Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nanotech
nezmot,
I'm keeping this a scientific discussion and I'm not judging people, so don't say others have no scientific proof because all arguments I specified are scientific and many contain miracles. Miracles not come by chance but by an intelligent design, hence they are good and valid proofs. This survival of the fittest statement or argument you presented doesn't hold any weight. I will discuss this later but I came from work and gotta go sleep.
|
None of what you posted was scientific. None of it. Lets take the post apart (again) piece by piece and show the flaws in the thinking:
Quote:
|
1- The universe could have not come by accident because a little change in the big bang would have made earth’s creation impossible.
|
This makes the (incorrect) assertion that improbable behaviour = impossible behaviour and then makes the leap of faith that the universe must have been created deliberately.
By the same standard, we can claim that because it's so unlikely for anyone to win, the lottery machine must deliberately choose who it's going to pay out to.
Scientifically, the two statements are equally ridiculous.
This doesn't mean that the universe wasn't created by God, just that your proof is no more than an assertion.
Quote:
|
2- All planets in our solar system cannot hold life except earth. Nipton and Pluto are 270 degrees below zero. That’s almost zero Kelvin degrees, the state when atoms stop to move and condense making huge mass and gravity impossible for any life.
|
First it states that all planets in the solar system are unable to hold life. This is wrong. There are candidates for life supporting planets throughout the solar system.
Secondly, and this is the one I find the most laughable - there is no planet Nipton! No wonder it can't support life. Maybe you meant Neptune. Go figure.
Then there's this classic nonsense about how low temperature allows particles to condense into huge masses, apparently making gravity so strong, it's impossible for life!!! Please, please please read some grade-school science books.
Low temperature does not affect mass, nor therefore, can it effect gravity.
Quote:
|
3- Mercury and the planet after are several hundred degrees in heat. Mercury, the closest to sun gets 40 degrees cold below zero when not facing the sun. At the same its surface gets 400 degrees hot when facing the sun.
|
I love the 40 degrees 'cold' used here - it's quite endearing. But apart from that, this statement seems fine. Why? Because it's a simple statement describing the temperature ranges that a planet goes through and it's not trying to suggest anything superstitious. Unfortunately, because it's just a statement, and no conclusions are being drawn from it, it can't be considered a proof.
Quote:
|
4- Everything, tons of things I’ve researched and read, indicate that any slight change in the earth’s atmosphere, anatomy, etc would make life impossible.
|
Again, this is a statement, not a proof. It does suggest however that despite your no-doubt extensive research, you've not come across the reasonably well known Gaian concept that a planet upon which life gets a foothold, has the potential to self-regulate its own temperature in a range suitable for the continuation of life. And all without any Gods waving their magic wands. For more information about this, try reading about
DaisyWorld.
Quote:
|
5- Scientific evidence shows that if the big bang was a little stronger, 1 in a billion, planets would have been moving apart and our solar system wouldn’t exist
|
Again, this is another statement. Not a proof. If you're hoping to assert that improbable=impossible=deliberate again, then you're not proving it here.
Quote:
|
6- If the big bang was just a little less strong, it would have collapsed before earth would have been created
|
Yep, same thing as number 5
Quote:
|
7- One miracle of the Quran which came 1400 years ago said in a verse that there are 7 Heavens (skies). Heavens in the Quran refer to as skies. Indeed, the number of skies above earth is seven. Ionosphere, ozone layer, helium layer, others. They are scientifically proven as seven layers but I don’t remember the names now. Each layer has a vital function to life.
|
We've seen (from your own links!) that the number of 'skies' is not 7. Not that I understand what that would 'prove' if it was. Trying to link a number of heavens to various layers defined by their gaseous composition does seem a little like an act of desperation. I would have left this one out.
Quote:
|
8- The nasal canal holds mucus and it has a layer filled with millions of tiny leg shaped protrusions (cilia) like the arms of the squid and above them is the mucus layer. These legs move the mucus in a continuous matter to our mouth so we can spit or swallow. The mucous layer has two sides. One is slippery (the side of the legs which shift the mucus) and one is sticky so that it can stick to the bacteria and inferior bodies that touch it. These bodies come from our breathing. If this micro tiny layer was upside down humanity would have not existed and every baby would catch disease and die when he was born. Because then, the cilia would stick to the mucous and cannot move and the microbes would slide on the other slippery side of the mucous and enter our mouth immediately. Therefore evolution cannot be true because this thing could not have come step by step. Beings and humans have incredibly large complexity inside that science have proven it impossible to have these come in step by step as evolution says. Because ONE and only ONE change in the billions of components that creatures are made of would have made it impossible to survive. Therefore it is impossible that the creatures would have existed without one thing as the cilia and then mated and revolutionized and had cilia. Because if they don’t have the complex structure of the cilia and the mucous layer they would have died from the beginning without the chance of having sexual intercourse and reproducing through evolution.
|
I'm going to pull out the one piece here that I think is important
Quote:
|
Beings and humans have incredibly large complexity inside that science have proven it impossible to have these come in step by step as evolution says.
|
Science has not proven it impossible to have come in step by step AND evolution does not say anything of the sort!
