How could the universe and life start without God, how did life evolve without God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric H
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 98
  • Views Views 28K

Eric H

IB Expert
Messages
3,831
Reaction score
1,281
Gender
Male
Religion
Christianity
Science please.

The creation of the universe is history, whatever we choose to believe cannot change history.

Evolution is a fact.
It’s an observed and testable fact about the universe.

Please can you give the science to explain how the eye and the skeletal system evolved without any help from God?
 
Science please.

The creation of the universe is history, whatever we choose to believe cannot change history.



Please can you give the science to explain how the eye and the skeletal system evolved without any help from God?


I have no idea how the universe came to be,
Or wether it had an origin , nobody does.
Nobody knows now, nobody knew 1000s of years ago,
Hence the invention of gods.

Eyes , skeletons, skin, all evolve the same way, everything evolves in the same way
Small incremental changes over time.

You do realise these things have been explained by science.
 
The most logical thing would be for there to be nothing. So why is there something? It was a miracle done by Allah. Allah always was.
 
I have no idea how the universe came to be,
Or wether it had an origin , nobody does.
Nobody knows now, nobody knew 1000s of years ago,
Hence the invention of gods.

Eyes , skeletons, skin, all evolve the same way, everything evolves in the same way
Small incremental changes over time.

You do realise these things have been explained by science.

AN explanation doesn't equate to a fact, your investment in science is emotional and parading as intellectual. The same set of observable data can yield many interpretations/inferences - it takes faith to believe in these scientific fairy tales. And you can never claim certainty about origin arguments.
 
Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;

Eyes Small incremental changes over time.

I hope you have a better explanation than the Nilsson Pelger model of eye evolution. This only explains the POSSIBLE number of stages that it MIGHT take for the LENS to evolve. but the lens is not an eye.

You do realise these things have been explained by science.

I am waiting to be convinced, so how did the complete eye evolve? How did the nervous system evolve alongside the lens, to pass the information onto the brain? How did the brain evolve to understand the signals from the lens? How did the brain evolve at the same time to pass increased information onto the limbs so they would react to what the lens saw? How did the limbs evolve so they could better react to what the lens saw?

How did natural selection differentiate all these things at the same time to select improved lens, nerves, brain, limbs, tendons, muscles and ligaments.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
 
AN explanation doesn't equate to a fact, your investment in science is emotional and parading as intellectual. The same set of observable data can yield many interpretations/inferences - it takes faith to believe in these scientific fairy tales. And you can never claim certainty about origin arguments.

Yeah I know an explanation does not equate a fact.

Evolution is not a explanation, it’s a fact
Natural selection is the theory that explains the fact.

Darwin did not come up with evolution, evolution was recognised as far back as Ancient Greece.

Darwin came up with a theory ( natural selection ) that explains why living things evolve ( Jean baptise lamark came to the same conclusion independently)

Evolution is the fact natural selection attempts to explain.
In the same way gravitational theory attempts to explain why object are attracted to the centre
Or the germ theory of disease attempts to explain the transmission of disease through germs.

Object being drawn toward the centre
Is the fact
Gravitational theory tries to explain it
Diseases spread is the fact
Germ theory of disease attempts to explain it
 
Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



I hope you have a better explanation than the Nilsson Pelger model of eye evolution. This only explains the POSSIBLE number of stages that it MIGHT take for the LENS to evolve. but the lens is not an eye.



I am waiting to be convinced, so how did the complete eye evolve? How did the nervous system evolve alongside the lens, to pass the information onto the brain? How did the brain evolve to understand the signals from the lens? How did the brain evolve at the same time to pass increased information onto the limbs so they would react to what the lens saw? How did the limbs evolve so they could better react to what the lens saw?

How did natural selection differentiate all these things at the same time to select improved lens, nerves, brain, limbs, tendons, muscles and ligaments.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

I can understand you not being convinced,
At least your not saying that it’s not true.


Everything evolves in the same way,
In small incremental stages
You can look at the natural world and see eyes in various stages of development

From single cells that can only discern light from dark
To eyes that have no lens
To eye that have lens
To eyes like ours
Or Cephalopod eyes which don’t have a blind spot like ours do.

It seems a strange piece of design that would have a blind spiny in an organ designed to see.
 
