Atheism

[czgibson]

Greetings,

to the atheists: what happens after you die?

As far as we know, bodily putrefaction.

Peace

 

[root]

well, wich one is simpler
1. DNA, with a very complex structure formed spontanously out of lifeless matter consistent of difrent complex buildingblocks coincedentially positioning themselfs in the right order in a unfavourable enviroment.
2. Allah created life

I think this is very biased, Who says the environment was "unfavourable" and and who said the very first forms of DNA are "complex" and by what standard of complexity are you referring. It's not like Man or 90% of all living life with it's DNA complexity of today just came into being by creation. DNA itself tells us that this is just not the case, DNA itself tells a historical story that never used mans written words or chinese whispers such as the bible or Koran!

 

[HeiGou]

Would you rather believe that a human being created all this or a supreme being? I mean put religion aside (for now) and think about it.

There is no doubt that the world is beyond the ability of any person to create. But they are not the only options surely? No atheist thinks that a person created the world.

What is a more logical solution. I think Atheists are simply in denial. When asked the question what created all this you dont have an answer. And yes we do! The answer is God. Besides the undeniable evidence in the Quran that you can see in another thread on this forum, we also have faith. The thing is, if it was proven for all people on earth that God exists without a doubt then what would be the reason for living. Life is a test that we must pass. If God gave us all the answers to life, then rather than being a test, life would be more like a walkthrough.

The more logical solution is, I hate to say, trust in authority. The same people who can cure TB, who have abolished small pox, who have created the rich and prosperous world around us, have also created something that can shed light on the world - science. Is it logical to deny it in astronomy but not in medicine?

I have no problems with faith. I just do not like the overspill into science. If it was proven without a doubt God existed everyone would believe. It has not been.

Assuming there are problems that science cannot answer now. Who do you think is more likely to answer them in the future - scientists who have, after all, cured diseases, sent men to the Moon and made nuclear weapons, or witchdoctors/rabbis/priests/mullahs/whatever studying their religious texts who are not noted for their ability to shape the world we live in.

Religion. Science relies a lot on theories rather than facts. I do not think they will figure out how we came on earth unless they looked into religion.

Well you need to have faith in those theories!

 

[HeiGou]

to the atheists: what happens after you die?

I don't know, but it must be pretty darn good - no one comes back

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I'd say the first.

I'd repeat the same that someone told me before, occams razor isn't about preferance but rather about simple versus complicated. Now you can say as much as you want about sperm cells winning the race like winning a lotory ticket, the fact remains that the theory of abiogenesis is very complex and has a lot of probabilityfactors to consider, a lot of unlikely events and still there are holes in it.
Creation however, even though some people have a hard time accepting the probability of miracles is a very simple explenation. So according to occams razor is the correct one.

DNA has been observed, and we're beginning to understand how it works in some detail.

Allah has never been observed, and how he (supposedly) created life is a process we certainly don't understand. Both propositions involve life coming from non-life, so as far as simplicity goes, they are equal on that count. However, as I say, one of the subjects is observable; the other is not. Therefore, the proposition containing the observable agent is simpler.

How is our not understanding on a field relevant to the question of true and untrue? Rally? observable is simpler? Does a tree that fals in an isolated forest make any sound? Is a fact any less a fact when we do not witness it? And does any of this have anything to do with my point of occams razor being objective?

Incidentally, your clause about building blocks coincidentally positioning themselves in the right order commits the anthropic fallacy.

I think the antrophic fallacy is a very weak and biased argument, but that's a whole difrent discussion wich I don't think we should be getting into here. Aside from that there's no fallacy here. the antropic fallacy doesn't even apply here. Abigonesis is a very unlikely theory. Period. The antropic fallacy refers to factual data.
If I were to say that creation is prooven by the complexity of it (as if that complexity was a "signature" proving of the "signer" one could argue that the antrophic fallacy aplys. The gist of the argument is as following.

1. I look at data (fysiology)
2. I apreciate its complexity
3. I assume a design
4. I use that design as proof for creation because obviously reality followed the assumed design (as if against all ods)
5. An atheist assumes there is no design
6. An atheist claims luck is obvious
7. An atheist assumes that if ods would have turn out difrently it would be complex in another way
8. An atheist dismisses my apreciation of complexity as an overwhelming of information on the ignorant.

A very biased reasoning wich coincedentally again proves how both logic and occams razor can be very subjective.
However the argument doesn't apply here. Because here we aren't starting with factual data. Here we are looking at unproven theorys (abiogenesis) and pointing out the complexity, the unlikelyness and the holes that are in that theory the antrophic fallacy has nothing to say about that.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I think this is very biased, Who says the environment was "unfavourable" and and who said the very first forms of DNA are "complex" and by what standard of complexity are you referring. It's not like Man or 90% of all living life with it's DNA complexity of today just came into being by creation. DNA itself tells us that this is just not the case, DNA itself tells a historical story that never used mans written words or chinese whispers such as the bible or Koran!

Root, come on even a simple virus, wich is the most basic DNA string has a very complex structure.

By what standard of complexity? The chemical kind: Enthropy (S)

 

[root]

Originally Posted by cihad
to the atheists: what happens after you die?

A stunning reality is that for particular genes I am probably more related to some chimpanzees than to some humans and you are more closely related to some chimpanzees or to "your chimpanzees" than some humans. Humans as a species as well as humans as individuals are temporary vessels containing a mixture of genes from differing sources. We are just meeting points on the crisscrossing routes that genes take through history, when we have served our purpose we are simply casted aside as genes are denizons of geographical time genes are forever, our atoms even more so.

An itenerant selfish gene said "Bodies a-plenty I have seen. You think you are so clever but I will live forever, you are just the survival machine.

After death my Atoms will break down and form other complex structures, in billions of years from now the atoms that now form me may be part of a star somewhere in a galaxy, all traces of me gone and no doubt somewhere else in the universe will be a lifeform looking into the vastness of the universe thinking that all he sees was made "Just for them"

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Steve,

I don't think you've really understood very much of what I wrote last time.

I'd repeat the same that someone told me before, occams razor isn't about preferance but rather about simple versus complicated. Now you can say as much as you want about sperm cells winning the race like winning a lotory ticket, the fact remains that the theory of abiogenesis is very complex and has a lot of probabilityfactors to consider, a lot of unlikely events and still there are holes in it.
Creation however, even though some people have a hard time accepting the probability of miracles is a very simple explenation. So according to occams razor is the correct one.

As I mentioned, both of your two statements involve life being created from non-life, so they are equal in terms of simplicity on that score.

How is our not understanding on a field relevant to the question of true and untrue? Rally? observable is simpler? Does a tree that fals in an isolated forest make any sound? Is a fact any less a fact when we do not witness it? And does any of this have anything to do with my point of occams razor being objective?

I don't know what you're going on about here.

If I were to say that creation is prooven by the complexity of it (as if that complexity was a "signature" proving of the "signer" one could argue that the antrophic fallacy aplys. The gist of the argument is as following.

Not necessarily. You mentioned DNA consisting of building blocks coincidentally positioning themselves in the right order. Now, the universe and everything in it (including DNA), had to be organised in some way. It just happens that it's organised in this way. Since all possibilities are equally likely or equally unlikely, we shouldn't assume the system has been 'rigged' by some creator, the way things are is simply the way they happen to have turned out.

A very biased reasoning wich coincedentally again proves how both logic and occams razor can be very subjective.

But that's a slightly different argument to the one I'm using.

However the argument doesn't apply here. Because here we aren't starting with factual data. Here we are looking at unproven theorys (abiogenesis) and pointing out the complexity, the unlikelyness and the holes that are in that theory the antrophic fallacy has nothing to say about that.

Isn't creation an unproven theory too? One that you've said relies on miraculous events?

Peace

 

[root]

Not necessarily. You mentioned DNA consisting of building blocks coincidentally positioning themselves in the right order. Now, the universe and everything in it (including DNA), had to be organised in some way. It just happens that it's organised in this way. Since all possibilities are equally likely or equally unlikely, we shouldn't assume the system has been 'rigged' by some creator, the way things are is simply the way they happen to have turned out.

This is very much comparative with history and the benefit of hindsight. People say "history repeats itself" and if you look you will find a certain "pattern" to history. Role out the entire history for mankind spanning a mere 5,000 years and the very complex historical structure which going forward would bring you to modern day life to this very day, then one could easily claim that certain events (quite a lot actually) could never have occured by chance for it is too complex a pattern with too many intricate turns and twists within history to have occured by chance. DNA is similar to this, and again (and I made this point earlier). DNA is the unblemished historical record for mankind and lifes "history", not subjected to misinterpretation, hear say or chinese whispers nor translation errors. It's a rich tapistry of our history and like our own "social & evolutionary" history I don't believe Evolution took us on a course for us to pre-determinly be here any more than I believe that history and thus the future was pre-written!

CZGIBSON

My reference to Scientific Adam & Eve:

It's known as Mitochondrial Eve & Y Chromosonal Adam. But we have to appreciate four things:

1. It is important to undersatand that Adam & Eve are only two out of a multitude of MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) that we would each reach by going back through time. Each person would lead to a different MRCA. So the scientific Adam & Eve is the date in time that ALL of us today share common ancestory with.

2. Adam & Eve were not a couple, and they are parted in time by several thousand years

3. Adam and Eve have shifting honories, if tommorow some last outlying tribe elder was to die then Adam & Eve could be shifted forward a few thousand years.

4. Their is nothing "special" to single them out despite the name-sake

This considered along with Young Out of Africa Exodus & Old out of africa Exodus combined with today's best "Moleculor clock" estimates 140,000 years ago for Eve and only about 60,000 years ago for Adam. But as I said, different genes tell different stories when looking for MRCA.

We know through Archeology, that "the great leap" occured no more than 40,000 years ago so considering this Scientific Adam & Eve go back to a time when as a species we were hunter gatherers and thus on a constant migration from Africa.

CZGibson Isn't creation an unproven theory too?

No, Creationism/ID is not even a theory! hence we don't teach it in the science classroom.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

As I mentioned, both of your two statements involve life being created from non-life, so they are equal in terms of simplicity on that score.

Yes but one explanation of how this happened is complex while the other is simple.

I don't know what you're going on about here.

Well you suggested a theory or fact is “simpler” when observed. That doesn’t make sense. If you were actually saying that it’s more likely to be true because it’s based on observable facts then I have to points to raise.
1. It’s not based on observations it’s based on assumptions backed up with observations because noone observed evolution.
2. Creation is in the same way based on prophesy. So one isn’t that much different from another.

Not necessarily. You mentioned DNA consisting of building blocks coincidentally positioning themselves in the right order. Now, the universe and everything in it (including DNA), had to be organized in some way. It just happens that it's organized in this way. Since all possibilities are equally likely or equally unlikely, we shouldn't assume the system has been 'rigged' by some creator, the way things are is simply the way they happen to have turned out.

Your missing the point. Let me try to explain this again. If I were to believe this unlikely event actually took place, and suggest that because such an unlikely event did took place that this is evidence of creation then your counterargument would be acceptable. But I am simply questioning the reality of the theory, I’m questioning whether this actually is what happens based on the unlikely ness of the theory. Let me compare it this way:
You buy a box of LEGO for your kid, as you open the box you find out that the building blocks are already put together to form the toy you bought. Now a creationist is like someone who says: somebody probably opened the box and put it together while a evolutionist says that it came together by shaking it when transporting the box. Now the gist of it lies here: you can use the atrophic fallacy to counter me when I suggest someone took the box open and build the set, but you cannot use that argument when I point out that the evolutionist’s theory doesn’t make sense, and there obviously must be a different explanation (regardless of what that different explanation is)

Isn't creation an unproven theory too? One that you've said relies on miraculous events?

Sure it isn’t, but that doesn’t make any difference to the falseness of abiogenesis. And it doesn’t change the fact that the antrophic fallacy doesn’t apply to the argument I raised against abiogenesis.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings root,

No, Creationism/ID is not even a theory! hence we don't teach it in the science classroom.

Good point! It shouldn't be taught in the science classroom, but unfortunately in some schools it is...

Peace

 

[DaSangarTalib]

what you guys talkin about :? :?

and has no1 checked the following thread out

>> http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-poetry-video-audio/14642-collapse-atheism.html

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

what you guys talkin about :? :?

and has no1 checked the following thread out

>> http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-poetry-video-audio/14642-collapse-atheism.html

Do you really think Harun Yahya is going to convince anyone?

I've already watched that video and read those articles. The guy has absolutely no conception of how to build an argument, and most of his points fall flat straight away.

Peace

 

[cihad]

every one is for themselves in the end

and i hope that somehow you will be guided

if you wanna believe that you came from a chimpanzee how come there are still chimps around?

anywayz peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

every one is for themselves in the end

and i hope that somehow you will be guided

if you wanna believe that you came from a chimpanzee how come there are still chimps around?

anywayz peace

I don't believe I came from a chimpanzee. We share a common ancestor with them and most of our DNA, but that's different.

Peace

 

[root]

Good point! It shouldn't be taught in the science classroom, but unfortunately in some schools it is...

I agree and what a joke. A theory such as Evolution must exhibit certain key features to be called a theory, Creationism/ID fails in this key area:

1. Must be supported by many pieces of evidence.

ID is not supported by any evidence at all. And simply attempts to disprove evolution.

2. Make predictions that may be used to disprove it (i.e falsifiable)

It's not falsifiable in any way

3. Be correctable and dynamic

It's not correctable in anyway. You either have an intelligent designer or you don't.

4. Be based on natural explanations.

ID relies on supernatural beings

5 Be testable and verifiable

It is not testable.

ID/Creationism is nothing more than a sham pushed by charlatens. Here is a quote from the Discovery Institute (Main-stream ID)

"""From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review."""

OK. Now, lets look at some serious "Macro" - Evolution:

D. K. Belyaev and his colleagues took captive silver foxes ("Vulpes Vulpes") and set out systematically to breed for tameness. They succeeded, dramatically. By mating together the tamest individuals of each generation, Belyaev had within 20 years produced Fox's that behaved like border collies, actively seeking human company and wagging thier tales when approached. That is not very surprising though the speed may be. Less expected were the by products of selection for tameness. These genetically tamed fox's not only behaved like collies. They grew black & white coats with white face patches and muzzles instead of the charactaristic pricked ears and fox markings, they developed "lovable ears". Their reproductive hormone balance changed and they adopted to breeding all year round instead of in season breeding that fox's do. They were found to contain higher levels of nuerally active serotonin. It took only 20 years to turn foxs into "dogs" and I invert "dogs" because domestic dogs are descended from wolves & not fox's.

We clearly can demonstrate macro-evolution in action here:

1. The Evidence.
2. Falsifiable and predictive.
3. Correctable and dynamic.
4. Based on natural explanations.
5. Testable.

And now would any Creationist or ID apologetic please post a snippet of your "evidence".

Regards

Root

 

[czgibson]

Greetings root,

That's pretty amazing, but I'm curious. How can scientists account for the change in markings? I'm assuming they weren't breeding foxes and collie dogs, so where did the black and white markings come from?

Peace

 

[root]

czgibson - That's pretty amazing, but I'm curious. How can scientists account for the change in markings? I'm assuming they weren't breeding foxes and collie dogs, so where did the black and white markings come from?

If we were in an ID or religous class or god forbid a "Science Class" I could just say "Allah knew best" or "because the creator designed them like that", since I know your not and even to me such an answer to a good question is simply utter nonsense to claim. (You know who you are who would deliver such an answer).

It's a good question and I need some help answering it. I will post it as soon as I do.

Regards

Root

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I agree and what a joke. A theory such as Evolution must exhibit certain key features to be called a theory, Creationism/ID fails in this key area:

1. Must be supported by many pieces of evidence.
ID is not supported by any evidence at all. And simply attempts to disprove evolution.

2. Make predictions that may be used to disprove it (i.e falsifiable)
It's not falsifiable in any way

3. Be correctable and dynamic
It's not correctable in anyway. You either have an intelligent designer or you don't.

4. Be based on natural explanations.
ID relies on supernatural beings

5 Be testable and verifiable
It is not testable.

Woaw you seem very aware of when something is considered a theory. I am impressed. Why is it then that after pointing out several times that abiogenesis and common descent also don't have either one of these 5 criterion; and that even though you fail to answer me by showing me proof; you still insist on common descent and abiogeesis to be "theory's?

 

[root]

Woaw you seem very aware of when something is considered a theory. I am impressed. Why is it then that after pointing out several times that abiogenesis and common descent also don't have either one of these 5 criterion; and that even though you fail to answer me by showing me proof; you still insist on common descent and abiogeesis to be "theory's

Firstly Steve take a look at the description for Abiogenesis:

"The field of science dedicated to studying how life "might" have arisen from the primordial young earth."

You did notice the "might" in that sentence! Did you also note point 3 because it don't look like you did. here it is just for you:

3. Be correctable and dynamic

Abiogenesis is open to correctness and still remain Abiogenesis. With creation/ID you either have a creator or you don't.

abiogenesis is under constant attack from creationists, who continually claim that the origin of life by random natural processes is so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Following are some articles that challenge this claim and demonstrate the fundamental misconception at the core of the creationists' arguments.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Finally, common descent is part of the evolutionary theory to which I just posted some good evidence of macro-evolution at work to which I am now asking for creationists to post some creationist evidence.

I fail to see what your objection actually is. You are at the very least proving point 1 absolutely correct:

1. Must be supported by many pieces of evidence.
ID is not supported by any evidence at all. And simply attempts to disprove evolution.