I can't begin to say how stupid this statement is. Who, exactly is 'Science' in this case? And when and how did they prove that? And who states that evolution creates things 'step by step'?
But let's go back earlier in this point where you say "Because ONE and only ONE change in the billions of components that creatures are made of would have made it impossible to survive." now look around you, does anyone you know have this upside down system? No? Why not? Perhaps it's because every time someone was born with that condition, they died without first having children of their own and passing their genes on, thus making it less likely to crop up again. Sounds familiar? Yes, that's natural selection you're describing right there. Who'd have thought it. An argument 'for' natural selection in a post trying to argue against it. Perhaps this miracle too is listed in the Qu'ran.
Quote:
|
9- Evolution has been proven by science now to be false. Evolution will not make a new species. If you mate different types of dogs you will get a different breed of dog but it’s still a dog. You cannot get a dog with aqua features like fins so that the can swim better in the sea..
|
Ha - I like this one even more. Evolution has been proven by 'science'? Who, please tell me, is in charge of 'science' these days and decides what is and is not proven? Your statement is verging on being a downright lie.
Evolution will not make a new species? Oh really? In the same way that improbable<>impossible<>deliberate, your failure to understand evolution<>evolution is incorrect<>God made everything on his magic drawing board.
And the process you describe (different animals mating with one another) shows up once more, that you haven't understood what evolution is.
Quote:
10- Science now says that the world came from the big bang. The big band was in the beginning a point of:
• infinite mass
• infinite gravity
• zero volume
|
Again this mysterious 'science' character. Who is this guy? And again, this is a statement that doesn't prove anything. Is it true or false? I don't know, it doesn't really matter. You could have just as easily described the geography and primary exports of Mexico, it would have been equally a proof for the existence of God.
Plus, you typo'd the Big Bang, as the Big Band. Which is kind of funny.
Quote:
|
11- Therefore the universe was created from nothing. That is the act of God
|
I figure, you were so excited about making this post, that you lost count of when to put the numbers in and that this is probably the conclusion you are drawing from point 10. So you're saying that infinite mass, infinite gravity and zero volume = nothing, so therefore God did it? Is that right? That may be true, but this is not a scientific proof of anything. It's an (inaccurate) assertion with no facts to back it up or explain it.
Quote:
|
12- God created time. (personal opinion) [edited]
|
That's fair enough.
Quote:
|
13- God knows the future because he is not bound by time.
|
Again, that's great - and it may well be the case - but is it proof that God exists?
Let's write it out in more formal language.
God exists because: God knows the future because he is not bound by time.
So what you're saying is that god exists because god knows the future? Is that really a scientific proof?
Quote:
|
14- Every human has a free will and every human will have a time of death and hell or heaven destiny known by God before his creation. This is because God can know time backwards, from the end to the beginning. Because he is not bound by time. So he gives you the choice of life but he knows if you are going to heaven or earth before you were born. (number 14 is based on my analysis)
|
Is this a proof of God's existence? It looks more like a theory on how God might operate with regards to destiny, life and death, assuming, of course that he does exist. Have I read that wrong?
I'm not going to comment on the rest because they're more of the same - and I expect you've gotten the message by now.
Quote:
|
I'm keeping this a scientific discussion and I'm not judging people, so don't say others have no scientific proof because all arguments I specified are scientific and many contain miracles. Miracles not come by chance but by an intelligent design, hence they are good and valid proofs. This survival of the fittest statement or argument you presented doesn't hold any weight. I will discuss this later but I came from work and gotta go sleep.
|
OK - I look forward to hearing this. I am not judging you either - I'm just pointing out where what you are writing is inconsistent with itself, and pointing out ideas that might fill in the gaps in your knowledge. I respect your belief - but you cannot expect to get away with posting complete untruths (or at least make totally inaccurate and unsupported statements) and not be picked up on it.
I'll accept in this case that miracles might be acceptable as scientific evidence (many others wouldn't) but we need a way to decide what does and what does not constitute a 'miracle' - For example, I really don't buy the 7 heavens thing as a miracle at all.