6 Simple arguments to disproving Atheism (once and for all)

[Arikay]

Piltdown Man:
Seven words for you: It was a Hoax, It was corrected.
Yes, Anyone can make mistakes, including scientists, however, the important part is whether you learn from your mistakes, correct them and move on. If creationist groups would do this, I wouldn't have as much problem with them.
Not to mention the fact that the Piltdown man wasn't just a slip of understanding, but an actual Hoax.

of course, what is piltdown man supposed to prove anyway? I guess it makes all the other evidence false too? Ok, so, false evidence was used because they didn't know it was false, then it was discovered and everyone stopped using it. Hmm, seems to show the exact opposite as what is wanted. Science stops using bad evidence, when its discovered.

Contrast this with creationist groups, who use false evidence or incorrect definitions of the theory of evolution, and dont change, even though they have been shown to be wrong.

"Spontaneous generation is EXACTLY where the theory of Evolution started my friend..."

Im not quite sure I understand this. But if you mean to say,
Abiogenesis = Spontaneous generation.
Then you are wrong.

First of all, abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. As far as the current theory of evolution is concerned, first life could have been poped there by god.

However, abiogenesis is a collection of theories about how the first life came from non life. It is different than spontaneous generation, as SG was a theory saying that complex life can come from non life. And that different types of non life would create different types of life. Abiogenesis on the other hand, is the theory that very very basic life came from specific non life.

So, if you were trying to say that SG = abiogenesis, then you need to read up on both. If not, then I didn't understand.
Its interesting to note that the Theory of evolution in one way, replaced spontaneous generation.

no no...no young earth here either. We are taught that there was a LONG LONG LONG time before anything called Human ever existed in the Universe.

The Earth, Heavens etc took several days in God's perspective to create. In the same time we're told that the days in God's reckoning could be 5000, 50000, or 500000 years...so in any case...the age of the Earth is to be determined by our intellect and reason, ie: scientific discovery.

We have no beef with scientific theories in any way, as they are today.




Ummm..2 words for ya: PILTDOWN MAN




Spontaneous generation is EXACTLY where the theory of Evolution started my friend...

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

This must be the *least competent* argument I have heard to this point.

Then apparently you don't read your own posts.

How am I twisting Scripture here? Does it not say "protected roof"? How can i twist it to mean anything other? Would you like me to quote the Arabic original perhaps?

It's a stretch to make the claims that you did. Especially the layers of the atmosphere.

And no, I don't think they were debunked in any other forum. Those were people's opinions and biases. This is mine.

Yes they were such as your comment about mountains being like pegs and that the different oceans don't actually circulate and mix. If you ignore them, that's your problem. They were facts, not opinions.

Life is about seeing relations and making the links. Some see them, others are too caught up in their own self dilusion of grandeur to admit that PERHAPS, they were wrong in their worldview.

Either way, i want nothing from any of you. Whether its acceptance or belief or whatever I have what i need, im just hear to call people to a higher order. It's up to them to make up their minds.

Well you certainly aren't doing a good job. You are the one that seemingly has delusions of grandeur. You refuse to admit that you are wrong in any way despite being shown that.

And if your only point here is to promote your religion, I think that's against the forum rules.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

We have no beef with scientific theories in any way, as they are today.

That doesn't seem to be the case, but your position is not entirely clear at this point. Of course saying that creationism and evolution are on equal footing doesn't help.

Ummm..2 words for ya: PILTDOWN MAN

Piltdown man was a hoax debunked by scientists. What a ridiculous example. I can list plenty of fallaceous arguments promoted by creationists that have been disproven by science.

Spontaneous generation is EXACTLY where the theory of Evolution started my friend...

No, you're wrong. Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis and abiogenesis is irrelevant to the veracity of the theory of evolution. You need to learn about these topics before you can claim to know better than scientists.

 

[mo.mentum]

Contrast this with creationist groups, who use false evidence or incorrect definitions of the theory of evolution, and dont change, even though they have been shown to be wrong.

Your argument so far has been "im right, you're wrong". Prove to me Evolution, there is no concrete scientific basis, tests are incuclusive. The fossil record non-complying. DNA structure waaay too complex.

