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

[Gator]

Interesting observation. So how many atheists would you say fall in the layman category who simply do not know enough about the TOE to really understand what it's all about? Or are all atheists experts in TOE?

As for a layman's point of view. You really don't need much to see through an argument from ignorance.

In my view, complexity (or "Math is Hard!") is just not a good basis. Since the discussion has been going round and round, here’s a little skit to give you an idea of how your argument sounds to me. Not saying right or wrong, but just trying to give you an insight into my thinking.

It’s the dawn of human history (not assuming YEC). Two cavemen are standing outside their caves. One believes that only natural forces control the universe and the other believes a deity does. Unfortunately both were named Thag, so I’m going call one Atheist Thag (Athag) and Theist Thag (Tthag). As they stand there, a lightening bolt cracks through the sky, striking the tallest tree in the forest.

Athag: Whoa! Did you see that!
Tthag: Wow! God is amazing!
Athag: Here we go. Why do you think god caused that?
Tthag: Well, I believe God causes lightening. It is so unlike anything else and we have no explanation so it has to be from a God.
Athag: Why does it have to be a god? Couldn’t it come from some natural phenomenon?
Tthag: Do you have an explanation for it?
Athag: Well, it could be some shifting when some unknown power source becomes unbalanced.
Tthag: Puh-lease, that is just a lame theory. Do you have a solid explanation or not.
Athag: A one hundred percent sure fire complete explanation…..no.
Tthag: Ah ha! You admit it.
Athag: But do you remember what our grandfathers used to tell us about fire. They used to say it only came from God.
Tthag: Yeah, I do. They used to believe it was delivered by only lightening. And when they needed it there was only one way to get it. Sacrifice a virgin to produce lightening, which would strike a tree and bring fire.
Athag: Well, my Mom discovered you could make fire by rubbing sticks a certain way.
Tthag: Yeah, my grandfather says he had never seen a woman try to break out of the wooden sacrificial pen as hard as she did. Wasn’t that nine months before you were born?
Athag: Yes, moving on. But don’t you see that what people once thought was only from God was actually something they could do because it was a natural phenomenon?
Tthag: Nice try, heretic, but that was then, this is now. What tree did it hit?
Athag: That tree there. The tallest one.
Tthag: That’s right smart guy, the tallest one. There must be thousands of trees in the forest and the lightening just happen to hit the tallest tree. Do you know the odds of that happening!? In fact, have you ever noticed that it almost always hits the tallest tree. The odds are incalculable! Can you explain that!
Athag: Well no not in exceedingly technical detail.
Tthag: Well thank you for proving my point. Don’t you think that in our advanced age we would know this stuff by now. Think of it. In the last two generations we’ve discovered how to make fire and the wheel! And even with all our amazing and complex advances, no one understands where lightening comes from. Ergo God. Lightening is just one example, all you have to do is look around to see evidence of God. Its right their in front of your eyes.
Athag: uhg.

 

[جوري]

Verbiage really is the only defense of the meek!

 

[MustafaMc]

As stated what you see as flawed others see as nothing short of a miracle.

Assalamu alaikum, ukhti. You, I and other creationists do indeed see that life, life processes and species of life are miraculous. The fact that all of the information needed for a exquisitely complex individual such as that of a human, a whale, a platypus, a manatee, a horse, etc is found in a extremely small package called a zygote that looks amazingly similar across species amazes me to no end. I am further fascinated by the fact that some people fail to see the obvious design for the various species of life that demands a Designer and a Creator for them to come in to being. How they can be satisfied with Darwin's theory for the origin of the species through natural selection acting upon genetic variation created primarily through a destructive process escapes me. Their dogmatic adherence to ToE makes less sense to me than a believer who has faith that God is entirely responsible for creating all that exists.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Interesting that you've not suggested why a perfect designer would design something so obviously flawed.

You and I see it as flawed because we look at from the point of view of wanting ideal vision. If ideal vision was the goal then God failed and it isn't perfect design. But, as the rude lady pointed out, who are we to say what should be? If God, for whatever reason, intends us to have poor vision, blind spot, minimal colour vision when compared to some other animals, etc, then the design is perfect for what he intended. I noted above that we eat and breathe through the same hole (unlike dolphins) guaranteeing that some of us will choke to death. Poor design if you want to stay alive, but perfect design if God intends choking.

If we accept the premise that an all powerful God created life on earth as it now is, then we can look at how that life is and realize that this God isn't all that benevolent towards us. The logic of creationism leads to a very indifferent and unkind sort of deity, and a trickster deity with no interest in efficiency (consider our cross wired brain, that whales have foot bones but no legs, etc) and an interest in misleading us into thinking evolution happens.

