Image: J. CAMERON, 1869, VIA WIKIMEDIA
More In This Article
-
Overview
Happy 200th Birthday, Charles Darwin
-
Overview
Darwin's Travel on the Beagle
-
Overview
Darwin, Cuvier, and Lamarck
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in Spektrum, and has been translated from German. We are publishing it as part of our tribute to Charles Darwin on his 200th birthday.
Before marriage, Charles Darwin had confessed everything to her. That he was in the process of rewriting the history of life. That, according to his convictions, all living things descended from a common ancestor. And that species were not to be attributed to God's endless creativity, but were the product of a blind, mechanical process that altered them over the course of millions of years. This alone was pure heresy. Darwin even nursed doubts about the very survival of human beings.
And this man, who had gone around the world once, and was going to marry Emma Wedgwood, did not believe a single word of the biblical story of creation. "Reason tells me that honest and conscientious doubts cannot be a sin," wrote the deeply religious Emma to her betrothed in a cautioning letter in November 1838. "But I felt that it would be a painful rift between us." Charles was supposed to find his way back to the right faith by reading the Bible: "I implore you to read the parting words of our Savior to his apostles, beginning at the end of the 13th chapter of the Gospel according to John," she wrote.
But for Charles Darwin there was no turning back. He definitely assured Emma in his reply that he would take her concern seriously. But in fact he was experimenting at that time with all kinds of heretic theories. "Love of godhood is a result of intellectual organization, oh you materialist!" he confided to himself in revolutionary words in his secret notebook. And although his theories were not yet mature, he was completely aware of their explosive nature: By dissociating intellect and morality from god's power of creation, and attributing them instead to self-evolving forces, Darwin undermined the very foundations of a society shaped by the Anglican Church, with its hopes of eternal life and the omnipresent threat of punishment.
"As soon you realize that one species could evolve into another, the whole structure wobbles and collapses," he remarked. And if man were nothing but a superior animal, where would that leave his spiritual dignity? And if he himself is the product of evolution, then what about his moral accountability to God?
Believe only what is proved
"Charles' confession was a big shock for Emma," explains the science historian John van Wyhe from the University of Cambridge. "On the other hand, he impressed her with his openness and honesty. Nothing would have hurt her more badly than the feeling that her future husband was keeping secrets from her." But Emma's worries over the well-being of Charles's soul could not come in the way of her wedding at the end of January 1839. His habit of "never believing anything till it is proven" had apparently prevented him from "taking into account other things that cannot be proved in the same manner, and which, if they are true, would probably go far beyond our power of imagination," she complained in another letter. Emma's worst fear was that Charles was forfeiting his salvation through his religious disbelief, and this threatened to separate them in death.
Her letter was to go unanswered. "Charles respected Emma's faith and probably kept his religious doubts to himself," van Wyhe says. The man from the English town of Shrewsbury, northwest of Birmingham, had drawn his theories from it. His wife's reactions had shown him how difficult it was to convince other people of his ideas: The criticism would be devastating were he to publish his theories without adequate proof; and his scientific career would be ruined.
See what we're tweeting about
319 Comments
Add CommentAlthough the article is enjoyable, I have to point out what I suppose is an error in translation from the German - I'm pretty sure Darwin did not excavate from Punta Alta "the fossilized bones of a colossal protozoan". Since protozoans are boneless and microscopic that would be a noteworthy find! :-) Probably a megathere or ground sloth is intended?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionary biology is filled with tired theories such as Darwinism that do not fit with the facts. It is solace for the dogmatic secularist. It's interesting how wishful thinking is considered 'scientific'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan's pride declared I came from that CHIMP!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much better the world would be if we would just give up this silly fairy tale of "God" and adapted reality as a belief. What good did religion ever do when we keep destroying each other because of it? When will we evolve as humans into a thinking, loving creature?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm afraid that doesn't logically make sense; but you're initialed to believe whatever you like - for as long as you can, I guess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this** stereotypical images, or why is Darwin shown aged with flowing beard? **
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSaints of science; icons of the state.
Old Darwin, like fossil Newton before him, has long since been venerated by the British Establishment. The remains of both lie within shouting distance of one another in Westminster Abbey.
Darwin’s bust with its prophet’s beard, a childish image of God in the clouds, appears on the back of the ten pound note.
Magical thinking and supernaturalism still thrive.
The de-deification of western culture is our task for the next five hundred years.
The Anti-supernaturalist ©2009
Talk about wishful thinking,belief in god is the ultimate example of wishful thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am puzzled that belief in god is not considered insane. You contend that invisible beings living eternally somewhere in the sky are real. You believe the universe was creted by some male father figure who believes in revenge, jealousy and torture (burning people in hell for eternity) And you call him a loving god-This kind of stupidity drives me up the wall. I suggest you find help' enjoy your life here and now ,because it's the only one you're going to have.
how can any modern human with scientific knowledge and common sense deny the fact that you cannot get something from nothing? We have DNA, we have probed into its mysteries, and even termed it as 'code'. If you had ever studied DNA you would change your mind. It is immpossible that dna arose by chance, please, take a look at it before you dismiss the idea of a Creator. Also, by your comment of people 'destroying' each other, you will notice that the most civilized places in the world have had the Gospel brought to them by missionaries of whom this world was not worthy. The spead of the gospel always improves the quality of life, not the other way around. FACT and Firm. There are NO transitional fossils, at all. Even Darwin admitted the absense of these fossils would disprove his 'theory'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a scientist that has studied Darwin's theory of evolution. As far as I am concerned it takes far more faith to believe that nonsense than it does to believe that there is a God that created man and the world that we inhabit. The whole creation declares the glory of God. Furthermore, the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. However, everyone has the right to believe in what they choose to believe in, however ridiculous it might be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNewton wrote more about theology than he did about physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEarly on, some men realized that there were principles that could lead to men working together rather than fiercely competing. These were moral foundations. And, they came from the intellect of men - not a creator of men. But, these same men realized that for other people to subscribe to these principles, or morals, they had to come from a higher authority or they would be endlessly debated. So, man created "God." There will come a time when people will be able to accept the "rightness" of things without having them come from higher authority. Some of us see the light sooner, though. We don't have to deify an enlightened person in order to accept and practice the fruits of his wisdom. We've outgrown God, but not enough of us know it, yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich God Monica ? , Baal , Zeus, Krishna,Brahma,Allah or The Judeo Christian God ?.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution and the order of creation by God are quite similar. War is a product of greed for wealth and power (and occasionally very evil minds), not from a belief in God. I am an intellectual and logical thinker. Creation by God makes total sense to me, and there is alot of proof. Unfortunately much of it is discredited by small minds and decadent societies that wish to live in immoral ways. The ultimate end in the Christian bible is to have a pure love for all. The ones that are evil and seek to cause hatred and harm would be eliminated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat thought . I completely agree with you
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod created the evolutionary blueprint for natural selection, then allowed it to proceed over millions of years. Creationists erroneously use an anthropomorphic and primitive view of creation, then wrongly accuse Darwin of being a heretical thinker. As Gallileo said under his breath, "But it did move!!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a Native American I would like you to give specific examples of how the quality of life of my ancestors was "improved" by christian missionaries. Religion has been the biggest crime against humanity ever perpetrated by those in power to retain control of the masses. It's (religion) a platitude at it's best and a holocaust at it's worst and rational human beings need it no longer. In the immortal words of George Carlin ,"You say I'm crazy because I refuse to believe in an invisable man in the sky that created all? Apparently you and I have a VERY! differant definition of insanity."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is too bad that most people have not actually read the Origin of the Species. Darwins careful studies and deductions pieced together from his observations are very insightful and convincing on the origin of the species. Its too bad that today we take such a dogmatic approach to the origins of life when we discuss Charles Darwins ideas on the origin of the species. His discussions of the weaknesses of his theory in some areas along with convincing evidence in others only show the depth of his thinking and the power of his ideas. Too bad we cant discuss the origins of life with the same candidness and thoughtfulness as Mr. Darwin did on the origin of the species. Contemplating the undeniable truths of life, along with obvious weaknesses in some theories, enlighten us and help us better understand who we are. Darwin did not see life rising from the elements driven by the tides. He saw life decending from basic forms. Is the dogma of so called scientists who refuse to consider the problems with the spontainous creation of life any different than the dogma of strict creationists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislike always the darwinist over generalize christianity, and christians over generalize darwinism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisboth theories are deep enough to fill LIBRARIES and the average person if not truly fit to argue either to the full extent.
that being said: believe what you believe, and show the same to respect to others. the world would be in true piece if we found morality completely disconnected from our belief in origin.
just for the record: i'm a non-denominational believer in deity who believes God made the world through a natural winding process of evolution and universal development.
I can see merit in evolutionary biology. Who do you think invented it? Darwin just forgot to connect the dots as to how evolution is made possible in the first place. He was far too consumed with the theory without recognising what makes it all possible. God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistroy m,Sorry for you ignorance .I'm a paleontologist at UC Berkeley. We have discovered hundreds of transitional fossils in last 25 years .Its true that if you close your eyes you won't see light . Darwin predicted that if we don't find transitional fossils , he theory is false . Just two years after the release of the origin of species the first transitional fossil was discovered and thousands of them in last 150 years . There is no more proof of evolution than the Chromosome # 2 in human . Study about it before reaching your conclusions. It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble but what you think you know ,that you don't .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29166602/
I do agree with the fact that everyone has a right to believe what they want. The problem is that most (not all) religions are extremely intolerant of non-believers and even most disagreeing points of view. I think that Charles D would be upset to know that we have not . One day (long way away) humans will accept the fact that we are just a superior species without the necessity for a Creator. That we all live and die no different from anything else in our surrounding. But above all we will be better off without the judgment or translation of the word of GOD. And again please please stop telling me about morality and the church. I am an atheist and guarantee that I am kinder, gentler, more generous and overall more considerate of my surroundings than most that preach the gospel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCharles Darwin was not the first to speculate on "evolution". His brilliance was to show how it could happen, beyond doubt. Bypassing the Judeaic and Christian religions with their dogmas, is there any record of Indian, Chinese or other scientific speculations along Darwinian lines? Or was this truly a European concept, another product of the Renaissance and the "triumph of reason"? Even with our knowledge of DNA and all the scientific evidence now undeniably at hand, Creationists and their ilk will never be dragged screaming and denying reality to the belief in the obvious truth of Charles Darwin's theory. They will forever inhabit the rubbish bin of history. Leave them there. History will pass them by.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTransitional fossils were discovered in the arctic in 2004.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution and creationism are probably mutually exclusive. But an intelligent designer could have started the evolutionary process.
As for spreading Biblical Mythology "always improving the quality of life", one may choose to study the crusades a tiny bit
Hey, Monica.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you are a scientist "that" has studied evolution?
And you say "The whole creation declares the glory of God."
So rabies declares the glory of God, or is that a convenient exception?
OK, then: How about tetanus? Tuberculosis? People who call others "fools" for using honest reason?
OK, a God who will push his own children into a room of fire - and not just for 30 seconds or so, but forever - just for the sake of knowing they suffer forever - does God glorify himself by doing that? Does he glorify himself by even uttering such a threat? Would you glorify yourself by threatening any human in that way?
I have been shortchanging Charles Darwin. He is much more courageous than I thought, a true giant. We owe him, big time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin contibuted to the emergence of objectivity. As Alan Cromer wrote, objective reality, not created by man or god, was seen for the first time and "...it is not a sight that pleases everyone."
Happy Birthday Charles
If there is one thing consistent with these comments is that they show a pointless fight. Science and religion are separate since settling the question, for or against God's existence, would require an extra-universal view and science by definition is defined based on the properties of the universe. Atheism is a much a religion as Christianity. As a Christian I believe God created the universe. On that basis, whatever scientists discover would be no more us documenting God's handiwork. The fact that some people insist on Creationism is simply a reflection of some people's insistence on conforming their so-called facts to the theologically liberal view of Fundamentalism (which has been around for less than 200 years) rather than older forms of scriptural interpretation. I would suggest a reading of such things as St. Augustine in the fourth century to anyone insisting on the Creationist interpretation of Genesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTroy m, is it too much to ask that before you criticize something you do at least a little homework? The irreducible complexity argument has been clearly and repeatedly shown to be flawed. Gene duplication has been demonstrated as a means of increasing complexity in a genotype. Ultimately, there is ample information out there on how these processes work. When you come to a site where a fair percentage of the readers have at least some understanding of these issues and you make clearly uneducated and biased statements you appear to be not only ignorant, but malicious. What other kind of person would deliberately distort the truth to further their ideology? If you have any courage and self respect, read the scientific literature. There will always be those that are so afraid of change, of having their beliefs challenged that they will cling to them right until the end; even after all reasonable people have abandoned them. Are you going to be one of those people?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismonica1234, you are not a scientist and I don't think you've even read a word written by Darwin. Nice try. By the way, I'm the pope and god told me he doesn't exist.
If Darwin were a Deist, he would have had an easier time reconciling evolution with God. As Deists, we fully believe that evolution occurs because of the creator through the laws of nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe minority of Atheists would have the majority of Theists drop their belief in a moment. Do you find THAT belief to be rational? Having Theists transition to Deism is more rational than an abandonment of all belief.
At least Deism is rational and natural (God is natural vs supernatural, though probably extra-dimensional as supersymmetry posits the possibility of extra dimensions...the Deist God is not knowable, provable, nor has human characteristics or emotions) as opposed to supernatural and "revealed".
Nature is our "proof" to ourselves of the Creator.
Williedee , Actually Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then and it is now considered that there is abundant evidence of how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils. What we discovered in 2004 was Tiktaalik . Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians.Previously we didn't have a transitional fossil which can connect fish and an animal which can live in land .And that's the significance of Tiktaalik
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy can't both sides be half right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, how do you define "god"? If you say creator then consider this.
What if in our distant future man gaines the knowledge to create life, not that far fetched of an idea is it. What if this new life form had a life cycle of a few microseconds but we had the technology to interact and monitor it closely. We could see millions of generations in seconds. Would we then be god since we created it and taught it how it should behave.
I don't believe everything the bible says but, think about it in a scientific way. Not an old man with a beard. Ever notice how in the bible they are things that incure things that if we heared today we would think alieans or such. I remember reading about a great ship comeing down out of the sky as a cloud. Not exactly but along those lines. Heaven is defined nowhere in the bible as a place good people go to when they die, rather it infers the sky, the sky and all above is heaven in the bible.
Has anyone ever read about nebaru? Its suposidly a planet on a elipticle orbit that only comes around every few thousand years, could this be our creator? A race light years ahead of us, with technology we cant even comprehend. Could they or something like that be god.
My point is I wouldnt dismis any thing, I'll bet when or if we ever find out that it will be neither the scientist or the worlds religons that will be right, but rather a little of both.
I didnt convey my message as well as I would have liked but I think you should get the point.
If you believe that god created the world, which God did it? I mean there are many different religions with different gods, will the real creater please stand up. I think if you believe in one god, you accept the idea that other religions could also be possible and thats where my logic breaks down. For me, until everyone believes in the same god, Darwins theory makes sense, but I also believe not to disrespect other peples belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess people can not comprehend that there are things that they can not comprehend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Descent of Man by Charles Darwin M.A. Pages 586-587
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDifferences in the Mental Powers of the Two Sexes.--- With respect to differences of this nature between man and woman, it is probable that sexual selection has played a highly important part&
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by mans attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman-whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half a dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on Hereditary Genius, that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.
I thought Jesus was the son of god?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn 13:31 (ESV) When he had gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once. 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, Where I am going you cannot come. 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm assuming this is what Emma meant him to read. The later part is about Peter denying Christ, and sheds no light on the subject at hand. In this passage, Jesus emphasizes the true sign of a Christian is love for one another. Perhaps Darwin's wife was hoping to assure him of his salvation.
I think more curious, though, is the notion that Jesus was to be glorified. The Westminster Catechism says the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Perhaps this is what she was referring to. If Darwin's work undercut the foundations of certain interpretations of the creation story in the bible, nevertheless Jesus was most poignantly and ironically glorified in His crucifixion.
The essentials of Christian doctrine center around Jesus. He is repeatedly in the bible referred to as the one through whom the whole world was created (eg John 1, Colossians 2 etc). The details of this creation are in some sense, rendered theologically unimportant and secondary to the worship of Jesus as creator.
Either way (whichever specific section she intended him to read), her goal seems to be (to me) to convince him his ideas aren't outside the bounds of Christian faith.
Of course, that doctrine is contradicted by the view of natural selection as the mechanical determinate of every detail of all of living things, but that in itself isn't a scientific notion. Things like inbreeding, natural disaster and, well, randomness in addition to natural selection determine the evolutionary outcome. If we admit that members of a population aren't eliminated by a selective process when they're struck by lightning, scientific dogma and religious dogma seem complementary.
So if you believe that evolution is impossible and that the only explanation is Creationism then where did god come from? Did he create himself? If he didn't who created him and where did he come from? Or was he just a happy mistake in the universe? And if he was an accident of universal forces then that means evolution isn't impossible. If you believe in Creationism then something created the creator, in this universe or the next. So where does the root of humanity lie?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow on to the next question. Where did matter come from? If there is a god then fine, he created it (see the first series of questions). If there is no god, then this matter just appeared? The origin of the universe wasn't a giant explosion, that was just an event, what happened before?
Do these things bother anyone else? I mean every one is so happy to believe, that everything just popped into existence, god, matter, the universe. As if it doesn't have a beginning. My mind can't comprehend a world (read universe) without a beginning. But it could be possible. If it is possible, how?
I have questions without answers, science and religion fail to provide answers. I wonder if anyone bothers to ask the questions? I've never heard them uttered. Maybe I don't travel in the right circles. Any insight?
As a Catholic, evolution is simply a scientific fact. We were taught this in parochial elementary school. At the same time the point was made that only a very foolish Creator would instantly place a human on earth; they would have been destroyed by viral or bacterial pathogens within hours if not minutes. The point was that Creators are not as foolish as some of their lower-order detractors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the facts of history are no longer relevant when religion is involved, your audience may like to know that a key influencer in Darwin's life/work , Gregor Mendel is credited as the father of heredity 17 years before Darwin's boat ride.
Mendel discovered the root tenets of DNA and evolution, was an Augustinian, Catholic monk. His discoveries didn't shake his faith at all, merely affirmed it. Mendel believed that humans were God's vessel.
The point of all this is that physics is significantly more important to explaining the origins of life on earth than biology. Darwin did nothing to challenge toe origin of the species, merely the origin of some species.
The unfortunate explanations are now done by humanists who believe they are the diviners of life; masters of the universe. In fact a close look at the timelines of human evolution and transcendent thinking and one sees clearly there was an 'transitional event' that took humans out of the strictly 'animal kingdom' and made them the highest order. Since biologists only look at an instant of time, a biologist's timeline is faulty, one could find better evidence from physics.
Render to Darwin what was posited by Darwin, and render to God...well you know the rest.
T.J. Fod
As usual, those who don't like religion always equate it with violence. In truth, religion in general and christianity specifically have been the greatest civilizing (sic?) influence in history. Look up the figures on charity and you will see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, Darwin himself would have wanted us all to keep an open mind. I believe in natural selection, but not evolution as currently propounded. And i'm a practising christian. So there.
Religion is a blasphemy of faith. God is the unprovable science, that which is called a faith. Can one truly credit all known existence to the anomalies of chemistry, in what is considered the universe. The theories of evolution dictate a very controversial thesis: is evolution meant to happen, or is it randomized by time and the effects of environment. Scientifically, one can believe Darwinian science as fact. However, it is not impossible to believe, that evolution is a process triggered by a greater entity beyond human understanding. That is what is considered faith. Creationists must understand that religion and science cannot be amalgamated. Religion is a cultured institution of faith, faith in what many call God. Believing that God is the essence of scientific evolution is a hypothesis I embrace. However, to attribute evolution to God, is a personal query that cannot and should not be condemned by society. Science holds no place for personal intuition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen colombus arrived at hispanola the first entry in his diary was a horrified observance; a local tribe, having concluded a battle with another, was occupied on the beach barbecuing their vanquished opponents! Please don't deify indians, they were more brutal than the conquistadores.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBernie 50,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans are NOT descendants of monkeys. If you understood the process of evolution you would understand that humans did not evolve from apes, rather that apes and man come from the same ancestor, which is neither ape nor man. Your comment shows you have no understanding of basic evolutionary principles.
Philoscience
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMostly true, however, "Darwin science " as you put it merely explains that which he studied. All creatures of a lower order.
To get assume the Origin of Our Species from what Darwin evidenced is ...well....COMPLETELY unscientific and must be a product of your faith.
T.J. Fod
troy m,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say it is impossible that DNA arose from chance, that is why there must be a creator. This statement is ridiculous. I am a genetic researcher by profession, and I have studied DNA for years and one thing is clear: DNA is a molecule that has arisen through enormous amounts of trial and error. This shows that it has evolved and was not created by someone as you claim. The entire DNA system is inefficient and messy: who would create it this way? It is by no means a perfect system. It is obvious through my studies and experience that no one would design a system like this if they had any kind of intelligence.
Also, there are transitional species EVERYWHERE. Every single species that has ever existed and will ever exist IS a transitional species. Look up organisms such as Tiktaalik, Pezosiren portelli, Dimetrodon, Archaeopteryx, Anchisaurus: all of these are transitional species found in the fossil record. And these are just a few of the transitional organisms that have been discovered.
You also state that how can you get something from nothing? The reality is that life did not come from nothing. Life came from chemicals that exist all around you, all over the universe. Everything that makes up the matter of this universe is where life comes from. It never started from nothing.
The universe, the earth and life as we know it contains a level of engineering, complexity and design that simply could not have happened by chance. The human bodies we occupy are an absolute engineering masterpiece; our brains work in ways that no computer or groups of computers can match. All the way down to the cellular level, the beauty of this self-healing, self-regulating, self-propelling and thinking "machine" that we are so fortunate to occupy is far beyond anything that could have come together by chance. That leads to the obvious question......why? I've read and studied the scriptures for more than 40 years. Leaving aside the fallibility of "man" and organized religion, what I see in those old writings makes more sense for a harmonious, peaceful and loving world than anything else I've found. Light is the absence of dark; cold is the absence of heat; hate is the absence of love; the problems of this world are the absence of God in people's lives, because they choose it that way. Hate, intolerance, war, jealousy, sexual perversion, drunkenness, meanness, wars, thievery, greed, arrogance, corruption, etc. are not Godly.......they are the result of humans going their own way and ignoring the virtues that God considers "blessed", as were taught by Jesus the Christ.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOld Hippy 68
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...yes but your side lost.
The advances in civilization away from tribal or dictatorial tyranny e.g. social, political, artistic, racial, commercial, financial, individual and religious freedom directly attributable to Christian influences far outweigh the criminal and deviant behavior by some of its alleged adherents.
T.J. Fod
How incredibly threatened the bible thumpers are. Look at how they post away here. It makes sense though: evolution and natural selection are so obviously correct, so intuitively and undeniably the truth. It's like denying the fact of gravity or the roundness of the earth at this point. Oh well, post away, bible thumpers. And by the way, doesn't it ever strike you as funny that no one from this side of the fence ever bothers going to your websites or forums or Sunday services to challenge you or your views?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conflict between evolution and creationism has never been a conflict with me. It can only be a conflict with two types of people as far as I can see, of which I am neither. One would be those who stubbornly and adamantly prescribe to a 6000 year old earth, and the other would be those who just as adamantly and stubbornly refuse to even consider the possibility of God, or His intervention in history. In my line of reasoning processes, one is just as narrow minded and shallow as the other. We've all heard of the bias of Christians and how they refuse to see anything they don't want to believe, which is often true. What we don't talk about, what Scientist, Atheists, Naturalists, and Humanists refuse to discuss openly and neutrally is how they are just as capable of the very same mindset. This is, of course, because they are just as incapable of being neutral about their beliefs as the religious, despite their stubborn, adamant claims to the contrary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrushfire,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe origin of the universe is a difficult question to answer. Those who believe in god say that he created it, those that don't believe in a god would say the big bang created it.
I am a strong supporter of scientific facts. I believe that if it can be shown to have happened or does happen or exists, then it must be real. The idea of god has absolutely no scientific basis for it, and so I find it very difficult to comprehend that one exists, especially given the state of the world and humanity. The reason scientists believe in a giant explosion causing the creation of the universe is that we can trace back every galaxy, every star, every planet, pretty much all matter in the universe, to a single point in space and time. The only explanation that explains how all this matter was spread throughout the cosmos is that a large explosion must have taken place, ie: the big bang. This explanation does not explain why it happened or what existed before it occurred. But the idea of god, just like you pointed out, does not explain it either.
Religious people believe that god always was and always will be. I personally believe that the universe has always been and always will be and that no god ever played a part in it. There is nothing more you can do but to just accept that you will never know the answer. Just choose your beliefs based on whatever ideas you want to believe are true.
Here is something else for you to think about: irregardless of how life started, evolution explains the process by which life adapts given that life already exists. Science proves that the process of evolution occurs, it is FACT. But how the first cell came into being, that is what evolution cannot prove... yet. :)
Olahakayah: "It's interesting how wishful thinking is considered 'scientific'."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWishful thinking? How about the idea that some omnipotent being loves you, is watching what you do, and will give you a Get Out of Death Free Card? And the idea that "The whole creation declares the glory of God?" Isn't that more about limited nature of human consciousness than any objective reality? It's cute, of course, how every believer in a creator god believes in THIER religion's version of a sky god. But whatever gets you through the night, I guess...
just admit it: you're hedging your bets. In your heart you strongly suspect that we're the product of evolution, but there's a tiny little voice inside your head that says, "yes, but what if God really does exist? What then? Will I burn in hell forever when I die?" Hence the wishy washy, namby pamby prattle about narrow mindedness etc. Well guess what? God is going after you first little buddy! Everlasting torture in a lake of fire for you, my friend. Just kidding. Have fun bro. Lighten up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissrreality,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution does NOT wholly rely on chance. Environmental factors pressure evolution to occur within species. When the first fish came up on land, it was because the environmental stress pressured it into doing so. It's not rocket science: evolution is more than the product of chance. It is the product of life being pressured into changing for the risk of extinction.
Consider this scenario: you have to swim to catch your food but you've never swam before in your life. If you don't learn how to swim, you are going to die. The environmental stress has pressured you into swimming. Over time you become a better swimmer and are able to catch more food. In the end where do you end up? You end up being alive because you can catch your food, but you are now a good swimmer. You didn't become a good swimmer by chance, you became a good swimmer because you faced death/extinction if you didn't. THAT is how evolution works.
Sorry. Jesus' genealogy is traced through Joseph. If Jesus is the son of Mary and God, then Joseph's genealogy is totally irrelevant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut how do they, umm, the fish know to change to survive extinction. Seems every liveing thing does have built in mechanisms to defeate extinction but, how. Yeah I know, survival of the fittest but, they still need to "know" to come up on land or whatever. There seems to be something driveing this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike seeing, how in the hll did animals "know" to develope sensors that detect the different frequencies that make up what we call light and interpret this information as the things we see. This couldnt happen a little at a time, it had to be a jump in evolution. No I am not religous at all, but how?
If organized, intelligent life requires a creator then God, the highest standard of organized, intelligent life, would himself require a creator. Fossils are not faith, genetics is not faith, natural selection is not faith. Not only can something come from nothing but it must come from nothing- Doesn't the Bible say that God spoke the world into existence- out of nothing! The deist has no problem excepting something from nothing nor does he have an issue with intelligent life without a creator (God himself). The issue is power and authority. Without God there is no justification for the church's authority. This argument has nothing to do with God, its about human power over others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo Monica 1234, you believe that Darwin is nonsense compared to the idea of a God in space who created man and the world. I have 2 simple questions for you. 1: If a (man)like God created heaven and earth, then why did this same (God) go directly against his own creation of us on earth, by having almost all species of life born through the females of the species? I've never seen a (MAN) give birth or life to any human being. And what are you going to say when the Mars research eventually/inevitibly shows there is or was basic microscopic life on the planet right next to ours? What a terrible waste of time,space and our own creation would truly be, if whatever created infinite suns, planets and ourselves, only allowed life to exist here on Earth. You don't believe in evolution, yet our ancestors could only look to the stars/heavens. We current humans however, have travelled to the Moon, Mars and several other planets and satellites in our own solar system. (God) didn't send us there, mankind's brains evolved and progressed to allow us to leave the confines of our own planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder how many of those who dismiss Darwin have ever taken the time to sit down and read his 2 most famous books, "The Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man". It's very worthwhile reading. It's comical, but also pitiful, to see him condemned by conservative ministers, who have their own silly notions about how species and people got here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisku4ay,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo YOU know how your brain works? Are you aware of which muscles are moving when you move your leg? Without an education in these things, you don't know anything that is happening inside you. A fish did not decide to evolve legs or knew it had to happen, it occurred because the pressure from the environment made it happen. There is a driving force behind evolution and that is to adapt or die. Sure, it's a very difficult thing to explain HOW this driving force occurs, but that is another question and really quite irrelevant in the Evolution/Creation debate. All evidence proves one thing: that evolution occurs, whether you understand it or not.
proton58
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo really buddy, I actually do believe there is a God and evolution at the same time. No hedging here. I'll say it in a church or the halls of science. No problemo, and I'm pretty light about it too because in my mind it's the truth. It gives me peace so why knock it, let's both lighten up and agree to disagree, whatsay? I refuse to burn you at the stake and I hope you'll refrain as well.
The problem is not who is right, Darvin or those who belives in the God. The problem is that with Darvin' theory it is you who is responsible for all your behavior, and all your sins, but it is much more suitable to live with the Lord above you? when you can delegate some of those above to somebody above you
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislmao,rofl. 39% believe evolution to be fact, 61% suffer H.U.A. syndrome (head up a$$).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMankind is the supreme predator. Old Religion justifies predation: Dominate land(plunder & pollute), dominate humanity(war, marriage, politics, commerce), dominate nature(destroy the diversity of life). Darwin wasn't revolutionary, just revelatory; Pealed back the curtain of the Great and Powerful Oz. Mankind is an animal within a huge system of natural progression, no more, no less. DNA, no more magical than light from stars. Our evolution from plasmic quarks was inevitable, not special. "Wonder" is not evidence of "God", it is proof of ignorance. Jesus, a great man, taught us to stop preying upon each other, duh, and just accept the unknowable "God". We cannot know a "creator" by examining her creations, duh. To try is hubris, folly and justifies more predation.
If we really seek peaceful happiness, then learn math, science and logic. Before the Big Bang there was nothing. Beyond the edge of the universe is nothing. Without honest compassion for one another right now, we have nothing. And stop bashing the messenger; Darwin was right.
Trillions of times each second, waves and other universal particles pass through your body, converging with, replacing or modifying some aspect of your atomic, celular structure. You may not feel it, but that doesn't mean its not happening. Even scientist cannot distinguish these actions from The God Force that creates? Even Darwin dared not to distance himself from the notion!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore on the subject at
http://www.topodia.com/topic/topicviewer.aspx?guid=72223f53-c062-4577-9a8d-07ae0180d609
Great Article!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisregarding most of the posts:
lmao,rofl.
39% believe evolution to be fact, 61% suffer H.U.A. syndrome (head up a$$).
Mankind is the supreme predator. Old Religion justifies predation: Dominate land(plunder & pollute), dominate humanity(war, marriage, politics, commerce), dominate nature(destroy the diversity of life). Darwin wasn't revolutionary, just revelatory; Pealed back the curtain of the Great and Powerful Oz. Mankind is an animal within a huge system of natural progression, no more, no less. DNA, no more magical than light from stars. Our evolution from plasmic quarks was inevitable, not special. "Wonder" is not evidence of "God", it is proof of ignorance. We cannot know a "creator" by examining her creations, duh. To try is hubris, folly and justifies more predation. Jesus, a great man, taught us to stop preying upon each other, duh, and just accept the unknowable "God".
If we really seek peaceful happiness, then learn math, science and logic. Before the Big Bang there was nothing. Beyond the edge of the universe is nothing. Without honest compassion for one another right now, we have nothing. And stop bashing the messenger; Darwin was right.
monica1234 said, "I am a scientist that has studied Darwin's theory of evolution. As far as I am concerned it takes far more faith to believe that nonsense than it does to believe that there is a God that created man and the world that we inhabit. The whole creation declares the glory of God. Furthermore, the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. However, everyone has the right to believe in what they choose to believe in, however ridiculous it might be."... I see that you are taking your own advice, you are choosing to believe in something no matter how ridiculous it might be. Apply the same logic to your God. Where did your God come from ? And don't tell me that ,"He always was, and always will be", that is the answer a small child would give. Your God (God the father) is a "he' (a male God), that means he has a penis and balls ? And if he is a male, there had to be a female Goddess to give birth to him. (Remember also that your God created "Man" in his own image and likeness.) Your God created Adam first, and only as an after thought decided that Adam needed a "helpmate" to keep him company. I don't remember the Bible saying that, "God took a rib from Adam and added a penis (why would he need one if Eve was not there?), and from the rib he created Eve". Notice the inferior status of Eve, she is just an after thought created to "help" Adam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what about Noah and the flood? How did Noah collect the zillions of animals. birds, reptiles, bugs, etc., etc., etc ? What did Noah feed them for forty days? What did they eat after Noah turned them loose, everything had been covered by the salt water sea and was dead? How did the animals get back to their natural habitats? How did the fresh water fish survive, I don't remember the Bible mentioning that Noah had aquariums? Another thing that puzzles me is, where did all the water come from to cover all the land? It could rain for forty thousand days and nights and not raise the sea level. The rain is just water evaporating from the sea, and returning to the sea. And if water did cover the land, there would be no place for it to drain off to. (read the "Epic of Gilgamesh", it predates the bible by thousands of years if you want to see where the Noah story came from.
Your God concept is just one of many, the people of every culture believe that their God is the "true" God. And if you think you are too intelligent and special to be "descended from apes", you suffer from the "sin of Pride'. If you are a "scientist", you need to open your mind and eyes, and learn to "see".
monica1234 said, "I am a scientist that has studied Darwin's theory of evolution. As far as I am concerned it takes far more faith to believe that nonsense than it does to believe that there is a God that created man and the world that we inhabit. The whole creation declares the glory of God. Furthermore, the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. However, everyone has the right to believe in what they choose to believe in, however ridiculous it might be."... I see that you are taking your own advice, you are choosing to believe in something no matter how ridiculous it might be. Apply the same logic to your God. Where did your God come from ? And don't tell me that ,"He always was, and always will be", that is the answer a small child would give. Your God (God the father) is a "he' (a male God), that means he has a penis and balls ? And if he is a male, there had to be a female Goddess to give birth to him. (Remember also that your God created "Man" in his own image and likeness.) Your God created Adam first, and only as an after thought decided that Adam needed a "helpmate" to keep him company. I don't remember the Bible saying that, "God took a rib from Adam and added a penis (why would he have one if Eve was not there?), and from the rib he created Eve". Notice the inferior status of Eve, she is just an after thought created to "help" Adam. And what about Noah and the flood? How did Noah collect the zillions of animals. birds, reptiles, bugs, etc., etc., etc ? What did Noah feed them for forty days? What did they eat after Noah turned them loose, everything had been covered by the salt water sea and was dead? How did the animals get back to their natural habitats? How did the fresh water fish survive, I don't remember the Bible mentioning that Noah had aquariums? Another thing that puzzles me is, where did all the water come from to cover all the land? It could rain for forty thousand days and nights and not raise the sea level. The rain is just water evaporating from the sea, and returning to the sea. And if water did cover the land, there would be no place for it to drain off to. (read the "Epic of Gilgamesh", it predates the bible by thousands of years if you want to see where the Noah story came from. Your God concept is just one of many, the people of every culture believe that their God is the "true" God. And if you think you are too intelligent and special to be "descended from apes", you suffer from the "sin of Pride'. If you are a "scientist", you need to open your mind and eyes, and learn to "see".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a theist who believes in evolution from a creationist point of view, and I have a question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease respond to this all who would intelligently, and without the usual mudslinging and sarcasm. I have not heard a theory that I can rationally believe from any non theist yet. Give me your best theory in detail and mention my online name jld1 when you answer so I know you're answering me:
Assuming evolution is true, how did life actually begin. What are your opinions and theories on how the spark of life actually occurred?
This is an honest inquiry with no trickery, and no judgment involved and I am really interested in your response. Thank You.
jdl1,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, there is no need to assume evolution is true. It is, without a shred of doubt, a scientific fact that explains the diversity of life on this planet. But in your post you are questioning the origin of life, and although science has its theories about life's origins, evolutionary theory plays little to no role in how life actually began. Evolution describes a process that occurs given that life already exists.
But nevertheless I will give you some theories as to how life began. It has been shown through some experiments that inorganic molecules are able to form organic molecules under certain conditions. This shows that the chemicals required for life are able to be formed without life itself being present. So in theory, if the planet Earth were under the right conditions, it is plausible that chemical reactions occurred that gave rise to organic molecules. Other pieces of evidence such as the fact that lipids naturally form bilayers (explaining the cell membrane) also support the notion that life could arise from inorganic molecules.
But this is all based on the idea that life arose from Earth. A couple of years ago, scientists discovered a meteorite that contained an enormous amount of unknown amino acids (the building blocks of functional proteins). These amino acids were shown to have NOT come from Earth because they contained an isotope of carbon that has never existed on Earth. What does this mean? It basically indicates that the vital chemicals required for life as we know it are present out in the far reaches of space.
Perhaps the origin of life on Earth actually lies within the history of another planet, millions of light years away. Perhaps it did actually start here on Earth. Whatever you believe, science has shown that it is plausible that lifeless chemicals may in fact become full of life under the right conditions.
I agree with T.J.Fod. God certainly knows what he's doing by inventing evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjld1,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are two other points you should consider:
1. Ribosomes are functional RNA strands that turn mRNA into protein. It is a fact that RNA is an extremely unstable molecule, and it will degrade very quickly. Proteins on the other hand, are extremely robust molecules and most of them are very stable. If life was designed by an intelligent being as people believe, why would he engineer the cells to have RNA as the protein creating molecules? The cell has to expend an enormous amount of energy to produce ribosomes at a constant rate because they degrade rapidly all the time. Why use RNA if you could use protein? Proteins are much more stable and last a lot longer than RNA, so they would seem like the most intelligent choice. Most of the cell is made up of protein because it is so robust and lasts a long time, so why wouldn't ribosomes be made of the very same thing?
The answer is simple: proteins did not exist until ribosomes manufactured them. So how can a ribosome be made out of protein if a ribosome is required to create protein? It can't. That is why ribosomes are made out of RNA: because they are the ones making the protein. This makes perfect sense in evolution, but it makes absolutely no sense in intelligent design. If a god created a cell from scratch, why not use protein for ribosomes? It is obvious that choosing to make ribosomes out of RNA is not a very intelligent decision. The science shows that there was no decision: it happened that way because the cell had to adapt and evolve. Can't you see the logic in that?
jld1,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Mitochondria are organelles within animal cells that produce energy for the cell to use. Now, science has shown an enormous amount of evidence to suggest that mitochondria were actually once bacterial cells. Such evidence includes the fact that mitochondria have a double membrane (indicating a cell membrane as well as a capsule that only bacterial cells possess), and the fact that mitochondria are the only organelles within a cell to have their own DNA: DNA that is NOT part of the genome of the cell. So given the evidence, it is likely that at a point in history, an animal cell engulfed a bacterial cell and used its energy to feed itself, and over time that bacterial cell became part of the animal cell and eventually became the mitochondria.
Again, the science and idea of this occurrence makes perfect sense in evolution, but makes no sense in intelligent design. Evidence shows that mitochondria arose long after the cell was in existence, begging the question: if the cell was created by a god, why did he not provide the cell with an energy production system, a basic requirement for the survival of any cell? The answer is simple: the cell was not created by someone. There was no fore-thought, no design, no engineering involved. The cell evolved and over time discovered a way to harness enormous amounts of energy from bacteria. All of this occurred through trial and error, natural selection, and environmental pressures placed on the cell over millions of years, NOT because some deity created it that way.
God and man, with a devil in between. I've heard about every varied viewpoint on this subject, reading through the comments. What could possibly come next? If we advance our understanding of the universe, in some way, God seems to retract a bit. The process then repeats itself. Were will it end? Will we corner God at last? Probably not! There will be another revelation, and God will retract from man's knowledge. He will do so, as long as man needs him to do so. When man can stand alone, in the universe, there will be no need for God to detract any further. He will fade from being needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople create and join religions to be members of a community. If you challenge the beliefs of a religion, you challenge the cohesion of the community. Because we are a social species, this membership in a community is very important to us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless one can recognize this, little progress will be made in convincing believers, "the faithful", in the falsehood or illogic of their beliefs.
I am agnostic, but I'm afraid that the scientific method, for all its power, has offered little to replace the security of a community of believers.
Perhaps the scientific method can be applied to the formation, persistence and eventual dissolution of religions, for they do appear to have a natural history.
Evolutionary psychology seems to be an early step in this direction, though the complexity of the phenomenon is daunting, and rigor difficult to attain. Perhaps evolutionary psychology, based on Darwin's theories, will supply the means of understanding its strident opponents. Perhaps it could even suggest an alternative to the illogical but comforting religions.
bravo, you bright and reasoned lady! Potter
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbravo! you bright and reasoned lady. Potter
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisp.s. thats going to take a while.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that, in relation to evolution and religion, facts and logic do not suffice to convince the faithful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think people create and join religions to be members of a community. If you challenge the beliefs of a religion, you challenge the cohesion of the community. Because we are a social species, membership in a community is very important to us.
Unless one can recognize this, little progress will be made in convincing believers, the faithful, of the falsehood or illogic of their beliefs.
I am agnostic, but I'm afraid that the scientific method, for all its power, has offered little to replace the security of a community of believers.
