tintingz:
What a hypocritical, bias, illogical argument from the Quran.

So the Quran believe we were not created by nothing but believe we were created from nothing? This is highly fallacious!

tintingz:

"Were they the creator of themselves?" The Quran is telling us something cannot exist without a creator, we then need to ask who created Allah?

tintingz:

If you said Allah has no creator and exist himself or has been existing then you have violate the logical argument "everything must have a creator" we can use same argument for the universe that it exist itself or has been existing.

sino:

From the prepositions used, you would have seen the difference in the statements, I believe someone had already explained contextually the meaning of "from nothing" to you?!

I have already explained this to you before, Allah is beyond His creation, Allah (SWT) isn't part of His creation, and thus asking such a question is redundant.

But we do not believe that Allah (SWT) is part of the universe, and as pointed out above, questioning who created what cannot be said to be part of our universe is redundant, since you cannot even fathom what is beyond the universe, and there is no empirical evidence that suggests that the universe had no beginning!

sino:


You need not be informed how a computer was invented before you believe that it was, and it would be foolish of you even if you do not understand the processes and mechanism of how it was invented to start arguing that it came to be by random chance. So far, the experiments you hold on to are quite showing the impossibility of these nonliving chemicals to just come together by chance and become a living organism, without any intelligence directing it so as to reach the level of complexity we now have, especially in man. That there is a creator of life is quite simple to understand and believe, and it is a universal truth!

aadoiza:

This is impressive, sino. This just about summarises the whole shebang. Non-living chemicals don't just come alive without direction by intelligence. He's just proven that for us
The guy is in a habit of shooting himself in the foot. And he's done it again. If he's a quarter as smart as he thinks he will have seen his numerous gaffes in his equally numerous comments on here.
I admire your patience, bro.

tintingz:
You're not getting the absurdity in his argument.

- It took the researchers years of experiments to come up with those theories, a non-random event shouldn't take this long of study with different experiments.

- Assuming there's an intelligent being, the unknown intelligent being behind abiogenisis is imperfect and not all-knowing.

When a computer needs to be updated in version and model, it depict an imperfect designer and design.

sino:


Venter and his team, had to use living organisms to achieve their goal. They had intelligence, they had a plan and they had the advantage of advanced technology and favourable conditions which can not be said to be same in the primitive earth. Yet, to make a genome, they depended on a living yeast cell, then a living bacterial cell to check the genome for errors, and then transplant the tested genome into another living bacterial cell! This proves that life is actually needed to make another life! What Venter and his team did is not abiogenesis!

sino:


You need not be informed how a computer was invented before you believe that it was, and it would be foolish of you even if you do not understand the processes and mechanism of how it was invented to start arguing that it came to be by random chance. So far, the experiments you hold on to are quite showing the impossibility of these nonliving chemicals to just come together by chance and become a living organism, without any intelligence directing it so as to reach the level of complexity we now have, especially in man. That there is a creator of life is quite simple to understand and believe, and it is a universal truth!

aadoiza:

If you have problems with an all-knowing, all-perfect creator simply state so.

Your denying having an intelligent creator has never portrayed you smart in any way.

Everything around you has got a creator. Thus they didn't come by as a result of some inexplicable randomness you and your cohorts are imagining, but by sheer planning, design, and cause. Then how can you, the most complex of all things around, be from randomness? It's just too absurd. Not even abiogenesis will camouflage this ridiculousness.

aadoiza:

This is impressive, sino. This just about summarises the whole shebang. Non-living chemicals don't just come alive without direction by intelligence. He's just proven that for us
The guy is in a habit of shooting himself in the foot. And he's done it again. If he's a quarter as smart as he thinks he will have seen his numerous gaffes in his equally numerous comments on here.
I admire your patience, bro.

sino:


It is so funny how these guys can be so dogmatic, imagine a whole research that did not in any way talk about abiogenesis, is what Mr. Biochemist wants to hold on to has evidence, even after showing that the research depended on intelligence and life all through! But what can I say....

Thanks bro, one needs such when dealing with these set of 'evangelical' atheist...

