A Question which Atheists could not answer

[جوري]

I'm asking you to explain your beliefs, not mine

This is not a thread on my beliefs, hence the title, if you're confused then start another thread!

But I know from past experience that you are incapable of straying off your stock responses

Unfortunately you're often lost that any explanation is a waste of effort, you are not only linear but also condescending and your type of people are dogmatic and militant, renders everything a waste of effort.

Even your insults are repeats.

That's actually quite amusing coming from you. Do you read your own redundant queries and the responses given throughout? Even in the previous thread I linked to your writing here is a regurgitant of that - if you're not satisfied with what you receive try two things
1- Get new material
2- Try to actually read what folks have written so there will be no need for folks to repeat themselves.. btw on psychological exams repeated questions are posed (I imagine your writing here is a petty attempt at that) and only those who have wavering beliefs, those who are hypocrites and liars swerve on their responses and that is how they're caught in the act...
Try to stick with a principle and you won't find it very hard to understand why when you say TOE TOE TOE on multiple threads you get the same responses from the earth sciences that we've observed...

best,

 

[sugaray21]

OK, I probably shouldn't bite, but I'm going to.

The guys asks "Can you point to something I can observe that proves evolution" the answer is yes, the fossil record - several million years ago we see... And he cuts them off and says "I can't observe that".

Did you see the prophet Mohammed? With your own eyes? Did your parents see him? Your grandparents? No? Well, then how can you believe he existed, let alone that his teachings are true?

I'm an atheist - but I believe Mohammed existed. Why? Historic record. It seems pretty indisputable that Mohammed existed. But I didn't see him. Did you? I don't think so.

Did I see him myself? No. But you have a record of his existence, which you can believe - like there is a fossil record.

I also believe in the battle of Hastings. And the existence of Neanderthals. And Dinosaurs. None of which I've seen first hand.

Why do you think this guy's argument is a good one? It's absolute nonsense. If I were religious, I would be embarrassed that people like this were fighting my corner.

You should bite. That's what we're here for. To engage in healthy debate. I don't see why people have to get so heated though. When you mention the fossil record - that is absolute concrete evidence of evolution of various species. No one can deny that. But do those fossils prove, even a tiny bit, that us humans have directly come from monkeys or fish?

 

[sugaray21]

I mean, fossils are evidence of adaptation of species over time, to suit their environment. Is there evidence to say we are connected to monkeys or fish, I'm just curious. For example, we know Muhammed existed because the records prove it. There is untold evidence for this of which there are no contradictions and hundreds and hundreds of different men who have written about him since he came around, so unless these hundreds and hundreds of men conspired together over the last 1400 years to fabricate the story of muhammed and all the details of his life of which there are no major contradictions, and somehow they managed to get it right down to the tiniest detail, then it probably is true if you see what I mean. But fossils are not evidence of us coming from monkeys or fish, they don't prove that, they prove that different species adapted over time.

 

[RedGuard]

Back tot the common descent:
This is just a brief list of things that prove common descent of humans and apes:

1. Vitamic C production.
Almost all animals can syntethize their own Vitamin C, the only exception being some species of fruit bats, Guinea pigs and higher primates (old world monkeys and new world monkeys). One gene is simply faulty. However the mutation that caused it is different in Guinea pigs than in primates. The gene of anthropoid primates has lost seven of the twelve exons found in functional vertebrate gene, whereas the guinea pig has lost its first and fifth exon as well as part of its sixth exon.
More here ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/

More tomorrow as I am going to bed now, it's late. I would like mods to post images "Fig. (3)" and "Fig. (4)" of the mentioned paper as images in this post. I am unable to do this myself.

Fig. (3)
Phylogenetic distribution of the ability to synthesize vitamin C in mammals. Lineages able to synthesize vitamin C are in black, those incapable are in gray. The phylogenetic relationships are based on those in reference [63]. The complete species list, ...




Fig. (4)

Schematic representations (not to scale) of the GLO gene structure in anthropoid primates and in guinea pigs. Black boxes represent exons that are still found in the genome of these species whereas white boxes with an X represent deleted exons or exon ...

 

[Karl]

TOE gives what is so far the only consistent account of a wide range of observable evidence. I've yet to see anything else offered here. If you believe in creation by divine fiat, you need to explain that evidence in this context - and then we can consider whether your explanation really does make sense.

I think it is extremely difficult to account for this evidence without creating a different sort of God from the one you believe in.

Well that's very difficult as "God" is beyond my understanding and so is creation. Once in Chemistry the teacher said that "we can destroy things by heating them up until they burn but to reverse that process is beyond us". If you can create anything you like by manipulating matter at an atomic level then you would be a god. But you couldn't use a technological machine only will power.
There is a connecting feature in ancient pagan religions and the Abrahamic ones and this is The Chaos a time before creation a time before time an epoch of atomic mayhem. If you can go back to this epoch and observe and record what goes on, then you will have the knowledge and the proof to win your argument if your argument is correct. That would be the scientific way to do it, instead of using a jigsaw with lots of missing pieces and a lot of them look the same so you just bang them in where you think they should fit.

