A Question which Atheists could not answer

Actually we DO have a clue on how the life got started. Teh first proto-life was probably just a self-replicating RNA molecule (scientists managed to make RNA self replicate in lab conditions) and such a structure probably formed spontaneously.

A few decades ago two scientists made an experiment to determine how long does it take for simple compounds (hydrogen, ammonia, water and methane) to turn into more complex, organic ones in conditions maximally similar to those of early Earth.. The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

If what creationists were saying was true, it would have taken billions upon billions s of years for amino acids to form. However, first amino acids were found after just two weeks of experiment, simpler organic compounds were found in larger quantities. Several similar experiments were conducted as well and they have all shown that formation of amino acids is not only possible but actually certain under specific conditions.

1. Do you know what does it mean "gradual evolution"? First unicellular organisms are dated at approx. 3.6 bln years ago, first multicellular ones at 1 bln years ago. Later we have an increasing diversity of life

2. I dismissed your journal because what it says does not make sense. It's a piece of scientific junk. Outcomes of chemistry are not random because atoms don't bond with each other randomly but according to their respective qualities - when you make hydrogen react with oxygen, you get only H2O, not H3O9, H6O1 or H7O60. Amino acids don't bond with each other randomly either.

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري

You are quite funny, a complete and utter pathetic failure and you expect me to do your homework for you? Our concern with life is what we see and what we can measure and that is what science is actually about, what we can experiment with and put into data which is either falsifiable or verifiable and that is all that is required of science. Eric H put it quite simply so that even you can understand, we're not concerned with how God did it, it doesn't add or subtract anything to life as we know it, If you want to bridge the science so that it become a substitute for religion then the onus is on you to prove your brand of faith accurate - indeed put up or shut up!

best,

Yes the belief in evolution is based on faith not unquestionable evidence. So therefore it is a godless religion. Perfect for a godless society. "Everything just created itself, we don't know how or why or whatever but just believe it did". This is what the atheists push. So it is a stalemate, the argument for evolution over creationism cannot be won. But why is evolution pushed as absolute fact? And why the fervent anti God ideology? I think politics has a bigger part to play than science here. As most scientists are funded by totalitarian states.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

So tell us what you actually think. Please use the scientific abilities about which you boast about so frequently to give an account of the development of life, including all the geographical, geological, biological chronologies successfully described by TOE, but not by Creationism.

I am trying to understand this.. scientific account of development of life according to Creationism? I am wondering why? Personally I do not have an issue with 'Kun fayakun', - 'Be! And it is'.

If Jesus was able to 'blow' life into clay shaped like a bird by the Will of Allah (something never denied or doubted) how could that be explained by science however we look at it. No requirements for amino acids and intricate DNA recreation or culturing of parts in a petri dish etc.

TOE has to prove it but is at a dead end as it only has observable data of changes which it fills the gap by providing theory as to why it has happened.

Very much like the question "Can God create a rock bigger than He can carry?" either way it wants to prove via words that God is not All Powerful. The problem is that for those who believe in God, this is an irrelevant question (unless the faith in God is a shaky one in the first place).

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by greenhill

I am trying to understand this.. scientific account of development of life according to Creationism? I am wondering why? Personally I do not have an issue with 'Kun fayakun', - 'Be! And it is'

No, I am not asking you to explain the 'how'. As I have already said, there's nothing to be explained, you either believe it or you don't.

What I am asking is for you or someone else to explain how Creationism fits with the observable evidence I have already listed. This should not be difficult although everyone seems to be finding it so.

I think that in order to answer questions 'a' to 'n' from my previous post, you will be obliged to take one of a few strategies, none of which are satisfactory. But so far it seems as if no one has even thought about the issue which i find amazing, after so many threads on evolution.

Don't get hung up on mechanisms for now. This looks like a TOE world in every detail. If you believe that, despite this, TOE is not the cause of that appearance, then you have to find another way to explain that appearance.

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري

you expect me to do your homework for you?

I'm asking you to explain your beliefs, not mine. But I know from past experience that you are incapable of straying off your stock responses, like a student who has learned a few expected topics and knows nothing outside that.

Even your insults are repeats.