So explain to me how evolution brought about non-biological mechanisms, such as: EMOTION, INTELLECT, REASON.

What? The size your brain dictates that? Or the number of neural connections? You keep speaking of having proof and it being proven for sure 100%...you're just as guilty as the geocentrists. Your whole belief in Evolution is based on an ideological premise.

Im not quite sure I understand this. But if you mean to say,
Abiogenesis = Spontaneous generation.
Then you are wrong.

fwef. lucky for us that's not what i was talking about. im talking about the medieval European belief that life can spontaneously emerge out of non living material. They used to believe that mice came out of piles of wheat, or flies out of fruit, even frogs out of mud. This kind of thinking was still around in the 19th century when Darwin started talking about evolution. Add to that the fact of not having reliable instruments to actually how compelx a living cell really is...and blam..living things evolve without any preconceived design..its trial and error pure and simple.

you call that reason?

as SG was a theory saying that complex life can come from non life. And that different types of non life would create different types of life. Abiogenesis on the other hand, is the theory that very very basic life came from specific non life.

Its interesting to note that the Theory of evolution in one way, replaced spontaneous generation.

evolution is based on medieval beliefs. thank you

 

[mo.mentum]

It's a stretch to make the claims that you did. Especially the layers of the atmosphere.

You keep telling me my claims are invalid but never say HOW they are invalid. What's YOUR POINT?

There are 7 layers of the atmosphere that clearly seperated by different densities and gases. This is because each molecule of gaz has a different mass, hence it can stay in the higher levels of the atmosphere, thus creating a layer. Ok? Then, since each molecule has distinct properties, it actions differently! It absrobs different kinds of energy and radiation to protect life on Earth. SO! Each "Heaven" having it's own "decree".

We're talking about a book that was revealed 1400 years ago, thats 600AD!! When people thought the world was flat and the sky was held up by mountains! Yet this verse explains nicely the structure of the atmosphere.

So. How did I stretch? please tell me! I want to know!

Yes they were such as your comment about mountains being like pegs and that the different oceans don't actually circulate and mix.

Two waters mixing. Each body of water has different mineral content and temperature, thus it has a distinct density. When two bodies of water meet, there is a barrier between them because of this, kind of like mixing oil and water. Tehre are even places where you have salt water at top of the ocean, and when you dive lower, there is fresh water. This is fact.

Mountains act like pegs. As we all know, the earth's crust is formed out of tectonic plates. As a result of their movements and collisions, the stronger/heavier one slides under the first, the one on the top bends and forms heights and mountains. The layer beneath goes deeper into the Earth and makes a deep extension downward. That means that mountains have a portion stretching downwards, as large as their visible parts on the Earth. The structure of mountains is described as follows:

Where continents are thicker, as in mountain ranges, the crust sinks deeper into the mantle. (General Science, Carolyn Sheets, Robert Gardner, Samuel F. Howe; Allyn and Bacon Inc. Newton, Massachusetts, 1985, s. 305)

Meaning, they're like pegs on the crust of the Earth. I don't see there being a stretch or twisting for any word to fit....You can prove me wrong, but not by just saying "you're twisting". SHOW ME!

If you ignore them, that's your problem. They were facts, not opinions.

Exactly. Facts. But now it looks like you're ignoring them

And if your only point here is to promote your religion, I think that's against the forum rules.

The last resort of a defeated mind. I'm not promoting religion, I'm promoting God.

 

[mo.mentum]

That doesn't seem to be the case, but your position is not entirely clear at this point. Of course saying that creationism and evolution are on equal footing doesn't help.

Oh I dont think they're equal. I think Theocentric Science will overcome, not necessarily the Creationist Biblical account. But for me, there is no conflict between my beliefs and scientific discoveries. As for Evolution, whether it happened or not, I still would see a Divine Design behind the whole process. So either way, my faith in Allah is not shaken, nor stirred

Piltdown man was a hoax debunked by scientists. What a ridiculous example. I can list plenty of fallaceous arguments promoted by creationists that have been disproven by science.

