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

[Iceee]

If you are to ask no questions and believe blindly, I would suggest that that sounds more like brainwashing than the alternative.

Lol, you think all Muslims follow religion blindly? That's funny.

You forgot we have the Quran, hadiths, scholars, mufti's, Imams, mosques, and lectures. That ain't blind homeboy.

 

[observer]

nfortunately instead of pondering over this, atheists want to know why our eyesight couldn't be better

Just a quick point - I don't think atheists do want to know why our sight couldn't be better. We believe we know why our sight is how it is, the question about deficiencies in sight are raised to question the idea that a perfect all-powerful being created us.

I'm amazed by our eyes (and everything else) but my wonder is at the glory of nature, not a deity.

 

[observer]

Lol, you think all Muslims follow religion blindly? That's funny.

Not at all - you said "stop asking, start believing" - I mean that that sounds like following blindly.

I have known many muslims who continually question and look for meaning.

 

[Iceee]

Nobody else talk in this thread, I want the answer to the following:

We believe we know why our sight is how it is

 

[observer]

Nobody else talk in this thread, I want the answer to the following:

Evolution.

 

[Iceee]

Evolution.

I'm done. mg:

 

[Muhaba]

Sometimes it's best to stop asking and start believing. Nature is not all-glorious by itself. Nature can't do anything. Nature couldn't even created itself. do you in your right mind really believe that from nothing something could've arisen and then that something being lifeless then by itself turned into unicellular organisms and then those unicellular organisms evolved and continued to evolve to bring about such different creatures, perfectly compatible with each other and with their environment which also came into being by itself to sustain their life and survival??? The eyes are a wonderful thing but some ppl don't have eyes to see with. The brain is a great thing, but some ppl don't have brains to think with.

Evidence of a creator is all around us. But if only you could see.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The hole for breathing is called your nose, the one for eating is called your mouth

You can breathe through both your nose and your mouth, and people choke to death because of it. You can go ahead and say they deserve it and call them uncouth if you want, and I guess you don't want anybody coming to your rescue should it happen to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens. Whales don't choke to death.

Instead of trying, and failing, to nit pick one of the many examples given, perhaps you could actually address the point that was made? The "Design" of nature, if we choose to call it that, with all of its disease, parasites, and hostile environments (you would die instantly if exposed to most parts of the universe), does not point to a benevolent designer. If he is all powerful, and he designed nature as it is, with no intervening force or process (such as evolution) then he intended what we have the way we have it, and we can draw conclusions about him from that. You can try distracting us all you want, but you can't avoid that point. For many, especially the vulnerable, regardless of their moral virtue, life is brutal, painful, and short, and according to strict creationism, God must have wanted it that way.

Stop asking and start believing.

You don't want people thinking? You want them to turn off their brains and just obey and believe what they are told? That is one of the most disturbing mentalities within religious thought.

Galileo addressed it long long ago:

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Lol, you think all Muslims follow religion blindly? That's funny.

You forgot we have the Quran, hadiths, scholars, mufti's, Imams, mosques, and lectures. That ain't blind homeboy.

You forgot to mention your own moral sense and your own mind.

 

[Vito]

Evolution.

Our vision is the way it is because we evolved that way? So the monkeys or whatever it is you believe we evolved from had poor/no vision but we just evolved that way to adapt? ^o)

 

[Muhaba]

You can breathe through both your nose and your mouth, and people choke to death because of it. You can go ahead and say they deserve it and call them uncouth if you want, and I guess you don't want anybody coming to your rescue should it happen to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens. Whales don't choke to death.

I'd like to you design something better. Why not show us how you want humans to be like. Or do you want humans not to be able to breathe with mouth and only have the nose for breathing? I guess people will die a lot more when we get the cold and have our noses clogged.

 

[جوري]

You can breathe through both your nose and your mouth, and people choke to death because of it. You can go ahead and say they deserve it and call them uncouth if you want, and I guess you don't want anybody coming to your rescue should it happen to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens. Whales don't choke to death

We're born obligate nose breathers, do any of you read or do research before you write? If your trachea/esophagus were designed any other way you wouldn't be able to eat or breathe, humidify the air, or even scream. Not only is the design perfect but it is also aesthetically pleasing!
We're born in a balance between life and death. This isn't heaven for people to live eternally, we're here to live and die!

