Ask darwinists

[- Qatada -]

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.

 

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


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.'


​

 

[Trumble]

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

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.

 

[Nerd]

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.'

​

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.

 

[tetsujin]

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" ??

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/userfiles/File/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_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

 

[asadxyz]

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/userfiles/File/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_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

 

[tetsujin]

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/userfiles/File/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_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

 

[asadxyz]

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/userfiles/File/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_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.

 

[Trumble]

These theories are to befool those who have no brain to think and are ready to believe Tom ,Dick and Harry.

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.

 

[asadxyz]

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.

 

[Nerd]

Just a "........." hypothesis.Any proof ??
Can any create human DNA just mixing up hydrogen ,Oxygen and nitrogen atoms today with all possible resources available? If no why to presume such type of hypothesis which are so ridiculous?

Bro, your first question was can we create DNA. To which I have given you couple of studies conducted to look into the matter. It is possible.
(Have a look through the thread).

 

[asadxyz]

Bro, your first question was can we create DNA. To which I have given you couple of studies conducted to look into the matter. It is possible.
(Have a look through the thread).

Dear Nerd
I do not know if you are aware of this fact that whole DNA (including coding and non coding regions) of every body is different from each other.It is the basis of DNA finger printing.
Again my question to Theory believers :
-How did matter come into existance ?
-How did energy come into exitance ?

 

[Nerd]

Dear Nerd
I do not know if you are aware of this fact that whole DNA (including coding and non coding regions) of every body is different from each other.It is the basis of DNA finger printing.

I am aware, that DNA is unique for everyone, and that it is composed of introns and exons and "gene"s. But I don't understand how that completely refutes the hypothesis of primodial soup.

 

[asadxyz]

I am aware, that DNA is unique for everyone, and that it is composed of introns and exons and "gene"s. But I don't understand how that completely refutes the hypothesis of primodial soup.

If you aware of this much then you must be knowing that just mixing of atoms/molecules cannot create DNA.If it were so then scienctists had not gone throug recombinant technology or PCR .
They have to use recombinant technology just to produce a very small and simple molecule of Insulin.
To create sooooooooooooooooooooooo mmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyy DNAs unique to everyone only some "super power " can do and that is Almighty Creator.

 

[Azy]

-How did Allah cause matter to come into existance ?
-How did Allah cause energy to come into exitance ?
Provide proof that we can test.

If you're going to say "Qur'an is proof", then please don't even bother answering.

 

[asadxyz]

-How did Allah cause matter to come into existance ?
-How did Allah cause energy to come into exitance ?
Provide proof that we can test.

If you're going to say "Qur'an is proof", then please don't even bother answering.

Counter questions indicate you have become helpless to answer my questions.
Allah is all powerful He can do whatever he likes.He created this Universe and Matter and Energy.
He rises the Sun daily and brings Nights.Call your super Powers to revert it .

 

[Gator]

Again my question to Theory believers :
-How did matter come into existance ?
-How did energy come into exitance ?

Hi there, If this isn't just for Nerd, I'll take a whack. Just to show how I think about things.

If your looking for 100% provable knowledge, the answer to both is I don't know.

If you want to know what I think.
-I believe matter came into being from E=mc^2.
-I believe energy was released from the the basic fabric of the universe which is eternal. My guess is that all the energy in the universe acutally adds up to zero and thus ex-nihilo creation.

Just my opinion.

Thanks.

 

[tetsujin]

Counter questions indicate you have become helpless to answer my questions.
Allah is all powerful He can do whatever he likes.He created this Universe and Matter and Energy.
He rises the Sun daily and brings Nights.Call your super Powers to revert it .

Actually, Brahman is the all powerful one. And he transcends all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe.

Even if you prayed for 50 years straight to Allah, you couldn't reverse the rotation of the earth or reduce Mt. Everest to sandy beach.



Joking aside, have you ever heard of the casimir effect or zero point energy?

No?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9747

Enjoy your reading. It even has the names o researchers that have don't the experiments and measure the force.

(ii) Can something come from nothing?

Even were we to assume, against physics, that there was some time prior to the origin of the universe when there was nothing except time, it is unclear what problem this would supposedly raise. There certainly is no logical contradiction in imagining there being nothing at one point in time and then there being something at a later point in time; it is not as though we are talking about "nothing" somehow metamorphosing into an existent something. Although the proposition that something cannot come from nothing (like the proposition that the Earth is flat) traditionally has been a matter of "common sense," it actually (like so much "common sense") reflects only popular prejudice and lacks rigorous logical support. It is not that we know something can come from nothing; it is just that the opposite cannot simply be taken for granted.

