Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life yet – Science is decades behind..

[Muhaba]

It doesn't follow that because there is a universe therefore - god.

You say an all-powerful, all-wise being had to being the universe into existence - why?

All-powerful because the universe couldn't have been made by a being that was weak or had limited power. consider the planets- could they have been placed into unwavering orbits by someone who didn't have immense power?

An All-Wise God because whatever is in the universe shows that it was made with wisdom, with intelligence.

You say it didn't always exist - how do you know?

We don't know if the universe has a beginning. We don't know if it has always existed - indeed the idea of the universe beginning may actually be nonsensical - we don't know.

it has been scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning. But even if it hadn't been proven, we can see with our own eyes that nothing has been here since forever. everything has a beginning. creatures are born and then die. the world has been constantly changing. nothing is the same forever. nothing lasts forever.

and what has a beginning has to have a cause.

It may have been brought into being by god. It may have always been here. We don't know. You can make the argument either way but god is certainly not definitely necessary for there to be a universe.

Personally, I love the mystery of it!

Actually everything around us points to the existence of God but some are too blind to see it. There is no mystery there at all.

 

[Muhaba]

So when the first artificial cell is made, what then? Where will the goal posts be moved to?

it would once again prove the existence of God. an artificial cell has not been made even by someone so intelligent as human being who has made such advances in technology then how can you expect that cells could've come into being by themselves without the work of an Intelligent Being?

And if artificial cells are made by humans, it would show that cells needed someone to make them. they couldn't come into being by themselves. To prove that God is not needed, you would have to show that the cells came into being by themselves, without anyone causing them to be made. you would also have to prove that the elements needed to make the cells also came into being by themselves out of nothing.

 

[Ali Mujahidin]

the fish in the pond doesn't understand how the pond works.

Very true. And neither you nor I fully understand how everything works either. So, for all your scientific knowledge you are not exactly any more intelligent than the person who accepts that rain falls because God wills it to be so.

Don't agree? Then tell me how, with all your scientific knowledge, you can make rain fall at will? Before you answer that, please double-check to see if the science of rain-making is really working the way it's supposed to be or is it still a hit and miss affair. Something like, if we seed this cloud, the chances that rain will fall is increased by X percentile points.

 

[Muhaba]

Yes. A lot more.

For evidence for theism..... we get a lot of unsupported claims, a few word games and strange logic, and a request to believe on "Faith".

actually evolutionists also play word games but because they call themselves scientists, you readily believe them.

For evidence for evolution, look here http://www.usefulcharts.com/science/evidence-supporting-evolution.html

The site states: That all life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor is a fact .
Why should all life on earth evolve from a single common ancestor? if something can evolve by itself, then it's very much possible that many things evolve and not just one. In that case, life on earth would not have a single common ancestor.

There is quite a lot of it, of many different types.

Furthermore, evolution is falsifiable. Claims of Gods are usually not.

And Evolution is open to revision and even discarding as better evidence comes along. I don't think many theists will be ready to discard their religion based on the evidence that comes in.

whether you can discard a theory or not doesn't make it right or wrong.
some things are self-evident truths while others are not. Existence of God is a self-evident truth.

No such assumption is made.

yes assumptions are made in the theory of evolution.
take the statement from the site you gave:

Fossils provide a snapshot of what life on earth looked like at various stages in the past. These can be dated using methods such as Carbon-14 dating. What the fossil record shows is that, as you look deeper and deeper back in time, species become much less complex and fewer different types of species can be found. This suggests that life started off simple and then gradually evolved into the various different forms we see today.

Note the word "suggest."

Although animals are very different from one another, there are a lot of similarities as well. For example, all mammals have a similar bone structure in their limbs, even though the bones are different sizes. This indicates that there was once an original animal with that structure and that that structure eventually evolved into many different forms. Other similarities in anatomy structure can be seen in insects and plants.

it indicates but we don't know for sure that that was what happened because we didn't witness it. thus this is an assumption and not a proven fact.

Species in the old world (Europe, Asia, and Africa) are often quite different than species in the new world (North & South America). Species in Australia and other remote islands (e.g. - kangaroos) are especially unique. This indicates that as animals spread out over the earth, they evolved differently in different locations.

Again why should animals with one common ancestor spread out to different parts of the world? why didn't they evolve from separate ancestors in each part of the world? If things could evolve by themselves without God causing it, then there would be many and not one common ancestor.

ERV's are a special type of virus that infects DNA. They continue to get copied from generation to generation even when they no longer cause damage and are thus a type of fossil in our DNA. When you compare the DNA of humans and chimpanzees, you will find the exact same ERV's in the exact same locations, something that simply could not have happened by chance. Again, this indicates that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

What about their position in other organism? Isn't it possible that they infect similar parts of DNA?

what proof is there that this assumption is true?



