Tonight CNN is premiering a new special entitled God’s Warriors. CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour examines the intersection between religion and politics and the effects of Christianity, Islam and Judaism on politics, culture and public life.
Here is the official website.
Here is the schedule:
Jewish Warriors - Aug 21, 9PM ET
Muslim Warriors - Aug 22, 9PM ET
Christian Warriors - Aug 23, 9PM ET
And here’s the Christian Warrior trailer to get your mouth watering :)
Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.
Related posts:
August 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Mass psychosis anyone?
August 21st, 2007 at 8:26 pm
erm… yeh scary stuff :o
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 am
That’s scary - that preacher talks about raping teenagers the same way that preachers who are closet gays talk about homosexuals - he couldn’t really be doing that… could he????
(hmmmm…. catholic clergy… ya never know with these preachy types….)
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:40 am
“Fighting against violence? Is that like fucking for virginity?” - Anonymous vietnam protestor.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 am
Hardly distinguishable from the early Nazi Party demonstrations. A whole stadium of people who need to be neutered.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
You know guys, that the world is going to hell, is a fairly common way/tactic for most people to convert. I have had many conversations that started out as discussing the “flaws” in society, which eventually leads to morals.
It’s this feeling of a responsibility to the world and those around you, that feeds the guilt-machine that is organized religion.
Where the fuck are the terrorists when you need them? I agree with Blsaphemaster, someone needs to construct a “Neuter-on Bomb” and drop it in one of those events. Either that or a team full of Ninja’s!
Man I hate Christianity; I just about punched some guy in the head yesterday for saying he didn’t “believe” in Science. I wish gravity would stop working for people that reject it.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 am
*sigh*
This is useless crap, and it is nothing to be afraid of. Alls it is is another “edgy,” “cool” organization out to take christians’ money.
I’ve been to these types of events, and here’s my guess to how it all plays out:
They’ll have some big-huge events in stadiums with lots of exciting music and hype and emotionally charged drivel. In these events, they’ll decry the horrors of our current culture that is out to sex up our children and/or turn them gay. They’ll try to get a bunch of teens excited about not having sex. They’ll encourage them to install filtering software on their computers so that the porno-webs won’t eat them. Then they’ll encourage them to go home and tell all their friends, youth pastors, pastors, congregations, etc. about how “so totally awesome” Battle Cry is, so those people can sign up for the next event, buy the curriculum for their church’s youth group, etc., and the cycle will start over again.
Despite all their inflammatory language and the ominous music playing in the that clip, these people are pretty much harmless to anyone aside from the christians they swindle.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 am
midriff has a point.
One thing people like to do is point out how everything is bad now, and how we really have to go back the good old days. Not do anything, but talk a lot.
Forget the fact (at least in US and europe) that crime rates are at an all time low, child mortity is almost zero, life expectancy has never been better. In europe welfare levels are at a stable high level and STD’s are at a minimum.
But don’t mind that, the apocalypse is coming, we better get together and discuss it.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:22 am
I wish I could see this whole god thing as a phase, but it doesn’t seem to want to die. And while I fully appriciate that these guys are just in it for the money, their message has changed over the years.
There was a time when to passively resist was the message, even to lead by example is fine. But the whole warriors thing strikes me as volatile, it is sending an entirely different message. Trying to “change” a culture, as ABC so delicately put it, is impossible and silly. Even if people just go, have fun and come home, I think it’s instilling a greater possibility of misinterpretation.
Force that religion, push it in my face, tell me what is wrong.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I’m too lazy/busy preparing for classes to look it up, but I read in Montaigne a few days ago how he thought the people of his age were so much worse than his grandfather’s or father’s generation. Montaigne wrote in the late 1500s. If I remember right, there was an ancient Greek philosopher who said much the same a couple thousand years back. It seems the present as a rule is universally a failure, and the past was always awesome (except when it was the present, because then it was hell on earth).
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I don’t understand why do they think sticking to any holy books will make them not vulnerable to all the sins. In fact all the so called holy books have far greater examples of polygamy, infidelity, theft, mass killings, atrocities and that too with the consent of so called god. Just like the products of science can be used in a wrong way, the same way manner in which these books are written leaves a room for wrong interpretation and that is with the worst justification that god asked them to do.
This sounds more crazy and more dangerous to me rather than the science where somebody is accountable for their own deed and in no manner it can be justified.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 am
While I’ll grant that you’re almost certainly correct, I have to wonder (Godwin alert!) how many Germans said the same thing about that funny little man speaking so passionately about the Master Race.
We can only hope that all of these types people are really greedy frauds, exploiting the gullible. True Believers do awful things when they get their hands on power.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:37 am
Blasphemaster was the first in this thread to show the Nazi coherence and I agree. With one difference: The Nazis said they were progressive while these people claim to be conservative. If they don’t like pop culture, why are they using its means (stadium gathering, light show, fireworks)?
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:26 am
I wouldn’t worry about it too much. This kind of crap has been going on since I was a teen (which, granted, wasn’t that long ago) and I’m sure before that.
All they really seem to be doing is trying to get teens excited about being different from what they perceive to be a culture hostile to their way of life. They do talk about “fighting back” against that perceived hostile culture, and that does sound scary, but look at the way in which they plan on fighting back:
From: http://battlecry.com/pages/fight.php
“THE BATTLE CRY CAMPAIGN
The Battle Cry Campaign works by uniting all of us into one powerful and engaged force. The purpose of the Campaign is to fully realize the potential power of the local church youth group by providing a support structure that will help them grow in numbers while discipling this generation. It calls for at least 100,000 local churches and individuals to join the Battle Cry Coalition and commit to the planning, prayer and work required to grow their youth group. Together, we hope to grow the average youth group size from 12 to 300 teens within the next five years.”
Translation: “We’re gonna ‘fight back’ by selling you materials that will help make your youth group services ‘edgy’ and ‘cool’ so that more people will come to them and learn how not to have sex until they’re married! Oh Yeah!”
So really, this is nothing different than what most protestant churches have been doing for a long time. It’s just “edgier.”
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
While reading the Battle Cry website a bit, I noticed one other minor difference: they aren’t trying to exterminate the Jews.
To address your question: they dislike some of the content of pop-culture, not the media through which it is delivered.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 am
Not at first, Midriff, not at first. Decry them, yes. Slaughter? That waited until the pricks had a firmly rooted power base.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
What you say sounds convincing, Blasphemaster. Still, it’s frightening to watch. I’m not used to such Zealotry. Over here most religious groups stay pretty calm.
Did any of you Americans watch the three episodes on TV and would like to share the relevant points with us?
