself. For every AIDS patient that comes to the hospital which I have to report to the CDC, thousands others die nameless 'John doe' Not every disease, hunger, poor living condition is reported to you, and if you want to believe that it is, so you can sleep better then be my guest :)
Everything about life is 'supernatural' the fact that it is in abundance makes it 'natural' for you, but try to reproduce it ex nihilo not through procreation and we can have this conversation again!

best,

[czgibson]

Greetings جوري

It seems that in order to think as you do, I would need to have lived your life. Beyond that, I'm afraid I couldn't make any sense of your post.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings جوري

It seems that in order to think as you do, I would need to have lived your life. Beyond that, I'm afraid I couldn't make any sense of your post.

Peace

Yes I find many atheists meet with that sad end- we too can't relate to the way you think or live the life you do. Thus words as 'control' and 'supernatural' etc. are a faulty premise from which we can't sustain a meaningful dialogue- perhaps you're better suited for a forum with like minded individuals? :)

best,

[MustafaMc]

Both are at the cutting edge of scientific discovery, so whatever you can say today will be out of date 12 months from now. But I can’t see any reason why we should give up and say ‘we can’t explain something right now, so God must have done it’. I hate that defeatist, negative attitude. And if there is a God, I’ll bet he hates it too.

I am not sure I agree that these or evolution are on the cutting edge of discovery. Rather I don't see how theories about the origin of the universe and life itself are in any way 'scientific discovery' or that they in any way enrich my life. I don't see that speculation and guessing about how the universe began from nothing spontaneously with the Big Bang or that all of the extant and extinct species of life originated from a unilcellular Common Ancestor is meaningful and should be called 'scientific discovery'. On the flip side I don't see how saying that the details of life are too intricately complex to have arisen by chance and therefore must be the result of a Creator is in any way defeatist or negative attitude. It gives me a sense of wonder and awe to become aware and knowledgeable about different aspects of nature as evidence of a Creator. In the same way I can look at a painting by, say Thomas Kinkaide, and know beyond doubt that it was created by an artist, so also I can look at life and the species of life and I can know that it had a Creator. It is a source of personal frustration that others can see those same evidences and not come to the conclusion of a Creator being intimately involved in their establishment as reality.

To answer your question directly: you are making a mistake if you assume that I don’t want to find a Designer behind Nature’s work. For me, such a discovery would be the most exciting thing I have ever come across in my life.

This touches upon my last statement above. I am left to conclude that it is a form of Divine guidance or being left to stray.

[greenhill]

I commented on the Fibonacci numbers because they make such a big deal of it in the video. The fact that they omit to tell us the real signficance of the number is unforgivable from a science point of view and renders the video as pure propaganda.

That the occurrence of the Fibonacci numbers in the natural world showing a pattern to worldly things and that it is also reflected in the Qur'an, I suppose implying the same 'forces' at work which is discernible (for now) only through these kinds of study.

[جوري]

For everything a non-believer says or does, I find a relevant verse in the Quran. Sob7an Allah

Fatir [35:8]

أَفَمَن زُيِّنَ لَهُ سُوءُ عَمَلِهِ فَرَآهُ حَسَنًا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يُضِلُّ مَن يَشَاء وَيَهْدِي مَن يَشَاء فَلَا تَذْهَبْ نَفْسُكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسَرَاتٍ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَصْنَعُونَ

Afaman zuyyina lahu sooo AAamalihi faraahu hasanan fainna Allaha yudillu man yashao wayahdee man yashao fala tathhab nafsuka AAalayhim hasaratin inna Allaha AAaleemun bima yasnaAAoona

35:8 Is he, then, to whom the evil of his conduct is made alluring, so that he looks upon it as good, (equal to one who is rightly guided)? For Allah leaves to stray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. So let not thy soul go out in (vainly) sighing after them: for Allah knows well all that they do!

[Independent]

I don't see how saying that the details of life are too intricately complex to have arisen by chance and therefore must be the result of a Creator is in any way defeatist or negative attitude.

You have to exhaust the possibilities of other explanations before you come to a deus ex machina. Otherwise we would still be thinking the sun was pulled across the sky in a golden chariot.

It is simply not true to say that all possible explanations have been exhausted with, say, the problems in evolution. Creationist science remains overwhelmingly negative in that it simply finds fault with other science. Ironically, it is a profoundly 'uncreative' movement.

