5:40 - It didn't "become" Darwin's. "Evolution through natural selection" is Darwin's theory. The idea of evolution was before Darwin and there were different attempts to explain what makes species evolve, but Darwin found the mechanism of it and he did a good job organizing species into evolutionary tree.
Darwin's mechanism also include random mutations which is wrong, if you disagree answer the Quran's challenge which came 1200 before Darwin, it is guided mutations.
It is in this video, when the majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation of life Quran refuted it and challenged humanity to make one fly, a standing challenge that we will never be able to make it, if randomness can create any life or make such a wonderful tree of life then go ahead and challenge this 1400 year old book. By the way, this is not the only challenge, there are many others no one can answer them.
@helasmoh why should anyone attempt to recreate a result of millions of years of evolution? Science hasn't reached the level at which it would be able to 'play god' in such a way. You were saying that mutations are guided, not random. Challenge to create a fly isn't related to that at all. So, in Darwin's theory natural selection is the force that 'guides' random mutations. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be enough.
The reason is in front of you everywhere you look and you see it in the mirror, you are a creation and you have a creator, abiogenesis and evolution was guided all the way so you see it in the mirror, then there will be a huge evolutionary step, some will make it, some will miss it, those who miss it will end up in this for eternity, watch my video and I hope you don't miss it: Quran Vs. Lawrence Krauss and "A Universe From Nothing": /watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
@sergrojGrayFace - millions of years of random events, random events don't produce things that are designed with precision, if it was natural selection then when and how did natural selection know when to stop and in which direction to go? if this is the case then it seems like natural selection/ evolution have some form of inelegance. think about it what seems more plausible, God created everything or random events did?
First of all, nothing is from "scratch". We just combine all the natural substances that Allah has already created before us, and manipulate them to our own will. So we did not create life. it was already there. We just took bits and pieces apart and put it back together. ( genetic engineering ). just like when we create TVs, Food, Furniture, Plastic, Medicine, we are combining things that which already originated from God all is his
Exactly, yet many people still can't understand that, they think that humanity created "synthetic life", no one can create any form of life except Allah.
No he didnt change its DNA, he completely REMOVED the old DNA and REPLACED new (from scratch) DNA inside the cell. AMAZING! One giant leap towards diminishing 1400 year old ignorance.
Didn't you hear Venter himself saying DNA is just a dead chemical? The DNA is from scratch, i agree with that but life itself cannot be created not even if all scientists got together to create it, LIFE not dead DNA.
@helasmoh LIE! You said that Venter said "DNA is just a dead chemical" Why do you make up lies? Why must you misquote people? The fact is he said " DNA is just a chemical" listen to your own video at 1:04. Scientists HAVE created life from scratch, and I am wondering what rock you will be hiding under when they consistently produce life from scratch shell included.
Quran doesn't have all the answers, why do you even say that? Did you hear it from a Muslim before or you are just pissed-off because a 1400 year old book put your knowledgeable hero "professor" Dawkins to shame? watch my other video and tell me: Richard Dawkins Public Lie about Quran, Salt and Fresh Water Exposed: /watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ
Why don't you check Dawkins blog and how many of his own followers gave him thumbs down for "telling the truth about my religion"? Did you even watched the video?
Your problem is that you already have your answer. You already "
"know" what set the universe in motion. You already "know" who/what caused it all and also "know" what he/it wants for us. This "knowledge" that you've obtained through faith & unfounded belief lends to your repudiation of findings/discoveries that dismiss the "knowledge" that you already possess. Good luck in your fight against reality.
and is so fun how ppl see every scientific discover in bible, or another religious book, really funny, why they didnt see it before scientifics made their discoveries?, there were not enught smart and faithfull people in the past so they could save darwin and another scientist thousands of years?, why is it religious ppl just find the same scientifics advances after they are made?
@helasmoh first time in see someone who can see the future, and what i said apply to any religious ancient or new book, science is not compatible with any religion sorry.
Quran told us the future more than 1400 years ago and not a single prediction proved wrong, in fact science is proving the Quran is right one by one, if you want to ask about the possibility of creating a living cell completely from dead material ask any atheist biologist, his/her answer will be just like the Quran told us when most scientists thought spontaneous generation is true. By the way, please watch my video Quran Vs Lawrence Krauss for future events in the Quran.
helasmoh you would love to be in dark ages, this is an amazing advance in science, and im sorry to tell you, there will be much more, because science advance every day, and everyday will be more difficult for your priest to explain you science facts with the bible or another ancient book, is not life from scratch but, how much time you think scientist will be able to make life from scratch?, i think we both may see it.
Wow, truly atheists like you makes me sometimes wonder why God chose humans over other creatures. So when you have sex and you have a baby that means you created the baby from scratch. Hilarious.
Ah I forgot you can't follow abstract and conceptual thinking. Sorry.
Live your life how you see fit - but please don't claim any scientist has proven anything in the Koran or about any of the gods, it simply is not true. Gods exist out of faith, not proof.
@helasmoh im as sure that you dont understand these scientific concepts, as you are that there is a "god". you saying that the koran proves any kind of modern science is equivalent to me saying "the cat in the hat" proves that all scrambled eggs are green when eaten with ham.
Watch my other video on your hero Dawkins and how he didn't understand a concept that even little kids understood, a man doesn't know how to read and write lived in a desert 1400 years ago put your "prophet" Dawkins to shame: Richard Dawkins Public Lie about Quran, Salt and Fresh Water Exposed: /watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ
If they created a single fly then I will become an atheist, even a single living cell from scratch will persuade me to do that. However, even if scientists managed to build a complete cell with all its components it will be a dead cell. No one can give life except God. The Quran made numerous challenges and for 1400 years not a single one has been defeated. Don't become like Dawkins who see only what he wants to see. Please watch my other video on Dawkins: /watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
"However, even if scientists managed to build a complete cell with all its components it will be a dead cell."
Boy have you got a shock coming to you.
Y'know I first heard about this around 1996. At that time it was the search for the smallest usable genome.
Your search however began when you noticed something that questioned your faith and your answers didn't come from evaluating science. Only from looking for excuses to safeguard your belief. You can do that with anything.
CONT. So even if science produced a breeding population of super creatures, Even of they were walking around the streets constructed at a sub atomic particle level, you'd still find some sort of excuse you'd be happy with.
Discovering science can create life does not make someone think there is not God. It just does what it did to you in February this year. When work began on synthetic life over a decade ago.
It had you go find excuses, apologetics and all sorts of reasons why its okay.
@TheRogueMonk Venter is not only an atheist. like dawkins is a proactive anti-theist.
The reason helasmoh can't accept humans are capable of designing and making new living forms is because he takes the Quran and the Old Testament absolutely literally.
They claim that God makes living things...not man (even though it doesn't rule out man)
So helasmoh thinks there was an adam and eve. And also thinks the Quran prophesies all sorts of new discoveries, but might be a bit shaky on the details.
well i dont know why people think that humans achievements is such a contradiction to god...they make it sound like god only wanted humans to do certain things and not other things... its not possible.. its all nature.. even if you create the most incredibly new material its still natural... people neeed to realize its all nature.. humans are nature too... we have never been non nature ... its an illusion that we arent
@TheRogueMonk "well i dont know why people think that humans achievements is such a contradiction to god.."
Neither do I.... fear perhaps?
It doesn't bother me to be honest... people can insist things are not valid or whatever they like... but that simply will not change the facts discovered... and if there's one thing we do know its that discoveries are never later undiscovered, and invention is never uninvented.
When did i say I believe in the old testament or taking it literally? I believe the Quran only is pure God'e word, other messages were changed but still you can find the truth in them. As for Adam and Eve then please watch my video: Evolution was an Islamic Theory Before Darwin was Even Born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
And for "all sorts of new discoveries" watch my video: Quran Vs. Lawrence Krauss and "A Universe From Nothing": /watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
Fine if you don't take the OT literally why are you hanging on to these silly stories?
Again Evolution by natural selection is not mentioned in the Quran...thats the first point....
Next someone being islamic and reading the quran and coming to a conclusion based on the quran...is a different thing to someone being islamic and coming to a conclusion based on reason without reference to the quran at all.
So from where how did Ibn Khaldun derive this conclusion? From the Quran?
CONT next I am not calling into question what Ibn Khaldun wrote. These were his conclusion based on the tools available to him in the 14th century. Considering he had poor tools, some of what he wrote was accurate.but not testable in his time.
I have a copy (english version) of the muqaddimah btw. I haven't read it all, probably never will. It's a book about history and sociology not about evolution by natural selection and lots of it are musing on other writers.
CONT next I am not calling into question what Ibn Khaldun wrote. These were his conclusion based on the tools available to him in the 14th century. Considering he had poor tools, some of what he wrote was accurate.but not testable in his time.
I have a copy (english version) of the muqaddimah btw. I haven't read it all, probably never will. It's a book about history and sociology not about evolution by natural selection and lots of it are musing on other writers.
@helasmoh Let me give you an example of that. If I told you the world was a sphere and everyone to date believed the world was flat most people would insist I was wrong.
Some people would clearly want to prove how wrong I was and in their research to demonstrate it they would end up finding out I was right.
Ibn Khaldun's description is in fact the opposite of evolutionary biology btw...Had Ibn Khaldun asked himself why there are more than two species of anything he might have realised that!
For your long reply I will post only this, If I was right, and many scientists already proved God as I showed in my video between Dawkins and Weinberg, then when this universe turns to Hell, as I also showed in my video Quran Vs Krauss, then don't beg God for mercy, it will be too late:
@helasmoh Not one scientist in the world ever proved 'god' because there is nothing to test. With no ability to test something science has nothing to say about it.
You can go on believing they did, be my guest... but in your hunt to find a scientist that 'proved god' you'll be looking a very long time....
Tell me, what method did such scientists use to 'prove god'? Of these 'many' scientists...do any of them have a name?
@TheRogueMonk who in the WORLD SAID arristoles belived in chance? .. arristotles believed in a god .. a god that is just good and eternal.. the primary mover of all things....
most philosophers were REAL belivers in the metaphysical... what imbecile is that wants people to believe the other wise? did you even search on arristotle yourself? i dbout it
aristotle has work thAT IS CALLED METAPHYSICS .. its not theology or religion it was their current science
@TheRogueMonk this is very very sad if people want to make intelligent people who lived 500 before religion that had REAL RESONS to believe in god .. that they are saying now these people DIDNT?
its overwhelming evidence that arristotle NO WAY believed in chance,, he beleived in A PRIME MOVER ...