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I didn’t catch the first 2, but the Christian one will be on tonight. If I remember to watch it I’ll let you know what’s up with it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
“The purpose of the Campaign is to fully realize the potential power of the local church youth group by providing a support structure that will help them grow in numbers while discipling this generation.”
mmmm yes, discipline us good….
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I managed to watch both of the first two episodes, and I intend to watch the third tonight. What I noticed more than anything was that it was exactly what I expected, to be honest.
It was, after all, produced by CNN.
The ‘Jewish’ warriors episode was largely negative, focusing on the bad things some jewish people do, while the ‘Muslim’ edition was largely apologetic — devoting large sections (say 20 minutes) to vignettes showing us how this one woman’s desire to wear the hijab is nothing more than an attempt to avoid the pressures of western culture. Another 10-15 minutes were spent showcasing one particular female Iranian politician, clearly showing that the worst that has happened to her is being denied the ability to run for president. She was allowed to state with NO follow-on question by Amanpour that in the last 30 years or so, there have been only only 4 documented cases of women being stoned to death. Hooray for moderation.
I’m not Christiane Amanpour, I don’t have her resources or the paid time on my hands to actually do the same research she has, but I can’t help but think that if I were tasked with coming up with 2 hours’ content entitled God’s Muslim Warriors I might just be able to find content more deserving the title.
10 to 1 says tonight’s episode on Christians mirrors the sentiments of the Jewish episode.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Damn, I missed it… Guess I need to visit ReligiousFreaks more often…
Anybody got a Torrent or any other way to download the three episodes?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Yea, I missed them too because I haven’t been here in a while. I guess that is a good thing, like I need any more reason to look down upon religious folk. Sorry, any believers that read this, you people are crazy. Just to differing levels. If I told you I prayed to the invisible easter bunny in the sky every night and lived my life according to the scriptures engraved on the great egg, you would lock me up.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Or set you on fire.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Yeah the Christianity one was so annoying– I watched with my friends and they almost had to restrain me (it was so infuriating)..
Here is what confused me:
1) If they believe Jesus is the “Prince of Peace”, but they think he is going to come back and “slaughter the non-believers”
2) They take all this time to hate gay people when the main crux of their religion is love everyone else no matter what
3) they want forced prayers in school, but if we forced their kids to pray from the Qu’ran or Torah they would freak out
4) They read the Bible literally– yet they eat lobster, don’t keep kosher, get rich, wear colors other than brown, and fight in the military (all of which are forbidden in the Bible)– oh yeah, and slavery is ok with the Bible too
5) They say the Bible is the exact word of God, yet they neglect the Nicine Conference– a gathering of church officials in 325 AD — where they literally cherry-picked what would and wouldn’t go in the Bible
Conservatives never want to raise minimum wage, often want the rich to get richer, and always jump at the chance to go to war– when Jesus said to help the poor, to give all your riches away, and to ‘turn the other cheek”..
I am not Christian, but I love Jesus (as a theoretical figure)– he preached a very “Ghandi-esq” philosophy. Jesus was extremely liberal (plus he wore a dress, never cut his hair, and walked around barefoot– hello, hippie.) I love his teachings– which seem to have no place in modern-fundamentalism. (Remember, “Judge not lest ye be judged”)
PS As Ghandi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
August 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
According to Islam, Jesus will come back, but he will not kill any body other than the anti-chtist, and he will destroy the cross.
Too add something to your comment, I heard once on the news that some muslim kids was taking their break to pray in a room in the school, and the people are freaking out about it.
The bad thing that they make Jesus god, and he is not, he is a prophet, which makes me feel bad for Jesus.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
you saying he’s a prophet is as meaningless as the xtians saying he’s a god. two completely arbitrary statements, with no facts backing them other than two very old man-written books that have to rely on circular logic for validation.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
If you check my blog, I put some sicientfic facts from the Quran in detalis for those who doubt the Quran, but again Quran is scientfic book.
You can watch the video if you want, I’m sure it’s not going to convince you, because your heart is blind, so you are not going to see any truth in it.
The Quran is not written by an old man, Quran is for every era and it’s the perfect book on the face of the earth, why? because it’s God’s word, and God is the perfect.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
The Quaran is NOT a scientific book. The Quran makes declarations about what is and is not true. That is not science. Science is the search for truth by process of elimination of what can and cannot be proven or at the VERY LEAST indicated to have a possibility of existing.
How can you claim to THINK while blindly accepting such a worthless rag containing the ramblings of a bitter, foolish, homicidal maniac such as Your Prophet? You would do better by living your life according to Dr. Seuss. At least the Butter Battle Book gives a clear warning of the dangers of arms races.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Howdy all,
Recently I have done a little bit of research into the validity of mohamed’s claim that the quran is a scientific book. Leaving aside all aguments about the definition of a scientific book aside I found that conducting research on this topic was problamatic. I have continually ran into translation issues as well as finding that many people of the islamic faith interpret specific versus very differently. I found the versus that allegendly supported current sientfic knowlege to be fairly vague and open to intepretation. When I questioned these versus I was usually told that you have to read the quran in its original language in order to properly understand it. The vagueness apparently is due to tranlastion issues. This has made a comparitive analysis of various scientific claims in the quran impossiblele for me. I don’t believe I could achive it without a lifetime of study. This obviously doesn’t prove the quran false. It does not prove it to be true to me either. I found the lack of detail in the quran about its claims to lead me to believe that it is not a book of science even if it does hold some scientfic knowledge. I am also concered by the fact that the knowledge contained has only been discovered in hindsight. If it is truely proven that the quran holds scientific breakthroughs why isn’t the islamic faith making breakthroughs now based on the knowledge contained within. Surely if the quran is perfect and is still relevent today there must still be knowledge contained within that we haven’t already discovered. This would at least in part convince me that there is some validity to the quran and prompt me to study it further.
Mohamed your claims about the scientific accuracy of the quran seems impossible to prove, at least to me. I will concede that the posibility existst that you are right. Your claims would need significantly more proof for me to be convinced at any degree.
“You can watch the video if you want, I’m sure it’s not going to convince you, because your heart is blind, so you are not going to see any truth in it.”
I don’t think it is because my heart is blind that I cannot see the truth here. I think it is because of many issues that make it hard to investigate the facts in this case. I would think a “perfect” book would be able to make the truth it contained more apparent than this one does. As always I will continue to keep my mind open and if more information comes to hand that is better able to support your claims concerning the quran I will listen and think on it as objectively as I can. If undenialable proof is found that the quran is indead the word of god, I would be forced by my own principles to accept it.
“The Quran is not written by an old man, Quran is for every era and it’s the perfect book on the face of the earth, why? because it’s God’s word, and God is the perfect.”
