Where does God fit in?

[Ramadhan]

I would make a slightly different argument from yours. Many phenomena that used to be attributed to a deity, such as crops failing, disease or earthquakes, now have entirely empirical and material explanations attached to them. As a result, god appears to have less and less to do with these events. As human knowledge has developed, the role of god has become increasingly marginalised, and the suspicion that god was the creation of primitive human minds going on the only information they had at the time has become more and more widespread.

How perfect it is that czgibson's assertion is fully answered by Dagless' next post although Dagless intended it to answer the OP:

The question doesn't really make sense, since all the things you've mentioned require God. Just because you believe you know a mechanism to some predictable degree does not somehow preclude God.

 

[IsamBitar]

There is no need for any rude responses from anyone. Please keep things civilized.

Sorry MustafaMc. Please accept my genuine apologies.

montada eltwhed

That forum is useless. They wouldn't answer any questions no matter how genuine they are, they wouldn't explain, they wouldn't let me explain and they have a ban-fetish that makes them ban non-Muslim users any time they even remotely refer to atheism or evolution. My time there was a nightmare and honestly my time here was much better and much more tolerated.

I don't know where you get your information from, but they are most certainly not from science books:

Actually, they are. I could list a hundred books here that contain my information. As for the rest of your post, you did what MustafaMc did; denied everything but provided nothing in return.

absolute nothingness which was the pre big bang condition.

Actually, it's quantum nothingness that preceded the Big Bang. Almost all cosmologists agree on this.

I could go on forever picking apart your false information.

Please do. All you did so far was just say "science does not do this, science does not do that." Well, that's not picking apart anything.


So far, everyone's been just denying proven science and saying that God did it. Forget it, I don't think my question will ever be answered here.

 

[AabiruSabeel]

You did not answer my question.

What do you define science as?

Isn't it clear that the laws that govern science were created? The cause was created and a definite effect was given to the cause?

 

[IsamBitar]

What do you define science as?

Well, to me, science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about our world.

Isn't it clear that the laws that govern science were created? The cause was created and a definite effect was given to the cause?

Yeah that could be true.

 

[MustafaMc]

So far, everyone's been just denying proven science and saying that God did it.

No, we are not denying proven science only speculative theories with the sole motivation of providing some answer (however far fetched) to counter 'God did it'.

Do you know the difference between mitosis and meiosis? If so, can you provide a reasonable scheme for the evolution of meiosis from mitosis and the simultaneous evolution of male and female sexual organs that are useless without the other?

 

[Ramadhan]

Actually, they are. I could list a hundred books here that contain my information. As for the rest of your post, you did what MustafaMc did; denied everything but provided nothing in return.

Actually, I did more than you did:
You need to look yourself in the mirror; all you did was: science prove this, science explains that, saying everything but provided nothing to back up your claims.
So I figured out that you are already satisfied with that kind of method.

If you want more detailed replies, could you also give evidence to your assertions?

Actually, it's quantum nothingness that preceded the Big Bang. Almost all cosmologists agree on this.

Actually, before Big Bang, there was no quantum whatsoever as there was nothing. Almost all cosmologists agree on this.

Please do. All you did so far was just say "science does not do this, science does not do that." Well, that's not picking apart anything.

Well, when all you did so far is "science do this, science does that", mustafamc's and my succinct responses are good enough.

So far, everyone's been just denying proven science and saying that God did it. Forget it, I don't think my question will ever be answered here.

Oh, did you actually ever ask a question?

 

[AabiruSabeel]

Well, to me, science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about our world.

I am sure you know that not everything in science is based on testable explanations and a lot of it is based on assumptions and speculations. Many established scientific explanations get invalidated by later scientists. So how can you accept science to be a basis for your belief?

Yeah that could be true.

It is true. Do you still doubt?


Allah SubHanahu wa Ta'ala is recognised by the bounties He has favoured on us. I recommend you to read this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/manners...-allah-subhanahu-wa-ta3la-has-blessed-us.html

 

[Flame of Hope]

Hello there IsamBitar! This is a most fascinating thread you've started.

Science today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty.

"Science" is a subject.... a thing.... a tool.... a body of information.... facts and figures, classified and put into categories by PEOPLE. It is not science that does any explaining. It's mute... it cannot think, reason or rationalize.

