Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

so we are reverting now to the idea that life isnt life, its just a series of chemical reactions?

I am not a scientist, however someone who understands it, has addressed this issue in response to a website post about the idea of "Life Arises Constantly from non living matter:

boammaaruri says:
March 13, 2018 at 04:19

"The properties of living matter are irreducible to chemical properties. Reductionism in biology has been demonstrated philosophically to be untenable. Michael Polanyi wrote an excellent article in Chemical Engineering News and the journal Science about 50 years ago on this topic. (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/polanyi/Polanyi_Life_Structures.pdf).
Below is my own illustration of the proposition that the chemical facts of DNA do not determine the symbolic and semantic facts of DNA.
Imagine giving a DNA strand such as (CGCAGC) to a biochemist who knows all about the genetic code and asking them to tell you which amino acids are represented by the DNA strand. The problem is they could give you all of the physiochemical properties about the DNA strand such as its molecular weight, bond angles and bond lengths, type of bonds, activation energy to break the bonds however when it came to telling you which amino acids are represented by the DNA strand there are a number of possible interpretations all equally possible but mutually exclusive.
First interpretation could be [CGC] is Arginine and [AGC] is Serine. Second interpretation could be the strand is broken in between a codon and that C[GCA]GC only represents one amino acid. Therefore in this case GCA is Alanine. Third interpretation could be the strand contains one codon starting from the third nucleotide CG[CAG]C and in this case (CAG) is Glutamine.
There are other interpretations possible such as the codon should be read backwards instead. Perhaps the strand does not represent any amino acids because it was created from scratch in a lab rather than being taken from an organism. One could argue that of course the context is required to understand the meaning of it – but then that is precisely the point that things such as context, representation and interpretation do not apply to chemical properties and laws. The main point is that the physical facts are indeterminate with regards to the information content. There are a number of different possible interpretations of what the nucleotides represent even though in all possible interpretations the chemical and physical properties, as well as the molecules involved are exactly the same. This demonstrates that the symbolic representation of amino acids by nucleotides is not identical and is not determined by the chemical and physical properties of the chemicals.



I agree – you can make a protein using a cell-free protein synthesis kit with a DNA strand. The biomechanics of the process are not in question (although one could argue as Polanyi does that biochemical machines are irreducible to chemical laws – but that is an argument for another day). To use an analogy. The meaning of a word in a book is not determined by the physical properties of the ink and paper. The fact that you can make a copy of that book with all its words using a physical photo-copying machine does nothing to change the fact that the meaning of words is not determined by and reducible to chemical laws such as covalent bonds and bond angles. Similarly the fact that a set of nucleotides represents another molecule (an amino acid in this case) is not a chemical property but a semantic property. No one disputes that the chemistry is necessary for protein synthesis from DNA, anymore than anyone denies that creating a book made from paper and ink is a physical process."

He bases his argument on a severely outdated work. Life does appear to be purely chemical in nature. No one has found evidence to the contrary. Instead we only find more and more evidence that it is chemical. Very complex chemistry, but still just chemical in nature. Do you not realize how the author that he referred to had no clue at all?

 

[Audie]

If creation ministries quote is wrong, would it not be appropriate to show an example of spontaneous generation of a lifeform?

As far as I can tell, the whole idea was dumped because the theory is simply false. That is fundamentally bad for the entire secular evolutionary world veiw

Is this a parody of creationist thinking?

 

[Audie]

so we are reverting now to the idea that life isnt life, its just a series of chemical reactions?

