Atheism

[HeiGou]

are u saying human being is not special...??

Not in the sense you mean.

are you saying we also behave like all the animals in this world....

We eat, drink, sleep, have sex, enjoy our children, live in groups. In many ways we are like other animals in this world - especially our near relatives. Does that bother you?

 

[HeiGou]

i know the animals evolve... i just want to know why they do not think like we think... i mean in the sense of act based on feeling, having to analyze and having a critical thinking...

It is not locally useful. It is no benefit for a cow to think critically. And it costs a lot of energy. A dumb cow is a better cow. The question is why can we and that does seem unusual.

i want an answer and prove saying that human is not unique and human that try his best to be compassionate, not being hyprocrites..., not acting on impulse...and etc are not better than animals...

I think that only humans are hypocrits because only humans think about it. Wolves do what they do with no shame at all. Not all animals act on impluse. I do not think that humans are unique except in so far as we have some characteristics shared by many others and take them to extremes.

 

[master_seth]

ok ok ok brother, wen u say u dnt believe in god, wat u mean by god?

 

[Muhammad]

Hello Callum,

Where does this idea come from, that the existence of god has been proven? I see it again and again on this forum, yet anyone who gave this claim the slightest consideration would know that if it were true, then everyone would believe in god, just as everyone believes in Pythagoras' theorem.

Perhaps it is your idea of 'proof' which renders this idea invalid, when in fact it is not so impossible as it may seem. Perhaps you are waiting for it to be written in a scientific journal that 'God has been discovered', where it is hoped that somebody might see Him, or sense Him physically in some way. Yet if that were the case, we might then be asked to question our concept of God, given that:

6:103 No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.

And that the purpose of life is a test through which some succeed and some fail. If the answers to a test are made available before its completion, the test is pointless. Similarly, if we were all living with God in heaven, there would not be much to test.

Having said this, it is not the case that we are left in darkness to find our own truth. God has created many signs and evidences that point to His existence; it is up to the individual to study and ponder over them.

You mentioned that "everyone believes in Pythagoras' Theorem". Pythagoras' Theorem is a rule; a means by which we can find an answer. It is not a physical entity or a being of some kind. So in the same way that we use a mathematic equation to find an answer, we can apply our intellect to the world in order to find our answer about God.

All in all, there is proof; perhaps in a different format to how you imagined.

[6.109] And they swear by Allah with the strongest of their oaths, that if a sign came to them they would most certainly believe in it. Say: Signs are only with Allah; and what should make you know that when it comes they will not believe?

Peace.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Perhaps it is your idea of 'proof' which renders this idea invalid, when in fact it is not so impossible as it may seem.

I'm using the idea in the sense of logic, law or mathematics. In what sense are you using the term?

And that the purpose of life is a test through which some succeed and some fail. If the answers to a test are made available before its completion, the test is pointless. Similarly, if we were all living with God in heaven, there would not be much to test.

Having said this, it is not the case that we are left in darkness to find our own truth. God has created many signs and evidences that point to His existence; it is up to the individual to study and ponder over them.

What does any of this have to do with proof?

You mentioned that "everyone believes in Pythagoras' Theorem". Pythagoras' Theorem is a rule; a means by which we can find an answer. It is not a physical entity or a being of some kind. So in the same way that we use a mathematic equation to find an answer, we can apply our intellect to the world in order to find our answer about God.

Pythagoras' Theorem has been proven. It yields true answers. Applying our intellect to the world may yield all sorts of answers - some of them sensible, some of them crazy. In what sense would you consider this process to be any kind of proof on the order of the proof of Pythagoras' Theorem?

All in all, there is proof; perhaps in a different format to how you imagined.

Well, people are obviously free to use words in any way they want - however, I'll continue to use the word 'proof' under its standard dictionary definitions. What meaning do you attach to the term, since it's one I'm obviously unfamiliar with?

I'll say it again - if there actually were proof that god existed, then everyone would believe it. It's as simple as that.

