“Intelligence,” OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

[Harris]

Why bother? As demonstrated by a part later on in this very post I'm quoting, whenever someone does show you science that you don't like, you just wave it away by asserting that it's "not science." This is the issue here: you're just dismissing whatever disagrees with what you want to believe, and emphasizing the small amount that agrees with you.

But this is the exact problem with you. You have BLIND FAITH in evolution. You believe evolution is science when it is not. All what you have in evolution are gossips, ifs, conjectures, postulates, etc. Everything in Evolution, from micro to macro, occur due to RANDOM CHANCE. In science Chance has no room and RANDOM CHANCE is nothing but absurd.

So, I spent all that time showing you real evidence, with sources that go back to actual scientific studies rooted all throughout them, and you've just dismissed them with an assertion. Given this, you haven't addressed my rebuttals at all, and I have rebutted every one of your arguments.

Its not an assertion. Evolution is only a Postulate, An Assumption that has nothing to do with conventional science. Did you ever ponder why it is a THEORY not a SCIENTIFIC FACT in modern scientific world?

Who says they need to come from anywhere? Why can’t they just be features of the universe?

Features of which universe:
One that came into existence spontaneously out from nothingness or
One that always existed and slowly dying with its expansion?

Sorry, science has moved on since 1859; we've found many more fossils since then, some of which we were able to predict what they would be, and in which layer, based on evolutionary models, and all of them have fit into the theory perfectly fine. You don't get to bring up Darwin's intellectual honesty from over a century ago as if things haven't changed since, you quote mining prick.

Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

So what? Again, you're quoting from a paper written by people who accept evolution and actually feature it in their writing; if we were to accept, as you believe, that evolution isn't true, then what this means is that you've quoted from an incorrect paper as support for your position. If we accept your position as true, then this source cannot be used as evidence in support of that position because it's wrong. If we accept my position as true then the paper functions as intended. You just got logicked, son.

EVIDENCE! The fossils? Do you have a single exemplar out from fossil record that is taken as the real transitional animal by scientific community?

Lots of things wrong here! First of all, appealing to an "unanswered question" as support for your position is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Second, Lieberman studies evolution, he accepts that it happens, so the same paradox applies as above- if you're quoting him to prove that evolution is wrong then he's wrong too and thus not an accurate source on this issue- and he clearly doesn't agree with your quote mine of him, so that's dishonest of you. Thirdly, and this is strange, I can't find your quote anywhere but creationist sources; I can't even find the original source for it...

I quoted Lieberman because he also believe in Evolution. Because he is studying evolution and because he is puzzled by the fact of Cambrian Life Explosion, like almost all evolutionists do (including Dawkins), that does not mean he is going against his belief. This exhibits his amazement on the fact that numerous new species and kinds of living beings appear abruptly in Cambrian Explosion and this phenomenon is in clear contradiction to the theory of evolution.
Here is the source
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1f7yos...tary-hd_tv

And I rebutted every one, meaning this assertion you've made here is yet another "nuh uh!" If evidence doesn't continually confirm evolution perhaps you'd like to explain why the entirety of the mainstream scientific community, including the theists among them, continues to accept it and operate under the premise that it's true? To say nothing of modern medicine, and so on?

What Evidence have you got? You are always talking about evidence but WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE! Fossils? Random Mutation + Natural Selection? Or something else? Read my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html
I offer you to watch “EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED” in response to your inquiry “why the entirety of the mainstream scientific community, including the theists among them, continues to accept it and operate under the premise that it's true?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63awtAyHdU&feature=kp

Probably "Things have moved on since then," coupled with "one source doesn't destroy the scientific consensus against that source." Cherry picking your data doesn't get you anywhere, but it does make you look desperate.

I want technical scientific fact against 30 years old argument. I am not looking for abstract ideas.

