I don't use degree of words,when meaning almost the same.
He always respond that way, respond by "the way of poster speaking" , it's not interesting method.
Actuatly "my statement" is suppose adopt by you"creation" . thats why make me upset.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you think/believe that your body was designed/created?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Actuatly "my statement" is suppose adopt by you"creation" . thats why make me upset.
OK, but when they mean different things I see no reason to conflate them.
Look, we've now established that:
1) There are atheists who attack simplistic creationist ideas by appealing to abiogenesis
and 2) I do not think the occurrence of abiogenesis is a solid support for atheism.
Now that we've got that, can we leave this behind?
I see.
Ok
I believe that some forms of 'Hinduism' are monotheistic. Now, you will perhaps think, well that one's not a proper Muslim anyway (even if you will leave it to Allaah to make that judgment). But there are actually quite a few Muslims (especially of the Sufi variety), who aren't quite as heterodox as I am, and accept that 'Hinduism' can be monotheistic.
What you need to understand is that 'Hinduism' is not one monolithic thing. There are in truth a wide variety of different Hindu religions, some of which can reasonably claim to be monotheistic (including some of which have a place for idols, and some of which do not), others of which cannot. Kirran (with all due respect to Kirran) should not be taken as 'representative' of 'Hinduism' (because no one Hindu really can be). 'Hinduism' is a helluva lot more diverse than Islaam is (although I will of course argue that Islaam is a lot more diverse than many people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, realise - it's just we have to keep a very low profile or else risk being snuffed out of existence).
But there are. I happen to believe that there was a supernatural instigator/controller of abiogenesis (so reject a purely atheistic account of abiogenesis).
That would be me! And I thought you said that you would leave it in God's Hands to judge whether my view is an Islaamic view or not?
Oh, please. Abiogenesis is not a theory, nor is it an explanation of the "origin" of life. It is merely a word that describes the situation that theists, deists and atheists all agree on: one there was no life, now there is. The word itself simply means "out of non-life, life."
The thing is, nobody yet knows for certain how life came to be when there was once none. You may certainly choose to think that it must have been "created by God." I don't have a more provable answer -- although there's quite a lot of good science that's beginning to provide some keen insights.
But your problem is this -- although you will not consider it. If you think it is impossible that without some "Agent" life could not be created where there was none, then I can throw that back at you -- without some "Agent," no life-creating agent could exist where there was none.
You might call this business of how there got to be god, "Adiogenesis."
Shad
Veteran Member
Meyer is not a biologist, his opinion is irrelevant. He has not published anything of worth and has had his papers rejected by peer-review for being incoherent nonsense.
Your research skills are horrible as usual. Your video is an argument from false authority.
Last edited:
It is my observation that this argument goes on and on and on and on endlessly -- for one reason and one reason alone: Evolution is terrifying to those who want there to be a God that makes everything all good for them, and they will, as a direct consequence -- deny everything including a rock hitting them in the face if it suggests their desire isn't true.
No evidence will ever be acceptable. It simply does not matter. If you need God to be your Maker and Saviour all at the same time, you will renounce even your own brain to achieve that.
Although, it must be said, on the "god made it all this way" side, there's not usually much evidence of any brains in danger....
I shall return to trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (I guess it might depend on what kind of dance they're doing...)
No evidence will ever be acceptable. It simply does not matter. If you need God to be your Maker and Saviour all at the same time, you will renounce even your own brain to achieve that.
Although, it must be said, on the "god made it all this way" side, there's not usually much evidence of any brains in danger....
I shall return to trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (I guess it might depend on what kind of dance they're doing...
)
Abiogenesis is just the fact of life from non-life. It makes no claim of agency.
If God created life from non-life, that's abiogenesis.
Both Islam and biology believe in abiogenesis. Biology explores the mechanism, Islam asserts an agent.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
That would be idolatry. It is NOT synonymous with polytheism.
Why not? I'm a Christian and have no issues with it. Where we came from has no bearing on whether God wants to deal with us or not.
Seriously, how can you deny abiogenesis and then believe in a story where we come from some guy made out of dirt or clay? Is it because abiogenesis is way more specific on how it would work? Do you just prefer magic?
