Happy Atheist Forum

a wonderful journey , at night my family and I  traveled and after 1 hour my daughters and son also my lovely wife all of them slept , so my imagination led me down in  vales then up upon mountains .until I found myself  beside my intelligent atheist friend and we are watching the film " Toy Story " by Pixar production company .

Truly we enjoyed watching the film , everything  is great , [ the story , the action ,the comedy , ………..] . I am one of the big fans of Woody and Buzz , their friendship was great . after  we finished watching  .

I said to my friend : I want to meet them ?

He told me : who ?

Then I said : woody and Buzz !!, I wana meet them .

My friend said : but they are not a real persons ,

So I smiled  : all these stunning movements and body Expressions , then you told me they are not real . you do not know nothing !!!

My friend took a cigarette and start smoking , and he told me I will explain it for you : woody and Buzz are 3d pictures , have been  done by 3d software and animations  programs . the programmers  studied all human body movements and our Expressions , then  simulations them on Woody and Buzz .

Stop , stop , stop , I said .

Who are the programmers ?are they something inside the computers ? why……

But my friend cut my questions with a loud laughing , I told him : why you laugh ?
He said : surely you have zero knowledge about computers .
Programmers are a professional persons studied 3d programs and simulations for many years , then they invented those actors [ Woody and Buzz ] . and it is impossible for computer to invent any thing without a wise person behind it , input the data and information to get an output whatever [ image , document ,  3d characters , ….. ] .

But the fool person is  always a fool  : I told him do you want me to believe that those actors have been created by persons  . please prove it , if you can ?

Ok , no problem , let us rewind the film to the titles , to read the computer's  group behind this genius  work . and surely he shocked me : when we read the name of 3d supervisor  his name is : XYZ .Immediately he said : this person XYZ is the creator of [ Buzz , and Woody ] .

So I told him : I do not believe this person is the inventor ,  until I see him by my eyes . then he must proves that he is the creator of [ Buzz and Woody ] .

But my friend became anger of me : it is not necessary to see the creator of each inventions . in this world many inventions [ cars , tools , airplanes , …………………… ] we believe that have been created by a wise persons without seeing them.

The next thing you want to tell me that [ Buzz and Woody ] does not eat or drink , they are not flesh .
Then may friend said : what a stupid person you are !!!! do you think they are real like human who has flesh and inside his body billions living cells , also [nervous system , digestive system , respiratory system , …………………. ] , Buzz and Woody are only 3d pictures .
 Ok , ok , ok . I want to have  the signature of Woody on my shirt .

Then my intelligent atheist friend said : I will never walk with you again , you are an atheist of Sciences and logic  , you are unable to believe that [ Woody and Buzz ] 3d pictures have been created by a wise creators . I wasted  my time with a stupid person . in trying to prove a very simple logic .

To hell this logic ….

Ok, I think I see where you're headed.

Let me recap:
It's obvious from the traits that Buzz and Woody have that there is a human creator behind them.
Because they were created by humans, you think they are real.

Gotcha.

So, it's just like god then.
It's obvious from the traits that god has that there is a human creator behind god.
Because god was created by humans, you think god is real.

Yeah.  I can agree with that...

I can go see, touch, hear, smell and taste( :hmm: What was the point of your posting this?

Quote from: "joeactor"Ok, I think I see where you're headed.

Let me recap:
It's obvious from the traits that Buzz and Woody have that there is a human creator behind them.
Because they were created by humans, you think they are real.

Gotcha.

So, it's just like god then.
It's obvious from the traits that god has that there is a human creator behind god.
Because god was created by humans, you think god is real.

Yeah.  I can agree with that...

^nice  

Difference, if I wanted to, I could meet the programmers, ask them questions, even have a go at doing it myself with their program on my own computer.

Also, you let your friend smoke in the car with your kids inside it?  

Quote from: "SSY"Also, you let your friend smoke in the car with your kids inside it?  

