Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life yet – Science is decades behind..

[Independent]

read the remainder of my post, thanks

My post above was in the reply to episode one of your post, but it still stands.

You have to remember that Darwin died before the science of genetics even got started. So fossils, geology and naturalism was all he had to go on.

With regards to the origin of life: it's quite correct to say that no satisfactory explanation exists as yet. Once again, that doesn't mean we have to stop here. The history of science is all about overcoming apparent obstacles, not just giving up. Also, origin is not the same as evolution - for instance, you could be a Christian who believes both in TOE and that God created the first organism, it's not incompatible. (Many believe just that).

The examples you give are of incomplete or inadequate proof, not disproof or contradiciton. I don't think there is anything that directly contradicts the broad principle of evolution.

If I may repeat the questions from my post above - why are there no fossils that disprove TOE? And what is the explanation for chromosome No2 which appears to be a fusion of chimpanzee 2A and 2B?

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

We have observed evaporation, condensation, and rain. We have seen how it works. We can explain it without involving Gods. We have no evidence that Gods are required.

The beauty of the matter is that for people of faith, the more they observe and understand all of this and more, it only increases their faith. In some cases, it may have sparked their faith in the first place, by God's permission. It causes them to appreciate the need for God even more. As human knowledge of some natural phenomena increases, the wonder behind them is in no way diminished. Rather the more we know, the better we appreciate the power and wisdom of the One Who originated them. In this way, we do not have to see science and religion as mutually exclusive, rather one reinforces the other. God calls upon man to repeatedly reflect on His signs all around us, as these direct us to believe in Him. The very act of using reason enables one to understand the message behind them.

Ha, Meem.
The revelation of the Book is from Allah , the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
Indeed, within the heavens and earth are signs for the believers.
And in the creation of yourselves and what He disperses of moving creatures are signs for people who are certain [in faith].
And [in] the alternation of night and day and [in] what Allah sends down from the sky of provision and gives life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and [in His] directing of the winds are signs for a people who reason.
These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?
[Al-Jathiyah 45: 1-6]

We have directly observed the formation and union of sperm and egg , and we have further observed each step along the way as the fertilized cell grows into a baby. We have seen how it works. We can't explain it without involving women. We have evidence that women are required.

And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay. Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging. Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.
[Al-Mu’minoon 23: 12-14]

He created you from one soul. Then He made from it its mate, and He produced for you from the grazing livestock eight mates. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, within three darknesses. That is Allah , your Lord; to Him belongs dominion. There is no deity except Him, so how are you averted?
[Az-Zumar 39: 6]

 

[Signor]

^^
We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?
Al Fussilat -53

The developments of "natural" sciences and the sciences that study human physiology will prove the essentials of Islamic faith, especially God's Existence and Oneness. So almost all human beings will have to confess the truth of the Qur'ān and the Messengership of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings.In addition to sciences, future history, worldwide, will clearly show that the Qur'ān is the truth

 

[Pygoscelis]

So almost all human beings will have to confess the truth of the Qur'ān and the Messengership of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings.

Why do I always see this expressed this way, with the word "confessed"? Does confessed mean something else in religious circles than it does in legal circles? Because confessed as I understand the word would imply that people know what you say and simply won't admit it. That isn't the case.

It would be like us saying "Soon enough you will have to admit that evolution is true.".... as if you know it is and are refusing to confess.

 

[Hulk]

I don't get how some of the atheists who have been on this forum for years and have participated in numerous threads still believe that theists believe in God simply because they "can't explain" something. Makes me wonder if they've ever really learned anything or are they intentionally ignoring what has been addressed many times already.

Atheist assumption of theists: They don't know how nature works so they go the easy route and attribute it to God. We on the other hand look to science to understand how it works.


Theist view: I don't understand how nature works but I do believe that it must have a Creator.
(After studying) Understanding the science behind how it works fascinates me as to how it can be in such a way. The nature in which it works tells me that it must surely come from a Creator.