I welcome the establishment of explicitly Creationist research groups. I am excited by their idea that approaching the subject from a Creationist angle should lead to new (they say 'better') science.

But the fact remains that, so far, it has led to nothing at all of note. I invite you to name one signigicant science advance made by a Creationist institute.

[Independent]

That the occurrence of the Fibonacci numbers in the natural world showing a pattern to worldly things and that it is also reflected in the Qur'an, I suppose implying the same 'forces' at work which is discernible (for now) only through these kinds of study.

The fact that the world is 'orderly' and has structure is obviously supportive of a scientific view of the universe. To take it to the other extreme, if every single element looked like it was individually constructed without relation to other elements that would be strong evidence of divine creation.

If the ratio found in Nature were an arbitrary one that conferred no evolutionary benefit that would have been strong evidence of divine creation. The fact that it is the single ideal ratio that works best for evolution is evidence in the opposite direction.

I repeat as I have said in other threads, belief in evolution is not incompatible with belief in a God.

[MustafaMc]

Creationist science remains overwhelmingly negative in that it simply finds fault with other science.

I am puzzled by your use of the term 'creationist science', perhaps it is in relation to the video. I do not see belief in creation by the Divine Creator as a science, but rather it is more metaphysical than it is science based. Ironically, I can say exactly the same thing about evolutionist theory that all species of life descended from a Common Ancestor throughly purely naturalistic means. Religion does not seek to explain the intricate details of where we came from, but rather paints the Big Picture that we were created and that our purpose in living is to worship our Creator. It also teaches that we are more than our mere physical bodies and that we do not cease to exist with our death. It seeks to provide answers to questions that can not be reduced by the scientific method to something we can understand. Science is incapable of answering questions such as, "Does God exist?" "How exactly was the universe created?" "What was the precise means by which each and every species of life arose down to the level of molecular genetics?" "How did the very first living being come into existence, again down to the molecular level?" "Does the human soul even exist?" or "What happens to our essential individual essence when we die?" Admitedly, religion can't answer many of these questions in detail, but then again it does not claim to be able to, whereas science does - in that if it can't be measured, then it must not really exist.

I repeat as I have said in other threads, belief in evolution is not incompatible with belief in a God.

... but belief in evolution is incompatible with rational, logical thought.

[Scimitar]

Independent,

The problem with "creationist science" (coined term?) is that those scientists who in the last century alone, reversed their world view from atheism to monotheism were shunned by the wider scientific communities and hence, their word was worth nowt and thus, no scientific group pushed the creationist science to the masses. In most cases, the scientists carried on their investigations in private, unpublished and confined themselves to mediocrity mostly in the guise of hermitdom.

So when you talk of creationist science being few and far between, I beg you to consider the above. Else, your view would be as skewed as I have noticed.

Let's not forget that the agenda is to push evolution as the only theory that is viable in the world regarding our beginnings - it is totally at odds with Islam, as is to be expected in the age we live in.

Scimi

[Independent]

Two similar posts:

I am puzzled by your use of the term 'creationist science', perhaps it is in relation to the video.

The problem with "creationist science" (coined term?) is that those scientists who in the last century alone, reversed their world view from atheism to monotheism were shunned by the wider scientific communities and hence, their word was worth nowt and thus, no scientific group pushed the creationist science to the masses

'Creationist Science' is their term, not mine. I assume they wish to associate creationism with science in order to promote their credibility. The term is heavily associated with Christians rather than any other religion, although Muslims frequently quote Creationist scientists (as indeed this video does extensively.)

(In Islam, the closest term I can see is 'Bucaiellism', a reference to Dr Maurice Bucaille who published a hugely influential book in 1976 called 'The Quran, the Bible and Science'. But Bucaiellism is not concerned with new research.)

Creationist scientists are concerned with science as opposed to purely metaphysical issues. As Scimitar mentions, they have argued that they have been discriminated against for their views in existing institutions so they have set up some of their own. I think it's true to say that certain scientific points of view can be received with hostility at different times (for instance evolution, when it was first mooted).

Creationist-only institutes have been around awhile now and the time has come for them to produce some genuine science. I'm not being unfair to expect this, it's what they promised themselves.

[Scimitar]

thing is Independent, you seem to imply that science does not gel too kindly with Islamic teachings - if I am mistaken then I am sorry.

