You've heard people talk about it. Heard people argue about it. Read articles describing it. Now only on Youtube for the first time ever, see the Real Garden of Eden. This is no joke. God left His Watermark of it and I found it on Google Earth. It's a MUST SEE- Look at my videos and see the wonderful things I've discovered.
You'll like my funny animation where a pesky Jesus freak gets a intellectual beating from an enlightened woman. Check out my channel for the video. (Brace Yourself)
God created a time as a measurement for us to track activity during our lifetime. God is perfect and for Him time does not exist. God is timeless. On the other hand humans are limited and time is just one of the limitations. We need measurements to define everything, weight, height, etc. God it self cannot be measured. Trying to measure a God would be absurd, it would be attempt to measure a time as an infinity - with no starting, or ending points set.
This argument isn't good. If time is infinite then nothing would happen because we would not even get to one event. There can't be intervals of infinite time because we would never get to an event to mark an interval. If we marked intervals by a certain amount of time then what point would that be? We would still never get to anything. We would still never get to NOW. Yet here we are. So God does exist nad He did create us and He does exist outside of time.
@MrOnfireforGod One problem is that people look at the time only from our human perspective - as a measurement for how old things are. On the other hand, for God time does not exist. Time started when God created it for us, and it will cease to exist when God decides that. Theological view is that after we die and after we are reborn, we will not be limited by time anymore. Since this is life that is not supposed to stop from that point on, there is no need to measure it with time anymore.
is someone is doubting their religion, please watch the video called "DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY". it may explain why you dont feel like you have a connection to god.
I have a question when did scientists come up with the big bang and how? also how in the world can they prove it!?!?!? Whats with the people talking about the infinite amount of time its not even that big of a deal! that seems to be the entire argument with peopel your missing the point GOD.
@Blackness052 [when did scientists come up with the big bang and how?] Well, Hesiod ~700 BC proposed a simple model where everything was in one single mass until "Nature" 'organized everything'.The present model, backed with evidence, was proposed in 1927 by Lemaître and supported by Hubble in 1929 with redshift of galaxies [they are going AWAY from us]. The term itself was coined in 1949 to distinguish it from "steady state" cosmology. And in 1964, cosmic background radiation was found.
@Blackness052 Actually that is fallacious. Supernatural phenomenom are no evidence for any god. Prayer and miracles have been granted and performed in equal rates by Ra (Egyptian Sun God) as by Yahweh (one Hebrew God) as by Odin (Norse Chief of the Gods), etc. Ghosts and prophets likewise are not particular to any religion, deity, or text.
Also, my comment does not address a god, just science. Maybe whatever creator created the universe did so such that it is cyclic, only made energy, etc.
@onijester56 I do not know if you are aware of this, but the "Big Bang" theory is in matter a fact religious belief in Judaism, Christianity and Islam of how universe came to existence. God created Earth, and heavens and stretched them out. According to this same belief Judgment Day will come when God reverses the process e.i. when it shrinks back everything. According to science this will happen after universe spreading reaches certain point after which it will start shrinking back again.
@samtubeca Why is it that you do not know that THE BIG BANG NEVER SAYS THAT ANYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING. It AT BEST with modern knowledge says that energy converted 'into' matter that collectively united, but that energy itself ALWAYS EXISTED IN SOME FORM, so wasn't "nothing".
Why do you ignore that BY THE TIME THE UNIVERSE "crunches", mankind will HAVE ALREADY DIED OUT, making the "judgement" you associate with it NULL? Also, that's one speculation (not even a hypothesis!).
And, because I feel like adding insult to injury, the "Big Crunch" concept would leave energy (which has no mass or volume and hence can't be "crunched").
The only thing that can be called one's consciousness is a form of energy being used by that person's body.
Hence, any consciousness that can exist as pure energy (the only way it would exist outside of a body) would not be destroyed in the "Big Crunch" (being energy).
And then there would be no "judgement". Ignoring the "DAY" part.
(cont) The Atom (zarrah in Arabic) and even smaller particles were mentioned in The Noble Quran in 34:3 , 10:61 , 34:22 , 99:6-8 , 4:40
Holy Bible does not compare percentages of elements in Man and Earth, but rather states that elements from the Earth were used in such creation, and not some elements that don't make up the Earth. "The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7)
@samtubeca The Quran was written ~500 AD. Jainism was formalized ~900-800 BC.
The "percentages of elements" SHOULD LINE UP IF MAN WAS MADE FROM THE GROUND. Statistical comparisons of the compositions demonstrates that Man would NOT have formed from the "ground".
Carbon is at best 0.18% of the crust but 18% of the human body. Such disparity is damn near impossible if man were MADE FROM THE "dust of the ground".
And the biological concept of abiogenesis DOES NOT say "man" formed from dust.
1. Elements in the earth will depend on location where you take your samples from, and how many of them you take - you can actually adjust compositions until they match exactly.
2. When you are mentioning something like "Embryonic Development", please make a reference to it, as obviously if there is no written proof for this, you are derogating it. The only thing I was able to find are myths and theories without any obvious evidence, pictures or descriptions.
1. The data provided have little variation in respect to location in the Lithosphere [crust and mantle]. Likewise it's pretty hard (at best) to modify soil composition based on area to match human composition by picking a different area.
2. YOU brought up Embryological development and I responded to that comment.
Also: I will set aside your double standard [because the Quran has no evidence or pictures that itself wasn't within the mythology!], and deal with this where it is.
1. When you are all All Mighty nothing is hard to you!
2. Quran is describing stages in detail whereas you mentioned something which is merely guessing based on chick egg look and feel assumption.
3. Before you said 150BC, now you change it to 450BC - so much about being consistent...
4. People in most parts of the world, even Europe believed that Earth was flat even during Christian ages, and who ever opposed the opinion was claimed to be heretic and he/she was hanged.
1. Then why not create man ex nihilo instead of picking a random sample of dirt that does not and most likely never could have existed? [Notice that it IGNORES any mention of what the other animals were made out of!]
3. The ONLY "150" I put was the time of Galen, which was 150 AD. IN THAT SAME POST, I put the time of Hippocrates (put right behind Hippocrates' name) which was 460 AD. You could at least try to pull a red herring with what was actually put, you know.
1. This is the beauty of God's creation. He created everything in the way He wanted. Animal creation is irrelevant because they are not given the same status as us.
3. I guess you are using wrong year, did you mean 150BC, and 450BC? And of course if you talk about people from several different ages, you should specify range, but not the most suitable year.
2. As you said yourself studies on humans were forbidden, so it was impossible to prove correctness of findings until recently
1. "Animal creation is irrelevant because they are not given the same status as us." Fossil, DNA, and even Behavioral evidence begs to differ. Anatomical, Structural, and Embryological evidence begs to differ.
2. Galen lived 129 AD to 199 AD. 148 AD he started following advice from Hippocrates' teachings. By 157 AD, he was a physician knowledgeable and skilled enough to place organs back into an ape they were taken out of. So I would say that ~150 AD is a relatively decent dating.
1. There is no strong scientific proof, that shows how man evolved from an animal.
2. Quran does not mention sperm, but the drop of liquid in 22:5 , 53:45. In hadith prophet Mohammad p.b.u.h. explains that 'drop' is both male and female reproductive liquid (semen).
3. People in the past could not confirm the scientific truth of the Quran, (or any other theories), so not all the verses were for people who lived then; but for future generations who see those verses come true.
1. You ignore that HUMANS ARE AN ANIMAL. Animalia (animal) Chordata (chordate) Mammalia (mammal) Primates Hominidae Homo sapiens. Leaving out the subdivisions and superdivisions, obviously. You also ignore FOSSILS, DNA, BEHAVIOR, ANATOMY, STRUCTURE, and EMBRYOLOGY.
2. Let's ignore that the hadiths were at best compiled after being edited for 200 years after Mohammad's death. That aside, as far as I can find, the only hadiths to mention it use "drop of fluid".
1. You ignore the fact that HUMANS ARE NOT ANIMALS in religion.
DNA, Anatomy, Structure, and Embryology prove that there are many differences across different species, and also common similarities, but behavior is very different from one life form to another.
Direct proof of your theory would be possibility of monkey to evolve to another form of 'monkey' which obviously did not happen in last 10,000 years, or you maybe know of some tribe that evolved from monkeys? I don't.
1. That you even go forth and ADMIT that religions based on bronze-age and nomadic-tribal myths IGNORES THE FACTS pretty much makes my point..
Embryology actually shows VAST SIMILARITIES. Anatomy shows VAST SIMILARITIES. Even structure, not including fossils, show VAST SIMILARITIES.
DNA has been analyzed on functional-segmentation, ERV-segmentation, and even most-genome-segmentation. Of course ERVs alone would indicate common ancestry due to how they are aquired.
1. Ok, so now you change your version where does religion come from? I see, you make my point on how you constantly contradict your self.
2. I see wisdom of God's creation, but you see what you want to see and based on nothing more than just theories. I said many times give me an strong evidence, but you always fail to produce that evidence. Why? Because there is NO EVIDENCE. Believing in God, or fairy-tales told by others like you, it is your choice. I choose God.
OK, people tend to play a God nowadays and we are crossbreeding different species, but when we go too far we get terrible results. And this proves that all the crappy theories you are talking about are worthless because even between animals there is so much difference. And could you actually breed a beaver, duck, and a snake? I am quite interested what would be the result of this.
Conclusion: Evolution is not happening, but mutations are and are usually cause of humans.
Simple reason that people did not know about Galen is because they did not have internet, but Quran, Bible, Torah everyone knew about these books for thousand+ years now. If there was such value in works of Galen and others shouldn't these people and their work have been known to humanity before?
They might as well be invented people with invented work of theirs, do you have any single proof to disprove me? We can make philosophy out of everything, but in the end it always end with choice
Since evolution is not happening anymore (magically stopped) it is nothing less controversial than any other theory. Behavioral patterns prove the opposite of what you claim. No animal is capable of critical thinking, and making decisions, not even the smartest chimp on the planet. Another problem is that this same chimp could not get a grasp of human language, could not learn even simplest words presented to it, all it is capable of is remembering some shapes.
@samtubeca Evolution is actually still happening repeatedly.
Italian wall lizards, over 30 years, developed A NEW STURCTURE IN RESPONSE TO THE CHANGE IN DIET. Not to mention the definition I provided, that it's THE CHANGE IN THE ALLELE FREQUENCIES IN A POPULATION OVER TIME. That IS FOR A FACT 'Evolution'.
Unquestionable Speciation (what you would call "Macroevolution") is repeatedly observed with flies, squirrels, and fish being some simple easily-performed examples.
LOL. Do not make me laugh about lizard, or evolution.
Did you see what atomic radiation did to animals in Chernobyl? Ya, I guess mutation happens when it is caused by humans.... But wait who could possibly mutate monkeys to humans if there was no humans before?
For a fact, most terrible example of evolution and most terrible definition I ever heard in my life. Please do not start twisting these theories now too. Extinction of animal and insect species happens indeed every day...
@samtubeca I find it funny that you insult the BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION, established since Mendel originated the field known as Genetics. That you then insult the definition that the FACT OF EVOLUTION abides by shows your ignorance on the topic.
Mutations have been observed not only by human intervention but completely NATURALLY AND RANDOMLY.
FOSSILS. DNA. ANATOMY. Just to begin.
And the wall lizards are fun. 30 years the same species DEVELOPED FROM 'SCRATCH' a new organ.
Octopi and Squids can unlock tanks to get food and then go back and lock the cage up again.
Chimpanzees repeatedly use tools such as stones and sticks when available to get food.
Birds also exhibit "tool-use".
And, fyi, Chimpanzees have been taught to understand "human language" AND respond conceptually, as humans can't understand "chimp language". Some of the chimps even have personalized conceptual responses for the more-abstract and less-familiar topics.
Do you know how they actually capture chimps? They put ball in a tree, chimp comes and grabs the ball, but she is too stupid to let go and pull out her hand.
After certain number of attempts chimps can handle certain actions - we say they learn by trials and failures, but chimp cannot make rational, or critical decisions.
Chimps cannot respond unless they recognize symbol for something (learned in trial/failure fashion and reward for good actions).
@samtubeca Do you know how what children repeatedly tend to do to get balls from behind fences? They reach their hand in and grab the ball. And they are almost always too stupid to let go and pull their hand out.
And it's actually the case, especially among chimps, where the problems are NOT solved "by trials and failures" but by observing the scenerio and putting to use what can be used how they need it to be used.
And hyenas are better at cooperative problems than chimps. XD
(cont) I asked you important question regarding genetics, DNA, blood, crossbreeding, etc. Also where do you see dinosaurs in your evolution chain?
Hm, cockroaches been around for millions of years on Earth - more than anything else living today, but yet they never learned to communicate with each other. Humans been around for 10,000+, yet we have many languages, we have music, we have science, arts, etc.
We cause things to mutate in nature, yet we cannot make another monkey evolve to a human...
@samtubeca Dinosaurs: branch of reptiles; modern day dinosaurs generally fit into the group known as "birds".
"cockroaches been around for millions of years" Cockroaches don't need to communicate with other cockroaches, nor have a method to. Hence (unless they develop a method which they won't need) they wouldn't be expected to have communication.
"we have many languages" Birds do, too.
"we have music" Birds do to.
"we have science" Birds are pretty good engineers.
