₦airaland Forum

butterflyl1on:
Everyone knows the quran is a MAD COPY of the Bible with removed and altered contents so no surprise there that it also copied that man came from clay.

However when did science emerge and when did this your "THE TRUTH HAD BEEN LAID DOWN EVEN BEFORE I WAS BORN" come from? Was I born a little over 2000 years ago?

I must be that old for the Bible and science to confirm clay as a major component for life of which humans are Chief

Is modern science a little over 2000 years old? This discovery is in modern science era so say something less dumb next time.

Everyone knows that the Quran is a copy of the Bible? Lol, what a Barbarian you are. So Islam is a copy of Christianity? You are more ignorant than I initially thought. No wonder plagiarism is your forte.

I knew you wouldn't comprehend the statement I made in my previous post. Well, as usual, I will help you again one more time.

The facts about clay being used as a catalyst that helps biochemicals react or polymerize is not a new truth in science. Do you think as advanced as science is they wouldn't have discovered that? Well, what can't a dumbster like you think? I'm still bemused at your dumbness.

Science is more than a thousand times older than you, and before you were born, Chemistry had been studied and definitely clay had been studied. Simpletons require simple answers always.

butterflyl1on:
The Bible was SPECIFIC when it said CLAY. it did not say SILT OR HUMUS OR LOAMY OR ANYTHING ELSE BUT CLAY. why this specification? That's a very direct declaration and here we have modern science confirming an over 2000 year old UNSCIENTIFIC declaration.

Go figure.

Can't deny that the Bible was specific on a lot of things, yes it has misguided you to the state of obscurity. I don't blame, I blame it.

It was also specific on the fact that a spirit just started existing for nowhere, started waving its hand and speaking, and then things started appearing from nowhere, and then finally the spirit molded clay and created man. LMAO

Judaism was the first religion and the proponent of Clay as humans, this was where Christianity and Islam emanated from. Jesus himself was a Judaist. But then, I don't expect you to know because you cannot comprehend anything.

Now that it has been established that you are an intellectual philistine, I will desist from hobnobbing with you because nothing good can come out of it. You are a waste of time.

butterflyl1on:
LMAO so much ignorance on display. I read the articles and sighting the word Evolution or chemical reaction and then clay simply shows you that the path to truth has been laid already and slowly but surely it will unravel itself THANKS TO THE SAME SCIENCE WHICH NOW AGREE THAT CLAY WAS NEEDED FOR LIFE FORMATION and I suppose man is a dead thing right?

I really do marvel at your IQ, seriously.

Scientists have never disputed that particles brought forth everything. Clay MAY only serves as a catalyst for reactions. That truth has been laid down even before you were born. Even dogs and cats must have also had clay's support. All organisms did according to that research. Why are you euphoric about it? It doesn't prove God an inch

butterflyl1on:
The Bible clearly declared that man came from clay. There would be no lasting reaction without the stable nature of clay (something unscientific men who wrote scriptures SOMEHOW KNEW).

Slowly but surely science is proving the scriptures to be very correct. Clay is nothing without water. In fact clay holds more water than dirt so it's only proper to chemically find water and other reactants in clay buy THE CHIEF COMPONENT WHICH BINDS ALL IS CLAY.

Science is about to hit a major bump on the road and so are you.

The Bible clearly declared that God molded clay and breathed into it. It is a very different process to what science is saying.

The men who wrote the Quran also knew it, the men who wrote the Torah also knew it. The men who wrote the Ifa also knew it. I asked again, what's your point here? Even Judaism is the oldest religion on earth, it came first, so their God must be truer than your God.

Science is not proving the scriptures to be correct on any account. Science is not going to hit any bump, you just find it amusingly hard to comprehend. You can't tune science for your needs, it is what it is.



Creationists should go ahead. mold some clay and breathe into it, let's see if the clay will start having dominion

butterflyl1on:
Ignorance is bliss for you obviously

Ignorance is surely bliss, no wonder you are basking in its euphoria. I'm very sure that once again, you didn't take the pleasure to read through the articles. Don't worry, while you couldn't achieve the urge to read through and learn, I have helped you.

butterflyl1on:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/752936/Humans-evolved-from-MUD-says-Richard-Dawkins-bible-was-right-evolution-bible/amp

From your link :

"The researchers told the journal Scientific Reports that clay acts as a breeding laboratory for[b] tiny molecules and chemicals[/b] which it 'absorbs like a sponge' and over billions of years the chemicals react with each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells."

