Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Forum Announcement

Please post GE14 related topics in the following new section ► https://forum.lowyat.net/MalaysiaVotes2018

Bump TopicReply to this topicRSS feed Start new topic Start Poll

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Questions for Atheists., Ask and answer anything.

chatter77
post Yesterday, 04:07 PM

Casual
***
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 440

Joined: Nov 2017


QUOTE(puchongite @ Apr 19 2018, 08:19 AM)
When we draw analogy, we take the most significant factors into account. If we compare the evolutionist theory vs creationists "theory", the most significant differences are :-

1. Creationism requires supernatural power that is way way beyond the physical limits of reality. God's creation happens instantly with a stroke of the magic wand. It is not something can be done by human or any other natural events. He need not follow any physical laws which we know today.
You need to be specific, else you are giving a wrong impression. The creation of organism involves some process, and not by magic wand as you simply put it. What creation by God happens instantly? Care to provide such evidence?

QUOTE
2. Evolution requires lots of incremental steps and lots of time. There are predecessors involved. The predecessors bear similarity but need not be exactly the same.

3. You can argue that God has a design but there is no proof. It's arbitrary.
Actually even evolution suffer from the arbitrary issue. For example, on the DNA matching, if the matching percentile is high, people say both organisms have common ancestry but if the matching percentile is too low, people will say that both organisms are far far apart in the ancestry line. How do you actually test this from DNA perspective? It seems that it is not testable at all.

QUOTE
4. Living organism has a design or blue print built into the cells and DNAs. Capability of the cells to replicate it's design faithfully with minor changes are proven and observed and fits into physical reality.

So now we look at car design/manufacture which you prefer to call it car creation :-

1. Today cars exist in the reality of the physical world. They are designed and produced using todays physical knowhow and capabilities. No todays physical law is violated.

2. These capabilities did not come about with a stroke of the wand.

3. The design of a car is never come about from scratch. The designer of the car copied the previous design and makes minor modification on it. When he copied previous design or introduce new changes, there is likelihood he could not do it 100% faithfully. He could introduce errors. Balancing between beneficial changes or bad tradeoff, he might not be 100% certain.

4. Similarly manufacturer of the car also is not able to produce the car if the manufacturer has not gotten the previous accumulated knowledge and technology. And manufacturing errors can be introduced. Certain percent of manufactured cars did not follow 100% of the design.

5. When cars run on the road, the good and bad are demonstrated, there is a selection or obsoletion of features going on, incorporate them into the next version.

I can go on and on ......

But now car "creation" has highest resemblance to creationism or evolution ?
*
Where do you get the "stroke of the wand" argument?

Of course it resemble creationism. You are clearly pointing to the need of designer. In today physical world, what physical item has been created that doesn't require the touch of designer(s)?

Evolution rely on errors during mutation within the organism itself and let natural select which one is the fittest. Does this resembles how car was produced/designed/created? Not even close. The car's *mutation* or *evolution* is due to an external process i.e. changes were made by a designer not by the car itself.

This post has been edited by chatter77: Yesterday, 04:09 PM
icecubemoon
post Yesterday, 04:46 PM

Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 91

Joined: Mar 2010
QUOTE(chatter77 @ Apr 19 2018, 04:07 PM)
Actually even evolution suffer from the arbitrary issue. For example, on the DNA matching, if the matching percentile is high, people say both organisms have common ancestry but if the matching percentile is too low, people will say that both organisms are far far apart in the ancestry line. How do you actually test this from DNA perspective? It seems that it is not testable at all.
*
It should go like this

A have high match rate with B, but A have medium match rate with C, but B have high match rate with C
So all thing can chain up together until Z
chatter77
post Yesterday, 04:52 PM

Casual
***
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 440

Joined: Nov 2017


QUOTE(icecubemoon @ Apr 19 2018, 04:46 PM)
It should go like this

A have high match rate with B, but A have medium match rate with C, but B have high match rate with C
So all thing can chain up together until Z
*
How high is high, how medium is medium? What are the criteria?

icecubemoon
post Yesterday, 05:09 PM

Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 91

Joined: Mar 2010
QUOTE(chatter77 @ Apr 19 2018, 04:52 PM)
How high is high, how medium is medium? What are the criteria?
*
It's a concept from me, i dun know the criteria, or which point is high or medium.
Some basic calculation can produce the similar result, B = 99% of A, so we chain it 99 times
0.99^99 = 36.9% , so now A only have 36.9% match rate with the 99th sample

Since we know one species can produce another different species, so down the line the difference will be greater.

