text:
Evolutionists and the Giraffe's Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
In a recent university level evolution textbook the author rehearses the usual religious mandates for evolution in a chapter entitled "The Evidence for Evolution." As Elliot Sober has observed, Darwin's Principle (as Sober referred to it) is that biological inefficiencies and bad designs are powerful evidence for the fact of evolution because they show how unlikely are the creation or design alternatives. And so it is no surprise that, like Darwin's book and the evolutionary apologetic literature since Darwin, the textbook is loaded with nature's bad designs as the proof texts of evolution. Here is what the author writes about a typical example, the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve:
However, there are some homologies that do look positively disadvantageous. One of the cranial nerves goes from the brain to the larynx via a tube near the heart. In fish this is a direct route. But the same nerve in all species follows the same route, and in the giraffe it results in an absurd detour down and up the neck, so that the giraffe has to grow maybe 3-5 meters more nerve than it would with a direct connection. The "recurrent laryngeal nerve," as it is called, is surely inefficient. It is easy to explain such an efficiency if giraffes have evolved in small stages from a fish-like ancestor; but why giraffes should have such a nerve if they originated independently … well, we can leave that to others to try to explain. [Mark Ridley, Evolution, Blackwell, p. 50, 1993]
It is yet another example of how evolution's religion harms science. Let's have a look.
Having it both ways
Evolutionists say that everything in the universe, indeed even the universe itself, just happened to spontaneously arise. And when dramatic differences are discovered in otherwise similar species, evolutionists do not lose a beat. Though evolutionists maintain that evolution is constrained by law, they are always able to imagine new contingencies to explain such dramatic changes.
Yet here, in the example of the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, we are told that evolution was simply not able to remedy this gross inefficiency. Now of course there is no falsifying this account. Certainly, it is possible that the evolutionary account occurred as evolutionists imagine. But evolution's ability to turn on a dime, switching from a new-designs-rapidly-appear narrative to an evolution-is-constrained narrative, depending on the problem at hand, makes the argument not as compelling as evolutionists insist it is.
Furthermore, in spite of the usual bold evolutionary claims, evolution in fact does not explain how the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, or any nerve for that matter, evolved. The textbook informs the student that the inefficiency is "easy to explain" as a product of evolution, but in fact evolutionists provide nothing more than vague speculation. That last thing nerve cells look like is a product of evolution.
Nerve cells: More than just a wire
Nerve cells have a long tail which carries an electronic impulse. The tail can be several feet long and its signal might stimulate a muscle to action, control a gland, or report a sensation to the brain.
Like a cable containing thousands of different telephone wires, nerve cells are often bundled together to form a nerve. Early researchers considered that perhaps the electronic impulse traveled along the nerve cell tail like electricity in a wire. But they soon realized that the signal in nerve cells is too weak to travel very far. The nerve cell would need to boost the signal along the way for it to travel along the tail.
After years of research it was discovered that the signal is boosted by membrane proteins. First, there is a membrane protein that simultaneously pumps potassium ions into the cell and sodium ions out of the cell. This sets up a chemical gradient across the membrane. There is more potassium inside the cell than outside, and there is more sodium outside than inside. Also, there are more negatively charged ions inside the cell so there is a voltage drop (50-100 millivolt) across the membrane.
In addition to the sodium-potassium pump, there are also sodium channels and potassium channels. These membrane proteins allow sodium and potassium, respectively, to pass through the membrane. They are normally closed, but when the electronic impulse travels along the nerve cell tail, it causes the sodium channels to quickly open. Sodium ions outside the cell then come streaming into the cell down the electro-chemical gradient. As a result the voltage drop is reversed and the decaying electronic impulse, which caused the sodium channels to open, is boosted as it continues on its way along the nerve cell tail.
When the voltage goes from negative to positive inside the cell, the sodium channels slowly close and the potassium channels open. Hence the sodium channels are open only momentarily, and now with the potassium channels open, the potassium ions concentrated inside the cell come streaming out down their electro-chemical gradient. As a result the original voltage drop is reestablished.
This process repeats itself until the impulse finally reaches the end of the nerve cell tail. Although we've left out many details, it should be obvious that the process depends on the intricate workings of the three membrane proteins. The sodium-potassium pump helps set up the electro-chemical gradient, the electronic impulse is strong enough to activate the sodium channel, and then the sodium and potassium channels open and close with precise timing.
How, for example, are the channels designed to be ion-selective? Sodium is about 40% smaller than potassium so the sodium channel can exclude potassium if it is just big enough for sodium. Random mutations must have struck on an amino acid sequence that would fold up just right to provide the right channel size.
The potassium channel, on the other hand is large enough for both potassium, and sodium, yet it is highly efficient. It somehow excludes sodium almost perfectly (the potassium to sodium ratio is about 10000), yet allows potassium to pass through almost as if there were nothing in the way. The solution seems to be in the particular amino acids that line the channel and their precise orientation. For potassium, moving through the channel is as easy as moving through water, but sodium rattles around—it fits in the channel but it makes less favorable interactions with the amino acids.
Nerve cells are constantly firing off in your body. They control your eyes as you read these words, and they send back the images you see on this page to your brain. They, along with chemical signals, control a multitude of processes in our bodies. And no, they most certainly do not look as though they evolved.
Is the recurrent laryngeal nerve "surely inefficient"?
Evolutionists interpret biology, not surprisingly, according to evolution. They see biology as a series of kludges and flukes that just happened to come together. Naturally, they view the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve as an evolutionary blind alley. The nerve pointlessly got stretched. But in fact, on its long journey around the giraffe's heart, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is hard at work. Gray's Anatomy explains that as it winds around the subclavian artery the nerve sends several filaments to the cardiac plexus. It also sends branches to the mucous membrane, the oesophagus, and trachea. In fact, there is nothing like biology to remedy evolutionary misconceptions. Perhaps the recurrent laryngeal nerve is inefficient, perhaps it isn't. But let's try understanding it first before making theory-laden conclusions.
Nonetheless, this is what evolutionists believe. As evolutionist Jerry Coyne explains, the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve "makes no sense under the idea of special creation ... No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections." As he further explains in his book, Why Evolution is true:
One of nature's worst designs is shown by the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals. Running from the brain to the larynx, this nerve helps us speak and swallow. The curious thing is that it is much longer than it needs to be. ... In giraffes the nerve takes a similar path, but one that runs all the way down that long neck and back up again: a distance fifteen feet longer than the direct route! ... This circuitous path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is not only poor design, but might even be maladaptive. That extra length makes it more prone to injury. It can, for example, be damaged by a blow to the chest, making it hard to talk or swallow. But the pathway makes sense when we understand how the recurrent laryngeal nerve evolved. ... But the particular bad designs that we see make sense only if they evolved from features of earlier ancestors. If a designer did have discernable motives when creating species, one of them must surely have been to fool biologists by making organisms look as though they evolved. [82-5]
Or again, here is how evolutionist Richard Dawkins puts it:
The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a remarkable piece of unintelligent design. The nerve starts in the head, with the brain, and the end organ is the larynx, the voice box. But instead of going straight there it goes looping past the voice box. In the case of the giraffe, it goes down the full length of the giraffe's neck, loops down one of the main arteries in the chest and then comes straight back up again to the voice box, having gone within a couple of inches of the voice box on its way down. No intelligent designer would ever have done that.
Some people are not quite sure what to make of this evolutionary metaphysics. In order to understand evolution, one needs to listen to what the evolutionists are saying. You may not agree, but this is what evolutionists believe. What if you believed the things evolutionists insist must be true? It may be difficult, but pretend for a moment that you actually believed as Darwin and the evolutionists do. Then, of course, you would say evolution is a fact. You would have to agree that the details are not well understood, but so what? So what if the theory is bizarre given the science—it must be true, one way or another.
This is rationalism.
When I pointed out this recurrent laryngeal nerve argument in my previous posting, a professor commented that this is not a problem for evolution, but rather a problem for me:
1. Either there is no prediction of what an omnipotent, designer would do,
2. ... or there is a prediction.
In the former case it is then clear that there is no prediction, the assumption of such a Designer makes no predictions about anything, and if so this hypothesis is not science.
In the latter case, there is a prediction and the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve is evidence against it.
We've been over this ground here many times. Cornelius has never explained what, if any predictions the hypothesis of Design makes.
The problem is that opponents of evolutionary biology want to have it both ways. In other cases they try to make predictions that an omnipotent Designer would not make certain kinds of designs. The simplest example is junk DNA. People who argue that there is evidence for Intelligent Design often say that it does make a prediction—that there will not be junk DNA. They never, ever, say where in their theory this prediction comes from, because to do so would be to admit that its origin is in theology. An intelligent, benign Designer would just not do it that way, they are arguing.
Cornelius continues to be caught on this dilemma and continues to try to argue that there is no prediction from Design, but continues to try to maintain that Design is science. He's stuck. We've been over this ground many times here, and he is still stuck. He can get unstuck by disavowing the junk DNA prediction, but then he's ultimately going to have to admit that his Design hypothesis is not science.
Rationalists place their need to know above limitations of their knowledge. If you point out the limitations they will criticize you for violating science's intellectual necessity. They will even turn their dilemma onto you, assuming you face the same problem (no, I do not have a "Design hypothesis" as the professor thinks).
But how can we possibly know how the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve (or DNA that evolutionists label as junk, or a thousand other structures) ought to be designed? We barely understand how it even works. I would be the first to agree, indeed the first to argue, that our ability to judge and predict how an omnipotent designer would and would not make certain kinds of designs is limited. I will be happy when we can simply understand how those designs work.
I will be even happier when evolutionists cease their claims that evolution is a scientific fact based on metaphysical claims. If the professor is sure the design theory fails to qualify as science because it argues nature looks like it was designed, then why does he not also hold that evolution fails to qualify as science because it argues nature looks like it was not designed? Is it OK to argue what a designer would not do, but not OK to argue what a designer would do?
Evolutionists are fond of declaring what is and is not legitimate science, but their arguments are hypocritical. Science must stick to what is testable, they insist, but they then make all manner of untestable, metaphysical claims.
Evolutionists have taken science far afield. They have immersed science in their religious and philosophical concerns. And when you point it out they blame you for causing the problem. Religion drives science and it matters.
Posted by Cornelius Hunter at Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Labels: Evolution's religion
Bradford December 29, 2010 at 5:28 AM
"Evolutionists say that everything in the universe, indeed even the universe itself, just happened to spontaneously arise."
I'm not sure how exactly you can argue against this? If you believe in "god" I'm sure you are arguing the same thing in reference to your god. That is moreso irrational because of the fact that you are beginning with the unsubstantiated premise that god exists. Scientists in general may believe one theory for the existance of the universe, but it is of course subject to refinement (or even a complete overhaul) upon further discovery.
Pedant December 29, 2010 at 5:34 AM
Hunter, discussing the curious case of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in the Giraffe:
Evolutionists say that everything in the universe, indeed even the universe itself, just happened to spontaneously arise. And when dramatic differences are discovered in otherwise similar species, evolutionists do not lose a beat.
On the contrary, it is the lack of dramatic differences between the circuitous course of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve among higher vertebrates that supports the evolutionary hypothesis.
Yet here, in the example of the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, we are told that evolution was simply not able to remedy this gross inefficiency.
Exactly. Evolution is constrained by biological history. Alternatively, imaginary omnipotent creative entities are by definition unconstrained.
The textbook informs the student that the inefficiency is "easy to explain" as a product of evolution, but in fact evolutionists provide nothing more than vague speculation.
What makes the circuitous route explainable by evolutionary theory is the evidence from comparative anatomy and embryology that supports common descent. This abundant evidence for common descent of vertebrates is a bushel and a peck more than "vague speculation," as any undergraduate student of biology should have learned.
Is it OK to argue what a designer would not do, but not OK to argue what a designer would do?
Such rhetorical arguments pro or con are thought by some to be useful for pedagogical purposes. But no argument involving a putative designer entails testable predictions that one can take into the lab.
Evolutionists have taken science far afield. They have immersed science in their religious and philosophical concerns. And when you point it out they blame you for causing the problem.
Not at all, Dr Hunter. You are not to be blamed for arguing your position. You deserve praise for allowing your critics to comment freely here. But criticism, hopefully rendered constructively and respectfully, should not be construed as blame.
Ritchie December 29, 2010 at 6:10 AM
Still not letting this one slide, eh Cornelius?
Fine. Let's go back to the beginning. What do we have? Well we have a nerve that runs all the way down the neck of the giraffe, loops around part of the aorta, and then runs back up the neck to connect to an organ a few inches from where it started.
On the face of it, an odd find. What can explain this?
Well, according to the theory of evolution via natural selection, if the giraffe evolved from animals with much shorter necks, it would not be able to simply reroute the nerve once the neck started growing. That's one of the points of the theory of evolution - you cannot simply switch body plans. You can only build on, by degrees, what you already have.
Now we can look for evidence of this in the necks of other animals. The ancestors of giraffes would have to be virtually neckless for the arrangement of the nerve to make sense - that is, to be direct and efficient. Which means every creature that has descended from common ancestors shared by the giraffe since the time of those fishy ancestors would have to have the same arrangment of nerves.
And we can check this out. And what do we find? That this is, in fact, the case. Though the giraffe shares ancestors with every vertibrate on the planet since the time of its fishy ancestors, all these related species do indeed have exactly the same arrangement of nerves. It is just that the circituous route of the nerve is less pronounced because no creature has a neck as long as a giraffe's.
That is OBSERVATION - EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION VIA NATURAL SELECTION - THOUSANDS of examples of it, since each observed species is a seperate piece of confirming evidence.
Is this proof that ToE is correct? Of course not. It is just evidence, not proof. Then again, no scientific theory ever has absolute proof. Evidence is always as much as we get.
Can you think of a single other idea which explains the occurance of the layrngeal nerve and has actual EVIDENCE to back it up?
[...cont]
Now let's compare this with an example of your own reasoning - on the subject of nerve cells.
Let me condense your argument down to: 'Nerve cells are complex. Very complex,' and concluding with: "[N]o, they most certainly do not look as though they evolved."
Ignoring the implication that the process of evolution cannot create great complexity (a point which is naive and even a little ignorant, to say the least), all you have here is armchair philosophising. Your argument is based on your own inability to imagine how the process of evolution could create nerve cells. It is simply an argument from ignorance. What you do NOT have is any supporting evidence. In fact, you do not even have a mechanism to test and have supporting evidence for (though, as always, the unspoken inplication of Creationism lurkes like an ever-present spectre). Nor any evidence against the answer provided by the theory of evolution via natural selection - though this answer is highly falsifiable. Simply find one vertibtate which shares an ancestor with a giraffe more recent than the fish that first clamboured up onto land, and THEN you will have some counter evidence. At the moment, you do not.
Ghostrider December 29, 2010 at 7:35 AM
Same ol' same ol from CH
blah blah blah evolutionists are evil men who corrupt science blah blah blah this is SOOOO COMPLEX it couldn't have evolved blah blah blah evolution isn't a fact blah blah blah
Really CH, you need a new writer. If you're going to keep posting the same stupid yet tired arguments from your personal ignorance and incredulity at least find a way to make them entertaining. If your aim is to write another pseudo-science book to make money from the gullible IDC mouth-breathers (like Behe, Wells, and Dembski did) you're going to have to come up with something more original.
