Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You first error was in saying "there is no such thing as simple life". There is no simple life today. That is what you should have said. But even the simplest of life has a three and a half billion years of evolution behind it. The simplest of life can no longer compete.

And your next mistake was to once again use today's environment. Prebiotic Earth was quite different. There was no molecular oxygen for example.

And you need to support your claims with recent papers about "tine being the enemy" The experts in the field that study this do not seem to think that this is the case. That is only unsupported claims by creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

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.

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?

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.

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”.

View attachment 80672

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong by referring to one of our old lost arguments.

Try again.

 

[LIIA]

I am tempted to say that you are the only one that does not understand it

Really? If you want anyone to take you seriously, go ahead and let us know what is your contemporary concept of the ring species?

Do you think that you are an animal?

Again, I’m not you.

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

Pathetic. See the link.

List of scientists in medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

Great? That may be stretching it quite a bit.

See the link below for the article titled “Early Islamic philosophy”. here is a quote:

“The period is known as the Islamic Golden Age, and the achievements of this period had a crucial influence in the development of modern philosophy and science. For Renaissance Europe, "Muslim maritime, agricultural, and technological innovations, as well as much East Asian technology via the Muslim world, made their way to western Europe in one of the largest technology transfers in world history.”

Early Islamic philosophy - Wikipedia

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.

Any luck with the vaccine?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? If you want anyone to take you seriously, go ahead and let us know what is your contemporary concept of the ring species?

I explained that to you more than once. You love the way back game. Go look at my older posts. People do not get to repeatedly demand that the same explanation be given to them just because they either ignored it or did not understand it the first time around.

Again, I’m not you.

Sorry, you do not get to dodge. You need to tell us what you think that you are since you have declared that you are not a man.

Pathetic. See the link.

List of scientists in medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

See the link below for the article titled “Early Islamic philosophy”. here is a quote:

“The period is known as the Islamic Golden Age, and the achievements of this period had a crucial influence in the development of modern philosophy and science. For Renaissance Europe, "Muslim maritime, agricultural, and technological innovations, as well as much East Asian technology via the Muslim world, made their way to western Europe in one of the largest technology transfers in world history.”

Early Islamic philosophy - Wikipedia

But that does not support your claim of "greatly".

Any luck with the vaccine?

Oh my.

 

[LIIA]

You first error was in saying "there is no such thing as simple life". There is no simple life today. That is what you should have said. But even the simplest of life has a three and a half billion years of evolution behind it. The simplest of life can no longer compete.

No, there is no such thing as simple life. not today, not ever. Necessary functions of live are never simple. There is no evidence for any claims otherwise. Your alleged simple life is nothing but a baseless imagination. That is why abiogenesis was never established as a scientific theory.

And your next mistake was to once again use today's environment. Prebiotic Earth was quite different. There was no molecular oxygen for example.

A baseless claim, provide your evidence that simple organic molecules can persist for millions of years and get more complex without getting disintegrated.

And you need to support your claims with recent papers about "tine being the enemy" The experts in the field that study this do not seem to think that this is the case.

Till you prove that simple organic molecules can persist for millions of years to get more complex without getting disintegrated. The fact remains that time is the enemy of the process.

nonliving organic molecules would always disintegrate quickly before it get any chance to increase in complexity.

 

[LIIA]

I explained that to you more than once. You love the way back game. Go look at my older posts. People do not get to repeatedly demand that the same explanation be given to them just because they either ignored it or did not understand it the first time around.


Sorry, you do not get to dodge. You need to tell us what you think that you are since you have declared that you are not a man.


But that does not support your claim of "greatly".

Oh my.

have fun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, there is no such thing as simple life. not today, not ever. Necessary functions of live are never simple. There is no evidence for any claims otherwise. Your alleged simple life is nothing but a baseless imagination. That is why abiogenesis was never established as a scientific theory.

That is incorrect, but you do not even understand the concept of evidence.

A baseless claim, provide your evidence that simple organic molecules can persist for millions of years and get more complex without getting disintegrated.

No, again, just because you do not understand the concept of evidence does not mean that it does not exist.

Till you prove that simple organic molecules can persist for millions of years to get more complex without getting disintegrated. The fact remains that time is the enemy of the process.

Why do you think that one must prove "millions of year'"? You do not understand what you are arguing against. All you can do is to create strawmen.

nonliving organic molecules would always disintegrate quickly before it get any chance to increase in complexity.

