Creation arguments vs. evolution arguments?

[Muhammad]

Evolution of life

I have yet to understand any points raised that would in any remote way give serous rise to a creation or specifically an "Inteligent Design" other than to discredit evolution which is simply bad science.

From the outset, Muslims have believed that God created the Universe and its inhabitants and so do the people of many other religions. It could be asked, that if there is no God, then how did people ever come to such conclusions? Such beliefs existed long before Darwin ever posed his theory, and when it did, it needed to be questioned, since it does not make a great deal of sense nor does it agree with logic and what God has taught us.

From among the many ways, we know that God exists when we look around us and see His signs; when we read the Book that He sent down to mankind; when we live our lives and see the countless signs that point to Him, and from natural human instinct (fitrah). Thus when evolution came along to discredit the normal way of thinking, that is why it needed to be corrected and opposed. So it is people who claim there is no God who are the ones to discredit the evidences we give, and not the other way round.



As for the Intelligent Design you mentioned…one can easily find such teachings in the Qur’an, and also many Islamic scholars have answered questions from atheists on the subject., as follows:



Once Khalifa Haroon Rasheed asked Imam Malik: "What is the evidence (daleel) pointing to the existence of Allah (S.W.T.)?"

Imam Malik replied: "Difference in languages, difference in pitches of voice, difference in singing are proof that Allah (S.W.T.) exists!"



The same question was asked, by an atheist, of Imam Abu Hanifa and he replied, "Forget it! At the moment, I am busy thinking about this ship. People tell me there is a big ship, it contains
different goods on board. There is no one to steer it, no one maintaining it. Yet, this ship keeps going back and forth; it even traverses big waves on the oceans; it stops at the locations that it is supposed to stop at; it continues in the direction that it is supposed to head. This ship has no captain and no one planning its trips."

The atheist who posed the question interrupted and exclaimed, "What kind of strange and silly thought is this? How can any intelligent person think that some thing like this can occur?"

Imam Abu Hanifa said, "I feel sorry about your state! You cannot imagine one ship running without some one looking after its affairs. Yet you think that for this whole world, which runs exactly and precisely, there is no one who looks after it, and no one owns it."

Hearing the reply, the atheist was left speechless but he found out more about Haqq (The Truth) and proclaimed Islam.



Imam Shaa'fi replied to the question in the following way, "The leaves of Toot (berries) are all but one. Each leaf tastes exactly the same. Insects, honey bees, cows, goats, and deer live off of it. After eating these the insects produce silk; bees produce honey; deer give musk (a special kind of scent), cows and goats deliver off-springs. Is this not clear evidence that one kind of leaf has so many qualities, and who created these qualities? It is the Khaliq (Creator) who we call Allah (S.W.T.) Who is the Inventor and the Creator."



Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal reflected on the question in the following way. He said, "There is an incredibly strong fort, it has no doors, there is no way to get in. In fact, there is not even a hole in it. From outside it glows like the moon and from inside it shimmers like gold. It is sealed from all sides, matter of fact it is air tight. Suddenly one of its doors breaks down, a living thing with eyes and ears, a beautiful looking animal appears yelling and wandering all over. So is not there a creator who made it possible for life to take place in this secured and closed fort? And is not this Creator better than humans? This Creator has no limit." Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was referring to an egg which is closed from all sides but Allah (S.W.T.) The Khaliq (Creator) puts life in it and a chick pops out.


With regards to the Qur’an, many believe that it is not valid evidence as it is merely a book and nothing more. Yet it has been explained before, the fact that it contains so many scientific miracles and divine prophecies, among much more, that it is unthinkable to have been written by man. So when we read it, we have no doubt that we are reading words of truth from God Himself. There is a debate on the truth of the Qur’an in the following link, which you can listen to for further cllarification:


http://get.to/islam
Written Transcript

It seems to be that Islam does have the necessary "credibility" in cheque mating evolution by supporting evolution albeit from the stance that God created evolution. However, a clear direction is absent within Islam and within respect to evolution of life and not just evolution of man.

I think that Islam clarifies perfectly well the nature of creation. First of all, Adam did not evolve but was created by God:


3.59 . Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam . He created him of dust , then He said unto him : Be! and he is .


23.12 . Verily We created man from a product of wet earth ;


38.71-72 . When thy Lord said unto the angels : lo! I am about to create a mortal out of mire ,

And when I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My spirit , then fall down before him prostrate ,


As for the universe, the Qur’an informs us of its creation:


50.38 . And verily We created the heavens and the earth , and all that is between them , in six days , and naught of weariness touched Us .


41.9-12 . Say ( O Muhammad , unto the idolaters ) : Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days , and ascribe ye unto Him rivals? He ( and none else ) is the Lord of the Worlds .


He placed therein firm hills rising above it , and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days , alike for ( all ) who ask ;


Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke , and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you , willingly or loth . They said : We come , obedient .


Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate ; and we decked the nether heaven with lamps , and rendered it inviolable . That is the measuring of the Mighty , the Knower .


There is no implication of evolution, however, if you are referring to small things such as differing height or difference in numbers of species etc. these are possible. (Shortening of height has already been known). Thus evolution to some extent may be possible, but it was not the way that the world arose.

To me, islam is in need of a uniformal consensus as to the basics of a "Creation from clay" or "A creation through evolution" or simply a transporting of ones supposed soul into early homo-sapians. The point is coverd at the following thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3115

To ask how exactly Adam was brought to earth seems a rather pointless question since it is of insignificant value. The fact that Adam did not arise from evolution and that indeed he was made from clay have already been long established.

An important fact to bear in mind is that Islam is not a religion based solely on science, as this would deviate from its main objective to teach the truth. There are some things that God, out of His infinite Wisdom, did not reveal to mankind, such as the exact way in which He created the Universe etc. and if such matters were crucial for our survival or understanding, then no doubt He would have enlightened us with details of them.


[21:23] He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned.


[17.85] . They will ask thee concerning the Spirit . Say : The Spirit is by command of my Lord , and of knowledge ye have been vouchsafed but little .


It was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade us to occupy ourselves with things that cause confusion and are not clear.

