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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

Would you agree with me that all those creators, need parents older than the creators ?

Or would you rather just stop that analogy at the point it suits your argument best ?

---

We can level the same challenge about the bang, was there a daddy bang and an even older granddady bang? Some things we just have to accept without real proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

Evolution is a fact .

---

The only way we could accept it as a fact is if it happened with God's guidance. However I started this thread to try and understand the science that could explain how life could evolve without God.

Is there a better explanation for the evolution of the eye than that given by Nilsson and Pelger's model? They have the paper that states the eye lens could have evolved over 1,800 incremental steps.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric H

We can level the same challenge about the bang, was there a daddy bang and an even older granddady bang? Some things we just have to accept without real proof.



The only way we could accept it as a fact is if it happened with God's guidance. However I started this thread to try and understand the science that could explain how life could evolve without God.

Is there a better explanation for the evolution of the eye than that given by Nilsson and Pelger's model? They have the paper that states the eye lens could have evolved over 1,800 incremental steps.

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

---

There is a hypothesis which postulates a cyclic universe, meaning our Big Bang is part of a cycle of big bangs.

The thing is there isn’t enough data to form a firm view ... if there is no evidence then it’s best to just say “ we don’t know “

Evolution is a fact
It’s an observed fact, life changes over time
It’s not only seen in the lab, but in the wild.
Would you like some of examples of evolution in action ?


https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/...million-years/

Would I be right to assume, it really dose not matter to you, what evidence or argument could be presented to you ,
Anything that does not confirm your already held beliefs ... you will ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

Would you like some of examples of evolution in action ?

https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/...million-years/

---

Thanks for the link, and it says things like, wildly debated, their findings suggest, many scientists believe. It sums up by saying; 'although regarded as an unproven theory, there is compelling evidence. The wording suggests there are many unanswered questions, scientists are not too confident with their findings so far, or they would use more confident phrases.

The link ignores very obvious questions. How did the nerves, brain, limbs, muscles, ligaments tendons evolve alongside the lens? What is the point of an improved lens if the brain does not understand how to react.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

Would I be right to assume, it really dose not matter to you, what evidence or argument could be presented to you ,
Anything that does not confirm your already held beliefs ... you will ignore.

---

Not at all, I read through the link you provided. I had a number of questions in mind that I would like answered, and the link did not provide the answers. I believe the questions I have are both valid and simple, but they must be questions other people are asking. I understand the answers might not be straight forwards

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

Evolution is a fact

---

I proved to you that it wasn’t, you ignored my post and hoped that was that.

Attachment 6891

ive posted this pic to remind you how heinous your claims were in our last exchange.

now humour me with a response to my last post which is on page one of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric H

Thanks for the link, and it says things like, wildly debated, their findings suggest, many scientists believe. It sums up by saying; 'although regarded as an unproven theory, there is compelling evidence. The wording suggests there are many unanswered questions, scientists are not too confident with their findings so far, or they would use more confident phrases.

The link ignores very obvious questions. How did the nerves, brain, limbs, muscles, ligaments tendons evolve alongside the lens? What is the point of an improved lens if the brain does not understand how to react.



Not at all, I read through the link you provided. I had a number of questions in mind that I would like answered, and the link did not provide the answers. I believe the questions I have are both valid and simple, but they must be questions other people are asking. I understand the answers might not be straight forwards

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

---

I’m glad that you have read through the article.
There is always arguments and debates on the intricacies of how things evolve,

I’m sure they were not arguing if it evolved.

Your questions are valid questions,
I’m not sure I’m qualified to answer,
But I love learning, so I am going to see if I can find out.

How did the brain evolve along side the eye, to make use of the extra information[emoji106]

To google [emoji3]

I dont know why the theory of evolution becomes the subject always when creation is discussed. For us believers, even one single sand particle cannot come to existance without the creation of God. There is an evolution in physics too. Lets imagine how that sand particle came into the world. How many phases it passed. How many protons and electrons and atoms and molecules came into reaction for that sand particle to become? We are just amazed of the design of the existance. Because we realize that only “an intelligence” can design it and He is the God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

Hi user123

The key thing you need to realise here is that
If the passage you quoted was meant and understood by Muslims, scholars and clerics etc, to indicate that the universe was an expanding universe,

Why did it take until science to discover that it was expanding for you to realise that ?

Was it a commonly held belief among Muslims, before 1920 that the universe was expanding.

What happens here, and not just with Muslims and the Koran, but with Jews and Christians and the bible, and Hindus and the Bhagavad Gita.

Let me explain

Science will make a discovery like the universe is expanding.