Instead of trying, and failing, to nit pick one of the many examples given, perhaps you could actually address the point that was made? The "Design" of nature, if we choose to call it that, with all of its disease, parasites, and hostile environments (you would die instantly if exposed to most parts of the universe), does not point to a benevolent designer. If he is all powerful, and he designed nature as it is, with no intervening force or process (such as evolution) then he intended what we have the way we have it, and we can draw conclusions about him from that. You can try distracting us all you want, but you can't avoid that point. For many, especially the vulnerable, regardless of their moral virtue, life is brutal, painful, and short, and according to strict creationism, God must have wanted it that way

Again, another ill conceived useless paragraph as we're accustomed, not only have I replied above but also previously, a 'flawed design' per your standards doesn't preclude the presence of a designer - God can create whatever he desires, you're not owed anything you should be grateful you're anything at all not an amoeba to sit here and act as if an opponent as if you've a say of what perfection is.. and in fact if you do it just tells us how ignorant you're of anatomy, physiology, genetics and biochemistry not to mention molecular biology.

The other fellow just babbling about 'Evolution' yet can't do any better by way of mechanism on a cellular level isn't any better than those who profess God designed it ...


I have to come back to the same 10 pages of recycled nonsense, and no one wants to do the slightest bit of research, as if God has to apologize to them for hos vision of the creation yet they owe no apologies for that much ignorance and that much waste of time and webspace!

 

[Pygoscelis]

I'd like to you design something better.

Why? I don't claim to be perfect or all powerful.

I guess people will die a lot more when we get the cold and have our noses clogged.

Due to viruses that God specifically designed to make us suffer and die?

 

[Pygoscelis]

a 'flawed design' per your standards doesn't preclude the presence of a designer

I didn't say it did. In fact I specifically considered what it would mean if we did have an all powerful designer. Why do you respond to posts you apparently don't read?

God can create whatever he desires

Sure. And we can draw conclusions about what he desires by looking at what he designed. This is is a God that designed us to suffer, some much more than others, with no regard to moral virtue or vice on our part, and yet you call him "Just". This is a God that designed horrible disease and natural disasters to afflict us and a massive universe most of which we can't survive in, and yet you worship him and call him "good". Go figure.

 

[observer]

Our vision is the way it is because we evolved that way? So the monkeys or whatever it is you believe we evolved from had poor/no vision but we just evolved that way to adapt? ^o)

Yes, exactly.

...our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago.

 

[جوري]

I didn't say it did. In fact I specifically considered what it would mean if we did have an all powerful designer. Why do you respond to posts you apparently don't read?

You keep asking the same questions over the course of a little under a decade it bears repeating perhaps one of those times it will take and given your subsequent boring paragraph!

best,

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

The "Design" of nature, if we choose to call it that, with all of its disease, parasites, and hostile environments (you would die instantly if exposed to most parts of the universe), does not point to a benevolent designer. If he is all powerful, and he designed nature as it is, with no intervening force or process (such as evolution) then he intended what we have the way we have it, and we can draw conclusions about him from that. You can try distracting us all you want, but you can't avoid that point. For many, especially the vulnerable, regardless of their moral virtue, life is brutal, painful, and short, and according to strict creationism, God must have wanted it that way.

Whatever we see around us, yes, God intended it that way. But why are you looking at this one sidedly, choosing to focus only on suffering in life, and drawing conclusions from this? Surely, a fair approach is to look at the whole picture. You speak of disease and parasites, yet you ignore the fact that God also sent down their cure. You speak of hostile environments yet you ignore the vast expanse that is the earth which God made our dwelling place with all we need.

You don't want people thinking? You want them to turn off their brains and just obey and believe what they are told? That is one of the most disturbing mentalities within religious thought.

Again, taking one aspect to the extreme is unfair. Nobody said that we shouldn't think at all. In my earlier post in this thread, I pointed out that God invites man repeatedly to think and to use his intellect. There are signs all around us of God's existence. If you look at the brother's post again, he said:

All these stupid questions. Stop asking and start believing.