-----
The difference is simple IMO. A theist observes the world around him, and he sees it as evidence for the Creator. An atheist does the same thing and sees it as evidence of having no Creator.


I feel the same way when I marvel at my laptop, handphone, a piece of art work. To me it is clear that they have a designer much like the same way I view the universe.

If I see a laptop, I can tell straight away that it must surely have come from a manufacturer. The atheists will see it and if they understand how it works they would think that it somehow means that there is no manufacturer.


What it all boils down to is that we believe that something cannot come from nothing. We say that the source of all in existence/creation is the Creator, Who is unlike creation.


The atheist would like to use the argument "Well then where did God come from?", but the theist has already stated that their belief is that the Creator is Uncreated and so such a question is absurd. So the atheist will then say "Ok since your God can be uncreated then the universe can be uncreated as well.".


If we were to ask them Who ordained the system of the universe (eg the speed of light/sound/electricity) (why creature have an innate desire to survive) etc then "it just is cause it is".

 

[Muhaba]

^beautifully said

 

[Iceee]

^^ Hulk just smashed (Hulk-Punched) the atheists!

 

[Independent]

I feel the same way when I marvel at my laptop, handphone, a piece of art work. To me it is clear that they have a designer much like the same way I view the universe.

If I see a laptop, I can tell straight away that it must surely have come from a manufacturer. The atheists will see it and if they understand how it works they would think that it somehow means that there is no manufacturer.

I'm not sure this comparison is quite as simple as that. If these things were truly equivalent, then how would we ever tell the difference between a product of nature and a product of man?

But in fact we can in almost every case tell the difference between man-made and naturally occurring objects. That means that there must be something distinctive about them. They have characteristics which are unique to one, but not found in the other.

The laptop is without question the product of 'intelligent design'. A flower, or any other naturally occurring object, is the product of a natural process - and we can tell the difference.

 

[Muhaba]

I'm not sure this comparison is quite as simple as that. If these things were truly equivalent, then how would we ever tell the difference between a product of nature and a product of man?

But in fact we can in almost every case tell the difference between man-made and naturally occurring objects. That means that there must be something distinctive about them. They have characteristics which are unique to one, but not found in the other.

The laptop is without question the product of 'intelligent design'. A flower, or any other naturally occurring object, is the product of a natural process - and we can tell the difference.

actually a flower is even more the product of intelligent design because plants have reproductive ability. if laptops had reproductive ability, then it would also be a natural process. but humans can never give reproductive ability to anything. nor can humans put life in anything.

 

[Independent]

actually a flower is even more the product of intelligent design because plants have reproductive ability. if laptops had reproductive ability, then it would also be a natural process. but humans can never give reproductive ability to anything. nor can humans put life in anything.

Well, many machines are already entirely produced by other machines, which could be called 'reproduction' - a-sexual reproduction of course!

More seriously - how is it that we can distinguish with absolute certainty between naturally occurring objects and man-made objects? It's because natural objects, and organisms, are visibly the product of natural processes. We never find anything that doesn't fit. There are no naturally occurring objects, or organisms, that break the rules. Not a single one. They are 100% obedient to the rules laid down from the beginning of the universe onwards.

Whereas, a man-made object is an interruption in the landscape. A laptop in a field is an impossibility as a product of natural processes.

It's misleading to think of a flower as an object of design because it makes us think that God is creating each item as if for the first time, every time - whereas it is plainly the result of a process (which He may or may not have begun at the start of the universe - a separate question). And if it were not the result of a process, we could tell the difference.

 

[Hulk]

Thank you for your input Independent. I do believe that they have been covered in my post.

To be really technical, man does not have the ability to create anything. We use the materials in the universe at our disposal to materialise our design.

Do reflect on what you have said regarding nature, natural processes, rules, "they are 100% obedient to the rules laid down from the beginning of the universe onwards."

Thank you for saying that there is indeed a beginning. Also you do agree that there are rules.