I never said Aristotle didn't believe in God, However, the theory of Spontaneous generation was introduced by him, I took this information from Wikipedia. Scientists and philosophers always wondered "How God did it", I also made my research and found that God made this universe on scientific bases and laws, abiogenesis and evolution are among them. Please watch my video: Evolution was an Islamic Theory Before Darwin was Even Born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
well it must be false.. aristotles believes everything has been moved by god...the idea of spoentaniouity calls for the belief that something starts from nothing.. and stricly arristotle was against such a logic..
he even says tha tthings that move by themselves have some part of htem tha tis arleady moved ...
everything goes back ot prime mover which he says it is god the only thing he says is that GOD
@helasmoh CREATES movement in the world through his own contemplation of good things.... he does by no means say that things move or are created randomly and spontaniously
i have red alot on the net and i havent found a single evidence that what you claim is true
@helasmoh Deluded Muslim. If Evolution was an Islamic theory, it wouldn't have taken an Englishmen raised in a predominately Christian society (who ironically accepted his theory years later) to make that conclusion nor would a British Muslim who wanted to teach Evolution would get death threats from angry Muslims and research doesn't include reading old holy books and visting Muslim websites.
The deluded one among us is the one who doesn't know history. Please watch my video: Evolution was an Islamic Theory Before Darwin was Even Born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
@helasmoh Yeah but lots of things Aristotle mused on were total nonsense, Aristotle didn't know that, how could he?
Next the idea that life on earth diversifies by a process of nature selecting breeding animals based on the ones most likely to survive for a given environment and also surviving long enough to breed is not anywhere in the quran, the bible or any other scripture...
Please do not present an obscure sentence that could be interpreted any way one likes btw? that would be Puerile.
@TheRogueMonk I think Aristotle probably beloved in 'Gods' plural...since Geece at the time was a polytheistic society.
From what he wrote we can surmise that he thought 'religion' was generally a silly idea.
His philosophy points to what he claimed was the 'unmovable mover' of the universe...a golden set of rules that define existence. Aristotle's Gods are similar to Spinoza's in that respect.
He basically though the rules that govern the universe are divine entities.
@Unrealistix you mistakenly commented to me.. i wasnt the muslim
hehe.. he is in the comments i think.
no i absolutely agree with you this is definetly something everyone should be happy about even if there is a risk of disaster.. sometimes its not possible to not do anything and stop .
i am all for science .. science is good for humanity .. who is not driving a car to a job or eating from a plate.. its all science
@TheRogueMonk "its strange to me also.. if dna is the software then why doesnt he make all the cell ? i dont get it"
Sorry I was answering your point above, I should have made that clear.
basically engineering a synthetic empty cell would be a waste of resources, too costly for no purpose.
At the moment helasmoh is latching on to that as his excuse why its not 'exactly' new life. It doesn't have to be, it just has to be profitable! Venter doesn't care about religious evaluation of his work.
@Unrealistix you cant implement subjectivity in science let alone religion... its as if you want to implement music into science . it might work but not as a rule...
its irrelevant... science should search for answers and keep it at proof level...its not possible to use subjectivity in science because science is not for you and me .. its for humanity...
science does not threat humanity not even by chance... god gavve us brains and intelligence to do exactly this period... not just 50% 100% sc
Science does explanation based on the evidence. It never 'proved' anything. When it comes to the concept of 'proof,' science can only disprove things.
I'm not sure if you understand that, I'll elaborate if you like.
I agree all science should be open to everyone, free of charge as a right of access. With the advent of global communications it is... most people however volunteer to ignore it. Some even avoid it at all costs.
lol... ohh I get it... religious dude trying to make a point... well that's me out of the loop. I have no time for people that insist they are right whilst the world marches on around them doing demonstrating the opposite.
It might be more productive to make a video on why synthetic life in unethical...since clearly it's not only possible but demonstrated.
Whats next a video on how powered flight is impossible?
erm... I got lost in this video... a cell is just a bag of plasma that has no dna in it.... so where did you get the idea this was not synthetic life?
The cell is only used as a "factory" to reproduce the DNA which Craig Venter created.
A cell without its DNA is NOT alive. It can not reprouce and has no metabolism. It's just "dead" organic material.
It will be eventually (or is already) possibe to produce a cell "from scratch" like you demand, but what they wanted to do is just show that DNA (the "essence" of life) is in fact just like software and can be "programed" by man.
When you prove that God was wrong in His 1400 years old book and humanity managed to produce one complete living cell then I will stop believing the Quran and be an atheist, until then, Good luck with that. I do believe in abiogenesis and evolution but that just because they are part of God's creation and plan. By the way a cell is not alive if it deprived from any of essential dead chemicals, water for example, DNA is also as you heard Venter telling you is a DEAD CHEMICAL.
The god descrbed in this 1400 was wrong all the freakin time! There are so many erros in the Quran/Bible/whatever , I can't put them all in a max. 500 words comment. (There are enough videos here on youtube which show the errors anyway)
You on the other hand have no prove for gods existens other then "the quran/bible says so". Which is of course nonsense since those scriptures are the ones you whant to proven to begin with.
And DNA alone is of course like all simple chemicals dead -_-
He didn't twist anything. The quran says salty water and fresh water don't mix, but they do.
Even the halocline layer will eventually disapear and resolve.
And it's actually you who has twisted the truth. You even quoted the quran passage which clearly states that to SEAS are separated. The halocline is a layer and not a sea.
So this is acually just another quran fail.
Did you realy think you could prove something with this pathatic example?
"So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts."
So what exactly should this tell me? That I don't possess the ability to understand the quran properly?
That fall under the sam catagorry as saying "it's true because it says so".
A book by an illiterate man living in a desert tells you that there are seas one very salty and one is fresh, they are together but don't mix,you already watched that and didn't believe. It told us that ants talk to each other, just like scientists discovered and you will not believe: /watch?v=YvZNEkbJkBk
It told us that we will be raised to life even if we fossilized and you will not believe: /watch?v=DtZJh5qL-ug
1) To make the verses fit with actual scientific knowledge, you must allways interpret those verses. If god really wanted to share his knowledge, then why didn't he do so in literal form?
2) Why is there no usefull scientific knowledge like gravitational laws, electrical laws, how to make medicine, etc.
Instead (according to your interpretation) there is stuff like the "halocline". Makes so much sense... not.
3) There are far more mistakes in the quran than scientific logic. So what about those? Just random misinterpretations? Was your god drunk? Or is it because there was no god involved in the first place and the illiterate man wrote those fairytales by himself using his own insufficient knowledge?. Isn't that a far more logical explanation? Because that what the quran is!
Did you even watched the video? How clear you want God to be? Do you really want God to answer the request of each and every human for his/her own miracle? God chose what to tell you, not you. I studied the Quran and I believe there is more than enough to conclude that it is from God. If you don't want to believe then that's ok with God, just when this universe got destroyed as I showed you in the video don't ask God for help, He will not listen to you as you are not listening to Him.
Sure I watched the video. Still doesn't change anything.
The problem here is, that you are trying to "prove" god by searching for passages in the quran which could be remotely applied to science by interpreting them in a very loosely way.
And instead of going into the 3 flaws I addressed in an earler comment for this way of argumentation, you just keep posting your videos and verses.
The "flaws" are only in your head and by your flawed logic, not in the Quran. Believe whatever you want to believe. You have been told and that was my job.
@helasmoh Ants do not 'talk' , they.'communicate' (if that's even the right word) by means of chemical signals that give them directional data... some use a crude form of vibration and tapping to denote presence and distance..
No scientist ever discovered ants talk to one another..
For sure nobody ever suggested ants saying "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it." was a concern in the hive mentality of insects.
@helasmoh yeah problem there is that a News or Media channel is not the best source of information on entomology.... Would you get your information on tomorrows weather from a guy on the train in the morning? ...or would you think that the meteorological center would provide a more accurate picture? Or will you just go with whoever will tell you what you'd like the weather to be?
As I said Ants do not talk... end of story... despite what ABC might tell you.
@ihr0ppa It is possible to produce a cell ... but who would want to...the purpose of venters company is to produce lifeforms that do specific tasks...like make fuel from photosynthesis... adding the cost of making empty cells to that would be mostly useless, and very expensive... why would anyone do that when there are millions lying about for free?
@ihr0ppa Venter only set out to show potential investors like Exxon that he had 'proof of concept' worthy of investment.
Which he did, and which was quickly followed by a $600m investment by Exxon, another few hundred million by the US government in funding and a whole new industry worth trillions.
He certainly did not set out to demonstrate anything to the worlds religions. They just don't like the idea, for obvious reasons.
But at this point what they like or don't like is irrelevant.
"Mr." Dawkins is actually Dr. Dawkins That's just inaccurate to call him Mr. Not "from scratch" is like saying that bread made at home is not "from scratch" because the baker didn't make the yeast, the sugar, the oil, the salt, and the flour. That's just ridiculous. "It was always alive" isn't true. With original DNA removed from the cell, it was no longer alive (able to function and reproduce.) When the new, assembled DNA was injected, it became alive. No magical gods here, just science.
Even atheists disagree with you. Read other comments and think for yourself instead of letting Dawkins do the thinking for you. No one can create life except God and scientists confirmed what God told us 1400 years ago. You don't have to believe me, ask any biologist (except Dawkins).
@helasmoh Ha, someone is living in a fantasy world. Name three renowned biologists who have confirmed "what Gold told us." By the way, could you confirm which God you're even referring to, being as there have been thousands of gods since the dawn of man.
The god I'm referring to is the One who feed but never fed. Apply this test to all the gods and goddesses and they will all fail the test except One, this is the One true God who send thousands of messengers with the same message, which I doubt you even read any, these are some of His attributes (no gender implied): Atheist physicist Steven Weinberg Admits God: /watch?v=fVmxkyBuR7Y
@helasmoh What name does your god go by, let us start there. Secondly, I asked for three biologists, you sent me a link to a video of a physicist who does not even admit there is a god, he claims there is a mystery about it the universe but god does not ultimately explain it because then you would have to explain where god came from. Not to mention if you were to actually read ANYTHING else about Weinberg, you would know he does not believe there is a god at all. Thanks for playing, you lose.
@ndrthrdr1 Well actually thats Prof. Dawkins, as if it matters...