Oh don't tell me you think cigarettes cause cancer - that's never been proven

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "SSY"Also, you let your friend smoke in the car with your kids inside it?  ;)  after that statement.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... ssation#r1 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cessation#r1)

And to some light plz, I think you'll need a more fitting analogy than the one you've used here.

What did I say !!!!!!!!!! from silliest imaginations , to the most realistic facts

because I believe Buzz and Woody are real  , then from the sight of buzz and woody :
It's obvious from the traits  that human has that there are Buzz and Woody creator behind human .
Because human  was created by buzz and Woody, you think human is real !!!

With my full respect to your persona :

The creature [ Buzz ] believe that the creator [Human ] has been created by the creature [ Buzz ]
Once again :
The creature [ human ] believe that the creator [ God ] has been created by the creature [ Human ] .

the silliest logic I have ever read , you became as a dolly which moves by threads  , it also believe that human who created it move by threads .

but because my friends unable  to feel god by their senses [the sensory proof  or Tangible proof ] then he is not exist , at the same time they are able to use [ the logical proof ] in many parts of life , but when the matter is God  then this type of proof will be disabled  , they throw it in garbage . [ I know why ? ]

please answer :
I am unable to see you , unable to hear you , unable to touch you , unable to feel you , also unable to taste you , for me : you are not existent :

by logic only :  prove for me that  you existent  ?

who did create Buzz and Woody ?

Who did create heavens , earth , all living creatures , ……………. ?

This topic  became very  interesting ,  inshaa Allah the next comment  a  Wheel !!!  


((51. I called them not To witness the creation Of the heavens and the earth, Nor (even) their own creation: Nor is it for Me To take as helpers Such as lead (men) astray! ))

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "SSY"Also, you let your friend smoke in the car with your kids inside it?  

Oh don't tell me you think cigarettes cause cancer - that's never been proven

So Please tell me : if a boy  asked you : who did create heavens and earth ?
What would be your answer ?

Also cancer is only a way for  multi ways of death , they will die sooner or later

((8. Say: "The Death from which ye flee will truly overtake you: then will ye be sent back to the Knower of things secret and open: and He will tell you (the truth of) the things that ye did!" ))

your post about the whatever and woody being evidence that people are real is a straw-man at best.

A strawman of what, I am not sure...no one here has claimed anything about woody meaning people are real  

Quote from: "some light plz"So Please tell me : if a boy  asked you : who did create heavens and earth ?
What would be your answer ?

I would say "why do you assume it was created?"  And let the boy think about it more.

QuoteAlso cancer is only a way for  multi ways of death , they will die sooner or later

I should give you a warning simply for harming the quality of life of your children.

What? No really, what? I try to understand the posts you make on here, I mostly succeed, but here, utter failure.

Also, I would say to the boy

"Firstly, we do not know that they were created by anyone, secondly, assuming someone did create them, I don't know who it was, and thirdly, who are you? Why are you in my house?"

Quote from: "some light plz"

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "SSY"Also, you let your friend smoke in the car with your kids inside it?  :twak:

Oh don't tell me you think cigarettes cause cancer - that's never been proven

You forgot to put a    after that statement.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... ssation#r1 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cessation#r1)

McQ all I have to do is look at the ".gov" in the url to know that I'm not believing that ObamaBullShit!

I declare this to be "The Toy Story argument".

Quoteby logic only : prove for me that you existent ?

who did create Buzz and Woody ?

i dont exist. my posts are figments of your imagination. and the people at pixar studios created buzz and woodie, as your friend told you. i saw the making of the movie. i saw them draw them and "make them come to life" so i vouch for that.

 

QuoteThen I said : woody and Buzz !!, I wana meet them .

me too.    i bet buzz would make a good drinking buddy.

QuoteAlso cancer is only a way for multi ways of death , they will die sooner or later

but asthma and shit like that isnt death, just makes life a lil harder.

You know, I tried to teasingly convince my 8 year-old child once that the world was animated and created by Pixar and Steve Jobs was God and she didn't believe me.  She just gave me this frustrated, exasperated look that I think you deserve right now, some light plz.