So let's take out that word "science" and replace it with the words: "some scientists."

So we get: "Some scientists today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty."

Now you might object to the use of the word "some". You might want to say "ALL scientists"...

But that wouldn't be a true statement at all if you meant all scientists.

The truth is.... not all scientists are in agreement about many things in life.

All scientists cannot say with certainty that they know the truth behind everything.

The fact will always remain that no matter how much knowledge man gains about the world in which he lives, there will always be tons more that he will be in ignorance about.

Where does God fit into all this? Well, He is the One who determines who will acquire knowledge.... and who will wander around in the darkness of ignorance.

He is the One who is in complete control of all things.

And if it is not His will, you will never ever get to know a single thing about Him.

 

[Insecured soul]

lol, funny post

no offence to OP though

May allah guide you to the truth

salaam alaikum

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I would make a slightly different argument from yours. Many phenomena that used to be attributed to a deity, such as crops failing, disease or earthquakes, now have entirely empirical and material explanations attached to them. As a result, god appears to have less and less to do with these events. As human knowledge has developed, the role of god has become increasingly marginalised, and the suspicion that god was the creation of primitive human minds going on the only information they had at the time has become more and more widespread.

How perfect it is that czgibson's assertion is fully answered by Dagless' next post although Dagless intended it to answer the OP:

The question doesn't really make sense, since all the things you've mentioned require God. Just because you believe you know a mechanism to some predictable degree does not somehow preclude God.

The point is that the explanations work just as well whether you include God or not. If we believe we have a full understanding of, for instance, tidal phenomena, what purpose does it serve to add the phrase "and God did all this" to an explanation of them? Saying "God did it" does not explain anything; in fact, since God is a complex idea, that assertion actually requires further explanation itself.

Peace

 

[Perseveranze]

The concept of the imperceptible is a decisive factor in distinguishing man from animal. Materialist thinking, ancient as well as modern, has tended to drag man back to an irrational existence, with no room for the spiritual, where everything is determined by sensory means alone. What is peddled as 'progressive thought' is no more than dismal regression. - Syed Qutb(ra)

 

[*Yasmin*]

That forum is useless. They wouldn't answer any questions no matter how genuine they are, they wouldn't explain, they wouldn't let me explain and they have a ban-fetish that makes them ban non-Muslim users any time they even remotely refer to atheism or evolution. My time there was a nightmare and honestly my time here was much better and much more tolerated.

Hmm, It may be useless for you i see. but many brothers reverted to Islam in that forum.
yeah they ban when you don't obey the rules and they are very strict towards these issues, and I second them.

If you like it here more and you can gain benefits, please stay, you're very welcome!
wish you the best.
Salam.

 

[MustafaMc]

Hey, IsamBitar, I am still waiting for how science proves how meiosis evolved from mitosis. The unicellular Common Ancestor can be assumed to be prokaryotic with asexual reproduction with no need or capability for meiosis because it would also be haploid. Meiosis is essential to the development of male and female gametes required for sexual reproduction of higher life forms.

In addition to the mitotic processes of cellular division, meiosis uniquely has 1) pairing of replicated homologous chromosomes from its respective parents into bivalents, 2) crossing over and recombination between homologous chromosomes, 3) random separation and segregation of the 2 sets of homologous chromosomes in the first cellular division, and 4) separation of the 2 replicated strands in the second cellular division that results in 4 haploid daughter cells from the diploid mother cell.

This process occurs only in reproductive organs of plants and animals such as anthers/testes and ovules/ovaries. Now this process must operate in toto for it to function properly. Evolution can be assumed to occur gradually with each step supposedly conferring a progressively enhanced competitive ability. The problem is that if the first difference noted above occurred first without the subsequent steps also 'evolving' simultaneously then the temporary pairing of replicated homologous chromosomes would confer no selective advantage for it to become passed on to progeny for natural selection to act upon. Note that there is no homologous pairing in prokaryotic organisms as they are haploid and by definition have only one set (actually only one) of chromosomes. The somatic diploid body cells of an organism are genetically identical, but each and every sperm within a man's testes is genetically unique. Furthermore, every sperm that has ever existed is worthless with regards to producing fertile offspring unless it unites with the egg of a female of the same species. Therefore, not only would all of the steps of meiosis need to evolve simultaneously, but so also would male and female sexual organs need to simultaneously evolve for meiosis to confer any selective advantage.