Not my arguments you haven't.

No, you're wrong. Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis and abiogenesis is irrelevant to the veracity of the theory of evolution. You need to learn about these topics before you can claim to know better than scientists.

Hey! Did you paste that from Arikay??! tsk tsk

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Prove to me Evolution

If you actually understood how science works, you'd realize that scientific theories don't get proven whether it's cell theory, plate tectonics theory, atomic theory, or the theory of evolution.

there is no concrete scientific basis, tests are incuclusive.

Obviously there is a concrete scientific basis for the theory of evolution, else it wouldn't exist.

The fossil record non-complying.

Don't lie.

fwef. lucky for us that's not what i was talking about. im talking about the medieval European belief that life can spontaneously emerge out of non living material. They used to believe that mice came out of piles of wheat, or flies out of fruit, even frogs out of mud. This kind of thinking was still around in the 19th century when Darwin started talking about evolution. ...


evolution is based on medieval beliefs. thank you

That's simply not true. Spontaneous generation was not considered valid before Darwin published Origin of Species.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

You keep telling me my claims are invalid but never say HOW they are invalid. What's YOUR POINT?

I already explained why. You ignore it.

There are 7 layers of the atmosphere that clearly seperated by different densities and gases. This is because each molecule of gaz has a different mass, hence it can stay in the higher levels of the atmosphere, thus creating a layer. Ok?

No, not okay because the seven layers are defined by humans and are not clearly separated. Some layers could have been combined into one layer and others could have been split into more layers. It's essentially arbitrary.

Two waters mixing. Each body of water has different mineral content and temperature, thus it has a distinct density. When two bodies of water meet, there is a barrier between them because of this, kind of like mixing oil and water. Tehre are even places where you have salt water at top of the ocean, and when you dive lower, there is fresh water. This is fact.

The oceans do mix. This is an oceanographic fact. Ignore it all you like.

Mountains act like pegs. As we all know, the earth's crust is formed out of tectonic plates. As a result of their movements and collisions, the stronger/heavier one slides under the first, the one on the top bends and forms heights and mountains. The layer beneath goes deeper into the Earth and makes a deep extension downward. That means that mountains have a portion stretching downwards, as large as their visible parts on the Earth. The structure of mountains is described as follows:

Where continents are thicker, as in mountain ranges, the crust sinks deeper into the mantle. (General Science, Carolyn Sheets, Robert Gardner, Samuel F. Howe; Allyn and Bacon Inc. Newton, Massachusetts, 1985, s. 305)

Meaning, they're like pegs on the crust of the Earth. I don't see there being a stretch or twisting for any word to fit....You can prove me wrong, but not by just saying "you're twisting". SHOW ME![/QUOTE}

I already proved you wrong months ago on the science forum. You claimed that mountains act like pegs to stabilize the crust. That's simply not true.

Exactly. Facts. But now it looks like you're ignoring them

No that's you.

The last resort of a defeated mind. I'm not promoting religion, I'm promoting God.

No, I'm stating a fact. You are promoting non-Christian religious beliefs. That is against the forum rules. I figured you should know that.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Oh I dont think they're equal. I think Theocentric Science will overcome, not necessarily the Creationist Biblical account. But for me, there is no conflict between my beliefs and scientific discoveries.

There is a great deal of conflict. You simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Not my arguments you haven't.

Yep, I have. Get over it.

Hey! Did you paste that from Arikay??! tsk tsk

Nope, I didn't need to because I know you are wrong independent of looking at others' posts.

 

[mo.mentum]

Mech Bliss.


You have still proven nothing to me. Nor have you argued your point in ANY WAY, FORM OR FASHION.


If our observation of the atmospheric layers/densitites are arbitrary then all of science is arbitrary. "We could've made 3 oceans into one" or "We could've made electrons into one"..whatever.


Same for oceans! I really to make a drawing for you don't I? Check this out then: http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/november01_index.php?l=3

And this forum is about non-christian spirituality.

You still haven't told me anything other than "No, you're wrong" or "No. I have". so i'll stop wasting my time with you.