I am not a scientist, however someone who understands it, has addressed this issue in response to a website post about the idea of "Life Arises Constantly from non living matter:

boammaaruri says:
March 13, 2018 at 04:19

"The properties of living matter are irreducible to chemical properties. Reductionism in biology has been demonstrated philosophically to be untenable. Michael Polanyi wrote an excellent article in Chemical Engineering News and the journal Science about 50 years ago on this topic. (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/polanyi/Polanyi_Life_Structures.pdf).
Below is my own illustration of the proposition that the chemical facts of DNA do not determine the symbolic and semantic facts of DNA.
Imagine giving a DNA strand such as (CGCAGC) to a biochemist who knows all about the genetic code and asking them to tell you which amino acids are represented by the DNA strand. The problem is they could give you all of the physiochemical properties about the DNA strand such as its molecular weight, bond angles and bond lengths, type of bonds, activation energy to break the bonds however when it came to telling you which amino acids are represented by the DNA strand there are a number of possible interpretations all equally possible but mutually exclusive.
First interpretation could be [CGC] is Arginine and [AGC] is Serine. Second interpretation could be the strand is broken in between a codon and that C[GCA]GC only represents one amino acid. Therefore in this case GCA is Alanine. Third interpretation could be the strand contains one codon starting from the third nucleotide CG[CAG]C and in this case (CAG) is Glutamine.
There are other interpretations possible such as the codon should be read backwards instead. Perhaps the strand does not represent any amino acids because it was created from scratch in a lab rather than being taken from an organism. One could argue that of course the context is required to understand the meaning of it – but then that is precisely the point that things such as context, representation and interpretation do not apply to chemical properties and laws. The main point is that the physical facts are indeterminate with regards to the information content. There are a number of different possible interpretations of what the nucleotides represent even though in all possible interpretations the chemical and physical properties, as well as the molecules involved are exactly the same. This demonstrates that the symbolic representation of amino acids by nucleotides is not identical and is not determined by the chemical and physical properties of the chemicals.



I agree – you can make a protein using a cell-free protein synthesis kit with a DNA strand. The biomechanics of the process are not in question (although one could argue as Polanyi does that biochemical machines are irreducible to chemical laws – but that is an argument for another day). To use an analogy. The meaning of a word in a book is not determined by the physical properties of the ink and paper. The fact that you can make a copy of that book with all its words using a physical photo-copying machine does nothing to change the fact that the meaning of words is not determined by and reducible to chemical laws such as covalent bonds and bond angles. Similarly the fact that a set of nucleotides represents another molecule (an amino acid in this case) is not a chemical property but a semantic property. No one disputes that the chemistry is necessary for protein synthesis from DNA, anymore than anyone denies that creating a book made from paper and ink is a physical process."

Terrif. Where's his Nobel for disproving
evolution ?

 

[Polymath257]

so we are reverting now to the idea that life isnt life, its just a series of chemical reactions?

Yes.

I am not a scientist, however someone who understands it, has addressed this issue in response to a website post about the idea of "Life Arises Constantly from non living matter:

boammaaruri says:
March 13, 2018 at 04:19

"The properties of living matter are irreducible to chemical properties. Reductionism in biology has been demonstrated philosophically to be untenable. Michael Polanyi wrote an excellent article in Chemical Engineering News and the journal Science about 50 years ago on this topic. (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/polanyi/Polanyi_Life_Structures.pdf).
Below is my own illustration of the proposition that the chemical facts of DNA do not determine the symbolic and semantic facts of DNA.
Imagine giving a DNA strand such as (CGCAGC) to a biochemist who knows all about the genetic code and asking them to tell you which amino acids are represented by the DNA strand. The problem is they could give you all of the physiochemical properties about the DNA strand such as its molecular weight, bond angles and bond lengths, type of bonds, activation energy to break the bonds however when it came to telling you which amino acids are represented by the DNA strand there are a number of possible interpretations all equally possible but mutually exclusive.
First interpretation could be [CGC] is Arginine and [AGC] is Serine. Second interpretation could be the strand is broken in between a codon and that C[GCA]GC only represents one amino acid. Therefore in this case GCA is Alanine. Third interpretation could be the strand contains one codon starting from the third nucleotide CG[CAG]C and in this case (CAG) is Glutamine.
There are other interpretations possible such as the codon should be read backwards instead. Perhaps the strand does not represent any amino acids because it was created from scratch in a lab rather than being taken from an organism. One could argue that of course the context is required to understand the meaning of it – but then that is precisely the point that things such as context, representation and interpretation do not apply to chemical properties and laws. The main point is that the physical facts are indeterminate with regards to the information content. There are a number of different possible interpretations of what the nucleotides represent even though in all possible interpretations the chemical and physical properties, as well as the molecules involved are exactly the same. This demonstrates that the symbolic representation of amino acids by nucleotides is not identical and is not determined by the chemical and physical properties of the chemicals.