@onijester56 Just because i do not share your opinion and do not take your theories as a fact and proof of anything, that does not mean that I am trying to insult you or anyone else.
You assumed that Mohammad was literate enough to copy someone's else work; therefore I built on your idea, but I never claimed such thing. Quran did not copy anything, Quran is word of God, not Mohammad's word or of any other man. If you never even read translation it is easy for you to make biased claims.
@samtubeca "Just because i do not...take your theories as a fact..." How about my FACTS? Fossils. DNA. Behavior. Anatomy. Vestigial structures. Embryology.
Hell, the central reason that rats and rabbits are common experimental subjects in drug testing is that they are affected almost identically by drugs as humans are.
And the reason for THAT is *dum dum dum* that they are so similar genetically, structurally, and anatomically to us.
"You assumed that Mohammad was literate enough to copy someone's else work" I assumed he was literate enough to listen to people and understand what they were saying. Of course you can fit that criteria and not be able to read even pure symbols.
"Quran did not copy anything" Galen, direct wording and ideology. Bible and Talmud, blatantly. Hippocrates, through Galen. Just to stay on the most-readily-available stuff in our discussion.
Since chimps respond to one symbol at a time, this is obviously not considered understanding, reading, and definitely not knowing of human language. So you actually fail for making this up. LOL!
Should I also say that humans are capable of knowing, speaking, and reading in many languages. I my self can speak in five languages, but if you know one language only I can understand why you feel so closely related to chimps then.
@samtubeca Koko the Gorilla, taught sign language. Sarah the Chimp, taught symbolic representation.
And also, you seem to ignore that humans have been, for the past 10,000+ years, modifying language based on group/kinship (observed, especially in bird songs), modifying speach patterns and focusing on alterations of different roots to acquire different meanings, and other such diversification to accomodate to our needs to share information.
@onijester56 Koko the Gorilla lol. I watched several videos of her, and the person video taping is interpreting every gorila's move as a sign lol. Do you really believe in this crap? Maybe you should donate to this gorilla organization if you do... Person in one video explains sign for apple, but person in the other video interprets this same sign as "run"... Ah well, so much about gorilla and her sign language, I just do not know who's IQ is higher - that gorilla's, or of that person...
I do not ignore the fact that humans been around for 10,000+ years. I do not even ignore the fact that languages are changing and some are dying out. However, this does not prove that our language evolved from chimp, gorilla, or any other monkey species articulated signs which for certain do not constitute language even. Language is a science with certain set of rules and symbolic representation of certain voices and despite language difference there is common logic among all of them.
@samtubeca You realize I did not say that our MODERN SPEECH "evolved from chimp, gorilla, or any other monkey species articulated signs", don't you? However, even a basic understanding of the origins of language would show that, ironicaly enough, a handful of grunts and groans from primative cultures (Homo sapiens have been around for 160,000 years) DID IN FACT develop first into labeling and then a coherent language and then branched from the 'parent' into other languages, which then etc.
While animals do not believe in certain morals, but on the other hand only know law of survival, humans tend to imagine things, make up things that do not exist. We have imagination, creativity, we have ability to move objects with our hands and legs in creative ways; thus we play sports, dance, etc.
Do not forget that Dolphins and some whale species are far more intelligent than chimps, or gorillas.
@samtubeca "While animals do not believe in certain morals" Which morals? Theft, lies, 'murder' are, especially in social animals, generally no worse than humans. And altruism, empathy, and fairness are on par with humans, if not better.
"we have ability to move objects with our hands and legs in creative ways" How about the disabled who are just as, if not more, imaginative yet can't express their 'creativity'? According to you, they would just be 'uncreative animals'.
Willingness to die for a cause indicates that you believe in that cause whether is good, or bad I agree. Dedication of your life to write something unless it is revealed and requested by God would be waste of time though and you proved that. You were never requested by the God to write something, but when I requested such thing from you, you said you would not do it.
@samtubeca "Dedication of your life to write something unless it is revealed and requested by God would be waste of time though and you proved that."
You just don't get that there's shitloads more that CAN BE written than what ALREADY HAS been written. Many people in fact DO dedicate their lives to writing, and not because some voice in their head told them to.
Of course you ignore that few of the Biblical and Quranic passages were written by one person dedicating his life to them. (Example: Mohammad had at least three years where he would think, speak a few verses, live his life for a while, and repeat the cycle. Moses established a set of rules for the tribe to follow. Genesis steals the flood from Mesopotamian mythology. Genesis 1 is fundamentally at ends with Genesis 2, at least indicating different authorship there.)
2. Obviously you are not able to google-out something, but you see people did not have computers several thousand years ago. So to know something you either had to learn from someone, or you had to discover it on your own. Plagiarism was not an issue to them, as news that spread, and scientific facts were well known, especially because Arabs were far more advanced at that time than any other nation, and many people were actually going to Arabic countries to learn from them.
@samtubeca 2. "Obviously you are not able to google-out something" Quite the contrary, googling the most specific AND the most vague gets the same result well over 100 pages each: your claim is full of shit.
"Plagiarism was not an issue to them" The issue is that WHAT THE QURAN STATES WAS NOT ANYTHING NEW. In fact, the very research kept getting that Galen's works was translated into Arabic not far into Mohammad's life and one acquaintance was a doctor who was a "galenist" (to be blunt).
LOL. All of a sudden you Google-out some information on how some Greek crap was translated in Arabic around 6th century, and this is 100% truth because Google said so. I mean common it must be truth, how could possibly someone else could know something except for Greeks right?
Let me tell you one thing. You fail to realize that Arabs invented modern medicine, mechanics, algebra, gun powder, missiles, water pumps, aqueducts, and many other things far far advanced for that time.
@samtubeca Actually I admit that it may be false. However, from trustworthy sources with dates attributed to the texts, I highly doubt it. Likewise, from my own translations both through several translation sites repeatedly getting the same thing between them AND my own translation of what I do know for a fact in the languages, applying all I can...
Aqueducts were Egyptian. Gunpowder was Chinese. Water pumps were Mesopotamian. Modern medicinal practices are mainly Greek. Algebra was Indian.
You see my point is not to just write anything, but that you should sit down and dedicate as much of your time is needed to write the book which will have the message, or if you are lazy to write, and if you want to make it easier for your self maybe you could memorize it - as you claim it is easier to memorize. After you have book then transfer this knowledge to the other people so that they can pass it to future generations.
@samtubeca You don't get that everything I have stated on just about every topic discussed has already been proven, some as close as within ten years and some as far back as 1900 BC [if not farther still].
And...What you specifically want me to do has been done long before even my grandparents were a vague concept in their grandparents' minds. Big Bang cosmology as far as Ancient Greece, Heliocentric solar system as far as Classical Greece, and Embryology just as far as Heliocentricity.
Humans cannot prove the origin of the universe, when we spoke of some theories my point was that there is no contradiction in the two ways that religion see it, and that science see it. While for me a proof is something physical/mathematical that you can produce after repeating series of actions established upon that theory, you consider a proof any theory thrown at you or anything that you can Google-out on Google. Thirty years ago people did not even know about Galen.
@samtubeca "my point was that there is no contradiction in the two ways that religion see it, and that science see it." Actually there is a fundamental difference: Religions say that 'Magic fairies made everything from nothing'; science actually proposes testable, falsifiable answers based on what is known.
"Thirty years ago people did not even know about Galen." Actually 30 years ago, peole would have had the texts on their bookshelves instead of having it saved as a 'bookmark'.
Mohammad could probably just use bible, and add few verses to it, as it would be so much easier than making up the whole new book because after all even though there are some similarities there is so many differences among the two. Just as promised Quran was never changed and it will not be changed until the last day, which is referred as Judgment Day which obviously will be proof for the people who will live then and at that time everyone will believe.
@samtubeca "Mohammad could probably just use bible, and add few verses to it" First, you refer to Mohammad as illiterate then you assume that he was able to read the Bible. *facepalm*
Second, when people THINK about/on religious texts and parts of texts, they quite often see places they think should be changed. Hearing them and interpretations from others provides more flexibility.
"Just as promised Quran was never changed" Then all translations should agree 100% and be 100% accurate.
I know that you are incapable of writing such book, even though you have internet, you have other books around you, you have help of far more advanced technology, and more resources. You will not do it. You may argue that this would be a waste of time or whatever, but Mohammad did not know if anyone would follow him either, but he did not believe it was waste of his time. Why?
@samtubeca "I know that you are incapable of writing such book" Actually it's that EVERY THING DISCUSSED HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRITTEN DOWN. Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Galen have the original texts, recovery attempts, and translations to many languages (including Latin and Arabic before Mohammad was a 'prophet').
Hence it would be a waste of my time to write what is and has been ALREADY KNOWN. That you ignore even that shows your ignorance on this topic.
Yet again, you fail on book writing. I am not asking you to write the Holy Book for sake of revealing something new, but more for sake of exactly of what you said wasting your time, but in order to convince people that this book of yours is book of God, and that this book contains rules on how to live, and on what is going to happen. Since you are not convincing to me, obviously you know you cannot convince anyone else; therefore you already gave up. FAIL!
Among many others Abraham, Moses, David, Mohammad, they did not give up because obviously they knew their book will serve the people. If God promises you success you know that many readers will have access to your book and that this book will serve its purpose. In your case, you do not have any purpose, you are not inspired by God; thus it is logical that you consider it waste of time and you will not write anything like Bible or Quran.
@onijester56 Revelations in the Bible, and certain hadiths came true about coming of the Messiah. It is not coincidence that state of Israel rose once again and it keeps expanding. According to prophecies Israel will expand to its historical borders, and Israel will at that time become number one country in the world in power. If it is to believe these prophecies we may as well be witnessing the Judgment Day in some 50-60 years.
@samtubeca "certain hadiths came true about coming of the Messiah" Let's ignore that the Bible states pretty much the same things, which shows that the Quran still preaches that which was already known.
It's not a prophecy to state that "some place will someday become the best place ever". Especially such a religiously-fundamental place such as Israel where great powers will be required to acquire, and then the religious beliefs command the spreading...
And you are right, I don't have a purpose to waste eve three years of my life writing a bullshit historical-esque tale of the world from some imaginative event to modern day that is pure fantasy and relies on magic and invisible fairies to explain everything.
Or the additional time and effort to add in zombies, vampires, and werewolves to explain what was already explained before with the fairies.
For the end, maybe you feel that I am brainwashed or whatever, but let me tell you that I am not perfect believer. I wish I am better and that I am following religion more strictly, but unfortunately my parents were not believers so I was not raised with religion. As I said I found more logic in believing that God created everything, than any other theory invented by human kind. I was sincerely looking for a proof, and I just started feeling in my heart.
@samtubeca "I found more logic in believing that God created everything, than any other theory invented by human kind."
First, then what created God? And why is God excluded from the condition of requiring a creator? [Especially since God is then infinitely complex, requiring an infinitely more complex creator...]
Second, why the Islamic one, instead of any other one that ever existed? Zoroastrian, Judaic, Christian, Mormon, and even Scientologian all are at worst equally logical.
"I was sincerely looking for a proof, and I just started feeling in my heart."
Which is not proof. In fact by that very logic, the Greeks had more proof because they had stories of their gods, depictions of their gods, and even relatively-consistent personalities to each of their gods. So you have a feeling but they had essences and "forms".
And their way of 'creation' was simple: 'matter always existed'.
Despite all the trouble I had with my parents, and everyone around me, and even my own doubts I managed to hold on to religion even today.
There is verse in Quran which says: "They only are the (true) believers whose hearts feel fear when Allah is mentioned, and when revelations of Allah are recited unto them they increase their faith, and who trust in their Lord;"
I did not understand this verse, until I started believing my self, and this is proof enough for me.
@samtubeca There's also Biblical verses along the same lines as your Quranic verse. Why are they less valid? I'll be generous to Islam in this timeline:
*Torah, 500 BC
*Bible, 100 AD
*Quran, 600 AD
So at least 1100 years AFTER the Israelites/Jews stated the same thing, the Quran stated it. And you believe the latter as to the former because you "started feeling in your heart".
Next time you try to ignore the FACTS, don't do it for such pathetic a reason.
@samtubeca "I do not need to justify to you or anyone else for that matter reasons why I believe." Then don't spout your belief, least of all in a forum where they can be criticized, while ignoring FACTS.
"I told you that I understand meaning of the verse because I started believing in its meaning after accepting religion in my heart." Then why are other religions, which state the same thing, any less valid despite such verses being established AT LEAST 1000 years BEFORE THE QURAN?
Science is unable to explain origin of life except through theories. Fossils only prove that life existed before humans, but religion does not contradict this.
DNA? Everything is created out of the same molecules, and since this is the case it would actually be strange if there are no similarities among everything on Earth. Furthermore, I am not sure what about anatomy specifically supports your claim. Better ask why would organs or bones be different when spiritual difference is enough?
@samtubeca "Science is unable to explain origin of life except through theories." Let's get the pre-kindergarten-level science out of the way. In science, "theories" are FALSIFIABLE PREDICATIVE EXPLANATIONS OF THE FACTS SUPPORTED BY REPEATED AND CONTINUAL SUPPORT THROUGH UNBIASED EXPERIMENTATION AND OBSERVATION.
And theories are not 'mere guesses or hunches'.
There are several independent hypotheses on the origins of life on this planet, from space to the depths of the ocean.