I’m afraid this comes accross to me as more like preaching than debating. Above you stated that we couldn’t accept the quran because “your heart is blind”. I hope you relise that someone with different beliefs can argue the same about you after this statement. You believe the quran to be perfect so you will not question it’s validity, only its interpretation. Unfortunately this puts a huge bias on your claims as far as I am concerned. You will accept no doubt to the contrary on this belief so all arguments will fall upon deaf ears and not be thought about. You will investigate only how to counter the argument instead of seeking wether or not it is valid.
Mohamed pLease don’t take any of this as an attack, it is only my personal opinions. I have a large respect for your opinions and honesty. You seem to be a very decent human being and I believe you to be a very good example that islam can be religion focused on peace.
Cheers
Simon Bond
August 28th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
@ mohammed
i started watching the video. i am writing down all the claims in it, and will do my own research. my heart might be blind but my brain has 20/20 vision… i’ll post again when i’m done watching this fine video.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
I know exactly where is the search will take you( haters websites).
August 29th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Mohamed, just because we don’t believe you doesn’t mean we hate your belief. Some of us just laugh at your silly beliefs and the thought that anyone could ACTUALLY be deluded enough to believe it. I guess some people need the crutch that is god, otherwise they would cower in fear of their own demise. Or they would go off on a bloody rampage if they didn’t have the fear of divine retribution to keep them in check. Some of us don’t need that, we are perfectly capable of dealing with a final death and we are likewise capable of living a moral life without the big spooky dude in the sky.
Now, when you can stop being a condescending jackass, I will too. Just because I don’t believe in your book with not a SHRED of evidence does not mean my “heart s blind” or any other stupidity. It just means YOU and your crazy religion and your musty old book have FAILED to convince me. I, likewise, don’t believe in santa clause or the easter bunny. Is my heart blind there too? Sometimes, I really dispise you god freaks.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
@michael
your heart is blind… you’re not ready for the “truth”… those are all arguments presented by religious people of all kinds. if the “truth” they were peddling was any good, i wouldn’t need my “heart” (normally it just pumps blood and its quite good at that). i didn’t need my heart to be convinced of many scientific facts, including evolution.
@mohammed
i just finished watching the first 10 minutes of that video. i will post about it in more detail later, but one thing that struck me was the frequent repetition. the narrator would repeat the same sentence three or four times in a row, slightly changing the order of words. i have noticed that to be common among muslims… the prayer is highly repetitive, the frequent invocation of allah and shortcuts like PBUH are very frequent and repetitive in both speech and literature. i guess if you repeat something often enough, it becomes true…
August 29th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Michael,
I also laugh at your silly beleif, what ever evliution is just fairy tale created for Athiest to feel good about them self.
My response wasn’t to you, my response was for Boris, I don’t even know you, on the other hand I know Boris really well through this web site, and I know his attitude, and that’s why I directed the phrase for him.
Boris has extremist attitude, and he is known for his haterd for Muslims for no reason, he will say the Turk occupied his country and other justification, they Turk ocuppied Egypt too, and they commit crimes in Egypt.
For Boris, don’t change the subject, either he repeats or not, look at the contens and then Judge it.
I don’t Quran is obligited to get scientifcally explanation with graphs and animation to convince you, God for example said that he created mountains to act like nails in the earth, how could Muhammed knows that, and it’s proved scientifcally now, but Quran doesn’t have to put animation like they do now to convince you.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Mountains act like nails? What does that mean and in what way scientists have proven it? What nails are you talking about, finger nails or nails that we screw on the walls or something else? Fingers nails are for protection and tearing the flesh. I don’t think mountains are for that. And nails in wall are supposed to hang or some kind of support or to join two objects (like Jesus’ body and cross), again mountains act like those things? i don’t think know.
Mountains help us bring rains, very basic work of mountains. Do nails help in that process.
I am not an expert in these subjects but it could be good if you could prove your claim with some scientific links (valid links, not stupid links).
August 29th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
nails like on hanging picture on the wall, it’s scientfic fact.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
By the way Koran being a scientific book? I don’t know any other scientific book, which will lose it’s sting after translating. Why does Koran wants us to learn Arabic to understand it? If you are so sure about all your claims, why don’t you challenge Ali Sina (www.faithfreedom.org)?
It is high time that you take a deep look at your absurd understanding of Koran. If people try to find fault in Koran, you blame translation. If somebody finds fault in Arabic Koran, you tell they are blinded or infidel. But nobody is ready to accept how illogical you are when you tell that you have to learn Arabic to understand Koran. Learning Arabic itself now will take around 15 years i assume for a level for me to understand Koran.
Don’t you think it’s illogical when most of the people who follow Koran are actually illiterate or don’t know Arabic. This shows that you are blind, not us.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Please can you point the link for the study of nails and mountain?
August 29th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Learning Arabic is to make sure nobody change the meaning to serve his own purpose.
I didn’t know what was the danger of translation, till lately I red some stuff mis-translated and it sounded horrible, and I think I had one issue about that with Sidfuw, and I corrected to him.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Okay, let’s leave the scientific facts aside. I don’t know why anybody will translate Koran incorrectly if they want to show it in a good light.
What about the verses where you get orders for the prophet to kill all infidels? Why can’t you conquer the world with love and peace rather than killing? Gandhi had a better ideology than your prophet. And it will put you in a better position to defend your religion.
Please don’t tell me that there is a problem with interpretation because it may be that your interpretation is wrong and terrorist’s interpretation is right. How can you be so sure that you are right?
Did you check the link that i gave you? I assume if you have visited this site, you should be know about that site. Why don’t you defend Koran in that site?
August 30th, 2007 at 12:24 am
@Mohammad
I find my last para of the last post to be ambiguous.
What i mean to say is if you have taken pain to visit this site, you should already know about Ali Sina and Faithfreedom.org.
Why don’t you defend your Koran there and prove him wrong?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Mohammed-
I heard the same report about kids praying during afternoon recess and people (and by people I mean conservative Christians) freaking out about it. It is a real shame– you do what you want and let those kids do what they want. (We aren’t going to stop your kids from saying grace over lunch or what ever, so why should you guys care about these kids praying?)
I think these conservatives views are quite conflicting– they go to church on Sunday and learn about blind love and acceptance, but when they walk out the doors of their mega-churches they forget all about that part.
This is America, let people be free– Fundamentalist christians need to stop hijacking my country.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:39 am
At last i saw a site where they have mentioned mountain as a nail and guess what it was a site about islam (miracles in Quran). I bothered to go through many parts of site and strangely they have accepted Big Bang and somehow interpreted that Quran has evidence of big bang. They even tell that sun is not fixed but revolving in the galaxy with solar system or something like that.