Then people look at their holy books after being enlightened by science, and find passages that they can interpret to fit this new information.
Then claim
“ ah look, my book must be true, because this must mean that”

At one time people believe that the earth was the Center of the universe / solar system.

Imagine we still believed that ,
Do you think I could find a passage in the Quran, that if read with that belief in mind would confirm that it’s true ?

If you really want to impress me,
Don’t want for science to enlighten you, then find a verse in the Koran that you can interpret in light of this new understanding.

Look in the Koran, and give me the verse that will indicate the next big discovery from science, before science discovers it.

---

This was such a lame question.
Quran has concealed meaning. No one can interpret it accurately excpet Allah.

Muslim scholars had already interpreted those verses but they didn't have access so as to prove it to other people. If u read the explanation of quran , u'll come to know that they already said all those statements but they couldn't prove themselves. Hence, it was discovered long ago but was CONFIRMED by scientists.

Now don't ask why did they have to prove it to people when it was the word of God.
'people' are referred to BOTH muslims and non muslims. That's why proof was needed for non muslims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

This is not the case
I do not know how life began, there isn’t enough information for me to decide how life began.
Plus, I think the suggestion is that DNA evolved from RNA which formed naturally .

---

Again you are missing the point here. even RNA particles are way more complex to form naturally than marmelade jars and statues and stuff. how then should I believe that a RNA particle has been able to form all naturally where marmelade jars can't?
You sure understand this or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

About the creators needing parents is a different point.

Actually it’s not a different point
If creations need creators, then creators need patents older than them.
But you will perhaps want to claim there is a creator that has no parents.

---

I understand where you are going to, and I agree with you that features and characteristics of this supernatural influence also needs to be discussed...but in another thread then please...lets do this systematic...if we jump from one topic into another, then this discussion would be all over the place and in the end nothing would be cleared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

because the old formula was not "true enough".
I think you are confusing accuracy with truth
Is it true someone is travelling on a train ?
Yes, that’s a fact
How accurate we can be in determine the speed of the train is a variable.

---

no it is not accuracy. that maybe an aspect of it of course, but it has to do with new insights. you see, before Einstein, nobody even thought about lightspeed being the fastest achievable speed in the universe...therefore the old formula was accurate. after the lightspeed was put in the equation, the old formula was not true anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

.that is how science works...but you need to understand that science does not exclude religion...both should coexist...where science reaches its limits, religion should take over seeminglessly

Which religion should take over ?
Which version of which religion ?
Why should any particular version of religion take precedent over another ?

---

I already gave you an answer about this...if you want to discuss this in a greater detail, no problem...I will gladly join you, but please in another thread then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

Would you say there are a lot more false prophets than real prophets,
So the chances that someone claiming to be prophecy , it’s more likely that they are a false prophet than a real one.

---

this is a weird statement. I am sure you know better than this... right?
So...by your determination which prophet is real and which is false...you do not use your reasoning, instead you leave it to chance?
You do not look at what they are saying, whether it sounds logical or plausible or not...but you treat them all equal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

To say most scientists agree Muhammad was illiterate vis an argument ad populam
What evidence is there that Muhammad was illiterate ?
Am I correct in thinking that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad in a cave by an angel ?
If so what evidence is there Muhammad met an angel ?

---

First, it is stated in the Quraan itself that he was not meant to read and write...so that later on people could not accuse him as the author of the Quraan.
Second, there are many many reliable hadeeths that he was indeed illiterate.
Third, he is named in the Quraan only twice...and not in a very positive way...I mean, other prophets like Moses as is mentioned much more often in the Quraan and in the most positive way...as if he was the greatest prophet...
If Muhammad sas was indeed the author of the Quraan, would he then not make himself look like a great prophet instead praising other prophets?

And many more evidences that he was indeed illiterate. If you are interested you can simply use Google and find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

If you had a belief about god that was illogical
Would you drop that belief or change it ?

---

I would...most definitively. when I reached a certain age I reached that point that I started thinking seriously about my religion whether I really believe the things that I've been taught, or I just take it for granted...I was really at a point that if everything was illogical, that I would just drop my religion or just not care about it anymore.
So I looked for answers about questions and doubts in my head. the more answers I found, the stronger my belief became...I still have many questions that needs to be answered...But I do not have doubt about my religion anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

Do you believe god can do what is illogical ?

---

God is omnipotent. nothing to Him is impossible. What we think is illogical doesn't have to be illogical to Him...unless you are asking nonsense of course...
Like "Can God get divorced?" since He is not married...you might as well ask "Can God gyre and wimple in the wabe?" putting words together does not automatically make it meaningfull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

But I love learning, so I am going to see if I can find out.