Besides, I think that WALL•E and EVE are far coooler than the Toy Story characters any day.  In fact in the Pixar universe, just about all the characters are cooler than the ones they created in Toy Story,  including the characters from the shorts.  Even that cranky little wench that plays the violin in One Man Band and Mater from Cars.

But this is a free country and you are entitled to your insanity and poor taste as long as you aren't a danger to yourself and others.  Have a good day.

Quote from: "BadPoison"Well, if a boy asked me "Who created the heavens and the earth?" I would ask him why he believes they need a creator.

So if the same boy asked you " who created the needle  ? "  are you going to ask him : why he believes it needs a creator ?
If anyone  able to  prove that a needle has been created randomly  " no creator and without a wisdom" then he will be able to prove the universe has been created randomly " no creator without a wisdom "  .

QuoteEverything in the universe (define 'universe' as everything in existence past/present/future) can not possibly have been created unless that very creative force existed outside the universe.

Wonderful ..
Our difference in this matter about "  a very creative force " .
The Believers name this "  very creative force  " God or Allah .
The atheists name this "  very creative force " evolution , sudden , intelligent  Design

Quoteexisted outside the universe

Simple example :
You are outside the world of computers  
Computers and have been created by Human  â€¦ these Mineral creatures  able to speak by " speaker " , to see by " Camera .  and to do many things , my question :
are Laws of computer suitable for human ? with other meaning : are the Laws of creature must be apply on his creator ?
human put and specified for the computer its Laws
God or Allah [a very creative force ] put and specified for human his Laws " nature Laws "

this is the problem of atheists : they want to apply the Laws of nature on the creator of nature and nature's Laws .
also the example of  : the dolly which moves by threads , its Laws are not suitable for human .
So God is over All Laws , because he is the creator of all Laws .

Quote(be it a god or multiverse) I will refrain from speculating here.

I would like to answer this by Quran , but they will consider it preaching …
((91. behold, each god would have taken away what he had created ))
The witness at the verse is the creatures … so let us take a quick look at universe  
The creator is one , because :

1-   the whole universe has been built from one ore  by one plan : from Hydrogen Formed the  elements which have been known  in Periodic table .

2-   the living creatures have been created from a carbonic compound , also by one dissection plan ,  [ in the frog  , the pigeon , the rabbit , the crocodile, the giraffe, the whale ] reveal  the same dissection plan  , same Arteries and Veins  same heart's chambers , also same bones … each bone has its counterpart .. the wing in pigeon is the hand in frog , the number of  vertebrae  in Giraffe neck is  same  in hedgehog neck . even the systems inside creatures same systems  â€¦ also the Cell which is the basic structural and functional unit of all living creatures .

3-   also the movement of   electrons around the atomic nucleus in orbits.. same as the  movement  of planets and  stars in orbits .

all universe speaks one language , the language of the one creator [ Allah ]

so if people make for them false gods , we became frustrated and hopeless to know the real god .  then what is the benefit of this brain ? " I know we use it for fruitless arguing not thinking "

((23. They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire, whereas there has surely come to them the Guidance from their Lord )) Surah 53

And if it is more than one god , what will happen ?
They will kill  each other  to get to the throne  .

I personally really like the characters from monsters inc...they are so cute.  I forgot their names.

Wasn't Finding Nemo a pixar movie too?  I had a clown fish I named nemo but he died.

