Islamic Creationist on facebook (tl;dr)

[Armand Tanzarian]

A "friend" of mine on facebook posted this, and I couldn't help respond due to the falsehoods she posted. Obviously she's a Muslim, but replace "Islam" with "Christianity" and you'll see it's exactly the same cowshit, and it'll become obvious why later.

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty.

He asks one of his new students to stand up.

Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold . Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable. )

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir. The link between man and God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving and alive.

This is a true story, and the student was none other than Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Founder of Pakistan.

Atheists usually use logic to defend their "faith".

Well, once you learn about science and mathematics, you find out that there are many things that your "small" brain cannot understand or only vaguely understand, yet the same concept or knowledge is understood perfectly by so many other "smart" people, have you ever experience that?

Now, your brain keep feeding you "ideas" that God does not exist. Here is one answer to such annoying thing coming from your own brain.

Tell your brain that it is smart enough to understand most things, yet not smart enough to understand certain scientific concepts or mathematical concepts. Your brain will concur for sure, unless you never encounter anything you don't understand (that only shows either you are super smart or just plain lazy to explore new ideas)

Then the next step is to tell your brain that they are many people who can understand perfectly the things that your brain failed to understand. Again, your brain will concur.

Now, time to wrap the argument. Since our brain cannot understand certain things or concepts does not mean the things or concepts are not right. Most probably, we just don't have enough intelligence to do so. Thus God existence is unquestionable due to the very nature of God being the infinite. Can anyone imagine how infinity looks like? No one can, yet we like to argue about the existence of God using our finite "brain". How pathetic.

I believe the reason Islam teaches us to be humble to God Almighty is because we are nothing compared to His infinite knowledge.

There you have it, tell that to your brain and it will understand.

This is my response.

Man, where do I begin.

1. This video will refute the "evil is the absence of good": www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M

2. We did not evolve from monkeys. We are apes. We're 99% chimpanzee as is.... Read More

3. Neuroscience has reasonably demonstrated the existence of a brain. We can see it with an EEG, or an X-Ray. It has been demonstrated that the brain is the center of thought. So no, science does NOT state the brain does not exist.

4. We have many, many cases of evolution and natural selection being observed. The 1918 Spanish Influenza virus and the current H1N1 virus are variants of the same virus. They evolved to survive better in birds, pigs and humans. Another case of evoution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

5. Actually, our minds WANT to believe in a God. We want to explain away what we don't know, thus insert the concept of God. We also want that security blanket of believing there is something bigger and higher than us.

Unfortunately I've heard this all too often from Christian creationists. It's full of non-arguments that characterize atheists and non-believers as stubborn and arrogant. So let's get this straight. There are a lot of things we don't know, and we're ready to admit that. Also, evolution and creationism, atheism and all-in belief in God are not the ... Read Moreonly alternatives. The only difference between us and the believer is we realize faith (knowing with no evidence) is not a good virtue; skepticism is. That's why we're atheists.

Her very long refutation.

Not everything in science can be touch and see or measured, one simple example in the concept of infinity. Infinity is represented by a symbol. It exists and everyone agrees it is so. It is ubiquitous in so many calculations and yet nobody have seen it, or can measure it, let alone touch it. Nobody can imagine it, yet like God Almighty, everyone ... Read Morewithout exception cannot disprove it does not exist.
I can also say Atheist are lazy, not wanting to give up their lives or afraid of being rejected by their family and friends and society in general. Maybe they are also afraid that if they accept the truth that there is no way back. I mean, it can be hard to realise that in the end you have to answer to your creator. Accepting God also means accepting that there is heaven and hell, certain obligations must be met and not relying on anything else but God. Also, we cannot forget what society and the media has been feeding people about religion. People nowadays just assumed without knowledge.

Humans have been on the earth for 250,000 years. Scientists have found the evidence supporting evolution from apes to homo-erectus (cave man).

To date, they still have not found the "missing link." Meaning right now, we have no scientific evidence (fossils, remains, etc.) to explain how homo-erectus became homosapien.

Does logic not set it at some point and say, "hmmmm...."... Read More

American public schools are just cleverly disguised churches of the Darwinist faith. Godless heathens all over this country will tell you they don't believe in anything, God, religion, modesty, etc. but the minute you say something about a possibility that the word of Charles Darwin may not be gospel its like telling a Star Wars fan that George Lucas is a hack.