 

[Arikay]

"Your argument so far has been "im right, you're wrong". Prove to me Evolution, there is no concrete scientific basis, tests are incuclusive. The fossil record non-complying. DNA structure waaay too complex."

And some research would discover things about my argument.

No concrete scientific basis,
so what do you call the thousands of papers on pubmed? what about the piles of evidence? Might I suggest more research before you make claims?

Tests are incuclusive,
What tests?

The fossil record non-complying,
How does it not comply?

DNA structure waaay too complex,
How are they way too complex for evolution to have created them?


"So explain to me how evolution brought about non-biological mechanisms, such as: EMOTION, INTELLECT, REASON."

What do you mean Non biological? They are definetly biological, unless you are saying that animals that display emotion, intellect and reason have "souls" as well.

As far as how evolution brought them about, I dont know about emotion, but the other two could have formed as the easiest way to survive through the proccess of natural selection.

And yes, brain size does play a role in it.

"You keep speaking of having proof and it being proven for sure 100%...you're just as guilty as the geocentrists."

Complete Lie. Did you not read the post where I said nothing can be proven 100% but we can get close.


"evolution is based on medieval beliefs."

1) You never showed that in what you said.

2) If you believe that, then you seriously need to study the theory of evolution and its history.

[snip]

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Mech Bliss.


You have still proven nothing to me. Nor have you argued your point in ANY WAY, FORM OR FASHION.

Yes, I have. You simply choose to ignore it just like you did last time in the science forum.

If our observation of the atmospheric layers/densitites are arbitrary then all of science is arbitrary. "We could've made 3 oceans into one" or "We could've made electrons into one"..whatever.

No, not ALL of science is thereby arbitrary but definitions of layering in the atmosphere is. We certainly could have combined certain oceans. We could have left out naming the Indian Ocean or the Arctic Ocean for examples. We could have split the oceans up by hemisphere. After all, all of the oceans are interconnected.

Same for oceans!

Wrong. Oceans do mix and circulate. Sorry, I'll accept what one of the foremost oceanographers/marine geologists in the world who works at my university taught me over some scientifically ignorant religious fanatic such as yourself.

And this forum is about non-christian spirituality.

It's about non-Christian spirituality but it's not about promoting it like you're doing here.

 

[mo.mentum]

Yes, I have. You simply choose to ignore it just like you did last time in the science forum.

I've seen nothing from you yet. How about some copy/paste if you're that lazy?

No, not ALL of science is thereby arbitrary but definitions of layering in the atmosphere is. We certainly could have combined certain oceans. We could have left out naming the Indian Ocean or the Arctic Ocean for examples. We could have split the oceans up by hemisphere. AfterOk all, all of the oceans are interconnected.

Ok so its arbitrary when you want it to be.

Wrong. Oceans do mix and circulate. Sorry, I'll accept what one of the foremost oceanographers/marine geologists in the world who works at my university taught me over some scientifically ignorant religious fanatic such as yourself.

You're OBVIOUSLY not getting the point. I never said they don't ever mix or circulate!! I said there's a barrier between them because their densities are different. Go ask your friend that.

Scientifically ignorant religious fanatic like myself? You sure fooled me into thinking you were one too. Except your religion is your own brand of science.

It's about non-Christian spirituality but it's not about promoting it like you're doing here.

Blah blah blah. Argument of the feeble minded.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

i've seen the "7 Heavens" argument used to justify why stars are where they are in the universe... why the atmosphere is the way we label and and so forth. at this point, my conclusion is that the information presented in the Qur'an is being subjectively interpeted to fit with modern scientific theory.

this is a mistake.

the Qur'an is not a scientific text book and should not be considered as such. if it were, then the Qur'an would have to change as our obersvations of phenomena would change, ergo... as our scientific theories broaden and expand, so would the Qur'an. last time i check, the Qur'an was a revealed text from Allah, complete as is.

One can appreciate the Qur'an without having to base it's testimony on the physical world, in my opinon.