You do realize that you sound insane, right now, right? If the best you can do to explain away the massive consensus on this- and I'd remind you that christian scientists are also universally in on this, where they're actually real scientists- is to whine about everyone being against you, well... that's not actually an argument. That's toddler logic; everyone disagrees with you because they're against you! Give me a break.

Christian scientists who favour Neo-Darwinism! Are you sure, they are real Christians and trust their bible that teaches them creationism?

What's so hard about just summarizing the arguments presented, and making reference to the actual, peer reviewed science (not single quote mined paragraphs formulated to say the opposite of what the source actually says) involved?

They are too many of them. Here is the link
http://vimeo.com/71162398

Evolution is under constant criticism, both from within the scientific community and from religious sources too; if the evidence against it was as rock solid and obvious as you claim then it would be the work of but a moment for your side to present it using the multi-million dollar media powers the christian market possesses. The fact that you haven't is sort of a hint.

No one is allowed to criticize evolution especially in academic and political environments. Watch:
“EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63awtAyHdU&feature=kp

Oh, and these mysterious "political reasons"? Come on, man. The majority of the US government is christian, are you kidding me?

LOL! Christians! Who are driving a Secular State and protecting secular legislation!

That means the scientific process has effectively been short-circuited. The normal corrective process in science where some scientists observed problems with the current theory, they analyse it and changes are made where appropriate. That process is not operating as far as theory of evolution is concerned. Therefore, for the most part Theory of evolution has survived without that type of critique. Many people assume that theory of evolution has a solid foundation simply because they are not hearing scientific critiques.

Assertion, assertion, assertion.

Well, that is the truth you like it or not.

This first part is just factually wrong: mutations happen, every generation, without fail. You are not a perfect clone of your parents, because your genes mutated as they were replicating. That's mutation, and it happened to you. False starting premise, means the rest of the statement is non-functional. Done.

You are fast and furious. Evolution is about NEW AND BETTER ORGANS. TRANSFORMATION FROM ONE KIND INTO ANOTHER SAY APES INTO HUMANS. I am not talking about ADAPTATION and VARIATIONS IN SAME SPECIES.

It is a demonstrable fact that mutations happen. The average human infant has at least sixty, sometimes upwards of two hundred, mutations at birth, and develops more over time. Done again.

You are fast and furious again. Evolution is about NEW AND BETTER ORGANS. TRANSFORMATION FROM ONE KIND INTO ANOTHER SAY APES INTO HUMANS. I am not talking about ADAPTATION and VARIATIONS IN SAME SPECIES.

He kinda does, when you present a source that all the real scientists review as shoddy work, and the ideologically driven conmen rave about as brilliant.

I am not a fan of Ken Ham but I do appreciate some of his arguments on morals.

No, the lack of evidence for a god is the most important tool to support atheism. There are atheist groups that don't accept evolution, which blows your claim out of the water.

According to physicist Victor Stenger, “The legal staff from Freedom from religion foundation (a church state watchdog group) has had remarkable success in convincing many institutions that they are breaking constitutional law when they sponsor sectarian activities.” That include intelligent design. “When the authorities can’t be convinced, freedom from religion foundation sues, and it wins more often than not.”
I had not came across a single atheist who disregard evolution. I doubt there is any atheist who do not take evolution as science. For the sake of argument, even if I agree with your claim then I don’t think there are more than a handful of atheist who don’t believe that evolution is science.

That's an argument from ignorance too; if you could prove evolution false right now that wouldn't be evidence for a god existing. Can you go one sentence without a fallacy?

I think you are not reading with care. I wrote, “Sure! You can be atheist even if Theory of Evolution falls apart.”

Darwin observed the physical expression of those genetic changes.

My question was, “DID DARWIN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GENETICS?”

Considering that genetics are the dictator of physical traits in an organism, what else would you think was behind evolution? Do you know what population genetics is?