Perhaps the scientific method can be applied to the formation, persistence and eventual dissolution of religions, for they do appear to have a natural history. Evolutionary psychology seems to be an early step in the direction of understanding religions (though the complexity of the phenomenon is daunting, and rigor difficult to attain). Darwin would be pleased.
oops, sorry for the double posting
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjto
Someone said..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Religion has been the biggest crime against humanity ever perpetrated by those in power to retain control of the masses"
If you research you will surely find that some of the biggest 'control of the masses' involved atheists and having no religion at all! These include Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and many others!
Maybe what you preceive in today's world with terrorism and "religion fights" in Gaza, etc are contribting your broad generalization.
The 'anti-evolution' posters about this article are all from the US, or are steeped in fundamentalism - a word which was coined in the 1920s, and represents a unique brand of Christianity born in the US and subsequently exported to other countries (notably Aust., the Caribbean and countries where the huddles masses had no defense against fanaticism and zealotry).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnti-evolution 'believers' are not universal. They embrace ignorance and eschews everything that occurred after the Age of Enlightenment. It is regional and has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity as it was originally cobbled together by the Council of Nicea approx 1650 years previous. It is pre-millenialist in origin (look it up) and is simply made up out of whole cloth to prevent its followers from understanding life's origins. If they lose people to education, they lose control.
Thus, you can ignore those people. They are the ignorant savages that commit intellectual vandalism across the world, that watch it burn while the rest of us are actually moving forward, teaching others and putting out the little fires of ignorance.
Sorry about the typos:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishuddles = huddled
eschews = eschew
Do any of you, lambs of god(s), consider the slight (...) possibility that the myth of Creation could be more of a metaphore ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMen come from animals, and coming to realize their own existence, it could be felt, and described by oral tradition as men banished from heaven, i.e. being cast away from the rest of the "natural" world, into the world of self-awareness, where their new conscience force them to suffer the constant questionning "about life, the universe, and everything".
Reading most of the creationnist comments are terribly appalling for people outside of the USA (and even inside, supposingly), as they show no intelligence whatsoever.
The theory of Evolution is only considered a theory nowadays because it's the way science works. Nothing is true or eternal with Science, and theories cease to be theories when they are proved false.
I could go on on several pages about what I've read here, but I think enough have already described how preposterous religious views can make a man...
To conclude, even if Darwin was wrong at some point, Creationnists certainly have proved him right; a Creationnist certainly is the monkeyish (or even bacterian ?) ancestor of the homo sapiens sapiens ...
I have seen a few comments saying that evolution is 'just a theory', saying this on a scientific site is showing ignorance for the scientific method. After all, a theory is the goal of science and as defined by the National Academy of Sciences, "A theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, and tested hypotheses" The key elements of a scientific theory are also that it must be falsifiable and internally consistent. Please stop using theory in the vernacular sense on a scientific website. Furthermore, the concept of god cannot be stated as a theory (as has also been stated), as it does not incorporate facts, laws and tested hypothesis of science, nor does it meet the requirement of being testable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience also does not tell anything about God's existence, or spirituality, it is based solely on the materialistic world. Lastly, I would like to point out that Science (and hence evolution) is not a faith. As faith is by definition acceptance in the absence of evidence (Science requires evidence).
I don't care how much Science there is in the world, we are little, little human beings that do not have the same intellect that God has. No matter how much we delve into science for the answers, the Creator knows more than we do. Something can not appear from nothing (hocus pocus, poof the Universe). Someone or something started it ALL!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't care how much Science there is in the world, we are little, little human beings compared to the intellect of the Creator of this Universe. Something (Universe) does just not appear from nothing (hocus pocus, poof, the Universe). Someone or some intelligence had to start the process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoemac: thank you for giving me some faith that there are intelligent beings on this planet. I'm not a scientist, interested in physics and am trying to be enlightened by practicing meditation & Buddhism. I guess we have to let people have their fantasies - what is so scary about not believing in God? It's sad to think of all these people dreaming of a heaven and a mythical overseeing God that obviously not up in heaven. Where is heaven? In space? What happens when we realize we have to rely on ourselves, and there's no devil to blame for our misguided deeds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour same questions have been asked by others. Here is part of an LDS hymn by William W. Phelps:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf You Could Hie to Kolob
If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward with that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, through all eternity,
Find out the generation where Gods began to be?
Or see the grand beginning where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation where Gods and matter end?
Me thinks the Spirit whispers "No man has found pure space,
Nor seen the outside curtains where nothing has a place."
The works of God continue and worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter; there is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; there is no end to race.
Many people have questions like yours. The problem is that they don't know where to look to find the answers. The answers to your questions can found in the teachings of the church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. The fist place to start looking to learn more about what they teach is mormon.org
Science is striving to find the answers with the brightest minds on the planet. Religion can only survive if the flock remains ignorant. Here in the small town that I live in, the preachers tell their slaves that god's hands hold the planets up. They claim that evolution is only a theory with huge gaps in it. They accuse all muslims of being, or supporting, terrorists. They claim that the catholic church is the work of the devil and that even though the jews are gods children, they will all go to hell for not believing in jesus. Why do the preachers so conveniently forget that christians, jews and muslims all worship the same god? I don't use my real name when I post a comment or write a letter to the local paper out of fear for my wife and daughter. My favorite comment is the Hindu view that god is so powerful that he doesn't need to exist. Therefore, man made god.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are so right. Missionaries are just people brainwashed into believing their way of thinking is the only way and they have the right to inflict it upon others any way they can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor all you creationists/scientists who believe in god and evolution, here's a challenge. Why did your god create the AIDS virus? Why did he create cancer and give it to children? Why is the malaria-ridden mosquito more powerful than man? I could go on and on and on...The hypocrisy of dual "beliefs" is that you don't really have to commit. I don't just believe...I KNOW that your god does not exist. If he did, and was truly an all-powerful entity, there would be proof and we'd all know it, and we's all belong to the club.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaith:Not wanting to know what is true. ...Nietzsche
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaith: not wanting to know what is true. ...Nietzsche
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYah... you're probably right. Forcing Christianity on different cultures has never caused any unhappiness or death.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe all of us "non-belivers" could move to the same community, or the same state. Sounds too idealist I guess. I think if I were you, I'd definately move my family out of there, "notslic." We are the few, the undelusionist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you ever read Betrand Russel "Why I'm not a Christian?" Take faith (ha-ha) that there are others willing to face the truth with you.
Maybe all of us "non-belivers" could move to the same community, or the same state. Sounds too idealist I guess. I think if I were you, I'd definately move my family out of there, "notslic." We are the few, the undelusionist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you ever read Betrand Russel "Why I'm not a Christian?" Take faith (ha-ha) that there are others willing to face the truth with you.
what transitional fossils? if there were so many there would be no debate. secondly, as i said how do you account for the information in dna in the first place? the bible tells me it is you that are ignorant of creation, according to Peter and Paul, and our Lord Jesus Christ. but, why should we argue, in less than 100 years we will both see for ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhere did the chemicals come from? and the hydrogen? and the singularity? where did the space to put everything in the universe come from? as the LORD said to Job, "where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?" i have studied for a long time as well, and see a differant conclusion. evolution is a religion, no doubt. there would not be so much passion if it were not. you do not see the ethical implications of such a religion, as it produces such things as racism, genocide, eugenics(which still goes on today, you know, planned parenthood). take another look, please before you write the bible off as some fantasy. you call me ignorant for believing the bible, you also might say the same about such people as Issac Newton, Kepler, Kelvin, and many more Im sure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistroy m speaks of Peter and Paul. If you truly knew your bible you would know that the character of Jesus was one thing and one thing only...he was the most perfect jew on the planet. That is ALL he ever wanted to be. Every jew referred to god as the father because they were forbidden from saying his name. After Jesus' death, Peter and Paul conspired to create a new religion based on themselves, and using Jesus as their tool. Jesus would never have been so presumptive to think he should be worshiped equally with god. Originally, you had to be a jew before you could become a christian. Peter went to Rome and martyred himself (suicide) and Paul sold out the jews by proclaiming that pagans could become christians without first being jews. Use your computer and find out the biblical contradictions, especially in Mathew, between the authors of the new testament. Some say Joseph is descended from David, some say Mary. Is the conclusion incest? When you use the bible for ammunition, you are only firing blanks. Oops, I forgot...the bible is the ONLY ammunition you have! Happy birthday Mr. Darwin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but troy m also spoke of Job. What kind of supreme being would make a bet with the devil that the devil couldn't torture a man so much that he would deny his faith? These facts speak to a degree of sadism that is unsurpassed in all of fiction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif you had ever read the bible then you would notice that Adam sinned against God in the garden of eden, and "God cursed the ground for Adam's sake." He told Adam that in the day he ate the fruit that he would surely die. there you go, it is the curse that caused the aids, the cancer, the sickness and disease. but guess what? God came into the world in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem you and I from this curse. He tasted death for every man, and paid the penalty for sin, the wrath of God. Jesus suffered the judgement of God for sin, for you. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that the world might not perish, but have everlasting life." All you have to do is believe it, no strings attached. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." But, if you choose to go on in atheism, as I said in less than 100 years we will see for ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistroy m,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, every single species is a transitional species because all species are always evolving. But if you are wanting to see evidence of lifeforms that are in transition between different families of organisms that we see around us today, I will show you!
Just a few of the transitional species found in the fossil record:
Pezosiren portelli: a direct ancestor of the manatee but with legs, showing that it used to be more like a hippo than just the sea dwelling creature you see today.
Dimetrodon: A large predatory reptile that had more mammalian traits than reptilian traits. One key feature is that it has bone structures in the skull that resemble that of mammals that no reptile has ever had.
Archaeopteryx: a small lizard creature that possess many traits we see now in birds including feathers, hollow bones, and a fully fused clavicle. It also shares many features with lizards such as teeth and a bony tail.
Tiktaalik: the half fish, half tetrapod species. This species had fins that were capable of bearing weight (showing that it walked on land), it had a wrist structure similar to all land animals today, it had fish scales and a neck (no fish today have necks), it had an ear that could detect sound both on land and in water, and it had gills as well as a set of very primitive lungs for breathing air.
This is just a very small collection of transitional species that have been found. The fossil record is by no means complete, and I expect thousands and thousands more of these kinds of fossils will appear over time.
So now that I have shown you that transitional species do exist, are you going to accept that evolution is real?
troy m,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd just one other thing,
Scientists recently deciphered the platypus genome and guess what it shows? Half of the platypus genes are reptilian and half are mammalian.
Wow, evolution is right before my eyes!
troy m,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsking me where all the chemicals in the universe came from is like me asking you where did god come from. You can't answer it. If you say god always was and always will be, then I can say, well chemicals always were and always will be. Either way, you cannot explain the origin of the universe with solid scientific facts, not with religion and not with science.
But, you CAN show that life may arise from chemicals if they already exist, and THIS is the key point to consider. If chemicals and matter and energy all exist, then it is plausible that life may have arose from them under the right conditions. This directly contradicts the theory of god, but we have scientific evidence to show that it is indeed very plausible. This is one of the main reasons I do not believe in a god, because there is a perfect scientific explanation as to how life can arise from non-organic compounds.
And as for the Bible? It's outdated. Everything in the universe undergoes change, it is a fact of life. The Bible is 2000 years out of date, so it is not a reliable source. Just like in 2000 years time, the science books of today will be out of date and unreliable.
what i most enjoy about this pithy article is how brave and what derring-do he had to display; also that he truly did THINK about things, not just parrot readymade pre-digested pablums.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin utterly rocked, peoples
I have enjoyed thease comments very much. I am a Christian but I love science. I also believe in evoution as the best explaination of the physical processes of this world. I have read The Origion of Speicies. I think his book was a large leap of insight. He talked a bout the mechism of herity & inhertage before it was known of even understood. This understanding has only come about in the last 10 years with Modern DNA tests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a room for a creater a god. I believe there is ignorace in the Church as far as science goes. I have talked to many good people who don't understand the funmentals of the very theory they are attemping to discredit yet they often wish to enjoy the benifits of science.
If you can understand a creator and all knowlege is insipered by god evolution does not try to userp gods place it only says what the mechisim is.
Astronomy went through the same problems when the early church adopted Asristole theory of earth being at the center of the universe. This was fro mthe old testment of when the earth was commanded to stand still. Yet careful observation have proven from the orbits of mars to now photograph the earth is round planets do orbit and the sun is at the center of the solar system.
Evoution is saying the creation of man is process that has taken untold years of trial and error. It leaves out if chance a devine creator had any part because science cannot answer that question. However as a indivdual I feel it is a comfort for me to have the personal knowlege of a god who loves me and waited eons to create this world . He cares for all of us.
Read these replies and you realize that beliefs are not related to being intelligent, they are just states of mind .DNA provides the basis for these beliefs,life defines them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswfitz1964,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say that there is room for a creator even if evolution exists. This is somewhat contradictory to what evolution shows though.
By saying you believe in a creator AND evolution, you are saying that you believe that life itself was created by god, but that it undergoes changes through the process of evolution. What you don't seem to understand, or just blatantly ignore for that matter, is that evolution explains not only the evolution of species, but also the evolution of all aspects of life, including individual cells.
Cells change and evolve just like any population does, and scientific evidence proves that the cells we see around us today, the very cells we are made up of were not originally as complex as they are now. Read my posts below about ribosomes and mitochondria. It is evident that these were not originally part of the first cell.
If god did create life, all he must have created was a single functional RNA molecule. Evolution shows that all life started from an RNA molecule and nothing more. Cells evolved from that, DNA evolved from that, LIFE evolved from that. Now let's look at a virus: it is not living nor dead, and it is basically just a few strands of RNA. Viruses spring to life when they find a host to feed on, but otherwise they are as inanimate as a piece of rock. How viruses work should signal to you that a lifeless molecule can in fact become full of life in an instant, proving that life can arise without the intervention of anything other than simple chemical reactions.
Reading the replies I realize they are just states of minds that were created by DNA and definded by living.I find at eigthy life can be exhilarating even without a belief in a god or more so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGregor Mendel discovered the basic principles of genetics (although he apparently cheated a bit with the math), not DNA!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, Mendellian genetics does not explain evolution without the critical addition of natural selection. As Huxley realized, this insight was Darwin's great act of genius. By providing an unconscious - that is, non-sentient - mechanism for the preservation of survival characteristics, natural selection knocks the props out from under theism.
As for humans constituting a "highest order" of life, that depends very much on the criteria used to make the judgment. From some perspectives, ants, cockroaches, or bacteria have greater claim on that distinction. From a strictly moral perspective humans rank somewhere near the bottom!
Even if one is inclined to credit Columbus's claims, generalizing from it to characterize the various inhabitants of two entire continents is intellectually careless. The cultures of pre-Columbian America include some with repellant traits, but also many of a most admirable nature. To those unfamiliar with these facts, including "peste" I recommend the book "1491" by Charles C. Mann.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "masterpiece" that you admire so much contains a number of absurd errors in design that no competent engineer would have passed, including: the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the vermiform appendix, confluent alimentary and respiratory systems, confluent excretory and reproductive systems, needlessly vulnerable central nervous system, to name the most obvious. Furthermore, the essence of good engineering - as any freshman student could tell you - is simplicity of design, not complexity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf monica1234 is a scientist than I am the pope. Either you skipped the day when they taught the scientific method or you are a liar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell, i hate to tell you this, but the bible will always be current because it is the Word of God. the fossils you named, where are the organs that were inside? where is the dna from these? do you have more than a peice of a bone or a tooth? listen, if evolution where ture, there should be in fact trillions of in-between fossils. would you say that chemicals can auto arrange themselves? suppose that i told you that nobody invented or developed a modern computer with windows xp on it, that it, over time arose by chance. the computer hardware is made from naturally occuring materials, and the software just randomly over millions of years put itself together. would you believe me? and yet you would say that a human being will trillions of cells, each cell more 1000 times more complex than anything ever invented, that not only holds more information than a thousand volumes of encylopedias, is able to make a perfect copy of itself, you will tell me that it arose by chance? why do we need bill gates, lets just wait a few million years and the computer would have devoloped naturally. do you understand what you believe, and what the government is asking the children to believe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so fast. How do you know that "something cannot appear from nothing"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLacking all-inclusive knowledge, you cannot conclude this by deduction and before you attempt to apply scientific principles (that is, reason by induction) you'd better define your terms carefully. What do you mean by "something" or "nothing"?
For example, the total mass-energy of the Universe may be balanced by its (negative) gravitational potential energy. Would this qualify as "something from nothing"?
You're just resorting to the kind of glib speculation at the boundaries of knowledge that have always been the refuge of theists, whose "God of the gaps" lurks in the murky regions beyond the firelight.
Purest sophistry! If you believe that it's possible to consider the Universe without making certain basic epistemological assumptions, then you haven't considered the matter very deeply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists embrace empiricism as a fundamental assumption not only because it's intellectually attractive, but because it's demonstrably the most successful organizational principle that humans have ever discovered. Contrary to the calumnies in your post, scientists are also very clear and very candid about their "mindset", as you call it.
This one's easy. Bill Gates is merely a "transitional species" in the natural evolution of intelligence. So is Steve Jobs. The real issue for the (cybernetic?) evolutionists of the future may be to explain why natural selection favored Microsoft over Apple - or vica versa - at this stage in the process. And, perhaps, why homo sapiens survived so long before becoming extinct!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisajhil, you must understand that your formidable knowledge will never convince troy m that his bible is simply a story, used by men to control men. Notice how he doesn't respond very well to my attacks on the bible? He responds even worse to your obviously well-trained mind. In truthful analogy, you are god and he is Job. Even when the complete and absurd falsity of his beliefs is shown to him, he relies on the same arguments that are brainwashed into him by his preacher. God is so powerful that he doesn't need to exist. Happy birthday Mr. Darwin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistroy m,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have said this a number of times already and still you do not understand: evolution DOES NOT WHOLLY RELY ON CHANCE. Environmental stress causes evolution to occur within a species. When a selective pressure is placed on an organism, it must adapt to it or die.
Consider this scenario: you have to swim to catch your food but you have never swam before in your life. If you don't learn to swim you will die. You start swimming because the environmental pressure has forced you into it. Then, over time as you become a better swimmer, you can catch more food. In the end, you have survived because you can catch food and you are now very good at swimming. You DID NOT become a good swimmer through CHANCE. You became a good swimmer because you faced death if you didn't. This is exactly the same thing as evolution: an organism is forced to adapt to a new environment, and in doing so it evolves, NOT THROUGH CHANCE but through reaction to environment. If you don't understand this simple idea that I have presented then you have absolutely no logic whatsoever.
And like I have stated, there ARE millions of transitional fossils. They live everywhere and have always existed. If you don't trust fossils because they "have no organs" then that is stupidity. But in any case you can observe animals like the platypus: a half reptile, half mammal. It's genome shows that it has half reptilian genes and half mammalian genes. It has fur, a beak, poisionous spurs, and it lays eggs, but feeds its young through breast-fed milk. Here is an obvious transitional LIVING species and you still don't accept that they exist. Where did your logic go?
tod
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are falling into troy m's trap. You must realize that he gets comfort in his lack of knowledge, while you get satisfaction from gaining knowledge. He will never learn, while you will always learn. His lack of knowledge is as strong a product of natural selection as your quest for knowledge. The community brought together in religious rapture is actually a positive influence, breeding coherence, unity and a common goal. These are all traits of a culture that strives to exist, and continue.
Don't begrudge them their serenity in ignorance. They have survived, and will survive, for many centuries.
I am a loner. My wife and daughter are the only people on the planet that REALLY matter to me. My wife may be smarter than I am, and my daughter is going to leave us both way behind. Intelligence, in them and myself, is my only real goal in life. Maybe you are a loner too? As you say, IT IS NOT CHANCE. We are necessary for advancement, they are necessary for cohesion. Eventually we will dominate. But not for many, many centuries. Remember that the timeline that we use for this discussion is 4 billion years long and that theirs is 6 thousand.
I enjoy attacking the bible...maybe too much (see my previous comments). But I am offended when they attack my science. I think I'll mellow out. Happy birthday to Mr. Darwin, and happy Christmas and Easter to the Christians.
If Darwin had read the Quran, Bible, and Turat, an alternaive outcome would, perhaps, been acheived. However, all my reading of his history and theories indicate a that he was so stubborn that he wanted to write his own. Perhaps a more scientific approach would be in the words of Albert Einstein "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Perhaps a geat man he was, an asset to civilization, however, to beleive that in, say 10 Billion years, only man has evolved with enough intelligence to rule this planet is mathemtically lame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnotslic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell put my friend. I suppose I should look at religious types as the disadvantaged in a population who will eventually be eradicated. Sad thing is, natural selection does not work in human populations as much as it once did in the natural world. Perhaps I should just find comfort in the fact that the universe makes complete sense to me without the need or want for a creator.
aymensaket,
Sometimes I question whether man has evolved ANY intelligence whatsoever. :)
The bible is not out of date, belief in the bible allows one to think you will exist for ever and what ever happens it's the will of god,so you don't have to worry, because you have all the answers contained within the bibles pages
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a world I once inhabited, but took a bite out of the fruit from tree of knowledge and ended up in the real world.a sort of evolution of my mind.
Do these threads go on forever? I wonder what's the longest enduring thread? This one is on a vitally important subject. But I don't see much progress. People talking past each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm agnostic and accept evolution.
I suspect that a tendency to believe in a religion has evolved in humans. It's present in most, if not all cultures. And it may have survival value in that it promotes group cohesion, and helps leaders to organize and control the group's members. It is a comfort to many people. Of course, like other forms of human organization, it can have terrible effects and is easily and frequently perverted. It seems generally to inhibit the advancement of knowledge.
If you want to replace it, you need to understand it, and the role it plays for individuals and societies. Perhaps the scientific method and democracy can replace dogmatism and theocracy. There seems to be an emotional factor (positive and negative) lacking in the former. Perhaps the wonder at what is discovered in science would supply it, if more generally known.
I think religion may be best understood through evolutionary psychology. But religions are very complex and evolutionary psychology is a relatively new branch of science.
"When will we evolve as humans into a thinking, loving creature?" Do you mean like God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistod With the prevalence of war between the religions, natural selection will prevail. When was the last time that you knew of an intelligent person going off to war? War takes the place of survival of the fittest and the religious will all eventually kill themselves in the name of god. We shall overcome. Happy birthday Mr. Darwin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDerhere I absolutely consider myself a thinking and loving creature. I love my family more than myself and I think at a higher level than anyone who believes in a god. If you believe that jesus forgives the worst sin, then you are not loving...or thinking. I could never forgive anyone who hurt my family. This forgiveness thing only serves to get more people in the club, despite their fatal flaws. I don't want to be in that club.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not so sure that you are that much older than me, old head, but I like your style
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you believe that god created the world, which God did it? I mean there are many different religions with different gods, will the real creater please stand up."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is only one God- and belief in all religions makes sense, because all religions in one Final Creator- the Absolute Power, the Be-all and the End-All. As a Muslim, I am required to have faith in all religions, in all prophets- because they were sent down by the God- who is only One, so he has got to be the same for everyone. The only difference might exist in our definition of GOD but any one who believes would agree that the general idea is that of an Absolute Power and Authority, who created from nothing.
Even if we become "creators" we are still created by the One who is Eternal, Everlasting, and there is none comparable unto Him. Furthermore, the only difference in the various religions is the nations to which the prophets were sent; the message conveyed throughout the existence of Mankind, from Adam to Noah, from Abraham to Moses and Jeses and Mohammad, is really the same. And that, by its very definition, is what you call "Muslim"- one who believes in One God and submits him or herself to Him- because he is the Almighty.
Hence, to me, Darwin's theory is faulty and disconnected and can hardly be proven, whereas the existence of God is apparent all around, if only we open our eyes, and ponder. The answer will be clear. How else could the Holy Books, such as the Quran which was revealed in the 14th century, tell us about the Big Bang, tell us about the creation of the universe and how the planets revolve around the stars, tell us about the creation of a human being from conception to birth- when those facts were only "discovered" by human beings much, much later?
"If you believe that god created the world, which God did it? I mean there are many different religions with different gods, will the real creater please stand up."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is only one God- and belief in all religions makes sense, because all religions in one Final Creator- the Absolute Power, the Be-all and the End-All. As a Muslim, I am required to have faith in all religions, in all prophets- because they were sent down by the God- who is only One, so he has got to be the same for everyone. The only difference might exist in our definition of GOD but any one who believes would agree that the general idea is that of an Absolute Power and Authority, who created from nothing.
Even if we become "creators" we are still created by the One who is Eternal, Everlasting, and there is none comparable unto Him. Furthermore, the only difference in the various religions is the nations to which the prophets were sent; the message conveyed throughout the existence of Mankind, from Adam to Noah, from Abraham to Moses and Jeses and Mohammad, is really the same. And that, by its very definition, is what you call "Muslim"- one who believes in One God and submits him or herself to Him- because he is the Almighty.
Hence, to me, Darwin's theory is faulty and disconnected and can hardly be proven, whereas the existence of God is apparent all around, if only we open our eyes, and ponder. The answer will be clear. How else could the Holy Books, such as the Quran which was revealed in the 14th century, tell us about the Big Bang, tell us about the creation of the universe and how the planets revolve around the stars, tell us about the creation of a human being from conception to birth- when those facts were only "discovered" by human beings much, much later? Hence, we might as well accept that we were created by God- the one and the same for all- since sooner or later, we will have to believe it anyway...
Notslic, you say: For all you creationists/scientists who believe in god and evolution, here's a challenge. Why did your god create the AIDS virus? ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell the answer is really quite simple. I have belief in all the books sent by God for our guidance, but I will quote from the last one he sent, since I believe that being the Last Holy Book (the Quran), it is complete and comprehensive. Read yourself what God says:
"Be sure we shall test you with something of fear and hunger, some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil), but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere,
Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without God testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast? God might test what is in your breasts and purge what is in your hearts. For God knoweth well the secrets of your hearts.
Ye shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in your personal selves; and ye shall certainly Hear much that will grieve you, from those who received the Book before you and from those who worship many gods. But if ye persevere patiently, and guard against evil,-then that will be a determining factor in all affairs.
To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way.
If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God. It is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute."
I Wrote a comment about Darwin and his stubborness to create what he beleived is true. I also indicated that a starting point would be the religious books, I did not infer that one has to beleive, i meant that one has to know the content and see if there is a relevant starting point to set any theory. And beleive it, there is. If you take religious books literally, you would be missing a lot . . . for example when God said in the Quran "I do not swear on the position of stars", 1500 years ago, that was a great scientific point, ...the stars we see now could be dead, or displaced. The bible also contained similar comments. What I really mean is, there is no harm in investigation, .... What if God set the rules of nature, all of them, then that defies the idea that God is creating us one by one, it actually coul dmean that evolution and other theories are valid. The Quran stated that "the universe started from a very tiny particle that exploded.....then everything came alive from water". So the history of the universe theory could have had an easy starting point. What I AM TRYING TO SAY, science and religios books together can help in finding answers, EINSTEIN for example beleived that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe you are referring to the following verse:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"30. Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
In this case, your point that we should take science and religion in conjunction appears valid, and is definitely a point to ponder.
The following two verses validate this:
19. See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.
20. Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Indeed, man could have evolved from something different... the first of creation was the universe itself. Man appeared much later. But saying that evolution happened accidentally does not make sense. Even if the theory of evolution is true, it seems a very deliberate decision of God to perfect hs creation more and more, eventually culminating in the creation of Man, as described by God:
29. It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; Moreover His design comprehended the heavens, for He gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect knowledge.
30. Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth."
And all creation was created of God's will, as depicted by the birth of Jesus, which was no accident-
59. The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.
5. O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes, then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die, and some are sent back to the feeblest old age, so that they know nothing after having known (much), and (further), thou seest the earth barren and lifeless, but when We pour down rain on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells, and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs).
6. This is so, because Godis the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things.
The reason these threads go on for ever is because there are two fringe groups that rely on assumptions that arent proven and are mutually exclusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the one hand you have "scientists" (inverted commas intended :-) who assume that if evolution is true then that means there is not God. (This is an assumption not based on any observation.)
On the other hand you have Christian fundamentalists who assume that Genesis and the bible in general are to be taken literally word for word. Most Christians don't agree with them. (This is an assumption on how the scriptures are to be interpreted.) Consequently they can not accept evolution because it would undermine their interpretation of the bible.
In reality science doesnt speak definitively as to whether or not there is a God or not. It is a fundamentally impossible task anyway. The simple question where did everything come from? has no definitive answer past a point.
Likewise the form of the book of Genesis and the culture from which it was generated speak to a non-literal interpretation of the book. What makes Genesis different from other ancient Sumer texts is that only Genesis points to one God who created everything. That is the whole point the book is trying to make!! It isnt meant to be a scientifically literal text book.
Without the two assumptions above there is no barrier to believing in God and accepting evolution or other scientific discoveries in general. They arent actually mutually exclusive. There are many real scientists that believe in God. For those who dont believe that is your personal choice but it isnt backed by science any more than belief in God is.
It's more fun arguing with christians. But you all do the same thing. You quote an ancient text that has been through translation after translation, revision after revision, and you ignore the modern accumulation of FACTS. Islam was created by MEN. To control other MEN. To try to get an advantage over the other religions that were made by MEN. If the 72 virgins you get for martyring yourself is something that an all-powerful creator rewards, then he is the ultimate manipulator. Aren't you embarrassed, Jamboozle, that we all know of this one facet of your religion and probably not anything else? Do you get them all at once or one at a time? Only a true pervert could perceive of such a thing, or hope to receive it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a Native American. My people have an oral history of life on this continent that goes back 10,000 years. We worship the sun because it gives us warmth and makes the plants grow. We worship the rain and the animals that we need for sustenance. We also worship the mighty, who protect us. Isn't there more logic in our ignorance than in the 72 virgins? Now, I don't thank a god for the rain, I thank the jet stream. As I said in a previous comment, you will all eventually kill yourselves in the name of your god.
If you can only quote ancient manipulative documents and can't create an original thought of your own in support of your mythology, you aren't worth arguing with. Happy birthday Mr. Darwin. Happy jihad Jamboozle.
Thank you for your comments, notslic. atleast you gave a thought to the ancient text that I have quoted, even if you ridiculed it. Actually, I am not embarassed by my religion at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIslam wasn't really created by men. Islam means peace and submission to God. If it was a religion created by men to control other men (I don't really know what you mean by that though), then why would we submit ourselves to the Lord rather than to material things made by man? How is it that we respect all religions, all cultures? We believe that every man has a right to his own belief because that's the way God wants it. I only answered your question as to why God tests us- I did not ridicule your belief. To each his own, that's the Muslim way.
Thank you for wishing me a happy Jihad: Jihad embodies the concept of struggle- including gaining education for men and women, working hard in life, supporting the needy and orphans, being good to others... I think you have your concepts off the track.
You mention 72 virgins for martyrs- I don't know where that sprung from because the Quran (whose text has remain unchanged since it's revelation, and no one has challenged that till date), does not mention any such thing. What it does mention is pure companions in heaven for men and women. And if you loved your spouse in this world, you will get the same in the after life.
I agree that religions have been distorted for man's own purpose- that does not mean however that that is how things actually are. I study all religions and no religion teaches any one any crazy stuff thats not believable.
One suggestion: try picking up one of these holy texts, read through them- you will be amazed by what actually lies therein... :) Good luck!
Just by the way, this isnt a forum to discuss religious beliefs- the main idea is to discuss Darwin's theory- which by the way, I said makes sense in terms of evolution of creatures to perfection....
In regard to the fringe groups of scientists and Christian (and Muslim and Hindu etc) fundamentalists:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think it is so much that a scientist (used in the sense of one who uses the scientific method to gain knowledge) would assume from the correctness of evolutionary theory that there is no god.
I think he would say with Laplace (from an intellectual standpoint) "I have no need of that hypothesis".
(Napoleon, in regard to Laplace's great multi-volume work 'Celestial Mechanics', asked the mathematician: "Where is there room in all this for God?" To which Laplace famously replied, "I have no need for that hypothesis.") From the standpoint of scientific knowledge, to explain something by saying 'God did it' is to say nothing useful.
I don't think believers (among whom there are some scientists) need God for intellectual reasons, but rather for psychological and sociological reasons. And so great is this need that they are willing to sacrifice reason and evidence (in regard to matters that apply to the existence of God) to keep him.
This is not to minimize these needs or deprecate the believers. My point is that these sociological and psychological needs are so important that they should be studied. I think that the most effective tool is likely to be evolutionary psychology.
Considering the history of religious wars and the technological progress on nuclear weapons in Pakistan, India, Iran and Israel, understanding religions and finding a less dangerous substitute seems urgent to me.
Communism, by the way doesn't seem to be that less dangerous substitute. But, for now, the (mainly Christian) West and (post-communist?) Russia and China seem to have been sobered by coming to the brink of nuclear annihilation over Cuba.
Here I end this post (which seems to have gone on forever).
I think, Jamboozle, that you are a wiser person than many of the religious. I admire your restraint and your dedication. I have read the bible, old and new testaments. I wish that others, including myself, could be as tolerent as you. I have O.C.D. in that I am hyper-critical. I have the compulsion to over analyze everything in my world and criticize those things that I don't agree with. You seem to be much more of a "live and let live" personality. Both of these characteristics can be seen as evolutionary traits. Thank you for your insight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotslic, thank you for you last comment: the comment is testament to the fact that you argue in order to reach a conclusion- you think, in order to make sense of things. That in itself is commendable. Thinking- and thereby the power to make decisions and reach conclusions- is the culmination of evolution, and a special power that rests only with human beings. And I wish more people would learn to try to understand each other and accept each other. It was good having a discussion with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to add a personal experience for all- I was an agnostic for a long time. I disregarded belief in religion, I doubted the existence and the power of God. However, it was during my studies of various religions that I mustered the strength to read the Quran. And when I read it, my heart melted. And it seemed life finally made sense. I do not believe because I am "supposed" to believe- that defies the message of God, because He wants you to choose. I believe because I want to. Thanks for listening :) Peace and love to all
I am not sure I fully understand why a magazine with the credentials of Scientific American would suddenly initiate a quest to cram Darwinism down the throats of subscribers as though this man was God-like in his uniqueability to clearly see that God did not create man as such, the apes just somehow acquired all of the gifts mankind has been given by being in the right place at the right time away from all of the other beasts somehow in our linage. All of that in just 10000 years. WOW! What tremendous insight! Now where is the scientific method the Darwinians use to support this conclusion! I am only wondering... OBTW, I have cancelled my subscription to SA as a result of theeditor being on a month after month campaign to convince me this famous scientist clearly shows there is no God and threrfore man did not evolve through God's destiny. Signed, a Christian
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a member of a falconry forum....and I can't believe how many of them don't believe in evolution! While they have no problem believing micro-evolution...I said , "Well...think of micro and expand thay idea for ..oh...'bout 200 million years and you got macro........they wanted examples of macro evolution taken place within written human history.....I'm thinkin' maybe a fruit fly...does anyone out there know of one example?......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamboozle and Notslic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA christian friend of mine an I ,the athiest, would argue about jesus feeding the multitudes with 3 fish and 4 loaves of bread....I say it didn't happen he says it did......now around this time i was reading Jonn Shelby Spongs "rescueing the bible from fundelmentalism"....It was read this book that changed my way of thinking about religion.....Even though my friend and I disagreed about the happenings...there was a part of that story that we agreed on...What was jesus doing...........he was extending a kind hand to those less fortunate.....weather you believed the story was true or not...the massage was the same......and thats what your supposed to come away with.......weather you believe or not ....it seems to me that if you argue for or against believeing in the literal truth mode...your both missing the point.
______________
Todd
Jamboozle and Notslic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA christian friend of mine an I ,the athiest, would argue about jesus feeding the multitudes with 3 fish and 4 loaves of bread....I say it didn't happen he says it did......now around this time i was reading Jonn Shelby Spongs "rescueing the bible from fundelmentalism"....It was read this book that changed my way of thinking about religion.....Even though my friend and I disagreed about the happenings...there was a part of that story that we agreed on...What was jesus doing...........he was extending a kind hand to those less fortunate.....weather you believed the story was true or not...the massage was the same......and thats what your supposed to come away with.......weather you believe or not ....it seems to me that if you argue for or against believeing in the literal truth mode...your both missing the point.
______________
Todd
me too
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisme too
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToddy Toddy pottymouth...don't you have spellcheck? Jamboozle and I DO get it. The difference is that my parents taught me to be generous. And I shall teach my daughter. I don't need a higher power. I suspect that Jamboozle was also taught this. He has simply seen a new way to EXPRESS it. In the end, he didn't need to tell me that I'm going to hell, and I didn't need to tell him that he believes in mythology. WE AGREED that both of our philosophies have room for our species to evolve to a higher level. I agree that religion is generally benign and untreatable, just as homosexuality is. What infuriates me is when the religious deny science and intrude into politics and education. Oh, to answer your question, humans are the greatest example of macro evolution in the last 10,000 years. And the bible is the best proof. We have greatly evolved both socially and intelligently since the days of the Pharaohs. While this statement might not be correct genetically, your falconer theist friends won't know the difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What was jesus doing...........he was extending a kind hand to those less fortunate.....weather you believed the story was true or not...the massage was the same......and thats what your supposed to come away with......."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand where you are coming from toddy but the bible is hardly the book someone should be reading for moral guidance. It is extremely popular for modern day Christian's to zero on in a few inspirational stories while conveniently ignoring the truly horrific and evil deeds committed by God and in his name elsewhere in the bible.
It doesn't take a holy scripture for people to find the benefit in helping each other.
Notslic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDude ...I was just putting in my two cents....I get mad at those fundamentalist too.......and ya catch more flies with honey than ya do vinager.......you need to change your attitude...your an asshole......did I spell that right?.....You have no idea why i spell the way i do and i'm not a computer guru....but I'll match my brains to yours any day.......Now, I am willing to put this matter behind us now and hope that we can truely be at least allies ...or maybe even friends in this country's need to better understand science....and the example i need is a recorded evolution.....seems I've heard some where that fruit flies have like a two day lifespan.....If they have been studied lond enough may some have evolved into another spieces of fruit fly?
My apologies for speaking harshly
Todd
Natedog
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour talking about wars, crimes and punishment and stuff, strange STORIES in the bibble ...I don't deny that they are there and that their terrible.......But is it possible that there is a symbolic meaning in the stories? One that a littoral reading misses......Even Jesus spoke in parables.Nicodemus(sp?) when Jesus said a man had to be born again.....Nicodemus asked..." How can a man enter the womb of his mother?"........By takind Jesus Littorally....He missed the point........and I'm an atheist.
Todd
I do not see anything heretical in Science. Indeed I read the Bible a lot, as it has had such a huge effect on history. The conclusion is that science has been able to prove that much of the biblical accounts have no factual basis. They are not divine revelation, but were written by inspired men who believed their personal opinions to be facts. So the end result is that there are no people chosen by a tribal God to inflict their religious beliefs on the world. Science, more than religion, only seeks truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The conclusion is that science has been able to prove that much of the biblical accounts have no factual basis"-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat comes as a surprise to me. All the Holy Books are Divine Revelations- according to believers of the Books. I have read the Quran extensively- which was the last book revealed by God through his last prophet (as I believe), and I believe in all other divine books, which I have read in parts.
Much of the science revealed in the Quran in the 14th century is now being validated by recent scientific findings. God has referred to Himself as the Creator and the Evolver, who perfects his creation through evolution (as stated in the Quran). As I stated earlier, theories such as the Big Bang theory, black holes, worm holes, characteristics of the Red Sea, conception and development of a human being and so on- are all made clear to us by science. Science proves the existence of God, who had explained the miracles of the universe to us long before mankind discoevered them. The Quran has come down through the centuries without any alteration whatsoever. And I am sure the Bible and the Testaments talk about scientific facts as well, though as I said, I have not studied them in detail.
Hence science appears to explain and validate religion, rather than to contradict it. I think the two are mutually dependent, in my humble opinion.
Hi jamboozle : Lets not only mention the rare absolute parallels between religion and science. The difference between the mass of proven science and the written 'revelations' of just a few individual founders of religions is colossal. It is the erroneous interpretations of religions which cause conflict. If the Bible is read literally it contadicts itself endlessly... Remember, Jesus said he spoke only in paraboles!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToddypotty...Do you think that it's cute to sound illiterate? I have much more to learn from Jamboozle than from you. The scientists have abandoned this discussion, as I now will. Peace and Respect to you Jamboozle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt appears that Creationist diehards are using Google to comb the Internet for any mention of Darwin so that they can posture and strut in the comment sections in an attempt to inflate their own importance. No use trying to reason them out of something they weren't reasoned into in the first place; theirs is an ideological battle, not a scientific one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToddpotty, you need to brush up on your spelling. "Littorally" pertains to the beach. Look it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToddypotty, you need to brush up on your spelling. "Littorally" pertains to the seashore. Look it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI still do not see why the two thoughts have to be mutually exclusive. I believe in the Theory of Evolution because the Science is sound. I also believe in a Creator. Why is not possible than an omnipotent creator, created the world and universe in the way science has come to understand?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurely, if you believe in the omnipotence of God than you can believe that it is possible that God had this whole process in mind from the very beginning. Those with faith don't make God so small, those who has science as your faith, that is your right, but don't forget it is our right to have faith as well. A quote (sadly I can't remember the source) "Religion without science is superstition, Science without religion is materialism"
Nothing wrong with someone using detailed powers of observation to come to a conclusion such as evolution, beleivers in "god" use badly translated politically influenced texts. Also a reply to Troy m, who has failed to notice how many non "civilised" places have been further torn apart by invading and moronic evangelics from churches acting as world banks, take Afghanistan, they were lining up to reap the sorrow of war brought by "gods will".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI still do not see why the two thoughts have to be mutually exclusive. I believe in the Theory of Evolution because the Science is sound. I also believe in a Creator. Why is not possible that a all knowing creator, created the world and universe in the way science has come to understand?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurely, if you believe in the omnipotence of God than you can believe that it is possible that God had this whole process in mind from the very beginning. Those with faith don't make God so small, those who have science as your faith, that is your right, but don't forget it is our right to have faith as well. A quote (sadly I can't remember the source) "Religion without science is superstition, Science without religion is materialism" (materialism as a philosphy not as a consumer)
It's stupid when people blather about things they obviously dont understand. Belief in the god you propose would be idiotic. That however is not the Christian God. As far as believing in the unseen goes please tell me you dont really buy into that tripe. Evolutionists are people of faith on a grand scale when it comes to believing in things they dont see such as true evolution (as opposed to adaptation) No where in the fossile record is there a clear shift from one species to another. Not even close so a clear shift. Yet evolutionists believe in pure random chance. Learn about something before you condemn it with propoganda that in no way resembles the real thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a fundamental difference between the theory of evolution and the "theory" of "creationism".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSCIENTIFIC THEORIES "EVOLVE". Consider the theory of 'GRAVITATION" In Aristotelian times it was believed that "what goes up must come down"This could not work when "up" and "down" ceased to be absolute categories [although it is still a useful 'rule of the thumb"]
In Newtonian times objects were said to" fall" as a "result of gravitational attraction between the objects and the earth" . Up and Down were no longer seen as absolute categories
In Einstenian times objects were said "fall' as a manifestation of space-time warps in n_dimensional curved space-time. Space is seen as Non_Euclidean and time is seen as"relative"
My point?The contest between "creationism " and "evolution " is not which theory is "true" but which theory is "scientific". Scientific theories are never "true" in the absolute sense but are nonetheless USEFUL explaining observations.
