I am yet to know that inspite so much advance in science ,no one has been able to discover complete mystery of human DNA.
Did nature produce PCR ,where ? How ? which lab?
It means "Nature " is the greatest scientest who created such complicated molecules and He is Almighty Allah

My Question is simple how the "matter " was created ? Is it possible that energy can convert into matter ? If so how the energy was created ??
Prove that "something can be created out of nothing" ??

asadxyz

Who can be more irrational than those who say: Design is possible without a designer ??


Who designed the designer and when and where did it happen , there must have been a start time somewhere.

As I have stated before:

I agree that its speculation, but its speculation based on facts we know. Every scientific theory has passed through this stage, and we can't throw out a hypothesis based on the mere fact that its speculation. Evidence is our yardstick. The more evidence it has, the more acceptable. And I honestly hope you have some new hypothesis which I hadn't heard of. But since I haven't come across any convincing ones yet, I suppose I'll have to take what I can get and wait for the evidence to back it up. The answer is still being fleshed out, and I'm ready to throw this model away if a new one with stronger evidence comes up or this one is disproved somehow. That answer, although vague, is at least true.

Unlike the hypothesis of a Cosmic being- which has no evidence.

Where have I stated that something was created out of nothing?

Even so, what was the first living being on Earth? Is the Quran silent on this matter?

Allah informs us that He sent Adam to earth with his wife Hawwa, and Iblis (satan) came on the earth also as a clear enemy for mankind.

In regard to plants, animals, or bacteria and other life forms - there is not much mention of it in the texts. Hence, it wouldn't be surprising if other life forms were already dwelling on the earth during this time period.


Infact, many of the classical scholars have mentioned how there were other plants on earth (such as wheat etc. which Adam ate as provisions from Allah, for Adam and his family) - so it wouldn't be surprising if other animals were present on the earth during this time period, who were feeding off this produce also.

bro asad, this might be helpful insha Allah;

The issue of evolution and life being formed through the means of abiogenesis (life coming from non life) doesn't have to be true. Scientists can't prove that this is how life originated on earth.

All they can argue is that if abiogenesis took place, then that can be an explanation for how life began on earth.



The big word in that sentence is 'if', because it's just a claim of there's. Even if they use studies to prove that abiogenesis can take place, it doesn't mean that this has to be the method for the origin of life on earth.


Creation indeed does require faith, but the concepts of life coming into existence by abiogenesis is only a concept, which 'if it were to occur' caused life to remain on earth. So basically, if the theory did happen - then that's how life survived on earth. However, the theory in of itself is questionable, so it can't be fact.



We can say its not true, they can say its true. But none of us can prove that a cell came to life during the early earth period. They can only say 'If it happened... thats how life started on earth.'

For what seems like the hundredth time NOBODY says "design is possible without a designer". Or at least nobody who knows what the words actually mean. A design must have a designer by definition.

Atheists, who I assume are supposed to be the "irrational" ones here, do not believe there is a design to require a designer.

Where have I denied that, Abiogenesis isn't speculative?

I have clearly stated its speculative, but these speculation based on facts we know. The more evidence it has, the more acceptable. The answer is still being fleshed out, and I'm ready to throw this model away if a new one with stronger evidence comes up or this one is disproved somehow. That answer, although vague, is at least true.

However, experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis. Such as the infamous Miller-Urey experiment.

Or the works of Sidney Fox: who was able to create microspheres
"Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—the first step on the road to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history.

Further work revealed that these amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called microspheres. Fox has gone so far as to describe these formations as protocells, protein spheres that could grow and reproduce. They might be an important intermediate step in the origin of life. Microspheres might have served as a stepping stone between simple organic compounds and genuine living cells".

And as I have stated earlier, I am very much looking forward for a better hypothesis than this one, backed with evidence.

The god of the gaps argumentation points to some currently unexplained phenomena and claims that therefore the explanation is god. There are a few problems with this.

1] Even if in the very next hour one hears of a scientist or philosopher who has constructed a theory to accurately predict the the phenomenon, it's likely that the believer will only point to it and state that it doesn't explain "why" the phenomenon occurs. So let's get one thing straight. Even if all the natural wonders of the world were explicable and dissected and presented without the need to invoke a divine creator, it's not likely to be enough. As the argument goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, one must have at least some evidence for a theory before it can be seriously considered. To state that despite the lack of any evidence a theory is plausible is simply disingenuous. Please stop using personal incredulity as an argument for design.

2] Every time you make the argument that we don't know "X" and therefore god exists, and then a while later we discover what "X" is, your god hypothesis shrinks. The very concept of god as a mysterious entity, to say nothing of the omniscience or benevolence, loses ground. Grandiose claims about the cosmos or the intricate details of the physical world without any a priori, falsifiable, testable, arguments are simply useless when it comes to helping us as a civilization advance.



By the way, National Geographic will map out your DNA and provide you with the details of your ancestry for a nominal fee of 100 dollars. It's well worth the money.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/





How was matter created? I'm sure you've heard of Stephen Hawking. Please read A Brief History of Time, Chapter 8

http://www.submarineinstitute.com/us...ry_of_time.pdf

His book is easily available online and written so that those without maths or physics degrees can understand.




All the best wishes,


Faysal

Dear Faysal
My simple question if God does not exist then how
-matter came into existance ?
-Energy came into existance ?
Provide the proof/evidence

Dear asadxyz

I gave you a link to a book, and I also gave you the chapter number. It is only 28 pages and should take about 1 hour if read very slowly.

http://www.submarineinstitute.com/us...ry_of_time.pdf

Within those pages is the framework of a probable theory that does not need a god in the model. Once you read that, if you have any counterpoints I will gladly debate it or provide necessary examples. But I don't feel the need to copy and paste all of that into this post. Just click the link.



In any case, you cannot explain something you don't understand with something you don't understand. Every day I hear religionists claim that we cannot understand god. Why they try to then use god to explain something else that is not understood I do not know....



All the best wishes,



Faysal

I do not believe in self concocted theories ,I believe in facts.These theories are to befool those who have no brain to think and are ready to believe Tom ,Dick and Harry.

If you have some proof ,bring forward otherwise I have no intention to prolong with this debate without any reason.If anone cannot conceive such a minor understanding the Quran says:

وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الْجِنِّ وَالإِنسِ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لاَّ يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ آذَانٌ لاَّ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا أُوْلَـئِكَ كَالأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ أُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ﴿7:179﴾
(7:179) And certainly We have created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind; *140 they have hearts with which they fail to understand; and they have eyes with which they fail to see; and they have cars with which they fail to hear. They are like cattle - indeed, even more astray. Such are utterly heedless.

Don't be ridiculous, they are not meant to 'befool' anybody. They are a genuine and sincere attempt to best understand reality by those who are not willing to throw in the intellectual towel and assign responsibility for anything they don't understand to God.

Unfortunately inspite of all this beating about the bush by "theory believers" have not been able to explain
-How did matter come into existance ?
-How did Energy come into existance ??
But the answer is not difficult if one follows rationality.