“Intelligence,” OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

[downbeatplumb]

Religious view:
Allah is the creator of everything (including space).

Before space existed where was god?
Before there was time in what sense did god exist?

He regulates all events and actions in the universe.

So he made me an atheist why?

He determines to what extent His created beings would exist. In other words, He allocate age to every being. His creatures are time dependent, but He is not. Allah’s activities is time for His created beings. He is time Himself.

You do realise that makes no sense.

[Harris]

Tell that to quantum foam. .

I made a call to the foam and asked for virtual particles. The answer I received was “sorry wrong number call E=MC2.” Unfortunately, what you desire to hear is not a reality. There is nothing in the universe that comes into existence spontaneously. Even virtual particles and even for a Nano-Second!

Wow, there's a lot wrong here. First of all, you don't have any evidence on your side, so there's no reason to preference your claims; at least we know that nature exists. Secondly, your "everything in nature" claim is idiotic to begin with as you have no evidence that things outside of the universe constitute "nature" or adhere to the same rules as the things within it... which also don't follow the rules you're demanding they do.

This claim is literally wrong at every conceivable level.

Sure, if you do not have scientific evidence then by any means you are not in position to give any scientific value to an axiom or to a postulate like “bird is the selecting agent for a moth to be black or white”

Chemistry. I mean, that's literally what DNA is: chemicals reacting together.

Why in nature these chemicals react together in a deterministic manner!

And I'll run through them real quick:

First quote: argument from ignorance based on faulty assumptions. No matter how unlikely abiogenesis might be that doesn't mean god is real by default, and more importantly, how the fuck is this guy deriving calculations of probability when he has no idea what things were like in the past, nor what is required for life to form naturally at all? His probability argument is based on nothing but bullshit, as he doesn't have enough data to form a calculation of probability. Also, 1981? Really? Thirty year old science is... well, out of date. By thirty years.

Do you reason that things have changed in favour of Theory of Evolution in past 30 years? On the contrary, they become worse with the advancements in genetics and palaeontology.
It seems time is the criteria for you to assess science. Presumably, for you, Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein Theory of relativity … all of them are out of date science because all of them are more than 30 years old. However, on the other side you support centuries old Theory of Evolution (a mere postulate) and count it to be a valid scientific fact in contemporary world of science. Why double standards?

Second quote: again, argument from ignorance. "It seems unlikely" is not evidence for a designer, you actually need positive evidence for that. Interesting how you fail to present any. And again, you present a thirty year old source! Got anything from this decade?

Please download documentary from the following link and check out what eminent scientists, philosophers, and mathematician of our time say about evolution. They are giving solid scientific evidences for their justification on Intelligent Design.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7JspPJ...sp=sharing

Incidentally, did you think I wouldn't check your source, and find the enormously negative reception it got from the scientific community, many real members of which declared it unable to pass even softball peer review?

Which Scientific Community. (Atheist?)

I also see that, curiously enough, the only positive reviews seem to come from creationists...

That is well understood! Why should atheist scientists agree with science that goes against their ideology? In doing so, they disprove atheism, which in turn might become a harsh reality for them. Next time please don’t forget to give literary references and names instead of using words “scientific community” or “creationists.”

Here's a mutation that confers a resistance, bordering on outright immunity, to HIV. That's new, in that it wasn't present before, and is now, especially if one inherits the gene from both parents. You're wrong again.

I am not wrong! It is you. Theory of Evolution is talking about new organs and transformation form one specie to another. Like humans evolve from fish. Genetics talks only about variations in population of same species. In fact, genetics is the enemy of evolution because it tells that one specie cannot be evolved into another. That is the reason evolutionists are trying to incorporate genetics with the natural selection in order to hide the loopholes in the Theory of Evolution, which has no laboratory foundation. Look at the Darwin’s tree of life and to your amazement, you will find it has no roots.

If you're just going to say "nuh uh!" and not back up your assertions at all, I'm just going to dismiss them out of hand. Either provide some evidence as to why you say natural selection can't "justify," whatever that means in this context, these mutations, or kindly be silent.

I had given many facts against evolution. I used the word laboratory on purpose because evolutionists have no documented evidence in favour of evolution that can be proved in laboratory. They do not have answers to:

1. What is the origin of living cell?
2. Where are the transient animals?
3. What new organs, a positive mutation had produced?

So you see it is not a mere “NUH UH!”

Only one out of eight? Interestingly limited scope: I wonder how many fallacies I can spot here? Lemme just load up talkorigins before I go on.

That one example is sufficient for people who are wise in their thinking. I already discussed on mutation and there is no reason to repeat the same topic more than once.