Akin1212:


Do you even understand why the yeast cell was used? Lol, you will not kill me with laughter. The yeast cell was used for genome assembly. This could have been done in vitro, but it would cost money and time, hence the use of the yeast. Let me quickly address your Baloneys again.

Akin1212:

1. They got synthetic chemicals and used it to synthesize a synthetic genome. Which was the theme of the research.

Akin1212:

2. They used advanced technology, because without it, the research would have costed more money and time.

Akin1212:

3. The conditions of the early earth or primitive earth is different from the one we have now and it has been established.

Akin1212:

4. They used bacteria cell to check for errors in the 'synthetic or artificial genome' they created. This doesn't make the genome natural, it was still artificial.

Akin1212:

5. They removed the natural genome from the bacterial cell and put the artificial genome, the artifical genome was able to do what the natural genome was doing. Which is the maintenance and perpetuation of life.

6. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life arose from simple organic chemicals or compounds.

Akin1212:

Conclusion: The basics of the research carried out by Craig Venter and his team was the creation of synthetic genome from scratch using synthetic chemicals. How they assembled the genome, and how they checked for errors didn't make the genome any less synthetic, after checking errors with a bacteria cell and assembling with a yeast cell, the genome was still 100% synthetic or artificial. Their research was to prove that life arose from simple organic molecules, and it was successful, this proves abiogenesis to be true. Craig Venter might have studied the genome of the bacteria they were trying to create its genome, the aim was to show that life arose from chemicals and not any intelligence. Guess what? They did it successfully, this eliminates the God factor.


So far, the research of Craig Venter has shown that life arose from organic molecules. Your denial cannot change that. I understand though that you are so hung up to your indoctrination and hence will reject scientific research or theories based on facts. That there is a creator of life is not a universal truth. It is your thought and your fantasy, because you cannot understand the principle of abiogenesis doesn't make creation a truth. It is nothing but a bold claim.

If you were to be a thinking man, you'd sit for a minute and think if an intelligent creator would create bacteria or other parasitc organisms at all? Or you don't know the biological importance of bacteria and microorganisms?

Now that you have claimed that a creator exist, can you give us a peer reviewed paper, factual, realistic, hypothetical mechanism of how life started on earth, that serves as an alternative to abiogenesis, that is testable and universally true?

sino:


If it is difficult for man with all the intelligence, knowledge and advancement to synthesize 100 oligonucleotide bases in the lab, and therefore making the process of synthesizing a gene more complicated and synthesizing a whole genome even more complex and with greater difficulty, so that they had to depend on a living organism, then the joke is on you! The proposed minimal genome for life will require 256 genes, and each gene may have up to 1000 or even higher base pairs. Scientist can only mange to synthesize just 60 bases with about 75% [/b]efficiency, anything greater than that would be problematic, but you believe that these chemicals were just randomly formed by chance in a primitive and chaotic environment without any form of intelligence!

sino:

The theme of the research was to make a minimal genome for a living cell functionality.

The advanced technology couldn't make more than few bases which is a single strand, after which they have to make a complementary strand, then use enzymes found in living organism to assemble these oligonucleotides using PCR, then another living organism (E. coli) is used to clone, and then sequencing is done for verification, these process is repeated till the sequence for a single gene is made, this is called a cassette DNA. And we are going to 473 genes! The yeast cell does the remaining job in assembling the cassettes and cloning...Then testing again by a living organism!

To achieve their goal without depending on these living organism and their enzymes, Venter and his team had no other option other than the above method! This is not a money or time issue, but the only realistic and practical methodology available!

sino:


Of course, you should explain how feasible these simple chemicals came together to make such a very complex assemblage to begin life, if after the favourable conditions we now have, and the advanced technologies, how could this unintelligent process 'knew' how to assemble in the right configurations for optimal functionality?!

sino:


Who is saying that it is natural?! I said for them to have created a synthetic genome, they depended on living organism, which proves that to make life, you need life! And this is not what abiogenesis is saying!

sino:


Can you kindly explain how they removed the natural genome from the living bacterial cell?! And the question you keep running away from, Is the genome a living entity on its own or contains information for a living entity? What can the synthetic genome do on its own?! If abiogenesis is defined as how life arose from simple organic compounds, why did Venter's synthetic genome need life before it could function? Did the primitive organic compounds also needed life to function like that of Venter and his team?!