* (looks at watch) almost time for Gary the yappy little puppy to make an appearance.
Cornelius:
As Elliot Sober has observed, Darwin's Principle (as Sober referred to it) is that biological inefficiencies and bad designs are powerful evidence for the fact of evolution because they show how unlikely are the creation or design alternatives.
False. Sober said no such thing in that book.
Darwin's principle – that selectively advantageous traits are ''almost valueless'' as evidence of CA – [...] (p. 297)
His complementary claim – that similarities due to neutral evolution provide substantial evidence of CA [Common Ancestry] (p.298)
In fact, he said the opposite. I quote Sober referring to the "panda's thumb" argument put forward by Gould:
But it is no good simply inventing assumptions that help one defend one's pet theory.
Rather, what is needed is independent evidence concerning what God (or some other intelligent designer) would have wanted to achieve if he had
built the panda. And this is something that Gould does not have. I think creationists are right to object in this way to Gould's argument. (p. 128)
My criticism of Paley is that his discussion of the eye makes the same mistake that Gould made. Paley assumes that if an intelligent designer created the human eye, the designer would have wanted to give us eyes with features F1 . . . Fn and would have had the ability to do so.
Paley is no more entitled to adopt these favourable assumptions than Gould is entitled to embrace his unfavourable assumptions. What is required, whether we are talking about the panda's thumb or the vertebrate eye, is independent reason for believing assumptions about goals and abilities. (pp. 143-144)
Again, I think he's right. These arguments about "good design" are silly.
omar December 29, 2010 at 9:52 AM
For God's sake, stop saying if everything has a cause, then what caused God. We invoke him in the equation just because he has no cause. He's uncaused, and that's why we worship him, and call him God. That's why I face Mecca 5 times a day to pray to him.
Nothingness is impossible, and, even if the universe is as small as one atom, God must exist; that's the only possible way.
Now, I understand that you, in the west, have a bad religion like Christianity, but that doesn't give you the right to adopt Atheism. Deism would be Okay. I mean here in the east we never have to change our worldviews because of Islam. Christianity killed Galileo just because he said that the earth orbits the sun... Islam is totally Okay with the earth orbiting the Sun. In fact, that's what the Qur'an teaches. Now, I hear some people saying that string theory has killed religion... That's absolutely nonsense. It might kill Christianity, but not Islam. Islam has no conflict with the multi-verse theory.
Here what God says in the Qur'an:
1. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
2. Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
3. Master of the Day of Judgment.
Did you see what the Qur'an says: THE WORLDS.
Stop looking at religion through Christianity for God's sake.
Here is an other verse:
"Haven't the unbelievers seen that the heavens and the earth were joined together and we separated them"
Now, how would a man 1430 years ago know that the origin of the earth and the heavens is one, and how would he know that there was a separation: A Big Bang. People back then didn't know how to explain those verses, but they weren't for them; the verses are for us, the people of Science.
Like this verse again:
"And you see the mountains, you think they are stable, while they are passing as the passing of the clouds."
How would a man 1430 years ago know that the mountains are indeed moving. Yes, they pass, because the whole earth rotates on its axis. Go to the moon, and you will see them moving. They also have an other movement, because the whole strata moves.
As for the Giraffe nerve, it's not the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve that goes down and comes up again; the Vegas nerve that goes down, and the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve just branches from it. Moreover, as it ascends through the neck, it innervates other organs through many branches that branch out from it. Damn, I really had enough of this " The god of Christianity doesn't exist, then no God exist" argument. We need absolutely no holy book to know that there is a Designer; we need the holy book to know Who the Designer is, and what he wants from us. And, that's what you find in the Qur'an; God is arguing for his oness, not for his existence in the Qur'an, unlike the Bible.
TrevorD December 29, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Omar: "Now, I understand that you, in the west, have a bad religion like Christianity, but that doesn't give you the right to adopt Atheism. Deism would be Okay"
That's very kind of you to let us in the west believe in Deism. Extremely generous of you. We are indebted to you.
omar December 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Janfeld
"Omar: "Now, I understand that you, in the west, have a bad religion like Christianity, but that doesn't give you the right to adopt Atheism. Deism would be Okay"
That's very kind of you to let us in the west believe in Deism. Extremely generous of you. We are indebted to you."
Well, that's what I could make of the situation. I, as a Muslim, have no problem with the Age of earth, the age when Homo-Sapiens existed; I don't have to believe that God created Adam 10000 years ago. In fact, if I believe that, I wouldn't be Muslim. Adam can be up to millions of years old according to Islam. He can go back as far as the Genus Homo goes.
This verse is a present from me.lol ... I am so generous.
"I swear by the knocker, and what will convey to you what the knocker is; it's the piercing star"
Is the Qur'an right? Are there such things as knocking stars?... Yes, there is. They're called the Pulsars. Listen to them:
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pulsar/Education/Sounds/B0329.au
geoxus,
nice catch. CH is equivocating between Sober's argument that neutral traits provide better evidence of common ancestry than adaptive traits and Gould's argument about bad design. That Sober explicitly argued against Gould's idea is the icing on the equivocation cake, and moves it closer to a flat-out lie. THen later in the post CH equivocates between the evolution of the route that the nerve takes and the evolution of the nerve cell itself. For someone who accuses people of equivocating and lying so much, he sure does equivocate and lie alot.
Eugen December 29, 2010 at 11:28 AM
I checked Father Ted on BBC website but unfortunately it 'll not stream to me because I'm on the wrong continent. Synopsis looks funny so I 'll dig around Internet to see if I can download some episodes.
omar December 29, 2010 at 12:16 PM
My theory
Allah, the God who sent down the Bible, the Torah and the Qur'an is the creator of the heavens and the earth, and the evolver of life on earth.
First prediction:
Life's origin or most important basis is water as the Qur'an predicted 1430 years ago:
"And we made from water every living thing"
First prediction is right.
2nd prediction:
The stars we wee in the sky are not the stars themselves, but just their Places, as the Qur'an predicted 1430 years ago:
"I don't (need to) swear by the PLACES of the stars"
2nd prediction is right, because what we see now in the sky are just the places of the stars, not the stars themselves.
3rd Prediction
The earth's layers should be 7, as the Qur'an predicted 1430 years ago:
"And we created above them 7 heavens, one above the other, and we made from Earth the like of them"
3rd Prediction is Correct... Earth 7 Layers:
The outer core
The lower mantle
The upper mantle
The D" layer
Transition region
Continental crust
4th prediction:
The heavens and the earth had the same origin, as the Qur'an predicted 1430 years ago
4th Prediction is right, The Big Bang Theory.
and there are maaaaany other Predictions... Is the theory right? ... It's up to you.
TrevorD December 29, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Eugen: "I checked Father Ted on BBC website but unfortunately it 'll not stream to me because I'm on the wrong continent. Synopsis looks funny so I 'll dig around Internet to see if I can download some episodes."
If you are in the US, it's available on Netflix to rent (but not to stream yet).
P.S. It's best watched with a nice cold glass of Guinness
Hawks December 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM
I know that geoxus already went over this, but ...
Darwin's principle refers to the notion that traits that are not selectively advantageous are better evidence for common descent than are traits that are selectively advantageous. He says this in the context of comparing common descent to separate ancestry.
He did not say that this was powerful evidence for the fact of evolution, did he? Did you just make that one up by any chance?
He did not say the above to show how "unlikely are the creation or design alternatives" but to show that the separate ancestry hypothesis was unlikely. What Sober does say about ID is that it is impossible to estimate the likelihood of ID - in effect, that there is no way to show that ID is unlikely in the first place.
You are quite fond of misunderstanding Sober, aren't you?
Hawks,
"He did not say the above to show how "unlikely are the creation or design alternatives" but to show that the separate ancestry hypothesis was unlikely."
CH likes to conflate separate ancestry with creation/ID bc it fits his "evolution is metaphysical bc it uses creationism/ID as its null hypothesis" rhetoric. Point out to him that separate ancestry actually refers to convergence/lateral gene transfer and he'll switch tactics to his "evolution is metaphysical bc it doesn't consider all the unconceived other forms of ancestry besides common and separate" rhetoric. Then, a few weeks later, he'll switch back to the original rhetoric as if nothing ever happened. Duane Gish must be proud.
troy December 29, 2010 at 12:43 PM
E = m c^2
"and work shall be the same as the amount of material multiplied twice by the velocity of sunshine"
5th prediction is right.
R = h^2 S
"and the change between generations in the properties chosen shall be the ratio of additive genetic variability to that of the property, multiplied by the change imposed on the first generation"
Allah was really on to something!
Let me, for the record, state that statements such as "No intelligent designer would ever have done that" are complete non-arguments against ID.
In the same vein, when people like Dembski claim that ID predicts that there should be no junk DNA, they are talking out of their arses.
omar December 29, 2010 at 1:17 PM
"5th prediction:
Allah was really on to something!"
What in the Name of God is this?
Well, Here is the 6th Prediction
There is Gender IN THE vegetable Kingdom, and there are created things which we never know of as the Qur'an predicted 1430 years ago:
"36. Glory to Allah, Who created in pairs all things that the earth produces, as well as their own (human) kind and (other) things of which they have no knowledge"
Iron came to earth from outer space as the Qur'an predicted 1430 years ago:
" And we sent down Iron"
This prediction is right, because Iron was sent down from other place out of our Solar system, because the sun didn't yet start producing the Iron, and earth can't be its origin.
You want more?
Unlike Christianity and the Bible, Allah gave us predictions to test them against science...
TrevorD December 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM
omar said...Unlike Christianity and the Bible, Allah gave us predictions to test them against science...
So that the Christians don't feel left out they are also quite good at playing this game too:
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
Even the Buddhists like to join in the sport too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science
(P.S., The Game is known as Confirmation Bias...I hear it's going to be a new Olympic Sport...)
Nobody here can say that I am wrong; I am using a scientific way.... I have a theory, and predictions... Predictions are all right= the theory is right.
Simply because they gave the same source, Allah sent his religion: Islam, and then people modified it... Look at the predictions maaaaan...
"omar said...Unlike Christianity and the Bible, Allah gave us predictions to test them against science...
(P.S., The Game is known as Confirmation Bias...I hear it's going to be a new Olympic Sport...)"
There is a difference between Compatibility and Predictions... The Bible is Okay with Science... Come on maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan ... I read it when I was an Atheist... Full of nonsense... I know all this Predictions the Qur'an has because I used them to find the truth.
The Qur'an says:
"Soon shall We show them Our Signs on the horizons and in their own
beings until it becomes clear to them that it is the Truth from your lord"
and his signs seemed compelling to me... I just wanted to share...
Evolution as a scientific fact does not rest on the Giraffe's Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, nor on apparent bad designs. The fact of evolution is that the frequency of genetic alleles do undeniably change with time. Add to that that we have seen new species arise from previously existing ones.
Your textbook example does not mention a designer (by the way ID has always been "under the radar" man, but its name changed from "creationism" to "creation science" to "intelligent design," as any cdesign proponentsists can attest). It was comparing independent origin to common descent. Whether his adjectives are necessary or not, is inconsequential. It still makes sense that the nerve would travel that way if we look at it from a common descent point of view. The probability for it to do so if originated independently seems rather dim. That's it. Now, put several cases together and you get strong support for common descent. How is that non-scientific?
Going as far as saying: "an intelligent designer would not do this," there I would agree with you. It is too much. We cannot know what an intelligent designer would or would not do. But, if your quotes are not misrepresentations, then you still have to differentiate between books written for the public to explain why some author does not believe in any gods, or why, as viewed by some other author, evolution is true. Find me such quotes in scientific literature, then we can talk about "evolutionism" contaminating science.
Now let me try and clarify this point:
There is no logical path leading from an intelligent designer to all the things that evolution actually explains ("explain" as in "there is a logical path from evolution to such things"). This does not mean a designer could not have done it that way. It means that it is not obvious to think "intelligent designer, thus nested hierarchy of classification." While it is natural that common descent would lead to such nested hierarchy (as to many other features we find once too often in nature). See the difference? Yet those kinds of claims you purposely equivocate with "evolution is the only way this can happen" and with "a designed would NEVER do this." Of course, I am quite convinced that you know this. Only you don't care as long as you can twist them into your diatribe.
Misguided religion drives your pseudoscience, and it matters.
Ritchie December 29, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Omar -
Unless you have some evidence for the existence of Allah, then he is every bit as hypothetical as Christianity's version of God.
"For God's sake, stop saying if everything has a cause, then what caused God. We invoke him in the equation just because he has no cause. He's uncaused, and that's why we worship him, and call him God."
You are merely trying to DEFINE something into existence. If we go along with the Big Bang theory, then it is reasonable to ask 'What caused the Big Bang?' However, it is not reasonable to just say: 'God did it. And He himself is uncaused.' All you have done is add an unnecessary and totally hypothetical link to the start of the chain of causes. We might as well say: "The Magic Blue Fairy did it. And She is uncaused, so doesn't need a cause herself." You need to substanciate the claim of the existence of God for it to stand. Islam's deity is no more reasonable to invoke than Christianity's.
And good for you if your holy text does not contradict the age of the Earth or heliocentricity. But that does not substanciate some of its more outrageous claims of Gods and miracles.
You also seem stuck on your fanciful interpretations of the Quran:
"Now, how would a man 1430 years ago know that the origin of the earth and the heavens is one, and how would he know that there was a separation: A Big Bang."
There was no 'seperation'. The Earth was not formed for billions of years after the Big Bang. How can the 'heavens' have seperated from something which did not exist? So the term 'seperation' is inaccurate, and only a wilfully biased interpretation sees no error here.
"How would a man 1430 years ago know that the mountains are indeed moving. Yes, they pass, because the whole earth rotates on its axis."
Another fanciful interpretation. If this passage was referring to the Earth's rotation, why does it only mention the mountains? Indeed, the phrase 'passing of the mountains' seems an odd expression to convey the planet's rotation. Why not say it conveys continental drift, or tectonic plates? They seem more relevant.
(...cont)
"We need absolutely no holy book to know that there is a Designer;"
How exactly do you come by this knowledge? Because I for one do NOT 'know' there is a designer.
"Is the Qur'an right? Are there such things as knocking stars?... Yes, there is. They're called the Pulsars."
Nope. Pulsars do not 'knock'. They APPEAR to 'pulse', as does the light of a lighthouse from a fixed location. How is this 'knocking'? More fanciful interpretation.
"Life's origin or most important basis is water as the Qur'an predicted 1430 years ago: "And we made from water every living thing""
Why does the passage say FROM water? Surely this is also inaccurate. Life was formed IN water (as far as we can tell), but not FROM it.
"The stars we [s]ee in the sky are not the stars themselves, but just their Places, as the Qur'an predicted 1430 years ago: "I don't (need to) swear by the PLACES of the stars" 2nd prediction is right, because what we see now in the sky are just the places of the stars, not the stars themselves."
Wrong again. What we see in the sky is light from actual stars. How is it accurate to say we see the 'places' of the stars rather than the stars themselves?
I could go on, but suffice it to say that even if you somehow show me to be incorrect on these specific points, it doesn't matter, because you are trying to infer that just because the Quran is right about SOME things, it must therefore be right about EVERYTHING. This is a fallacy. It is perfectly possible for the same book to contain a piece of information which is accurate, and a second piece which is inaccurate. For example, the Bible's story of Genesis is correct that the oceans were formed before birds existed. Does this make the Bible absolutely correct in its entirety? Of course not. AND THE SAME IT TRUE OF THE QURAN.