The creation from clay does at first glance appear to be a credible one. However, the evolutionary process of which I myself would support is for crystals within clay that do show a undisputable probability of evolution in that:



1. The crystals do replicate.

2. The crystals do use a source for energy.

3. The crystals do mutate and change form.

4. The crystals do spread over a geographical location.



The biggest problem of this of course is that at no stage can one support clay as being organic. And this is the biggest hurdle facing the support of organic life beginning from clay. Their is one more problem to this theory, it's not the best or leading theory out their.

The logic doesn't follow here. God informs us that He has created human beings from clay, yet you dismiss God's words on the basis of what? Creation from clay is a sign for human beings, since to us clay seems so lifeless and inconceivable that we could be created from it, yet God has truly designed us in the best form from this substance, a testimony to His power and wisdom.
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/en...hFatwaID=104053

Besides, I don't even know how you can remotely use this as an argument against Islam, since the nature of this clay was unknown to you.

Moving on to the mainstream theory of how life started on our planet I must express that for the life of me I cannot understand why Islam cannot support this theory of evolution or even acknowledge it's credability. It is within the realms of Islam to acknowledge that life came from space and indeed Islam itself does acknowledge that life outside our own planet is more or less a fact although to my own dissapointment Islam suggest's that such life within the universe will not be intelligent. Exactly what leadfs them to beleive this is simply beyond my understanding of Islam.

I, also, for the life of me, cannot understand how you can support such a theory and acknowledge its credibility. If you don’t mind, please bring the evidences for these points so that I can see where you are coming from.

 

[root]

The fact that Adam did not arise from evolution and that indeed he was made from clay have already been long established.

In religous text only has it been long established. Let me take another claim of your scientific facts as stated in the Quran. For my point I am using the speed of light that Muslims state was known to the Quran before science had discovered it. The problem I have with Islam & many other religions, in fact them all is that the only source of credibility they have is via themselves?

Taking the claim that the Quran knew the exact speed of light before it was known, here is a good scientific forum that debates this:

Please take a look: (it is a very interesting read) & my home forum of choice, so we are never rude or disrespectful to anyone

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3471&page=1&pp=20&highlight=Quran

 

[Bittersteel]

I read it .Interesting.I read somewhere that angels travelled fastest,faster than the speed of light.
anyway this is the article posted in that forum:
http://www.speed-light.info/angels_speed_of_light.htm

 

[Muhammad]

The fact that Adam did not arise from evolution and that indeed he was made from clay have already been long established.

In religous text only has it been long established.

To me, islam is in need of a uniformal consensus as to the basics of a "Creation from clay" or "A creation through evolution" or simply a transporting of ones supposed soul into early homo-sapians.

You suggested that Islam was in need of a general consensus, so I was simply correcting you that we are content on this matter.

Let me take another claim of your scientific facts as stated in the Quran. For my point I am using the speed of light that Muslims state was known to the Quran before science had discovered it. The problem I have with Islam & many other religions, in fact them all is that the only source of credibility they have is via themselves?

I believe you are wrong here, since there are many non-muslims who appreciate the moral character of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the accuracy and truth of the Qur'an, for example:

The essential and definite element of my conversion to Islam was the Qur'an. I began to study it before my conversion with the critical spirit of a Western intellectual. There are certain verses of this book, the Qur'an, revealed more than thirteen centuries ago, which teach exactly the same notions as the most modern scientific researches do. This definitely converted me.
Author :
Ali Selman Benoist, France, Doctor of Medicine

"I have read the Sacred Scriptures of every religion; nowhere have I found what I encountered in Islam: perfection. The Holy Qur'an, compared to any other scripture I have read, is like the Sun compared to that of a match. I firmly believe that anybody who reads the Word of Allah with a mind that is not completely closed to Truth, will become a Muslim."
Author :
(Saifuddin) Dirk Walter Mosig, U.S.A.

Other such quotes can be found at:http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3077

Taking the claim that the Quran knew the exact speed of light before it was known, here is a good scientific forum that debates this:

Please take a look: (it is a very interesting read) & my home forum of choice, so we are never rude or disrespectful to anyone

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3471&page=1&pp=20&highlight=Quran

Thankyou for providing the link to that forum. I read through the discussion and found that some issues were addressed incorrectly. There was quite a bit of deviation from the key concepts, as people kept bringing up confusing points like probability and statistics, cause and event etc which I felt did not have anything to do with the topic.

However, I found the following points quite relevant:

Originally Posted by Sayonara³:
All of those pieces of information were supplied by the author of the article, not by the Quran. He uses them to create a structure around the figures that the Quran does give, but this does not mean that the figures in the Quran were ever intended to imply such a structure.


Originally Posted by sickmusic:
I totally agree, there is a possibilty that it could be a massive coincidence.
The other side of he coin, if the result did not give us anything close to the speed of light, then it would be a major flaw in the Quran hence disproving its credibility. But this is not the case..
..as its not the case with all other scienific discoveries that can also be derived from the Quran.. can list them in separate threds if u want.

My reasoning on chance..
Someone can win the lottery once in their life - id call that luck.
For someone to win it 10 times - Id call it a fix or a miracle.

I think this point that the member sickmusic brings up is very crucial to the discussion and was disregarded as though it wasn't mentioned. Even though the figures and concepts mentioned in the Qur'an might not be intended to be interpreted as they are by some people, they nevertheless do not disregard the Qur'an's credibiltity since they do not oppose science. And the fact that this happens with all the scientific issues in the Qur'an shows that it's not chance but a miracle and sign of its validity.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Please take a look: (it is a very interesting read) & my home forum of choice, so we are never rude or disrespectful to anyone

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3471&page=1&pp=20&highlight=Quran

Greetings root,
I actually read through an atheist article (Richard Carrier) a while ago which attempted to deliver a detailed refutation of the "speed of light" miracle. After reading the article, I found their arguments to be very weak, centering around ambiguity in the Qur'anic text, in fact he stated (about the Qur'an saying a day=1000 years):

I would be far more impressed if the Koran said a day is equal to 1,023 and 2/3 years, or something like that, producing an absolutely exact result (at least as it would have been when the Koran was supposedly dictated--so Allah missed a glorious opportunity to give ideal mathematical proof of when the Koran was revealed...​

Of course, this is to be expected of an atheist as the Qur'an tells us itself. They will only believe when they see an obvious sign:
25:21 And those who expect not for a Meeting with Us, say: "Why are not the angels sent down to us, or why do we not see our Lord?" Indeed they think too highly of themselves, and are scornful with great pride.

