How could the universe and life start without God, how did life evolve without God?

[Eric H]

Science please.

The creation of the universe is history, whatever we choose to believe cannot change history.

Evolution is a fact.
It’s an observed and testable fact about the universe.

Please can you give the science to explain how the eye and the skeletal system evolved without any help from God?

[chalks75]

Science please.

The creation of the universe is history, whatever we choose to believe cannot change history.



Please can you give the science to explain how the eye and the skeletal system evolved without any help from God?

I have no idea how the universe came to be,
Or wether it had an origin , nobody does.
Nobody knows now, nobody knew 1000s of years ago,
Hence the invention of gods.

Eyes , skeletons, skin, all evolve the same way, everything evolves in the same way
Small incremental changes over time.

You do realise these things have been explained by science.

[matthew712]

The most logical thing would be for there to be nothing. So why is there something? It was a miracle done by Allah. Allah always was.

[Scimitar]

I have no idea how the universe came to be,
Or wether it had an origin , nobody does.
Nobody knows now, nobody knew 1000s of years ago,
Hence the invention of gods.

Eyes , skeletons, skin, all evolve the same way, everything evolves in the same way
Small incremental changes over time.

You do realise these things have been explained by science.

AN explanation doesn't equate to a fact, your investment in science is emotional and parading as intellectual. The same set of observable data can yield many interpretations/inferences - it takes faith to believe in these scientific fairy tales. And you can never claim certainty about origin arguments.

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

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;

Eyes Small incremental changes over time.

I hope you have a better explanation than the Nilsson Pelger model of eye evolution. This only explains the POSSIBLE number of stages that it MIGHT take for the LENS to evolve. but the lens is not an eye.

You do realise these things have been explained by science.

I am waiting to be convinced, so how did the complete eye evolve? How did the nervous system evolve alongside the lens, to pass the information onto the brain? How did the brain evolve to understand the signals from the lens? How did the brain evolve at the same time to pass increased information onto the limbs so they would react to what the lens saw? How did the limbs evolve so they could better react to what the lens saw?

How did natural selection differentiate all these things at the same time to select improved lens, nerves, brain, limbs, tendons, muscles and ligaments.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[chalks75]

The most logical thing would be for there to be nothing. So why is there something? It was a miracle done by Allah. Allah always was.

There can’t be nothing.

[chalks75]

AN explanation doesn't equate to a fact, your investment in science is emotional and parading as intellectual. The same set of observable data can yield many interpretations/inferences - it takes faith to believe in these scientific fairy tales. And you can never claim certainty about origin arguments.

Yeah I know an explanation does not equate a fact.

Evolution is not a explanation, it’s a fact
Natural selection is the theory that explains the fact.

Darwin did not come up with evolution, evolution was recognised as far back as Ancient Greece.

Darwin came up with a theory ( natural selection ) that explains why living things evolve ( Jean baptise lamark came to the same conclusion independently)

Evolution is the fact natural selection attempts to explain.
In the same way gravitational theory attempts to explain why object are attracted to the centre
Or the germ theory of disease attempts to explain the transmission of disease through germs.

Object being drawn toward the centre
Is the fact
Gravitational theory tries to explain it
Diseases spread is the fact
Germ theory of disease attempts to explain it

[chalks75]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



I hope you have a better explanation than the Nilsson Pelger model of eye evolution. This only explains the POSSIBLE number of stages that it MIGHT take for the LENS to evolve. but the lens is not an eye.



I am waiting to be convinced, so how did the complete eye evolve? How did the nervous system evolve alongside the lens, to pass the information onto the brain? How did the brain evolve to understand the signals from the lens? How did the brain evolve at the same time to pass increased information onto the limbs so they would react to what the lens saw? How did the limbs evolve so they could better react to what the lens saw?

How did natural selection differentiate all these things at the same time to select improved lens, nerves, brain, limbs, tendons, muscles and ligaments.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

I can understand you not being convinced,
At least your not saying that it’s not true.


Everything evolves in the same way,
In small incremental stages
You can look at the natural world and see eyes in various stages of development

From single cells that can only discern light from dark
To eyes that have no lens
To eye that have lens
To eyes like ours
Or Cephalopod eyes which don’t have a blind spot like ours do.

It seems a strange piece of design that would have a blind spiny in an organ designed to see.

[Al-Ansariyah]

I have no idea how the universe came to be,
Or wether it had an origin , nobody does.
Nobody knows now, nobody knew 1000s of years ago,
Hence the invention of gods.

Eyes , skeletons, skin, all evolve the same way, everything evolves in the same way
Small incremental changes over time.

You do realise these things have been explained by science.

First learn the definition of God
God (ilaha) is anything that is worshipped, obeyed, loved, feared, trusted. God is our necessity. The one for whom we can sacrifice anything, the one who is our first priority.

I hope u have learnt.

We are human beings nd we need God , no matter what. U accept it or not , u urself need God but if u don't believe in One True God, then there is something else which u have considered as god.

Some people believe in One True God .(those people are mindfull)

some ignorant people take other things as god (which are false gods).They either make their wealth , health, some human, animal or their own selves as god.

So from this, we conclude that u DO worship god but that which u worship is false god. Seems like u have taken urself as god. U obey urself, love urself, can't stand anyone going against u. But that is false god u r worshipping.

Nd we worship the true God. The One who created the heavens and the earths. The Only One who is worthy of our worship. The One who will gather all of mankind and will reward them for their deeds. The One who is in absolute control.
That day is not so far.It will come soon.

May Allah guide us and make us among those who worship only Him.

[Scimitar]

Yeah I know an explanation does not equate a fact.

Evolution is not a explanation, it’s a fact

No, you are wrong. I don't think you can do science.

Here are a few models of evolution, Natural Selectioon, Random Genetic Drift, Mutation, PMS, Cutlure to name a few - add to this the variance in popular models of explanation ranging from Classic Darwinism, Lamarckism, Neo-Darwinism etc etc etc and what you have is a lot of conflicting explanations.

What they are not, are fact.

Your investment in science, is like I said, emotional parading as intellectual.

[chalks75]

No, you are wrong. I don't think you can do science.

Here are a few models of evolution, Natural Selectioon, Random Genetic Drift, Mutation, PMS, Cutlure to name a few - add to this the variance in popular models of explanation ranging from Classic Darwinism, Lamarckism, Neo-Darwinism etc etc etc and what you have is a lot of conflicting explanations.

What they are not, are fact.

Your investment in science, is like I said, emotional parading as intellectual.

They are not models of evolution

Evolution is change over time.

Some of the things you mention is part of the explanation of why things change over time .

Things change over time is the fact (evolution)

Natural selection
Genetic drift
Mutation
Are attempts to explain why things evolve , not that they evolve

It’s a fact ,life evolves over time.
It changes and adapts

[chalks75]

First learn the definition of God
God (ilaha) is anything that is worshipped, obeyed, loved, feared, trusted. God is our necessity. The one for whom we can sacrifice anything, the one who is our first priority.

I hope u have learnt.

We are human beings nd we need God , no matter what. U accept it or not , u urself need God but if u don't believe in One True God, then there is something else which u have considered as god.

Some people believe in One True God .(those people are mindfull)

some ignorant people take other things as god (which are false gods).They either make their wealth , health, some human, animal or their own selves as god.

So from this, we conclude that u DO worship god but that which u worship is false god. Seems like u have taken urself as god. U obey urself, love urself, can't stand anyone going against u. But that is false god u r worshipping.

Nd we worship the true God. The One who created the heavens and the earths. The Only One who is worthy of our worship. The One who will gather all of mankind and will reward them for their deeds. The One who is in absolute control.
That day is not so far.It will come soon.

May Allah guide us and make us among those who worship only Him.

Is that your definition of what a god is ?

Why should we use your definition ?

Why not use mine

A god or the gods is a concept that people developed to help them make sense of the universe and their place in it.
Faced with questions for which they had no answers , origins for example,they imagined there must be a there, there.
Different cultures imagined different things, which is why there have been 1000s of gods people once though real.

People become convinced that their gods are part of reality, and not just concepts they use to try and make sense of reality.

Why don’t we use that definition of a god

[Scimitar]

They are not models of evolution

Oh really? Boy oh boy... looks like you need a little educating, my friend.

Darwin came up with a theory ( natural selection ) that explains why living things evolve ( Jean baptise lamark came to the same conclusion independently)

You're attempting to unify two very separate models of evolution here as one. This is intellectual dishonesty on your behalf... or ignorance. I don't know which.

Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering (ENGE) According to the standard Darwinian theory, randomness of mutations is the clay that natural selection moulds into all sorts of novel species. Though the concept has been explored in numerous popular publications and documentaries, some evolutionary theorists claim there is a lack of evidence for random mutations making anything useful.

One such biologist is James Shapiro, who challenges this central pillar of Darwinism, by using contemporary research in mutations to make a completely new evolutionary paradigm. In ‘Evolution: A View from the 21st Century’, Shapiro explains why ENGE may be a better model than Darwinian Evolution.

Neo Lamarckian Evolution Although Lamarck was largely overlooked for a long time, biologists have recently begun to revisit his ideas and developed a revised theory under the name of Neo Lamarckian evolution. Proponents of this theory argue that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is what drives evolutionary change, citing recent studies to support their view.

everything evolves in the same way
Small incremental changes over time..

Neo Lamarckian evolution views the process in terms of rapid evolutionary transitions instead of slow, incremental changes. Evolutionary biologist Eva Jablonka outlines this alternative view in her book, ‘Transformations of Lamarckism.’

Mutation Driven Evolution Mutationism also opposes the theory of small incremental steps, instead assuming evolution to be driven by large mutations. This model challenges the idea of Darwinian gradualism and natural selection as the driving forces behind evolutionary change. Although mutationism was, for the most part, discarded several years ago, a rehashed version has been proposed recently by evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei, who is a well-known, respected and award winning scientist. His work in the field of population genetics has been used widely and his book, ‘Mutation Driven Evolution’ shows how developments in molecular biology are challenging Darwinian predictions, further elaborating on how a new alternative may work.

It’s a fact ,life evolves over time.
It changes and adapts

Are you attempting to claim that adaptation is evolution? lol You need to go back to school. You're all over the place.

One last thing, the evolutionary models are a set of contradictory ideas attempting to explain our origin story - and most certainly not a fact, as I have demonstrated.

EDIT:

There can’t be nothing.

According to Professor Lawrence Krauss? ^o)

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;

I have no idea how the universe came to be,

You have answered the first question.

Everything evolves in the same way,
In small incremental stages

I can understand this would have to happen if TeO was a fact.

You can look at the natural world and see eyes in various stages of development

From single cells that can only discern light from dark
To eyes that have no lens
To eye that have lens
To eyes like ours
Or Cephalopod eyes which don’t have a blind spot like ours do.

You have described eyes in a number of species, but you have not given the science of how eyes evolved from no eye. Whether the eye evolved in one species or a hundred, it still had to start from 'no eye'. If you apply critical thinking to your reply; it falls to pieces.

Nilsson Pelger's model of eye evolution only states that it could take 1,800 incremental stages for the lens to evolve. If the fish evolved in the way Nilsson Pelger described the fish would still be blind. The lenses on their own are useless, so natural selection would not have worked.

My glasses have two perfectly good lenses. If I am blindfolded and put in a strange room with my perfectly good glasses on my head, I am blind, my good lenses are useless.

I started this thread in the hope that the science would become clear.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[Avis]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



I hope you have a better explanation than the Nilsson Pelger model of eye evolution. This only explains the POSSIBLE number of stages that it MIGHT take for the LENS to evolve. but the lens is not an eye.



I am waiting to be convinced, so how did the complete eye evolve? How did the nervous system evolve alongside the lens, to pass the information onto the brain? How did the brain evolve to understand the signals from the lens? How did the brain evolve at the same time to pass increased information onto the limbs so they would react to what the lens saw? How did the limbs evolve so they could better react to what the lens saw?

How did natural selection differentiate all these things at the same time to select improved lens, nerves, brain, limbs, tendons, muscles and ligaments.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

Don't forget to ask for evidence of these evolutionary creatures during the evolving stages. Why are there no fossils that show a creature in between evolution? If things can come into being on their own with no help, why can't mankind simulate environments in a lab with artificial sun and dirt and give rise to new beings?

People who deny creationism are just lying to themselves so they can continue living however they want guilt free.

[chalks75]

Do you mean are there any fossils of intermediary species.

There are lots and lots of them.

It is import to realise how rare the fossilisation process is.