 

[جوري]

I noted above that we eat and breathe through the same hole

One is called the trachea and the other an esophagus .. if you're of the impression they're the 'same hole' then take some anatomy lessons. Perhaps the 'imperfect design' is meant to keep your chatter box shut while eating and how rude, and gauche it is indeed to do the same two tasks at a time. Either talk or breathe while eating so which will it be?
I don't think you've much credibility when it comes to design when basic anatomy and physiology eludes you to speak so freely of logic.. and thanks for calling me rude, I have brought it to the mods attention.

best,

 

[Independent]

I think bones present a massive challenge for evolution

Essentially you seem to be troubled by the apparent difficulty of evolving multiple parts/systems simultaneously. This is another aspect of Behe's 'Irreducible Complexity' argument. The idea is that some aspects of organisms consist of multiple evolutionary steps, without which the whole unit would be either useless or even actively destructive. However, a number of Behe's examples have already been shown to be consisting of parts or functions that did indeed evolve separately beforehand. This means that the complex structure is an assembly of pre-existing parts, not a one-off invention. This leaves Behe's argument insecure, to say the least.

With regard to your example specifically - the bone structure - we can in fact see there is an evolution of both parts and function over a very long period. If the bone structure had been created in one go by divine fiat, we should see complex bone systems right from the first. But we don't. What we see is entirely consistent with TOE. In fact there are no bone fossils of any kind which contradict TOE. There are gaps in the story - but that's inevitable given the random nature of fossil formation and is still consistent with TOE.

Why are there no fossils to contradict TOE? With so many millions of examples available to study, it can't be by chance. Therefore, if the Creationist account is correct, we have to assume that God has deliberately imitated the course that TOE would take, even though there is no TOE. This does not make any sense either theologically or in any other way.

Why would God behave differently with TOE than with the laws of physics? Why make one area self sustaining, and the other dependent on His constant intervention? Is He unable to develop TOE? This can't be! Why do people resist TOE yet accept scientific laws in all other fields?

If there is no TOE, why are there no fossils to contradict it?

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

If we accept the premise that an all powerful God created life on earth as it now is, then we can look at how that life is and realize that this God isn't all that benevolent towards us. The logic of creationism leads to a very indifferent and unkind sort of deity,

You seem to be describing evolution rather than God, TOE favours the strongest, the most powerful, these qualities in humans seem to encourage trampling on the weak. Hitler used evolutionary principles, billionaires and overpaid footballers are happy with them too.

The twenty thousand children who die UNOTICED; every single day from grinding poverty, starvation and preventable disease are all victims of evolutionary principles.

The Bible has around two thousand passages that refer to justice for the poor and oppressed, to love, forgive, not to judge, these are not the laws of an oppressive God. The teachings of the Qur’an also centre on justice for the poor and oppressed, to love our neighbours, to forgive to control anger, these are not the teachings of a malicious God.

and a trickster deity with no interest in efficiency (consider our cross wired brain, that whales have foot bones but no legs, etc) and an interest in misleading us into thinking evolution happens.

If God gave us perfect bodies, we would still be unjust and unkind towards each other, kill, steal etc, what incentive does God have, that he should give us perfect bodies?

In the spirit of praying for justice for the poor and oppressed

Eric

 

[جوري]

Not sure what showcasing bones next to each other in boxes have to do with speciation? another non argument!

 

[observer]

Not sure what showcasing bones next to each other in boxes have to do with speciation? another non argument!

Hang on, are you actually suggesting that the study of fossils can tell us nothing in this field? Seriously? Or have I misunderstood you?

 

[جوري]

Hang on, are you actually suggesting that the study of fossils can tell us nothing in this field? Seriously? Or have I misunderstood you?

What does the study of fossil mean to you pray do tell?

 

[observer]

What does the study of fossil mean to you pray do tell?

Not really sure what you're asking here.

The study of fossils is what it is - the study of fossils! The hope of gaining insight into the development of species? The possibility of tracing a species' lineage back through history? The chance to study long-extinct animals?

Do you see it as a futile pursuit?

 

[جوري]

Not really sure what you're asking here.

You're the one with the questions, shouldn't you elaborate on your queries or am I to use my psychic abilities to search for meaning?

The study of fossils is what it is - the study of fossils! The hope of gaining insight into the development of species? The possibility of tracing a species' lineage back through history? The chance to study long-extinct animals?

study of long extinct animals doesn't equal to speciation do you not agree?

Do you see it as a futile pursuit?

From your end yes the lot of you seem very confused!

best,

 

[observer]

^^^ The fossil record is invaluable in showing how species changed over time, therefore I'd say that yes, the study of fossils is very relevant to speciation. Not the only tool, no, but important - yes.

 

[جوري]

^^^ The fossil record is invaluable in showing how species changed over time, therefore I'd say that yes, the study of fossils is very relevant to speciation. Not the only tool, no, but important - yes.