Nothing in this article shows that clay alone is responsible for life. The title even reads "humans EVOLVED." In fact, the claim here is the importance of clay in conjunction with biomolecules to form the first organism. Not the molding of clay to form man. Don't be stupid, brother. Can you see that it took billions of years for the chemicals to react? According to the clay molder, we are just 6000 years old, remember?

butterflyl1on:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488467/Scientists-believe-beginnings-CLAY.html

Same content.

butterflyl1on:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/06/new-study-suggests-man-came-from-clay-as-bible-suggests.amp.html

Same content.

When are you going to be wise, you are really perishing because you lack knowledge. The experiment is true for life even at the basic level.

There was no claim that man is wholly clay. Even bacteria too is included. The claim is about "LIFE" which includes everything that has a life.

butterflyl1on:
http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/11/chemicals-life-may-have-combined-clay

Same content as the rest

Of course, chemicals MAY have combined with clay to form the first organism we all evolved from. I agree with that, but I do not agree that man was formed from clay alone. Nobody molded clay to form man. We are biomolecules, all living things. And the experiment is true for all organisms and not only man. Be wise.

butterflyl1on:
http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-clay-birthplace-life-01522.html

from your link :

“We propose that in early geological history clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions,” explained senior author Prof Dan Luo from the Cornell University’s Kavli Institute."

Your lack of understanding and comprehension is playing a major role in your life, at least it is making you more ignorant daily. Nowhere in the article did they mention that clay was molded. If you can see clearly, they mention biomolecules, that's what we are, not clay

butterflyl1on:
I guess you never realised that the entire 59 elements found in the human body are all also found in the earth's crust.


So incidentally your ancestor is kpotokpoto and not the chimpanzee

And as Job says in Job 10:9, “Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?”

When you die people would ultimately dump your stiff corpse back where it came from to become one with the earth again. Again I repeat, ignorance for you is most definitely bliss.

Without scientific knowledge the Bible writers via inspiration knew what your scientific world is confirming today in the articles I posted.

Keep on with your ignorant swag.

Other animals also have elements found in the earth's crust, and we evolved from them. As expected, you did not read through the articles again, or maybe you found it difficult to comprehend. Whichever, I have thrown some light on your ignorance. The scientific research discovered something entirely different from what your tiny imaginations concluded. You need to read through again. It doesn't confirm your fairytale stories.

Nobody ever said our ancestors were Chimps, you lack intellect, I swear. How do you do it? You are amazingly retarded_ We share ancestors with Chimps, the ancestors which must have also had a history with clay helping their biomolecules evolve.

Without scientific knowledge, your biblical delusional writers said God molded clay, same with Hindu book writers, same with Islam's Quran, same with Judaism's Torah. So what's your point?

You see the difference between us? We are open-minded and we are ready to make new findings because we are interested in how we got here. But you, no, open ke, for where? God molded clay and breathed into it, no be so?

Keep basking in the euphoria of your enormous ignorance, it must be fun for you.

DoctorAlien:
Let's be clear here: how did the first protein come about? If the presence of water can cleave peptide bonds, how did the (yes, let's assume bifunctional) amino acids in the primordial soup in the ocean manage to bypass the hydrolytic effect of water to form first dipeptides, tripeptides, oligopeptides, and then polypeptides(proteins)? Dr. Charles McCombs has noted that the Law of Mass Action says that all reactions proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration. This means that any reaction that produces water cannot be performed in the presence of water. This Law of Mass Action provides a total hindrance to protein, DNA/RNA, and polysaccharide formation because even if the condensation took place, the water from a supposed primordial soup would immediately hydrolyze them. Thus, if they are formed according to evolutionary theory, the water would have to be removed ... which is impossible in a 'watery' soup.

