Allah and Camouflage...(Atheists!!,Agnostics!! and seculars!!)

[guyabano]

Its obvious that Atheists have nothing to say

Oh boy ! ;D

But you know its a debate and its a fact that the answer is false

What fact is false? Is that your opinion or can you give me some links where you can show me, I'm wrong !

I didn't mean to offend you personally

But you did, by telling that all what I said is false, but fact is many people deliver you a load of proofs, but instead of proving any reasonable answer, you simply pretend, its false ! That's too easy.
I think, you live in Lala-Land !

Its not only my point of view as you mentioned , no its the only Vaild point of view...My friend your life as an Atheists is resting on a myth...WAKE UP , DON"T WRONG YOURSELF.

And again, I never mentionned anywhere, I'm an Atheist. The only ones who live on myths and strange believes are those who really think, there is a creator, a God.
Now, in order to make yourself more ridiculous, why you simply don't go to a forum about chemistry/biology and ask your question there. I will even look for you to find one. But I guess, you will not have the guts to go there.

Now, I know you like to have the last word, that's why I will grant it to you.
I'm definetely out of this thread, as there is nothing to proof anymore.

 

[Palamoon]

Athiest need to seriously wake up. Anyone who's athiest is saying they have no place on this earth. I laugh at that.

 

[wilberhum]

Athiest need to seriously wake up. Anyone who's athiest is saying they have no place on this earth. I laugh at that.

Why do you think athiests are saying "they have no place on this earth"? :-\
So if athiests say that where do they think they should go? :rollseyes

Or you just a newbee blowing smoke? :?

 

[Isambard]

You dont need evolution to disprove Allah. It can simply be done by reviewing the ancient sources the whole Abrahamic came from

Either read Gilgamesh, or for the layman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(god)

Really, the current conceptualzation of 'God' follows the same sort of deal as that of 'dragons'

 

[Md Mashud]

Both evolutionists and scientists are agreed on this point: Evolution is a religion, and it must be accepted by faith. This is science vs. evolution; this is the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

The theory of evolution - it is based on several fundamentals (I belive its 4) - the underlying importance of these 4 fundamentals is, only the last one is based on observation, while the former 3 are based on beleif/idea. Btw we are not talking about adaptations or those ancient fossils - Modification in species are known as micro-evolution, but thats not really evolution to be honest. None the less, its macroevolution that is the main tangent for arguement.

Somewhat, believing in evolution does not have more weight then belief in God - because neither have been observed (e.g. macroevolution) but people believe it occured due to reasons X Y Z. Similarly, due to the nature of the Universe, one may conclude that another nature of existane other than that of the matter we see - must exist to make this Universe exist. The argument "Then god must have a creator" is a bit cheeky, in that, God is not thought of being bounded by this Universes laws and act on its matter - As we humans and everything material that we see would have to abide by.

How much evolution can do? I have read some extracts, some people strongly believe that behaviour and morales are derived through natural selection/evolution. Now, their is no scientific evidence for it, and you can't disprove it (well I can't anyway, similarly how no one can disprove God) - so it is somewhat a faith-based belief.

Then we go on arguement - Why is their a needer of a designer/divine being if natural selection/evolution explains how X went to Y? Well, the thing is, this arguement is a bit pointless. Imagine I dropped a pen, from the air - it goes to hit the floor - accelerating at 9.8m/s². I argue, the pen fell due to the force of gravity - hence God's interference was not needed for this pen to fall. Hence God doesn't exist. This is how I see the evolution arguement, even if evolution was to explain all creations, as with natural selection - how does that contradict the existance of God?

Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator.

Evolution/Natural selection/Eternal cyclical universe/multiverse - all are highly faith/theory based. Facts should mould theories and not the other way around. Hence you could say Atheism is somewhat religious - except without a God .

As for the OP, cool stuff .

Isaambard, I don't know whats all that mallarchy about - but I don't see anything to disprove God. Gods existance can't be disproven. If you choose not to believe in God, thats another issue :skeleton:

 

[Isambard]

MD....honestly...you need more "faith" to believe in gravity than you do in evolution. The folks disagreeing with it have religious/ideological reasons for deceiving others or are idiots (see Hovind for both).

 

[Md Mashud]

I disagree with you needing more faith to believe in gravity than macro evolution.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ i also disagree

 

[ranma1/2]

You must have faith to believe in the theory gravity

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Enlarge Image Evangelical

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

 

[ranma1/2]

Both evolutionists and scientists are agreed on this point: Evolution is NOT a religion, and it must be accepted by due to evidence.

ID is not science. They have no evidence.


Macro evolution is micro evolution over a longer time period. To put it another way. You walk a mile one step at a time.

Evolution has been observed.
God has not.


there is evidence to suggest that "morals" and behaviors have "evolved"

There is scientific evidence for evolution again. "fossils, dna etc...."
And once again. None for god.

Evolution makes no comment on a creator or pink invisible unicorns. Its typically religious individuals that hate evo and are blind to evidence.

Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis.


Evolution/Natural selection/Eternal cyclical universe/multiverse - all are scientific theories, unlike ID. These are based on actual evidence.