It’s very good way. When somebody proves that Quran is wrong, then go and find the scriptures and interpret in a different way to show it was all the time there but we were so blind to find it. All in all it proves that it is almost impossible to interpret any scriptures without help of science. You need science to give you answers so that you pick up your scripture and try to find something for evidence to prove your scripture.
But i think this should be other way round. Why can’t you get enlightenment alone from scriptures? Why do we need to depend upon science to get the correct interpretation? Why god needs to be so vague and ambiguous?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Hi Mohamed:
I am a born hindu. As you claim that your scriptures have all the answers about big bang (but interestingly not evolution). You don’t accept evolution. That’s strange.
I will give you an interesting account from our ancient scriptures. According to hindu scriptures, Vishnu is creator of this universe. There are supposed to be 10 incarnations of Vishnu in earth. Nine has already happened and we are waiting for the tenth. Now just look at the chronology of incarnation.
1. Matsya (fish)
2. Kurma (tortoise)
3. Varaha (boar)
4. Narasmiha (a man with lion’s head)
5. Vamana (Dwarf)
6. Parasurama (warrior).
7. Rama (king).
8. Krishna.
9. Buddha.
10. Kalki (yet to come)
Now the first 4 incarnations are interesting. Don’t you see a pattern, which has a stark resemblance with evolution. fish, tortoise, boar, half human. So i can prove that it was always there in the scripture. It’s just we didn’t see it properly.
But again i tell you. That is not the way it should happen. It should always be the only thing to enlighten us, not the other way around. science is the only way where we can find answers.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Smilingface,
It’s good to hear from someone with a religion other than the big 3, but there’s something I’ve been wondering about.
From what I understand, Hinduism largely revolves around the belief in reincarnation, the ultimate goal of which being the achievement of enlightenment by fulfilling one’s Dharma in life. Being that Dharma is essentially knowing your place in society, your caste, and acting accordingly, it seems that Hinduism is the most blatant case of religion being created as a tool of social control. The Brahmin, being the priestly class, are at the top of the social ladder, with a warrior class below that, merchants/artisans below that, then workers, slaves, and then the ‘untouchables’. Since you are essentially stuck in the social class of your birth, there is no class mobility whatsoever. Since one can only achieve a higher caste through reincarnation, AFTER DEATH, this effectively creates a rigid social stratification blatantly in favor of those at the top. Because of this, the ruling Brahmin class retains its power.
I’d like to know your response to this, as a believer in that faith. Am I misinterpreting something here?
August 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Simon,
Again, Quran is not scince book and it’s a signs book, so Quran is going to give you facts about what’s going on around you, and as I said Quran for all eras, and that’s why science explain what’s in Quran, and that’s not something wrong with the Quran, and it shows the signs are right.
Evoloution doesn’t convince a bit, it’s illogical, and the whole priciple contrdict what came in the 3 holy books, that God creat Adam, Adam didn’t come from a monkey.
The other thing I don’t have to defend Quran, the strong helps the weak, Quran is the perfect scripture, how could somebody like me defend the best and the strongest scripture in the whole word, the word of God, Quran defends me.
I’m not going to web sites, where they take two words of the Quran and they say that the Quran, it’s waste of time to try to convice somrbody who knows he is lying and it’s the not the truth, but he is happy with himslef being ignorant, I’m here because some peopel don’t know, and I’m obligated to give them the other side of the story.
And I don’t why you wanted to change the subject about the science that fast, you didn’t like what the Quran said about the mountains, it didn’t tell the truth.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
“Evoloution doesn’t convince a bit, it’s illogical, and the whole priciple contrdict what came in the 3 holy books, that God creat Adam, Adam didn’t come from a monkey.”
First off, men don’t come from monkeys, you ignoramus. We share a common ancestor, so we are related to them, not descended from them. Evolution is much more explanatory and is, in fact, logical. That you and your faith declare it not to be so doesn’t change the fact that it is. There is a contradiction with the ‘holy books’ because the whole Adam and Eve story was made up to ‘explain’ to the uneducated masses where they came from, and reinforce belief in the current big religion, thus giving more power to the priestly class that made this stuff up to begin with. That evolution clashes with this doesnt give evidence to its falsehood, it’s simply one declaration of what happened pitted against a logically thought out explanation based on what can be observed.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
i really love the insanity of genesis creation… if all of humanity came from adam and eve, we’d all be incredibly inbred… not to mention that the diversity in the human race also wouldn’t exist.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I got a big kick out of reading Mohamed’s post# 46. It is a classic example of the delusion of the god people. He just outright claims EVOLUTION is illogical while the stories of GODS CREATION is logical? I am absolutely astounded by this! It makes me wish I had taken a different path in life and went into psychology so I could study a mind like his. It really is a magical place, full of fairies and such. Hey Mohamed, evolution, the process, is a proven FACT. We observe it operating within our lifetimes. What you god folks want to call “macro evolution” (since you are fond of renaming things you don’t understand) but is actually called “speciation” is the longer scale version of evolution that it is impossible to observe since it works on long time scales.
I really am amazed at the thick skulled knuckle dragging mentality of god’s people. They are like little children that you can’t help but adore, even though they piss you off with their thickness at times.
Sleep well with your little fairy tale book man, I am glad it brings you comfort from the big bad world. Haha
August 30th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
As I said before, is there evolution? Yes, but it doesn’t qualify to explain human-being existence.
Evolution is to help creature to go along with the enviroment that surround them, and it’s one of God’s servants to help the weak species to exist, other wise we would kill all Germs and there would be no dieseas on the face of the earth.
Havind said that, evolution can’t creat something out of nothing, give me one thing you have seen came out of nothing.
Go look for all the science book you want to look at and give one example evolution or what ever theory you have get something out of nothing, after that I will like to study your mind with you fairy tales heehee.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Once more and with a gusto; evolution does not create anything nor ever has even claimed to create anything. People claiming evolution create something seem to have religious backgrounds.
Formation of life from non-living matter falls under;
Two different concepts with such a different names that mixing them up is not possible.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Can you please explain in your words what is Abiogenesis, I know I can search for it, but I want to hear it from you.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Howdy all,
I think the question “Can you please explain in your words what is Abiogenesis”
is is already ansered by
“Formation of life from non-living matter”
I think what your after is how does Abiogenesis explain the formation of life from non-living matter. I will leave that to someone who has more knowledge of the theory.
Cheers
Simon Bond
August 30th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
@Blasphemaster
I was a born Hindu but i don’t consider myself as Hindu. I would like to call myself Humanist. I was not actually defending my religion for proving evolution. I just wanted to state that if we want to interpret our scriptures, we can do it in many ways for proving that it is right.
Regarding the division of caste among hindu, i agree that it is really horrible. But i have never seen anywhere written that lower castes are untouchables. This whole methodology was formed for smooth functioning of society so that all aspects of society are taken care of.