Dr. McCombs' assertionis corroborated by another article, which says that "these processes (condensation of amino acids to form peptides) are disfavoured in the presence of excess water, i.e. the hydrolysis of the biopolymers is the thermodynamically favoured process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672000/

It is left for you to tell us the amount of time contained in the word "immediately".

The presence of water cannot cleave water until after 600 years, remember? Meanwhile, from your link, I copied this, since it's your tactics.

The pioneering experiment of Miller [1] evidenced that the first molecular building blocks could have been formed through standard chemical reactions and established a landmark in the field of prebiotic chemistry. More recently, R. M. Hazen [2] suggested that at least a sequence of four steps of increasing chemical complexity are required for the origin of life on Earth to occur: i) the emergence of biomolecules; ii) the emergence of macromolecules; iii) the emergence of self-replicating systems; iv) the emergence of molecular evolution by natural selection. The prebiotic soup theory (i.e. Miller-based experiments) only touches the first step: by applying electric discharges to a heated mixture of gases, either resembling highly reducing [1,3–6] (namely H2O, NH3, CH4 and H2) or neutral [7–9] (namely H2O, N2 and CO2) primitive Earth atmospheres, the formation of biochemically significant compounds such as amino acids is indeed possible. Similar to processes occurring on the pristine Earth, chemical processes occurring in the interstellar and nebular environments may also lead to the synthesis of biochemical monomers [10–12]. Although the detection of glycine in these media is controversial, [13,14] the presence of a wide variety of amino acids in carbonaceous meteorites fallen on Earth strengthens this theory [15,16]. At the bottom of the Oceanic crust [17], energy sources like hydrothermal vents known as “black-smokers” allowed for carbon fixation [18,19] and formation of the first biomonomers thanks to the reducing power of sulphide minerals coupled to conditions of high temperatures and pressures readily available at those deep-sea sites. Therefore, there are a variety of possibilities for the first step of the life’s emergence sequence to occur.

DoctorAlien:
Shut up! If a protein molecule found itself in the ocean in the year 1317 AD, by now, would it not have been broken down into its component amino acids? If a reaction is impossible simply because it takes long(maybe 700 years or even less), then the reactions that supposedly produced abiogenesis are impossible since you claim they took billions of years.

However, if an organism found itself in the ocean, it would have reproduced many times and would have died even before the 500 years completes. And even if a protein find itself in the ocean, it would have become an organism. Or in your mighty wisdom you thought the protein would remain a protein. I'm sure you have forgotten we are talking about EVOLUTION.

DoctorAlien:
If this logic true, then evolution is impossible because nobody was there to observe the first unicellular organism turn into a multicellular one. No one observed the human ancestors evolve. No one observed the first amino acids combine to form peptides in the primordial soup.

Now tell me how your claim of evolution stands? Were you alive to observe the first organism from the chemical soup in the ocean?

I agree completely then on this basis alone, evolution is not true because of the reasons you cited.


But on one condition only... Who was there when god created the heavens and the earth? Who was there when the spirit god molded clay and formed Adam as a grown man? Who was there when the serpent spoke to eve? who, who, who?

You, your pastors? your parents who fed you the lies, oh no it has to be Moses, or Abraham, or better still Jesus? Nonsense.

Evolution is backed up by empirical evidence, keep doing your research bro, you'll find the truth. But you may not, because yopu understand science upside down.

butterflyl1on:
Amazing

So the primordial soup which some fluke energy brought about amino acids also had an already present living organism which further aided the process?

Garbage.

butterflyl1on:
By the way isn't evolution meant to occur when amino acids bind and not when they break apart?

We are not talking about amino acids breaking apart. You obviously don't even understand the argument. We are talking about proteins breaking apart instantly they were formed. Which your theory has helped us confirm is not possible.

butterflyl1on:
You are indeed confused. As long as amino acids cannot be stable in water and bind and would rather break apart then tell me how the first organism evolved over millions of years from an already failed process?

No, you are. You don't even know what we are talking about. You are just typing nonsense under the influence of the holy spirit

butterflyl1on:
Plus these amino acids did not just come about but they somehow knew they had to be left handed amino acids in order to form life. You are aware that acids come in left hand and right hand varieties. Life is composed of 100% left hand amino acids. Anything that is alive, such as you, or trees, or sardines has no right-hand amino acids.