26:4-8. If We will, We could send down to them from the heaven a sign, to which they would bend their necks in humility.
And never comes there unto them a Reminder as a recent revelation from the Most Beneficent (Allâh), but they turn away therefrom.
So they have indeed denied (the truth this Qur'ân), then the news of what they mocked at, will come to them.
Do they not observe the earth, how much of every good kind We cause to grow therein?
Verily, in this is a sign, yet most of them are not believers.

So if Allah swt so wished, He could simply have replaced Suratul-Fatiha (opening chapter of the Qur'an) with a list of universal constants in mathematics and science. But these atheists fail to realize that that is not the purpose of the Qur'an, and their requests ahve benn responded to in the Qur'an itself.

 

[root]

Yes, we can go round in circles. I would have been impressed had the Koran stated the speed of light is X Y Z. But to tie it into a lunar calendar will always bring suspicion and remain as it is. Inconclusive.......

 

[Bittersteel]

ahem,if the Quran had said everything what would you have done?People would have read the Quran and that's it.They wouldn't have need to go to schools ,colleges,universities,etc.We would have become lazy and wouldn't have a wanton of more knowledge.people wouldn't want to work.

Originally posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
So if Allah swt so wished, He could simply have replaced Suratul-Fatiha (opening chapter of the Qur'an) with a list of universal constants in mathematics and science.

 

[root]

I am sure I have missed this so I would ask a Muslim to please state the verse in the Koran that mentions the speed of light. Not the supporting arguement. Simply the text (only) from the Koran that predicts the speed of light.........

Thanks in advance

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

root,
there is none. And there doesn't need to be one. Allah is far greater than filling His book of divine guidance with random numbers from science.

But I would appreciate if we could get back to the topic on creation versus evolution.

 

[root]

there is none. And there doesn't need to be one.

I thought as much & agree we should keep this thread as the heading states....

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings root,

Going back to the discussion we were having - I hope nobody minds if I continue.

The creation from clay does at first glance appear to be a credible one. However, the evolutionary process of which I myself would support is for crystals within clay that do show a undisputable probability of evolution in that:
1. The crystals do replicate.
2. The crystals do use a source for energy.
3. The crystals do mutate and change form.
4. The crystals do spread over a geographical location.
The biggest problem of this of course is that at no stage can one support clay as being organic. And this is the biggest hurdle facing the support of organic life beginning from clay. Their is one more problem to this theory, it's not the best or leading theory out their.

I think your looking at this from a wrong perspective. When I would say my babysister made an ashtray out of clay, I’m sure you can imagen some tiny finger moulding the clayin a certain shape. This is because for her this is the only way to “make” something out of it. Her only proces of changing the clay is: moulding its shape. When Someone says to me Allah has created mankind of clay; I imagen that the one who created matter, atoms, electrons and so on out of energy, that the one who keeps the structures of molecules in a constant way by constantly upholding the 4 laws of nature (strongforce, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity) ; I imagen him being able to do much more then just “mold” that clay. I imagen that person able to make radium-atoms out of hydrogen and vice versa just by swopping some protons and neutrons around. To assume a creator responsable for the entire univerce, it’s structure micro as well as macro, is to assume he’s unlimited in capabilitys.

Since you did not bring any tangable debate in your above analogy, at the very least we know you have a healthy imagination.

This is not the first time that your reply is besides the point, because you seem to have missed the key issue that is raised. You stated earlier that clay contains crystals which supports the fact that it could be from what we are created. Then you said that this is contradicted by the fact that clay cannot be proven to be organic.


Steve was saying that there is a difference between a human being’s actions and God’s actions. There is nothing to indicate that the two would be of the same nature, because God is unlike (as in far superior to) His creation.


‘And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him.’ [112:4]

‘…glory be to Allah above what they describe!’ [23:91]


It is not for us to to state what God can or cannot do, because as Muslims we believe that God can do absolutely anything.

‘His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is.’ [36.82]

‘Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth able to create the like of them? Yea! and He is the Creator (of all), the Knower.’ [36.81]

This last verse explains very well what I am saying. If He can create the whole Universe when there was nothing, surely, then, anything is possible!

Furthermore, you said that clay cannot be proven to be organic, and this suggests that only your current scientific findings indicate such a statement, yet it could be proven in the future.

Again I simply state that Islam acknowledges the probability of life being beyond our own planet and Islam speculates this "Life" (Described by Islam as a "stepping stone" in creation will not be intelligent life. This is the current position, since I have been and researched it. The fact that I beleive also life is in the universe I differ for I believe life will also be intelligent out their. I don't understand why you would imply that I am simply renouncing Islam's position on this matter.

If possible, could you please explain what led you to believe that Islam does not support intelligent life beyond our planet?

Yes, you are correct. And science may at least be asking a better question now that it realises life may well have come to the earth from space. The point being, is that I am not asking you to imagine anything merely consider what scientific evidence we have even if you contain it within your own faith. it's the same paradox as saying "who created the creator". To ask did the molocules of life originate n the very beginning of the Big bang is to acknowlege life is not unique on our planet, and came to be from space? This is progress is it not! or are we wasting our time and should not bother looking since we all know we were created. Exactly what is your position on this matter.

It has been mentioned elsewhere on this forum:

The Quran doesn't close the posibility of life existing outside the earth . . . Rather the Quran tells us that there is more than just the old view of the Earth being centre of everything . . . Allah know's best . . . Allah know's the contents of the heavens . . . Mankind has just about scrached the surface of knowing a little bit about the Earth . . . The are many things in the Quran yet to be discovered by Scientists . . .

How does the origin of the material make any difference as to how it was created?

A massive difference I think.

Can you explain why?

This is the current evidence for how microbes came to be on our planet.

You mentioned that comets brought all the building blocks of life onto this planet. You did not, however, explain how these brought about microbes. Just because there is more microbial life below the earth does not imply it was the first thing to exist.

I was also wondering…how did the iron ore arise and is there evidence to prove it existed? Or is this an assumption. Same goes for hydrogen sulphate, and how do you know it was present at that time.

Your way off base. I am not talking about time v probability. I am talking time required of the oxygenation of the sea then the atmosphere by the microbes stated and the proven method by which it occures.