"Nobody here can say that I am wrong; I am using a scientific way.... I have a theory, and predictions... Predictions are all right= the theory is right."
DO you have a theory? You have not presented one. All you have presented is fanciful interpretation of your holy text, scientific errors and a lot of logical fallacies. If you have an actual scientific theory then please present it, so we can submit it to critical peer-review and we'll see how far it gets.
Maaaaaaaaaaaan ... I won't go on ...
it's Arabic man... The Qur'an is IN Arabic:
Heavens and earth in the Qur'an means the universe...
man, for me they are compelling... all what you said is wrong... but I won't go on... Whatever I do won't do ... people are simply so entrenched in their own worldviews.
The stars we see now in the sky are just a light comeing from their places long ago...
yes, Mountains passing is talking about crust... I said it look again man
They do "knock" ... Listen to the link...
Omar: "Nobody here can say that I am wrong;I am using a scientific way.... I have a theory, and predictions... Predictions are all right= the theory is right."
Err, no. You have a predetermined conclusion - that Allah and your holy book must be right. You then take known (that is, known to us in the 21st century) scientific facts and force-fit them to match your holy book. It's a nice trick but not terribly convincing. People do the same thing with horoscopes, Nostradamus predictions and Old Testament prophecies. It's all the same phenomena. And of course the prediction always occurs afterthe scientific discovery, not the other way round. Or can you tell me about science knowledge in the Koran that has yet to be discovered?
If somebody had stated in the 1950s (before pulsars were discovered) that a new kind of star would be found that emitted radio waves and is predicted in the Koran, that would have been impressive.
But I suspect Omar won't get this because he wants to believe, and nothing I say will get in the way of that!
I am a former Atheist, my friend... and, because of studying Cell Biology I doubted Atheism...
explain to me how can a man 1430 years ago know that wind fertilizes flowers
"and we sent the winds as fertilizers"
The man was living in a desert... Errrr
Derick Childress December 29, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Omar said: "Nobody here can say that I am wrong; I am using a scientific way.... I have a theory, and predictions... Predictions are all right= the theory is right."
Almost every part of that statement is incorrect. You do not have a theory, you do not have predicitons; you have postdictions at best. If they were actually, predictions of scientific facts, we wouldn't have had to 'discover' them, we could have just picked up the Qur'an. You're matching vague verses after the fact
Take your example of the 'knocking' star. How many words would you consider a 'hit'? What if it had said:
"I swear by the blinker, and what will convey to you what the blinker is; it's the piercing star"
You would likely consider that a description of a pulsar as well. Or if it had said 'spinner' instead of knocker? Stars spin, the Qur'an is correct. Or what about clicking? Tapping? Shouting? Galloping? (a horse galloping sounds like knocking) Or, what if it had said the growing star? You'd count that as a description of a supernova. Or how about 'running' star? You'd count that as a description of how fast the stars move. In fact, what adjective could there be that you couldn't find a way to apply to a star? The 'cooking' star? Stars are hot, like a stove. The dancing star? Binary stars twirl around each other. The stomping star? Some stars collapse into black holes, crushing matter that falls into it, just like a boot crushes a bug that it stomps on.
As was mentioned before, your list is a result of confirmation bias.
And just because all the predictions are right, that doesn't mean the theory is right. Geocentricism made many correct predictions about astronomical events. Heliocentrism made some incorrect predictions, like stellar parallax.
I have no choices... I just have knockers... ONLY KNOCK.
Yes, the collapsing stars...
Qur'an says:
"And I swear by the star when it collapses"...
Omar: "explain to me how can a man 1430 years ago know that wind fertilizes flowers
The man was living in a desert... Errrr"
Omar, I can't tell anything from this. You just pick out a quote presumably from the Qur'an, but provide absolutely no context or reference. Unless I see and understand the context of this it's fairly meaningless. How do I know this is not poetical, or that Muhammed or whoever heard this from a traveller?
And ancient people did know and practice fertilization through experimentation (without the help of gods). Again, you may be reading this with modern eyes and interpreting something that really isn't there as intended.
It kind of reminds me how Christians extract verses from the OT that supposedly predict the birth and coming of Christ - except when you read them in context you realize the overall passage is talking about something entirely different. And of course the problem with the Qur'an is that it seems off-limits for anybody to properly do any real textual criticism in the same way that the Bible has been subject too.
And besides what about all the scientific predictions that your holy book doesn't mention? What about DNA? What about antibiotics? What about computers? What about the discovery of electricity. Etc, etc. What about the Internet? Do you have nice pithy little verses for these too?
to your informations, there is no global flood in the Qur'an hahahahaha not like "your" Bible...
I can play this game too...did you know that the children's character "Winnie the Pooh" is specifically coded along with the word "Jesus" in the Bible. It's true. You can read about it here:
http://www.biblecodewisdom.com/code/winnie-the-pooh-jesus
omar: " have no choices... I just have knockers... ONLY KNOCK"
You can get hormone treatments for this condition I believe.
"omar: "explain to me how can a man 1430 years ago know that wind fertilizes flowers
And ancient people did know and practice fertilization through experimentation (without the help of gods). Again, you may be reading this with modern eyes and interpreting something that really isn't there as intended."
I am not stupid, lol... I am not talking about that fertilization; I am talking about the role the wind play to "Fertilize" the clouds.
Here's the verse with reference.
And We send the fertilizing winds, then cause the rain to descend from the sky, therewith providing you with water (in abundance), though ye are not the guardians of its stores. ( Qur'an 15:22)
Hawks December 29, 2010 at 2:48 PM
Cornelius Hunter wrote:
If the professor is sure the design theory fails to qualify as science because it argues nature looks like it was designed, then why does he not also hold that evolution fails to qualify as science because it argues nature looks like it was not designed?
Design theory does not fail to qualify as science because it argues that nature looks like it was designed.*
Evolution does not argue that nature looks like it was not designed.
* Although, of course, merely claiming that something looks like something else, therefore design, is a pretty poor argument.
Check some weather scientist, and ask him about the role the wind plays in making the rain...
Atheism is faith
Religion is faith
Deism is lack of faith.
Omar: "Here's the verse with reference"
I looked it up and found an English version that said this: "And we send the winds as pollinators, and cause water to come down from the sky for you to drink. Otherwise, you could not keep it palatable"
So? Ancient people knew about pollination - Herodutus in fact had written about pollination several hundred years before. Now of course they didn't understand the mechanisms (and neither did your guy apparently) but they were very capable of observing.
omar,
And the Koran also predicts:
7. "Would that you bring us the angels, if you are ever from the truthful."
8. We descend not the angels except with the right; and not are they then ever reprieved.
Your prediction about the wind as a fertilizer was no 22.
The list goes to 99. (http://grandquran.com/Quran_Translation_EnglishOnly/015_Al-Hijr.pdf)
I can do better than you:
"Superman: The Movie" depicts Superman being sent to Earth, therefore "Superman: The Movie" is a scientific theory since it predicts that there is a planet called Earth.
IIt has nth to do with Flowers... look again man
"The stars we see now in the sky are just a light comeing from their places long ago..."
The light we see is real. It comes from real stars. We do not see the 'places' of the stars, because if we did, the stars would be there, wouldn't they?
"yes, Mountains passing is talking about crust... I said it look again man"
Crust? You said it was about the rotation of the Earth on it's axis. Why are you changing lane now?
"They do "knock" ... Listen to the link..."
No they don't. That's not a knock. It is an electromagnetic pulse.
But I see you ignored by most salient point which was that even if your interpretations were accurate, and the Quran WAS correct on a few scientific points, then that still doesn't mean it is right on EVERYTHING. A book can be correct on one thing and wrong on another. I realise this argument undercuts your entire premise thus far stated, but do try to focus on it for a moment, please.
"Atheism is faith"
No it isn't. It is a lack of faith.
"Religion is faith"
"Deism is lack of faith."
What? No it isn't. It requires faith in a deity or deities. And since these deity/deities do not interact with the material world, it can be argued Deists actually require MORE faith that anyone else, since they do not claim there is any evidence of their deity anywhere in the universe.
omar: "It has nth to do with Flowers... look again man
Looks like it depends on which translation one uses then doesn't it? But even it means what you're saying, so what? Isn't that something somebody could have figured out through observation?
Perhaps we should try a different verse - how about Quran 86:7? Looks like perhaps the author of the Quran needed an anatomy lesson.
BTW I'm not saying you're stupid, but you are dogmatic. You've already decided your religion is The Only True Religion (tm), so nothing I say will change that. I only hope that in the Islam world that at some point people will be allowed to question their beliefs with impunity in the same way (mostly) other religions do.
I personally find a dogmatic view of the world just gives me a headache and I gave up that sort of thing a long time. Besides, I don't have much time for any religion that denigrates and subjugates women. If there is ultimate truth out there, I'd like to think it values all human beings in the same way.
Qur'an 86/7 is a trick by non-Muslims...
it's not translated like that... the origin of the testiculs is from the same place as the Qur'an says...
WRONG TRANSLATION...
Done... I DID WHAT I HAVE TO DO...
and a messenger has just to deliver the message...
it's the same as you people say that Islam kills nonmuslims, with no cheking the truth
Qur'an says " let there be no compulsion in religion"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU4NjRy6CX0
Know the truuuuuuuuuuuth
nothing you see about Islam is right. I am sure ya got this 86/7 from a non-Islamic site
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-bkZc7SWLQ
Omar: "nothing you see about Islam is right. I am sure ya got this 86/7 from a non-Islamic site"
Isn't dogma a wonderful thing? I didn't read exactly the right translation, or go to the right site, or go to the right kind of church/mosque...
But it isn't hard to find quite a lot of texts from the Quran that really don't really make much sense in a modern scientific worldview, but you probably know all this and have prepared answers I'm sure.
Omar, you ever think in your private thoughts that maybe, just maybe, somebody made this all up? After all, that's what you probably think about other religions, right? Humans are pretty good at inventing religions and making up holy books (just for a laugh read the Book of Mormon). Interesting that you completely ignored my comment about women...I guess it must be a taboo to even want to acknowledge or discuss it.
My favourite quote from your last video link:
"Muslims have fallen into the trap that Jews, Christians and other religions have done; of thinking they are the One and Only. This is ego, pure ego." (approx 22 secs in)
Congratulations. You got me to agree with Karen Armstrong. And that's no mean feat.
It certainly is pure ego to suppose your relgion is the One and Only.
But the question remains - no matter how nice the Quran might be, is it ACCURATE? Is it FACTUAL? Is it RIGHT? These questions are not answered by pointing out the Quran is nice, that it is poetic, that it is liberal-minded... Nor is it answered by pointing to isolated accurate passages (not that you've done much of that in my opinion, but whatever...). It is answered by taking ALL the claims of the Quran and checking them against what we know of the world to see if they are true.
And one of those claims is the existence of a God. And we see no evidence for this.
Unless of course, you can help us out on this?
Haqhahahaha
I don't need a holy book to know that there is a God; I know it throuh my mind and reason. I use the Qur'an to know who God is, and what he wants from me. So, even if the Qur'an is made up, it means that God didn't send anything, not that God doesn't exist...
Does God exist, for me, is a stupid question.
It should be: Did God send any prophets...
I DONT RELY ON THE QURAN TO SEE THAT GOD EXISTS.
Here's my opinion
"What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason" Voltaire
"Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with waves topped by waves, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!". [AL-Nour: 40].
and that what I see now.
British scientists have discovered waves that flow deep in the Pacific Ocean, Scientists were surprised to find them in the deep ocean.….
Omar, I like these verses:
And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves; (16:15)
And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance. (21:31)
I guess scientists have yet to discover that mountains are there to stop the earth shaking, or that valleys exist for "guidance" not as the action of glaciers or rivers....
I expect though I'm not reading from the ORV (Omar Revised Version), but I"m sure you'll set me straight.
The issue is that for every verse you "prove" the Quran is right about science, it is quite easy to dig out verses that show the Quran (like most pre-scientific books) was quite ignorant of scientific matters... (and women's rights too...)
Yes scientists discovered that Mountains are there to stabilize the earth...
What women right? ...
Omar: "What women right? ...
Yes, exactly! My point is, you claim the Quran is an enlightened book because of what you believe it says about science (which I and others of course disagree with because I think all you're doing is practicing the confirmation bias).
But what does it have to say about more human things - like basic humanitarian rights - and what does it have to say about women's rights?
Eugen December 29, 2010 at 7:58 PM
Wow. Now you guys got yourself a real fundamentalist.
Cornelius Hunter December 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM
If you believe in "god" I'm sure you are arguing the same thing in reference to your god.
No, it is not the same thing. I don't say my idea of origins is a scientific fact. Nor do I say anyone and everyone who so much as disagree with idea should be blackballed. Nor do I misrepresent the scientific evidence. In fact, I do not hold strongly to any particular idea because the evidence isn't there to justify doing that. And I don't lie about how ideas I may have stack up against the evidence. Nor do I use metaphysical premises to argue for ideas I may have.
So it isn't the same thing.
Ghostrider December 29, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Cornelius Hunter said...
Nor do I misrepresent the scientific evidence. In fact, I do not hold strongly to any particular idea because the evidence isn't there to justify doing that. And I don't lie about how ideas I may have stack up against the evidence. Nor do I use metaphysical premises to argue for ideas I may have.
LOL! Cornelius puts in his bid for the "Pinocchio's Nose" Lifetime Achievement Award.
Negative Entropy:
Professor, What misguided religion and what pseudoscience are you referring to? And how does the former drive the latter?
Hawks:
Are you ignorant of the literature or disingenuous? I can't think of any other alternative.
He's referring to your twisted religious views that tell you it's OK for you to lie to try and convert people. And he's referring to the deliberate misrepresentations, equivocations and dishonestly quote-mined quotes you use in pushing your anti-science strawmen version of evolution.
Go ask your fellow professional liars at the DI how the former drives the latter.
you quote-mined Hawks and ignored he and geoxus' salient and well-documented points that you were mis-representing Sobers' ideas (for the millionth time).
Cornelius Hunter December 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM
nanobot74:
you ... ignored he and geoxus' salient and well-documented points that you were mis-representing Sobers' ideas (for the millionth time).
No, I will respond to their points.
you quote-mined Hawks
"No, I will respond to their points."
good. looking forward to the promised response to my pointing out your naive treatment of natural selection a few days ago as well.
"you quote-mined Hawks
How so? "
by ignoring his and geoxous' previous points.
His previous points were in an entirely separate, earlier, comment. It was not a continuation comment.
Furthermore, Hawks was making a new point. His earlier points was about Sober's analysis and views of evolutionary arguments. He then made a second point, in a separate comment, that "Evolution does not argue that nature looks like it was not designed."
Not only is that not a continuation of the Sober comment, but in fact Sober addresses evolution's metaphysical arguments.
So I responded, and you cried foul, calling it "quote-mining," which means to represent a quote out of context, thus creating a strawman.
Unfortunately, this is typical of evolutionary responses. You address their points, and when you confront them with precisely their own claims, they cry foul.
