A Question which Atheists could not answer

[tearose]

We've already taken that on

Not to worry sis, I already thought better of replying to this thread again anyway. Actually I don't know why these kind of debates are allowed on the forum. Just sorry I let myself get drawn into this one.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

As i said before, I am not trying to disprove God and I don't see believe in TOE as being incompatible with belief in God. As you will know yourself, many people do believe both in God, and TOE.

If evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of God, I am not sure what purpose this discussion serves. There are so many questions that atheists need to ask themselves - such as life supposedly originating from non-life, perhaps they should busy themselves with those. It is those dilemmas that defy logic, not belief in God.

 

[Karl]

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 ...

Yes and if life did evolve wouldn't humans get smarter? But people seem to be getting more stupid. They just can't grasp simple logic anymore, they just push their barrow with wishful thinking and pseudoscience. At least the necromancers in the medieval times trying to turn lead into gold had the wisdom to believe in creation. Personally I think it is all politics not science, part of the "win the hearts and minds" policy. Mind control is very Important in global imperialism, "believe the scientists, we are the way". Why do they badger creationists so much? The religion of evolution is trying to grind us down. And where do all the roads lead to on this belief war? The United Nations liberal leftist Zionists that's where.

 

[Independent]

If evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of God, I am not sure what purpose this discussion serves.

Because although most scientists don't see the connection, most Muslims do (so it would seem). i wish people could talk about evolution without getting so emotional yet since the first day Darwin published his book, it and he have been subject to massive attack. Now it's just a battleground with bad behaviour from both sides.

 

[Independent]

Yes and if life did evolve wouldn't humans get smarter?

They manifestly have been. Even recently (in evolutionary terms) if we look at Neanderthals and Denisovans (who I guess now have to be considered 'human' by creationists) have become extinct because they were not clever enough to change their behaviour to cope with new challenges, whether climactic or otherwise.

 

[Independent]

I already thought better of replying to this thread again anyway. Actually I don't know why these kind of debates are allowed on the forum. Just sorry I let myself get drawn into this one.

I think you would have found it a difficult task - most of the things I listed are not disputed by most Creationists (except Young Earthers).

It remains the case that no one has offered a rationale for Creationism in terms of: why does the world have all the appearances and characteristics of a TOE world, unless it is actually produced by TOE? How can this fit with the idea of a God who is just, fair and logical? I can't find an answer to this, even on Creationist sites. They're all to busy attacking TOE.

 

[wizra]

if we look at Neanderthals and Denisovans

We can't. That was millions years ago. Your problem is that you believe in the word of scientists more than the word of God, because you are addicted to doing what you want and you don't want to humble yourself to God.

Why do athiests even care about the origin of the universe and life? I mean since you're an advanced ape, you eat and sleep, live and die, and it's all over. Why waste your precious time memorizing what scientists you've never met are saying?! Seems like you aren't even comfortable with their shaky unstable nonsense theories.

You have some weird list of questions or challenges, all based on principles you and your scientists aren't even certain about. Even if they were answered, you'll find more issues and you'll continue to raise more doubt and be more skeptical. The problem is in your head, this so-called science hasn't availed you of anything except uncertainty and loss.

 

[M.I.A.]

the thing about toe is that to make any valid arguments against it, one would need a really thorough understanding of it.

and at that point most people stop biting the hand that feeds them.

or cover up its failings by misdirection.


the hardest thing to change about ourselves and others are our core beliefs.


its a cynical view and the opposite angle is that evolution is nearly always an imperfect journey.. no matter the topic.

(politics, science, religion, ethics, economics.. the list goes on)

without moving forward you just get better at what you do.

but who's to say thats a bad thing.



its very hard to deny the empirical evidence, but you would be a fool not to notice how complexity increases as you take into account other factors.. its always crude in hindsight..

although it may still have been the truth.

 

[جوري]

barrow with wishful thinking and pseudoscience

Yup and it is unfortunate that even the pseudo-science they subscribe to is so antiquated.. if you look around these ten pages, there's no more than two lines of science that can't be proven and 90% assertions of nonsense!
If they don't have this unfortunately their own belief system comes unraveled so they'll have to reexamine their position.

 

[RedGuard]

If something can't be proven, then it can't be disproven. The whole argument becomes nn scientific then.

Ok, back to the discussion.
In one of your [psts you stated that we share 97% of our DNA with fruit flies... The problem is that giving such arguments without proper explaination is worthless. There are genes whose only function is to trigger other genes, others may trigger more genes etc.. Second - there are various allelic variations of a given gene. So small differences in the genotype can cause huge differences in the phenotype. Dogs all have almost the same DNA but theiy come in different colors and sizes as we know.