I could provide a link if you want it , that lists all the intermediary fossils found.

But honestly speaking ,
Do you really care ?

[chalks75]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



You have answered the first question.



I can understand this would have to happen if TeO was a fact.




You have described eyes in a number of species, but you have not given the science of how eyes evolved from no eye. Whether the eye evolved in one species or a hundred, it still had to start from 'no eye'. If you apply critical thinking to your reply; it falls to pieces.

Nilsson Pelger's model of eye evolution only states that it could take 1,800 incremental stages for the lens to evolve. If the fish evolved in the way Nilsson Pelger described the fish would still be blind. The lenses on their own are useless, so natural selection would not have worked.

My glasses have two perfectly good lenses. If I am blindfolded and put in a strange room with my perfectly good glasses on my head, I am blind, my good lenses are useless.

I started this thread in the hope that the science would become clear.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Scientists think the earliest version of the eye was formed in unicellular organisms, who had something called ‘eyespots’. These eyespots were made up of patches of photoreceptor proteins that were sensitive to light. They couldn’t see shapes or colour, but were able to determine whether it was light or dark out. These unicellular organisms would use photosynthesis to create food for themselves, so being able to determine where the most light was coming from created a huge advantage for them.

Over time, the unicellular creature would evolve, and its eyespot evolved along with it. Scientists believe a depression formed around the light sensitive spot, creating a pit that made it’s ‘vision’ a little sharper. Eventually, the pit’s opening could have gradually narrowed, creating a small hole that light would enter, much like a pinhole camera. From there, a retina would develop, as well as a lens at the front of the eye. Over millions of years, small changes that confer a survival advantage would chance a simple light-sensitive structure to the complex eyes we have now.

Scientists make these assumptions about how the eye evolved because eyes corresponding stages in this sequence have been found in species that exist today.

A Single Source
As eyes were evolving from crude, light-sensitive, cups to more complex systems, the Earth was also undergoing dramatic changes. A complex interplay of environmental changes were setting the stage for large, active creatures to evolve. And they did just that, this outburst of speciation is now known as the Cambrian explosion. It was during this time that some eyes became more complex and specialized. They began to take on different shapes and colours.

Due to the diversity of eye types around the world, scientists used to believe that eyes had many independent origins. Advances in technology helped us learn more about the molecular structure of eye, and showed that proteins known as opsins are the foundation of all eyes in all creatures. This commonality confirms that all organisms with eyes, at one point, shared a common ancestor.

[chalks75]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



You have answered the first question.



I can understand this would have to happen if TeO was a fact.




You have described eyes in a number of species, but you have not given the science of how eyes evolved from no eye. Whether the eye evolved in one species or a hundred, it still had to start from 'no eye'. If you apply critical thinking to your reply; it falls to pieces.

Nilsson Pelger's model of eye evolution only states that it could take 1,800 incremental stages for the lens to evolve. If the fish evolved in the way Nilsson Pelger described the fish would still be blind. The lenses on their own are useless, so natural selection would not have worked.

My glasses have two perfectly good lenses. If I am blindfolded and put in a strange room with my perfectly good glasses on my head, I am blind, my good lenses are useless.

I started this thread in the hope that the science would become clear.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Your glasses may have 2 perfectly good lenses, and why shouldn’t they
They were intelligently designed.

Your eyes on the other hand, have 2 blind spots, blind spots that we have but the lines of cephalopods do not have.

If our eyes were designed by a god as you believe, the god designed better eyes for the octopus than us.

[chalks75]

Science please.

The creation of the universe is history, whatever we choose to believe cannot change history.



Please can you give the science to explain how the eye and the skeletal system evolved without any help from God?

The first thing you would need to determine is
Did the universe start .

Second
If you want to offer a god as a candidate explanation for anything, universe , life etc
Then you must be able to demonstrate that that god exists.

How would you go about demonstrating that a god, any god exists.

Perhaps a good place to start would be to come up with a sound definition of what a god is.

Then again
Who decides what a god is ... us?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;

The first thing you would need to determine is
Did the universe start .

You have already said you don't know how the universe came to be, and I accept that as an answer. I don't know either, other than I have a faith and trust that God created everything. However, that is not the purpose of this thread.

Second
If you want to offer a god as a candidate explanation for anything, universe , life etc
Then you must be able to demonstrate that that god exists.

The first part of the thread is - How could the universe come into being without God? And can we have some science please. Do you want to add anything to this before we move onto evolution?

Who decides what a god is .

God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, so how did the universe come to be without a creator God?

In spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[chalks75]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



You have already said you don't know how the universe came to be, and I accept that as an answer. I don't know either, other than I have a faith and trust that God created everything. However, that is not the purpose of this thread.



The first part of the thread is - How could the universe come into being without God? And can we have some science please. Do you want to add anything to this before we move onto evolution?



God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, so how did the universe come to be without a creator God?

In spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Is faith a reliable path to truth ?

There is no scientific theory that describes the origin of the universe, if it had an origin.

To quote Sean Carroll
“We should not think of the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, but the end of our understanding of the universe.

The must honest position I can take is to say
I don’t know, and it’s likely that I will never know.

To ask “how could the universe come into being without god “

Is to assume
1. The universe came into being
2. There is a god or gods.

The extent of our scientific understanding stretches back to about 1 second after the universe began to expend, and no further.

Let me ask you this , actually 2 things

1. Do you think god can do what’s not logical
2. Does god know, that he created everything ?

[keiv]

'I don't know how the universe came to be, but I know you're wrong' is basically the tl;dr version of every Atheist's explanation on the universe.

[Al-Ansariyah]

Is faith a reliable path to truth ?

There is no scientific theory that describes the origin of the universe, if it had an origin.

To quote Sean Carroll
“We should not think of the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, but the end of our understanding of the universe.

The must honest position I can take is to say
I don’t know, and it’s likely that I will never know.

To ask “how could the universe come into being without god “

Is to assume
1. The universe came into being
2. There is a god or gods.

The extent of our scientific understanding stretches back to about 1 second after the universe began to expend, and no further.

Let me ask you this , actually 2 things

1. Do you think god can do what’s not logical
2. Does god know, that he created everything ?

Quran was revealed to prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and he memorized it,his companions did the same. Then it was passed on to next generations. Hence,today it is exactly as it was 1440 years ago.

•The creation of the universe

“Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart?” [Qur’an, 21:30]

According to modern science, the separation process resulted in the formation of multiple worlds, a concept which appears dozens of times in the Qur’an. For example, look at the first chapter of the Qur’an, al-Faatihah:( “Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds.” Qur’an, 1:2 ). These Qur’anic references are in perfect agreement with modern ideas on the existence of primary nebula (galactic dust), followed by the separation of the elements which resulted in the formation of galaxies and then stars from which the planets were born. Reference is also made in the Qur’an to an intermediary creation between the heavens and the earth, as seen in chapter al-Furqaan:

“God is the one who created the heavens, the earth and what is between them…” [Qur’an, 25:59]




•The Sun and the moon

"Did you see how Allah created seven heavens, one above the other, and made in them the moon a light and the sun a lamp?” [Qur’an, 71: 15-16]

The moon is an inert body which reflects light, whereas the sun is a celestial body in a state of permanent combustion producing both light and heat.



•The stars and the planets

The word ‘star’ (najm) in the Qur’an ( 86:3 ) is accompanied by the adjective thaaqib which indicates that it burns and consumes itself as it pierces through the shadows of the night. It was much later discovered that stars are heavenly bodies producing their own light like the sun.

In the Qur’an, a different word, kawkab, is used to refer to the planets which are celestial bodies that reflect light and do not produce their own light like the sun.

“We have adorned the lowest heaven with ornaments, the planets.” [Qur’an, 37:6]


•Orbits

“(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion.” [Qur’an,21:33]

The Arabic word which expresses this movement is the verb yasbahoon which implies the idea of motion produced by a moving body, whether it is the movement of one’s legs running on the ground, or the action of swimming in water. In the case of a celestial body, one is forced to translate it, according to its original meaning, as ‘to travel with its own motion.’

[Al-Ansariyah]

Is faith a reliable path to truth ?

There is no scientific theory that describes the origin of the universe, if it had an origin.

To quote Sean Carroll
“We should not think of the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, but the end of our understanding of the universe.

The must honest position I can take is to say
I don’t know, and it’s likely that I will never know.

To ask “how could the universe come into being without god “

Is to assume
1. The universe came into being
2. There is a god or gods.

The extent of our scientific understanding stretches back to about 1 second after the universe began to expend, and no further.

Let me ask you this , actually 2 things

1. Do you think god can do what’s not logical
2. Does god know, that he created everything ?

• The Solar Apex

The notion of a settled place for the sun is vividly described in chapter Yaa Seen of the Qur’an:

“The sun runs its coarse to a settled place That is the decree of the Almighty, the All Knowing.” Qur’an, 36:38

“Settled place” is the translation of the word mustaqarr which indicates an exact appointed place and time. Modern astronomy confirms that the solar system is indeed moving in space at a rate of 12 miles per second towards a point situated in the constellation of Hercules ( alpha lyrae ) whose exact location has been precisely calculated. Astronomers have even give it a name, the solar apex.


• Expansion of the universe

“I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47

The expansion of the universe was first suggested by the general theory of relativity and is supported by the calculations of astrophysics. The regular movement of the galactic light towards the red section of the spectrum is explained by the distancing of one galaxy from another. Thus, the size of the universe appears to be progressively increasing.



I have other evidences too if u need....

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;

The must honest position I can take is to say
I don’t know, and it’s likely that I will never know.

This is the third time you have confirmed honestly that you don't know how the universe came to be. We should not deviate from that honesty by saying, the universe came about by natural causes. Rather you should say, I BELIEVE that the universe came about by natural causes because you do not have the science to back your take on truth.

Likewise, I can only claim that I believe there is a creator God. But I started this thread by asking how much science there is to support the notion; that everything we see is the result of natural causes.

If we are to continue with this discussion then we should try and be truthful with the science we have now.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

[Ümit]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



This is the third time you have confirmed honestly that you don't know how the universe came to be. We should not deviate from that honesty by saying, the universe came about by natural causes. Rather you should say, I BELIEVE that the universe came about by natural causes because you do not have the science to back your take on truth.

Likewise, I can only claim that I believe there is a creator God. But I started this thread by asking how much science there is to support the notion; that everything we see is the result of natural causes.

If we are to continue with this discussion then we should try and be truthful with the science we have now.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

The problem however is that science is just the part we understand from our surroundings. it is a tool to understand the universe. It is not the absolute truth, just an approximation of it. Therefore, science can be wrong. Even the scientific facts, no matter how hard they have been proven can be wrong on a later stadium.
a classic example to demonstrate this is this:
a train is travelling with Str = 100 km/h. Inside the train a person stands up and walks toward the front with Sp = 5 km/h. What is his total speed?.
Basic natural law says that we can just add speeds together if the direction is the same. so the total speed of that person St = Str + Sp = 105 km/h.
We have used this formula for ages. this formula is correct, it is a scientific fact, repeatable, the results are always the same.
We still use this formula...it is easy to use and easy to understand and it works.

Despite all this, Einstein has proven this formula is not entirely correct...a better formula would be: St = (Str+Sp)/(1+StrSp/C^2) but because the speeds are much more smaller than C, the formula can be reduced to St = Str + Sp.

but this formula in turn is also just a new approximation of the absolute truth. as the human kind keeps on developping, we keep replacing such scientific facts and formulas with new ones, better ones, and we come another step closer to the absolute truth....but every time...it just is a new approximation and never the absolute truth.

The one true religion however IS the absolute truth.

Therefore, evolution...even if it really were a fact like chalky would like to claim, could be false after all, or slightly different as we think about it now.

What Chalky did not realise...even if evolution really took place...or still going on right now, this is not an exclusion of God! He could have used evolution as a tool to create life...

Oh and one last important thing here:
No matter how hard you try...there is one thing science never can explain...which is the existence of life itself. no matter how small the incremental steps are...the step from dead material to hardly alive material is too big. zero plus zero can never be one.

[chalks75]

• The Solar Apex

The notion of a settled place for the sun is vividly described in chapter Yaa Seen of the Qur’an:

“The sun runs its coarse to a settled place That is the decree of the Almighty, the All Knowing.” Qur’an, 36:38

“Settled place” is the translation of the word mustaqarr which indicates an exact appointed place and time. Modern astronomy confirms that the solar system is indeed moving in space at a rate of 12 miles per second towards a point situated in the constellation of Hercules ( alpha lyrae ) whose exact location has been precisely calculated. Astronomers have even give it a name, the solar apex.