Ritchie December 30, 2010 at 12:27 AM
"I don't need a holy book to know that there is a God; I know it throuh my mind and reason. I use the Qur'an to know who God is, and what he wants from me. So, even if the Qur'an is made up, it means that God didn't send anything, not that God doesn't exist...
Does God exist, for me, is a stupid question."
Not good enough, I'm afraid. You're affirming that there JUST IS a God. But this is not an established fact. There is no evidence for a God. There is, as far as I know, no reason to think there is a God at all.
All you are doing is insisting that there IS a God, and that this proposition is 'just obvious'. That's just not good enough. If you think there is a God, then the onus is on you to show it - to provide some EVIDENCE that such a being exists. Because without any evidence, the rational position is to assume there is NOT a God.
And, just as a passing point, could you elaborate on this for us, please:
"Yes scientists discovered that Mountains are there to stabilize the earth..."
Cornelius -
Sorry to press the point, but:
1) Do you have any EVIDENCE which contradicts the explanation of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve that it evolved via natural selection?
2) Can you think of any other hypothesis/theory which can provide an alternative explanation which also has evidence to back it up?
3) Do you have any reason to suppose nerve cells did NOT evolve via natural selection other than arguments from ignorance or incredulity?
Just so we're clear on these...
If the nerve in the giraffe's neck is not what some evolutionists (explaining how a god should have created) optimal, then it can not be a failure of evolution. It most certainly can not be interpreted, here or at any time, as a demonstrative failure of evolution in action. In the past, perhaps, even such wonderful theorists as Clinton Dawkins himself may have (let the cat out of the bag) and blamed the failure of evolutionary theory. Was it in Climbing Mount Impossible where CDawkins decried the utter failure of evolution to provide a simple lens for the nautilus even "after 100 millions years of evolution"? What did CDawkins say "What is worrying about the nautilus is that the quality of its retina suggests that it would really benefit greatly" from a very simple lens. I admit to being a bit alarmed when CDawkins even said that he considered the nautilus was "crying out" for the lens. I think it is bad policy to actually publish such admissions of failure of evolutionism. Best to keep such "worrying doubts" in-house and to deftly shift the logic to saying "we can see the failure of how an omnipotent god should have created" the giraffe's nerve, the human eye, etc.
Rhod,
You are witnessing the inability of evolutionary processes to produce "optimal" organisms (from a subjective human viewpoint) and misconstruing it as an inability of the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Instead, the more reasonable implication is simply that no one is minding the store.
The Gur'an has absolutely nth against women's right, Women could fight, vote and do many things in Islam before the "civilized" west gave them the right to.
As for mountains stabilizing earth, have a look at this video:
http://noolmusic.com/google_videos/mountains_do_stabilize_the_earth_while_rotating_around_its_.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy
http://www.answering-christianity.com/mountains.htm
just a bit curious. Explain to me how would a man 1430 years ago know that stars DO COLLAPSE ?
1. By the Star when it COLLAPSES,-
2. Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.
3. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.
4. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
5. He was taught by one Mighty in Power,
STARS DO COLLAPSE INTO BLACKHOLES.
There is no proof for God?... Man, you're closing you ears and eyes on every evidence given to you, because YO WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD.
Existence itself is evidence for God. Had it been for Atheism, we shouldn't be here, designed or not designed, but Guess what... We're here.
In the Sura Al-kahf (The Cave) Allah speaks about people who stayed in the Cave for 309 years ... Now what's so special about that?... Let's see... Allah said they stayed 309 years, but they said they stayed a day or a part of a day... So, there is a time change here. The first thing we should think of is the relativity of time discovered by Einstein... The law of General Relativity states that Time can be slower on objects that have higher density (so, weight)... What does that have to do with this story?... Well, let's see... We have to prove that the cave they were in was Heavier than all earth... Here is the proof for that from the Qur'an:
First, we have to know that Very Heavy things are indicated by two special things: Time is slower on them, and they have higher gravity force.
There are two facts that prove this in the Sura:
1- ) Time was not the same inside the cave, because they said they stayed a day or some of a day, but Allah says they stayed 309 years, and Allah is speaking to us, so he is speaking about time OUTSIDE THE CAVE, because we and all the people before us were OUT of the cave. So, time inside the cave is different than that out.
2- ) This is an astonishing fact I saw about the Qur'an in this Chapter in particular... Allah says in the same Sura (Chapter):
- Thou wouldst have seen the sun, when it rose, declining to the right from their Cave, and when it set, turning away from them to the left, while they lay in the open space in the midst of the Cave. Such are among the Signs of Allah. He whom Allah, guides is rightly guided; but he whom Allah leaves to stray,- for him wilt thou find no protector to lead him to the Right Way (Qur'an 18:17)
Did you detect the astonishing fact?... Thou wouldst have seen the sun, when it rose, declining to the right from their Cave, and when it set, turning away from them to the left ... The verse means that the light of the sun gets affected by the Midst of the Cave, same like when Earth is affected by the Sun (Gravity), that's why the observer sees the sun as if it moves away from the cave, which means that the Cave was HEAVIER than every part on earth, same as The Sun is Heavier than Earth, which is why the Sun affects the earth causing it to rotate on it... Why did Allah choose the sunrise and sunset?... It's because the Cave at those times is between the observer's eye and the Sun, so the observer will see the effect of the cave on the light coming from the sun (Gravity affects light too)...
From these facts we conclude that the People of the Cave travelled to the future. They got in the cave, and they got out to find themselves in the future (309 years after the time they Got in the cave)... Science says that's possible and that all we need to do it is a very heavy place to put ourselves in, same as what we find in this story in the Holy Qur'an.... So, Allah made the Middle of the Cave so heavy that time changed in it.
Conclusion: Did Muhammad (peace be upon him) know about that 1430 years ago?... There are two possibilities: Either Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a physicist and knew about the relativity of time, time-travel and what it requires, or The creator of this universe and of the relative time itself told him so...
Hunter, giving his views on origins research:
In fact, I do not hold strongly to any particular idea because the evidence isn't there to justify doing that.
That intellectual stance reminded me of the following:
"Selective Hyperskepticism: that fallacy which seeks to reject or dismiss otherwise credible evidence by demanding an inappropriately high type or degree of warrant not applicable to matters of fact, i.e. the general type of question being discussed. Especially, where the same standard is not exerted in assessing substantially parallel cases that make claims that one is inclined to accept."
"As for mountains stabilizing earth, have a look at this video:"
Interesting as the video is, you are still ignoring the crux of my argument - the book can be right on one thing and wrong on another. You are not proving the Quran's infallibility. You are still just forcing poetic passages onto semi-relevant scientific facts. That alone proves nothing.
"Existence itself is evidence for God."
No it is not. Existence is evidence for existence only. It is not evidence for a God.
You are simply choosing to attribute existence to God. Let me highlight the fallacy: I could say the universe was created by the Magic Blue Fairy, and if anyone asked me for evidence, I could then claim that the universe itself is evidence for Her, and that Her existence is thus 'just obvious'.
Can you see the problem now?
"Man, you're closing you ears and eyes on every evidence given to you,"
No, you have given me no evidence. You just claim it as a brute fact that there is a God. While in fact, no such brute fact exists.
Here's a tip if you want to prove the existence of God - you have to look OUTSIDE of a holy text. Using a holy text as evidence is merely begging the question.
As for your time-travelling cave nonsense, you are just pulling the same tricks again - interpreting a passage from the Quran to suit you, when the simplest explanation is that there was no 'time-travelling cave' and that the Quran is fiction.
Isn't Dogma good?... You can't believe that the Qur'an is not fiction, because you want to believe that there is no God.
Now, give me a possible explanation for existence with no God.
God is the uncaused cause that gave us all what
we have here... HaD IT BEEN WITHOUT HIm, we wouldn't be here, but we're heeeeeeeeeeeeeeere.
Even if you tell me that before the Big bang, there was just an other universe, then existence would be like a wave... Big-bang, expansion, big crunch, and so and so forth... But what you forget my friend is that every wave has a beginning...
As for the Tooth fairy argument, call it what ya want: God, tooth fairy, Santa, unicorn... It just exists...
Atheism is the belief by faith that there is no God.
The only possible scenario for Atheism is that the universe was, is and will always be the same as it is now... AND, THAT'S NOT THE CASE...
Just explain this
omar:
Now, omar, give us a possible explanation for the existence of "call it what ya want…It just exists…"
Will I call that a " I can't answer then you answer" argument?
It's easy... Science deals with the natural, and natural things are within the rage of Cause and effect chain... In fact, science can't deal with the uncaused cause, because they are, by definition, supernatural. And, to argue for existence without invoking the supernatural uncaused cause is just nonsense.
Now show me one scenario where Atheism can be right.
Eugen December 30, 2010 at 5:39 AM
Very good point with Magic Blue Fairy.
When you say:
Here's a tip if you want to prove the existence of God - you have to look OUTSIDE of a holy text
I agree. With all the respect I don't look there for a proof.
I don't even know much of a Bible text except what priest is preaching when I go to church sometimes. Half of the time there I daydream about Magic Blue Fairy anyway. I'm actually embarrassed to find many here who I guess are atheist know way more about Holy Books than me.
This may be weird to you but I never met proper atheist like I find here in abundance.
That's why I would like to ask what would be good enough evidence for you (atheist) that God exists.
hAHAHAHA NOTHING WILL SUFFICE... EVEN IF THEY SEE GOD, they will say it's an illusion.
It's weird, but I know an Atheist who knows that there are ghosts. I told him how, so he said: I saw them, and I saw their effects. I told him give me an explanation, and he said:
If matter can obtain conciousness gradually, then Energy can too.
Hahahahahahaha
I have been broght up in home where free thinking is guaranted... In fact, my father used to buy me books for Sam Haris, Dan Dannet, Richard Dawkins, but I just came to the conclusion ,through my mind, that people who ackowledge God make sense more than Atheists. I respect Deists so much. In fact, their thinking is what made me abondon Atheism. A deist can go deep to questions where an Atheist can't go, espicially when dealing with Origins.
Oooh, I forgot the great puzzle of all times: Sexual reproduction...
Let me put it this way:
Think of a theif who wanna steal from a house. He must steal from that house, or he will die. Will the theif use a simple tool to break into the house and steal what he wants, or will he use a tool that requires being held by two people? Our theif in Biology took the hardest way; he used the tool that must be held by two people. That is, according to darwinian, materialistic evolutionists, natural selection, the blind purposeless process, chose sexual reproduction that must be done by two agents, rather than a much simpler way: asexual reproduction. According to Design theory, the designer had a purpose for choosing sexual reproduction, and it's putting love between genders. Natural evolution, however, has no explanation at all.
You made the claim:
So it's your job to explain how any of those imaginary beings "just exist" anywhere but in your mind.
Natural selection could never have chosen sexual reproduction... Sexual reproduction needs a consciousness behind it; an egg could easily be produced by the female alone... Why would natural selection choose to reduce the genetic information by half and multiply them by 2 again...
In fact, the genetic crossovers (Both of them), which are responsible for the genetic diversity, are so designed for natural selection to work on them. I just try to understand how a flawless process like the crossover is thought by many "scientists" to be the result of pure chance.
I know that there is God, because he's still not reached by science. If a scientist said that he found God through science, then I will be the first disbeliever, because that fact that God was proved by science just opens the question of What caused God; Science only deals with caused things. God can be reached by the implication of science, not by science itself.
Science will never solve the mystery of existence; every route cause it reached must by definition have a causer, simply because it has been reached scientifically. The first uncaused cause will never be reached by science.
Eugen -
A fair question. An atheist blogger I admire very much took the time to write out such a list (you can read his essay at the link I provide at the bottom.) I agree with much of what he says. Based on his, here's a list of evidence I would accept:
VERY STRONG EVIDENCE:
1) Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived. If the Bible was full of really specific and surprising prophesies, this would be compelling. No points awarded if the prophecies are: vague or subject to interpretation, rather unsurprising (anyone can predict 'it will be sunny tomorrow'), self-fulfilling, are lone correct predictions among a horde of incorrect ones, or predicts things which cannot be independantly verified.
2) A holy book containing scientific knowledge not available at the time. No holy text I am aware of shows insight of the world which was not known at the time. This, I suspect, is the point Omar is trying to challenge. But what he is trying to do is make obscure, poetic references fit semi-relevant scientific facts.
3) Followers of a particular religion reliably, and consistently bringing about miracles (perhaps especially through prayer). They should be able to do so on command and under controlled conditions.
4) A direct manifestation of the divine. If the face of God appeared in the sky for the whole of London to see and spoke at length to us, that would be pretty damn convincing. Dreams and hallucinations, much less so.
5) A religion that had been arrived at independantly by all cultures of the world. Every culture has their own specific religion. Doesn't this scream that religion is a local, cultural construct? On the other hand, if there really was a God, why wouldn't He make himself known to all cultures, rather than just one and then have this one culture spread His word across the globe by lowly human means?
REASONABLE, THOUGH NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE:
1) A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book. Every religion CLAIMS this is true of theirs, but such claims inevitably turn out to be wishful thinking. But a book truly inspired by God should surely be without error or contradiction.
2) A religion without internal disputes and factions. Surely God should make his wishes known to his followers clearly and decisively, so that they do not split and make war on each other over these matters?
3) A religion whose followers have never committed any atrocities. Most religions preach love and peace, but have (or do) sanctioned and committed terrible deeds in the name of their religion. Why would a real God allow His name to be thus smeared?
4) A religion that has a consistent record of winning holy wars. Isn't it odd that this one has never been fulfilled?
(cont)
TOTALLY UNCONVINCING 'EVIDENCE'
1) Speaking in tongues or pseudo-miracles. A genuine miracle should be objectively impressive and should achieve consistent miracles under controlled conditions. Some religious people CLAIM to perform miracles, but actually perform nothing more than stage magic or psychological tricks.
2) Other people's conversion stories, or the number of followers a religion has. Popularity does not equal veracity. Many errors have at some time been nevertheless popular. And if a person has converted, they should be able to explain what evidence convinced them - the mere fact that they did convert is unremarkable in itself.
3) Any subjective experience. Many defences of God boil down to a person 'just knowing' there is a God. But how are we to explain the people from every other religion who 'just knows' their God is real too? Because believe me, every religion has them.
There's just an off-the-cuff list.
As for your curiosity about Atheism, feel free to ask me anything. But allow me to recommend the following site for intelligent and articulate (and not too long) essays on topics regarding theism and atheism:
Hmmm, okay, can't put in a link, but look for www dot ebonmusings dot org forward slash atheism forward slash index.hml.
"Natural selection could never have chosen sexual reproduction"
Wrong. Sexual reproduction performs an invaluable role - the shuffling of genes. Without this, organisms would just breed clones of themselves.
"I know that there is God, because he's still not reached by science."
That's like saying: "I know there's a God because there's no evidence for him." Can't you see how nonsensical that is?
TrevorD December 30, 2010 at 8:04 AM
Omar: "The Gur'an has absolutely nth against women's right, Women could fight, vote and do many things in Islam before the "civilized" west gave them the right to."
You do realize that in Saudi Arabia today that women do not have the vote or can hold political office? And that they cannot drive? And that in many parts of society they are segregated (some call it "gender apartheid"). And that the literacy rate in women is significantly behind that of men?