Perhaps you have a better understanding of genetics and cellular biology and can explain how meiosis evolved. Since you have said that science can explain almost everything, then I am sure there is a simple logical explanation for such a basic question.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you IsamBitar;

where does God fit into the picture? In other words, where is God's actual work?

Thanks

It seems that nature can make everything happen without help from any God, but what tools does nature have to create life and fuel the evolutionary process?

As I understand life started some four billion years ago in the seas, so there are tides to move chemicals about, tempreture variation in the sea, sunlight. But what other tools does nature have to make 200 bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments and a 1,000 tendons. What tools does nature have to join all these things together to create movement

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[IsamBitar]

If so, can you provide a reasonable scheme for the evolution of meiosis from mitosis and the simultaneous evolution of male and female sexual organs that are useless without the other?

Your two questions are linked together. You cannot have sexual reproduction evolve if there was no meiosis. So, how did meiosis evolve? Right, I'll keep this very simple and short for the convenience of others. If you want more information, I could recommend one or two reads.


Now we need to understand that the beginning of sex was simply two cells fusing and mixing their DNA and then separating. Two haploids fusing into a diploid, which then undergoes meiosis, cell divison and then you get four haploid cells. But which one evolved first? Meiosis or cell fusion? Or did they have to simultaneously evolve?


Well, scientific studies show that meiosis evolved first. Because it was a mechanism to correct errors when DNA replicated but the cell didn't divide. Another plausible theory is the asexual ploidy cycle, where sometimes it is more beneficial to be a haploid rather than a diploid, and on other times they would benefit from being diploid. To go from haploid to diploid, you only need DNA replication, no cell divison. But to go back you need to go through something like meiosis. Now how did this mechanism evolve? Now in yeasts and many other eukaryotes, the proteins responsible for meiosis are either similar to those responsible for normal DNA replication (mitosis) or DNA mutation-repair proteins or chromosome condensation. Now all those evolved way before meiosis did. Evolution makes use of pre-existing systems for new functions. Cell fusion was the result of evolving from prokaryotes into eukaryotes. So, at first, cell fusion would have been an act of chance; an accident which meiosis could correct. But then again that accident had a great effect: sex. Now seeing how beneficial sex is to accelerate evolution, it had to stay. There are many other benefits to early sex as well I'm not going to discuss (this post is too long already). Now how is this fusion sex? DNA cross-overs cause some DNA pieces to be mixed and recombined. And when the two cells de-fuse, they are the product of sex. You can find examples of this in today's Volvox, by the way.
I hope that makes sense.

As for sex itself, its evolution is simple. Once it started like I demonstrated above, all the extra stuff are just refinements to make sex more efficient.

Now I know I left out some detail but I really don't want to make this too hard to read. But if you want to know more you could watch those videos I really recommend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM.

Almost all cosmologists agree on this.

Source?

Oh, did you actually ever ask a question?

Yeah, read the title of the post you're replying to.

lot of it is based on assumptions and speculations.

Well, nothing in science is based on that stuff. But speculations do exist in the form of hypotheses. And they are not taken as seriously as theories until they gather enough evidence to make them true.

You might want to say "ALL scientists"

Actually I would say most scientists. Saying "all" would be just false, like you said. Yeah scientists don't claim to know the truth about everything. But they claim (and provide evidence for it) that they know many things about many things. And science happens to work, correct? The computers we're using are a product of science that works. Medicine, mechanics, flight, TV and almost everything you can imagine. You can't just dismiss all of science because it doesn't know absolutely everything. And thanks for answering where you believe God fits in. At least you took the effort to answer my initial question. Thanks.

where everything is determined by sensory means alone.

But this isn't a reliable way to reach the truth of something. If we rely on our senses alone, we would think the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth. This shows how senses are not evidence for something as they are often misled. Remember, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

If you like it here more and you can gain benefits, please stay, you're very welcome!

Thanks Yasmin. Yeah it's pretty good here I like it, and the people are great.

