Origin of life

[Aquitaine]

God speak to each peaple by their langauge before Islam , then He speak to all Human by Arabic .

"All of Humanity with Arabic", so does God have a preference for the Arabic language over others?

don't you know why books ?

Books to memorize (archive ) ,I believe also that Prophets made miracle ,which encourage the people in that time to believe in them .

Then why not have permanent immortal Prophets - or a constant stream of mortal Prophets - who can communicate globally and demonstrate miracles?
Even Humans have methods of global communication (TV, Radio etc).
Why send down a final Prophet (who is illiterate) to interact with a tiny portion of the Human population in Arabia - how could God have even ensured it's message would be interpreted correctly if it's very Prophet can't even read or write?

that's called " BELIEVE"
That's because i believe Quran is not human made or editing by human .

Fair enough, so long as you accept that your beliefs are just that - beliefs.

 

[gnostic]

"All of Humanity with Arabic", so does God have a preference for the Arabic language over others?

That's the utter idiocy of any religion, when they think the languages of their respective written scriptures are the languages of their god(s). It is not just fatal flaw of Muslims. Some Christians and Jews think the same way.

Some Christians believe that God's language is Latin, while others in the east (orthodox) believe it is Greek...I have even heard some think it is Early Modern English because of KJV.

All languages, whether it be written or spoken or both, are man-made. Many languages, even extinct ones, can be trace to some extents, to its respective origins.

It is mostly their ignorant hubris and irrational wishful thinking that these theists think in this way and believe in such nonsense.

 

[David M]

seems your ignorance knows Islam more than Muslims them-selves ?

My sources are Muslims and Islamic Scholars.

 

[McBell]

seems your ignorance knows Islam more than Muslims them-selves ?

No big surprise that a non-Muslim knows more about Islam than a Muslim.

I suspect it is because the non-Muslim doe snot need Islam to be the end all that Muslims do.

 

[Godobeyer]

My sources are Muslims and Islamic Scholars.

indeed that your source and that your opinion . enjoy with .

 

[Aquitaine]

That's the utter idiocy of any religion, when they think the languages of their respective written scriptures are the languages of their god(s). It is not fatal flaw of Muslims. Some Christians and Jews think the same way.

Some Christians believe that God's language is Latin, while others in the east (orthodox) believe it is Greek...I have even heard some think it is Early Modern English because of KJV.

All languages, whether it be written or spoken or both, are man-made. Many languages, even extinct ones, can be trace to some extents, to its respective origins.

It is mostly their ignorant hubris and irrational wishful thinking that these theists think in this way and believe in such nonsense.

Their Gods tend to have the same Ethnic traits as the believers too - indeed Man created God in his image.

 

[miodrag]

Where did life come from ?

It did not, it was always there. Idea is that life is spiritual and thus eternal.

 

[Sapiens]

It did not, it was always there. Idea is that life is spiritual and thus eternal.

Nice concept, but can you support it data and analysis, something more than just your belief system?

 

[FearGod]

"All of Humanity with Arabic", so does God have a preference for the Arabic language over others?

Because the Arabic language is better organized.

Then why not have permanent immortal Prophets - or a constant stream of mortal Prophets - who can communicate globally and demonstrate miracles?
Even Humans have methods of global communication (TV, Radio etc).
Why send down a final Prophet (who is illiterate) to interact with a tiny portion of the Human population in Arabia - how could God have even ensured it's message would be interpreted correctly if it's very Prophet can't even read or write?
.

God if he wants then he can guide all humans without the need for sending any prophet but it was just a mercy of him to remind humans of the judgement day and that there's an after life after this life.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because the Arabic language is better organized.

I am not a linguist but I am guessing this is not factually true.

 

[miodrag]

Nice concept, but can you support it data and analysis, something more than just your belief system?

That concept is dogma, as revealed in the Bhagavad Gita, for example: Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 2: Contents of the Gita Summarized, Text 20.
As far as I know, there is nothing that could challenge this concept. No credential alternative, no abiogenesis ever being observed. The only thing ever observed was the simple fact that life comes from life. Suggesting that organic matter can be invigorated with life is believing in Frankenstein. There is no natural law that goes in favor of creating a life, on the contrary, they all seem to be pointed towards recycling the body after the life had left. Life is like a rebellion, a revolution against the laws of the (inanimate) nature.

 

[Shad]

That concept is dogma, as revealed in the Bhagavad Gita, for example: Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 2: Contents of the Gita Summarized, Text 20.
As far as I know, there is nothing that could challenge this concept. No credential alternative, no abiogenesis ever being observed. The only thing ever observed was the simple fact that life comes from life. Suggesting that organic matter can be invigorated with life is believing in Frankenstein. There is no natural law that goes in favor of creating a life, on the contrary, they all seem to be pointed towards recycling the body after the life had left. Life is like a rebellion, a revolution against the laws of the (inanimate) nature.

Factually in correct. The Miller-Urey experiment provided evidence of abiogenesis, organic coming from nonorganic. I guess such research does not matter to those not looking for views which oppose their own presuppositions.

 

[Sapiens]

Dogma ... well, that answers that, if it's dogma you can ignore the fact that it's dog poop and that many laboratory experiments have falsified your views. So you retreat, blissfully, into the comforting arms of the argument from ignorance.

 

[Akingu]

Where did life come from ?