sino:


Venter's research was not aimed at proving abiogenesis, it is people like you that wants to believe it is, you should provide references from the original research article so that you can prove me wrong! If you believe this research proves abiogenesis to be true, then it means the natural genome that was randomly formed in the primitive earth must have needed an already living cell too! And where would the cell come from?! I have repeatedly shown how Venter heavily depended on living organisms, to create a minimal synthetic genome, you yourself had acknowledged that the synthetic genome maintained and perpetuate life, but not create life, there is a huge difference my friend, and until you can prove how this nonliving chemicals actually started (created) life (which is abiogenesis), you are just being fanatical about your beliefs, just like any other religious fanatic! If it is real science, the data does not support abiogenesis, but if it is belief, then you are free to believe whatever you want!

Akin1212:


The synthesis of oligonucleotides is non sequitur. It does not in anyway change the fact that synthetic chemicals gave rise to a synthetic genome which maintained and perpetuated life of a cell. The origin of life due to the theory of abiogenesis was not a simple process, neither was it a single event. The fact that it took up 300 million years for life to arise from simple organic chemicals means it is a very difficult process. Perhaps, you think because it is random, hence it is straightforward. I would be disappointed if that's what you think, with all the intelligence you have boasted of?

Abiogenesis gave rise to simple life forms and not complex life forms. I'm beginning to think you're just blindly replying me and not reading. Life evolved to the complexity we have today.

Venter and his team used yeast cell to assemble the synthetic genome. There is no joke there, they could have done it in vitro and still have the same genome, but using yeast did not make the molecule of life that was synthesized less synthetic, it still remained 100% synthetic. Don't do strawman, my friend.

First of all, there are physical laws. Laws that were present from the primitive earth to modern earth. The primitive earth was not all chaotic as you're presuming. And in 300 millions years, with these physical laws, with the way atoms and molecules bind with themselves, yes complex molecules can emerge. They actually did. You're misrepresenting science Sino, I know it's because you don't understand it.

For the above, where you said scientist can only synthesize 60 bases with 75% efficiency, you lied and misrepresented science once again. The following proved that.

"Artificial gene synthesis, sometimes known as DNA printing is a method in synthetic biology that is used to create artificial genes in the laboratory. Based on solid-phase DNA synthesis, it differs from molecular cloning and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in that it does not have to begin with preexisting DNA sequences. Therefore, it is possible to make a completely synthetic double-stranded DNA molecule with no apparent limits on either nucleotide sequence or size. The method has been used to generate functional bacterial or yeast chromosomes containing approximately one million base pairs. Creating novel nucleobase pairs in addition to the two base pairs in nature could greatly expand the genetic code."

Reference: Kimoto, M.; et al. (2013). "Generation of high-affinity DNA aptamers using an expanded genetic alphabet". Nat. Biotechnol. 31 (5): 453–457. doi:10.1038/nbt.2556. PMID 23563318.

Akin1212:

They had to make a minimal genome which can functionally maintain and perpetuate life to show that all that is needed for life are chemicals. They did that and it worked. They don't need to make the whole genome of the naturally found bacteria which also contains JUNK DNA. We already talked about this. So, they made a minimal genome to eliminate useless DNA. It still doesn't change the fact that the genome synthesized was completely synthetic.

The advanced technology, what is the advanced technology?
Do you know the PCR is an in vitro process? Polymerase chain reaction is done in the lab. Polymerase chain reaction is more than enough to generate millions of segments of a DNA, how much more thousands?

"Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method widely used in molecular biology to make many copies of a specific DNA segment. Using PCR, a single copy (or more) of a DNA sequence is exponentially amplified to generate thousands to millions of more copies of that particular DNA segment. PCR is now a common and often indispensable technique used in medical laboratory and clinical laboratory research for a broad variety of applications including biomedical research and criminal forensics . PCR was developed by Kary Mullis"

The yeast cell doesn't do anything special other than what PCR does. It's the same principles. Stop making ot look like someone planned existence. Lol

Venter and his team had many options to assemble the DNA other than what they used as specified above, such as DNA printing, let's be guided please. You're not helping anybody by posting lies here.