Don't forget natural selection, but that's basically correct otherwise

Genetics only talks about variations in same species. Genetics do not talk on transformation from one specie to another.

The mutations are random, but their persistence in a population is informed by their evolutionary benefits or detriments. That is evolution, that you're describing so far, so I'm a bit weirded out as to where this is going.

“The mutation is random” is another point that Neo-Darwinism try to incorporate with the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection and random mutation is essentially a trial-and-error process. It would, therefore, necessarily generate many mutational errors in the process of producing any functionally specified sequences. It should produce a genome in which genetic noise rivals or dwarfs genetic signal.
To produce any fundamentally new biological forms these mutations would—at the very least—have to produce a number of new proteins. But natural selection can act only on what mutations first generate. Thus, for mutation and selection to produce new functional proteins or protein folds—the smallest unit of selectable function—new proteins or protein folds must first arise by chance—that is, by random mutation. If the probability of this were extremely low—beyond the reach of available probabilistic resources—then this would undermine the plausibility of the neo-Darwinian mechanism.
How rare or common are functional protein folds within their corresponding amino acid–sequence space? If functional sequences were common enough for mutations to stumble upon them relatively easily (within the time required for relevant evolutionary transitions), mutation and selection might be able to build otherwise extremely improbable structures in small incremental steps. On the other hand, if functional proteins are extremely rare within sequence space, such that mutations will not have a realistic chance of finding them in the available time, selection will have little or nothing to work on, undermining its ability to produce biological information.

This is just babble, and again, it's baseless assertion type babble that you haven't provided evidence for, and will hence be summarily dismissed. Feel free to go find some science- peer reviewed, mainstream, and up to date - that supports you. Otherwise... meh.

You have not yet submitted any example of positive mutation that got a laboratory verification. When I say positive mutation, I mean new organ. If man evolved from a walking fish then he can have wings in future. Isn’t it?

Why is it that you think just saying "that's ridiculous" counts as a rebuttal? .

Because, you do not have an appropriate laboratory proof to support your cute little bird.

Don't bother. Lee Strobel isn't exactly educated on this issue. As to the quote... just describing what irreducible complexity is doesn't count as confirmation of it. You'd need evidence for this, something that you can't have, as irreducible complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance itself, and based entirely around negative claims: "evolution can't do this, therefore designer."

Besides, irreducible complexity already got roundly laughed out of a court of law for good reason. You got anything better?

Please past the link to this discussion. Perhaps, I would share a little laughter along with you.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

"'Intelligence,' OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!" is an apt description of God's own existence.

[Harris]

I look at time in two different ways. One religious and second standard.

Religious view:
Allah is the creator of everything (including space). He regulates all events and actions in the universe. He determines to what extent His created beings would exist. In other words, He allocate age to every being. His creatures are time dependent, but He is not. Allah’s activities is time for His created beings. He is time Himself.

“Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 255-
Quran


Standard view:
Aging + Relative motions = Human sense of Time

Please also check my response to Pickup_shonuff below

In other words, you're playing fast and loose with the definition of "time" in order to disguise the fact that your claim is not scientifically nor philosophically sound.

I am amazed how people in this forum love to taunt without ever giving reasons for their critiques. Please show what you have in contrast to:

Aging + Relative motions = Human sense of Time

Everything in the universe has a Local frame of causality that means everything in the universe is reliant on the laws that run the universe. However, the cause (whatever it maybe) that prompted Big Bang, transcends the scope of universe.

Yes, everything in the universe has a local frame of causality, which is the universe itself. You have no reference point, i.e. no local frame of causality, that is relative to the universe to describe it in terms that we can understand and apply to every day life.

Our everyday life is part of this universe. Every event that we observe is happening within the frame of known universe. Therefore, the reference point is the known universe.

You're attempting to say that the first cause must have existed previously to the Big Bang, but we are talking about a quantum state completely absent of time where these macroscopic principles you're trying to use do not apply.

Please elaborate what you mean by “but we are talking about a quantum state completely absent of time”

Causality without time within the scope of universe is not possible but what about the causality that originated the universe. Is there any reason to believe that before Big Bang time exist in similar way how we perceive it today?


There is no reason to believe that causality is a valid principle when time does not exist.

Then how comes you are advocating the events in quantum state that are completely absent of time?

---

When to an evolutionist a genuine scientific evidence is presented as a fact against evolution, almost immediately he moved away from the scientific material and jumped into the areas of philosophy, theology, the worldview, etc. He just start throwing lots of smoke and name-calling and get people even not to listen to the message of science by essentially criticising the messenger.


Name one single documented instance of this actually happening.