Genetics do not add new organ to the existing body plan.
Check out my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

What the fuck are you talking about? I've been presenting real, peer reviewed sources all along, and you're the one sitting here dismissing them all as "not science" without providing why! Could you be any more up your own ass on this?

“Without providing Why!”
Evolution is a mere postulate. Only this reason is sufficient to prove evolution is not a conventional scientific fact.

Given that we're talking in the abstract and not about a specific case, it'd be inappropriate to use another word. I can't talk about what did happen when we're talking in abstractions without a subject at hand.

In anyway, you can’t talk about what happened millions and billions of years back because no one was there at that time. Fossils are useless in relation to evolution.

Got any reputable sources instead? Ones that don't premise their objections on the faulty claim that this was all just random?

Evolution is all about RANDOM CHANCE. If you think it is not just random then what it is?

Is there any mechanism for “NATURALLY?” Even if everything is happening automatically then again through which mechanism? Perhaps, everything is happening out from nothing!

Argument from ignorance.

You have not answered that question.

Of course it's an incomplete list; aside from the fact that new discoveries will continue to happen, nobody is saying that we should expect a complete lineage in every case, that's absurd. But appealing to the incompleteness of the list in order to pretend that the evidence on it doesn't exist is, again, an argument from ignorance. Maybe you're just ignorant in general.

Do you know there are over 200,000,000-catalogued specimens of about 250,000 fossil species? Yet that list is incomplete, you know why, because it lacks fossils of intermediate animals.

Do you understand how rare fossil formation is? That's why this is said, you blithering imbecile.

You are talking out from your desire. You don’t know anything about sedimentary rocks and fossil-bearing strata. There are billions if not trillions of fossils buried in fossil bearing strata. However, what is missing is the fossils of transitional animals in those fossil deposits. This is a bitter fact for any evolutionists.
For more details please read my new post.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

First you quote a book from 1859, and then you quote a guy who's been dead for over fifteen years.

Does that change anything in the factual data that this argument has presented?

"Nuh uh!" still isn't an argument, especially since the trained scientists disagree with your uneducated ass.

All right! Then provide only a single fossil that is recognised unequivocally as transitional by conventional scientific community.

And now we're done, you dishonest fuck. This, you awful, ignorant conman, is one of the most well known quote mines of Darwin's entire work. Here's the full quote:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility"

And here's a source for that. You abhorrent fucking liar, Darwin is actually saying that this idea is counter-intuitive, but that so called "common sense" shouldn't blind one to the evidence that the eye has, in fact, evolved. What you did was stop the quote in the middle of the paragraph to make it say something different than what was actually said, and I demand that you retract this vile lie and apologize for this dishonesty before we continue further. Until then, I will have nothing further to say to you.

I suggest you should keep little bit of your excitement for the future. Don’t consume all in one instance.
Have you ever thought when I insert a quote why I always give you book name and page number? Do you think I am doing it, so you come back and hit that book on my head? If you have a trouble of Blind Faith in evolution in your head, then that is your pain not mine.

Now read with care what follows.

You wrote, “Darwin is actually saying that this idea is counter-intuitive, but that SO CALLED "common sense" shouldn't blind one to the EVIDENCE that the eye has, in fact, evolved.”

You are talking about “EVIDENCE”. Are you saying Darwin had the EVIDENCE that the eye in fact, evolved? If so, please quote that “EVIDENCE” from any of Darwin’s work. If you fail to find that EVIDENCE then let me know and I grant you a chance so you can arrange a TESTABLE EVIDENCE from the contemporary world of Conventional Science. I would be looking for methodical, coherent, and logical EVIDENCE not bits and pieces that prove evolution of eye.

Darwin knew that the eye was highly complex. He thought that evolution of the human eye was possible by viewing the steps of development in different creatures and to see the usefulness of the different changes in the eye structure that lead to the human eye. The most difficult part of this theory is that it is nearly impossible, even if he was correct, to find every step along the way showing direct change in an eye that are small enough to be considered natural selection. Natural selection of the human eye would require MUCH TIME and RANDOM CHANCE. I assure you evolution of eye cannot be proved on ground of MUCH TIME and RANDOM CHANCE.