The profession invariably depended on what our forefathers could teach us. So we ended up doing what our ancestors used to do. The upper caste people formulated the rule of untouchables and whatever for control of society. They tried to give scriptures as proof, which only they could read and others had to just listen and do what has been told.
I have never found any examples where the so called incarnations have told anything to justify untouchability. These whole division works like division of labor so that one person can do the same work and be proficient enough to teach his children and there was nothing wrong about the whole process until we respect our dependency on others to form a cohesive society. But the problems starts when some people start taking advantage of having education as a tool to exploit so-called lower strata of society.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Thank simon for the response, I need somebody to explain how did it happen, in a simple way please, I’m not that smart.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
@Mohamed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid
See this is one form of abiogenesis. I am not saying that it is the ultimate truth or something and this form of abiogenesis has been tested and deemed to have been possible under the circumstances present in earth in those days.
Now i know you have a lot of things to discard this theory and really it doesn’t matter. At least it doesn’t pressurize you to follow something which is unimaginable. You follow something which doesn’t have any proof. In fact you always get a proof which actually negates the whole theory (fable) proposed by you.
Science doesn’t work that way. You have facts and you derive a conclusion. It’s not that you have a conclusion and you adjust the facts accordingly and throw the facts which doesn’t support the conclusion.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
smilingface,
What prood do you want? Do you want me to take pictures, and if there are material proof of God, so what the use of belief? If God want to force people to be all beleiver, he would do it, he just want you to have the choice.
As a material proof like pcitures or so, I don’t have, but I think the proof is out there for who ever has a healthy mind to think about.
Again you struggle to show a proof for existence, and nobody gave an example for something came out of nothing, Nobody has one thing, just one thing, is that hard?
For the translation part, what is the lions head means in 10 incrations you were talking about, I can translate lion head literaly, and it wiill not mean any thing to me even though I understand the word, but you might have better explination for your terms since it’s in Indian.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:04 am
@Mohamed
You totally misinterpreting my incarnation theory. I never told i support the mentioned theory, but it’s just about interpretation, which makes to prove the evolution. It doesn’t mean i believe in that. In fact i don’t. It’s just a coincidence and even i can’t digest the fact of lion head (a man’s body and lion’s head).
Shall i ask one thing to you? Do you really want to look at both sides of coin? If you are willing and if you can spend 5 hours (1 hour daily for 5 days) watching a youtube video explaining the rationale of evolution etc, which might open a new perspective for you and help you think more rationally.
If you say yes, i will post the link. It was the video which made a change in me drastically. Hope you give a positive response.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:51 am
In a nutshell;
Non-living chemicals form organic molecules, which then form into larger molecules, from which a primitive organism is born.
Simple chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria
Background;
Miller/Urey Experiment in 1950 proved that using chemicals one can create organic compounds, amino acids which are used in making proteins. In 1961 amino acids were made from hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in water solution. The same experiment produced large amounts of adenine which is one of the base materials for RNA and DNA. It is also part of ATP, the energy releasing molecule. The same experiment was later used to produce other RNA and DNA bases.
The study of abiogenesis is also very young branch of science which is hampered by lack of funding and the requirements for creating suitable test environments.
These books give an opening for the abiogenesis;
Fox, Ronald W., Energy and the Evolution of Life. 1988.
Shapiro, Robert, Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. 1987.
Cairns-Smith, A.G., Seven Clues to the Origin of Life. 1995.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
The true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not, and never persist in trying to set people right.
Hannah Whitall Smith, 1902
August 31st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Mohamed, you keep asking people to give them one example where something was created out of nothing. I give you the same challenge, you show me one example. Without pointing to your bible or the existence we have now. The first, because it is just a book and proves absolutely nothing at all. The second because, no matter how much you god people want to claim it, YOU DO NOT know the answer to how we got here. You can delude yourself all you want, but you only THINK you know. I am an atheist, so I can’t attribute it to the workings of some bearded old guy in the sky. I don’t know how we got here. I feel pretty confident that I know by what mechanism we arrived at this point, evolution. I feel pretty confident that the science I have seen shows that we share a common ancestor with the other life on this world. The mechanism of evolution is the most logically consistent explanation for this. The thousands of religions out there that differ in most details do not. They just look more and more silly.
August 31st, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Mohamed:
This man went swimming with his Wife, remind you of anyone?
August 31st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Do I see a a thin slice of BARE ARM in that picture?
BLASPHEMY! that woman should know better then tempt me like that. When will the stoning be?
Now, I could contribute to the conversation, but I’ve found out long ago that it’s more productive to teach my potted plant superstring theory, then it is to get Mohamed to acknowledge even the possibility of Abiogenesis and evolution, despite all the evidence supporting it.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
What evidence are you talking about? I asked him get me one thing out of nothing, he told me that some scientist prove that some bacteria came out of Chemicles, I said out of nothing.
Nothing comes from nothing Michael, God created everything, you can take your science and be happy with it, I have no issue with that, I don’t know why you are so mad that much from my argument, and if you feel you came from monkey, it’s up to you Mr monkey, I can call you monkey, but I didn’t come from monkey, I’m human-being, proud of what God made me, and gave me over all of his creatures, you want to take you self to a monkey, you are free, you want to be a rat, you can be that too.
Back to my conversation, so Bacteria or cells looks like DNA, so what the DNA would do, Would the DNA creat a human being, we know that for human being to exist he needs father and mother, so how the DNA turned to be a creature.
Have someone saw that the Bacteria turned to an animal, Bacteria stayed the same.
I know how passionate you guys about science, but take it easy, you have to think about before you beleive in it.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:06 pm
@Mohamed
I can’t believe the way you present ignoring every theory we give. It has been well mentioned in abiogenesis how we could have originated and still you talk about DNA having fathers and mothers. Bacteria turning into animal is a very slow process, you can’t see it but we have evidences far more convincing to prove it wrong.
By the way the same seeing logic can be applied to your fable too. Has anybody seen you theory happening? Oh sorry, it’s written in a book.
The way people have been representing you, i have a feeling that you are a staunch opponent and no matter what we provide you with, you have turned a blind against any scientific evidence. I still tell you please see that video by Robert Dawkins. Very interesting, you won’t get bored. And you will find all the answers about evolution. Please let me know if you want.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Man I’m not against the evolution is a theory, It’s ok and it exist, but it’s not enought to explain human-being life.
The other thing, how many planet we discovered now, why there are not life on it? why you theory didn’t work there, do you have explanation for it, will you tell me because the Oxgyen and the water, who put the rule that the water makes every thing alive, and the oxgyen is what we live on, and why Oxgyen, not any other elment or Gas.
