Isn't Science really Proving God today?

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

Many atheists today try to say that science is disproving God's existence, simply because we are understanding how the universe works. i.e. in the past people thought that the Sun only rised because 'God did it', and now people know that its because the sun is rotating on its axis using science.

Name one. I'm quite serious, can you name one 'high profile' atheist (with a suitable quote or two) who claims science disproves God's existence because we now understand how the universe works?

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid

Well, they say stuff like "Oh science disproves the Quran" (our basis for believing in God) and "Faith is just a mental disorder" (Freud) or "Science can replace God"

The Freud quote makes no claims regarding 'disproving' God on the basis of understanding the universe, not to mention being uttered long before the Big Bang was theorized or DNA discovered. Neither of the other bits of anonymous "stuff" you quote actually make that claim either (Christians would believe in God regardless of whether 'science disproved the Qu'ran').

I'm more interested, though, in who "they" are, apart from builders of strawmen. Perhaps you could tell me, giving some relevant examples?

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

Those who claim that abiogenesis occurred may quote Miller's Study, however - its well known that Miller was mistaken in the environment that he performed the experiment in.

National Geographic, a well-known scientific magazine, wrote as follows:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry (hardly any) amount of organic molecules. [organic molecules are what make up life i.e. proteins, fats, carbohydrates etc.]

"The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998

In 1995, Jon Cohen gave an enlightening interpretation in an historic article in Science magazine, saying that scientists researching the origins of life did not take the "Miller Experiment"' into account. He outlines the reasons for this as follows: "the [real] early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.

Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 21

Lately, scientists have tried to produce cell proteins i.e. cell membranes to try to prove that abiogenesis (life from non life) can occur. However, they are unable to produce the DNA/RNA of the cell - which is the most important part of the cell! ...snip... Like mentioned before, even the most basic of cells (i.e. bacteria) cannot have come into existence by chance, simply because they contain so much information within them and are "more complex than any machine thought up by man."

It is difficult for me to understand why, on one hand, you are using the claims of scientists that the early atmosphere was carbon dioxide and nitrogen to discredit abiogenesis while on the other you are saying life was created as it is now, unable to survive in such an atmosphere.

format_quote Originally Posted by Azy

It is difficult for me to understand why, on one hand, you are using the claims of scientists that the early atmosphere was carbon dioxide and nitrogen to discredit abiogenesis while on the other you are saying life was created as it is now, unable to survive in such an atmosphere.

I believe that it is possible that other life forms were existant during the early atmosphere, but that humans came onto the planet during an environment which is similar to what we have today.


Trumble, the whole basis of modern atheism is dependant upon this fact. staunch atheists include the likes of Richard Dawkins.

no.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gator

no.

Yes. (wow that was easy..)

That's not strange...I think Science trying everafter in there life but they stuck @ a level Bcoz GOD Knows better everything in Depth...

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

Atheists can't answer with scientific proof the most crucial points which support their beliefs;

Even if this was true, I fail to see how such an inability would "prove God."

That's like saying, because people can't explain crop circles, aliens must exist.

What occurred before the Big Bang.

Stephen Hawking would say the question doesn't even make sense, since time itself did not exist "before" the big bang. In other words, there is no such thing as "before the big bang," just like there's no such thing as "north of the north pole."

Also, I fail to see what this has to do with the existence of gods.

The First Cause

This argument has been around since Aristotle (who was not a Muslim, or even a monotheist). And it was debunked by David Hume more than 300 years ago:

If everything requires a cause, then who caused God?

If you can just claim that God doesn't need a cause, then why can't I just claim the Universe doesn't need a cause? (This is exactly what Stephen Hawking claims.)

You should really find some new material.

Abiogenesis (life from non life)

How on earth can you prove that it's impossible? All that you've done is prove that it's improbable, and you're fudging the numbers.

How the first cell came into existence. One cell contains over 1000 pages of information*[i.e. the DNA (within each cell) contains ALL the information of the body's makeup, from the colour eyes you will have to how tall you can be]. So to claim that it was formed by chance is a lie.

First of all, what is a "page" of information?

Secondly, there is a huge variety in the amount of information in various organism's DNA. And most scientists think DNA itself evolved from a simpler, RNA-based genetic material (which itself evolved from collections of nucleotides).