I'll go back to being serious when some light pls figures out why this strange version of the watchmakers argument is flawed on multiple levels.

some light plz, if a small boy were to ask you who created god, what would you answer?

what did i say : " from silliest imaginations , to the most realistic facts "

The wheel  is a circular object that revolves on an axle .. I do not know the early beginning of using wheels . but I am sure 100 % about  the wheel's evolution

The wheels evolved from a tree " living creature " to  a circular wood  during the  previous times maybe ( 3.5 billions years ) when the human was a microbe . it was moving and moving and moving , until a day it met a wooden box inside it chairs . and by the stable  truth which I know  [ coincidence ]   .
 the box connected with this wheel so they  became a wagon . but this wagon was unable to move ..

beside them was a horse … this horse has a sad story , when it was a Hippocampus. Before evolving to a  horse  , this Hippocampus faced a horrible times  because the water of  sea Evaporated by the heat of sun . and all his friends died , but this Hippocampus remained  (the strongest ) . so a Hippocampus evolved  to a horse .  

the horse stood in front of the wagon , then suddenly some ropes  flew to connect the horse  with the wagon . then they started moving and moving and moving

after ( 3 billions years ) the Microbe evolved  to a human . when human saw the wagon he screamed and said " thank you mother nature for this evolution " and he used this wagon for himself.

and day after day this wheel evolved until our time … therefore you will find :

a wheel evolved for cars .   a wheel evolved for airplanes .     a wheel evolved for trains .

a wheel evolved for bicycles .   a wheel evolved for vehicles .   a wheel evolved for chairs .  

all those wheels  evolved from the first wheel and by the same way.

to hell this logic

Quote from: "some light plz"And if it is more than one god , what will happen ?
They will kill each other to get to the throne .

Yeah, cause that's never happened before...

Are you honestly trying to compare the evolution of inanimate object created by man to the the observable fact of genetic mutation and natural selection in living creatures?

To hell wth your lack of knowledge of science in general and evolution in specific.

Quote from: "some light plz"what did i say : " from silliest imaginations , to the most realistic facts "

The wheel  is a circular object that revolves on an axle .. I do not know the early beginning of using wheels . but I am sure 100 % about  the wheel's evolution

The wheels evolved from a tree " living creature " to  a circular wood  during the  previous times maybe ( 3.5 billions years ) when the human was a microbe . it was moving and moving and moving , until a day it met a wooden box inside it chairs . and by the stable  truth which I know  [ coincidence ]   .
 the box connected with this wheel so they  became a wagon . but this wagon was unable to move ..

beside them was a horse … this horse has a sad story , when it was a Hippocampus. Before evolving to a  horse  , this Hippocampus faced a horrible times  because the water of  sea Evaporated by the heat of sun . and all his friends died , but this Hippocampus remained  (the strongest ) . so a Hippocampus evolved  to a horse .  

the horse stood in front of the wagon , then suddenly some ropes  flew to connect the horse  with the wagon . then they started moving and moving and moving

after ( 3 billions years ) the Microbe evolved  to a human . when human saw the wagon he screamed and said " thank you mother nature for this evolution " and he used this wagon for himself.

and day after day this wheel evolved until our time … therefore you will find :

a wheel evolved for cars .   a wheel evolved for airplanes .     a wheel evolved for trains .

a wheel evolved for bicycles .   a wheel evolved for vehicles .   a wheel evolved for chairs .  

all those wheels  evolved from the first wheel and by the same way.

to hell this logic

are you talking about?

I'm seriously about to start handing you out warnings for trolling because this is nonsensical.

Quote from: "elliebean"some light plz, if a small boy were to ask you who created god, what would you answer?

Inshaa Allah , I will be able to answer you , but please ask yourself these questions , then  ask about God  :
1-   who created you ?
2-   where you were before you have been  created ?
3-   why human is the only thinker's creature ?
4-   what is the next step : after you evolved to a thinker's creature  ?
5-   when the word " God " comes to your brain , where you will place him " at earth , above heavens , or not existent " ? please Focus on this question  .. think deeply
6 -    when the Microorganisms are going to evolve ?
Thanks

Quote1-   who created you ?

My mother and my father

Quote2-   where you were before you have been  created ?

Before I existed my molecules and atoms were part of other living beings, plants and minerals

Quote3-   why human is the only thinker's creature ?

I don't believe that humans are the only animals that can think.

Quote4-   what is the next step : after you evolved to a thinker's creature  ?

Do you mean, what will happen to me after I'm dead?