The question is then from my post "Who ordained the system of the Universe?"

We can appreciate what a child can build with lego bricks but it shouldn't make us forget that the lego bricks are in itself something to reflect upon.

As I said in my post. Each sees evidence for their own belief. If learning about a flower doesn't fascinate you(or maybe it does but you don't attribute it to anything) I can't force it on you.

Personally, I am reminded of the Quran which mentions that there are signs throughout the universe. One of the nature of signs is that not everyone understands them.

 

[Independent]

Greetings Hulk

Really, my point is simply that the simile of the laptop which you use (and which I've seen elsewhere) does not tell us anything about whether the world has been actively designed or not.

To put it another way, the laptop in the field is distinctive because you know instantly that it has been 'designed' whereas the nature around it has not. It is the exact opposite of the proof it's held up to be. It shows how nature has not been 'designed' in the normal sense of the word.

To give another example, a crystal doesn't form because someone is designing it, but as a consequence of natural laws which make atoms combine in a certain structure.

Which leads to your question....pushing it back further in time....did God create the laws of nature which resulted in the structure of the crystal etc? I don't rule this out, because how can I tell? I can't prove it. What i can say is that the behaviour of the universe doesn't give anything away one way or the other.

Thank you for saying that there is indeed a beginning.

I was being a little careless here, as in fact I believe it's more likely than not that there is a multiverse which makes the notion of a beginning rather irrelevant....but I don't want to get into that debate.

As I said in my post. Each sees evidence for their own belief. If learning about a flower doesn't fascinate you(or maybe it does but you don't attribute it to anything) I can't force it on you.

I most certainly do find nature fascinating, exciting even, and also the science behind it.

I don't call myself an atheist because I'm not sure I meet all the criteria. Having said that I don't believe in any organised religion. Thanks for your posts.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I don't get how some of the atheists who have been on this forum for years and have participated in numerous threads still believe that theists believe in God simply because they "can't explain" something.

You misunderstand. The God of The Gaps thing is not used to disprove God, or even as evidence against Gods existing. It is merely the pointing out of a logical fallacy so often put forward as theists as evidence for Gods existing. This fallacy isn't so often used by professional debaters or clergy or imams as it is used by people on the internet, which is why you see it mentioned here so often. It is when people give no actual argument or evidence for a creator God existing and instead insist a creator God exists merely because we can't explain X otherwise. And then when we do explain X otherwise, a new X is thought up, and a new God of The Gaps "argument" is made.

Theist view: I don't understand how nature works but I do believe that it must have a Creator. (After studying) Understanding the science behind how it works fascinates me as to how it can be in such a way. The nature in which it works tells me that it must surely come from a Creator.

Why does it tell you that it surely must come from a creator? Do you have a better reason than just because you have no other way of explaining it? If you do, then you don't fall into the God of the Gaps thing.

The difference is simple IMO. A theist observes the world around him, and he sees it as evidence for the Creator. An atheist does the same thing and sees it as evidence of having no Creator.

Atheists do NOT see the world as evidence that there is no creator. I have lost count of how many times I have written this here. You just don't seem to want to accept it.

What it all boils down to is that we believe that something cannot come from nothing. We say that the source of all in existence/creation is the Creator, Who is unlike creation.

The atheist would like to use the argument "Well then where did God come from?", but the theist has already stated that their belief is that the Creator is Uncreated and so such a question is absurd.

The way it is usually stated is that "something can't come from nothing" (premise1), "so everything needs a creator", "except the top creator itself"(special pleading), "because that would mean infinite regress", "and infinite regress is impossible" (premise2). Very rarely is any basis given for premise1 or premise2, or for the special pleading.

If we were to ask them Who ordained the system of the universe (eg the speed of light/sound/electricity) (why creature have an innate desire to survive) etc then "it just is cause it is".