I agree – you can make a protein using a cell-free protein synthesis kit with a DNA strand. The biomechanics of the process are not in question (although one could argue as Polanyi does that biochemical machines are irreducible to chemical laws – but that is an argument for another day). To use an analogy. The meaning of a word in a book is not determined by the physical properties of the ink and paper. The fact that you can make a copy of that book with all its words using a physical photo-copying machine does nothing to change the fact that the meaning of words is not determined by and reducible to chemical laws such as covalent bonds and bond angles. Similarly the fact that a set of nucleotides represents another molecule (an amino acid in this case) is not a chemical property but a semantic property. No one disputes that the chemistry is necessary for protein synthesis from DNA, anymore than anyone denies that creating a book made from paper and ink is a physical process."

And what *does* distinguish between these possibilities is the chemical reaction between, first, the enzymes that transcribe DNA to RNA, and then, the interaction of that mRNA and the transfer RNA in the ribosome. It is the chemical reactions that determine which 'frame' is used for the decoding and also chemical reactions to link the codon to the particular amino acid.

This has been taken advantage of by making an artificial tRNA and an artificial nucleotide, which allows for the coding of a non-standard amino acid and thereby proteins with new properties. It's all chemical.

 

[Audie]

Yes.

And what *does* distinguish between these possibilities is the chemical reaction between, first, the enzymes that transcribe DNA to RNA, and then, the interaction of that mRNA and the transfer RNA in the ribosome. It is the chemical reactions that determine which 'frame' is used for the decoding and also chemical reactions to link the codon to the particular amino acid.

This has been taken advantage of by making an artificial tRNA and an artificial nucleotide, which allows for the coding of a non-standard amino acid and thereby proteins with new properties. It's all chemical.

What? No... Vital Force?
Next you'll claim there's no phlogiston.

 

[gnostic]

so we are reverting now to the idea that life isnt life, its just a series of chemical reactions?

I am not a scientist, however someone who understands it, has addressed this issue in response to a website post about the idea of "Life Arises Constantly from non living matter:

Among multicellular organisms (eg kingdoms of animals, plants & fungi), large parts of the body structure, comprised of tissues.

for instances, among vertebrate animals, these tissues are the make of all muscle tissues, connective tissues, nerve tissues & epithelial tissues (eg skin). And these various tissues are made of cells. And these cells are made of a number of different types of large biological molecules (or macromolecules), which among macromolecules that within all cells:

• proteins
• nucleic acids (eg DNA, RNA)
• carbohydrates
• lipids

Those tissues that were talking about earlier, are largely made of proteins.

In human body, the most abundant biological (or organic) molecules is proteins, which make up about 20% of body mass, follow by 12% of lipids (body fat). RNA is only 1% and DNA 0.1%. And ab 65% of human body mass are made of water, however water (H2O) by itself is actually inorganic molecule, not organic!

Now, you had mentioned “chemical reactions”.

I am sure you have heard of metabolism before, @AdamjEdgar , unless you have failed basic high school biology.

Do you know what metabolism is? Do you know it work?

I think instead of explaining it, let me give you example, which may be easier to illustrate how metabolism works.

take for instance, humans eat their food. The food should contains some nutrients: proteins, carbohydrates, natural vitamins % minerals, etc. We break down by chewing, and further breakdown as the food moved through digestive system, including acids from stomach, and so forth, through the intestines before we pooped it out.