• Expansion of the universe

“I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47

The expansion of the universe was first suggested by the general theory of relativity and is supported by the calculations of astrophysics. The regular movement of the galactic light towards the red section of the spectrum is explained by the distancing of one galaxy from another. Thus, the size of the universe appears to be progressively increasing.



I have other evidences too if u need....

Hi user123

The key thing you need to realise here is that
If the passage you quoted was meant and understood by Muslims, scholars and clerics etc, to indicate that the universe was an expanding universe,

Why did it take until science to discover that it was expanding for you to realise that ?

Was it a commonly held belief among Muslims, before 1920 that the universe was expanding.

What happens here, and not just with Muslims and the Koran, but with Jews and Christians and the bible, and Hindus and the Bhagavad Gita.

Let me explain

Science will make a discovery like the universe is expanding.

Then people look at their holy books after being enlightened by science, and find passages that they can interpret to fit this new information.
Then claim
“ ah look, my book must be true, because this must mean that”

At one time people believe that the earth was the Center of the universe / solar system.

Imagine we still believed that ,
Do you think I could find a passage in the Quran, that if read with that belief in mind would confirm that it’s true ?

If you really want to impress me,
Don’t want for science to enlighten you, then find a verse in the Koran that you can interpret in light of this new understanding.

Look in the Koran, and give me the verse that will indicate the next big discovery from science, before science discovers it.

[chalks75]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



This is the third time you have confirmed honestly that you don't know how the universe came to be. We should not deviate from that honesty by saying, the universe came about by natural causes. Rather you should say, I BELIEVE that the universe came about by natural causes because you do not have the science to back your take on truth.

Likewise, I can only claim that I believe there is a creator God. But I started this thread by asking how much science there is to support the notion; that everything we see is the result of natural causes.

If we are to continue with this discussion then we should try and be truthful with the science we have now.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

I agree Eric we should be as intellectually honest as we can, not just with others, but most importantly ourselves.

With that in mind

I don’t claim that the universe can only come about by natural causes.
Like I said , I don’t know , it’s not just that I don’t know , there isn’t enough information for me to form a belief about it.
So I can’t say it can’t have been a god or gods.

What I can say is this.

If you want to assert that there could be a supernatural influence on the origin of the universe.
Then it’s not enough to just assert it.

You would have to demonstrate that their is a supernatural, for me to consider it a possibility.
I don’t rule it out, but I can’t put it into the list of candidate explanations until someone can reliably demonstrate that the supernatural exists.

There is no science that points to anything other than the natural.
So I have no good reason to believe there is anything other than the natural.

[Ümit]

I agree Eric we should be as intellectually honest as we can, not just with others, but most importantly ourselves.

Then, be honest all the way.

With that in mind

I don’t claim that the universe can only come about by natural causes.
Like I said , I don’t know , it’s not just that I don’t know , there isn’t enough information for me to form a belief about it.
So I can’t say it can’t have been a god or gods.

What I can say is this.

If you want to assert that there could be a supernatural influence on the origin of the universe.
Then it’s not enough to just assert it.

It isn't just an assertion.
You have multiple clues for this supernatural influence. The least you can do is to explore.
Let me name some of these clues for you:
Clue nr 1:
The probability of the existence of the universe on its own is way too small...therefore, impossible. Now don't say that if you wait long enough, that it would happen.
but from chaos does not form order...glass is just molten sand...all the material needed to make glass lies everywhere...the conditions for it can also be met...did you ever find a marmelade jar out there made on its own? No...did you ever find a detailed statue of something, someone or some animal made by time and nature alone? stones and rocks everywhere? no you didn't...and why? because from chaos do not form order...the same way, you cannot expect that a complicated DNA molecule can from out of chaos...let alone multiple exact DNA molecules to form a cell.
So, there must be a supernatural influence...an intelligent designer.

Clue nr 2:
no matter how hard we try...science can never explain life itself. from dead material to hardly living enzymes is still a too big step. Dead material can never come alive without this supernatural influence.

Clue nr 3:
The supernatural influence does not wait for human kind to discover Him. He has been sending Prophets and holy books for us as a sign that He is there.
He allowed their prophets to perform miracles so that you may recognise them.
one of those miracles is still there to be seen. It is the Quraan which reached us through an impossible way. It is a fact that Mohammad sas was illiterate...yet he managed to pass Gods words on to us flawlessly. not one character in the enitire book with more than 600 pages is misplaced or can be proven wrong by science...that is too big of an achievement for an illiterate person.
This information is just given to you. it is a light where science is in darkness...you could at least check that out.

You would have to demonstrate that their is a supernatural, for me to consider it a possibility.
I don’t rule it out, but I can’t put it into the list of candidate explanations until someone can reliably demonstrate that the supernatural exists.

There is no science that points to anything other than the natural.
So I have no good reason to believe there is anything other than the natural.

Science is not everything...it has its limits...the very thing you want te prove is beyond the limit of science.

[Eric H]

I agree Eric we should be as intellectually honest as we can, not just with others, but most importantly ourselves.

That is all we can ask.

There is no science that points to anything other than the natural.

Any number less than twenty billion years must be like a blink of the eye. We are unable to go back any further than the big bang, so that shows how limited our knowledge is. If the big bang happened, then the temperature would have to have been around a billion degrees. Even Covid 19 might not survive that heat. In other words, everything coming out of the bang must have been totally sterile. We need a natural explanation as to how life could come from such a sterile environment, time alone is not an answer.

Life is only a bunch of chemicals that can reproduce. Things have to change, things have to happen in order for sterile chemicals to produce life. Chemicals always react to each other in the same way, so you would need natural events like wind, tides, temperature change, changes in light are all natural occurrences to move chemicals about and cause change.

So whilst you say science can only point to a natural or understandable explanation, that only shows how limited our science is. Science seems to have more unanswered questions than answers.

If you want to assert that there could be a supernatural influence on the origin of the universe.
Then it’s not enough to just assert it.

That was not the aim of the thread, rather it was to look for the science of beginnings.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

[MuslimFriend]

Bis-millah,
If we were to consider the three stages in the womb...the development of the embryo that is, as mentioned in the Qur'an, then possibly we could affirm evolution. And if we were to agree that evolution is a science then perhaps the processes of creation ( in the matter of the embryo) can be scientifically explained through our limited knowledge. Be mindful, there is as thing called " controlled education" and their many doctrines are spread through various institutions all in order to lead astray. Be mindful Muslim Brothers for this is Shaytan! Seek refuge with Allah from his evil plots. Charles Darwin was a Free Mason. History has shown that the Free Masonic belief system is ultimately satanic in its origin and principles. And the best speech is the speech of Allah. And the most trustworthy of teachings are that of His Last and Final Messenger (peace be upon him)

[chalks75]

Then, be honest all the way.

It isn't just an assertion.
You have multiple clues for this supernatural influence. The least you can do is to explore.
Let me name some of these clues for you:
Clue nr 1:
The probability of the existence of the universe on its own is way too small...therefore, impossible. Now don't say that if you wait long enough, that it would happen.
but from chaos does not form order...glass is just molten sand...all the material needed to make glass lies everywhere...the conditions for it can also be met...did you ever find a marmelade jar out there made on its own? No...did you ever find a detailed statue of something, someone or some animal made by time and nature alone? stones and rocks everywhere? no you didn't...and why? because from chaos do not form order...the same way, you cannot expect that a complicated DNA molecule can from out of chaos...let alone multiple exact DNA molecules to form a cell.
So, there must be a supernatural influence...an intelligent designer.

Clue nr 2:
no matter how hard we try...science can never explain life itself. from dead material to hardly living enzymes is still a too big step. Dead material can never come alive without this supernatural influence.

Clue nr 3:
The supernatural influence does not wait for human kind to discover Him. He has been sending Prophets and holy books for us as a sign that He is there.
He allowed their prophets to perform miracles so that you may recognise them.
one of those miracles is still there to be seen. It is the Quraan which reached us through an impossible way. It is a fact that Mohammad sas was illiterate...yet he managed to pass Gods words on to us flawlessly. not one character in the enitire book with more than 600 pages is misplaced or can be proven wrong by science...that is too big of an achievement for an illiterate person.
This information is just given to you. it is a light where science is in darkness...you could at least check that out.


Science is not everything...it has its limits...the very thing you want te prove is beyond the limit of science.

Hi
Umit

I agree science has limits,
And scientists have biases,
But
The scientific method has a built in system to counteract these flaws as much as possible.
Science has an excellent track record of discovering truths about the universe.
I certainly would have more confidence in someone systematically examining evidence
Than I would in people claiming they are prophets of a god.
Do you think there are such things as false prophets ?

How did you work out the probability of the universe existing from a sample size of 1?
It seems the probability of the universe existing is 1 out of 1.
Moreover, a miracle, by definition is the least likely explanation, so any natural explanation is more likely.

I agree with you that marmalade jars, statues , paintings, buildings,
All need creators

Would you agree with me that all those creators, need patents older than the creators ?

Or would you rather just stop that analogy at the point it suits your argument best ?

[chalks75]

That is all we can ask.



Any number less than twenty billion years must be like a blink of the eye. We are unable to go back any further than the big bang, so that shows how limited our knowledge is. If the big bang happened, then the temperature would have to have been around a billion degrees. Even Covid 19 might not survive that heat. In other words, everything coming out of the bang must have been totally sterile. We need a natural explanation as to how life could come from such a sterile environment, time alone is not an answer.

Life is only a bunch of chemicals that can reproduce. Things have to change, things have to happen in order for sterile chemicals to produce life. Chemicals always react to each other in the same way, so you would need natural events like wind, tides, temperature change, changes in light are all natural occurrences to move chemicals about and cause change.

So whilst you say science can only point to a natural or understandable explanation, that only shows how limited our science is. Science seems to have more unanswered questions than answers.



That was not the aim of the thread, rather it was to look for the science of beginnings.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

That is correct,
Our current understanding from observable data goes back to about 1 second after the universe began expanding,
Anything before that is conjecture.

So we can say “ we know the universe began expanding 13.8 billion years ago.
To quote Alan guth

“The Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged.”

The universe has cooled as it has expanded, not only that but stars and planets formed, and stars have created particles that did not exist at the Big Bang.

As for how life could arise
I don’t know that either, there is a field of science ( abiogenesis ) that study this, but they have yet to produce a theory, which is not to say the won’t, they have been able to create amino acids, the building blocks of life.

So
I don’t know how life began, but I do know, when faced with this very question, cultures from all around the globe imagined a creator , a god, a celestial father, in an attempt to answer that question.

[Ümit]

Hi
Umit

I agree science has limits,
And scientists have biases,
But
The scientific method has a built in system to counteract these flaws as much as possible.

I wasn't talking about biases of scientists as limits of science. I was talking about science always being an appoximation of the absolute truth...It will never be the absolute truth.
There will always come a scientist who can investigate a subject little better than his collegues and therefore can prove them wrong or change/adjust the existing formulas.

Science has an excellent track record of discovering truths about the universe.
I certainly would have more confidence in someone systematically examining evidence
Than I would in people claiming they are prophets of a god.

It is not a matter of eiter the one or the other...you can have both. I am not telling you to stop examining evidences and instead start believing in some false prophet.
I am saying that if you have no evidences to examine you could switch to religion and get your information from that source.

Do you think there are such things as false prophets ?

Of course there are false prophets. However, the fact that false prophets exist, does not mean Mohammad sas was a false prophet. I think you do not quite understand the work that has been done here:
an illiterate person managed to dictate a book with more than 600 pages in highly poetic Arabic with words chosen perfectly. not one word misplaced...and in such a way that science cannot prove one word of it wrong. and this book managed to survive 1400+ years...unchanged...how many false prophets do you know who can also do that?

How did you work out the probability of the universe existing from a sample size of 1?
It seems the probability of the universe existing is 1 out of 1.

I do not follow you here, please elaborate.

Moreover, a miracle, by definition is the least likely explanation, so any natural explanation is more likely.

I agree with you that marmalade jars, statues , paintings, buildings,
All need creators

Would you agree with me that all those creators, need patents older than the creators ?

So you need a patent to create something? or do you need a patent to prevent someone else to use your design?

Or would you rather just stop that analogy at the point it suits your argument best ?

No please continue...I do not know where you want to go with this...but please carry on...

(Of course you understand analogies are used to illustrate something, a situation or a problem...there is no need that the given analogy should be similar with all its aspects. therefore there is no point in comparing all other aspects of given analogies with the situation...but that aside.)

