• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

islam is growing in the west

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,836
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
But then, why not convert to Deism? Attractive, non-tribal religion, only one God, and He doesn't look anything like human.

why do deist believe in god ?
Same as why theists believe in god: for personal reasons that vary from deist to deist. For example, here's Paine.

"The only idea man can affix to the name of God is that of a first cause, the cause of all things. And incomprehensible and difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it. It is difficult beyond description to conceive that space can have no end; but it is more difficult to conceive an end. It is difficult beyond the power of man to conceive an eternal duration of what we call time; but it is more impossible to conceive a time when there shall be no time.

In like manner of reasoning, everything we behold carries in itself the internal evidence that it did not make itself Every man is an evidence to himself that he did not make himself; neither could his father make himself, nor his grandfather, nor any of his race; neither could any tree, plant, or animal make itself; and it is the conviction arising from this evidence that carries us on, as it were, by necessity to the belief of a first cause eternally existing, of a nature totally different to any material existence we know of, and by the power of which all things exist; and this first cause man calls God."​
 

Syed

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,357
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
muslim
there you have it

that the reason exchristian / atheist like islamic concept of god

Quran

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only!
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.

He is fiction. That is why atheism is growing so rapidly in Muslim countries and around the world.

People can't be kept stupid and ignorant anymore. :)

if god is fiction than who created you mother earth without brain?
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,670
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Rather than something that can be observed or tested, to say ''created'' is an assumption based on a set of religious beliefs.
 

C_Mucius_Scaevola

Veteran Member
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
1,774
Location
Zaandam, NL
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
how do they know that god exist ?
They don't know it exists, they believe it. Just like muslims, xians, jews believe their gods exist. Anybody who calims to know a god exists is a liar, or deluded.

deist god makes more sense to you why?
Because, unlike the other claims of gods, the deist god is not claimed to involve itself in the affairs of a single species out of millions on a single planet out of billions in the vastness of the universe. It just kicked things off and left its creation to get on with it, so the lack of physical evidence of its involvement in the world isn't the problem it is for hands-on gods. It doesn't offer eternal bliss (which would very soon turn into eternal boredom) for believing in it, nor eternal torture for finite "sins", so it escapes that logical and moral trap. It doesn't narcissistically demand worship, which is an odd trait, to say the least, for a supposedly perfect and self-contained being such as the Abrahamic gods to have.

In short, it is not a being which can be easily disproved and easily dismissed, like the Abrahamic deities. It can be effectively ignored, without danger of causing offence to it, in keeping with the logical nature of an infinite being vis-a-vis finite creatures. The Abrahamic gods' touchiness about "offence" from humans is like me being pissed off because a microbe thinks I'm a cunt. It makes no sense whatsoever.
 

Syed

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,357
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
muslim
Rather than something that can be observed or tested, to say ''created'' is an assumption based on a set of religious beliefs.


what did you observed or tested?

what is the mechanism behind that life appeared on earth?
 

Syed

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,357
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
muslim
Originally Posted by Syed View Post
how do they know that god exist ?

They don't know it exists, they believe it. Just like muslims, xians, jews believe their gods exist. Anybody who calims to know a god exists is a liar, or deluded.
we believe in maker of life but you say we dont have maker, that does not makes sense, since we exist
 

C_Mucius_Scaevola

Veteran Member
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
1,774
Location
Zaandam, NL
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
They don't know it exists, they believe it. Just like muslims, xians, jews believe their gods exist. Anybody who calims to know a god exists is a liar, or deluded.
we believe in maker of life but you say we dont have maker, that does not makes sense, since we exist

Yes, we exist ... and? Existence is not, in itself, evidence of a creator. All it is evidence of is existence.
 

Methinx

Junior Member
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
87
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
Non Believer
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! :confused:
 

Syed

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,357
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
muslim
we believe in maker of life but you say we dont have maker, that does not makes sense, since we exist

Yes, we exist ... and? Existence is not, in itself, evidence of a creator. All it is evidence of is existence.

do we always existed?

nothing created us?

- - - Updated - - -

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! :confused:
who / what created us?
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,553
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
They don't know it exists, they believe it. Just like muslims, xians, jews believe their gods exist. Anybody who calims to know a god exists is a liar, or deluded.
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. Starting with simple molecules that could replicate, and evolving to achieve the greater complexity and diversity we observe today. No magic needed to answer that question.

Who created Allah?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
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

Veteran Member
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
1,774
Location
Zaandam, NL
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Junior Member
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
87
Location
UK
Basic Beliefs
Non Believer
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! :confused:
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.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,553
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,856
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,357
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
muslim
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

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,357
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
muslim
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

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,357
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
muslim
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,031
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
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

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,856
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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 TruthTM' don't know anything of the sort. In fact, those people have effectively debarred themselves from ever knowing anything.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,553
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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?
 