You may have been referring to the process of oxygenation, but what about the processes before that? Is it likely that all the building blocks of life came to earth in the right proportions and then came together in the exact perfect way to start off life? I believe it is unlikely events like this that steve was referring to. So if time cannot help an unlikely event before it can help a ‘likely’ one, then no matter how possible the latter is, it cannot be possible from such origins.

Also the need for time in order for evolutionary systems to work the magic that they do.

Interesting that you should use such a word to describe a random process originating from a catastrophic event; all dominated by complete chance!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Sorry root for keeping you waiting formy reply al this time, I’ve been quite busy lately. But here it is after all. Looking foreward for your response

All the parts to wich you answered to: “I’m simply debating.” I invite you to look back to wich statements they can be tracked back to and wich “arguments” were found in that particular part of your “debating”

Again I simply state that Islam acknowledges the probability of life being beyond our own planet and Islam speculates this "Life" (Described by Islam as a "stepping stone" in creation will not be intelligent life. This is the current position, since I have been and researched it. The fact that I beleive also life is in the universe I differ for I believe life will also be intelligent out their. I don't understand why you would imply that I am simply renouncing Islam's position on this matter.

But the part you commented on was actually a comment I made regarding:

It seems to be that Islam does have the necessary "credibility" in cheque mating evolution by supporting evolution albeit from the stance that God created evolution. However, a clear direction is absent within Islam and within respect to evolution of life and not just evolution of man. To me, islam is in need of a uniformal consensus as to the basics of a "Creation from clay" or "A creation through evolution" or simply a transporting of ones supposed soul into early homo-sapians.

So what I meant in fact is that we muslims base our believe on the same origen but that at a certain point it comes down to personal interpretation. Why would we “need” to get to a conscensus, especially concidering that although this is a hot topic interreligiously, such things make lil difference in our daily lives or our way of believing. So to each his own, no?

Their is no assumption to the halfway point, You must get over it in your own way. I agree with you, we are at opposite sides of what ultimately can only be one truth. It is by debating both sides we understand what the differences are on both sides. If this was the case we either would know for sure (either way) or live in ignorance of each side. "You may not like it, but you need to hear it".

Yes, there are assumptions used root, Can you provide any proof that a meteor that carried this specific nucleid acid actually hit earth? Did you catch it on film? Or perhaps you have some eyewitnesses? Where you there when a life origenated out of a pool of mud? This has nothing to do with what I like to hear.

Evolution is a system, you yourself stated that everything must have a beginning & an end. However, for this post of mine the beginning has been started at the formation of the planet. Sure we cab discuss the various theories both you and I support on the creation/evolution of the universe. But one step at a time would be more sensible.

Sure but how does the theory of big bang or better it’s correctness come in handy when debating creation vs. Evolution?

Not true. Sure you are right in the extreme, too small and burns up in the atmosphere. Too big and you destroy the planet in a cataclysmic event. The inbetween states of the extreme is extremely varied. Your very small margin point is just wrong. Sure, too small and it burns up in the atmosphere "we find particles all the time like this" especially when the earth passes through a comets tail. Too big and a cataclysmic event will occur. In between the two extremes the margin is huge and not small as you imply

No, you’r overlooking some possibilitys and are thus forming a wrong marge. I’m not talking about a big enoughf meteor able to destroy earth, but the size that would bring forth energy on impact that would destroy the molecules of the nucleid acids. In other words destroy them on delivery. This narrows the margin down a lot!

It is isn't it. It is also a cast iron fact that such chemicals arrive on the planet. For years the source of these chemicals were unknown and debated. Now we know the source and science found it. Your statement about the same meteor is wrong also, since if you consider the "Great bombardment" many many strikes occured. Further the planet eath absorbs 1000 tonnes of space matter every year. Organic matter can and does get through by this means too.

This is where you mix fact and assumptions. Scientist fail to find the source of such material, and then find it in space so they assume that it came from outer space. Seems quite logical, but it’s not a given fact that because these materials are found in outer space that those present on earth must have origenated from there to! Secondly, all types of meteors hit us in the great bombardment, can you tell wich material they were carrying? No we can only assume.

Yes, you are correct. And science may at least be asking a better question now that it realises life may well have come to the earth from space. The point being, is that I am not asking you to imagine anything merely consider what scientific evidence we have even if you contain it within your own faith. it's the same paradox as saying "who created the creator". To ask did the molocules of life originate n the very beginning of the Big bang is to acknowlege life is not unique on our planet, and came to be from space? This is progress is it not! or are we wasting our time and should not bother looking since we all know we were created. Exactly what is your position on this matter

First of al there’s a difference in stating nucleid acids came from space and life came from space because frankly nucleid acids by them selves are not concidered an alive organisme, but are simply one of the required molecules.
Secondly the location as to where it happened only affect the creation vs. abiogenesis discussion in the following way: It provides abiogenesis a schield, it happened in outer spece, so we can’t know about it.

it was not a singular event. Millions of meteors hit the planet during it's creation process. Just look at the moon or any other solid matter in space to see the frequent comet strikes. Indeed comets themselves are littered with crators, it's how they formed in the first place. As for being hospitalabel, zircons tell us it was. Maybe you should take a look at what Zircons are telling us about "hellish earth". For they tell us the planet was right for life a billion years before even science thought was possible. Zircons don't lie or fudge the truth

Is a place hospitable for zircons also hospitable for life to emerge? Not even close they have a totaly different set of envoriomental requirements in oreder to exist.

3-6.This isn’t a fact on wich abiogenesis relies. This is the very thing that calls for a theory, be it creation or evolution. The precense of something doesn’t tell us anything on HOW they got there. Now matter what this single cell does; this has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Single cell life is far after the origen of viri.
Evolution does. Adaptation

Look, Abigenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution tells us about how life evolved once it was there. Abiogenesis tries to explain how it was created. So no, evolution does not tell us that.

It's not that a similar one hit at all. The material of comets are well known and impact all the time. You have to move on from this, it's a fact let's move on

No it’s not a fact the universe is changing so we’re encountering different kind of materials now then we would have many years ago. Secondly there is no proof once so ever to support the so called “fact”. It’s not because I ate a sandwich with cheese this morning that I ate the same yesterday! So lets call it an assumption and not a fact.

Ok so how does the fact that some life forms in other regions use different sources of energy say anything about abiogenesis or common descent?
Adaptation. Sea coral exists because it uses photsinthesis using the sun as the source of energy. A few years ago nothing was known of the deep ocean floor. Then we made it down their and what do we find!!!!! We find coral so deep that it cannot obtain enrgy from the sun. The light does not make it so deep, instead it uses sulphor-oxidising bacteria as it source of energy. Yet it is Coral all the same. Same life, different energy source..