I have no idea how the universe came to be,
Or wether it had an origin , nobody does.
Nobody knows now, nobody knew 1000s of years ago,
Hence the invention of gods.

Eyes , skeletons, skin, all evolve the same way, everything evolves in the same way
Small incremental changes over time.

You do realise these things have been explained by science.

First learn the definition of God
God (ilaha) is anything that is worshipped, obeyed, loved, feared, trusted. God is our necessity. The one for whom we can sacrifice anything, the one who is our first priority.

I hope u have learnt.

We are human beings nd we need God , no matter what. U accept it or not , u urself need God but if u don't believe in One True God, then there is something else which u have considered as god.

Some people believe in One True God .(those people are mindfull)

some ignorant people take other things as god (which are false gods).They either make their wealth , health, some human, animal or their own selves as god.

So from this, we conclude that u DO worship god but that which u worship is false god. Seems like u have taken urself as god. U obey urself, love urself, can't stand anyone going against u. But that is false god u r worshipping.

Nd we worship the true God. The One who created the heavens and the earths. The Only One who is worthy of our worship. The One who will gather all of mankind and will reward them for their deeds. The One who is in absolute control.
That day is not so far.It will come soon.

May Allah guide us and make us among those who worship only Him.
 
Yeah I know an explanation does not equate a fact.

Evolution is not a explanation, it’s a fact

No, you are wrong. I don't think you can do science.

Here are a few models of evolution, Natural Selectioon, Random Genetic Drift, Mutation, PMS, Cutlure to name a few - add to this the variance in popular models of explanation ranging from Classic Darwinism, Lamarckism, Neo-Darwinism etc etc etc and what you have is a lot of conflicting explanations.

What they are not, are fact.

Your investment in science, is like I said, emotional parading as intellectual.
 
No, you are wrong. I don't think you can do science.

Here are a few models of evolution, Natural Selectioon, Random Genetic Drift, Mutation, PMS, Cutlure to name a few - add to this the variance in popular models of explanation ranging from Classic Darwinism, Lamarckism, Neo-Darwinism etc etc etc and what you have is a lot of conflicting explanations.

What they are not, are fact.

Your investment in science, is like I said, emotional parading as intellectual.


They are not models of evolution

Evolution is change over time.

Some of the things you mention is part of the explanation of why things change over time .

Things change over time is the fact (evolution)

Natural selection
Genetic drift
Mutation
Are attempts to explain why things evolve , not that they evolve

It’s a fact ,life evolves over time.
It changes and adapts
 
First learn the definition of God
God (ilaha) is anything that is worshipped, obeyed, loved, feared, trusted. God is our necessity. The one for whom we can sacrifice anything, the one who is our first priority.

I hope u have learnt.

We are human beings nd we need God , no matter what. U accept it or not , u urself need God but if u don't believe in One True God, then there is something else which u have considered as god.

Some people believe in One True God .(those people are mindfull)

some ignorant people take other things as god (which are false gods).They either make their wealth , health, some human, animal or their own selves as god.

So from this, we conclude that u DO worship god but that which u worship is false god. Seems like u have taken urself as god. U obey urself, love urself, can't stand anyone going against u. But that is false god u r worshipping.

Nd we worship the true God. The One who created the heavens and the earths. The Only One who is worthy of our worship. The One who will gather all of mankind and will reward them for their deeds. The One who is in absolute control.
That day is not so far.It will come soon.

May Allah guide us and make us among those who worship only Him.


Is that your definition of what a god is ?

Why should we use your definition ?

Why not use mine

A god or the gods is a concept that people developed to help them make sense of the universe and their place in it.
Faced with questions for which they had no answers , origins for example,they imagined there must be a there, there.
Different cultures imagined different things, which is why there have been 1000s of gods people once though real.

People become convinced that their gods are part of reality, and not just concepts they use to try and make sense of reality.

Why don’t we use that definition of a god
 
They are not models of evolution

Oh really? Boy oh boy... looks like you need a little educating, my friend.

Darwin came up with a theory ( natural selection ) that explains why living things evolve ( Jean baptise lamark came to the same conclusion independently)

You're attempting to unify two very separate models of evolution here as one. This is intellectual dishonesty on your behalf... or ignorance. I don't know which.

Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering (ENGE) According to the standard Darwinian theory, randomness of mutations is the clay that natural selection moulds into all sorts of novel species. Though the concept has been explored in numerous popular publications and documentaries, some evolutionary theorists claim there is a lack of evidence for random mutations making anything useful.

One such biologist is James Shapiro, who challenges this central pillar of Darwinism, by using contemporary research in mutations to make a completely new evolutionary paradigm. In ‘Evolution: A View from the 21st Century’, Shapiro explains why ENGE may be a better model than Darwinian Evolution.

Neo Lamarckian Evolution Although Lamarck was largely overlooked for a long time, biologists have recently begun to revisit his ideas and developed a revised theory under the name of Neo Lamarckian evolution. Proponents of this theory argue that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is what drives evolutionary change, citing recent studies to support their view.

everything evolves in the same way
Small incremental changes over time..

Neo Lamarckian evolution views the process in terms of rapid evolutionary transitions instead of slow, incremental changes. Evolutionary biologist Eva Jablonka outlines this alternative view in her book, ‘Transformations of Lamarckism.’

Mutation Driven Evolution Mutationism also opposes the theory of small incremental steps, instead assuming evolution to be driven by large mutations. This model challenges the idea of Darwinian gradualism and natural selection as the driving forces behind evolutionary change. Although mutationism was, for the most part, discarded several years ago, a rehashed version has been proposed recently by evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei, who is a well-known, respected and award winning scientist. His work in the field of population genetics has been used widely and his book, ‘Mutation Driven Evolution’ shows how developments in molecular biology are challenging Darwinian predictions, further elaborating on how a new alternative may work.


It’s a fact ,life evolves over time.
It changes and adapts

Are you attempting to claim that adaptation is evolution? lol You need to go back to school. You're all over the place.

One last thing, the evolutionary models are a set of contradictory ideas attempting to explain our origin story - and most certainly not a fact, as I have demonstrated.

EDIT:

There can’t be nothing.

According to Professor Lawrence Krauss? ^o)
 
Last edited:
Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;

I have no idea how the universe came to be,

You have answered the first question.

Everything evolves in the same way,
In small incremental stages

I can understand this would have to happen if TeO was a fact.


You can look at the natural world and see eyes in various stages of development

From single cells that can only discern light from dark
To eyes that have no lens
To eye that have lens
To eyes like ours
Or Cephalopod eyes which don’t have a blind spot like ours do.

You have described eyes in a number of species, but you have not given the science of how eyes evolved from no eye. Whether the eye evolved in one species or a hundred, it still had to start from 'no eye'. If you apply critical thinking to your reply; it falls to pieces.

Nilsson Pelger's model of eye evolution only states that it could take 1,800 incremental stages for the lens to evolve. If the fish evolved in the way Nilsson Pelger described the fish would still be blind. The lenses on their own are useless, so natural selection would not have worked.

My glasses have two perfectly good lenses. If I am blindfolded and put in a strange room with my perfectly good glasses on my head, I am blind, my good lenses are useless.

I started this thread in the hope that the science would become clear.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric
 
Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



I hope you have a better explanation than the Nilsson Pelger model of eye evolution. This only explains the POSSIBLE number of stages that it MIGHT take for the LENS to evolve. but the lens is not an eye.



I am waiting to be convinced, so how did the complete eye evolve? How did the nervous system evolve alongside the lens, to pass the information onto the brain? How did the brain evolve to understand the signals from the lens? How did the brain evolve at the same time to pass increased information onto the limbs so they would react to what the lens saw? How did the limbs evolve so they could better react to what the lens saw?

How did natural selection differentiate all these things at the same time to select improved lens, nerves, brain, limbs, tendons, muscles and ligaments.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

Don't forget to ask for evidence of these evolutionary creatures during the evolving stages. Why are there no fossils that show a creature in between evolution? If things can come into being on their own with no help, why can't mankind simulate environments in a lab with artificial sun and dirt and give rise to new beings?

People who deny creationism are just lying to themselves so they can continue living however they want guilt free.
 
Do you mean are there any fossils of intermediary species.

There are lots and lots of them.

It is import to realise how rare the fossilisation process is.

I could provide a link if you want it , that lists all the intermediary fossils found.

But honestly speaking ,
Do you really care ?
 
Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



You have answered the first question.



I can understand this would have to happen if TeO was a fact.