And of course we could talk about the lack of human rights in Saudi in general - e.g., lack of freedom of religion, the treatment of gays and lesbians etc. And let's not even get started on "honor killings" that we see in other Islamic countries (yes, I know not all Islamic countries are like this, but these are all things done in the name of Islam).
Like it or not Islam is a patriarchal religion - on in which women's actions, freedoms and behaviors are governed by other men.
As to your quotes about the mountains, they are just downright bizarre and ridiculous. No scientist believes that mountains were "created" specifically to reduce or stop earthquakes. The only vaguely scientific reference (other than your fundie Islamic sites) you provide is from Wikiepedia, and Isotasy and has absolutely nothing to this.
But again, when it comes to things that really matter ancient holy books such as the Koran (and the Bible) for that matter, not only provide little help but have other worked against the introduction of human rights (e.g., for a long time Christians justified slavery through the BIble). Although these books may have some useful truths for our time, I see no reason to believe that this represent the pinnacle of divine revelation.
Derick Childress December 30, 2010 at 8:07 AM
Omar said: "I know that there is God, because he's still not reached by science. If a scientist said that he found God through science, then I will be the first disbeliever, because that fact that God was proved by science just opens the question of What caused God; Science only deals with caused things. God can be reached by the implication of science, not by science itself."
I think Omar is pulling our legs; I think He's mocking the intelligence of Muslims. This could be another case of Poe's Law in action. Omar is essentially saying: "I believe in God because He can't be proven. As soon as He's proven I'll disbelieve in him.
That's even worse than the fundamentalist's cry of "I believe in god because He can't be disproven. As soon as He's disproven, I'll disbelieve in him.
Call me a hopeless optimist, but I'm skeptical that anyone able to operate a computer could so mentally impaired as to think that the fact that God hasn't been proven is a good argument that He exists.
Hawks December 30, 2010 at 8:44 AM
I wrote:
Cornelius answered:
I can see that your logical faculties are sorely lacking. You are probably to ignorant or disingenuous to realize this. How about this for an alternative: I am right. You seem to be have trouble grasping the simple concept that just because a evolutionist says something, it does not necessarily mean that evolution says it.
I meant that trying to reach God through science is nonsense...
as for women in Saudi Arabia, I am totally against what's going on in there...
they can't drive... How could Islam not allow women for driving when cars themselves weren't there?
I said women used to fight in wars, not only drive...
read a book for God's sake.
Those countries don't apply Islam... For example, they have a "law" which states that only virgin girls are accepted for marriage... Where in Islam does it say this?
Where is Islam does it say that a women should cover up all their body?
Where in Islam does it say that women can't drive?
Where in Islam does it say that Women shouldn't be a judge?
and a looooot
That's the Eastern culture, not Islam.
Where in the Qur'an doesn't it give freedom of Religion?
Qur'an says kill when you're in a war, and when people try to kill you.
I 'll check ebonmusings website a bit more. It is PITA to post links. Syntax must be perfect.
Looking at the list I see it mostly deals with religion and Holy Books. I expected evolution or similar. Funny thing is religion is not the first place where I look (with all respect). I look for clues from science, primarily (quantum) physics and cosmology. Recent findings in those fields point to incredibly intricate ,precise mathematical order our reality . On my NotBlog I posted a list of authors ,mostly physicists who wrote in last few decades.. Most of them write in accessible language any non expert can understand.
One of the younger of them
Wilczek calls our reality the Grid. Amazing! Maybe you remember us talking about matrix( and Matrix) recently.
To make long yapping post short it's the mathematics and logical necessity of force ratios at bottom of our reality that is the biggest clue for Intelligence .
BTW It would be cool to see event under Strong Evidence #4. I would hope for no thunderbolts against audience during speech.
Omar: "as for women in Saudi Arabia, I am totally against what's going on in there...
they can't drive... How could Islam not allow women for driving when cars themselves weren't there? I said women used to fight in wars, not only drive...read a book for God's sake. "
Omar: "
I'm glad to hear you are against what is happening in Saudi Arabia with women. The point I was making is that Saudi is an Islamic state (a theocracy) so naturally people associate their law with their religion. It's good to hear that not all Muslims agree women should be treated the way they are, but I suspect you may be in the minority.
And yes, I do read plenty of books, thank you.
Omar: "just a bit curious. Explain to me how would a man 1430 years ago know that stars DO COLLAPSE ?
STARS DO COLLAPSE INTO BLACKHOLES."
Again, this is post-hoc reasoning. You are taking a verse out of context and interpreting it through the light of modern science. It would be one thing if the verses provided a detailed explanation of what a black hole is, how it formed, its density, its gravitational pull. But wn get none of that. I could probably take any religious text and do exactly the same thing - Christians do it with their Bible - hey, even Mormons do it with the Book of Mormon (look it up, it's amazing). Again, think about all the scientific discoveries that are NOT in the Koran? Where's DNA, where's the structure of the cell, where's the invention of computers etc, etc?
Again a question for you - what scientific knowledge is in the Quaran that science has yet to discover? Don't you think it's a little odd that these things in the Quran are interpreted as science only AFTER independent (and usually non-Muslim) scientists have made the discoveries?
Now if the Quaran had said the following, I might be a bit more impressed, but some vague reference (and probably poetical) to "stars collapsing" isn't at all convincing...
A black hole is a region of space from which nothing, not even light, can escape. It is the result of the deformation of spacetime caused by a very compact mass. Around a black hole there is an undetectable surface which marks the point of no return. This surface is called an event horizon. It is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits it, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics.[1] Quantum mechanics predicts that black holes also emit radiation like a black body with a finite temperature. This temperature decreases with the mass of the black hole, making it difficult to observe this radiation for black holes of stellar mass.
I know what Black holes are. As for me taking verses out of context, I don't, because people back then couldn't explain them, even Muhammed (peace be upon him) was accused for such verses, people used to say "Hahahaha a star that collapses hahahaha this Guy is crazy"...
Here is a verse that talks about them:
"-I Don't (need to) swear by the invisible
-the running, the cleansers"
Black holes are invisible, running, and they clean the skies by sucking everything on their way.
Again, people didn't know what are those big things that Allah swears by, but we know, because the Qur'an is not just for them, it's for us too. :)
See it in Arabic, it's clearer.
I am not trying to convert anybody, as you try to do by giving me sites on Atheism. I know what Atheism is, and I had my own Atheistic blogs, now deleted. When I was an Atheist, I argued for people's right for talking about ID.
omar: "I know what Black holes are. As for me taking verses out of context, I don't, because people back then couldn't explain them, even Muhammed (peace be upon him) was accused for such verses, people used to say "Hahahaha a star that collapses hahahaha this Guy is crazy"...
Yes, maybe you know what a black hole is. I very much doubt that the author of the Qu'ran did - and it is decidedly a lot more complex than just "collapsing stars". Again - what examples are there of future scientific discoveries yet to be made. You never provided any. You obviously are welcome to assert that you are not taking verses out of context, but what you are doing is a very common practice among fundamentalists - again it's the confirmation bias at work. look for things to confirm an already established belief, but do not ever try to find anything that might disprove that belief.
omar: "I am not trying to convert anybody, as you try to do by giving me sites on Atheist"
I think actually you've ben trying quite hard. But I don't think you're going to be successful cherry picking verses from the Qu'ran - not with this crowd here! In fact my impression is that if this one of the primary methods of persuading somebody to be a Muslim it's really rather amateurish. But then believers believe because they like to believe and can easily gloss over the parts of their faith that they know really don't make much sense.
don't care if you become an atheist or not. I do care if you and your kind start to legislate what I believe and it becomes a crime not to believe. Theocracy is a very bad thing and I hope something we never encounter in the west.
Okay, let's move to the Historical:
Now, I have many Historical facts in the Qur'an, but I will give just this one:
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/historical_01.html
Remember, I don't, most of the time, agree with that site, but, in that article, it was right...
Did ya see how the Qur'an corrected the Bible... It's jusr silly to say that the Qur'an was borrowed from the Bible... Why aren't the lies of the Bible in the Qur'an?... Why isn't the Global Flood in the Qur'an?... We Muslims believe in a local flood in Turkey, of which evidences are found.
Pharaoh said, "Council, I do not know of any other god for you apart from Me. Haman, kindle a fire for me over the clay and build me a lofty tower so that perhaps I may be able to climb up to Musa's god! I consider him a blatant liar." (Qur'an, 28:38)
There is an other fact in here... The building of the Pyramids was a mystery until recently, it was found that they were built using very hot clay.
Now, I don't normally believe all this things like this, but, when worldwide news channels start to speak about it, I have to see sth is wrong in there... Have a look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diAqHCcxYLU
"Looking at the list I see it mostly deals with religion and Holy Books. I expected evolution or similar."
Oh I see, you mean what evidence would I accept that the natural world around us was deisnged? What evidence would I accept of ID, specifically?
Well the problem with ID is that it is not really a scientific hypothesis. It suggests no mechanisms by which intervention by intelligent agents might have happened. It is not really falsifiable because it does not state in advance, exactly what evidence would support it and what evidence would falsify it. It just points at whatever we observe and say 'Goddidit'.
Compare this with the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection. This makes specific predictions about exactly the sorts of patterns we should find in, for example, the DNA of living species, the fossil record, the geographical distribution of animals, etc. It is because these predictions are so well borne out by lots of individual observations that we can say there is so much supportive evidence.
ID predicts nothing. It is a catch-all explanation of any possible observations we could make in nature. We could find absolutely ANYTHING and conclude it was the result of divine intervention.
So the failure of ID is not really that there is no supportive evidence, but that it makes no specific predictions for there to be any evidence to support.
"To make long yapping post short it's the mathematics and logical necessity of force ratios at bottom of our reality that is the biggest clue for Intelligence."
Really? Isn't this essentially just another argument from fine tuning? Or possibly an argument from incredulity? Neither of which make good arguments.
You KEEP ON trying to pull the same trick - quote an obscure Quran passage, interpret it to make it fit some (relatively) recent scientific discovery, and then imply that if the Quran is right on THAT, then it must be infallible!
Can't you see how fallacious this is?
Actually, I'm not sure why I ask, because you clearly cannot.
"I meant that trying to reach God through science is nonsense..."
You mean it is useless trying to find evidence for the existence of God?
If so, then I quite agree.
Because there isn't any. Because He DOESN'T exist!
Omar: "Now, I don't normally believe all this things like this, but, when worldwide news channels start to speak about it, I have to see sth is wrong in there... Have a look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diAqHCcxYLU"
Wow. This is up there with Jesus appearing on toasted cheese sandwiches and weeping Virgin Mary statues (which when investigated are always shown to be hoaxes). Of course no independent scientific verification is offered. If God/Allah is this anxious to speak to his people, surely there are simpler means rather than abusing babies?
Hahahahah Okay ... Whatever you say... We just happened to exist, just like that... Does that satisfy you now? ... Back when I was an Atheist, I moved to Deism after making up my mind that Atheism is just as nonsense as nonsense itself. But, the fact that there is Atheism made me realize that there is some power deluding people... If the design we see around us is proof of God, then Atheism is an overwhelming proof for the existence of some deluding power, and that has only one implication: a right religion does exist. Forget about my eye, or how it just adapts itself to the light it sees; when there is too much light it closes, and vice versa, forget about Blood Clotting, forget about your Immune system, forget about your nervous system, forget about the reproduction system, forget about how a sperm cell is designed to fit in places it never saw (the Woman's body), forget about how the female's immune system just ignores the Fetus, forget and forget and forget...
I said that every cause reached by science must have been caused, otherwise it would be supernatural, and science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Science will never solve the " Where did the "..." come from, simply because everything it reached is caused, the cause of which is yet to be found. There is something that we will never reach. you can say, by faith, that it is not conscious, or follow the evidence where it leads and be a Deist, or even an Agnostic.
An Agnostic, deist, theist are all Okay with me and with Logic, but to state that all this 100% happened by chance is FAITH.
Man, I am from Morocco, an Arabic country, and my English is good, without studying it. I almost saved every Damn English Atheist's book by heart; I know what I am talking about.
The funniest book I ever read is Dawkins' "The God Delusion"... He doesn't make a distinction between a personal God and the God of Voltaire, Enstine and others. I am a Muslim by faith, but I am not a believer by faith, there is a difference between a worldview and a religion.
Give me one possible explanation how we could get here without a supernatural i.e uncaused agent, or thing?
Does the chain of causality just goes back to the infinity?
At least admit that we have a problem in here instead of fooling yourself into Atheism.
Tell me how the world Haman is known, and its exact meaning is known without the decoding of the language spoken at its invention time?
"Back when I was an Atheist, I moved to Deism after making up my mind that Atheism is just as nonsense as nonsense itself."
Wait, I'm confused. You're a Deist? Then how can you be a Muslim?
"But, the fact that there is Atheism made me realize that there is some power deluding people."
Errr, no. IF atheism is incorrect (and I again stress the IF), then that does not imply there is a 'power' deluding them. There does not need to be a culpable power for people to be incorrect on a matter.
"If the design we see around us is proof of God..."
...what design?...
" then Atheism is an overwhelming proof for the existence of some deluding power, and that has only one implication: a right religion does exist."
Total non-sequitur.
" Forget about my eye, or how it just adapts itself to the light it sees; when there is too much light it closes, and vice versa, forget about Blood Clotting, forget about your Immune system, forget about your nervous system, forget about the reproduction system, forget about how a sperm cell is designed to fit in places it never saw (the Woman's body), forget about how the female's immune system just ignores the Fetus, forget and forget and forget..."
Why should you have to forget any of these things? They are all explanable via natural processes. No need to invoke a God.
"An Agnostic, deist, theist are all Okay with me and with Logic, but to state that all this 100% happened by chance is FAITH."
It may surprise you, but I actually agree. To state as a CERTAINTY that there DEFINITELY is no God IS a statement of faith. But that's not what atheism is. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any particular God or gods.
I myself am an atheist. Am I CERTAIN no God exists? No. I am open to the POSSIBILITY that one exists. But I am open to the possibility of ANY proposal being true. That does not mean I will accept it as true on no evidence.
There is no evidence for the existence of God or gods. Therefore there is no reason to think one truly exists. That is atheism - simply not having an active faith in any particular God or gods.
"I know what I am talking about."
...debateable...
"The funniest book I ever read is Dawkins' "The God Delusion"... He doesn't make a distinction between a personal God and the God of Voltaire, Enstine and others."
What distinction needs to be made? Either there is a God or there isn't one.
"Give me one possible explanation how we could get here without a supernatural i.e uncaused agent, or thing?"
Okay - the universe has always existed. It exists in a erpetual cycle of expansion and contraction - Big Bang followed by billions of years of expansion, then Big Crunch followed by billions of years of contraction and so on ad infinitum.
It's possible. You yourself apparently don't have a problem with things being uncaused, since you believe God is uncaused.
"Does the chain of causality just goes back to the infinity?"
It might do. It might not. The fact is we do not know. But that does not justify us making up our answers. 'Goddidit' is NOT a default explanation.
Well the problem with ID is that it is not really a scientific hypothesis.
I'm far from being expert in biology so I rarely argue evolution. I enjoy exchange of posters much more knowledgeable than me in that field. That is not to say I don't have some questions regarding evolution. Even experts have.
I could say fine tuning presents very good clue for me if not direct evidence. It is quite a puzzle for best cosmologists so far. Rees proposed parallel universes to minimize this issue but how do we test if there are other universes. This seems a bit desperate.