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl

Yes the belief in evolution is based on faith not unquestionable evidence

TOE gives what is so far the only consistent account of a wide range of observable evidence. I've yet to see anything else offered here. If you believe in creation by divine fiat, you need to explain that evidence in this context - and then we can consider whether your explanation really does make sense.

I think it is extremely difficult to account for this evidence without creating a different sort of God from the one you believe in.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

In the TOE argument, it's usually Creationists who choose the battleground. They attack detailed aspects of TOE (such as Skye attacking the rate of mutation mechanism). The idea is to focus attention on the least complete aspects of the theory, and draw attention away from other areas. (So for instance in this case we get this endless sterile statistical argument). Of course, mechanism is important - but the only reason we're interested in it is to explain the factual state of the world we can already see.

In response, scientists don't examine Creationism much in return because they simply assume that once you assume divine intervention, 'anything goes' so it's untestable.

This is not correct. Creationism (let's call it 'divine TOE) can be tested in many aspects - not least because it usually comes with a specific narrative that is not just 'anything goes'.

If we treat the notion of divine TOE seriously and apply similar tests, it does not make sense. Turning the argument I made earlier round the other way, speciation by continuous divine fiat does not fit a wide range of evidence such as:

a) The broad trend of simple organisms to more complex organisms over a long period of time.
b) The correct chronological order of that trend both at the level of individual species and individual characteristics (eg bipedalism)
c) The correct geographical and geological distribution of that evidence
d) The way Nature is structured into a huge network of related species, as opposed to individual unrelated creations by divine fiat
e) The evidence of adaptive structures which are not as good as specifically created structures (eg the human skull including its delayed fontanelle closure, altered jaw structure and elaborate birth canal gyrations that formerly led to 1in 5 death rate for mothers)
e) The presence of vestigial organs and structure
f) The existence, and extinction, of related species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans
g) The trackable history of mankind's multiple migrations out of Africa, which does not fit any scriptural description
h) The extinction of approx 90% of creatures before human-like creatures ever set foot on the world and the immense period of time before there was any life at all.


And some more specifically related to Islamic TOE:

j) The absence of any fossils, tools or other archaeological evidence for 90ft men - or any transitional fossils across succeeding generations
k) The absolute impossibility of scaling up a human to that size without other serious physical adjustments and difficulties with living in a 'normal' sized world
l) The absence of any genetic evidence for such creatures
m) The absence of any fossil or other evidence for humans living to extreme old age (ie hundreds of years)
n) The illogicality of creating natural laws for everything in the universe, except this one thing.

To paraphrase, these are some of the Questions that Creationists cannot answer. Divine TOE is not compatible with the evidence.

I think (unless I missed it) we do need to be more definitive in what we are talking about here. TOE meaning that we evolve from one 'kind' into another or evolve to better suit our environment. I don't see anything wrong with the latter, to better suit our environment. Not in a way that if I were to live in the sea and make that it my descendants also do so that we will turn into dolphins somewhere in the distant future.

What Creationist believe (and this is not a term we call ourselves) is that every 'new' kind will need a Creator.

According to 'Creationism', the world was created in 7 periods and we are at the end so it is not surprising to find 90% of creatures are extinct.

When Adam was sent to Earth, he was alone. His descendants had to eventually migrate. Why not from Africa? Adam did not come down with a tribe. Whatever colour he was, his descendants have evolved into various races. But not into a different 'kind' altogether.

Item (d) Allah is nature, and He has stated that every living thing is made out of water and everything in pairs. It has to be related because it comes from Him (I don't see why it has to be different?)

On your second part of questions, all I can really say is that for the millions of dinosaurs that lived for hundreds of millions years, how many have we found, and what is the ratio. Considering how sparsely populated the world was back then, it will be highly unlikely that we will stumble upon the rare remains of 90 ft men.

In Malaysia we rarely find any archeological stuff because of the nature of our environment. Leave a building for a period of time, the jungle will reclaim it. So evidence like this will need to be stumbled upon and it will need to be in a place that is conducive to preservation too.

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

I fail to see how any of these points disprove God,

As i said before, I am not trying to disprove God and I don't see believe in TOE as being incompatible with belief in God. As you will know yourself, many people do believe both in God, and TOE.

In addition, I also think that we will at some point understand the mechanism for TOE, to fit the results we already see around us everywhere. At this point TOE really will become a challenge for faith - but only for those who have made it so.