My prediction?The THEORY of "EVOLUTION" will EVOLVE into a better theory as more research is done and some of its 'rough edges ' are smoothed out".
What about the theory of "CREATIONISM"[ in its most fundamentalist sense] such as views that the "world was 'created by God in seven day 4000 years ago or so.." It will either have to evolve[in the same sense that Catholic church eventually apologised for putting Galileo on trial] otherwise it will be SORTED OUT BY NATURAL SELECTION and become EXTINCT.
Of course that is presuming a "traditional Organized Religious View" of God as a literal "being". Most 'Religion' have made physical their concept of 'God' with literal dogma, to provide security for their followers. THIS of course creates a conflict with the 'hard data' examples of science form the physical world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe God of my understanding (more a creator as consciousness & energy}, is fully involved with all creation, and is not in conflict with the "logical" evidence we find in our physical world. It seems to me that Quantum/Particle Physics is learning more about what we may discover as this consciousness. But, that is another topic.
But of course there's no dogma in organized religion!?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotslic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere ya go again.....being offensive...hey man i,m dyslexic and just learning to type and like I said....I know next to nothing about computers...It's a miracle I'm at this forum at all...so maybe you
can understand the reasons why I spell the way I do...but this in no way makes me stupid....If you think in as little as maybe 50 words you can discern someones' intelect or weather or not you can learn from them .....then you must be god.....but as of yet , I've not met anyone that smart......So I believe you to be wrong in your assumption that you can't learn from me...nor I from you.....when it comes to evolution ....we are on the same page...nor am I a believer in god, I only think that in all religions there are words of wisdom.
So let me offer the olive branch again...in hopes that instead of being adversaries we can be respectful of each other.....
Sincerely, Todd
Okay, let me clear something up for all you religious people on here. I am a scientist who believes in evolution, and I do not believe in any god. Here's why.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution contradicts the creation of the world as described in the Bible. Now many of you will say that you can interpret the Bible a million different ways and it is up to you as to what it means, whether literal or not. That is fine, but the reality is this: scientific evidence IS NOT open to interpretation. It is not up to you to decide whether scientific evidence is factual or not. This is the case with evolution. There is so much evidence beyond belief that PROVES that evolution occurs. Nothing, and I say it again, NOTHING in the scientific history of this world contradicts the theory of evolution, but an absolutely overwhelming amount of scientific data does support it. Just because you don't understand how one species can evolve into another does not mean it does not occur. When you put all the evidence together, from all aspects of science, you will see that it is the answer to life on this planet.
But even if evolution occurs, as many of you have said, it does not prove the nonexistence of a creator. Here is the REAL reason I do not believe in a god. When you observe the planet, and humanity in particular, there is absolutely no fairness. Young innocent children are born into war-torn countries, people suffer and die from so many horrible diseases, people fight and fight and fight over religious beliefs, we destroy everything we encounter. There are so many problems within this world that it does not make any sense whatsoever that a god is responsible for this. If he was all so high and mighty and was the be-all and end-all, then he would not let the world become this way. But if you observe the natural world, the galaxies, the stars, life on this planet, from a perspective that there is no god, then you will see how it all makes perfect sense.
In the natural world, there is no fair, no unfair. There is no right, no wrong. Things just happen because they do, and not for any other reason. THIS is why there is no god. If someone had control over the universe, it would not exist the way it does. Life would not be the way it is. But everything IS the way it is. Why? Because there is no god.
First of all to Telrunya who says I should not blather on about things I do not know. I will have you know that I did my honour thesis paper on evolution from U.W.O (canada - a respected program) and did quite well on it. So I know about the science, and I do not argue the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also am a person of faith. NOT a bible literalist, all of you assume that anyone who says they believe in God are also bible literalists, we are not all so. And i take offense at being called idiotic for having faith, I refrain from using terms such as (no I won't stoop to your level) etc when referring to those without faith. There are many different ways to believe in a greater power, we don't all follow the exact format, i personally think we all pray to the same God, just in different ways, and yes, some hold on to the bible very firmly (not all those of faith would agree to that practice). And why would such a belief be idiotic? were you there? no of course not, so who is to say my belief that everything happened as science has learned was not part of a master plan?
To Tod, have you ever looked at the order of appearance of major clasifications of organisms as suggested by the theory of evolution and the order of appearance of items in the bible..... (now relax you scientific people I am not saying this is proof, I completely buy into the scientific method, and items in the bible are not testable or reproducible and are therefore not scientific evidence - but I do find it intriguing that...) they are the same.
To the person who says there is no God because the world is not fair. I hear your argument, felt that way myself for many years. Ultimately God gave us free will, we mess things up, hopefully most will learn from the mistakes. Respectfully I put forth to you that to say an unfair world proves there is no God, isn't a sound argument on its own.
No matter what you chose to believe, it is imperative that freedom of choice is available for all. It deeply saddens me that there are those willing to deny others based on their beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismommyorca,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieving in a creator implies that everything in this universe was designed and engineered to be the way it is. This would effectively show that everything that occurs is the will of god. But this is just not logical. There is absolutely no sense in it. Think about this: a parent has a child. The parent gives the child free will, but the child chooses to damage the house. The parent gets upset because the child is destroying the house. The parent steps in and enforces that the child cannot do those things because the parent has worked hard to get the money to have that house that they live in.
If the parent were god, and the child were humankind, why isn't he stepping in? He created this world, engineered it this way, and we are just destroying it in every way possible. If a god did create this world, he has neglected it. He obviously must not care about it. And this is my point: from a perspective of logic and common sense, a world created by god just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. All the normal, common sense, logical things we do in everyday life is apparently the OPPOSITE to what god is doing. I don't know about you, but to me that just contradicts everything that makes human beings what they are. The Bible even says that humankind were made in the image of god, so god really can't be all that different to us then. So why, WHY would he create a world like this?
You also said that "an unfair world proves there is no God, isn't a sound argument on its own". Yes, but it doesn't exactly prove the point either. Unfairness is more likely to signal the non-existence of a god rather than the existence of one.
Evolution is just one of the "Laws of Nature" (just like gravity and inertia, etc.). It is a part of the larger category of the "life force" that pervades the universe. Evolution is the means that nature uses to create millions of diversified life forms. Evolution may be a series of random mutations of DNA caused by cosmic rays or other means - but it is also an intregal part of the "Laws" of nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe mutations may be completely random but they end up just the way nature intends. It can be compared somewhat to our lives, we all go through life with completely random motions but we all end up just where nature intends - dead. This is "Predetermined Randomness". Science still has much to learn about the intricacies of the "Laws of Evolution".
http://novan.com/ng-evolu.htm
I have a challenge for anyone who believes in God. "Prove that I am not God!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a challenge for anyone who believes in God. Prove that I am not God!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistlinget, thankyou
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistod you have every right to believe as you will, we will have to agree to disagree, i can see there is no point in arguing further, you believe as firmly as I, we just believe in different things.
shortimer, you are missing the point, faith is belief without proof.
science requires proof, it is possible to subscribe to both.
All the comments made completely miss the obvious: no matter where the beginning of the universe is taken to occur, a singularity, or colliding branes that lead to that singularity, the question always remains "what came before". A simple answer is "God", which simply becomes a name for what we don't understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost are not content with such a limited role, and want to conceive of a supreme intelligence, that has control over all the laws of the universe. Such control is evident in his overturning those laws, the occurrence of "miracles". Unfortunately all miracles that have been carefully investigated turn out to be frauds.
So, while a supreme intelligence to which we can appeal, and who can reverse our misfortunes may be comforting, on the existing evidence it appears to be non-existent.
mommyorca,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut there is a reason to argue. Intelligent design has no logic to it. I find it difficult to understand why people believe so strongly that a god created this world even when enormous amounts of scientific data directly contradicts their beliefs.
It's like saying the grass is blue when it is actually green. All scientific data proves that the grass is green. Even if your eyes were to perceive the green wavelength differently to others, in your experience you would have always been taught and told that it was green, and so your mind knows it that way. Then some religious person comes along and says the grass is blue, because their Bible tells them so. Well I'm sorry, but it isn't. Science proves that it isn't.
If I can prove the existence or occurrence of something without the use of gods or faith, then doesn't that make my findings more reliable? Trusting to faith may help you feel comfort in the world you live in, but it doesn't make any logical sense in the real world.
Amazing to me that odd-ball religios can still reject evolution. Like an Ostritch sticking its head in the dirt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoomyorca you should check to see who my comment was directed at. It wasn't you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy comment about blathering about stuff you dont understand was directed to a poster who has no idea what Christian theology actually teaches about hell and how that relates to God.
I AM a biblical literalist. I do have a problem with believers who aren't. Moses, who wrote the first five books of the bible was educated in Pharoh's house at Egypt's height. He could easily grasp such concepts as a literal week or day as the context of the words he used imply verses age or eon as the words could possibly mean. How can anyone say God created the universe and everything in it, crafted the laws of physics and not believe he is powerful enough to do it as he said he did? How can they believe that he didn't create things in an aged state? the man he made was fully grown, the tree's were created already old enough to bear fruit. To say I believe God was behind it but that he did through evolution is the same kind of fence sitting Jesus talked about.
For those who think that God consigns unbelievers to hell should understand that hell is simply separation from God. No where in the bible does it describe the devil as a red guy with horns and a pitch fork. That is what I meant by dont blather about what you dont understand. Dont condemn Christianity and God until you take a few theology courses to understand what it is you are actually condemning.
It's not entirely true that Darwin stopped all belief in some type of creation. At the time, he stated that he didn't know. He also didn't lose all belief in God, but he altered his beliefs. That's not the same thing. So many atheists wave the Darwin flag around as proof of their own religion of dis-belief, but he in fact was a person who refused to say what he believed and ended up say he was not qualified to conclude one way or the other. He also made it clear that you can believe in both evolution and God. Humans can believe in many things at a time, one does not preclude or "disprove" the other. Darwin was wise in many ways but he knew his limitations. I only wish people would stop using him to "disprove" God. I think he would be horrified at that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTod that science that you say "directly contradicts their beliefs" is pretty shaky stuff when it's full of may have's and possibly's. The fact is while adaptation is a given there is no, not even close, clear fossil record of one species becoming another. None.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswaltond,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand what you are saying. But there is something of importance to consider.
Science believes that the big bang caused the creation of the universe. You might ask, well what came before? While that is a valid point, that cannot be proven through religion or science, it really has nothing to do with life as we know it.
The time since the big bang is about 12 to 14 billion years. The time since life is believed to have arose on this planet is about 4 billion years ago. So if god did create the universe, all he created was chemistry and physics, NOT biology. Life itself occurred 10 billion years later. This is one reason why life could have arisen on its own: because the probability that life would occur through scientific means, although low, was bound to happen at some point given the length of time since the universe began. If I put the maths with all the biological, chemical, and physical evidence, it shows that the idea that life arose simply by chemical reactions is plausible. So why would you need faith, when science can show you an alternative that makes perfect sense and can be tested and proven?
Telrunya,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant a bet? Look up Tiktaalik.
I think this is a very interesting narrative about Darwin, I really fail to see why it should invoke so many comments about religious beliefs. But are creationists less mad than Young earth creationist, who believe the earth is only 3000 years old, against all geological evidence. Fortunately in the UK, we do not have Neochristianity, which belief system is not based on living one's life in accord with the teachings of Jesus, but on a literal belief in the Bible. Hopefully we will not have that American import, which is one we can do without
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTelrunya, my apologize, I mistook your comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTod, please refer to my earlier comments. I don't argue the science, not at all, as prevuiosly mentioned wrote my honours thesis paper on the topic.
What you will not be able to prove to me is how having a faith contradicts and precludes the ability to accept the science. And Tod, what kind of argument is if God did create the universe he only created chemistry and physics, NOT biology? If a God can create all that you were willing to concede to (yes I know for the sake of the argument) than how do you just cut it off at that point? That is illogical, you are saying that this power could do so much as to create the entire universe, ohh, but life biology no that is too far.
Shellius, thank you for your point because I know from my research that you are absolutely correct!
You are correct that DNA did not arise by chance. It arose through billions of years of natural physical, chemical, and biological activity, which is known as evolution. The only possibility for chance lies at the most fundamental level - the level of physics. This is where we encounter quantum mechanics, which is often mistaken as chance. However, quantum mechanics acts in a fully determinative way. It is only when we take measurements that we receive results that "appear" (wrongly) as chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus, even at the most fundamental level of nature, there is no chance involved.
Furthermore, our best science now reveals that there is no chance involved in any event since the Big Bang of approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We have excellent evidence of the evolution of stars and formation of stellar systems that have resulted in phenomena such as our sun and the earth. We also have excellent evidence that all things on earth have evolved from the material of the Big Bang and from the more complex interior of exploded stars. You can see evidence of the Big Bang every time you turn on your TV and get static. Some of those little black and white specks are remnants of Big Bang radiation. You can also see evidence of an exploded star every time you look about you, or in the mirror, for we, and everything else on earth are made of this same star stuff. Also, contrary to your assertion, we DO have a great deal of transitional fossils that show how we have evolved from other creatures, as well as DNA evidence of our connection to all life. We have simply evolved differently, not by chance, but according to natural physical, chemical, and biological processes. I find this connection to all things on earth and, indeed, in all of the universe, to be quite uplifting.
What I do not find uplifting is continued, dogmatic belief in mythologies that have been unable to withstand scientific scrutiny and which have caused so much suffering and death throughout history. No, it is indisputably NOT a fact that "the spread of the gospel always improves the quality of life...fact and firm." Note the Crusades, the Inquisition, Pogroms, witch trials, auto de fes, mass murders of Africans in the slave trade, the spread of disease and harsh treatment by missionaries in the Americas, Polynesia, Africa, and the Far East, female subjection, child abuse, and general inhibition of progress. There was a reason the Middle Ages were called the "Dark Ages," when religion reigned supreme in the West until the advent of science with Galileo, Newton, and others.
You are correct that DNA did not arise by chance. It arose through billions of years of natural physical, chemical, and biological activity, which is known as evolution. The only possibility for chance lies at the most fundamental level - the level of physics. This is where we encounter quantum mechanics, which is often mistaken as chance. However, quantum mechanics acts in a fully determinative way. It is only when we take measurements that we receive results that "appear" (wrongly) as chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus, even at the most fundamental level of nature, there is no chance involved.
Furthermore, our best science now reveals that there is no chance involved in any event since the Big Bang of approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We have excellent evidence of the evolution of stars and formation of stellar systems that have resulted in phenomena such as our sun and the earth. We also have excellent evidence that all things on earth have evolved from the material of the Big Bang and from the more complex interior of exploded stars. You can see evidence of the Big Bang every time you turn on your TV and get static. Some of those little black and white specks are remnants of Big Bang radiation. You can also see evidence of an exploded star every time you look about you, or in the mirror, for we, and everything else on earth are made of this same star stuff. Also, contrary to your assertion, we DO have a great deal of transitional fossils that show how we have evolved from other creatures, as well as DNA evidence of our connection to all life. We have simply evolved differently, not by chance, but according to natural physical, chemical, and biological processes. I find this connection to all things on earth and, indeed, in all of the universe, to be quite uplifting.
What I do not find uplifting is continued, dogmatic belief in mythologies that have been unable to withstand scientific scrutiny and which have caused so much suffering and death throughout history. No, it is indisputably NOT a fact that "the spread of the gospel always improves the quality of life...fact and firm." Note the Crusades, the Inquisition, Pogroms, witch trials, auto de fes, mass murders of Africans in the slave trade, the spread of disease and harsh treatment by missionaries in the Americas, Polynesia, Africa, and the Far East, female subjection, child abuse, and general inhibition of progress. There was a reason the Middle Ages were called the "Dark Ages," when religion reigned supreme in the West until the advent of science with Galileo, Newton, and others.
You are correct that DNA did not arise by chance. It arose through billions of years of natural physical, chemical, and biological activity, which is known as evolution. The only possibility for chance lies at the most fundamental level - the level of physics. This is where we encounter quantum mechanics, which is often mistaken as chance. However, quantum mechanics acts in a fully determinative way. It is only when we take measurements that we receive results that "appear" (wrongly) as chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus, even at the most fundamental level of nature, there is no chance involved.
Furthermore, our best science now reveals that there is no chance involved in any event since the Big Bang of approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We have excellent evidence of the evolution of stars and formation of stellar systems that have resulted in phenomena such as our sun and the earth. We also have excellent evidence that all things on earth have evolved from the material of the Big Bang and from the more complex interior of exploded stars. You can see evidence of the Big Bang every time you turn on your TV and get static. Some of those little black and white specks are remnants of Big Bang radiation. You can also see evidence of an exploded star every time you look about you, or in the mirror, for we, and everything else on earth are made of this same star stuff. Also, contrary to your assertion, we DO have a great deal of transitional fossils that show how we have evolved from other creatures, as well as DNA evidence of our connection to all life. We have simply evolved differently, not by chance, but according to natural physical, chemical, and biological processes. I find this connection to all things on earth and, indeed, in all of the universe, to be quite uplifting.
What I do not find uplifting is continued, dogmatic belief in mythologies that have been unable to withstand scientific scrutiny and which have caused so much suffering and death throughout history. No, it is indisputably NOT a fact that "the spread of the gospel always improves the quality of life...fact and firm." Note the Crusades, the Inquisition, Pogroms, witch trials, auto de fes, mass murders of Africans in the slave trade, the spread of disease and harsh treatment by missionaries in the Americas, Polynesia, Africa, and the Far East, female subjection, child abuse, and general inhibition of progress. There was a reason the Middle Ages were called the "Dark Ages," when religion reigned supreme in the West until the advent of science with Galileo, Newton, and others.
ou are correct that DNA did not arise by chance. It arose through billions of years of natural physical, chemical, and biological activity, which is known as evolution. The only possibility for chance lies at the most fundamental level - the level of physics. This is where we encounter quantum mechanics, which is often mistaken as chance. However, quantum mechanics acts in a fully determinative way. It is only when we take measurements that we receive results that "appear" (wrongly) as chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus, even at the most fundamental level of nature, there is no chance involved.
Furthermore, our best science now reveals that there is no chance involved in any event since the Big Bang of approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We have excellent evidence of the evolution of stars and formation of stellar systems that have resulted in phenomena such as our sun and the earth. We also have excellent evidence that all things on earth have evolved from the material of the Big Bang and from the more complex interior of exploded stars. You can see evidence of the Big Bang every time you turn on your TV and get static. Some of those little black and white specks are remnants of Big Bang radiation. You can also see evidence of an exploded star every time you look about you, or in the mirror, for we, and everything else on earth are made of this same star stuff. Also, contrary to your assertion, we DO have a great deal of transitional fossils that show how we have evolved from other creatures, as well as DNA evidence of our connection to all life. We have simply evolved differently, not by chance, but according to natural physical, chemical, and biological processes. I find this connection to all things on earth and, indeed, in all of the universe, to be quite uplifting.
What I do not find uplifting is continued, dogmatic belief in mythologies that have been unable to withstand scientific scrutiny and which have caused so much suffering and death throughout history. No, it is indisputably NOT a fact that "the spread of the gospel always improves the quality of life...fact and firm." Note the Crusades, the Inquisition, Pogroms, witch trials, auto de fes, mass murders of Africans in the slave trade, the spread of disease and harsh treatment by missionaries in the Americas, Polynesia, Africa, and the Far East, female subjection, child abuse, and general inhibition of progress. There was a reason the Middle Ages were called the "Dark Ages," when religion reigned supreme in the West until the advent of science with Galileo, Newton, and others.
gwendolyn at 06:39 PM on 02/12/09 wrote :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How much better the world would be if we would just give up this silly fairy tale of "God" and adapted reality as a belief. What good did religion ever do when we keep destroying each other because of it? When will we evolve as humans into a thinking, loving creature?"
Please, tell me, Gwendolyn, when in REALITY, in human history did we
humans live in harmony with each other and love each other, not fighting
or killing for selfish reasons, only promoting the common good of humans
for evolution's sake ? What gives you the hope that we humans WILL oneday evolve into a thinking, loving creature without God and without
any REASON why we should ? Is that just wishful thinking ? Any scietific
evidence to suggest that humans are evolving towards that end in reality?
Come On, don't kid yourself. We are selfish organisms, JUST as the
Bible tells us. Any good that we do is just for evolutionary advantage
according to TOE.
"gwendolyn wrote : at 06:39 PM on 02/12/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much better the world would be if we would just give up this silly fairy tale of "God" and adapted reality as a belief. What good did religion ever do when we keep destroying each other because of it? When will we evolve as humans into a thinking, loving creature?"
Tell me, Gwendolyn, when in human history did we humans PROVE that
in reality that we'd be better off without a God, that we can live in harmony,
in love, not fighting and killing each other for selfish reasons ? What gives
you the confidence or faith to believe that , without God, we humans WILL
oneday evolve into a thinking, loving creature ? Don't you think that
pro-evolution and anti-creation scientists are very thinking people already?
Come on, don't kid yourself, the history of humans so far are full of pain,
crimes, selfishness, etc, just as the Bible has depicted. Just believe in
history, and you may think twice about what you've said.
EricC
mommyorca,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy argument that if god exists he only created chemistry and physics is based on the FACT that life arose billions of years AFTER the creation of the universe. This simple fact shows that since the big bang, the probability of life occurring somewhere in the universe through scientific means given the length of time that matter has been in existence is plausible. Many experiments have shown that the basic compounds that make up life do arise naturally under the right conditions, eg: lipids naturally form bilayers. I have offered you a scientific explanation for how life began, WITHOUT the need for a god. Does this not suggest to you that perhaps, just maybe, the origin of life is based on science and not on intelligent design?
Telrunya, i reread your comment, why would belief in a God such as I propose be idiotic? And why are others not allowed to comment on your beliefs in such negative terms yet you can do it to me, because my belief differs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat makes my thoughts so unbelievalbe? do you not think God would be capable of such a feat? I believe God is so much more than anything my human brain cantruly comprehend, much like I would never expect a table to understand all the details of its creation by a carpenter, i don't think humans will ever truly understand our origins. I do also believe that God gave us brains and the ability to learn and through science we have learned so much, perhaps not every detail, but enough to see a valid theory for what it is.
jaked,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt last! Someone who actually understands that evolution is not based on chance at all! I was beginning to feel like I was the only person here who actually knew anything about the process of evolution. What you have said is really the basis to everything that happens in the universe: physics. We are all nothing but the product of physical reactions between matter and energy.
Tod, first let me clarify again, I am not a biblical literalist, I am educated on the topic of evolution, I accept evolution. I have an honours degree in biolocy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I argue with you, (and I have tried end this argument because we obviously disagree) and you have a right to believe or not believe what you wish.
I argue that why is it not possible that everything evolution says did occur, and it occured that way as a part of a master plan? Why is not possible that God created the universe and Evolution.
I understand that you yourself are not a believer, fine, my argument is more for those who are and who rail against evolution. I want to know why they think the two must be mutually exclusive. I understand that a biblical literalist won't accept the theory because they believe the creationist explanation in the bible, but for all other believers who are not biblical literalists i ask THEM why must one choose one or the other?
Can you and I be finished now?
I never thought I'd be an atheist defending god.....but you all assume that ,if there is a god ,he cares one whit about us humans. It may seem that life on this planet is messed up....oh it might be for us humans....but there will be life here long after we're gone...evolution will still be at work.Some of you make it sound like hell.....but compared to any known place in the universe...it kinda seems like heaven....ours anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this___________________
Todd
mommyorca,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know you are not a biblical literalist. You believe in god, but you also believe in science. So your belief is that god created the universe as well as evolution, and all other sciences as they are. You use science as a tool for understanding the universe that god created. I understand your view.
If you want to believe that, that is fine. But what I am trying to show you is that life CAN arise from simple chemical reactions, science shows that it can happen. And this is where the idea of creation becomes hazy. You might say, well god created the universe and then life evolved just as he planned. That's fair enough, but even if evolution exists, it does not explain the origin of life, the origin of the first cell, it only explains the process of life given that life is already in existentence.
So my argument is that if the conception of the very first cell can be shown to occur through natural processes, then why credit a god to its creation? There is a perfectly plausible scientific explanation. Again, you might say it is all part of gods plan, but that is just an easy way out of answering the fundamental question. You have no proof it is part of his plan. You just believe it to be so. So at the end of the day, it all comes down to faith. You just believe that someone created the universe and that's all there is to it. You don't believe it for any other reason. Please, feel free to convince me otherwise.
Eric
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDidn't the president of costa rica abolish his army a few years back?
Seems like a few years back I read something about the native americans live in peace for 500yrs?........before we got here of coarse!
_______________
Todd
Neither science nor religion can turn away hurricanes. But science enables us to predict them and build structures t0 withstand their onslaught. Despite this, the pious beseech God to turn away hurricanes, and the superstious pay astrologers for advice on how to avoid them. Why? Because they believe that the movement of stars and atoms can be affected merely by human desire. It is one of a million human conceits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is grandeur in this (evolutionary) view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few new forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. Charles Darwin on Evolution.
v I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
- Albert Einstein, The World As I See It
Hi Todd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mentioned costa rica and the native Americans, agreed, and
I can offer you a lot more examples of human good in history.
However, my point is human good on a grand scale, i.e. that whether
humans HAVE evolved from their ancestors to become more loving,
caring, peaceful, ...etc, without the need to invoke the idea of a God.
Many athetists would like to think that way, but so far the FACT is
that, on a large scale, humans still are selfish, (look at the financial
Tsunami and tell me otherwise), unscrupulous... . That's bad, so
far from the ideal utopia the athetists (Like Bertrand Russell) have us
to believe or hope for.
That's the point. Any good hope for humans for the future is just wishful
thinking, as history tells us, so far.
EricC
I've been following the discussion about evolution and the "arguments" used by the believers in God and have reached the conclusion the problems is not with their concept of faith but instead an inability to use logic and reason to support their faith. I have a biological degree and while I do not have personal evidence for all of my beliefs in the fields of science, I know that I can find the evidence in scientific publications for those beliefs. In addition, this evidence has been tested using objective methods. Conversely, the believers' arguments for the existance of God is all based on "hearsay". This type of evidence does not hold up in Court nor can it stand a test of reason. If I were able to make one request to all believers of God, it would be to please take a course in Logic. Second I would request you take a course dealing with the history of religion and your bible. Anyone maintaining a belief in God following these studies would have to be considered either stupid or beyond help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Tod- I understand where you come from, and why you are thinking this way. I used to myself think that there must be no God if there is so much dicord, disharmony in our lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut if you read an earlier message I posted (which was a reply to notslic discussing the same thing)- you will see that God has made his reasoning very very clear. People are given free will, and the ability to choose, which is why they rank as the greatest of God's creation. They are tested and tried in order to learn, in order to grow and become better- or worse. God tests us in various ways (if you go back to my previous post, I have detailed exactly how)...
If you believe there is no God, then why are we here at all? The whole point of life becomes meaningless, and without purpose- aimless.
And if you believe in God, then you strive to pass those tests that come your way, you strive to become a better and better person (termed "jihad" or struggle, in islamic terminology). And ultimately, your success is Paradise- the perfect world, or Utopia.
But this, ofcourse, is my belief because I have learnt to believe after years of struggling with the same dilemma.
What really bugs me about all these comments is that the discourse has degenerated to a disscussion about religion versus evolution, and there are no comments about the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamboozle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA godless world doea not become meaningless or worthless...when I quit believing in god...it was a relief.......the world that science seeks to understand is infinitely wonderful!
_________________
Todd
Shortimer- hello. Actually, I am a scientist myself. And my belief in God was spurred by the scientific evidence I read and studied in the Quran. Far before scientific findings were published in journals, God had sent down to us His last Book, explaining to us many things that have been "discovered" by scientists in the centuries that followed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there isn't a God, how can we explain all that was revealed to us so long ago, because man in the 14th century obviously did not have the tools to discover all those scientific findings at that time. No man could possibly have conjured that Book, because man is ignorant, ignorant of the vast universe that lies beyond our tiny world....
But then again, I believe this because like I always say, I have learnt to believe.
Jamboozle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was a whole lot of scientific knowledge that was destroyed in Alexandriea by the Crusades, most of it lost to human knowledge forever.
Carl Sagan Writes about it in one of his books.
__________________
Todd
Of course there is no God if we think of God as an old weaksighted person sitting somewhere in the sky with a bag of money in one hand and a stick in another sometimes bestowing a blow and sometimes flinging coins like a demented person or like the presumed forces of natural selection. However if we can just see beyond our noses like the Judge who finally managed to see Nicholas Nickelby in Dickens novel we become aware of the great order and beauty in our universe. This is what makes the physicists to talk about the anthrophomorphic view of the Universe and the cosmologist to write an article in the Scientific American about the "Universe as a Computer". Darwin saw and documented the continuing process of creation. If there is a creation there must be a creator.It hardly matters wether one calls it Natural Selection or God's will.It is only a matter of tautology. If a small collection of neurons interacting with each other in the brain can posess consciousness why do we presume the vast assemblage of matter ,dark matter,known and unknown forces interacting with each other in the universe to be devoid of consciousness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Todd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor me it was the opposite- when I started believing in God, it opened up endless possibilities for me. Science and religion go hand in hand. There is nothing sacrilegious about science... doesn't have to be. I am only trying to say that all that science is telling is now was already told to us by God centuries ago.
Coming to your second point- much of literature and scientific knowledge might have been lost during the Crusades, yet the level of scientific findings that we can find in this day and age are probably not comparable to those centuries ago. People have been intelligent throughout their history- but they certainly did not have the capacity or the power to undertsnad science as it is now. Why then did they not fly aeroplanes or work using computers back then? (If they did, we most surely would have discovered that).
So I still believe that God did tell us centuries before we found proof of it ourselves- which is also something that HE mentions himself.
taffazull- wow! You possess a deep understanding of the universe, and you expressed that really well...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamboozle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscience builds on discoveries of the past...the point it's hard to tell what "was" known that we've not rediscovered or lost forever....your moment of clearity is no more greater or less than mine.
_____________
Todd
Toddypotty- I would also like to add one thing. God stresses again and again and over again in the Quran, that mankind should THINK, PONDER, DISCOVER. He tells us to see for ourselves. He tells us to learn for ourselves. He gives us Free Will to believe what we want to believe. He tells us that He will judge people based on their level and capacity of understanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHence to my understanding, discovering science- exploring and thinking about the depths of scientific knowledge and possibilities- is only something that as God's creation, I am expected to do. And that will please God. Because He has told us to explore- and explore and explore the universe, and all things in it. And also to ponder over the metaphysics of the world beyond...
That is science, isn't it? And science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, are they? They seemed to be interwined in profounder ways than we can conceive of...
see Dr. Micheal J. Cohen author of "Prejudice against nature"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this________________
Todd
Jamboozle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou look at the world as needing to have meaning. That is where your belief in god has come from. Everybody who is religious needs meaning for their existence.
I for one am quite content without a meaning. Sure, in my normal day to day life I need things to think about, things to do, to have meaning for living in the society we all live in. But when you question why life exists at all, why must there be any meaning to any of it? Why can't things just be the way they are because thats the way it is? Why must everything have a meaning?
I get so tired of people babbling on about free will and divine plans: not a single person is able to prove that god exists or that anything to do with god is real. No holy book of any sort is proof. But I can prove that science is real, and what it shows to me is that we are just the product of millions of years of evolution, brought on by a series of chemical reactions. No meaning. No reason. We are here because of science, not because of god.
Tod- I appreciate your views, as you appreciate mine. It is true that belief in the meaning of life and a Higher Power puts me at ease, gives my heart rest. It makes me want to work for something better. For me, God has created science, and that is the meaning of life for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say you don't seek any meaning in life- and yet you have just done so. You find that meaning in science. Everyone yearns to have a meaning to life, everyone believes in forces shaping our lives and all that surrounds it- and they find it in different ways.
Ofcourse science is real and you can prove things through science. So I believe in science and evolution, chemical reactions and the likes of it. But I believe also in the metaphysical forces shaping our universe- and to me, the metaphysical force that is All- Powerful, is God- who created science in the first place. You will then ask who created God. Well since he is the Creator, he did not need to be created. Just as for you, science created and did not need to be created. It just happened. It is just there. And it is because of either science or God that we and everything else is here. At the end of the day, we all believe that somehow, somewhere, something was created that became the originator of all things.
To each his own. And we can proof our beliefs to each other and uphold our beliefs which the other person cannot comprehend. This is what free will is. The ability and the power to take the meaning of life into perspective, and to decide what you think is best to believe. This, thus, is the culmination of evolution.
It is God's evolutionary biology,we are afterall human beings and have limitations for our thinking, but evolution does occur but that does'nt mean God is not there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot all in this natural world can be proved so easily. Nature is powerfull and man cannot change or prove anything.
Evolution is God's idea and no doubt in that Darwin is right, but proving everything in this world is near to impossible as nature is powerfull and nature has proved us wrong. Take HIV virus for instance, such small natural system is more intelligent than highly intelligent humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin might not have known about the existence of faiths, or imaginations of humans other than those contained Genesis. To believe that disproving the process of creation as described in Genesis disproves the existence of first causes or final causes or whatever is ignorance. Humans cannot conclude that origin of the human alone is what all is there to the Universe. There are human written texts before the origin of Judaism and Christianity and Christian era, that have expressed their thoughts on the abstractness of the universe, of the utility of intelligence, the maturation of intelligence into wisdom and the integration of wisdom with devotion that has to issue out as action for the sustainability of the universe and its contents. In the inability of obtaining clear-cut answers to the Big Questions, humans have to use some sort of Expert systems: Heuristics, Intelligence and Wisdom and work for the sustainability of man, beast, and the physical world with their "locality". Humans, however, cannot at present understand the mechanism of non-locality, "spooky action at a distance" and have to live with uncertainity rather than adore Darwin with his denial of God as visualized in Judeo-Christianity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin might not have known about the existence of faiths, or imaginations of humans other than those contained Genesis. To believe that disproving the process of creation as described in Genesis disproves the existence of first causes or final causes or whatever is ignorance. Humans cannot conclude that origin of the human alone is what all is there to the Universe. There are human written texts before the origin of Judaism and Christianity and Christian era, that have expressed their thoughts on the abstractness of the universe, of the utility of intelligence, the maturation of intelligence into wisdom and the integration of wisdom with devotion that has to issue out as action for the sustainability of the universe and its contents. In the inability of obtaining clear-cut answers to the Big Questions, humans have to use some sort of Expert systems: Heuristics, Intelligence and Wisdom and work for the sustainability of man, beast, and the physical world with their "locality". Humans, however, cannot at present understand the mechanism of non-locality, "spooky action at a distance" and have to live with uncertainity rather than adore Darwin with his denial of God as visualized in Judeo-Christianity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther to your comment, manutgowda, it is very difficult to imagine that evolution happened accidentally. Even if it did occur, it seems a very deliberate act on the Highest Power to perfect what He has created. If evolution was accidental, then most likely the things evolved from it would not have possessed higher and higher intelligence, or better and better capabilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin might not have known about the existence of faiths, or imaginations of humans other than those contained Genesis. To believe that disproving the process of creation as described in Genesis disproves the existence of first causes or final causes or whatever is ignorance. Humans cannot conclude that origin of the human alone is what all is there to the Universe. There are human written texts before the origin of Judaism and Christianity and Christian era, that have expressed their thoughts on the abstractness of the universe, of the utility of intelligence, the maturation of intelligence into wisdom and the integration of wisdom with devotion that has to issue out as action for the sustainability of the universe and its contents. In the inability of obtaining clear-cut answers to the Big Questions, humans have to use some sort of Expert systems: Heuristics, Intelligence and Wisdom and work for the sustainability of man, beast, and the physical world with their "locality". Humans, however, cannot at present understand the mechanism of non-locality, "spooky action at a distance" and have to live with uncertainity rather than adore Darwin with his denial of God as visualized in Judeo-Christianity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin might not have known about the existence of faiths, or imaginations of humans other than those contained Genesis. To believe that disproving the process of creation as described in Genesis disproves the existence of first causes or final causes or whatever is ignorance. Humans cannot conclude that origin of the human alone is what all is there to the Universe. There are human written texts before the origin of Judaism and Christianity and Christian era, that have expressed their thoughts on the abstractness of the universe, of the utility of intelligence, the maturation of intelligence into wisdom and the integration of wisdom with devotion that has to issue out as action for the sustainability of the universe and its contents. In the inability of obtaining clear-cut answers to the Big Questions, humans have to use some sort of Expert systems: Heuristics, Intelligence and Wisdom and work for the sustainability of man, beast, and the physical world with their "locality". Humans, however, cannot at present understand the mechanism of non-locality, "spooky action at a distance" and have to live with uncertainity rather than adore Darwin with his denial of God as visualized in Judeo-Christianity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin might not have known about the existence of faiths, or imaginations of humans other than those contained Genesis. To believe that disproving the process of creation as described in Genesis disproves the existence of first causes or final causes or whatever is ignorance. Humans cannot conclude that origin of the human alone is what all is there to the Universe. There are human written texts before the origin of Judaism and Christianity and Christian era, that have expressed their thoughts on the abstractness of the universe, of the utility of intelligence, the maturation of intelligence into wisdom and the integration of wisdom with devotion that has to issue out as action for the sustainability of the universe and its contents. In the inability of obtaining clear-cut answers to the Big Questions, humans have to use some sort of Expert systems: Heuristics, Intelligence and Wisdom and work for the sustainability of man, beast, and the physical world with their "locality". Humans, however, cannot at present understand the mechanism of non-locality, "spooky action at a distance" and have to live with uncertainity rather than adore Darwin with his denial of God as visualized in Judeo-Christianity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin might not have known about the existence of faiths, or imaginations of humans other than those contained Genesis. To believe that disproving the process of creation as described in Genesis disproves the existence of first causes or final causes or whatever is ignorance. Humans cannot conclude that origin of the human alone is what all is there to the Universe. There are human written texts before the origin of Judaism and Christianity and Christian era, that have expressed their thoughts on the abstractness of the universe, of the utility of intelligence, the maturation of intelligence into wisdom and the integration of wisdom with devotion that has to issue out as action for the sustainability of the universe and its contents. In the inability of obtaining clear-cut answers to the Big Questions, humans have to use some sort of Expert systems: Heuristics, Intelligence and Wisdom and work for the sustainability of man, beast, and the physical world with their "locality". Humans, however, cannot at present understand the mechanism of non-locality, "spooky action at a distance" and have to live with uncertainity rather than adore Darwin with his denial of God as visualized in Judeo-Christianity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjamboozle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom your last post I can see that you only partially understand my view. I do not seek meaning in life, I am perfectly fine living a life where life itself has no meaning or reason to be existent. What I seek in science is the truth of the natural world. From my point of view, everything that has ever happened and will happen in the universe has no meaning. It just happens because it does.
I can say the very same about the 'creation' of the universe. I am perfectly happy to just believe that the universe always has and always will be. People often say that life is too complex to exist without a creator, but I don't understand that logic (or lack thereof). Just because something exists does not mean it had to be created by someone.
I wish someone would write an article on the history of the anti-evolution movement in the US. Of course, it started with the biblical literalists who have been around since long before Darwin, but there has been a well-funded movement in the mid-1900s. I am certain that Lee Atwater and Karl Rove picked up on it, expanded the scope of topics, and participated in the movement, all for political reasons. (I am certain because those individuals have stated they did.) It is important that this whole story be told.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are you? The enternal spam God???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was delighted with this article! The many comments that follow it reveal that no one is without opinion! The comments are worthy of the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for a magnificent article! The interest in the subject is well demonstrated by the many comments that followed, some of which were very well thought out, and as enjoyable as the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Waltond " All the comments made completely miss the obvious: no matter where the beginning of the universe is taken to occur, a singularity, or colliding branes that lead to that singularity, the question always remains "what came before". A simple answer is "God", which simply becomes a name for what we don't understand."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a common defence made by those who believe in "God" of whatever description who "existed before everything " and presumably after lying idle for some time decided to amuse himself by creating the earth , the universe and everything.