But on the substantive point this form of synthetic life is clearly living... it was certainly not designed by a god... unless Venter is now a god. The new genome although written from scratch just copies the primary instructions in an existing genome to the point where it can 'boot up'.
The next phase is to create software that can analyse why it works and build living things according to specifications from customers.
@ndrthrdr1 So some living things would be possible, and some not. It might be possible to create living things that are in fact much more efficient than any life on earth. That used 150 chemicals rather than the 4 found in DNA... that took in sunlight and produced an electrical current thousands of times more efficiently than plants do...that could be sprayed or grown on your roof!
But we are now in relation to this technology where Charles Babbage was in relation to the Intel Corei7
What Craig ventor did was he proven that life runs on DNA and each sequences of DNA can give an organism a specific expression. So... with this ability, we can create anything we want. However, we still need to understand more. Micro-scale events like this are still unknown. Thus, I agree that craig didn't created life.
I agree with you too, we can change living things to whatever we want, if not now then in the future, and it is written in the Quran by the way that we will do that, but creating life itself is impossible unless to the creator of this universe. We all originated from the big bang. I hope you can watch my video about that, perhaps it can bring back some memories of 13.72 billion years ago: Remember - God, light and the Big Bang: /watch?v=6L2oxoagQbM
@helasmoh Look when Venter applied for a license to undertake this research he was required by US law to demonstrate there were were no moral or ethical objections.
He invited representatives of the main religions along with scientific and secualr organisations to a forum to discuss those matters. Not one of the worlds religions voiced a concern. The abrahamic religions were dogmatically 'locked down' by their own position on the matter, which is the same as yours... 'its impossible'
@helasmoh So when Venter demonstrates it possible you excuse that... and the day your able to design your own life on your PC and email the genome for production you'll still say 'its impossible'
The day we have totally new life on this planet on every street corner you'll still insist 'impossible'.
But you know what... you'll be observably wrong! And also voluntarily locked out of opping your religious nonsense into the ethical debate.
But demonstrating life can be designed on a computer and produced on the equivalent of a printer is certainly new life. Otherwise you are left trying to point to the parent organisms that gave rise to the new species.
However since this organism is 'copied' essentially from the template of another life form then its built from scratch but not designed from scratch.
Given the massive influx of investment I'd give that 2 years max!
I concede immediately that this is not "making life from scratch." It is, however, a significant advancement toward that end. Combined with spontaniously forming phospholipid bilayer membranes and the synthesis of two of the four base pairs of RNA in the lab we are very near this end by appearances and extrapolation. Though even if we do this is still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a god. Nothing does and that's why it's not a very interesting subject to debate.
@wkrepelin Not to mention advances in nanotechnology with inorganic polymers. Biologists can't take all the credit (despite all the private bloody funding)
Some of us have invested considerable time in looking at this issue from a non-biological perspective.
Nature has a jump start on physicists so the added hurdle of 'replication' was always going to be problematic. But assembly less so.
I wonder what our Muslim friend here might have to say about self replicating nano machines?
This is far from creating life, look at dawkins so desperate to believe venter created life..lol..Venter COPIED an already existing genome!!, and rearranged DNA, and Spliced in his watermarks! and then inserted it back into a living bacterium!! and don't forget about the synthesizing machines!! This is such Bullshit!!
Dawkins will know that no one can create life except God the moment the angels come to collect his own. Unfortunately he is dragging with him to Hell millions of our atheist brothers and sisters. We should do whatever we can to tell them the truth and leave the rest to God, He is the most wise.
@5tonyvvvv You can download almost every paper produced on the matter free of charge.
Moreover OECD nations are required to make new genomes available digitally for download for free. (Venter objected to that citing his patent on this life)
This gives you the opportunity to see what this actually is.
Now in 4 years time that comment will read like comedy.
You remind me of religious arguments that powered flight was impossible Nov. 1903 when gliding had already been demonstrated.
@5tonyvvvv Next there is no such thing as a living bacterium that is incapable of reproduction and metabolism... in fact Viruses aren't technically alive since they aren't DNA... they are just organic polymers that can replicate.
An empty shell made of organic compounds and proteins is not a living bacterium.
I didn't understand your point about not forgetting genome printing machines?
Your argument is about to look really silly, do you not see that? I wouldn't hang my hat on that....
@5tonyvvvv As I said, you may as well be arguing flight is impossible in 1902!
Arguments like 'But Lilienthal didn't make it fly, he just used the wind. God would not design humans without wings if we were meant to fly. It's impossible'
That was the prevailing religious anti-flight argument of the day. It's been revised since, lol
Your argument is about to implode. You must see that? no?
Anyway you have a couple of years to decide what new argument you'll use... good luck with that.
Wow, so flight was considered impossible in 1902. Do you know what the Quran told us about flight, well, not only flight but that we will travel in deep deep space: Quran 55:33
Will that convince you that "some being" know the future? And you know what, that "some being" told us that we will never ever be able to create life, that is His specialty (no gender implied), no one else.
"Wow, so flight was considered impossible in 1902."
I'm supposed to be arguing 'against' heavier than air flight.and its 1900 not 1902.
so back into character.
So my second obvious point is that powered flight is just a theory. There is no evidence of powered flight.
How can something heavier than air fly?. And as any 'real' scientist in this day and age will tell you anything large enough to create enough power just adds even more weight requiring a bigger engine and so on.....
CONT. So the second law of thermodynamics rules out powered flight for the engine problem reason I gave above... its all just crazy half baked assumptions by crazy people with some sort of agenda.
Heres a question... if powered flight were possible.. how come we haven't discovered it yet?
Its been a very long time...and not one person ever got off the ground in anything that didn't just slowly fall back to earth... that's because even the laws of conservation of energy rule out powered flight.
@Unrealistix Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form!!
@5tonyvvvv I do wish that people who use words like 'information' and 'code' etc. would read up on what context and definition it is used with when used in the sciences. 'Information' means something totally different to a physicist than it means to a biologist.
I'm lost as to what definition you are using.
Plus you are making serious logic errors like insisting proteins can't be produced when you make billions per second.
BTW I can fit several Genomes in digital form on a single DVD.
@Unrealistix Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@5tonyvvvv Also... look I've heard all of these silly unscientific and puerile arguments before.
Would it help to inform you I'm one of those 'evil scientists'?
At least that way you know where you stand. I'd imagine you don't want me to burst any ideas you have, so I won't, I couldn't be bothered to be honest. It won't actually effect the outcome.
I'm not going to try to educate you, I'm just informing you at this point your argument is about to implode. Now you can accept that, or not.
@Unrealistix Jack szostak and craig venter create nothing! Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..They are not geochemical relevant reactions. These scientist control every step of these experiments! Every chemical reaction is carefully controlled!
@5tonyvvvv You know I could even swap places with you.
Tell you what, lets pretend its 1900, and I'll even start with the premise of my arguemnt being 'Powered Flight is impossible' and I'll only use creationist arguments from 1900.
You can use all the science you understand at present, with the exception of course that its 1900 so there aren't any actual aircraft, not physically anyway.
Now me trying to prove powered flight is impossible you might think I't'll be a cake walk...
So let me start by saying 'powered flight is totally impossible'
For one thing God made man perfect and if he had meant people to fly then obviously he'd have given them wings...
It's pretty clear we don't have wings... so all this garbage about people flying is just untrue, and nobody has ever flown.
And its mathematically impossible...even Lord Kelvin agrees with me on that! So unless you think Lord Kelvin knows nothing about math then obviously powered flight is impossible.
The Islamic theory of evolution wasn't a theory at all but a hypothesis, it simply claimed that life changed over time, but with no rhyme or reason.
Darwinian evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION is a theory because it supplies the tool "natural selection".
It's not the theory of evolution.
It's the theory of evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION.
If you do not grasp the fundamentals of Darwinism, then how can you possibly make an educated stab at the function of DNA and the subjective definition of life?
Is that all? So "NATURAL SELECTION" is what makes all the difference? Well, that's what Aljahiz wrote in his book "The Animal" 1000 years before Darwin. However, I did not make my videos about evolution to discredit Darwin of his contribution, but just to convince atheists and theists that evolution is compatible with believing in God. Unfortunately, many people from both sides don't understand that.
@helasmoh Actually you are trying to say that all modern science was pre-written in the quran, which is both untrue and invalid.
Knowledge is composed of three components: Truth, Justification, and Statement.
Any statement of the quran, even if true, MUST BE JUSTIFIED to be counted as knowledge.
This is why "Natural selection" is important, because it explains HOW the process happens, it gives us substantial reason to believe. It justifies the true claim.
I am NOT trying to say that ALL modern science was pre-written in the Quran and I don't believe that at all. All what I'm trying to say is that God's last message to humanity have SIGNS that it is from God and these SIGNS were confirmed by modern science. That is all I'm trying to say. The Quran is NOT a science book but a SIGNS book for those who want to follow the path of their creator. If you want to ignore these SIGNS then that is your choice and I wish you all the best.
@helasmoh Signs confirmed by modern science, have you heard yourself? A sign is really quite easy to do in that respect. The Universe is vast and full of many wonders, and number of vague claims can be interpreted as signs once we know enough things.
But like I said, without specific justification it means absolutely nothing.
If you flip a coin, and I say heads, and it says heads, what does it mean? Am I psychic? Am I God?
Gamesmanship proves nothing. Of course the DNA needed a cell host. Since we do not yet have the technology to build one, he put it in one of a different species. Irrelevent, since his synthetic DNA was just a copy of an organic DNA and not fabricated from whole cloth. None of this has anything to do with abiogenisis.
@helasmoh How to create a living cell now and how living cells arose is two totally difference questions. If you fabricate a complete cell using nothing but mechanical and chemical means, it will be alive. There is magic spark. We just do not currently have the technology to manufacture an entire cell, complete with cytoplasm--and why would we want to since nature has already done the heavy lifting.
@helasmoh Lipid microspheres form and start to self replicate wherever conditions allow--neither magic nor batteries are required. Jack Shostak's lab has worked out how such proto-cells can incorporate chemicals into their structure that make them more stable and that will then be carried forth to the copies--making THEM more stable until their copies soak up all the nutrients. DNA is not needed for chemical evolution to begin--it just takes much much much longer.
"We just do not currently have the technology to manufacture an entire cell", I totally agree with that and may I add "we will never have". That was the Quran challenge 1400 years ago when scientists believed in spontaneous generation of life, and from who? from an illiterate man. The Quran challenge will never fail. O.k, lets forget about generating life. The Quran challenged the whole humanity to produce one chapter like the Quran, until now, all failed.