Life started simply not as a complex assemblage. In the formation DNA synthesis and and assemblage of simple chemicals which make up the bases, there are natural laws that guide hot atoms and molecules interact. With these natural laws, 300 million years and favorable conditions, a lot can happen. Life happened.



They could have not depended on the living organism and still made the synthetic DNA still. Which means that to create life, you don't need life. And that's exactly what abiogenesis is sayimg.



Was the natural genome left in the bacteria cell? Remember the research papers cell they created a genome and labeled or watermarked it to differentiate it from the natural genome. And that after putting the synthetic genome in a cell, the cell was able to carry out all the processes of life. No arguments here.

I have defined life many times here, a series of process that includes needed metabolism. The genome codes for this processes. The synthetic genome carries information of life processes. It can do everything the natural genome can do, and what the natural genome can't do, it also can't do. A cell is dead without its genome, which resides in the nucleus as DNA.

Venter DNA didn't need life to function, they only opted to use a living cell for assemblage of the DNA, the living cell didn't didn't add life to the genome. It only helped to arrange it, and this could also be done in the laboratory.



Venter's research once again was aimed at creating a synthetic genome that was able to maintain and perpetuate life from a mix of synthetic chemicals. This is very clear. It's not about what people like me want, it's about what happened and what was done successfully. On the other hand, people like you who argues for and believe in an unproven, non existent intelligence find it hard to accept because it eliminates this intelligence.

Venter genome did not come from any organism or cell, it was distinctively made from synthetic chemicals. They only used living systems to assemble the DNA and this could have been done by other means. Stop trying tonmake it look like they needed life to make the synthetic genome.

Whatever perpetuates life, also gives life. The synthetic genome continued the function of the natural genome. It contained the information necessary to make life continues. It is still supplying life to the cell. How hard is this to understand?

It is real science and it has been explained over and over again. I don't need to believe it because I can also reproduce the research and see for myself. Unlike tou who Allah cannot speak to, he could only speak to Mohammed and hence he is quiet until you die.

Again, you are the one whi has been avoiding the same question I have asked over and over again.

Now that you have claimed that a creator exist, can you give us a peer reviewed paper, factual, realistic, hypothetical mechanism of how life started on earth, that serves as an alternative to abiogenesis, that is testable and universally true?

sino:


This above is the height of dishonesty! Can you present the snapshot of the quoted in your reference you presented for everyone to see? You searched on google for "artificial gene synthesis", you quoted wiki, and used the second reference on wiki, thinking that it contains the same information as what is on wiki?! As I said, you are an empty korodom, making noise all over the place, you can only deceive the likes of you with this nonsense!

For your information, even from the wiki link you dishonestly referenced and copied from,

"The longer the oligonucleotide sequence that is being synthesized, the more defects there are, thus this process is only practical for producing short sequences of nucleotides. The current practical limit is about 200 bp (base pairs) for an oligonucleotide with sufficient quality to be used directly for a biological application."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gene_synthesis

How is this different from what I had written?! Where is my lie?!

You are very pathetic! You and biochemistry or even science should never be in the same sentence again!

sino:


All the rest of what you have written would only be responded to when you present the snapshot I requested above, else, you just confirm that you know next to nothing about science and its methods, you are just a believer in what scientists say, without even understanding it!

Akin1212:


Lol, the genetic fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy. When a fact is ignored by attacking its source and appeal to the source of the argument, why can't it come from Wikipedia? You don't have to practise all types of fallacies before we know that you don't have sense.

In my quoted post, the word reference was bolden to specify the reference that was given where I took the statement from. Like I have maintained, the content is what matters and not the source. I even did not include the source, instead I used the research that was referenced which shows honesty. Why are you crying? .

After making empty boasts that you have access to paid journals, you couldn't look for the journal and read if it follows the statement or not? Discrediting Wikipedia does not serve any purpose, grow up abeg.

Anyway, I read the journal already, if you want to learn, use your self acclaimed access to journals to search for it and read it to understand the research, I doubt if you will understand it sef.

I didn't reference Wikipedia's link, I referenced the journal that supported the Wikipedia statement, know the difference and stop showing us how fallacious you can be.