There are 4 base-pairs that make up DNA. Hence the chance of any one pair matching a specific pair is 25%. The chance of any two independent lines of 100 base-pairs matching is [6.2 * 10^-59]%. ERVs are accepted on a minimum of ~300 base-pairs and have the unfair chance of [3 * 10^-8]% for being inserted into the same spot in two unrelated species. Humans have 16 Class-K in common with chimps and other primates. Count in the other ~97,984 retroviruses that are proven and...
Fossils show that CREATURES WITH SPECIFIC STRUCTURES EXISTED AT SPECIFIC TIMES. Then there are those of transitional forms, which show the clear transition of structures from one "kind" to another "kind" [to use Creationist terminology], even providing a rough scale of when the change happened, which adds to the predictive power by allowing times [and hence depths] to be applied for specific structures.
Anatomy supports fossils and DNA in showing just how similar animals are now.
Let me remind you that until 17th century scientists supported theory of spontaneous life generation e.g. mouse forms out of dirt. In 17th century Lazzaro Spallanzani rejected this theory, and later in 19th century Louis Pasteur proved that ALL KNOWN LIVING ORGANISMS ARISE ONLY FROM PRE-EXISTING LIVING ORGANISMS (aka reproduction). In this matter Quran says: "He it is Who produceth creation, then reproduceth it, and it is easier for Him... (30:27)"
@samtubeca "until 17th century scientists supported theory of spontaneous life generation" Due to LACK OF KNOWLEDGE and LIMITATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME.
Aside from Lazzaro being 18th [Redi was 17th]. Pastuer demonstrated that life could NOT form spontaneously from stable isolated conditions (which, fyi, the early earth atmosphere and depths were highly reactive and relatively open).
Urey and Miller revealed that organic compounds are easily created through reactive systems. Since then...
Blah, blah, blah. Empty words. No proof. Theories, more blah, and more theories.
Louis Pasteur disproved scientific theories which existed until 19th century, and proved that life could not happen by itself. EVERY LIVING THING IS CREATED OUT OF OTHER LIVING THING - PROVEN FACT - CAN BE REPEATED!
Louis Pasteur confirmed the text which was written in the Quran ten centuries before him, "He it is Who produceth creation, then reproduceth it, and it is easier for Him..." (30:27)
@samtubeca You don't even understand what Pasteur's experiment was, let alone that it was a CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT in A STABLE ENVIRONMENT that WAS ALMOST PERFECTLY CLOSED FROM MICROBES.
And then you ignore that MODERN life can have little more than 500,000 base pairs, and early life would require less than that. And you ignore that Pasteur's experiment was NOT representative of the early earth atmosphere (nor did it even attempt to be) where life is believed to have originated.
@onijester56 Obviously you are indeed mentally retarded as you keep on going with your assumptions of this and that. Urey-Miller experiment NEVER CREATED created any LIFE FORM! Pasteur's experiment confirmed that LIFE FORM IS RECREATED FROM ANOTHER LIFE FORM, but I guess retard like you does not get that simple thing. I feel sorry for your lack of logic and twisted logic of real proof, and now excuse me as you are just wasting my time with all your philosophical BS. Bye!
"Pasteur's experiment confirmed that LIFE FORM IS RECREATED FROM ANOTHER LIFE FORM."
Actually that is not what Pasteur's experiment did, well not specifically. To quote Pasteur, "Spontaneous generation is a dream."
However, and this is a key point that you don't seem to understand, THE FORMATION OF LIFE WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS. It was GRADUAL, STEPWISE, and occurred in the conditions of the earth OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS.
Words used by science when explaining origin of life and everything else:
- could have,
- probably,
- assuming,
- possibly,
- likely, etc.
Lot of theories and assumptions. On the other hand, whatever was proven in fact goes along with religion and existence of God. Thus, we see many scientists believe in God, including Louis Jean Pasteur, Galen, Aristotle, and Hippocrates.
Had they had proof of anything they would believe otherwise, in fact science made them stronger believers.
@samtubeca Hippocrates, assuming he was a theist, was a POLYTHEIST, worshipping the OLYMPIANS of Greek mythology.
Aristotle's 'unmoved mover' was APATHETIC in respect to us AND our worship for it; if it can even be called his "god". Completely against the Abrahamic 'god', which each demand worship only for that specific entity and is claimed to "love" us.
Galen was a monotheist who thought that God is a part of nature and viewed Christianity as another philosophic school.
Next time, don't be so ignorant. Actually read general chemistry, general biology, or organic chemistry textbooks. Actually read published scientific articles. Actually do more research than Kent Hovind's completely erroneous twisting of science.
And in this whole discussion of the origins of life, I didn't bring up philosophy or bullshit. Merely science and facts.
Your argument is wrong and it does not have valid basis because science must reject lot of things, or assume many things in order to make its anti-God theories work. This is not proof of anything. This is just a game of words which is exactly what you have been doing all this time.
Also, God was not created, does not have any children, or relatives. He created everything, and does not need to abide to anything He created. He is above human laws of any kind, and He does not need a creator.
"Pasteur conducted experiments comparing organic material that was exposed to air with organic material that was not. Nothing grew in the sealed or filtered vessels. This empirically demonstrated that the fermentation in the open containers was caused by the growth of microorganisms from the air, not spontaneous generation, thus proving BIOGENESIS (LIFE BEGETS LIFE)."
@samtubeca Why is it that you REPEATEDLY IGNORE THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PASTEUR AND MODERN ABIOGENESIS?
Pasteur ISOLATED STABLE SOLUTIONS with LITTLE (if any) change in STABILITY.
Miller and Urey, as well as every experiment of the type, has an isolated system THAT EXPERIENCES 'instability' THROUGH ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES, as EARLY EARTH WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED.
Also, THE UREY-MILLER EXPERIMENT DOES NOT POSIT "spontaneous generation". Actually know what you talk about.
WHY DO YOU REPEATEDLY USE STUPID THEORIES, BUT REJECT PROVEN SCIENCE, AND EVIDENCE! Modern abiogenesis theories were objected by respected scientists such as Sir Fred Hoyle, Erwin Schrödinger, Hubert Yockey, and many others as they do not make much sense in formation of life out of non-life and are impossible to prove. Urey-Miller experiment was rejected by the scientific world, as assumptions made of pre-historic Earth conditions are impossible.
@samtubeca I "WHY DO YOU REPEATEDLY USE STUPID THEORIES, BUT REJECT PROVEN SCIENCE, AND EVIDENCE!" You ignore not only the simplest explanations and actual evidence, and claim.
Fred Hoyle's incorrect understanding of the math behind abiogenesis [fyi, the 'simplest living cell' now would NEVER need to be the first 'life'], argumentum ad ignorantia is no valid argument. Especially in light of *dum dum dum* Urey and Miller and SUBSEQUENT EXPERIMENTS.
@samtubeca "He performed several experiments which prove that Urey-Miller theory is impossible." You mean calculations based not on what the Urey-Miller experiment (nor any aspect ever of even the most outrageous hypothesis presented to the theory of Abiogenesis) states? Hoyle bases on RANDOM ATOMS JUST FITTING TOGETHER, which is SPONTANEOUS GENERATION which IS WHAT PASTEUR DISPROVED.
Now, what Urey and Miller DID DO was show that WITH SIMPLE GASES in AN ELECTRICALLY-CHARGED/ENERGY-FILLED ATMOSPHERE, SIMPLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CAN BE CREATED.
What SIMILAR EXPERIMENTS DO is show that THE SAME RESULTS OCCUR WITH DIFFERENT INITIAL GASES.
What LATER experiments do is SHOW THAT THESE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CAN FORM LARGER ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.
And STILL-LATER experiments show that THESE LARGER COMPOUNDS (including RNA) CAN FORM HOMEOSTASIS and FISSION into 'daughters'.
"Just because you do not believe in God, this does not give you right to reject one scientific opinion over the other."
Then propose a way to falsify God. If God can't be falsified, then it's not a scientific hypothesis.
Then propose a way to test God. If God can't be tested, then it's not a scientific hypothesis.
"you are just twisting scientific work, and everything else to support your fantasies." Says the one who uses Answers in Genesis as a valid scientific source.
"Urey-Miller experiment was rejected by the scientific world, as assumptions made of pre-historic Earth conditions are impossible."
Using data collection from contemporary rocks, models, and various other sources of data to modify the initial gases gives pretty much the same results.
"assumptions made of pre-historic Earth conditions are impossible." Actually they are: hydrogen and helium, followed by increase of volcanic gases (CO, CO2, SO2, CL2, S2, CH4, NH3, N2. H2, H2O)
Latest abiogenesis theory claims that life on Earth is of extraterrestrial origin (another assumption because Earth could not support spontaneous generation of life).
Lets assume this is the case. Quran says: "Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds," (1:2)
According to Quran we are not alone, there are other worlds beside ours. Even though Quran does not claim that life came to Earth from somewhere else, this theory is not rejected by Noble Quran...
@samtubeca "Latest abiogenesis theory claims that life on Earth is of extraterrestrial origin" One hypothesis, actually, for that one part of the "theory". There's also "deep-vent" production. And those are just on the initial organic compounds that then give rise to life (otherwise, it's not answering anything).
I quoted part of verse from Quran before, but here it is again because Quran spoke of origin of life in 7th century in different way than rest of the world which believed in "spontaneous generation of life".
Quran says: ""He it is Who produceth creation, then reproduceth it..." (30:27)"
In 19th century Louis Pasteur performs multiple experiments and comes to conclussion: "LIFE BEGETS LIFE" e.i. Life form is reproduced out of other life form, it cannot come out of non-living form.
Here is another thing for your thought, "Internal waves" were discovered only in year 1904 (20th century), but Quran spoke about this in 7th century:
"Or (the unbelievers’ state) is like the layers of darkness in a DEEP SEA COVERED BY WAVES TOPPED BY WAVES, topped by clouds: Layers of darkness, one above another. If a man stretches his hand, he can hardly see it. For any to whom Allah gives no light, there is no light."(24:40)
“Of no profit will be my counsel to you, much as I desire to give you (good) counsel, if it be that Allah willeth to leave you astray (yughwiyakum): He is your Lord! and to Him will ye return!” (Quran 11:34)
@samtubeca I have a question: why worship and praise a vindictive masochist who may very well be driving you in circles just to send you to Hell?
Your own verse states that " if it be that Allah willeth to leave you astray". The Quran threatens disbelief and 'astrayness' with eternal torture. So, I ask again...
"why the Islamic one, instead of any other one that ever existed?"
"Pasteur received criticism for his work and detail-oriented methods. He wouldn't make any claim until he had re-tested several times and was sure of the results."
Despite the fact that Pasteur was retesting in his experiments several times in order to prove his results he received critics by atheists and anti-God theorists like yourself because you simply refuse to believe in a God. However, this only proves what religion says about atheists when faced with the evidence.
In fact if you are not so ignorant, maybe you would be able to discover the God yourself. However, due to your ignorance you just keep twisting my words, you are twisting words of scientists, and you completely reject words of God as even an possibility because obviously your reject the God.
Even though your theories are just a bunch of assumptions, you want to force me to accept them. Despite all the evidence which works against your theories you want me to believe in them.
I read many books on science and probably did more experiments in my life than you ever will. If you refuse to believe in God it is your choice. I choose to believe in God and that is my choice.
In your argument, your facts are weak, your theories do not have any sustainable basis, and your claims have none basis. Had you actually read and compared scientific works and Quran for example, you would notice the difference, but it is easier to claim that there is none.
Theories of Aristotle, Galen, Hippocrates were proven wrong in many things, even though they studied anatomy, and dissected many animals. They all made huge mistakes in their scientific works, and they made grave mistake by believing in theory of "Spontaneous life generation" which they taught to everyone in the world. Therefore, Quran could not steal this from them or anyone else. Yet Quran claims that life was created and reproduced by God and it is obvious that Pasteur proved this.
You said that science did not have instruments to prove anything in the past. I agree.
But you see this also proves my point, that science is based on theories and assumptions and this is the case even nowadays. Let me repeat this once more because you do not seem to get it, "There is nothing in scientific work that was proven to contradict anything in religion, in fact many religious claims were proven through science experiments (that can be repeated)."
@samtubeca "You said that science did not have instruments to prove anything in the past."
Aside from me not having said that. You know, quote mines work best when you actually provide the quote.
"science is based on theories and assumptions and this is the case even nowadays"
I am not going to define AGAIN what is meant by "theory" in science. Hell, if you lived up to your claim that you "read many books on science " than you wouldn't have had me need to define it ONCE.
"There is nothing in scientific work that was proven to contradict anything in religion, in fact many religious claims were proven through science experiments (that can be repeated)."
Genesis. Exodus. Jesus' ressurection. There's also direct Quranic inerrancies such as Surah 41:11 in response to actual science.
One example is enough to disprove your claim. Actually know what you talk about before you talk about it.
"Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient." (41:11)
Verse talks about early stages after creation of Heaven, and Earth. When Allah swt created Earth and Heaven they were ordered to obey by certain rules established by God.
I do not see any contradiction in there because indeed Earth, and Heaven do obey certain rules.
"Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and We decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower." (41:12)
Further Quran talks about separation of Heaven into seven layers from which only one has visible light (atmosphere). And this layer is inviolable i.e. gas and other matter remains in the atmosphere it is not leaking into open universe.
Science was proven wrong many times so far, yet you are not rejecting it. But once you encounter something in "The Book" that your brain cannot comprehend you reject the whole book without trying to understand the problem, or asking someone else to explain.