It doesn't, as observer has noted. As Eric H said, it doesn't disprove God. It just leans towards an explanation in which God isn't required. Evolution doesn't preclude Gods, as was said above. It just shows some creation stories to be wrong.



what proof is there that this assumption is true?



The theory of evolution is not something anybody should trust. Just like the idea that the earth goes around the sun isn't something anybody should trust. It isn't about trust. It isn't about faith. It is about evidence. The best evidence we have points this way. As soon as the best evidence points in another direction we should modify or abandon the theory or idea. And as the evidence mounts stronger and stronger we shouldn't cling to the idea irrationally. The same should apply to religious accounts... but the religious don't seem to want to think that way.

 

[Pygoscelis]

All-powerful because the universe couldn't have been made by a being that was weak or had limited power. consider the planets- could they have been placed into unwavering orbits by someone who didn't have immense power?

Even if we grant your premises, your conclusions don't follow. Immense power doesn't equal all powerful. "made with wisdom" doesn't mean All wilse.

it has been scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning.

First, no it hasn't. For all we know our universe could be cyclical with big bangs and big crunches. For all we know our universe could have been formed from another universe.

Second, why are you reaching out to science now after turning a blind eye to its findings on evolution?

But even if it hadn't been proven, we can see with our own eyes that nothing has been here since forever. everything has a beginning.

what proof is there that this assumption is true?

 

[Pygoscelis]

The site states: That all life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor is a fact .
Why should all life on earth evolve from a single common ancestor? if something can evolve by itself, then it's very much possible that many things evolve and not just one. In that case, life on earth would not have a single common ancestor.

I agree. It may have had multiple. But if you trace the evidence you find that these multiple would have been very similar to each other, because all the evidence points to common ancestry, common dna, common structures, etc.

whether you can discard a theory or not doesn't make it right or wrong.

That is is falsifiable and we haven't been able to find any evidence to falsify it, despite repeated findings, is evidence that it is true.

And no, that we can discard and modify it doesn't make it right or wrong. But it does make it a theory worth having and revising. It is an honest and open approach to solving the puzzle. Declaring you have all the answers by fiat isn't.

some things are self-evident truths while others are not. Existence of God is a self-evident truth.

No it isn't. It is an assumption you make, for which you provide no evidence, and only faith. It may seem obvious to you, but does is not also seem obvious that the world is flat and that the sun goes around the earth? We have found evidence otherwise and we have abandoned these assumptions.

yes assumptions are made in the theory of evolution.

Assumptions are made, yes. And they should be tested where possible.

However, you claimed:

Scientists observe creation and assume that organisms came into being by themselves and then evolved.

This is not true.

take the statement from the site you gave:

Fossils provide a snapshot of what life on earth looked like at various stages in the past. These can be dated using methods such as Carbon-14 dating. What the fossil record shows is that, as you look deeper and deeper back in time, species become much less complex and fewer different types of species can be found. This suggests that life started off simple and then gradually evolved into the various different forms we see today.

Note the word "suggest."

That doesn't denote an assumption. That denotes inconclusive evidence.

Although animals are very different from one another, there are a lot of similarities as well. For example, all mammals have a similar bone structure in their limbs, even though the bones are different sizes. This indicates that there was once an original animal with that structure and that that structure eventually evolved into many different forms. Other similarities in anatomy structure can be seen in insects and plants.

it indicates but we don't know for sure that that was what happened because we didn't witness it. thus this is an assumption and not a proven fact.

No. that isn't an assumption either. That is a hypothesis backed up with some more inconclusive evidence (that animals have similar anatomical structures).

Species in the old world (Europe, Asia, and Africa) are often quite different than species in the new world (North & South America). Species in Australia and other remote islands (e.g. - kangaroos) are especially unique. This indicates that as animals spread out over the earth, they evolved differently in different locations.

Again why should animals with one common ancestor spread out to different parts of the world? why didn't they evolve from separate ancestors in each part of the world? If things could evolve by themselves without God causing it, then there would be many and not one common ancestor.

They did evolve separately. That is the point. The further apart they are the more different they are, but the further back you go in each area's fossil record, the more similarities you see between them. That fits with the theory of a common ancestor that migrated to both places and then evolved seperately in those places.

ERV's are a special type of virus that infects DNA. They continue to get copied from generation to generation even when they no longer cause damage and are thus a type of fossil in our DNA. When you compare the DNA of humans and chimpanzees, you will find the exact same ERV's in the exact same locations, something that simply could not have happened by chance. Again, this indicates that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

What about their position in other organism? Isn't it possible that they infect similar parts of DNA?