Quote5-   when the word " God " comes to your brain , where you will place him " at earth , above heavens , or not existent " ? please Focus on this question  .. think deeply

I place him in a fairy-tale book, with all the other fantasy creatures that people invented

Quote6 -    when the Microorganisms are going to evolve ? Thanks

That is happening all the time.

I asked myself those questions many years ago and have been satisfied with my answers since that time. I won't bother to give my answers here, because I do not intend to patronize you.

My question to you was rhetorical; my reason for asking it was that I could see where you were going with your argument and hoped to point out something to you: You asked a similar question of someone else, regarding how they would answer a small child asking the question, "who created everything?"

I was that child once. I asked my grandmother how it was that everything had come to be. Unfortunately, I could not get any better answer than "God created everything." Even at five years of age I could easily see through this diversion, as I had not yet deluded myself into blindly following those who I regarded as my superiors. The trouble with that answer is that it doesn't solve the problem of "everything" coming into existence, but only shifts the problem onto an invented, invisible deity. This is an attempt to evade the question. All it does is create a new question, which I was attentive enough, even as a young child to ask: "where then does God come from?" If originally I was asking about "everything", then surely "God" is part of that equation, if there is one at all.

It shouldn't be difficult to imagine  that, even if one could be satisfied to accept that a god exists, it doesn't elimnate the problem of creation; this god could not have created himself, after all.

The next logical step is to assume that your god has always existed and created everything else. But if something like a god could have always existed without a creator, then we can conclude that some things can exist without a creator. So why imagine god? Why not cut out the middle-man and conclude that everything has always existed in some form or another?

If God doesn't need a creator, then why does anything?



And when will God start evolving?

JK  

Quotethe horse stood in front of the wagon , then suddenly some ropes flew to connect the horse with the wagon . then they started moving and moving and moving

after ( 3 billions years ) the Microbe evolved to a human . when human saw the wagon he screamed and said " thank you mother nature for this evolution " and he used this wagon for himself.

this is my favorite part of the story. you gotta watch out for those flying ropes!!
and i always thank mother nature for man made things. like my pants. id be screwed if momma nature didnt make them for me. they would probably be made in some sweat shop by some third world kids if it wasnt for momma natures skills.

This is funny, because wagons, wheels, and horses are clearly made man items and everything else we see in nature is clearly not. We look at God, and see human characteristics, and thus assume there was a human creator behind him.

horses are man made items?    

This whole topic is ridiculous, but I'm finding it strangely amusing.
When my children (small boys, at the time)  asked me who created God, I told them the truth.

Quote from: "joeactor"Ok, I think I see where you're headed.

Let me recap:
It's obvious from the traits that Buzz and Woody have that there is a human creator behind them.
Because they were created by humans, you think they are real.

Gotcha.

So, it's just like god then.
It's obvious from the traits that god has that there is a human creator behind god.
Because god was created by humans, you think god is real.

Yeah.  I can agree with that...

 

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "joeactor"Ok, I think I see where you're headed.

Let me recap:
It's obvious from the traits that Buzz and Woody have that there is a human creator behind them.
Because they were created by humans, you think they are real.

Gotcha.

So, it's just like god then.
It's obvious from the traits that god has that there is a human creator behind god.
Because god was created by humans, you think god is real.

Yeah.  I can agree with that...

 

Hee hee - glad you got it - you're very welcome!
(off to create another god...)

Ok, so I'm a theist.  Why am I not siding with more of the theist arguments?
Well, frankly... they're all pretty silly:

QuoteTH1: Today's topic is God's nose and the contents held within.
TH2: Great!  I've always wondered if God has boogers...
TH3: Blasphemy!  God's nose would be perfect and not contain any boogers!
TH2: But hear me out... if it did, would he have to pick them?
TH1: Gentlemen, please!  Let's try to stay civil.
TH3: All right... I'll entertain the question of God's boogers.
TH2: So, maybe God wouldn't need to pick his boogers, ya know... since he doesn't need to breathe?
TH3: That's just silly!  If God doesn't need to breathe, why does he even have a nose?
TH2: Exactly!  See?  The tapestry we've woven into this image of God just unravels at the slightest discussion...
TH1: Hmmm... So, God wouldn't need a heart or lungs then?
TH2: Yes!  Or a body of any kind!
TH1: So what's left of God?
TH3: That's it!  I'm outta here!  And I'm taking my concept of God with me!