To help make the point in his book, Comfort culled quotes from leading scientists who believe "nothing created everything," including British biologist and unofficial leader of the popular atheist movement, Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins, in his 2004 book "The Ancestor's Tale" wrote, "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."

Among others, Comfort cites physicist Robert A.J. Matthews of Ashton University in England, who wrote, "It is now becoming clear that everything can – and probably did – come from nothing."... Read More

American physicist Paul Davies of Arizona State University wrote, "Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific."

"The whole thought that nothing created everything is an intellectual embarrassment for atheists," Comfort told WND.

He writes in his book: "There's no way to say it kindly, but such thoughts show that the atheist doesn't think, and proves the Bible right when it says that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God.

"All you have to do is present unbiased facts about the unscientific and unthinking nature of atheistic evolution, and then watch people change their minds."... Read More

Full article...

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110293

[Vene]

Why not, I've got nothing better to do than address fundie stupidity.

Not everything in science can be touch and see or measured, one simple example in the concept of infinity. Infinity is represented by a symbol. It exists and everyone agrees it is so. It is ubiquitous in so many calculations and yet nobody have seen it, or can measure it, let alone touch it. Nobody can imagine it, yet like God Almighty, everyone ... Read Morewithout exception cannot disprove it does not exist.

Infinity is a MATHEMATICAL concept, not a scientific concept. Science uses math, sure, but it's not math and math is not science. And it's quite simple to prove infinity, you can always add a one to any number. This also works for negative infinity as you can always subtract one.

I can also say Atheist are lazy, not wanting to give up their lives or afraid of being rejected by their family and friends and society in general. Maybe they are also afraid that if they accept the truth that there is no way back. I mean, it can be hard to realise that in the end you have to answer to your creator. Accepting God also means accepting that there is heaven and hell, certain obligations must be met and not relying on anything else but God. Also, we cannot forget what society and the media has been feeding people about religion. People nowadays just assumed without knowledge.

Said to the atheist living in a predominately religious society.

Humans have been on the earth for 250,000 years. Scientists have found the evidence supporting evolution from apes to homo-erectus (cave man).

To date, they still have not found the "missing link." Meaning right now, we have no scientific evidence (fossils, remains, etc.) to explain how homo-erectus became homosapien.

It's called genetics, we can look at the DNA and proteins and use the same techniques used to determine guilt or parenthood in a court in order to determine the ancestry of a species.

Also, here's a couple of organisms between H. erectus and H. sapiens.

H. georgicus
H. antecessor
Also, another fun wiki link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

American public schools are just cleverly disguised churches of the Darwinist faith. Godless heathens all over this country will tell you they don't believe in anything, God, religion, modesty, etc. but the minute you say something about a possibility that the word of Charles Darwin may not be gospel its like telling a Star Wars fan that George Lucas is a hack.

Nope, Darwin was wrong, for example, he fails at genetics. Partially because the science didn't even exist when he was alive.

To help make the point in his book, Comfort culled quotes from leading scientists who believe "nothing created everything," including British biologist and unofficial leader of the popular atheist movement, Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins, in his 2004 book "The Ancestor's Tale" wrote, "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."

Sorry, this fails at such a spectacular level that I can only sit here and stare at it.

Among others, Comfort cites physicist Robert A.J. Matthews of Ashton University in England, who wrote, "It is now becoming clear that everything can – and probably did – come from nothing."... Read More

American physicist Paul Davies of Arizona State University wrote, "Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific."

"The whole thought that nothing created everything is an intellectual embarrassment for atheists," Comfort told WND.

To which I have one thing to say, 'Bananaman!'

He writes in his book: "There's no way to say it kindly, but such thoughts show that the atheist doesn't think, and proves the Bible right when it says that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God.

I could list various atheists like Turing or Watson or, here's a good one, Peter Medawer. Medawar being the man who discovered how the immune system works with organ transplants and is responsible for saving thousands to millions of lives.

"All you have to do is present unbiased facts about the unscientific and unthinking nature of atheistic evolution, and then watch people change their minds."... Read More

Full article...

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110293

Did I mention that organ transplants are based on evolution? I think I should.

[Thejebusfire]

American public schools are just cleverly disguised churches of the Darwinist faith. Godless heathens all over this country will tell you they don't believe in anything, God, religion, modesty, etc. but the minute you say something about a possibility that the word of Charles Darwin may not be gospel its like telling a Star Wars fan that George Lucas is a hack.