The point I am making is that the Islamic world view of creation is applicable and more than compatible with observable science - OBSERVABLE SCIENCE - yet, when make the same comparison to ToE - we have a BIG problem, and the hypocrisy most of you have failed to recognise is that scientists who propose ToE are the same who shout out "OBSERVABLE SCIENCE" yet fail to provide any evidence! It's a massive LOL.

If anything, I honestly believe creationist science has nothing to prove, but plenty to disprove... ie: Atheist science.

Thus, when you say that Creationist science is stalled - what would it take for you to say "creationist science is trumping atheist science"? Don't you see, the idea is to have faith, many things will remain invisible to us until the appointed time.

Today, we know that the embryo forms in 3 stages, confirming the Quran (Bucaille) yet go back two hundred years and we find that the Muslims of that era had no quanitifiable justification from science to back up the claim in the Quran regarding embryo developing in 3 stages - did they need the evidence? NO.

So really, I would ask you to reconsider your unwarranted and unjustified demands that creationist scientists publish their findings which prove a creator.

the whole point is to use logic to arrive at faith, not have unequivocal proofs in order to arrive at conviction.

Conviction without faith, requires no belief. Conviction after faith, is a step up from faith. That is where you are lost.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

Anyone know a thing or two about Sir Isaac Newton? What I will now demonstrate to you is that Science without Islam as a guide to it, will see you make some progress, but ultimately deceive yourself.

A very interesting documentary revealing a hidden and truly enlightened side to one of the greatest minds that western civilisation has known. His deep study of science led him to a firm conclusion that there is a Creator and based on his study of early Christian history, he was convinced that the concept of The Trinity was a falsification of the pure message of monotheism that Jesus preached.

Newton vehemently rejected the corruption of the Christian establishment and the innovation that is the divinity of Jesus, his belief was the revealed God is one God. During his life he was forced to keep this belief secret for fear of being labelled a heretic and after his death this information was carefully suppressed.

The documentary also highlights (takes a discernin heart to see) the point that in the absence of study of the final divine revelation (Quran) - No matter how great the mind, the knowledge of the unseen can not be deciphered as is illustrated by the fact that Newton spirals into a hopeless search for the truth by vigorously engaging in the art of alchemy!



Is that creationist science? :D

Also, did you know that newton once made his atheist friend feel like a complete plumb? The method he used was truly extraordinary, he used his friends own reasoning against him, here check this out:



Scimi

[Independent]

you seem to imply that science does not gel too kindly with Islamic teachings

I don't see that the Quran has anything to say about science (no reason why it should) so there is nothing to gel or not gel. This whole question seems to have come about as a result of Bucaille.

The point I am making is that the Islamic world view of creation is applicable and more than compatible with observable science - OBSERVABLE SCIENCE

Depends what you define as 'observable science'.

If anything, I honestly believe creationist science has nothing to prove, but plenty to disprove... ie: Atheist science.

Once again, the promise of new research was their promise. They said they were being prevented from doing new work in existing institutes. So, it's reasonable to ask where is that new work now.

Thus, when you say that Creationist science is stalled - what would it take for you to say "creationist science is trumping atheist science"?

So far, Creationists have played an entirely reactionary role. For instance they tend to 'like' Big Bang but 'dislike' multiverse theories. This reaction isn't based on the science but to what extent they deem it more compatible with a particular scriptural description. Each new discovery is 'screened' for compatibility. That's why I regard them as negative, critical and uncreative in their influence.

So really, I would ask you to reconsider your unwarranted and unjustified demands that creationist scientists publish their findings which prove a creator.

They have expressly pledged that they will hunt for evidence of intelligent design in Nature and publish their results. (Evidence, not necessarily outright proof). Clearly, it's not unreasonable to expect them to deliver on their own promise.

[Independent]

Anyone know a thing or two about Sir Isaac Newton?

Yes, I've read a biography of Newton. His alchemy studies were hugely important to him. He's not the only man who, bizarrely, could be so brilliant in one part of his life yet seemingly foolish in another.

Newton was a genius but he was also an extremely odd man. When young he poked needles into his own eyes to distort the lens and test his theory of vision.

[Scimitar]

I don't see that the Quran has anything to say about science (no reason why it should) so there is nothing to gel or not gel. This whole question seems to have come about as a result of Bucaille.

You mentioned him, so i elaborated on it - Bucaille clearly became a Muslim because he found science to be compatible with the Quran. You feeling ok?

Depends what you define as 'observable science'.