There is a simple refutation of what I shalj call "EXISTING BEFORE ARGUMENTS" for JUSTIFYING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. What is time?DOES TIME EXIST IF NOTHING EXISTS? Would we have days if there was no earth to make a full rotation once every 24 hours?Would we have years if there was no world to spin around the sun? Would we have atomic clocks if there were no atoms/Would we have BEFORE if we had NOTHING AND HENCE NO TIME?
THERE MAY BE MANY GOOD REASONS FOR CHOOSING TO BELIEVE IN A GOD [of whatever description] BUT " a god who preceded everything" is NOT ONE OF THEM . BTW WHO PRECEDED GOD?
When dealing with science or religion, never give up logical reasoning. It helps you a lot further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst question: Did God have a beginning? Answer: question is irrelevant. The bible as well as scientists declare that time ultimately had a beginning. As a consequence, if a being existed prior to time, then the question of eternity, beginning, ending all relate to time which did not exist.
Second question: Where was God before the universe was created? Answer: question irrelevant if space does not exist yet.As time and space are dimensions within the same realm of existence, then where is god becomes quite difficult to answer.
Third question: What is God made off? Answer: Impossible to understand for us as we are bound by time space and matter.How do I imagine a being, existing outside and without time, in place outside space were space does not even exist prior to the creation of matter?
What does the Bible say? Who/what/where is God?? And now one can see the logic behind it: Exodus 3:14 (New International Version) God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' So the only logical and human comprehensive way God can reveal himself is to say I AM . God cannot say I am eternal because this lowers Him into the dimension of time. God cannot say I am big because this takes into the dimensions of space.
This generates a big problem. How then can we understand or know God? Simple, by Jesus as Jesus filled in the I AM. But again Jesus filled it in with abstract terms: I AM the truth, the door, bread, light, the way, life, &
As a consequence: John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
So basically speaking, it is for us humans impossible to understand or even come close to a being without time, without space and without matter (= without energy). Only thru the Son can we know the way Gods thinks all the rest is impossible for us to know.
Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" which means, "God with us." 1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Lack of God is lack of love with all its terrible consequences.
When dealing with science or religion, never give up logical reasoning. It helps you a lot further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst question: Did God have a beginning? Answer: question is irrelevant. The bible as well as scientists declare that time ultimately had a beginning. As a consequence, if a being existed prior to time, then the question of eternity, beginning, ending all relate to time which did not exist.
Second question: Where was God before the universe was created? Answer: question irrelevant if space does not exist yet.As time and space are dimensions within the same realm of existence, then ‘where is god’ becomes quite difficult to answer.
Third question: What is God ‘made off’? Answer: Impossible to understand for us as we are bound by time space and matter.How do I imagine a being, existing outside and without time, in ‘place’ outside space were space does not even exist prior to the creation of matter?
What does the Bible say? Who/what/where is God?? And now one can see the logic behind it: Exodus 3:14 (New International Version) God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' So the only logical and human comprehensive way God can reveal himself is to say “I AM”. God cannot say I am eternal because this lowers Him into the dimension of time. God cannot say I am big because this takes into the dimensions of space.
This generates a big problem. How then can we understand or know God? Simple, by Jesus as Jesus filled in the I AM. But again Jesus filled it in with abstract terms: ‘I AM’ the truth, the door, bread, light, the way, life, …
As a consequence: John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
So basically speaking, it is for us humans impossible to understand or even come close to a being without time, without space and without matter (= without energy). Only thru the Son can we know the way Gods thinks all the rest is impossible for us to know.
Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" which means, "God with us." 1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Lack of God is lack of love with all its terrible consequences.
Ridiculous are:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The assumptions that Darwin was as fully informed about his new branch of Science as we latter day "average Man." It's stupid to assume that Darwin had all the knowledge needed to confirm his theory and therefore "wisely" chose godlessness.
2. The equally absurd notions that Darwin's theory (now completely validated by discoveries and reasoning since his time) should or could be replaced by a mere insistence that God must have created all life in a matter of days, that He is the "Designer."
What we have here folks is a typical-for-our-time argument over ideologies, not a scientific or even reasoned debate. Rule: Ideology is the the fools gold of all lazy thinkers.
Native Americans have the best attitude: Life and the existence of the supernatural are: "The Great Mystery." Said Mystery is yet to be fully explained and understood.
There is NO argument. There's only the Great Mystery - which Science admits it has not solved (yet). There's only the Great Mystery: there's no magic book which explains it all in terms of the supernatural. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fraud.
OTOH: Both sides can rightly say: "Stay tuned for further developments."
Meanwhile: Everyone please heed Carlin's Third Commandment: Thy shall keep thy religion to thyself.
I find it funny that the bitter, angry, resentful, and mostly insulting comments are coming from the "Evolution" side of this debate, where conversely, the respectful and collected comments are coming from the "Creation" side. I am Christian and know that God exists. Having to fight for belief has long left me for the knowledge that God is. This argument about the idea of evolution disproving God itself falls short, since we are trying to use the quantifiable to prove the existence of an unquantifiable God; i.e. a being outside of our plane of existance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod gives you the opportunity to believe whatever you want; it is the first sign of his love for us. But I do hope that your research into Him extends past what the study of our world has to say of a God that is larger and greater than anything around us.
beckja,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore you judge those who defend a branch of Science, you should examine more closely the "efforts" of those who promote your choice of ideology.
1. It used to be, the teaching of the Theory of Evolution was forbidden in public schools. This is the proof that "your religion" is hardly being fair or even recognizes the Right to teach verifiable facts. This practice, since you don't seem to know, is called "suppression" and it led to severe punishments for more people than just Mr. Scopes. It also tells us that the agenda of True Believers like yourself are not worthy of anything but mistrust. This effort by Creationists (to suppress) is on-going: proof of your true nature and moral standing.
2. The group to which you belong(Christians) also misuses Science to satisfy its own sense of Divine Right: proposing as they do that Africans (or African Americans) are an inferior species and therefore should be enslaved or at least "kept in their place" - without the rights granted to "White Folks." This is kind of twisted thinking is nothing less than despicable.
3. Overall, you evangelical types have infected the government with the same kinds of distortions and suppression which you apply to the Theory of Evolution. You succeeded (under G.W. Bush) in creating a government which actively undermines, suppresses and attacks any branch of Science which refutes your simplistic ideology.
4. If that weren't enough: you now preach to the defenders of Science about your putative "blank check on Love." You do not love from the sheer joy of knowing another human being exists, you "love" only those who believe as you do. You do not love "Creation" because it provides us sustenance and the opportunity to understand its beginnings and core operations, you "love it" because your magic book tells you that "God is Love." - contradictorily, since the Bible also reports the numerous times which God ordered, "Kill them all-!!"
So much for your "moral authority" (and your self-serving piety) - it's nothing but an attempt to demean and demonize those who refute your house of assumptive cards with facts. And you expect "politeness??!!"
But your camp is just one side of the story - there are those just as misguided as you on the pro-Evolution side. Which is a good reason for ignoring (and deploring) both sides.
How funny do you find it now?
Mommyorca, Are we reading the same thing? I didn't see where I used the term idiotic at all in my response to you or any overly negitive things in my posts. I agree with you on most points. I believe God created the world and everything in it. The way you and I differ is on how we think he did it. As a believer you would know that that is really a very minor point. I entered in this discussion replying to someone who said he rejects God because he doesn't think a real god would subject people to hell. This is a total misunderstanding by many proclaimed athiests who dont understand what they are talking about and are proceeding from a very superficial and incomplete reading of the bible. As I pointed out in my second post that hell is simply separation from God for all eternity. God doesn't consign people to hell. People consign themselves to hell. God is not willing that any should be lost as the bible says. I am sorry if you mistook anything in my posts as some kind of attack on you where none was intended. Go in peace Sister.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarl Sagan wrote in one of his books (I think Cosmos?) that the most violent cultures in history have three things in common. 1) They don't cuddle their babies enough. 2) They severely repress sexual behaviour. 3) They believe their god is the one and only god.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly Judaism, Christian and Muslim religions fall into at least 2 and 3... these very groups are at each others throats right now in the middle east.....and the funny thing is ,in this case,it ain't even different gods.
What ever is the power that is...science is on the right track to it's understanding.
Sense tha definition of god is all powerful and all knowing...Is it possible, that every atom combined in the universe togather contain all the power and knowledge....Is Nature itself.. God?
No.... i'm not an old hippy on an acid flashback....It's just a thought . an old professor of mine wrote a book called "Prejudice Against Nature" Dr. Michael J. Cohen. He started the Audubon Expedition Institute.This is really his question.
______________
Todd
beckja,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct in saying that evolution does not disprove the existence of a god. My issue with creationists is that their pro-god arguments are always too convenient and don't make a whole lot of sense. Creationists always babble on about how we all have free will because god loves us and you can't seek to understand god because he is in a level of existence much greater than we are able to comprehend. Well I call this a load of rubbish.
Let's look at the scientific facts:
1. You have free will whether god exists or not. You are free to do whatever you may please, however you may please, as long as it is confined to the existence of space and time. Free will is simply just a state of mind, where you have the choice in everything you do. God does not need to exist for free will to exist.
2. There are levels of scientific reality throughout the universe that our minds have difficulty comprehending, such as time travel and black holes. Regardless of the fact that our minds cannot comprehend them and how they work, the reality is that they do exist. It's too convenient to say that god is unexplainable because he is in another plane of existence. It's like me saying that black holes are unexplainable, above time and space, so don't even try to understand them. There is a scientific explanation for black holes, we just don't know it yet, so why can't there be a scientific explanation for god? Because he is above time and matter? I'm sorry, but that's not an explanation, it's just an idea that tries to explain how god can exist without actually existing.
3. "God loves us". I really, truly do not understand this argument. Where is there any kind of proof that this is true? The Bible is not a source of proof. If god were in another level of existence like you said, then who is to say he even feels love? Where does it state that love, or any emotion for that matter, is a feeling that transcends time and space? This is a statement that is overused by creationists. NO ONE knows ANYTHING about the world outside of time, space and matter, and trying to explain it by saying it's too difficult for you to comprehend is just ridiculous. There is no proof that a higher level of existence even exists.
Creationists believe in a god simply because of faith. All the arguments for god are based on ideas and assumptions that cannot be proven, ideas that are always unexplainable by science because god is above and beyond time and space. Yet you use things that exist within time and space such as love and free will to explain god. Rubbish.
IT's rather amusing rumaging through the knee-jerk responses from the "faith biased" ... constantly fighting the 900 lb gorilla (reality... in this case the reality of evolution) in their House o' Cards, built on the myths and legends of ignorant tribal jews, thousands of years ago... childishly hoping for a messiah and immortality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat evolution is fact and the organizing principle of the biological sciences... with converging evidence from paleontology and paleoanthropology... geology, biochemistry and astrophysics, is beyond question. The "recent" evidence from genetics, wholly unknowable to Darwin, is the proverbial slam dunk.
Why the delusional in the pews continue to rant like silly ninnies is beyond me since their version of ontology... their petty, vengeful and horrific god... is so lame, like a cheap novel... while the Natural World is Cosmos, sans the myopic gods of religion, is so grand. Awe based on reality trumps superstition every time.... but one must truly awaken and open their eyes.
Regarding the human construct of the supernatural, or god... and the innumerable religions that have been spawned by cultural needs, the 1st century philosopher Seneca summed it up best:
"RELIGION is viewed by the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rules as useful"
Well.... I guess I'll just transition outta here with my namesake's distillation of ultimate reality:
"DEUS SIVE NATURA"... god or nature... it matters not, eh?
Brushfire,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct in saying that neither Science nor religion answers the question of the beginning (or the ultimate source of beginning).
But with respect: I think you should recognize that Science openly states what is unknown - while vowing to continue investigation to find the answers. Meanwhile, the Christians, Jews and Muslims claim they know the answers and they assert it's because "they know" (the answers). They are not interested in further investigation or in questioning (particularly of their religions) and in fact: they actively fight those who want to further investigate.
Also, I don't think you're completely accurate to think or say that no one (other than you) asks the questions. The pages of Scientific American have featured exactly that ultimate question: when / where / how was the Universe created - and what agency or agencies caused it? There are many other publications which also ask these questions and I'm sure that in classrooms here and abroad, instructors and students are also pursuing the questions.
And please don't be misled by the fact that only a few ask these questions and seek answers to them. The world has just so many ground-breaking minds: Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Stephen Hawking: each moved us forward a step - with long pauses in between. They ask... for all of humanity.
Peace Telrunya, perhaps I misunderstood, I am new to this format and must have been mistaken. Thank you for clarifying and Take care.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalthough in Principle I am for freedom of Speech etc; Many of the comments in this comments section demonstrate that there are real grounds to stop creationists posting here, because they contribute nothing to any intelligent discussion about Darwin. The article was about Darwin and his life. I have seen so many of the comments made by Bible Bangers, and they only convince me that we ought to find a remote planet where they can live in the Dark ages., and not mess about with this world. They are so incredibly boring and stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny. I was under the distinct impression that Darwin left open the possibility of the origin cell being a miracle and asserted that his lack of belief (which encouraged questioning doctrines) was actually due to the doctrine of hell (and his belief that if it were true God would end up sending a number of people he new to eternal damnation despite the fact that they were otherwise 'good men' - if not for a few minor failings of faith)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJobra Han, I thought the way you tackled your argument is just brilliant!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs God describes Himself in His last book:
1. Say: He is God, the One and Only;
2. God, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4. And there is none like unto Him.
I think that says it all.
Mr. Foster
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI doubt that you think Darwin was stupid before he came to understand what his studies lead him to believe....Darwin wanted to be a minister at one time.
It's comments like those that really don't get us anywhere.This is america and I would hope that we all believe in the freedom of speach...
In all cases, education is the key to solving problems. When you demean someone their a lot less likely to open their minds.
_______________
Todd
TOdd: "1) They don't cuddle their babies enough. 2) They severely repress sexual behaviour. 3) They believe their god is the one and only god."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, I am not here to defend my religion- Islam, or those others that I believe in (Judaisim, Christianity, and all others of Faith). But i would just like to correct you on the last two points that you claim to be characteristics of our religion.
1) Islam severely forbids repression of sexual urges- it only does not allow it outside marriage. That is to protect society and to prevent its collapse, and to ensure that people live in peace and harmony in familial groups. Within the boundaries of a legal agreement between 2 people, you are allowed to practice sex as often as mutually agreed between husband and wife. Birth control is totally allowed since sex is allowed for both pleasure and well as for procreation.
2) We believe in only one God- so there is no concept of "their" God. Whoever believes in One God believes in the one and same God for all. If there is only One, it has to be the same for everyone. Otherwise, if each person believed that his one and only God is only for him, that would lead to numerous specific Gods- hence denying the very concept of Unity of God.
Thirdly, God is metaphysical. Nature is physical. An atom is physical. An atom cannot have created intelligent creatures. You need an absolutely intelligent Creator to have created, deliberately, all that he has created. I am not happy knowing that things came out of nothingness, and you are not happy with the idea that everything was created by a Creator.
To each his own.
As I believe, God has stated:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error:"
jamboozle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said "God is metaphysical. Nature is physical. An atom is physical. An atom cannot have created intelligent creatures. You need an absolutely intelligent Creator to have created, deliberately, all that he has created. I am not happy knowing that things came out of nothingness, and you are not happy with the idea that everything was created by a Creator."
Do you know the relationship between mass and energy? It's called E = mc2. According to Einstein, anything with mass can actually become energy and vice versa. This basically means that physical particles (atoms) can become non-physical (energy).
Science proves energy exists in many forms, but it is not something that is physical (fire for example). It exists within time and space, but it is not physical. I'd like to know what you think about this.
Hi Tod- I know your post wasn't addressed to me, but I just found it really interesting. (And I am continuing to post here, because I think the arguments coming from both sides are well-thought out and thought-provoking). You say that we cannot prove anything about the universe beyond, anything about metaphysics. In the Quran, God describes various things to us (that through science we are being able to prove now).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI quote- http://home.att.net/~a.f.aly/creation.htm
The following examples show modern discoveries that are consistent with the Qur'an:
1. The heavens and the earth were one before they were ripped apart.
2. Reptiles came out of the water and were followed by two legged then 4 legged creatures
3. The heavens are expanding [51:47].
4. The atom is not the smallest unit of matter in the universe which indicates the presence of subatomic particles! [34:3]
5. The Universe was created over a very long period. For God, some days last 1000 lunar years [22:47, 32:5].
6. The Qur'an predicts that the speed of light is not the fastest speed in the universe. Spirits and angels proceed to God at 50 times the speed of light [70:4]
7. The earth rotates around its axis [27:88], rotates around the sun [7:54], is not flat but is like a ball [39:5] or an egg [79:30].
8. The lowest point on earth is near the dead sea [30:3].
9. Iron was sent to earth by God [57:25]. Scientists now believe that iron was introduced to earth by meteors.
10. The oceans have layers of waves and layers of darkness in which some creatures have light [24:40]. Scientists discovered recently different currents at different depths.
11. When different seas ( i.e. different in salinity, temperature, oxygen content, etc. ) meet, there is a barrier between them that they do not violate [55:19-20]. This is not apparent by visual observation but temperature sensitive satellite pictures confirm this.
12. Mountains are pegs that have roots extending below the surface of the earth [78:7], mountains stabilize the earth's crust by minimizing earthquakes [16:15].
13. Earthquakes precede volcanic eruptions [99:1].
14. The earth's core is heavier than its crust [99:2].
15. Our sun is not the only sun in the universe [25:61]. Modern astronomy tells us that the sun is actually a star and therefore the universe is full of suns. Astronomers are looking for other planets like ours. The Qur'an predicts they will find other planets [65:12]
16. The solar system is travelling through the universe to a final destination [36:38].
Futher to my post, please also read what the Quran states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMorning is associated with breathing [81:18]. Now we know that plants produce oxygen in presence of light and consume carbon dioxide.
Sperm attaches itself to the egg to form an attachment or a leach then a chewed-like lump which develops bones which are covered with flesh and then changed into a different form [ 23:14]. This refers to facts discovered only recently when scientists, using special scopes, followed the development of the fetus from a fertilized egg to a form resembling lower vertebrae before turning into the human form.
After contemplating the descriptions of embryonic stages as a leach then a chewed-like lump [23:14], Professor Keith Moore, a Canadian embryologist, compared pictures of different embryonic stages to pictures of leaches and chewed clay and confirmed the amazing accuracy of the Qur'anic verses.
Human pregnancy passes through 3 trimesters [39:6]
Different clouds (positively and negatively charged?) are harmonized to produce droplets of water and lightning [24:43].
A group of verses that reflect on the earth's hydrosphere and atmosphere, which are both clearly stated to have been outgassed from within the earth (LXXIX: 20, 31), a fact that has only very recently been discovered. Other verses in this group comment on the protective nature of the atmosphere for life on earth (21:32; 86: 11), the absolute darkness of outer space (15: 14, 15), the reduction of atmospheric pressure with elevation (6:125) and the glowing nature of the early nights of our planet before the formation of its protective atmospheric spheres (17:12).
A group of verses that emphasize the thinness of the earth's crust (71:19), the constant levelling and degradation of the earth's surface and the gradual change in the geographic dimensions of continental masses, and even the contraction of the whole planet and the deformation of its surface (13:41 ; 21:44 ; 78:6).
Verses emphasizing the fact that groundwater is generated from rain, thus reflecting on the hydro-geological cycle (23:18; 31:10), and others relating life on earth to water (21:30; 24:45) or reflecting on the possibility of classifying life forms (6:38).
Verses emphasizing the fact that the process of creation took place in successive stages over tremendously long spans of time (22:47; 32:5).
Two verses that describe the end of our planet and of the whole universe by reversing the process of its creation after which the eternal universe will be created (14:48).
Interesting theory, Tod.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...This basically means that physical particles (atoms) can become non-physical (energy). Science proves energy exists in many forms, but it is not something that is physical (fire for example). It exists within time and space, but it is not physical. I'd like to know what you think about this."
I do not disagree with you. Infact, I am a scientist, and I love to go into the depths of science and explore.
Energy is not physical, but it is not metaphysical either, since it exists within time and space. Metaphysical transcends the boundaries of time and space.
I cannot conceive of the notion that matter or energy created other matter by chance. Especially not intelligent matter. Who can prove that has happened?
I believe that evolution was deliberately done by the Master Creator.
jamboozle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I cannot conceive of the notion that matter or energy created other matter by chance."
One thing a lot of people don't seem to realize is that chance doesn't really exist. Everything that occurs is a reaction to something else. When a particle hits another, it is not by chance: it is because the physical and chemical properties of those particles, their velocity, mass etc. have made them cross paths for a split second in time. Depending on what is happening to those particles prior to impact is what determines whether they will collide, therefore no chance is involved.
Evolution works exactly the same way in that it is not random mutations that causes a species to a evolve: everything that is occurring on a physical level is going to change the species into another. I know you believe in evolution, I am just using evolution as an example because people seem to believe it is all based on the chance of random mutations occurring when it actually far from the truth.
What I am getting at is that if something is able to switch between being physical and being non-physical like Einstein says, then where does that leave god? If god is non-physical, does that mean he exists as energy, or is he, like you said 'metaphysical', who transcends both the states of matter and energy? And if he does transcend matter and energy, does he even really exist, given that existence is very much a space and time concept?
Tod, thank you for your well-thought out comment. I understand your point of view completely- infact, that is where I started out from. I used to argue using the very same points you have raised. So I completely agree with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the more I thought about it and the more I read, I discovered that my beliefs changed completely. And one of the main reasons was that being a scientist, when I delved into the scientific theories already revealed to us in the 14th century, I came to understand that there really is a God, guiding us on... I came to believe that the words God has sent could NOT be written by man, that they were divine. I was shaking and crying by the time I got half-way through. It seemed I had learnt the truth...
And I believe that some people learn to look at life the way I have come to look at it. Some people don't. That's just a difference of opinion. And as human beings, we want to stick to our own view points, believing that we are right. We may be, we may not be. And that is what makes life soooo interesting! :)
Peace to you.
By the way, Tod- since you appear to be a deep-thinker, I would like to know what you think of the verses I have pasted in my earlier comments today. Those are scientific facts revealed to us in the 14th century, when man did not have the capacity to learn all that himself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if we argue that a lot of scientific knowledge of the past was lost, these are things that technology has proved to us. And if man did indeed possess computers and technological equipment back then as we did today, how come we have discovered bones, tools, equipment of the centuries past, and not these things?
Just looking to share some thoughts- if any one has any comments to give as well...
jamboozle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause I do not know what the Quran says I cannot comment on those versus you gave. I don't really know anything about Islam so I cannot comment on the specifics of your religion. But god is not religion specific, all religions believe in god, so I can comment on that in terms of my view on it.
From everything I have seen and read over my entire life, I just don't believe a god exists. In my own mind, it is actually very illogical if one does exist because the universe would not be the way it is if it were so. I can also see why many people need a god to exist, and how and why religions exist throughout history, and so it cements in my mind that it is all just an idea developed by the human brain and not really an answer to the natural world.
I also feel that science is able to explain a world to me without the need for a god. Anything that exists can be measured and tested, even if our technologies are not capable of doing it at this point in time. I know that anything that exists in the science world can eventually be proven or disproven by science. So why do I need a god to exist? If science can show me proof of the world around me, why trust to something that cannot be explained by science? We both know god cannot be proven or disproven to be real, but from my own experiences and logical thinking, I just don't see that a creator can exist.
When will science take the high ground and proclaim evolution as a process and not just a theory to be debated ad nauseam? A process is "a natural series of changes" whilst a theory is "a system of ideas" (Concise Oxford Dictionary). Whether you believe in a god or not makes no difference to the now well understood and scientifically sound process of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAllah has created each and everything we see and what we don't see. but science is sticking with darwin theory of life. well we know life is quiet better than as he mentioned in his theories. even if we want to see the system of single cell; then we need to zoom inside it and enlarge it to the scale of new york or london, only then we can see the complex systems established by Allah in all beings including human being. Allah has mentioned in quran that there is no deity beside him. we say god, but with god you can make gods, and goddess or goddesses. but Allah is beyond that. he doesn't require anything. Quran is the best reference because todays advance science always approves Quran's sayings and ofcourse why won't it. Quran contains the world of Allah (The only deity). how can the science prove it wrong? ofcourse we have seen for centuries Quran has lead the way to science. ask evolutionists please explain immune system in human being, or just 100 trillion brain connections, birth system, and why can't they handle what is made for human being million of years before by Allah. Ask them about respiratory system, ask them about the universe. science has proven that each and everything in the universe including stars and planets; came from zero volume and infinite density. meaning out of nothing. Allah told human being in quran 1400 + years ago about this truth. miracle of human creation in 3 steps has been very recently accepted by science. 80 + % of Quran has been proven to be absolutely correct according to science. What do we want more? Quran, prohibits Alcohol, rape, and bad things as theft or murder etc. only Quran/ Islam tells us how to spend a neet and clean life where everybody benefits and not only a handful of people. Quran has all the solutions humanity needs. O dear brother please never waste your prayers to any other than Allah (The only Deity). Adam, Abrahim, Moses, Jesus, Joseph, Muhammad and 124,000 other prophets were just the messengers of Allah and not god or any type of deity. They all called human beings to worship only Allah. Because only Allah is worth worshiping. if we worship someone else beside Allah, then we shall first think that is any other being capable of helping human being? absolutely no, todays advanced science has proven that Allah is controlling what we see, hear, feel and all the sense are monitored by some super computer which is controlling the brain. brothers please update yourself with latest information. just look around yourselves don't you people see trees and plants, aren't they necessary? who created them? human being? Water reaches 120 meters high and in each and every leaf of high trees. Allah has all the knowledge and all the control and Allah has created each and everthing according to perfection. live with peace. killing is absolutely prohibited in islam and it is the work of satan. it is said in the Quran that anyone killing even a single innocent human being is the killer of whole humanity and will be burnt in hell parrellel to satan/devil in the worst hell of them all. Allah created universe out of nothing meaning Allah introduced time and Allah is beyond time. we have heard a few people died for a few moments/minutes but then they came back to life. they all saw glimps of hell. because they all were disbelievers and nobody believed on 1 deity that is Allah. there is no deity beside him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishuman being was created in heavens and not on earth by Allah and Allah only. their is not deity beside him. science has atlast concluded that universe came into existence out of nothingness. zero volume and infinite density. evolve this evolutionists. how is it that there is such a great harmony between ant family. science knows that their are creatures like ants called turmites build extremely big buildings according to their size and without any eyes and map in their hand. evolve that. billions of trillions of different objects, creatures, and natural phenomenons prove the existence of soul deity that is Allah. you people try to find god. yet you know that the one who created all this stuff what you call universe; is sitting outside it. we also monitor that DNA carries so much information even at the death of the containing body. so tell me the deity who produced such great systems out of nothingness, can't that produce them again? ofcourse Allah can.
just think you sitting beside me and i kill you without any reason. won't i be answerable to my, your and the creator of all in existence? of course i have too. everybody will be raised again as he was born in the first place. one cell of male's sperm decides the genetic factor of new born baby. today we know how the birth takes place in mother's womb. Quran stated the same 1400+ years ago. and contains many facts about universe and whats inside it. Quran gives the best solution to live the best of lives.
human body alone is enough prove of creation. another thing to mention here is that whatever you call "UFO" unidentified objects to be exact are actually no where to be found. O sons of Adam you are not going to find any creature more intelligent than you. it is declared by your creator in Quran / Islam. it is the truth evolutionist are seeing each and every day with their eyes. but they don't accept. we hear news that some people saw UFO in their territories, in the sky or whatever. let me tell you that chimps which are approximately 97 to 99% same as human being are not able to design clothes or make food for them selves, they have almost no sense in comparison to human being. Quran tells us that chimpanzies were actually human but they were bad people so Allah the only deity convertered them into Chimps. look at the design of atom. you can explain nothing. each and everything shows that its a perfect design. perfect design means perfect creator.
Who teaches new born of every creature how to survive and eat? Human baby knows how to suck mother breast though we elder human beings can’t do it as perfectly as a baby does. Same is the case with every creature because each and every self is monitored and guided by Allah and Allah only. There is no deity beside him.
Subhan Allah. Alhamdullilaah. Allah O Akber.
Allah is the Greatest.
Since Darwin we know that there is a physical evolution going on. But only recently is recognized, so far by not many, that also spiritual evolution takes place. Which necessitates experience of good and bad, for otherwise we would become dummies. This precisely is also the reason why God does not appear on television. Everything in the wonderful processes of evolution than would become frozen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn science there is no answer to the First Cause. We even are unnable to imagine what or which such might be and to know one should first learn the language of the gods.
In religion first cause is called God and added to it is that He wants to be friendly to us. Unless we seek evil. Main thing of the Bible is compilated in the First Big Commandment and the Second equal to that first. As for the First one may identify a person from his work and respecting the person includes respect for his creations, thus in the present case for animals and plants too. Many christians however eat from bio-industry that does not respect the sabbath which is given to domestic animals, i.e. strolling around at leisure in a natural environment. Will they burn in hell instead of getting nice pension in heaven?
Now for Genesis 1 as this can be understood describing that a far but mighty king commanded and things happened thousand miles further on accordingly. When no one saw even the finger of God move this is a perfect technical expression to give full credit to the author and the evolution theory does not oppose it.
Next look to the Gospel of John, in which again Someone from Outside speaks, takes initiative. Namely to raise status of man from servant like in the Old Testament to child, who sits at the table of the Father and has some access to his wallet. The english translation is not correct as too soon it becomes he. Perhaps old European heathens needed more than a prophet, kind of god as son of the big God to overpower their local gods. In Middle East language "son of" can mean "not distinghuisable from each other, neither in word or deed. In dutch language: twee handen op (on) 1 buik (belly).
I must lament along with some of the other reason-based posters earlier that this thread has been slimed (spammed... usurped... whatever) by the faith-biased. Unable to comment intelligently on science generally or evolution specifically, they are like children, feverishly quoting stale, irrelevant verses from their bogus "holy books" and like a disciple of Nostradamus or some other psychic charlatan, attempting to align them with the intersubjective "truths" that only science has revealed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe great American Iconoclast, Robert Green Ingersoll summed it up quite well when he compared religion to a palsied wreck and science to a youthful athelete... religion sought to strangle science in its cradle... and failing that, like an old hen in the barnyard, religion sought to bargain with the muscular, noble horse of science, "not to step on each other"!
Darwin was among the greatest minds humanity has spawned and we owe such visionaries a great debt. Those who harbor the cognitive dissonance of their supernatural religious beliefs and science are conflicted... and it shows, like a bulbous inflammed nose on a drunkard. Those claiming to be "scientists" while rejecting evolution are the embodiment of an oxymoron.
EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE... and perhaps the pinnacle or best example of it. You cannot remotely be a scientist and reject it. It would be like claiming to be a physician, while believing that "prayer", and not antibiotics cure infection.
The gods frail humans have created in various forms and have codified by goofy religious constructs are testable scientific hypotheses... and they fail at every level. The faith-based may actually try READING some science-based analysis (versus parroting bald assertions): "God, the Failed Hypothesis" by physicist Victor Stenger. Read it... think about it... then get back to us.
To the god-squad spamming up SciAm... I am only atheistic to one more god than you: yours.
Cheers!
The difference in thinking between Charles and Emma revolves around a singular issue: belief. Emma opts to eliminate doubt by believing in unchangeable hearsay absolutes while Charles opts to trust intuition, his observational senses and measurement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no right or wrong here, only differences in how one chooses to govern their thinking and actions.
I sense that Emma is being swindled by an ego that believes itself to be so important that it must survive FOREVER with a craving for attention and love from an omnipotent creator gifted with the power of divine intervention.
It is clear to me that there is no joy without sadness, no order without chaos, no good health without sickness and no life without death. In other words, the bad times make the good times good. There is no need to invent fairy tails to appease ones discomfort associated with the uncertainties we face during the bad times. We simply need the patience to hang on until the good times come around again.
I am like Darwin in that I am very comfortable with trusting my intuition, my observational senses and measurement of things found in the physical world. Wishful thinking and nonsense hearsay serves no one any good.
The difference in thinking between Charles and Emma revolves around a singular issue: belief. Emma opts to eliminate doubt by believing in unchangeable hearsay absolutes while Charles opts to trust intuition, his observational senses and measurement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no right or wrong here, only differences in how one chooses to govern their thinking and actions.
I sense that Emma is being swindled by an ego that believes itself to be so important that it must survive FOREVER with a craving for attention and love from an omnipotent creator gifted with the power of divine intervention.
It is clear to me that there is no joy without sadness, no order without chaos, no good health without sickness and no life without death. In other words, the bad times make the good times good. There is no need to invent fairy tails to appease ones discomfort associated with the uncertainties we face during the bad times. We simply need the patience to hang on until the good times come around again.
I am like Darwin in that I am very comfortable with trusting my intuition, my observational senses and measurement of things found in the physical world. Wishful thinking and nonsense hearsay serves no one any good.
The only useful thing I think worth adding to this discussion is that both the "pro-God" and "anti-God" factions have fears which provoke these endless contests of words.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe religious think (fear) that the anti-religious will somehow restrict or destroy their religious activities. What they misunderstand is that the anti-religious only want them to stop their proselytizing - and to stop their attempts to replace or undermine scientific thinking, teachings and scientific efforts.
No matter how peaceful and pious these religious people claim to be: they are aggressive and clearly on the attack. Their "leaders" are in the forefront of this aggression, stirring their followers to actively intervene in government and sometimes private policy. This must stop.
Just be content that you have your belief: there's no need and there is real hazard in trying to force others to live by your mystical "moral system." (Which itself is unnecessary to normal living.)
The anti-religious have their point: they are responding to the aggressions (often disguised) initiated by the religious. But their responsibility is to see that scientific effort is ethical and is not used to further such things as militarist regimes and the production of Extinction Capable weapons.
In the end, there's only one "cause" - that of the survival and continuance of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Humans are the "children" of Evolution: we've existed for a tiny fraction of the 30 million year average for species. So, like children, we aren't "are" but we are "becoming" - whatever the forces of our environment will dictate. Lets make sure it's a good environment.
Thoughts become things; make them good ones.
Actually God is not a man or a woman. God made sex (male, female). The people who wrote the parts in the bible where you see God being for torture and pain - the parts that are supposedly "inspired by God" are simply wrong and incorrect. But I don't see how something can come from nothing. There was never a such thing as "nothing" or else the universe wouldn't be. From nothing you get absolutely nothing. The something that caused the universe I believe is God and no God doesn't just live in the clouds and sky. God is both inside and outside of the universe that God made from God's self and God is formless and cannot be contained by anything - God is beyond images and words. But to think that humans evolved from chimps gives us the image that humans are nothing but brute animals without spirits in the brain (hardware of the soul).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because people say that humans are unique and special doesn't automatically mean that these people are saying that humans are better than every animal in the universe. I suggest you try and see God (the universe is the part of God that the human eye can see) outside of the bible. So much of the old testament what happened in it is not what God wanted but rather what God allowed humans in their stupidity to do to themselves. I also suggest you look at brain SPECT images to see where violence comes from.
jamboozle, i wanted to thankyou for your comments, i was just reading through the stirng of comments and thoroughly enjoyed reading you insightful comments. I am not trying to push or convert but since you discuss the belief in many divined revelations, i was wondering if you have read any of the writings of baha u llah? again not trying to be pushy, just from what i read in your writings, i thought you might enjoy some of the bahai writings. Peace and God Bless
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbenjtrue,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But I don't see how something can come from nothing. There was never a such thing as "nothing" or else the universe wouldn't be. From nothing you get absolutely nothing. The something that caused the universe I believe is God and no God doesn't just live in the clouds and sky. God is both inside and outside of the universe that God made from God's self and God is formless and cannot be contained by anything - God is beyond images and words. But to think that humans evolved from chimps gives us the image that humans are nothing but brute animals without spirits in the brain (hardware of the soul)."
1. Just because you can't see how something can come from nothing does not mean there is not a scientific explanation for it. If you are talking about life itself, it did not arise from nothing, it arose from the matter of the universe. And if something can not arise from nothing, how do you explain God? He must obviously be something.
2. You say god is formless and there is no image or words to describe him. Tell me, what state does god exist in? Is he part of the universe or does he exist in a state that transcends everything in the universe? If he exists in the universe, how can he have created it if he is part of it? If he transcends everything in space and time, does he really exist, given that very existence itself is bound by space and time?
3. Humans did not evolve from chimps. Both humans and chimps evolved from the same common ancestor that was neither human nor chimp but a completely different species altogether. And why can't you conceive that humans are just brute animals? Have you taken a good look at humanity lately? And why would you say that humans are the only species with a soul? What constitutes having a soul? Emotion? Feeling? Intelligence? Chimps and many animals have all three of those, so please enlighten me as to what constitutes having a soul in your view.
My challenge to evolutionists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease find a better creature than human beings. You got 400,000,000,000 stars in milky way (our galaxy). And other 500,000,000,000 galaxies to choose from. Find a creature which is more intelligent by all means. I mean when we look at animals they don’t make food, clothes, weapons, and millions of other stuff. Instead they use whatever is gifted to them by Allah (The only deity).
http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_video_index.php
go find the proof that life was intend and not as people think a mere chance.
If it was a mere chance then please produce one chance like it. It will be acceptable In any form. But no without most perfect knowledge nothing can come into existence. Iron, plastic and each and everything existed on earth yet human read, read, read then invented aero planes and rockets. Because of knowledge. Why people believe that machines billion and trillion times more complex and advance then human created just came into existence by chance?
Allah has created everything including human beings. Allah has told us that human beings are the best out of all the creatures in the Quran. if darwin is correct then why don't human beings evolve and take better shapes? evolve immune system, respiratory system, digestive system, Cell structure, eye structure and the look at the role of eye, ear, nose, tongue etcetera. all are signals created in brain. They have no reality. Whatsoever we see exists somewhere but as the Matrix movie tells that a super computer is controlling what ever we see, whatever we feel, each and everything is controlled by some supreme being. That Supreme Being is only one and that’s Allah. Allah Created Adam, Abraham, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace be upon them all). Allah created human beings out of nothing. Allah created all the creatures including the universe out of nothing. and today's science approves this. Yet some disbelievers think that there is no god watching them. There surely is and that is Allah. What do people think when they hurt someone or kill someone? Won’t they be questioned for those in human behaviours? ofcourse no mind excepts that one will be un accountable. Everybody is accountable for his doings for sure. As Allah has created the human being once out of nothing, Allah will raise us again and we will be answerable to him for our deeds. water, the layers that protect earth from dangerous radiation of sun, 50 million perfect species which are built to live on the earth are master piece creation of Allah. Allah is capable of creating trillions of trillions of trillions earths and heavens like this and thats is not going to make him feel tired. Allah is always watching each and every creation of his. and there is no creator besides him. He is alone the mightiest. Allah has given the knowledge to human being and we see in our daily life that how better we have evolved in our studies and knowledge. if we monitor the ants and all the other creatures; we will observe that they all are absolutely the same as they were before. only human being has come out of the cave and invented and discovered aero planes, rockets, car, bikes, millions of inventions and discoveries to name a few. why dont chimpanzee's (97% as human being) invent a gun? they exist for more than 7 million years. why don't they seek protection? why don't they invent?
ofcourse Allah has not given them with the knowlege and if he had then our survival would have become more difficult. because other species would then kill and destroy human beings but no we human beings kill whales and elephants. but they can not. they are; what they were millions of years ago. but we have gained knowledge and retained it. Subhaan Allah. Allah the good names to Allah. he is the most merciful and most generous. Please read Quran that leads the way to science.
And why didn’t other creatures came into existence when atom bomb on japan fell in two different cities. We saw incomplete human beings yet we never saw a monk coming out or a chicken or anything else coming out of human womb.
Life is not that easy to transform into any other thing as unknowing human beings think, its way way way more complex. A simple proof is that today’s latest science is unable to create a single cell.
Darwin said that life is simple because he could see beyond the black boxes so he though life came out of these black boxes that are so simple. But today when we need to monitor the functions of a single cell then we enlarge it and scale it to the size of London or New York only then we can monitor the magnificence of creation. We human beings are only 100,000,000,000,000 living cells, same amount of atoms. And there are many more facts that people simply don’t know.
I don’t know why is human so curious about seeing god. Though we know that the supreme being which created this universe lives outside it. Quran tells us that Allah monitors us all the time. Allah even knows our thinking and planning. 500 years ago people new only maybe 100,000 stars and if I would have told them that there are billions of billions of stars so they would have not believed me. Man you will never see god in this life. But most certainly when he will raise everything for judgment only then will we able to see our creator.
brother life is not simple to avoid religion. see the life clearly when you can not produce or find a 100000 trillion mega byte graphic card, it means that nobody created that stuff thats why it isn't available. creatures we see are not as simple to come into existence by chance. ok if its chance then please produce a single living cell and be satisfied that life is a mere work of chance. failing to do so, please think again about life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisharunyahya.com/en.m_video_index.php has enough video proof for you to look at awesome creation of supreme being.
man from chimps? then why don't chimps make clothes, food, weapons and other millions of things human has produced because of given knowledge to it by Allah? chimps are almost 99% as human being then why don't they???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisharunyahya.com/en.m_video_index.php
please see the clear proof that life was intended by supreme being. its not as simple as many claim it to be. if somebody says so then ask him to create something like it.
life is not that simple. please find out by yourself. see the structure of single cell. zoom inside it; make it big enough as newyork or london. then you will know the marvelous fact of creation. Read Quran and its translation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdarwin was always concerned about peacock's feathers and the design of the eye though he had very little resources to actually have a decent look at life. brothers life is not that simple as is told by human beings. ask them if its so simple and can come out by chance then please arrange a chance for us too. otherwise findout by yourself. Read Quran and its Translation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdarwin was tired to idol worshiping and other things like that. for example jews say that ______ prophet was son of god. christians say that jesus was a son of god. well it can not be. he was absolutely right. but he had not the advanced technology in hand to see the clear proof that life was intended by supreme being. its not a work of mere chance instead its absolutely intended by supreme being. if i say i found a computer 30 trillion years ago, you would reply that human made computers only after 1980 then can you find such an old computer. ok what do you say when you find fossils of million and billions of years old. weren't they designed perfectly? had they any errors? the true answer is they had absolutely no errors because supreme being (Allah the only deity) created them all. Read Quran and its Translation please or see the clear proof at harunyahya.com/en.m_video_index.php
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy seeing the clear proof; you would be helping yourself. Supreme being has not created us for nothing. but on purpose. if we don't fulfill that it means we will suffer in hell. by obeying this supreme being we can enjoy Allah's mercy in heaven. it certainly is not like; if i kill you and police doesn't get me so i am safe. no brothers everybody will be answerable for his/her deeds.
luciferpriestgmk,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou write so much garbage I don't even know where to start correcting you, so I will just comment on some of the things you have said.