:facepalm:

[Mira]

Darwin was wrong about many a things. People who are ahead of their time must speculate on many aspects of things, and are thus wrong on many things.

Also, as a Star Wars fan, George Lucas is a hack who fluked the foundations of a good franchise together.

[Oriet]

...like telling a Star Wars fan that George Lucas is a hack.

Hey, I'm a Star Wars fan and readily admit that Lucas is a hack! It was all the other people involved in the original trilogy that made it good.

[Old Viking]

Sparkling with insights. Zzzzzzzz.

[Jedi Knight]

@mira & Oriet: How true! I mean, mitochlorians? And Jar Jar Binks?!? And of course, my personal favorite: Pasting Hayden Christensen into the final scene of "Return of the Jedi."

[Damen]

Sept 28, 2009 16:17:13 GMT -5 Jedi Knight said:

@mira & Oriet: How true! I mean, mitochlorians? And Jar Jar Binks?!? And of course, my personal favorite: Pasting Hayden Christensen into the final scene of "Return of the Jedi."

Don't forget, Han shot first...and was the only one to shoot.

[Armand Tanzarian]

One more round. This is me.

My dear, World Net Daily is a propaganda site run by American conservatives who've also been pushing the notion that Obama is a Muslim not born in the USA, even though they themselves have verified his birth certificate. And Comfort is an unscrupulous snake oil salesman who's been doctoring Darwin's Origin of Species and giving them away without ... Read Moretelling people. These same people have been condemning Islam as a false truth since 2001. And the idea that "nothing created everything" is a quote-mined non-truth.

Darwinism is not a faith. It is arrived at via over 2 centuries of observation, study, and conclusion. We don't take it at face value because we've read the facts and realized it is the best explanation of the diversity of life. Faith is when you take something without evidence.My dear, World Net Daily is a propaganda site run by American conservatives who've also been pushing the notion that Obama is a Muslim not born in the USA, even though they themselves have verified his birth certificate. And Comfort is an unscrupulous snake oil salesman who's been doctoring Darwin's Origin of Species and giving them away without ... Read Moretelling people. These same people have been condemning Islam as a false truth since 2001. And the idea that "nothing created everything" is a quote-mined non-truth.

Darwinism is not a faith. It is arrived at via over 2 centuries of observation, study, and conclusion. We don't take it at face value because we've read the facts and realized it is the best explanation of the diversity of life. Faith is when you take something without evidence.

Also, I just cited 2 "missing links" in my 1st response. We are all links in the great chain of evolution. We are transitional entities as we change in response to the mixing of genes of our parents as well as minor mutations in our own DNA. It's a ridiculous notion to try and find every fossil of every being that was once our father and mother, and a non-argument heaped on by creationists to get scientists to do the impossible.

The creationist's response. Keep in mind there are more people in this thread whose responses (all atheists and on my side) I will not copy.

"if there is any God out there"
You seem skeptical. At least, you ponder on that thought. Point is, without there being a Creator, where did you come from? Either we are the creators or we are created. Logically and religiously i understand and accept the latter. Everything serves a purpose. It's not possible for such a All-Wise Creator to have ... Read Morecreated everything and then left us here with no guidelines to follow. What you consider right could be wrong in my eyes and vice versa. Without rules, we'ld be living in chaos yet you would rather follow man-made laws than to accept that there is a divine Creator who laid down laws for us. Animals were given 'desire but no reason', we are given 'desires n reason', angels have 'no desire n full reason'. So, depends on how you live, you either follow your own whims n desires as gods OR reason (according to God's legislation). And since we are not animals n neither angels, we commit sins and can repent.

And it might be a far-fetched idea to grasp for some but atheists also worship gods; their own desires and reasoning. Worship doesn't simply mean believing that in a Creator cuz many agnostics also believe that. But worship is more than just "supplicating", it is dependance, reverence, fear, hope, sacrifice. <- And all that, an atheist does.

I liked what Zelia said, "Yes, I am skeptical. Because human nature is based on doubts and questioning and that's what's beautiful.". That in which is true, we humans have free will and a brilliant mind. That is what separates us from other living being, be it apes or whatnot. We have great civilisation that we can traced back using science. It ... Read Morejust irks me when people are trying to separate religion from science. I cannot speak for other religions but I can say based on mine, every practice has a scientific, psychological and spiritual reasoning behind it and I find that most beautiful. It would be such a shame if you spend your whole life worshipping and yet you don't have any knowledge about it or know the purpose behind it. There is also scientific evidence in the Quran and a scientific reason behind prayer, the movement, the duration and the words that we say. A scientific reason for fasting. All of which would mean nothing if you never want to learn the reason behind it.

