Akin1212's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Akin1212's Profile › Akin1212's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 53 pages)

Islam › Re: The True Muslims? by Akin1212(m): 6:36pm On Feb 16, 2019

usermane:
You could say that. But that is only one way of seeing it.

Which other way is there to see it?

Islam › Re: The True Muslims? by Akin1212(m): 6:35pm On Feb 16, 2019*

usermane:
I think the problem we face with Islam is people approaching it with either confirmation bias or disconfirmation bias. And this is why tintingz is asking "Who is a True Muslim" despite my exposé on the Hadith of 73 sects and Akin1212 is asking "Where is hell?"

If you read the Quran carefully, these questions seem absurd as asking; "Who is a true writer" or "Where is the end of the universe?". It is really not the purpose of the Qur'an to answer them.

The thing with anti-Islam critics and Islamic apologists is that they are too sides of a coin. Their approach to the Islam is too one dimensional and narrow. So they make poor arguments just as often as they make good ones.

For me, it is better to approach the Qur'an from alternate perspectives to minimize these bias.

You are wrong!

Tingtinz asked you who a true Muslim is because you made the no true Scotman fallacy. Every Muslim on the face of this earth claims to be true muslims no matter what is written in the quran. And you have established that we cannot know that.

I am asking you where hell is to have a proof that hell actually exists. These are different things

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Understanding Creation (FULL BOOK) by Akin1212(m): 6:09pm On Feb 16, 2019

IamPlato:
Everything Is

What is everything? Antimatter is not matter. So much ignorance here grin

Christianity Etc › Re: Understanding Creation (FULL BOOK) by Akin1212(m): 6:07pm On Feb 16, 2019

IamPlato:
When I Was not Born Time Was On so Was Existence Of Every Other Life Until i Joined The Timeline

When you were born, were you aware of time? If you're not aware of time, will you stop existing? Simple direct questions you cannot answer directly.

Romance › Re: Hard Facts Of Life. by Akin1212(m): 6:04pm On Feb 16, 2019*

Goodlyhrt:
In this case you just have to open your eyes through knowledge to see it. You are it and it's you, the air you breath, the sun in the sky, everything and all things are from the same source and it's whole in one.

We are made up of this matter, like it or not.

And for the records I'm not of the religious people. I speak the truth of us all.

There is no way to literally open one's eyes through knowledge. If I am God, then there is no problem about that. IF you are God, then there is no problem about. But if you claim there is a supernatural being that is God, then you will have to provide a concrete and empirical evidence for that. From all this tripe you posted, I have seen where you belong.

Islam › Re: The True Muslims? by Akin1212(m): 5:53pm On Feb 16, 2019

usermane:
I take it that the author of Quran opted not to reveal its specific location. Either that or Hell just dont exist.

Since we have just two options now, we are down to 50% possibility each for each option. However, we can only take one which is either the author of Quran opted not to reveal it. For the other option, there's no point discussing that if hell doesn't exist.

So if the author of the quran opted not to reveal it for reasons know to him, it could be a way to manipulate the people instead of telling them the truth. Which brings the possibility of the quran being a lie. Agree?

Romance › Re: Hard Facts Of Life. by Akin1212(m): 5:49pm On Feb 16, 2019

Goodlyhrt:
Its not there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, many times, it's just that you have not looked in the right place.

Brother you can't deny it, there's wonderment in everything around. Denying that fact even negates our very own existence because that in itself is a great wonder on its own.

It's not there doesn't also mean it exists. Where is this right place that I supposed to look to see God?

What wonderment is there in that there are bacteria that can kill millions of people? How does wonderment prove that God exists? The only thing that can prove that God as you people define it, a living being, exists is for this being to actually exist.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Understanding Creation (FULL BOOK) by Akin1212(m): 5:45pm On Feb 16, 2019

IamPlato:
Time Is Existence Bro... Existence Is Time. Time Is No Illusion. If You Call Time Illusion Then Your Existence Is An Illusion

If you're not aware of time, do you cease to exist? When you were born, were you aware of time?

Christianity Etc › Re: Understanding Creation (FULL BOOK) by Akin1212(m): 5:43pm On Feb 16, 2019

IamPlato:
are You Sure You Know Matter?

What is matter?

Islam › Re: The True Muslims? by Akin1212(m): 5:29pm On Feb 16, 2019

usermane:
Firstly, I've defined hell. There are numerous verses of Quran describing hell. I cannot tell you anything different from these verses.