Quote from: "joeactor"

QuoteTH1: Today's topic is God's nose and the contents held within.
TH2: Great!  I've always wondered if God has boogers...
TH3: Blasphemy!  God's nose would be perfect and not contain any boogers!
TH2: But hear me out... if it did, would he have to pick them?
TH1: Gentlemen, please!  Let's try to stay civil.
TH3: All right... I'll entertain the question of God's boogers.
TH2: So, maybe God wouldn't need to pick his boogers, ya know... since he doesn't need to breathe?
TH3: That's just silly!  If God doesn't need to breathe, why does he even have a nose?
TH2: Exactly!  See?  The tapestry we've woven into this image of God just unravels at the slightest discussion...
TH1: Hmmm... So, God wouldn't need a heart or lungs then?
TH2: Yes!  Or a body of any kind!
TH1: So what's left of God?
TH3: That's it!  I'm outta here!  And I'm taking my concept of God with me!

I love it! I printed it and read it to a few co workers (using different voices for each part!)

it is not my opinions , the fact is a fact " science and scientists are speaking about your theory of bubbles " or the desires followers " . so if you want to answer … Support  your sayings with scientists sayings
----------------------------------------

I will start with Darwin :

" If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ".

But Darwin returned to ask himself about " transitional forms " :Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. "

Observe : His hopes was in fossil , and the results of researches in fossil were  Zero in evolution from a creature to another creature .  
------------------------
Well let us see what the scientists of fossil opinions about Darwin's theory
Fossil Scientist Robert Carroll a supporter of evolution theory : " Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected "

Fossil Scientist Robert Carroll K. S. Thomson also a supporter of evolution theory : "When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly "

Also Dr. Francis Hitching said in his book [The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong ] If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals "
-------------------------------------

Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the 35-volume Traité de Zoologie, likened mutations to spelling mistakes in one of his papers, and said that they could never give rise to evolution: Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how… As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.

Francisco J. Ayala, of the University of California, Irvine, a professor of biological sciences and philosophy: High energy radiations, such as x-rays, increase the rate of mutation. Mutations induced by radiation are random in the sense that they arise independently of their effects on the fitness of the individuals which carry them. Randomly induced mutations are usually deleterious. In a precisely organized and complex system like the genome of an organism, a random change will most frequently decrease, rather than increase, the orderliness or useful information of the system

James F. Crow, head of the Genetics Department at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on radiation and mutation: Almost every mutation is harmful, and it is the individual who pays the price. Any human activity that tends to increase the mutation rate must therefore raise serious health and moral problems for man.A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair itâ€"just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture .

The biologist Dr. Mahlon B. Hoagland: The information that resides in organisms that are alive today . . . is far more refined than the work of all the world's great poets combined. The chance that a random change of a letter or word or phrase would improve the reading is remote; on the other hand, it is very likely that a random hit would be harmful. It is for this reason that many biologists view with dismay the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, and industrially generated mutagenic (mutation-producing) chemicals .
You'll recall we learned that almost always a change in an organism's DNA is detrimental to it; that is, it leads to a reduced capacity to survive. By way of analogy, random additions of sentences to the plays of Shakespeare are not likely to improve them! . . . The principle that DNA changes are harmful by virtue of reducing survival chances applies whether a change in DNA is caused by a mutation or by some foreign genes we deliberately add to it.

Dr. Warren Weaver: Moreover, the mutant genes, in the vast majority of cases, and in all the species so far studied, lead to some kind of harmful effect. In extreme cases the harmful effect is death itself, or loss of the ability to produce offspring, or some other serious abnormality. Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effectâ€"evolution to higher forms of lifeâ€"result from mutations practically all of which are harmful .