But as the digestive system breakdown the food, it also the extract whatever nutrients it can, in the meantimes, the proteins known as enzyme cause chemical reactions, which among them convert the nutrients into some forms of carbohydrates, which you would know as sugars or glucose (C6H12O6).

Carbohydrates are the main sources of energy. Your body requires to store these energy, which you would use, whenever you or your body parts (eg muscles flexing, heart pumping blood, etc) do some activities.

Plants, use photosynthesis, in which sunlight help as a catalyst for chemical reaction of carbon dioxide & water, convert to oxygen and starch. Starch is the carbohydrate that provide energy to living plants. And as we eat plants, we get lots of carbohydrates, especially from wheat, rice, potatoes, etc, which are rich in starch/glucose.

And metabolism isn’t just about converting into carbohydrates. Metabolism are required for growth and for healing. All of that are chemistry.

So, the oxygen (O2) in the air that you breath in, go through your lungs, then taken all parts of your body, also provide energy to cells, just as glucose do. The oxygen will pick up carbon after the cells get their energy boost, chemically converting the air into carbon dioxide (CO2) when you breath out.

And so are reproduction, that chemistry too. How do you think two gamete cells - sperm and ovum (or egg) - combined to form one single cell, the zygote? Fertilisation is chemistry. And so is when the zygote cell, divide, making up more cells. More cells are made to eventually form the embryos. More cells are produce body parts of the fetus. All of that involved chemistry.

But whether it be organic matters or molecules, or inorganic matters or molecules - the tissues and cells wouldn't exist at all, without chemical molecules and chemical reactions.

So, yes, AdamjEdgar, chemistry is very important for every single living organisms, even among bacteria. And metabolism are essential for every living organisms. Without chemistry, you wouldn’t even be alive.

 

[shunyadragon]

@Neuropterons never claimed that spontaneous generation is true. His point is simply that at the time Darwin was working on his theory, he was not aware that spontaneous generation is false. How could he if he already published the origin of species in the same year when Louis Pasteur did his experiment in 1859?

At Darwin’s time it was understood that the emergence of relatively complex life such as maggots or fleas could arise from nonliving matter regularly and relatively quickly. They didn’t have any awareness of the complexity of the living systems.

Before Louis Pasteur experiment in 1859, Darwin thought that life is something simple that can get spontaneously generated in a warm little pond and then diversify.

I do not see how old views of Darwin and Pasteur are relevant to the sciences of evolution and consciousness today. The problem with 'arguing from ignorance' as to what scientific knowledge demonstrates today it does not get anywhere constructive. I would like to deal with where science is today and where we are going with new advances. As far as Darwin and Pasteur go they based their knowledge on what was available to them at the time.

The existing knowledge of science is sufficient to explain the relationship between the physical brain, intelligence and consciousness. At present there is no other explanation available that addresses the current state of scientific knowledge.

 

[shunyadragon]

the original point was ... Pastuer was a skeptic of Charles Darwin and was a creationist! Pastuer did not believe at all in the idea that life could come spontaneously and he directly challenged that idea from the outset. Creation ministries research of his studies found that... "microbes were not spontaneously generated from the broth itself. Microbes would only appear in the broth if they were allowed in with the air. He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves."’2

It remains the science and beliefs of Charles Darwin and Pasteur are oldy moldy, and not really relevant today except were indeed pioneers in their fields. Let's deal with science today.

Science today DOES NOT propose life arose spontaneously. I actually do not believe Charles Darwin proposed this. His proposal and theory were that life and evolution were a product of Natural Laws and natural processes

Charles Darwin’s hunch about early life was probably right

In a few scrawled notes to a friend, biologist Charles Darwin theorised how life began. It might be one of science’s greatest hunches.

www.bbc.com

"Darwin was proposing that life began, not in the open ocean, but in a smaller body of water on land, which was rich in chemicals. This is in essence the primordial soup idea, but with one advantage: in a pool, any dissolved chemicals would become concentrated when water evaporated in the heat of the day."