1. Man did NOT evolve from chimps. Man AND chimp evolved from a common ancestor that was neither man nor chimp. You obviously don't have any understanding of evolution whatsoever because you would not be asking stupid questions or making stupid statements like that if you did. Since you don't understand how evolution works, how can you critisize it? Everything in the natural world, yes EVERYTHING, supports the idea of evolution. Nothing in the natural world contradicts the theory of evolution. Evolution is the answer to all life, whether you understand it or not. Until you have an understanding of basic evolutionary principles, you have no right to say whether it exists or not.
2. There is no point trying to defame Darwin. Regardless of whatever happened in his life, what he said, what he believed, etc., his theory of evolution is REAL. How do you think genetic research works? Geneticists (such as myself) use EVOLUTION to find new genes and determine the roles of genes in cells. Genetic research wouldn't work if evolution was not real, but guess what? It does work! Darwin knew NOTHING about DNA, he didn't even know it existed, yet everything in genetics fits in perfectly with evolution. Are you going to tell me this is just a coincidence?
3. "Please find a better creature than human beings. You got 400,000,000,000 stars in milky way (our galaxy). And other 500,000,000,000 galaxies to choose from. Find a creature which is more intelligent by all means." Give us a couple of hundred years and we will. We might not even have to look very far. Mars itself looks like it was most probably carrying life before the Earth was.
4. "creatures we see are not as simple to come into existence by chance". Firstly, evolution is not based on chance, nothing in the universe is. Everything occurs because it is a reaction to something. Understand quantum physics and you will understand that chance does not exist.
Secondly, the creatures you see TODAY are very complex, but in the beginning life was very simple. Look at a virus. All it is is a piece of RNA coding for a few genes. Science shows that RNA was around before DNA, so life probably began as just a stand of RNA, which eventually evolved to produce DNA and various cellular structures. The first cell would have actually taken millions of years to form into the 'simple' cells you see today.
You need to educate yourself in science buddy.
luciferpriestgmk,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"if i say i found a computer 30 trillion years ago, you would reply that human made computers only after 1980 then can you find such an old computer. ok what do you say when you find fossils of million and billions of years old. weren't they designed perfectly? had they any errors? the true answer is they had absolutely no errors because supreme being (Allah the only deity) created them all."
Sorry, but I couldn't help but correct you on this one.
No animal is 'designed perfectly'. Animals, and all lifeforms for that matter, evolve to suit their environment. If a species goes extinct, (millions upon millions of species have), it is because they cannot cope with the environment in which they live and therefore die. Saying that a lifeforms design is perfect is completely and entirely based on the environment in which that species must live in. If a dog had to live in the ocean, then no, they are not perfectly designed because they are not capable of living their entire lives in the water. A whale on the other hand IS perfect for the water, and so is more likely to survive. Did I happen to mention that science can prove the evolution of the whale from a land mammal into an ocean dwelling giant? I guess you better look into evolution a bit more to find the correct answers.
And you say that no animal has errors. What about genetic deformities? How do you explain those? Snakes with two heads? Cows with 6 limbs? It's actually an amazing feat if you turn out normal, seeing as so much can go wrong inside your body. Life would not be the way it is if we were designed by someone, it's as simple as that. We are what we are because of evolution. Every species is. Like you said, study the cell at a subatomic level, atom for atom, gene for gene. You will see that life itself cannot have been designed because it is full of trial and error, trial and error that occurred over millions of years of evolution.
Believe what you will if it comforts you. Facts, on the other hand, are the foundations upon which have enabled us to built the most compassionate and inclusive society in all time. Facts and the word of God can harmoniously co-exist. For Gods sake, you simply must believe it to be so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA classical way of a proof of the existence of God is the existence of a non fully chaotic reality; as our mind is settled to the basic principle of causality in its approach to the physical world, the Uncreated Creator comes naturally as a consequence, hard to avoid if one wants to preserve our mind, a way to maximizing its efficacy in dayly life problem solving. It can be that atheism, agnosticism and their cognate hard core evolutionism involve some kind of a denial mechanism, the simplest way to explain it would be that accepting the existence of God as a fact will force the former non-believer to stop doing something he/she liked to do, or start doing something originally undesired. Denial mechanisms are a characteristic trait of psychopatic/anti-social personalities, and although obviously it will be an unfair and false assumption saying that non-believers belong to those subsets, I have a strong trend not to fully trust or be deeply engaged with people such as atheists, agnosticists, hard-core evolutionists and 6ul Dv8s, and will try to have youth out of the reach of these collectives, be it for nothing else that the doubts exposed in the novel "The devils advocate". Nobody is ever going to catch God in the act of creating a species, so nobody will find a proof of creationism, and evolution is a fact.Thanks for your tolerance towards this communicate
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismommyorca, thank you for your comment. I will definitely look up the Bahai writings. God bless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTod, interesting comments. Just thought I'd add my own perspective to a question you have put forward for luciferpriestgmk. Muslims believe that God did actually evolve all creatures... the first living things (be they strands of rna/dna/amoeba) came from the water... and then creatures came to earth... and then God perfected His creatures when he evolved Man. (God refers to Himself as the "Evolver" in the Quran). So Muslims don't deny evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the difference lies in the fact that whereas Muslims and other people of faith believe that God evolved life into more and more intelligent beings ON PURPOSE, those who do not believe in God think that evolution happened by chance. It's just a difference of opinion that we are debating tirelessly. :)
luciferpriestgmk, it was interesting reading your comments. May Allah (SWT) bless you.
Peace and love to all...
I know this is not a religious forum and hence i apologize for using this forum as one- but i have a comment for mommyorca. Thank you for your suggestion. I read about your faith. It seems very interesting, and it seems to incorporate many of the religious beliefs I already have. God bless you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have one question- I understand that your prophet of God is Bahaullah. But I could not find out what your Holy Book revealed by God is- what is it called? Like every religion that has preceded has a Book that God revealed and that we believe in- the Bible, The Quran... Where can I find a copy of your Holy Book online?
jamboozle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuslims don't deny evolution? luciferpriestgmk does not support it, and he looks to be a Muslim. Just like with any religion, people interpret texts in different ways.
Also, people tend to believe that the level of intelligence makes a lifeform more evolved. As you said, 'god perfected his creatures when he evolved man'. I get very tired very quickly of people who describe any kind of life as 'perfect'. Whether an organism is perfect or not is completely based on the environment a species must live in. If a species has to live in the ocean, then a shark is more highly evolved than a human. If you had to live in the desert, then a camel is more highly evolved than a polar bear. Environment dictates what is 'perfect', not genetics. In my opinion, if I had to describe a 'perfect' organism, it would be bacteria. They are able to live in every environment on this planet.
Intelligence is a huge evolutionary advantage, but it by no means ensures survival, and therefore is not a perfect trait in any way, shape, or form. Humans may be the most intelligent species on the planet, but would you say any of us are perfect? No. No one is. No species is. Nothing is perfect in nature. Nature is a world of action and reaction. If you can survive to produce offspring, then you are doing well as a species, but this doesn't mean you are perfect.
Tod, I have nothing more to explain except the following verses, which has answers to your queries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe verses quoted below are self-explantory- they explain my point better than I would be able to myself. Different people understand the world differently, as is willed by God. And hence there will be some who will gain from the quoted verses, and some will not agree. To each his own. Peace on all. :)
"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!"
- He is God, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colours).
- It is He Who beginneth the process of creation, and repeateth it
- Do they not look at Allah.s creation, (even) among (inanimate) things,- How their (very) shadows turn round, from the right and the left, prostrating themselves to Allah, and that in the humblest manner?
- We have honoured the sons of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favours, above a great part of our creation.
- Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
- The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it.
- Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
- We have indeed created man in the best of moulds,
- Then do We abase him (to be) the lowest of the low,-
- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:
- Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
- The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.
- It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her (in love). When they are united, she bears a light burden and carries it about
- Do they indeed ascribe to Him as partners things that can create nothing, but are themselves created?
Assalamulaikum Wureh Mattullaahey Wa Barakaatohoo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeace be upon you and (Allah) Creator’s mercy and blessings be upon you.
When Muslims visit or leave any place; they greet in this manner just like other people say hello, namastay etc.
I am Ghazanfar Khan, Born 4th time in this world. I am Only 900 years old this time I am planning not to die ever again. I have found a computer graphic card about which is 786 trillion years old. Is it a god graphic card? Well science has to find it out first only then we will declare it god ok.
The graphic memory of the card is 32 Mega bytes and its memory is clocked between 300 to 400 Mhz.
Whaattttttt
I am untruthful?
I am not reasonable?
87 years ago I found X58 Mobo, 200 million years old, actually it is a complete computer system found absolutely intact. Everything works perfectly and faster then any other computer because this X58 Mobo is equipped with Core i7 965 clocked at 3.2 Giga Hertz, 2000 Mhz DDR 3 Ram with very tight timings. A 2 Giga Byte DDR 5 Memory handled Graphic Card, 8 Channel Sound Card and each and everything necessary for massive computing.
Yes believe me it is a miracle that it came to existence because all the material was available on earth even before that period. I am a scientist. Science says that if a frog is turned into a prince with a kiss then its not true but if a frog turns into human in million years then it is science. Evolutionary Science to be exact. It evolved and each and everything took the best possible shape to support each other and work in perfect harmony. It evolved because of time.
I had some Nitrogen Oxide in hand so I decided to overclock the computer and this rig fro 3.2 Gigz to 6.5 Giga Hertz. Everything was working fine then I thought that I would require a good Graphical User Interface in order to take full advantage of power hungry beast. I looked at Darwin’s evolution and man they never let you down they just handed me over full functional copy of Windows 7 though Microsoft is in the development process of it but evolution said nothing is required, no work is required, leave those thousands of idiots working in Microsoft and develop one software in many years. We evolutionists are here; have your copy of Windows 7 With Service Pack 4 pre installed and enjoyyyyyy.
I am absolutely lucky that I have got such a great mechanism without the need of anything and knowledge because evolutions theories were helping me. I deny that the processor was made to work at 3.2 Giga Hertz. It was I who took it from 3.2 to 6.5 Gigz. Nothing in between it. There is absolutely no, no and no requirement of sense, knowledge, fabrication process, computer languages and other things associated with it.
Conclusion: It is declared and proven with evolutionary science that nobody has designed any computer accessory mentioned above instead it evolved by itself and took the most perfect shape to support other hardware as well.
The creation of computer according to evolutionists
Why don’t evolutionists say that all the material required to produce a computer existed on earth since 1 million years then it evolved and many items came into existence in perfect manner.
The order of Computer Evolution
First Power Supply Evolved and completed its structure.
Then the Central processing Unit came into existence.
Then Automatically out of nothingness there suddenly appear a full compatible mother according to that processor and power supply. The mother board had the sense that there would also be a hard drive and ram coming so it offered them the space to run themselves too. Some how processor managed to write the exact binary codes so that motherboard, ram, hard disk, north bridge and south bridge all started communication in perfect harmony.
Mother board smelled in the air that there is material which is about to come into existence namely “The Sound Card” and then some how again a miracle happened and mother board also started supporting both built in VGA, even the pins/ports of VGA were absolutely perfect to support a data cable from the monitor. When the Power supply saw that Mother board has increased supporting so many hardware; the Power supply went crazy with anger and started evolving until it reached wooping 1500 Watts and said to itself that now I can handle whatever the mother board throws at me. Thanks me and my evolution.
Let’s Start Thinking Sensibly
The Real World (The Factual World)
Each honey bee computes just 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) times faster then the super expensive and the fastest super computer human beings have produced to date which calculates 1 peta flops per second meaning 1 giga flops x 1 million.
Today’s Science and Super computers with help of special calculation softwares; prove that the universe came into existence out of nothingness just 50 billion years ago. The 400,000,000,000 (400 Billion) stars in the Milky Way (our Galaxy) and 500,000,000,000 (500 Billion) other galaxies came into existence out of zero volume and zero density.
Ok I accept. Onwards I will try to be.
Have we ever asked ourselves these questions?
• How did the endless universe we live in come into being?
• How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop?
• How is it that this Earth is such a fit and sheltering place for us to live in?
Let us recall the two assertions of materialism about the universe:
The universe exists in infinite time and, because it has no beginning or end, it was not created.
Everything in this universe is merely the result of chance and not the product of any intentional design, plan, or vision.
Those two notions were boldly advanced and ardently defended by 19th-century materialists, who of course had no recourse other than to depend upon the limited and unsophisticated scientific knowledge of their day. Both have been utterly refuted by the discoveries of 20th-century science.
The first to be laid in the grave was the notion of the universe existing in infinite time. Since the 1920s, there has been mounting evidence this cannot be true. Scientists are now certain that the universe came into being from nothingness as the result of an unimaginably huge explosion, known as the "Big Bang". In other words, the universe came into being–or rather, it was created by Allah.
The 20th century has also witnessed the demolition of the second claim of materialism: that everything in the universe is the result of chance and not design. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrates that all the physical equilibriums of the universe in general and of our world in particularly are intricately designed to make life possible. As this research deepened, it was discovered each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe has been precisely tailored so that human beings may live. Scientists today call this extraordinary design the "anthropic principle". This is the principle that every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.
To sum up, the philosophy called materialism has been utterly refuted by modern science. From its position as the dominant scientific view of the 19th century, materialism collapsed into fiction in the 20th.
How could it have been otherwise? As Allah indicates "We did not create heaven and earth and everything between them to no purpose. That is the opinion of those who are disbelievers." (Surah Sad: 27) it is wrong to suppose that the universe was created in vain. A philosophy so utterly flawed as materialism and systems based on it were doomed to failure from the very beginning.
Creation is a fact.
If we say that big bang happened in a place which was 2 meter square in size or we assume and multiply this area to quadrillion kilometers even then it would look so silly that such a great mechanism came into existence without anyone actually wanting, have the knowledge to execute it and is willingly making it happen all the time.
For almost 13 and half centuries disbelievers mocked Muslims that your Quran says that stars and galaxies are moving though it is not but today’s Science has proven the words of Quran that the Universe is continuously expanding and it is expanding at a very high speed. Our sun is revolving around the galactic center with its solar system including our planet earth at the speed of approximately 225 kilometers per second. We travel just 490,000 kilometers every hour. 24 hours a day, every day of every year of every century since last 50 billion years. We were all shot out from a single point and we all are traveling at the speed of 225 kilometers per second. The galaxies are also moving away from each other.
The Expansion of Universe and the Discovery of the Big Bang
The 1920s were important years in the development of modern astronomy. In 1922, the Russian physicist Alexandra Friedman produced computations showing that the structure of the universe was not static and that even a tiny impulse might be sufficient to cause the whole structure to expand or contract according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. George Lemaitre was the first to recognize what Friedman's work meant. Based on these computations, the Belgian astronomer Lemaitre declared that the universe had a beginning and that it was expanding as a result of something that had triggered it. He also stated that the rate of radiation could be used as a measure of the aftermath of that "something".
The theoretical musings of these two scientists did not attract much attention and probably would have been ignored except for new observational evidence that rocked the scientific world in 1929. That year the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, working at the California Mount Wilson observatory, made one of the most important discoveries in the history of astronomy. Observing a number of stars through his huge telescope, he discovered that their light was shifted towards the red end of the spectrum and, crucially, that this shift was directly related to the distance of the stars from Earth. This discovery shook the very basis of the universe model held until then.
According to the recognized rules of physics, the spectra of light beams travelling towards the point of observation tend towards violet while the spectra of light beams moving away from the point of observation tend towards red. (Just like the fading of a train's whistle as it moves away from the observer) Hubble's observation showed that according to this law, the heavenly bodies were moving away from us. Before long, Hubble made another important discovery; The stars weren't just racing away from Earth; they were racing away from each other as well. The only conclusion that could be derived from a universe where everything moves away from everything else is that the universe constantly "expands".
Hubble had found observational evidence for something that George Lemaitre had "prophesized" a short while ago and one of the greatest minds of our age had recognized almost fifteen years earlier. In 1915, Albert Einstein had concluded that the universe could not be static because of calculations based on his recently-discovered theory of relativity (thus anticipating the conclusions of Friedman and Lemaitre). Shocked by his findings, Einstein added a "cosmological constant" to his equations in order to "make the answer come out right" because astronomers assured him that the universe was static and there was no other way to make his equations match such a model. Years later, Einstein was to admit that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career.
Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding led to the emergence of another model that needed no fiddling around with to make the equations work right. If the universe was getting bigger as time advanced, going back in time meant that it was getting smaller; and if one went back far enough, everything would shrink and converge at a single point. The conclusion to be derived from this model was that at some time, all the matter in the universe was compacted in a single point-mass that had "zero volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of this point-mass that had zero volume. This explosion has come to be called the "the Big Bang" and its existence has repeatedly been confirmed by observational evidence.
There was another truth that the Big Bang pointed to. To say that something has zero volume is tantamount to saying that it is "nothing". The whole universe was created from this "nothing". And furthermore this universe had a beginning, contrary to the view of materialism, which holds that "the universe has existed for eternity".
The "Steady-state" Hypothesis
The Big Bang theory quickly gained wide acceptance in the scientific world due to the clear-cut evidence for it. Nevertheless astronomers who favored materialism and adhered to the idea of an infinite universe that materialism seemingly demanded held out against the Big Bang in their struggle to uphold a fundamental tenet of their ideology. The reason was made clear by the English astronomer Arthur Eddington, who said "Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me".4
Another astronomer who opposed the Big Bang theory was Fred Hoyle. Around the middle of the 20th century he came up with a new model, which he called "steady-state", that was an extension of the 19th century's idea of an infinite universe. Accepting the incontrovertible evidence that the universe was expanding, he proposed that the universe was infinite in both dimension and time. According to this model, as the universe expanded new matter was continuously coming into existence by itself in just the right amount to keep the universe in a "steady state". With the sole visible aim of supporting the dogma of "matter existed in infinite time", which is the basis of the materialist philosophy, this theory was totally at variance with the "Big Bang theory", which defends that the universe had a beginning. Supporters of Hoyle's steady state theory remained adamantly opposed to the Big Bang for years. Science, however, was working against them.
The Triumph of the Big Bang
In 1948, George Gamov carried George Lemaitre's calculations several steps further and came up with a new idea concerning the Big Bang. If the universe was formed in a sudden, cataclysmic explosion, there ought to be a definite amount of radiation left over from that explosion. This radiation should be detectable and, furthermore, it should be uniform throughout the universe.
Within two decades, observational proof of Gamov's conjecture was forthcoming. In 1965, two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson chanced upon a form of radiation hitherto unnoticed. Called "cosmic background radiation", it was unlike anything coming from anywhere else in the universe for it was extraordinarily uniform. It was neither localized nor did it have a definite source; instead, it was distributed equally everywhere. It was soon realized that this radiation was the echo of the Big Bang, still reverberating since the first moments of that great explosion. Gamov had been spot-on for the frequency of the radiation was nearly the same value that scientists had predicted it would be. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel prize for their discovery.
In 1989, George Smoot and his NASA team sent a satellite into space. Called the "Cosmic Background Emission Explorer" (COBE), it took only eight minutes for the sensitive instruments on board the satellite to detect and confirm the levels of radiation reported by Penzias and Wilson. These results conclusively demonstrated the existence of the hot, dense form remaining from the explosion out of which the universe came into being. Most scientists acknowledged that COBE had successfully captured the remnants of the Big Bang.
More evidence for the Big Bang was forthcoming. One piece had to do with the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium in the universe. Observations indicated that the mix of these two elements in the universe was in accord with theoretical calculations of what should have been remained after the Big Bang. That drove another stake into the heart of the steady state theory because if the universe had existed for eternity and never had a beginning, all of its hydrogen should have been burned into helium.
Confronted by such evidence, the Big Bang gained the near-complete approval of the scientific world. In an article in its October 1994 issue, Scientific American noted that the Big Bang model was the only one that could account for the constant expansion of the universe and for other observational results.
Defending the steady-state theory alongside Fred Hoyle for years, Dennis Sciama described the final position they had reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang theory was revealed:
There was at that time a somewhat acrimonious debate between some of the proponents of the steady state theory and observers who were testing it and, I think, hoping to disprove it. I played a very minor part at that time because I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true. When hostile observational evidence became to come in, Fred Hoyle took a leading part in trying to counter this evidence, and I played a small part at the side, also making suggestions as to how the hostile evidence could be answered. But as that evidence piled up, it became more and more evident that the game was up, and that one had to abandon the steady state theory.5
Who Created the Universe From Nothing?
With this triumph of the Big Bang, the thesis of an "infinite universe", which forms the basis of materialist dogma, was tossed onto the scrap-heap of history. But for materialists it also raised a couple of inconvenient questions: What existed before the Big Bang? And what force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?
Materialists like Arthur Eddington recognized that the answers to these questions could point to the existence of a supreme creator and that they did not like. The atheist philosopher Anthony Flew commented on this point:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. 6
Many scientists who do not force themselves to be atheists accept and favor the existence of a creator having an infinite power. For instance, the American astrophysicist Hugh Ross proposes a Creator of universe, Who is above all physical dimensions as:
By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.
Why is There So Much Space?
Let's recap a few points that we made earlier. The universe following the Big Bang was a nebula of just hydrogen and helium. Heavier elements were produced later by means of intentionally-designed nuclear reactions. Yet the existence of heavier elements is not a sufficient reason for the universe to become a suitable place for life. A much more important issue is how the universe was formed and ordered.
We shall start by asking how big the universe is.
The planet Earth is a part of the solar system. In this system there are nine major planets with fifty-four satellites, and an uncounted number of asteroids all revolving around a single star called "Sun", a middle-sized star compared with others in the universe. Earth is the third planet from the sun.
Let us first try to understand the size of this system. The diameter of the sun is 103 times that of the earth. To visualize this, the planet Earth has diameter of 12,200 kms. If we scaled that down to the dimensions of a glass bead, the sun would be about the size of soccer ball. But the interesting thing is the distance between the two. Keeping to the same scale, the two balls should be 280 meters apart. Some of the objects representing the outer planets would have to be set several kilometers away.
Big though this might seem, the solar system is a quite miniscule in size compared with the Milky Way, the galaxy in which it is located. There are over 250 billion stars in the Milky Way–some similar to the sun, others bigger, others smaller. The star nearest to the sun is Alpha Centauri. If we wanted to add Alpha Centauri in our model system, it would have to be located 78,000 kilometers away.
That's too big for almost anyone to grasp, so let's reduce the scale. We'll assume the earth to be as big as a dust-particle. That would make the sun as big as a walnut about three meters from the earth. On this scale, Alpha Centauri would have to be located 640 kilometers from the sun.
The Milky Way consists of about 250 billion stars with similarly mind-boggling distances between them. The sun is located closer to the edge of this spiral-shaped galaxy than it is to the center.
Even the Milky Way is dwarfed by the vast size of the whole universe. It is just one of many galaxies–nearly 300 billion of them according to recent calculations. And the distances between galaxies are millions of times greater than that between the sun and Alpha Centauri.
George Greenstein, in The Symbiotic Universe, comments on this unimaginable vastness:
Had the stars been somewhat closer, astrophysics would not have been so very different. The fundamental physical processes occurring within stars, nebulas, and the like would have proceeded unchanged. The appearance of our galaxy as seen from some far-distant vantage point would have been the same. About the only difference would have been the view of the night time sky from the grass on which I lie, which would have been yet richer with stars. And oh, yes-one more small change: There would have been no me to do the viewing…All that waster space! On the other hand, in this very waste lies our safety.46
Greenstein also explains the reason for this. In his view, the huge distances in space makes it possible for certain physical variables to be arranged so as to be exactly suitable for human life. He also notes the importance of this huge space in allowing Earth to exist while minimizing the risk of collision with other stars.
In short, the distribution of celestial bodies in space is exactly what it must be for human life to exist on our planet. These huge spaces are the outcome of an intentional design for a purpose and not a result of coincidence.
THE EQUILIBRIUM IN THE EXPLOSION
The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.
Paul Davies, Professor of Theoretical Physics17
In the first chapter we examined the universe's creation from nothingness as a result of a great explosion. Let us now consider some of the implications of this.
Scientists estimate that there are over 300 billion galaxies in the whole universe. These galaxies have a number of different forms (spiral, elliptical, etc) and each contains about as many stars as the universe contains galaxies. One of these stars, the Sun, has nine major planets rotating around in it in great harmony. All of us live on the third of those planets counting from the sun.
Look about you: Does what you see appear to be a disordered jumble of matter haphazardly scattered this way and that? Of course not. But how could matter have formed organized galaxies if it had been dispersed randomly? Why has matter accumulated at certain points and formed stars? How could the delicate balance of our solar system have emerged from a violent explosion? These are very important questions and they lead us to the real question of how the universe was structured after the Big Bang.
If the Big Bang was indeed a such cataclysmic explosion then it is reasonable to expect that matter should have been scattered everywhere at random. And yet it is not. Instead it is organized into planets, and stars, and galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies. It is as if a bomb that exploded in a granary caused all the wheat to fall into neat sacks and bales on the backs of trucks ready to be delivered instead of showering the grains every which way. Fred Hoyle, a staunch opponent of the Big Bang theory for years, expressed his own surprise at this structure:
The big bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen below, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the big bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect- with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies.18
That the matter produced by the Big Bang should have formed such tidy and organized shapes is indeed an extraordinary thing. The occurrence of such a harmony leads us to the realization that the universe was the result of its perfect creation by Allah.
In this chapter we will examine and consider this extraordinary perfection and excellence.
The Speed of the Explosion
People hearing of the Big Bang but not considering the subject at length do not think about what an extraordinary plan must lie behind this explosion. That's because the notion of an explosion doesn't suggest harmony, plan, or organization to most people. In fact there are a number of very puzzling aspects to the intricate order in the Big Bang.
One of these puzzles has to do with the acceleration caused by the explosion. When the explosion took place, matter certainly must have begun moving at an enormous speed in every direction. But there is another point that we need to pay attention to here. There must also have been a very big attractive force at the first moment of the explosion: an attractive force that was strong enough to gather the whole universe into one point.
Two different and opposing forces are at work here. The force of the explosion, driving matter outward and away, and the force of attraction, trying to resist the first and pull everything back together. The universe came into being because these two forces were in equilibrium. If the attractive force had been greater than the explosive, the universe would have collapsed. If the opposite had been true, matter would have been splattered in every direction in a way never to unite again.
Then how sensitive was this equilibrium? How much "slack" could there have been between the two forces?
The mathematical physicist Paul Davies, a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, performed lengthy calculations of the conditions that must have existed at the moment of the Big Bang and came up with a result that can only be described as astonishing. According to Davies, if the rate of expansion had differed by more than 10-18 seconds (one quintillionth of a second), there would have been no universe. Davies describes his conclusion:
Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned" to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.19
Bilim Teknik (Science Technique, a Turkish scientific periodical) quotes an article that appeared in Science in which the phenomenal equilibrium that obtained in the initial phase of universe is stated:
If the density of the universe was a little bit more, in that case, according to Einstein's relativity theory, the universe would not be expanding due to the attraction forces of atomic particles but contracting, ultimately diminishing to a spot. If the initial density had been a little bit less, then the universe would rapidly be expanding, but in this case, atomic particles would not be attracting each other and no stars and no galaxies would ever have formed. Consequently, man would never come into existence! According to the calculations, the difference between the initial real density of the universe and its critical density, which is unlikely to occur, is less than one percent's one quadrillion. This is similar to place a pencil in a position so that it can stand on its sharp end even after one billion years… Furthermore, as the universe expands, this equilibrium becomes more delicate.20
Even Stephen Hawking, who tries hard to explain away the creation of the universe as a series coincidences in A Brief History of Time, acknowledges the extraordinary equilibrium in the rate of expansion:
If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. 21
What then does such a remarkable equilibrium as this indicate? The only rational answer to that question is that it is proof of conscious design and cannot possibly be accidental. Despite his own materialist bent, Dr Davies admits this himself:
It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.22
The Four Forces
The speed of the Big Bang's explosion is only one of the remarkable states of equilibrium at the initial moment of creation. Immediately after the Big Bang, forces that underpin and organize the universe we live in had to be numerically "just right" otherwise there would have been no universe.
These are the "four fundamental forces" that are recognized by modern physics. All structure and motion in the universe is governed by these four forces, known as the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. The strong and weak nuclear forces operate only at the atomic scale. The remaining two–the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force–govern assemblages of atoms, in other words "matter". These four fundamental forces were at work in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang and resulted in the creation of atoms and matter.
A comparison of those forces is enlightening for their values are stunningly different from one another. Below they are given in international standard units:
Strong nuclear force: 15
Weak nuclear force: 7.03 x 10-3
Electromagnetic force: 3.05 x 10-12
Gravitational force: 5.90 x 10-39
Notice how great are the differences in the strengths of these four fundamental forces. The difference between the strongest (strong nuclear force) and the weakest (gravitational force) is about 25 followed by 38 zeros! Why should this be so?
The molecular biologist Michael Denton addresses this question in his book, Nature's Destiny:
If, for example, the gravitational force was a trillion times stronger, then the universe would be far smaller and its life history far shorter. An average star would have a mass a trillion times less than the sun and a life span of about one year. On the other hand, if gravity had been less powerful, no stars or galaxies would have ever formed. The other relationships and values are no less critical. If the strong force had been just slightly weaker, the only element that would be stable would be hydrogen. No other atoms could exist. If it had been slightly stronger in relation to electromagnetism, then an atomic nucleus consisting of only two protons would be a stable feature of the universe-which would mean there would be no hydrogen, and if any stars or galaxies evolved, they would be very different from the way they are. Clearly, if these various forces and constants did not have precisely the values they do, there would be no stars, no supernovae, no planets, no atoms, no life. 23
Paul Davies comments on how the laws of physics provide for conditions ideal for people to live:
Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it…Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision.24
Arno Penzias, who was the first, along with Robert Wilson to detect the cosmic background radiation (for which discovery the pair received a Nobel prize in 1965), comments on the beautiful design in the universe:
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has underlying (one might say "supernational") plan.25
The scientists we have just quoted have all drawn an important conclusion from their observations. Examining and thinking about the incredible balances and their beautiful order in the design of universe inevitably leads one to a truth: There exists in this universe a superior design and a perfect harmony. Unquestionably the Author of this design and harmony is Allah, Who has created everything flawlessly. Allah draws our attention in one of His verses to the order in the creation of the universe, planned, and computed in every detail:
He to whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. (Surat al-Furqan: 2)
The Mathematics of Probability Refutes "Coincidence"
What has been said so far shows the extraordinary balances among the forces that make human life possible in this universe. The speed of the Big Bang's explosion, the values of the four fundamental forces, and all the other variables that we will be examining in the chapters ahead and which are vital for existence have been arranged according to an extraordinary precision.
Let us now make a brief digression and consider the coincidence theory of materialism. Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event's occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability. Let's do so.
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. 26
The numbers defining the design and plan of the universe's equilibrium play a crucial role and exceed comprehension. They prove that the universe is by no means the product of a coincidence, and show us "how precise the Creator's aim must have been" as Penrose stated.
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of Allah's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.
In the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the ships which sail the seas to people's benefit, and the water which Allah sends down from the sky- by which He brings the earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creatures of every kind - and the varying direction of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and earth, there are Signs for people who use their intellect. (Surat al-Baqara:164)
Seeing the Plain Truth
20th-century science has come up with categorical evidence that the universe was created by Allah. The anthropic principle that we mentioned before reveals every detail of a universe that has been designed for mankind to live in and in which there is no place for chance.
The interesting part is that the ones who discovered all this and came to the conclusion that the universe couldn't possibly have come into being by accident are the very same people who defend the philosophy of materialism. Scientists such as Paul Davies, Arno Penzias, Fred Hoyle and Roger Penrose are not pious men and they certainly had no intention of proving Allah's existence as they pursued their work. One can imagine that they reached their conclusions about the design of the universe by a superior power most unwillingly.
The American astronomer George Greenstein confesses this in his book The Symbiotic Universe:
How could this possibly have come to pass (that the laws of physics conform themselves to life)?…As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather Agency- must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?27
An atheist, Greenstein disregards the plain truth; nevertheless he cannot keep from wondering. Other, less prejudiced scientists on the other hand, readily admit that the universe must have been specially designed for mankind to live in. The American astrophysicist Hugh Ross ends his article "Design and the Anthropic Principle" with these words:
An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have brought the universe into existence. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed the universe. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed planet Earth. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed life.28
Thus science proves the reality of creation. Certainly there is Allah and He has created everything around us–the seen and the unseen. He is the sole Creator of the extraordinary and outstanding equilibrium and design of the heavens and Earth.
It has come such a pass that today, materialism has the flavor of a superstitious, unscientific system of belief. The American geneticist Robert Griffiths jokingly remarked "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use."29
To sum up: Every physical law and every physical constant in this universe has been specifically designed to enable human beings to exist and live. In his book The Cosmic Blueprint, Davies states this truth in the last paragraph, "The impression of Design is overwhelming."30
Doubtlessly, the design of the universe is evidence of Allah's power to establish. The precise balances and all the human beings and other creatures are the evidence of Allah's supreme power and act of creation. This result discovered by modern science is just a reworking of a truth revealed fourteen centuries ago in the Qur'an:
Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne. He covers the day with the night and, each pursuing the other urgently; and the sun and moon and stars are subservient to His command. Both creation and command belong to Him. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of all worlds. (Surat al-Araf: 54)
The Signs of the Qur'an
In addition to explaining the universe, the Big Bang model has another important implication. As the quotation from Anthony Flew cited above points out, science has proven an assertion hitherto supported only by religious sources.
The truth that is defended by religious sources is the reality of creation from nothingness. This has been declared in the holy books that have served as guides for mankind for thousands of years. In all holy books such as the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Qur'an, it is declared that the universe and everything in it were created from nothingness by Allah.
In the only book revealed by Allah that has survived completely intact, the Qur'an, there are statements about the creation of the universe from nothing as well as how this came about that are parallel to 20th-century knowledge and yet were revealed fourteen centuries ago.
First of all, the creation of this universe from nothingness is revealed in the Qur'an as follows:
He(Allah) is the Originator of the heavens and the earth…(Surat al-Anam: 101)
Another important aspect revealed in the Qur'an fourteen centuries before the modern discovery of the Big Bang and findings related to it is that when it was created, the universe occupied a very tiny volume:
Do those who are disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were sewn together and then We unstitched them and that We made from water every living thing? So will they not have faith? (Surat al-Anbiya': 30)
There is a very important choice of words in the original Arabic whose translation is given above. The word ratk translated as "sewn to" means "mixed in each, blended" in Arabic dictionaries. It is used to refer to two different substances that make up a whole. The phrase "we unstitched" is the verb fatk in Arabic and implies that something comes into being by tearing apart or destroying the structure of ratk. The sprouting of a seed from the soil is one of the actions to which this verb is applied.
Let us take a look at the verse again with this knowledge in mind. In the verse, sky and earth are at first subject to the status of ratk. They are separated (fatk) with one coming out of the other. Intriguingly, cosmologists speak of a "cosmic egg" that consisted of all the matter in the universe prior to the Big Bang. In other words, all the heavens and earth were included in this egg in a condition of ratk. This cosmic egg exploded violently causing its matter to fatk and in the process created the structure of the whole universe.
Another truth revealed in the Qur'an is the expansion of the universe that was discovered in the late 1920s. Hubble's discovery of the red shift in the spectrum of starlight is revealed in the Qur'an as :
It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)
In short, the findings of modern science support the truth that is revealed in the Qur'an and not materialist dogma. Materialists may claim this all to be "coincidence" but the plain fact is that the universe came into being as a result of an act of creation on the part of Allah and the only true knowledge about the origin of universe is to be found in the word of Allah as revealed to us.
THE BLUE PLANET
The Earth, with its atmosphere and oceans, its complex biosphere, its crust of relatively oxidised, silica rich, sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks overlaying [a magnesium silicate mantle and core] of metallic iron, with its ice caps, deserts, forests, tundra, jungles, grasslands, fresh-water lakes, coal beds, oil deposits, volcanoes, fumaroles, factories, automobiles, plants, animals, magnetic field, ionosphere, mid-ocean ridges, convincing mantle... is a system of stunning complexity.
J. S. Lewis, American Geologist54
An imaginary space-traveler approaching the solar system from interstellar space would encounter a very interesting scene. Let us imagine that we are such travelers and that we're arriving at the plane of the ecliptic–the great circle of the celestial sphere in which all the major planets of our solar system move. The first planet we will meet is Pluto. This planet is quite a cold place. The temperature is around -238°C. The planet has a thin of atmosphere that is in a gaseous state only when it draws slightly nearer to the sun in its rather elliptical orbit. At other times, the atmosphere becomes a mass of ice. Pluto, briefly, is a lifeless sphere enveloped in ice.
Advancing towards the sun, you next encounter Neptune. It is cold too: approximately -218°C. The atmosphere, consisting of hydrogen, helium and methane, is poisonous for life. Winds blowing nearly 2,000 kilometers an hour blast across the surface of the planet.
Next is Uranus: a gaseous planet with rocks and ice on its surface. The temperature is -214°C and the atmosphere again consists of hydrogen, helium and methane-–unsuitable for human beings to live in.
You reach Saturn after Uranus. This is the second biggest planet in the solar system and is particularly notable for the system of rings encircling it. These rings are made up of gases, rock and ice. One of the many interesting things about Saturn is that it is composed entirely of gas: 75% hydrogen and 25% helium and its density is less than that of water. If you want to "land" on Saturn, you'd better design your spaceship to be like an inflatable boat! The average temperature is again very low: -178°C.
Coming up next is Jupiter: the biggest planet in the solar system, it is 318 times the size of Earth. Like Saturn, Jupiter is also a gaseous planet. Since it is difficult to distinguish between "atmosphere" and "surface" on such planets, it is hard to say what the "surface temperature" is but in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, the temperature is -143°C. A notable feature of Jupiter's atmosphere is something called the Great Red Spot. It was first noticed 300 hundred years ago. Astronomers now know that it is an enormous storm system that has been raging in the Jovian atmosphere for centuries. It is big enough to swallow up a couple of planets the size of Earth whole. Jupiter may be a visually thrilling planet, but it's no home for people, who would be killed instantly by its freezing temperatures, violent winds, and intense radiation.
Then comes Mars. The atmosphere of Mars cannot sustain human life because it is mostly carbon dioxide. The surface is everywhere pocked with craters: the result of eons of meteor impacts and strong winds blowing across the surface that can raise sandstorms that last for days or weeks at a time. The temperature varies rather much but drops as low as -53°C. There has been much speculation that Mars might harbor life, but all the evidence shows that this is a lifeless world too.
Speeding away from Mars and heading toward the sun, we notice a blue planet that we decide to skip for the time being while we explore some more. Our search brings us to a planet called Venus. This planet is everywhere shrouded in brilliant white clouds but the temperature at the surface is 450°C, which is enough to cause lead to melt. The atmosphere is composed mostly of carbon dioxide. At the surface, the atmospheric pressure is equal to 90 terrestrial atmospheres: on Earth, you'd have to descend a kilometer into the sea before you reached a pressure that high. The atmosphere of Venus contains layers of gaseous sulfuric acid several kilometers deep. When it rains on Venus, it isn't raining rain you know: it's raining acid. No human or other life could exist in such a hellish place for a second.
We press on and come to Mercury, a small, rocky world, blasted by the heat and radiation of the sun. Its rotation has been so slowed down by its proximity to the sun that the planet makes only three full axial rotations in the time it takes to revolve twice around the sun. In other words, two of Mercury's "years" is equal to three of its "days". Because of this prolonged diurnal cycle, one side of Mercury becomes extremely hot while the other is extremely cold. The difference between the daytime and nighttime sides of Mercury is as much as 1,000°C. Of course such an environment cannot support life.
To sum up, we've taken looks at eight planets and not one of them, including their fifty-three satellites offers anything that might serve as a haven for life. Each of them is lifeless ball of gas, ice, or rock.
But the blue planet that we skipped over a while ago? That one's very different from the others. With its hospitable atmosphere, surface features, ambient temperatures, magnetic field, and supply of elements and set just the right distance from the sun, it almost seems as if it had been specially created to be a home for life.
And, as we shall discover, it was.
A Brief Digression and Warning About "Adaptation"
In the rest of this chapter we will be examining features of Earth that make it clear that our planet was created specifically for the support of life. But before we do that, we need to make a brief digression in order to avoid the possibility of any misunderstanding. This digression is especially for those who are in the habit of recognizing the theory of evolution as a scientific truth and who strongly believe in the concept of "adaptation".