---

The Nilsson Pelger link below says very much the same as yours, but it gives more detail. Sometimes I think you have to step back and and ponder what the information means.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Eye_to_Evolve

It takes 1829 incremental steps for the lens to evolve through seven stages. It takes 176 random mutations to go in one direction. Then it stops randomly going in this direction and goes 362 steps randomly in another directions.

Questions to reflect and ponder on --

If it took 1829 steps, each step must have been an improvement in vision of less than 0.01%. How could natural selection detect such a minute improvement 1829 times.
Random mutation and natural selection have no direction or goals. How would they know when to change direction seven times throughout the 1829 steps?

How could each of the following happen 1829 times?

How did the optic nerves understand and transmit more detailed information to the brain?
How did the brain increase its capacity to understand what the eye sees?
How did the brain give more detailed information to the limbs, so they could react in a more efficient way?
How did the limbs, muscles, tendons, ligaments improve so they could react in a more efficient way?

How could natural selection work on all these areas at the same time and pass the information through a population? Please feel free to reword any of these questions if you feel they are not valid.

How could all this happen without God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by user123name

This was such a lame question.
Quran has concealed meaning. No one can interpret it accurately excpet Allah.

Muslim scholars had already interpreted those verses but they didn't have access so as to prove it to other people. If u read the explanation of quran , u'll come to know that they already said all those statements but they couldn't prove themselves. Hence, it was discovered long ago but was CONFIRMED by scientists.

Now don't ask why did they have to prove it to people when it was the word of God.
'people' are referred to BOTH muslims and non muslims. That's why proof was needed for non muslims.

---

No one can interpret the Quran accurately except Allah ?
So would you say the all the attempts at interpreting it are wrong ?

You say it was known to Muslims ( expanding universe) before Edwin Hubble discovered it in the 1920s

Could you prove a link to one Muslim physicist ( pre Edwin Hubble discovering it) stating the universe is expanding?

You didn’t answer my question

The Quran was written 1800 years ago, when the commonly held belief was that the earth was the Center of the solar system,

Could I look in the Quran and find passages that would confirm that is true ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ümit

Again you are missing the point here. even RNA particles are way more complex to form naturally than marmelade jars and statues and stuff. how then should I believe that a RNA particle has been able to form all naturally where marmelade jars can't?
You sure understand this or not?

I understand where you are going to, and I agree with you that features and characteristics of this supernatural influence also needs to be discussed...but in another thread then please...lets do this systematic...if we jump from one topic into another, then this discussion would be all over the place and in the end nothing would be cleared.


no it is not accuracy. that maybe an aspect of it of course, but it has to do with new insights. you see, before Einstein, nobody even thought about lightspeed being the fastest achievable speed in the universe...therefore the old formula was accurate. after the lightspeed was put in the equation, the old formula was not true anymore.

I already gave you an answer about this...if you want to discuss this in a greater detail, no problem...I will gladly join you, but please in another thread then.

this is a weird statement. I am sure you know better than this... right?
So...by your determination which prophet is real and which is false...you do not use your reasoning, instead you leave it to chance?
You do not look at what they are saying, whether it sounds logical or plausible or not...but you treat them all equal?

First, it is stated in the Quraan itself that he was not meant to read and write...so that later on people could not accuse him as the author of the Quraan.
Second, there are many many reliable hadeeths that he was indeed illiterate.
Third, he is named in the Quraan only twice...and not in a very positive way...I mean, other prophets like Moses as is mentioned much more often in the Quraan and in the most positive way...as if he was the greatest prophet...
If Muhammad sas was indeed the author of the Quraan, would he then not make himself look like a great prophet instead praising other prophets?

And many more evidences that he was indeed illiterate. If you are interested you can simply use Google and find it.

I would...most definitively. when I reached a certain age I reached that point that I started thinking seriously about my religion whether I really believe the things that I've been taught, or I just take it for granted...I was really at a point that if everything was illogical, that I would just drop my religion or just not care about it anymore.
So I looked for answers about questions and doubts in my head. the more answers I found, the stronger my belief became...I still have many questions that needs to be answered...But I do not have doubt about my religion anymore.

God is omnipotent. nothing to Him is impossible. What we think is illogical doesn't have to be illogical to Him...unless you are asking nonsense of course...
Like "Can God get divorced?" since He is not married...you might as well ask "Can God gyre and wimple in the wabe?" putting words together does not automatically make it meaningfull.

---

There are two many topics being discussed in this one conversation, it’s hard to keep up [emoji3].