During the big bang no life can exist, so what made the first cell of life to exist without being born.

Why the DNA is complex and is adjustable (mutations), how you explain those things to happen without any intelligence being involved ?

Actually, creating the building blocks of life is quite easy. The Miller-Urey experiment was done in 1952 and by shocking simple gasses, they created amino acids and the basic proteins for life in just one short week. Nature did the same over billions of years.

 

[miodrag]

Factually in correct. The Miller-Urey experiment provided evidence of abiogenesis, organic coming from nonorganic. I guess such research does not matter to those not looking for views which oppose their own presuppositions.

Excuse me! What I posted has nothing to do with what you responded. So please take some extra effort to read and understand what I said!

 

[miodrag]

Dogma ... well, that answers that, if it's dogma you can ignore the fact that it's dog poop and that many laboratory experiments have falsified your views. So you retreat, blissfully, into the comforting arms of the argument from ignorance.

Excuse me! This is a religious forum, and dogma is quite at home here. And I called it only to remind that it is a much more accurate term for what you call a mere concept. I know very well what I said. You should also take some extra effort to read and understand my arguments. In the meantime please give me at least one experiment which shows that life did not came out of life. In fact, explain what kind of experiments did you have in mind and what on Earth they have to do with what I said.

 

[Sapiens]

Excuse me!

If you've got an excuse I'll listen, but no promisses.

This is a religious forum, and dogma is quite at home here.

Sure, but dogma is: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." When your dogma is falsified it is no longer dog-ma, it is then dog-do.

And I called it only to remind that it is a much more accurate term for what you call a mere concept. I know very well what I said. You should also take some extra effort to read and understand my arguments.

As Shad pointed out, somewhat incompletely, your dogma has been falsified.

In the meantime please give me at least one experiment which shows that life did not came out of life. In fact, explain what kind of experiments did you have in mind and what on Earth they have to do with what I said.

Google is your friend: https://www.google.com/search?q=abiogeneis+experiments&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

They demonstrate that your old dogma is broken and you should go buy a new one.

 

[Shad]

Excuse me! What I posted has nothing to do with what you responded. So please take some extra effort to read and understand what I said!

It actually does since it undermines the concept that life must comes from life. Organic compounds from non-organic compounds organized without requiring life to do so, this is the first step in life from nonlife. So my comment goes right to the hearts of the issues and cuts your idea down at the first premise.

 

[miodrag]

It actually does since it undermines the concept that life must comes from life. Organic compounds from non-organic compounds organized without requiring life to do so, this is the first step in life from nonlife. So my comment goes right to the hearts of the issues and cuts your idea down at the first premise.

Utter nonsense, again. Abiogenesis is creating life from inorganic matter. Creating organic matter from inorganic matter is just a simple chemistry, that I am very well aware of. So, can we finally stop treating me like a five years old and start talking about abiogenesis?

If it is a too long distance for you guys, I will make it shorter, but not easier:
I am not challenging that life comes out from inorganic matter anymore.
I am challenging that life comes from organic matter.

I do not care at all about the "first step" because I never challenged that - why on Earth would anyone think that organic matter comes exclusively from a living system?

If a picture needs to be drawn: I am granting you a complete system of organic matter, organized in such a way that just a second ago it was containing life. But now, it is a corpse. Please provide anything, experiment or even a line of thought by which that corpse would be brought back to life. That is the Frankenstein syndrome in abiogenesis believers that I mentioned earlier. It would take creating a negative entropy, opposing all known laws of nature, to bring that corpse to life. So, I am not asking even for the experiment anymore. Just suggest any line of thought, any reasoning how to start life by a cold boot. And please no science fiction, no jokes, no Frankenstein.

 

[Shad]

Utter nonsense, again. Abiogenesis is creating life from inorganic matter. Creating organic matter from inorganic matter is just a simple chemistry, that I am very well aware of. So, can we finally stop treating me like a five years old and start talking about abiogenesis?

The experiment was one of abiogenesis, look up the experiment.... I will continue to treat you ignorant of the subject matter until you can demonstrate otherwise. The above comment supports my conclusion that you are not understanding the subject at hand. The experiment is just one step. All you have done is move the goal posts toward another God of the Gaps.

The Miller/Urey Experiment

If it is a too long distance for you guys, I will make it shorter, but not easier:
I am not challenging that life comes out from inorganic matter anymore.
I am challenging that life comes from organic matter.

So you do not question life can come from inorganic matter but question if life comes from organic matter? You make no sense here. Either clarify or rephrase this. IF life can come from inorganic matter the question is solved and you admitted you agree.

I do not care at all about the "first step" because I never challenged that - why on Earth would anyone think that organic matter comes exclusively from a living system?

You are moving the goal posts to hide in God of the Gaps. Especial givens your second comment.

If a picture needs to be drawn: I am granting you a complete system of organic matter, organized in such a way that just a second ago it was containing life. But now, it is a corpse. Please provide anything, experiment or even a line of thought by which that corpse would be brought back to life. That is the Frankenstein syndrome in abiogenesis believers that I mentioned earlier. It would take creating a negative entropy, opposing all known laws of nature, to bring that corpse to life. So, I am not asking even for the experiment anymore. Just suggest any line of thought, any reasoning how to start life by a cold boot. And please no science fiction, no jokes, no Frankenstein.

The experiment was not of a corpse. You agree and grant your own strawman. Congratulations?