"Adaptation" is the noun form of the verb "adapt". "Adapt" implies a modification according to changing circumstances. As used by evolutionists, it means a "modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment". The theory of evolution claims that all life on earth is derived from a single organism (a single common ancestor) that itself came into being as a result of chance and the theory makes heavy use of this sense of the word "adaptation" to support its case. Evolutionists hold that living organisms change into new species by adapting to their environment. We have discussed the invalidity of this claim, that mechanisms of adaptation to natural conditions in living beings come into play only under certain circumstances and it can never transform one species into another in detail in our other books.55 (This is summed up in the appendix "Evolution Deceit" in this book) The theory of evolution with its concept of "adaptation" is really just a form of Lamarckism, a theory of organic evolution that holds that environmental changes cause structural changes in animals and plants that can be transmitted to offspring- a theory that has been soundly and rightly dismissed by scientific circles.
Yet even though it has no scientific basis, the idea of adaptation impresses most people and that is why we must address this point here before going on. From belief in the adaptability of life-forms, it is only a step to the idea that life could have developed on other planets as well as it did once on Earth. The possibility of little green creatures living on Pluto who might work up a slight sweat when the temperature soared to 238°C, who breathe helium instead of oxygen, and who drink sulfuric acid instead of water somehow tickles people's fancy, especially people whose fancies have been richly nourished by the products of Hollywood studios.
But these are only such stuff as dreams (and Hollywood movies) are made of however and evolutionists who are better informed about biology and biochemistry do not even attempt to defend such notions. They know quite well that life exists only if necessary conditions and elements are available. If they really believe in them at all, the partisans of the little green men (or other alien life-forms) are those who blindly adhere to the theory of evolution and are ignorant of even the basics of biology and biochemistry and who, in their ignorance, come up with preposterous scenarios.
So in understanding the error in the concept of adaptation, the first thing that we need to note is that life can only exist if certain essential conditions and elements are present. The only model of life that is based on scientific criteria is that of carbon-based life and scientists are in agreement that there is no other form of life to be found anywhere elsewhere in the universe.
Carbon is the sixth element in the periodic table. This atom is the basis of life on earth because all organic molecules (such as nucleic acids, amino acids, proteins, fats, and sugars) are formed by the combination of carbon with other elements in various ways. Carbon forms millions of different types of proteins by combining with hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen etc. No other elements can take the place of carbon. As we shall see in the sections ahead, no element but carbon has the ability to form the many different kinds of chemical bonds on which life depends.
Consequently if life is going to exist on any planet anywhere in the universe it is going to have to be carbon-based.56
There are a number of conditions that are absolutely essential in order for carbon-based life to exist. For example, carbon-based organic compounds (like proteins) can exist only within a certain range of temperatures. They start to dissociate over 120°C and are irrecoverably damaged if they are frozen below -20°C. But it is not only temperature that plays a vital role in determining the allowable limits of suitable conditions for carbon-based life to exist: so too do the type and amount of light, the strength of gravity, the composition of the atmosphere, and the strength of the magnetic field. Earth provides precisely such conditions as are needed to make life possible. If even one of conditions were to be changed, if average temperatures surpassed 120°C for example, there would be no life on Earth.
Therefore our little green creatures who might work up a slight sweat when the temperature soars to 238°C, who breathe helium instead of oxygen, and who drink sulfuric acid instead of water are not going to exist anywhere because carbon-based life-forms cannot survive under such conditions and carbon-based life-forms are the only kind there is. Life can only exist in an environment within limits and under conditions that are deliberately designed for life. That is true of life in general and of human beings in particular.
Earth is such a deliberately-designed environment.
The Temperature of the World
Temperature and atmosphere are the first essential factors for life on Earth. The Blue Planet has both a temperature that is livable and an atmosphere that is breathable for living things, especially for such complex living things as human beings. These two extremely different factors however have come into being as a result of conditions that turn out to be ideal for both.
One of these is the distance between the earth and the sun. Earth could not be a home for life if were as near the sun as Venus is or as far from it as Jupiter: carbon-based molecules can only survive between the limits of 120 and –20°C and Earth is the only planet whose average temperatures fall within those limits.
When one considers the universe as a whole, coming across a range of temperatures as narrow as this is quite a difficult task because temperatures in the universe vary from the millions of degrees of the hottest stars to absolute zero (-273°C). In such a vast range of temperatures, the thermal interval that allows life to exist is slim indeed; but the planet Earth has it.
The American geologists Frank Press and Raymond Siever draw attention to the average temperatures prevailing on Earth. They note that "life as we know it is possible over a very narrow temperature interval. This interval is perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the range between a temperature of absolute zero and the surface temperature of the Sun." 57
The maintenance of this thermal range is also related to the amount of heat that the sun radiates as well as to the distance between the earth and the sun. According to calculations, a reduction of just 10% in the sun's radiant energy would result in the earth surface's being covered by layers of ice many meters thick and that if it were to increase by a little, all living things would be scorched and die.
Not only must the average temperature be ideal: the available heat must also be distributed fairly equally over the whole planet. A number of special precautions have been taken to ensure that this in fact happens.
The earth's axis is inclined 23° 27'to the plane of the ecliptic. This inclination prevents overheating of the atmosphere in the regions between the poles and the equator, causing them to become more temperate. If this inclination did not exist, the temperature gradient between the poles and equator would be much higher than it is and the temperate zones wouldn't be so temperate–or livable.
The rotational speed of Earth on its axes also helps keep the thermal distribution in balance. The earth makes a complete rotation once every 24 hours with the result that alternating periods of daylight and darkness are fairly short. Because they are short, the thermal gradient between the light and dark sides of the planet are quite modest. The importance of this can be seen in the extreme example of Mercury, where a day lasts longer than a year and where the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures is almost 1,000°C.
Geography also helps distribute heat equally over the earth. There is a difference of about 100°C between the polar and equatorial regions of Earth. If such a thermal gradient were to exist over a completely level area, the result would be winds reaching speeds as high as 1,000 kilometers an hour sweeping away everything in their path. Instead, Earth is full of geographical barriers that block the huge movements of air that such a thermal gradient would otherwise cause. Those barriers are chains of mountains like the one that stretches from the Pacific in the east to the Atlantic in the west, beginning with the Himalayas in China and continuing with the Taurus mountains in Anatolia and the Alps in Europe. At sea, the excess heat in the equatorial regions is transferred north and south thanks to the superior ability of the water to conduct and dissipate heat.
At the same time, there are a number of auto-control systems that help keep the atmospheric temperature in balance. For example when a region heats up, the rate at which its water vaporizes increases, causing clouds to form. These clouds reflect more light back into space, preventing both the air and the surface below from getting warmer.
The Mass of the Earth and the Planet's Magnetic Field
The size of Earth is no less important for life than are its distance from the Sun, its rotational speed, or geographical features. Looking at the planets we see a great range of sizes: Mercury is less than a tenth the size of Earth while Jupiter is 318 times bigger. Is the size of Earth as compared with other planets "coincidental"? Or is it deliberate?
When we examine the dimensions of Earth we can easily see that our planet was designed to be exactly as big as it is. American geologists Frank Press and Raymond Siever comment on Earth's "fitness":
And Earth's size was just about right -not too small as to lose its atmosphere because its gravity was too small to prevent gasses from escaping into space, and not so large that its gravity would hold on to too much atmosphere, including harmful gases.58
In addition to its mass, the interior of Earth is also specially designed. Because of its core, Earth has a strong magnetic field whose role in the preservation of life is vital. According to Press and Siever:
The earth's interior is a gigantic but delicately balanced heat engine fueled by radioactivity …Were it running more slowly, geological activity would have proceeded at a slower pace. Iron might not have melted and sunk to form the liquid core, and the magnetic field would never have developed…if there had been more radioactive fuel and a faster running engine, volcanic gas and dust would have blotted out the Sun, the atmosphere would have been oppressively dense, and the surface would have been racked by daily earthquakes and volcanic explosions.59
The magnetic field these geologists talk about is of great importance for life. This magnetic field originates from the structure of Earth's core. The core
Assalamulaikum Wureh Mattullaahey Wa Barakaatohoo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeace be upon you and (Allah) Creator’s mercy and blessings be upon you.
When Muslims visit or leave any place; they greet in this manner just like other people say hello, namastay etc.
I am Ghazanfar Khan, Born 4th time in this world. I am Only 900 years old this time I am planning not to die ever again. I have found a computer graphic card about which is 786 trillion years old. Is it a god graphic card? Well science has to find it out first only then we will declare it god ok.
The graphic memory of the card is 32 Mega bytes and its memory is clocked between 300 to 400 Mhz.
Whaattttttt
I am untruthful?
I am not reasonable?
87 years ago I found X58 Mobo, 200 million years old, actually it is a complete computer system found absolutely intact. Everything works perfectly and faster then any other computer because this X58 Mobo is equipped with Core i7 965 clocked at 3.2 Giga Hertz, 2000 Mhz DDR 3 Ram with very tight timings. A 2 Giga Byte DDR 5 Memory handled Graphic Card, 8 Channel Sound Card and each and everything necessary for massive computing.
Yes believe me it is a miracle that it came to existence because all the material was available on earth even before that period. I am a scientist. Science says that if a frog is turned into a prince with a kiss then its not true but if a frog turns into human in million years then it is science. Evolutionary Science to be exact. It evolved and each and everything took the best possible shape to support each other and work in perfect harmony. It evolved because of time.
I had some Nitrogen Oxide in hand so I decided to overclock the computer and this rig fro 3.2 Gigz to 6.5 Giga Hertz. Everything was working fine then I thought that I would require a good Graphical User Interface in order to take full advantage of power hungry beast. I looked at Darwin’s evolution and man they never let you down they just handed me over full functional copy of Windows 7 though Microsoft is in the development process of it but evolution said nothing is required, no work is required, leave those thousands of idiots working in Microsoft and develop one software in many years. We evolutionists are here; have your copy of Windows 7 With Service Pack 4 pre installed and enjoyyyyyy.
I am absolutely lucky that I have got such a great mechanism without the need of anything and knowledge because evolutions theories were helping me. I deny that the processor was made to work at 3.2 Giga Hertz. It was I who took it from 3.2 to 6.5 Gigz. Nothing in between it. There is absolutely no, no and no requirement of sense, knowledge, fabrication process, computer languages and other things associated with it.
Conclusion: It is declared and proven with evolutionary science that nobody has designed any computer accessory mentioned above instead it evolved by itself and took the most perfect shape to support other hardware as well.
The creation of computer according to evolutionists
Why don’t evolutionists say that all the material required to produce a computer existed on earth since 1 million years then it evolved and many items came into existence in perfect manner.
The order of Computer Evolution
First Power Supply Evolved and completed its structure.
Then the Central processing Unit came into existence.
Then Automatically out of nothingness there suddenly appear a full compatible mother according to that processor and power supply. The mother board had the sense that there would also be a hard drive and ram coming so it offered them the space to run themselves too. Some how processor managed to write the exact binary codes so that motherboard, ram, hard disk, north bridge and south bridge all started communication in perfect harmony.
Mother board smelled in the air that there is material which is about to come into existence namely “The Sound Card” and then some how again a miracle happened and mother board also started supporting both built in VGA, even the pins/ports of VGA were absolutely perfect to support a data cable from the monitor. When the Power supply saw that Mother board has increased supporting so many hardware; the Power supply went crazy with anger and started evolving until it reached wooping 1500 Watts and said to itself that now I can handle whatever the mother board throws at me. Thanks me and my evolution.
Let’s Start Thinking Sensibly
The Real World (The Factual World)
Each honey bee computes just 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) times faster then the super expensive and the fastest super computer human beings have produced to date which calculates 1 peta flops per second meaning 1 giga flops x 1 million.
Today’s Science and Super computers with help of special calculation softwares; prove that the universe came into existence out of nothingness just 50 billion years ago. The 400,000,000,000 (400 Billion) stars in the Milky Way (our Galaxy) and 500,000,000,000 (500 Billion) other galaxies came into existence out of zero volume and zero density.
Ok I accept. Onwards I will try to be.
Have we ever asked ourselves these questions?
• How did the endless universe we live in come into being?
• How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop?
• How is it that this Earth is such a fit and sheltering place for us to live in?
Let us recall the two assertions of materialism about the universe:
The universe exists in infinite time and, because it has no beginning or end, it was not created.
Everything in this universe is merely the result of chance and not the product of any intentional design, plan, or vision.
Those two notions were boldly advanced and ardently defended by 19th-century materialists, who of course had no recourse other than to depend upon the limited and unsophisticated scientific knowledge of their day. Both have been utterly refuted by the discoveries of 20th-century science.
The first to be laid in the grave was the notion of the universe existing in infinite time. Since the 1920s, there has been mounting evidence this cannot be true. Scientists are now certain that the universe came into being from nothingness as the result of an unimaginably huge explosion, known as the "Big Bang". In other words, the universe came into being–or rather, it was created by Allah.
The 20th century has also witnessed the demolition of the second claim of materialism: that everything in the universe is the result of chance and not design. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrates that all the physical equilibriums of the universe in general and of our world in particularly are intricately designed to make life possible. As this research deepened, it was discovered each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe has been precisely tailored so that human beings may live. Scientists today call this extraordinary design the "anthropic principle". This is the principle that every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.
To sum up, the philosophy called materialism has been utterly refuted by modern science. From its position as the dominant scientific view of the 19th century, materialism collapsed into fiction in the 20th.
How could it have been otherwise? As Allah indicates "We did not create heaven and earth and everything between them to no purpose. That is the opinion of those who are disbelievers." (Surah Sad: 27) it is wrong to suppose that the universe was created in vain. A philosophy so utterly flawed as materialism and systems based on it were doomed to failure from the very beginning.
Creation is a fact.
If we say that big bang happened in a place which was 2 meter square in size or we assume and multiply this area to quadrillion kilometers even then it would look so silly that such a great mechanism came into existence without anyone actually wanting, have the knowledge to execute it and is willingly making it happen all the time.
For almost 13 and half centuries disbelievers mocked Muslims that your Quran says that stars and galaxies are moving though it is not but today’s Science has proven the words of Quran that the Universe is continuously expanding and it is expanding at a very high speed. Our sun is revolving around the galactic center with its solar system including our planet earth at the speed of approximately 225 kilometers per second. We travel just 490,000 kilometers every hour. 24 hours a day, every day of every year of every century since last 50 billion years. We were all shot out from a single point and we all are traveling at the speed of 225 kilometers per second. The galaxies are also moving away from each other.
The Expansion of Universe and the Discovery of the Big Bang
The 1920s were important years in the development of modern astronomy. In 1922, the Russian physicist Alexandra Friedman produced computations showing that the structure of the universe was not static and that even a tiny impulse might be sufficient to cause the whole structure to expand or contract according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. George Lemaitre was the first to recognize what Friedman's work meant. Based on these computations, the Belgian astronomer Lemaitre declared that the universe had a beginning and that it was expanding as a result of something that had triggered it. He also stated that the rate of radiation could be used as a measure of the aftermath of that "something".
The theoretical musings of these two scientists did not attract much attention and probably would have been ignored except for new observational evidence that rocked the scientific world in 1929. That year the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, working at the California Mount Wilson observatory, made one of the most important discoveries in the history of astronomy. Observing a number of stars through his huge telescope, he discovered that their light was shifted towards the red end of the spectrum and, crucially, that this shift was directly related to the distance of the stars from Earth. This discovery shook the very basis of the universe model held until then.
According to the recognized rules of physics, the spectra of light beams travelling towards the point of observation tend towards violet while the spectra of light beams moving away from the point of observation tend towards red. (Just like the fading of a train's whistle as it moves away from the observer) Hubble's observation showed that according to this law, the heavenly bodies were moving away from us. Before long, Hubble made another important discovery; The stars weren't just racing away from Earth; they were racing away from each other as well. The only conclusion that could be derived from a universe where everything moves away from everything else is that the universe constantly "expands".
Hubble had found observational evidence for something that George Lemaitre had "prophesized" a short while ago and one of the greatest minds of our age had recognized almost fifteen years earlier. In 1915, Albert Einstein had concluded that the universe could not be static because of calculations based on his recently-discovered theory of relativity (thus anticipating the conclusions of Friedman and Lemaitre). Shocked by his findings, Einstein added a "cosmological constant" to his equations in order to "make the answer come out right" because astronomers assured him that the universe was static and there was no other way to make his equations match such a model. Years later, Einstein was to admit that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career.
Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding led to the emergence of another model that needed no fiddling around with to make the equations work right. If the universe was getting bigger as time advanced, going back in time meant that it was getting smaller; and if one went back far enough, everything would shrink and converge at a single point. The conclusion to be derived from this model was that at some time, all the matter in the universe was compacted in a single point-mass that had "zero volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of this point-mass that had zero volume. This explosion has come to be called the "the Big Bang" and its existence has repeatedly been confirmed by observational evidence.
There was another truth that the Big Bang pointed to. To say that something has zero volume is tantamount to saying that it is "nothing". The whole universe was created from this "nothing". And furthermore this universe had a beginning, contrary to the view of materialism, which holds that "the universe has existed for eternity".
The "Steady-state" Hypothesis
The Big Bang theory quickly gained wide acceptance in the scientific world due to the clear-cut evidence for it. Nevertheless astronomers who favored materialism and adhered to the idea of an infinite universe that materialism seemingly demanded held out against the Big Bang in their struggle to uphold a fundamental tenet of their ideology. The reason was made clear by the English astronomer Arthur Eddington, who said "Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me".4
Another astronomer who opposed the Big Bang theory was Fred Hoyle. Around the middle of the 20th century he came up with a new model, which he called "steady-state", that was an extension of the 19th century's idea of an infinite universe. Accepting the incontrovertible evidence that the universe was expanding, he proposed that the universe was infinite in both dimension and time. According to this model, as the universe expanded new matter was continuously coming into existence by itself in just the right amount to keep the universe in a "steady state". With the sole visible aim of supporting the dogma of "matter existed in infinite time", which is the basis of the materialist philosophy, this theory was totally at variance with the "Big Bang theory", which defends that the universe had a beginning. Supporters of Hoyle's steady state theory remained adamantly opposed to the Big Bang for years. Science, however, was working against them.
The Triumph of the Big Bang
In 1948, George Gamov carried George Lemaitre's calculations several steps further and came up with a new idea concerning the Big Bang. If the universe was formed in a sudden, cataclysmic explosion, there ought to be a definite amount of radiation left over from that explosion. This radiation should be detectable and, furthermore, it should be uniform throughout the universe.
Within two decades, observational proof of Gamov's conjecture was forthcoming. In 1965, two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson chanced upon a form of radiation hitherto unnoticed. Called "cosmic background radiation", it was unlike anything coming from anywhere else in the universe for it was extraordinarily uniform. It was neither localized nor did it have a definite source; instead, it was distributed equally everywhere. It was soon realized that this radiation was the echo of the Big Bang, still reverberating since the first moments of that great explosion. Gamov had been spot-on for the frequency of the radiation was nearly the same value that scientists had predicted it would be. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel prize for their discovery.
In 1989, George Smoot and his NASA team sent a satellite into space. Called the "Cosmic Background Emission Explorer" (COBE), it took only eight minutes for the sensitive instruments on board the satellite to detect and confirm the levels of radiation reported by Penzias and Wilson. These results conclusively demonstrated the existence of the hot, dense form remaining from the explosion out of which the universe came into being. Most scientists acknowledged that COBE had successfully captured the remnants of the Big Bang.
More evidence for the Big Bang was forthcoming. One piece had to do with the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium in the universe. Observations indicated that the mix of these two elements in the universe was in accord with theoretical calculations of what should have been remained after the Big Bang. That drove another stake into the heart of the steady state theory because if the universe had existed for eternity and never had a beginning, all of its hydrogen should have been burned into helium.
Confronted by such evidence, the Big Bang gained the near-complete approval of the scientific world. In an article in its October 1994 issue, Scientific American noted that the Big Bang model was the only one that could account for the constant expansion of the universe and for other observational results.
Defending the steady-state theory alongside Fred Hoyle for years, Dennis Sciama described the final position they had reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang theory was revealed:
There was at that time a somewhat acrimonious debate between some of the proponents of the steady state theory and observers who were testing it and, I think, hoping to disprove it. I played a very minor part at that time because I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true. When hostile observational evidence became to come in, Fred Hoyle took a leading part in trying to counter this evidence, and I played a small part at the side, also making suggestions as to how the hostile evidence could be answered. But as that evidence piled up, it became more and more evident that the game was up, and that one had to abandon the steady state theory.5
Who Created the Universe From Nothing?
With this triumph of the Big Bang, the thesis of an "infinite universe", which forms the basis of materialist dogma, was tossed onto the scrap-heap of history. But for materialists it also raised a couple of inconvenient questions: What existed before the Big Bang? And what force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?
Materialists like Arthur Eddington recognized that the answers to these questions could point to the existence of a supreme creator and that they did not like. The atheist philosopher Anthony Flew commented on this point:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. 6
Many scientists who do not force themselves to be atheists accept and favor the existence of a creator having an infinite power. For instance, the American astrophysicist Hugh Ross proposes a Creator of universe, Who is above all physical dimensions as:
By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.
Why is There So Much Space?
Let's recap a few points that we made earlier. The universe following the Big Bang was a nebula of just hydrogen and helium. Heavier elements were produced later by means of intentionally-designed nuclear reactions. Yet the existence of heavier elements is not a sufficient reason for the universe to become a suitable place for life. A much more important issue is how the universe was formed and ordered.
We shall start by asking how big the universe is.
The planet Earth is a part of the solar system. In this system there are nine major planets with fifty-four satellites, and an uncounted number of asteroids all revolving around a single star called "Sun", a middle-sized star compared with others in the universe. Earth is the third planet from the sun.
Let us first try to understand the size of this system. The diameter of the sun is 103 times that of the earth. To visualize this, the planet Earth has diameter of 12,200 kms. If we scaled that down to the dimensions of a glass bead, the sun would be about the size of soccer ball. But the interesting thing is the distance between the two. Keeping to the same scale, the two balls should be 280 meters apart. Some of the objects representing the outer planets would have to be set several kilometers away.
Big though this might seem, the solar system is a quite miniscule in size compared with the Milky Way, the galaxy in which it is located. There are over 250 billion stars in the Milky Way–some similar to the sun, others bigger, others smaller. The star nearest to the sun is Alpha Centauri. If we wanted to add Alpha Centauri in our model system, it would have to be located 78,000 kilometers away.
That's too big for almost anyone to grasp, so let's reduce the scale. We'll assume the earth to be as big as a dust-particle. That would make the sun as big as a walnut about three meters from the earth. On this scale, Alpha Centauri would have to be located 640 kilometers from the sun.
The Milky Way consists of about 250 billion stars with similarly mind-boggling distances between them. The sun is located closer to the edge of this spiral-shaped galaxy than it is to the center.
Even the Milky Way is dwarfed by the vast size of the whole universe. It is just one of many galaxies–nearly 300 billion of them according to recent calculations. And the distances between galaxies are millions of times greater than that between the sun and Alpha Centauri.
George Greenstein, in The Symbiotic Universe, comments on this unimaginable vastness:
Had the stars been somewhat closer, astrophysics would not have been so very different. The fundamental physical processes occurring within stars, nebulas, and the like would have proceeded unchanged. The appearance of our galaxy as seen from some far-distant vantage point would have been the same. About the only difference would have been the view of the night time sky from the grass on which I lie, which would have been yet richer with stars. And oh, yes-one more small change: There would have been no me to do the viewing…All that waster space! On the other hand, in this very waste lies our safety.46
Greenstein also explains the reason for this. In his view, the huge distances in space makes it possible for certain physical variables to be arranged so as to be exactly suitable for human life. He also notes the importance of this huge space in allowing Earth to exist while minimizing the risk of collision with other stars.
In short, the distribution of celestial bodies in space is exactly what it must be for human life to exist on our planet. These huge spaces are the outcome of an intentional design for a purpose and not a result of coincidence.
THE EQUILIBRIUM IN THE EXPLOSION
The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.
Paul Davies, Professor of Theoretical Physics17
In the first chapter we examined the universe's creation from nothingness as a result of a great explosion. Let us now consider some of the implications of this.
Scientists estimate that there are over 300 billion galaxies in the whole universe. These galaxies have a number of different forms (spiral, elliptical, etc) and each contains about as many stars as the universe contains galaxies. One of these stars, the Sun, has nine major planets rotating around in it in great harmony. All of us live on the third of those planets counting from the sun.
Look about you: Does what you see appear to be a disordered jumble of matter haphazardly scattered this way and that? Of course not. But how could matter have formed organized galaxies if it had been dispersed randomly? Why has matter accumulated at certain points and formed stars? How could the delicate balance of our solar system have emerged from a violent explosion? These are very important questions and they lead us to the real question of how the universe was structured after the Big Bang.
If the Big Bang was indeed a such cataclysmic explosion then it is reasonable to expect that matter should have been scattered everywhere at random. And yet it is not. Instead it is organized into planets, and stars, and galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies. It is as if a bomb that exploded in a granary caused all the wheat to fall into neat sacks and bales on the backs of trucks ready to be delivered instead of showering the grains every which way. Fred Hoyle, a staunch opponent of the Big Bang theory for years, expressed his own surprise at this structure:
The big bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen below, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the big bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect- with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies.18
That the matter produced by the Big Bang should have formed such tidy and organized shapes is indeed an extraordinary thing. The occurrence of such a harmony leads us to the realization that the universe was the result of its perfect creation by Allah.
In this chapter we will examine and consider this extraordinary perfection and excellence.
The Speed of the Explosion
People hearing of the Big Bang but not considering the subject at length do not think about what an extraordinary plan must lie behind this explosion. That's because the notion of an explosion doesn't suggest harmony, plan, or organization to most people. In fact there are a number of very puzzling aspects to the intricate order in the Big Bang.
One of these puzzles has to do with the acceleration caused by the explosion. When the explosion took place, matter certainly must have begun moving at an enormous speed in every direction. But there is another point that we need to pay attention to here. There must also have been a very big attractive force at the first moment of the explosion: an attractive force that was strong enough to gather the whole universe into one point.
Two different and opposing forces are at work here. The force of the explosion, driving matter outward and away, and the force of attraction, trying to resist the first and pull everything back together. The universe came into being because these two forces were in equilibrium. If the attractive force had been greater than the explosive, the universe would have collapsed. If the opposite had been true, matter would have been splattered in every direction in a way never to unite again.
Then how sensitive was this equilibrium? How much "slack" could there have been between the two forces?
The mathematical physicist Paul Davies, a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, performed lengthy calculations of the conditions that must have existed at the moment of the Big Bang and came up with a result that can only be described as astonishing. According to Davies, if the rate of expansion had differed by more than 10-18 seconds (one quintillionth of a second), there would have been no universe. Davies describes his conclusion:
Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned" to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.19
Bilim Teknik (Science Technique, a Turkish scientific periodical) quotes an article that appeared in Science in which the phenomenal equilibrium that obtained in the initial phase of universe is stated:
If the density of the universe was a little bit more, in that case, according to Einstein's relativity theory, the universe would not be expanding due to the attraction forces of atomic particles but contracting, ultimately diminishing to a spot. If the initial density had been a little bit less, then the universe would rapidly be expanding, but in this case, atomic particles would not be attracting each other and no stars and no galaxies would ever have formed. Consequently, man would never come into existence! According to the calculations, the difference between the initial real density of the universe and its critical density, which is unlikely to occur, is less than one percent's one quadrillion. This is similar to place a pencil in a position so that it can stand on its sharp end even after one billion years… Furthermore, as the universe expands, this equilibrium becomes more delicate.20
Even Stephen Hawking, who tries hard to explain away the creation of the universe as a series coincidences in A Brief History of Time, acknowledges the extraordinary equilibrium in the rate of expansion:
If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. 21
What then does such a remarkable equilibrium as this indicate? The only rational answer to that question is that it is proof of conscious design and cannot possibly be accidental. Despite his own materialist bent, Dr Davies admits this himself:
It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.22
The Four Forces
The speed of the Big Bang's explosion is only one of the remarkable states of equilibrium at the initial moment of creation. Immediately after the Big Bang, forces that underpin and organize the universe we live in had to be numerically "just right" otherwise there would have been no universe.
These are the "four fundamental forces" that are recognized by modern physics. All structure and motion in the universe is governed by these four forces, known as the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. The strong and weak nuclear forces operate only at the atomic scale. The remaining two–the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force–govern assemblages of atoms, in other words "matter". These four fundamental forces were at work in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang and resulted in the creation of atoms and matter.
A comparison of those forces is enlightening for their values are stunningly different from one another. Below they are given in international standard units:
Strong nuclear force: 15
Weak nuclear force: 7.03 x 10-3
Electromagnetic force: 3.05 x 10-12
Gravitational force: 5.90 x 10-39
Notice how great are the differences in the strengths of these four fundamental forces. The difference between the strongest (strong nuclear force) and the weakest (gravitational force) is about 25 followed by 38 zeros! Why should this be so?
The molecular biologist Michael Denton addresses this question in his book, Nature's Destiny:
If, for example, the gravitational force was a trillion times stronger, then the universe would be far smaller and its life history far shorter. An average star would have a mass a trillion times less than the sun and a life span of about one year. On the other hand, if gravity had been less powerful, no stars or galaxies would have ever formed. The other relationships and values are no less critical. If the strong force had been just slightly weaker, the only element that would be stable would be hydrogen. No other atoms could exist. If it had been slightly stronger in relation to electromagnetism, then an atomic nucleus consisting of only two protons would be a stable feature of the universe-which would mean there would be no hydrogen, and if any stars or galaxies evolved, they would be very different from the way they are. Clearly, if these various forces and constants did not have precisely the values they do, there would be no stars, no supernovae, no planets, no atoms, no life. 23
Paul Davies comments on how the laws of physics provide for conditions ideal for people to live:
Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it…Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision.24
Arno Penzias, who was the first, along with Robert Wilson to detect the cosmic background radiation (for which discovery the pair received a Nobel prize in 1965), comments on the beautiful design in the universe:
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has underlying (one might say "supernational") plan.25
The scientists we have just quoted have all drawn an important conclusion from their observations. Examining and thinking about the incredible balances and their beautiful order in the design of universe inevitably leads one to a truth: There exists in this universe a superior design and a perfect harmony. Unquestionably the Author of this design and harmony is Allah, Who has created everything flawlessly. Allah draws our attention in one of His verses to the order in the creation of the universe, planned, and computed in every detail:
He to whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. (Surat al-Furqan: 2)
The Mathematics of Probability Refutes "Coincidence"
What has been said so far shows the extraordinary balances among the forces that make human life possible in this universe. The speed of the Big Bang's explosion, the values of the four fundamental forces, and all the other variables that we will be examining in the chapters ahead and which are vital for existence have been arranged according to an extraordinary precision.
Let us now make a brief digression and consider the coincidence theory of materialism. Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event's occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability. Let's do so.
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. 26
The numbers defining the design and plan of the universe's equilibrium play a crucial role and exceed comprehension. They prove that the universe is by no means the product of a coincidence, and show us "how precise the Creator's aim must have been" as Penrose stated.
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of Allah's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.
In the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the ships which sail the seas to people's benefit, and the water which Allah sends down from the sky- by which He brings the earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creatures of every kind - and the varying direction of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and earth, there are Signs for people who use their intellect. (Surat al-Baqara:164)
Seeing the Plain Truth
20th-century science has come up with categorical evidence that the universe was created by Allah. The anthropic principle that we mentioned before reveals every detail of a universe that has been designed for mankind to live in and in which there is no place for chance.
The interesting part is that the ones who discovered all this and came to the conclusion that the universe couldn't possibly have come into being by accident are the very same people who defend the philosophy of materialism. Scientists such as Paul Davies, Arno Penzias, Fred Hoyle and Roger Penrose are not pious men and they certainly had no intention of proving Allah's existence as they pursued their work. One can imagine that they reached their conclusions about the design of the universe by a superior power most unwillingly.
The American astronomer George Greenstein confesses this in his book The Symbiotic Universe:
How could this possibly have come to pass (that the laws of physics conform themselves to life)?…As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather Agency- must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?27
An atheist, Greenstein disregards the plain truth; nevertheless he cannot keep from wondering. Other, less prejudiced scientists on the other hand, readily admit that the universe must have been specially designed for mankind to live in. The American astrophysicist Hugh Ross ends his article "Design and the Anthropic Principle" with these words:
An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have brought the universe into existence. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed the universe. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed planet Earth. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed life.28
Thus science proves the reality of creation. Certainly there is Allah and He has created everything around us–the seen and the unseen. He is the sole Creator of the extraordinary and outstanding equilibrium and design of the heavens and Earth.
It has come such a pass that today, materialism has the flavor of a superstitious, unscientific system of belief. The American geneticist Robert Griffiths jokingly remarked "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use."29
To sum up: Every physical law and every physical constant in this universe has been specifically designed to enable human beings to exist and live. In his book The Cosmic Blueprint, Davies states this truth in the last paragraph, "The impression of Design is overwhelming."30
Doubtlessly, the design of the universe is evidence of Allah's power to establish. The precise balances and all the human beings and other creatures are the evidence of Allah's supreme power and act of creation. This result discovered by modern science is just a reworking of a truth revealed fourteen centuries ago in the Qur'an:
Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne. He covers the day with the night and, each pursuing the other urgently; and the sun and moon and stars are subservient to His command. Both creation and command belong to Him. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of all worlds. (Surat al-Araf: 54)
The Signs of the Qur'an
In addition to explaining the universe, the Big Bang model has another important implication. As the quotation from Anthony Flew cited above points out, science has proven an assertion hitherto supported only by religious sources.
The truth that is defended by religious sources is the reality of creation from nothingness. This has been declared in the holy books that have served as guides for mankind for thousands of years. In all holy books such as the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Qur'an, it is declared that the universe and everything in it were created from nothingness by Allah.
In the only book revealed by Allah that has survived completely intact, the Qur'an, there are statements about the creation of the universe from nothing as well as how this came about that are parallel to 20th-century knowledge and yet were revealed fourteen centuries ago.
First of all, the creation of this universe from nothingness is revealed in the Qur'an as follows:
He(Allah) is the Originator of the heavens and the earth…(Surat al-Anam: 101)
Another important aspect revealed in the Qur'an fourteen centuries before the modern discovery of the Big Bang and findings related to it is that when it was created, the universe occupied a very tiny volume:
Do those who are disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were sewn together and then We unstitched them and that We made from water every living thing? So will they not have faith? (Surat al-Anbiya': 30)
There is a very important choice of words in the original Arabic whose translation is given above. The word ratk translated as "sewn to" means "mixed in each, blended" in Arabic dictionaries. It is used to refer to two different substances that make up a whole. The phrase "we unstitched" is the verb fatk in Arabic and implies that something comes into being by tearing apart or destroying the structure of ratk. The sprouting of a seed from the soil is one of the actions to which this verb is applied.
Let us take a look at the verse again with this knowledge in mind. In the verse, sky and earth are at first subject to the status of ratk. They are separated (fatk) with one coming out of the other. Intriguingly, cosmologists speak of a "cosmic egg" that consisted of all the matter in the universe prior to the Big Bang. In other words, all the heavens and earth were included in this egg in a condition of ratk. This cosmic egg exploded violently causing its matter to fatk and in the process created the structure of the whole universe.
Another truth revealed in the Qur'an is the expansion of the universe that was discovered in the late 1920s. Hubble's discovery of the red shift in the spectrum of starlight is revealed in the Qur'an as :
It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)
In short, the findings of modern science support the truth that is revealed in the Qur'an and not materialist dogma. Materialists may claim this all to be "coincidence" but the plain fact is that the universe came into being as a result of an act of creation on the part of Allah and the only true knowledge about the origin of universe is to be found in the word of Allah as revealed to us.
THE BLUE PLANET
The Earth, with its atmosphere and oceans, its complex biosphere, its crust of relatively oxidised, silica rich, sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks overlaying [a magnesium silicate mantle and core] of metallic iron, with its ice caps, deserts, forests, tundra, jungles, grasslands, fresh-water lakes, coal beds, oil deposits, volcanoes, fumaroles, factories, automobiles, plants, animals, magnetic field, ionosphere, mid-ocean ridges, convincing mantle... is a system of stunning complexity.
J. S. Lewis, American Geologist54
An imaginary space-traveler approaching the solar system from interstellar space would encounter a very interesting scene. Let us imagine that we are such travelers and that we're arriving at the plane of the ecliptic–the great circle of the celestial sphere in which all the major planets of our solar system move. The first planet we will meet is Pluto. This planet is quite a cold place. The temperature is around -238°C. The planet has a thin of atmosphere that is in a gaseous state only when it draws slightly nearer to the sun in its rather elliptical orbit. At other times, the atmosphere becomes a mass of ice. Pluto, briefly, is a lifeless sphere enveloped in ice.
Advancing towards the sun, you next encounter Neptune. It is cold too: approximately -218°C. The atmosphere, consisting of hydrogen, helium and methane, is poisonous for life. Winds blowing nearly 2,000 kilometers an hour blast across the surface of the planet.
Next is Uranus: a gaseous planet with rocks and ice on its surface. The temperature is -214°C and the atmosphere again consists of hydrogen, helium and methane-–unsuitable for human beings to live in.
You reach Saturn after Uranus. This is the second biggest planet in the solar system and is particularly notable for the system of rings encircling it. These rings are made up of gases, rock and ice. One of the many interesting things about Saturn is that it is composed entirely of gas: 75% hydrogen and 25% helium and its density is less than that of water. If you want to "land" on Saturn, you'd better design your spaceship to be like an inflatable boat! The average temperature is again very low: -178°C.
Coming up next is Jupiter: the biggest planet in the solar system, it is 318 times the size of Earth. Like Saturn, Jupiter is also a gaseous planet. Since it is difficult to distinguish between "atmosphere" and "surface" on such planets, it is hard to say what the "surface temperature" is but in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, the temperature is -143°C. A notable feature of Jupiter's atmosphere is something called the Great Red Spot. It was first noticed 300 hundred years ago. Astronomers now know that it is an enormous storm system that has been raging in the Jovian atmosphere for centuries. It is big enough to swallow up a couple of planets the size of Earth whole. Jupiter may be a visually thrilling planet, but it's no home for people, who would be killed instantly by its freezing temperatures, violent winds, and intense radiation.
Then comes Mars. The atmosphere of Mars cannot sustain human life because it is mostly carbon dioxide. The surface is everywhere pocked with craters: the result of eons of meteor impacts and strong winds blowing across the surface that can raise sandstorms that last for days or weeks at a time. The temperature varies rather much but drops as low as -53°C. There has been much speculation that Mars might harbor life, but all the evidence shows that this is a lifeless world too.
Speeding away from Mars and heading toward the sun, we notice a blue planet that we decide to skip for the time being while we explore some more. Our search brings us to a planet called Venus. This planet is everywhere shrouded in brilliant white clouds but the temperature at the surface is 450°C, which is enough to cause lead to melt. The atmosphere is composed mostly of carbon dioxide. At the surface, the atmospheric pressure is equal to 90 terrestrial atmospheres: on Earth, you'd have to descend a kilometer into the sea before you reached a pressure that high. The atmosphere of Venus contains layers of gaseous sulfuric acid several kilometers deep. When it rains on Venus, it isn't raining rain you know: it's raining acid. No human or other life could exist in such a hellish place for a second.
We press on and come to Mercury, a small, rocky world, blasted by the heat and radiation of the sun. Its rotation has been so slowed down by its proximity to the sun that the planet makes only three full axial rotations in the time it takes to revolve twice around the sun. In other words, two of Mercury's "years" is equal to three of its "days". Because of this prolonged diurnal cycle, one side of Mercury becomes extremely hot while the other is extremely cold. The difference between the daytime and nighttime sides of Mercury is as much as 1,000°C. Of course such an environment cannot support life.
To sum up, we've taken looks at eight planets and not one of them, including their fifty-three satellites offers anything that might serve as a haven for life. Each of them is lifeless ball of gas, ice, or rock.
But the blue planet that we skipped over a while ago? That one's very different from the others. With its hospitable atmosphere, surface features, ambient temperatures, magnetic field, and supply of elements and set just the right distance from the sun, it almost seems as if it had been specially created to be a home for life.
And, as we shall discover, it was.
A Brief Digression and Warning About "Adaptation"
In the rest of this chapter we will be examining features of Earth that make it clear that our planet was created specifically for the support of life. But before we do that, we need to make a brief digression in order to avoid the possibility of any misunderstanding. This digression is especially for those who are in the habit of recognizing the theory of evolution as a scientific truth and who strongly believe in the concept of "adaptation".
"Adaptation" is the noun form of the verb "adapt". "Adapt" implies a modification according to changing circumstances. As used by evolutionists, it means a "modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment". The theory of evolution claims that all life on earth is derived from a single organism (a single common ancestor) that itself came into being as a result of chance and the theory makes heavy use of this sense of the word "adaptation" to support its case. Evolutionists hold that living organisms change into new species by adapting to their environment. We have discussed the invalidity of this claim, that mechanisms of adaptation to natural conditions in living beings come into play only under certain circumstances and it can never transform one species into another in detail in our other books.55 (This is summed up in the appendix "Evolution Deceit" in this book) The theory of evolution with its concept of "adaptation" is really just a form of Lamarckism, a theory of organic evolution that holds that environmental changes cause structural changes in animals and plants that can be transmitted to offspring- a theory that has been soundly and rightly dismissed by scientific circles.
Yet even though it has no scientific basis, the idea of adaptation impresses most people and that is why we must address this point here before going on. From belief in the adaptability of life-forms, it is only a step to the idea that life could have developed on other planets as well as it did once on Earth. The possibility of little green creatures living on Pluto who might work up a slight sweat when the temperature soared to 238°C, who breathe helium instead of oxygen, and who drink sulfuric acid instead of water somehow tickles people's fancy, especially people whose fancies have been richly nourished by the products of Hollywood studios.