Peace

 

[Link]

There are basically four logical approaches we believe logical conclusively prove the existence of God

1) The concept of infinity with the rule "from nothing, nothing follows"
2) Cause and effect, (initiated needed a iniator, movement needs a cause, and everything in science is explained with this rule)
3) Critical look at what consitutes substance (table made out of wood, wood made out of ___ which is made out of ___, and on and on and the limits of our fives sense)
4) The design perspective and the fact cayause does not bring order and design

These things have been discussed in detail, I can do discuss here also but first I need to know

Do you two athiests want to believe in God or not?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

There are basically four logical approaches we believe logical conclusively prove the existence of God

Logic has nothing whatsoever to do with belief. You can't say that you believe something logically proves something else - either it does or it doesn't.

1) The concept of infinity with the rule "from nothing, nothing follows"

So how was god created then - or is god an exception to this?

2) Cause and effect, (initiated needed a iniator, movement needs a cause, and everything in science is explained with this rule)

The cosmological argument - basically a rephrasing of your first one if I understand you correctly.

3) Critical look at what consitutes substance (table made out of wood, wood made out of ___ which is made out of ___, and on and on and the limits of our fives sense)

Could you explain this one a bit more - I don't recognise this argument.

4) The design perspective and the fact cayause does not bring order and design

The argument from design, which, as you say, has been discussed many times before. The basic objection to it is to ask why god designed us with blind spots in our eyes and other suboptimal features.

These things have been discussed in detail, I can do discuss here also but first I need to know

Do you two athiests want to believe in God or not?

Speaking for myself, I think it would be quite comforting to believe in god - it's just that I see no reason to do so.

Also, don't tell me you just believe in god because you want to?

Peace

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I'm using the idea in the sense of logic, law or mathematics. In what sense are you using the term?

I'm using the term in quite a general way, since 'proof' is not limited to a specific field such as mathematics or science.

What does any of this have to do with proof?

It is explaining my initial statement that proof does not have to constitute statements made by the scientific community.

Applying our intellect to the world may yield all sorts of answers - some of them sensible, some of them crazy. In what sense would you consider this process to be any kind of proof on the order of the proof of Pythagoras' Theorem?

Pythagoras' Theorem can yield wrong answers if used incorrectly or without proper understanding. By analogy, our intellects will similarly yield insensible answers if used incorrectly. Furthermore, it may not be so much the process that is a proof, but rather the reasoning determined by it.

Well, people are obviously free to use words in any way they want - however, I'll continue to use the word 'proof' under its standard dictionary definitions. What meaning do you attach to the term, since it's one I'm obviously unfamiliar with?

I think the meaning is pretty much the same as yours. Where do you feel that it isn't?

I'll say it again - if there actually were proof that god existed, then everyone would believe it. It's as simple as that.

I don't think it's that simple, as I tried to explain with the concept of life being a test. The very definition of faith teaches us that belief does not rest solely upon material evidence.

Peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muhammad,

I'm using the term in quite a general way, since 'proof' is not limited to a specific field such as mathematics or science.

True, it isn't, but when we're talking about any kind of truth, our use of the word 'proof' must always derive ultimately from logic, wouldn't you agree?

It is explaining my initial statement that proof does not have to constitute statements made by the scientific community.

OK, but I have never said that that was the case.

Pythagoras' Theorem can yield wrong answers if used incorrectly or without proper understanding. By analogy, our intellects will similarly yield insensible answers if used incorrectly. Furthermore, it may not be so much the process that is a proof, but rather the reasoning determined by it.

This is a fair analogy, and you're right that the process itself doesn't constitute a proof, just as using Pythagoras' Theorem is not the same as proving it. I think my original point remains, though: Pythagoras' Theorem has been proven; everyone believes it (if 'believe' is the right word). You claim there is proof that god exists; why then, is not every person on the planet a theist?

I think the meaning is pretty much the same as yours. Where do you feel that it isn't?

Let's look at the primary definition of 'proof' as given by dictionary.com. (Subsequent definitions follow from this one, and I've also excluded meanings which are obviously not related to our discussion, such as the measure of alcoholic strength etc.):

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

There are two parts to this that I'd like to focus on. First of all, 'compels'. The mind is forced to accept something as being true due to evidence or argument. This means that no other explanation is possible.

With the existence of god question, other explanations are possible, such as the idea that the idea of god is a creation originating in the human mind. Also, it is clear that not everyone feels compelled by evidence or argument to believe in god.