(iia) Is it observed? One argument against the idea of something coming from nothing is that we never observe such things happening. I suspect this kind of reasoning is always in the back of the mind of the average man, and explains why the idea is so counterintuitive. However, if we are talking about empty space when we talk about "nothing," then it actually is not true that we never observe things come from nothing: the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle allows for particle-antiparticle pairs to spontaneously appear out of empty space for very brief periods of time. These virtual particles (or quantum vacuum fluctuations) are ubiquitous, and create measurable effects such as the Casimir-Polder force and the Lamb shift. Some physicists have even invoked the same kind of mechanisms to generate theories of the origin of the entire universe from a background of empty spacetime (Tryon 1973).

One can, of course respond that virtual particles do not in fact appear out of nothing, because they occur in a background of spacetime in which quantum mechanics operates. While true, this response undermines the claim that we know from observation that nothing can come into existence out of nothing, since the closest thing to nothing that we are ever able to observe is empty spacetime.

(iib) Does it require self-creation? Another argument against the idea of something coming from nothing is that the idea supposedly requires self-creation, which is impossible since nothing can have causal power before it exists. For instance, creationists often assert that to say that the universe came from nothing is to say that it created itself. But this is not so: the idea of the universe "coming from nothing" commits one only to the view that at one time there was nothing, and then at a later time, the universe existed. Talk of causation, much less self-causation, does not need to enter the picture at all.

vacuum fluctuations, particle and antiparticle generation, baryogenesis



Do you believe in gravity, or electromagnetic forces? The "self-concocted" theories would not work if the were not based on observable fact. Unless you wish to believe that god, through his divine will, actively helps to keep us on the ground attracted towards the centre of our earth, the centre of our solar system, the centre of our galaxy, etc... then you have to provide proof for that. Do you understand why we still say the theory of gravity, and not the law of gravity? Basic understandings of what qualifies as a credible/respectable theory in science is needed before you can label anything as self-concocted in an attempt to discredit it.

Besides, the clothes you wear and the computer you're using was all based on self-concocted theories. You rely on them to get through each and every day.

If you want the proof, the mathematics has been done and the practical application are seen every day in micromachined devices, satellites, even the computer you're using.

Whether you're quoting the Rig Veda or the Qu'ran, claiming god did it is not an explanation at all as it lacks proof in every department.



Al the best wishes,



Faysal

 

[Azy]

Counter questions indicate you have become helpless to answer my questions.
Allah is all powerful He can do whatever he likes.He created this Universe and Matter and Energy.
He rises the Sun daily and brings Nights.Call your super Powers to revert it .

You prove this hypothesis because burden of proof is the responsiblity of the person who claims.

I was hoping for something more along the lines of...
"Allah is all powerful He can do whatever he likes, the proof/evidence I have is..."

 

[asadxyz]

Actually, Brahman is the all powerful one. And he transcends all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe.

Even if you prayed for 50 years straight to Allah, you couldn't reverse the rotation of the earth or reduce Mt. Everest to sandy beach.



Joking aside, have you ever heard of the casimir effect or zero point energy?

No?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9747

Enjoy your reading. It even has the names o researchers that have don't the experiments and measure the force.




vacuum fluctuations, particle and antiparticle generation, baryogenesis



Do you believe in gravity, or electromagnetic forces? The "self-concocted" theories would not work if the were not based on observable fact. Unless you wish to believe that god, through his divine will, actively helps to keep us on the ground attracted towards the centre of our earth, the centre of our solar system, the centre of our galaxy, etc... then you have to provide proof for that. Do you understand why we still say the theory of gravity, and not the law of gravity? Basic understandings of what qualifies as a credible/respectable theory in science is needed before you can label anything as self-concocted in an attempt to discredit it.

Besides, the clothes you wear and the computer you're using was all based on self-concocted theories. You rely on them to get through each and every day.

If you want the proof, the mathematics has been done and the practical application are seen every day in micromachined devices, satellites, even the computer you're using.

Whether you're quoting the Rig Veda or the Qu'ran, claiming god did it is not an explanation at all as it lacks proof in every department.



Al the best wishes,



Faysal

You are beating about the bush because you do not have answer to my question.If God did not create all this matter and energy then
-How did matter come into existance ?
-How did energy come into existance?
If you have no answer to these questions then only possibility remains that there is a SuperPower who created them,.Very rational approach.Think like a scientists ,do not believe hearsay and self concocted theories which today accepted and very next day rebutted.
Allah knew and created the cloning process.Science could not detect it till 20th century.But Allah told us centuries ago that procreation is possible without mating of a male and female.Example Birth of Prophet Jesus PBUH in the Quran.
Could science believe just a few years back ?