Prove it. Not only that you need to prove it in a prebiotic environment. How are you going to do that?

By the way, until you demonstrate that you understand the basics of science you do not get to demand evidence. When people offer you explanations they go right over your head.

So let's take a break and discuss those concepts that you do not understand that of scientific evidence and the scientific method.

 

[LIIA]

Hmm...that looks like your particular interpretation, not that of, say, Al Ghazali.

Not at all, it’s merely a baseless guess; you neither understand Islam nor the specific perspective of Al-Ghazali.

To keep things simple, here is what the wiki link below said about al-Ghazali. it’s generally correct.

“Al-Ghazali was instead an admirer and adherent of philosophy but was criticizing the use of philosophy in religious matters only.”

He was an admirer of the classic Greek philosophy and encouraged obtaining the knowledge of earlier civilization, but it shouldn’t be applied to religious matters and specially rejected earlier philosophy that contradict the religion such as the view of classic Greek philosophy that the universe is eternal without a beginning vs. the Islamic view that the universe is created with a beginning.

Another example is the Islamic teaching that heavens and earth were joined entity that God tore apart (Al-Anbiya: 30) and that God is expanding the universe (Adh-Dhariyat: 47). That perspective is totally foreign to Greek philosophy. The general view of Al-Ghazali was not against the use of philosophy or the benefits of philosophy within the natural/scientific domain but philosophy as a product of the limited human mind is subject to errors/wrong interpretations and shouldn’t apply to matters of faith.

“Have not the deniers known that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and then We tore them apart?” [Al-Anbiya: 30]

“And the universe—We constructed it with might, and We are surely expanding it.” [Adh-Dhariyat: 47]

“Say, "He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Eternal; He begot no one nor was He begotten; and there is not any one comparable to Him" [Al-Ikhlas: 1 to 4]

What I explained in my post #7840 is the Islamic perspective; it’s the view of every Muslim including Al-Ghazali. As I previously explained, the influence of God as the first cause/origin of everything does not stop at the first effect but rather extends to every entity along the causality chain. Yes, B is the cause for C, but God has the authority to change B and C and every entity along the chain.

But again, God’s authority/control over everything does not contradict the fact that B caused C. Muslims are urged to investigate the causes along the causality chain and how it relates to the specific effects. This is how the chain is created, and how it works, and again the endeavor to understand such causality relationships is consistent with the Islamic spirit and only gets us closer to God.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

have fun.

So now it appears that besides thinking that you are an ostrich, or perhaps a tree, I really have no clue, it appears that you are afraid as well?

 

[LIIA]

Prove it. Not only that you need to prove it in a prebiotic environment. How are you going to do that?

You can’t ask me to prove a negative. There is no evidence of such organic molecules of any kind with the ability to persist for extremely long time without getting disintegrated, you might as well ask me to prove that there were no dancing elephants under prebiotic conditions.

It’s totally the other way around.

You need to prove that simple organic molecules can persist for an extremely long time and increase in complexity to give rise to an imaginary extremely simple organism that is actually alive and can reproduce.

If you think that there is no way to prove what is possible or not in a prebiotic environment, why do you think it’s possible to prove the imagined abiogenesis?

Have fun.

 

[LIIA]

it appears that you are afraid as well?

Sure, I'm afraid of wasting my time,
guess what, get the vaccine and let's talk after.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can’t ask me to prove a negative. There is no evidence of such organic molecules of any kind with the ability to persist for extremely long time without getting disintegrated, you might as well ask me to prove that there were no dancing elephants under prebiotic conditions.

It’s totally the other way around.

You need to prove that simple organic molecules can persist for an extremely long time and increase in complexity to give rise to an imaginary extremely simple organism that is actually alive and can reproduce.

If you think that there is no way to prove what is possible or not in a prebiotic environment, why do you think it’s possible to prove the imagined abiogenesis?

Have fun.

I did not ask you to prove a negative. You do not seem to understand what you claimed. If anything I could make the same response to your foolish claim. But then making false claims and running away is what you do here.

Once again, if you want evidence you need to demonstrate that you have a chance of understanding it. That is why we need to go over the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method first. Right now your only response is denial, and that does not work in the sciences. You need to demonstrate that your denial is justified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, I'm afraid of wasting my time,
guess what, get the vaccine and let's talk after.

You forgot who needs it and why.

Once again, you need to discuss the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method. Until then you are just an ignorant person that just keeps contradicting himself.