You have described eyes in a number of species, but you have not given the science of how eyes evolved from no eye. Whether the eye evolved in one species or a hundred, it still had to start from 'no eye'. If you apply critical thinking to your reply; it falls to pieces.

Nilsson Pelger's model of eye evolution only states that it could take 1,800 incremental stages for the lens to evolve. If the fish evolved in the way Nilsson Pelger described the fish would still be blind. The lenses on their own are useless, so natural selection would not have worked.

My glasses have two perfectly good lenses. If I am blindfolded and put in a strange room with my perfectly good glasses on my head, I am blind, my good lenses are useless.

I started this thread in the hope that the science would become clear.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Scientists think the earliest version of the eye was formed in unicellular organisms, who had something called ‘eyespots’. These eyespots were made up of patches of photoreceptor proteins that were sensitive to light. They couldn’t see shapes or colour, but were able to determine whether it was light or dark out. These unicellular organisms would use photosynthesis to create food for themselves, so being able to determine where the most light was coming from created a huge advantage for them.

Over time, the unicellular creature would evolve, and its eyespot evolved along with it. Scientists believe a depression formed around the light sensitive spot, creating a pit that made it’s ‘vision’ a little sharper. Eventually, the pit’s opening could have gradually narrowed, creating a small hole that light would enter, much like a pinhole camera. From there, a retina would develop, as well as a lens at the front of the eye. Over millions of years, small changes that confer a survival advantage would chance a simple light-sensitive structure to the complex eyes we have now.

Scientists make these assumptions about how the eye evolved because eyes corresponding stages in this sequence have been found in species that exist today.

A Single Source
As eyes were evolving from crude, light-sensitive, cups to more complex systems, the Earth was also undergoing dramatic changes. A complex interplay of environmental changes were setting the stage for large, active creatures to evolve. And they did just that, this outburst of speciation is now known as the Cambrian explosion. It was during this time that some eyes became more complex and specialized. They began to take on different shapes and colours.

Due to the diversity of eye types around the world, scientists used to believe that eyes had many independent origins. Advances in technology helped us learn more about the molecular structure of eye, and showed that proteins known as opsins are the foundation of all eyes in all creatures. This commonality confirms that all organisms with eyes, at one point, shared a common ancestor.
 
Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



You have answered the first question.



I can understand this would have to happen if TeO was a fact.




You have described eyes in a number of species, but you have not given the science of how eyes evolved from no eye. Whether the eye evolved in one species or a hundred, it still had to start from 'no eye'. If you apply critical thinking to your reply; it falls to pieces.

Nilsson Pelger's model of eye evolution only states that it could take 1,800 incremental stages for the lens to evolve. If the fish evolved in the way Nilsson Pelger described the fish would still be blind. The lenses on their own are useless, so natural selection would not have worked.

My glasses have two perfectly good lenses. If I am blindfolded and put in a strange room with my perfectly good glasses on my head, I am blind, my good lenses are useless.

I started this thread in the hope that the science would become clear.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Your glasses may have 2 perfectly good lenses, and why shouldn’t they
They were intelligently designed.

Your eyes on the other hand, have 2 blind spots, blind spots that we have but the lines of cephalopods do not have.

If our eyes were designed by a god as you believe, the god designed better eyes for the octopus than us.
 
Science please.

The creation of the universe is history, whatever we choose to believe cannot change history.



Please can you give the science to explain how the eye and the skeletal system evolved without any help from God?


The first thing you would need to determine is
Did the universe start .

Second
If you want to offer a god as a candidate explanation for anything, universe , life etc
Then you must be able to demonstrate that that god exists.

How would you go about demonstrating that a god, any god exists.

Perhaps a good place to start would be to come up with a sound definition of what a god is.

Then again
Who decides what a god is ... us?
 
Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;

The first thing you would need to determine is
Did the universe start .

You have already said you don't know how the universe came to be, and I accept that as an answer. I don't know either, other than I have a faith and trust that God created everything. However, that is not the purpose of this thread.

Second
If you want to offer a god as a candidate explanation for anything, universe , life etc
Then you must be able to demonstrate that that god exists.

The first part of the thread is - How could the universe come into being without God? And can we have some science please. Do you want to add anything to this before we move onto evolution?

Who decides what a god is .

God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, so how did the universe come to be without a creator God?

In spirit of searching for God,

Eric
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top