Can i ask you a question? You are a theist right?
Which part of the God concept contradict the evolution?
Because from my view point, God may create all this evolution system, so why some theist disagree with evolution really scratch my head.

chatter77
post Yesterday, 05:51 PM

Casual
***
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 440

Joined: Nov 2017


QUOTE(icecubemoon @ Apr 19 2018, 05:09 PM)
It's a concept from me, i dun know the criteria, or which point is high or medium.
Some basic calculation can produce the similar  result, B = 99% of A, so we chain it 99 times
0.99^99 =  36.9% , so now A only have 36.9% match rate with the 99th sample

Since we know one species can produce another different species, so down the line the difference will be greater.
Does the actual evidence produce such numbers?

QUOTE
Can i ask you a question? You are a theist right?
Which part of the God concept contradict the evolution?
Because from my view point, God may create all this evolution system, so why some theist disagree with evolution really scratch my head.
*
Yes, I'm a theist.

If a person come to me and assert certain thing, then it's logical for me to ask or request for the evidence from that person before I can accept or to believe in it.

For myself, the disagreement on the common ancestor is not just because of me being a theist but also the evidence to prove such is not actually there. The "evidence" on the common ancestor that have been presented to me so far actually consist of presupposition that the process already took place. This is where the issue is. Another issue is some people are also using evolution to support atheism, which in my opinion is not correct.

icecubemoon
post Yesterday, 06:16 PM

Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 91

Joined: Mar 2010
QUOTE(chatter77 @ Apr 19 2018, 05:51 PM)
Does the actual evidence produce such numbers?
Yes, I'm a theist.

If a person come to me and assert certain thing, then it's logical for me to ask or request for the evidence from that person before I can accept or to believe in it.

For myself, the disagreement on the common ancestor is not just because of me being a theist but also the evidence to prove such is not actually there. The "evidence" on the common ancestor that have been presented to me so far actually consist of presupposition that the process already took place. This is where the issue is. Another issue is some people are also using evolution to support atheism, which in my opinion is not correct.
*
I dun understand what evidence you want,
one species can produce another different species, this is real right?

Using evolution to support atheism?
I thought atheism is belief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods?

ramz
post Yesterday, 07:10 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,354

Joined: Jan 2009


QUOTE(chatter77 @ Apr 19 2018, 03:08 PM)
ramz, your analogy on the ultraman book doesn't match a complete Al-Quran. It is totally different. What make you think that your imaginary evidence which is ultraman book is analogically the same as the existing piece of evidence which is Al-Quran? What is your basis?
apa susah just replace ultraman with Allah, mini me ultraman with Muhammad, and Namartlu with one the scribes. U will get the quran scenario.
QUOTE

Look, what if I ask you the same question on a scientific book. What make you think that the book is telling you the truth? The logical path that you should take is to address the book itself. If the book mention about an experiment that you can carry out in order to prove a certain thing, then it is logical for you to conduct the same experiment so that you can prove it yourself. It doesn't make sense for you to come up with an analogy of an imaginary book to dismiss the book claim, right?
exactly. In a scientific book i can go back to the scientic journals and repeat the test again to confirm the result. Now, Let's take the hypothesis that the quran is the word of God. How can I test this Hypothesis?
QUOTE

If you are really looking for the truth, Al-Quran already provides a way or criteria for you to verify that it is coming from God. Why don't you address this?
Why don't you let Al-Quran speak for itself? It provides the method for you to prove it. Per the criteria, I have yet to see any evidence that prove Al-Quran to be wrong.
if I haven't proven the quran is word of God, why do I want to treat the surahs as Truth? What is the way to verify its coming from God? I am not satisfied it comes from God. Maybe u can show me how to verify.
QUOTE
No, it's not ridiculous.

You need to understand the context of the said hadith. The bold above was paraphrased by someone else; in other words someone else was paraphrasing the saying of Prophet s.a.w. The actual say by the Prophet s.a.w. can be found in another related hadith:

Now what does "leaves the Muslims" mean in the context of that particular time? It is leaving the Muslims community and join the non-Muslims to fight against Muslims. This is confirmed in another related hadith:

And this is confirmed in Al-Quran itself:
In summary, the death penalty is for apostasy who fight against Muslims.
*
So u are type b.
What is the evidence it was paraphrased as u claim? None. Read the Hadith again it's very clear what Muhamad said, he even suggest killing is better than burning! What an evil prophet! And for the 2nd hadith it just reinforces the 1st. What evidence u have that the context is "leaving the Muslim community and join the non Muslims to fight against Muslims"? None. The context, from the 2nd hadith, is very clear ,which is "leaving Islam". Period. Only the Quran verse talk about the context of war. Which is a different story. How u manage to connect the Quran to the Hadith baffles me. It is clear like the sun that muhammad is asking to kill apostates. Please don't spin. I even showed this to my 13 year daughter and she agreed. I tell her that's why she should stay away from Islam.

Bump TopicReply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic
 

Switch to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0604sec    1.90    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 20th April 2018 - 01:44 AM