Don't drink too much tonight.
That is a wave, and in my physics university classes, all waves have a start... I studied in French, so I can't explain... What's the cause of the first universe? i.e the first Big Bang?
The only possible explanation for Atheism is that the universe was, is and will always be the same ( Static). And, that's not the case.
I am not a deist, but, since I am arguing with An Atheist, it's not necessary to do Dawkins's fault, and argue with Religion. I moved from Religion, I am talking about pure Logic.
What's the cause of the first big bang bin your wave?
They are all explicable via natural causes? ... Come on man... You gotta be kidding me. Explained by Evolution, but how Evolution did it... We don't know. And, that's, my friend, is an "Evolution Did it" or "Evolution of the Gaps" argument. You can't even answer how life started for God's sake... As for Craig Venter's last life "Creation", it's not Creation; a first already living cell was used. Moreover, If Craig Venter, the genetic INGENIEER, DESIGNED the Chromosome, who designed it at first place... I am not stupid to ask you a question like: If we evolved from Apes, then why are there still apes, but If we evolved from single cell organisms, then what in the name of God is wrong with those single cell organisms we see today?... Why in the name of God didn't they EVOLVE for billions of years?...
"I'm far from being expert in biology so I rarely argue evolution. I enjoy exchange of posters much more knowledgeable than me in that field. That is not to say I don't have some questions regarding evolution. Even experts have."
Of course. No shame in asking questions.
"I could say fine tuning presents very good clue for me if not direct evidence. It is quite a puzzle for best cosmologists so far. Rees proposed parallel universes to minimize this issue but how do we test if there are other universes. This seems a bit desperate."
Fine tuning doesn't really make a good argument as far as I can see. However unlikely it is, we do live in a universe where life has arisen. That is a fact we can start with. Trying to work out how unlikely it was in hindsight is like calculating the odds of your birth - that the specific sperm out of billions from your father would join with the specific egg from your mother, and that they would even meet, when they themselves came from unions at such improbable odds, and their parents, and theirs...
Looked at like this, the odds against your birth are nothing less that jaw-dropping. That does not given you reason to suppose there was any force guiding events towards your birth.
"Don't drink too much tonight."
Can't promise anything! ;) Happy New Year.
"That is a wave, and in my physics university classes, all waves have a start... I studied in French, so I can't explain... What's the cause of the first universe? i.e the first Big Bang?"
It didn't have one. The wave has always existed. It had no cause, no beginning...
I find it curious that you would have a problem with the concept of infinity when ascribed to the universe, but not when ascribed to God...
"The only possible explanation for Atheism is that the universe was, is and will always be the same ( Static)."
Errrr, no it isn't. That's a ridiculous claim. The universe and components of it can develop, grow, decay and change in myriad ways. It is just that there is no God watching over or guiding these changes.
"They are all explicable via natural causes? ... Come on man... You gotta be kidding me"
I am not kidding. Each and every one of your examples are exlpainable as the product of evolution via natural selection.
"Explained by Evolution, but how Evolution did it..."
Through natural selection acting on random mutation. Do you understand these mechanisms?
"You can't even answer how life started for God's sake"
No I can't. But again, that is no reason to MAKE UP an answer. 'Goddidit' is not a default explanation.
"I am not stupid to ask you a question like: If we evolved from Apes, then why are there still apes"
...good...
"but If we evolved from single cell organisms, then what in the name of God is wrong with those single cell organisms we see today?..."
Consider the reason why 'If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes" is a stupid querstion and apply the logic to this question. I think you'll find they apply.
father would join with the specific egg from your mother
Oh goodness ,I visualized it for a second.
I'm already half in the bag!Now my kids want me to drive them.Unbelivable!
All the best in New Year!
"It didn't have one. The wave has always existed. It had no cause, no beginning..."
Hahahaha, your evidence!!! ... No cause, no beginning... So, that's it?... Are you really happy with that?... That's Illogical.
"I find it curious that you would have a problem with the concept of infinity when ascribed to the universe, but not when ascribed to God..."
He's uncaused i.e supernatural = that's why I call him God.
""but If we evolved from single cell organisms, then what in the name of God is wrong with those single cell organisms we see today?..."
Consider the reason why 'If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes" is a stupid querstion and apply the logic to this question. I think you'll find they apply."
No they Don't... We and all the Great apes Share a common ancestor, that's why I said that the question is stupid. And, We and all those single cell organisms share a common ancestor(UCA), namely the route of the tree of life. Now, why didn't those single cell organisms evolve for billions of years?
I know what natural selection is man... One can swim, on other can't... throw them in the sea, the one that can't swim will die, and the other will be NATURALLY SELECTED. A funny example ;)
"Fine tuning doesn't really make a good argument as far as I can see."
Even Hawkins said that it can be used as an irrefutable proof for God, if there are no other universes. Check his last book: The Grand Design.
Happy new years, Guys
omar January 1, 2011 at 8:01 AM
I just wanted to add this. It has nothing to do with the last posts.
Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.[5:32]
is this a religion of killing?... Man, stop seeing Islam through what those "Muslims" do, and through the Media.
["Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Qur'an 2:256)]
Ritchie January 1, 2011 at 9:53 AM
"Hahahaha, your evidence!!! ... No cause, no beginning... So, that's it?... Are you really happy with that?... That's Illogical."
Oh no, don't get me wrong, I have no evidence. I have no particular reason to think that the universe actually IS infinite. I have no evidence that this hypothesis is true. But it's possible. You only asked for a POSSIBLE explanation how the universe could have come into being without a God. I can make up others too. How about this one: the universe was created by accident. There IS a God, but he was creating something else entirely, and the universe sparked into being as a by-product of his actions. Don't like that one? How about this - it WAS all just random chance.
The point is that 'Goddidit' is not the ONLY answer. There are other possibilities. And since there are other possibilities, we have no reason to assume any particular one as true until we have some evidence one way or another. In short, it is wrong to think 'Goddidit' is the only possible explanation.
"He's uncaused i.e supernatural = that's why I call him God."
You appear to be using the word 'supernatural' to mean something like 'magic'. It's like you're saying 'God can be infinite because he's magic.' Do you really need me to point out what a scientifically barren and intellectually unsatisfying answer that is?
"We and all the Great apes Share a common ancestor, that's why I said that the question is stupid. And, We and all those single cell organisms share a common ancestor(UCA), namely the route of the tree of life. Now, why didn't those single cell organisms evolve for billions of years?"
Your assumption that modern single-celled organsisms have not evolved is wrong. They have been subject to the same evolutionary forces (random mutation and natural selection) as all the rest of life. They have been evolving. The DNA and structure of modern single-celled organisms is much more complicated than those of the first single-celled organisms.
I suspect what you mean is 'Why haven't they evolved beyond being single-celled?' And the answer to that is that is they fill a niche. If they fit an ecological gap that does not require them to bond together, then why should they? The fact that they are alive today is testament to the fact that their way of life is sufficient for them to survive. Staying single-celled may or may not be optimal, but it undoubtedly is good enough. And that's all that counts. After all, they are still alive, and have survived, remaining single-celled, for hundreds of millions of years.
"Even Hawkins said that it can be used as an irrefutable proof for God, if there are no other universes. Check his last book: The Grand Design."
In that very same book, Hawing said the universe was not created by God. In his opinion, the Big Bang was inevitable due to the law of gravity. I don't think I can post links, but google 'Hawking no god' and see what pops up.
Finally I do not discriminate against Islam in particular. I do not see it as a religion any better or worse than any other. I do not believe the lazy and offensive stereotypes of Muslims that seem to have popped up since 9/11. But it is still a religion - paying homage to a God we have no good reason to think exists. Muslims may or may not be just as nice, respectful and intelligent as Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc, but they are certainly no more likely to be objectively CORRECT on the truth of their religion.
omar January 3, 2011 at 5:33 PM
Islam is the best religion ever... It doesn't contradict with science at all... In fact, it's because of science that many well known scientists converted to Islam... Keith Moore as an example converted after he saw what the Qur'an says about his flied: Embryology.
Ii know what The Grand Design is talking about... That's why I said " EVEN Hawkins ..." I know that the book is 100% against THE hand of God in the universe, not God.
Islam gives us reasons why we shouldn't be following other religions from their own Scripture. As an example, Qur'an says:
Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."
And the Bible says:
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."
Who is the prophet talked about here after Moses?... God is talking to Moses (Peace be upon him)... Jesus (peace be upon him) can't be the prophet talked about here; he is not like Moses(peace be upon him)... Jesus(peace be upon him) had an unnatural birth, and he's claimed to be the Son of God by Christians. Muhammed (peace be upon him) was from the brethren of the Israelites... They are from Issac( peace be upon him), and he's from Ishmael( peace be upon him), and he's the only prophet after Moses( peace be upon him) who spoke in the name of God, and whom God put his speech in his mouth. Even the Bible testifies for Islam for God's sake.
"Islam is the best religion ever."
In your opinion. But you would think that - you're a Muslim. I'm sure Christians think it about Christianity. I'm sure Hindus think it about Hinduism. Your opinion is hardly unbiased and objective, now, it is?
"It doesn't contradict with science at all"
Even if that's true, I've just finished reading Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. That contained no scientific inaccuracies at all, as far as I could spot. Am I to conclude that because it was scientifically accurate it was not fiction?
The bottom line is that Islam still demands faith in the Abrahamic God. If you want to show that Islam is true, then it would be a good start to show this being exists.
Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence suggesting such a God exists - and a fair amount of evidence suggesting He does not.
And just for the record, quoting a holy book, saying 'It's just obvious', or just saying you REALLY REALLY believe it does NOT count as valid supportive evidence.
omar January 4, 2011 at 12:18 PM
What shall I say?... You're Deluded my friend... Thanks God we still have people of reason like Dr CH, Jonathan Wells, Stephen C Meyer, Kennith Miller, Anthony Flew, Alister McGrath and so on.
It doesn't have to be true, but it really makes sense for me, and it describes your situation:
"105. And how many Signs in the heavens and the earth do they pass by? Yet they turn (their faces) away from them!"
All this beauty in nature and you say there is no evidence?... What shall I say?...
Surely, we all know, deep down, that nothing comes from nothing, and, if we are not moved by creation to wonder, then we are not capable of wondering. The problem lies not within the universe but within the mindset of the beholder. Because the design is intelligent, it takes intelligence to recognize it, and the highest form of intelligence is humility. Without humility there is no recognition.
The Qur'an talks about science, unlike Pride and Prejudice... BTW, a good one by the way... I read it when I was 16.. I remember there is Elizabeth and the very proud lover who finally. sees her.
The Qur'an, my friend, was complicated even for people who tried to explain it, because the hard verses they tried to explain weren't for them. As an Example, the So-called "mistake" in the Qur'an where it speaks about sperm coming out of the backbone.
People, back then had to explain that way for the lack of scientific knowledge.
The verse says:
"Coming out from between the "solb" and the "Tara2ib""
Or in English
6. He is created from a drop emitted-
7. Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
Solb in Arabic means "Hard" or "Not liquid", and Tra2ib means "the woman's breasts"... They saw no "drop" coming out from the woman, so they said that it must be from the man. Now, with our science, we know that a drop is emitted from between the "solb" which are the pelvic bones and the breasts, and that's where the Females Egg comes out from.
Now, let's see the correct verse:
7. Proceeding from between the Hards and the Breasts
Notice that the back bone is never mentioned in the Qur'an.
Ritchie January 4, 2011 at 2:11 PM
"What shall I say?... You're Deluded my friend..."
If true, that is for you to show, not merely declare. I could just say YOU are the deluded one. Then where would that leave the discussion?
"All this beauty in nature and you say there is no evidence?..."
Yes I do. There is beauty in chaos. A snowflake is beautiful, but that does not mean someone crafted it with their own hands, does it? A rainbow is beautiful, but that doesn't mean it was made, does it? Beauty is not a sign of having been designed or constructed by someone.
"Surely, we all know, deep down, that nothing comes from nothing, and, if we are not moved by creation to wonder, then we are not capable of wondering."
I am not advocating 'nothing comes from nothing', and I do indeed wonder at the marvels of the universe. There is much which is intricate, complex, awe-inspiring and beautiful. But that alone does not indicate someone or something MADE it.
"The problem lies not within the universe but within the mindset of the beholder."
You are more right here than you know. The 'problem' is indeed that I do not start with the ASSUMPTION of a creator. Because without this ASSUMPTION, there is no objective evidence which indicates a creator. So to conclude there is one, apparently, you have to start with the initial ASSUMPTION.
"Because the design is intelligent, it takes intelligence to recognize it..."
Ignoring the implied insult, why don't you use your great intelligence to point it out then?
"...and the highest form of intelligence is humility."
What? No it isn't. That's just nonsense.
"Without humility there is no recognition."
This is just self-congratulatory waffle. "Well done, me - I believe in a God, therefore I must be incredibly intelligent, humble and perceptive... Yes, how wise I am... I'm a wonderful human being..." This is egotistical waffle - hardly very humble, is it?
Again, if God's existence is so obvious - SHOW ME! Give me some evidence. So far all you've come out with in terms of evidence is:
-The world is beautiful
-It says so in the Quran
-It's just OBVIOUS
-I really believe in Him
... which frankly totals up to being weak as water.
"The Qur'an talks about science"
I don't think it does, really. Does it outline any recognisable scientific theories? Does it discuss scientific practice? Does it outline the scientific method?
Or are you once again picking obscure passages and trying to interpret them in light of recent scientific discoveries?
Here's a question for you - what's the NEXT scientific discovery going to be? If the Quran is packed full of them, what passages in the Quran are yet to be corroborated by the science of the future?
Do you see a cell
From the DNA to the protein... It just says: Look at me, I am designed.
Do you see the laws of Physics?
They are just saying we're written by a mind.
That's the difference between me and you and Mr. CH... I, and him say: there was Consciousness followed by matter. You say the other way around. We're so Damn stupid to interpret the Qur'an scientifically. I know verses that talked about string theory (the vibrations of the strings) many years ago, but what happened when I tell people about them?... They make me look fool, and say: Follow the interpretation of some stupid (not bad, everybody was stupid scientifically) guy 1000 years ago.
As mentioned above, the Qur'an 1430 years ago predicted that the women has a role in bringing the baby to this world, far more than just being pregnant. It predicted that women too have drops. It's clear, because it says: the breasts. But, stupid people that time couldn't interpret it that way. No book mentioned the drop of the woman (the egg) before the Qur'an. People just couldn't understand how a drop can come out of the woman body.
Ritchie January 5, 2011 at 12:36 AM
"Do you see a cell? From the DNA to the protein... It just says: Look at me, I am designed. Do you see the laws of Physics? They are just saying we're written by a mind."
So we're back to 'It's just obvious' again are we?
WHAT about a cell says it is designed? What about the laws of physics says they were designed?
The truth is that you are just looking at these things and ASSUMING they were designed. But objectively there is no reason to make this assumption.
Unless, of course, you can show otherwise...?
"That's the difference between me and you and Mr. CH... I, and him say: there was Consciousness followed by matter. You say the other way around."
This is not merely a matter of opinion. Belief does not make facts. We have reason - EVIDENCE - to believe the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago, and that life first appeared on this planet around 4 billions years ago. So far so good. What reason - what EVIDENCE - do you have to think there was consciousness before matter? If you have none then your beliefs are simply contrary to the evidence.