So if you don’t mind il pick one,
To examine

Can god do what is illogical ?

What I mean by this is not can god get divorced, or anything like that.

Could god make a square circle
Or
A married bachelor

Could god do those things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric H

The Nilsson Pelger link below says very much the same as yours, but it gives more detail. Sometimes I think you have to step back and and ponder what the information means.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Eye_to_Evolve

It takes 1829 incremental steps for the lens to evolve through seven stages. It takes 176 random mutations to go in one direction. Then it stops randomly going in this direction and goes 362 steps randomly in another directions.

Questions to reflect and ponder on --

If it took 1829 steps, each step must have been an improvement in vision of less than 0.01%. How could natural selection detect such a minute improvement 1829 times.
Random mutation and natural selection have no direction or goals. How would they know when to change direction seven times throughout the 1829 steps?

How could each of the following happen 1829 times?

How did the optic nerves understand and transmit more detailed information to the brain?
How did the brain increase its capacity to understand what the eye sees?
How did the brain give more detailed information to the limbs, so they could react in a more efficient way?
How did the limbs, muscles, tendons, ligaments improve so they could react in a more efficient way?

How could natural selection work on all these areas at the same time and pass the information through a population? Please feel free to reword any of these questions if you feel they are not valid.

How could all this happen without God?

---

You are correct that evolution does not have a goal, and the mutations are random.
But

The overall process is not random, hence the natural selection.

I haven’t had much time to look into how the brain and eye evolve in conjunction,
I’m building a wildlife pond in my garden.

As with all aspects of evolution, it will naturally select what is beneficial,
So if a mutation results in 0.01% improvement, then that will be selected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

There are two many topics being discussed in this one conversation, it’s hard to keep up [emoji3].

So if you don’t mind il pick one,
To examine

Can god do what is illogical ?

What I mean by this is not can god get divorced, or anything like that.

Could god make a square circle
Or
A married bachelor

Could god do those things?

---

This is exactly what I mean...No...because just putting words together doen't make it meaningfull...like the square circle, the married bachellor, getting divorced without being married...creating a rock so big that even He cannot lift...etc. etc.
The question is meaningless...like said, you might as well ask "Can God gyre and wimple in the wabe?" just as meaningless as your examples.
So No, He cannot do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

No one can interpret the Quran accurately except Allah ?
So would you say the all the attempts at interpreting it are wrong ?

You say it was known to Muslims ( expanding universe) before Edwin Hubble discovered it in the 1920s

Could you prove a link to one Muslim physicist ( pre Edwin Hubble discovering it) stating the universe is expanding?

You didn’t answer my question

The Quran was written 1800 years ago, when the commonly held belief was that the earth was the Center of the solar system,

Could I look in the Quran and find passages that would confirm that is true ?

---

Can't u just google it urself??

U'll surely find some evidence there. M so much busy right now, otherwise I would have given it.
Nd about that interpretation thing, many scholars interpreted the quran according to hadith ( sayings of prophet).
I didn't say their interpretation is all wrong,they did their best.
I used the word 'ACCURATELY'. U may find its meaning in dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by user123name

Can't u just google it urself??

U'll surely find some evidence there. M so much busy right now, otherwise I would have given it.
Nd about that interpretation thing, many scholars interpreted the quran according to hadith ( sayings of prophet).
I didn't say their interpretation is all wrong,they did their best.
I used the word 'ACCURATELY'. U may find its meaning in dictionary.

---

It’s your claim,
You have the burden of proof not I.

Who decides who has the right interpretation of the Quran ?

Do you think it’s wise to leave the interpretation of such an important message to fallible human beings ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ümit

This is exactly what I mean...No...because just putting words together doen't make it meaningfull...like the square circle, the married bachellor, getting divorced without being married...creating a rock so big that even He cannot lift...etc. etc.
The question is meaningless...like said, you might as well ask "Can God gyre and wimple in the wabe?" just as meaningless as your examples.
So No, He cannot do that.

---

I’m not just putting words together randomly,
I’m putting words together to create a direct contradiction, something that cannot be true.

So god cannot do what is illogical

With that in mind
Can god be aware of something he is unaware of ?
Can god know something that he does not know ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

You are correct that evolution does not have a goal, and the mutations are random.

---

That is a good starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

The overall process is not random, hence the natural selection.

---

I can accept this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

As with all aspects of evolution, it will naturally select what is beneficial,
So if a mutation results in 0.01% improvement, then that will be selected.

---

If you have a population of one thousand, and one in that population has a lens that is 0.01% better than the rest. How does that stand out from the crowd?