I.L. Cohen, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, says: "To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability." .

Professor Kevin Padian, of the University of California at Berkeley, asks whether random mutations in nature give rise to living species: How do major evolutionary changes get started? Does anyone still believe that populations sit around for tens of thousands of years, waiting for favorable mutations to occur (and just how does that happen, by the way?), then anxiously guard them until enough accumulate for selection to push the population toward new and useful change? There you have the mathematical arguments of Neo-Darwinism that Waddington and others rightly characterized as "vacuous".

the Israeli bio-physicist Dr. Lee Spetner, who has worked at some of the most eminent universities in the world, such as MIT and Johns Hopkins, were brought to the attention of the scientific world in the book Not By Chance. In this book, which questions neo-Darwinism, Spetner employs the figures given by evolutionist authorities (such as mutation frequency and the ratio of "favorable mutations" to all mutations) and makes a detailed calculation of whether it is possible for one species to change into another. His conclusion is striking : "Impossible! Even if we accept the theoretical existence of "favorable mutations," which have never been observed in experiments, it is still impossible for these to accumulate consecutively and in the right direction in a living species. It is also impossible for them to be permanent due to the disadvantages they bring with them, and thus it is impossible for a new species to emerge.

----------------------------------------
The supporters of evolution theory put their hopes in many species , but each time the researches and discovers  point to the false of this theory ,  I am sure 100% all of you are going to accept the mistakes and falseness in any theory proved by experiments and by researches its fail  . but this theory your situation is different because its fail means the appearance of God . also means the victory for religions . which means the appearance of allowable and forbidden in your life , which means the appearance of the watcher { God } .

Are they able to continue ? no , you are preaching some light Plz ..

Quote from: "lastray"it is not my opinions , the fact is a fact " science and scientists are speaking about your theory of bubbles " or the desires followers " . so if you want to answer … Support  your sayings with scientists sayings
----------------------------------------

I will start with Darwin :

" If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ".

But Darwin returned to ask himself about " transitional forms " :Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. "

Observe : His hopes was in fossil , and the results of researches in fossil were  Zero in evolution from a creature to another creature .  
------------------------
Well let us see what the scientists of fossil opinions about Darwin's theory
Fossil Scientist Robert Carroll a supporter of evolution theory : " Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected "

Fossil Scientist Robert Carroll K. S. Thomson also a supporter of evolution theory : "When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly "

Also Dr. Francis Hitching said in his book [The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong ] If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals "
-------------------------------------

Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the 35-volume Traité de Zoologie, likened mutations to spelling mistakes in one of his papers, and said that they could never give rise to evolution: Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how… As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.

Francisco J. Ayala, of the University of California, Irvine, a professor of biological sciences and philosophy: High energy radiations, such as x-rays, increase the rate of mutation. Mutations induced by radiation are random in the sense that they arise independently of their effects on the fitness of the individuals which carry them. Randomly induced mutations are usually deleterious. In a precisely organized and complex system like the genome of an organism, a random change will most frequently decrease, rather than increase, the orderliness or useful information of the system

James F. Crow, head of the Genetics Department at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on radiation and mutation: Almost every mutation is harmful, and it is the individual who pays the price. Any human activity that tends to increase the mutation rate must therefore raise serious health and moral problems for man.A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair itâ€"just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture .

The biologist Dr. Mahlon B. Hoagland: The information that resides in organisms that are alive today . . . is far more refined than the work of all the world's great poets combined. The chance that a random change of a letter or word or phrase would improve the reading is remote; on the other hand, it is very likely that a random hit would be harmful. It is for this reason that many biologists view with dismay the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, and industrially generated mutagenic (mutation-producing) chemicals .
You'll recall we learned that almost always a change in an organism's DNA is detrimental to it; that is, it leads to a reduced capacity to survive. By way of analogy, random additions of sentences to the plays of Shakespeare are not likely to improve them! . . . The principle that DNA changes are harmful by virtue of reducing survival chances applies whether a change in DNA is caused by a mutation or by some foreign genes we deliberately add to it.