Why you have blood, and why it happend this way, and look inside your body, every thing in harmony working with out any controll of you, it’s yours but you don’t even controll it which I mean your heart and many other organs in your body, Do you think theory like that would explain all of this things.
Let make it simple for you, why is the Oxygen is the source of life and not other gases, and who put this rule?
Please don’t get upset because I’m arguing, you help me thinking and I helping you too, so be patient with me.
Thank you,
September 1st, 2007 at 2:29 am
@mohammed
You keep insisting that we should create life out of nothing but why do you want us to exceed the skills of your god?
Allah never created a man out of nothing but from dust, chemicals, then of a drop, organic, and then fashioned a man, complex organic.
September 1st, 2007 at 5:20 am
Asking why evolution uses oxygen as a powersource or why exactly some mechanism was used is like blind-folding a man, having him walk around for a few minutes, then taunt him and ask him to explain why he walked around so slowly and randomly.
But the reason oxygen is a good source of power is that it’s highly reactive (in fact, if it wasn’t replenished by life it would dissipate by itself), so without bacteria (to create oxygen), there would be no monkeys. This is ofcourse not the only reason more “levels” of evolution can exists at the same time. And (about “levels” of evolution) there are no such thing as a more advanced lifeform compared to another in evolution’s eyes.
And the video smilingface mentioned is here (the one by richard dawkins that explains the basics of evolutoin):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2043771442443928848
September 1st, 2007 at 11:14 am
You keep insisting that we should create life out of nothing but why do you want us to exceed the skills of your god?
We will get to the same conclusion, who created the dust, and who created the seed, and even quoting the Quran, makes believe that you believe in Quran, but that’s not our argument.
The reason that God said the description in this verse, because God can say to any thing be and it will be it, he did that for angeles, he said be it and they be it,
but for human-being God create us by his hand and it’s something make us proud of who we are, he makes us superior that a lot of his creation, but people here want us to be from monkey, God made you by his hand, and you are refusing to thank him for this gift, and you want to be lower.
The whole theory fo Evolution want us to be coming from Monkey, and it the same thing that the Devil told our God, when God made the angels kneel down to Adam, Devil told God I’m better than Adam, how do you want me to kneel to lesser than me, and I think the devil managed to make them people think they are monkies.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:40 am
the inquisition is upon us. But hey, maybe those cattle-sacificing pirimitives who thought that every animal species in the world lived within walking distance from noah’h house knew better than the works of science of our days
September 1st, 2007 at 11:41 am
Hi:
Nice video vk0. But that was not the video i was talking about. Sorry, Mohamed, you didn’t even take trouble to watch the video to clear out your misconception. You don’t want to see the other side of the coin.
I am posting the links of those video. Each link has cluster of around 6 or 7 videos totaling to around 1 hour which amounts to around 5 hours. It is an ultimate lesson on evolution and Dawkins has presented it in a interesting and entertaining way, very easy to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AF055C271C94C86B
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=832F0D5F7A43CB0B
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EC1BF26E34D3DD0A
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=62A795363B746A09
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=47D0EE9A97B085CF
September 1st, 2007 at 11:45 am
There is a saying in India: “Bhains ke aage been bajana” (Playing flute in front of buffalo). It seems this saying is apt for Mohamed. He doesn’t actually puts any effort on thinking or scrutinizing evolution theory. It’s better to leave him happy in his delusional world.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:51 am
Primates, meaning humans and apes which share common genes, have evolved from bats, does that trouble you as much as the thought of being related to a monkey?
September 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I already explained this to you Mohamed, yet you continue to ignore all given evidence to counteract your claims. We DID NOT evolve from MONKEYS. We share a common biological ancestor far, far in the past. Think of it this way, which is an extremely simplified version which you might be capable of comprehending, if you deign to try at all:
Way back when, there was this little primate mammal roaming around in a given part of the world. Over time, natural disasters and other dividing factors cause this group to be separated. This creates two groups of essentially the same creature, but in different environments, with differing predators, food sources, topography, climates, etc.
One group’s environment was more arboreal, or full of trees, and didn’t have as many high protein foods available which are so crucial for developing higher intelligence. This necessitates the continued development of the prehensile tail, small bodies, and high agility. Thus, this one group adapts to this environment, over the millenia becoming an even wider range of creatures we refer to as monkeys.
The other group’s environment was more plains-like, with fewer plant food sources and more high protien foods. This necessitates the ability to hunt, eventually in groups. This gives rise to greater intelligence, upright posture/walking, and the beginnings of society. Thus, this group adapts to their environment, spawning an even further range of creatures over the ages, one of which is modern man.
So you see, we do not come from monkeys, as you and so many other ignorant religious folks LOVE to claim in an effort to try and discredit evolution. We are distant relatives. Trying to claim that we come from monkeys is essentially claiming that we are collectively descended from our greatx1,000,000 second cousins. Ludicrous.
September 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I have a master in biology with a minor in philosophy, psychology and anthropology. I am a Catholic (former atheist) and with my studies and research, have realized that it’s not ‘religion or science” but rather “religion and science”. No-one can deny the advances of science and the proof it offers us about the material world, in fact I teach science at a community college (university in a few years when I receive my doctorate). Nothing in science contradicts the bible (if read in its proper context) and vice versa. In a way I know where most of you are getting your ideas, some Christian denominations out there preach a literal “creating in 7 days” etc, which is not compatible with science amongst other examples. If you want to argue against Christianity do so with an intelligent well thought out argument that covers all Christian thought, not just those ignorant Christians that don’t accept science. Don’t argue with your emotions, but with reason. I suggest you do a study on world religions, its no mistake that you find similarities between Christianity and Hinduism, as well as pagan Greek gods and Aztec gods. Humans were made to worship and recognize a creator, that’s why there is an inclination to believe in a God which can be seen in the anthropology of cultures. Even you (if you are an atheists), know that human knowledge can only go so far, there are still many concepts (scientifically speaking) that are difficult for us to grasp. Take an 8 1/2 X 11 sheet of paper. Pretend that all that space is total knowledge. Now draw a circle that represents how much of that knowledge we have come upon. I would go draw a circle of 1 inch diameter. There is still all that space outside: the things yet to be understood. Is there not a chance that the reality of God can be outside of our understanding? What’s my point? We cannot completely discredit the possibility of the existence of God. If you really want to dialogue scientifically, theologically, anthropologically and physiologically regarding Christianity, religion in general and the existence of God, then get your research done.
September 1st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Ok guys I will agree with you, so why it didn’t happen in any other planets in the universe, you don’t get it yet.
why nothing happen in Mars, where there is not enough oxygen, whey there are not creature where can leave with the Mars conditions? Can you tell me why it works on the earth and it doesn’t work on any other planets.