That's much stuffing as usual. How about you discuss the mechanism by which placing fossils in glass boxes shows speciation? you share 50% of your genes with bananas btw so I guess I can put you in a box, a banana in a box and a drosophila in a box and label it speciation from 50-90%.. you guys really are a funny bunch!

 

[observer]

That's much stuffing as usual. How about you discuss the mechanism by which placing fossils in glass boxes shows speciation? you share 50% of your genes with bananas btw so I guess I can put you in a box, a banana in a box and a drosophila in a box and label it speciation from 50-90%.. you guys really are a funny bunch!

So you'd say it is futile to study fossils then?

 

[جوري]

So you'd say it is futile to study fossils then?

How do you arrive to the conclusion you do? Really I am curious.. you're not big on faith given your life style choice yet constantly make large leaps that are a complete non-sequitur to what preceded!
There are tons of reasons we study fossils. I have personally studied fossils for the purpose of posterior spinal fusion surgeries. Do you have something of substance to impart as to how these fossils showcase speciation? would you like to discuss the mechanism of action of that rather than waste my time with inane Q's?

 

[observer]

How do you arrive to the conclusion you do? Really I am curious.. you're not big on faith given your life style choice yet constantly make large leaps that are a complete non-sequitur to what preceded!
There are tons of reasons we study fossils. I have personally studied fossils for the purpose of posterior spinal fusion surgeries.

It's not a conclusion, it's a question.

You are seemingly incapable of actually answering a simple question without either attacking the questioner or obfuscating the argument so completely that the original discussion is rendered pointless!

So do you think the study of fossils can't shed any light on speciation? (Note the "?" - this is another question).

 

[جوري]

It's not a conclusion, it's a question.

It is a question that doesn't draw from the premise!

You are seemingly incapable of actually answering a simple question without either attacking the questioner or obfuscating the argument so completely that the original discussion is rendered pointless!

In fact I have answered your Q and it is there for all to see. I can't help if you don't know how to support your argument or ask pertinent questions!

So do you think the study of fossils can't shed any light on speciation? (Note the "?" - this is another question).

in what way has it shed light on speciation? Perhaps if you answer that correctly you'll not need to pose the same Q multiple styles when I have already replied to it!

best,

 

[observer]

in what way has it shed light on speciation?

OK, I'll focus on this part as it's pretty clear that you're not open to answering any question (I've re-read your posts and can see nowhere where you have answered the question posed - maybe you could point me to it? I imagine not).

Very briefly, below is how the fossil record helps shed light on speciation, I've higlighted the most fundamental part. The quote comes from here http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0001666.html , a very nice website with a lot of clear explanations.

The process of the initiation, formation and establishment of descendent species from existing ancestral species is called speciation. Several aspects of this process can be studied using the fossil record, including how and why rates of speciation have changed through geologic history and how the morphology of lineages change over time as descendents gain phylogenetic independence from their ancestors. The fossil record also provides ancient deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) which allows genetic analyses of extinct populations and species that give insight into genetic differentiation, among other processes. Organisms are neither all equally likely to be preserved in the fossil record, nor do they have similar rates of achieving reproductive isolation and morphological differentiation from their ancestors. We know more about the fossil record of speciation in groups such as marine bivalves, gastropods, plankton and bryozoans, which have comparatively better fossil records, than groups such as mammals or plants.

 

[جوري]

OK, I'll focus on this part as it's pretty clear that you're not open to answering any question (I've re-read your posts and can see nowhere where you have answered the question posed - maybe you could point me to it? I imagine not).

Very briefly, below is how the fossil record helps shed light on speciation, I've higlighted the most fundamental part. The quote comes from here http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0001666.html , a very nice website with a lot of clear explanations.

The process of the initiation, formation and establishment of descendent species from existing ancestral species is called speciation. Several aspects of this process can be studied using the fossil record, including how and why rates of speciation have changed through geologic history and how the morphology of lineages change over time as descendents gain phylogenetic independence from their ancestors. The fossil record also provides ancient deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) which allows genetic analyses of extinct populations and species that give insight into genetic differentiation, among other processes. Organisms are neither all equally likely to be preserved in the fossil record, nor do they have similar rates of achieving reproductive isolation and morphological differentiation from their ancestors. We know more about the fossil record of speciation in groups such as marine bivalves, gastropods, plankton and bryozoans, which have comparatively better fossil records, than groups such as mammals or plants.

I have answered your Q. You can't glean what is important unfortunately just given what you highlighted above. Do you or do you not understand what mechanism is? you know on a molecular level. Genetic variations and study of DNA is all nice and I have already stated as much above, there's very little variations between us and any creature up to and including fruits.. do you want to show me how fifty percent of you evolved into a banana is what I am asking!

best,