First of all this adaptation thing has to do with evolution not with abiogenesis as I stated earlyer. Secondly We have absolutly no idea as to why they evolved, sure we can assume that they adapted, but we can also assume that they evolved because they heard the cheeseburgers were half off at mac-donalds. We can’t know. Adaptation says intelligent design. Whereas survival of the fittest says random luck. Thirthly, it’s not because some evolved, that all evolved out of the same, so The arguments does not say anything about either common descent nor abiogenesis.

I beg your pardon? Where tell me, where’s the evidence? Didn’t you state just earlyer it are just assumptions, who by the way don’t even go half way?
It's above.

Quite a cute try, but why is it you failed to pin point this irrefutable evidence in your text? Could it be because both sides of the discussion are forced to restrict themself to probability's and logic rather then proof? To simply refer to a statement to be proof of what it states is quite ridicule. I f you want to pass these things of as facts you'll have to actually point us out the evidence.

Your way off base. I am not talking about time v probability. I am talking time required of the oxygenation of the sea then the atmosphere by the microbes stated and the proven method by which it occures. Also the need for time in order for evolutionary systems to work the magic that they do.

No, you used time as a faverable factor in abiogenesis, so my counterargument still stands. This is because even if all the assumed parts of the theory would be truth.
Meaning: the nucleid acids were in fact delivered, not just any but the exact ones required.
Also meaning the required sugars were present (wich by the way also don’t just form by there self and where the theory has some difficulties with).
Then the assumption argument still stands because it’s quite unlikely for RNA (even the most basic one has a complex structure) to arise from the accidential positioning of those required base material. If you want to discuss time as favourable for oxygenation of the sea and the atmosphere by the microbes then that would be of course a totaly different discussion.

 

[root]

Cool, I am happy to oblige for I enjoy debates of this nature.

This is not the first time that your reply is besides the point, because you seem to have missed the key issue that is raised. You stated earlier that clay contains crystals which supports the fact that it could be from what we are created. Then you said that this is contradicted by the fact that clay cannot be proven to be organic.

No. I am sorry if I never made my point clear enough, I will reiterate.

I acknowledge that "crystals" forming within clay can have a perfectly accepted process of evolution. However, it is not organic. It is not the case that it cannot as yet be proven as organic for crytals are not organic.

Steve was saying that there is a difference between a human being’s actions and God’s actions. There is nothing to indicate that the two would be of the same nature, because God is unlike (as in far superior to) His creation.

I understand this point. And I can't really add anything to say other than the fact that "God" is a notion that I reject & with the current knowledge we have I don't feel religion has "proven" anything in relation to creationism other than to validate itself by scripture or to try to discredit evolutionary thinking as being an impossible feit and thus validate itself. Their is no issue here we can really discuss with this specific part for it is a question of beleif. Their is much we can still debate though I feel.

It is not for us to to state what God can or cannot do, because as Muslims we believe that God can do absolutely anything.

‘His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is.’ [36.82]

‘Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth able to create the like of them? Yea! and He is the Creator (of all), the Knower.’ [36.81]

This last verse explains very well what I am saying. If He can create the whole Universe when there was nothing, surely, then, anything is possible!

I understand your point, I really do. I just personally feel that what we have learned so far from a non religous stance does not support what religion tells us about our past. In effect their is a direct conflict of what religion(s) tell us and what our own science tells us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by root

Again I simply state that Islam acknowledges the probability of life being beyond our own planet and Islam speculates this "Life" (Described by Islam as a "stepping stone" in creation will not be intelligent life. This is the current position, since I have been and researched it. The fact that I beleive also life is in the universe I differ for I believe life will also be intelligent out their. I don't understand why you would imply that I am simply renouncing Islam's position on this matter.



If possible, could you please explain what led you to believe that Islam does not support intelligent life beyond our planet?

Yes of course I will, please give me a little time to find my sources again when I researched it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve

How does the origin of the material make any difference as to how it was created?

Quote:
Originally Posted by root

A massive difference I think.

Can you explain why?

Science is trying to look at the origins of life, and how life started on this planet. Creation aside the source of the material & it's origin is very important. What I mean by this is that an overwhelming number of scientists & evolutionists amongst others beleive that life itself or the raw materials to build life came from space. "When" we find life in space, we have already found the building blocks of life, then then this will ask even more questions than it solves.

As a Hypothosis, let us assume (just for now) that we find life on another planet and we also found out that life was abundent in the universe. We still are left with the question "but where did that life originate". Even under my hypothosis we proved life came to this planet via another planet, we still have to find the "source". For instance, does science need to look at the big bang as the birth-place of life itself, or was the big bang the source of the raw materials or was the source of the raw materials created in galaxy formation. Where either the raw materials or life itself created is a big issue for science..... For the truth is other than God or another "creator" where we look for the answers is the crucial issue that makes such a massive difference..............

You mentioned that comets brought all the building blocks of life onto this planet. You did not, however, explain how these brought about microbes. Just because there is more microbial life below the earth does not imply it was the first thing to exist.

I didn't say it brought about microbes as a given fact. I stated that science has proved us up-to the halfway point. Please don't underestimate the importance of this fact, peptides are crucial to the forming of life as we know it

2. The Lawarence Livemore National Laboratory set up a scientific investigation to test if all this life forming structures could withstand impacting with the earth. The results of which were truly astounding, not only was it proved as a fact that the structures survived but, what was incredible was the high energy of the impact caused a reaction within the compounds and created peptides:

"Peptides" - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...define:peptides

I was also wondering…how did the iron ore arise and is there evidence to prove it existed? Or is this an assumption. Same goes for hydrogen sulphate, and how do you know it was present at that time.

the primary source of today's global iron ore supply. From the 600 trillion tons of iron ore present today, we know there was plenty of iron in Precambrian waters.

Iron normally stays dissolved in seawater; it falls out of solution when it comes in contact with oxygen. The fine, bright orange particles that settle on the ocean floor are the product of a chemical reaction: rust. The alternating layers of rust-colored and gray deposits suggest oxygen production fluctuated over time.