Secondly, I have mentioned those going to hell according to Qur'an.

Lastly, about the location of hell. It seem to lie somewhere in outer space. This is my impression from the Qur'an.

Smh

In other words, there is no proof of hell. All you have is just the quranic description of what it is without a single proof?

Again, somewhere in space is not a location.

Romance › Re: Hard Facts Of Life. by Akin1212(m): 5:25pm On Feb 16, 2019

Goodlyhrt:
My friend God is everywhere you just need to know to start perceiving and stop looking for him.

How can we perceive this God, by becoming deluded like you?

Christianity Etc › Re: Understanding Creation (FULL BOOK) by Akin1212(m): 5:22pm On Feb 16, 2019

IamPlato:
Akin1212

60% of The Content Of The Universe is Invisible To Us. There Are A Lot We Do Not See. Read To Understand Not To Find Faults

Lol, I am sure you are not reading to understand instead. You should say this to those ignorant people who have been hailing you. You read something on Wikipedia and you have misrepresented it. There is no statement in the dark matter article on Wikipedia that says 60% of the universe is not visible to us. However, there is unseen matter. But unseen matter is not hiding itself, unseen matter is still a physical entity, we just can't see it. 100% of bacteria and other microbes are invisible to us,
And these are part of the 60%. And unseen matter doesn't prove that God exists. You should take your advice and read to understand. Go back to the article and read it over and over until you understand it.

Christianity Etc › Re: Understanding Creation (FULL BOOK) by Akin1212(m): 5:15pm On Feb 16, 2019

IamPlato:
the Sun And Its System Is Existing. Or Have You Not Heard Of Supernovas? The Sun Will Continue To Exist Until Its Life Span is Exhausted... With Life, Is Existence

You're diverting the talk, time and existence is what we are talking about. Stop doing straw man.

Life is not dependent on time, time is an invention, an illusion. If we stop reading time, life continues.

Islam › Re: The True Muslims? by Akin1212(m): 5:07pm On Feb 16, 2019

usermane:
You're making a mistake. I'm simply reporting what the Qur'an states. Now whether a hell exist and what proof we have is entirely different subject.

I think you're the one who is making a mistake. I am not asking you what the quran says about hell. I asked what is hell, didnt I?

If you choose to explain it by using the Quran, then it must be able to answer any question raised, which includes where is hell, who is going there, in what form are they going, who has gone, etc.

Christianity Etc › Re: Understanding Creation (FULL BOOK) by Akin1212(m): 4:58pm On Feb 16, 2019

IamPlato:
Akin1212

How Did You Know There Is No Time In Space? As Long As There Is Continuous Existence and Movement There Is Time

If you are in space and you lost your time device, will you stop or cease existing? There is nothing like time in space, nothing.

Islam › Re: Atheism Is Foolishness? by Akin1212(m): 4:56pm On Feb 16, 2019

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

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!

1 Like

Islam › Re: The True Muslims? by Akin1212(m): 3:52pm On Feb 16, 2019

usermane:
Come on. Haven't you read the Quran. It is what it is - a destination of punishment for evil doers.

It is what it isn't, you mean.

Do you mean people will go to hell? Can you identify someone who has gone to that destination?

Islam › Re: The True Muslims? by Akin1212(m): 3:37pm On Feb 16, 2019

usermane:
I already did. The true Muslims are those saved from hell. Who are these Muslims?

See these verses; 40:40, 103:3, 2:82, 3:57, 4:57

What is hell?

Islam › Re: Atheism Is Foolishness? by Akin1212(m): 3:32pm On Feb 16, 2019

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? cheesy

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.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Understanding Creation (FULL BOOK) by Akin1212(m): 2:51pm On Feb 16, 2019*

Lol, there are fallacies and incosistent baloneys in this your chapter one. But first let me ask you simple questions before I start blasting your chapter one. My questions are in bold.

1. Do you know that there is nothing like time in space, that time was an invention of man?

2. If God exist outside time, because he would need to do so to be able to create time, right? If God exist outside, how come he is bound by time? It has been shown that God itself according to the holy books operates within time.