The question is, is artificial gene synthesis with great efficiency possible? Yes it is, very possible, in fact. Read the journal.

Akin1212:

All your insults and personal attacks are not evidence that supports your claims, they are just useless ad hominems. If you like don't even respond to the rest of what I wrote, that's your cup of tea. Your response or not does not change facts, not in this world or the next.

Meanwhile, you have failed vigorously to provide a peer reviewed paper, factual, realistic, hypothetical mechanism of how life started on earth, that serves as an alternative to abiogenesis, that is testable and universally true.

You must be a joke Sino, for dragging me through your petitio principii(circular argument). You actually have nothing to offer. If your access to paid and free journal does not suffice to get this particular journal, answer the question I asked above and I shall gladly send you a snapshot.

tintingz:


Everything has a creator, every complex entity has a creator, God who is "complex and something" is part of everything that exist, then he must have a creator!

sino:


If you truly have the journal, why not quote directly from it instead of quoting from wiki?! Why didn't you acknowledge that your quote is from wiki?! So there is a difference between source and reference abi? I am sure this is how you did your project, dubiously copying from wiki and taking the reference from wiki page without even reading and understanding the contents of the article. There is no fallacy on my part, and I addressed the contents of your quote which you didn't respond to.

Do you know what a DNA aptamer is?! Your referenced journal is talking about generation of an aptamer, and we are talking about gene synthesis and by extension a whole genome! I presented facts about this process being problematic as you would require specific large sequence of DNA, but the process of synthesizing DNA sequence can only make short sequences of oligonucleotides with optimal yield...

There is no known practical method of synthesizing a gene and a whole genome except for the procedure I had explained previously, if the solid-phase synthesis of DNA can only synthesize short sequence oligonucleotide, how then can they synthesize a whole gene?! Explain, bring evidences from your referenced journal that you have read already (with snapshots), stop deflecting and show everyone that you truly understand the methodology!

If I was only focused on your ignorance and dishonesty, I wouldn't have mentioned the facts that you cannot disprove from the same wiki link you couldn't reference in the first place! I would present the snapshot of the journal, then you should do same of where the journal is talking about artificial gene synthesis...


You are a lousy ignoramus!

Your wiki source supports my claim of the difficulty in synthesizing artificial gene not to even talk of the genome, since you have to start from synthesizing the DNA sequence in a gene which can be more that 1000 bp and in humans, they can be up to 2 million base pairs! But only 200bp can be made with sufficient quality. This is what you believe came together randomly by chance without intelligence, yet to make a sequence of more than 200bp by the supposed intelligent scientists with all the advantages at their disposal, is a daunting task!

If only you know the implication of this gaffe you made above in the academia, you wouldn't even write this pathetic response as a defense of your outright dishonesty! This is not an ad hominem, this is establishing your ignorance and academic dishonesty! If you cannot understand what can be found on wikipedia, and you are dishonest about the reference, then how can anyone take anything you say as having any resemblance to science and by extension the truth?! As I always remind you, the thread isn't about proving the existence of Allah (SWT), but rather to expose atheist like you as being foolish, and here you have repeatedly exhibited extreme forms of foolishness!

aadoiza:

At least now you have admittedly stated you have a creator; so I can heave a sigh of relief. And you don't sound as absurd as before.
But don't jump the gun; when you meet your creator you can ask who created him, if you've got the cojones. LOL

tintingz:
I don't have a problem having a creator as long as there's evidence for this creator, you are yet to accept Allah has a creator.

Akin1212:


If there is a creator or intelligence that created everything, then that creator is daft. LOL.

I like your reverse argument, that if we were created, if everything has a creator, then the creator too has a creator. But you have failed to realize the most fundamental characteristic or feature of these people. They are as intellectually dishonest as they come. They are ready to believe that everything was created but their Allah just puffed up from nothing. He just existed. Now the question is this, the real reverse argument is this. Given billions of years, what is the probability that an intelligent being will just puff up from nothing and be so powerful to create everything?

The usual answer is when you meet your creator, ask him, just as that follow follw guy said. .

