Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life yet – Science is decades behind..

[- Qatada -]

Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life is made yet – Science is decades behind in knowing the Origins of life.


If we skim over all the indepth debates people have about the origins of life, and the difficulties and confusions they go through to try to prove each other wrong, we see one common truth;


Scientifically we are many decades behind in actually producing any form of biological man-made life.



So let’s set the facts straight:

1 – No man made life has been biologically produced yet, meaning that science has not shown a biological being come to life from dead matter (excluding already existing biological cells like sperm and egg cells).

2 – A full cell -which would be the basic foundation for any originating life- has not been independently created by scientists from non-biological materials. This is further complicated because even organelles within cells are complicated in structure, especially how they work with each other to ‘run the cell factory’ (wherein all the organelles work together like a factory to take in nutrients, convert these nutrients into energy, carry out specialized functions, and reproduce as necessary. Each cell stores its own set of instructions for carrying out each of these activities.) [note: this is just a brief glimpse of how complicated each individual cell is.]


[img]
http://www.matlabtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/cell_structure_001.jpg[/img]

3 – Even the origins of cells and how they structurally formed is hotly debated amongst scientists, Darwin was not aware how complicated cells would be (he didn’t have Electronic microscopes at that time) and this is how he proposed that cells formed easily from non-living matter. Now we know how complicated cells really are.

Basic example: Cells are an ‘Open-Closed system’ wherein they are able to open up to allow nutrients to enter into them, then close so other substances (i.e. viruses or pathogens) do not enter into them. They can also expel waste materials out of themselves through the ‘Open’ system. Scientists still cannot explain how this system might have originated in the ‘first cell’ which may have supposedly formed from non life. Meaning: How did any small organelles enter and remain within the ‘original first cell’, if cells membranes are made from lipid bi-layers (meaning: ‘fats’). How would a piece of fat produce a ‘Open-Close system’ by itself? How did the fat-based cell membrane then keep any organelles safe within itself for so long without spilling them out or being engulfed by viruses, if it didn’t know how to create a Closing system initially?

These are just basic points and questions which have no clear or definite answers from the scientist community. Looking into this is useful in studying biology, infact Allah tells us in the Quran to look into the Origins of life when He says:

Say, [O Muhammad], “Travel through the land and observe how He Originated creation (bad’a khalq). Then Allah will produce the final creation (on Judgment Day). Indeed Allah, over all things is capable.” (Quran 29:20)

What we see is that science is many decades behind in knowing even the basic answers to the Origins of biological life. This means that Atheists or Agnosts cannot be confident that ‘life originated by itself.' (it's a 'matter of faith' for them) It also makes Muslims realise that any scientific advancements into this research should only increase them in certainty at the amazing complexities in Allah’s design-work.

http://ex-atheistmuslims.com/no-man-...e-is-made-yet/

[Pygoscelis]

Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life is made yet – Science is decades behind in knowing the Origins of life. [/SIZE]

Decades behind what? If he means behind theists claiming we were made by Gods, isn't it more like centuries behind that? Big difference of course is that if and when science solves this mystery, it will do so with evidence to back it up.

Scientifically we are many decades behind in actually producing any form of biological man-made life.[/B][/COLOR]

Again, behind what?

Scientists still cannot explain how this system might have originated in the ‘first cell’

So?

infact Allah tells us in the Quran to look into the Origins of life when He says:
Say, [O Muhammad], “Travel through the land and observe how He Originated creation (bad’a khalq). Then Allah will produce the final creation (on Judgment Day). Indeed Allah, over all things is capable.” (Quran 29:20)

That doesn't tell us anything more than science does. That is just an assertion with no evidence.

This means that Atheists or Agnosts cannot be confident that ‘life originated by itself.'

Since when have agnostics claimed life originated by itself? You don't even have to think that to be atheist.

It also makes Muslims realise that any scientific advancements into this research should only increase them in certainty at the amazing complexities in Allah’s design-work.

Why? First you say that scientists can't yet explain how life came to be, as if that means religion has something right, and then you say that once science does unravel the mystery, that'll also mean religion has something right. You seem to want it both ways.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

Decades behind what? If he means behind theists claiming we were made by Gods, isn't it more like centuries behind that? Big difference of course is that if and when science solves this mystery, it will do so with evidence to back it up.

I guess we will never reach agreement on this, but I struggle to accept the science behind the theory of evolution, which many atheists claim as a fact, and hence there is no need of any creator God.

In the spirit of searching for God the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Eric

[observer]

I struggle to accept the science behind the theory of evolution, which many atheists claim as a fact, and hence there is no need of any creator God.

I think that "I struggle to accept the science" needs to be weighed against the fact that the scientific community, people who are experts in the field, who study this as a job, who have studied this for over 150 years now, do accept it as fact.

Also, I'm not sure many atheists claim that evolution precludes a god, just the creation stories of the major religions. I'm an atheist, evolution-believer but I can't see how evolution being true would mean that there couldn't be a god.

[Independent]

TOE is not incompatible with faith in a God, but it is incompatible with various religious Creation accounts (eg all life created in a matter of a few days, assuming 'days' are interpreted as the standard 24hr version).

[Ali Mujahidin]

I'm an atheist, evolution-believer but I can't see how evolution being true would mean that there couldn't be a god.

What you have said stirred up some strange thoughts in my mind. Please correct me if I am wrong. I get the idea that you think those "scientifically-proven facts of evolution" represent solid evidence of the handiwork of some kind of supra-normal being doing some kind of experiment and we are the result of that being's experiments. Did I get that right?

[observer]

What you have said stirred up some strange thoughts in my mind. Please correct me if I am wrong. I get the idea that you think those "scientifically-proven facts of evolution" represent solid evidence of the handiwork of some kind of supra-normal being doing some kind of experiment and we are the result of that being's experiments. Did I get that right?

No, I don't believe there is a god.

What I mean is that even with evolution being an established fact, that wouldn't stop there necessarily being a god. In fact, nothing can stop the possibility of there being a god. All evolution shows is that the religious creation explanation is incorrect.

There are plenty of Christians for example (and I'm sure many muslims/hindus etc.) who have no problem reconciling evolution with their faith.

[Muhaba]

Is there any more proof for evolution than there is for theism?

Scientists observe creation and assume that organisms came into being by themselves and then evolved. what proof is there that this assumption is true?

Theists observe creation and assume that God must have caused it to happen.

What more proof is there for evolution to be true? How do you know for sure that it all happened by itself and God didn't cause it to happen. Why should evolution negate the need for God's existence. Even if evolution is true, then it can only be because God programmed matter/organism to evolve. There is no way anything can evolve by itself into anything else. That is a senseless belief.

[observer]

Is there any more proof for evolution than there is for theism?

Scientists observe creation and assume that organisms came into being by themselves and then evolved. what proof is there that this assumption is true?

Theists observe creation and assume that God must have caused it to happen.

What more proof is there for evolution to be true? How do you know for sure that it all happened by itself and God didn't cause it to happen. Why should evolution negate the need for God's existence. Even if evolution is true, then it can only be because God programmed matter/organism to evolve. There is no way anything can evolve by itself into anything else. That is a senseless belief.

Evolution doesn't negate god, no-one has suggested otherwise. It would negate the creation stories of religion however. Also, in science you can never be 100% sure, everything is only our best guess until we improve on it. That's the big difference between science and religion - religion claims to have all the answers, science claims to be looking for the answers and freely admits where it is lacking. Religion requires no evidence, science without evidence is not science.

There is a lot of evidence for evolution, probably the best evidence being found in our DNA and the fossil record. Every year that passes we will improve on our theory of evolution until it is as close to perfect as it can be. It will, however, never be able to "show" that there is no god. If there is indeed no god, then it is impossible to prove that as you cannot prove a negative.

[Muhaba]

^then why are you atheist?

[observer]

^then why are you atheist?

Well, I'm atheist because I see no evidence for god. I'm atheist in the same way that I don't believe in unicorns, or the Greek gods for example. I see no evidence. I think it's completely normal that people should invent religion as an explanation for the world but I think that it's unnecessary and that nature is everything that there is, there is no god "outside" nature.

There could be a god (as indeed there could be many gods, or many unicorns) but I don't think there is. I certainly can't believe in any of the religions as so much of what they say I don't like or agree with.

[Muhaba]

well, there is a difference between God and unicorn. existence of unicorn is not necessary for existence of the universe. the universe / creation does not depend on whether there is a unicorn or not. But existence of the universe does depend on existence of God.

the universe came into being somehow. it didn't always exist and it didn't come into being by itself. Some Being (an All-powerful and All-wise Being) had to bring the universe into being. So if there is no God, then there can be no universe, no creation. then you and I would not exist. and if we and all that is around exists, then God must exists.

Thus everything existing points to the existence of God. It's that clear.

Even if science says that organism evolved from one specie to another, still the first organism, cell or whatever had to be created. the first piece of matter had to be created. It didn't come from nowhere by itself.

[observer]

the universe came into being somehow. it didn't always exist and it didn't come into being by itself. Some Being (an All-powerful and All-wise Being) had to bring the universe into being. So if there is no God, then there can be no universe, no creation. then you and I would not exist. and if we and all that is around exists, then God must exists.

It doesn't follow that because there is a universe therefore - god.

You say an all-powerful, all-wise being had to being the universe into existence - why?
You say it didn't always exist - how do you know?

We don't know if the universe has a beginning. We don't know if it has always existed - indeed the idea of the universe beginning may actually be nonsensical - we don't know.

It may have been brought into being by god. It may have always been here. We don't know. You can make the argument either way but god is certainly not definitely necessary for there to be a universe.

Personally, I love the mystery of it!

[Ali Mujahidin]

Well, I'm atheist because I see no evidence for god.

Consider this scenario.

A fish is swimming in the pond. It's a very smart fish. Very logical. Very sensible.

A line falls into the water. Complete with hook, lure and sinker. The fish swims around the hook, line, lure and sinker. It has heard some fish say that there is a fisherman somewhere at the other end of the line. However, try as it may, using all the logic and sense and science at its disposal, the fish can see no evidence of any fisherman. So it concludes that there is no fisherman.

Do you get my drift?

[observer]

Consider this scenario.

A fish is swimming in the pond. It's a very smart fish. Very logical. Very sensible.

A line falls into the water. Complete with hook, lure and sinker. The fish swims around the hook, line, lure and sinker. It has heard some fish say that there is a fisherman somewhere at the other end of the line. However, try as it may, using all the logic and sense and science at its disposal, the fish can see no evidence of any fisherman. So it concludes that there is no fisherman.

Do you get my drift?

Yes, it's the most common religious argument. But it's essentially what is known as "The argument from ignorance" - we don't know something so we say that it must be a higher power. People used to pray to gods to make the sun shine, the rain fall - science shows us why this is unnecessary and illogical.

Imagine this - the fish in the pond doesn't understand how the pond works. It may be infinite, it may not. It may have a beginning, it may not. The idea of cause and effect in the pond may not be as simple as the fish perceives it to be. From the fish's perspective, things are simple in the pond - but the real nature of the pond is not understood by the fish.

Everything that we used to say relied on god or gods has been shown to be natural, not supernatural, in nature - tides, eclipses, seasons, sunrise, the stars, earthquakes, the movement of the planets - all of this has been explained as being dependant on god's will - until science shows that not to be the case.

Now, you may say that everything ultimately depends on god's will, fine, I can't prove it's not any more than you can prove it is. But we know, thanks to science, that every natural occurrence that we used to attribute to god's (or the gods') whim is based on natural laws. I see no reason to say that just because we don't fully understand something, we should say that god did it.

Also, religion and science come at the big questions differently. Religion says - OK, my book says this so let's find proof of that. Science says - I see A happen, I think that might be because of B. Let's test that and see if it's right. If not, let's think of another idea.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

TOE is not incompatible with faith in a God,

I disagree, TOE is incompatible with faith in God

but it is incompatible with various religious Creation accounts (eg all life created in a matter of a few days, assuming 'days' are interpreted as the standard 24hr version).

If TOE is not compatable with religious accounts of creation, that simply means I cannot trust TOE.

Faith is different to science, we accept and trust that God exists, and we accept scripture as God's word, it is called faith.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[Independent]

Greetings Eric

I disagree, TOE is incompatible with faith in God

Can you clarify for me - do you mean, incompatible with faith in any God? Or your God? Surely, it can't be incompatible with faith in a God in general.

[truthseeker63]

WS Good Link Qatada.

[Pygoscelis]

Is there any more proof for evolution than there is for theism?

Yes. A lot more.

For evidence for theism..... we get a lot of unsupported claims, a few word games and strange logic, and a request to believe on "Faith".

For evidence for evolution, look here http://www.usefulcharts.com/science/...evolution.html

There is quite a lot of it, of many different types.

Furthermore, evolution is falsifiable. Claims of Gods are usually not.

And Evolution is open to revision and even discarding as better evidence comes along. I don't think many theists will be ready to discard their religion based on the evidence that comes in.

Scientists observe creation and assume that organisms came into being by themselves and then evolved. what proof is there that this assumption is true?

No such assumption is made.

Theists observe creation and assume that God must have caused it to happen.

what proof is there that this assumption is true?

Why should evolution negate the need for God's existence.

It doesn't, as observer has noted. As Eric H said, it doesn't disprove God. It just leans towards an explanation in which God isn't required. Evolution doesn't preclude Gods, as was said above. It just shows some creation stories to be wrong.

Even if evolution is true, then it can only be because God programmed matter/organism to evolve.

what proof is there that this assumption is true?

If TOE is not compatable with religious accounts of creation, that simply means I cannot trust TOE.

The theory of evolution is not something anybody should trust. Just like the idea that the earth goes around the sun isn't something anybody should trust. It isn't about trust. It isn't about faith. It is about evidence. The best evidence we have points this way. As soon as the best evidence points in another direction we should modify or abandon the theory or idea. And as the evidence mounts stronger and stronger we shouldn't cling to the idea irrationally. The same should apply to religious accounts... but the religious don't seem to want to think that way.

[Gator]

So when the first artificial cell is made, what then? Where will the goal posts be moved to?