Obviously many Quran verses seemed weird to people 1400 years ago, but as science actually found and proved many things, those verses became clear. I am sure that everything will become clear in the future if its not right now.
@samtubeca "Science was proven wrong many times so far, yet you are not rejecting it."
Because it is ALWAYS SCIENCE that SHOWS WHEN SCIENCE IS WRONG. And those who were wrong ADMIT THAT THEY WERE WRONG.
As to, let's use a topic already discussed. The Quran used Galen WORD-FOR-WORD; Galen was WRONG on that statement, yet you don't admit that the Quran is wrong DESPITE USING THE VERY SAME STATEMENT that Galen was wrong on.
So, which is more-reliable? Self-correction or denial?
You said "And in this whole discussion of the origins of life, I didn't bring up philosophy or bullshit. Merely science and facts."
Science does not have a proof for the life origin. In fact science accepts several possible theories of which none are proven except that is known that all living things are created from other living things, and even fossils prove this.
Fact is not theory or assumption. Fact is something which would be established through relevant experiment.
"science accepts several possible theories of which none are proven" Science posits SEVERAL HYPOTHESES. Each of them HAS similar FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS proven REPEATEDLY by experimentation. And EACH ONE IS JUST AS PROBABLE AS EVERY OTHER ONE AS THE CAUSE OF LIFE ON EARTH, hence why there are several hypotheses.
"Fact is not theory or assumption." Facts are created through experiments. Theories explain the facts. That you don't even get that demonstrates how ignorant you are.
- Urey-Miller theory was disproved because of the fact that oxygen was not used in the experiment as it would cause an explosion. Oxygen is needed for almost all forms of life, but its presence would also destroy the life.
- Another problem is that type of atmosphere that was used in the experiment could never exist on earth as it would be lethal to all earth life forms. The chemicals used in the experiment would eliminate the possibility of life ever forming.
@samtubeca " Urey-Miller theory was disproved because of the fact that oxygen was not used in the experiment as it would cause an explosion." Urey-Miller experiment took hold of the FACT that early atmosphere had AT BEST LITTLE OXYGEN. Demonstrated both by the AMOUNT OF VOLCANIC GASES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT and the LACK OF PLANTS TO CONVERT THE VOLCANIC CARBON-BASED GASES INTO OXYGEN. (Among other geographically-valid evidences.)
And more-accurate experiments have gotten better yields.
"Another problem is that type of atmosphere that was used in the experiment could never exist on earth." The atmosphere used, especially by LATER EXPERIMENTS, rely on MAINLY VOLCANIC GASES, which GEOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE supports as being predominant. These ones get BETTER RESULTS in organic compounds, especially when iron (such as from the core) is present to counteract those compounds (such as nitrides) which "would eliminate the possibility of life ever forming".
Now, lets look at an atom. Protons and electrons in the atom revolve around nucleus in the atom in an perfect orbit. Similarly satellites revolve around planets which revolve around stars, stars revolve around other stars and around galaxies which revolve around other galaxies, etc.
I observe that everything in known universe is working in the perfect order. Did this order exist in the beginning stage of the universe, or is it something that happened randomly after universe expanded?
@samtubeca "Protons and electrons in the atom revolve around nucleus in the atom in an perfect orbit." Protons are PART OF THE NUCLEUS. Electrons HAVE A LARGE AREA, called an "electron cloud", that they TEND TO BE IN 99% of the time.
That you don't even understand three things shows how misinformed you are.
*The orbits of satellites around planets, etc, are not perfectly circular, no matter how close they may be.
If everything is moving in perfect order and happening in perfect order, I would have to say that random chances in this perfect order are impossible. When we perform experiments and then repeat them we observe that results of the experiment are always the same. Logic tells us that whatever happened will continue to happen, e.i. it does not happen only once.
Thanks to this, we are able to set some principles and the laws in science.
Now back to thinking about origin of life. In fact if under whatever conditions as you claim life started happening randomly, would that make sense?
Wouldn't this be against all the laws of any science, and wouldn't universe be in chaos if things happen randomly.
I will have to conclude, that life could not happen randomly, but in fact it is part of perfect order of things e.i. life was not random chance, but was something certain to happen.
@samtubeca "In order to understand scientific theories (which they like to call hypotheses)." THEORIES EXPLAIN THE FACTS. HYPOTHESES PREDICT THE OUTCOMES OF EXPERIMENTS. That you can't distinguish this simple fact shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
"Everything created had to origin from zero energy which does not need matter to exist." Energy is observed to convert into matter in minute amounts, generally unstable but occasionally remaining.
Also, there may have been energy. So your claim of "zero energy" is at best a biased assumption. And ignores possible parallel universes. And ignores possible "negative energy". And other explanations.
"Two elements hydrogen and helium randomly formed out of this zero energy" Quantum physics and quantum chemistry deal enough with this.
Of course those are with QUANTUM PHYSICS and QUANTUM CHEMISTRY, which do NOT have ANY (at least any detectable) bearing on BIOCHEMISTRY.
Further, science assumes that following things happened randomly as well:
- Universe temperature at first was extremely high, but later dropped under absolute zero in order to support fusion inside the stars.
- Sun with other planets around it formed randomly
- Earth and atmosphere random composition supports life.
- Earth's magnetic field formed by random chance is luckily there to protect Earth from Solar Winds which otherwise would destroy randomly generated life on Earth.
@samtubeca "Universe temperature at first was extremely high, but later dropped under absolute zero in order to support fusion inside the stars." Assuming it was true (which it wouldn't be because then NO MOTION could EVER happen), a universally-low temperature [little energy per lots of molecules] would be almost expected.
"Earth and atmosphere random composition supports life." If large amounts of ammonia, hydrogen, and volcanic gases are 'random' despite being super-simple...
- that Earth gravity is a random thing which keeps us on the Earth's surface, but it doesn't prevent us from moving around.
- Friction is random thing that allows us to walk on the surface, and prevents us from slipping and falling.
- Seven layers of atmosphere were formed randomly where each part of the atmosphere have its own purpose and without one of the layers of atmosphere life on Earth would be impossible.
@samtubeca "that Earth gravity is a random thing which keeps us on the Earth's surface, but it doesn't prevent us from moving around." Gravity is A PROPERTY OF MASS. ALL MASS EXERTS SOME FORCE, which decreases over distance but increases as either mass increases. Directionally, it is towards the center of the earth.
"Friction is random thing that allows us to walk on the surface, and prevents us from slipping and falling." Friction is a COUNTER-FORCE DEPENDENT on the surfaces.
So many useful things that support life today developed randomly according to science that also wants us to believe in theory of evolution.
Considering that we are the most superior creatures on this planet Earth it is strange how we have so many weaknesses. For example, we evolved with two legs and two arms, but we could use more. Look at octopus these animals have eight tentacles, and some wall lizards have an extra organ. Imagine what we could do with extra pair of arms and legs...
@samtubeca "we are the most superior creatures on this planet Earth it is strange how we have so many weaknesses." Let's ignore that your claim of 'our superiority' is based on your own preconceived notions and personal preference. Evolution PREDICTS that NO CREATURE, NO MATTER HOW "superior" IT IS, WOULD EVER BE PERFECT. And will ALWAYS be SUITED AT LEAST MINIMALLY TO ITS ENVIRONMENT. Just like us, octopi, and roaches.
And those wall-lizards EVOLVED the organ IN RESPONSE TO A CHANGE IN DIET.
Isn't this too many random things that work in advantage of life on Earth?
If things happen without any reason, and in random order, why would then any biological, chemical, physical or mathematical law make any sense?
Only in the world where things behave according to laws, where things are predictable and processes controllable, only then all of these sciences make sense.
However, science wants us to believe that certain things happened for no reason and after that they don't anymore.
@samtubeca "Isn't this too many random things that work in advantage of life on Earth?" LIFE ADAPTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT. That you don't understand that shows even more ignorance on your part.
"why would then any biological, chemical, physical or mathematical law make any sense?" PARTICLES INTERACT SIMILARLY. As such, there is CONSISTENCY, but NOT PERFECTION, in the physical world. These physical properties influence chemical properties which influence biological properties.
If something does not make sense now I don't think it will start making sense even after certain amount of time.
However, to explain origin of life, science poses theories such as 'spontaneous life generation theory' 'big bang theory', 'prime soup theory', 'RNA theory', etc. Experiments must rely on imaginative conditions and assumed states of Earth and atmosphere in the past. Science is contradicting itself in constant posing of new theories and disproving them.
And NONE of them contradict each other. Well, except spontaneous generation which was DISPROVEN BY PASTEUR. Isn't it funny that the very scientist you brought up as having disproved "abiogenesis" you ignore in light of your own misconceptions?
And if that wasn't enough, Fred Hoyle disproved Spontaneous generation through his mathematical analysis of the formation of life from the components randomly combining together.
Next time, actually know what you are talking about.
First of all orbits do not have to be circular. Second, if you apply the law of statics on galaxies, stars, planets and every celestial body in the universe, but on the other hand you use law of dynamics when talking about atoms, obviously there will be differences. Similarly to atom cloud, we can say that Earth, or even Sun is in cloud when compared to galaxies other than Milky Way. And you have no proof that universe is not in perfect order. All evidence proves that in fact is.
@samtubeca [Protons and electrons in the atom revolve around nucleus in the atom in an perfect orbit.]
An orbit is the path AROUND AN OBJECT. With a constant force acting between two perfectly circular objects, the orbit will be CIRCULAR. And the electron does NOT ALWAYS 'stay' in the assumed 'cloud area'.
[the law of statics on galaxies, stars, planets and every celestial body in the universe] Where there is a macroscopic equilibrium, there may not be microscopic equilibrium.
Of course "galaxies, stars, planets and every celestial body in the universe" are not perfectly static.
"And you have no proof that universe is not in perfect order." Let's see, what yield did I get despite following the lab experiment perfectly? Less than 85%. In "perfect order", the obtained yield would be 100% every time, from each person who did it perfectly. My one labmate, however, did exactly as I did and got about 70%, and another got 90%. One even got less than 40%.
As for the lizard argument, you suggest that lizard developed completely new organ due to change in diet. Obviously you ignore the fact that humans changed their diet from organic to completely synthetic yet we did not grew any new organs. So evolution does not apply to humans?
Another fact that you ignore is what evolutionists claim "the work created human", and if work created us how come we did not develop more legs and hands to help us to perform more work and evolve more?
@samtubeca "humans changed their diet from organic to completely synthetic yet we did not grew any new organs." Because, unlike lizards adapted to only truly eat meat having to acquire methods of consuming plants, primates were already adapted to eating both plants and meat, hence didn't need to change that way.
"if work created us how come we did not develop more legs and hands" Let's ignore that you take the claim out of context. Where would these additional legs and hands fit? Our mouths?
Further more, instead to try and understand my analogy, you are taking things literally. You simply accept fact that magnetic field exists, that gravity exists, but do not try to understand why those forces exist, and what created them, you simply take them for a fact, and you assume that they are there and that there is no need to explain their origin, or purpose. You believe that life adjusted to conditions on Earth, but that not every form of life adjusted the same...
@samtubeca "do not try to understand why those forces exist, and what created them" First, let's assume for even one half of a second that they needed to be created by something. What prevents that 'something' from being a cosmic pencil? What then created that creator?
Secondly, quantum chemistry and physics provide several plausible hypotheses (and many not-so-plausible ones) in explaining the fundamental forces by explaining the fundamental properties the forces require [mass, charge, etc].
"You believe that life adjusted to conditions on Earth, but that not every form of life adjusted the same..."
Wall lizards. Humans. Squirrels. Finches. Even insects.
Not to mention that even modern life demonstrates a wide variety of adjustment to their conditions. And even without fossils, organisms can easily have wide variation induced.
This has been flagged as spam show
You've heard people talk about it. Heard people argue about it. Read articles describing it. Now only on Youtube for the first time ever, see the Real Garden of Eden. This is no joke. God left His Watermark of it and I found it on Google Earth. It's a MUST SEE- Look at my videos and see the wonderful things I've discovered.
downyourtube 4 months ago
go get laid atheists are cool but they spend too much time on the internet.
OverseerJames 11 months ago
...lol. is this kid serious?
mvle91 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You'll like my funny animation where a pesky Jesus freak gets a intellectual beating from an enlightened woman. Check out my channel for the video. (Brace Yourself)
Sweence 1 year ago
HIGH FIVE.
sullensally 1 year ago
God created a time as a measurement for us to track activity during our lifetime. God is perfect and for Him time does not exist. God is timeless. On the other hand humans are limited and time is just one of the limitations. We need measurements to define everything, weight, height, etc. God it self cannot be measured. Trying to measure a God would be absurd, it would be attempt to measure a time as an infinity - with no starting, or ending points set.
samtubeca 1 year ago
Comment removed
samtubeca 1 year ago
This argument isn't good. If time is infinite then nothing would happen because we would not even get to one event. There can't be intervals of infinite time because we would never get to an event to mark an interval. If we marked intervals by a certain amount of time then what point would that be? We would still never get to anything. We would still never get to NOW. Yet here we are. So God does exist nad He did create us and He does exist outside of time.