Darwin's proposal was not the best one proposed today that life began in ocean seafloor vents at the continental spreading zones at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Valjean]

AdamjEdgar said:
If creation ministries quote is wrong, would it not be appropriate to show an example of spontaneous generation of a lifeform?

How about self-replicating molecules and life-structures?
Life vs non-life is a false dilemma. There's a spectrum of 'aliveness' between an organic molecule or a component of life, and an actual living organism. The point at which something can be considered alive is arbitrary, not black-or-white.

As far as I can tell, the whole idea was dumped because the theory is simply false. That is fundamentally bad for the entire secular evolutionary world view

The original examples thought to evidence spontaneous generation were debunked centuries ago. No further evidence of spontaneous generation of complex organisms has been discovered; and there is no known mechanism by which it could occur. That's why the proposition was dropped.

These don't apply to abiogenisis by "chemical evolution."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Spontaneous generation was a creationist belief that whole, fully formed organisms could be transmuted from non-living or inanimate material. Meat to flies. Straw to mice. It wasn't even a laughable example of abiogenesis which doesn't claim that whole organisms arise fully formed from chemistry.

Abiogenesis is science. Spontaneous generation is magic.

And Francesco Redi provided the first evidence refuting spontaneous generation in 1668. I can't say what Darwin knew of the works of Redi, but attempts to claim Darwin must have been unaware that spontaneous generation had been challenged as if that ignorance were an immutable fact are ridiculous. Darwin was well-educated and well-informed about the state of biology of his times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

so we are reverting now to the idea that life isnt life, its just a series of chemical reactions?

I am not a scientist, however someone who understands it, has addressed this issue in response to a website post about the idea of "Life Arises Constantly from non living matter:

boammaaruri says:
March 13, 2018 at 04:19

"The properties of living matter are irreducible to chemical properties. Reductionism in biology has been demonstrated philosophically to be untenable. Michael Polanyi wrote an excellent article in Chemical Engineering News and the journal Science about 50 years ago on this topic. (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/polanyi/Polanyi_Life_Structures.pdf).
Below is my own illustration of the proposition that the chemical facts of DNA do not determine the symbolic and semantic facts of DNA.
Imagine giving a DNA strand such as (CGCAGC) to a biochemist who knows all about the genetic code and asking them to tell you which amino acids are represented by the DNA strand. The problem is they could give you all of the physiochemical properties about the DNA strand such as its molecular weight, bond angles and bond lengths, type of bonds, activation energy to break the bonds however when it came to telling you which amino acids are represented by the DNA strand there are a number of possible interpretations all equally possible but mutually exclusive.
First interpretation could be [CGC] is Arginine and [AGC] is Serine. Second interpretation could be the strand is broken in between a codon and that C[GCA]GC only represents one amino acid. Therefore in this case GCA is Alanine. Third interpretation could be the strand contains one codon starting from the third nucleotide CG[CAG]C and in this case (CAG) is Glutamine.
There are other interpretations possible such as the codon should be read backwards instead. Perhaps the strand does not represent any amino acids because it was created from scratch in a lab rather than being taken from an organism. One could argue that of course the context is required to understand the meaning of it – but then that is precisely the point that things such as context, representation and interpretation do not apply to chemical properties and laws. The main point is that the physical facts are indeterminate with regards to the information content. There are a number of different possible interpretations of what the nucleotides represent even though in all possible interpretations the chemical and physical properties, as well as the molecules involved are exactly the same. This demonstrates that the symbolic representation of amino acids by nucleotides is not identical and is not determined by the chemical and physical properties of the chemicals.



I agree – you can make a protein using a cell-free protein synthesis kit with a DNA strand. The biomechanics of the process are not in question (although one could argue as Polanyi does that biochemical machines are irreducible to chemical laws – but that is an argument for another day). To use an analogy. The meaning of a word in a book is not determined by the physical properties of the ink and paper. The fact that you can make a copy of that book with all its words using a physical photo-copying machine does nothing to change the fact that the meaning of words is not determined by and reducible to chemical laws such as covalent bonds and bond angles. Similarly the fact that a set of nucleotides represents another molecule (an amino acid in this case) is not a chemical property but a semantic property. No one disputes that the chemistry is necessary for protein synthesis from DNA, anymore than anyone denies that creating a book made from paper and ink is a physical process."