Science is making efforts to figure it out, but if the atheists you speak of are honest, whey will simply have to admit they do not know. If you are honest, you have to do the same. You don't know. That is why you need "faith". A major difference, perhaps a fundamental difference, between atheists and theists, is that theists see Faith as a virtue. Atheists don't.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

Also, origin is not the same as evolution - for instance, you could be a Christian who believes both in TOE and that God created the first organism, it's not incompatible. (Many believe just that).

The Bible indicates that God created man, I believe the Qur’an is the same, so TOE would seem incompatible with scripture.

My problem with evolution is not the biological progress, but the evolution of movement, bones, ligaments, tendons and muscles. Somehow mutations would have to produce bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments that give a biological and chemical advantage to the organism as a priority. Somehow these mutations coincidently would have to be a good shape size, and connect to other components to aid movement.

A billion years ago there were no species with bones, eight hundred million years later, there are species with complete working skeletons comprising around 500 muscles, 200 bones. 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

If you take just a two to one chance that each one of these two thousand components is the right size and shape to fit in with its neighbours, and it connects to the right place, you end up with an astronomical number that is beyond impossible.

I reckon that the evolutionary process would not give you a billion successive chances of passing advantageous mutations forwards from one generation to the next. Every mutation has to be passed through a population.
Then there is the matter of the brain and sensors, it is pointless for biological change to make all these bones, muscles, nerves etc. If you have no guiding system these things are just a heap of junk.

I believe evolution cannot happen without God to guide it, I just don’t believe that God created life through evolution.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[MustafaMc]

If you take just a two to one chance that each one of these two thousand components is the right size and shape to fit in with its neighbours, and it connects to the right place, you end up with an astronomical number that is beyond impossible.

I believe that atheists do not appreciate the significance of this statement. They are more comfortable with made up probabilities and an extremely long period of time to explain the origin of life and the various species than they are in simply that a supernatural Being designed and created all that exists. They do not see the multiplication of all of these infinitesimally small probabilities as being so close to zero that in fact the probability is actually zero and an impossibility. The whole of ToE on a macro scale is based on speculation and is as much based on faith as my and your belief in God is. We take the signs around us as evidence for His existence and we say, "Glory be to God in the highest" while atheists say, "Ho hum, it's just the result of a natural process."

 

[Independent]

Greetings Eric

The Bible indicates that God created man, I believe the Qur’an is the same, so TOE would seem incompatible with scripture.

I appreciate that while many people feel the scriptures can be interpreted metaphorically, others do not and therefore TOE becomes incompatible. Nevertheless TOE is not incompatible with faith in general - only with specific faiths.

Personally I am certain that TOE is broadly correct and at some point this will be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It will make no more sense to disbelieve in TOE than in gravity. What will happen then? Those who have set themselves wholeheartedly against TOE will be faced not with a scientific crisis, but with a crisis of faith. I think this is an unnecessary battle - but I'm no theologian so it's not up to me.

Obviously this is just my prediction right now. But if this forum is still going 30 years from now, and we are both still alive, i promise to come back and say 'I told you so'. (Hopefully in the meantime i will come up with a more polite way of saying it.)

 

[Independent]

They do not see the multiplication of all of these infinitesimally small probabilities as being so close to zero that in fact the probability is actually zero and an impossibility.

As you know from our previous discussions, I agree that the current model for TOE is not sufficient to account for either the rate of mutation, or its viability. The maths don't stack up. But this is no more the end of TOE than the apparently errant orbit of Mars in Copernicus's calculations was to heliocentricity.

TOE critics concentrate on the flaws/gaps in TOE but are reluctant to apply the same standards of completeness in reverse. Why do fossils indicate an overall progress from simple to more complex? Why is there not a single fossil ever found that contradicts TOE? Why are there so many examples of apparent genetic relatedness, as in the No2 chromosome example I quoted above? Why would God create part of a mechanism for evolution (genetics/biology/maths as we understand it so far) and then not finish it off?

Why would God put down so many confusing clues for TOE? Why would He choose to make evolution unable to function except by continual direct intervention on His part, yet make all the other laws of the universe complete in themselves?