It isn't that they infected similar parts of DNA. It is that they are the exact same.

I don't believe any of these lines of evidence to be absolutely conclusive, but taken together they do make a pretty good case. And this definitely answers your question

Is there any more proof for evolution than there is for theism?

Yes. There certainly is. You've got all this for evolution. For theistic claims you've got nothing but "Its self evident!!"

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

As soon as the best evidence points in another direction we should modify or abandon the theory or idea.

God always was, always is and always will be, science has not given me, or will not be able to give me any proof one way or another.

Faith in God is more about searching for a purpose in life, it is about changing ourselves, being merciful, forgiving, helping the poor.

The theory of evolution leads us to believe.............

Having said that, I have admired your sense of justice and fairness in the way you respond to moral issues.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[observer]

Very true. And neither you nor I fully understand how everything works either. So, for all your scientific knowledge you are not exactly any more intelligent than the person who accepts that rain falls because God wills it to be so.

Don't agree? Then tell me how, with all your scientific knowledge, you can make rain fall at will? Before you answer that, please double-check to see if the science of rain-making is really working the way it's supposed to be or is it still a hit and miss affair. Something like, if we seed this cloud, the chances that rain will fall is increased by X percentile points.

But I'm not saying that science has taken over rain-making duties from god. What I'm saying is that previously, people thought that you prayed for rain and if you prayed enough then the rain came.

Now, we know about the water cycle and we know that rain has nothing to do with god's whims. We can't make it rain, but why do we have to? We understand how it works and can see that there is no need for a deity where rain is concerned.

Likewise, we understand how and why planets orbit the sun and how they are made. We can't make a planet and put it in orbit - does that lessen the truth of what we know? I don't think so.

 

[Independent]

For evidence for evolution, look here http://www.usefulcharts.com/science/evidence-supporting-evolution.html

A handy link. I think this point is particularly interesting - I've heard it before but forgotten about it:

Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes whereas humans have only 23. However, our extra long chromosome no. 2 matches almost perfectly with two of the chimpanzee's smaller chromosomes, indicating that our two species share a common ancestor and that at some point along our ancestral line, the two chromosomes became fused together to create our chromosome no. 2.

For me, the truth often shows itself in the tiny details, the loose ends, the discarded parts of reality. This chromosome is a tiny piece of evidence in the grand scheme of things. But it fits TOE exactly. Although there are certainly big gaps in TOE, as yet nothing has been discovered that contradicts it - which is extraordinary if it isn't broadly correct.

If we are all created by divine fiat, why drop that little clue of the extra long No 2 chromosome? If this is indeed an act of God, can it be that He deliberately wants people to believe in TOE? I cannot understand why God would plant such a piece of evidence in favour of TOE, if He didn't want us to believe in it. But why would He want us to be confused?

For me, it's far simpler that God (if He exists) set the mechanism of evolution in the same way as He set the laws of gravity etc (which most Muslims and Christians don't disagree with). There doesn't need to be any conflict at all bvetween faith and science.

 

[Ali Mujahidin]

We understand how it works and can see that there is no need for a deity where rain is concerned.

Very interesting conclusion. So just because you understand how rain comes about, you think that automatically makes it superfluous to get God involved in the equation. So, now that we understand how babies are made, do we also conclude that there is no longer any need for a man and a woman to be involved in making a baby?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Very interesting conclusion. So just because you understand how rain comes about, you think that automatically makes it superfluous to get God involved in the equation. So, now that we understand how babies are made, do we also conclude that there is no longer any need for a man and a woman to be involved in making a baby?

We have observed evaporation, condensation, and rain. We have seen how it works. We can explain it without involving Gods. We have no evidence that Gods are required.

We have directly observed the formation and union of sperm and egg , and we have further observed each step along the way as the fertilized cell grows into a baby. We have seen how it works. We can't explain it without involving women. We have evidence that women are required.

No matter how much faith somebody may have in the stork theory of baby making, the evidence points to women. No matter how much faith somebody may have in creation stories, the evidence points to evolution.

 

[observer]

^^^^ This! :thumbs_up

 

[Born_Believer]

I've studied science almost all my life now and I have a number of friends who are atheists and we often have these discussions. I think it's safe to say that we don't always agree LOL

But the one point we agree on and I think all atheists who are being totally honest with themselves would too is that evolution is nowhere near being proven. There is some evidence that may be construed being in favour of the theory but the vast majority of evidence is against it and we have been told lies on multiple occasions by scientists to prove this theory. It's a sad state of affairs really.