@helasmoh We will have the technology within a couple of decades, but there is unlikely to be any point except to prove to morons what we already know, that life is just chemistry. Further, spontaneous generation is not at all the same thing as abiogenisis, and was one of the first medieval notions overthrown as modern science took hold. Further, the Quran is nothing. If God has created a perfect book, he could have worked through Chaucer or Shakespear--but you probably don't know their work.
@helasmoh Quran 96: 2 "Allah created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood". Yeah. Clearly divine revelation there. One question, what did Allah boot the blood cells with batteries?
This a WRONG translation, look at other translations or look at scientists who study this verse and testified to its close analogy to human embryology, of course you will not do that, you just prefer to see what proves your point.
Quran 22: 47 A day in the sight of the Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning. Quran-32:5: To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be a thousands years of your reckoning..
Quran 70: 4 ..ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is fifty thousands years.
Not very consistent for revelation is it? Or could it just reflect the apologist claim popular by that time to explain problems already widely known in the mosaic texts?
@helasmoh What goes on in laboratories like what Craig venter and jack szostak do, Is controlled experiments in controlled conditions and would never occur on there primordial earth!!
They also dont create anything!!!!, they borrow and copy pre existing INFORMATION to get there experiments Going!!!! rearranging DNA and genomes, is not creating life!
@helasmoh "This engineered DNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial DNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.
@helasmoh Modern attempts to inject science into the Quran to make it look less foolish are WRONG tranlations. Aristotle described the function of the umbilical cord in the fourth century B.C., so Mo hardly needed help from God to understand basic embryological development. But Aristotle thought semen a congealment of pure blood by the "heat of man". "Alaqua" meant "clot", or "clinging" (as in clay) according to the Qamus al-Muheet (the great, 14th century dictionary of Arabic),
I understand being pro evolution and a christian but what about the 6000 years thing. Do you pick and choose what you believe in the bible and what you do not.
I'm a Muslim, I believe in some parts of the Bible but not all of it as it was changed with time. I also believe that the universe is 13.72 billion years and I have absolutely no problem with science. In fact seeking science and knowledge is mandatory for every Muslim in the Quran. I hope you see my other video about recent scientific fact that was reported 1400 years ago in the Quran, My God Delusion Part 3 - How Richard Dawkins Twisted the Truth: /watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ
@helasmoh But you must recognize that this is a milestone in the creation of life even if you don't admit that it's creating it. It's a step very close to it.
I recognize that it is an important and revolutionary step for improving our heath and environmental systems. However, DNA is just a dead chemical, exactly like you heard from Craig Venter himself in this video. Humanity will NOT be able to create life. If you want to bet your eternity on that then there is nothing to discuss. Our scientific knowledge is next to nothing, don't deceive yourself.
@helasmoh You are deceiving yourself, reading modern translations that CHANGE the Quran to make it SEEM revelatory where it clearly was not. You believe you are intelligent and reasonable, but you need to believe the Quran--it's called cognitive dissonance. Go back and study Islamic writings of the middle ages and see if any of those authors saw any modern science in it. Redefining a statement as prophetic after the fact is just a trick to ensnare the fool. Don't be that fool.
@nothingUnrealExists I've recently been reading up on cognitive dissonance and you're bang on the head with this one, it's what makes it impossible (well almost) to convince a religious person that their arguments for design are wrong. It has nothing to do with facts or objective evidence, it's about skewing around inside their own psyche to make things work.
It's quite fascinating our minds can do this.
It's funny how atheists do this less than theists, in my experience anyway.
@SamdeSquirell I hate to say it, but it seems to be a certain small mindedness. Atheists, in my opinion, are more likely to have a healthy respect for scale--an understanding for the size of the universe and their own place in it. Once one comes to grips with that, one has less need to be made to feel "special". But without it, one become DESPERATE to maintain the illusion required by ego. The sad thing is, we ARE special. Special and insignificant, and all the more precious for our mortality.
@nothingUnrealExists This is far from creating life, look at dawkins so desperate to believe venter created life..lol..Venter COPIED an already existing genome!!, and rearranged DNA, and Spliced in his watermarks! and then inserted it back into a living bacterium!! and don't forget about the synthesizing machines!! This is such Bullshit!!
LOL, I even quoted a verse from the Quran and you still think I'm Christian. I'm a Muslim, I believe the universe is 13.72 billion years old. I choose science and God at the same time. Don't believe the lies that Dawkins is feeding you. I also believe in Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ, all of them came with the same message and from the same God. Open your eyes dear friend, please watch my video Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss Vs. Fairies: /watch?v=eGPLaKIZU1w
That challenge of the Quran is 1400 years old. Humans can't engineer organisms (yet) and will NEVER be able to. Don't bet your eternity on it, that's a very unwise "wager". We should know "How God did it", this universe was created on the bases of scientific laws, abiogenesis and evolution are among them.
@helasmoh your still missing the proof, simply saying that humans cannot do something does not give warrant to assume a God being exists. The Quran or any other book is not proof either, because that is circular.
There are hundreds of proofs for people of knowledge. Many scientists studied the Quran and converted to Islam. Can a 1400 years-old book do that? watch my other videos, My God Delusion Part 1, 2 and 3 or check my favorites. However, people who see only what they want to see will be completely blind of these proofs.
5:40 - It didn't "become" Darwin's. "Evolution through natural selection" is Darwin's theory. The idea of evolution was before Darwin and there were different attempts to explain what makes species evolve, but Darwin found the mechanism of it and he did a good job organizing species into evolutionary tree.
sergrojGrayFace 3 weeks ago
@sergrojGrayFace
Darwin's mechanism also include random mutations which is wrong, if you disagree answer the Quran's challenge which came 1200 before Darwin, it is guided mutations.
helasmoh 3 weeks ago
@helasmoh it's not wrong. If you give me the link to that challenge maybe I'll answer about it.
sergrojGrayFace 3 weeks ago
@sergrojGrayFace
It is in this video, when the majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation of life Quran refuted it and challenged humanity to make one fly, a standing challenge that we will never be able to make it, if randomness can create any life or make such a wonderful tree of life then go ahead and challenge this 1400 year old book. By the way, this is not the only challenge, there are many others no one can answer them.
helasmoh 3 weeks ago
@helasmoh why should anyone attempt to recreate a result of millions of years of evolution? Science hasn't reached the level at which it would be able to 'play god' in such a way. You were saying that mutations are guided, not random. Challenge to create a fly isn't related to that at all. So, in Darwin's theory natural selection is the force that 'guides' random mutations. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be enough.
sergrojGrayFace 3 weeks ago
@sergrojGrayFace
The reason is in front of you everywhere you look and you see it in the mirror, you are a creation and you have a creator, abiogenesis and evolution was guided all the way so you see it in the mirror, then there will be a huge evolutionary step, some will make it, some will miss it, those who miss it will end up in this for eternity, watch my video and I hope you don't miss it: Quran Vs. Lawrence Krauss and "A Universe From Nothing": /watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
helasmoh 3 weeks ago
@sergrojGrayFace - millions of years of random events, random events don't produce things that are designed with precision, if it was natural selection then when and how did natural selection know when to stop and in which direction to go? if this is the case then it seems like natural selection/ evolution have some form of inelegance. think about it what seems more plausible, God created everything or random events did?
kaz1i 2 weeks ago
First of all, nothing is from "scratch". We just combine all the natural substances that Allah has already created before us, and manipulate them to our own will. So we did not create life. it was already there. We just took bits and pieces apart and put it back together. ( genetic engineering ). just like when we create TVs, Food, Furniture, Plastic, Medicine, we are combining things that which already originated from God all is his
iiiTOXSICKiii 1 month ago
@iiiTOXSICKiii
Exactly, yet many people still can't understand that, they think that humanity created "synthetic life", no one can create any form of life except Allah.
helasmoh 1 month ago
Comment removed
iiiTOXSICKiii 1 month ago
No he didnt change its DNA, he completely REMOVED the old DNA and REPLACED new (from scratch) DNA inside the cell. AMAZING! One giant leap towards diminishing 1400 year old ignorance.
notnilccm 1 month ago
@notnilccm
Didn't you hear Venter himself saying DNA is just a dead chemical? The DNA is from scratch, i agree with that but life itself cannot be created not even if all scientists got together to create it, LIFE not dead DNA.
helasmoh 1 month ago
@helasmoh LIE! You said that Venter said "DNA is just a dead chemical" Why do you make up lies? Why must you misquote people? The fact is he said " DNA is just a chemical" listen to your own video at 1:04. Scientists HAVE created life from scratch, and I am wondering what rock you will be hiding under when they consistently produce life from scratch shell included.
notnilccm 1 month ago
@notnilccm
Venter: "People have the notion that it's a living things, it is just a chemical and now we can make this chemical in a lab"
I'm not a liar, neither is you, you are just deaf and I had enough from deaf people, don't reply, you are blocked.
helasmoh 1 month ago
The quran has all of the answers. Why do we even need cosmology, physics, biology .....? What an amazing book of fact and knowledge the quran is.
When will folks wake up? Serious question.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi
Quran doesn't have all the answers, why do you even say that? Did you hear it from a Muslim before or you are just pissed-off because a 1400 year old book put your knowledgeable hero "professor" Dawkins to shame? watch my other video and tell me: Richard Dawkins Public Lie about Quran, Salt and Fresh Water Exposed: /watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ
helasmoh 3 months ago
@helasmoh - I hear ya. Dawkins may as well quit and never open his mouth again. He knows nothing, the quran knows it all.
Let me guess - Dawkins told the truth about your religion, and now you have a personal vendetta? You should seek him out and demand an apology.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi
Why don't you check Dawkins blog and how many of his own followers gave him thumbs down for "telling the truth about my religion"? Did you even watched the video?
helasmoh 3 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi Retard.
grayziehobbes 2 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi Retard.
grayziehobbes 2 months ago
@grayziehobbes Retard.
iiiTOXSICKiii 1 month ago
@iiiTOXSICKiii Retard.
grayziehobbes 1 month ago
Your problem is that you already have your answer. You already "
"know" what set the universe in motion. You already "know" who/what caused it all and also "know" what he/it wants for us. This "knowledge" that you've obtained through faith & unfounded belief lends to your repudiation of findings/discoveries that dismiss the "knowledge" that you already possess. Good luck in your fight against reality.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
and is so fun how ppl see every scientific discover in bible, or another religious book, really funny, why they didnt see it before scientifics made their discoveries?, there were not enught smart and faithfull people in the past so they could save darwin and another scientist thousands of years?, why is it religious ppl just find the same scientifics advances after they are made?
arqueopterix007 3 months ago
@arqueopterix007
First, scientists will NEVER be able to create life, DNA is a DEAD chemical as you heard from Craig Venture which I respect his efforts by the way.