 

[جوري]

burn but to reverse that process is beyond us"

Indeed you can denature things but re-annealing them even if you managed won't give it form.. btw form in and of itself is a 'magical' thing simply putting the building blocks to a plant stalk (as an ex) together will not give it the shape that it has out in nature ...

 

[جوري]

This is just a brief list of things that prove common descent of humans and apes

As I said prior we share 50% of our genes with Bananas & 97~98% with drosophila - that doesn't denote common descent with fruits or bugs. there's very little genetic variance between any species in fact these are merely the building blocks of our universe!
Why do you people insist on repeating yourselves and yet can't do the science when requested of you? you'd rather 'sleep' or drink beer or become belligerent or accuse others of what actually ails you.. It is a conundrum why you continue to even post this nonsense and repeatedly!

 

[Independent]

Thanks for your responses Greenhill and Eric. I think the issue is a little harder than that. I'll try and put it briefly:


The total number of species today is estimated at about 8.7 billion. Perhaps 10 times as many are now extinct. Of those that have been discovered, 100% of them fit into the pattern predicted by TOE.

That means, they are in the right place geographically and the right layer geologically speaking. We never see, for instance, homo erectus remains in America, nor do we find them in a Jurassic layer.

Each individual feature (big evolutions like eyes and bones down to tiny details like Vitamin C deficiency as listed by Red Guard) also appear in the correct order 100% of the time.

This could not have happened by chance. The probability of this occurring vastly exceeds any statistics quoted against TOE by Dr Mullan or anyone else.

For that reason, I'm describing this world as a 'Lookalike TOE world'. It looks exactly as you would expect if TOE were correct, whether or not it is actually true.


For Creationists, this has a major consequence. If God created the species in this way, then He must have done so intentionally.

Why?

What kind of God would deliberately create evidence for TOE, knowing full well it would deceive millions, and then hold it against the very people who were taken in by it? Why bother? This isn't a trial, it's a trick or a trap.

Such a God is not compatible with either the Muslim or Christian God. Not believing in TOE leads Christians and Muslims in an internal contradiction with their own religion.

Therefore, it makes logical sense from observable reality that TOE is correct, and continuous creation by divine fiat wrong.

 

[Independent]

When you mention the fossil record - that is absolute concrete evidence of evolution of various species. No one can deny that. But do those fossils prove, even a tiny bit, that us humans have directly come from monkeys or fish?

It's thought that only about 1% of creatures have left any trace in the fossil record. That record would be skewed against soft flesh creatures and certain habitats. So, it's like reading an immensely long book with 99 pages missing in every 100.

Also, unlike in Darwin's day, we now know that there are many more confusing side branches which haven't necessarily survived (eg Neanderthals and Denisovans for humans). So although we can say, for instance, that a Neanderthal fossil is a human-like species, we couldn't be sure that we are descendants of Neanderthals specifically.

For this reason, although we can see very general changes (ie single cell creatures up to humans etc) we can't be sure if one individual species directly relates to the next.

 

[greenhill]

Independent,

There is another thread on islam and evolution just posted. Quite long. What would be your comments there? Really, I am not well researched on this subject as what you correctly say, it's a 'Lookalike TOE World whether or not it is actually true'.

But now I am getting a picture of what you are driving at and it is encapsulated by -

Why?

What kind of God would deliberately create evidence for TOE, knowing full well it would deceive millions, and then hold it against the very people who were taken in by it? Why bother? This isn't a trial, it's a trick or a trap.

The thing is TOE as you say seems very plausible in light of the 1 page in every 100 but a very long story indeed so that you are able to 'see' a story line. But could that be called evidence. The 'creation' aspects could happen anywhere in the missing 99 pages, though.

Peace :shade:

 

[جوري]

This could not have happened by chance

The probability of this occurring

Really? You are speaking of chance and probability now, when the 'Chance and probability' was already laid out on the line and you have already dismissed it?
pray do tell of the statistics. I'll be waiting and I expect it to be on a level not your usual mindless drivel!

It looks exactly as you would expect if TOE were correct

Again, in what way?
List the mechanisms (atomic, biochemical, physiological) processes and how they occurred to give TOE.
I don't think anyone here is interested in your assertions..
Even if I am to accept the 'Vit C deficiency' without any counfounders and there are always confounders the mere fact that the study is retrospective is already a confounder, then what does it mean? again, so what? I have already stated and repeatedly, there's not much genetic variance between us and any other species in the world...
As to why God creates, well God says it best,

[FONT=Verdana,arial] Al-Nour [24:45]

[SIZE=+2]وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَ كُلَّ دَابَّةٍ مِن مَّاء فَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى بَطْنِهِ وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى رِجْلَيْنِ وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَمْشِي عَلَى أَرْبَعٍ يَخْلُقُ اللَّهُ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/24/24_45.gif
​

​

WaAllahu khalaqa kulla dabbatin min main faminhum man yamshee AAala batnihi waminhum man yamshee AAala rijlayni waminhum man yamshee AAala arbaAAin yakhluqu Allahu ma yashao inna Allaha AAala kulli shayin qadeerun​

24:45 And Allah has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things.