Syed

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,357
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
muslim
who evolved us or what evolved us?

are we evolving NOW?

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.

why do we evolved ?

why do any living thing evolve ?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,856
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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.

why do we evolved ?

why do any living thing evolve ?

Imperfectly inheritable traits exist, and so does death.

With those two things, evolution is inevitable.

Tall fathers have tall sons - but some may be slightly shorter or slightly taller than their fathers. Short fathers have short sons, but again, some may be slightly shorter or slightly taller than their fathers. Not every son has the same number of children; and one of the many things that influence how many sons someone has, is his height. While this is true, evolution is inevitable. And the same thing applies to ALL inheritable traits.

Of course, you fail to understand this, because you don't actually understand what evolution IS - you have a deeply flawed mischaracterization of evolution in your mind, which prevents you from grasping how real evolution really works. The only solution to that is for you to learn. But you have repeatedly shown that you are unwilling or unable to even attempt to do so. So you doom yourself to eternal misunderstanding and ignorance.
 

Syed

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,357
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
muslim
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.

.

all the thing you wrote above is some body eyewitness to that or just somebody imagination?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,856
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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.

.

all the thing you wrote above is some body eyewitness to that or just somebody imagination?

All of this chemistry can be directly observed in the laboratory. Imagination doesn't come into it.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,670
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Rather than something that can be observed or tested, to say ''created'' is an assumption based on a set of religious beliefs.


what did you observed or tested?


The evidence for evolution is acquired and tested.

what is the mechanism behind that life appeared on earth?

Complex chemistry powered by some energy source. It can be volcanic vents (tectonic), solar energy or both.
 

C_Mucius_Scaevola

Veteran Member
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
1,774
Location
Zaandam, NL
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
who evolved us or what evolved us?

are we evolving NOW?

Nobody evolved us. Genetic differences due to imperfect DNA copying accumlated over millions of generations until we became what we are today.

Yes, we (as in humanity, not as individuals) are still evolving, and will continue to do so as long as DNA copying is an imperfect process.

There is no "who" in natural processes.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Imperfectly inheritable traits exist, and so does death.

With those two things, evolution is inevitable.

so we evolved to became better from our imperfection ? correct ?
No, not correct. 'Better' is subjective. We evolved from apes that tore down trees to animals with the power to obliterate all life on the planet. Some would say that was not 'better.'

Evolution is not about moving away from imperfection, it's about 'good enough to get by.'
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,031
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
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.

why do we evolved ?

why do any living thing evolve ?

Because DNA replication is not 100% successful and there can be slight differences between generations. A small percentage of those slight differences are positive traits for the environment the organism is in. Over the course of thousands of generations, those slight differences add up.

If we'd been created perfectly by an omniscient being, that kind of error rate wouldn't exist.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,856
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Imperfectly inheritable traits exist, and so does death.

With those two things, evolution is inevitable.

so we evolved to became better from our imperfection ? correct ?

No.

Evolution isn't about getting better; it's purely about survival and reproduction. If you don't have descendants, then your traits vanish, no matter how 'good' they might have been. If you do have descendants then your traits persist.

That's why we have Malaria and Guinea Worm. It's why Smallpox killed millions, until science found a way to wipe it out.

The idea that a loving and merciful God deliberately created such horrible things is insane. They exist; therefore a loving and merciful God who created all life is a logical impossibility.
 

iolo

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2015
Messages
1,409
Location
Rhondda
Basic Beliefs
Socialist
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.

why do we evolved ?

why do any living thing evolve ?
Because, like thieves in American capitalism, some are better suited to current conditions than others, so are in a better position for successful breeding, obviously.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
You go, Syed. Sell it!!! You haven't touched on Islam's appeal to the modern western woman, and that's where a truly dynamic niche market exists for you. My sense is that women have had it with the job market, and most want nothing more than some sexy Omar Sharif type to guide them and fulfill their true desires. What woman isn't fed up with the prep time involved in getting her "look" right for the day? Jump into a hijab, babe -- it's easier than Pajama Jeans. Tired of makeup? Join the club -- get a burka! I can't imagine a "modern" "liberated" woman who doesn't secretly want to be put on the pedestal that Islam has waiting for her. Added plus: NEVER having to wait in the DMV for your new driver's license. Be chaperoned by your dashing Muslim man or his brother or his cousin Ahmed. Sweeeet!!!
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
islam is growing in the west

why white western christians converting to islam?
I just noticed that those are two different things, Syed.
The number of muslims in Britain is growing, but the nation's trend overall is actually towards religious indifference. Not towards islam. Which would make sense if the biggest thing going for Islam is immigration, rather than conversion.