MrOnfireforGod 1 year ago
@MrOnfireforGod One problem is that people look at the time only from our human perspective - as a measurement for how old things are. On the other hand, for God time does not exist. Time started when God created it for us, and it will cease to exist when God decides that. Theological view is that after we die and after we are reborn, we will not be limited by time anymore. Since this is life that is not supposed to stop from that point on, there is no need to measure it with time anymore.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca Yes. Great analysis.
MrOnfireforGod 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
is someone is doubting their religion, please watch the video called "DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY". it may explain why you dont feel like you have a connection to god.
gulbirk 1 year ago
your a fucking retard, and god is a fuckng retard too DOG IS GOD
seany5150 1 year ago
I have a question when did scientists come up with the big bang and how? also how in the world can they prove it!?!?!? Whats with the people talking about the infinite amount of time its not even that big of a deal! that seems to be the entire argument with peopel your missing the point GOD.
Blackness052 1 year ago
@Blackness052 [when did scientists come up with the big bang and how?] Well, Hesiod ~700 BC proposed a simple model where everything was in one single mass until "Nature" 'organized everything'.The present model, backed with evidence, was proposed in 1927 by Lemaître and supported by Hubble in 1929 with redshift of galaxies [they are going AWAY from us]. The term itself was coined in 1949 to distinguish it from "steady state" cosmology. And in 1964, cosmic background radiation was found.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 nvm now i know god is real because i have had really crazy things happen since that comment
Blackness052 1 year ago
@Blackness052 Actually that is fallacious. Supernatural phenomenom are no evidence for any god. Prayer and miracles have been granted and performed in equal rates by Ra (Egyptian Sun God) as by Yahweh (one Hebrew God) as by Odin (Norse Chief of the Gods), etc. Ghosts and prophets likewise are not particular to any religion, deity, or text.
Also, my comment does not address a god, just science. Maybe whatever creator created the universe did so such that it is cyclic, only made energy, etc.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 I do not know if you are aware of this, but the "Big Bang" theory is in matter a fact religious belief in Judaism, Christianity and Islam of how universe came to existence. God created Earth, and heavens and stretched them out. According to this same belief Judgment Day will come when God reverses the process e.i. when it shrinks back everything. According to science this will happen after universe spreading reaches certain point after which it will start shrinking back again.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca Why is it that you do not know that THE BIG BANG NEVER SAYS THAT ANYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING. It AT BEST with modern knowledge says that energy converted 'into' matter that collectively united, but that energy itself ALWAYS EXISTED IN SOME FORM, so wasn't "nothing".
Why do you ignore that BY THE TIME THE UNIVERSE "crunches", mankind will HAVE ALREADY DIED OUT, making the "judgement" you associate with it NULL? Also, that's one speculation (not even a hypothesis!).
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
And, because I feel like adding insult to injury, the "Big Crunch" concept would leave energy (which has no mass or volume and hence can't be "crunched").
The only thing that can be called one's consciousness is a form of energy being used by that person's body.
Hence, any consciousness that can exist as pure energy (the only way it would exist outside of a body) would not be destroyed in the "Big Crunch" (being energy).
And then there would be no "judgement". Ignoring the "DAY" part.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont) The Atom (zarrah in Arabic) and even smaller particles were mentioned in The Noble Quran in 34:3 , 10:61 , 34:22 , 99:6-8 , 4:40
Holy Bible does not compare percentages of elements in Man and Earth, but rather states that elements from the Earth were used in such creation, and not some elements that don't make up the Earth. "The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7)
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca The Quran was written ~500 AD. Jainism was formalized ~900-800 BC.
The "percentages of elements" SHOULD LINE UP IF MAN WAS MADE FROM THE GROUND. Statistical comparisons of the compositions demonstrates that Man would NOT have formed from the "ground".
Carbon is at best 0.18% of the crust but 18% of the human body. Such disparity is damn near impossible if man were MADE FROM THE "dust of the ground".
And the biological concept of abiogenesis DOES NOT say "man" formed from dust.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
1. Elements in the earth will depend on location where you take your samples from, and how many of them you take - you can actually adjust compositions until they match exactly.
2. When you are mentioning something like "Embryonic Development", please make a reference to it, as obviously if there is no written proof for this, you are derogating it. The only thing I was able to find are myths and theories without any obvious evidence, pictures or descriptions.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca
1. The data provided have little variation in respect to location in the Lithosphere [crust and mantle]. Likewise it's pretty hard (at best) to modify soil composition based on area to match human composition by picking a different area.
2. YOU brought up Embryological development and I responded to that comment.
Also: I will set aside your double standard [because the Quran has no evidence or pictures that itself wasn't within the mythology!], and deal with this where it is.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
1. When you are all All Mighty nothing is hard to you!
2. Quran is describing stages in detail whereas you mentioned something which is merely guessing based on chick egg look and feel assumption.
3. Before you said 150BC, now you change it to 450BC - so much about being consistent...
4. People in most parts of the world, even Europe believed that Earth was flat even during Christian ages, and who ever opposed the opinion was claimed to be heretic and he/she was hanged.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca
1. Then why not create man ex nihilo instead of picking a random sample of dirt that does not and most likely never could have existed? [Notice that it IGNORES any mention of what the other animals were made out of!]
3. The ONLY "150" I put was the time of Galen, which was 150 AD. IN THAT SAME POST, I put the time of Hippocrates (put right behind Hippocrates' name) which was 460 AD. You could at least try to pull a red herring with what was actually put, you know.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
1. This is the beauty of God's creation. He created everything in the way He wanted. Animal creation is irrelevant because they are not given the same status as us.
3. I guess you are using wrong year, did you mean 150BC, and 450BC? And of course if you talk about people from several different ages, you should specify range, but not the most suitable year.
2. As you said yourself studies on humans were forbidden, so it was impossible to prove correctness of findings until recently
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca
1. "Animal creation is irrelevant because they are not given the same status as us." Fossil, DNA, and even Behavioral evidence begs to differ. Anatomical, Structural, and Embryological evidence begs to differ.
2. Galen lived 129 AD to 199 AD. 148 AD he started following advice from Hippocrates' teachings. By 157 AD, he was a physician knowledgeable and skilled enough to place organs back into an ape they were taken out of. So I would say that ~150 AD is a relatively decent dating.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
1. There is no strong scientific proof, that shows how man evolved from an animal.
2. Quran does not mention sperm, but the drop of liquid in 22:5 , 53:45. In hadith prophet Mohammad p.b.u.h. explains that 'drop' is both male and female reproductive liquid (semen).
3. People in the past could not confirm the scientific truth of the Quran, (or any other theories), so not all the verses were for people who lived then; but for future generations who see those verses come true.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca
1. You ignore that HUMANS ARE AN ANIMAL. Animalia (animal) Chordata (chordate) Mammalia (mammal) Primates Hominidae Homo sapiens. Leaving out the subdivisions and superdivisions, obviously. You also ignore FOSSILS, DNA, BEHAVIOR, ANATOMY, STRUCTURE, and EMBRYOLOGY.
2. Let's ignore that the hadiths were at best compiled after being edited for 200 years after Mohammad's death. That aside, as far as I can find, the only hadiths to mention it use "drop of fluid".
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
1. You ignore the fact that HUMANS ARE NOT ANIMALS in religion.
DNA, Anatomy, Structure, and Embryology prove that there are many differences across different species, and also common similarities, but behavior is very different from one life form to another.
Direct proof of your theory would be possibility of monkey to evolve to another form of 'monkey' which obviously did not happen in last 10,000 years, or you maybe know of some tribe that evolved from monkeys? I don't.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca
1. That you even go forth and ADMIT that religions based on bronze-age and nomadic-tribal myths IGNORES THE FACTS pretty much makes my point..
Embryology actually shows VAST SIMILARITIES. Anatomy shows VAST SIMILARITIES. Even structure, not including fossils, show VAST SIMILARITIES.
DNA has been analyzed on functional-segmentation, ERV-segmentation, and even most-genome-segmentation. Of course ERVs alone would indicate common ancestry due to how they are aquired.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
1. Ok, so now you change your version where does religion come from? I see, you make my point on how you constantly contradict your self.
2. I see wisdom of God's creation, but you see what you want to see and based on nothing more than just theories. I said many times give me an strong evidence, but you always fail to produce that evidence. Why? Because there is NO EVIDENCE. Believing in God, or fairy-tales told by others like you, it is your choice. I choose God.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
OK, people tend to play a God nowadays and we are crossbreeding different species, but when we go too far we get terrible results. And this proves that all the crappy theories you are talking about are worthless because even between animals there is so much difference. And could you actually breed a beaver, duck, and a snake? I am quite interested what would be the result of this.
Conclusion: Evolution is not happening, but mutations are and are usually cause of humans.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
Simple reason that people did not know about Galen is because they did not have internet, but Quran, Bible, Torah everyone knew about these books for thousand+ years now. If there was such value in works of Galen and others shouldn't these people and their work have been known to humanity before?
They might as well be invented people with invented work of theirs, do you have any single proof to disprove me? We can make philosophy out of everything, but in the end it always end with choice
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
Since evolution is not happening anymore (magically stopped) it is nothing less controversial than any other theory. Behavioral patterns prove the opposite of what you claim. No animal is capable of critical thinking, and making decisions, not even the smartest chimp on the planet. Another problem is that this same chimp could not get a grasp of human language, could not learn even simplest words presented to it, all it is capable of is remembering some shapes.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca Evolution is actually still happening repeatedly.
Italian wall lizards, over 30 years, developed A NEW STURCTURE IN RESPONSE TO THE CHANGE IN DIET. Not to mention the definition I provided, that it's THE CHANGE IN THE ALLELE FREQUENCIES IN A POPULATION OVER TIME. That IS FOR A FACT 'Evolution'.
Unquestionable Speciation (what you would call "Macroevolution") is repeatedly observed with flies, squirrels, and fish being some simple easily-performed examples.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
LOL. Do not make me laugh about lizard, or evolution.
Did you see what atomic radiation did to animals in Chernobyl? Ya, I guess mutation happens when it is caused by humans.... But wait who could possibly mutate monkeys to humans if there was no humans before?
For a fact, most terrible example of evolution and most terrible definition I ever heard in my life. Please do not start twisting these theories now too. Extinction of animal and insect species happens indeed every day...
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca I find it funny that you insult the BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION, established since Mendel originated the field known as Genetics. That you then insult the definition that the FACT OF EVOLUTION abides by shows your ignorance on the topic.
Mutations have been observed not only by human intervention but completely NATURALLY AND RANDOMLY.
FOSSILS. DNA. ANATOMY. Just to begin.
And the wall lizards are fun. 30 years the same species DEVELOPED FROM 'SCRATCH' a new organ.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Octopi and Squids can unlock tanks to get food and then go back and lock the cage up again.
Chimpanzees repeatedly use tools such as stones and sticks when available to get food.
Birds also exhibit "tool-use".
And, fyi, Chimpanzees have been taught to understand "human language" AND respond conceptually, as humans can't understand "chimp language". Some of the chimps even have personalized conceptual responses for the more-abstract and less-familiar topics.
So you fail.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Do you know how they actually capture chimps? They put ball in a tree, chimp comes and grabs the ball, but she is too stupid to let go and pull out her hand.
After certain number of attempts chimps can handle certain actions - we say they learn by trials and failures, but chimp cannot make rational, or critical decisions.
Chimps cannot respond unless they recognize symbol for something (learned in trial/failure fashion and reward for good actions).
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca Do you know how what children repeatedly tend to do to get balls from behind fences? They reach their hand in and grab the ball. And they are almost always too stupid to let go and pull their hand out.
And it's actually the case, especially among chimps, where the problems are NOT solved "by trials and failures" but by observing the scenerio and putting to use what can be used how they need it to be used.
And hyenas are better at cooperative problems than chimps. XD
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont) I asked you important question regarding genetics, DNA, blood, crossbreeding, etc. Also where do you see dinosaurs in your evolution chain?
Hm, cockroaches been around for millions of years on Earth - more than anything else living today, but yet they never learned to communicate with each other. Humans been around for 10,000+, yet we have many languages, we have music, we have science, arts, etc.
We cause things to mutate in nature, yet we cannot make another monkey evolve to a human...
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca Dinosaurs: branch of reptiles; modern day dinosaurs generally fit into the group known as "birds".
"cockroaches been around for millions of years" Cockroaches don't need to communicate with other cockroaches, nor have a method to. Hence (unless they develop a method which they won't need) they wouldn't be expected to have communication.
"we have many languages" Birds do, too.
"we have music" Birds do to.
"we have science" Birds are pretty good engineers.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 Just because i do not share your opinion and do not take your theories as a fact and proof of anything, that does not mean that I am trying to insult you or anyone else.
You assumed that Mohammad was literate enough to copy someone's else work; therefore I built on your idea, but I never claimed such thing. Quran did not copy anything, Quran is word of God, not Mohammad's word or of any other man. If you never even read translation it is easy for you to make biased claims.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "Just because i do not...take your theories as a fact..." How about my FACTS? Fossils. DNA. Behavior. Anatomy. Vestigial structures. Embryology.
Hell, the central reason that rats and rabbits are common experimental subjects in drug testing is that they are affected almost identically by drugs as humans are.
And the reason for THAT is *dum dum dum* that they are so similar genetically, structurally, and anatomically to us.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"You assumed that Mohammad was literate enough to copy someone's else work" I assumed he was literate enough to listen to people and understand what they were saying. Of course you can fit that criteria and not be able to read even pure symbols.