Quite simply God creates whatever God wants to create. You're not the most important creature and sometimes certain humans of their behavior are actually lesser beings than animals.. what is your point on a thread about questions atheists couldn't answer to constantly seek to bring theists in.. the answer is actually quite simple with us, it doesn't concern why or how God creates. We only deal with the physical and existing laws, we don't replicate them and we couldn't replicate them even with all the clunky machines and ego the size of yours!

best,​

[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[tearose]

Independent, the problem with the points a to n that you want everyone to answer is that most are based on flawed assumptions about how you think the world and its creation ought to be. Some of the points actually contradict what you say elsewhere. For example you are complaining that there are no fossils of humans larger in stature or living to an old age, yet you say

It's thought that only about 1% of creatures have left any trace in the fossil record

The theory of evolution is just that: a man-made theory which is very much of our time and which has changed many times. There is no need to give it such a status that we have to define our beliefs and our understanding of the Creator according to it.

 

[Independent]

There is another thread on islam and evolution just posted. Quite long. What would be your comments there?

I'll have a look later, no time just now.

The thing is TOE as you say seems very plausible in light of the 1 page in every 100 but a very long story indeed so that you are able to 'see' a story line. But could that be called evidence. The 'creation' aspects could happen anywhere in the missing 99 pages, though.

If all species have been created by divine fiat, there is no reason for them to occur in the general order of simple to complex that we see. There is no reason for God to apparently 'invent' a particular characteristic, and then utilise it elsewhere. The world simply doesn't look like what would be expected, if it were all by divine fiat.

It does match what we would expect from TOE. In a sense, you could even argue that it doesn't mater if it was created by God or by TOE. The fact is, it looks and behaves as if it were a TOE world.

However, we might as well teach TOE as science if it fits all observable data anyway.

 

[Independent]

For example you are complaining that there are no fossils of humans larger in stature or living to an old age, yet you say

Creationists frequently criticise TOE for alleged gaps in the fossil record, so I'm just throwing it back. In the case of 90ft men and very long lived men, there isn't just a gap - there is nothing at all. Never mind transitional fossils - just nothing! Yet such huge creatures would have very large bones. Also, there is no archaeological record of tools, houses etc.

(Also, 90 ft men are impossible for reasons of physics. You can't just scale up human beings to that height, they wouldn't be able to move.)

flawed assumptions about how you think the world

Which assumptions do you think are flawed and why?

 

[observer]

The theory of evolution is just that: a man-made theory which is very much of our time and which has changed many times. There is no need to give it such a status that we have to define our beliefs and our understanding of the Creator according to it.

Everything in science is a theory. The theory of gravity is probably less well understood than that of evolution, but you don't question it - you accept what it says as fact. The theory governing the movement of the electrons which make your computer work is full of holes - yet that doesn't stop you using a computer. Only with evolution do we hear "It's just a theory". Every single "fact" in science is a theory. Every one.

If there is a god, he made the universe according to certain rules. Why, then, can we not uncover those rules?

Independent has said several times that evolution does not finish off god - yet it seems to scare the religious more than anything else.

 

[tearose]

Creationists frequently criticise TOE for alleged gaps in the fossil record, so I'm just throwing it back

Ok, so that point wasn't actually about any issue you have with direct creation, it was just an indirect way of criticizing the arguments used by others. That's a bit misleading to include it in your list like that.

Which assumptions do you think are flawed and why?

In sha Allah I will respond to the points individually later on.

 

[RedGuard]

Add into this that there is no other theory that can rivall TOE. TOE presents claims and backs them with evidence while creation "science" never presents any testable hypotheses about creation, not to mention backing them. Everything it does consists of either attacking TOE or inventing canards against evolutionists.

 

[جوري]

Add into this that there is no other theory that can rivall TOE.

Any theory that is reproducible rivals TOE..
I don't understand the lot of you acting like yes men to one another and yet can't explain the most basic of concepts nor have you a comprehensible account for the tough questions. What are you doing here exactly?

 

[جوري]

In sha Allah I will respond to the points individually later on.

We've already taken that on. We've listed the mutations and the breaks of DNA as their only proposed mechanisms of TOE to give us said 'Speciation' They've not been able to prove that said method brings anything outside of disease or death or again nothing in the case of silent mutations..
Then that fellow tells us we repeat ourselves.. well in fact what are they doing here but parroting assertions they can't prove or reproduce?
Then reference you to websites whose material they can't articulate and silly experiments that aren't seen through past phase I trials...

interesting truly when the ignorant speak to the masses as if authority figures!

 

[~Zaria~]