Are you trying to cop out of further explanation by asking me to define a well known term? I used the term "observable science" in the manner in which scientists use it. Is there another? :D

Once again, the promise of new research was their promise. They said they were being prevented from doing new work in existing institutes. So, it's reasonable to ask where is that new work now.

Christian scientists will try to prove what? Trinity? :D come on, think before you post. If they are trying to prove a trinity, then they'll be chasing ghosts of their own imaginings, no different to atheist science :D las thing they'd want to prove is "HEAR O ISRAEL, YOUR LORD GOD IS ONE". Understand?

So far, Creationists have played an entirely reactionary role. For instance they tend to 'like' Big Bang but 'dislike' multiverse theories. This reaction isn't based on the science but to what extent they deem it more compatible with a particular scriptural description. Each new discovery is 'screened' for compatibility. That's why I regard them as negative, critical and uncreative in their influence.

lol at your choice of words. You are pretty much confused in your mind. So now Christian scientists have to be "creative" too? don't you see the problem with your ideas? if you insert your own creativity into science, you are misleading yourself.

What Christian scientists actually do, independent, is debunk atheist science using logic... did you ever study logic? probably not - they only teach it in private schools and is not part of any public curriculum... reason? So the elitist children will be able to push and propagate their ideas of falsity to sheeple.

You should study logic. You'll be able to make better points.

They have expressly pledged that they will hunt for evidence of intelligent design in Nature and publish their results. (Evidence, not necessarily outright proof). Clearly, it's not unreasonable to expect them to deliver on their own promise.

Not being funny but you can find all sorts of things relating to the golden mean, even in your own face - yet YOU are looking for SCIENTIFIC PROOF... LOL, and you are holding scientists from another religion responsible for your own education in understanding creation, when Allah has simply put it for you in Quran. Why do you get a such a bone of contention about it? Surely it's not healthy.

For me, it is enough to look at the shape of a galaxy or the petals of a flower etc and recognise that Allah had designed it perfectly to the ratio of 1.618. And that - for me, is logical proof, I don't require further explanations. And if anyone asks me for any, claiming that my answer will decide if they will be faithful to Allah or not - matters not to me. I am not responsible for anyones guidance -that is Allah's responsibility, not mine.

Surely, Allah guides whom HE wills.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

Yes, I've read a biography of Newton. His alchemy studies were hugely important to him. He's not the only man who, bizarrely, could be so brilliant in one part of his life yet seemingly foolish in another.

Newton was a genius but he was also an extremely odd man. When young he poked needles into his own eyes to distort the lens and test his theory of vision.

Aha, you failed to grasp my post.

I was showing you that the Science of Origins, without Islam, is not Science - it's science fiction.

I also showed you an example of logic, when posting the second video.

Problem with you is, you are trying to argue bad science using bad science... use logic. It trumps all evoltionist/neo-darwinists every time, and the only response they have left is "you're a stupid creationist" - how very flagrant and intelligent of them :D to read some atheist responses - just look at the comments on the video (same vid as OP but mines has comments abled): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASU-AjPA7M

And let's not forget the advice in Quran for when we debate with foolish people:

"to you be your way, unto me be mine" Quran: Al Kafiroon.

EDIT: I'm curious, which biography of Newtons did you read?

[Independent]

You mentioned him, so i elaborated on it - Bucaille clearly became a Muslim because he found science to be compatible with the Quran. You feeling ok?

Although he is a scientist, he's not significant for his actual science.

I used the term "observable science" in the manner in which scientists use it. Is there another?

In threads like these I've often see it argued that we can't go back in time, so nothing that happened in the past counts as observable evidence, even if we have some present day record (eg a fossil). The definition of 'observable' in these threads is highly changeable.

Christian scientists will try to prove what? Trinity?

As I have already said, they are looking for evidence of intelligent design. Their research isn't explicitly Christian. I don't know why you're mocking them, most of what they say finds its way into Muslim websites and videos like this one.

So now Christian scientists have to be "creative" too?

They need to prove they can do what they say, which is to have new ideas and expand the boundaries of science, just like 'regular' scientists.

What Christian scientists actually do, independent, is debunk atheist science using logic... did you ever study logic? probably no

Ok, we're down to the insult stage, so let's leave it at that.

[Scimitar]

Although he is a scientist, he's not significant for his actual science.

you mentioned him, then I made my point and now you are getting caught up in details that are - neither here nor there! Nice :D

In threads like these I've often see it argued that we can't go back in time, so nothing that happened in the past counts as observable evidence, even if we have some present day record (eg a fossil). The definition of 'observable' in these threads is highly changeable.