As underwater chimneys called deep-sea vents release dissolved iron into Precambrian waters, oxygen is used up as quickly as it is produced. Once the iron supply is exhausted, however, oxygen begins escaping the seas into the open air. Evidence of a buildup of atmospheric oxygen first appears in rock layers 2,200-1,900 million years old, during which time most of the planet's exposed surface rusts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/c...me/protero.html

You may have been referring to the process of oxygenation, but what about the processes before that? Is it likely that all the building blocks of life came to earth in the right proportions and then came together in the exact perfect way to start off life?

earth contained very little or no Oxygen when life first formed.

It is generally conjectured that cyanobacteria were the source of oxidants for banded iron-formation. However, recently resolved phylogenetic trees based on whole genomic DNA sequences show that cyanobacteria were one of the last major lineages to diverge off the bacterial tree. This newly resolved tree shows that sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and sulfate-reducing bacteria arose before cyanobacteria did. This mirrors the changes in the geochemical record, centered around 2.7 billion years ago. At this time, the isotopic fractionation of sulfur compounds becomes large, followed by the sudden increase in oxygen in the atmosphere and surface water environments at about 2.2 or 2.3 billion years ago.

Also, in the absence of Oxygen. Life deep in the ocean does not require Oxygen nor energy from the sun. Their is nothing to support the fact that life itself or the raw materials were delivered in the right quantity since it is beleived that the time of "the great bombardment" would have delivered an over-whelming number of raw materials that would have impacted deep into the earth which would have afforded and protected the formation of life since the earths surface was too hostile.

May I suggest if we want to debate the above can we do it 1 part at a time so we don't get lost in the confusion as it develops.....

Thanks - Root

 

[Bittersteel]

May I suggest if we want to debate the above can we do it 1 part at a time so we don't get lost in the confusion as it develops.....

yeah guys do that.Its confusing for me.

 

[Muhammad]

Hello root,


Regarding the issue of clay, I am sorry for misunderstanding your point, and now I understand what your concern is: You are saying that since religion claims that God fashioned Adam out of clay, science has shown that clay is not organic and thus it could not support life. I understand this, and I have mentioned that God is capable of doing anything – thankyou for understanding this point. I can go on further to mention that when God created Adam out of clay, Adam did not in fact come to life immediately.

[15.29] So when I have made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, fall down making obeisance to him.

Therefore it is important to realise that life comes ultimately from God. The fact that the foetus in the womb becomes a living human once an angel blows his soul into him (120 days after fertilisation) is another example that, even though all the components of a human are assembled, this does not necessarily mean that there will consequently be life.

[23.80] And He it is Who gives life and causes death, and (in) His (control) is the alternation of the night and the day; do you not then understand?

I understand this point. And I can't really add anything to say other than the fact that "God" is a notion that I reject & with the current knowledge we have I don't feel religion has "proven" anything in relation to creationism other than to validate itself by scripture or to try to discredit evolutionary thinking as being an impossible feit and thus validate itself. Their is no issue here we can really discuss with this specific part for it is a question of beleif. Their is much we can still debate though I feel.

I have already mentioned that Islam existed ever since Adam came to earth, therefore if religion came before theories such as those of evolution were even proposed, there must surely be evidence other than to discredit such theories. Among the evidence is of course the scriptures, from which only one stands fully true today; addressed to all mankind till the end of time: The Qur’an.

[2.23] And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.

I came across an interesting site discussing the Qur'an, and quote the following from it:


“One thing which surprises non-Muslims who are examining the book very closely is that the Quran does not appear to them to be what they expected. What they assume is that they have an old book which came fourteen centuries ago from the Arabian desert; and they expect that the book should look something like that - an old book from the desert. And then they find out that it does not resemble what they expected at all. Additionally, one of the first things that some people assume is that because it is an old book which comes from the desert, it should talk about the desert. Well the Quran does talk about the desert - some of its imagery describes the desert; but it also talks about the sea - what it's like to be in a storm on the sea.”

Please see here for more.


Religion does not ONLY depend on mere belief, there are many evidences for it which God invites all of mankind to see.

[2.99] And certainly We have revealed to you clear communications and none disbelieve in them except the transgressors.

Below I have provided a passage of the Qur’an, and I hope you will not feel burdened to read it, but I felt it discusses the concept of God relevant to our discussion.

[16.9] And upon Allah it rests to show the right way, and there are some deviating (ways); and if He please He would certainly guide you all aright.

[16.10] He it is Who sends down water from the cloud for you; it gives drink, and by it (grow) the trees upon which you pasture.

[16.11] He causes to grow for you thereby herbage, and the olives, and the palm trees, and the grapes, and of all the fruits; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who reflect.

[16.12] And He has made subservient for you the night and the day and the sun and the moon, and the stars are made subservient by His commandment; most surely there are signs in this for a people who ponder;

[16.13] And what He has created in the earth of varied hues most surely there is a sign in this for a people who are mindful.

[16.14] And He it is Who has made the sea subservient that you may eat fresh flesh from it and bring forth from it ornaments which you wear, and you see the ships cleaving through it, and that you might seek of His bounty and that you may give thanks.

[16.15] And He has cast great mountains in the earth lest it might be convulsed with you, and rivers and roads that you may go aright,

[16.16] And landmarks; and by the stars they find the right way.

[16.17] Is He then Who creates like him who does not create? Do you not then mind?

[16.18] And if you would count Allah's favors, you will not be able to number them; most surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[16.19] And Allah knows what you conceal and what you do openly.

[16.20] And those whom they call on besides Allah have not created anything while they are themselves created;

[16.21] Dead (are they), not living, and they know not when they shall be raised.

[16.22] Your God is one God; so (as for) those who do not believe m the hereafter, their hearts are ignorant and they are proud.

[16.23] Truly Allah knows what they hide and what they manifest; surely He does not love the proud.

[16.24] And when it is said to them, what is it that your Lord has revealed? They say: Stories of the ancients;

[16.25] That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear.

I just personally feel that what we have learned so far from a non religous stance does not support what religion tells us about our past. In effect their is a direct conflict of what religion(s) tell us and what our own science tells us.

I don’t think you can say such a thing, when we have been trying to show you that religion never contradicts science and have not yet been proved wrong. Religion has even preceded science in many aspects – i.e. the Qur’an has stated things which are only modern day discoveries. While some things have been interpreted, such as the speed of light, others are explicitly stated, such as the origin of the Universe (originating from smoke, being one body etc.) as has been discussed earlier.