"We're so Damn stupid to interpret the Qur'an scientifically. I know verses that talked about string theory (the vibrations of the strings) many years ago, but what happened when I tell people about them?... They make me look fool, and say: Follow the interpretation of some stupid (not bad, everybody was stupid scientifically) guy 1000 years ago."
Does the Quran give a detailed description of string theory? Does it take pains to clearly and slowly describe the principles of string theory so that they can be easily understood, and there is no ambiguity as to what it is describing?
Or are you just YET AGAIN taking some singular, obscure passage and interpreting it in light of your own understanding of modern science?
If it's the former, I will be impressed. If the latter, I won't.
"As mentioned above, the Qur'an 1430 years ago predicted that the women has a role in bringing the baby to this world, far more than just being pregnant."
Again and again you are ignoring me and carry on preaching. Please, please, please stop for a moment and consider what you are saying. Your words are carrying no weight for reasons I have outlined several times. Close your mouth for a moment and try to engage your brain - I know this is difficult since religion demands ignorance and unthinking obedience rather than critical logical reasoning, but please for your own sake give it a go:
1) None of these supposed 'predictions' you have pointed to in the Quran give a long and detailed description of the thing you claim it references. It is always a single passing poetic reference - usually even a single word - which you then relate to a semi-relevant (and sometimes plain misunderstood) scientific discovery/theory. This carries little water. It is an exercise in interpretation. If these were genuine 'predictions' then why aren't they laid out in a clear, unambiguous fashion, taking time and trouble to describe in great detail female menstruation/pulsar stars/tectonic plates, etc?
2) Just because a book is internally consistent and scientifically accurate does not make the book infallible - or even non-fiction. Many works of fiction meet this lowly and rather unimpressive criteria.
3) Again, if the Quran is full of scientific predictions, what is the NEXT big scientific discovery going to be? What predictions are in the Quran which are yet to be borne out by scientific discoveries in the future?
omar January 5, 2011 at 11:28 AM
I don't know where those guys came with the "back bone" ... It never says the backbone.
It says that man is created from a drop that comes from BETWEEN the WOMAN BREASTS and HARD things... Pelvic Bones are hard,and just between the Breasts and that bones there is something called: The OVARY from which the Female DROP is released. JUST A DROP FROM A WOMAN IS ABNORMAL HERE. HOW DID HE KNOW THAT WOMEN TOO DO HAVE DROPS?.
TrevorD January 5, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Hi Omar:
Well, clearly the Qu'ran is not the only book that has predicted scientific discoveries. Did you know that the Lord of the Rings predicted the Large Hadron Collider.
Yes, that's right. In Tolkien's Good Book, it states "One Ring shall Rule them All". Of course, it's patently OBVIOUS that the "Ring" here is a prophetic reference to the future LHC. Tolkien, being a prescient sort of chap, KNEW that the discoveries made by the LHC are going to have a profound effect on science in the 21st century and beyond ("Rule them All"). I bet your musty old holy book ain't got nothin' on the LHC!!!
I mean, what else could it possible mean!!!! It's incredible but true!!!! Tolkienism is the world's BEST religion!
"I don't know where those guys came with the "back bone" ... It never says the backbone."
You are fighting windmills and strawmen. No-one is objecting on these grounds.
Try responding to what we actually say.
Have a look at how the compatibility of Islam helped improving science. What you now call backwards are the people who built Modern Science, unlike Christianity which destroyed science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-DFvlUxjck
And, I am not fighting, my friend here. If a whole universe coming out of a singularity won't show you a creator, nothing will.
Stereotypes against Islam of course made this very shining Era be called the Dark Ages... JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE MUSLIMS.
Your video is very interesting, and indeed perfectly accurate. The so-called Dark Ages (named, admittedly, from a very Western perspective) was a time of great scientific discovery and enlightenment in the Islamic world. But so what? Honestly, what do you think that proves?
Many cultures have had brilliant minds and made pivotal steps forward in science. Many of our most treasured inventions and discoveries were actually made in China before they were made or discovered in the west. But what do you imagine this proves?
All it really show is that enquiring minds everywhere can discover so much when they seek to find - when they are dissatisfied with such hollow and wafer-thin answers such as 'Goddidit' to every question.
Do you really imagine that the fact that Islam has produced great scientific minds means that Islam is more likely to be true? Because that is absolutely not the case. Does the fact that Newton and Da Vinci were so brilliant endorse the 'truth' of Christianity? Does Einstein's genius endorse the 'truth' of Judaism? Do the Chinese scientists and philosophers endorse the 'truth' of Taoism or Buddhism?
Is the religion of Islam itself responsible for these great achievements? Absolutely not. These invetions and discoveries were achieved through science - experimentation and hypothesis testing. Not divine revelation. No great discovery or invention was ever divined through the Quran.
In fact we can see this struggle happening right now in the evolution/creation debate. If we take Islam's word for it, we would chalk up every unexplained mystery in biology to 'Goddidit' and then go home. That would be that. Science would stop. There would be nothing more to investigate because every mystery would, at a stroke, have been answered - Goddidit. Nothing more to discover. It is because scientists are NOT satisfied with that answer that they keep searching, that they keep investigating and discovering.
Religious dogma does not encourage scientific discovery - it chokes it.
"And, I am not fighting, my friend here"
You are preaching. This differs from being a debate because you are not listening at all to what I or others are saying. You are simply parroting sermons.
"If a whole universe coming out of a singularity won't show you a creator, nothing will."
No, I am entirely open to evidence of a creator. Indeed, I have asked for some many times. But despite claiming the existence of a God to be obvious, you are totally unable to provide anything at all in the way of corroborative evidence. Funny, that...
"Stereotypes against Islam of course made this very shining Era be called the Dark Ages... JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE MUSLIMS."
No, this is not a case of persecution. It was called the Dark Ages because there was little to no cultural or scientific progression in Western Europe. It was indeed a time of enlightmenment for the Muslim world, and it may well have been for other cultures around the world too - Chinese, Indonesian, Native American... The term 'the Dark Ages' reflects only the introspection and bias of the western world, not a targeted persecution of Islam.
I really didn't wanna make it scientific, but let's get into it...
When I was 19, I was hearing about the Chromosome 2 Fusion in Humans. It was and still is depicted as an irrefutable proof for Common descent between The great apes and Humans. I remember I used to slap every theist with that discovery and laugh at them. However, when I became a theist: Muslim because of studying Cell Biology, I sat with myself for a while and started analyzing that evidence from both sides. I found out that the fact that all the Great apes don't have this fusion obliges me to believe that the fusion happened after Humans and Chimps split. That's the only explanation one can give to the fact that only Humans have this fusion. I always think this way, I think for myself, and I don't care what scientists say. The fact that this fusion is specific to humans only is evidence that these possibilities took place:
-1) The fusion happened in a Human-ape ancestor after Humans split from Chimps and before Humans became Humans.
-2) The Fusion happened in one of our Human ancestors.
Logically, those possibilities have some troubles that we should ignore to accept an Evolutionary scenario.
First, Fusions of this type are hard to be established in generations; This fusions usually cause inviable offspring. If we suppose that the offspring of the individual that had this fusion was normal, then an other Individual with the same fusion needs to be in the same place for this fusion to go on to us, which is quite unlikely.
Second, Where are other species other than Humans that have this fusion? Also, There should be now Humans with 48 Chromosomes if the fusion happened in one of our Human ancestors. That's what that theory should predict, which is wrong, because no Humans have 48 Chromosomes nor any other species have this fusion other than Humans. One can argue they just got extinct. Well, we have no evidence for that, and why would the fused species be selected over the other non-fused by Natural Selection?
An other possibility is that one Human was created with the fusion along with an other Woman with the same fusion gave us all the Humans we have now, and this scenario is compatible with the the fact that there are no Humans with 48 Chromosomes as predicted by the first scenario.
The only way that this Fusion could be an irrefutable evidence of Common Descent is finding Apes with the Fusion. I see that the Creation scenario explains it very easily. The matter of why the designer used those fused Chromosomes will just mix science with Metaphysics, which is what I don't like. I mean the fact that there is no Apes with the fusion gives me every right to believe in a creation with fused Chromosomes. Common descent is not a problem for my Islamic faith; I have long been a Muslim and a theistic Evolutionist, but I changed my mind. I am not a creationist though; I just see no evidence for a universal common descent.
So, the evidence is not discussed as it should be to see where it leads; it's just being interpreted according to Darwinism.
Thankyou. A big improvement. We are now dealing in evidence.
"I found out that the fact that all the Great apes don't have this fusion obliges me to believe that the fusion happened after Humans and Chimps split."
"I always think this way, I think for myself, and I don't care what scientists say."
Well, fine, because the scientists have arrived at the same conclusion.
"First, Fusions of this type are hard to be established in generations; This fusions usually cause inviable offspring."
An intelligently reasoned, though perhaps unfounded, objection. The problem is where you state that chromosome fusion in one mating partner USUALLY causes inviable offspring. This is overstating the case. There are many examples from modern animals of two individuals from closely-related sub-species sucessfully producing fertile young even though one has a fused chromosome pair. For example, the last remaining wild horse, Przewalski's Wild Horse, has 66 chromosomes, whereas domesticated horses have 64, yet the two can and do sucessfully crossbreed. This has also been observed in mice, cows and sheep.
Now it may be the case that breeding between two individuals when one has a fused chromosome may SOMETIMES be unsuccessful, but certainly not always. And often? Well, how often is often? But however we define it, your objection to this happening in humans has been severely weakened by the mere observation that it does happen sometimes. It is possible. What reason do we have to think it would not be possible for humans?
"Second, Where are other species other than Humans that have this fusion?"
Do you mean 'Where are other ANIMAL species who have ANY chromosome fusion, thus demonstrating chromosome fusion is possible?' In which case, we find evidence of chromosome fusion in cattle, horses and even foxes and flies.
Or do you mean 'Where are the other HUMAN species with this particular fusion?' Well all species of humans besides our own (including neanderthal, homo erectus, homo habilis and many species of australopithecines) are extinct.
"There should be now Humans with 48 Chromosomes if the fusion happened in one of our Human ancestors. That's what that theory should predict, which is wrong, because no Humans have 48 Chromosomes nor any other species have this fusion other than Humans. One can argue they just got extinct. Well, we have no evidence for that, and why would the fused species be selected over the other non-fused by Natural Selection?"
Believe me, I do see your logic, but it is flawed.
There is no particular reason to assume there would be humans with 48 chromosomes alive today. The most recent common ancestor we share with chimpanzees dates back around 6 million years - and it is only in the last 100,000 years or so that humans have ever really become numerous. There are nearly 7 billion of us today, but imagine us as a small African species surviving on the edge of extinction.
As a spcies we are shockingly uniform, that is, there is amazingly little genetic variation within the human species. Two chimps from opposite sides of the African continent are likely to vary more genetically than any two humans alive in the whole world. This rather suggests at one point in our evolutionary past, our species' numbers were very low indeed, and we may well have come back from the brink of extinction, replenishing numbers from a very small gene pool. So if these survivors happened to have the fused chromosome, this would explain why everyone alive today has 46.
But your question takes us back still further. Why would a fused chromosome become established in a gene pool in the first place? Surely it would have to confer some advantage for natural selection to favour it? Or at least, not confer a disadvantage for natural selection to select against it?
And on this one I have to admit ignorance. I do not know exactly what evolutionary benefit a fused chromosome would confer. However, consider this - perhaps it is not an advantage nor a disadvantage. Perhaps it is beneficially neutral. Some mutations are. And when they occur their spread through the gene pool is mostly chance. Perhaps it will spread, perhaps it will die out, but if it does not confer anything in the way of an advantage or disadvantage to the host, then there is little to no selection pressure either way.
"An other possibility is that one Human was created with the fusion along with an other Woman with the same fusion gave us all the Humans we have now, and this scenario is compatible with the the fact that there are no Humans with 48 Chromosomes as predicted by the first scenario."
Well, it's possible. But it involves this creator creating human chromosome number 2 to have the telltale signs of a fused chromosome. Why would the creator do this - create a chromosome which LOOKED like the result of fusion when in fact it was not? Wouldn't this imply the creator was some sort of deceiver?
Not at all...
The creator was evolving life from that first cell(s) to everything but Humans, then he decided to make Humans. That is, we share a common ancestor with every living thing in terms of our DNA, but they are not our cousins and Grandfathers. I mean why can't Adam and Eve have been created with the same DNA that individuals had at that time, except that they were little modified to account for our difference from every other Ape: (Bipedalism, bigger brains...)
Then, we can be like descendants from that common ancestor, except that instead of an individual from our Genus Homo having a baby, the baby was created as an Adult. If Craig Venter was able to Design a Chromosome, can't the one that evolved all this life do it?
After all, I think we're here to be tested.
Why would the Evolver forget about all the DNA he has been using for billions of years? He could have just used the same DNA with slight modifications.
"I mean why can't Adam and Eve have been created with the same DNA that individuals had at that time, except that they were little modified to account for our difference from every other Ape"
Why would any creator be constrained by previous creations? Why would the creator have to modify previous creations, even if it made more sense to create certain parts from scratch?
Consider car makers. When they design a new car, they are not constrained by their previous designs. They do not have to merely make tiny design changes to previous models. They can make radical and fundamental changes at a single stroke. The latest model of car does not need to look much like the previous one at all.
"If Craig Venter was able to Design a Chromosome, can't the one that evolved all this life do it?"
I am not claiming there exists a designer who is incapable of creating chromosomes. I am claiming there is no evidence of a designer at all. Which I think is a claim which is being borne out.
"After all, I think we're here to be tested."
If there is a creator who made life in such a way that it looks like it evolved, then he can hardly blame us for coming to the conclusion that it did evolve. Again, that would make the creator out to be a deceiver.
"Why would the Evolver forget about all the DNA he has been using for billions of years? He could have just used the same DNA with slight modifications."
But why would doing so be necessary? Is this creator somehow constrained? Simply unable to do EVERYTHING? If all he can do is tinker with existing designs then it might sometimes lead to illogical designs like... the giraffe's laryngeal nerve! How much more sense it would have made if, at some point during the development of the giraffe, the creator simply rerouted the nerve so it took a direct route. But instead we have this bizarre and illogical arrangement.
"Why would any creator be constrained by previous creations? Why would the creator have to modify previous creations, even if it made more sense to create certain parts from scratch?"
To tell us that evolution is true.
"Consider car makers. When they design a new car, they are not constrained by their previous designs. They do not have to merely make tiny design changes to previous models. They can make radical and fundamental changes at a single stroke. The latest model of car does not need to look much like the previous one at all."
Windows 7 is just a tiny modified version of windows vista, and that's programming much like DNA.
Here, we have different viewpoints. I have that of Michele J Behe, and you have that of Richard Dawkins.
"But why would doing so be necessary? Is this creator somehow constrained? Simply unable to do EVERYTHING? If all he can do is tinker with existing designs then it might sometimes lead to illogical designs like... the giraffe's laryngeal nerve! How much more sense it would have made if, at some point during the development of the giraffe, the creator simply rerouted the nerve so it took a direct route. But instead we have this bizarre and illogical arrangement."