September 1st, 2007 at 4:03 pm
@mohammed
This is somewhat rantish, sorry.
Always looking for the instant gratification, eh?
There is some 100 billion (100,000,000,000) stars in our galaxy and there is no telling how many galaxies there is. The number ranges in the millions but 2dF survey recorded 100,000 galaxies during two years period. How many habitable (not necessarily earth like) planets there is?
Who says there is no comparable civilizations to humanity out there?
There is no life as you seem to equate life on mars but there can be life. It is not like we have explored mars, few pictures and odd probes do not equate exploration.
Our space technology is primitive, barely intra system. With the immense distances between mere planets, not to mention stars, the communication or even detection is hardly possible, yet.
It is too early to say there is no life out there as we cannot explore stars and even exploration of our planets still needs solutions we do not have.
You are also quite fixated on the oxygen, humans have adapted to it even if it is quite harmful gas in itself. But oxygen is fickle compound as too little or too much will harm you or kill you.
But even on earth there are anaerobic organisms which do not need oxygen but use lactic acid fermentation for respiration. Some cannot even grow in environments where oxygen is present in larger than nanomolar quantities. And of larger specimens, the deep sea fish like lanternfish and anglerfish are good examples of life sans oxygen.
There is also the alternate base compounds for life, carbon is common but not the only one which could be the basis of life, boron is good candidate with the tendency of forming covalent molecular compounds. Or nitrogen which is probably even more likely candidate due the ability to form long chains at low temperature in a ammonia or hydrogen cyanide solvent. On earth the environment was suitable for carbon but with the number of places in space there is no telling what kind of different conditions can create life.
One of the problems I have had when talking to religious people is that they have trouble thinking in big numbers. There is some kind of underlying desire for quick result or yes/no solutions.
Science is not that old, merely few thousands of years. There is so much to discover still given time and it is not stuck to one path. Think newtons laws of motion. Those are true up to a point after which they no longer give right answers but new formulas which grew out of their failure can give you answer beyond the original limitations.
Think big, in millions of years, in billions of changes, in trillions of possibilities. Envision beyond our shape and limitations, get over the triviality of single truth
September 1st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Jagannath,
Thank you for taking the time discussing that with me, you almost getting to the point I want to get to.
My point is why Evolution and the other theories that you adopt as source of creation didn’t work on Mars, or the moon, which I hope you understand my point right, I’m not talking about the human-being alike, I’m talking about any source of life.
I think Evolution and other theroies should get creatures or species where they can live in Mars living condition and they should be able to survive. And actually I like your point about the Oxygn, that’s exactly my point, Evolution should find way to create othe species where the don’t Oxgyn to survive, and as long as it works on Earth, it should work any where else.
Did you get my point? I hope so, sorry that sometimes my English doesn’t enable me to get the point I want to discuss.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I found this video and it’s off topic, but it’s really interesting, I hope Gasonmo add as thread on the website, but it’s up to him. And actually it’s really related to the topic of this thread but not to the topic I’m arguing with Jagannath.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owCXbDVTLRE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eturntoislam%2Ecom%2Fforum%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D17275
September 1st, 2007 at 11:55 pm
@Mohamed
How is it different from radical islamist? They are both the same and that’s why religion gives birth to more bullshit. This whole things is ultimately going to create more division amongst Islam and Christianity.
I laughed when one person told that “it’s a good deal to die in earth than to face eternal torment in hell.” This is the same what Muslims tell. How do i believe in any of them?
It’s better i keep my reasoning with me because there is always a chance of me burning in eternal torment. At least i am contended to be living rationally in little time i spend in earth.
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 am
smiling face,
We don’t create wars and starve people to make them belive, is there are extermist in Islam, can tell how many of them out there that they are willing to start war to convert people, they are few which the media show them like that all Muslims, which it is not true, I will talk for myslef and I know most Muslims feel the same way like I do, If I want to convert somebody, I would like him to be convinced by his own will, not because he is hungry or becaue he is in need.
If you watch the video, it looks like it’s trend in Christians, the funny thing look at the places that the christians target, these place for the people in need, where they can use the money to convince people which is material thing, they don’t have in their bible any thing mentally to convince people.
Thank God that Islam talk to people mind not to their stomach.
September 2nd, 2007 at 9:53 am
Nice going mohamed, you almost had us. Quickly accuse someone else to cover your own fallacies.
You refuse to grasp the fact that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.
The fact that there is no life on the moon, is because it does not have the right conditions for life of any sort.
To carlos
“”What’s my point? We cannot completely discredit the possibility of the existence of God. If you really want to dialogue scientifically, theologically, anthropologically and physiologically regarding Christianity, religion in general and the existence of God, then get your research done.”"
See, that’s the problem. Nobody can possibly argue against something that undisprovable, like a deity or Russell’s teapot, using solely scientific evidence.
What I see here instead, is a counter-argument to so-called ’scientific evidence’ that god exists.
Take Mohamed here, he says that there has to be a god because there is life. All the arguing here is done to show that that is not a valid argument, because life could have been come into existence by a method that does not involve divine intervention.
If you want to have a philosofical discussion why god does not exist, you should ask Sidfaiwu on this site.
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:21 am
Alcari,
I don’t know, may be I don’t make sense to any body, my question is why abiogenesis and evolution didn’t work on the moon.
your answer that there is not the same conditions on the moon, that’s not enough asnwer, becaue these two theories should work it out with different species where they can take the moon condition, and they will be able to survive.
I’m sure you understand my point.
By the way I don’t accuse any body, as I told you before I belive because I think about what’s going on around me, it’s not because the book told me so, and even the Quran instructs me to look around in the universe and think about it, and the questions I’m saying here is valid, and I’m sure alot of people thought about.
If I’m offending somebody with the way of my thinking, I will be glad to stop the discussion.
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Abiogenesis ‘didn’t’ work on the moon because the moon exists in a vaccuum. However, we can’t be sure, since we have barely explored even the moon. There may be sub-surface life, who knows. You also don’t seem to have a good grasp of astronomical time. It is entirely possible that Mars was once covered in life, especially with the significant evidence pointing towards a past mars which had a good deal of water on the surface rather than just Ice Caps. Perhaps it was not nearly as complex as human life, but Martian life HAS been found in the form of fossilized bacteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
So you in face, are wrong again. Just because there isn’t active life that we can see NOW, does not mean that there never has been.
September 2nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Perhaps it was not nearly as complex as human life, but Martian life HAS been found in the form of fossilized bacteria.
I’m not wrong, you didn’t prove any thing, my point still stand, if you want to think on wide range like somebody asked me to do in this thread, these two theories should work and we find more advanced creatures than some Bacteria.