"Quran did not copy anything" Galen, direct wording and ideology. Bible and Talmud, blatantly. Hippocrates, through Galen. Just to stay on the most-readily-available stuff in our discussion.
"If you never even read translation" I have.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Since chimps respond to one symbol at a time, this is obviously not considered understanding, reading, and definitely not knowing of human language. So you actually fail for making this up. LOL!
Should I also say that humans are capable of knowing, speaking, and reading in many languages. I my self can speak in five languages, but if you know one language only I can understand why you feel so closely related to chimps then.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca Koko the Gorilla, taught sign language. Sarah the Chimp, taught symbolic representation.
And also, you seem to ignore that humans have been, for the past 10,000+ years, modifying language based on group/kinship (observed, especially in bird songs), modifying speach patterns and focusing on alterations of different roots to acquire different meanings, and other such diversification to accomodate to our needs to share information.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 Koko the Gorilla lol. I watched several videos of her, and the person video taping is interpreting every gorila's move as a sign lol. Do you really believe in this crap? Maybe you should donate to this gorilla organization if you do... Person in one video explains sign for apple, but person in the other video interprets this same sign as "run"... Ah well, so much about gorilla and her sign language, I just do not know who's IQ is higher - that gorilla's, or of that person...
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
I do not ignore the fact that humans been around for 10,000+ years. I do not even ignore the fact that languages are changing and some are dying out. However, this does not prove that our language evolved from chimp, gorilla, or any other monkey species articulated signs which for certain do not constitute language even. Language is a science with certain set of rules and symbolic representation of certain voices and despite language difference there is common logic among all of them.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca You realize I did not say that our MODERN SPEECH "evolved from chimp, gorilla, or any other monkey species articulated signs", don't you? However, even a basic understanding of the origins of language would show that, ironicaly enough, a handful of grunts and groans from primative cultures (Homo sapiens have been around for 160,000 years) DID IN FACT develop first into labeling and then a coherent language and then branched from the 'parent' into other languages, which then etc.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
While animals do not believe in certain morals, but on the other hand only know law of survival, humans tend to imagine things, make up things that do not exist. We have imagination, creativity, we have ability to move objects with our hands and legs in creative ways; thus we play sports, dance, etc.
Do not forget that Dolphins and some whale species are far more intelligent than chimps, or gorillas.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "While animals do not believe in certain morals" Which morals? Theft, lies, 'murder' are, especially in social animals, generally no worse than humans. And altruism, empathy, and fairness are on par with humans, if not better.
"we have ability to move objects with our hands and legs in creative ways" How about the disabled who are just as, if not more, imaginative yet can't express their 'creativity'? According to you, they would just be 'uncreative animals'.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
And let's see what I know: Spanish fluently. Greek and Latin mostly-fluently. Japanese mostly-fluently. Anglo-Saxon is easy. And obviously English.
Plus specific understandings of terms in French, German, Arabic, Hebrew, and Italian.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Willingness to die for a cause indicates that you believe in that cause whether is good, or bad I agree. Dedication of your life to write something unless it is revealed and requested by God would be waste of time though and you proved that. You were never requested by the God to write something, but when I requested such thing from you, you said you would not do it.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "Dedication of your life to write something unless it is revealed and requested by God would be waste of time though and you proved that."
You just don't get that there's shitloads more that CAN BE written than what ALREADY HAS been written. Many people in fact DO dedicate their lives to writing, and not because some voice in their head told them to.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Of course you ignore that few of the Biblical and Quranic passages were written by one person dedicating his life to them. (Example: Mohammad had at least three years where he would think, speak a few verses, live his life for a while, and repeat the cycle. Moses established a set of rules for the tribe to follow. Genesis steals the flood from Mesopotamian mythology. Genesis 1 is fundamentally at ends with Genesis 2, at least indicating different authorship there.)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
2. Obviously you are not able to google-out something, but you see people did not have computers several thousand years ago. So to know something you either had to learn from someone, or you had to discover it on your own. Plagiarism was not an issue to them, as news that spread, and scientific facts were well known, especially because Arabs were far more advanced at that time than any other nation, and many people were actually going to Arabic countries to learn from them.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca 2. "Obviously you are not able to google-out something" Quite the contrary, googling the most specific AND the most vague gets the same result well over 100 pages each: your claim is full of shit.
"Plagiarism was not an issue to them" The issue is that WHAT THE QURAN STATES WAS NOT ANYTHING NEW. In fact, the very research kept getting that Galen's works was translated into Arabic not far into Mohammad's life and one acquaintance was a doctor who was a "galenist" (to be blunt).
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
LOL. All of a sudden you Google-out some information on how some Greek crap was translated in Arabic around 6th century, and this is 100% truth because Google said so. I mean common it must be truth, how could possibly someone else could know something except for Greeks right?
Let me tell you one thing. You fail to realize that Arabs invented modern medicine, mechanics, algebra, gun powder, missiles, water pumps, aqueducts, and many other things far far advanced for that time.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca Actually I admit that it may be false. However, from trustworthy sources with dates attributed to the texts, I highly doubt it. Likewise, from my own translations both through several translation sites repeatedly getting the same thing between them AND my own translation of what I do know for a fact in the languages, applying all I can...
Aqueducts were Egyptian. Gunpowder was Chinese. Water pumps were Mesopotamian. Modern medicinal practices are mainly Greek. Algebra was Indian.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
LOL, read the fucking texts? Are you kidding me?
You see my point is not to just write anything, but that you should sit down and dedicate as much of your time is needed to write the book which will have the message, or if you are lazy to write, and if you want to make it easier for your self maybe you could memorize it - as you claim it is easier to memorize. After you have book then transfer this knowledge to the other people so that they can pass it to future generations.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca You don't get that everything I have stated on just about every topic discussed has already been proven, some as close as within ten years and some as far back as 1900 BC [if not farther still].
And...What you specifically want me to do has been done long before even my grandparents were a vague concept in their grandparents' minds. Big Bang cosmology as far as Ancient Greece, Heliocentric solar system as far as Classical Greece, and Embryology just as far as Heliocentricity.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Humans cannot prove the origin of the universe, when we spoke of some theories my point was that there is no contradiction in the two ways that religion see it, and that science see it. While for me a proof is something physical/mathematical that you can produce after repeating series of actions established upon that theory, you consider a proof any theory thrown at you or anything that you can Google-out on Google. Thirty years ago people did not even know about Galen.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "my point was that there is no contradiction in the two ways that religion see it, and that science see it." Actually there is a fundamental difference: Religions say that 'Magic fairies made everything from nothing'; science actually proposes testable, falsifiable answers based on what is known.
"Thirty years ago people did not even know about Galen." Actually 30 years ago, peole would have had the texts on their bookshelves instead of having it saved as a 'bookmark'.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Mohammad could probably just use bible, and add few verses to it, as it would be so much easier than making up the whole new book because after all even though there are some similarities there is so many differences among the two. Just as promised Quran was never changed and it will not be changed until the last day, which is referred as Judgment Day which obviously will be proof for the people who will live then and at that time everyone will believe.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "Mohammad could probably just use bible, and add few verses to it" First, you refer to Mohammad as illiterate then you assume that he was able to read the Bible. *facepalm*
Second, when people THINK about/on religious texts and parts of texts, they quite often see places they think should be changed. Hearing them and interpretations from others provides more flexibility.
"Just as promised Quran was never changed" Then all translations should agree 100% and be 100% accurate.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
I know that you are incapable of writing such book, even though you have internet, you have other books around you, you have help of far more advanced technology, and more resources. You will not do it. You may argue that this would be a waste of time or whatever, but Mohammad did not know if anyone would follow him either, but he did not believe it was waste of his time. Why?
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "I know that you are incapable of writing such book" Actually it's that EVERY THING DISCUSSED HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRITTEN DOWN. Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Galen have the original texts, recovery attempts, and translations to many languages (including Latin and Arabic before Mohammad was a 'prophet').
Hence it would be a waste of my time to write what is and has been ALREADY KNOWN. That you ignore even that shows your ignorance on this topic.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Yet again, you fail on book writing. I am not asking you to write the Holy Book for sake of revealing something new, but more for sake of exactly of what you said wasting your time, but in order to convince people that this book of yours is book of God, and that this book contains rules on how to live, and on what is going to happen. Since you are not convincing to me, obviously you know you cannot convince anyone else; therefore you already gave up. FAIL!
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
Among many others Abraham, Moses, David, Mohammad, they did not give up because obviously they knew their book will serve the people. If God promises you success you know that many readers will have access to your book and that this book will serve its purpose. In your case, you do not have any purpose, you are not inspired by God; thus it is logical that you consider it waste of time and you will not write anything like Bible or Quran.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca Willingness to die does NOT indicate how true or false something is, despite how true or false the person may think it is.
Abraham didn't write anything down.
Moses enacted a set of rules that in effect made him the king of the Israelites.
David collected songs that praised the chief deity he worshipped.
Mohammad contributed very little at all.
Moses was a leader, David a king, and Mohammad had ties to influential people. But obviously their ideas were "spread by God".
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 Revelations in the Bible, and certain hadiths came true about coming of the Messiah. It is not coincidence that state of Israel rose once again and it keeps expanding. According to prophecies Israel will expand to its historical borders, and Israel will at that time become number one country in the world in power. If it is to believe these prophecies we may as well be witnessing the Judgment Day in some 50-60 years.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "certain hadiths came true about coming of the Messiah" Let's ignore that the Bible states pretty much the same things, which shows that the Quran still preaches that which was already known.
It's not a prophecy to state that "some place will someday become the best place ever". Especially such a religiously-fundamental place such as Israel where great powers will be required to acquire, and then the religious beliefs command the spreading...
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
And you are right, I don't have a purpose to waste eve three years of my life writing a bullshit historical-esque tale of the world from some imaginative event to modern day that is pure fantasy and relies on magic and invisible fairies to explain everything.
Or the additional time and effort to add in zombies, vampires, and werewolves to explain what was already explained before with the fairies.
onijester56 1 year ago
*waste even three years...
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
For the end, maybe you feel that I am brainwashed or whatever, but let me tell you that I am not perfect believer. I wish I am better and that I am following religion more strictly, but unfortunately my parents were not believers so I was not raised with religion. As I said I found more logic in believing that God created everything, than any other theory invented by human kind. I was sincerely looking for a proof, and I just started feeling in my heart.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "I found more logic in believing that God created everything, than any other theory invented by human kind."
First, then what created God? And why is God excluded from the condition of requiring a creator? [Especially since God is then infinitely complex, requiring an infinitely more complex creator...]
Second, why the Islamic one, instead of any other one that ever existed? Zoroastrian, Judaic, Christian, Mormon, and even Scientologian all are at worst equally logical.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"I was sincerely looking for a proof, and I just started feeling in my heart."
Which is not proof. In fact by that very logic, the Greeks had more proof because they had stories of their gods, depictions of their gods, and even relatively-consistent personalities to each of their gods. So you have a feeling but they had essences and "forms".
And their way of 'creation' was simple: 'matter always existed'.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Despite all the trouble I had with my parents, and everyone around me, and even my own doubts I managed to hold on to religion even today.
There is verse in Quran which says: "They only are the (true) believers whose hearts feel fear when Allah is mentioned, and when revelations of Allah are recited unto them they increase their faith, and who trust in their Lord;"
I did not understand this verse, until I started believing my self, and this is proof enough for me.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca There's also Biblical verses along the same lines as your Quranic verse. Why are they less valid? I'll be generous to Islam in this timeline:
*Torah, 500 BC
*Bible, 100 AD
*Quran, 600 AD
So at least 1100 years AFTER the Israelites/Jews stated the same thing, the Quran stated it. And you believe the latter as to the former because you "started feeling in your heart".
Next time you try to ignore the FACTS, don't do it for such pathetic a reason.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Obviously, I do not need to justify to you or anyone else for that matter reasons why I believe.
I told you that I understand meaning of the verse because I started believing in its meaning after accepting religion in my heart.
Obviously you are keen to twist around my words again which seem to be your major feature aside of contradicting your self.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "I do not need to justify to you or anyone else for that matter reasons why I believe." Then don't spout your belief, least of all in a forum where they can be criticized, while ignoring FACTS.
"I told you that I understand meaning of the verse because I started believing in its meaning after accepting religion in my heart." Then why are other religions, which state the same thing, any less valid despite such verses being established AT LEAST 1000 years BEFORE THE QURAN?
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Science is unable to explain origin of life except through theories. Fossils only prove that life existed before humans, but religion does not contradict this.
DNA? Everything is created out of the same molecules, and since this is the case it would actually be strange if there are no similarities among everything on Earth. Furthermore, I am not sure what about anatomy specifically supports your claim. Better ask why would organs or bones be different when spiritual difference is enough?
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "Science is unable to explain origin of life except through theories." Let's get the pre-kindergarten-level science out of the way. In science, "theories" are FALSIFIABLE PREDICATIVE EXPLANATIONS OF THE FACTS SUPPORTED BY REPEATED AND CONTINUAL SUPPORT THROUGH UNBIASED EXPERIMENTATION AND OBSERVATION.
And theories are not 'mere guesses or hunches'.
There are several independent hypotheses on the origins of life on this planet, from space to the depths of the ocean.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
There are 4 base-pairs that make up DNA. Hence the chance of any one pair matching a specific pair is 25%. The chance of any two independent lines of 100 base-pairs matching is [6.2 * 10^-59]%. ERVs are accepted on a minimum of ~300 base-pairs and have the unfair chance of [3 * 10^-8]% for being inserted into the same spot in two unrelated species. Humans have 16 Class-K in common with chimps and other primates. Count in the other ~97,984 retroviruses that are proven and...
