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

[observer]

You can't glean what is important unfortunately just given what you highlighted above.

How so? Does what I've highlighted not demonstrate the utility of fossils to the study of speciation?

 

[جوري]

How so? Does what I've highlighted not demonstrate the utility of fossils to the study of speciation?

NO, it doesn't!

best,

 

[observer]

NO, it doesn't!

Imperious debating!

I can't help but feel that this discussion is going to lead nowhere. Let's leave it there shall we?

 

[جوري]

Imperious debating!

I can't help but feel that this discussion is going to lead nowhere. Let's leave it there shall we?

I guess you've nothing by way of mechanism?

 

[observer]

I guess you've nothing by way of mechanism?

Well, what I understand by evolutionary mechanism support ToE - either I've missed the point or am thinking of something different if you're thinking of mechanism as counter to evolution?

 

[جوري]

Well, what I understand by evolutionary mechanism support ToE - either I've missed the point or am thinking of something different if you're thinking of mechanism as counter to evolution?

I am thinking molecular biology and genetics - care to discuss those in light of said fossils?

 

[Independent]

You seem to be describing evolution rather than God, TOE favours the strongest, the most powerful, these qualities in humans seem to encourage trampling on the weak

Not really - this is a misunderstanding based on the phrase 'survival of the fittest' which did not appear in Origin and is not even from Darwin. To add to the confusion, the word 'fittest' has changed in meaning since the 19th century. In this C19th context it was used to mean not strongest, but 'fit for purpose', or 'most appropriate', or specifically with relation to evolution - most relevantly adapted. This does not necessarily mean stronger. A physically weaker creature may survive where a stronger one becomes extinct, because it is better adapted to changing circumstance (or else we would still be living with the dinosaurs).

This also means that evolution can reward altruistic behaviour, which we can see in nature and in Man where cooperative behaviour is highly beneficial. Evolution can never be immoral like Hitler - but you could call it amoral.

It does have other moral implications - which is that things occur in nature not because there is a moral purpose, but because they can. To use an example - venereal disease exists not because we are sinful, but because sexual congress is just one more means to transmit germs and sustain a lifecycle. Creatures adapt to fill all the available niches. Shaking hands also transimits germs. If venereal disease is immoral, so is measles.

Also....

With reference to my previous post: how would a Creationist account for the way the fossil record imitates evolution, unless it is actually a result of evolution? Is there a theological explanation given for this?

 

[observer]

I am thinking molecular biology and genetics - care to discuss those in light of said fossils?

Well, again, what I know of molecular biology and genetics all supports ToE. Instead of alluding to what you might possibly be meaning to say - why not make life simpler and tell me what you are refferring to?

 

[جوري]

Well, again, what I know of molecular biology and genetics all supports ToE. Instead of alluding to what you might possibly be meaning to say - why not make life simpler and tell me what you are refferring to?

You don't understand the mechanism by which one species evolves into another? I didn't think it was a big mystery!

 

[observer]

You know, the way debates usually work is that someone makes a point, backs that point up and then responds to counter points. I *think*, although I could well be wrong as it's difficult to follow what you're getting at, that you're saying I don't fully understand evolution, is that right? Is that your point?

Well - if it is, you're right, I don't. Nobody does. However, when there is so much evidence (easily understandable evidence) to support it, it seems churlish to dismiss it.

As I said, it seems we're going nowhere; let's leave it there.

 

[جوري]

You know, the way debates usually work is that someone makes a point, backs that point up and then responds to counter points. I *think*, although I could well be wrong as it's difficult to follow what you're getting at, that you're saying I don't fully understand evolution, is that right? Is that your point?

It isn't difficult to derive what I am getting at. I am not using volumes of words. If you believe in this as a science then you should be able to discuss it fluidly!

Well - if it is, you're right, I don't. Nobody does. However, when there is so much evidence (easily understandable evidence) to support it, it seems churlish to dismiss it.

What evidence? that you put skulls in boxes? Perhaps intellectual bullying works on school boys but not here. 'Churlish' doesn't a scientific argument make. Perhaps it is the sort of crap that sells on atheist forums as they often like to self-congratulate and insult- over here we prefer evidence based science!

As I said, it seems we're going nowhere; let's leave it there.

it is going nowhere because the lot of you don't know what the heck you're talking about. One guy doesn't know a trachea leads to the lungs and the esophagus the alimentary tract yet has the audacity to speak of illogical and you tag not far behind with the big conundrum that's molecular biology as a mechanism to explain this mysterious speciation through fossil record.
Perhaps if the lot of you cut the crap and especially the attitude of knowledge and superiority where where neither exist can we leave it there.. and we should have in fact done that a few pages ago if you'd realized that you can't support your argument with something other than 'churlish' for a response!

best,

 

[observer]

they often like to self-congratulate and insult

Oh sweet irony!

 

[جوري]

Oh sweet irony!

There's no irony here at all.. nothing is opposite of expectations here.. in fact it is going exactly as expected! At any rate, I don't like the perpetual meandering as a form of dodging the painful stuff you either know or you don't. And I know that you don't and neither do your pals!

best,

 

[Pygoscelis]

The twenty thousand children who die UNOTICED; every single day from grinding poverty, starvation and preventable disease are all victims of evolutionary principles.

Evolution is a process. It can't "victimize" anybody. Disease and viruses can do through evolution, but there is no mind directing it for you to say is victimizing people.

But if you rule out evolution and claim instead that an all powerful God created life on earth how it now is, then you do have a mind that designed it for you to say is victimizing people.

If a bridge collapses and the travelers on it plunge to their deaths, you can't say the creator of the bridge intended that to happen, but only because the creator of the bridge isn't perfect and all powerful. If the creator is perfect and all powerful, then you can conclude that he intended this result, and you can judge him accordingly.