What's left hand and right hand? Another garbage from the bin?

Do you mean Levo and dextrorotatory amino acids? That's not the topic of discussion here.

butterflyl1on:
For amino acids to be assembled into something that leads to life (assuming both left and right-handed amino acids are available), requires a plan. It is a very complex process, which in life is controlled by RNA. RNA contains the information (instructions) for assembling amino acids into proteins to make life. So evolution science now postulates that RNA had to have existed before amino acids were created. Where does the RNA come from? They don't have an answer. But we know that information (RNA) does not come from nothing.

Why are you sprouting garbage? It's funny how people who don't understand science struggle to explain it. All molecules of life no matter what it is are still composed of elements. Grow up brother, please.

butterflyl1on:
We know that information requires an intelligence. We can look at something that has been built, such as a house or Ferrari, and recognize that it took human intelligence (information) to create that object. No matter how many millions of years you allow, you will never see a house or Ferrari come into existence "naturally". It takes an intelligence to design and build them. We see the same thing when we look at life. Life requires information.

Prove me wrong.

I can tell you bro, the intelligence of man is greatly enormous than the intelligence of whoever you think, believe, or assume created this universe. This universe is nothing close to perfect. In fact, the universe is in constant chaos. I salute your unintelligent designer, it really did a great work.

You need to find a more mature approach to debating. This is your standard:



Two totally irrelevant red herring questions. If HCl is a gas at room temperature, then it is clearly a gas a body temperature or at the stomach's temperature.
[b][/b]
Stomach containing HCl in solution does not defend your erroneous claim that you can hydrolyze a protein with HCl and an enzyme alone. It is a ridiculous claim.

And it seems as if you have struggled to read or understand the definition I gave you, of hydrolysis. So you come up with this rhetorical waffle:



I'm sorry, but your illogical mode of debate is a waste of my time.

oh, don't bother. That was my last post to you. I know you will carry on in the same vein.

The bolded above is a wrong statement, It's even far worse than saying hydrolysis may not include water. You shouldn't also argue again. It's a very big error. Then why 3 different states of matter? HCL is not a gas in the stomach, it is a solution.

sino:
I wonder how and where a hydrolysis reaction wouldn't involve water, isn't it very straightforward that hydro means water?!

While the arguments about this hydrolysis had been compounded, we need to first understand that protein, a macromolecule has different levels of structural representations, so when you use denature and hydrolysis, you must know which of the structural levels you are talking about.

Anyways, for those arguing for and against water present or not in hydrolysis, let's read from a textbook of Biochemistry...

"Nucleophilic attack by water generally results in the cleavage of the amide, glycoside, or ester bonds that hold biopolymers together. This process is termed hydrolysis. Conversely, when monomer units are joined together to form biopolymers such as proteins or glycogen, water is a product, for example, during the formation of a peptide bond between two amino acids:

While hydrolysis is a thermodynamically favored reaction, the amide and phosphoester bonds of polypeptides and oligonucleotides are stable in the aqueous environment of the cell. This seemingly paradoxic behavior reflects the fact that the thermodynamics governing the equilibrium of a reaction do not determine the rate at which it will proceed. In the cell, protein catalysts called enzymes accelerate the rate of hydrolytic reactions when needed. Proteases catalyze the hydrolysis of proteins into their component amino acids" (Harpers Illustrated Biochemistry, 26th Edition, pp. 7-

I need not explain that enzymes are not part of the reactive species, they only speedup the process which would have normally taken say 600 years to take place in seconds....

Are you a biochemist? What led to this argument is the hydrolysis of Proteins, not hydrolysis in general.

The reactions

protein + water -> amino acids

&

protein + water -> protein solution

Which one is feasible under natural conditions, T =273K, P = 760mmHG, M = 1?

Hydration is also the addition of water to compounds, isn't it? One of those reactions is hydration and the other hydrolysis.

If hydrolysis completes after 600 years under natural conditions and hydration completes in few hours. Which one will always happen under natural conditions?

If a reaction takes 600 years to complete, then it is not feasible, in chemistry terms.