So why did you ask me to define observable science when we are all knowing what it means? :D You need to learn how to make a point, and not question terms such as "observable science" to ask me what I think it means :D

As I have already said, they are looking for evidence of intelligent design. Their research isn't explicitly Christian. I don't know why you're mocking them, most of what they say finds its way into Muslim websites and videos like this one.

I did not mock them. I showed you that they employ logic, something you should also do. But you want unequivocal proof. Aint happening, trust me.

They need to prove they can do what they say, which is to have new ideas and expand the boundaries of science, just like 'regular' scientists.

Whose to say they haven't? If you know anything about forming a theory in science, you'd know that these things do not happen over night - they take years, decades even, before the theory can be presented, tested, critiqued etc...

....try patience?

Ok, we're down to the insult stage, so let's leave it at that.

because I suggested that you've never studied logic?

Well, I may as well insult myself too then, since I was never taught it - I bought a book on it and started to read, think, contemplate, and try it.

If you find my advice to be offensive - then I am sorry. It was simply just good advice :)

Assalaam alaikum

Scimi

[Independent]

Whose to say they haven't? If you know anything about forming a theory in science, you'd know that these things do not happen over night - they take years, decades even, before the theory can be presented, tested, critiqued etc...

The Biologic Institute (some of whose members are referenced in the video) was founded in 2005, which is long enough to show some results. The more famous Discovery Institute was founded way back in 1990. Any regular scientist would lose their funding if they don't show results sooner than that.

Make no mistake, i think it's a good idea to set up such institutes and I did expect them to show interesting results. Not necessarily because they were right, but because when you approach a subject from a new angle you can see things that others miss.

[جوري]

Any regular scientist would lose their funding if they don't show results sooner than that

that's true which often leads to fudging, especially so on studies where the data isn't reproducible. Of course if you can get private funding from a lobbying group it would be better and better..
for instance who is going to challenge GlaxoSmithKline? Japan might but it hasn't proven fruitful so far.
You are out of your league here unfortunately!

best,

[Scimitar]

The Biologic Institute (some of whose members are referenced in the video) was founded in 2005, which is long enough to show some results. The more famous Discovery Institute was founded way back in 1990. Any regular scientist would lose their funding if they don't show results sooner than that.

Make no mistake, i think it's a good idea to set up such institutes and I did expect them to show interesting results. Not necessarily because they were right, but because when you approach a subject from a new angle you can see things that others miss.

for instance who is going to challenge GlaxoSmithKline? Japan might but it hasn't proven fruitful so far.
You are out of your league here unfortunately!

that's actually an excellent example to contrast by.

Like she said independent, it aint happening, just not in the common interest of those wanting to profiteer from research. The godless agenda is a material one and far more fruitful in monetary terms than one which promotes alms giving.

Like I said, we have to recognise the times we are living in and see the world in context. Idealisim is all good, when it's practical, unfortunately most people these days equate practicality with pragmatism... interesting times we are witness to.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that Darwins theory wasn't initially accepted. He couldn't even convince the scientists of his time, and it wasn't until 50 years later that Darwins theory was published and was only done so in order to help drive research into how inheritance and variation work.

50 years.

[جوري]

that's actually an excellent example to contrast by.

This actually happened it is not an arbitrary example I am drawing from - I despise hypotheticals and that is all that atheists seem to draw from.
Recently Japan released studies that showed infertility in women who were vaccinated by Guardasil which is produced by said company. This study is all but unheard of in the west. From the inception of that vaccine politicians have been trying to push it on as necessary with all that it entails of back and forth healthcare politics, ethical dilemmas, parents rights etc. frankly (I am not anti vaccines by any means) but this only guards against three strains anyways and not very well studied and there's no room for politics in medicine, just like there's no room for philosophy in science.
People need to file things under the correct branches. Science is simple a bough in a large tree created by God. It doesn't trump nor does it define the nature of the divine and the sooner these undereducated pseudo-intellectuals realize that and don't advertise for their ailing ideology here, the better off we will all be!

[Scimitar]

Amen to that :)

either way, I think this thread has run its course... eventually, don't they all? We must have one of the richest archives of theism vs atheism debates on the net, right here on IBForum :D

Scimi

[جوري]

It's a catharsis for most of them nothing more nothing less and an unfortunate waste if time - they do it almost like their form of worship!