 

[Isambard]

I disagree with you needing more faith to believe in gravity than macro evolution.

The term "macro evolution" is entirely definitional. Its just alot of evolution on the micro level. Where you deem it macro evolution is based entirely on opinion and not on some sort of magic pt where it without question enters macro evolution.

Its just a weak arguement to mislead people thru the use of word play really.

As for morality evolving, well, pretty much all k-species have the same emotions, similar interactions, hiarchies, (in the case of chimps and apes) same body language, and they even fight wars/kill for sport.

There is really nothing special in that regard to humans except they are superior at destruction then his hairy cousins.

 

[wilberhum]

Both evolutionists and scientists are agreed on this point: Evolution is a religion, and it must be accepted by faith. This is science vs. evolution; this is the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts........................

That is one of the most ridicules things I have ever read.

Can you point to any scientist that says “Evolution is a religion”? ffended:

I surly think not.

Well many be a Computer Scientist that doesn’t have a clue about evolution.:uuh:

 

[Md Mashud]

Macro evolution is micro evolution over a longer time period

False.

Evolution has been observed.
God has not.

False, only microevolution has been observed. Microevolution leading to macroevolution is a factless theory. Fact.

Can you point to any scientist that says “Evolution is a religion”?

Usually scientists who disregard macroevolution. But their are those who believe in it - and if you read on the theories presented by them - you will find several of the fundamental points of their theory are totally factless but just a theory - kind of like "what if"?

There is scientific evidence for evolution again. "fossils, dna etc...."

Not for macro my friend.

Evolution/Natural selection/Eternal cyclical universe/multiverse - all are scientific theories, unlike ID. These are based on actual evidence.

Is this why that even Stephen Hawkins discredited the idea of multiverse/eternal cyclical universe? Too many people think, just because a scientist made a theory - it must be scientific. One arguement put by was "We don't know whats inside black holes, their could be another universe in it" - this to me isn't scientific, rather an observation/hypothesis.

You must have faith to believe in the theory gravity

If I can see gravity working directly, why do I need faith to believe its existance?

there is evidence to suggest that "morals" and behaviors have "evolved"

False, they are assumptions.

Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis.

Makes no difference.

And once again. None for god.

If the existance of matter such as universe - bound by such strict laws (especially energy), it would only be rational that somthing must exist which is not bound by this strict laws/material behaviour, for rational to be that this could exist in the first place. To me that is a great evidence, the existance of the Universe.

Evolution makes no comment on a creator

Yep, they did somthing more silly, described a process, without means, without explanation of the pre-material existance that must have existed for that process to even begin. In another words, somthing came from nothing.

Before you say "where did god come from then?" - God isn't bound by this universe/laws, who said anything about being needed to be created/transferred into existance outside this realm that we believe as Universe?

 

[maroon1]

Evolution is not a religion because it is based on evidence


There are many fossil evidence for Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Neanderthal were species of the Homo genus. We share about 99.5% of their DNA. However, mtDNA analysis proved that we and the Neanderthal are two different species.

 

[wilberhum]

Where of where did my dino go?

 

[Md Mashud]

There are many fossil evidence for Evolution

Micro

All this monkey/neanderthal to human is not via evidence - its just by spread microevolution hypothetical macro evolution model. Its just a theory, just like some have different modules of how the Universe is - like some believe it started via big bang, other that their was no bigbang, some that their is a bubbly/cyclical etc. All of them have equal weight but none are scientific.

Where of where did my dino go?

I ate it .

 

[wilberhum]

Md Mashud,
I can't believe you ate the whole thing.

But simple people, like me, have simple questions.

We have dino bones going back 75 million years ago.
But we don't fine 75 million year old elephant bones.

To day there are no dinos, but we have elephants.

Can you explain?

Did god just drop by and deliver some elephants?
If so, why did the change the design of the African from the Asian?

I just can't figure out those little problems. Can you help?

 

[Md Mashud]

I hope you don't think Dinasaurs became fish or Elephants ?

 

[wilberhum]

I hope you don't think Dinasaurs became fish or Elephants ?

I don't know. Where did fish and elephants come from?

Maybe dinasaurs came from fish.

Did god just drop by and deliver them?
If so, why did the change the design of the African elephant from the Asian? :skeleton:

 

[Md Mashud]

Quran is not a science book, so it won't explain and is not deemed to explain all creations. According to some people, it does reference to dinasaurs at

"Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which God Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise. (The Noble Quran, 2:164)"

"He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs. (The Noble Quran, 31:10)"

Quran does not in detail explain how he sent us to earth - how he created dinasaur or why he made them extinct. I have heard that Dinasaurs were destroyed by Allah. It would explain it being test - One atheist was complaining in a debate that why God did not provide full details of everything? He said he was not content with the information to guide him to religion or God. However, statistics proved him wrong, seeing as majority of people do believe in God. What does he want? God to give him the answer paper to this test, life? Wouldn't that destroy the meaning of the test? Faith/openminded is a quality required indeed.

At the same time, it doesn't hide everything, alot of things are mentioned in the Quran - and statements - to challenge the readers.