But these are only such stuff as dreams (and Hollywood movies) are made of however and evolutionists who are better informed about biology and biochemistry do not even attempt to defend such notions. They know quite well that life exists only if necessary conditions and elements are available. If they really believe in them at all, the partisans of the little green men (or other alien life-forms) are those who blindly adhere to the theory of evolution and are ignorant of even the basics of biology and biochemistry and who, in their ignorance, come up with preposterous scenarios.
So in understanding the error in the concept of adaptation, the first thing that we need to note is that life can only exist if certain essential conditions and elements are present. The only model of life that is based on scientific criteria is that of carbon-based life and scientists are in agreement that there is no other form of life to be found anywhere elsewhere in the universe.
Carbon is the sixth element in the periodic table. This atom is the basis of life on earth because all organic molecules (such as nucleic acids, amino acids, proteins, fats, and sugars) are formed by the combination of carbon with other elements in various ways. Carbon forms millions of different types of proteins by combining with hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen etc. No other elements can take the place of carbon. As we shall see in the sections ahead, no element but carbon has the ability to form the many different kinds of chemical bonds on which life depends.
Consequently if life is going to exist on any planet anywhere in the universe it is going to have to be carbon-based.56
There are a number of conditions that are absolutely essential in order for carbon-based life to exist. For example, carbon-based organic compounds (like proteins) can exist only within a certain range of temperatures. They start to dissociate over 120°C and are irrecoverably damaged if they are frozen below -20°C. But it is not only temperature that plays a vital role in determining the allowable limits of suitable conditions for carbon-based life to exist: so too do the type and amount of light, the strength of gravity, the composition of the atmosphere, and the strength of the magnetic field. Earth provides precisely such conditions as are needed to make life possible. If even one of conditions were to be changed, if average temperatures surpassed 120°C for example, there would be no life on Earth.
Therefore our little green creatures who might work up a slight sweat when the temperature soars to 238°C, who breathe helium instead of oxygen, and who drink sulfuric acid instead of water are not going to exist anywhere because carbon-based life-forms cannot survive under such conditions and carbon-based life-forms are the only kind there is. Life can only exist in an environment within limits and under conditions that are deliberately designed for life. That is true of life in general and of human beings in particular.
Earth is such a deliberately-designed environment.
The Temperature of the World
Temperature and atmosphere are the first essential factors for life on Earth. The Blue Planet has both a temperature that is livable and an atmosphere that is breathable for living things, especially for such complex living things as human beings. These two extremely different factors however have come into being as a result of conditions that turn out to be ideal for both.
One of these is the distance between the earth and the sun. Earth could not be a home for life if were as near the sun as Venus is or as far from it as Jupiter: carbon-based molecules can only survive between the limits of 120 and –20°C and Earth is the only planet whose average temperatures fall within those limits.
When one considers the universe as a whole, coming across a range of temperatures as narrow as this is quite a difficult task because temperatures in the universe vary from the millions of degrees of the hottest stars to absolute zero (-273°C). In such a vast range of temperatures, the thermal interval that allows life to exist is slim indeed; but the planet Earth has it.
The American geologists Frank Press and Raymond Siever draw attention to the average temperatures prevailing on Earth. They note that "life as we know it is possible over a very narrow temperature interval. This interval is perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the range between a temperature of absolute zero and the surface temperature of the Sun." 57
The maintenance of this thermal range is also related to the amount of heat that the sun radiates as well as to the distance between the earth and the sun. According to calculations, a reduction of just 10% in the sun's radiant energy would result in the earth surface's being covered by layers of ice many meters thick and that if it were to increase by a little, all living things would be scorched and die.
Not only must the average temperature be ideal: the available heat must also be distributed fairly equally over the whole planet. A number of special precautions have been taken to ensure that this in fact happens.
The earth's axis is inclined 23° 27'to the plane of the ecliptic. This inclination prevents overheating of the atmosphere in the regions between the poles and the equator, causing them to become more temperate. If this inclination did not exist, the temperature gradient between the poles and equator would be much higher than it is and the temperate zones wouldn't be so temperate–or livable.
The rotational speed of Earth on its axes also helps keep the thermal distribution in balance. The earth makes a complete rotation once every 24 hours with the result that alternating periods of daylight and darkness are fairly short. Because they are short, the thermal gradient between the light and dark sides of the planet are quite modest. The importance of this can be seen in the extreme example of Mercury, where a day lasts longer than a year and where the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures is almost 1,000°C.
Geography also helps distribute heat equally over the earth. There is a difference of about 100°C between the polar and equatorial regions of Earth. If such a thermal gradient were to exist over a completely level area, the result would be winds reaching speeds as high as 1,000 kilometers an hour sweeping away everything in their path. Instead, Earth is full of geographical barriers that block the huge movements of air that such a thermal gradient would otherwise cause. Those barriers are chains of mountains like the one that stretches from the Pacific in the east to the Atlantic in the west, beginning with the Himalayas in China and continuing with the Taurus mountains in Anatolia and the Alps in Europe. At sea, the excess heat in the equatorial regions is transferred north and south thanks to the superior ability of the water to conduct and dissipate heat.
At the same time, there are a number of auto-control systems that help keep the atmospheric temperature in balance. For example when a region heats up, the rate at which its water vaporizes increases, causing clouds to form. These clouds reflect more light back into space, preventing both the air and the surface below from getting warmer.
The Mass of the Earth and the Planet's Magnetic Field
The size of Earth is no less important for life than are its distance from the Sun, its rotational speed, or geographical features. Looking at the planets we see a great range of sizes: Mercury is less than a tenth the size of Earth while Jupiter is 318 times bigger. Is the size of Earth as compared with other planets "coincidental"? Or is it deliberate?
When we examine the dimensions of Earth we can easily see that our planet was designed to be exactly as big as it is. American geologists Frank Press and Raymond Siever comment on Earth's "fitness":
And Earth's size was just about right -not too small as to lose its atmosphere because its gravity was too small to prevent gasses from escaping into space, and not so large that its gravity would hold on to too much atmosphere, including harmful gases.58
In addition to its mass, the interior of Earth is also specially designed. Because of its core, Earth has a strong magnetic field whose role in the preservation of life is vital. According to Press and Siever:
The earth's interior is a gigantic but delicately balanced heat engine fueled by radioactivity …Were it running more slowly, geological activity would have proceeded at a slower pace. Iron might not have melted and sunk to form the liquid core, and the magnetic field would never have developed…if there had been more radioactive fuel and a faster running engine, volcanic gas and dust would have blotted out the Sun, the atmosphere would have been oppressively dense, and the surface would have been racked by daily earthquakes and volcanic explosions.59
The magnetic field these geologists talk about is of great importance for life. This magnetic field originates from the structure of Earth's core. The core
Assalamulaikum Wureh Mattullaahey Wa Barakaatohoo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeace be upon you and (Allah) Creator’s mercy and blessings be upon you.
When Muslims visit or leave any place; they greet in this manner just like other people say hello, namastay etc.
I am Ghazanfar Khan, Born 4th time in this world. I am Only 900 years old this time I am planning not to die ever again. I have found a computer graphic card about which is 786 trillion years old. Is it a god graphic card? Well science has to find it out first only then we will declare it god ok.
The graphic memory of the card is 32 Mega bytes and its memory is clocked between 300 to 400 Mhz.
Whaattttttt
I am untruthful?
I am not reasonable?
87 years ago I found X58 Mobo, 200 million years old, actually it is a complete computer system found absolutely intact. Everything works perfectly and faster then any other computer because this X58 Mobo is equipped with Core i7 965 clocked at 3.2 Giga Hertz, 2000 Mhz DDR 3 Ram with very tight timings. A 2 Giga Byte DDR 5 Memory handled Graphic Card, 8 Channel Sound Card and each and everything necessary for massive computing.
Yes believe me it is a miracle that it came to existence because all the material was available on earth even before that period. I am a scientist. Science says that if a frog is turned into a prince with a kiss then its not true but if a frog turns into human in million years then it is science. Evolutionary Science to be exact. It evolved and each and everything took the best possible shape to support each other and work in perfect harmony. It evolved because of time.
I had some Nitrogen Oxide in hand so I decided to overclock the computer and this rig fro 3.2 Gigz to 6.5 Giga Hertz. Everything was working fine then I thought that I would require a good Graphical User Interface in order to take full advantage of power hungry beast. I looked at Darwin’s evolution and man they never let you down they just handed me over full functional copy of Windows 7 though Microsoft is in the development process of it but evolution said nothing is required, no work is required, leave those thousands of idiots working in Microsoft and develop one software in many years. We evolutionists are here; have your copy of Windows 7 With Service Pack 4 pre installed and enjoyyyyyy.
I am absolutely lucky that I have got such a great mechanism without the need of anything and knowledge because evolutions theories were helping me. I deny that the processor was made to work at 3.2 Giga Hertz. It was I who took it from 3.2 to 6.5 Gigz. Nothing in between it. There is absolutely no, no and no requirement of sense, knowledge, fabrication process, computer languages and other things associated with it.
Conclusion: It is declared and proven with evolutionary science that nobody has designed any computer accessory mentioned above instead it evolved by itself and took the most perfect shape to support other hardware as well.
The creation of computer according to evolutionists
Why don’t evolutionists say that all the material required to produce a computer existed on earth since 1 million years then it evolved and many items came into existence in perfect manner.
The order of Computer Evolution
First Power Supply Evolved and completed its structure.
Then the Central processing Unit came into existence.
Then Automatically out of nothingness there suddenly appear a full compatible mother according to that processor and power supply. The mother board had the sense that there would also be a hard drive and ram coming so it offered them the space to run themselves too. Some how processor managed to write the exact binary codes so that motherboard, ram, hard disk, north bridge and south bridge all started communication in perfect harmony.
Mother board smelled in the air that there is material which is about to come into existence namely “The Sound Card” and then some how again a miracle happened and mother board also started supporting both built in VGA, even the pins/ports of VGA were absolutely perfect to support a data cable from the monitor. When the Power supply saw that Mother board has increased supporting so many hardware; the Power supply went crazy with anger and started evolving until it reached wooping 1500 Watts and said to itself that now I can handle whatever the mother board throws at me. Thanks me and my evolution.
Let’s Start Thinking Sensibly
The Real World (The Factual World)
Each honey bee computes just 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) times faster then the super expensive and the fastest super computer human beings have produced to date which calculates 1 peta flops per second meaning 1 giga flops x 1 million.
Today’s Science and Super computers with help of special calculation softwares; prove that the universe came into existence out of nothingness just 50 billion years ago. The 400,000,000,000 (400 Billion) stars in the Milky Way (our Galaxy) and 500,000,000,000 (500 Billion) other galaxies came into existence out of zero volume and zero density.
Ok I accept. Onwards I will try to be.
Have we ever asked ourselves these questions?
• How did the endless universe we live in come into being?
• How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop?
• How is it that this Earth is such a fit and sheltering place for us to live in?
Let us recall the two assertions of materialism about the universe:
The universe exists in infinite time and, because it has no beginning or end, it was not created.
Everything in this universe is merely the result of chance and not the product of any intentional design, plan, or vision.
Those two notions were boldly advanced and ardently defended by 19th-century materialists, who of course had no recourse other than to depend upon the limited and unsophisticated scientific knowledge of their day. Both have been utterly refuted by the discoveries of 20th-century science.
The first to be laid in the grave was the notion of the universe existing in infinite time. Since the 1920s, there has been mounting evidence this cannot be true. Scientists are now certain that the universe came into being from nothingness as the result of an unimaginably huge explosion, known as the "Big Bang". In other words, the universe came into being–or rather, it was created by Allah.
The 20th century has also witnessed the demolition of the second claim of materialism: that everything in the universe is the result of chance and not design. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrates that all the physical equilibriums of the universe in general and of our world in particularly are intricately designed to make life possible. As this research deepened, it was discovered each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe has been precisely tailored so that human beings may live. Scientists today call this extraordinary design the "anthropic principle". This is the principle that every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.
To sum up, the philosophy called materialism has been utterly refuted by modern science. From its position as the dominant scientific view of the 19th century, materialism collapsed into fiction in the 20th.
How could it have been otherwise? As Allah indicates "We did not create heaven and earth and everything between them to no purpose. That is the opinion of those who are disbelievers." (Surah Sad: 27) it is wrong to suppose that the universe was created in vain. A philosophy so utterly flawed as materialism and systems based on it were doomed to failure from the very beginning.
Creation is a fact.
If we say that big bang happened in a place which was 2 meter square in size or we assume and multiply this area to quadrillion kilometers even then it would look so silly that such a great mechanism came into existence without anyone actually wanting, have the knowledge to execute it and is willingly making it happen all the time.
For almost 13 and half centuries disbelievers mocked Muslims that your Quran says that stars and galaxies are moving though it is not but today’s Science has proven the words of Quran that the Universe is continuously expanding and it is expanding at a very high speed. Our sun is revolving around the galactic center with its solar system including our planet earth at the speed of approximately 225 kilometers per second. We travel just 490,000 kilometers every hour. 24 hours a day, every day of every year of every century since last 50 billion years. We were all shot out from a single point and we all are traveling at the speed of 225 kilometers per second. The galaxies are also moving away from each other.
The Expansion of Universe and the Discovery of the Big Bang
The 1920s were important years in the development of modern astronomy. In 1922, the Russian physicist Alexandra Friedman produced computations showing that the structure of the universe was not static and that even a tiny impulse might be sufficient to cause the whole structure to expand or contract according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. George Lemaitre was the first to recognize what Friedman's work meant. Based on these computations, the Belgian astronomer Lemaitre declared that the universe had a beginning and that it was expanding as a result of something that had triggered it. He also stated that the rate of radiation could be used as a measure of the aftermath of that "something".
The theoretical musings of these two scientists did not attract much attention and probably would have been ignored except for new observational evidence that rocked the scientific world in 1929. That year the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, working at the California Mount Wilson observatory, made one of the most important discoveries in the history of astronomy. Observing a number of stars through his huge telescope, he discovered that their light was shifted towards the red end of the spectrum and, crucially, that this shift was directly related to the distance of the stars from Earth. This discovery shook the very basis of the universe model held until then.
According to the recognized rules of physics, the spectra of light beams travelling towards the point of observation tend towards violet while the spectra of light beams moving away from the point of observation tend towards red. (Just like the fading of a train's whistle as it moves away from the observer) Hubble's observation showed that according to this law, the heavenly bodies were moving away from us. Before long, Hubble made another important discovery; The stars weren't just racing away from Earth; they were racing away from each other as well. The only conclusion that could be derived from a universe where everything moves away from everything else is that the universe constantly "expands".
Hubble had found observational evidence for something that George Lemaitre had "prophesized" a short while ago and one of the greatest minds of our age had recognized almost fifteen years earlier. In 1915, Albert Einstein had concluded that the universe could not be static because of calculations based on his recently-discovered theory of relativity (thus anticipating the conclusions of Friedman and Lemaitre). Shocked by his findings, Einstein added a "cosmological constant" to his equations in order to "make the answer come out right" because astronomers assured him that the universe was static and there was no other way to make his equations match such a model. Years later, Einstein was to admit that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career.
Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding led to the emergence of another model that needed no fiddling around with to make the equations work right. If the universe was getting bigger as time advanced, going back in time meant that it was getting smaller; and if one went back far enough, everything would shrink and converge at a single point. The conclusion to be derived from this model was that at some time, all the matter in the universe was compacted in a single point-mass that had "zero volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of this point-mass that had zero volume. This explosion has come to be called the "the Big Bang" and its existence has repeatedly been confirmed by observational evidence.
There was another truth that the Big Bang pointed to. To say that something has zero volume is tantamount to saying that it is "nothing". The whole universe was created from this "nothing". And furthermore this universe had a beginning, contrary to the view of materialism, which holds that "the universe has existed for eternity".
The "Steady-state" Hypothesis
The Big Bang theory quickly gained wide acceptance in the scientific world due to the clear-cut evidence for it. Nevertheless astronomers who favored materialism and adhered to the idea of an infinite universe that materialism seemingly demanded held out against the Big Bang in their struggle to uphold a fundamental tenet of their ideology. The reason was made clear by the English astronomer Arthur Eddington, who said "Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me".4
Another astronomer who opposed the Big Bang theory was Fred Hoyle. Around the middle of the 20th century he came up with a new model, which he called "steady-state", that was an extension of the 19th century's idea of an infinite universe. Accepting the incontrovertible evidence that the universe was expanding, he proposed that the universe was infinite in both dimension and time. According to this model, as the universe expanded new matter was continuously coming into existence by itself in just the right amount to keep the universe in a "steady state". With the sole visible aim of supporting the dogma of "matter existed in infinite time", which is the basis of the materialist philosophy, this theory was totally at variance with the "Big Bang theory", which defends that the universe had a beginning. Supporters of Hoyle's steady state theory remained adamantly opposed to the Big Bang for years. Science, however, was working against them.
The Triumph of the Big Bang
In 1948, George Gamov carried George Lemaitre's calculations several steps further and came up with a new idea concerning the Big Bang. If the universe was formed in a sudden, cataclysmic explosion, there ought to be a definite amount of radiation left over from that explosion. This radiation should be detectable and, furthermore, it should be uniform throughout the universe.
Within two decades, observational proof of Gamov's conjecture was forthcoming. In 1965, two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson chanced upon a form of radiation hitherto unnoticed. Called "cosmic background radiation", it was unlike anything coming from anywhere else in the universe for it was extraordinarily uniform. It was neither localized nor did it have a definite source; instead, it was distributed equally everywhere. It was soon realized that this radiation was the echo of the Big Bang, still reverberating since the first moments of that great explosion. Gamov had been spot-on for the frequency of the radiation was nearly the same value that scientists had predicted it would be. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel prize for their discovery.
In 1989, George Smoot and his NASA team sent a satellite into space. Called the "Cosmic Background Emission Explorer" (COBE), it took only eight minutes for the sensitive instruments on board the satellite to detect and confirm the levels of radiation reported by Penzias and Wilson. These results conclusively demonstrated the existence of the hot, dense form remaining from the explosion out of which the universe came into being. Most scientists acknowledged that COBE had successfully captured the remnants of the Big Bang.
More evidence for the Big Bang was forthcoming. One piece had to do with the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium in the universe. Observations indicated that the mix of these two elements in the universe was in accord with theoretical calculations of what should have been remained after the Big Bang. That drove another stake into the heart of the steady state theory because if the universe had existed for eternity and never had a beginning, all of its hydrogen should have been burned into helium.
Confronted by such evidence, the Big Bang gained the near-complete approval of the scientific world. In an article in its October 1994 issue, Scientific American noted that the Big Bang model was the only one that could account for the constant expansion of the universe and for other observational results.
Defending the steady-state theory alongside Fred Hoyle for years, Dennis Sciama described the final position they had reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang theory was revealed:
There was at that time a somewhat acrimonious debate between some of the proponents of the steady state theory and observers who were testing it and, I think, hoping to disprove it. I played a very minor part at that time because I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true. When hostile observational evidence became to come in, Fred Hoyle took a leading part in trying to counter this evidence, and I played a small part at the side, also making suggestions as to how the hostile evidence could be answered. But as that evidence piled up, it became more and more evident that the game was up, and that one had to abandon the steady state theory.5
Who Created the Universe From Nothing?
With this triumph of the Big Bang, the thesis of an "infinite universe", which forms the basis of materialist dogma, was tossed onto the scrap-heap of history. But for materialists it also raised a couple of inconvenient questions: What existed before the Big Bang? And what force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?
Materialists like Arthur Eddington recognized that the answers to these questions could point to the existence of a supreme creator and that they did not like. The atheist philosopher Anthony Flew commented on this point:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. 6
Many scientists who do not force themselves to be atheists accept and favor the existence of a creator having an infinite power. For instance, the American astrophysicist Hugh Ross proposes a Creator of universe, Who is above all physical dimensions as:
By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.
Why is There So Much Space?
Let's recap a few points that we made earlier. The universe following the Big Bang was a nebula of just hydrogen and helium. Heavier elements were produced later by means of intentionally-designed nuclear reactions. Yet the existence of heavier elements is not a sufficient reason for the universe to become a suitable place for life. A much more important issue is how the universe was formed and ordered.
We shall start by asking how big the universe is.
The planet Earth is a part of the solar system. In this system there are nine major planets with fifty-four satellites, and an uncounted number of asteroids all revolving around a single star called "Sun", a middle-sized star compared with others in the universe. Earth is the third planet from the sun.
Let us first try to understand the size of this system. The diameter of the sun is 103 times that of the earth. To visualize this, the planet Earth has diameter of 12,200 kms. If we scaled that down to the dimensions of a glass bead, the sun would be about the size of soccer ball. But the interesting thing is the distance between the two. Keeping to the same scale, the two balls should be 280 meters apart. Some of the objects representing the outer planets would have to be set several kilometers away.
Big though this might seem, the solar system is a quite miniscule in size compared with the Milky Way, the galaxy in which it is located. There are over 250 billion stars in the Milky Way–some similar to the sun, others bigger, others smaller. The star nearest to the sun is Alpha Centauri. If we wanted to add Alpha Centauri in our model system, it would have to be located 78,000 kilometers away.
That's too big for almost anyone to grasp, so let's reduce the scale. We'll assume the earth to be as big as a dust-particle. That would make the sun as big as a walnut about three meters from the earth. On this scale, Alpha Centauri would have to be located 640 kilometers from the sun.
The Milky Way consists of about 250 billion stars with similarly mind-boggling distances between them. The sun is located closer to the edge of this spiral-shaped galaxy than it is to the center.
Even the Milky Way is dwarfed by the vast size of the whole universe. It is just one of many galaxies–nearly 300 billion of them according to recent calculations. And the distances between galaxies are millions of times greater than that between the sun and Alpha Centauri.
George Greenstein, in The Symbiotic Universe, comments on this unimaginable vastness:
Had the stars been somewhat closer, astrophysics would not have been so very different. The fundamental physical processes occurring within stars, nebulas, and the like would have proceeded unchanged. The appearance of our galaxy as seen from some far-distant vantage point would have been the same. About the only difference would have been the view of the night time sky from the grass on which I lie, which would have been yet richer with stars. And oh, yes-one more small change: There would have been no me to do the viewing…All that waster space! On the other hand, in this very waste lies our safety.46
Greenstein also explains the reason for this. In his view, the huge distances in space makes it possible for certain physical variables to be arranged so as to be exactly suitable for human life. He also notes the importance of this huge space in allowing Earth to exist while minimizing the risk of collision with other stars.
In short, the distribution of celestial bodies in space is exactly what it must be for human life to exist on our planet. These huge spaces are the outcome of an intentional design for a purpose and not a result of coincidence.
THE EQUILIBRIUM IN THE EXPLOSION
The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.
Paul Davies, Professor of Theoretical Physics17
In the first chapter we examined the universe's creation from nothingness as a result of a great explosion. Let us now consider some of the implications of this.
Scientists estimate that there are over 300 billion galaxies in the whole universe. These galaxies have a number of different forms (spiral, elliptical, etc) and each contains about as many stars as the universe contains galaxies. One of these stars, the Sun, has nine major planets rotating around in it in great harmony. All of us live on the third of those planets counting from the sun.
Look about you: Does what you see appear to be a disordered jumble of matter haphazardly scattered this way and that? Of course not. But how could matter have formed organized galaxies if it had been dispersed randomly? Why has matter accumulated at certain points and formed stars? How could the delicate balance of our solar system have emerged from a violent explosion? These are very important questions and they lead us to the real question of how the universe was structured after the Big Bang.
If the Big Bang was indeed a such cataclysmic explosion then it is reasonable to expect that matter should have been scattered everywhere at random. And yet it is not. Instead it is organized into planets, and stars, and galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies. It is as if a bomb that exploded in a granary caused all the wheat to fall into neat sacks and bales on the backs of trucks ready to be delivered instead of showering the grains every which way. Fred Hoyle, a staunch opponent of the Big Bang theory for years, expressed his own surprise at this structure:
The big bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen below, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the big bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect- with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies.18
That the matter produced by the Big Bang should have formed such tidy and organized shapes is indeed an extraordinary thing. The occurrence of such a harmony leads us to the realization that the universe was the result of its perfect creation by Allah.
In this chapter we will examine and consider this extraordinary perfection and excellence.
The Speed of the Explosion
People hearing of the Big Bang but not considering the subject at length do not think about what an extraordinary plan must lie behind this explosion. That's because the notion of an explosion doesn't suggest harmony, plan, or organization to most people. In fact there are a number of very puzzling aspects to the intricate order in the Big Bang.
One of these puzzles has to do with the acceleration caused by the explosion. When the explosion took place, matter certainly must have begun moving at an enormous speed in every direction. But there is another point that we need to pay attention to here. There must also have been a very big attractive force at the first moment of the explosion: an attractive force that was strong enough to gather the whole universe into one point.
Two different and opposing forces are at work here. The force of the explosion, driving matter outward and away, and the force of attraction, trying to resist the first and pull everything back together. The universe came into being because these two forces were in equilibrium. If the attractive force had been greater than the explosive, the universe would have collapsed. If the opposite had been true, matter would have been splattered in every direction in a way never to unite again.
Then how sensitive was this equilibrium? How much "slack" could there have been between the two forces?
The mathematical physicist Paul Davies, a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, performed lengthy calculations of the conditions that must have existed at the moment of the Big Bang and came up with a result that can only be described as astonishing. According to Davies, if the rate of expansion had differed by more than 10-18 seconds (one quintillionth of a second), there would have been no universe. Davies describes his conclusion:
Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned" to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.19
Bilim Teknik (Science Technique, a Turkish scientific periodical) quotes an article that appeared in Science in which the phenomenal equilibrium that obtained in the initial phase of universe is stated:
If the density of the universe was a little bit more, in that case, according to Einstein's relativity theory, the universe would not be expanding due to the attraction forces of atomic particles but contracting, ultimately diminishing to a spot. If the initial density had been a little bit less, then the universe would rapidly be expanding, but in this case, atomic particles would not be attracting each other and no stars and no galaxies would ever have formed. Consequently, man would never come into existence! According to the calculations, the difference between the initial real density of the universe and its critical density, which is unlikely to occur, is less than one percent's one quadrillion. This is similar to place a pencil in a position so that it can stand on its sharp end even after one billion years… Furthermore, as the universe expands, this equilibrium becomes more delicate.20
Even Stephen Hawking, who tries hard to explain away the creation of the universe as a series coincidences in A Brief History of Time, acknowledges the extraordinary equilibrium in the rate of expansion:
If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. 21
What then does such a remarkable equilibrium as this indicate? The only rational answer to that question is that it is proof of conscious design and cannot possibly be accidental. Despite his own materialist bent, Dr Davies admits this himself:
It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.22
The Four Forces
The speed of the Big Bang's explosion is only one of the remarkable states of equilibrium at the initial moment of creation. Immediately after the Big Bang, forces that underpin and organize the universe we live in had to be numerically "just right" otherwise there would have been no universe.
These are the "four fundamental forces" that are recognized by modern physics. All structure and motion in the universe is governed by these four forces, known as the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. The strong and weak nuclear forces operate only at the atomic scale. The remaining two–the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force–govern assemblages of atoms, in other words "matter". These four fundamental forces were at work in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang and resulted in the creation of atoms and matter.
A comparison of those forces is enlightening for their values are stunningly different from one another. Below they are given in international standard units:
Strong nuclear force: 15
Weak nuclear force: 7.03 x 10-3
Electromagnetic force: 3.05 x 10-12
Gravitational force: 5.90 x 10-39
Notice how great are the differences in the strengths of these four fundamental forces. The difference between the strongest (strong nuclear force) and the weakest (gravitational force) is about 25 followed by 38 zeros! Why should this be so?
The molecular biologist Michael Denton addresses this question in his book, Nature's Destiny:
If, for example, the gravitational force was a trillion times stronger, then the universe would be far smaller and its life history far shorter. An average star would have a mass a trillion times less than the sun and a life span of about one year. On the other hand, if gravity had been less powerful, no stars or galaxies would have ever formed. The other relationships and values are no less critical. If the strong force had been just slightly weaker, the only element that would be stable would be hydrogen. No other atoms could exist. If it had been slightly stronger in relation to electromagnetism, then an atomic nucleus consisting of only two protons would be a stable feature of the universe-which would mean there would be no hydrogen, and if any stars or galaxies evolved, they would be very different from the way they are. Clearly, if these various forces and constants did not have precisely the values they do, there would be no stars, no supernovae, no planets, no atoms, no life. 23
Paul Davies comments on how the laws of physics provide for conditions ideal for people to live:
Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it…Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision.24
Arno Penzias, who was the first, along with Robert Wilson to detect the cosmic background radiation (for which discovery the pair received a Nobel prize in 1965), comments on the beautiful design in the universe:
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has underlying (one might say "supernational") plan.25
The scientists we have just quoted have all drawn an important conclusion from their observations. Examining and thinking about the incredible balances and their beautiful order in the design of universe inevitably leads one to a truth: There exists in this universe a superior design and a perfect harmony. Unquestionably the Author of this design and harmony is Allah, Who has created everything flawlessly. Allah draws our attention in one of His verses to the order in the creation of the universe, planned, and computed in every detail:
He to whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. (Surat al-Furqan: 2)
The Mathematics of Probability Refutes "Coincidence"
What has been said so far shows the extraordinary balances among the forces that make human life possible in this universe. The speed of the Big Bang's explosion, the values of the four fundamental forces, and all the other variables that we will be examining in the chapters ahead and which are vital for existence have been arranged according to an extraordinary precision.
Let us now make a brief digression and consider the coincidence theory of materialism. Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event's occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability. Let's do so.
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. 26
The numbers defining the design and plan of the universe's equilibrium play a crucial role and exceed comprehension. They prove that the universe is by no means the product of a coincidence, and show us "how precise the Creator's aim must have been" as Penrose stated.
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of Allah's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.
In the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the ships which sail the seas to people's benefit, and the water which Allah sends down from the sky- by which He brings the earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creatures of every kind - and the varying direction of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and earth, there are Signs for people who use their intellect. (Surat al-Baqara:164)
Seeing the Plain Truth
20th-century science has come up with categorical evidence that the universe was created by Allah. The anthropic principle that we mentioned before reveals every detail of a universe that has been designed for mankind to live in and in which there is no place for chance.
The interesting part is that the ones who discovered all this and came to the conclusion that the universe couldn't possibly have come into being by accident are the very same people who defend the philosophy of materialism. Scientists such as Paul Davies, Arno Penzias, Fred Hoyle and Roger Penrose are not pious men and they certainly had no intention of proving Allah's existence as they pursued their work. One can imagine that they reached their conclusions about the design of the universe by a superior power most unwillingly.
The American astronomer George Greenstein confesses this in his book The Symbiotic Universe:
How could this possibly have come to pass (that the laws of physics conform themselves to life)?…As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather Agency- must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?27
An atheist, Greenstein disregards the plain truth; nevertheless he cannot keep from wondering. Other, less prejudiced scientists on the other hand, readily admit that the universe must have been specially designed for mankind to live in. The American astrophysicist Hugh Ross ends his article "Design and the Anthropic Principle" with these words:
An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have brought the universe into existence. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed the universe. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed planet Earth. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed life.28
Thus science proves the reality of creation. Certainly there is Allah and He has created everything around us–the seen and the unseen. He is the sole Creator of the extraordinary and outstanding equilibrium and design of the heavens and Earth.
It has come such a pass that today, materialism has the flavor of a superstitious, unscientific system of belief. The American geneticist Robert Griffiths jokingly remarked "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use."29
To sum up: Every physical law and every physical constant in this universe has been specifically designed to enable human beings to exist and live. In his book The Cosmic Blueprint, Davies states this truth in the last paragraph, "The impression of Design is overwhelming."30
Doubtlessly, the design of the universe is evidence of Allah's power to establish. The precise balances and all the human beings and other creatures are the evidence of Allah's supreme power and act of creation. This result discovered by modern science is just a reworking of a truth revealed fourteen centuries ago in the Qur'an:
Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne. He covers the day with the night and, each pursuing the other urgently; and the sun and moon and stars are subservient to His command. Both creation and command belong to Him. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of all worlds. (Surat al-Araf: 54)
The Signs of the Qur'an
In addition to explaining the universe, the Big Bang model has another important implication. As the quotation from Anthony Flew cited above points out, science has proven an assertion hitherto supported only by religious sources.
The truth that is defended by religious sources is the reality of creation from nothingness. This has been declared in the holy books that have served as guides for mankind for thousands of years. In all holy books such as the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Qur'an, it is declared that the universe and everything in it were created from nothingness by Allah.
In the only book revealed by Allah that has survived completely intact, the Qur'an, there are statements about the creation of the universe from nothing as well as how this came about that are parallel to 20th-century knowledge and yet were revealed fourteen centuries ago.
First of all, the creation of this universe from nothingness is revealed in the Qur'an as follows:
He(Allah) is the Originator of the heavens and the earth…(Surat al-Anam: 101)
Another important aspect revealed in the Qur'an fourteen centuries before the modern discovery of the Big Bang and findings related to it is that when it was created, the universe occupied a very tiny volume:
Do those who are disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were sewn together and then We unstitched them and that We made from water every living thing? So will they not have faith? (Surat al-Anbiya': 30)
There is a very important choice of words in the original Arabic whose translation is given above. The word ratk translated as "sewn to" means "mixed in each, blended" in Arabic dictionaries. It is used to refer to two different substances that make up a whole. The phrase "we unstitched" is the verb fatk in Arabic and implies that something comes into being by tearing apart or destroying the structure of ratk. The sprouting of a seed from the soil is one of the actions to which this verb is applied.
Let us take a look at the verse again with this knowledge in mind. In the verse, sky and earth are at first subject to the status of ratk. They are separated (fatk) with one coming out of the other. Intriguingly, cosmologists speak of a "cosmic egg" that consisted of all the matter in the universe prior to the Big Bang. In other words, all the heavens and earth were included in this egg in a condition of ratk. This cosmic egg exploded violently causing its matter to fatk and in the process created the structure of the whole universe.
Another truth revealed in the Qur'an is the expansion of the universe that was discovered in the late 1920s. Hubble's discovery of the red shift in the spectrum of starlight is revealed in the Qur'an as :
It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)
In short, the findings of modern science support the truth that is revealed in the Qur'an and not materialist dogma. Materialists may claim this all to be "coincidence" but the plain fact is that the universe came into being as a result of an act of creation on the part of Allah and the only true knowledge about the origin of universe is to be found in the word of Allah as revealed to us.
THE BLUE PLANET
The Earth, with its atmosphere and oceans, its complex biosphere, its crust of relatively oxidised, silica rich, sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks overlaying [a magnesium silicate mantle and core] of metallic iron, with its ice caps, deserts, forests, tundra, jungles, grasslands, fresh-water lakes, coal beds, oil deposits, volcanoes, fumaroles, factories, automobiles, plants, animals, magnetic field, ionosphere, mid-ocean ridges, convincing mantle... is a system of stunning complexity.
J. S. Lewis, American Geologist54
An imaginary space-traveler approaching the solar system from interstellar space would encounter a very interesting scene. Let us imagine that we are such travelers and that we're arriving at the plane of the ecliptic–the great circle of the celestial sphere in which all the major planets of our solar system move. The first planet we will meet is Pluto. This planet is quite a cold place. The temperature is around -238°C. The planet has a thin of atmosphere that is in a gaseous state only when it draws slightly nearer to the sun in its rather elliptical orbit. At other times, the atmosphere becomes a mass of ice. Pluto, briefly, is a lifeless sphere enveloped in ice.
Advancing towards the sun, you next encounter Neptune. It is cold too: approximately -218°C. The atmosphere, consisting of hydrogen, helium and methane, is poisonous for life. Winds blowing nearly 2,000 kilometers an hour blast across the surface of the planet.
Next is Uranus: a gaseous planet with rocks and ice on its surface. The temperature is -214°C and the atmosphere again consists of hydrogen, helium and methane-–unsuitable for human beings to live in.
You reach Saturn after Uranus. This is the second biggest planet in the solar system and is particularly notable for the system of rings encircling it. These rings are made up of gases, rock and ice. One of the many interesting things about Saturn is that it is composed entirely of gas: 75% hydrogen and 25% helium and its density is less than that of water. If you want to "land" on Saturn, you'd better design your spaceship to be like an inflatable boat! The average temperature is again very low: -178°C.
Coming up next is Jupiter: the biggest planet in the solar system, it is 318 times the size of Earth. Like Saturn, Jupiter is also a gaseous planet. Since it is difficult to distinguish between "atmosphere" and "surface" on such planets, it is hard to say what the "surface temperature" is but in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, the temperature is -143°C. A notable feature of Jupiter's atmosphere is something called the Great Red Spot. It was first noticed 300 hundred years ago. Astronomers now know that it is an enormous storm system that has been raging in the Jovian atmosphere for centuries. It is big enough to swallow up a couple of planets the size of Earth whole. Jupiter may be a visually thrilling planet, but it's no home for people, who would be killed instantly by its freezing temperatures, violent winds, and intense radiation.
Then comes Mars. The atmosphere of Mars cannot sustain human life because it is mostly carbon dioxide. The surface is everywhere pocked with craters: the result of eons of meteor impacts and strong winds blowing across the surface that can raise sandstorms that last for days or weeks at a time. The temperature varies rather much but drops as low as -53°C. There has been much speculation that Mars might harbor life, but all the evidence shows that this is a lifeless world too.
Speeding away from Mars and heading toward the sun, we notice a blue planet that we decide to skip for the time being while we explore some more. Our search brings us to a planet called Venus. This planet is everywhere shrouded in brilliant white clouds but the temperature at the surface is 450°C, which is enough to cause lead to melt. The atmosphere is composed mostly of carbon dioxide. At the surface, the atmospheric pressure is equal to 90 terrestrial atmospheres: on Earth, you'd have to descend a kilometer into the sea before you reached a pressure that high. The atmosphere of Venus contains layers of gaseous sulfuric acid several kilometers deep. When it rains on Venus, it isn't raining rain you know: it's raining acid. No human or other life could exist in such a hellish place for a second.
We press on and come to Mercury, a small, rocky world, blasted by the heat and radiation of the sun. Its rotation has been so slowed down by its proximity to the sun that the planet makes only three full axial rotations in the time it takes to revolve twice around the sun. In other words, two of Mercury's "years" is equal to three of its "days". Because of this prolonged diurnal cycle, one side of Mercury becomes extremely hot while the other is extremely cold. The difference between the daytime and nighttime sides of Mercury is as much as 1,000°C. Of course such an environment cannot support life.
To sum up, we've taken looks at eight planets and not one of them, including their fifty-three satellites offers anything that might serve as a haven for life. Each of them is lifeless ball of gas, ice, or rock.
But the blue planet that we skipped over a while ago? That one's very different from the others. With its hospitable atmosphere, surface features, ambient temperatures, magnetic field, and supply of elements and set just the right distance from the sun, it almost seems as if it had been specially created to be a home for life.
And, as we shall discover, it was.
A Brief Digression and Warning About "Adaptation"
In the rest of this chapter we will be examining features of Earth that make it clear that our planet was created specifically for the support of life. But before we do that, we need to make a brief digression in order to avoid the possibility of any misunderstanding. This digression is especially for those who are in the habit of recognizing the theory of evolution as a scientific truth and who strongly believe in the concept of "adaptation".
"Adaptation" is the noun form of the verb "adapt". "Adapt" implies a modification according to changing circumstances. As used by evolutionists, it means a "modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment". The theory of evolution claims that all life on earth is derived from a single organism (a single common ancestor) that itself came into being as a result of chance and the theory makes heavy use of this sense of the word "adaptation" to support its case. Evolutionists hold that living organisms change into new species by adapting to their environment. We have discussed the invalidity of this claim, that mechanisms of adaptation to natural conditions in living beings come into play only under certain circumstances and it can never transform one species into another in detail in our other books.55 (This is summed up in the appendix "Evolution Deceit" in this book) The theory of evolution with its concept of "adaptation" is really just a form of Lamarckism, a theory of organic evolution that holds that environmental changes cause structural changes in animals and plants that can be transmitted to offspring- a theory that has been soundly and rightly dismissed by scientific circles.
Yet even though it has no scientific basis, the idea of adaptation impresses most people and that is why we must address this point here before going on. From belief in the adaptability of life-forms, it is only a step to the idea that life could have developed on other planets as well as it did once on Earth. The possibility of little green creatures living on Pluto who might work up a slight sweat when the temperature soared to 238°C, who breathe helium instead of oxygen, and who drink sulfuric acid instead of water somehow tickles people's fancy, especially people whose fancies have been richly nourished by the products of Hollywood studios.
But these are only such stuff as dreams (and Hollywood movies) are made of however and evolutionists who are better informed about biology and biochemistry do not even attempt to defend such notions. They know quite well that life exists only if necessary conditions and elements are available. If they really believe in them at all, the partisans of the little green men (or other alien life-forms) are those who blindly adhere to the theory of evolution and are ignorant of even the basics of biology and biochemistry and who, in their ignorance, come up with preposterous scenarios.
So in understanding the error in the concept of adaptation, the first thing that we need to note is that life can only exist if certain essential conditions and elements are present. The only model of life that is based on scientific criteria is that of carbon-based life and scientists are in agreement that there is no other form of life to be found anywhere elsewhere in the universe.
Carbon is the sixth element in the periodic table. This atom is the basis of life on earth because all organic molecules (such as nucleic acids, amino acids, proteins, fats, and sugars) are formed by the combination of carbon with other elements in various ways. Carbon forms millions of different types of proteins by combining with hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen etc. No other elements can take the place of carbon. As we shall see in the sections ahead, no element but carbon has the ability to form the many different kinds of chemical bonds on which life depends.