Second, I'm a Muslim, I don't believe in most of the Bible, it does however have some of God's previous messages
Third, my other video is BEFORE scientists discover this: Quran Vs. Lawrence Krauss and "A Universe From Nothing": /watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
Last, I believe and follow science NOT you: God or Multiverse: /watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE
helasmoh 3 months ago
@helasmoh first time in see someone who can see the future, and what i said apply to any religious ancient or new book, science is not compatible with any religion sorry.
arqueopterix007 3 months ago
@arqueopterix007
Quran told us the future more than 1400 years ago and not a single prediction proved wrong, in fact science is proving the Quran is right one by one, if you want to ask about the possibility of creating a living cell completely from dead material ask any atheist biologist, his/her answer will be just like the Quran told us when most scientists thought spontaneous generation is true. By the way, please watch my video Quran Vs Lawrence Krauss for future events in the Quran.
helasmoh 3 months ago
@helasmoh Retard.
grayziehobbes 2 months ago
helasmoh you would love to be in dark ages, this is an amazing advance in science, and im sorry to tell you, there will be much more, because science advance every day, and everyday will be more difficult for your priest to explain you science facts with the bible or another ancient book, is not life from scratch but, how much time you think scientist will be able to make life from scratch?, i think we both may see it.
arqueopterix007 3 months ago
Let me see if a car-analogy works here:
if were to I construct an engine along with the gearbox and the differential and then bolt this into an existing frame, would I have created a car?
Would I have created a car from scratch if this car would replicate and create other cars just like it?
Or to put it in another context:
is a child a new human being from scratch? All reproduction is doing, is placing DNA from the sperm into an existing cell, the ovum.
StopSpamming1 4 months ago
@StopSpamming1
Wow, truly atheists like you makes me sometimes wonder why God chose humans over other creatures. So when you have sex and you have a baby that means you created the baby from scratch. Hilarious.
helasmoh 4 months ago
@helasmoh
Ah I forgot you can't follow abstract and conceptual thinking. Sorry.
Live your life how you see fit - but please don't claim any scientist has proven anything in the Koran or about any of the gods, it simply is not true. Gods exist out of faith, not proof.
StopSpamming1 4 months ago
@helasmoh im as sure that you dont understand these scientific concepts, as you are that there is a "god". you saying that the koran proves any kind of modern science is equivalent to me saying "the cat in the hat" proves that all scrambled eggs are green when eaten with ham.
theoreticalythinking 3 months ago
@theoreticalythinking
Watch my other video on your hero Dawkins and how he didn't understand a concept that even little kids understood, a man doesn't know how to read and write lived in a desert 1400 years ago put your "prophet" Dawkins to shame: Richard Dawkins Public Lie about Quran, Salt and Fresh Water Exposed: /watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ
helasmoh 3 months ago
@helasmoh You're so stupid, it's painful watching you fail.
nilbud 3 months ago
@alexisrubio83
If they created a single fly then I will become an atheist, even a single living cell from scratch will persuade me to do that. However, even if scientists managed to build a complete cell with all its components it will be a dead cell. No one can give life except God. The Quran made numerous challenges and for 1400 years not a single one has been defeated. Don't become like Dawkins who see only what he wants to see. Please watch my other video on Dawkins: /watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
helasmoh 5 months ago
@helasmoh
"However, even if scientists managed to build a complete cell with all its components it will be a dead cell."
Boy have you got a shock coming to you.
Y'know I first heard about this around 1996. At that time it was the search for the smallest usable genome.
Your search however began when you noticed something that questioned your faith and your answers didn't come from evaluating science. Only from looking for excuses to safeguard your belief. You can do that with anything.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
CONT. So even if science produced a breeding population of super creatures, Even of they were walking around the streets constructed at a sub atomic particle level, you'd still find some sort of excuse you'd be happy with.
Discovering science can create life does not make someone think there is not God. It just does what it did to you in February this year. When work began on synthetic life over a decade ago.
It had you go find excuses, apologetics and all sorts of reasons why its okay.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
To save you the bother I'll give you a few you can put in the bag for 2013-2015 when you'll need it.
1. God made people so everything we do is a product of God.
2. God is actually making the life but using the scientists as the tool.
3. It doesn't say in any scripture that God will 'always' be the ONLY producer of life but that he was at the time the [insert book] was written.
4. God could allow anyone to make life if he wanted to. Personally I like 1. its a total coverall.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
yes why shouldt God have created life from abiogenesis...
i am not religous i just believe in god..
it makes perfect sense ....
why be so extreme in all ways... craig venter prob even might believe in god himself
TheRogueMonk 5 months ago
@TheRogueMonk Venter is not only an atheist. like dawkins is a proactive anti-theist.
The reason helasmoh can't accept humans are capable of designing and making new living forms is because he takes the Quran and the Old Testament absolutely literally.
They claim that God makes living things...not man (even though it doesn't rule out man)
So helasmoh thinks there was an adam and eve. And also thinks the Quran prophesies all sorts of new discoveries, but might be a bit shaky on the details.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
well i dont know why people think that humans achievements is such a contradiction to god...they make it sound like god only wanted humans to do certain things and not other things... its not possible.. its all nature.. even if you create the most incredibly new material its still natural... people neeed to realize its all nature.. humans are nature too... we have never been non nature ... its an illusion that we arent
TheRogueMonk 5 months ago
@TheRogueMonk "well i dont know why people think that humans achievements is such a contradiction to god.."
Neither do I.... fear perhaps?
It doesn't bother me to be honest... people can insist things are not valid or whatever they like... but that simply will not change the facts discovered... and if there's one thing we do know its that discoveries are never later undiscovered, and invention is never uninvented.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix
When did i say I believe in the old testament or taking it literally? I believe the Quran only is pure God'e word, other messages were changed but still you can find the truth in them. As for Adam and Eve then please watch my video: Evolution was an Islamic Theory Before Darwin was Even Born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
And for "all sorts of new discoveries" watch my video: Quran Vs. Lawrence Krauss and "A Universe From Nothing": /watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
Will you believe? Most likely not.
helasmoh 5 months ago
@helasmoh
Fine if you don't take the OT literally why are you hanging on to these silly stories?
Again Evolution by natural selection is not mentioned in the Quran...thats the first point....
Next someone being islamic and reading the quran and coming to a conclusion based on the quran...is a different thing to someone being islamic and coming to a conclusion based on reason without reference to the quran at all.
So from where how did Ibn Khaldun derive this conclusion? From the Quran?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
CONT next I am not calling into question what Ibn Khaldun wrote. These were his conclusion based on the tools available to him in the 14th century. Considering he had poor tools, some of what he wrote was accurate.but not testable in his time.
I have a copy (english version) of the muqaddimah btw. I haven't read it all, probably never will. It's a book about history and sociology not about evolution by natural selection and lots of it are musing on other writers.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
CONT next I am not calling into question what Ibn Khaldun wrote. These were his conclusion based on the tools available to him in the 14th century. Considering he had poor tools, some of what he wrote was accurate.but not testable in his time.
I have a copy (english version) of the muqaddimah btw. I haven't read it all, probably never will. It's a book about history and sociology not about evolution by natural selection and lots of it are musing on other writers.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@helasmoh Let me give you an example of that. If I told you the world was a sphere and everyone to date believed the world was flat most people would insist I was wrong.
Some people would clearly want to prove how wrong I was and in their research to demonstrate it they would end up finding out I was right.
Ibn Khaldun's description is in fact the opposite of evolutionary biology btw...Had Ibn Khaldun asked himself why there are more than two species of anything he might have realised that!
Unrealistix 5 months ago
CONT. Next most religious texts include things that are not only correct but plainly so... so when for example the Quran mentions that :
"And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them"
Well that accurate for sure... but also axiomatic... it would be accepted (and was) before there was a Quran.
But when the Quaran insists
"And He taught Adam the names - all of them."
Well that's not accurate. 'Mycoplasma Labratorium' was named by Craig Venter for starters.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
CONT. You might be best off to go through the Quran and highlight all the things that simply are not be the case... like the example I gave.
Further going over the Quran and taking out all the things that are in direct conflict with what science has already disproven would be a second move.
Then ask a simple question...
"Why am I holding a book that contains only axiomatic observations that are accurate regardless of whether they are in the Quran or not."
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix
For your long reply I will post only this, If I was right, and many scientists already proved God as I showed in my video between Dawkins and Weinberg, then when this universe turns to Hell, as I also showed in my video Quran Vs Krauss, then don't beg God for mercy, it will be too late:
Quran: 10: 96-97
Quran: 22:46
helasmoh 5 months ago
@helasmoh Not one scientist in the world ever proved 'god' because there is nothing to test. With no ability to test something science has nothing to say about it.
You can go on believing they did, be my guest... but in your hunt to find a scientist that 'proved god' you'll be looking a very long time....
Tell me, what method did such scientists use to 'prove god'? Of these 'many' scientists...do any of them have a name?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
aristotles do not believe in spontainus creation who said that? .. aristotle belived in god.
TheRogueMonk 5 months ago
@TheRogueMonk who in the WORLD SAID arristoles belived in chance? .. arristotles believed in a god .. a god that is just good and eternal.. the primary mover of all things....
most philosophers were REAL belivers in the metaphysical... what imbecile is that wants people to believe the other wise? did you even search on arristotle yourself? i dbout it
aristotle has work thAT IS CALLED METAPHYSICS .. its not theology or religion it was their current science
TheRogueMonk 5 months ago
@TheRogueMonk this is very very sad if people want to make intelligent people who lived 500 before religion that had REAL RESONS to believe in god .. that they are saying now these people DIDNT?
its overwhelming evidence that arristotle NO WAY believed in chance,, he beleived in A PRIME MOVER ...