Thanks Eric H. Great answer.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you IsamBitar;

Thanks Eric H. Great answer

I think you may have read the first line from my post, and skipped over the rest.

What tools does nature have to create life and fuel the evolutionary process?

As I understand from ToE life started some four billion years ago in the seas, so there are tides to move chemicals about, tempreture variation in the sea, sunlight. These simple tools might create some simple life like a sponge.

But what tools does nature have to make 200 bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments and a 1,000 tendons. What tools does nature have to join all these things together to create movement

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[IsamBitar]

I think you may have read the first line from my post, and skipped over the rest.

Oh, I thought that was a rhetorical question..

Right, the set of tools nature has to develop such complex systems is the set of random mutation, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift. You could read a lot about those anywhere on the internet. If you want, you could check this out as a start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtIQvkQWTZY.

And if you want more, you're more than welcome to come to my page here: https://www.facebook.com/libraryofevolution, there's loads of information down there and you could watch, read and analyse all you want.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you IsamBitar;

Oh, I thought that was a rhetorical question..

Sorry, on reflection I was not very clear.

Right, the set of tools nature has to develop such complex systems is the set of random mutation, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift.

When you say random mutation, what tools does nature have to bring about these mutations?

Can I try and explain my understanding of tools in this way. With stoneage tools, a carpenter might be able to chisel out a very crude canoe. In a modern workshop, a carpenter is able to make beautiful and intricate furniture, simply because he has specialised tools.

I can accept that 4 billion years ago chemicals wondered around aimlessly in the oceans, and they will come together, because the tides keep moving chemicals about. Fine so far, I could almost accept this process is enough to make simple sponges, possibly worms or jelly fish.

According to the evolution time line there were no vertabrate 600m years ago, then within a period of about four hundred million years there is a vast aray of life. Many species have two hundred bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments and a thousand tendons.

The biochemical life then takes on a mechanical role involving about two thousand moving parts. You mention RANDOM mutaion which must also take error into account. Just supposing there is a two to one chance against each of these two thousand components being the right shape and size. Just supposing there is only a two to one chance that each of these two thousand components joined together in a way to advance movement. If you compound all these odds together, there seems to be no way nature could do this without help.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[Ramadhan]

Source?

I will give my sources when you provide your sources on your previous claims.
FYI, I didn't provide my sources as I assumed that's how you accept things, evidenced by your previous claims which were not backed by any source whatsoever.

It is so interesting that you never acknowledged most parts of my replies to you that refuted your "science explains this, science explains that". Are you now conceding that your information about science were false?

Yeah, read the title of the post you're replying to.

That was already succinctly answered by Dagless in post #4 and #5.

 

[MustafaMc]

Well, scientific studies show that meiosis evolved first. Because it was a mechanism to correct errors when DNA replicated but the cell didn't divide.

If the unicellular organism had a mitotic failure and the spindle fibers didn't attach to the centromeres to divide resulting in a diploid, that implies a deleterious mutation had occurred that would continue (haploid>diploid>tetraploid>octaploid) indefinitely or be eliminated immediately as conferring a selective disadvantage.

Another plausible theory is the asexual ploidy cycle, where sometimes it is more beneficial to be a haploid rather than a diploid, and on other times they would benefit from being diploid. To go from haploid to diploid, you only need DNA replication, no cell divison. But to go back you need to go through something like meiosis.

I am unaware of any real world examples for this. Can you give a few?

Now how did this mechanism evolve? Now in yeasts and many other eukaryotes, the proteins responsible for meiosis are either similar to those responsible for normal DNA replication (mitosis) or DNA mutation-repair proteins or chromosome condensation. Now all those evolved way before meiosis did. Evolution makes use of pre-existing systems for new functions. Cell fusion was the result of evolving from prokaryotes into eukaryotes. So, at first, cell fusion would have been an act of chance; an accident which meiosis could correct.

...but the unique steps of meiosis can be assumed to have occurred sequentially over time with each change conferring a slight advantage for the latter ones to build upon. You are assuming that the change went instantly from mitosis to fully functional meiosis which is counter to the ToE MO.

Now I know I left out some detail but I really don't want to make this too hard to read. But if you want to know more you could watch those videos I really recommend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM.

Insha'Allah I will watch later when I have more time.