And yes, I do believe all humans have spirituality in them. We have a spiritual bond with each other and other living things. Not to forget we have such an amazing mind which we can use to research and learn because the world is filled with endless knowledge. Eventhough I can't see or hear God, but I believe that all of things around me is a ... Read Moreblueprint of His presence. And I also believe that there's a reason why we're living, not to just waste life away. And by no means am I implying that a have a super knowledge regarding everything, I'm still learning and have long way to go You know, there's always 2 sides to a coin and the debate about this would be an endless one and I don't want to create tension or anything. So let's just call it a day and respect each others beliefs. Thank you =)

[Armand Tanzarian]

She deleted the note. I saved the falsehoods just in time.

[Jedi Knight]

First, I notice how she ignores your refutations.

"Either we are creators or we are created. Logically and religiously I understand and accept the latter." This sounds like a special case of the false dilemma. She actually denies that there may be understandings of existence that doesn't require a creator.
Also, The irony is thick when creationists appeal to reason. She claims there is scientific evidence in the Quran, I would ask her to provide this evidence.
There's a perfectly good reason why religion and science should be kept apart. Science needs to be free to arrive at its own conclusions. Whenever they are mixed, religion tends to dictate what science can claim, because science is by nature changing (Dare I say evolving?), while religion is conservative.

[Damen]

Sept 29, 2009 2:17:19 GMT -5 Jedi Knight said:

while religion is conservative stagnant.

Fixed it for you.

[Undecided]

Sept 28, 2009 15:08:35 GMT -5 Vene said:

Why not, I've got nothing better to do than address fundie stupidity.

Not everything in science can be touch and see or measured, one simple example in the concept of infinity. Infinity is represented by a symbol. It exists and everyone agrees it is so. It is ubiquitous in so many calculations and yet nobody have seen it, or can measure it, let alone touch it. Nobody can imagine it, yet like God Almighty, everyone ... Read Morewithout exception cannot disprove it does not exist.

Infinity is a MATHEMATICAL concept, not a scientific concept. Science uses math, sure, but it's not math and math is not science. And it's quite simple to prove infinity, you can always add a one to any number. This also works for negative infinity as you can always subtract one.

Not to be too troublesome, but fields like logic, computer science and mathematics are so integral to science today that I am inclined to ascribe them to a category of formal sciences akin to the natural and social sciences. Obviously, the derivation of true statements in these fields is completely different from the natural sciences (deductive v. inductive), and I know exactly what you mean when you say that they are not science, but calling such fields "not science" leaves them at risk of being called unscientific, allows crackpots and pseudoscience to proliferate in the sanctioned absence of formalism, etc.

Also, be careful. There are number systems where each number has a number after it and the essential rules of arithmetic apply, and yet the system is finite. For the simplest example, take {0,1}, and make the following definitions:

The number after 0 is 1.
The number after 1 is 0.
0+0=0. 0+1=1. 1+0=1. 1+1=0.
0*0=0. 0*1=0. 1*0=0. 1*1=1.
0^0=1. 0^1=0. 1^0=1. 1^1=0.

This system is just like the whole numbers, except that it only has two elements. What makes your particular incarnation of infinity work, then, is that each number is different from the whole numbers preceding it. The problem is that this idea cannot be encoded without invoking some concept of infinity: namely, one must make reference to the set of all whole numbers. The end result is that we must include an Axiom of Infinity with the rest of our mathematical axioms in order to have infinities show up in our mathematics. Really, then, nobody can "prove" infinity: you have to add it to your mathematical system by hand.

It's nitpicky clarifications like these which keep mathematicians in the science business.

[Mantorok]

Sept 28, 2009 15:29:48 GMT -5 Oriet said:

Hey, I'm a Star Wars fan and readily admit that Lucas is a hack! It was all the other people involved in the original trilogy that made it good.

Like Lawrence Kasdan, who wrote the screenplays for Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi (as well as Raiders of the Lost Ark).

[Tiger]

Sept 28, 2009 15:08:35 GMT -5 Vene said:

Did I mention that organ transplants are based on evolution? I think I should.

Elaboration, please.

Also, are there any Star Wars fans who DON'T consider George Lucas a complete and total hack? George Lucas is pretty much the worst example they could have picked if they're trying to imply rabid, slavering devotion.