As a Hypothosis, let us assume (just for now) that we find life on another planet and we also found out that life was abundent in the universe. We still are left with the question "but where did that life originate". Even under my hypothosis we proved life came to this planet via another planet, we still have to find the "source". For instance, does science need to look at the big bang as the birth-place of life itself, or was the big bang the source of the raw materials or was the source of the raw materials created in galaxy formation. Where either the raw materials or life itself created is a big issue for science..... For the truth is other than God or another "creator" where we look for the answers is the crucial issue that makes such a massive difference..............

I believe we were thinking different things regarding the origin of raw materials and the difference it makes. While you are saying that there is a massive difference in where we look for the origins of these materials, which I agree with, steve was stating that no matter where something comes from, the question will always be asked how did it arise? In other words, the origin will not answer how it was created. For example, if we find out the Big Bang was the birth-place for the materials, we still will not know from what the Bang initiated and where that initial material that caused it, came from.


As for the stages of abiogenesis, I agree we should discuss them 1 part at a time to avoid confusion.


Regards,
Muhammad.

 

[root]

Yes, there are assumptions used root, Can you provide any proof that a meteor that carried this specific nucleid acid actually hit earth? Did you catch it on film? Or perhaps you have some eyewitnesses? Where you there when a life origenated out of a pool of mud? This has nothing to do with what I like to hear.

We have extremely definite evidence from radio observations that there's quite an array of organic molecules in interstellar space," measuring radio waves from celestial objects as part of the research effort.

There's other evidence that comets contain organic material. When European spacecraft analyzed dust particles from the Halley comet in 1986, it turned out to be some of the most organic-rich material measured in the solar system. Meteorites that have hit Earth contain a whole suite of molecules, including amino acids, which play an important role in terrestrial biology.

Out of two main comet sources so far, both have been found to carry organic rich material. Out of billions of comets within our own solar system we have had the direct oppurtunity to chemically test only two, and in both cases it has been proven that a very high proportion of organic rich material has been found. You must also consider to, another vital ingrediant found in comets.......WATER

You must also consider the overwhelming evidence of meteorite impacts. Every single object in space including comets show an exceedingly high number of impact damage, you only have to look at the moon to see the number of impacts suffered. Their is nothing in space that is exempt from constant bombardment of meteorites, I think your asking for the actual meteorite that hit the earth and brought the vital ingrediants for life is a nonsense because we are talking hundreds and thousands of impacts on our planet alone as well as hundred's & thousands of impacts on all our solar planetary objects.......

No, you’r overlooking some possibilitys and are thus forming a wrong marge. I’m not talking about a big enoughf meteor able to destroy earth, but the size that would bring forth energy on impact that would destroy the molecules of the nucleid acids. In other words destroy them on delivery. This narrows the margin down a lot!

Perhaps the main question is whether organic molecules can survive space travel or if they break up and contribute the atoms that are necessary to ultimately make biological material and water?

"Our museums contain examples of primitive meteorites that likely are very similar to the material delivered by comets," "The key point is that small bodies deliver their organics intact to Earth's surface. This must have been a common event on the early Earth. It's scientifically proven that organic matter can and does impact onto the earth and survive. irrespective of your opinion on margins which at present is unknown so we cannot say with any accuracy if the margin is big or small. You seem to suggest the margin is small, and I suspect you are doing this in order to achieve a limited probability in what we are discussing. This may or may not be a mistake on your part, it is estimated that the margin is actually high.

This is where you mix fact and assumptions. Scientist fail to find the source of such material, and then find it in space so they assume that it came from outer space. Seems quite logical, but it’s not a given fact that because these materials are found in outer space that those present on earth must have origenated from there to! Secondly, all types of meteors hit us in the great bombardment, can you tell wich material they were carrying? No we can only assume.

First of al there’s a difference in stating nucleid acids came from space and life came from space because frankly nucleid acids by them selves are not concidered an alive organisme, but are simply one of the required molecules.
Secondly the location as to where it happened only affect the creation vs. abiogenesis discussion in the following way: It provides abiogenesis a schield, it happened in outer spece, so we can’t know about it.

I have up to now avoided discussions on actual life within comets, and this is for a reason. Not ruled out of course for it may just be possible. We just don't know, what you must consider is 50 years ago, such organic molacules were never even considered as having an origin in space. Yet in the present the presence of organic rich material being on comets is undisputable!!!!!

Comets carrying such material and comets themselves are the "In-Topic" for science with it's search for our origins, I can name 2 recently passed comet/meteorite missions to send unmanned spce-crafts/probes to such space bodies. Indeed we are actually living in a time that enables us to carry out missions like "Deep Impact" as discussed in the LI Forum http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3100

Within the next 25 Years as the mission is already several years old, man intends to drill deep a meteorite/comet bringing it's raw material back to earth for analysis. Itwill be approx 50 years old, if I make it to that age. The pace of progressing mans knowledge is slow, of course 50 years is a very long time to us humans. In the great scheme of things, that is not even a nano-second when compareto the universe. I consider this quite a sad record on mankinds ability to become clouded in a religous charge to be perceived as the main-stream thought along with the basic sciptured theory of creationism. It is appearing if I am not mistaken that creationists do or do not support the theory in an absolute basic format "Organic rich material exists on comets, and coments impact planets and some organic material using the impact itself as a source of energy creates peptides"

Irrespective of ones faith, evolutionary or cteationist favoured. At some point one must either state based on their religous spiritual and scientific knowledge state if they do or do not accept as noted below:

"Organic rich material exists on comets, and coments impact planets and some organic material using the impact itself as a source of energy create peptides"

Finally, One of the things I love about science in the hear and now is that knowledge is actually being pursued: So here is some upto date news from deep impact :

A picture of Tempel 1(left) taken by Deep Impact's medium-resolution camera is shown next to data of the comet taken by the spacecraft's infrared spectrometer. This instrument breaks apart light like a prism to reveal the "fingerprints," or signatures, of chemicals. Even though the spacecraft was over 10 days away from the comet when these data were acquired, it detected some of the molecules making up the comet's gas and dust envelope, or coma. The signatures of these molecules - including water, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide - can be seen on the spectrum

Is a place hospitable for zircons also hospitable for life to emerge? Not even close they have a totaly different set of envoriomental requirements in oreder to exist.