Watch recent debate between Kraus and WLC in Australia. You will find Kraus exhibiting all those qualities what I have mentioned.

---

Harris the logical comes forth and gives us the qur'an... how unexpected... -.-'

DNA didn't just pop into existence all built up. It must have evolved from simpler self-replicating structures... RNA being a close relative.

Seriously, people are telling you to go learn about the things you're trying to inform us about.... it is clear that you are ignorant of what science tells us about those things. Go read up on them, but refrain from using your crappy biased sources.
Start on wikipedia, follow the references, seek them out on google scholar and learn.... it will be a slow process, given that there are now tons of articles on the subjects and few are attempts at summarizing it, but it will be worth it.
Like I said somewhere else, probably to someone else, your logic fails you due to wrong premisses. Endeavor to make your premises as correct as possible and you can't be faulted for them...
Do what you've been doing... and you're dismissed like a pigeon playing chess.

I am thankful for your concern about educating me. You are most welcome to give me few lessons. Please provide me the links to scientific papers and books which answer the following questions in terms of verifiable scientific proofs:

1. What is the origin of living cell?
2. Where are the transient animals?
3. What new organs, a positive mutation has produced?

---

It's really hard not to stereotype the Muslims on this site, because... Damn.

There's nothing wrong with stereotyping, as long as you give each individual a fair chance to prove they aren't limited to the stereotype.

These guys have had plenty of chances. Nobody said, "Here's a Muslim. He's going to be an irrational Quran-thumper." They jumped right into their stereotype boxes of their own volition.

This is an unfortunate fact that man (theist and atheist) love to follow his own volition. If he has to undermine conscience and rationality to achieve his comfort, he feels no hesitation to do that.

---

Religious view:
Allah is the creator of everything (including space).

Before space existed where was god?
Before there was time in what sense did god exist?

When there was no nothing, there was God. When there would be nothing, there would be God. I ask you to ponder over these two sentences with patience.

He regulates all events and actions in the universe.

So he made me an atheist why?

Allah has bestowed us intellect. We use this intellect to make choices according to our own convenience. It is our choice, what faith we want to live with. You have a belief there is no god and I have faith in God who created everything. Both of us have our own reasons to substantiate our beliefs. He had not made you atheist and me Muslim. We made ourselves atheist and Muslim by using our freedom of choice.
For me it sounds awkward that everything is popping out of nothing without any reason because what I see in nature is things are not coming into existence without any cause. That is why I am not atheist.

He determines to what extent His created beings would exist. In other words, He allocate age to every being. His creatures are time dependent, but He is not. Allah’s activities is time for His created beings. He is time Himself.

You do realise that makes no sense.

It will make sense only if you ponder over to what all scientific facts are pointing. Science is saying everything in nature and universe are well organized. It is out of question that universe administer its own self. Universe is far away, we human beings, who have intellect and have power to manage certain things, cannot govern our own bodies in manner we think feasible for us. We cannot stop our ageing! Even we have no control over our heartbeats.
You recognize many unperceivable things because you feel them through their effects on you. However, when you exploit all the facilities that nature has provided for your living you still do not believe in God simply because He is not ostensive. Thus, what makes you explicit in rejecting God after you see humongous signs in complicated functions and structures in nature and universe if you are not simply following your own desires?

[Cyberman]

I made a call to the foam and asked for virtual particles. The answer I received was “sorry wrong number call E=MC2.”

Then the foam lied to you. Energy does not equal Mass multiplied by lightspeed doubled - E is equal to MC squared. The real quantum foam would know this.

Unfortunately, what you desire to hear is not a reality.

I agree.

There is nothing in the universe that comes into existence spontaneously.

How do you know this? Have you been everywhere in the Universe and looked behind every planet and every star?

Even virtual particles and even for a Nano-Second!

Hawking Radiation would llike a quick word with you.

[Esquilax]

I made a call to the foam and asked for virtual particles. The answer I received was “sorry wrong number call E=MC2.” Unfortunately, what you desire to hear is not a reality. There is nothing in the universe that comes into existence spontaneously. Even virtual particles and even for a Nano-Second!

Sorry Harris, but "nuh-uh!" isn't an answer, especially when the science seems to disagree with you. Simply denying that just makes you seem juvenile.

Sure, if you do not have scientific evidence then by any means you are not in position to give any scientific value to an axiom or to a postulate like “bird is the selecting agent for a moth to be black or white”

This has literally nothing to do with what we were talking about. And, uh, you are the one without scientific evidence, not I.

Why in nature these chemicals react together in a deterministic manner!

Laws of physics?

