is it absured to you as an atheist being smug literally asking us to bring it on?
You post, uncredited, an article that runs to 47 pages (Dermott J. Mullen's Probability of randomly assembling a primitive cell on earth)
Indeed, it was posted here more than once, you'd think the same folks demanding a source would just as easily use the search button. the same folks who ask me to summarize would bother reading other threads, where I have debated the exactsame in the most succinct fashion!
and then demand a "sentence by sentence" rebuttal? To analyse it and produce a full response, 'refutation' or otherwise, would take days even for an expert in the field and as far as I'm aware we have no such person here.
We have plenty of molecular biologists here. Br. Mustafa is one, anyone who has had an under grad in biology will have branched over to molecular as part of their curriculum, I assume anyone who engages in the sciences in such an overt way on a public forum, has at least some base level knowledge of the subject! Further if you actually take the time to read the article, you'd see it written in a language that everyone can understand. You lay here on the biggest information source all day, I see it rather easy to look up any term that is difficult for you to comprehend
You can't even be bothered to summarise the article into a format that might be both readable in less than an evening and a fit subject for discussion by what you know is a non-specialist audience, so why should anyone put in the effort needed to reply? How long did it take to cut n'paste - 30 seconds?
What would you like summarized exactly if the whole article is in fact a summary. Even early fossils that are used as examples we are linked to them, if you'd actually bothered to read!
Took me 30 seconds indeed to post but took me a good four days to read it.
I don't need to be answered back with the usual quips. I find it rather hilarious the lot of you go on and on about how every theistic argument has been refuted and yet have the audacity to sit here asking us who in our midst is an expert in the field!
Mind you in no where in the article does he mention God. He simply speaks of the assembly of a primitive cell composed of even smaller peptides than that used in viruses (which on a side note aren't considered living organisms) as they need a host to actually function. but even with that going into the simplest that could have been assembled by mere chance, using our eldest known fossils, comparing it to the life of this earth, to that of first crude life to the complex forms we have today.. I couldn't possibly make it any simpler than that, nor can he be more precise than what he has written.
The irony is, not one of you, NOT ONE has actually bothered addressed the article. You have all engaged us in a nice dance with anything but the actual topic.
That is fine, and I am not looking for a reply, simply because I know how the lot of you function, you'll either go get an article from the web like you've done with the paper on evolution from physics stand point to attack the character of the scientist defending his thesis, rather than actually take the time to read, understand and see if your own mind can pick the flaws or accolades, or link us to wikipedia or simply attack the person posting.. yet by same token, have the temerity to come here on an Islamic forum of all places and dicate to its folks how they are living in some ice age.
Bottom line of this, is please get off your high horses. You want to be an atheist no one is holding a gun to your head to be anything else. I rather think the people who sway you here, do it to be inviting and humanistic, wanting to share with others what they know and love. I can think of no other reason of extending the da3wa to someone. certainly no one gets paid for it... For me I frankly couldn't care less where the lot of you rot!
cheers!
eace:
