Can life be created in a lab?

[Hamayun]

I am not referring to cloning or reproduction etc. I mean in the literal sense.

I have 2 questions to which I know the answers through Islam but I would like to know the Scientific point of view too:

1. Can life be created from scratch in a lab?

They say life was formed because the conditions were perfect. Is it possible to create living organisms in a lab without the aid of any building blocks from existing living creatures?

2. What makes a living thing alive? Why can a dead cell not be brought back to life even though it is structurally intact? What is life?

Just a couple of interesting questions that occurred to me recently :)

Salam

[Trumble]

The scientific answer to 1. is either "we don't know" or "not yet". The same applies to bringing a dead cell back to life. Personally I think a far more interesting question is "if we could, should we?" :)

The answer to 2. depends on how you define 'life'. That one's still where it's been since Plato, with the philosophers. There is no formal scientific definition of 'life', or 'alive' that I'm aware of, although some fields have adopted their own out of necessity, medicine being the obvious example. You might define life in terms of purely physical properties, such as a collection of certain physical and chemical processes. You might define it in purely functional terms, or purely behavioral terms. You can think of possible criteria for the latter as well as I can; the ability to reproduce being an obvious one, but even that has fairly obvious problems as a defining catagory . Or you might define it in terms of possession of a postulated non-material element, or animating principal, such as one of several conceptions of the 'soul'. You might find Aristotle's views on that worth researching if only because they were adopted by Aquinas and other Christian theologians.. maybe by Islam too? I don't know.

[Ali_Cena]

lol salaam to hamayun
and peace to trumble
trumble i have noticed that even on the thread of questions to atheist, you athiest or agnostics are always coming out with i like to call ******* called "i/we dont know" yet you ******* know full well that thier is no God hence "atheist" you know what if you dont know or dont know yet why are you athiest its like you seem to have know everything and full knowledge of all the answers to why you are here, and decided to be a athiest>>>>athiest buddhist _________________but you still "dont know" dont know yet.........you know what you guys make me berserker.

and never tell me "not yet" THATS JUST AN EXCUSE YOU AROGANT ATHEIST AGNOSTS USE WHEN THE TIDES ARE AGAINST YOU>>"I DONT KNOW" OR " WE DONT KNOW YET".




to answers hamayuns questions. put it this way, energy cannot be created or distroyed, becuase Allah the supreme ruler of the universe. has created all the matter, in a way that you cannot create or destroy Allah's energy or creation. simply becuase it is Allah's creation he will decied whether to creat or destroy, now NO ONE CAN CREATE SOMETHING FROM NOTHING>>e.i without the will of Allah swt, so when you say from scratch well by cloning, well you are not creating anything, becuase you are using matter energy that was thier from the begging.

you get my drift????? we are not creators>>>>>>understand. you can never creat something from scratch!!!!!!!! you use not creat you use stuff to make stuff....

sorry for my wasteing space on my reply.
peace out
wasalaam aleykum

[Hamayun]

Interesting replies indeed!

you get my drift????? we are not creators>>>>>>understand. you can never creat something from scratch!!!!!!!! you use not creat you use stuff to make stuff...

lol I get your drift for sure brother :) Well said.

On the subject of drifting here is a pictue of me from the 2008 British Drift Championship :p

:D

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Ali_Cena]

salaam brother
lol brother hamayun, you never fail to entertain me lol you joker.
anyaways would like to see more replies to this thread....
Peace brother hamayun

[- Qatada -]

1. Can life be created from scratch in a lab?

No, It probably ever won't.

{ O men! Here is a parable set forth! So Listen to it! Those on whom besides Allah ye call willnever create a fly even if they all combine together for this purpose! And if the fly should snatch away a thing from them they would have no power to release it from the fly: feeble are those who petition and those whom they petition! } (Al-Hajj 73).

They say life was formed because the conditions were perfect. Is it possible to create living organisms in a lab without the aid of any building blocks from existing living creatures?

Right now, its not possible. The main part that is hard for the scientists to produce is the DNA and RNA of the cell [this is extremely important since its like the brain to the body.]


The DNA is so complicated that it can't have come into existence by chance (each cell contains all the bodies genetic makeup within it);

The Argument from Information The DNA of a bacterium contains as much information as a 1000 page book [1]

There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter [2]

We do not understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code . . . [It] is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress. [3]

Evolutionist Douglas R. Hofstadter of Indiana University, states his despair in the face of this question: \"How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?\" For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. [4]


1) Lee M. Spetner, Not by Chance, 1998, p. 30

2) Werner Gitt. In the Beginning Was Information. CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, p. 107, 141

3) Orgel, Leslie E, \"Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,\" New Scientist, vol.94 (April 15, 1982), p.151

4) Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548

read more here on the topic;

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/a....html#post5011

http://www.slideshare.net/speed2kx/3...s-presentation

2. What makes a living thing alive? Why can a dead cell not be brought back to life even though it is structurally intact? What is life?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

[Trumble]

and never tell me "not yet" THATS JUST AN EXCUSE YOU AROGANT ATHEIST AGNOSTS USE WHEN THE TIDES ARE AGAINST YOU>>"I DONT KNOW" OR " WE DONT KNOW YET".

The "I don't know" I can't help. You might be a fountain of infinite knowledge (although somehow I doubt it) but I'm not. As to "we don't know yet", actually it's a perfectly reasonable, and satisfactory, answer. If you wasn't you might be able to come up with a reasoned argument rather than a rant. I'm sorry it distresses you.. maybe because it makes you actually have to think?

Let me explain it this way. Imagine stepping back in time a hundred fifty years or so and asking a scientist or engineer (or indeed anybody else) any of the following questions;

Will we ever be able to build a flying machine?

Will we ever be able to travel at more than 100kph?

Will a man ever walk on the moon?

Maybe he would say "no, impossible! Only God could do that!". Or maybe he would say "not just now, but maybe in the future". Who would be right? :)

Nothing has changed. We don't know far more than we do.. there's an infinity of stuff to learn out there.

[Gator]

Hey Hama,

1. Yes, I think it is possible and someday it may happen (YIKES!!!!!).
2. a) My guess is the operation chemical processes. b) Like a dead amoeba? Don't know. c) short.

Thanks.

[Ali_Cena]

Maybe he would say "no, impossible! Only God could do that!". Or maybe he would say "not just now, but maybe in the future". Who would be right? :)

trumble i am going to copy past something form the other thread which gator got me thinking, and actually none of your nonsense makes me think about anything rather than thinking about how silly "you lot" are........

ok here goes well when you say Only God could do that,,, well yea only God can do that, now what you are trying to say is that "not just now maybe in the future" you are basically saying if you can explain if then God did not do it, well actually you are just explain how that happened throuhg God's will,

dont be trying to say that if you can explain something then God did not do it, it happened it self>>>> silly? or what?

""""hi gator, one thing which i think atheist misunderstand sooooooooooooooooooooo muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch is that
they think that if it can be explained e.i how the crystal was formed, they it leave God out, why???? why do all atheist think like that, i mean if you can explain how it was formed, you are basically explain how God made it, by the chemical process. When someone says God did it, then the scientist can say how, say evolution or big bang.

so your answer is this by God's will the chemical process lead to the forming of chemistry,

one last thing please gator, if you understood what i meant by my first paragraph tell me, i want to know if that is how you think>>>if it can be explaind then God did not do it, iis this how you think??>>being atheist anyway.

cant you just think this is how God made it, by the chemical biological process or whatever.... comment,
Peace brother gator"""""">>>>>>all taken from other post, with same argument,



basically dont try and say if you can explain something how that happened. then God did not do it, or it had nothing to do with Allah...

and by the way you have laid out your reply sounds like you are a bit annoyed hummm:exhausted:exhausted:exhausted:exhausted:exha usted maybe my post made you think a little???? huh trumbz
peace out

[Trumble]

ok here goes well when you say Only God could do that,,, well yea only God can do that, now what you are trying to say is that "not just now maybe in the future" you are basically saying if you can explain if then God did not do it, well actually you are just explain how that happened throuhg God's will ?

You may be doing that but I'm not. I don't believe there is a God so how can I be attributing anything to 'God's will'? More to the point, I do not believe there is anything about those discoveries that needs attributing; they were made by people, through effort, hard work and a desire to understand the universe around them.

they think that if it can be explained e.i how the crystal was formed, they it leave God out, why????

Because there is no reason to include God! There is no gap to be filled, or at least no gap that cannot be potentially filled without introducing God and his Will.

why do all atheist think like that, i mean if you can explain how it was formed, you are basically explain how God made it, by the chemical process.

See above. Atheists are not trying exclude a God they believe exists; they simply do not believe a God is necessary and hence, in the absence of any other evidence for His existence, do not believe He actually exists. You may think that 'silly', as you are quite entitled to do.. but do not be surprised when atheists think the same thing about your views.

[Wyatt]

they think that if it can be explained e.i how the crystal was formed, they it leave God out, why???? why do all atheist think like that, i mean if you can explain how it was formed, you are basically explain how God made it, by the chemical process.

one last thing please gator, if you understood what i meant by my first paragraph tell me, i want to know if that is how you think>>>if it can be explaind then God did not do it, iis this how you think??>>being atheist anyway.

cant you just think this is how God made it, by the chemical biological process or whatever....


basically dont try and say if you can explain something how that happened. then God did not do it, or it had nothing to do with Allah...

and by the way you have laid out your reply sounds like you are a bit annoyed hummm:exhausted:exhausted:exhausted:exhausted:exha usted maybe my post made you think a little????
peace out

Dude.. When atheists or scientists look for an explanation for things, they are not leaving God out. They could say that God did it or they could just not mention it. Nowhere have I seen the point by an atheist that because it can be explained, God did not do it. Religious people often make up these twisted stereotypes just like "atheists have no moral ruling, so they're wild people!" which is NOT true whatsoever. Often, the God factor is just ruled out because when they are trying to explain something, it is not directly connected with religion, but to advance the scientific knowledge. Because there's no evidence or reasoning to include God in the explanation doesn't mean that one is saying he didn't do it. You should at least try to think of it rationally.

and never tell me "not yet" THATS JUST AN EXCUSE YOU AROGANT ATHEIST AGNOSTS USE WHEN THE TIDES ARE AGAINST YOU>>"I DONT KNOW" OR " WE DONT KNOW YET".

Apparently you cannot figure out why the target of this comment would be annoyed? Well, the "I don't know" excuse is a rational one. I would say for a religious person to just look at something and say GOD DID IT! Don't question it; you don't need to know! isn't giving your god any credit or appreciation. The "I don't know" is keeping scientists from just leaving something go with a supernatural explanation. It doesn't seem irrational just saying Allah does it because you truly believe that while others may not. The "I don't know" is encompassing all religious and atheist people because it's only based on factual information that has been recorded.

Of course, you seem like one of those people going around in these threads telling atheists they're going to burn in hell for even pondering cloning or superficial creation of whatever 'life' really is. So, you will probably never agree that when it comes to scientific studies which are factual, something as unsturdy and diverse as supernaturality should be left out.

(I am not dissing the Islamic religion, nor any others. I am not saying that they are false or made-up. I am saying that because there's no direct evidence that does not require a leap of faith (such as "The Qur'an is an obvious gift from Allah!"), it should be left out of any collection of proven evidence.)

I define my "unsturdy" comment by that there are terrorists, sects, and religious conflicts everywhere for every religion and that it will never EVER be agreed upon, one religion. But, "sturdy" would be that no one questions whether grass reflects green light or not. :X

I hope I have made my points clear, and if any offence was taken, there was none intended at all. I'm just tired of people arguing with scientists or atheists about this stuff in threads started by a muslim in the first place. If you want to talk about it, talk about it. If you're going to argue with """"""",,,,,, too many '''>>>>> stereotypes :::: and ,,,,"""" punctuation ....marks, then it's not good for either side and no progress will be made.!!!!!!!!

[Ali_Cena]

and there again "thinking they know everything...yet they dont">>"there is no reason to include God">>>>>>>I mean how do you know? i though you didnt know, or not yet?????

You may be doing that but I'm not. I don't believe there is a God so how can I be attributing anything to 'God's will'? More to the point, I do not believe there is anything about those discoveries that needs attributing; they were made by people, through effort, hard work and a desire to understand the universe around them.



Because there is no reason to include God! There is no gap to be filled, or at least no gap that cannot be potentially filled without introducing God and his Will.



See above. Atheists are not trying exclude a God they believe exists; they simply do not believe a God is necessary and hence, in the absence of any other evidence for His existence, do not believe He actually exists. You may think that 'silly', as you are quite entitled to do.. but do not be surprised when atheists think the same thing about your views.

your reply itself is selfcontradictory first you say thier is no reason to include God then you say atheist's are not trying to exclude God. obviously, they are i mean they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>atheist<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
when you are atheist you sure are excluding God>>>are you not?

Dude.. When atheists or scientists look for an explanation for things, they are not leaving God out.

now you listen here, you are telling me when an ATHEIST does something he is not leaving God out>>>>>??>?>?>?>?> why he he be atheist then????????????????????????? shutted up????

you just seen that trumble is saying stuff about there is no reason to put God in, so he is excluding God is he not?




to trumbles reply, all that ******* that you just said was your own opinoin dont start stating it as fact>>>>"ohh there is no reason to include God" okay. thats merely your own opinoin and your own philosophy which half the time is bull****>>>take from skyes word directly....

there is a reason to include God in my opinon>>>>>now thats how you should say your opinoin, and not try and state it as a fact.... ok

Peace out

[crayon]

Question- Is it known what "life" consists of?

[Ali_Cena]

but do not be surprised when atheists think the same thing about your views.

btw thanks but no thanks for the "advice" lecture thingy you just gave me... beucase frankly i am not...

and trumble on a personal tone,,your recent replys to my posts, seem to me that you think i am suprised or worried or any of that crap...remember telling me about something like "you are getting frustrated becuase my (trumbles) reply makes me (ali) think"

or "dont be suprised" frankly dont talk ******* with me ok i aint no kid, you understand that?

[Trumble]

your reply itself is selfcontradictory first you say thier is no reason to include God then you say atheist's are not trying to exclude God. obviously, they are i mean they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>atheist<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
when you are atheist you sure are excluding God>>>are you not?

I said "are not trying exclude a God they believe exists".

all that ******* that you just said was your own opinoin dont start stating it as fact>>>>"ohh there is no reason to include God" okay. thats merely your own opinoin and your own philosophy which half the time is bull****

Of course it's my opinion. 90% of everything that gets posted on this forum is opinion. I don't recall my stating anything as being a 'fact', and neither do I see a need to precede every sentence I type with "in my opinion", or words to that effect.

or "dont be suprised" frankly dont talk ******* with me ok i aint no kid, you understand that?

If you say so. Actually, while I can be patronizing on occasion, there is nothing remotely patronizing about that sentence.:)

Question- Is it known what "life" consists of?

I tried to answer that in my first post. If there is a particular 'Islamic' answer to the question, I'd be very interested to see it too.

[Hamayun]

Let's put the handbags away please :D

Seems like another dead end. We see no sense in the Atheist's beliefs and they see no sense in our's.

Seems like all these threads have one conclusion:

The Atheists are oblivious to all the signs of the creator that surround them everyday and the Muslims can't make them see the signs no matter how hard they try.

I guess there comes a point when you say.. To you be your Way, and to me mine. Quran: 109:6

[Gator]

This is basically how I see these kind of debates. A little story I've posted before.

It’s the dawn of human history (not assuming YEC). Two cavemen are standing outside their caves. One believes that only natural forces control the universe and the other believes a deity does. Unfortunately both were named Thag, so I’m going call one Atheist Thag (Athag) and Theist Thag (Tthag). As they stand there, a lightening bolt cracks through the sky, striking the tallest tree in the forest.

Athag: Whoa! Did you see that!

Tthag: Wow! God is amazing!

Athag: Here we go. Why do you think god caused that?

Tthag: Well, I believe God causes lightening. It is so unlike anything else and we have no explanation so it has to be from a God.

Athag: Why does it have to be a god? Couldn’t it come from some natural phenomenon?

Tthag: Do you have an explanation for it?

Athag: Well, it could be some shifting when some unknown power source becomes unbalanced.

Tthag: Puh-lease, that is just a lame theory. Do you have a solid explanation or not.

Athag: A one hundred percent sure fire complete explanation…..no.

Tthag: Ah ha! You admit it.

Athag: But do you remember what our grandfathers used to tell us about fire. They used to say it only came from God.

Tthag: Yeah, I do. They used to believe it was delivered by only lightening. And when they needed it there was only one way to get it. Sacrifice a virgin to produce lightening, which would strike a tree and bring fire.

Athag: Well, my Mom discovered you could make fire by rubbing sticks a certain way.

Tthag: Yeah, my grandfather says he had never seen a woman try to break out of the wooden sacrificial pen as hard as she did. Wasn’t that nine months before you were born?

Athag: Yes, moving on. But don’t you see that what people once thought was only from God was actually something they could do because it was a natural phenomenon?

Tthag: Nice try, heretic, but that was then, this is now. What tree did it hit?

Athag: That tree there. The tallest one.

Tthag: That’s right smart guy, the tallest one. There must be thousands of trees in the forest and the lightening just happen to hit the tallest tree. Do you know the odds of that happening!? In fact, have you ever noticed that it almost always hits the tallest tree. The odds are incalculable! Can you explain that!

Athag: Well no not in exceedingly technical detail.

Tthag: Well thank you for proving my point. Don’t you think that in our advanced age we would know this stuff by now. Think of it. In the last two generations we’ve discovered how to make fire and the wheel! And even with all our amazing and complex advances, no one understands where lightening comes from. Ergo God. Lightening is just one example, all you have to do is look around to see evidence of God. Its right their in front of your eyes.

Athag: uhg.

bye

[Ali_Cena]

not a good story as it is flawed.....if you can prove something that does not mean that God did not do it by his will. so bascailly that lightning was caused by God's Will, and if you can epxlain how it happened (chemistry Physics) you are just saying how God performed it.
Peace

[Snowflake]

If I remember right,I'm sure I saw a program in which scientists were using all the elements necessary to create life and all they ended up with was a bit of protein. That's no where near to creating life. That won't happen.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

not a good story as it is flawed.....if you can prove something that does not mean that God did not do it by his will. so bascailly that lightning was caused by God's Will, and if you can epxlain how it happened (chemistry Physics) you are just saying how God performed it.
Peace

I'm sure you can see how you've just added god into the explanation.

Scientific explanations of the causes of lightning work perfectly well without any need to introduce god to the matter. That is different from scientists ignoring god.

Peace

[Trumble]

so bascailly that lightning was caused by God's Will, and if you can epxlain how it happened (chemistry Physics) you are just saying how God performed it.

OK. So do you think there are any actions in the universe, any at all, that are not caused by God's Will? If so, what are they?

[Ali_Cena]

OK. So do you think there are any actions in the universe, any at all, that are not caused by God's Will? If so, what are they?

you know trumble i can see 10 steps ahead and probabily know were you are going to conclude with that question of yours, but anyway ill try my debating skills and see what happens. the answer to your question is this, obviously anything that happened may be of God's will such as nature; take a lightning strike for an example. furthermore seeing as humans have a free will, some actions are caused by humans free will, and other from God's Will, and obvously our will, has to grant the permission of God's will, as we are restricted, see qad qa qader, predestination and free will, islam belives in both as far as i am aware.

To conclude i would like to say this topic is about can life be created in a lab and nothing more.
Peace out

[Hamayun]

Wow!! That is such a lame story! We don't believe in God because we don't have an explanation to natural phenomena!!! :raging:

We believe in God because we know Muhammad (pbuh) did not spend 20 years of his life in prayer day and night and suffering just for fun! :rollseyes

Sometimes you Atheists really don't know where to draw the line. Thank God I am not an ignorant Kafir anymore.

Tsk Tsk....

[Trumble]

the answer to your question is this, obviously anything that happened may be of God's will such as nature; take a lightning strike for an example. furthermore seeing as humans have a free will, some actions are caused by humans free will, and other from God's Will, and obvously our will, has to grant the permission of God's will, as we are restricted, see qad qa qader, predestination and free will, islam belives in both as far as i am aware.

Hehe... no, I don't want a debate on free will and determinism! I already know that the Islamic opinion on that issue is incoherent - in my opinion - but before you get too upset about that I think pretty much every view on the subject is incoherent as well.

I'm interested in where you draw a dividing line between the intervention of God by 'supernatural' processes that cannot (ever?) be understood by science, and God's Will being exercised by means of physical processes that science has allowed us to discover. A repeating theme in the last couple of threads in which we have participated is criticism of my point to the effect that just because science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it never will.. including such things as those answered questions regarding the origin of species, how to create life in lab, or whatever. Yet if you draw no distinction between the application of God's Will by supernatural methods and its application by natural methods, then surely everything that happens in the universe can ultimately be described by science and, theoretically, replicated by science?

[Wyatt]

Hehe... no, I don't want a debate on free will and determinism! I already know that the Islamic opinion on that issue is incoherent - in my opinion - but before you get too....

Don't worry, I understand you. :-[

The rather arrogant here that can't spell and aren't able to think about maturely discussing the superficial creation of life along with atheists without insulting them just shows that they're probably insecure with their own faith. If they were true muslims, I think they would calmly talk about this and not insult, but discuss the topic and give Islam's point of view. :X

Hopefully. imsad

This is a teenager asking for maturity from someone who just claimed to ain't be no kid.

[themuffinman]

i dont think life can be created in a lab. i mean im a bio major and i just recently started taking bio 101 but in the book it said that after the big bang there were pools of lifeless molecules or inorganic molecules, they became more complex and suddenly they became alive, or organic molecules....idk it just doesnt make sense to me, how can something not alive become suddenly "alive". how can we explain the complex emotional/thinking system humans have compared to animals? if we both originated from the same stuff how come animals developed the way they did and humans they way we did? how is it that we can go to the moon but fail to even create the simplest body part...say a hair follicle? if you notice medicine has no "cures" or replacements for what allah has given u in the first place they cannot recreate even the tiniest thing of a human being, all medicine does is treate ur illness and you have to stay on it for the rest of your life. i find it impossible to beleive that everything is just a huge coincedence. i forgot the saying but give someone even the tiniest bit of knowlege and he becomes an atheist and our knowlege compared to allahs knowledge is that of a drop of water in the entire ocean so well never be able to grasp his wonders.

[Ali_Cena]

Don't worry, I understand you. :-[ The rather arrogant here that can't spell

after you told me to stop using all the >>>, ????,!!!!! i sorted my act out, and well i dont see any spelling errors, and if you do; this is not an english essay is it? i am not being marked for spelling so it doesnt matter.

and aren't able to think about maturely discussing the superficial creation of life along with atheists without insulting them just shows that they're probably insecure with their own faith.

well thats your opinoin, actually i am not insecure about my own faith, i was just frustrated at the time, and well didnt use all my potential in writing a good reply, so my "unmaturely" reply came out, which i am sorry for afcoures.


HI

If they were true muslims, I think they would calmly talk about this and not insult, but discuss the topic and give Islam's point of view. :X

well i am talking calmly about it know, i mean :) all smiles!. LOL if i insulted you well, would you accept my apoligies.

Hopefully. imsad

This is a teenager asking for maturity from someone who just claimed to ain't be no kid.

i am sure you woundlt classify a 17 year old as a "kid" would you, my response might be of that, but i change...:thumbs_up

Peace

[Ali_Cena]

Hi podarak, one other thing i think you have insulted me in your post.......not happy with that.

[Samkurd]

well we were sort of half way there with sea monkeys.

Ive seen places that sell contained ecosystems too, a place where shrimp-like creatures live in a contained world much like we are in earth. (Only theirs is a glass globe without any possible means of escape..)

But these creatures were not built from scratch. Life cannot simply be created from nothing. Scientific knowledge and some great philosophers granted us the knowledge to know that we are made of building blocks known as atoms, which are further made of protons, neutrons and electrons. These break down even further yet we do not have the scientific capabilities to do that yet.

Also, some believe an idea of something seems to have eternally existed yet its form is created naturally.

Living organisms are too complex to be fabricated by man and if we are to attempt such a thing i personally believe we would just get endless amounts of flaws.

[Woodrow]

Question- Is it known what "life" consists of?

I can not think of any explanation or valid definition as to what life is from a physical sense. Chemically and in physical composition a dead fish is identical to a live fish. I have no idea as to how life can be unless, it is because of a soul being breathed into an organism.

[Converse02]

Greetings Muslims.
I am an atheist and an MD. Here is my point of view:

1. Can life be created from scratch in a lab?

They say life was formed because the conditions were perfect. Is it possible to create living organisms in a lab without the aid of any building blocks from existing living creatures?

Yes, life can be created from scratch. There is no scientific reason why it cannot. With our current understanding of how life formed on Earth, it is understood that the first living thing on Earth is from scratch. There is no reason why those conditions cannot be discovered and repeated in the lab. Scientists who are saying "I don't know" are justing hedging simply because it hasn't been done yet, not because there is some scientific reason why it can't be done.

Scientists have already created synthetic chromosomes, they are only a step away from creating the first living cell from scratch. No laboratory is currently undertaking this task because there are ethical rules prohibiting it. But it is only a matter of time.

Google "synthetic biology."

2. What makes a living thing alive? Why can a dead cell not be brought back to life even though it is structurally intact? What is life?

There is no consensus in science when I graduated, but things may have changed. For example, some scientists consider viruses to be alive and others do not. I don't. (Viruses can be created from scratch in the lab, btw).

For a thing to be considered alive, it must at least have genetic material that self-replicates. Whether metabolization (makes energy) is needed is up to you. But surely, if something has the ability to self-replicate DNA and metabolize, I think it would be considered "alive." Like bacteria.

A dead cell cannot be brought back to life because it cannot metabolize and maintain homeostasis. The cell membrane breaks down. Elements from the environment seep into the cells, and the elements inside the cell seep out. The cellular machinery, proteins, has fallen apart, they are no longer in the right chemical environment and can no longer function.


Yes, we have a soul, but it's made of lots of tiny robots! - Giulio Giorelli

[Converse02]

i dont think life can be created in a lab. i mean im a bio major and i just recently started taking bio 101 but in the book it said that after the big bang there were pools of lifeless molecules or inorganic molecules, they became more complex and suddenly they became alive, or organic molecules....idk it just doesnt make sense to me, how can something not alive become suddenly "alive". how can we explain the complex emotional/thinking system humans have compared to animals? if we both originated from the same stuff how come animals developed the way they did and humans they way we did? how is it that we can go to the moon but fail to even create the simplest body part...say a hair follicle? if you notice medicine has no "cures" or replacements for what allah has given u in the first place they cannot recreate even the tiniest thing of a human being, all medicine does is treate ur illness and you have to stay on it for the rest of your life. i find it impossible to beleive that everything is just a huge coincedence. i forgot the saying but give someone even the tiniest bit of knowlege and he becomes an atheist and our knowlege compared to allahs knowledge is that of a drop of water in the entire ocean so well never be able to grasp his wonders.

Hello muffinman.
I am curious to what bio textbook you are using. I used Gould a long time ago. It was explained to us that genetic material can exist freely, as do proteins and bipolar lipid membranes. Imagine that genetic material finding it's way into the the bipolar lipid membrane and genetic material that making the right proteins. It's a cell. The odds of this happening are very very very small, but it is not zero. We can imagine it. Why couldn't it have happened? Why cannot life arise from non-life.

How do we go from bacteria to humans? It's a tough question, and no one figuring it out for thousands of years until 150 years ago when Darwin and Wallace, both independently wrote about it. The "scientific" theory of evolution, which as a bio major, you must realize is geological, anthropological, genetic, biological and historical fact.

See this, it pretty much summarized what I learned in my first month in AP bio years ago. Carl Sagan's Cosmos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M

At 3:13, it shows a fish/land animal. It is tiktaalik, whose fossil was not discovered when the video was made.
At 3:30, dinosaur to bird evolution...confirmed more and more as we speak.
At 5:20, hominid to human evolution, something Darwin predicted, as hominid fossil were not known/rare in his time.

We can create body parts. I went to a lecture with researchers presenting on stem cell research. They can make heart muscle that contracts, nerves, skin, gut, and so on. We can make hair follicles with current cloning and regeneration tech. Think of the possibilities in medicine if more research can be done in this area. Unfortunately, it is religious objections that are hindering this type of research. The researcher try to get around it using mouse stem cells.

[Zamtsa]

I am not referring to cloning or reproduction etc. I mean in the literal sense.

I have 2 questions to which I know the answers through Islam but I would like to know the Scientific point of view too:

1. Can life be created from scratch in a lab?

They say life was formed because the conditions were perfect. Is it possible to create living organisms in a lab without the aid of any building blocks from existing living creatures?

2. What makes a living thing alive? Why can a dead cell not be brought back to life even though it is structurally intact? What is life?

Just a couple of interesting questions that occurred to me recently :)

Salam

1. Although there are human being(Allah's creature) said this and that, Allahu Ta'ala give life, then it lives, even people who do Haram things in Allah sight, Allahu Ta'ala still give him their life, that's because as Rasulullah said "Every alive things which Allah had destined to appear will be created by Him before Day of Judgement(Adabuz Zifaf by syaikh Nashir Al Albaani.

2. The answer for number 1, because no one could raise dead people but AlMasih Rasulullah Iisa Ibn Maryam from Allahu Tabaraka Ta'ala's Mukjizat, and other prophets. Even getting the soul back to the dying human being they couldn't, they only could save which Allah had destined to be save from near death, Allahu kalam:

Al Anbiya(21):91 And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her the spirit created by Us and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.

Allahu Ta'ala condemned Atheists the super scientists by this saying:

Al Waqi'ah(56):83 Then why do ye not (intervene) when (the soul of the dying man) reaches the throat 5263
84 And ye the while (sit) looking on 5264
85 But We are nearer to him than ye and yet see not
86 Then why do you not if you are exempt from (future) account 5265
87 Call back the soul if ye are true (in your claim of Independence)? 5266


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

[Converse02]

Here is some news on synthetic biology. It's a new field in biology. I say creating life is only a matter of time. They said genetic engineering couldn't be done, and today we can reprogram life and DNA like a computer, it's child's play. Same with cloning. We can already create and modify life, creating life from scratch is the next step. There is no scientific, natural, physical barrier or reason as to why it cannot be done.

http://www.exduco.net/news.php?id=3233

http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/index.ph...ate=2009-01-09

I wish I was apart of this. The first group that does it first is probably going to get the Nobel.

[Mr. Sandman]

Very interesting Converse02.

[Trumble]

There is no scientific, natural, physical barrier or reason as to why it cannot be done.

Surely you are not in position to make that statement until it has been done? :sunny:

You are probably right, though. In which case, as I said earlier, the question becomes not so much "can we?" as "should we?" Ethics, or at least reasoned ethics as opposed to knee-jerk reaction, is already struggling to keep up with developments in genetic engineering and cybernetics, let alone something like this.

[crayon]

Yes, life can be created from scratch.

(Viruses can be created from scratch in the lab, btw)

When you say "scratch", I'm assuming you don't literally mean "scratch"...?:? Scientists used things that previously existed (different elements, etc.) to create the virus. They used different things that already existed and just put them together. They didn't just make it appear out of thin air (which technically contains tons of gases, but you get the idea).

[Gator]

yes, I think he means using previously existing unliving matter to create something living.

[Chuck]

Here is some news on synthetic biology. It's a new field in biology. I say creating life is only a matter of time. They said genetic engineering couldn't be done, and today we can reprogram life and DNA like a computer, it's child's play. Same with cloning. We can already create and modify life, creating life from scratch is the next step. There is no scientific, natural, physical barrier or reason as to why it cannot be done.

http://www.exduco.net/news.php?id=3233

http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/index.ph...ate=2009-01-09

I wish I was apart of this. The first group that does it first is probably going to get the Nobel.

That is replication not creation. Science explores how but not why.

Good article here:

But then they would have to find a law to explain where the law came from . . . and ultimately an explanation of why the universe is mathematical and of where mathematics came from and what numbers are.

Like a petulant 8-year-old, we keep asking why, why, why, why. In the end, the answer is either ''just because'' or ''for God made it so.'' Take your pick.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

[Hamayun]

When you say "scratch", I'm assuming you don't literally mean "scratch"...?:? Scientists used things that previously existed (different elements, etc.) to create the virus. They used different things that already existed and just put them together. They didn't just make it appear out of thin air (which technically contains tons of gases, but you get the idea).

Technically thin air consists of living bacteria, viruses etc so thin air is not an option either.

I meant creating a living organism using no organic matter.

Since the universe and all living things apparently started from gases that is what I meant. Without using any organic matter.

[Zamtsa]

Clone usually result in making an invalid animal. If they are so great, why do they make, but make an invalid one. They couldn't make but with what Allahu Ta'ala already created.

They said they could clone, from what/ From their self created DNA?
Perhaps these 'creators'(in inverted comas) could be conscious of their own heart beat and order the heart "beat and pump all the blood to specific places," Subhaanallah, what a people with empty self consiousness and intelligence that would be, now isn't it?


May peace, development and save from guile be upon who follow the guidance.

[Hamayun]

But then they would have to find a law to explain where the law came from . . . and ultimately an explanation of why the universe is mathematical and of where mathematics came from and what numbers are.

Like a petulant 8-year-old, we keep asking why, why, why, why. In the end, the answer is either ''just because'' or ''for God made it so.'' Take your pick.

Excellent post Brother Chuck. My thoughts exactly.

[Azy]

Perhaps it would be helpful if a provisional definition of life was agreed upon.

[Hamayun]

Perhaps it would be helpful if a provisional definition of life was agreed upon.

Life is the opposite of death.

If you can feel pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness etc then you are alive I guess...

[GuestFellow]

Life is the opposite of death.

If you can feel pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness etc then you are alive I guess...

What about plants? :/

[جوري]

Perhaps it would be helpful if a provisional definition of life was agreed upon.

Let's put it this way.. if life can be created in a lab.. and I take a plant denature it to its most basic component, would you be able to re-anneal to its former vibrancy give it form bearing in mind that the same DNA that form the stalk, also forms the petals and breathe life into it anew. I am in fact giving you all its constituents and not asking you to create ex nihilo which is the genuine definition of 'from scratch'!

You are already a few steps ahead of 'nature', 'evolution' or whatever magic force that allowed for life and form and variety.

1- You already have the raw material to work with and don't 'gotta bring it from scratch'!
2- two, you have the very specific raw material to a rose, in other words you'll have all that you need to make one thing in specific, I am not for instance giving you flower DNA and asking you to give form and life to an apple.
3- you are actually manipulating the event in a controlled environment so that it isn't out in nature happening by some magic on its own.. a little wind a little sunshine a little time and voila!

all the best

[Azy]

Let's put it this way.. if life can be created in a lab.. and I take a plant...
I am in fact giving you all its constituents and not asking you to create ex nihilo

I'm not sure why you introduced the plant to be honest because the whole point of this thread seems to be creating life ex nihilo or at least that is the way I understood it.

Life is the opposite of death.
If you can feel pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness etc then you are alive I guess...

I don't think that's a particularly useful definition, death is the end of life not it's opposite. As Guestfellow said there are plenty of things we consider to be 'life' which do not feel hunger, sadness and so on... plants, bacteria, fungi.

I can not think of any explanation or valid definition as to what life is from a physical sense. Chemically and in physical composition a dead fish is identical to a live fish.

I don't think that's entirely true, there are many ongoing chemical processes within a 'living' fish that are not within a 'dead' fish.

[جوري]

Anyway...
I'm not sure why you introduced the plant to be honest because the whole point of this thread seems to be creating life ex nihilo or at least that is the way I understood it.

Substitute plant then with anything else and create life ex nihilo .. and while at it please look up the definition of the word.. for there would be no raw material for you to work with, denatured or annealed!


all the best

[Ramisa]

:sl:

Your second question is the one I can answer. A living thing is defined by 5 characteristics :1)Living things are stimulus(respond to their environment).2)They grow.3)Living things must get ride of wastes.4)Living things can reproduce.5) They need energy.

Without these five they are not defined as 'living things'. In the case of your question,if some form of life is formed and does not contain these 5 characteristics than it is not a living thing. Humans do not create life,only Allah The All Mighty can,does and will until the day of Judgement,Insha'Allah.
:w:

[Woodrow]

:sl:

Your second question is the one I can answer. A living thing is defined by 5 characteristics :1)Living things are stimulus(respond to their environment).2)They grow.3)Living things must get ride of wastes.4)Living things can reproduce.5) They need energy.

Without these five they are not defined as 'living things'. In the case of your question,if some form of life is formed and does not contain these 5 characteristics than it is not a living thing. Humans do not create life,only Allah The All Mighty can,does and will until the day of Judgement,Insha'Allah.
:w:

:wa:

just my opinion:

I see those as being the very minimal criteria for defining life. Yet not complete or necessarily fully accurate. If we agree Angels exist and are living beings I do not think they have all of those qualities.

I also think those 5 qualities are incomplete. there seems to be 6th undefinable factor that is needed for something to be alive.

[Ramisa]

:sl:
^That was the scientific view of non muslims for humans,not based on animals. But I do agree on what you have stated brother:).

:w:

[Gubbleknucker]

I meant creating a living organism using no organic matter.

What do you mean by this? Organic compounds can be synthesized. Recently we found a piece of meteor containing organic compounds.

...or do you mean that we should try to make a completely new kind of life, say...silicon based?

That would be an entirely different undertaking. I don't think we can make life without applying selective pressure to self replicators... Do you know of any non-organic self replicators?

Right now the best I can hope for is that we reproduce the circumstances under which life formed in the first place. I don't expect more than oversimple single celled things that 'feed' upon basic organic compounds.

If you can feel pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness etc then you are alive I guess...

That is yet another undertaking. As others have stated already, generally for something to be considered alive it need only be able to reproduce, respond to its environment, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis.

Under your definition only a relatively small number of higher mammals are alive, and yet it is still too inclusive. Can a computer algorithm that feels pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness, etc, be considered alive?

[جوري]

Originally Posted by Hamayun

I meant creating a living organism using no organic matter.

What do you mean by this? Organic compounds can be synthesized. Recently we found a piece of meteor containing organic compounds.

he means 'abiogenesis' A hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.. what does the sugared meteor have to do with his response or the topic?

...or do you mean that we should try to make a completely new kind of life, say...silicon based?

Again, I thought his statement was self-explanatory but we have gone ahead and defined it for you using the English dictionary!

That would be an entirely different undertaking. I don't think we can make life without applying selective pressure to self replicators... Do you know of any non-organic self replicators?

Sure, making use of your reproductive organs isn't creating though, it is called sexual reproduction.. can't really take credit for something you came ready equipped with, especially with your predecessors speaking of ' ex nihilo'

Right now the best I can hope for is that we reproduce the circumstances under which life formed in the first place. I don't expect more than oversimple single celled things that 'feed' upon basic organic compounds.

You know for a fact that life formed from a single cell?
I'd say that is right near impossible--

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...dum_022703.pdf

That is yet another undertaking. As others have stated already, generally for something to be considered alive it need only be able to reproduce, respond to its environment, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis.

Irrelevant comment!

Under your definition only a relatively small number of higher mammals are alive, and yet it is still too inclusive. Can a computer algorithm that feels pain, pleasure, hunger, sadness, etc, be considered alive?

ah but it begs the question, do feeling inanimate 'non-organic' objects who do as you describe also appear ' ex nihilo' to randomly assemble and become more complex over time or do they have a maker?

something to ponder while brushing ones teeth!

[Azy]

lol, Mullan's back.

Gubbleknucker, the challenge as I understand it is to engineer something that comes under some agreed definition of 'life', starting with only the components that occur without the intervention of existing life. So you can have amino acids if you like since they occur naturally.

This looks interesting. Short article about it here.

ah but it begs the question, do feeling inanimate 'non-organic' objects who do as you describe also appear ' ex nihilo' to randomly assemble and become more complex over time or do they have a maker?

Isn't that the whole point of this thread, life that has a human creator?

[- IqRa -]

No @ 1st question.

[جوري]

lol, Mullan's back.

As often as abiogenesis and panspermia show up!

Isn't that the whole point of this thread, life that has a human creator?

Of course.. that is what we were all thinking.. in the beginning of time, when we were a lipid bi-layer.. there was just one lab in the galaxy.. and they kept trying for years.. searching the universe for a mitochondria .. and the golgi apparatus, and rough and smooth ER, and liposomes, some matrix etc etc etc etc.. each nerd in the one lab trying with a different set of amino acids to find the proper sequence to have one functioning protein, each protein meant to act, be acted on or function on another.. at times, they'd open the space window and let some light in to see the effect that had but it would denature all their works, so they'd start anew and try a little water.. but after a prolonged period of time (as per the video of 'converse' on the previous page.. magic happened.. and it all came together.. and kept coming together.. and budding and reproducing, then it gave us male and female, and happened several times all at the same time over a prolonged period of time, blue green algae into dinosaurs then amphibians then apes then humans and voila..

no God, but the lab in outer space should get full credit! ;D

all the best ..

[Azy]

As often as abiogenesis and panspermia show up!

I'm pretty sure I didn't get my point across in the other post.
It's not that I disagree with Mullan, on the contrary I would say that I totally agree with his conclusions. Assembling a primitive cell of the type described in the way described is so unlikely it's fair to say it would probably never happen.

My point is not that he's wrong. My point is that proving abiogenesis cannot happen by random assembly of a cell is akin to proving that bacterial pneumonia cannot be cured by rubbing peanut butter into one's scalp.

Of course it can't. No one ever claimed it could, and proving that this one mechanism could not work is not disproving abiogenesis any more than the peanut butter disproves the effective treatment of pneumonia.

[جوري]

I'm pretty sure I didn't get my point across in the other post.

I suppose the reason for that, is, that you never have a valid point!

It's not that I disagree with Mullan, on the contrary I would say that I totally agree with his conclusions. Assembling a primitive cell of the type described in the way described is so unlikely it's fair to say it would probably never happen.

How would you describe in very technical details the assembly of a primitive cell?

My point is not that he's wrong. My point is that proving abiogenesis cannot happen by random assembly of a cell is akin to proving that bacterial pneumonia cannot be cured by rubbing peanut butter into one's scalp.

Again, would you like to back up your points? I fear the irony of your otherwise clever conceptions is wasted if you don't provide us with a thorough scientifically accurate alternative!

Of course it can't. No one ever claimed it could, and proving that this one mechanism could not work is not disproving abiogenesis any more than the peanut butter disproves the effective treatment of pneumonia.

ah the last cry of a desperate man .. do you do this to embarrass yourself publicly?

[Azy]

How would you describe in very technical details the assembly of a primitive cell?

I wouldn't and don't really need to do so. That you don't know the technical details of the assembly of Adam from dust doesn't present a barrier to your acceptance of it as a possibility.

Again, would you like to back up your points?

It's not a matter of backing up my points but showing the flaw in your argument. To infer the truth of the universal from the truth of the particular is a logical fallacy.

One cannot say "Some mechanisms for abiogenesis are not valid, therefore all mechanisms for abiogenesis are not valid".

[Hamayun]

That you don't know the technical details of the assembly of Adam from dust doesn't present a barrier to your acceptance of it as a possibility.

In case you forgot to notice... she is a Muslim! :uuh:

We believe that Allah only has to say "Be" and it is. There are no technical details of Adam's (as) assembly. It's God's will. Simplesss!!

If he can create the universe from nothing, how hard can it be to create Adam?

[جوري]

I wouldn't and don't really need to do so. That you don't know the technical details of the assembly of Adam from dust doesn't present a barrier to your acceptance of it as a possibility.

Sure you do.. or quit crying about the alleged 'God of the Gaps' No one has to explain how God did it, that is why they call it a belief system.. you allege science now has the answers in very technical details, I'd like to see that, if you are unable to do better then shut your yap.. Why should anyone subscribe to your brand of beliefs? They are actually absurd!

It's not a matter of backing up my points but showing the flaw in your argument. To infer the truth of the universal from the truth of the particular is a logical fallacy.

I have no idea what these compound words mean.. like you searched your head to put something intelligent together and in the end confabulated.
1- You haven't in fact demonstrated a flaw, in order for you to do so, you'd have to prove with science not belief why and how evolution from unicellular organisms occurred, you have failed to do so.
2- I see no logical fallacies, in fact I think the word is newly ingrained in your head after I exposed you time and again on the 'flute thread' doing exactly just that argumentum ad populum and ad homs.