 

[Muhaba]

Greetings Eric

I appreciate that while many people feel the scriptures can be interpreted metaphorically, others do not and therefore TOE becomes incompatible. Nevertheless TOE is not incompatible with faith in general - only with specific faiths.

Personally I am certain that TOE is broadly correct and at some point this will be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It will make no more sense to disbelieve in TOE than in gravity. What will happen then? Those who have set themselves wholeheartedly against TOE will be faced not with a scientific crisis, but with a crisis of faith. I think this is an unnecessary battle - but I'm no theologian so it's not up to me.

Obviously this is just my prediction right now. But if this forum is still going 30 years from now, and we are both still alive, i promise to come back and say 'I told you so'. (Hopefully in the meantime i will come up with a more polite way of saying it.)

I believe we will be the ones to say "I told you so" to evolutionists because time will prove TOE wrong and will prove that God in fact did create all. There's a verse in the Quran that states that God will His signs in the universe as well as in humans. That is a prophecy and it will happen. Mankind will see the signs of God in everything (possibly through scientific advancement) and will realize that God is the creator and that everything didn't come into being by chance.

 

[Pygoscelis]

As you know from our previous discussions, I agree that the current model for TOE is not sufficient to account for either the rate of mutation, or its viability. The maths don't stack up. But this is no more the end of TOE than the apparently errant orbit of Mars in Copernicus's calculations was to heliocentricity.

TOE critics concentrate on the flaws/gaps in TOE but are reluctant to apply the same standards of completeness in reverse. Why do fossils indicate an overall progress from simple to more complex? Why is there not a single fossil ever found that contradicts TOE? Why are there so many examples of apparent genetic relatedness, as in the No2 chromosome example I quoted above? Why would God create part of a mechanism for evolution (genetics/biology/maths as we understand it so far) and then not finish it off?

Why would God put down so many confusing clues for TOE? Why would He choose to make evolution unable to function except by continual direct intervention on His part, yet make all the other laws of the universe complete in themselves?

This is a very good point. Creationists seem to always be attacking the Theory of Evolution, and never seem to be supporting Creation Theory. If Evolution was proved wrong tomorrow, that would do nothing to prove Creation Theory right, so it is an odd tactic to take.

will realize that God is the creator and that everything didn't come into being by chance.

This is a false dichotomy.

The whole of ToE on a macro scale is based on speculation and is as much based on faith as my and your belief in God is.

There is evidence, even if it is not conclusive. The theory of evolution is falsifiable, and despite many findings it hasn't been falsified yet. And any good scientific mind will change if it is falsified in the future. This is not a religious dogmatic mindset claiming to have the perfect and certain answer by way of revelation through Darwin's Holy Book.

The evidence for evolution is incomplete. There are still things we can't explain. It would indeed take a lot of faith to claim that evolution is for certain the full and complete answer and that nothing else played a role in shaping life on this planet. But I don't know anybody who takes that position.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

I agree that the current model for TOE is not sufficient to account for either the rate of mutation, or its viability.

So there are some serious flaws with TOE

Independent

The maths don't stack up.

I suggested some maths that I perceive as a problem for TOE also, would you care to comment?

Eric H

My problem with evolution is not the biological progress, but the evolution of movement, bones, ligaments, tendons and muscles. Somehow mutations would have to produce bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments that give a biological and chemical advantage to the organism as a priority. Somehow these mutations coincidently would have to be a good shape size, and connect to other components to aid movement.
A billion years ago there were no species with bones, eight hundred million years later, there are species with complete working skeletons comprising around 500 muscles, 200 bones. 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.
If you take just a two to one chance that each one of these two thousand components is the right size and shape to fit in with its neighbours, and it connects to the right place, you end up with an astronomical number that is beyond impossible.
I reckon that the evolutionary process would not give you a billion successive chances of passing advantageous mutations forwards from one generation to the next. Every mutation has to be passed through a population.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric