Atheism

[root]

But you do have faith. you have faith that science alone will provide you with all the answers to everything.

Actually not true, I don't have faith in Science. But when I drop a stone I know the stone will go downwards.

the organic molecules in the 'primordial soup' might have to undergo 10 to the 130 trial assemblies to hit on the correct sequence.

OK, For the time being. I accept this.

"This generalized proposition-that processes of chance and natural law led to living organisms emerging on Earth from the relatively simple organic molecules in 'primordial soups'-is valid only if there is a finite probability of the correct assembly of molecules occurring within the time-scale envisaged.

So this scientist in "Origins of Life," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985," Acknowleges that given the probability of time, even the extreme case is possible. However, not within sufficient time of our planet earth.

Back in 1986, why didn't they build the "Ion propulsion Drive"!!!!!!!!

Why did they not consider that life never originated on this planet, This in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and known facts. But that is all you deserve for quoting out of date material, (be honest with me, how did you find the resources you quoted). or are you obtaining them from "how to debate with an atheist" site. If you are I am so dissapointed, I am not interested in Islam or Evolution. I am interested in what "You" think? I will listen to scientific evidence, when asking myself "Why are we here". which I personally ask not "why are we here" instead "How we came to be".

If I go to a doctor and discover something very wrong, I will listen intently and follow his every instruction for it is based on logic. I would not seek forgiveness. And if I die, then I die and my tiny little spec of time will be no more and I return to where I came from. Star Dust.

If you care to investigate the probability of "how" it is possible for life to be spread around the universe, I think you will find that it is a near fact when compared to the "House made of brick on another planet" hypothisis you quoted. And once more the Quran agrees with me, though does not go as far as I would.

Regards & without prejudice

Root.

And finally.

The sea did not part by itself. Moses had to do his part of striking the sea with the staff first before God parted the sea for Moses.

http://j_kidd.tripod.com/b/132.html

 

[TrueMeasure]

i agree with you root. I am not interested in a debate either. they end up being a great waste of time. it is far better to share ideas and opinions and every intelligent human being can make their own conclusions. The prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) task was to convey the message, it was not for him to 'convert' the people, that is in the hand of God.

i found that quote when i was looking for the jumbo jet analogy. i remembered that quote being a useful way to put the chances of the beginning of life into perspective so i quoted it too. it is not really outdated. it still holds true. Also take into account its talking about a single useful small protien molecule. Life requires many protien molecules to exist and replicate. so you have to multiply this astronomically large number by a factor of times to get the true probability for even the meagrest of life form to come into being by chance. I think you will find that the probability of this given the time constraints from even the beginning of the universe is effectively zero.

remember also that for life to form, we would have to come from at least second generation stars from which heavier elements required for life could have been formed. That reduces the time scale available for such improbabilities quite drastically.

I am glad that you are being honest with yourself and have rejected the idea that life could have formed by chance on this planet alone. That is much further than any atheist i've met before is willing to go.


ps do you really believe that theory on the splitting of the sea by aliens or are you having me on? i've read the site and would have investigated further but it seems to have no real credibility. the article itself is written by 'unknown'!

 

[root]

ps do you really believe that theory on the splitting of the sea by aliens or are you having me on? i've read the site and would have investigated further but it seems to have no real credibility. the article itself is written by 'unknown'!

It was to bring some fun into the debate and was entirely false.....

By Unknown - Reformatted by Kidd 11/2000 Some experts have even proclaimed that the bronze machine could not have been produced by the ancient Israelites themselves. They had been wandering in the desert for 40 years and did not possess great scientific knowledge, says Dr. Shaul Kelev.

 

[TrueMeasure]

It was to bring some fun into the debate and was entirely false.....

.

 

[root]

I am glad that you are being honest with yourself and have rejected the idea that life could have formed by chance on this planet alone.

I have not rejected it. It cannot be rejected as a theory at present, it could still be what your claiming I reject. I merely agree with his point, but disagree that it is absolutely not possible for it is very possible. Though I personally beleive life came from outerspace.

"We think we know it all. We know nothing......"

 

[sonofadam]

'Though I personally beleive life came from outerspace. '

Now thats faith.

 

[root]

'Though I personally beleive life came from outerspace. '

Now thats faith.

Why do you call that faith?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

A belief that does not rest on material evidence.

 

[yoshiyahu]

i was under the impression that bacteria had been found in comet samples.

 

[root]

i was under the impression that bacteria had been found in comet samples.

Agreed. Their not just simple lumps of rock.

http://www.panspermia.org/comets.htm

Did our oceans come from comets?

http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMGX93VQUD_index_0.html

 

[TrueMeasure]

In reality theories such as the panspermia theory do nothing other than to push the problem back a notch.

They try to explain how life originated on this planet yet do nothing to solve the ultimate origin of life.

Furthermore, they do nothing to help explain the supposed "evolution" of life and its mechanism of "natural selection" and "mutation" with the all important dash of luck.

Evolution is a dying theory. Period. In the face of newer evidences/calculations and discoveries it is rapidly losing its foothold. Scientists refuse to let go of it since as "scientists" they cannot accept the alternative. I wouldnt be surpised at all if evolution was a completely rejected theory in around 10 years time although I have no idea what theory would take its place and be accepted by the "scientific" world.

ps interesting theory about the oceans from comets! did you know that if haleys comet was to hit the earth it would contain enough water in it to form a large lake!

 

[root]

They try to explain how life originated on this planet yet do nothing to solve the ultimate origin of life.

I have scratched my head a little over this one. Nobody (Not even Islam) ultimately know the origins of life at this point. The Quran accepts "as part of the small print" that life beyond this planet is too probable not to be beleived. However, Islam seems to suggest understandably from their point that they would expect this life to be "Non-Intelligent" and a "stepping stone" for God's Adam & Eve. But in what form?

Furthermore, they do nothing to help explain the supposed "evolution" of life and its mechanism of "natural selection" and "mutation" with the all important dash of luck.

Of course it does, since if you take the starting point of life unrestricted to the age of the Earth and more the age of the universe, how can you say that it is not relevent.

Evolution is a dying theory. Period. In the face of newer evidences/calculations and discoveries it is rapidly losing its foothold.

Utter nonsense, Evolution is taught in the Science class. islam is taught in "Religous Education". maybe you should understand better a "theory" from a "hypothosis".

Scientists refuse to let go of it since as "scientists" they cannot accept the alternative.

Rubbish, Science is forced to accept Scientific fact. If you mean that the current "theory of evolution" in it's fullness cannot 100% fully explain everything about how we came to be (which it cannot) does not mean that the Religous explanation must be true, That is a silly notion and bad science.

I wouldnt be surpised at all if evolution was a completely rejected theory in around 10 years

That is a sure fire bet for me to win. And coincidently has been said as far back as I can remember, yet it grows stronger with time not weaker.

time although I have no idea what theory would take its place and be accepted by the "scientific" world.

The truth.............

Theory v Hypothsis

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"

 

[sonofadam]

Evolution collapses right at the beginning - the origin of life. The notion that life can be generated from inanimate matter is a joke and not scientific - there are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life - pinocchio and frosty the snowman. Evolution is a theory if not a fantasy and a very fable one at that - its no wonder well known atheist's such as Anthony Flew known for championing the cause of evolution and atheism are dumping their own theories. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.
Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." (Richard N. Ostling, "Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator," The Washington Times 10 December 2004; http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041209-113212-2782r.htm )

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (Antony Flew, "Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology," Philosophy Now; http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm)

"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." (Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, "Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all," The Sunday Times, 12 December 2004; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1400368,00.html)

Maybe you should take some advice from him and comtemplate on the complexity of life and the impossibility and absurdity of evolution.

 

[root]

Evolution collapses right at the beginning

Would not mind knowing how you qualify that statement? If someone leaves Christianity, does this mean christianity is flawed. Funny how as an atheist I have not heard of this person. People leave faiths and people embrace faith, it is all swings and round abouts


Me thinks you don't fully understand the term "theory"..........

 

[Brother_Mujahid]

Would not mind knowing how you qualify that statement? If someone leaves Christianity, does this mean christianity is flawed. Funny how as an atheist I have not heard of this person. People leave faiths and people embrace faith, it is all swings and round abouts


Me thinks you don't fully understand the term "theory"..........

But thats the thing do you have faith in a theory which is through the limited capacity or thought of a fellow human.......

or do you put faith in a system/ideoloy/religion which has a complete way of life not only this but has rules and guidelines which govern humans. It also answers questions about exsistance and has the answers to life. which are not present in the other theories of life/exsistance.

 

[root]

or do you put faith in a system/ideoloy/religion which has a complete way of life not only this but has rules and guidelines which govern humans. It also answers questions about exsistance and has the answers to life. which are not present in the other theories of life/exsistance.

I don't place faith in science, if I drop a stone then it falls to the ground. I know why it does this, That is not faith.

Your moving from theory to hypothosis and introducing faith with the above bolded text.

 

[Brother_Mujahid]

I don't place faith in science, if I drop a stone then it falls to the ground. I know why it does this, That is not faith.

okay, but the theories on the exsistance of life are theories and not science. As you stated above science does not require you to have faith to accept it.

yet you place faith in theories of exsistance which have no real proof or backing.

*its hard questioning someones belief without trying to attack it (shrug)*

 

[root]

okay, but the theories on the exsistance of life are theories and not science. As you stated above science does not require you to have faith to accept it.

yet you place faith in theories of exsistance which have no real proof or backing.

*its hard questioning someones belief without trying to attack it (shrug)*

Brother Mujahid

I think you need to go research what a theory actully is

Regards

Root

 

[Brother_Mujahid]

Brother Mujahid

I think you need to go research what a theory actully is

Regards

Root

googled it........... heres what i got

the·o·ry
n., pl. -ries.
-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
-Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

[root]

-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Correct. A typical example and I use this one only because both me and you posted on it. Science predicted based on it's knowledge of Evolution that "man" would shrink should he need to adapt to smaller surroundings. Then came "Hobit" the 3 ft man to confirm this. Though for years until the Hobit was found on flanders creationists stated science was wrong, and yet Science proved it was very much correct.

The objection here is that some people on this thread actually predict the death of Evolution, which from a "faith" point I can understand since it goes against everything they think they know when in reality it should not change their faith in religion one bit.