Interesting. You confess you are not a scientist and allude that you don't understand the facts, yet feel capable in your position to determine that a couple of paragraphs written by an anonymous stranger with no obvious credentials has refuted all the claims based on the evidence and observations. And the writing of this mysterious stranger just happens to reflect the view you want to find. How fortunate for you to stumble into this revelation without the benefit of knowing anything.

My question is, if you don't have the knowledge and don't know what this anonymous stranger is saying, how can you know they did anything or that their explanation has any meaning. Please explain to me what is being said so that I can understand it too.

 

[LIIA]

According to anyone that understands the concept.

If this were the case, you would be the only one in the world who understands the concept. Keep searching.

 

[LIIA]

You never did answer as to what you think that you are.

I’m not you.

 

[LIIA]

Perhaps it had it had its rise through Islam

Yes, it did.

fundamentalism, the disease that you appear to have as well, that was a key factor, but not the only one in its decline.

Forget about me (it’s not your concern) and any alleged reasons of the decline. It’s totally irrelevant to the undeniable fact that there was a golden age, and it did great contributions to the betterment of humanity.

But he might as well have been talking about attitudes like yours.

It’s the other way around; Müller was talking about the attitudes against the challenges/criticism of the ToE, just like yours.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Controversy over the details in science does not abolish theory. None of the assumptions underpinning the theory of evolution have been invalidated. Quote mining Denis Noble's opinion doesn't falsify the theory of evolution. Denis Noble says can be repeated ad nauseum, but that won't falsify the theory.

 

[LIIA]

That God is a "necessary being" is merely an empty claim.

No, it’s not. It’s based on deductive logical reasoning from general idea to specific conclusion. You just don’t/can’t get it. See # 7678

Darwin's Illusion | Page 384 | Religious Forums

And # 132 of the thread "Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists”

Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists | Page 7 | Religious Forums

To bad that they have never shown that to be the case.

They did. History acknowledged the role of the golden age for the establishment of the scientific method and overall betterment of humanity. You’re either ignorant of it or deliberately try to conceal the facts. Regardless, it’s a verifiable historical fact.

Perhaps that is the reason for the immoral excesses of so many Islamic faiths.

I get you’re Anti-Islam and understand nothing about the concept of morality in Islam but how is your disgusting ignorance relevant to the historical facts of the golden age?

But it did not say that. You are misstating. Some people said that it lasted much longer, reality disagrees with those people. You seem to think that his fundamentalism should have caused an instant decline, that is not the case. But he was the bad seed that led o quite a bit of science denial that Islam has not fully recovered from.

All what you’re really trying to say is that Islam is equal to fundamentalism and all Muslims are fundamentalists. It's a silly claim out of ignorance but again, how is your disgusting ignorance relevant to the historical facts of the golden age?

Even for the sake of argument if you claim that fundamentalism (however you understand it) is the reason of decline, which is not true, then you necessarily acknowledge that fundamentalism is a change/deviation to Islam.

Regardless, history acknowledges the Islamic Golden Age from the 8th to the 13th century, the decline did happen but "why it happened?" is irrelevant to my point with respect to the undeniable contributions of that era for the betterment of humanity.

Yet you have tried to claim that Islam's effects were greater than they actually were and you seem to ignore the decline of reason among Muslims.

Your empty denial is not driven by the fact of history but rather your ignorant racism against Islam.

History attributes the Islamic Golden Age to the influence of Islam itself that extended to all aspects of life within the Islamic empire; see the link below under “Causes”.