Secondly, we have the phrase 'the mind'. This refers to anyone's mind, not yours, mine or somebody else's in particular. Therefore a proof must be convincing to any mind, not just one that accepts the result already.

For the purposes of our discussion, the proof of Pythagoras' Theorem satisfies these criteria in a way that proofs of the existence of god do not.

I don't think it's that simple, as I tried to explain with the concept of life being a test. The very definition of faith teaches us that belief does not rest solely upon material evidence.

Of course - but the proof of Pythagoras' Theorem does not rely on material evidence either. It is an abstract operation, like an argument for the existence of god. The difference is that one of these is classified as a proof, and the other is not - except, it seems, among Muslims.

Peace

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Callum,

True, it isn't, but when we're talking about any kind of truth, our use of the word 'proof' must always derive ultimately from logic, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I don't see a problem with that, since logic can be applied to pretty much anything.

With the existence of god question, other explanations are possible, such as the idea that the idea of god is a creation originating in the human mind. Also, it is clear that not everyone feels compelled by evidence or argument to believe in god.

Firstly, not everyone undertakes the search for God with the same level of scrutiny and sincerity as others. Not everyone bothers to find out about these things in the first place, so in this way, many people do not believe in God upon grounds that don't have anything to do with proof. Similarly, there are probably people in the world who don't know what Pythagoras' Theorem is, yet that is not because they see proof for its invalidity but more so because of their ignorance.

As for the evidence for the existence of God, then at first it might seem like there could be various possibilities, just like there could be for finding the third side of a triangle had Pythagoras' Theorem not been discovered. Upon examining the evidience though, other possibilities are ruled out and a final conclusion can be drawn.

There is also another factor that comes to mind, explaining why not everyone shares the same belief in God, and that is denial. For some who realise that there is a God, and understand the evidence that points to Him, desire and personal aims hold them back. Perhaps it is upholding a family tradition or fear of surrounding reaction; many things such as this act to create denial in people's hearts. Ultimately, guidance is from God Himself and we can only pray for the misguided.

Secondly, we have the phrase 'the mind'. This refers to anyone's mind, not yours, mine or somebody else's in particular. Therefore a proof must be convincing to any mind, not just one that accepts the result already.

I agree.

For the purposes of our discussion, the proof of Pythagoras' Theorem satisfies these criteria in a way that proofs of the existence of god do not.

However, we have not begun to consider what the proofs of the existence of God are, so we cannot really compare them to Pythagoras' Theorem. Furthermore, this likening of the proofs of God's existence to science/mathematics relates back to my point that such a comparison isn't always necessary. For example, Pythagoras' Theorem is like a rule by which this universe is governed, like gravity. If we look at how these rules came about and ponder over their regulation, we are viewing the matter in a different way while still using logic and open to being compelled to accept a true answer.

Peace

 

[shaharoun]

:sl:
What is to prove by the way?
If you prove the abiklity of the creator,
does it not enough to prove the existance of God?
Whom one can deny the existance of God?
I'm sure even those who are still believing there is no God,still they have a lot of doubts in their faith.
Think about the God's creation then you will be clear on His existancer if God

 

[Muhammad Waqqas]

Greetings,


I think you may find the answers to your questions earlier on in this thread, and in some of the other threads on atheism.

Thanks for telling me that I can find answers to my question in earlier pages, that was a really strange thing, I was shocked to read that.

What?!

I think the science community should definitely be informed of this!

Can you provide any evidence to support this bizarre claim?

Yes, he did start his theory in his book. By publishing it, he made the world aware of it.

As I said, you could have a look at this thread or the others on atheism. Another option might be to click on 'Find more posts' from atheists such as root and myself. For the full professional treatment, you could try reading some of the best books there are giving atheist perspectives, such as David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion or J. L. Mackie's Miracle of Theism.

Hope that helps.

Peace

Are these things worth discussing?!? Are they!??
They are not!

Next, these athiests start speaking about wanting to believe in God blah blah.. Is that worth talking about?? What's the actual topic we are talking about here? The main thing we need to discuss is "Darwin HIM SELF DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIS OWN THEORY!" Then why the heck is everybody else so blind?!?