 

[mo.mentum]

the Qur'an is not a scientific text book and should not be considered as such. if it were, then the Qur'an would have to change as our obersvations of phenomena would change, ergo... as our scientific theories broaden and expand, so would the Qur'an. last time i check, the Qur'an was a revealed text from Allah, complete as is.

One can appreciate the Qur'an without having to base it's testimony on the physical world, in my opinon.

Namasate Vaj

And yes, the Qur'an isn't a book of science, but a Divine Revelation. Although it alludes to physical phenomenon in order to instigate man's reason and intellect. Such statements are sprinkled all throughout the book and serve as sign posts to direct the thoughts of the reader to the world around him and come to the natural conclusion that is intelligent design behind the harmony within the Universe.

The specific features stated may need twisting around in the English translation, but the Arabic original's wording is much more clear. In any case, the point is that Qur'anic statements have so far never been contradictory to science.

But that's not the point of this thread. But I love how Atheists like to take one detail they know they an argue on endlessly and forget all the other stuff. Oh well

 

[revolutio]

But that's not the point of this thread. But I love how Atheists like to take one detail they know they an argue on endlessly and forget all the other stuff. Oh well

That seems to be an inherant problem with humans rather than solely atheists.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Just out of spite I'm going to respond to this one:

I like the boeing analogy, makes me all warm inside. But seriously, think about this. A nice intricate swiss clock, you need clock maker to make it. With all its gears and pullies etc, etc..it works perfectly. Does it not require someone to think of it, design it, then build it.

The universe has everything needed to produce lifeforms. I don't see how it would require design. From the time the universe was pure energy at the big bang, it had all the mechanisms necessary to reach the point we are at today, without intervention. The puddle fits the hole.

Now you may ask, "Well, where did the energy come from?" I don't know. I am happy admitting I don't. One reason could be a God or Gods - another could be a quantum fluctuation, or even the universe might not have had a begining (no boundary).

Yes, the Boeing 777 was completely designed by computer. But the computer didn't design it on its own, Intelligent Humans build the computer, built the program then told the program what to do and what kind of result they wanted in the end. It just showed them how to build what they wanted.

And this complex thing called intelligence could have come about through chemistry and energy from the sun.

Also, If all you keep telling me is to do more research, then I see you sitting high atop a throne of pride and arrogance. Why don't you go do more research into my ideas.

We've heard them all too often, and can instinctively pick out all the logical fallacies, errors, and strawmen the arguments make. It is arrogance in a sense, yes, because many of us when we see your arguments sometimes would rather not respond. It's like being told you're wrong for not believing in santa (because where do those presents come from? You can't explain them), and you just smile and nodd, toying with the person.

I've had enough brainwashing in school and university. I deprogrammed myself from this whole evolution BS.

It seems you also deprogrammed yourself of the knowledge of how evolution works.

Every argument i have with an evolutionist ends the same way. They turn in denial, don't address the ideas i present and suggest i do more reading.

They are tiered of people not doing their own research.

Screw you all I have my degrees and my education.

Perhaps, but from your strawment certainly not a degree in evolution.

But most important, the reason and intelligence that God bestowed on all of us as a blessing. And which i use to discover Him.

It could be. If he does exist then I am thankful for it.

I don't have blind faith in God, nor do i rely on Scripture. It's all in the sciences

Here's your basic fallacy of concluding God:

We don't know - therefor, God.

 

[mo.mentum]

Just out of spite I'm going to respond to this one:

TROLL TROLL!!

The universe has everything needed to produce lifeforms. I don't see how it would require design.

Ummm ya the Universe, from day one was very aware of what it will need to produce life. So it arranged its rate of expansion and how the fundemental energies would combinein order to form what is needed, right? So now the Universe designed itself as it was expanding? Or it was PURE luck and coincidence that it got to this stage?

“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.”
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History Of Time, Bantam Press, London: 1988, p. 121-125

From the time the universe was pure energy at the big bang, it had all the mechanisms necessary to reach the point we are at today, without intervention. The puddle fits the hole.