If you take a strict creationist stance, with no interceding evolution or free will (Or do you believe viruses have free will?), you can conclude that God intended the disease and viruses people suffer from. You can say that he specifically invented them in all their horror. You can also conclude that he did not intend efficient design when we see structures in nature that are not efficient.

The Bible has around two thousand passages that refer to justice for the poor and oppressed, to love, forgive, not to judge, these are not the laws of an oppressive God. The teachings of the Qur’an also centre on justice for the poor and oppressed, to love our neighbours, to forgive to control anger, these are not the teachings of a malicious God.

So you've got a stark conflict within the strict creationist interpretation. How do you explain it?

If God gave us perfect bodies, we would still be unjust and unkind towards each other, kill, steal etc, what incentive does God have, that he should give us perfect bodies?

Because he designed us that way?

Or perhaps because he gave us free will, which is a whole other debate.

If he did give us free will then that isn't relevant to my point of his direct creation. As Independent pointed out earlier in the thread, you also may escape my above conclusions if you take the position that God set it off and then random mutation and natural selection took over.

In the spirit of praying for justice for the poor and oppressed

In the spirit of seeking justice the poor and oppressed.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I noted above that we can eat and breathe through the same hole (meaning the mouth).

One is called the trachea and the other an esophagus .. if you're of the impression they're the 'same hole' then take some anatomy lessons.

It isn't difficult to derive what I am getting at. I am not using volumes of words.

I understand your desire to meander and bait.. I find that to be rampant amongst trolls but it doesn't aggrieve me.

Perhaps if the lot of you cut the crap and especially the attitude of knowledge and superiority where where neither exist can we leave it there..

...

The 'creationist' need not make a case for creation, all they need to do is point out the flaws in the so-called 'scientific theory'

it is the default conclusion!

Is that really an argument you wish to make?

over here we prefer evidence based science!

...

^ atheists have to be dogmatic and indoctrinated about their religion how else can they justify their lifestyle choices?

If you're of the disposition of posing your own queries and answering for others as is the case with most atheists then by all means don't let me interrupt this soliloquy!

You keep peddling nonsense not sure why?

I don't like nonsense questions even if in rhetoric!

Perhaps intellectual bullying works on school boys but not here.

you guys really are a funny bunch!

 

[جوري]

I noted above that we can eat and breathe through the same hole

The hole for breathing is called your nose, the one for eating is called your mouth, when you chew your glottis which is guarded by your epiglottis covers your windpipe so you can eat and it doesn't go down the wrong pipe.. pays to have good manners at the dinner table and focus on that!
In fact it is brilliantly designed. Or where would you like your breathing and eating apparatus? perhaps breathing our of your ears in three D and eating out of your eyes? lol.... if a person runs after every atheist whim we'd all end up freaks!

 

[Muhaba]

the design is perfect but some ppl are brainless.

 

[Iceee]

the design is perfect but some ppl are brainless.

All they want to believe is: If God created humans, why didn't he put make them all the same colour so there won't be any racism?
Why didn't he make everyone strong? Why he didn't do this... do that...

Above: Why didn't he make everyone have perfect vision to be able to see atoms in the air? Why didn't he make a recording button in our eyes. Why can't we share our eye-sight to see if our spouse is cheating...?

All these stupid questions. Stop asking and start believing. There's a reason for all of this, but you people are brainwashed into not listening and going on their cell-phones to come up with another question/answer.

 

[Muhaba]

^that is so true. I mean, in today's modern and technological age, we consider multifunctioning to be a sign of advancement and atheists consider it a sign of imperfection. Just think of all the things we have that we use for multipurpose, such as mobile phones that have internet access, washer and dryer in one, etc. To be able to breathe, talk and eat with the mouth is a sign of the Great design of God. It should make us understand that this could not have come into being by itself. About why the left brain controls the right side of the body, and the right brain controls the left side, we do not know what the wisdom in it is at this time because our human knowledge is limited. In time, with scientific advancement, we may learn what the benefits are. or maybe the benefits are already known but I and some others haven't learned of them. the brain is a wonderful thing by itself and human abilities and intelligence already prove that it couldn't have come into being by itself.
As for eyesight, it is a miracle in itself. could it have come into being by itself? unfortunately instead of pondering over this, atheists want to know why our eyesight couldn't be better. They should also ask why we can't fly and are not superhuman. The answer is simply that God was creating humans and not superhumans. It probably wouldn't be beneficial if you could see through walls and hear from great distances, etc. All these human limitations are not God's limitations because God created us according to the design He chose and for a particular purpose. but the way humans and other living things are made and their differences all show God's greatness and intelligence. The fact that everything on earth is so compatible shows that a Creator - and only One Creator - made this.

just think of oxygen. humans need oxygen to live. We need it every moment. how many breaths do we take in a minute? But if there were only humans and animals on earth, the oxygen wouldn't last. it would get finished because during breathing, oxygen is taken in and carbon dioxide is released. So very soon, the atmosphere would get filled with carbon dioxide. But God created plants. Plants take in carbon dioxide during daytime and release oxygen. Thus there is cycle. Plants and animals contribute to this oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle together thus helping each other survive. But did this all come into being by itself? Did plants and animals evolve to make this happen? Why should there even be oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? It's obvious that none of this happened by itself but was designed by God. And God is the best of the designers!

 

[observer]

All these stupid questions. Stop asking and start believing.

Why is it stupid to ask why god has done something in a particular way?

If you are to ask no questions and believe blindly, I would suggest that that sounds more like brainwashing than the alternative.