Point # 1: I'm quoting now, you can chekup with the book:

Origion of Species, Ch 6 (Diffulcities on Theory), Paragraph 3: "...the following heads:- Firstly, why, if species
have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see
innumerable transitional forms?"

Point # 2: I'm quoting now, you can chekup with the book:

Origion of Species, Ch 6 (Diffulcities on Theory), Paragraph 3: "Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as
we see them, well defined?"

Point # 3: I'm quoting now, you can chekup with the book:

Origion of Species, Ch 6 (Diffulcities on Theory), Paragraph 4: "Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could
have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we
believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as
the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful
structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?"

Point # 4: I'm quoting now, you can chekup with the book:

Origion of Species, Ch 6 (Diffulcities on Theory), Paragraph 6: "Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile
offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?"

Atleast READ THE WHOLE BOOK? If you cannot, ATLEAST READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER?

root kept talking about: logic.. etc. what ever that was, Is that all logical?

Will you believe that which root is writing here on the forum, or that which Darwin HIM SELF wrote in the book which is for sale out there at a very low price, WHICH ONE WILL YOU BELIEVE?!?

The time in which darwin was living, people used to believe in things like "Living born out of dead" (Spontaneous Generation) because they thought that when rotten meat is left alone, some small germs are born over it bla bla, that's why living beings can get life from dead.

If you just read the 6th chapter of Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" you'll realize everything he said was nothing.

Before darwin, atheist were there, but when he wrote a book, they found a way out, and started to believe this theory comletly unconditionally. Reason? "They are afraid, that if somebody proves to them the existance of God, the'll have to obey God's orders."

What they fail to realize is, that If suppose God dosen't exist, then people who believe in God will too become sand with the athiests, but what if God existed? Where will the Athiests go then? There will be no way back to earth. Just on a blind assumption, are you going to risk you whole life of etternity?

Allah promises that if you follow his commandments complely, he'll give you a happy life here, as well as in the hereafter, this is what keeps me connected to Islam. Because Alhamdulilah, before following Islam, I had no connection with peace of Mind, and Now I have, its hardly a year now.

Darwin thought that the new scientific research will help confirm his theory, but it did exactly the opposite:

1. His thory dosen't speak anything about how life "STARTED", it dose talk about its transformation, but nowhere in his book he wrote any logical reson of how the life "STARTED" on earth.

2. There is not a single scientific research which has proved that the self-existant machanism can give birth to Life.

3. The fossils that the Geologists have found are "SHOUTING" that this theory is completly incorrect. (Reffer to the post below)

The first point says that about sevral billion years ago, there was a single cell, which gave rise to humans etc. Therefore, where when and who took the first and foremost step?

This theory says that Inanimate Matter just coninsidently give birth to the first animal on the planet.

Imagin.. coninsidently.. All humans, trees are formed. Humans and trees have nothing in common at all. Yet, they are transformed form of one Another..

After 5 years of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur's research completely disregarded the theory of Evolution, in his book he mentioned that "The Idea that living things take birth from non-living is burried for ever in the graveyard of the History."

I can write another book on this topic, if everybody is willing to read and reply, but with LOGIC, not that "I dont want to do that..", "I want to do that.."

No body cares what you want to do and what you don't want to do, comeup with a logic.

 

[Muhammad Waqqas]

The Cœlacanth: An Example of a False Intermediate Form

1.

A 410-million-year-old Cœlacanth fossil.

2.

Another living Cœlacanth specimen.

3.

The tail of the living Cœlacanth and that of a 140-million-year-old fossil specimen are identical to one another.

The Horseshoe Crab

4.

Horseshoe crab. A 450-million-year-old horseshoe crab is no different to specimens alive today. It has possessed the same complex features and equipment for the last half billion years or so. Clearly, at a time when—according to Darwinists—living things should have been evolving, no evolution actually took place.


The Cockroach

5.

A 300-million-year-old cockroach, with exactly the same features as cockroaches today. This fossil, which lived 300 million years ago, definitively refutes Darwin's theory of evolution.