But if we may take a step back...I have given you some clues why there should be a supernatural influence...and you are just trying to ignore that all?
I would like to see your response on those clues please...if you don't mind.

[chalks75]

I wasn't talking about biases of scientists as limits of science. I was talking about science always being an appoximation of the absolute truth...It will never be the absolute truth.
There will always come a scientist who can investigate a subject little better than his collegues and therefore can prove them wrong or change/adjust the existing formulas.

It is not a matter of eiter the one or the other...you can have both. I am not telling you to stop examining evidences and instead start believing in some false prophet.
I am saying that if you have no evidences to examine you could switch to religion and get your information from that source.

Of course there are false prophets. However, the fact that false prophets exist, does not mean Mohammad sas was a false prophet. I think you do not quite understand the work that has been done here:
an illiterate person managed to dictate a book with more than 600 pages in highly poetic Arabic with words chosen perfectly. not one word misplaced...and in such a way that science cannot prove one word of it wrong. and this book managed to survive 1400+ years...unchanged...how many false prophets do you know who can also do that?


I do not follow you here, please elaborate.

So you need a patent to create something? or do you need a patent to prevent someone else to use your design?

No please continue...I do not know where you want to go with this...but please carry on...

(Of course you understand analogies are used to illustrate something, a situation or a problem...there is no need that the given analogy should be similar with all its aspects. therefore there is no point in comparing all other aspects of given analogies with the situation...but that aside.)

But if we may take a step back...I have given you some clues why there should be a supernatural influence...and you are just trying to ignore that all?
I would like to see your response on those clues please...if you don't mind.

Sorry umit
I meant parent, not patent.
In the examples you gave, jam jar, sculptor etc , I agree those things require creators.

Would you agree that those creators need parents which are older than them ?


What’s the difference between true,
and absolutely true ?
Something is either true or it’s not.
But your right,
Science does not make proclamations on “ absolute truth”
Theories are a tentative position, the best possible explanation with the given evidence, they are able to be modified when new evidence comes to light, and more importantly that can be disproved.


Would you agree that a specific claim requires

I’m not saying Muhammad was a false prophet.
What would you say the ratio is
False prophets, people who claim to be prophets of god
&
Real prophets, people who are actual prophets of god ?

How can you tell the difference between a real prophet and a false prophet ?


You have made some specific claims.

1. Muhammad was illiterate
2. Not one word of the Quran is misplaced

What evidence is there that Muhammad was illiterate ?
How would you know if a word was misplaced ?

And

Would you agree
If something was written was untrue 1800 years ago, and it has remain unchanged for 1800 years .... then it is still untrue ?

[chalks75]

Bis-millah,
If we were to consider the three stages in the womb...the development of the embryo that is, as mentioned in the Qur'an, then possibly we could affirm evolution. And if we were to agree that evolution is a science then perhaps the processes of creation ( in the matter of the embryo) can be scientifically explained through our limited knowledge. Be mindful, there is as thing called " controlled education" and their many doctrines are spread through various institutions all in order to lead astray. Be mindful Muslim Brothers for this is Shaytan! Seek refuge with Allah from his evil plots. Charles Darwin was a Free Mason. History has shown that the Free Masonic belief system is ultimately satanic in its origin and principles. And the best speech is the speech of Allah. And the most trustworthy of teachings are that of His Last and Final Messenger (peace be upon him)

Evolution is a fact .

Your attack on Charles Darwin is ad hominem.

[Eric H]

“The Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged.”

As for how life could arise
I don’t know that either, there is a field of science ( abiogenesis ) that study this, but they have yet to produce a theory,

Just to sum up the conversation so far, there is no pre - bang science. There is no science to explain abiogenesis.

That just leaves the ToE, how did the eye evolve without any help from God. I don't think this has been rationally explained as yet.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

[Ümit]

Sorry umit
I meant parent, not patent.
In the examples you gave, jam jar, sculptor etc , I agree those things require creators.

no worries...I found it a very strange statement....But now I understand where you want to go to...but your missing the point here.
I was pointing out that the chance of those things existing on their own is very slim...but still much greater than a DNA molecule to form on its own.
Sand and rocks are just laying around...it just needs the right lightning strike and boom...molten sand...you even have the right conditions to make glas...or the right wind to erode the rock to make a statue...in this case, the material and condions for it are already there...but it wont happen.
yet, you believe that the DNA molecule can come into reality on its own...but the marmalade jar, or statue not...Does that make sense to you? If I must be totally honest with you...it wouldn't make sense to me.

Would you agree that those creators need parents which are older than them ?

About the creators needing parents is a different point. First we need to determine whether these clues are enough to lead us to a supernatural influence...we will look closer to this supernatural influence later on, if you are still willing to take this journey.

What’s the difference between true,
and absolutely true ?
Something is either true or it’s not.

I agree. However...like I demonstrated to you with the example of adding up speeds together if the direction is the same...we have now 2 formulas to calculate the total speed of that person inside a train. for ages we used the first formula, and that formula was "True"...it was accurate, predictable and reliable...since Einstein we have a new formula to calculate the total speed...because the old formula was not "true enough". it was not accurate enough for certain situations...so Einsteins formula is now our "new true"...untill the next scientist comes along and changes everything in turn....so with every new scientist, we will get closer to the "absolute truth"...but we will never reach it.
That is what I mean the difference between "truth" and "absolute truth".

But your right,
Science does not make proclamations on “ absolute truth”
Theories are a tentative position, the best possible explanation with the given evidence, they are able to be modified when new evidence comes to light, and more importantly that can be disproved.

exactly...there is nothing wrong with that...that is how science works...but you need to understand that science does not exclude religion...both should coexist...where science reaches its limits, religion should take over seeminglessly.

Would you agree that a specific claim requires

???

I’m not saying Muhammad was a false prophet.
What would you say the ratio is
False prophets, people who claim to be prophets of god
&
Real prophets, people who are actual prophets of god ?

How can you tell the difference between a real prophet and a false prophet ?

That is a difficult one...I would not know the answer to that.

You have made some specific claims.

1. Muhammad was illiterate
2. Not one word of the Quran is misplaced

What evidence is there that Muhammad was illiterate ?

almost all scientists unanimously agree that Mohammad sas was indeed illiterate...there is very little to no doubt about that. Just Google it and you will find out.

How would you know if a word was misplaced ?

The way it was dictated to several writers simulaniously...if one of them misplaced a word, it would stand out immediately...The way it was distributed, if a word or multiple words was misplaced, then there would exist multiple versions of the Quraan..which is clearly not the case...it got distributed and spread way too fast for a person to collect and destroy all copies like they did with the Thorah.

And

Would you agree
If something was written was untrue 1800 years ago, and it has remain unchanged for 1800 years .... then it is still untrue ?

Then it would still be untrue yes...however, there is nothing untrue in the Quraan...and if you like to think otherwise, then the challenge is up to you to find the untrue parts in it and present it here.

I will use the Tafsir ibn Kathir as a help to explain what is meant exactly with the certain verse you present here, so no own interpretation...you can also look into that beforehand if you like...
Tafsir ibn Kathir is a book that gives you that little extra information about the verses like background info when and where this specific verse was revealed, what was going on at that moment and what that verse refers to.

[chalks75]

Just to sum up the conversation so far, there is no pre - bang science. There is no science to explain abiogenesis.

That just leaves the ToE, how did the eye evolve without any help from God. I don't think this has been rationally explained as yet.

In the spirit of searching for god,
Eric

That is correct
There is no pre Big Bang theory
&
No theory of abiogenesis.

There is also no evidence that a god or gods played any part in it.

Moreover there is no agreed upon definition of what a god is or does or can do.

[chalks75]

no worries...I found it a very strange statement....But now I understand where you want to go to...but your missing the point here.
I was pointing out that the chance of those things existing on their own is very slim...but still much greater than a DNA molecule to form on its own.
Sand and rocks are just laying around...it just needs the right lightning strike and boom...molten sand...you even have the right conditions to make glas...or the right wind to erode the rock to make a statue...in this case, the material and condions for it are already there...but it wont happen.
yet, you believe that the DNA molecule can come into reality on its own...but the marmalade jar, or statue not...Does that make sense to you? If I must be totally honest with you...it wouldn't make sense to me.


About the creators needing parents is a different point. First we need to determine whether these clues are enough to lead us to a supernatural influence...we will look closer to this supernatural influence later on, if you are still willing to take this journey.


I agree. However...like I demonstrated to you with the example of adding up speeds together if the direction is the same...we have now 2 formulas to calculate the total speed of that person inside a train. for ages we used the first formula, and that formula was "True"...it was accurate, predictable and reliable...since Einstein we have a new formula to calculate the total speed...because the old formula was not "true enough". it was not accurate enough for certain situations...so Einsteins formula is now our "new true"...untill the next scientist comes along and changes everything in turn....so with every new scientist, we will get closer to the "absolute truth"...but we will never reach it.
That is what I mean the difference between "truth" and "absolute truth".

exactly...there is nothing wrong with that...that is how science works...but you need to understand that science does not exclude religion...both should coexist...where science reaches its limits, religion should take over seeminglessly.

???

That is a difficult one...I would not know the answer to that.

almost all scientists unanimously agree that Mohammad sas was indeed illiterate...there is very little to no doubt about that. Just Google it and you will find out.

The way it was dictated to several writers simulaniously...if one of them misplaced a word, it would stand out immediately...The way it was distributed, if a word or multiple words was misplaced, then there would exist multiple versions of the Quraan..which is clearly not the case...it got distributed and spread way too fast for a person to collect and destroy all copies like they did with the Thorah.

Then it would still be untrue yes...however, there is nothing untrue in the Quraan...and if you like to think otherwise, then the challenge is up to you to find the untrue parts in it and present it here.

I will use the Tafsir ibn Kathir as a help to explain what is meant exactly with the certain verse you present here, so no own interpretation...you can also look into that beforehand if you like...
Tafsir ibn Kathir is a book that gives you that little extra information about the verses like background info when and where this specific verse was revealed, what was going on at that moment and what that verse refers to.

yet, you believe that the DNA molecule can come into reality on its own...but the marmalade jar, or statue not...Does that make sense to you? If I must be totally honest with you...it wouldn't make sense to me.

This is not the case
I do not know how life began, there isn’t enough information for me to decide how life began.
Plus, I think the suggestion is that DNA evolved from RNA which formed naturally .


About the creators needing parents is a different point.

Actually it’s not a different point
If creations need creators, then creators need patents older than them.
But you will perhaps want to claim there is a creator that has no parents.

because the old formula was not "true enough".
I think you are confusing accuracy with truth
Is it true someone is travelling on a train ?
Yes, that’s a fact
How accurate we can be in determine the speed of the train is a variable.

.that is how science works...but you need to understand that science does not exclude religion...both should coexist...where science reaches its limits, religion should take over seeminglessly

Which religion should take over ?
Which version of which religion ?
Why should any particular version of religion take precedent over another ?

Would you say there are a lot more false prophets than real prophets,
So the chances that someone claiming to be prophecy , it’s more likely that they are a false prophet than a real one.


To say most scientists agree Muhammad was illiterate vis an argument ad populam
What evidence is there that Muhammad was illiterate ?
Am I correct in thinking that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad in a cave by an angel ?
If so what evidence is there Muhammad met an angel ?


If you had a belief about god that was illogical
Would you drop that belief or change it ?
Do you believe god can do what is illogical ?

[Eric H]

Would you agree with me that all those creators, need parents older than the creators ?

Or would you rather just stop that analogy at the point it suits your argument best ?

We can level the same challenge about the bang, was there a daddy bang and an even older granddady bang? Some things we just have to accept without real proof.

Evolution is a fact .

The only way we could accept it as a fact is if it happened with God's guidance. However I started this thread to try and understand the science that could explain how life could evolve without God.

Is there a better explanation for the evolution of the eye than that given by Nilsson and Pelger's model? They have the paper that states the eye lens could have evolved over 1,800 incremental steps.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

[chalks75]

We can level the same challenge about the bang, was there a daddy bang and an even older granddady bang? Some things we just have to accept without real proof.



The only way we could accept it as a fact is if it happened with God's guidance. However I started this thread to try and understand the science that could explain how life could evolve without God.

Is there a better explanation for the evolution of the eye than that given by Nilsson and Pelger's model? They have the paper that states the eye lens could have evolved over 1,800 incremental steps.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

There is a hypothesis which postulates a cyclic universe, meaning our Big Bang is part of a cycle of big bangs.

The thing is there isn’t enough data to form a firm view ... if there is no evidence then it’s best to just say “ we don’t know “

Evolution is a fact
It’s an observed fact, life changes over time
It’s not only seen in the lab, but in the wild.
Would you like some of examples of evolution in action ?


https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/...million-years/

Would I be right to assume, it really dose not matter to you, what evidence or argument could be presented to you ,
Anything that does not confirm your already held beliefs ... you will ignore.

[Eric H]

Would you like some of examples of evolution in action ?

https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/...million-years/

Thanks for the link, and it says things like, wildly debated, their findings suggest, many scientists believe. It sums up by saying; 'although regarded as an unproven theory, there is compelling evidence. The wording suggests there are many unanswered questions, scientists are not too confident with their findings so far, or they would use more confident phrases.

The link ignores very obvious questions. How did the nerves, brain, limbs, muscles, ligaments tendons evolve alongside the lens? What is the point of an improved lens if the brain does not understand how to react.

Would I be right to assume, it really dose not matter to you, what evidence or argument could be presented to you ,
Anything that does not confirm your already held beliefs ... you will ignore.

Not at all, I read through the link you provided. I had a number of questions in mind that I would like answered, and the link did not provide the answers. I believe the questions I have are both valid and simple, but they must be questions other people are asking. I understand the answers might not be straight forwards

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[Scimitar]

Evolution is a fact

I proved to you that it wasn’t, you ignored my post and hoped that was that.

Attachment 6891

ive posted this pic to remind you how heinous your claims were in our last exchange.

now humour me with a response to my last post which is on page one of this thread.

[chalks75]

Thanks for the link, and it says things like, wildly debated, their findings suggest, many scientists believe. It sums up by saying; 'although regarded as an unproven theory, there is compelling evidence. The wording suggests there are many unanswered questions, scientists are not too confident with their findings so far, or they would use more confident phrases.

The link ignores very obvious questions. How did the nerves, brain, limbs, muscles, ligaments tendons evolve alongside the lens? What is the point of an improved lens if the brain does not understand how to react.



Not at all, I read through the link you provided. I had a number of questions in mind that I would like answered, and the link did not provide the answers. I believe the questions I have are both valid and simple, but they must be questions other people are asking. I understand the answers might not be straight forwards

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

I’m glad that you have read through the article.
There is always arguments and debates on the intricacies of how things evolve,

I’m sure they were not arguing if it evolved.

Your questions are valid questions,
I’m not sure I’m qualified to answer,
But I love learning, so I am going to see if I can find out.

How did the brain evolve along side the eye, to make use of the extra information[emoji106]

To google [emoji3]

[anatolian]

I dont know why the theory of evolution becomes the subject always when creation is discussed. For us believers, even one single sand particle cannot come to existance without the creation of God. There is an evolution in physics too. Lets imagine how that sand particle came into the world. How many phases it passed. How many protons and electrons and atoms and molecules came into reaction for that sand particle to become? We are just amazed of the design of the existance. Because we realize that only “an intelligence” can design it and He is the God.

[Al-Ansariyah]

Hi user123

The key thing you need to realise here is that
If the passage you quoted was meant and understood by Muslims, scholars and clerics etc, to indicate that the universe was an expanding universe,

Why did it take until science to discover that it was expanding for you to realise that ?

Was it a commonly held belief among Muslims, before 1920 that the universe was expanding.

What happens here, and not just with Muslims and the Koran, but with Jews and Christians and the bible, and Hindus and the Bhagavad Gita.

Let me explain

Science will make a discovery like the universe is expanding.

Then people look at their holy books after being enlightened by science, and find passages that they can interpret to fit this new information.
Then claim
“ ah look, my book must be true, because this must mean that”

At one time people believe that the earth was the Center of the universe / solar system.

Imagine we still believed that ,
Do you think I could find a passage in the Quran, that if read with that belief in mind would confirm that it’s true ?

If you really want to impress me,
Don’t want for science to enlighten you, then find a verse in the Koran that you can interpret in light of this new understanding.

Look in the Koran, and give me the verse that will indicate the next big discovery from science, before science discovers it.

This was such a lame question.
Quran has concealed meaning. No one can interpret it accurately excpet Allah.

Muslim scholars had already interpreted those verses but they didn't have access so as to prove it to other people. If u read the explanation of quran , u'll come to know that they already said all those statements but they couldn't prove themselves. Hence, it was discovered long ago but was CONFIRMED by scientists.

Now don't ask why did they have to prove it to people when it was the word of God.
'people' are referred to BOTH muslims and non muslims. That's why proof was needed for non muslims.

[Ümit]

This is not the case
I do not know how life began, there isn’t enough information for me to decide how life began.
Plus, I think the suggestion is that DNA evolved from RNA which formed naturally .

Again you are missing the point here. even RNA particles are way more complex to form naturally than marmelade jars and statues and stuff. how then should I believe that a RNA particle has been able to form all naturally where marmelade jars can't?
You sure understand this or not?

About the creators needing parents is a different point.

Actually it’s not a different point
If creations need creators, then creators need patents older than them.
But you will perhaps want to claim there is a creator that has no parents.

I understand where you are going to, and I agree with you that features and characteristics of this supernatural influence also needs to be discussed...but in another thread then please...lets do this systematic...if we jump from one topic into another, then this discussion would be all over the place and in the end nothing would be cleared.

because the old formula was not "true enough".
I think you are confusing accuracy with truth
Is it true someone is travelling on a train ?
Yes, that’s a fact
How accurate we can be in determine the speed of the train is a variable.

no it is not accuracy. that maybe an aspect of it of course, but it has to do with new insights. you see, before Einstein, nobody even thought about lightspeed being the fastest achievable speed in the universe...therefore the old formula was accurate. after the lightspeed was put in the equation, the old formula was not true anymore.

.that is how science works...but you need to understand that science does not exclude religion...both should coexist...where science reaches its limits, religion should take over seeminglessly

Which religion should take over ?
Which version of which religion ?
Why should any particular version of religion take precedent over another ?

I already gave you an answer about this...if you want to discuss this in a greater detail, no problem...I will gladly join you, but please in another thread then.

Would you say there are a lot more false prophets than real prophets,
So the chances that someone claiming to be prophecy , it’s more likely that they are a false prophet than a real one.

this is a weird statement. I am sure you know better than this... right?
So...by your determination which prophet is real and which is false...you do not use your reasoning, instead you leave it to chance?
You do not look at what they are saying, whether it sounds logical or plausible or not...but you treat them all equal?

To say most scientists agree Muhammad was illiterate vis an argument ad populam
What evidence is there that Muhammad was illiterate ?
Am I correct in thinking that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad in a cave by an angel ?
If so what evidence is there Muhammad met an angel ?

First, it is stated in the Quraan itself that he was not meant to read and write...so that later on people could not accuse him as the author of the Quraan.
Second, there are many many reliable hadeeths that he was indeed illiterate.
Third, he is named in the Quraan only twice...and not in a very positive way...I mean, other prophets like Moses as is mentioned much more often in the Quraan and in the most positive way...as if he was the greatest prophet...
If Muhammad sas was indeed the author of the Quraan, would he then not make himself look like a great prophet instead praising other prophets?

And many more evidences that he was indeed illiterate. If you are interested you can simply use Google and find it.

If you had a belief about god that was illogical
Would you drop that belief or change it ?

I would...most definitively. when I reached a certain age I reached that point that I started thinking seriously about my religion whether I really believe the things that I've been taught, or I just take it for granted...I was really at a point that if everything was illogical, that I would just drop my religion or just not care about it anymore.
So I looked for answers about questions and doubts in my head. the more answers I found, the stronger my belief became...I still have many questions that needs to be answered...But I do not have doubt about my religion anymore.

Do you believe god can do what is illogical ?

God is omnipotent. nothing to Him is impossible. What we think is illogical doesn't have to be illogical to Him...unless you are asking nonsense of course...
Like "Can God get divorced?" since He is not married...you might as well ask "Can God gyre and wimple in the wabe?" putting words together does not automatically make it meaningfull.

[Eric H]

But I love learning, so I am going to see if I can find out.

The Nilsson Pelger link below says very much the same as yours, but it gives more detail. Sometimes I think you have to step back and and ponder what the information means.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Eye_to_Evolve

It takes 1829 incremental steps for the lens to evolve through seven stages. It takes 176 random mutations to go in one direction. Then it stops randomly going in this direction and goes 362 steps randomly in another directions.

Questions to reflect and ponder on --

If it took 1829 steps, each step must have been an improvement in vision of less than 0.01%. How could natural selection detect such a minute improvement 1829 times.
Random mutation and natural selection have no direction or goals. How would they know when to change direction seven times throughout the 1829 steps?

How could each of the following happen 1829 times?

How did the optic nerves understand and transmit more detailed information to the brain?
How did the brain increase its capacity to understand what the eye sees?
How did the brain give more detailed information to the limbs, so they could react in a more efficient way?
How did the limbs, muscles, tendons, ligaments improve so they could react in a more efficient way?

How could natural selection work on all these areas at the same time and pass the information through a population? Please feel free to reword any of these questions if you feel they are not valid.

How could all this happen without God?

[chalks75]

This was such a lame question.
Quran has concealed meaning. No one can interpret it accurately excpet Allah.

Muslim scholars had already interpreted those verses but they didn't have access so as to prove it to other people. If u read the explanation of quran , u'll come to know that they already said all those statements but they couldn't prove themselves. Hence, it was discovered long ago but was CONFIRMED by scientists.

Now don't ask why did they have to prove it to people when it was the word of God.
'people' are referred to BOTH muslims and non muslims. That's why proof was needed for non muslims.

No one can interpret the Quran accurately except Allah ?
So would you say the all the attempts at interpreting it are wrong ?

You say it was known to Muslims ( expanding universe) before Edwin Hubble discovered it in the 1920s

Could you prove a link to one Muslim physicist ( pre Edwin Hubble discovering it) stating the universe is expanding?

You didn’t answer my question

The Quran was written 1800 years ago, when the commonly held belief was that the earth was the Center of the solar system,

Could I look in the Quran and find passages that would confirm that is true ?

[chalks75]

Again you are missing the point here. even RNA particles are way more complex to form naturally than marmelade jars and statues and stuff. how then should I believe that a RNA particle has been able to form all naturally where marmelade jars can't?
You sure understand this or not?

I understand where you are going to, and I agree with you that features and characteristics of this supernatural influence also needs to be discussed...but in another thread then please...lets do this systematic...if we jump from one topic into another, then this discussion would be all over the place and in the end nothing would be cleared.


no it is not accuracy. that maybe an aspect of it of course, but it has to do with new insights. you see, before Einstein, nobody even thought about lightspeed being the fastest achievable speed in the universe...therefore the old formula was accurate. after the lightspeed was put in the equation, the old formula was not true anymore.

I already gave you an answer about this...if you want to discuss this in a greater detail, no problem...I will gladly join you, but please in another thread then.

this is a weird statement. I am sure you know better than this... right?
So...by your determination which prophet is real and which is false...you do not use your reasoning, instead you leave it to chance?
You do not look at what they are saying, whether it sounds logical or plausible or not...but you treat them all equal?

First, it is stated in the Quraan itself that he was not meant to read and write...so that later on people could not accuse him as the author of the Quraan.
Second, there are many many reliable hadeeths that he was indeed illiterate.
Third, he is named in the Quraan only twice...and not in a very positive way...I mean, other prophets like Moses as is mentioned much more often in the Quraan and in the most positive way...as if he was the greatest prophet...
If Muhammad sas was indeed the author of the Quraan, would he then not make himself look like a great prophet instead praising other prophets?

And many more evidences that he was indeed illiterate. If you are interested you can simply use Google and find it.

I would...most definitively. when I reached a certain age I reached that point that I started thinking seriously about my religion whether I really believe the things that I've been taught, or I just take it for granted...I was really at a point that if everything was illogical, that I would just drop my religion or just not care about it anymore.
So I looked for answers about questions and doubts in my head. the more answers I found, the stronger my belief became...I still have many questions that needs to be answered...But I do not have doubt about my religion anymore.

God is omnipotent. nothing to Him is impossible. What we think is illogical doesn't have to be illogical to Him...unless you are asking nonsense of course...
Like "Can God get divorced?" since He is not married...you might as well ask "Can God gyre and wimple in the wabe?" putting words together does not automatically make it meaningfull.