No Steve, Zircons are the most toughest substances known, even tougher than diamonds They are like the rings of a felled tree recording geographical history.
fact that zircons existed so long ago shortly after the formation of the Earth allows us to understand the conditions of our planet. What I am saying is this the "Zircons" reveal the planetary conditions were right for life perhaps as much as 3 quarter of a billion years earlier than the current estimate.

 

[Nakisai]

Clay or Mud ?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

We have extremely definite evidence from radio observations that there's quite an array of organic molecules in interstellar space," measuring radio waves from celestial objects as part of the research effort. There's other evidence that comets contain organic material. When European spacecraft analyzed dust particles from the Halley comet in 1986, it turned out to be some of the most organic-rich material measured in the solar system. Meteorites that have hit Earth contain a whole suite of molecules, including amino acids, which play an important role in terrestrial biology.

How does the existance of this material “prove” that a meteor carrying it actually did hit earth, or that the first RNA molecule was compound out of extraterrestrial molecules? This is exactly what I meant when I said, It’s not because I ate a cheese sandwich today, that we have to assume I ate one yesterday too.

Out of two main comet sources so far, both have been found to carry organic rich material. Out of billions of comets within our own solar system we have had the direct oppurtunity to chemically test only two, and in both cases it has been proven that a very high proportion of organic rich material has been found. You must also consider to, another vital ingrediant found in comets.......WATER. You must also consider the overwhelming evidence of meteorite impacts. Every single object in space including comets show an exceedingly high number of impact damage, you only have to look at the moon to see the number of impacts suffered. Their is nothing in space that is exempt from constant bombardment of meteorites, I think your asking for the actual meteorite that hit the earth and brought the vital ingrediants for life is a nonsense because we are talking hundreds and thousands of impacts on our planet alone as well as hundred's & thousands of impacts on all our solar planetary objects.......

You are totally missing the point here Root. First of all, to assume most comets have nucleid acids based on 2 experiments couldn’t even be called scientific. For all we know this is just a fluke, and that wouldn’t take a lot of luck! Secondly there’s a difference between organic rich materials, which are produced easily by themselves, And the required nucleid acids, which don’t form that easily. Thirdly, no matter what you personally think of it, you have to admit there’s a difference between assumptions and known facts, just claiming this is proof 1000 times won’t make it so.

Perhaps the main question is whether organic molecules can survive space travel or if they break up and contribute the atoms that are necessary to ultimately make biological material and water?

I have a feeling you’re suggesting that this impact energy in fact helps the theory of abiogenesis by using this impact energy as start-energy required for certain processes. But actually, bringing this inpact energy into the equation and looking at it from a chemical point of view actually shows us that the margin of mass from a delivering meteor is even a lot smaller then I previously suggested. Not only does the meteor now have to have a big enough mass not to burn up, but the mass that isn’t burned away must still be sufficient to deliver enough energy to break the large strings of the nucleid acids in smaller molecules. This also shows us how just a lil’ bit too big of a meteorite would bring enough impact energy not only to break the string up, but even to break the molecule up into the same scrap we had lying around on earth anyway. I didn’t want to go too deep of-topic on this, but since you metioned it yourself...

"Our museums contain examples of primitive meteorites that likely are very similar to the material delivered by comets," "The key point is that small bodies deliver their organics intact to Earth's surface. This must have been a common event on the early Earth. It's scientifically proven that organic matter can and does impact onto the earth and survive. irrespective of your opinion on margins which at present is unknown so we cannot say with any accuracy if the margin is big or small. You seem to suggest the margin is small, and I suspect you are doing this in order to achieve a limited probability in what we are discussing. This may or may not be a mistake on your part, it is estimated that the margin is actually high.

Well then again I could suggest that it is in fact you who are persuaded by your personal feelings in putting up this marge. But I honestly wouldn’t see how this would be helpfull to either one of us. What is in fact proven is that it is a possible, it could have happened it’s a probability, not a fact, not a proof. We can go back and forth about this marge, but I already showed you that it in fact is much smaller when we look upon it even closer.

I consider this quite a sad record on mankinds ability to become clouded in a religous charge to be perceived as the main-stream thought along with the basic sciptured theory of creationism.

I consider it to be a sad record on mankinds ability to overlook the truth revealed to us ages ago, based on assumptions and wild-goose-chases just so they wouldn’t have to face up the responsibility our Creator laid down upon us. I admit that we are influenced in our way of reasoning by our belief, but so is an atheist influenced by his disbelief. Then again, this topic is not about giving personal opinions abouth the belief of others.

Irrespective of ones faith, evolutionary or cteationist favoured. At some point one must either state based on their religous spiritual and scientific knowledge state if they do or do not accept as noted below: Organic rich material exists on comets, and coments impact planets and some organic material using the impact itself as a source of energy create peptides"

Of course it exist, and theoretically you could write up a scenario where it got delivered and then spontaneously formed certain molecules, not life, but some molecules required for it, but that still doesn’t make the theory of abiogenesis complete and it’s very unlikely that this was in fact the way life origenated.

No Steve, Zircons are the most toughest substances known, even tougher than diamonds They are like the rings of a felled tree recording geographical history.
fact that zircons existed so long ago shortly after the formation of the Earth allows us to understand the conditions of our planet. What I am saying is this the "Zircons" reveal the planetary conditions were right for life perhaps as much as 3 quarter of a billion years earlier than the current estimate.

Thats a very bold statement, and not the first time I caught you thinking in circles. I’d say that even the current condition of earth isn’t quite hospital for life to originate, and considering abiogenesis is far from complete, you’d have to respect my point of view on that. But to get back on topic. The zircones only suggest the condition of earth. It is the scientists who try ever so hard to finish abiogenesis who reveal the planet was “perhaps” ready for it many years earlier. It’s quite a tainted revealing. Secondly I already showed that the factor time can not be considered to be a favourable factor for abiogenesis. If we can’t think of a way in wich life spontaneously arose in a short period of time in a hypothetical habitat or even a habitat created to stimulate the formation of it, How can we claim that just by giving it enough time, it eventualy must of happened even in an unlikely enviroment?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

An excellent response, Br. Steve. May Allah reward you.

 

[Bittersteel]

what does Islam say about comets and how iron was sent to earth?what other materials was sent to earth via meteors,comets,etc?