Source:

1. Keith S. Thomson, Living Fossil: The Story of the Coelacanth, 1991, book cover

2. "Evolution:Living Fossils," http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm

3. Jean-Jacques Hublin, The Hamlyn Encyclopædia of Prehistoric Animals, New York: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., 1984, p. 120

4. Don Knapp, "New sighting of 'living fossil' intrigues scientists," CNN.com, 23 September 1998, http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/science/9809/2...ssil/index.html

5. "Evolution:Living Fossils," http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm

6. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, pp. 207-208

It is clear, very vivid, that Darwin's Theory is DEAD.

 

[syilla]

Hei Go...

If you're saying human is not unique... then why human are always not satisfy and always want to change or improve their quality of life...

don't u think that... the animals, plants and the earth... can live happily together in harmony and everything will always in order. I'm sure they do not need this so call 'human being'.

but why this so call 'human being' is on this earth destroying everything... especially the earth... don't u think 'that' make human as a unique living creatures....

I'm sad... if u think that human... is just like animals...
then if human is like animals... they will never have purpose living in this earth... . When they do not have purpose in this life... they will act like animals... and of course they will destroy the earth...(as what u have said...eat, sleep and enjoy life - i don't need to be better than the animals).

IMHO, if a human think they are like animals... do not buy car... do not buy bungalows or any type of houses or do not buy computer.... they should try living like the animals... in the jungle or in the dessert. Do not try anything to improve their quality ways of life.... just live like a tarzan... If not then they are hyprocrites.(That's why religion teach us do not to be hyprocrites...)

IMHO, i believed... human is unique... human is put on this earth to be tested.

 

[Muhammad Waqqas]

Hei Go...

If you're saying human is not unique... then why human are always not satisfy and always want to change o...

Syilla, we are getting your point. But lets be silent and wait for a reply from their side.

 

[Muhammad Waqqas]

I would request my athiesm-supporting brothers to post a brief, and "TO THE POINT" reply.

No body will read a tale of 5 generations if you posted the way you are doing it in previous posts. Be brief, to the point, and logical.

 

[HeiGou]

If you're saying human is not unique... then why human are always not satisfy and always want to change or improve their quality of life...

And ants don't?

don't u think that... the animals, plants and the earth... can live happily together in harmony and everything will always in order. I'm sure they do not need this so call 'human being'.

I do not know what you mean by harmony. Even if there were no people around I would not lie down and sleep with a lion if I were a lamb. I do think that the world could get by nicely without us.

but why this so call 'human being' is on this earth destroying everything... especially the earth... don't u think 'that' make human as a unique living creatures....

Well unique in the sense that we have built tools that enable us to do so. But I doubt that wolves would be any better if they had AK-47s. I have seen what foxes do to chickens after all.

I'm sad... if u think that human... is just like animals...
then if human is like animals... they will never have purpose living in this earth... . When they do not have purpose in this life... they will act like animals... and of course they will destroy the earth...(as what u have said...eat, sleep and enjoy life - i don't need to be better than the animals).

I think we have a purpose, but not one that is written in our biology or DNA. We are here to be good to each other and make the world a better place. Biology is not destiny! We do not have to "live like animals" as you put it if we do not want to because we are also aware of who and what we are and we can make good choices as well as bad.

Why do you think that we will destroy the Earth if we think we are like animals? Surely most environmental damage is done by Believers and the ignorant (not always the same groups)?

IMHO, if a human think they are like animals... do not buy car... do not buy bungalows or any type of houses or do not buy computer.... they should try living like the animals... in the jungle or in the dessert. Do not try anything to improve their quality ways of life.... just live like a tarzan... If not then they are hyprocrites.(That's why religion teach us do not to be hyprocrites...)

Why is it hypocritical to live like modern humans if I happen to think that we are animals like other animals (although I do not exactly)? Surely that is like saying Muslims are hypocrits for buying cars and computers when of course Muhammed never had one and hence it must be Bida? Who thinks that?

IMHO, i believed... human is unique... human is put on this earth to be tested.

Well fossils are quite a test - how else do you explain them?

 

[HeiGou]

Thanks for telling me that I can find answers to my question in earlier pages, that was a really strange thing, I was shocked to read that.

So can I save us all a lot of time and ask which Muslim apologetics site you cribbed this from?