There are two many topics being discussed in this one conversation, it’s hard to keep up [emoji3].

So if you don’t mind il pick one,
To examine

Can god do what is illogical ?

What I mean by this is not can god get divorced, or anything like that.

Could god make a square circle
Or
A married bachelor

Could god do those things?

[chalks75]

The Nilsson Pelger link below says very much the same as yours, but it gives more detail. Sometimes I think you have to step back and and ponder what the information means.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Eye_to_Evolve

It takes 1829 incremental steps for the lens to evolve through seven stages. It takes 176 random mutations to go in one direction. Then it stops randomly going in this direction and goes 362 steps randomly in another directions.

Questions to reflect and ponder on --

If it took 1829 steps, each step must have been an improvement in vision of less than 0.01%. How could natural selection detect such a minute improvement 1829 times.
Random mutation and natural selection have no direction or goals. How would they know when to change direction seven times throughout the 1829 steps?

How could each of the following happen 1829 times?

How did the optic nerves understand and transmit more detailed information to the brain?
How did the brain increase its capacity to understand what the eye sees?
How did the brain give more detailed information to the limbs, so they could react in a more efficient way?
How did the limbs, muscles, tendons, ligaments improve so they could react in a more efficient way?

How could natural selection work on all these areas at the same time and pass the information through a population? Please feel free to reword any of these questions if you feel they are not valid.

How could all this happen without God?

You are correct that evolution does not have a goal, and the mutations are random.
But

The overall process is not random, hence the natural selection.

I haven’t had much time to look into how the brain and eye evolve in conjunction,
I’m building a wildlife pond in my garden.

As with all aspects of evolution, it will naturally select what is beneficial,
So if a mutation results in 0.01% improvement, then that will be selected.

[Ümit]

There are two many topics being discussed in this one conversation, it’s hard to keep up [emoji3].

So if you don’t mind il pick one,
To examine

Can god do what is illogical ?

What I mean by this is not can god get divorced, or anything like that.

Could god make a square circle
Or
A married bachelor

Could god do those things?

This is exactly what I mean...No...because just putting words together doen't make it meaningfull...like the square circle, the married bachellor, getting divorced without being married...creating a rock so big that even He cannot lift...etc. etc.
The question is meaningless...like said, you might as well ask "Can God gyre and wimple in the wabe?" just as meaningless as your examples.
So No, He cannot do that.

[Al-Ansariyah]

No one can interpret the Quran accurately except Allah ?
So would you say the all the attempts at interpreting it are wrong ?

You say it was known to Muslims ( expanding universe) before Edwin Hubble discovered it in the 1920s

Could you prove a link to one Muslim physicist ( pre Edwin Hubble discovering it) stating the universe is expanding?

You didn’t answer my question

The Quran was written 1800 years ago, when the commonly held belief was that the earth was the Center of the solar system,

Could I look in the Quran and find passages that would confirm that is true ?

Can't u just google it urself??

U'll surely find some evidence there. M so much busy right now, otherwise I would have given it.
Nd about that interpretation thing, many scholars interpreted the quran according to hadith ( sayings of prophet).
I didn't say their interpretation is all wrong,they did their best.
I used the word 'ACCURATELY'. U may find its meaning in dictionary.

[chalks75]

Can't u just google it urself??

U'll surely find some evidence there. M so much busy right now, otherwise I would have given it.
Nd about that interpretation thing, many scholars interpreted the quran according to hadith ( sayings of prophet).
I didn't say their interpretation is all wrong,they did their best.
I used the word 'ACCURATELY'. U may find its meaning in dictionary.

It’s your claim,
You have the burden of proof not I.

Who decides who has the right interpretation of the Quran ?

Do you think it’s wise to leave the interpretation of such an important message to fallible human beings ?

[chalks75]

This is exactly what I mean...No...because just putting words together doen't make it meaningfull...like the square circle, the married bachellor, getting divorced without being married...creating a rock so big that even He cannot lift...etc. etc.
The question is meaningless...like said, you might as well ask "Can God gyre and wimple in the wabe?" just as meaningless as your examples.
So No, He cannot do that.

I’m not just putting words together randomly,
I’m putting words together to create a direct contradiction, something that cannot be true.

So god cannot do what is illogical

With that in mind
Can god be aware of something he is unaware of ?
Can god know something that he does not know ?

[Eric H]

You are correct that evolution does not have a goal, and the mutations are random.

That is a good starting point.

The overall process is not random, hence the natural selection.

I can accept this.

As with all aspects of evolution, it will naturally select what is beneficial,
So if a mutation results in 0.01% improvement, then that will be selected.

If you have a population of one thousand, and one in that population has a lens that is 0.01% better than the rest. How does that stand out from the crowd?

At the same time, does this one individual have optic nerves, a brain, limbs, muscles and tendons that also have an increased 0.01% advantage? The incremental improvement in the eye lens is only as good as the weakest link. If the muscles do not have a 0.01% advantage, every other improvement becomes void.

This would need to happen 1829 times.

I haven’t had much time to look into how the brain and eye evolve in conjunction,

No worries. I have looked over the years and not found anything very helpful. I think you will find more for yourself by sitting by your pond and reflecting on the questions.

Please feel free to reword any of these questions if you feel they are not valid.

You still have the opportunity to change any of these questions, if you feel they do not apply. If the questions are valid, then they do deserve an answer, especially the last question, how could all this happen without God?

[chalks75]

That is a good starting point.



I can accept this.



If you have a population of one thousand, and one in that population has a lens that is 0.01% better than the rest. How does that stand out from the crowd?

At the same time, does this one individual have optic nerves, a brain, limbs, muscles and tendons that also have an increased 0.01% advantage? The incremental improvement in the eye lens is only as good as the weakest link. If the muscles do not have a 0.01% advantage, every other improvement becomes void.

This would need to happen 1829 times.



No worries. I have looked over the years and not found anything very helpful. I think you will find more for yourself by sitting by your pond and reflecting on the questions.



You still have the opportunity to change any of these questions, if you feel they do not apply. If the questions are valid, then they do deserve an answer, especially the last question, how could all this happen without God?

Yeah your questions are valid,

If 1 a population of 1000 has better eyesight than the other 999, then that 1 has a slightly increased chance of seeing a predator, therefore a slightly decreased chance of being eaten, which leads to an increase chance of livening long enough to procreate, which will pass that mutation along in the gene pool in a higher number

Except the last one

How could this happen without god ?
Since you can’t demonstrate that there is a god, then a god cannot be a candidate explanation for anything.

But if I were to accept “ a god” as a candidate explanation,

Then you would have to define what a god is,
Then you would have to give reasons why we should use your definition of what a god is and not someone else’s definition.

Do you think the fact that you have to define what a god is raises a problem ?

[Eric H]

Yeah your questions are valid,

Ok, if the questions are valid, you don't seem to have taken them into account.

If 1 a population of 1000 has better eyesight than the other 999, then that 1 has a slightly increased chance of seeing a predator,

If the one in the population had a lens three percent better than the 999, I can see how this might possibly work. Because the lens has to advance 1,829 times to go from no eye to a good eye, the improvements can only be around 0.01 % increased vision than the 999. If the good eyed fish has a deficient limb, the eye has little advantage, it could have a disease and die before giving birth, it could still be in the wrong place at the wrong time with a predator. The optic nerves, brain, limbs, may not have evolved to take advantage of the 0.01% advantage the eye has given.

If the predators eyes do not increase at a similar rate of 0.01%, they will not be able to survive. All this has to happen 1829 times for the eyes to evolve in both the predator and the prey. I am only talking about the species that rely on their eyes, and not the ones who have developed other sensory aids.

I think my last question was the most important, how could all this happen without God? When you take God out of the equation, we want the science to explain how all this could happen in a natural way.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[chalks75]

Ok, if the questions are valid, you don't seem to have taken them into account.



If the one in the population had a lens three percent better than the 999, I can see how this might possibly work. Because the lens has to advance 1,829 times to go from no eye to a good eye, the improvements can only be around 0.01 % increased vision than the 999. If the good eyed fish has a deficient limb, the eye has little advantage, it could have a disease and die before giving birth, it could still be in the wrong place at the wrong time with a predator. The optic nerves, brain, limbs, may not have evolved to take advantage of the 0.01% advantage the eye has given.

If the predators eyes do not increase at a similar rate of 0.01%, they will not be able to survive. All this has to happen 1829 times for the eyes to evolve in both the predator and the prey. I am only talking about the species that rely on their eyes, and not the ones who have developed other sensory aids.

I think my last question was the most important, how could all this happen without God? When you take God out of the equation, we want the science to explain how all this could happen in a natural way.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

You can’t just assert a god exists then offer it as an explanation,

“ a god” cannot be a candidate explanation unless you can demonstrate a god exists.

To ask “ how could this happen without a god” is to assume a god exists .
It’s begging the question


Because the lens has to advance 1,829 times to go from no eye to a good eye,

I’m not sure what you mean by a good eye,
Any improvement over you competitors is an advantage, no matter how slight.
Meaning subsequent generations will have that advantage.
Then the modified organism mutates again , and the process begins all over again
So in a few generations small improvements mount up, to big improvements.

Would I be correct

[chalks75]

[QUOTE=chalks75;3026659]You can’t just assert a god exists then offer it as an explanation,

“ a god” cannot be a candidate explanation unless you can demonstrate a god exists.

To ask “ how could this happen without a god” is to assume a god exists .


Because the lens has to advance 1,829 times to go from no eye to a good eye,

I’m not sure what you mean by a good eye,
Any improvement over you competitors is an advantage, no matter how slight.
Meaning subsequent generations will have that advantage.
Then the modified organism mutates again , and the process begins all over again
So in a few generations small improvements mount up, to big improvements.

The article you have linked to,
They are discussing how the eye evolved, not wether it evolved.

Do you agree with the article that the eye did evolve, whatever form that took ?

[Al-Ansariyah]

@chalks75
Let me tell u in all this, that u r killing ur soul. You accept it or not, it's the reality. You'll come to know once you reach ur grave.u'll regret it man, u'll regret it.( Until nd unless Allah guides you)

I don't need any reply from u on this. It was just a fact which I stated. There's no need for u to speak against it.

[chalks75]

@chalks75
Let me tell u in all this, that u r killing ur soul. You accept it or not, it's the reality. You'll come to know once you reach ur grave.u'll regret it man, u'll regret it.( Until nd unless Allah guides you)

I don't need any reply from u on this. It was just a fact which I stated. There's no need for u to speak against it.

Your right
There either is a god or there is not
If there is, il find out when I die
If there’s not,then I won’t.

If god judges me harshly for my honest disbelief, there isn’t much I can do about it.

Of course, you could die, and find out you were worshiping the wrong god all along.

Gamble for both of us.

I don’t believe people have souls.

I’m as concerned about meeting Allah in the afterlife as I am about being reincarnated as a snail , or not getting into Valhalla

[chalks75]

I proved to you that it wasn’t, you ignored my post and hoped that was that.

Attachment 6891

ive posted this pic to remind you how heinous your claims were in our last exchange.

now humour me with a response to my last post which is on page one of this thread.

I do apologise,
I did not see the notification
I was not ignoring you.

Evolution is a fact

Life changes over time
That is evolution.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolut...act_and_theory

[Eric H]

I’m not sure what you mean by a good eye,

The link I gave you says - it took 1,829 incremental steps from a light sensitive patch to a focused lens eye.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Eye_to_Evolve

So in a few generations small improvements mount up, to big improvements.

I know the theory, but there are too many unanswered questions.

They are discussing how the eye evolved, not wether it evolved.

They have done this by avoiding a lot of challenging questions. Your article is based on a computer model. So just to be clear how this would work, a programmer would look at eyes in a number of species and plot their coordinates on a computer. They would then tell the computer to plot a path between these coordinates. The computer would show what it was told to show.

The article did not address any of the questions which you agreed were valid. If the questions can't be answered, it is better to say, I don't know.

Because all the papers I have read avoid these questions, I am still not convinced the eye evolved as stated.

[chalks75]

The link I gave you says - it took 1,829 incremental steps from a light sensitive patch to a focused lens eye.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Eye_to_Evolve



I know the theory, but there are too many unanswered questions.



They have done this by avoiding a lot of challenging questions. Your article is based on a computer model. So just to be clear how this would work, a programmer would look at eyes in a number of species and plot their coordinates on a computer. They would then tell the computer to plot a path between these coordinates. The computer would show what it was told to show.

The article did not address any of the questions which you agreed were valid. If the questions can't be answered, it is better to say, I don't know.