Consequently if life is going to exist on any planet anywhere in the universe it is going to have to be carbon-based.56
There are a number of conditions that are absolutely essential in order for carbon-based life to exist. For example, carbon-based organic compounds (like proteins) can exist only within a certain range of temperatures. They start to dissociate over 120°C and are irrecoverably damaged if they are frozen below -20°C. But it is not only temperature that plays a vital role in determining the allowable limits of suitable conditions for carbon-based life to exist: so too do the type and amount of light, the strength of gravity, the composition of the atmosphere, and the strength of the magnetic field. Earth provides precisely such conditions as are needed to make life possible. If even one of conditions were to be changed, if average temperatures surpassed 120°C for example, there would be no life on Earth.
Therefore our little green creatures who might work up a slight sweat when the temperature soars to 238°C, who breathe helium instead of oxygen, and who drink sulfuric acid instead of water are not going to exist anywhere because carbon-based life-forms cannot survive under such conditions and carbon-based life-forms are the only kind there is. Life can only exist in an environment within limits and under conditions that are deliberately designed for life. That is true of life in general and of human beings in particular.
Earth is such a deliberately-designed environment.
The Temperature of the World
Temperature and atmosphere are the first essential factors for life on Earth. The Blue Planet has both a temperature that is livable and an atmosphere that is breathable for living things, especially for such complex living things as human beings. These two extremely different factors however have come into being as a result of conditions that turn out to be ideal for both.
One of these is the distance between the earth and the sun. Earth could not be a home for life if were as near the sun as Venus is or as far from it as Jupiter: carbon-based molecules can only survive between the limits of 120 and –20°C and Earth is the only planet whose average temperatures fall within those limits.
When one considers the universe as a whole, coming across a range of temperatures as narrow as this is quite a difficult task because temperatures in the universe vary from the millions of degrees of the hottest stars to absolute zero (-273°C). In such a vast range of temperatures, the thermal interval that allows life to exist is slim indeed; but the planet Earth has it.
The American geologists Frank Press and Raymond Siever draw attention to the average temperatures prevailing on Earth. They note that "life as we know it is possible over a very narrow temperature interval. This interval is perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the range between a temperature of absolute zero and the surface temperature of the Sun." 57
The maintenance of this thermal range is also related to the amount of heat that the sun radiates as well as to the distance between the earth and the sun. According to calculations, a reduction of just 10% in the sun's radiant energy would result in the earth surface's being covered by layers of ice many meters thick and that if it were to increase by a little, all living things would be scorched and die.
Not only must the average temperature be ideal: the available heat must also be distributed fairly equally over the whole planet. A number of special precautions have been taken to ensure that this in fact happens.
The earth's axis is inclined 23° 27'to the plane of the ecliptic. This inclination prevents overheating of the atmosphere in the regions between the poles and the equator, causing them to become more temperate. If this inclination did not exist, the temperature gradient between the poles and equator would be much higher than it is and the temperate zones wouldn't be so temperate–or livable.
The rotational speed of Earth on its axes also helps keep the thermal distribution in balance. The earth makes a complete rotation once every 24 hours with the result that alternating periods of daylight and darkness are fairly short. Because they are short, the thermal gradient between the light and dark sides of the planet are quite modest. The importance of this can be seen in the extreme example of Mercury, where a day lasts longer than a year and where the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures is almost 1,000°C.
Geography also helps distribute heat equally over the earth. There is a difference of about 100°C between the polar and equatorial regions of Earth. If such a thermal gradient were to exist over a completely level area, the result would be winds reaching speeds as high as 1,000 kilometers an hour sweeping away everything in their path. Instead, Earth is full of geographical barriers that block the huge movements of air that such a thermal gradient would otherwise cause. Those barriers are chains of mountains like the one that stretches from the Pacific in the east to the Atlantic in the west, beginning with the Himalayas in China and continuing with the Taurus mountains in Anatolia and the Alps in Europe. At sea, the excess heat in the equatorial regions is transferred north and south thanks to the superior ability of the water to conduct and dissipate heat.
At the same time, there are a number of auto-control systems that help keep the atmospheric temperature in balance. For example when a region heats up, the rate at which its water vaporizes increases, causing clouds to form. These clouds reflect more light back into space, preventing both the air and the surface below from getting warmer.
The Mass of the Earth and the Planet's Magnetic Field
The size of Earth is no less important for life than are its distance from the Sun, its rotational speed, or geographical features. Looking at the planets we see a great range of sizes: Mercury is less than a tenth the size of Earth while Jupiter is 318 times bigger. Is the size of Earth as compared with other planets "coincidental"? Or is it deliberate?
When we examine the dimensions of Earth we can easily see that our planet was designed to be exactly as big as it is. American geologists Frank Press and Raymond Siever comment on Earth's "fitness":
And Earth's size was just about right -not too small as to lose its atmosphere because its gravity was too small to prevent gasses from escaping into space, and not so large that its gravity would hold on to too much atmosphere, including harmful gases.58
In addition to its mass, the interior of Earth is also specially designed. Because of its core, Earth has a strong magnetic field whose role in the preservation of life is vital. According to Press and Siever:
The earth's interior is a gigantic but delicately balanced heat engine fueled by radioactivity …Were it running more slowly, geological activity would have proceeded at a slower pace. Iron might not have melted and sunk to form the liquid core, and the magnetic field would never have developed…if there had been more radioactive fuel and a faster running engine, volcanic gas and dust would have blotted out the Sun, the atmosphere would have been oppressively dense, and the surface would have been racked by daily earthquakes and volcanic explosions.59
The magnetic field these geologists talk about is of great importance for life. This magnetic field originates from the structure of Earth's core. The core
Those who say there is no god most certainly haven't seen a cell, atom, DNA, all plants, all animals, all the items in the universe and themselves. yes they haven't seen themselves too. when a person eats medicine what happens? medicine is always a destructive missle for the desease but who uses that missle against the enemy bacterias and viruses? a very small armed force of just 100,000,000,000,000 yes 100 trillion antibodies. where they come from? who appointed them into every human to save human health? Allah is the only Deity so please read Quran and its Translation. Many times if you don't get it the first time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismonica deny the fairy tale that you were smaller then a cell in your dad, then he transferred that information into your mother, then it was not your mother making you grow up 12 billion times bigger than the initial code rather it is supreme being which controls all the processes happening before us. today's science has proven and the Movie "Matrix" also revealed a bit of the fact that whatever human being sees is not whats infront of him instead its controlled by some super computer. so evoluiton is down and out. do you know what is immune system? have you seen multiple types of birds? who knew that mountains work like pegs just a few years ago? Quran has told all that 1400+ years ago. Words of Quran never changed. read its translation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease get to know your Lord.
luciferpriestgmk,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not going to sit here and read your pages of useless jargon. If you want to make a point, do so in a concise and intelligent way. When I see a huge slab of text, it makes me not want to read it. One post of reasonable size is enough to make your point, not pages and pages of internet.
And you have yet to reply to any of the questions I have asked you regarding your own statements. Just goes to show me that you cannot rebutt them.
===========================================================
jamboozle,
This is not meant to offend you, or any Muslim, but the Quran is not a reliable source in my eyes. Neither is the Bible. Neither is any ancient text. These books were written by men at a time when technology did not allow them to fully understand the reality of the universe. I find it very, very, VERY difficult to take any text that is considerably old as reliably evidence of anything. Scientists need up to date information. Science papers written in the year 2006 are considered old by science standards. Why? Because new information is ALWAYS being produced, and things change over time, our understanding of the world changes. I'm sorry, but no Quran/Bible/whatever is going to convince me of anything to do with the natural world.
Brother the male god is not male god instead its even beyond that. because it needs nothing, everything is held in most perfecf manner neccessary to sustain life on earth. if you start writing the perfect balance required to sustain life you would end up writing all your life and yet the list won't complete.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes Your Lord Is Revenge full; just imagine that i kill you for no reason and some how i remove all the proves of murder and police or court can not punish me because of lack of the evidence. Then comes in God to settle these disputes on the day of resurrection. "Quran" the final Devine Revealation on humanity through Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) contains so much up to date information that you would be amazed upon reading.
Examples are: universe was created out of nothingness,
universe is constantly expanding.
whole cities would vanish in war in an instant as if they were never there. (we see atom bombs and Hydrogen bombs)
creation of human in 3 different dark stages nowadays know as pre-embryonic, embryonic, and a third one (i forgot the name check on google).
i am not a Quran specialist so i mentioned very less though Quran is totally scientifc and leads the way to science.
in medicine after every 10 years almost 50 % of information is declared obsolete and replaced by other then how a book revealed 1400+ years ago can contain such latest information? because its devine 100%
Read Quran and its Translation and don't look at normal muslims because actually there are less than 30 million muslims. others are just muslims because they call themselves so.
it looks that you do not look around you if first fish was never taught by its creator what to eat, how to swim, and if the fish was not equipped with perfect digestion system from the very first second then the fish would have died instantly. these are not the only functions required by fish. incomplete fossils, where are darwin's billions or even trillions of incomplete fossils? no where to be found, a few disturbing fossils found; any huge astroid coming from the sky can take down eagle, and then other high flying birds, and at last moments in the air it can collect crows and sparrows etc on its journey towards earth. on hitting earth there can also be an elephant or crocodile. killing all these creatures and burning half of their bodies; leaving remains for Darwinist to claim look we found something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this87 years ago I found X58 Mobo, 200 million years old, actually it is a complete computer system found absolutely intact. Everything works perfectly and faster then any other computer because this X58 Mobo is equipped with Core i7 965 clocked at 3.2 Giga Hertz, 2000 Mhz DDR 3 Ram with very tight timings. A 2 Giga Byte DDR 5 Memory handled Graphic Card, 8 Channel Sound Card and each and everything necessary for massive computing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes believe me it is a miracle that it came to existence because all the material was available on earth even before that period. I am a scientist. Science says that if a frog is turned into a prince with a kiss then its not true but if a frog turns into human in million years then it is science. Evolutionary Science to be exact. It evolved and each and everything took the best possible shape to support each other and work in perfect harmony. It evolved because of time.
I had some Nitrogen Oxide in hand so I decided to overclock the computer and this rig fro 3.2 Gigz to 6.5 Giga Hertz. Everything was working fine then I thought that I would require a good Graphical User Interface in order to take full advantage of power hungry beast. I looked at Darwin’s evolution and man they never let you down they just handed me over full functional copy of Windows 7 though Microsoft is in the development process of it but evolution said nothing is required, no work is required, leave those thousands of idiots working in Microsoft and develop one software in many years. We evolutionists are here; have your copy of Windows 7 With Service Pack 4 pre installed and enjoyyyyyy.
I am absolutely lucky that I have got such a great mechanism without the need of anything and knowledge because evolutions theories were helping me. I deny that the processor was made to work at 3.2 Giga Hertz. It was I who took it from 3.2 to 6.5 Gigz. Nothing in between it. There is absolutely no, no and no requirement of sense, knowledge, fabrication process, computer languages and other things associated with it.
Conclusion: It is declared and proven with evolutionary science that nobody has designed any computer accessory mentioned above instead it evolved by itself and took the most perfect shape to support other hardware as well.
87 years ago I found X58 Mobo, 200 million years old, actually it is a complete computer system found absolutely intact. Everything works perfectly and faster then any other computer because this X58 Mobo is equipped with Core i7 965 clocked at 3.2 Giga Hertz, 2000 Mhz DDR 3 Ram with very tight timings. A 2 Giga Byte DDR 5 Memory handled Graphic Card, 8 Channel Sound Card and each and everything necessary for massive computing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes believe me it is a miracle that it came to existence because all the material was available on earth even before that period. I am a scientist. Science says that if a frog is turned into a prince with a kiss then its not true but if a frog turns into human in million years then it is science. Evolutionary Science to be exact. It evolved and each and everything took the best possible shape to support each other and work in perfect harmony. It evolved because of time.
I had some Nitrogen Oxide in hand so I decided to overclock the computer and this rig fro 3.2 Gigz to 6.5 Giga Hertz. Everything was working fine then I thought that I would require a good Graphical User Interface in order to take full advantage of power hungry beast. I looked at Darwin’s evolution and man they never let you down they just handed me over full functional copy of Windows 7 though Microsoft is in the development process of it but evolution said nothing is required, no work is required, leave those thousands of idiots working in Microsoft and develop one software in many years. We evolutionists are here; have your copy of Windows 7 With Service Pack 4 pre installed and enjoyyyyyy.
I am absolutely lucky that I have got such a great mechanism without the need of anything and knowledge because evolutions theories were helping me. I deny that the processor was made to work at 3.2 Giga Hertz. It was I who took it from 3.2 to 6.5 Gigz. Nothing in between it. There is absolutely no, no and no requirement of sense, knowledge, fabrication process, computer languages and other things associated with it.
Conclusion: It is declared and proven with evolutionary science that nobody has designed any computer accessory mentioned above instead it evolved by itself and took the most perfect shape to support other hardware as well.
87 years ago I found X58 Mobo, 200 million years old, actually it is a complete computer system found absolutely intact. Everything works perfectly and faster then any other computer because this X58 Mobo is equipped with Core i7 965 clocked at 3.2 Giga Hertz, 2000 Mhz DDR 3 Ram with very tight timings. A 2 Giga Byte DDR 5 Memory handled Graphic Card, 8 Channel Sound Card and each and everything necessary for massive computing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes believe me it is a miracle that it came to existence because all the material was available on earth even before that period. I am a scientist. Science says that if a frog is turned into a prince with a kiss then its not true but if a frog turns into human in million years then it is science. Evolutionary Science to be exact. It evolved and each and everything took the best possible shape to support each other and work in perfect harmony. It evolved because of time.
I had some Nitrogen Oxide in hand so I decided to overclock the computer and this rig fro 3.2 Gigz to 6.5 Giga Hertz. Everything was working fine then I thought that I would require a good Graphical User Interface in order to take full advantage of power hungry beast. I looked at Darwin’s evolution and man they never let you down they just handed me over full functional copy of Windows 7 though Microsoft is in the development process of it but evolution said nothing is required, no work is required, leave those thousands of idiots working in Microsoft and develop one software in many years. We evolutionists are here; have your copy of Windows 7 With Service Pack 4 pre installed and enjoyyyyyy.
I am absolutely lucky that I have got such a great mechanism without the need of anything and knowledge because evolutions theories were helping me. I deny that the processor was made to work at 3.2 Giga Hertz. It was I who took it from 3.2 to 6.5 Gigz. Nothing in between it. There is absolutely no, no and no requirement of sense, knowledge, fabrication process, computer languages and other things associated with it.
Conclusion: It is declared and proven with evolutionary science that nobody has designed any computer accessory mentioned above instead it evolved by itself and took the most perfect shape to support other hardware as well.
87 years ago I found X58 Mobo, 200 million years old, actually it is a complete computer system found absolutely intact. Everything works perfectly and faster then any other computer because this X58 Mobo is equipped with Core i7 965 clocked at 3.2 Giga Hertz, 2000 Mhz DDR 3 Ram with very tight timings. A 2 Giga Byte DDR 5 Memory handled Graphic Card, 8 Channel Sound Card and each and everything necessary for massive computing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes believe me it is a miracle that it came to existence because all the material was available on earth even before that period. I am a scientist. Science says that if a frog is turned into a prince with a kiss then its not true but if a frog turns into human in million years then it is science. Evolutionary Science to be exact. It evolved and each and everything took the best possible shape to support each other and work in perfect harmony. It evolved because of time.
I had some Nitrogen Oxide in hand so I decided to overclock the computer and this rig fro 3.2 Gigz to 6.5 Giga Hertz. Everything was working fine then I thought that I would require a good Graphical User Interface in order to take full advantage of power hungry beast. I looked at Darwin’s evolution and man they never let you down they just handed me over full functional copy of Windows 7 though Microsoft is in the development process of it but evolution said nothing is required, no work is required, leave those thousands of idiots working in Microsoft and develop one software in many years. We evolutionists are here; have your copy of Windows 7 With Service Pack 4 pre installed and enjoyyyyyy.
I am absolutely lucky that I have got such a great mechanism without the need of anything and knowledge because evolutions theories were helping me. I deny that the processor was made to work at 3.2 Giga Hertz. It was I who took it from 3.2 to 6.5 Gigz. Nothing in between it. There is absolutely no, no and no requirement of sense, knowledge, fabrication process, computer languages and other things associated with it.
Conclusion: It is declared and proven with evolutionary science that nobody has designed any computer accessory mentioned above instead it evolved by itself and took the most perfect shape to support other hardware as well.
Brother Allah's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistell me why information revealed 1400+ Years ago in Quran is so accurate? do you know how our lord has told us live life and how muslims are asked to become pure? you absolutely don't know.
Quran says: Universe was created out of nothingness and it is constantly expanding. very latest science has approved that otherwise we muslims were in trouble because of inadequate scientific knowledge.
Creation of human in 3 different dark stages.
Someday a human will take some peace of mud from moon.
cities will be destroyed in an instant as they were never their. (Atom Bomb)
and many many many more. it is me who has not enough knowledge of Quran thats why i can't tell you all. ask some expert of Quran or read the Translation of it in a neutral mind state. favor nothing. you will be convinced. don't just quit after listening to 2 or 3 chapters instead read or listen to whole Quran a few times and you will find more advanced knowledge. you will get to know more because of advanced science.
human always wanted to swim in the deepest seas and fly in the air and also in the universe. then why is it that human never evolved and started flying by itself like birds or fish? it was a human requirement, especially fisher men should turn into perfect swimmer like dolphin. i want to travel a trillion times faster then light. will i be able to? or will my child because i want to?
Vander Hoven, a psychologist from Netherlands,announced his new discovery about the effect of reading the Quran and repeating the word ALLAH both on patients and on normal persons. The Dutch professor confirms his discovery with studies and research applied on many patients over a period of three years. Some of his patients were non-Muslims, others do not speak Arabic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand were trained to pronounce the word "ALLAH" clearly; the result was great, particularly on those who suffer from dejection and tension.
Al Watan, a Saudi daily reported that the psychologist was quoted to say that Muslims who can read Arabic and who read the Quran regularly could protect themselves from psychological diseases.
The psychologist explained how each letter in the word "ALLAH" affects healing of psychological diseases. He pointed out in his research that pronouncing the first letter in the word "ALLAH" which is the letter (A), released from the respiratory system, controls breathing. He added that pronouncing the velar consonant (L) in the Arabic way, with the tongue touching slightly the upper part of the jaw producing a short pause and then repeating the same pause constantly, relaxes the aspiration.
Also, pronouncing the last letter which is the letter (H) makes a contact between the lungs and the heart and in turn this contact controls the heartbeat.
What is exciting in the study is that this psychologist is a non-Muslim, but interested in Islamic sciences and searching for the secrets of the Holy Quran. Allah, The Great and Glorious, says, We will show them Our signs in the universe and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to (remember me in your Dua) ALLAHU AKBAR Allah is great.
Islam is built on five pillars the first of which is a state of faith, the other four are major exercises of faith of which some are daily, some weekly, some monthly, some annually and some are required as a minimum once in a lifetime. These exercises of faith are to serve man's spiritual purposes, satisfy his human needs and to mark his whole life with a Divine touch. The five pillars of Islam are:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShahadat
The declaration of faith is what is needed to enter into Islam. It consists of two parts. The first is:
“I testify there is no god but Allah.”
Allah (pronounced: Allaah) is the Arabic word for God. It is the same word used by Jewish and Christian Arabs to refer to God. The most literal meaning of the declaration is not the intended one, as there are many things human beings worship instead of the One God. The true meaning is: “I testify there is none worthy of worship but Allah.” This statement combines negation and affirmation. It denies the right of anything in creation to be worshipped, and it affirms that right for the Creator. The concept of worship is probably more comprehensive in Islam than in any other religion. It includes devotional rituals, but it also includes all transactions between individuals and groups. It also includes emotional states and actions of the heart, such as love, hate, hope, fear, etc. In fact, every action that pleases God is considered an act of worship in Islam.
The second part of the declaration of faith is:
“I testify that Muhammad is the [final] Messenger of God.”
Without it, implementing the first part of the declaration of faith becomes very difficult. The Quran says,
“You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day and who remembers Allah profusely.”1
Following the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has been made a litmus test for the love of God:
“Say: ‘If you do love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’”2
Accepting the rules revealed by God through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has also been made a test of true faith;
“But no, by your Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make you judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.”3
Merits of the Declaration of Faith
Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said, “Whoever bears witness that none is worthy of worship but Allah, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and that Jesus is the slave of Allah and the son of a woman who was His slave, and His word that He cast into Mary, and a soul from Him, and that Paradise is real and that Hell is real, Allah will enter him into Paradise by any of its eight doors he wishes [according to his actions].”4
On one occasion the Prophet (pbuh) was sitting in a garden. He told one of his Companions, “Take these sandals of mine. When you meet anyone outside this garden who testifies that there is no god but Allah, being sure of it in his heart, give him glad tidings of Paradise.”5
On another occasion Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said, “Allah has prohibited from the Fire of Hell anyone who says, ‘There is none worthy of worship except Allah,’ seeking thereby the pleasure of Allah.”6
The Necessity of Declaring One’s Faith
These and other statements of the Prophet (pbuh) have led scholars to conclude that a person who believes that this declaration is true must declare it in front of witnesses to become a Muslim. Knowledge and acceptance in the heart are conditions for the validity of the declaration, but knowledge and acceptance without the declaration would not save a person from Hell if there were no threat of physical harm to prevent him from declaring it.
If a person would be endangered by making his or her faith known, he/she has the option of keeping it a secret. One of the Companions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was tortured and forced to denounce Muhammad and praise the gods of the idol worshippers upon pain of death. When he was released, he came to the Prophet crying. When he had explained to him what had happened, the Prophet asked him, “How did you find your heart while you were saying those things?” He replied that his heart was content with Islam and that he hated what he was forced to say. The Prophet instructed him that if he were placed in the same situation again that he should again say what his tormenters demanded of him to save himself. It was about him that the following verse of Qur’an was revealed:
“Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters disbelief - except one who does so under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but those who open their hearts to disbelief, the wrath of Allah is on them, and they will have a dreadful penalty.”7
One of the prominent reasons that Islam requires a person to declare his/her faith is that a new convert needs the support and help of the community to help his faith grow and stabilize. When a person is a very new Muslim, his/her friends and family are likely to be displeased with the change. They will raise questions and doubts about Islam in the mind of the new convert to try to shake his/her faith. They may even try to draw the convert into behavior condemned by Islam just so that his faith will weaken through sinning. Everyone also has a personal devil to raise doubts and temptations. If the Muslim community knows that the person is a new Muslim, they have a responsibility to make him/her feel welcome and to help him/her through some of the problems of transition.
Another implication of the declaration of faith is that a believer should have an open personality without hidden agendas. People should know who you are and what you stand for. Life is a struggle between good and evil. The struggle goes on in each person’s heart, but it also goes on between people who align themselves with good, more or less, and people who align themselves with evil, more or less. Each of us needs to try to identify the truth, struggle to live by it and help others to find it and live by it. This doesn’t mean that you shove your beliefs down other’s throats, but one has a responsibility to share beneficial knowledge with those who don’t know.
Prayer
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said,
"Offer your salat (prayers) the way you see me offering them." (Sahih Al-Bukhari)
IMPORTANT
The generality of the Prophet’s (SAW) statement includes women. Therefore, all the actions of the prayer apply equally to men and women. There is nothing in the Sunnah to necessitate the exception of women from any of these descriptions. It's a major misconception in Islam, that women pray different than men. Outside of the dress code, women do not pray different then men. Men and women pray equally in the same manner. There is no difference between the way a man prays and the way a woman prays.
ZAKAH
Charity is an act common to all divinely revealed religions. Even people with no religion at all recognize generosity as an admirable quality. The desire to possess is a natural, inborn urge. It is not in itself a bad thing. It is the basis of self-preservation. It leads parents to provide homes, food, clothing and other needs for their children. It also leads people to provide goods and services for each other. But the urge to possess needs to be controlled and balanced with generosity; otherwise it becomes dangerous. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) pointed out this tendency when he said, “If a descendant of Adam possessed a valley of gold, he would crave another one. And nothing will fill his mouth but the dust [of the grave]. But God will accept the penance of one who repents.”1 Generosity requires a struggle against the inborn tendency to be selfish. To provide the setting where generosity can be exercised, God created some people poor and some people rich. Not only that, but He takes some people from lavish wealth to grinding poverty and vice-versa. The realization that even if you have money now, you may lose it all at any moment is a great leverage by which Satan influences people to be stingy. The Qur’an says,
“Satan threatens you with poverty and enjoins you with lewdness.”2
God, on the other hand, has promised that wealth will never be decreased by charity. “Whatever you spend [for good] He replaces it, and He is the best of Providers.”3
One who gives charity affirms his faith in God’s promise. That is why charity is called sadaqah in Arabic. It is related to the word for ‘truthfulness’ and the word for ‘belief.’
The Islamic concept of charity is based on the Islamic concept of wealth. Wealth is considered a trust placed in one’s hands by God. A person who believes he owns more money than another because he is smarter or worked harder than him has a deficient understanding. How many people are hard working and smart yet poor? And how many people of mediocre ability and energy are rich? God is the ultimate provider of wealth and he is its actual owner. Prophet Muhammad observed, “The son of Adam claims, ‘My wealth, my wealth.’ But, O son of Adam, was any of your property really yours, except what you consumed and destroyed, or wore until it wore out, or gave as charity and sent ahead [for yourself]?”4
Because wealth ultimately belongs to God, its temporary possessor does not have a blanket right to do whatever he or she wants with it. It is unlawful to waste wealth. It is also unlawful to use wealth to buy substances prohibited in Islam. Also, the poor have a due right on a portion of the wealth placed in one’s possession. Giving them their due right is not doing them a favor, because that portion of one’s wealth is actually for them. A person who doesn’t give it has, in reality, confiscated something that does not belong to him.
Zakaah is an obligatory form of charity on savings. It is not an income tax, but a savings tax. Its major recipients are the working poor, who cannot meet all of their needs without some additional help, and the destitute, who cannot even meet their basic needs. It is also used to pay off the debts of those who are unable to pay off their own debts, to free slaves and ransom prisoners of war and to reconcile the hearts of new Muslims who may not yet have a firm foundation of faith. Other lawful recipients are stranded travelers, those engaged in jihad and employees of the state working to collect and distribute zakaah. Their wages come from it.
Zakaah is due on the following forms of wealth:
Gold and silver (this includes paper money)
The amount due is 2.5% of savings when it reaches the equivalent value of 85 grams (approximately three ounces) of gold. This minimum amount on which zakaah is due is called the nisaab. Although some scholars say that money should be pegged to the nisaab of silver, i.e., 595 grams, the majority considers gold to be a more reasonable peg for developed economies. Consider the difference in value between the two nisaabs: If gold is worth $300 per ounce, the nisaab is equal to $900. If silver is worth $8 an ounce, the nisaab is equal to approximately $167. In most cities of the Western world, $167 would not be enough to rent a room for a month, much less an apartment. The principle behind zakaah is that the rich should pay it to the poor. A person with only $167 in savings would be more likely to need zakaah than be in a position to pay it. Zakaah is due on savings of gold and silver one year after the nisaab has been reached.
Business inventory
This includes all goods acquired or held with the intent of selling them. It would include store merchandise, land bought for resale, stocks bought for resale, etc. Zakaah is not due on factories, machinery being used to produce goods, or property being held for rental income. However, zakaah would be due on the income generated by such properties if it is saved for a year. The retail value of business inventory is calculated then added to the savings of gold, silver, and currency. 2.5% of the total is due.
Livestock
Such as cows, sheep and camels. There is a different nisaab for each type of animal and a rather detailed and complicated table of how much is due for different amounts of each type. Any fiqh book can be consulted for the details. Fiqh as-Sunnah is one of the better books available in English.
Agricultural produce
The nisaab is five wasqs, which is equivalent to 825 liters. 10% of the harvest is due if the land is watered by rainfall. 5% is due on land irrigated by wells, canals or mechanical systems.
Buried treasure
According to some scholars, this applies to all mineral wealth extracted from land. This is more relevant than the explanation that it refers only to valuables buried by non-Muslims before Islam. One-fifth is due as zakaah.
Fasting
Fasting or Siyam during the month of Ramadan is one of the five pillars of Islam. It was made obligatory in the second year of Hijrah.
'O you who believe, the fast is prescribed to you as it was prescribed for those before you - perhaps you will be God-fearing'
(al-Baqarah, Verse 183)
During Ramadan, Muslims abstain from food, drink, and sexual intercourse from dawn to sunset as well as refraining from evil intentions and desires. In an authentic tradition, the prophet reported Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) as saying:
"He suspends eating, drinking and gratification of his sexual passions for My sake"
(Muslim)
The significance of the month of Ramadan has also been made evident:
"The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for mankind and clear proofs for the guidance and the Criterion (between right and wrong). So whoever of you sights (the crescent on the first night of) the month (of Ramadan), he must fast that month."
(al-Baqarah, Verse 185)
Hajj
In many verses, the Quran alludes to life being a journey toward the Creator.
“Verily, we belong to God, and, verily, to Him we are returning.”1
“Everything in the heavens and in the earth belong to God; and to God all things will be returned.”2
“And unto Allah leads the [straight] Way, but there are ways that deviate.”3
“Hasn’t he had news of what was in the books of Moses and Abraham…that your Lord, He is the [final] goal?”4
“[The believers say,] ‘We hear, and we obey, [we seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord; and to You is the end of all journeys.’”5
A scholar from the second generation of Muslims was asked, “What will it be like to go before Allah?” He answered, “For some it will be like a reunion with a long-lost loved one. For others it will be like a runaway slave being dragged back to his master.”
Hajj is a reminder that life is a journey. You disentangle yourself from the routine of life and forego the comforts and familiarity of home. You expose yourself to uncertainty, inconvenience - maybe even danger - in search of a spiritual gain.
Of course, pilgrimage is a feature of many or most religions. One of the things that makes Hajj unique is that this pilgrimage is made to the first house ever built for the worship of the One God. Allah says in the Qur’an,
“The first House [of worship] appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Mecca), a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples.”6
“And remember [that] Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House.”7
The fact that Abraham built the Ka’bah (The greatest Islamic mosque) means that it is quite ancient, but this verse implies that Abraham and Ishmael raised the House on foundations that were already there, which would make it even older. The physical environment of Mecca is devoid of anything that people naturally take delight in. It is a forbidding landscape of searing desert and black mountains that remind one of the surface of the moon. So the motive for coming there has to be spiritual, not worldly.
Many of the actions commemorated in Hajj are based on actions done by Abraham, his son Ishmael and his wife Hagar. Their actions were expressions of the readiness to sacrifice everything for the pleasure of God. Thus Hajj affirms the continuity of God’s religion, the religion of all the prophets, and reminds the participants that the willingness to sacrifice is a key feature of a believer’s personality. Hajj also becomes a form of training in patience and endurance. For the pilgrimage to be accepted a person must refrain from arguments and fighting. When more than two million people are crowded together there is bound to be jostling and long waits to use toilets, bathe, etc. It is a marvel that so many people gather every year without the brawls and rampages so common in rock festivals and other types of gatherings. The reward for performing Hajj properly and refraining from arguments, fights and lewd behavior is that the pilgrim will return home as free of sin as the day his mother gave birth to him. Muslims do not believe in original sin or inherited sin, so that means all his sins will be forgiven.
Another difference between Hajj and other pilgrimages is that no other gathering is so universal. Virtually all of the world’s races, ethnic groups and languages are represented. People literally come from every continent on earth, except, perhaps, Antarctica. God told Abraham:
“And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men; they will come to you on foot and [mounted] on every kind of camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways, that they may witness things of benefit to them.”8
They come together in a spiritual environment that emphasizes their common humanity. The men all wear two unsewn pieces of white cloth that erase the distinctions of wealth, education and status. The huge assembly of people on the plain of Arafah reminds the pilgrims that all humanity will be assembled on a featureless plain on the Day of Judgment. The white garments of the men are reminiscent of the funeral shroud.
It was the experience of Hajj that caused Malcolm X to reconsider the racist teachings he had embraced and propagated as the leading spokesman of the so-called Nation of Islam. He had never had an encounter with a white person in America that did not reinforce his view that white people were devils. Yet at Hajj he saw people of every shade of brown, yellow, red and white eating together from the same plate, sleeping side by side and worshipping the same God as brothers and sisters. What a difference from America, where white Christians and black Christians worshipped Jesus in segregated churches! When he came back to the U.S., he announced that he had been wrong about some of his conclusions. He held out hope that there was a possibility for white and black people to live together peacefully in America, if they were to accept the real Islam.
Atheists don't go around killing people in the name of "god".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisanyone killing somebody without any reason in the name of god are going to hell and will most certainly burn along with satan in the worst hell of them all. if Darwin killed 20 people it doesn't mean that evolutionist theory is killer. then how bad people can represent islam? ever heard about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)? no you never heard. now read abit what i now about him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe was so nice person that an old women who always used to throw carbage on him went ill. Prophet Muhammad went to his home, cleaned all home, prepared food for her. He did that till she became healthy again. Muhammad (PBUH) had the strongest army at his disposal yet he never went into any part of the world and killed all the citizen of even a single city. instead when Makkah was taken by Muslims. Muhammad (PBUH) gave open forgiveness to all the residents of Makkah. even to the man who killed Muhammad's own dearest Uncle. It was mercy on humanity that spread islam throughout the world in rapid speed. it wasn't the sword.
Pakistan a so called country just like other muslims countries is not actually a muslim country by any means. Pakistan trule is Aethiest Country.
The proof.
Due to Pakistan, approximately 40 to 50 million people of india are suffering with hunger. if Pakistan and India were not enemies then those huge budgets of army could help these poor people.
I being a muslim say take all the atom bombs from pakistan atleast because we have no interest in killing even a single person so what would we do with an atom bomb? Atom bomb kills million of people. American have used it on Japan.
Muslims feed the poor. they never want anyone to suffer hunger or anything inhuman.
quranenglish is a website. contains the translation of Quran. hear in full. hear many times. because its translation and the book is devine revealation so understanding the all the words of the book is not possible at human level. Allah made Quran easy for human being. but normal people listen to it and generate meanings of their own. no Brother listen, listen and then listen. after that you may be able to decide better.
May lord of All help us all.
Taliban, dewband, Baraylvi, Ehlay-Hadees, Shia and many other sects which people have made and even are trying to devide islam are not actually muslims. a muslim is only muslim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLucifer priest, I am shocked that you proclaim to be Muslim and yet to openly defame Pakistan. You say:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Pakistan a so called country just like other muslims countries is not actually a muslim country by any means. Pakistan trule is Aethiest Country.
The proof.
Due to Pakistan, approximately 40 to 50 million people of india are suffering with hunger. if Pakistan and India were not enemies then those huge budgets of army could help these poor people."...
I am not launching into a political debate of any sort, but you clearly appear to be very intolerant of others, be they of other religions or countries other than yours. You are making a judgemental statement that makes no sense, whatsoever.
Islam by its very definition means "peace". A "Muslim" by definition, is ANYONE who believes in One God, who does good deeds, feeds the poor and the needy, takes care of the destitute. That is a Muslim.
Furthermore, the Quran states: "Let there be no compulsion in religion". The Prophet of Islam was raised and loved by his uncle, who remained a non-believer all his life. But the Prophet never forced his opinion on any one. He let people decide. He loved his uncle all his life.
That is the example we must follow. This is what Islam is. Islam is not about forcing others to believe what you believe, or in degrading anyone, for that is strictly against the teachings and principles of Islam.
Peace and love to all... :)
A book called Genesis Decoded, coming out soon, completely clarifies the entire biblical creation story. This book conclusively proves the literal wording of the creation story true and in perfect agreement with modern science. This book proves the existence of God and proves evolution is one of God's tools for creation. This book goes on to prove a 40 day deluge of rain occured. Noah's shipyard has been located as has the final resting place for his ship. It is shown that 40 days of rain squarely landed Noah in the mountains of Ararat. contact akridge5@yahoo.com. for more info.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no problem with anyone believing whatever they wish, but I get annoyed when they insist on my corroborating their belief and behaving in some arbitrary fashion to suit their codes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe proof to me that god is irrelavent (excuse my spelling i'm more of a math guy) is the fact that the universe is so huge in comparison to the earth that no matter what anyone does or thinks on this tiny little rock nothing will change the fate of our universe. There is nothing we can do to change anything in our own gallexy let alone the rest of the universe so therefore life itself is irrelavent, and anything we learn or discuss is irrelavent. Then the real nice question that stumps me, and leaves me with that tiny hope of something greater is, what is a universe without anything to understand it? same with light, does anything exist if there is nothing to see it? kinda like that T shirt you see every once in a while. i feel very lonely thinking about how everything could verywell be nothing ( i had an apiphany on the true def of "nothing" recently") at all, and how without life, the universe is just little balls of energy floating around without any reason or perpose, and the only thing left that can be used to describe it would be math. Now you can take the opposite of the irrelavent stuff i was talking about, making everything you learn and everything you do relavent because nothing outside our galexy is relavent, and nothing outside of our galexy will change how you think or feel. Are little thoughts and opinions don't change what's out there so you could argue to just forget about them Me, i love thinking about it all. evolution is def real but it doesn't disprove god, but there's plenty other ways to. again excuse my spelling and i think i got a little carried away... at least i feel better now
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne may be politically entitled to believe that which doesn't logically make sense, but not epistemologically entitled. Libertarian governments, which are constitutionally restrained from punishing irrational belief, may be forgiving of such folly, but nature is unforgiving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne may be politically entitled to believe that which doesn't logically make sense, but one is not epistemologically so entitled. Libertarian governments, which are constitutionally restrained from punishing irrational belief, may be forgiving of such folly, but nature is not so forgiving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne may be politically entitled to believe that which doesn't logically make sense, but one is not epistemologically so entitled. Libertarian governments, which are constitutionally restrained from punishing irrational belief, may be forgiving of such folly, but nature is not so forgiving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjamboozle: "Hence, to me, Darwin's theory is faulty and disconnected and can hardly be proven, whereas the existence of God is apparent all around, if only we open our eyes, and ponder."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have an idea that 'opening our eyes and pondering' somehow is not going to amount to acceptable scientific veracity, jamboozle. So unless you are able to show otherwise, evolutionary theory stands as accredited science, and what you suggest remains in the realm of religious belief.
Not that scientific theories are about 'proof', anyway. That is in mathmatics.
God is not the reason man sinned and fell into damnation "seperation". Man is the reason man sinned and fell into damnation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell I pity you for your beliefs! Seems you are the one amongst us who will burn in hell. Least "prayfully" God cause you to fall smack on your face and realize your need for Him! It is man that sinned and created hell on earth. You may want to read the scriptures with an open mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are so very correct. It is the pride of man the is his biggest downfall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin went too far. Even 150 years after Darwin, it still takes more faith to believe in the theory of common descent than in a Creator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisno it doesn't
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is your evidecne for creationism/id?
Violating informational and organizational entropy - that are very real in chemistry, physics, and biology, Darwinism is exposed as a religion of materialism. Random systems tend to maximum randomness, minimum energy, minimum information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo overcome energetic entropy, we have the power of the Sun in the sky. To overcome informational and organizational, we have intelligence simple and compound that is intrinsic to the universe (The Father and the Logos - Word in the Christian religion). Darwin should have listened more closely to his best teacher, William Paley - a watch in a field is a lesson on entropy.
"Darwin should have listened more closely to his best teacher, William Paley - a watch in a field is a lesson on entropy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy ? - The watch in a field is neither a lesson in entropy, nor a logical argument.
(its the "looks as if, therefore it was" type argument, - illogical and stupid)
Creation is an evolutionary process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreation is an evolutionary process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would say that is a contradiction
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's be honest about Genesis. Among the characters are a stupid woman and a talking snake. Maybe it's an allegory-- and a sexist one at that. I'm not saying that we need to toss out the whole Bible but put it and evolution into some historical perspective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides the talking snake and the rampant sexism, dogmatic zealots also turn people off to the Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about self assembling systems? very common in chmeistry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see yet another article to illustrate the eternal paradox; who came first, the Neal T chicken or the Laughing Gravy egg?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHo said either came first ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho said either came first ?
You know why this whole discussion and all of your
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscomments are pointless? There are many reasons. Let me
enumerate a few...
1) You're human. THat's a huge strike against you right
off the bat. It's not like you're a super intelligent
1,000 I.Q. universe traveling alien. Instead, you're
little more than barely conscious pond scum which does not
qualify you to have a worthwhile opinion on anything.
Look at the bandwidth of your consciousness for example.
You cannot even process more than one miniscule thought at
a time. Your brain filters out 99% of what comes in
through your senses because your puny conscious bandwidth
cannot handle it. Try listening to a book-on-tape while
also reading a book, and see if you can tell me what both
were about when you're finished.
99.9999% of the humans on this planet are so friggin stupid they won't even produce a single technological, scientific, or noteworthy invention in their entire life.
After tens of thousands of years of evolution, we still
cannot establish a definition of what life even is, or how
to identify it. You think you're smart? Gimme a break.
So now that we've established you're pretty darn stupid,
lets move to the next point.
2) Assume their is a God. So what. That doesn't mean
that you have an eternal soul. Your still a steaming pile
of flesh that will evaporate into nothingness after you
die.
3) Assume that there is life after death. So what. That
doesn't mean there is a God or creator. It simply means
you've moved to another state that you're not familiar
with and cannot establish anything about it's source or
purpose.
4) You incorrectly assume that life has inherent value.
That completely rediculous ludicrous invalid false premise
starts you down the path to a whole pantload of other
false conclusions. I'll leave it to your small mind to
figure out what those are.
As Shakespeare said, " All is vanity."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing intrinsically bettering about giving up such a belief. Yes, it's possible that giving up religion could be better. But it's also possible that this could be worse. If there is no transcendental center which provides meaning and purpose, then the alternative is nihilism. Science has merely tried to replace the theological center, but has not succeeded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is like the evolutionary PRECURSOR to the flat earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe undeniable proof of evolution is here:
http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/evolutionary-predecessors-to-the-flat-earth/