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Fossils show that CREATURES WITH SPECIFIC STRUCTURES EXISTED AT SPECIFIC TIMES. Then there are those of transitional forms, which show the clear transition of structures from one "kind" to another "kind" [to use Creationist terminology], even providing a rough scale of when the change happened, which adds to the predictive power by allowing times [and hence depths] to be applied for specific structures.
Anatomy supports fossils and DNA in showing just how similar animals are now.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Let me remind you that until 17th century scientists supported theory of spontaneous life generation e.g. mouse forms out of dirt. In 17th century Lazzaro Spallanzani rejected this theory, and later in 19th century Louis Pasteur proved that ALL KNOWN LIVING ORGANISMS ARISE ONLY FROM PRE-EXISTING LIVING ORGANISMS (aka reproduction). In this matter Quran says: "He it is Who produceth creation, then reproduceth it, and it is easier for Him... (30:27)"
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "until 17th century scientists supported theory of spontaneous life generation" Due to LACK OF KNOWLEDGE and LIMITATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME.
Aside from Lazzaro being 18th [Redi was 17th]. Pastuer demonstrated that life could NOT form spontaneously from stable isolated conditions (which, fyi, the early earth atmosphere and depths were highly reactive and relatively open).
Urey and Miller revealed that organic compounds are easily created through reactive systems. Since then...
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Blah, blah, blah. Empty words. No proof. Theories, more blah, and more theories.
Louis Pasteur disproved scientific theories which existed until 19th century, and proved that life could not happen by itself. EVERY LIVING THING IS CREATED OUT OF OTHER LIVING THING - PROVEN FACT - CAN BE REPEATED!
Louis Pasteur confirmed the text which was written in the Quran ten centuries before him, "He it is Who produceth creation, then reproduceth it, and it is easier for Him..." (30:27)
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca You don't even understand what Pasteur's experiment was, let alone that it was a CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT in A STABLE ENVIRONMENT that WAS ALMOST PERFECTLY CLOSED FROM MICROBES.
And then you ignore that MODERN life can have little more than 500,000 base pairs, and early life would require less than that. And you ignore that Pasteur's experiment was NOT representative of the early earth atmosphere (nor did it even attempt to be) where life is believed to have originated.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 Obviously you are indeed mentally retarded as you keep on going with your assumptions of this and that. Urey-Miller experiment NEVER CREATED created any LIFE FORM! Pasteur's experiment confirmed that LIFE FORM IS RECREATED FROM ANOTHER LIFE FORM, but I guess retard like you does not get that simple thing. I feel sorry for your lack of logic and twisted logic of real proof, and now excuse me as you are just wasting my time with all your philosophical BS. Bye!
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca I never said that it DID create any life. My exact quotes:
"Urey and Miller revealed that organic compounds are easily created through reactive systems. Since then..."
"Urey-Miller and the production of organic compounds, especially amino acids."
"The water was then trapped (as in a puddle or the ocean), and had a wide range of organic compounds."
And you know what each one of those has in common? Each one SPECIFICALLY STATES "organic compounds".
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"Pasteur's experiment confirmed that LIFE FORM IS RECREATED FROM ANOTHER LIFE FORM."
Actually that is not what Pasteur's experiment did, well not specifically. To quote Pasteur, "Spontaneous generation is a dream."
However, and this is a key point that you don't seem to understand, THE FORMATION OF LIFE WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS. It was GRADUAL, STEPWISE, and occurred in the conditions of the earth OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Words used by science when explaining origin of life and everything else:
- could have,
- probably,
- assuming,
- possibly,
- likely, etc.
Lot of theories and assumptions. On the other hand, whatever was proven in fact goes along with religion and existence of God. Thus, we see many scientists believe in God, including Louis Jean Pasteur, Galen, Aristotle, and Hippocrates.
Had they had proof of anything they would believe otherwise, in fact science made them stronger believers.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca Hippocrates, assuming he was a theist, was a POLYTHEIST, worshipping the OLYMPIANS of Greek mythology.
Aristotle's 'unmoved mover' was APATHETIC in respect to us AND our worship for it; if it can even be called his "god". Completely against the Abrahamic 'god', which each demand worship only for that specific entity and is claimed to "love" us.
Galen was a monotheist who thought that God is a part of nature and viewed Christianity as another philosophic school.
You fail.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Next time, don't be so ignorant. Actually read general chemistry, general biology, or organic chemistry textbooks. Actually read published scientific articles. Actually do more research than Kent Hovind's completely erroneous twisting of science.
And in this whole discussion of the origins of life, I didn't bring up philosophy or bullshit. Merely science and facts.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Your argument is wrong and it does not have valid basis because science must reject lot of things, or assume many things in order to make its anti-God theories work. This is not proof of anything. This is just a game of words which is exactly what you have been doing all this time.
Also, God was not created, does not have any children, or relatives. He created everything, and does not need to abide to anything He created. He is above human laws of any kind, and He does not need a creator.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
As for the work of Louis Pasteur:
"Pasteur conducted experiments comparing organic material that was exposed to air with organic material that was not. Nothing grew in the sealed or filtered vessels. This empirically demonstrated that the fermentation in the open containers was caused by the growth of microorganisms from the air, not spontaneous generation, thus proving BIOGENESIS (LIFE BEGETS LIFE)."
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca Why is it that you REPEATEDLY IGNORE THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PASTEUR AND MODERN ABIOGENESIS?
Pasteur ISOLATED STABLE SOLUTIONS with LITTLE (if any) change in STABILITY.
Miller and Urey, as well as every experiment of the type, has an isolated system THAT EXPERIENCES 'instability' THROUGH ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES, as EARLY EARTH WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED.
Also, THE UREY-MILLER EXPERIMENT DOES NOT POSIT "spontaneous generation". Actually know what you talk about.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
WHY DO YOU REPEATEDLY USE STUPID THEORIES, BUT REJECT PROVEN SCIENCE, AND EVIDENCE! Modern abiogenesis theories were objected by respected scientists such as Sir Fred Hoyle, Erwin Schrödinger, Hubert Yockey, and many others as they do not make much sense in formation of life out of non-life and are impossible to prove. Urey-Miller experiment was rejected by the scientific world, as assumptions made of pre-historic Earth conditions are impossible.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca I "WHY DO YOU REPEATEDLY USE STUPID THEORIES, BUT REJECT PROVEN SCIENCE, AND EVIDENCE!" You ignore not only the simplest explanations and actual evidence, and claim.
Fred Hoyle's incorrect understanding of the math behind abiogenesis [fyi, the 'simplest living cell' now would NEVER need to be the first 'life'], argumentum ad ignorantia is no valid argument. Especially in light of *dum dum dum* Urey and Miller and SUBSEQUENT EXPERIMENTS.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Fred Hoyle was an English astronomer and mathematician. He performed several experiments which prove that Urey-Miller theory is impossible.
Fred Hoyle until that time was atheist himself, but after the experiment he started believing in higher force i.e. GOD!
Just because you do not believe in God, this does not give you right to reject one scientific opinion over the other.
As I told you before, you are just twisting scientific work, and everything else to support your fantasies.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "He performed several experiments which prove that Urey-Miller theory is impossible." You mean calculations based not on what the Urey-Miller experiment (nor any aspect ever of even the most outrageous hypothesis presented to the theory of Abiogenesis) states? Hoyle bases on RANDOM ATOMS JUST FITTING TOGETHER, which is SPONTANEOUS GENERATION which IS WHAT PASTEUR DISPROVED.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Now, what Urey and Miller DID DO was show that WITH SIMPLE GASES in AN ELECTRICALLY-CHARGED/ENERGY-FILLED ATMOSPHERE, SIMPLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CAN BE CREATED.
What SIMILAR EXPERIMENTS DO is show that THE SAME RESULTS OCCUR WITH DIFFERENT INITIAL GASES.
What LATER experiments do is SHOW THAT THESE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS CAN FORM LARGER ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.
And STILL-LATER experiments show that THESE LARGER COMPOUNDS (including RNA) CAN FORM HOMEOSTASIS and FISSION into 'daughters'.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"Just because you do not believe in God, this does not give you right to reject one scientific opinion over the other."
Then propose a way to falsify God. If God can't be falsified, then it's not a scientific hypothesis.
Then propose a way to test God. If God can't be tested, then it's not a scientific hypothesis.
"you are just twisting scientific work, and everything else to support your fantasies." Says the one who uses Answers in Genesis as a valid scientific source.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"Urey-Miller experiment was rejected by the scientific world, as assumptions made of pre-historic Earth conditions are impossible."
Using data collection from contemporary rocks, models, and various other sources of data to modify the initial gases gives pretty much the same results.
"assumptions made of pre-historic Earth conditions are impossible." Actually they are: hydrogen and helium, followed by increase of volcanic gases (CO, CO2, SO2, CL2, S2, CH4, NH3, N2. H2, H2O)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Latest abiogenesis theory claims that life on Earth is of extraterrestrial origin (another assumption because Earth could not support spontaneous generation of life).
Lets assume this is the case. Quran says: "Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds," (1:2)
According to Quran we are not alone, there are other worlds beside ours. Even though Quran does not claim that life came to Earth from somewhere else, this theory is not rejected by Noble Quran...
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "Latest abiogenesis theory claims that life on Earth is of extraterrestrial origin" One hypothesis, actually, for that one part of the "theory". There's also "deep-vent" production. And those are just on the initial organic compounds that then give rise to life (otherwise, it's not answering anything).
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
I quoted part of verse from Quran before, but here it is again because Quran spoke of origin of life in 7th century in different way than rest of the world which believed in "spontaneous generation of life".
Quran says: ""He it is Who produceth creation, then reproduceth it..." (30:27)"
In 19th century Louis Pasteur performs multiple experiments and comes to conclussion: "LIFE BEGETS LIFE" e.i. Life form is reproduced out of other life form, it cannot come out of non-living form.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
Here is another thing for your thought, "Internal waves" were discovered only in year 1904 (20th century), but Quran spoke about this in 7th century:
"Or (the unbelievers’ state) is like the layers of darkness in a DEEP SEA COVERED BY WAVES TOPPED BY WAVES, topped by clouds: Layers of darkness, one above another. If a man stretches his hand, he can hardly see it. For any to whom Allah gives no light, there is no light."(24:40)
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
“Of no profit will be my counsel to you, much as I desire to give you (good) counsel, if it be that Allah willeth to leave you astray (yughwiyakum): He is your Lord! and to Him will ye return!” (Quran 11:34)
samtubeca 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@samtubeca I have a question: why worship and praise a vindictive masochist who may very well be driving you in circles just to send you to Hell?
Your own verse states that " if it be that Allah willeth to leave you astray". The Quran threatens disbelief and 'astrayness' with eternal torture. So, I ask again...
"why the Islamic one, instead of any other one that ever existed?"
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"Pasteur received criticism for his work and detail-oriented methods. He wouldn't make any claim until he had re-tested several times and was sure of the results."
Despite the fact that Pasteur was retesting in his experiments several times in order to prove his results he received critics by atheists and anti-God theorists like yourself because you simply refuse to believe in a God. However, this only proves what religion says about atheists when faced with the evidence.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
In fact if you are not so ignorant, maybe you would be able to discover the God yourself. However, due to your ignorance you just keep twisting my words, you are twisting words of scientists, and you completely reject words of God as even an possibility because obviously your reject the God.
Even though your theories are just a bunch of assumptions, you want to force me to accept them. Despite all the evidence which works against your theories you want me to believe in them.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
I read many books on science and probably did more experiments in my life than you ever will. If you refuse to believe in God it is your choice. I choose to believe in God and that is my choice.
In your argument, your facts are weak, your theories do not have any sustainable basis, and your claims have none basis. Had you actually read and compared scientific works and Quran for example, you would notice the difference, but it is easier to claim that there is none.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
Theories of Aristotle, Galen, Hippocrates were proven wrong in many things, even though they studied anatomy, and dissected many animals. They all made huge mistakes in their scientific works, and they made grave mistake by believing in theory of "Spontaneous life generation" which they taught to everyone in the world. Therefore, Quran could not steal this from them or anyone else. Yet Quran claims that life was created and reproduced by God and it is obvious that Pasteur proved this.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
You said that science did not have instruments to prove anything in the past. I agree.
But you see this also proves my point, that science is based on theories and assumptions and this is the case even nowadays. Let me repeat this once more because you do not seem to get it, "There is nothing in scientific work that was proven to contradict anything in religion, in fact many religious claims were proven through science experiments (that can be repeated)."
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "You said that science did not have instruments to prove anything in the past."
Aside from me not having said that. You know, quote mines work best when you actually provide the quote.
"science is based on theories and assumptions and this is the case even nowadays"
I am not going to define AGAIN what is meant by "theory" in science. Hell, if you lived up to your claim that you "read many books on science " than you wouldn't have had me need to define it ONCE.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"There is nothing in scientific work that was proven to contradict anything in religion, in fact many religious claims were proven through science experiments (that can be repeated)."
Genesis. Exodus. Jesus' ressurection. There's also direct Quranic inerrancies such as Surah 41:11 in response to actual science.