Obviously, the human genome did not magically assemble itself overnight by chance. But nobody is saying that's how evolution works.

W.H.Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist acknowledges that [B]"the most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up,

This is nonsense. The Large Hadron Collider is much more complex than a simple cell. The computer you're using processes much more information than a simple cell does.

[/INDENT]Those who claim that abiogenesis occurred may quote Miller's Study, however - its well known that Miller was mistaken in the environment that he performed the experiment in.

So? We've tested it in a variety of environments, some of which also produce organic compounds.

Of course, it seems like you are just copying and pasting from some website, and that you don't really have much interest in following the science behind such experiments.

Lately, scientists have tried to produce cell proteins i.e. cell membranes

Proteins are not cell membranes. You're thinking of lipids.

Incidentally, if you mix certain kinds of lipids with plain ol' water, they spontaneously form bubble-like spheres, just like cell membranes.

However, they are unable to produce the DNA/RNA of the cell - which is the most important part of the cell!

Straw-man. The primary view of scientists today is that DNA evolved from an earlier, simpler RNA-type mechanism.

We have produced the nucleotides that make up RNA. Enclosed in a lipid membrane, they could easily form a genetic mechanism.

In fact, the main stumbling block for scientists is not "producing DNA/RNA of a cell" (genetic engineers can basically do that now), it's explaining a chicken-and-egg problem with DNA and protein enzymes. To make DNA, you need protein enzymes. But to make protein enzymes, you need DNA. For a long time this seemed like an unsolvable problem.

However: RNA (unlike DNA) can double as an enzyme. It solves the chicken and egg problem. This is why scientists think RNA came first, in the so-called "RNA world," and DNA developed as a more specialized form of RNA over time.

With all due respect, it doesn't sound like you've really studied what scientists actually think about these topics.

format_quote Originally Posted by Qingu

Completely irrelevant to evolution (which is where I'm assuming you're going with this), since Earth is not a closed system. It receives a constant influx of energy from the sun.

No, its about the origins of the universe. Mentioned in the original post.

Since you asked me a question, can I ask you one? What is your definition of "intelligence"?

Depends which context you're referring to.

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

No, its about the origins of the universe. Mentioned in the original post.

Well, Stephen Hawking says entropy is simply "the arrow of time." That is, time "points" in whatever direction entropy is increasing, because the two concepts are basically intertwined. The past seems like the past because entropy decreases towards that direction; the future seems like the future because it increases in that direction.

Now, your OP is responding to a so-called "oscillating universe" idea, which I don't really buy. Hawking's idea is sort of similar to the oscillating universe, but it's not a cycle, it's more like a sphere.

In any case, your OP has a fairly naive view of entropy's role in the universe, and doesn't really take into account the recent scientific literature written about the subject. If you're interested, Qatada, I would really recommend reading Hawking's A Brief History of Time, because it explains these concepts in a lot more detail.

And, as I said in my first post, I don't see how problems with entropy would imply a creator. That's a handwaving, God of the Gaps argument (you see something science can't explain and you automatically assume "God did it"—just like how ancient people thought Gods made lightning and disease and other things they couldn't explain.)

Depends which context you're referring to.

Do you think a genetic algorithm in an AI system counts as "intelligence"?

Thanks for the info. it seems that anything discussed 'before' the big bang is supernatural, so either way - we can only have faith in the ideas proposed on it.

I'll try to check out some Hawking's books next time i visit the library though.

Do you think a genetic algorithm in an AI system counts as "intelligence"?

That's something which gets me thinking too, i can't really say a clear yes or no answer. I get where you're coming from though.




Peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

Thanks for the info. it seems that anything discussed 'before' the big bang is supernatural, so either way - we can only have faith in the ideas proposed on it.

I disagree. It's not supernatural, it's just nonsensical.

If I told you something was located "north of the north pole," what would you say? Would you say that this was a supernatural location? No, you'd say it is physically impossible for something to be north of the north pole, that the concept itself doesn't make logical sense.

The same is true with the concept of "before the big bang." It's just harder to comprehend because we're all so used to thinking about time in a rigid way.

But yeah, I hope you like Hawking's book. It's not very hard to read; he only uses like two complicated diagrams, and they're easy to understand.

Peace!