When observing the anatomy of the human eye, the intricacy of vision, and all of the different aspects and connections, it does seem that the human eye is a miracle, no matter its origins. Even a simplification of the information shows the complexity and intensity of human sight and unmistakably miraculous.

There are many different types of eyes and assuming there is a common ancestor, creates the circular reasoning. Although genetic mutations may occur, there can be no INCREASE IN INFORMATION or GENETIC MATERIAL other than what is already in a system. This would mean that the youngest life form in the evolutionary chain contained the genetic disposition and information for the human eye, thus the genes for the human eye must have been in the genome of the first creature that would eventually evolve.

“Consider the eye ‘with all its inimitable contrivances,’ as Darwin called them, which can admit different amounts of light, focus at different distances, and correct spherical and chromatic aberration. Consider the retina, consisting of 150 million correctly made and positioned specialized cells. These are the rods [to view black and white] and the cones [to view color]. Consider the nature of light-sensitive retinal [a complex chemical]. Combined with a protein (opsin), retinal becomes a chemical switch. Triggered by light, this switch can generate a nerve impulse… Each switch-containing rod and cone is correctly wired to the brain so that the electrical storm (an estimated 1000 million impulses per second) is continuously monitored and translated, by a step which is a total mystery, into a mental picture.”
Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 215.

Other profound aspect of eye is the Biological Purpose of Crying.

There are two processes of tear secretion in humans. The first is tearing, which is caused by irritants, and helps to lubricate and clean the eye.

The second process serves a completely different purpose. Tears cried out of emotion is a phenomenon only occurring in humans, making this trait uniquely distinct. If evolution follows, then where did emotional crying originate?

“Crying has no direct biological function in the protection of the eye and may serve no physiological purpose whatsoever”
Vingerhoets, & Cornelius, p. 28.

If emotional crying has no direct biological purpose, the question of why crying has embedded itself in the highest form of evolved creatures must be asked. Also the idea that humans are the only animal that weeps makes little sense in terms of evolutionary processes. If “all animal species can survive in their natural environment without the capacity of crying,” then what biological function would the act of weeping serve to humans?
Vingerhoets & Cornelius, p.28.

Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

---

And, with your very first sentence, you show just how deep your ignorance runs.
I told you to go learn about evolution.
You refuse to do so and, instead, provide us with your version of what "evolution" means. Thank you, but that's not what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection states as "evolution".
Either you go learn about it, or remain in your own delusional world.... but don't mix them, as they're clearly not compatible.

Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

---

I am not a creationist;

No problem with that. You agree with the concept of God or not it’s your BELIEF.

I have not ever made that claim. You are making it for me,

Which claim you are talking about? Claim that you are creationist? I am not saying that! What I am saying is you are claiming that universe popped out from nothingness. Is not it true?

So you tell me on what basis you are making it.

Nature, does not exhibit spontaneous appearances of things. This is the base of my claim that universe did not pop out from nothingness.

You do not believe in God this is the base of my claim that you are claiming that universe popped out from nothingness.

Incidentally, I have visited every star and planet in the Universe. So there.

No doubt about that, I appreciate your honesty.

---

Genesis 1:3 "Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."

"Light," OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

Light out of nothingness is Wrong! God Himself is Light Who is not nothingness.

“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.”

An Nuur (24)
-Verse 35-

Their intention is to extinguish Allah’s Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).
Ash-Shaff (61)
-Verse 8-

---

Well looks like Harris was exposed for another dishonest unoriginal hack. I love when they get that snobbish tone and then trip over their own arrogant misapprehension of the facts, trying to quote Darwin to refute Darwin and failing miserably as anyone with half a brain could have predicted they would.

Evolution is not Science it’s a Faith. Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html