Because all the papers I have read avoid these questions, I am still not convinced the eye evolved as stated.

I agree with you that if questions can’t be answered then the correct answer is
“ i don’t know “

To admit you don’t, then assert a god did it, would seem to defeat the purpose of not knowing.

"It is not surprising that cells of human eyes come from the brain. We still have light-sensitive cells in our brains today which detect light and influence our daily rhythms of activity," explains Wittbrodt. "Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."

It’s possible that eyes developed from light sensitive cells in the brain, and not a separate entity from the brain.

[Eric H]

I agree with you that if questions can’t be answered then the correct answer is
“ i don’t know “

Are there answers to any of the following questions, or do we say we don't know about some of them?

It takes 1829 incremental steps for the lens to evolve through seven stages. It takes 176 random mutations to go in one direction. Then it stops randomly going in this direction and goes 362 steps randomly in another directions.

Questions to reflect and ponder on --

If it took 1829 steps, each step must have been an improvement in vision of less than 0.01%. How could natural selection detect such a minute improvement 1829 times.
Random mutation and natural selection have no direction or goals. How would they know when to change direction seven times throughout the 1829 steps?

How could each of the following happen 1829 times?

How did the optic nerves understand and transmit more detailed information to the brain?
How did the brain increase its capacity to understand what the eye sees?
How did the brain give more detailed information to the limbs, so they could react in a more efficient way?
How did the limbs, muscles, tendons, ligaments improve so they could react in a more efficient way?

How could natural selection work on all these areas at the same time and pass the information through a population? Please feel free to reword any of these questions if you feel they are not valid.

I will reflect on your other comments.

[Scimitar]

Evolution is a fact.

No. It is not. What it is, is a variety of inferred contradictory assumptions based on loosely strung together observations.

You’ve not been able to prove otherwise.

[chalks75]

No. It is not. What it is, is a variety of inferred contradictory assumptions based on loosely strung together observations.

You’ve not been able to prove otherwise.

You are confusing
The fact of evolution
With the hypothesis/ theories that attempt to explain it.

Would you like some observed examples of evolution, both the result of natural selection, and of selective breading ?

[Eric H]

I agree with you that if questions can’t be answered then the correct answer is
“ i don’t know “

Do you have any thoughts on the following, or do we say we don't know?

Originally Posted by Eric H
It takes 1829 incremental steps for the lens to evolve through seven stages. It takes 176 random mutations to go in one direction. Then it stops randomly going in this direction and goes 362 steps randomly in another directions.

Questions to reflect and ponder on --

If it took 1829 steps, each step must have been an improvement in vision of less than 0.01%. How could natural selection detect such a minute improvement 1829 times.
Random mutation and natural selection have no direction or goals. How would they know when to change direction seven times throughout the 1829 steps?

How could each of the following happen 1829 times?

How did the optic nerves understand and transmit more detailed information to the brain?
How did the brain increase its capacity to understand what the eye sees?
How did the brain give more detailed information to the limbs, so they could react in a more efficient way?
How did the limbs, muscles, tendons, ligaments improve so they could react in a more efficient way?

How could natural selection work on all these areas at the same time and pass the information through a population? Please feel free to reword any of these questions if you feel they are not valid.

[chalks75]

Do you have any thoughts on the following, or do we say we don't know?

Hi Eric
Hope your keeping well

There are a couple of things I don’t understand in your post.

I’m
Not sure what you mean when you say natural selection “changes direction “

From what I understand “ natural selection “
Always selects what is beneficial.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say how could “ natural selection detect such a minuscule change “

The changes are played out in nature, and the selection is done by how those changes affect the organisms ability to pass on its genes.

I think it’s also important to note that evolution shapes what is already there,

It was explained to me by a biologist like this

“Imagine a 50 empty gallon barrel, with a tap dripping above it, at a rate of 1 drop per day.

Imagine you look into the barrel after a month, you will see some water
If you came back and looked everyday, for a week, you won’t see much change
If you came back a month later , you might see a little change
If you can back after 2 years , you would see a big change.

It’s still only 1 drip of water
But
A small change, amounts to a big difference over time.

The same is true with evolution
Small changes, amount to a big difference over time.

He went on to explain
“ once you realise the change is happening you can make predictions and test them, if this change is happening then the water level should be at X in 6 months , it should be at Y in 2 years and so on “

The same is true with evolution,
If evolution is true then you can make a prediction, and they have.

They have been able to predict,
A certain type of fossil , being found in a certain age of strata,in a certain area.
They have been able to go and dig and have found the fossil type predicted, predicted on the premise of evolution being true.

It’s this ability to make predictions, that help a hypothesis become a theory


http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html

[Eric H]

Hi chalk, We are doing as well as we possibly can in these testing times, it has been an opportunity to catch up on bits we have been putting off. Nothing exciting like building a fish pond though, how about yourself?

I’m
Not sure what you mean when you say natural selection “changes direction “

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Eye_to_Evolve

In the above link, there are diagrams of 8 stages showing how many incremental steps it could take for the eye to evolve. If you look at the first it is just a flat light sensitive patch, it then takes 176 incremental steps to reach an optimum curve. It then has to stop randomly mutating in this direction, and take another 362 steps to form a different curve. Then repeat another five times. I think you need to look at the diagrams to understand what they are trying to say.

I question how they interpret random mutation, 176 steps towards one goal is pushing my understanding of 'random'. I understand that natural selection would dump any detrimental mutations. When you repeat this process six more times with bigger numbers, random mutation looses all meaning for me. Yet this would have to happen so that evolution could work. Natural selection has no goals to work towards, so it could have stopped at any point along these 1,829 steps. I know it did for some species.

Then there are all the other tedious questions of optic nerves, the brain, limbs, muscles evolving at the same rate as the eye lens, but how?

[Eric H]

I have just noticed your edit.

“Imagine a 50 empty gallon barrel, with a tap dripping above it, at a rate of 1 drop per day.

Imagine you look into the barrel after a month, you will see some water
If you came back and looked everyday, for a week, you won’t see much change
If you came back a month later , you might see a little change
If you can back after 2 years , you would see a big change.

A dripping tap can describe an accumulation of events. But in order for things to change, something different has to happen. A leaky tap will always leak in the same way, unless some other natural occurrence happens. If you wanted the tap to leak at a different angle, you could bang the tap.

If you wanted the dripping water to form shapes depicting 8 stages of the evolving eye. You could take 8 eye shaped moulds and let the water drip into each one. When we talk about evolution, we have to find ways how nature could do this without any help.

[chalks75]

Hi chalk, We are doing as well as we possibly can in these testing times, it has been an opportunity to catch up on bits we have been putting off. Nothing exciting like building a fish pond though, how about yourself?



https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Eye_to_Evolve

In the above link, there are diagrams of 8 stages showing how many incremental steps it could take for the eye to evolve. If you look at the first it is just a flat light sensitive patch, it then takes 176 incremental steps to reach an optimum curve. It then has to stop randomly mutating in this direction, and take another 362 steps to form a different curve. Then repeat another five times. I think you need to look at the diagrams to understand what they are trying to say.

I question how they interpret random mutation, 176 steps towards one goal is pushing my understanding of 'random'. I understand that natural selection would dump any detrimental mutations. When you repeat this process six more times with bigger numbers, random mutation looses all meaning for me. Yet this would have to happen so that evolution could work. Natural selection has no goals to work towards, so it could have stopped at any point along these 1,829 steps. I know it did for some species.

Then there are all the other tedious questions of optic nerves, the brain, limbs, muscles evolving at the same rate as the eye lens, but how?

Hi Eric
These are tough times, I’m still working but at reduced hours, and I work now from 3 AM to 8 AM to make social distancing possible
I work for a charity that helps people in fuel and food poverty, as you can imagine it’s a very busy time.
I’m not sure I would describe the pond building as exciting, more back breaking lol
The kids are excited though, but they didn’t have to dig the hole.[emoji3]


Could you quote from the article, the section that describes” changing direction “
I think I know the part you are referring to but I want to be sure [emoji106]

[chalks75]

I have just noticed your edit.



A dripping tap can describe an accumulation of events. But in order for things to change, something different has to happen. A leaky tap will always leak in the same way, unless some other natural occurrence happens. If you wanted the tap to leak at a different angle, you could bang the tap.

If you wanted the dripping water to form shapes depicting 8 stages of the evolving eye. You could take 8 eye shaped moulds and let the water drip into each one. When we talk about evolution, we have to find ways how nature could do this without any help.

I think the point being made was how a small changes can amount to a big difference over time.

Imagine if a blackbird got ever so slightly lighter with each generation,
You wouldn’t notice much change over a few generations
But
Eventually the “ blackbird” will no longer be black,

[Eric H]

These are tough times, I’m still working but at reduced hours, and I work now from 3 AM to 8 AM to make social distancing possible
I work for a charity that helps people in fuel and food poverty, as you can imagine it’s a very busy time.
I’m not sure I would describe the pond building as exciting, more back breaking lol

That sounds like a worthwhile job, I can see how you would be more in demand now. Sadly the opposite is true for me, I am now 71, and until recently used to drive a mini bus part time at a care home, this has stopped as has all the other voluntary work I do.

Could you quote from the article, the section that describes” changing direction “

The diagrams are on page 55, but the paper starts on page 53. The diagrams just highlight what the wall of text says.

Imagine if a blackbird got ever so slightly lighter with each generation,
You wouldn’t notice much change over a few generations
But
Eventually the “ blackbird” will no longer be black,

This would be like a black African moving to Britain, the dark skin would be lost over many generations. The process would be speeded up with each white partner. We can easily understand how this would happen.

What natural causes could there be that would aid the development of the lens shape?

[chalks75]

That sounds like a worthwhile job, I can see how you would be more in demand now. Sadly the opposite is true for me, I am now 71, and until recently used to drive a mini bus part time at a care home, this has stopped as has all the other voluntary work I do.



The diagrams are on page 55, but the paper starts on page 53. The diagrams just highlight what the wall of text says.



This would be like a black African moving to Britain, the dark skin would be lost over many generations. The process would be speeded up with each white partner. We can easily understand how this would happen.

What natural causes could there be that would aid the development of the lens shape?

That sounds like a worthwhile job, I can see how you would be more in demand now. Sadly the opposite is true for me, I am now 71, and until recently used to drive a mini bus part time at a care home, this has stopped as has all the other voluntary work I do.



The diagrams are on page 55, but the paper starts on page 53. The diagrams just highlight what the wall of text says.



This would be like a black African moving to Britain, the dark skin would be lost over many generations. The process would be speeded up with each white partner. We can easily understand how this would happen.

What natural causes could there be that would aid the development of the lens shape?

Yeah it’s very fulfilling work,
It was a fairly stress free job until covid 19 hit, it’s been hectic since.

Your 71, you still have your wits about you, mind still sharp as a tack.[emoji106]

The only thing I can see about a change of direction

Is when the light sensitive point begins to form a concave, but it get to a point ( when the concave is the same depth as the diameter of the light sensitive spot,
Any deeper and it stops being beneficial,
So that will not be selected by natural selection
Since it’s no longer beneficial for the concave to go deeper, the next beneficial step was the beginning of the formation of a lens

[Eric H]

Hi Chalks, I guess you must hear some distressing stories in your job.

mind still sharp as a tack.

Your life slows down as you get older, I think this gives you more opportunity to reflect and ponder.

The only thing I can see about a change of direction

Is when the light sensitive point begins to form a concave, but it get to a point ( when the concave is the same depth as the diameter of the light sensitive spot,

When you repeat the same random direction 176 times, I think it would constitute habitual behaviour. If it randomly mutated say ten times in the same direction, you might say there was a certain amount of luck involved. When you repeat 176 steps in the same direction; that seems to push the meaning of both luck and random.

Any deeper and it stops being beneficial, So that will not be selected by natural selection

Understandable.

Since it’s no longer beneficial for the concave to go deeper, the next beneficial step was the beginning of the formation of a lens

I think this is where you would need some natural change to happen, so random mutation would would change course and happily go another 362 steps in another direction. The lens would then need another five changes in direction to make up the 1,829 incremental steps. Evolution says that random mutation and selection have no goals, but this process does seem goal driven to me.

The eye lens would have evolved in the seas, I can't think of many natural forces in the sea that could affect change. There are currents moving chemicals around, changes in temperature, changes in light, possibly lightening. What else would cause random mutation to change direction? And we have not mentioned how optic nerves, the brain and muscles would need to adapt at the same rate.