One cannot say "Some mechanisms for abiogenesis are not valid, therefore all mechanisms for abiogenesis are not valid".

I haven't seen any mechanisms of abiogenesis thus far save for what Dr. Mullan went over in quite the mathematical detail.. Everything else holds the belief that it happened.. There have been no technical details demonstrable or indemonstrable.. It doesn't matter how you slice it, you'll have to account for every structure in the cell, its function and its drive forward to a complex organism.

I hope you read and discern these words before your next reply if you desired a sliver of credibility!

all the best

[Azy]

you allege science now has the answers in very technical details

Mmm, no I didn't, I think you might be imagining things.

I have no idea what these compound words mean..

It doesn't surprise me that you're not familiar with logic or it's lexicon.

1- You haven't in fact demonstrated a flaw
2- I see no logical fallacies

Big hint, it's here
---> I haven't seen any mechanisms of abiogenesis thus far save for what Dr. Mullan went over in quite the mathematical detail..

One mechanism has been disproved, therefore abiogenesis could not happen. It's a flaw in your argument, a logical fallacy. (There's the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis by the way)

I'm saying that it could happen, given that it appears there was no life on Earth before 3.8 billion years ago it must have come from somewhere. There's no evidence for a creator and you readily admit it is simply belief, so scientifically speaking that leaves us with the 'something else', not random assembly of cells, not a creator, not anything specific, just something else.

Until you can a) find evidence for a creator or b) prove that abiogenesis could not happen at all by any natural means, we're stuck with 'something else'.

[جوري]

Mmm, no I didn't, I think you might be imagining things.

Really, it wasn't you who had written this earlier?

I cannot imagine that a molecular biologist doesn't actually know how speciation works or even that you believe mutations cannot possibly under any circumstances confer any benefit.
Just how does the happy muslim explain away the gradual change in life represented in the fossil record?

I believe such a strong statement deserves some technical backup!

It doesn't surprise me that you're not familiar with logic or it's lexicon.
One mechanism has been disproved, therefore abiogenesis could not happen. It's a flaw in your argument, a logical fallacy. (There's the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis by the way)

I keep telling you, that there is more to 'disproving' then simply alleging it.. there is backing it up.. do you enjoy going in circles in every thread?
That is what Dr. Mullan in fact has done, take known science, and utilize it and leave it open to interpretation!

as for your Oparin/Haldane, well again, they seem to be missing alot of variables.. You can't say, organic compounds have undergone a series of of reactions leading to more complex molecules, without going over a mechanical or chemical reaction, or the sea is a soup powered by solar energy eventually leading to first cells .. I can't begin to tell you what a hypocrite you are, for rebuffing aside someone who took all those proposed mechanisms down to every last finite detail, every variable and say it is unscientific, but by the same token expect us to subscribe that the sea powered by the sun gave us life..

Do you understand how biochemistry works? do you understand how cell machinery works? do you understand that you need to account for each structure and function in a progressive pattern to give us complex life?

here is a brief video, perhaps before your next reply you can do a quick recap on DNA transcription and translation.

Media Tags are no longer supported

I'm saying that it could happen, given that it appears there was no life on Earth before 3.8 billion years ago it must have come from somewhere. There's no evidence for a creator and you readily admit it is simply belief, so scientifically speaking that leaves us with the 'something else', not random assembly of cells, not a creator, not anything specific, just something else.

There is nothing scientific about what you propose.. you are simply substituting one belief for a lesser belief.. at least with creation you start with complex organisms.. what you want to start with is a single cell and carry it to a complex organism, then have it differentiate into species, plants, animals, noble elements as well account for its directionality and sentience etc .. simply because you don't like what others have to say not because what you propose is logical!.. you have not done yourself a favor in either direction.
you have neither proven what you propose with that scientific rigor and integrity you love to propose only in words of course, as you've exempt yourself from common sense with each post, and yet expect folks to believe it as face value while pounding on your chest like a monkey!
nor have you taken a moment to ponder how insignificant you're for all we unlock in the universe, we know absolutely nothing but the superficial of the very deep!

Until you can a) find evidence for a creator or b) prove that abiogenesis could not happen at all by any natural means, we're stuck with 'something else'.

Evidence of the creator is in the creation.. until you come up with something completely logical, or the something else, I suggest you take a hike, as I seem to be this close to invalidating my fast every day just contemplating how under-educated you are!

all the best

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Evidence of the creator is in the creation.. until you come up with something completely logical, or the something else, I suggest you take a hike, as I seem to be this close to invalidating my fast every day just contemplating how under-educated you are!

all the best

It's been clear for a long time in this thread that you don't understand what Azy is saying.

You write in your third language, English, quite well, but your reading skills probably need work.

Instead of trying to understand, you hand out insults:

I have no idea what these compound words mean.. like you searched your head to put something intelligent together and in the end confabulated.

Don't forget Sûrah an-Nahl:

16:125 (Asad) CALL THOU (all mankind] unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner for, behold, thy Sustainer knows best as to who strays from His path, and best knows He as to who are the right-guided.

If you try first to understand your opponent's position, then you'll stand a much better chance of being able to analyse it critically.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,

Hi,

It's been clear for a long time in this thread that you don't understand what Azy is saying. You write in your third language, English, quite well, but your reading skills probably need work.

How about you clarify his work for him ESL style? valiance is nice and all as I have told you before and I am sure deeply appreciated by fellow atheists, it isn't enough to merely show up deus ex machina to save him from further folly and part with your wisdom as to how I am misunderstanding his points!
Is there in fact a point that would save you from resorting to the same rhetoric on every thread where an atheist seems to be on his last gasps?

Instead of trying to understand, you hand out insults:

another last ditch effort, for some reason always neglecting to read the sequence of the dialogue.. I'll ask you kindly for the last time if you have something of relevance to impart as relates to the debate then share it.. if not, then kindly part with your well rehearsed 'whatever you say' and leave us in peace!

Don't forget Sûrah an-Nahl:


If you try first to understand your opponent's position, then you'll stand a much better chance of being able to analyse it critically.

Peace

It is strange to me, that someone who has lost interest in reading the Quran on his own admission would quote me a verse from the book he finds so confusing.. what is the purpose of this, I ask you? an act of obsequiousness, if you can't dazzle me with science, find some other route to get me to stop exposing this folly?

all the best