 

[LIIA]

But that is not even close to the viewpoint of Al Ghazali. His position was that God intervenes at each instant to produce the next instant and that, because of this, there is only an illusion of cause and effect. But that illusion is simply due to God choosing to keep an orderly pattern to things.

It’s not just close but rather identical to the viewpoint of Al Ghazali and every Muslim.

As explained in # 7840, Every Muslim believes that God’s authority extends to every single entity along the causality chain and the chain in its entirety but that doesn’t contradict the fact that all entities along the chain maintain causal relationships among each other. This is how it’s created, and this is how it works from an Islamic perspective.

God’s total authority doesn’t render the causal relationships void, not at all. God is the first cause and the creator of all causes. All entities along the chain are similar in the sense that every entity is both an effect and a cause for another entity. Every entity is a contingent being. The only non-contingent is God.

Logically if God is the only necessary being that created every contingent being, then his authority extends to every contingent but that doesn’t nullify the interdependency of the relationships among the contingents. God is the creator of all entities (effects) and the relationships that link it all to each other (causes).

That perspective urged Muslims of the golden age to investigate these relationships since the relationships itself are viewed as a creation of God and his way to implement his authority within the physical realm.

Within the physical realm, everything is caused; the notion to explain a contingent with another contingent has no explanatory merits. It’s not an explanation, without a being that exists by virtue of its mere essence (brute fact), the entire contingent existence (causality chain) cannot be explained.

All routes lead to God. From him, everything starts and to him everything ends.

 

[LIIA]

I did not ask you to prove a negative. You do not seem to understand what you claimed. If anything I could make the same response to your foolish claim. But then making false claims and running away is what you do here.

Once again, if you want evidence you need to demonstrate that you have a chance of understanding it. That is why we need to go over the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method first. Right now your only response is denial, and that does not work in the sciences. You need to demonstrate that your denial is justified.

if you're serious, forget about me and demonstrate your case, I know for a fact that you're not. you're wasting time.
have fun.

 

[exchemist]

No, there is no such thing as simple life. not today, not ever. Necessary functions of live are never simple. There is no evidence for any claims otherwise. Your alleged simple life is nothing but a baseless imagination. That is why abiogenesis was never established as a scientific theory.

A baseless claim, provide your evidence that simple organic molecules can persist for millions of years and get more complex without getting disintegrated.

Till you prove that simple organic molecules can persist for millions of years to get more complex without getting disintegrated. The fact remains that time is the enemy of the process.

nonliving organic molecules would always disintegrate quickly before it get any chance to increase in complexity.

This looks like a straw man argument to me. I doubt anybody would suggest life arose by individual molecules persisting for millions of years. it is the systems of chemical reactions that may have persisted and become more complex with time, rather than individual molecules.

It’s a bit like creationists pretending evolution says fish turn into humans - a misrepresentation of the hypothesised process.

 

[LIIA]

You forgot who needs it and why.

Once again, you need to discuss the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method. Until then you are just an ignorant person that just keeps contradicting himself.

that's really pathetic, try to forget about me and demonstrate rational reasons of your disagreement. I know for a fact that you will not.
have fun

 

[Subduction Zone]

if you're serious, forget about me and demonstrate your case, I know for a fact that you're not. you're wasting time.
have fun.

I already have. You need to show that there is a chance of your ability to understand it.

I can understand why you are reluctant. Most creationists seem to understand that if they understood the concepts of the scientific method and scientific evidence that they would have to openly lie to continue with their nonsense. And they do not want to openly lie.

 

[LIIA]

This looks like a straw man argument to me. I doubt anybody would suggest life arose by individual molecules persisting for millions of years. it is the systems of chemical reactions that may have persisted and become more complex with time, rather than individual molecules.

It’s a bit like creationists pretending evolution says fish turn into humans - a misrepresentation of the hypothesised process.

The system is necessarily organic molecules that must persist and gradually increase in complexity over an extremely long time. Without such molecules, there is no such thing as chemical reactions. Chemical reactions don’t take place in isolation without the molecules.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that's really pathetic, try to forget about me and demonstrate rational reasons of your disagreement. I know for a fact that you will not.
have fun

Nope, you need to demonstrate that you can be an honest interlocutor. It is really not that hard. You will only be limited by being force to be honest.

And the only "pathetic" thing is you running away. I have no doubt that you will continue to run. Ironically you could easily prove me wrong here by learning what is and what is not evidence and why but you would rather run away.