At the same time, does this one individual have optic nerves, a brain, limbs, muscles and tendons that also have an increased 0.01% advantage? The incremental improvement in the eye lens is only as good as the weakest link. If the muscles do not have a 0.01% advantage, every other improvement becomes void.

This would need to happen 1829 times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

I haven’t had much time to look into how the brain and eye evolve in conjunction,

---

No worries. I have looked over the years and not found anything very helpful. I think you will find more for yourself by sitting by your pond and reflecting on the questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric H

Please feel free to reword any of these questions if you feel they are not valid.

---

You still have the opportunity to change any of these questions, if you feel they do not apply. If the questions are valid, then they do deserve an answer, especially the last question, how could all this happen without God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric H

That is a good starting point.



I can accept this.



If you have a population of one thousand, and one in that population has a lens that is 0.01% better than the rest. How does that stand out from the crowd?

At the same time, does this one individual have optic nerves, a brain, limbs, muscles and tendons that also have an increased 0.01% advantage? The incremental improvement in the eye lens is only as good as the weakest link. If the muscles do not have a 0.01% advantage, every other improvement becomes void.

This would need to happen 1829 times.



No worries. I have looked over the years and not found anything very helpful. I think you will find more for yourself by sitting by your pond and reflecting on the questions.



You still have the opportunity to change any of these questions, if you feel they do not apply. If the questions are valid, then they do deserve an answer, especially the last question, how could all this happen without God?

---

Yeah your questions are valid,

If 1 a population of 1000 has better eyesight than the other 999, then that 1 has a slightly increased chance of seeing a predator, therefore a slightly decreased chance of being eaten, which leads to an increase chance of livening long enough to procreate, which will pass that mutation along in the gene pool in a higher number

Except the last one

How could this happen without god ?
Since you can’t demonstrate that there is a god, then a god cannot be a candidate explanation for anything.

But if I were to accept “ a god” as a candidate explanation,

Then you would have to define what a god is,
Then you would have to give reasons why we should use your definition of what a god is and not someone else’s definition.

Do you think the fact that you have to define what a god is raises a problem ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

Yeah your questions are valid,

---

Ok, if the questions are valid, you don't seem to have taken them into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalks75

If 1 a population of 1000 has better eyesight than the other 999, then that 1 has a slightly increased chance of seeing a predator,

---

If the one in the population had a lens three percent better than the 999, I can see how this might possibly work. Because the lens has to advance 1,829 times to go from no eye to a good eye, the improvements can only be around 0.01 % increased vision than the 999. If the good eyed fish has a deficient limb, the eye has little advantage, it could have a disease and die before giving birth, it could still be in the wrong place at the wrong time with a predator. The optic nerves, brain, limbs, may not have evolved to take advantage of the 0.01% advantage the eye has given.

If the predators eyes do not increase at a similar rate of 0.01%, they will not be able to survive. All this has to happen 1829 times for the eyes to evolve in both the predator and the prey. I am only talking about the species that rely on their eyes, and not the ones who have developed other sensory aids.

I think my last question was the most important, how could all this happen without God? When you take God out of the equation, we want the science to explain how all this could happen in a natural way.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric H

Ok, if the questions are valid, you don't seem to have taken them into account.



If the one in the population had a lens three percent better than the 999, I can see how this might possibly work. Because the lens has to advance 1,829 times to go from no eye to a good eye, the improvements can only be around 0.01 % increased vision than the 999. If the good eyed fish has a deficient limb, the eye has little advantage, it could have a disease and die before giving birth, it could still be in the wrong place at the wrong time with a predator. The optic nerves, brain, limbs, may not have evolved to take advantage of the 0.01% advantage the eye has given.

If the predators eyes do not increase at a similar rate of 0.01%, they will not be able to survive. All this has to happen 1829 times for the eyes to evolve in both the predator and the prey. I am only talking about the species that rely on their eyes, and not the ones who have developed other sensory aids.

I think my last question was the most important, how could all this happen without God? When you take God out of the equation, we want the science to explain how all this could happen in a natural way.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

---

You can’t just assert a god exists then offer it as an explanation,

“ a god” cannot be a candidate explanation unless you can demonstrate a god exists.

To ask “ how could this happen without a god” is to assume a god exists .
It’s begging the question


Because the lens has to advance 1,829 times to go from no eye to a good eye,

I’m not sure what you mean by a good eye,
Any improvement over you competitors is an advantage, no matter how slight.
Meaning subsequent generations will have that advantage.
Then the modified organism mutates again , and the process begins all over again
So in a few generations small improvements mount up, to big improvements.

Would I be correct