TheRogueMonk 5 months ago
@TheRogueMonk
Dear friend,
I never said Aristotle didn't believe in God, However, the theory of Spontaneous generation was introduced by him, I took this information from Wikipedia. Scientists and philosophers always wondered "How God did it", I also made my research and found that God made this universe on scientific bases and laws, abiogenesis and evolution are among them. Please watch my video: Evolution was an Islamic Theory Before Darwin was Even Born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
helasmoh 5 months ago
well it must be false.. aristotles believes everything has been moved by god...the idea of spoentaniouity calls for the belief that something starts from nothing.. and stricly arristotle was against such a logic..
he even says tha tthings that move by themselves have some part of htem tha tis arleady moved ...
everything goes back ot prime mover which he says it is god the only thing he says is that GOD
TheRogueMonk 5 months ago
@helasmoh CREATES movement in the world through his own contemplation of good things.... he does by no means say that things move or are created randomly and spontaniously
i have red alot on the net and i havent found a single evidence that what you claim is true
TheRogueMonk 5 months ago
@helasmoh Deluded Muslim. If Evolution was an Islamic theory, it wouldn't have taken an Englishmen raised in a predominately Christian society (who ironically accepted his theory years later) to make that conclusion nor would a British Muslim who wanted to teach Evolution would get death threats from angry Muslims and research doesn't include reading old holy books and visting Muslim websites.
HybridD91 5 months ago
@HybridD91
The deluded one among us is the one who doesn't know history. Please watch my video: Evolution was an Islamic Theory Before Darwin was Even Born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
helasmoh 5 months ago
@helasmoh Yeah but lots of things Aristotle mused on were total nonsense, Aristotle didn't know that, how could he?
Next the idea that life on earth diversifies by a process of nature selecting breeding animals based on the ones most likely to survive for a given environment and also surviving long enough to breed is not anywhere in the quran, the bible or any other scripture...
Please do not present an obscure sentence that could be interpreted any way one likes btw? that would be Puerile.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@TheRogueMonk I think Aristotle probably beloved in 'Gods' plural...since Geece at the time was a polytheistic society.
From what he wrote we can surmise that he thought 'religion' was generally a silly idea.
His philosophy points to what he claimed was the 'unmovable mover' of the universe...a golden set of rules that define existence. Aristotle's Gods are similar to Spinoza's in that respect.
He basically though the rules that govern the universe are divine entities.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
its strange to me also.. if dna is the software then why doesnt he make all the cell ? i dont get it
TheRogueMonk 5 months ago
@TheRogueMonk
The purpose of creating synthetic life is not to demonstrate to muslims or anyone else that creating new life is possible.
Its purpose is to create living creatures that carry out specific tasks like making fuel.
If Venter thought for a second that he could produce those naturally he'd do that instead. Venters company is there for a reason... to make money.
Why on earth would anyone want to add the cost of making empty cells when they are all over the place and cost nothing?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix you mistakenly commented to me.. i wasnt the muslim
hehe.. he is in the comments i think.
no i absolutely agree with you this is definetly something everyone should be happy about even if there is a risk of disaster.. sometimes its not possible to not do anything and stop .
i am all for science .. science is good for humanity .. who is not driving a car to a job or eating from a plate.. its all science
TheRogueMonk 5 months ago
@TheRogueMonk "its strange to me also.. if dna is the software then why doesnt he make all the cell ? i dont get it"
Sorry I was answering your point above, I should have made that clear.
basically engineering a synthetic empty cell would be a waste of resources, too costly for no purpose.
At the moment helasmoh is latching on to that as his excuse why its not 'exactly' new life. It doesn't have to be, it just has to be profitable! Venter doesn't care about religious evaluation of his work.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix you cant implement subjectivity in science let alone religion... its as if you want to implement music into science . it might work but not as a rule...
its irrelevant... science should search for answers and keep it at proof level...its not possible to use subjectivity in science because science is not for you and me .. its for humanity...
science does not threat humanity not even by chance... god gavve us brains and intelligence to do exactly this period... not just 50% 100% sc
TheRogueMonk 5 months ago
@TheRogueMonk
Science doesn't do 'proof'... it never did.
Science does explanation based on the evidence. It never 'proved' anything. When it comes to the concept of 'proof,' science can only disprove things.
I'm not sure if you understand that, I'll elaborate if you like.
I agree all science should be open to everyone, free of charge as a right of access. With the advent of global communications it is... most people however volunteer to ignore it. Some even avoid it at all costs.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
lol... ohh I get it... religious dude trying to make a point... well that's me out of the loop. I have no time for people that insist they are right whilst the world marches on around them doing demonstrating the opposite.
It might be more productive to make a video on why synthetic life in unethical...since clearly it's not only possible but demonstrated.
Whats next a video on how powered flight is impossible?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
erm... I got lost in this video... a cell is just a bag of plasma that has no dna in it.... so where did you get the idea this was not synthetic life?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
The cell is only used as a "factory" to reproduce the DNA which Craig Venter created.
A cell without its DNA is NOT alive. It can not reprouce and has no metabolism. It's just "dead" organic material.
It will be eventually (or is already) possibe to produce a cell "from scratch" like you demand, but what they wanted to do is just show that DNA (the "essence" of life) is in fact just like software and can be "programed" by man.
ihr0ppa 7 months ago
@ihr0ppa
When you prove that God was wrong in His 1400 years old book and humanity managed to produce one complete living cell then I will stop believing the Quran and be an atheist, until then, Good luck with that. I do believe in abiogenesis and evolution but that just because they are part of God's creation and plan. By the way a cell is not alive if it deprived from any of essential dead chemicals, water for example, DNA is also as you heard Venter telling you is a DEAD CHEMICAL.
helasmoh 7 months ago
@helasmoh
The god descrbed in this 1400 was wrong all the freakin time! There are so many erros in the Quran/Bible/whatever , I can't put them all in a max. 500 words comment. (There are enough videos here on youtube which show the errors anyway)
You on the other hand have no prove for gods existens other then "the quran/bible says so". Which is of course nonsense since those scriptures are the ones you whant to proven to begin with.
And DNA alone is of course like all simple chemicals dead -_-
ihr0ppa 7 months ago
@ihr0ppa
Please watch this "BIG ERROR" in the Quran:How Richard Dawkins Twisted the Truth - My God Delusion Part 3: /watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ
helasmoh 7 months ago
@helasmoh
I've seen that already.
He didn't twist anything. The quran says salty water and fresh water don't mix, but they do.
Even the halocline layer will eventually disapear and resolve.
And it's actually you who has twisted the truth. You even quoted the quran passage which clearly states that to SEAS are separated. The halocline is a layer and not a sea.
So this is acually just another quran fail.
Did you realy think you could prove something with this pathatic example?
ihr0ppa 7 months ago
@ihr0ppa
Quran 22:46
helasmoh 7 months ago
@helasmoh
"So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts."
So what exactly should this tell me? That I don't possess the ability to understand the quran properly?
That fall under the sam catagorry as saying "it's true because it says so".
Bur your to deluded to realize that -_-'
ihr0ppa 7 months ago
@ihr0ppa
Quran 6:109 -111
helasmoh 7 months ago
@helasmoh
Yeah... Like throwing random scripture passages has ever been been usefull...
I can't even distinguish whether you are trolling or just incredebly stupid...
ihr0ppa 7 months ago
@ihr0ppa
A book by an illiterate man living in a desert tells you that there are seas one very salty and one is fresh, they are together but don't mix,you already watched that and didn't believe. It told us that ants talk to each other, just like scientists discovered and you will not believe: /watch?v=YvZNEkbJkBk
It told us that we will be raised to life even if we fossilized and you will not believe: /watch?v=DtZJh5qL-ug
One thing will make you believe: Quran 52: 9 -15
I hope I'm wrong.
helasmoh 7 months ago
@helasmoh
1) To make the verses fit with actual scientific knowledge, you must allways interpret those verses. If god really wanted to share his knowledge, then why didn't he do so in literal form?
2) Why is there no usefull scientific knowledge like gravitational laws, electrical laws, how to make medicine, etc.
Instead (according to your interpretation) there is stuff like the "halocline". Makes so much sense... not.
--continued in part 2--
ihr0ppa 7 months ago
@helasmoh
--part 2--
3) There are far more mistakes in the quran than scientific logic. So what about those? Just random misinterpretations? Was your god drunk? Or is it because there was no god involved in the first place and the illiterate man wrote those fairytales by himself using his own insufficient knowledge?. Isn't that a far more logical explanation? Because that what the quran is!
"Then is this magic, or do you not see?"
Magic? Like in fairytales?
Enough said...
ihr0ppa 7 months ago
@ihr0ppa
Here is your "fairytale": Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss Vs. Fairies: youtube.com/watch?v=eGPLaKIZU1w
helasmoh 7 months ago
@helasmoh
My previous comment (which you just tried to answer) applies on this comment as well.
I think I don't have to repeat myself....
ihr0ppa 7 months ago
@ihr0ppa
Did you even watched the video? How clear you want God to be? Do you really want God to answer the request of each and every human for his/her own miracle? God chose what to tell you, not you. I studied the Quran and I believe there is more than enough to conclude that it is from God. If you don't want to believe then that's ok with God, just when this universe got destroyed as I showed you in the video don't ask God for help, He will not listen to you as you are not listening to Him.
helasmoh 7 months ago
@helasmoh
Sure I watched the video. Still doesn't change anything.
The problem here is, that you are trying to "prove" god by searching for passages in the quran which could be remotely applied to science by interpreting them in a very loosely way.
And instead of going into the 3 flaws I addressed in an earler comment for this way of argumentation, you just keep posting your videos and verses.
And I don't ask god anything.
I ask you.
ihr0ppa 7 months ago
@ihr0ppa
The "flaws" are only in your head and by your flawed logic, not in the Quran. Believe whatever you want to believe. You have been told and that was my job.
helasmoh 7 months ago
@helasmoh Ants do not 'talk' , they.'communicate' (if that's even the right word) by means of chemical signals that give them directional data... some use a crude form of vibration and tapping to denote presence and distance..
No scientist ever discovered ants talk to one another..
For sure nobody ever suggested ants saying "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it." was a concern in the hive mentality of insects.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix
Watch the original video from ABC news, link is available in the video description (ants video).
helasmoh 5 months ago
@helasmoh yeah problem there is that a News or Media channel is not the best source of information on entomology.... Would you get your information on tomorrows weather from a guy on the train in the morning? ...or would you think that the meteorological center would provide a more accurate picture? Or will you just go with whoever will tell you what you'd like the weather to be?
As I said Ants do not talk... end of story... despite what ABC might tell you.
No link in your description.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@ihr0ppa It is possible to produce a cell ... but who would want to...the purpose of venters company is to produce lifeforms that do specific tasks...like make fuel from photosynthesis... adding the cost of making empty cells to that would be mostly useless, and very expensive... why would anyone do that when there are millions lying about for free?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@ihr0ppa Venter only set out to show potential investors like Exxon that he had 'proof of concept' worthy of investment.
Which he did, and which was quickly followed by a $600m investment by Exxon, another few hundred million by the US government in funding and a whole new industry worth trillions.
He certainly did not set out to demonstrate anything to the worlds religions. They just don't like the idea, for obvious reasons.
But at this point what they like or don't like is irrelevant.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
"Mr." Dawkins is actually Dr. Dawkins That's just inaccurate to call him Mr. Not "from scratch" is like saying that bread made at home is not "from scratch" because the baker didn't make the yeast, the sugar, the oil, the salt, and the flour. That's just ridiculous. "It was always alive" isn't true. With original DNA removed from the cell, it was no longer alive (able to function and reproduce.) When the new, assembled DNA was injected, it became alive. No magical gods here, just science.
ndrthrdr1 8 months ago
@ndrthrdr1
Even atheists disagree with you. Read other comments and think for yourself instead of letting Dawkins do the thinking for you. No one can create life except God and scientists confirmed what God told us 1400 years ago. You don't have to believe me, ask any biologist (except Dawkins).
helasmoh 8 months ago
@helasmoh Ha, someone is living in a fantasy world. Name three renowned biologists who have confirmed "what Gold told us." By the way, could you confirm which God you're even referring to, being as there have been thousands of gods since the dawn of man.
halonone 7 months ago
@halonone
The god I'm referring to is the One who feed but never fed. Apply this test to all the gods and goddesses and they will all fail the test except One, this is the One true God who send thousands of messengers with the same message, which I doubt you even read any, these are some of His attributes (no gender implied): Atheist physicist Steven Weinberg Admits God: /watch?v=fVmxkyBuR7Y
helasmoh 7 months ago
@helasmoh What name does your god go by, let us start there. Secondly, I asked for three biologists, you sent me a link to a video of a physicist who does not even admit there is a god, he claims there is a mystery about it the universe but god does not ultimately explain it because then you would have to explain where god came from. Not to mention if you were to actually read ANYTHING else about Weinberg, you would know he does not believe there is a god at all. Thanks for playing, you lose.
halonone 7 months ago
@halonone
/watch?v=_CgWbnWpFZ8
helasmoh 7 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Well actually thats Prof. Dawkins, as if it matters...
But on the substantive point this form of synthetic life is clearly living... it was certainly not designed by a god... unless Venter is now a god. The new genome although written from scratch just copies the primary instructions in an existing genome to the point where it can 'boot up'.
The next phase is to create software that can analyse why it works and build living things according to specifications from customers.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 So some living things would be possible, and some not. It might be possible to create living things that are in fact much more efficient than any life on earth. That used 150 chemicals rather than the 4 found in DNA... that took in sunlight and produced an electrical current thousands of times more efficiently than plants do...that could be sprayed or grown on your roof!
But we are now in relation to this technology where Charles Babbage was in relation to the Intel Corei7
Unrealistix 5 months ago
What Craig ventor did was he proven that life runs on DNA and each sequences of DNA can give an organism a specific expression. So... with this ability, we can create anything we want. However, we still need to understand more. Micro-scale events like this are still unknown. Thus, I agree that craig didn't created life.
killerboyfoolz 8 months ago
@killerboyfoolz
I agree with you too, we can change living things to whatever we want, if not now then in the future, and it is written in the Quran by the way that we will do that, but creating life itself is impossible unless to the creator of this universe. We all originated from the big bang. I hope you can watch my video about that, perhaps it can bring back some memories of 13.72 billion years ago: Remember - God, light and the Big Bang: /watch?v=6L2oxoagQbM
helasmoh 8 months ago
@helasmoh Look when Venter applied for a license to undertake this research he was required by US law to demonstrate there were were no moral or ethical objections.
He invited representatives of the main religions along with scientific and secualr organisations to a forum to discuss those matters. Not one of the worlds religions voiced a concern. The abrahamic religions were dogmatically 'locked down' by their own position on the matter, which is the same as yours... 'its impossible'
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@helasmoh So when Venter demonstrates it possible you excuse that... and the day your able to design your own life on your PC and email the genome for production you'll still say 'its impossible'
The day we have totally new life on this planet on every street corner you'll still insist 'impossible'.
But you know what... you'll be observably wrong! And also voluntarily locked out of opping your religious nonsense into the ethical debate.
Venter knows that now ... check mate!
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@killerboyfoolz Well he certainly designed a new species.
But demonstrating life can be designed on a computer and produced on the equivalent of a printer is certainly new life. Otherwise you are left trying to point to the parent organisms that gave rise to the new species.
However since this organism is 'copied' essentially from the template of another life form then its built from scratch but not designed from scratch.
Given the massive influx of investment I'd give that 2 years max!
Unrealistix 5 months ago
I concede immediately that this is not "making life from scratch." It is, however, a significant advancement toward that end. Combined with spontaniously forming phospholipid bilayer membranes and the synthesis of two of the four base pairs of RNA in the lab we are very near this end by appearances and extrapolation. Though even if we do this is still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a god. Nothing does and that's why it's not a very interesting subject to debate.
wkrepelin 8 months ago
@wkrepelin Not to mention advances in nanotechnology with inorganic polymers. Biologists can't take all the credit (despite all the private bloody funding)
Some of us have invested considerable time in looking at this issue from a non-biological perspective.
Nature has a jump start on physicists so the added hurdle of 'replication' was always going to be problematic. But assembly less so.
I wonder what our Muslim friend here might have to say about self replicating nano machines?
Unrealistix 5 months ago
This is far from creating life, look at dawkins so desperate to believe venter created life..lol..Venter COPIED an already existing genome!!, and rearranged DNA, and Spliced in his watermarks! and then inserted it back into a living bacterium!! and don't forget about the synthesizing machines!! This is such Bullshit!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
Dawkins will know that no one can create life except God the moment the angels come to collect his own. Unfortunately he is dragging with him to Hell millions of our atheist brothers and sisters. We should do whatever we can to tell them the truth and leave the rest to God, He is the most wise.
helasmoh 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv You can download almost every paper produced on the matter free of charge.
Moreover OECD nations are required to make new genomes available digitally for download for free. (Venter objected to that citing his patent on this life)
This gives you the opportunity to see what this actually is.
Now in 4 years time that comment will read like comedy.
You remind me of religious arguments that powered flight was impossible Nov. 1903 when gliding had already been demonstrated.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Next there is no such thing as a living bacterium that is incapable of reproduction and metabolism... in fact Viruses aren't technically alive since they aren't DNA... they are just organic polymers that can replicate.
An empty shell made of organic compounds and proteins is not a living bacterium.
I didn't understand your point about not forgetting genome printing machines?
Your argument is about to look really silly, do you not see that? I wouldn't hang my hat on that....
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Venter did not create life! He borrowed and rearranged pre existing INFORMATION!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv As I said, you may as well be arguing flight is impossible in 1902!
Arguments like 'But Lilienthal didn't make it fly, he just used the wind. God would not design humans without wings if we were meant to fly. It's impossible'
That was the prevailing religious anti-flight argument of the day. It's been revised since, lol
Your argument is about to implode. You must see that? no?
Anyway you have a couple of years to decide what new argument you'll use... good luck with that.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix
Wow, so flight was considered impossible in 1902. Do you know what the Quran told us about flight, well, not only flight but that we will travel in deep deep space: Quran 55:33
Will that convince you that "some being" know the future? And you know what, that "some being" told us that we will never ever be able to create life, that is His specialty (no gender implied), no one else.
helasmoh 5 months ago
@helasmoh
"Wow, so flight was considered impossible in 1902."
I'm supposed to be arguing 'against' heavier than air flight.and its 1900 not 1902.
so back into character.
So my second obvious point is that powered flight is just a theory. There is no evidence of powered flight.
How can something heavier than air fly?. And as any 'real' scientist in this day and age will tell you anything large enough to create enough power just adds even more weight requiring a bigger engine and so on.....
Unrealistix 5 months ago
CONT. So the second law of thermodynamics rules out powered flight for the engine problem reason I gave above... its all just crazy half baked assumptions by crazy people with some sort of agenda.
Heres a question... if powered flight were possible.. how come we haven't discovered it yet?
Its been a very long time...and not one person ever got off the ground in anything that didn't just slowly fall back to earth... that's because even the laws of conservation of energy rule out powered flight.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I do wish that people who use words like 'information' and 'code' etc. would read up on what context and definition it is used with when used in the sciences. 'Information' means something totally different to a physicist than it means to a biologist.
I'm lost as to what definition you are using.
Plus you are making serious logic errors like insisting proteins can't be produced when you make billions per second.
BTW I can fit several Genomes in digital form on a single DVD.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Also... look I've heard all of these silly unscientific and puerile arguments before.
Would it help to inform you I'm one of those 'evil scientists'?
At least that way you know where you stand. I'd imagine you don't want me to burst any ideas you have, so I won't, I couldn't be bothered to be honest. It won't actually effect the outcome.
I'm not going to try to educate you, I'm just informing you at this point your argument is about to implode. Now you can accept that, or not.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
@Unrealistix Jack szostak and craig venter create nothing! Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..They are not geochemical relevant reactions. These scientist control every step of these experiments! Every chemical reaction is carefully controlled!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv You know I could even swap places with you.
Tell you what, lets pretend its 1900, and I'll even start with the premise of my arguemnt being 'Powered Flight is impossible' and I'll only use creationist arguments from 1900.
You can use all the science you understand at present, with the exception of course that its 1900 so there aren't any actual aircraft, not physically anyway.
Now me trying to prove powered flight is impossible you might think I't'll be a cake walk...
CONT BELOW
Unrealistix 5 months ago
CONT>
So let me start by saying 'powered flight is totally impossible'
For one thing God made man perfect and if he had meant people to fly then obviously he'd have given them wings...
It's pretty clear we don't have wings... so all this garbage about people flying is just untrue, and nobody has ever flown.
And its mathematically impossible...even Lord Kelvin agrees with me on that! So unless you think Lord Kelvin knows nothing about math then obviously powered flight is impossible.