As for the Giraffe nerve, it's not the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve that goes down and comes up again; the Vegas nerve that goes down, and the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve just branches from it. Moreover, as it ascends through the neck, it innervates other organs through many branches that branch out from it.
"To tell us that evolution is true."
I'm confused. Surely you're arguing evolution is NOT true? If there's a creator just making creatures then evolution is not true. Why would a creator tell us something was true when it wasn't? That's lying.
"Windows 7 is just a tiny modified version of windows vista, and that's programming much like DNA."
It is, but there is no reason why it has to be. (Well, except for compatibility issues for their customers with windows vista. But that would not apply to animals - the defining criteria of different species is that they cannot interbreed. So a new species' genetics would not need to be compatible with any others'.) We can make an entirely new version of windows practically from scratch, with little to no reference to what came before.
"Here, we have different viewpoints. I have that of Michele J Behe, and you have that of Richard Dawkins."
Very well, we can take a step backwards if you like - WHY do you think we're here to be tested? Is it just religious faith?
"As for the Giraffe nerve, it's not the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve that goes down and comes up again; the Vegas nerve that goes down, and the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve just branches from it. Moreover, as it ascends through the neck, it innervates other organs through many branches that branch out from it."
I'll concede these points, but they do not answer my question. Whether it is called the laryngeal nerve or the vegas nerve, it still takes a totally unnecessary and extremely circuitous route all the way down and back up the giraffe's neck. Why would that be if there is a designer capable of simply rerouting it?
"I'm confused. Surely you're arguing evolution is NOT true? If there's a creator just making creatures then evolution is not true. Why would a creator tell us something was true when it wasn't? That's lying."
Why?... There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for an Intillegently designed Evolutionary Creation. Evolution is a fact, not a theory; it's how evolution works that we're talking about here. Natural selection, in my view, doesn't account for some structers we see in nature. I see that things are designed for Evolution to work on them, and when things can't go on anymore, the designer just intervents. As an Example, I will talk about the structure that made me rethink about my Atheism: The Nuclear Pore Complex; I just couldn't see how Blind Natural Selection can account for structures like it, and there are many like them. In fact, the fundamental basis on which Natural selection relys, Sexual Reproduction is, in my view, designed for Evolution to work on it. I don't have a problem with Evolution; I have one with Darwinism.
As for Adam and Eve Creation, it's just like the Creation of Jesus(Peace be upon him) in Mary's (may God be pleased with her) womb. Did he create him as a new species? or some special one? He was the same like other people, except that he was a messenger of God.
http://kaheel7.com/eng/index.php/numeric-miracle/137-amazing-miracle-jesus-and-adam
I respect Darwin so much. In fact, he did what, I believe, God ordered us to do in the Qur'an:
"Say (O Muhammed): "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things."
He traveled, and did that.
I believe in God and in Evolution. My problem with Common descent is not due to my religious views; I see no evidence to back it up.
One Mystery that made me wonder back on 2007 is the eye of the Octupus; he had an Ancestor with us very long time ago, which didn't have those eyes, yet his eyes are designed on the same principle as ours. It means, for me, that a common Designer is working here.
"It is, but there is no reason why it has to be. (Well, except for compatibility issues for their customers with windows vista. But that would not apply to animals - the defining criteria of different species is that they cannot interbreed. So a new species' genetics would not need to be compatible with any others'.) We can make an entirely new version of windows practically from scratch, with little to no reference to what came before."
They sould interbreed, and FEED on each other, and they have to live in the same place.
"I'll concede these points, but they do not answer my question. Whether it is called the laryngeal nerve or the vegas nerve, it still takes a totally unnecessary and extremely circuitous route all the way down and back up the giraffe's neck. Why would that be if there is a designer capable of simply rerouting it?"
Again: Moreover, as it ascends through the neck, it innervates other organs through many branches that branch out from it.
Why would I make many branches branch out of the Vegas Nerve; I prefer to make just one. Besides, Who am I to know how God thinks? Maybe he saw that it would made no problem in the future and ignored it; the Giraffe is alive after all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCFYefCyiac
It has nth to do with this, but just watch it all.
Chaparral Earth January 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM
quote omar
"Watch this:
It has nth to do with this, but just watch it all."
No offense omar, but that video reminds me of an middle-eastern version of the movie 'Children of the Corn'
"I see that things are designed for Evolution to work on them, and when things can't go on anymore, the designer just intervents."
If you'll forgive me, that sounds to me an awfully lot like 'I will accept biologists' explanations for everything we can explain, and for everything we can't explain I will just say 'Goddidit'.
Can you identify hallmarks or telltale signs of design in nature? Can you compare a structure which you consider to be the result of direct divinely-intervened design with one you do not consider to be the result of divinely-intervened design and point out the relevant differences?
"As an Example, I will talk about the structure that made me rethink about my Atheism: The Nuclear Pore Complex; I just couldn't see how Blind Natural Selection can account for structures like it"
What precisely is it about the nuclear pore complex which puzzles you, or are you simply saying: 'I'm not sure how it evolved, therefore it was God'?
"In fact, the fundamental basis on which Natural selection relys, Sexual Reproduction is, in my view, designed for Evolution to work on it."
Why do you think that?
"As for Adam and Eve Creation, it's just like the Creation of Jesus(Peace be upon him) in Mary's (may God be pleased with her) womb. Did he create him as a new species? or some special one? He was the same like other people, except that he was a messenger of God."
Well I'm the wrong person to ask because I do not believe Jesus existed at all - as a man, an incarnated God, or anything in between. I believe stories about him are pure myth.
"I believe in God and in Evolution. My problem with Common descent is not due to my religious views; I see no evidence to back it up."
None? What about the fact that all life on Earth is made of the same DNA code? What about homology? What about nested hierarchies?
"One Mystery that made me wonder back on 2007 is the eye of the Octupus; he had an Ancestor with us very long time ago, which didn't have those eyes, yet his eyes are designed on the same principle as ours."
The only principle being 'they can see with'.
Octopus eyes are rather different to our own. For one thing, vertibrates have an inverted retina, which octodes do not. Indeed, it is commonly considered that eyes have evolved indepentently several times over the course of life on Earth. Consider a fly's eye. Does it look anything like our own?
"They sould interbreed, and FEED on each other, and they have to live in the same place."
If a creator creates an island, and then makes foxes and mice to live on it, why should he make them both using the same basic genetics? It's not as if they will ever breed. And a mouse does not need to have a similar genetic structure for a fox to eat it.
"Moreover, as it ascends through the neck, it innervates other organs through many branches that branch out from it."
I'll confess you made me double check here. And it seems I was right the first time. This vagus nerve/laryngeal nerve distinction is an important one to get clear in our heads:
The VAGUS nerve comes down from the brain of the giraffe and does indeed branch off to innervate several organs. But one of those branches, the RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVE branches off from the vagus nerve in the chest merely to return all the way back up the neck.
This detour IS completely functionless. The recurrent laryngeal nerve does nothing other than travel back up the neck. Why doesn't it branch from the vagus nerve below the skull and just go the few inches to its final destination? Why the truly massive and utterly functionless detour?
"Besides, Who am I to know how God thinks? Maybe he saw that it would made no problem in the future and ignored it; the Giraffe is alive after all."
It is indeed alive, but it contains an organ of apparent less-than-optimally-efficient functionality - a kick in the teeth for the design hypothesis.
Your 'How am I to know what God thinks?' argument is logically sound - a creator COULD have made the giraffe's nerves as they are for reasons which merely presently elude us. But notice this reasoning could justify ANYTHING we could possibly observe in nature. There is absolutely no arrangement, absense or presence of organs, nerves or internal bodily workings which could NOT be justified by such a response. Unless you state in advance what sort of evidence would or would not support the creation hypothesis, it remains unfalsifiable. And therefore it is a catch-all after-the-fact explanation rather than a testable, falsifiable scientific theory.
Also the youtube link you provided carries little weight with me because I consider the Bible to be every bit as much an erroneous, flawed and internally inconsistant collection of ancient fables, myths and religious propaganda stories as the Quran.
"he recurrent laryngeal nerve does nothing other than travel back up the neck"
It does...
The Design we see in Nuclear Pore Complex is just like that we see in Secured Doors in some Hotels. You put the card, the information being checked and you go inside the room. The same with this structure inside the Cell. And, that's Design.
Evolution of the Gaps: I have no other explanation: it's Evolution. Everything must have evolved, even the first cause which had nothing to evolve from evolved.
What if 4 cells "evolved". wouldn't that be an uncommon descent? ... What if a species 1000 Million years ago was created?
f you'll forgive me, that sounds to me an awfully lot like 'I will accept biologists' explanations for everything we can explain, and for everything we can't explain I will just say 'Goddidit'.
The Cell, the information properties of DNA, the errors repair mechanisms in DNA, Protein synthesis, The immune system... Everybody says that those are explicable by natural selection, but they are not. If they are, then show me a step-by-step process that's observable and repeatable or even detectable through the past. Evolutiondidit will not count.
Is this a lie?
Man read the Article above...
But in fact, on its long journey around the giraffe's heart, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is hard at work. Gray's Anatomy explains that as it winds around the subclavian artery the nerve sends several filaments to the cardiac plexus. It also sends branches to the mucous membrane, the oesophagus, and trachea.
"The Design we see in Nuclear Pore Complex is just like that we see in Secured Doors in some Hotels. You put the card, the information being checked and you go inside the room. The same with this structure inside the Cell. And, that's Design."
You mean it RESEMBLES a designed construct? It works according to the principles of hotel security door cards, which were designed, therefore they too were designed? Is that your argument?
"Evolution of the Gaps: I have no other explanation: it's Evolution. Everything must have evolved, even the first cause which had nothing to evolve from evolved."
No, not at all! The theory of evolution perfectly explains such things as a universal genetic code, whilst homology and nested hierarchies are positively predicted, if not necessitated by it. Remember, modern animals did not have to fit neatly into nested hierarchies. In fact, if they were independently designed, then there is little reason to see why they would. But they do. This is positive evidence for evolution.
"What if 4 cells "evolved". wouldn't that be an uncommon descent?... What if a species 1000 Million years ago was created?"
Don't understand what you mean here.
"The Cell, the information properties of DNA, the errors repair mechanisms in DNA, Protein synthesis, The immune system... Everybody says that those are explicable by natural selection, but they are not."
Let us suppose for a moment that these areas are indeed problematic for the theory of evolution (and I do not know either way). Now we can do one of the following:
1) Assume God did it. That explains those mysteries and pretty much every other scientific mystery we find. Case closed, let's all put it down to God and go home. No more investigations, no more experiments, no more answers. Science stops.
2) Try to work out how these structures came about. This involves investigation, experimentation and hypothesis-testing. It requires a base working hypothesis to test (and here the theory of evolution via natural selection amply fits the bill. ID, by the way, does not). Scientists beaver away, work continues, discoveries are made, answers are found, science grows.
We will never know EVERYTHING. But you cannot just point to mysteries science has not yet solved and use them as evidence for whatever made-up theories you want to invent, claiming 'Science is inadequate because it hasn't explained THIS yet...' There will always be a limit to the knowledge science gives us. But the point is that that limit is being pushed back all the time.
"Is this a lie? ... "he recurrent laryngeal nerve does nothing other than travel back up the neck" ... Man read the Article above..."
You see, this is exactly the problem with taking information uncritically from dubious sources. Cornelius Hunter, whether he admits it or not, believes in some form of intelligent design, and therefore is hell-bent on discrediting the theory of evolution at all costs. His comments on the laryngeal nerve are indeed inaccurate. The laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve which innervates the layrnx and only the larynx. It performs absolutely no function between the chest (where it merely branches off) and the larynx.
Because this is such an obvious apparent 'design flaw', Cornelius Hunter does his best to obscure this fact. But the facts are there to see from any medical or zoological book or site. Try looking for a diagram of the recurrent laryngeal nerve on the net.
Let this be a lesson in seeking trustworthy sources. Some people have an active interest in keeping people ignorant/misinformed to promote their own agenda. And the ID movement absolutely thrives on it.
Come on... It does man... I checked ... I even saw those Branches in Richard Dawkins' video. He unwillingly showed them. Check some Anatomy book: Grey's Anatomy.
Why don't I look at the Elastic structure in the neck of the Girrafe?... That's an aspect of Design ...
"Come on... It does man..."
Well put it this way - why should the cardiac plexus the mucous membrane, the oesophagus, and trachea be innervated by the recurrent laryngeal nerve on it's way up rather than by the vagus nerve on its way down? The later is a far more efficient 'design'.
"Why don't I look at the Elastic structure in the neck of the Girrafe?... That's an aspect of Design ..."
Again, how is that an aspect of design, exactly?
Tony Ciano February 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM
My Dear Beloved Friends, God Loves You! Why? A New Revelation with the Spirit of Truth is here Today to Help All of us know the Truth about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, ( The Urantia Book, Revelation 2:17,Free, Online, in all international Languages, and Guided by Archangel Michael, His Trusted Angels, and the Holy Spirit ).A prayer and Blessing for all Good Loving Believers who Wish to share the Truth about Jesus, The Son of God and the Holy Spirit:
For all the Children who are Ruined by shame
Mirror child
The image of a precious dove
Dancing barefoot on the beach
Drinking in love and sunshine
full of smiles
never having to die.
Mere child
Dreaming awhile on a school title
Learning to carry books for miles.
Crayons, pencils, stencils
Nothing you need to do but
Sing and carry the wind on
Your wings.
Like daddy or mommy
Carrying so many burdens for
A little person
Not able
To catch the spies and
Spiders.
Go back to the skies,
Little dove
And play with the eagles who tamed this land
Until you are a spirit so good and pure
That you will truly guide the directions of our
Bloodied hands.
The Word means
Resources of Love
From the heart, soul
And goodness of
Human kind,
To Bear Witness
Of the mind of God,
The Sacred Heart of
Jesus, the savior of our world
Who took your sins
Without waste, suffering
Or eternal death.
Believe in the angels
Of mercy,
For there is no darkness
In the Heart of their love for you
And you will save yourselves
From the veil of darkness
That hides from you
The True Love of our Father
God who embraces his Children without fear.
anger or any spiritual regrets.
Repent of your hate,
Jealousy and lust for power,
Turn away from wars,
Killing and material competition
And know that Jesus, our True Messiah,
Will never leave you in times of Trouble
For His Mercy will save you to keep
Your immortal soul.
There is no True Prophecy today except for Revelation 2:17, known as The Urantia Book, free, online, in all international languages, and prepared for You by Arch Angel Michael J. Christ's Angels, and the voice of God Channeled to you through the voices of True members of the Church of Christ. Blessings to you, Your Families and all the People you Love. In the name of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Giuseppe Antonio Ciano
@GAC8717
It Didn't Begin (or End) With Darwin
Evolutionists and the Giraffe's Recurrent Laryngea...
Professor: God Would Not Create the Giraffe's Recu...
Post Synaptic Proteins Intolerant of Change
The Miracle of Ribosome Assembly Evolution
Entropy and the Distinction Between Operation and ...
Protein Folding and Evolution
Sex Determination in Chickens: Evolution Wrong Again
Ard Louis and Vitalism
Ants Optimize Their Search
How Proteins Evolved
Back to School Part IX
Elliott Sober and the Enemy
Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine
Back to School Part VIII