Next, these athiests start speaking about wanting to believe in God blah blah.. Is that worth talking about?? What's the actual topic we are talking about here? The main thing we need to discuss is "Darwin HIM SELF DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIS OWN THEORY!" Then why the heck is everybody else so blind?!?

What makes you think that Darwin did not believe his own theory and if he did not, why did he spend so much time defending it?

Point # 1: I'm quoting now, you can chekup with the book:

Origion of Species, Ch 6 (Diffulcities on Theory), Paragraph 3: "...the following heads:- Firstly, why, if species
have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?"

Because we do.

Point # 2: I'm quoting now, you can chekup with the book:

Origion of Species, Ch 6 (Diffulcities on Theory), Paragraph 3: "Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Definition of species is a social construct. There is no real distinction between things being in confusion and things being well defined. Besides one of the assumptions is Deep Time - life has been around for a long long time. So species change slowly over thousands of years - of course a short term focus sees good definition even though in the scale of millenia it is all change.

Point # 3:I'm quoting now, you can chekup with the book:

Origion of Species, Ch 6 (Diffulcities on Theory), Paragraph 4: "Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we
believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?"

Well yes it is possible as Darwin agreed. And as study of the eye shows, it proves evolution because it is not a wonderful structure but a messy, poorly designed organ that clearly evolved.

Point # 4:[/COLOR] I'm quoting now, you can chekup with the book:

Origion of Species, Ch 6 (Diffulcities on Theory), Paragraph 6: "Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?"

Because a species is usually defined as that which produces sterile offspring if at all. This is obviiously proof of evolution - if two species could interbreed they would be one species.

Atleast READ THE WHOLE BOOK? If you cannot, ATLEAST READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER?

Please do.

The time in which darwin was living, people used to believe in things like "Living born out of dead" (Spontaneous Generation) because they thought that when rotten meat is left alone, some small germs are born over it bla bla, that's why living beings can get life from dead.

Umm, not by Darwin's time they did not.

If you just read the 6th chapter of Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" you'll realize everything he said was nothing.

Why do you think anything so silly?

Before darwin, atheist were there, but when he wrote a book, they found a way out, and started to believe this theory comletly unconditionally. Reason? "They are afraid, that if somebody proves to them the existance of God, the'll have to obey God's orders."

And how do you explain the existence of religiously observant Christian, Jewish and even Muslim biologists who accept God and Darwin's theory?

Why would people be afraid of obeying God anyway? It is not as if Islam is a difficult religion!

Darwin thought that the new scientific research will help confirm his theory, but it did exactly the opposite:

1. His thory dosen't speak anything about how life "STARTED", it dose talk about its transformation, but nowhere in his book he wrote any logical reson of how the life "STARTED" on earth.

And yet scientific experiments since have shown precisely how life could have started. Btu I agree his theory does not talk about how life started.

2. There is not a single scientific research which has proved that the self-existant machanism can give birth to Life.

Which is not true. Look up the Miller Experiment

The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution (the Oparin and Haldane hypothesis stated that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors; the Miller-Urey tested this hypothesis). The experiment is considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. It was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago.​

3. The fossils that the Geologists have found are "SHOUTING" that this theory is completly incorrect. (Reffer to the post below)

Actually they shout precisely the opposite.

After 5 years of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur's research completely disregarded the theory of Evolution, in his book he mentioned that "The Idea that living things take birth from non-living is burried for ever in the graveyard of the History."

How does Pasteur's work relate to Darwin's?

 

[HeiGou]

It is clear, very vivid, that Darwin's Theory is DEAD.[/I]

Is this the best you can come up with? Darwin does not say that animals have to evolve and change. It is not complusory. If they find a small and uncompetitive niche, or they arrive at a form that is well adapted to their way of life, it is entirely possible that they will remain as they are for a long time. That does not disprove evolution. After all what is the alternative? That God did such good work on cockroaches that He left the design alone for 300 million years, but He did not like Hummingbirds so He has kept fiddling with their design? I mean, the idea is absurd. This does not even begin to disprove evolution although all the other species which are not 300 million years old strike a blow against the idea that God created life without evolution.

 

[IceQueen~]

did you know that darwin believed in God?