islam is growing in the west

[skepticalbip]

who / what created us?

Immediately? That would be our parents.

Over time?
Chemistry, conditions, and time.

 

[Syed]

who / what created us?

Over time?
Chemistry, conditions, and time.

what is the mechanism that chemistry create living robots ?

 

[Syed]

we believe in maker of life but you say we dont have maker, that does not makes sense, since we exist

We were created by natural processes.

do you understand natural processes that create life?

 

[skepticalbip]

Over time?
Chemistry, conditions, and time.

what is the mechanism that chemistry create living robots ?

Do you really believe that you were created fully formed as you are now?

Or do you believe that your dad fucked your mother causing a semen to merge with an egg cell? That this cell then divided and continued to divide eventually forming a human fetus. This fetus grew to be born as a baby you. Over years you grew into what you are today. This process begins with chemistry and it is chemistry that caused the subsequent changes that became you today.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

do we always existed?

No, we evolved from "lower" forms of life. The matter of which we are composed, however, has always existed in one form or another - "always" in this instance, meaning ever since the universe in its present form, began to exist.

nothing created us?

That's an ambiguous question. It could mean "was there no thing that created us?" or "were we created by an entity known as "nothing?"". Let me put it this way: there was no act of creation which instantaneously produced human beings.

who / what created us?

We were not created; we evolved.

 

[Methinx]

we believe in maker of life but you say we dont have maker, that does not makes sense, since we exist

Muslims believe that Allah created man from mud, Jinns from smokeless fire and the world from nothing...that makes a lot of sense!

who / what created us?

Some things cannot be told, they must be learnt.

If you tell a young child the mechanism of reproduction (Penis, Vagina etc) he will not understand until he grows up a bit more.

If you tell one of the Syyeds about the existence of life(abiogenesis, evolution etc) he will not understand he needs to inform himself a bit more.

You have been told these things many times. Some things cannot be told, they must be learnt.

 

[atrib]

We were created by natural processes.

do you understand natural processes that create life?

Much of it, but not completely.

Do you understand the processes that were used to create god? Or the processes god used to create us?

And why did you ignore the second part of my post?

Who created Allah?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

why white western christians converting to islam?

4) bored with materialism and sex

LOL

 

[skepticalbip]

why white western christians converting to islam?

4) bored with materialism and sex

LOL

That was my reaction too. I couldn't help but think of Hugh Hefner who made a fortune promoting materialism and sex.

 

[Keith&Co.]

father, son, ghost are one god makes sense to you?

Syed, Your Personal Incredulity is not evidence FOR your particular flavor of skybeast.
It's not even a reason for me to question my beliefs, or lack of beliefs, or beliefs i once held.

All it is it you being incredulous.

Which is not a very powerful sort of argument. You're an unquestioning muslim and proud of it. I ALREADY knew you were not going to accept evolution or the trinity or deism.

What's the point of asking questions, then?
You're going to act as if we didn't answer, or that our answers were insufficient, or that our answers fail somehow because of your previously held beliefs.






...................again.

 

[atrib]

Over time?
Chemistry, conditions, and time.

what is the mechanism that chemistry create living robots ?

Would you understand if someone tried to explain to you? You have a preschool education at best, and have resisted learning anything new in all the years you have been here. Why are you wasting your time and ours?

 

[bilby]

Over time?
Chemistry, conditions, and time.

what is the mechanism that chemistry create living robots ?

Here is a neat animation showing one of the many mechanisms that are involved:

https://www.dnalc.org/resources/3d/04-mechanism-of-replication-advanced.html

There are links at the bottom of that page to animations and explanations of some of the other important mechanisms.

Chemistry. It works, whether you believe in it or not; and whether you understand it or not.

 

[Syed]

what is the mechanism that chemistry create living robots ?

Here is a neat animation showing one of the many mechanisms that are involved:

https://www.dnalc.org/resources/3d/04-mechanism-of-replication-advanced.html

There are links at the bottom of that page to animations and explanations of some of the other important mechanisms.

Chemistry. It works, whether you believe in it or not; and whether you understand it or not.

there was NO DNA when earth form

so who created DNA to form life?

can form without DNA?

 

[Syed]

what is the mechanism that chemistry create living robots ?

Do you really believe that you were created fully formed as you are now?

Or do you believe that your dad fucked your mother causing a semen to merge with an egg cell? That this cell then divided and continued to divide eventually forming a human fetus. This fetus grew to be born as a baby you. Over years you grew into what you are today. This process begins with chemistry and it is chemistry that caused the subsequent changes that became you today.

are you too dumb to understand my question?

read question again

 

[Syed]

No, we evolved from "lower" forms of life. The matter of which we are composed, however, has always existed in one form or another - "always" in this instance, meaning ever since the universe in its present form, began to exist.

nothing created us?

That's an ambiguous question. It could mean "was there no thing that created us?" or "were we created by an entity known as "nothing?"". Let me put it this way: there was no act of creation which instantaneously produced human beings.

who / what created us?

We were not created; we evolved.

who evolved us or what evolved us?

are we evolving NOW?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, we are not currently evolving. Our children and their children and so on, however, will evolve slightly from us as we evolved from our ancestors.

 

[bilby]

Here is a neat animation showing one of the many mechanisms that are involved:

https://www.dnalc.org/resources/3d/04-mechanism-of-replication-advanced.html

There are links at the bottom of that page to animations and explanations of some of the other important mechanisms.

Chemistry. It works, whether you believe in it or not; and whether you understand it or not.

there was NO DNA when earth form

so who created DNA to form life?

can form without DNA?