Some questions are unanswerable. God, by definition, is greater than all of His creation. His knowledge and wisdom is beyond all of us. We can ask thousands of questions about why did He choose to do this or that, but we already know that there is a limit to our understanding, so it is pointless to go down that road. We should at least focus on those things which can be answered and whose answer will lead to benefit.

 

[Independent]

The question i am interested to hear answered from a Creationist point of view, is why does history give us a record of an evolutionary process, if it was not actually evolution taking place? To clarify:

1. There are species and they have appeared throughout history in a certain order. You don't get modern man appearing 1 billion years ago, for instance.

2. This order is broadly progressive from simpler to more complex forms.

3. Highly useful individual organs or features (eg the eye, bones, flowering-insect combination), once they appear in the fossil record, spread and appear in many subsequent species. They never appear in the wrong order. It's as if someone thought of a new idea (the eye) and then kept using it and improving it in later species.

4. Where we are able to track individual characteristics (eg combined no 2 chromosome in modern man, Neanderthals and Denisovans or inability to make vitamin D in chimps and modern man) they also follow a path consistent with an evolutionary relationship.

In other words....

We don't know the mechanism of evolution for sure in every aspect. But the result, the consequence of evolution - a slowly diversifying set of species with particular ancestral relationships to each other - we can see clearly enough.

Why would God deliberately imitate an evolutionary process, but without using evolution? It doesn't make sense. Why continue to invent creatures and entire eco-systems one by one? Why make and then allow to subside into extinction such a huge number of species (exceeding 99%) before man even makes an appearance on the scene? Why make laws of physics, but not of evolution? Why would He make this the only aspect of the universe that can't function according to its own rules?

 

[جوري]

1. There are species and they have appeared throughout history in a certain order. You don't get modern man appearing 1 billion years ago, for instance.

Excellent article on the matter:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf

I am glad you admit that life as we know it didn't always exist though!

This order is broadly progressive from simpler to more complex forms.

Indeed.. makes it easier to replicate if the proposed method of passage of time x a little bit of sun, and a little bit of air were all the necessary formula to turn a single celled organism to a complex being!

3. Highly useful individual organs or features (eg the eye, bones, flowering-insect combination), once they appear in the fossil record, spread and appear in many subsequent species. They never appear in the wrong order.

Organs appeared by themselves ex nihilio? we'd walking eyes before they were incorporated into the human body? how many times did 'evolution' take by way of attempts to not give us a rate limiting step in the urea cycle for instance but has that rate limiting very complex step in other biochemical processes?
Problem with the lot of you is you don't know the weightiness of the finite details of what it takes to put a number of amino acids together to produce a functional protein and from functional proteins to organ systems and from organ systems to complex beings with higher reticular functions so you just use a simpleton catch all term to hide the ignorance behind pompous terms which are see through to most of us. The simple fact is if you were so good and so close to knowing then by all means denature a flowering stalk and then reanneal it back together giving it form in the processes!

4. Where we are able to track individual characteristics (eg combined no 2 chromosome in modern man, Neanderthals and Denisovans or inability to make vitamin D in chimps and modern man) they also follow a path consistent with an evolutionary relationship.

That's a long leap of faith in fact as I have demonstrated in the previous page that acrocentric breaks, translocation or fusions of chromosomes from what we actually know and observe not theorize about give us nothing but deleterious diseased states!

We don't know the mechanism of evolution for sure in every aspect. But the result, the consequence of evolution - a slowly diversifying set of species with particular ancestral relationships to each other - we can see clearly enough.

No, we can't.. what we can see are adaptive changes.. the same way Barrett's esophagus turns squamous cells columnar with repeated insults.

Why would God deliberately imitate an evolutionary process, but without using evolution? It doesn't make sense. Why continue to invent creatures and entire eco-systems one by one? Why make and then allow to subside into extinction such a huge number of species (exceeding 99%) before man even makes an appearance on the scene? Why make laws of physics, but not of evolution? Why would He make this the only aspect of the universe that can't function according to its own rules?

These questions of why are non sensical. We observe nature and record it that is all there is to it!

best,

 

[observer]

We observe nature and record it that is all there is to it!

But surely we should try to understand​ it as well?

 

[جوري]

But surely we should try to understand​ it as well?

Yes I insist you do hence the PDF file I enclosed above. Please do read it before you next write!

best,