Dr. Warren Weaver: Moreover, the mutant genes, in the vast majority of cases, and in all the species so far studied, lead to some kind of harmful effect. In extreme cases the harmful effect is death itself, or loss of the ability to produce offspring, or some other serious abnormality. Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effectâ€"evolution to higher forms of lifeâ€"result from mutations practically all of which are harmful .

I.L. Cohen, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, says: "To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability." .

Professor Kevin Padian, of the University of California at Berkeley, asks whether random mutations in nature give rise to living species: How do major evolutionary changes get started? Does anyone still believe that populations sit around for tens of thousands of years, waiting for favorable mutations to occur (and just how does that happen, by the way?), then anxiously guard them until enough accumulate for selection to push the population toward new and useful change? There you have the mathematical arguments of Neo-Darwinism that Waddington and others rightly characterized as "vacuous".

the Israeli bio-physicist Dr. Lee Spetner, who has worked at some of the most eminent universities in the world, such as MIT and Johns Hopkins, were brought to the attention of the scientific world in the book Not By Chance. In this book, which questions neo-Darwinism, Spetner employs the figures given by evolutionist authorities (such as mutation frequency and the ratio of "favorable mutations" to all mutations) and makes a detailed calculation of whether it is possible for one species to change into another. His conclusion is striking : "Impossible! Even if we accept the theoretical existence of "favorable mutations," which have never been observed in experiments, it is still impossible for these to accumulate consecutively and in the right direction in a living species. It is also impossible for them to be permanent due to the disadvantages they bring with them, and thus it is impossible for a new species to emerge.

----------------------------------------
The supporters of evolution theory put their hopes in many species , but each time the researches and discovers  point to the false of this theory ,  I am sure 100% all of you are going to accept the mistakes and falseness in any theory proved by experiments and by researches its fail  . but this theory your situation is different because its fail means the appearance of God . also means the victory for religions . which means the appearance of allowable and forbidden in your life , which means the appearance of the watcher { God } .

Are they able to continue ? no , you are preaching some light Plz ..

 :ban:

If it is the same person, he or she has just officially proven themselves a troll.  So at least that's cleared up, right?.

some light plz:

Thank you for your kind words in the other thread.  I'm sorry I haven't been here lately to continue our conversation.  Though I don't see any way that we will ever agree on the subject of the Quran predicting findings of modern science, I enjoyed the discussion.  I can tell that your faith is very strong, and that you truly believe that Allah gave revelations to the prophet Mohammad.  As I said before, though, I think that the science in the Quran is the science of the time in which it was written, and nothing that you have shown seems to me to contradict that.

 It looks like you chose to open a new account, ignoring the time out which the owner of this site felt was appropriate.  That may result in a long term ban, which is unfortunate, because I think that having an intelligent Muslim like yourself here is a good thing, even if nobody agrees with you. Perhaps at some point in the future we could discuss questions about Islam which members of this site may have.  It seems to me that you are knowledgeable about the Quran, and doctrines associated with it, and could help to inform those who have questions.  

I wish you all the best.

some light plz aka lastray has been banned permanently per normal procedures for people who come back during their 1 week ban.  He'll probably be back because he uses proxies; and will keep getting banned; possibly his posts deleted too.  I'm not convinced that he is worth ever allowing to return if he doesn't care about the forum rules...but am open to discussion.

Quote from: "Whitney"some light plz aka lastray has been banned permanently per normal procedures for people who come back during their 1 week ban.  He'll probably be back because he uses proxies; and will keep getting banned; possibly his posts deleted too.  I'm not convinced that he is worth ever allowing to return if he doesn't care about the forum rules...but am open to discussion.

It simply hurts my brain trying to figure out what the heck they are actually trying to say. To be honest, i care not if they never return. There's so much better reading material out there to cogitate.