Their creator is even dead because he can never answer you now until you die, and they claim they are the most intelligent

aadoiza:
Thank you very much Mr sino, for cutting these charlatans to size.
It has been established here that things don't just come to life either by accident or when they simply feel like it, but only do so by a methodic, careful, and well thought-out process. The simple fact that it takes so much time and painstaking efforts and the use advanced technology and ultimately intelligence to do so in a controlled environment (laboratory) very much lends credence to this. As a result, rather than the no-God believers honourably admitting to this one universal truth, they're shamelessly shifting the goal post to "the creator must have been imperfect" drivel.
They thought they could bamboozle us with their quarter knowledge of abiogenesis but got exposed in their botched attempt.
Thank you again, Mr sino.

Akin1212:


Let it be known that it has been established that abiogenesis is the theory of how life came into existence from simple organic chemicals, and this process has been demonstrated in the laboratory by Craig Venter and his team, when they created a synthetic genome from a mix of simple organic chemicals.

Now, the stupid ones among us have started raising red herring fallacies by saying the research by Craig Venter et al was planned, carried out in the laboratory and used computers, and also done by human intelligence. However. They avoided the fact that if this breakthrough was done in the laboratory, with the help of computers which are all the result of human intelligence, then it means the human intelligence has equaled this special intelligence they claimed belonged to Allah. As a result, human intelligence is equal to Allah's intelligence. However, this raises more questions. If human intelligence = Allah's intelligence, what then is the need for Allah?

The truth is, these set of ignoramuses are puzzled at how a random and purposeless event can lead to a mix of simple(abiogenesis) and complex organisms(evolution). Understanding this concept is a reflection of how broad the mind is. Firstly, if we are to flip a coin which has a head and a tail on either sides 4 times in 100 rows, the chances that we will get 4 heads in a row is the chances that we won't, equal chances. We may get four Hs in the first row, we may get it in the second, we may even get it in the hundreth row of flips.

This random process doesn't need to do trial and error before it gets it right, it may get it right at the first try, it doesn't mean someone did it. If you claim someone did it, then the burden of providing who did it is on you.

In the absence of the provision of who did it, Atheism remain Valid while theism as always continues to be foolish.

tintingz:


This is the 7th page of this thread and theism remain to be the foolishness here.

Akin1212:


Of course, theism is foolish and will always be foolish. Especially because of this argument of intelligent design.
If they say they don't know, we would have simply just let it rest.

The excuse of using human intelligence to test phenomena does not in any way state that the phenomena was a result of intelligence. For instance, if a stupid person accidentally does something, should we stupidly test what the stupid person did? Won't we carefully and intelligently study how the stupid person did what he did?

However, to investigate things, whether complex or simple, of course, we will have to use human intelligence and not human ignorance. Does that now mean that because we planned and used intelligence to investigate, therefore whatever we investigated was intelligently designed?

To claim that there is an intelligent designer, you have to be able to provide this intelligent designer. Bring him/her/it/them to us. Shikenan!

tintingz:
They didn't see how they are shooting themselves in the foot.

They don't even understand their weak argument.

- If by accident I mistakenly pour a paint on the floor and turns out to be a beautiful art(or no beautiful art) does that depict intelligence, years later some group tries to replicate what i did with years of investigations and experiments using intelligence does that mean there is an intelligence behind the painting?

- If a painting was found on the floor somewhere and some group did series of investigations trying to replicate how the mysterious painting appear there, does that suddenly mean there's an intelligence behind it?

Dunes in the desert appear beautiful, there's no evidence someone one did it, it's just nature, we don't necessarily need to appeal to fallacies.

Simple logic it's a problem to them.

aadoiza:
Thank you very much Mr sino, for cutting these charlatans to size.
It has been established here that things don't just come to life either by accident or when they simply feel like it, but only do so by a methodic, careful, and well thought-out process. The simple fact that it takes so much time and painstaking efforts and the use advanced technology and ultimately intelligence to do so in a controlled environment (laboratory) very much lends credence to this. As a result, rather than the no-God believers honourably admitting to this one universal truth, they're shamelessly shifting the goal post to "the creator must have been imperfect" drivel.
They thought they could bamboozle us with their quarter knowledge of abiogenesis but got exposed in their botched attempt.
Thank you again, Mr sino.