Isn't all religion a matter of opinion?

Islamispeace:

The universe is 14 billion years old. The probability of DNA or even a protein molecule forming spontaneously would require much more time than that.

Admittedly we have no clear idea yet on how life formed in the first place but simply looking at the likelihood that a full blown DNA strand forms out of a soup of aminoacids is of course mathematically so unlikely that even at the given age of the universe it is unlikely to happen... The calculation is actually a rather simple math exercise. Unfortunately this is a common but yet naive view on this matter. Clearly did neither the cell nor the DNA just drop out of the sky (or the ocean).  It is almost certain that DNA in its modern form did not form spontaneously but evolved out of more "primitive" structures (which themselves did however form spontaneously at a given point).

The fact that we do not know( yet?) how life formed in detail does by far not mean that we have no theories and if you did a little bit of googling you'd find plenty of them, like: this one.
Unfortunately you're riding the typical line of attack: Using things that we don't know yet(?) to put The god of the gaps in place. It is however clear for any alerted reader that this is measure of despair.  It is like the ever repeated nonsensical argument that a tornado can't build an airplane. Sure it can't - but Darwins theory of evolution can - like it or not - concisely explain why life (once formed) evolved!
It takes however some efforts to understand it and this is exactly why not many are willing to do it, especially when it tends to threaten their cosy view on the world.


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 29 September 2014 at 1:55pm

airmano wrote: Admittedly we have no clear idea yet on how life formed in the first place but simply looking at the likelihood that a full blown DNA strand forms out of a soup of aminoacids is of course mathematically so unlikely that even at the given age of the universe it is unlikely to happen... The calculation is actually a rather simple math exercise.

Umm, no, it's not a simple math exercise at all.  I asked islamispeace how big Stephen Meyer thinks the universe is, and didn't get an answer.  The fact is that one knows, but this bit of information is crucial in estimating the likelihood of a spontaneous formation of the building blocks of life somewhere in the universe by purely random chance.

As I said, if the universe is truly infinite, then it doesn't matter how incredibly unlikely a given event might be.  As long as something is even theoretically possible, then in an infinite universe it has happened not just once but an infinite number of times.  Actually, that much is simple math.

By the way, let's not confuse the observable universe with the actual universe.  Just because we can only see about 46 billion light years (limited by the speed of light and the expansion of spacetime) is no reason to assume that the universe ends there.  We just don't know, but Occam's Razor says that if we have no evidence that it ends, then we should probably assume that it doesn't.

Edited by Ron Webb - 29 September 2014 at 4:38pm

Ron Webb wrote: To dispute the notion that anyone can ever be certain in matters of religion.  Even if you could prove the existence of some supernatural entity that created the universe (which you can't), that's still a far cry from proving that that entity is a god or gods, let alone the God described in the Quran.

But to hear this from an atheist who has only his own opinions (and nothing certain) is ironic.  The pot calling the kettle black...

Ron Webb wrote: No need, I've read plenty like it.  What you (and he) don't understand is that in an infinite universe, the "probabilistic resources" would be infinite.  No matter how unlikely you might think it is for a protein molecule to form spontaneously on this planet (which itself is a matter of opinion), the probability is not zero; and in an infinite universe, there would be an infinite number of habitable planets just like ours.  Multiply any non-zero number by infinity and what do you get?

  

Who said the universe is "infinite"?  The very fact that the universe is estimated to be 14 billion years old means that it is not infinite. 

What you don't understand (surprise, surprise) is that even if a protein was to "spontaneously" form, that is the just the beginning.  A protein has to have the correct configuration and folding pattern to function properly.  Any misfold in the protein, and the it will be useless.  Not only that, but in order for life to exist, there have to be many different functional proteins of varying complexity.  Consider the example of DNA.  Even if a DNA molecule had spontaneously formed, it would still need to replicate.  How does DNA replication occur?  Well, it requires other molecules such as DNA polymerase, DNA ligase, helicase and topoisomerase.  All of these enzymes are needed for DNA replication.  Even if one of these is missing, then DNA cannot replicate.  It is frankly impossible for all of these molecules to have "spontaneously" formed simultaneously to allow DNA to replicate. 

And as for your claim of "an infinite number of habitable planets", this is just an absurd opinion for which no evidence exists (surprise, surprise).  I don't doubt that there may be many planets which have the conditions suitable for life, but to claim that there are an "infinite number" is just a matter of opinion.  And even if there were, how does that explain how life started on earth?  Did life come from outer space?


Edited by islamispeace - 30 September 2014 at 8:43am

Abu Loren wrote: Yes I agree with you. However where truth and falsehood can be deciphered is in True statements that are contained in the Qur'an. For example, it is the only scripture where it states that the creation of the heavens and the earth is a sign that God Almighty exists. So for a non believer this won't be understood even the Christians and the Hindu's etc.

As an outsider to any religion any statement in any of them which depend upon simply faith in the religion for their support seem to be wishes rather than dependable facts.

I don't trust the word of an atheist just because he is an atheist. I trust the idea of the world revolving and the heavens not spinning around the Earth because I can demonstrate it myself. Dropped stones don't land exactly on the spot directly beneath them. They land just to the east.

I trust that the ideas of thermodynamics are right because they are what is used to make jet planes work. Just because I couldn't understand them and desperately want them to be wrong doesn't change the fact that they are right.