One example is enough to disprove your claim. Actually know what you talk about before you talk about it.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient." (41:11)
Verse talks about early stages after creation of Heaven, and Earth. When Allah swt created Earth and Heaven they were ordered to obey by certain rules established by God.
I do not see any contradiction in there because indeed Earth, and Heaven do obey certain rules.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
"Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and We decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower." (41:12)
Further Quran talks about separation of Heaven into seven layers from which only one has visible light (atmosphere). And this layer is inviolable i.e. gas and other matter remains in the atmosphere it is not leaking into open universe.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@onijester56
Science was proven wrong many times so far, yet you are not rejecting it. But once you encounter something in "The Book" that your brain cannot comprehend you reject the whole book without trying to understand the problem, or asking someone else to explain.
Obviously many Quran verses seemed weird to people 1400 years ago, but as science actually found and proved many things, those verses became clear. I am sure that everything will become clear in the future if its not right now.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "Science was proven wrong many times so far, yet you are not rejecting it."
Because it is ALWAYS SCIENCE that SHOWS WHEN SCIENCE IS WRONG. And those who were wrong ADMIT THAT THEY WERE WRONG.
As to, let's use a topic already discussed. The Quran used Galen WORD-FOR-WORD; Galen was WRONG on that statement, yet you don't admit that the Quran is wrong DESPITE USING THE VERY SAME STATEMENT that Galen was wrong on.
So, which is more-reliable? Self-correction or denial?
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
You said "And in this whole discussion of the origins of life, I didn't bring up philosophy or bullshit. Merely science and facts."
Science does not have a proof for the life origin. In fact science accepts several possible theories of which none are proven except that is known that all living things are created from other living things, and even fossils prove this.
Fact is not theory or assumption. Fact is something which would be established through relevant experiment.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca
"science accepts several possible theories of which none are proven" Science posits SEVERAL HYPOTHESES. Each of them HAS similar FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS proven REPEATEDLY by experimentation. And EACH ONE IS JUST AS PROBABLE AS EVERY OTHER ONE AS THE CAUSE OF LIFE ON EARTH, hence why there are several hypotheses.
"Fact is not theory or assumption." Facts are created through experiments. Theories explain the facts. That you don't even get that demonstrates how ignorant you are.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
- Urey-Miller theory was disproved because of the fact that oxygen was not used in the experiment as it would cause an explosion. Oxygen is needed for almost all forms of life, but its presence would also destroy the life.
- Another problem is that type of atmosphere that was used in the experiment could never exist on earth as it would be lethal to all earth life forms. The chemicals used in the experiment would eliminate the possibility of life ever forming.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca " Urey-Miller theory was disproved because of the fact that oxygen was not used in the experiment as it would cause an explosion." Urey-Miller experiment took hold of the FACT that early atmosphere had AT BEST LITTLE OXYGEN. Demonstrated both by the AMOUNT OF VOLCANIC GASES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT and the LACK OF PLANTS TO CONVERT THE VOLCANIC CARBON-BASED GASES INTO OXYGEN. (Among other geographically-valid evidences.)
And more-accurate experiments have gotten better yields.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"Another problem is that type of atmosphere that was used in the experiment could never exist on earth." The atmosphere used, especially by LATER EXPERIMENTS, rely on MAINLY VOLCANIC GASES, which GEOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE supports as being predominant. These ones get BETTER RESULTS in organic compounds, especially when iron (such as from the core) is present to counteract those compounds (such as nitrides) which "would eliminate the possibility of life ever forming".
Actually learn.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Now, lets look at an atom. Protons and electrons in the atom revolve around nucleus in the atom in an perfect orbit. Similarly satellites revolve around planets which revolve around stars, stars revolve around other stars and around galaxies which revolve around other galaxies, etc.
I observe that everything in known universe is working in the perfect order. Did this order exist in the beginning stage of the universe, or is it something that happened randomly after universe expanded?
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "Protons and electrons in the atom revolve around nucleus in the atom in an perfect orbit." Protons are PART OF THE NUCLEUS. Electrons HAVE A LARGE AREA, called an "electron cloud", that they TEND TO BE IN 99% of the time.
That you don't even understand three things shows how misinformed you are.
*The orbits of satellites around planets, etc, are not perfectly circular, no matter how close they may be.
*The reason for this is GRAVITY.
*The universe is NOT PERFECT.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
If everything is moving in perfect order and happening in perfect order, I would have to say that random chances in this perfect order are impossible. When we perform experiments and then repeat them we observe that results of the experiment are always the same. Logic tells us that whatever happened will continue to happen, e.i. it does not happen only once.
Thanks to this, we are able to set some principles and the laws in science.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
Now back to thinking about origin of life. In fact if under whatever conditions as you claim life started happening randomly, would that make sense?
Wouldn't this be against all the laws of any science, and wouldn't universe be in chaos if things happen randomly.
I will have to conclude, that life could not happen randomly, but in fact it is part of perfect order of things e.i. life was not random chance, but was something certain to happen.
samtubeca 1 year ago
(cont)
If we now go back to science theories.
In order to understand scientific theories (which they like to call hypotheses).
We will have to accept many assumptions e.i. lot of things happening randomly. So here we go.
We have to assume things like:
- Everything created had to origin from zero energy which does not need matter to exist.
- Two elements hydrogen and helium randomly formed out of this zero energy, but later the two elements randomly synthesized creating other elements.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "In order to understand scientific theories (which they like to call hypotheses)." THEORIES EXPLAIN THE FACTS. HYPOTHESES PREDICT THE OUTCOMES OF EXPERIMENTS. That you can't distinguish this simple fact shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
"Everything created had to origin from zero energy which does not need matter to exist." Energy is observed to convert into matter in minute amounts, generally unstable but occasionally remaining.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Also, there may have been energy. So your claim of "zero energy" is at best a biased assumption. And ignores possible parallel universes. And ignores possible "negative energy". And other explanations.
"Two elements hydrogen and helium randomly formed out of this zero energy" Quantum physics and quantum chemistry deal enough with this.
Of course those are with QUANTUM PHYSICS and QUANTUM CHEMISTRY, which do NOT have ANY (at least any detectable) bearing on BIOCHEMISTRY.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Further, science assumes that following things happened randomly as well:
- Universe temperature at first was extremely high, but later dropped under absolute zero in order to support fusion inside the stars.
- Sun with other planets around it formed randomly
- Earth and atmosphere random composition supports life.
- Earth's magnetic field formed by random chance is luckily there to protect Earth from Solar Winds which otherwise would destroy randomly generated life on Earth.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "Universe temperature at first was extremely high, but later dropped under absolute zero in order to support fusion inside the stars." Assuming it was true (which it wouldn't be because then NO MOTION could EVER happen), a universally-low temperature [little energy per lots of molecules] would be almost expected.
"Earth and atmosphere random composition supports life." If large amounts of ammonia, hydrogen, and volcanic gases are 'random' despite being super-simple...
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Further science wants us to assume:
- that Earth gravity is a random thing which keeps us on the Earth's surface, but it doesn't prevent us from moving around.
- Friction is random thing that allows us to walk on the surface, and prevents us from slipping and falling.
- Seven layers of atmosphere were formed randomly where each part of the atmosphere have its own purpose and without one of the layers of atmosphere life on Earth would be impossible.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "that Earth gravity is a random thing which keeps us on the Earth's surface, but it doesn't prevent us from moving around." Gravity is A PROPERTY OF MASS. ALL MASS EXERTS SOME FORCE, which decreases over distance but increases as either mass increases. Directionally, it is towards the center of the earth.
"Friction is random thing that allows us to walk on the surface, and prevents us from slipping and falling." Friction is a COUNTER-FORCE DEPENDENT on the surfaces.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
So many useful things that support life today developed randomly according to science that also wants us to believe in theory of evolution.
Considering that we are the most superior creatures on this planet Earth it is strange how we have so many weaknesses. For example, we evolved with two legs and two arms, but we could use more. Look at octopus these animals have eight tentacles, and some wall lizards have an extra organ. Imagine what we could do with extra pair of arms and legs...
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "we are the most superior creatures on this planet Earth it is strange how we have so many weaknesses." Let's ignore that your claim of 'our superiority' is based on your own preconceived notions and personal preference. Evolution PREDICTS that NO CREATURE, NO MATTER HOW "superior" IT IS, WOULD EVER BE PERFECT. And will ALWAYS be SUITED AT LEAST MINIMALLY TO ITS ENVIRONMENT. Just like us, octopi, and roaches.
And those wall-lizards EVOLVED the organ IN RESPONSE TO A CHANGE IN DIET.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Isn't this too many random things that work in advantage of life on Earth?
If things happen without any reason, and in random order, why would then any biological, chemical, physical or mathematical law make any sense?
Only in the world where things behave according to laws, where things are predictable and processes controllable, only then all of these sciences make sense.
However, science wants us to believe that certain things happened for no reason and after that they don't anymore.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "Isn't this too many random things that work in advantage of life on Earth?" LIFE ADAPTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT. That you don't understand that shows even more ignorance on your part.
"why would then any biological, chemical, physical or mathematical law make any sense?" PARTICLES INTERACT SIMILARLY. As such, there is CONSISTENCY, but NOT PERFECTION, in the physical world. These physical properties influence chemical properties which influence biological properties.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
If something does not make sense now I don't think it will start making sense even after certain amount of time.
However, to explain origin of life, science poses theories such as 'spontaneous life generation theory' 'big bang theory', 'prime soup theory', 'RNA theory', etc. Experiments must rely on imaginative conditions and assumed states of Earth and atmosphere in the past. Science is contradicting itself in constant posing of new theories and disproving them.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "to explain origin of life, science poses theories" There's only one theory.
[spontaneous life generation theory] Hypothesis. Disproven by Pasteur.
[RNA theory] Hypothesis. Explains a mechanism that allowed life to form. Supported by creation of RNA in labs.
[big bang theory] Cosmological theory. Explains the FACTS such as red shift and 'cosmic background radiation'. NO BEARING on life.
[prime soup theory] Hypothesis. Explains formation of monomers from simple molecules.
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
And NONE of them contradict each other. Well, except spontaneous generation which was DISPROVEN BY PASTEUR. Isn't it funny that the very scientist you brought up as having disproved "abiogenesis" you ignore in light of your own misconceptions?
And if that wasn't enough, Fred Hoyle disproved Spontaneous generation through his mathematical analysis of the formation of life from the components randomly combining together.
Next time, actually know what you are talking about.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
First of all orbits do not have to be circular. Second, if you apply the law of statics on galaxies, stars, planets and every celestial body in the universe, but on the other hand you use law of dynamics when talking about atoms, obviously there will be differences. Similarly to atom cloud, we can say that Earth, or even Sun is in cloud when compared to galaxies other than Milky Way. And you have no proof that universe is not in perfect order. All evidence proves that in fact is.
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca [Protons and electrons in the atom revolve around nucleus in the atom in an perfect orbit.]
An orbit is the path AROUND AN OBJECT. With a constant force acting between two perfectly circular objects, the orbit will be CIRCULAR. And the electron does NOT ALWAYS 'stay' in the assumed 'cloud area'.
[the law of statics on galaxies, stars, planets and every celestial body in the universe] Where there is a macroscopic equilibrium, there may not be microscopic equilibrium.
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Of course "galaxies, stars, planets and every celestial body in the universe" are not perfectly static.
"And you have no proof that universe is not in perfect order." Let's see, what yield did I get despite following the lab experiment perfectly? Less than 85%. In "perfect order", the obtained yield would be 100% every time, from each person who did it perfectly. My one labmate, however, did exactly as I did and got about 70%, and another got 90%. One even got less than 40%.
:P
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
As for the lizard argument, you suggest that lizard developed completely new organ due to change in diet. Obviously you ignore the fact that humans changed their diet from organic to completely synthetic yet we did not grew any new organs. So evolution does not apply to humans?
Another fact that you ignore is what evolutionists claim "the work created human", and if work created us how come we did not develop more legs and hands to help us to perform more work and evolve more?
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "humans changed their diet from organic to completely synthetic yet we did not grew any new organs." Because, unlike lizards adapted to only truly eat meat having to acquire methods of consuming plants, primates were already adapted to eating both plants and meat, hence didn't need to change that way.
"if work created us how come we did not develop more legs and hands" Let's ignore that you take the claim out of context. Where would these additional legs and hands fit? Our mouths?
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
Further more, instead to try and understand my analogy, you are taking things literally. You simply accept fact that magnetic field exists, that gravity exists, but do not try to understand why those forces exist, and what created them, you simply take them for a fact, and you assume that they are there and that there is no need to explain their origin, or purpose. You believe that life adjusted to conditions on Earth, but that not every form of life adjusted the same...
samtubeca 1 year ago
@samtubeca "do not try to understand why those forces exist, and what created them" First, let's assume for even one half of a second that they needed to be created by something. What prevents that 'something' from being a cosmic pencil? What then created that creator?
Secondly, quantum chemistry and physics provide several plausible hypotheses (and many not-so-plausible ones) in explaining the fundamental forces by explaining the fundamental properties the forces require [mass, charge, etc].
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
"You believe that life adjusted to conditions on Earth, but that not every form of life adjusted the same..."
Wall lizards. Humans. Squirrels. Finches. Even insects.
Not to mention that even modern life demonstrates a wide variety of adjustment to their conditions. And even without fossils, organisms can easily have wide variation induced.
onijester56 1 year ago