So the way all subatomic particles interact, to the way atoms form because of it, to the way molecules bind together as a conseuqnce, to the way these molecules can bring life...all that was predetermined in the Universe and has been running on its own ever since. Nevermind that every single orb in the Universe has its own path and orbit, all in great harmony, to the point that when galaxies collide, no stars within that galaxy collide.

Oh lets not forget that the equation which describes a spiral galaxy, also describes a tornado, a hurricane, a whirlpool, a snail's shell, etc etc etc But of course the Universe is smart.

Now you may ask, "Well, where did the energy come from?" I don't know. I am happy admitting I don't. One reason could be a God or Gods - another could be a quantum fluctuation, or even the universe might not have had a begining (no boundary).

Possible. But improbable.

And this complex thing called intelligence could have come about through chemistry and energy from the sun.

Ya? Tell that to the scientists studying the mind and consciousness. It seems the "I" is not restricted to the physical arrangement of neurons whatsoever! But in fact is based on holographic principles, ergo...consciousness is formed not by the chemical processes in your brain. Look it up, that needs an entire paper to explain.

We've heard them all too often, and can instinctively pick out all the logical fallacies, errors, and strawmen the arguments make. It is arrogance in a sense, yes, because many of us when we see your arguments sometimes would rather not respond. It's like being told you're wrong for not believing in santa (because where do those presents come from? You can't explain them), and you just smile and nodd, toying with the person.

You're working from the premise that your arguments are just as infaillable.

Here's your basic fallacy of concluding God:
We don't know - therefor, God.

No. My argument has always been that knowledge and science is what naturally increases our faith in God since He put those mechanisms there and they are testament to His Power and Majesty.

I believe in God because we do know! Science on its own is not a system of belief, but a method. That method can take you either way.

There's alot to say for Intelligent Design, you can't disregard it as an alternative just because it doesn't fit your conception of the Biblical Genesis. And I personally have no problem with science 'cause it never posed a problem for my Scripture.

thank you.

 

[vajradhara]

Namasate Vaj

And yes, the Qur'an isn't a book of science, but a Divine Revelation. Although it alludes to physical phenomenon in order to instigate man's reason and intellect. Such statements are sprinkled all throughout the book and serve as sign posts to direct the thoughts of the reader to the world around him and come to the natural conclusion that is intelligent design behind the harmony within the Universe.

The specific features stated may need twisting around in the English translation, but the Arabic original's wording is much more clear. In any case, the point is that Qur'anic statements have so far never been contradictory to science.

But that's not the point of this thread. But I love how Atheists like to take one detail they know they an argue on endlessly and forget all the other stuff. Oh well

Namaste mo,

oh... well... that was not at all clear... it seemed that the argument had moved into the science realm at this point in the discussion.

you say that no Qur'anic statements are contradictory to science... none, whatsoever, in any context?

off hand... the fact that your tradition posits a creator deity is a bit contradictory to science.... though perhaps not outrightly so.

to be honest with you, i find it rather spurious to say things like "in the English we may have to twist it, but in Arabic it's more clear." that may, in fact, be the case. however... Arab scientists are very conversant with scientific theories and so forth... even during the writing of the Qur'an. it would seem that the translation of things relating to science would be straight-forward.

no matter though really.. that God or Allah could have created the universe is not in dispute... there is simply no way to know the answer to this question at this point in time. as you know, there are 5 or 6 competing theories for how things came to be, one of those is God.

atheists are like everyone else... they speak from their position of knowledge.. this is not unusal behaivor at all, in my opinon.

 

[Charles Darwin]

TROLL TROLL!!

Because of course you dont come here and do any belief pushing yourself right?

Possible. But improbable.

Is it any less probably than some devine being looking over all the world and taking care of us and offering us an eternal resting place?

My argument has always been that knowledge and science is what naturally increases our faith in God since He put those mechanisms there and they are testament to His Power and Majesty.

He sure is going out of his way to make us think there might be another reason life is as it is, isnt he? Or maybe he's just having an extended April Fools Day...

I believe in God because we do know! Science on its own is not a system of belief, but a method. That method can take you either way.

If you admit the mathod can take you either way why do you argue so vehemently against atheism that is based on what science has shown us?