Do you reason that things have changed in favour of Theory of Evolution in past 30 years? On the contrary, they become worse with the advancements in genetics and palaeontology.

Paleontology and genetics have done nothing but confirm that evolution occurs. What are you even talking about, here?

It seems time is the criteria for you to assess science. Presumably, for you, Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein Theory of relativity … all of them are out of date science because all of them are more than 30 years old. However, on the other side you support centuries old Theory of Evolution (a mere postulate) and count it to be a valid scientific fact in contemporary world of science. Why double standards?

It's not a double standard because time and again certain theories are confirmed by the advancement of science, and others aren't. You quoted a thirty year old source that hasn't been accepted by the scientific community, meaning that, evidently, the science has moved on and found the source to be incorrect or lacking in evidence. By contrast, the centuries that have passed since evolution was first proposed have only ever discovered evidence that reinforces and refines the theory, and never disagreed with it.

That's the difference.

Please download documentary from the following link and check out what eminent scientists, philosophers, and mathematician of our time say about evolution. They are giving solid scientific evidences for their justification on Intelligent Design.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7JspPJ...sp=sharing

First of all, it's a dead link: the video won't play. Second of all, you should be able to articulate the argument you wish to make on your own, else you'll run afoul of Rule One of the forum eventually.

Which Scientific Community. (Atheist?)

There is one scientific community, and it's made up of a mix of theists and atheists, many of the former, by the way, accept evolution. In fact, the majority of theists working in mainstream science accept evolution, as they are a part of the majority of scientists that accept evolution. Your attempt to imply some kind of atheist conspiracy falls flat because it's simply factually incorrect.

That is well understood! Why should atheist scientists agree with science that goes against their ideology? In doing so, they disprove atheism, which in turn might become a harsh reality for them. Next time please don’t forget to give literary references and names instead of using words “scientific community” or “creationists.”

Wrong again, because evolution is not atheism, and there's no requirement for an atheist to accept evolution. You can't "disprove" atheism by disproving evolution. And the only people giving positive reviews for the book in question, from memory, were known frauds like Ken Ham, which is extremely telling.

I am not wrong! It is you. Theory of Evolution is talking about new organs and transformation form one specie to another. Like humans evolve from fish.

No, it isn't. Evolution concerns genetic changes over time in populations, which you'd know if you'd bothered to research this at all.

Genetics talks only about variations in population of same species. In fact, genetics is the enemy of evolution because it tells that one specie cannot be evolved into another. That is the reason evolutionists are trying to incorporate genetics with the natural selection in order to hide the loopholes in the Theory of Evolution, which has no laboratory foundation. Look at the Darwin’s tree of life and to your amazement, you will find it has no roots.

And if those variations within the same species keep happening, and the species keeps varying more and more, eventually there will come a point where that population is so different from the species if begins at that it can't be called the same species anymore. Read a goddamn book!

I had given many facts against evolution. I used the word laboratory on purpose because evolutionists have no documented evidence in favour of evolution that can be proved in laboratory.

Nylon eating flavobacteria. Look it up.

They do not have answers to:

1. What is the origin of living cell?

We don't know how exactly, but we have strong evidence that it's possible for life to form naturally, which removes the requirement for a designer completely.

2. Where are the transient animals?

We have thousands of examples, including near complete lineages in some cases. Here's a big ol' list of them. You're wrong again.

3. What new organs, a positive mutation had produced?

The eye. We know how the eye evolved, in fact we know how it evolved along multiple independent evolutionary paths, hence the differences between, say, our eyes and squid eyes. Oh, and there's a species of skink here in Australia that are developing the ability to live birth their young, rather than using eggs as lizards generally do.

That said, the formulation of this question is a tad dishonest, since evolution of the kind you're looking for takes millions of years.

So you see it is not a mere “NUH UH!”

No, this time it was an argument from ignorance.

That one example is sufficient for people who are wise in their thinking. I already discussed on mutation and there is no reason to repeat the same topic more than once.

"If you don't agree with me, you're dumb!" Fantastic argument, dude.

Genetics only talks about variations in same species. Genetics do not talk on transformation from one specie to another.

Accumulations of the former result in the latter.

“The mutation is random” is another point that Neo-Darwinism try to incorporate with the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection and random mutation is essentially a trial-and-error process. It would, therefore, necessarily generate many mutational errors in the process of producing any functionally specified sequences. It should produce a genome in which genetic noise rivals or dwarfs genetic signal.

There's a reason the majority of the species on this planet are extinct, you know. The rest of this section is just another argument from ignorance from you.

You have not yet submitted any example of positive mutation that got a laboratory verification. When I say positive mutation, I mean new organ. If man evolved from a walking fish then he can have wings in future. Isn’t it?