[Scimitar]

Pwahahaa, form of worship hahahahaaa,

I've stayed out of these debates for a while now. Too repetitive, I only got involved in this one because of independents posts, which had to be reconciled. Good lad, that one, keen. Masha-Allah.

Scimi

[Independent]

EDIT: Just wanted to add that Darwins theory wasn't initially accepted. He couldn't even convince the scientists of his time, and it wasn't until 50 years later that Darwins theory was published and was only done so in order to help drive research into how inheritance and variation work.

Why you think this favours your argument I don't know. The resistance to Darwin was of course both enormous and highly personal, right from the start. You might say it was a 'conspiracy' against him -.except that you want the conspiracy to be the other way, of course.

The truth is, it can be difficult to change the orthodox view in any time.

As for the Creationist scientists, you have suggested that their work has been prevented by censorship and lack of jobs. Yet in their own institutes, where unlike regular scientists they benefit from interest group funding and are immune to the normal commercial pressures, they have yet to come up with any significant contribution to science.

So when we look at results, it's not true that they have been handicapped. They simply have nothing to say, except to react and to criticise the work of others. It's not exactly heroic and pioneering.

[Scimitar]

Are you out of your mind to suggest there was a conspiracy against him ??? Some of the things you write leave me feeling like I shouldn't even bother humouring you with posts/replies :D

You always fail to see the context and always get the wrong end of the stick, its becoming a habit.

LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR WHY I POSTED THE EDIT: to prove to you that theories can take 50 years to get noticed. You want them researched, studied and presented to the worldwide audience in just a decade or less - you are deluded.

That is the bottom line.

Scimi

[Independent]

Are you out of your mind to suggest there was a conspiracy against him ???

It's fascinating how impossible you find it to deal with ideas outside your comfort zone.

LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR WHY I POSTED THE EDIT: to prove to you that theories can take 50 years to get noticed. You want them researched, studied and presented to the worldwide audience in just a decade or less - you are deluded.

Things move a little faster these days. But in any case, you're missing the point. These self-styled Creationist scientists haven't produced ANY new research worth mentioning. So it doesn't matter how long you wait. 50 years - 1000 years - whenever.

All they do is react to new science produced by others.

[جوري]

It's fascinating how impossible you find it to deal with ideas outside your comfort zone.

you're describing yourself here no? even actual scientists whose views don't match yours, you've to denigrate their importance.
glad you're making a career out of this charade!

best,

[Scimitar]

Independent, it's like you want to convince those (atheists) who don't want to be convinced of a Creator, because they actually hate the idea that there is one.

Why bother?

There are plenty of better things to do :)

Scimi

[Independent]

Independent, it's like you want to convince those (atheists) who don't want to be convinced of a Creator, because they actually hate the idea that there is one.

Why bother?

In this thread, I am responding to the original poster's request for reaction to the video. I have explained why I don't think it does what it claims (ie prove the existence of God by science). As we have drifted on to the subject of Creationist scientists, I've also explained why I don't admire them (because they have thus far contributed nothing to the advance of science, despite promising to do so). No one has offered any evidence to contradict this.

In what way is it wrong or anti-religious to make factual observations? It's not my fault if some people make false claims for science, seeing as science plays no part in any scriptures, and (in the case of Islam) was barely ever mentioned before the advent of 'Bucaiellism'.

If you or anyone else chooses to associate proof of religion with proof of science, you must accept that science may regularly throw up challenges to your faith. You should not be either surprised or angry about that. And you should not accuse random scientists of being anti religious or conspiracists, simply for doing their job.

Personally, i see zero connection between science and religion and that's what I've argued throughout.

[Muhammad]

I'm not sure where the thread is going so to avoid another repeat of earlier threads, perhaps we should end it here. If anyone has anything useful to add, they are welcome to post in the Helpdesk section or contact one of the mods.

[sugaray21]

Re: science proves the existence of god

When I looked at this threadtwo days ago there were more than 4 responses,admin where have the rest of them gone?

[Iceee]

Re: science proves the existence of god

Salaam.

When I looked at this threadtwo days ago there were more than 4 responses,admin where have the rest of them gone?

Please read: http://www.islamicboard.com/forum-he...m-upgrade.html

The forum database is restored back to 10th of Feb, the date when we actually started the migration process. It took almost 3 days for the complete migration to take place. As such, we have lost all the recent posts which were made after the start of the migration process.