My idea is as these two theories create such a perfect and complex life on the earth, they should also creat something even close to it on any where, where these creatures know how to survive in this enviroment, and I can gave you millions examples in the earth where there are species could survive in a tough enviroment.
Again, it’s just discussion, nobody take it offensive way, you have to question every thing.
September 2nd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
So what’s your point? You suggest that if abiogenesis exists, which it does, and that evolution works, which it does, that they should work anywhere. Some places just don’t have the conditions required to develop life as we are capable of recognizing it at this point in time.
September 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
So it has to be somebody put these conditions to make it work at least, or was it by accident? that it happens to be on earth.
It doesn’t make sense, and if you really belive that science you should ask your self the questions that I’m imposing here, otherwise you contrdict your self.
The other thing you know my point, my point is these two theroies if they work the same way everybody assuming here, they should work any where.
I feel like I’m repeating my self, but I will stick with you to the end of the road.
If these two theories works in just these conditon on the earth, who put these condtions, or is it accident?
September 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Why do you fear the chance?
And why do religious people always fear the chance and change?
You need suitable variables. If the variables are not within acceptable range the process does not begin, with luck you have the suitable variables and abiogenesis begins. It is simple as that, with wrong parameters you do not get results.
You would not drive at 100 miles per hour and then change to reverse gear in expectation of increasing your speed to 200 miles?
No one created the conditions, those just happened. Say if some fragment would have hit earth during its early phases, it could have knocked earth of kilter and no planet would have formed or it would be in deep space.
It was an accident as you say but there is nothing wrong with it. Most everything in life is due such ‘accidents’. If one would to prove it beyond doubt that humans exist only because of a chance, would that cause you to vanish in thin air as figment of someones imagination?
September 2nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Ok,
Let’s see how far the accident would take us in creation, I will computer components and put around me, and I will for the accident to happen, and get me the computer assambled, I don’t fear the accident like you claim, accidents or chances have limits, and I don’t it will take Dizillions of accident( I don’t more than trillion) to create such perfect human-being like you, not only that, creating all the species around.
Wow accident.
September 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Now you are beyond grasping straws, that is so amusing example, yet so prevalent in religious circles.
Abiogenesis and evolution do not exclude outside influences. Many of the outside effectors are required and essential for the processes. Basic chemistry can spontaneously create organic molecules, you just add external influence in form of energy.
You also bring in the odds question, one of the classics.
For fun, lets assume an earthquake strikes your home while you sat there surrounded by the pieces of computer. That is an accident of sorts, being indoors when it happens. Now the tremors shake your house like it was a box and everything not attached will fly around.
If you assumed that it forms working computer with the specifications and programs you had in your mind, then the odds are against it, highly against it.
But, for abiogenesis and also to evolution there is no expected end result and the computer pieces flying around most likely form something, not the computer you wanted but something which can have a function.
You may not understand it but that does not have no effect on its function. And you are now happy father of a new non-created entity.
September 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Taking the example of computer components.
There is too little change that they will assemble by themselves, naturally.
Then we give them abit of life, like giving them the ability to move around randomly, there is still too little chance of assembly.
Now we give the components an ability to know when they have done good (moved closer to another component in which it fits in).
Now the components will assemble itself, it may not be that quick, but it will likely happen before the universe dissipates into nothingness.
Ofcourse, real life produce more life instead of moving around randomly, and they know when they have done good when they survive long enough to produce more life.
September 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Just once I’d like to see Mohamed make an argument without committing the straw man fallacy.
September 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Are you really belive in that guys?
It’s really funny that you belive in that, I think you convinced me now to go buy computer components ans wait for the earth quake to happen and shake my house.
Any way I’m not making fun of you guys, I just wanted to show how far these theories from the truth, I’m not trying to disapprove your ideas, but I wanted to show that your theories have a lot of holes and it is not even close to expalin any thing.
September 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Hey, those burn nicely but then again that is pagan tradition ;)
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:21 am
Hey guys, it will be the end of discussion for me on this web site, I don’t feel like arguing with you any more.
God only guides who he wants, I was here to give you different kind of thinking from what you hear in the media or what you read in the books. I think you are really smart people who can make the right choice and take the consequences for it, so good luck for you all.
If you have any question about Islam and you want to learn about Islam, just drop me your question on my blog and I will be happy to help you to find the answer together.
Thanks,
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:40 am
@Mohamed:
Hope you come back to see this post. The problem with your computer theory and with earthquake is that it has got a destination. It has got a destination of making a computer. But evolution doesn’t have a destination. It is just that if one mutation in gene turns out to be favorable for existence, it passes on to the next generation and thus this slow change brings about a whole new species. It was never preconceived that finally we need to get to the said species. It just happens by “chance” that your result turns this way.
This is what chance is all about in evolution. It’s not that air blows all the things together and makes one whole new species by “chance”.
Regarding your whole life in moon thing, i would like to point out that abiogenesis is the first factor, which will ultimately lead to evolution. For abiogenesis to occur you need favorable condition, like distance from sun, gravitation force, state of water, temperature and it just happens that earth has right conditions for this process. Now it’s not necessary that god created this whole condition. Out of so many numerous things in universe (beyond our imagination) just earth seems be the right planet to have abiogensis. It’s not necessary that it is the last place or the only place. May be somewhere else, too far away, we have right conditions where abiogensis might have happened, might be going to happen in future, may be evolution is in a different phase.
Think about it in this way. Creationist get afraid with the idea of humans having no purpose in this universe. We happen to develop this large brain just because in some phase of evolution, we might have had a distinct advantage of having a little developed brain, which we passed on to our next generation, which kept on developing this advantage until we came to a point where we had a brain to think of our purpose and the easiest answer we could find was that we have been created by somebody to serve that thing.
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:10 am
hehe, I find it very amusing and very typical.
The argument is inescapable, undeniably and mohamed runs away.
I guess that’s the only way to adhere to outdated beliefs.
Smilingface explains it very nicely it think. Never underestimate the power of millions of years of cumulative mutation.
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:47 am
Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species based on his
study of the quran as handed over by muhammed and traveld to
his destinations by carpet. Sponsored by Aladin & Co. lol
Note:
There has been no acknowledgement to the quran not to offend
Revd. John Henslow (being Church of England) who put Charles
on the expedition.
In all my years as a university biology technician I must
admit that the theory of evolution according to Mo, strikes
me deep and confuses me.
September 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
So our resident ignoramus has surrendered? I expected him to hold out a bit longer. Wonder when the next topic will start…
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
You know, I already miss the little fella. His blind desperate attempts to make his delusional belief system seem anything other than laughable was endearing. Its funny, when you show truth to the barbarians, they run and hide. Or murder you. Rarely do they react favorably.