On the other hand, history attributes the end of the Islamic Golden Age mainly to the destruction of Baghdad and the House of Wisdom by the Mongol. See the link below under “Decline”.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

Wow! You appear to be still conflating spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.

At a fundamental level, both are about the emergence of the living from the nonliving. One is proven false and the other was never proven true.

Spontaneous generation is about the emergence of complex life through a quick process. Aabiogenesis is about the emergence of a hypothesized simple life through an extremely slow process.

Now we know for a fact that there is no such thing as simple life, and we also know that there is no such thing as nonliving organic molecules that keep increasing in complexity slowly over a long period of time, without getting decomposed /disintegrated.

You think that the claim of slow/gradual process of abiogenesis is mainly what makes it possible/logical and ignore the undeniable fact that time is the enemy of such imagined slow process. No simple organic molecule of any kind would stay intact/persist for millions of years waiting to get more complex or for a chance to transform into macromolecules (such as proteins and nucleic acids). It will always disintegrate very quickly, always. Even if hypothetically speaking a simple nonliving organic molecule managed to transform into a complex macromolecule through some unknown means, it would quickly disintegrate (within few weeks) without any chance to increase further in complexity.

There is no route from nonliving matter to complex living system. That is why abiogenesis was never established as a scientific theory.

 

[LIIA]

But the decline started before the rise of the Ottomans. It was in full force by at least the 12th century.

The question of “when did the decline start” is irrelevant with respect to the golden age contributions for the betterment of humanity.

Regardless, even after the decline started, the great contributions continued including the contributions of the Ottoman Empire as explained in #7840.

Science and technology in the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

Islam of the 10th century wasn't unified. Andalusia (Spain) was politically and philosophically different than the regime in Baghdad, not to mention the Sunni/Shia split. So, while the expansion of Islam happened very fast and produced a large empire, that empire split up quickly as well.

Claimed exceptions don’t justify a rule. The majority of the Islamic world at that time was unified under one Islamic empire that lasted for centuries. Baghdad was the largest city in the world and the cultural/commercial capital of the Islamic world tell it was destroyed by the Mongol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If this were the case, you would be the only one in the world who understands the concept. Keep searching.

LOL! No, I am tempted to say that you are the only one that does not understand it, but sadly that applies to almost all cerationists.

I’m not you.

I am a human being. You keep claiming that you are not one. What do you think that you are? Maybe we can eliminate some wrong answers. Do you think that you are an animal?

Yes, it did.

You need to provide evidence for it. That the people happened to be Muslims is not evidence that it was Islam that led to this.

Forget about me (it’s not your concern) and any alleged reasons of the decline. It’s totally irrelevant to the undeniable fact that there was a golden age, and it did great contributions to the betterment of humanity.

Great? That may be stretching it quite a bit.

It’s the other way around; Müller was talking about the attitudes against the challenges/criticism of the ToE, just like yours.

No, now you are just projecting again. If you want to go over the basics of science and then of evidence perhaps we can have a discussion. Posting links to articles that you cannot understand does not help you.

 

[LIIA]

What spiritual aspects? Show us one.

Spirituality in Islam is an overarching term that encompasses all aspects of life (no exception). It has a bottom-up hierarchy; at the very base of the spiritual pyramid, actions may appear to fit in two distinct categories. Materialistic actions that are intended for direct materialistic benefits and spiritual actions that are intended for the purification of the soul, preparation for the hereafter and may also yield indirect materialistic benefits through the specific actions that benefit others and the community at large. At the apex, the boundaries between these categories totally disappear. All actions of all kinds are considered as acts of worship/submission to God. Whether the action is intended for some direct materialistic benefit or specific spiritual purposes, as long as the action is consistent with the Islamic righteous way that emerge from “God consciousness" based on the belief that God is the origin of everything and to him everything returns, such righteous action regardless of what it is becomes a spiritual act of submission to God. Such submission achieves inner peace and harmony with all creation. All the puzzle pieces fit together. Everything is essentially serving the same purpose and heading towards the same destination. All routes lead to God.