There was this really interesting book I once had with regards to the apparently different stages of human development "from ape to man" and it clearly debunked most of it as myth. Considering that many scientists will have you believe that these different ancestors of man never co-existed when in fact they did. I'm trying to find any links to that information and I hope I do.

 

[Independent]

evolution is nowhere near being prove

'Not proven', i agree with. 'Nowhere near' - depends how you define near. Give it a few decades.

There is some evidence that may be construed being in favour of the theory but the vast majority of evidence is against it

No, I don't think there is any evidence at all against it. Can you suggest anything? Revision of the fossil record and reclassification of some fossils as non-ancestors (the example you mention) is not evidence against. It just means they got that particular fossil wrong.

What would be highly decisive evidence against would be the discovery of a homo sapiens fossil from 2 billion year old strata.

I can't think of any evidence that proves TOE wrong - whereas evidence like the No 2 chromosome which I quoted above are difficult to explain by any other theory except TOE.

 

[Muhaba]

I agree. It may have had multiple. But if you trace the evidence you find that these multiple would have been very similar to each other, because all the evidence points to common ancestry, common dna, common structures, etc.



That is is falsifiable and we haven't been able to find any evidence to falsify it, despite repeated findings, is evidence that it is true.

actually you haven't found any evidence to prove evolution. all you have is fossils with similarities between creatures and you've deduced that it must mean they evolved from each other. you have no evidence that they in fact did evolve from each other.

And no, that we can discard and modify it doesn't make it right or wrong. But it does make it a theory worth having and revising. It is an honest and open approach to solving the puzzle. Declaring you have all the answers by fiat isn't.

No it isn't. It is an assumption you make, for which you provide no evidence, and only faith. It may seem obvious to you, but does is not also seem obvious that the world is flat and that the sun goes around the earth? We have found evidence otherwise and we have abandoned these assumptions.

Assumptions are made, yes. And they should be tested where possible.

However, you claimed:

This is not true.

That doesn't denote an assumption. That denotes inconclusive evidence.

No. that isn't an assumption either. That is a hypothesis backed up with some more inconclusive evidence (that animals have similar anatomical structures).

They did evolve separately. That is the point. The further apart they are the more different they are, but the further back you go in each area's fossil record, the more similarities you see between them. That fits with the theory of a common ancestor that migrated to both places and then evolved seperately in those places.

If they evolved from one or similar common ancestors all by themselves, then why didn't they evolve entirely differently from each other. why should there be so much similarities between them the farther back you go that you have to assume they evolved from a single common ancestor? why didn't the first organisms evolve totally differently. doesn't that show that if they did in fact evolve, then they were programmed to evolve in a certain way. otherwise, it isn't logical to assume that organisms evolving separately would evolve in the same way.

It isn't that they infected similar parts of DNA. It is that they are the exact same.

I don't believe any of these lines of evidence to be absolutely conclusive, but taken together they do make a pretty good case. And this definitely answers your question



Yes. There certainly is. You've got all this for evolution. For theistic claims you've got nothing but "Its self evident!!"

you can believe whatever you want to believe. the blind really can't be led to the truth. if you see similarities between animals the you accept it to mean that they evolved from each other and you even assume that it means there is no God. But you see all the wonderful Signs of God (in the world around you as well as in living things) but you can't accept it means that God has created it all and that God does exist.

 

[Born_Believer]

Evidence against Evolution: the fact that it is mathematically impossible for all the necessary components required for the evolution of the human species to fall into place through chance or randomness. And when I mean impossible, I really mean impossible. A number of the worlds leading mathematicians went through all the possibilities, chances, etc and came to the conclusion that the chance of such a thing happening just did not exist in the realm of mathematical probability.

Other evidences,

The fossil records themselves because as Darwin himself put it, evolution "was/is in a continual state of motion" so what we should find is a whole bunch of intermediary fossils, fossils showing (this will sound crude) half birds, have mammals etc. I know there have been some fossils found with supposed "feathered dinosaurs" etc but they are disputed within the scientific community itself so can't be taken seriously. That is to say there are huge gaps in the current fossil records and after 100+ years of evolution theory and millions of discovered fossils you would think we'd at least find one intermediary?? Darwin himself said, " The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

 

[Muhaba]

We have observed evaporation, condensation, and rain. We have seen how it works. We can explain it without involving Gods. We have no evidence that Gods are required.

We have directly observed the formation and union of sperm and egg , and we have further observed each step along the way as the fertilized cell grows into a baby. We have seen how it works. We can't explain it without involving women. We have evidence that women are required.