You have lots of body parts that are all "you". One person, multiple parts. I'm fine with the idea that the universe is the body of a deity and everything in it constitutes the "body parts". After all, scale is important: a bacterium living inside you doesn't understand you are a person. It only knows its immediate environment.
Try a little science on for size:
Origins of Life Part 1 There are, I think, 5 parts.
Fairness isn't synonymous with truth either.
What they use it for is irrelevant. What matters only is who is telling the most accurate story. It's why I can like posters from a variety of backgrounds. I'll even like a fundamentalist's post if it is saying something useful. You focus way too much on authority fallacies, caring about WHO says something rather than WHAT is said.
Your cells have a kind of manufacturing line, where thanks to enzymes and amino acid chains, proteins and such are formed. The amino acid chain would be Man. The enzyme would be the Tool to make stuff. The proteins would be the Car. And yet, all of them are YOU.
You've been saying that this entire thread.
And you've rarely spelled it right while we're at it.
You are treating the English language with a sledgehammer rather than the scalpel it needs.
I also see it in creationism as well. In other words, it's assumed that if there is some sort of divine reality, we have some ultimate awesome purpose where, essentially, the universe revolves around US. However, in many myths, we are, at best, a forgotten mistake. Even in Genesis, it is made clear Adam (at least, since it doesn't really give a function to Eve) is the "maintenance guy". The world was not created for him, he was created to maintain the world. His job is to organize things and trim the branches and pick up the poop and such, LOL. That mankind can be kicked out of Eden without any whining about who is going to pick up the poop just goes to show how ultimately frivolous our presence there was.
Theory of abiognesis ?
No its not fact that cell of protein created from non-life.
Not exactly the same way.
THE CREATION OF HUMAN BEINGS FROM WATER
I did not invented it by my self.Oh, please. Abiogenesis is not a theory, nor is it an explanation of the "origin" of life. It is merely a word that describes the situation that theists, deists and atheists all agree on: one there was no life, now there is. The word itself simply means "out of non-life, life."
The thing is, nobody yet knows for certain how life came to be when there was once none. You may certainly choose to think that it must have been "created by God." I don't have a more provable answer -- although there's quite a lot of good science that's beginning to provide some keen insights.
But your problem is this -- although you will not consider it. If you think it is impossible that without some "Agent" life could not be created where there was none, then I can throw that back at you -- without some "Agent," no life-creating agent could exist where there was none.
You might call this business of how there got to be god, "Adiogenesis."
All time I heard it's about origin of life,by @Mestemia or @Kirran and others.
Adiogenesis, the idea that lifearose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth.
https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
Origin of life, yeah. The agency or lack thereof behind it is up for grabs.
If you read the next posts, you will see that I informed about.
Bible said Adam (pbuh) created instantly and Eve(pbuh),which contradiction with theory of abiogenesis. origin of life was from one cell.
Creation is different that thoery of abiogenesis.
The truth that you ignore what most of Muslims agree or disagree about Tawhid.
I notice that you don't tell that to them too !
Sometimes I feel that I because an easy target because of my English level, despite that many posters are on disagreement with each other, they just quote my posts. rarely they quoted each other !
As I know there is two different concepts , 1- abiogenesis and 2-theory of abiogenesis, ok ?
in this thread it's normal I meant theory of abiogenesis.
I'd just like to address this point real quick - it's not that people try and target you. Well, maybe some do, but I don't and most others don't. But often there really are problems with you understanding what's going on because of your level of English, and you ignore that quite a lot. For example, you often don't understand the meanings of words but act as if you do. So it is a problem in communication, which sometimes people do need to address, but it's not that you're being targeted over it in some malicious manner.
OK, that's fair. Abiogenesis is the origin of life from non-life. The theory of abiogenesis is the body of information explaining how that happened. A good distinction to make, fair play.
That's not what I notice, people quote only my post despite they are on disagreeement with each other, this is weird !
for exemple ,you personaly don't quote @Mestemia post to discuss your disagreement about what he said about creation. on contrary you rate it
Last edited:
For exemple ?