I truthfully do not know why Nilsson and Pelgar wrote this paper, because in their summing up they say. 'One would expect most eye lens to be useless without advanced neural processing and this being relayed to the muscles'. By their own admission they know how flawed their research is. What I struggle to understand is how this research is seen as important by others, and they don't question the gaps.

['Abdullah]

@chalks75
Welcome back, nice to see you back here
What amazes me is that people can believe in unseen things like Coronavirus but they can’t believe in God who created everything including this minuscule bacteria who has put the entire world in a lockdown for several months by now. Man can claim whatever he wants but at the end of the day God shows them over and over again that if He wants He can destroy us will the blink of an eye. It is His mercy that we still have a chance to correct our ways and turn back to Him.

[Eric H]

Hi chalks, I was just going back over some of the older posts and noticed these.

"It is not surprising that cells of human eyes come from the brain. We still have light-sensitive cells in our brains today which detect light and influence our daily rhythms of activity," explains Wittbrodt. "Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."

When I look at this, I try and think of a time billions of years ago when there was no life. Then I try and imagine single cell life with no brain and no light sensitive cells. This is where the journey of evolution would need to start.

I think it’s also important to note that evolution shapes what is already there,

It was explained to me by a biologist like this

“Imagine a 50 empty gallon barrel, with a tap dripping above it, at a rate of 1 drop per day.

Imagine you look into the barrel after a month, you will see some water
If you came back and looked everyday, for a week, you won’t see much change
If you came back a month later , you might see a little change
If you can back after 2 years , you would see a big change.

Same question again, four billion years ago there were no barrels or taps, so how did evolution produce them (light cells, brains, etc.)

[chalks75]

@chalks75
Welcome back, nice to see you back here
What amazes me is that people can believe in unseen things like Coronavirus but they can’t believe in God who created everything including this minuscule bacteria who has put the entire world in a lockdown for several months by now. Man can claim whatever he wants but at the end of the day God shows them over and over again that if He wants He can destroy us will the blink of an eye. It is His mercy that we still have a chance to correct our ways and turn back to Him.

You can see viruses,
You just need a microscope.

I know you believe that a god created everything, that’s your religion.

The Coronavirus is not a bacteria, it’s a virus.

Are you saying this virus was send by god, and is spreading with his blessing ?

[chalks75]

Hi Chalks, I guess you must hear some distressing stories in your job.



Your life slows down as you get older, I think this gives you more opportunity to reflect and ponder.



When you repeat the same random direction 176 times, I think it would constitute habitual behaviour. If it randomly mutated say ten times in the same direction, you might say there was a certain amount of luck involved. When you repeat 176 steps in the same direction; that seems to push the meaning of both luck and random.



Understandable.



I think this is where you would need some natural change to happen, so random mutation would would change course and happily go another 362 steps in another direction. The lens would then need another five changes in direction to make up the 1,829 incremental steps. Evolution says that random mutation and selection have no goals, but this process does seem goal driven to me.

The eye lens would have evolved in the seas, I can't think of many natural forces in the sea that could affect change. There are currents moving chemicals around, changes in temperature, changes in light, possibly lightening. What else would cause random mutation to change direction? And we have not mentioned how optic nerves, the brain and muscles would need to adapt at the same rate.

I truthfully do not know why Nilsson and Pelgar wrote this paper, because in their summing up they say. 'One would expect most eye lens to be useless without advanced neural processing and this being relayed to the muscles'. By their own admission they know how flawed their research is. What I struggle to understand is how this research is seen as important by others, and they don't question the gaps.

Hi Eric
I do hear some distressing stories in my job,
There are quite a few people that have fallen on hard times that were quite happy and settled a few months ago, people that are not used to deprivation.
I also see the good side of humanity, the number of people donating money, food, time, vehicles fills my heart with joy.
Two hands hands helping, is better than a 1000 hands praying.

How are you getting by, do you have people around you, helping you out ?

When you repeat the same random direction 176 times, I think it would constitute habitual behaviour.

The mutations are random, but the selection process is not, natural selection, always selects what is beneficial.

So the direction ( whatever direction that is ) is the direction that is most beneficial.

We only see the results of the beneficial selections, all the others are out bred or die.

Evolution says that random mutation and selection have no goals, but this process does seem goal driven to me.

It’s true, there is no goal, it’s a blind process
The mutations are random, offspring differ slightly form their parents, who differ slightly from their parents etc etc
It’s these slight changes, and how they effect the organisms to preform in nature ( pass on their genes determine what gets selects )

The lens probably did evolve in the sea,
Even if there were no environmental impact on the organism, there are still genetic difference between parent and offspring

[chalks75]

Hi chalks, I was just going back over some of the older posts and noticed these.



When I look at this, I try and think of a time billions of years ago when there was no life. Then I try and imagine single cell life with no brain and no light sensitive cells. This is where the journey of evolution would need to start.



Same question again, four billion years ago there were no barrels or taps, so how did evolution produce them (light cells, brains, etc.)

Good questions
Evolution applies to life once it has started,
Abiogenesis is the study of how life started,
That is a separate field of sciences.

If natural selection always selects for what is beneficial,
Then having a eye and brain must be more beneficial that not.

[Eric H]

Hi chalks,
We also come into contact with deprivation, sadly it is everywhere. Again we see the good in people when they rally round together to help out.

Two hands hands helping, is better than a 1000 hands praying.

I have witnessed amazing things happen through prayer. A few years ago in our town, the churches recognised increasing poverty. about a dozen or so from various churches met together to pray' after praying it was decided we should open up a food bank and it happened, it has now been running for several years staffed by unpaid church volunteers.

Homelessness has been an increasing problem, again people from our churches prayed, and after about three years we opened up our first shelter, we now have four houses for the homeless with some paid staff and also volunteers. In the last year we have an interfaith group who are looking to do more of this kind of work together.

Abiogenesis is the study of how life started,
That is a separate field of sciences.

I think abiogenesis is the study of how the first of anything started. The first brain cell, light sensitive cells, muscles, there has to be thousands if not millions of things that had to start a first time.

Evolution applies to life once it has started,

As you have explained, the word evolution means that something has to exist first before it can evolve.

Until light sensitive cells / patch come into existence, we can't talk about how they evolved. Nilsson recognised this as a problem and bypassed it by saying we shall start with a ready made light sensitive patch. Darwin had this same problem, until there was a finch with a beak, there would be no beak to evolve any further.

Whilst I accept evolution as a fact; it cannot explain how the first of anything came to be. Only after the first happens, then evolution can kick in.

The lens probably did evolve in the sea,
Even if there were no environmental impact on the organism, there are still genetic difference between parent and offspring

There would have been a time when both parents did not have any kind of light sensitive cells, limbs. muscles, brains etc; then what happened?

['Abdullah]

You can see viruses,
You just need a microscope.

I know you believe that a god created everything, that’s your religion.

The Coronavirus is not a bacteria, it’s a virus.

Are you saying this virus was send by god, and is spreading with his blessing ?

I know it can be seen by a microscope but have you seen it? If not, why are you taking the precautions?

[CuriousonTruth]

So evolution is incremental change but also it can change one species to another like dinosaurs into birds?

[Eric H]

Hi chalks;

How are you, we haven't heard from you for a while.

Regards
Eric

[Eric H]

As our friend chalks has not replied for a while; I would just like to sum up the main points so far.

There is no science to show how the universe came to be. If the Big Bang happened science cannot go any further back.

There is no science to show how life started.

Evolution means that something has to exist first before it can evolve and change. There is no science to show how light sensitive cells first came into existence. There is no science to show how the first brain cells, optic nerves, muscles or bones came to be. There are probably thousands if not millions of things that have to come into existence before evolution and natural selection get the chance to work.

The last 87 replies have not shown any science to show how any of this could happen without God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[bint e aisha]

In Surāh al-Tūr (35/36), Allah ta'ala says:

أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ ۰أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بَل لَّا يُوقِنُونَ

“Were they created from nothing, or are they creators themselves? Or [if as they say, Allāh did not create everything, then] did they [themselves] create the heavens and the earth? The fact is that they have no conviction”.

From the aforementioned verse, four scenarios - explicit and implicit - can be inferred:

1. Creation was created from nothing. ‘من غير شيء’ can have a few interpretations: created without any purpose, created without a creator or created from nothing, as mentioned by Imām al-Rāzī. The translation is based on the latter interpretation;
2. Creation are creators of themselves;
3. Everything being created by a created being;
4. And, finally, everything being created by an uncreated being.

Now, let’s discuss the first scenario:
Read more on this link: https://ahlussunnah.boards.net/threa...d-yasir-hanafi

[IslamLife00]

The last 87 replies have not shown any science to show how any of this could happen without God.

The existence of Allah is undeniable. Some people believe that because you were raised with a religion, you will accept the existence of God (Allah).
But that's not true. Adam 'alayhi salaam is aware of it, and Allah has made all Adam's descendants, including us, also aware of this.

And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify concerning themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?"
They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware." Surah Al-Araf 172

[Ümit]

As our friend chalks has not replied for a while; I would just like to sum up the main points so far.

The last 87 replies have not shown any science to show how any of this could happen without God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

nice sum up eric...just your last sentence bothers me. Science does not exclude God. Even if science WAS able to explain various points in your sum up in a logical way...this still DOES NOT prove that God does not exist...He could still be there in the background.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Ümit;

nice sum up eric...just your last sentence bothers me. Science does not exclude God.

This was intended for our friend chalk to answer, he seems to acknowledge that science and logic proves there is no God, so please show us the science. So far there does not seem to be anything convincing.

Even if science WAS able to explain various points in your sum up in a logical way...this still DOES NOT prove that God does not exist...

God created all that is seen and unseen. When scientists find out how God created the universe, they will know the truth.

I pray that you are feeling blessed through Ramadan, and all is well in Germany.

Eric

[chalks75]

As our friend chalks has not replied for a while; I would just like to sum up the main points so far.

There is no science to show how the universe came to be. If the Big Bang happened science cannot go any further back.

There is no science to show how life started.

Evolution means that something has to exist first before it can evolve and change. There is no science to show how light sensitive cells first came into existence. There is no science to show how the first brain cells, optic nerves, muscles or bones came to be. There are probably thousands if not millions of things that have to come into existence before evolution and natural selection get the chance to work.

The last 87 replies have not shown any science to show how any of this could happen without God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

Hi Eric
Sorry I have not replied Eric ,
I’ve had two deaths in the family, not from coronavirus.
I’ve not forgotten about our conversation.

[Ümit]

Hi Eric
Sorry I have not replied Eric ,
I’ve had two deaths in the family, not from coronavirus.
I’ve not forgotten about our conversation.

i'm sorry for your loss chalks. deaths in the family is never easy. especially when they were close to you or when you were used to them being around you.
but death is the only thing which is a guarantee to all of us that we know about our future. it will happen to all of us... without exception. we can only hope it will be a peacefull death...and without suffering.
we have a saying in Turkish:
may God give us all deaths in the right order.

[Eric H]

Hi chalks;
I am so sorry to hear about the bereavements in your family, I hope you are able to support each other during these sad times.

May God bless you and those you love and care for.

Eric

[chalks75]

i'm sorry for your loss chalks. deaths in the family is never easy. especially when they were close to you or when you were used to them being around you.
but death is the only thing which is a guarantee to all of us that we know about our future. it will happen to all of us... without exception. we can only hope it will be a peacefull death...and without suffering.
we have a saying in Turkish:
may God give us all deaths in the right order.

Thank you for you kind words umit
They were both elderly relatives, they lived a full life.
I’m more upset for the people they left behind,
Death is the price we pay for living
Nothing certain but Death and taxes.

[chalks75]

Hi chalks;
I am so sorry to hear about the bereavements in your family, I hope you are able to support each other during these sad times.

May God bless you and those you love and care for.

Eric

Thank you Eric
Death is never easy,
I feel more for my parents,
My mum is taking in particularly hard,
We have, as we always do, come together as a family to try and support each other.
Thank you for your kind words.

I’ve not forgotten our conversation, it will have to go in the back burner for a few weeks .

[Eric H]

Hi chalks,
Look after each other, family comes first.

May God bless you and your family,
Eric

[Eric H]

Science please.

The creation of the universe is history, whatever we choose to believe we cannot change history.

Evolution is a fact.
It’s an observed and testable fact about the universe.

Please can you give the science to explain how the universe came into existence without God? How could the eye and the skeletal system evolve without any help from God?

Bump - I am not allowed to respond to existing threads on the existence of God; so I have bumped this one again.