Unrealistix 5 months ago
The Islamic theory of evolution wasn't a theory at all but a hypothesis, it simply claimed that life changed over time, but with no rhyme or reason.
Darwinian evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION is a theory because it supplies the tool "natural selection".
It's not the theory of evolution.
It's the theory of evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION.
If you do not grasp the fundamentals of Darwinism, then how can you possibly make an educated stab at the function of DNA and the subjective definition of life?
SamdeSquirell 9 months ago
@SamdeSquirell
Is that all? So "NATURAL SELECTION" is what makes all the difference? Well, that's what Aljahiz wrote in his book "The Animal" 1000 years before Darwin. However, I did not make my videos about evolution to discredit Darwin of his contribution, but just to convince atheists and theists that evolution is compatible with believing in God. Unfortunately, many people from both sides don't understand that.
helasmoh 9 months ago
@helasmoh Actually you are trying to say that all modern science was pre-written in the quran, which is both untrue and invalid.
Knowledge is composed of three components: Truth, Justification, and Statement.
Any statement of the quran, even if true, MUST BE JUSTIFIED to be counted as knowledge.
This is why "Natural selection" is important, because it explains HOW the process happens, it gives us substantial reason to believe. It justifies the true claim.
Without justification, it's guesswork.
SamdeSquirell 9 months ago
@SamdeSquirell
I am NOT trying to say that ALL modern science was pre-written in the Quran and I don't believe that at all. All what I'm trying to say is that God's last message to humanity have SIGNS that it is from God and these SIGNS were confirmed by modern science. That is all I'm trying to say. The Quran is NOT a science book but a SIGNS book for those who want to follow the path of their creator. If you want to ignore these SIGNS then that is your choice and I wish you all the best.
helasmoh 9 months ago
@helasmoh Signs confirmed by modern science, have you heard yourself? A sign is really quite easy to do in that respect. The Universe is vast and full of many wonders, and number of vague claims can be interpreted as signs once we know enough things.
But like I said, without specific justification it means absolutely nothing.
If you flip a coin, and I say heads, and it says heads, what does it mean? Am I psychic? Am I God?
Or did I just guess.
You decide. I'm done with this nonsense.
SamdeSquirell 9 months ago
@SamdeSquirell
If you are done with all this nonsense then as I told you before, I wish you all the best.
helasmoh 9 months ago
Gamesmanship proves nothing. Of course the DNA needed a cell host. Since we do not yet have the technology to build one, he put it in one of a different species. Irrelevent, since his synthetic DNA was just a copy of an organic DNA and not fabricated from whole cloth. None of this has anything to do with abiogenisis.
nothingUnrealExists 9 months ago
@nothingUnrealExists
And we will never have, even if we have the technology to build a cell, it will be a dead cell. How you will boot life in it. AAA batteries?
helasmoh 9 months ago
@helasmoh How to create a living cell now and how living cells arose is two totally difference questions. If you fabricate a complete cell using nothing but mechanical and chemical means, it will be alive. There is magic spark. We just do not currently have the technology to manufacture an entire cell, complete with cytoplasm--and why would we want to since nature has already done the heavy lifting.
nothingUnrealExists 9 months ago
@helasmoh Lipid microspheres form and start to self replicate wherever conditions allow--neither magic nor batteries are required. Jack Shostak's lab has worked out how such proto-cells can incorporate chemicals into their structure that make them more stable and that will then be carried forth to the copies--making THEM more stable until their copies soak up all the nutrients. DNA is not needed for chemical evolution to begin--it just takes much much much longer.
nothingUnrealExists 9 months ago
@nothingUnrealExists
"We just do not currently have the technology to manufacture an entire cell", I totally agree with that and may I add "we will never have". That was the Quran challenge 1400 years ago when scientists believed in spontaneous generation of life, and from who? from an illiterate man. The Quran challenge will never fail. O.k, lets forget about generating life. The Quran challenged the whole humanity to produce one chapter like the Quran, until now, all failed.
helasmoh 9 months ago
@helasmoh We will have the technology within a couple of decades, but there is unlikely to be any point except to prove to morons what we already know, that life is just chemistry. Further, spontaneous generation is not at all the same thing as abiogenisis, and was one of the first medieval notions overthrown as modern science took hold. Further, the Quran is nothing. If God has created a perfect book, he could have worked through Chaucer or Shakespear--but you probably don't know their work.
nothingUnrealExists 9 months ago
@helasmoh Quran 96: 2 "Allah created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood". Yeah. Clearly divine revelation there. One question, what did Allah boot the blood cells with batteries?
nothingUnrealExists 9 months ago
@nothingUnrealExists
This a WRONG translation, look at other translations or look at scientists who study this verse and testified to its close analogy to human embryology, of course you will not do that, you just prefer to see what proves your point.
helasmoh 9 months ago
@helasmoh Of COURSE its a wrong translation...
Quran 22: 47 A day in the sight of the Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning. Quran-32:5: To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be a thousands years of your reckoning..
Quran 70: 4 ..ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is fifty thousands years.
Not very consistent for revelation is it? Or could it just reflect the apologist claim popular by that time to explain problems already widely known in the mosaic texts?
nothingUnrealExists 9 months ago
@nothingUnrealExists
Really not consistent? Don't you know that time is relative?
helasmoh 9 months ago
@helasmoh What goes on in laboratories like what Craig venter and jack szostak do, Is controlled experiments in controlled conditions and would never occur on there primordial earth!!
They also dont create anything!!!!, they borrow and copy pre existing INFORMATION to get there experiments Going!!!! rearranging DNA and genomes, is not creating life!
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
Totally agree, still many atheists are "optimistic" that they can do what only God can do, creating life.
helasmoh 9 months ago
@helasmoh "This engineered DNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial DNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@helasmoh Quran 15: 19 And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon Mountains firm and immovable;
Quran 78: 6-7 Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs (anchor)?
I guess Allah didn't know about plate tectonics.
nothingUnrealExists 9 months ago
@helasmoh Modern attempts to inject science into the Quran to make it look less foolish are WRONG tranlations. Aristotle described the function of the umbilical cord in the fourth century B.C., so Mo hardly needed help from God to understand basic embryological development. But Aristotle thought semen a congealment of pure blood by the "heat of man". "Alaqua" meant "clot", or "clinging" (as in clay) according to the Qamus al-Muheet (the great, 14th century dictionary of Arabic),
nothingUnrealExists 9 months ago
I understand being pro evolution and a christian but what about the 6000 years thing. Do you pick and choose what you believe in the bible and what you do not.
yonasman01 10 months ago
@yonasman01
I'm a Muslim, I believe in some parts of the Bible but not all of it as it was changed with time. I also believe that the universe is 13.72 billion years and I have absolutely no problem with science. In fact seeking science and knowledge is mandatory for every Muslim in the Quran. I hope you see my other video about recent scientific fact that was reported 1400 years ago in the Quran, My God Delusion Part 3 - How Richard Dawkins Twisted the Truth: /watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh But you must recognize that this is a milestone in the creation of life even if you don't admit that it's creating it. It's a step very close to it.
yonasman01 10 months ago
@yonasman01
I recognize that it is an important and revolutionary step for improving our heath and environmental systems. However, DNA is just a dead chemical, exactly like you heard from Craig Venter himself in this video. Humanity will NOT be able to create life. If you want to bet your eternity on that then there is nothing to discuss. Our scientific knowledge is next to nothing, don't deceive yourself.
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh You are deceiving yourself, reading modern translations that CHANGE the Quran to make it SEEM revelatory where it clearly was not. You believe you are intelligent and reasonable, but you need to believe the Quran--it's called cognitive dissonance. Go back and study Islamic writings of the middle ages and see if any of those authors saw any modern science in it. Redefining a statement as prophetic after the fact is just a trick to ensnare the fool. Don't be that fool.
nothingUnrealExists 9 months ago
@nothingUnrealExists I've recently been reading up on cognitive dissonance and you're bang on the head with this one, it's what makes it impossible (well almost) to convince a religious person that their arguments for design are wrong. It has nothing to do with facts or objective evidence, it's about skewing around inside their own psyche to make things work.
It's quite fascinating our minds can do this.
It's funny how atheists do this less than theists, in my experience anyway.
SamdeSquirell 9 months ago
@SamdeSquirell I hate to say it, but it seems to be a certain small mindedness. Atheists, in my opinion, are more likely to have a healthy respect for scale--an understanding for the size of the universe and their own place in it. Once one comes to grips with that, one has less need to be made to feel "special". But without it, one become DESPERATE to maintain the illusion required by ego. The sad thing is, we ARE special. Special and insignificant, and all the more precious for our mortality.
nothingUnrealExists 9 months ago
@nothingUnrealExists This is far from creating life, look at dawkins so desperate to believe venter created life..lol..Venter COPIED an already existing genome!!, and rearranged DNA, and Spliced in his watermarks! and then inserted it back into a living bacterium!! and don't forget about the synthesizing machines!! This is such Bullshit!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@yonasman01
LOL, I even quoted a verse from the Quran and you still think I'm Christian. I'm a Muslim, I believe the universe is 13.72 billion years old. I choose science and God at the same time. Don't believe the lies that Dawkins is feeding you. I also believe in Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ, all of them came with the same message and from the same God. Open your eyes dear friend, please watch my video Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss Vs. Fairies: /watch?v=eGPLaKIZU1w
helasmoh 9 months ago
1. There is life
2. Humans can't engineer organisms (yet)
3. ???
4. God did it.
...what?
XDeatharcX 11 months ago
@XDeatharcX
That challenge of the Quran is 1400 years old. Humans can't engineer organisms (yet) and will NEVER be able to. Don't bet your eternity on it, that's a very unwise "wager". We should know "How God did it", this universe was created on the bases of scientific laws, abiogenesis and evolution are among them.
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh your still missing the proof, simply saying that humans cannot do something does not give warrant to assume a God being exists. The Quran or any other book is not proof either, because that is circular.
XDeatharcX 10 months ago
@XDeatharcX
There are hundreds of proofs for people of knowledge. Many scientists studied the Quran and converted to Islam. Can a 1400 years-old book do that? watch my other videos, My God Delusion Part 1, 2 and 3 or check my favorites. However, people who see only what they want to see will be completely blind of these proofs.
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh Christians would say the same thing. They would also say their God created the universe. Who knows, maybe it's Zeus?
treasuredroperX 9 months ago