No matter how much faith somebody may have in the stork theory of baby making, the evidence points to women. No matter how much faith somebody may have in creation stories, the evidence points to evolution.

you have evidence that women are required because you are on the outside and can see how the process takes place. now consider yourself a tiny organism in the womb. all you see is some sperm coming and one of them fertilizing the ovum and then the baby forming in stages. in that case you would wonder how this process takes place. is it all happening by itself? or is something making it happen? did the sperm and ovum come into being by themselves or something caused them to form? etc. the same is the case with rain and other natural phenomena.

 

[Independent]

Evidence against Evolution: the fact that it is mathematically impossible for all the necessary components required for the evolution of the human species to fall into place through chance or randomness

No, this is not evidence against. It is important however. It tells us that the current model for mutation/evolution is not sufficient to account either for the rate of change, or the success of it (ie viable lifeforms). It does not tell us that this model cannot ever be improved on. For example, in the field of cosmology, Copernicus correctly demonstrated that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. But his mathematical model for the orbits was quite wrong - because he thought the planets went in perfect circles, whereas in fact the orbits are parabolic, as Kepler proved afterwards. Copernicus was right in the substance of his theory, but wrong in the mathematical model. Similarly, it would be surprising if what we know about evolutionary models was the end of the road.

That is to say there are huge gaps in the current fossil records

I'm guessing that your quote from Darwin that didn't reproduce is related to his worries for the fossil record - that this is a much weaker evidence than people suppose. I'm familiar with it and I agree it is correct to say that fossils do not prove evolution in themselves. The record is far too incomplete. It's like trying to construct a complete novel from 0.001% of the text. A lot of damage has been done to TOE by fanciful family trees constructed on insufficient fossil evidence.

What the record does show is a great deal of circumstantial evidence and also the broad sweep - simple life forms to more complex - over a very long period of time. As far as the fossil record goes there are gaps, but no contradictions. Why not? Just as is the case with the No2 chromosome I quoted above, you'd almost have to believe God was deliberately laying a trail of confusion.

 

[Born_Believer]

above post was incomplete, sorry

The fossil records themselves because as Darwin himself put it, evolution "was/is in a continual state of motion" so what we should find is a whole bunch of intermediary fossils, fossils showing (this will sound crude) half birds, have mammals etc. I know there have been some fossils found with supposed "feathered dinosaurs" etc but they are disputed within the scientific community itself so can't be taken seriously. That is to say there are huge gaps in the current fossil records and after 100+ years of evolution theory and millions of discovered fossils you would think we'd at least find one intermediary?? Darwin himself said, "The geological record is extremely imperfect ..... (cut out some parts for an easier read, you can find the whole paragraph on the internet) He who rejects these views (the fossil records) will reject my whole theory."
What is Darwin saying? He is saying that if the geological record if incomplete, which is the case, it gives enough grounds to reject his theory, although it is clear from his entire work that he hoped one day that record would be more complete than it was back then. Interetsingly, we have not gone much further than the days of Darwin himself.

In terms of the origins of life, all evolutionists would agree that initially it was chemical. That is the very foundation of all such theories. A leading evolutionist and one of the best chemists of his age (passed away a few years ago) stated that, " proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other...And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

He is how ever a great evolutionist and so tried to say that maybe it was RNA which came first but he himself admits, "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best".

Then there are the lies told to us about embryonic recapitulation, which we just learnt in our first year in medicine (when I put the these facts forward to the lecturer she was absolutely stunned into silence and refused to discuss the matter further ^o)) anyway here is the basics for anyone who doesn't know:
Embryonic recapitulation is a theory that states that higher life forms go through the "previous evolutionary chain" before birth. So we have a gill stage, yolk sac and then of course the famous tail. The gill slits are supposedly left overs from our fishy ancestors, the yolk sac from our reptile grandfathers and the tail from our monkey ancestry Interesting isn't it?

Well not really, considering it's a load of, excuse my french, bollocks. ills as we all know allow fish to "breath" under water. the so called gill slits observed in our embryonic stage aren't actually gills, in fact they aren't even slits, they are actually pharyngeal pouches, these essentially become a number of glands, including the thymus...not much to do with breathing eh?

But hey, let's say that was just a slight overlook, what about the yolk sac? In reptiles it is supposed to store food but even secondary school kids know that the embryo receives all its nutrients from the mother directly and the yolk sac is the primary site of blood cell production. 2 out of 3 dead wrong....erm....maybe third time lucky?

Let's look at the tail...but duh duh duh, it's not actually a tail, it is simply the elongation of our spine which extends beyond the muscle defined area of the embryo. In later life this will become the coccyx.

I think I'll stop here.

 

[Born_Believer]

read the remainder of my post, thanks