The question of exactly how DNA arose (and how many times) is not yet resolved; There are a number of hypotheses that have supporting evidence, and that have not yet been shown to be incorrect, all of which involve simpler chemical precursors. None of them include a 'who', much less a God, as there is exactly zero evidence for such a thing, and to postulate one would raise far more questions than it would answer.

Our best hypotheses for the origin of DNA is that it evolved from RNA precursors:

The first step in the emergence of DNA has been most likely the formation of U-DNA (DNA containing uracil), since ribonucleotide reductases produce dUTP (or dUDP) from UTP (or UDP) and not dTTP from TTP (the latter does not exist in the cell). Some modern viruses indeed have a U-DNA genome, possibly reflecting this first transition step between the RNA and DNA worlds. The selection of the letter T occurred probably in a second step, dTTP being produced in modern cells by the modification of dUMP into dTMP by thymidylate synthases (followed by phosphorylation). Interestingly, the same kinase can phosphorylate both dUMP and dTMP. In modern cells, dUMP is produced from dUTP by dUTPases, or from dCMP by dCMP deaminases. This is another indication that T-DNA originated after U-DNA. In ancient U-DNA cells, dUMP might have been also produced by degradation of U-DNA.

The origin of DNA also required the appearance of enzymes able to incorporate dNTPs using first RNA templates (reverse transcriptases) and later on DNA templates (DNA polymerases). In all living organisms (cells and viruses), all these enzymes work in the 5' to 3' direction. This directionality is dictated by the cellular metabolism that produces only dNTP 5' triphosphates and no 3' triphosphates. Indeed, both purine and pyrimidine biosyntheses are built up on ribose 5 monophosphate as a common precursor. The sense of DNA synthesis itself is therefore a relic of the RNA world metabolism. Modern DNA polymerases of the A and B families, reverse transcriptases, cellular RNA polymerases and viral replicative RNA polymerases are structurally related and thus probably homologous (for references, see a recent review on viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases.) This suggests that reverse transcriptase and DNA polymerases of the A and B families originated from an ancestral RNA polymerase that has also descendants among viral-like RNA replicases.

(source)

The emergence of DNA is therefore a result of progressively more simple precursor molecules, via simple chemistry. DNA comes from RNA, which comes from simple Phosphates and simple sugars, such as Ribose. Phosphate is just Phosphorous and Oxygen, and will form spontaneously if these two elements are present; similarly Ribose can form spontaneously where water and carbon are present, particularly in reducing conditions where energy is available, but carbon is relatively scarce. Both Phosphate and a variety of simple monosaccharides, including Ribose, have been observed in interstellar dust clouds - they form by atoms simply sticking together. The atoms themselves are generated by nuclear fusion in the cores of stars, from Hydrogen. So the origin of DNA is:

Hydrogen -stars-> Carbon, Phosphorous, Nitrogen and Oxygen
Phosphorous, Oxygen and Hydrogen -simple chemistry-> Phosphates and simple sugars; Amino acids
Phosphates and simple sugars -simple chemistry-> RNA
RNA and Amino Acids -RNA catalysed chemistry-> Proteins
RNA -Protein catalysed chemistry-> DNA
DNA -Protein catalysed chemistry-> all of modern biochemistry

Each step starts with something simpler, and leads to something a little more complex; And so, from very simple beginnings, we can explain the existence of the complexity we see today.

The alternative hypothesis - that complex systems can only derive from systems that are more complex than themselves - runs into a logical dead-end. If humans are so complex that only a hugely complex and powerful God could have made them, then God requires an even more complex and powerful creator; which in turn requires an even more complex and powerful creator, and so on forever. The only way to break this death-spiral of logic is to assume that at some point, something just exists without cause. There is exactly zero reason to imagine that this 'uncaused cause' would be highly complex. I can stomach the idea of a few simple particles spontaneously arising from nothing, or having simply existed eternally, far more easily than the idea that something sufficiently complex as to have intelligence could do so. And all the evidence points towards simple origins. We know that the universe gets simpler, the further back in time we look. A handful of quarks, plus a few billion years, leads to everything we observe today without any need for intelligent intervention of any kind, prior to the (relatively recent) spontaneous evolution of intelligence.

Of course, when I say 'we know', I mean 'the people who have bothered to try to learn this complex and fascinating history know'; The people who instead decided not to put in the effort, and to just accept the guesses made by a bunch of semi-literate goat herders as 'The Truth^TM' don't know anything of the sort. In fact, those people have effectively debarred themselves from ever knowing anything.

 

[Keith&Co.]

are you too dumb to understand my question?

No, they're not.
The big question is, are you too intent on remaining ignorant to honestly evaluate replies?

read question again

Maybe you should read the answer again.
Or, you know, once?

 

[Keith&Co.]

who evolved us or what evolved us?

We evolved us, for as much as that question makes any sense.

'We' had kids. Some of 'we' had more kids than the rest of we.
Those kids became the 'we.' New 'we' had kids. Some of new 'we' had more kids than the rest of us.
Those kids became the new new 'we'...

Repeat about once every 20 years or so...

 

[atrib]

there was NO DNA when earth form

so who created DNA to form life?

can form without DNA?

Do you even know what DNA is? Have you ever taken a class in biology or read a biology textbook? Are you even remotely qualified to understand any answers you might be given?

It is the same shit with you over and over. You come in here with a gotcha question, then run away when someone responds. You have told us that you are old and lazy, lack any formal education, and most importantly, that you are not interested in learning anything. What do you expect to get out of this conversation, and do you really believe that you are going to convince anyone to believe your argument when you clearly don't shit about science?