Thrid - fruit flies have only about 15000 genes while humans have 20-25000 so if the similarity is 97% as yous ay, this accounts only for about 60% of common genes.

 

[جوري]

The problem is that giving such arguments without proper explaination is worthless

lol.. if we get down to the nitty gritty of genes then even mere organ donations will pose a dilemma on HLA matching and typing even from Allografts, this is a complete science of its own and utterly unrelated to the topic of speciation.
Do you think if you string words together from a google search that you can fool people here?
Again, stick with the main mechanism which you propose as means for speciation and you have already admitted that the same means for adaptation are the ones for speciation so use them to give us instead of adapted organ systems, new creatures all together!

best,

 

[RedGuard]

Define a "new creature". Do you mean an organism unable to cross with it's ancestors and other descendants of this ancestor? Chromosome fusion in humans is one example. There is a model (I forgot it's name but I know that it was named after three scientists) showed that changes in as little as two genes is required for them to no longer be recombinable with each other.

 

[جوري]

Define a "new creature".

Not a difficult concept so let's not descend down to word play. Start with abiogenesis or pan spermia and work your way up to fully functional noetic being with higher reticular function across millions of species. I have already discussed chromosomal fusion btw unless you consider things like cancer or down syndrome a new species.

best,

 

[sister herb]

Salam alaykum

Does anyone still thinks that kind of discussion will lead to any sensible solution? Or that it just continues forever with genes of what ever?

;D

I would ask to close this endless one.

 

[Independent]

We can't. That was millions years ago.

Yes we can - read back in the thread. Neanderthals and Denisovans died out relatively recently and we now have actual dna from their remains. Sufficient to know that they were closely enough related for us to interbreed, but different enough for them to become extinct where we survived.

 

[Independent]

You have some weird list of questions or challenges, all based on principles you and your scientists aren't even certain about.

The list of questions or principles I've given are mostly not disputed even by Creationists, except by Young Earthers. Most Creationists seem to be obsessed by attacking TOE and looking for flaws. They assume that creationism can't be tested and is therefore safe from any challenge, except in scriptural terms.

However, I believe that Creationism can in fact be tested against some sets of objective criteria in the same way as TOE, to see which gives the more complete account of the real world as we can see it.

The disputed areas of TOE lie mostly in the mechanism. Hence these endless sterile statistical debates with the same old articles getting posted. The most they can prove is that our current understanding of the mechanism is insufficient, which is not exactly controversial, and does not disprove TOE.

However, TOE did not develop out of statistics, but out of real world observations in biology, geology and paleontology. These need to be explained by Creationists. I think it's very hard to do that without ending up with the kind of God that would be better suited to a Terry Pratchett novel - an ironic God.

 

[جوري]

The list of questions or principles I've given are mostly not disputed even by Creationists

The disputed areas of TOE lie mostly in the mechanism.

statistical syllogism, appeals to authority, appeals to popularity and every fallacy in between, but when it comes down to the heart of the matter, especially a matter concerned with science, sadly the science is missing and we've to substitute large gaps for their beliefs!

 

[Independent]

Nope, God created and fashioned me in the best of forms

So, how do you explain our dna-proven relationship with Neanderthals, Denisovans and the third unidentified species (supposed to be homo erectus)?

 

[جوري]

So, how do you explain our dna-proven relationship with Neanderthals

I have already stated and multiple times to someone who complains of repeats you sure don't exert any effort reading, there is very little genetic variance between us and any species - simply these are the building blocks of our universe..
the alphabet from whence all words are made...
Reflect on these words as I truly have tired of repeating myself, 11 pages could have been summed up in two sentences. You can't prove what you say with actual science so you force your beliefs down our throats with every pathetic and weak ammo you've by way of logical fallacies.
Subscribe to your beliefs no one is holding a gun to your head and take a hike!

best,

 

[Independent]

I have already stated and multiple times to someone who complains of repeats you sure don't exert any effort reading, there is very little genetic variance between us and any species

You really don't get it, do you? I can scarcely believe that this is your answer. You plainly have no understanding of the significance of the recent recovery of ancient dna. I guess this must be because you haven't bothered to read about it.

What is the point of you contributing to these debates from a position of such profound ignorance?

It's impossible to have a proper debate with you unless you make at least a modicum of effort - especially in an area that is supposed to be your specialist subject, although at this stage, that's also very difficult to believe.