You literally don't know what evolution is, do you?

Because, you do not have an appropriate laboratory proof to support your cute little bird.

Flavobacteria. Seriously. Fruit flies too. Silver foxes. Look up any of those things in a search with the word "evolution."

I look forward to you coming back here and demonstrating how little you know about the subject you're babbling about by protesting, "but they're still the same species!"

Honestly, if you don't care to understand evolution, then stop disagreeing with this strawman version of it you've cooked up.

Please past the link to this discussion. Perhaps, I would share a little laughter along with you.

It was the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, back in 2005. A quick google search should furnish you with everything you need to know, but the short version is that intelligent design advocates presented their best "evidence" for their idea, and the judge in charge of the case ruled that intelligent design wasn't scientific and could not be taught in schools in that area.

Now, onto official business: your quotes here are all messed up, man. In fact, you've attributed things to me here that I didn't even say, which is quite serious: please try to keep your quotes normal in the future.

[Cyberman]

Also, re: Kitzmiller v Dover, certain of the more prominent 'Intelligent Design' proponents actually declined from defending their pet hypothesis when given the chance to do so under oath.

[pocaracas]

Esq already said most of what I was going to, but oh, well... I can always add something extra!

Harris the logical comes forth and gives us the qur'an... how unexpected... -.-'

DNA didn't just pop into existence all built up. It must have evolved from simpler self-replicating structures... RNA being a close relative.

Seriously, people are telling you to go learn about the things you're trying to inform us about.... it is clear that you are ignorant of what science tells us about those things. Go read up on them, but refrain from using your crappy biased sources.
Start on wikipedia, follow the references, seek them out on google scholar and learn.... it will be a slow process, given that there are now tons of articles on the subjects and few are attempts at summarizing it, but it will be worth it.
Like I said somewhere else, probably to someone else, your logic fails you due to wrong premisses. Endeavor to make your premises as correct as possible and you can't be faulted for them...
Do what you've been doing... and you're dismissed like a pigeon playing chess.

I am thankful for your concern about educating me. You are most welcome to give me few lessons.

Somehow, I feel it will be difficult... nay.. nigh-impossible to shake your strawman of what evolution really is.
We try, nonetheless...

Please provide me the links to scientific papers and books which answer the following questions in terms of verifiable scientific proofs:

1. What is the origin of living cell?

Was there anyone around back then who could document it reliably? I'd wager that no, there wasn't. So, we may never know that.
There are, however, people working on how life could come from lifelessness... and they have come to quite a few promising results, like Esq said...
Also, have fun:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

2. Where are the transient animals?

They're dead. If we can't find fossils of them, then it's because fossilization is an extremely rare process. It's actually a wonder we have managed to find as many fossils as we have. Again, refer to Esq's reply for examples.

Some are still around us... yous see, according to the theory, evolution is still taking place and so we are all transitional forms into something else.
Humans are a special case, as they've learned to mold the environment to suit themselves, instead of having to adapt to the environment.... which just renders evolutionary pressures somewhat null and thus we are evolving very, very slowly, compared to the remaining life on Earth.

3. What new organs, a positive mutation has produced?

You seem to be under the impression that a single mutation can result in a new fully functioning organ, from one generation to the next. This is not how the theory of evolution proposes new structures to form.
I'll have to refer to my original post where I ask you to learn about the theory of evolution, before you reply, as it will be beneficial for our conversation to proceed. Refusal to do so, may be met with sarcasm, mocking and/or taunting.

If you have actual doubts which you wish addressed by someone who may be aware of their responses, then feel free to post them. But refrain from strawmanning.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

"'Intelligence,' OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!" is an apt description of God's own existence.

Prepare to be apolgeticised [sic].

Harris, May I direct your attention to my last question to you so that you can elucidate on a clarification of the points in question:

Please read all of my responses to Esquilax

I did, but I want clarification on how a mixture of arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity adds value to a perspective that seeks to discredit the theory of evolution.

If your first point is not conducive to your thesis, I have to ask, why did you post it?

Please explain for my benefit because I'm trying to understand what the fallacious opening your reply to esq was supposed to prove or add to the discussion.

Thanks in advance for your explanation.

Thanks for your reply.

[SailingCyclops]

Let's see...we have false dichotomy, argument from incredulity, quote mining, misunderstanding probability, and a failure to understand the implications of time not existing on the principle of cause and effect.

Did I miss anything?

Yes -- the total mass/energy of the universe is ZERO. So, this flat universe we live in could only have come from nothing. The only other thing you missed is there is no god