So many Muslims are crowding in, but the conversions are towards atheism, or apatheism.
 

Veritass

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
415
Location
Southern California
Basic Beliefs
Secular Humanist
I know it is bad form (and might even be a breach of the terms of use) to question Syed's sincerity, but I have been spending some time over on a couple of "scam-baiting" sites, and I find the parallels interesting.

A junior level of scam-baiting is to respond to scams with very vague "...gee what do you mean?" and "...how could I have won that lottery?" type of answers. The point is merely to occupy the scammer's time and internet connection and keep them away from actual marks. More advanced scam-baiting can get very interesting, but I'll leave that alone for now.

It seems to me that Syed's ratio of (time other users spend making responses) to (time he spends throwing out vague statements and inquiries) has got to be one of the highest on this site. I can't speculate on whether his intent is to occupy people's time and keep them from other useful pursuits, but he certainly seems to have that effect.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Allah just told me that he is really pissed at what Mohammed did with the message he was given. He corrupted it. Now Allah has no choice but to send anyone who believes and accepts that corrupted message to hell. Allah said that he asked Gabriel about it and Gabriel told him he delivered the message correctly but that Mohammed fucked it up with his own prejudices, biases, and hatreds.
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,482
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I'm curious what Islam provides as "answers" that is unique and can't be found in Christianity or Judaism.
Imperfectly inheritable traits exist, and so does death.

With those two things, evolution is inevitable.

so we evolved to became better from our imperfection ? correct ?
Actually, evolution comes forth via mistakes in the regeneration of genetic code. Whether those mistakes are beneficial, harmful, neutral are to be based on the environment and the magnitude of the change.

IE evolution is caused by an imperfect biologic set up and environmental pressures.

- - - Updated - - -

I know it is bad form (and might even be a breach of the terms of use) to question Syed's sincerity, but I have been spending some time over on a couple of "scam-baiting" sites, and I find the parallels interesting.

A junior level of scam-baiting is to respond to scams with very vague "...gee what do you mean?" and "...how could I have won that lottery?" type of answers. The point is merely to occupy the scammer's time and internet connection and keep them away from actual marks. More advanced scam-baiting can get very interesting, but I'll leave that alone for now.

It seems to me that Syed's ratio of (time other users spend making responses) to (time he spends throwing out vague statements and inquiries) has got to be one of the highest on this site. I can't speculate on whether his intent is to occupy people's time and keep them from other useful pursuits, but he certainly seems to have that effect.
I disagree. I don't think many people have spent much time debunking syed, as there has been little to debunk over the years.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,553
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I know it is bad form (and might even be a breach of the terms of use) to question Syed's sincerity, but I have been spending some time over on a couple of "scam-baiting" sites, and I find the parallels interesting.

A junior level of scam-baiting is to respond to scams with very vague "...gee what do you mean?" and "...how could I have won that lottery?" type of answers. The point is merely to occupy the scammer's time and internet connection and keep them away from actual marks. More advanced scam-baiting can get very interesting, but I'll leave that alone for now.

It seems to me that Syed's ratio of (time other users spend making responses) to (time he spends throwing out vague statements and inquiries) has got to be one of the highest on this site. I can't speculate on whether his intent is to occupy people's time and keep them from other useful pursuits, but he certainly seems to have that effect.

The tactics would appear to be very similar. I can only speculate as to his motives, but his behavior over the past decade as a member of these forums has been exactly as you described. I suspect he finds it entertaining to waste people's time.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,856
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I know it is bad form (and might even be a breach of the terms of use) to question Syed's sincerity, but I have been spending some time over on a couple of "scam-baiting" sites, and I find the parallels interesting.

A junior level of scam-baiting is to respond to scams with very vague "...gee what do you mean?" and "...how could I have won that lottery?" type of answers. The point is merely to occupy the scammer's time and internet connection and keep them away from actual marks. More advanced scam-baiting can get very interesting, but I'll leave that alone for now.

It seems to me that Syed's ratio of (time other users spend making responses) to (time he spends throwing out vague statements and inquiries) has got to be one of the highest on this site. I can't speculate on whether his intent is to occupy people's time and keep them from other useful pursuits, but he certainly seems to have that effect.

Nah, it's OK; I'm here for my own entertainment, and if I wasn't replying to Syed, I would be wasting time in some other, equally futile way.
 
Top Bottom