3.Do you know that the total sum of the energies of a system is equal to zero? The first law of thermodynamic was clear on that. Energy can never be created nor destroyed by anybody, not even the imaginary God

4. What do you mean by space is the home of God? Space is actually the home of dusts and many microorganisms. Or is God a microorganism, the type that can't be seen? All the angels and the kingdom of God whose streets are made of gold and the mansions Jesus promised his followers are in space and invisible? I believe you now see how ridiculous you are. Lol

5. If in the beginning God put the earth and heaven in existence, and since then has been living in space(heaven), where was God living before the beginning? The earth is in space and so is the moon, sun, billions of stars, hundreds of planets too. The earth is not at the center of the universe, the earth is not important to the continuity of the universe, it's just a tiny dot.

Islam › Re: Mashallah I Now Convert To Islam by Akin1212(m): 8:18pm On Feb 15, 2019

Health › Re: Sick Baby, Benaiah Monday, Dies on his way to Dubai for his heart surgery by Akin1212(m): 4:02pm On Feb 15, 2019

tetralogyfallot:
When u sit down and look critically at life u come to realize that it is indeed NOTHING. A baby that has not even started life has died for a sickness he actually came to this world with. Death doesn't even know if you are rich or poor, young or old, good or bad, Muslim or christian or even agnostic, it doesn't know if you are a PhD holder or just an illiterate. Life is ephemeral, live well with people, build a good relationship with people you may not really know if that is the last time you are even seeing them, getting the whole world in your pocket doesn't even guaranty happiness so why not be happy no matter the circumstances you find yourself and infect people around you with the same happiness? Stay happy. Rest in peace to the deceased.

Life has no purpose.

Islam › Re: Atheism Is Foolishness? by Akin1212(m): 3:51pm On Feb 15, 2019

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.

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

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. grin

.

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

1 Like

Islam › Re: Atheism Is Foolishness? by Akin1212(m): 12:29pm On Feb 15, 2019

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!

If this thread is about the foolishness of atheism, you would be doing a great job by explaining what atheists cannot see that makes them foolish.

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?

Can you explain and give empirical evidence of why it took this supposed unequalled intelligence up 300 million years to create a simple life form such as bacteria and why it even created bacteria? Can you explain why it took this claimed intelligence 3 billion years to create humans and why it created humans?

Romance › Re: Hard Facts Of Life. by Akin1212(m): 10:40pm On Feb 14, 2019

IamPlato:
God Doesnt Care In Proving Anything To You because It Means Nothing To Him... But What You Fail To Understand Is That He Is your Sub Conscious Mind

That's not true. What's your definition of God. Because my subconscious mind is not a being that created everything. And believe you me, I ageee that God doesn't care about proving anything to me because he doesn't exist.

1 Like

Romance › Re: Hard Facts Of Life. by Akin1212(m): 8:38pm On Feb 14, 2019

IamPlato:
You Are The Ignorant One Here... Do More Study

More study on what? On why we should believe God exists because once upon a time black swan was believed not to exist?

Lol, you people are full of fallacies.

Romance › Re: Hard Facts Of Life. by Akin1212(m): 8:37pm On Feb 14, 2019

IamPlato:
Buhari

Lol, he is still tangible.

Islam › Re: Atheism Is Foolishness? by Akin1212(m): 8:31pm On Feb 14, 2019

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!

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? cheesy

.

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. grin

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.

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!

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. grin

1 Like

Islam › Re: Atheism Is Foolishness? by Akin1212(m): 3:23pm On Feb 14, 2019

Islam › Re: Atheism Is Foolishness? by Akin1212(m): 3:01pm On Feb 14, 2019*

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!

The synthesis of oligonucleotides is non sequitur. It does not in anyway change [b]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.

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!

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.

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?!

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.

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!

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.

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?!

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.

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!

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?

1 Like 1 Share

Romance › Re: Hard Facts Of Life. by Akin1212(m): 1:17pm On Feb 14, 2019

ubunja:
again.how can they prove God to you?

It is not my business how they can prove it. Any God that created this world we live in and everything inside it cannot be unproved, except he doesn't exist at all. And such God must be alive, except he died some years after creating everything, then we can take it up from there. But if they claim he exists, then they must be able to prove that. How they do it , is not my business.

Romance › Re: Hard Facts Of Life. by Akin1212(m): 12:48pm On Feb 14, 2019

ubunja:
then you ask the person to prove God is alive. And they fail. Then you're back to square zero making noise about people believing what can't be proven.

It doesn't matter what we ask them to do, but at least they believe what they believe ardently. They are still better than those who don't even know what they believe, people like you. grin

We ask people to prove with empiricism what they believe because they tell us they are certain about it, and also wish to convert us. And as logical beings that we are, before we can be sure of what they say, they must provide empirical evidence that supports it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 53 pages)