What scientific developments can be attributed to the Qur'an?

[Hitman]

its possible, however several tests have proven that the inception of amino acids are possible, without humans as the precursor. Funny thing to say that it is impossible for life to not have emerged from the "primordial soup" when masses of biologists are in agreement over the plausibility of life emerging from amino acids. Anyways, we don't see eye to eye on this matter. Im an avid reader of biological articles btw, so my sources are cross referenced.

How stupid does that statement of yours sound to you when you repeat it? "Proving that something is possible"? LOOOL. You want to attack religion only because something is "possible"? Many things are possible according to scientific theories, even time travel.

You're definitely right, we don't see eye-to-eye; we believe that there's an intelligent creator behind design.

 

[supz]

How stupid does that statement of yours sound to you when you repeat it? "Proving that something is possible"? LOOOL. You want to attack religion only because something is "possible"? Many things are possible according to scientific theories, even time travel.

You're definitely right, we don't see eye-to-eye; we believe that there's an intelligent creator behind design.

Very dumb to compare time travel to forming new amino acids. One has been methodologically proven whilst the other hasn't. Yes, you're right. We definitely don't see eye to eye.

 

[Zak Jingo]

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[JohnDoe]

How stupid does that statement of yours sound to you when you repeat it? "Proving that something is possible"? LOOOL. You want to attack religion only because something is "possible"? Many things are possible according to scientific theories, even time travel.

You're definitely right, we don't see eye-to-eye; we believe that there's an intelligent creator behind design.

I don't claim to know what started this off so don't assume I believe "something came from nothing." Now about irrational beliefs let's see:
1) I'm not the one who believes stars are missiles thrown at nosy Jinns
2) I'm not the one who believes a man flew to heaven on a winged horse
3) I'm not the one who believes in evil eye and other superstitions
4) I'm not the one who believes there's a tribe who dwarfs mankind's population but are divided by a wall somewhere on earth
5) Neither am I the one who believes hilib can strike a dead man back to life.
So saaxib it's wise you look at your own laces before you do mine.
PS: You should've changed your earlier username "Realist" to "Fantasist" instead of Hitman because you've frankly been missing all the targets

 

[Zak Jingo]

I don't claim to know what started this off so don't assume I believe "something came from nothing." Now about irrational beliefs let's see:
1) I'm not the one who believes stars are missiles thrown at nosy Jinns
2) I'm not the one who believes a man flew to heaven on a winged horse
3) I'm not the one who believes in evil eye and other superstitions
4) I'm not the one who believes there's a tribe who dwarfs mankind's population but are divided by a wall somewhere on earth
5) Neither am I the one who believes hilib can strike a dead man back to life.
So saaxib it's wise you look at your own laces before you do mine.
PS: You should've changed your earlier username "Realist" to "Fantasist" instead of Hitman because you've frankly been missing all the targets

People like you always tend follow what fits in their narrow human mind. We will never understand these beliefs, you atheists always take in what you can understand. In Islam we are told to believe, and our religion is built upon miracles.

 

[Hitman]

Very dumb to compare time travel to forming new amino acids. One has been methodologically proven whilst the other hasn't. Yes, you're right. We definitely don't see eye to eye.

It's not dumb at all. I'm just demonstrating the amount of absurd things that are possible according to "scientific" theories. Yes Amino acids have been known to exist but it's the idea of life originating from 20 amino acids that I'm attacking LMFAO. I'm comparing that to time-travel, in fact life originating from amino acids has even less evidence than time-travel does Wallahi. IMO, it's more absurd than time travel.

I did not even quote this to disprove the idea of amino acids being used to explain the origin of life, I was being lenient to you...

"The origin of life could only have resulted from the action of an intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural universe."

"There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know."

"Later, concerning the question of the origin of such a molecule, Pross said, ". . . one might facetiously rephrase the question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?"2

One of the points he made was:

"An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an incredible clutter."

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. "

He raises a lot more interesting points and questions that would leave one (who thoroughly understands the points he made) astounded at the fact that there are still people who claim the evolution can be used to explain the origin of the universe:

http://www.icr.org/article/few-reasons-evolutionary-origin-life-impossible/

 

[supz]

It's not dumb at all. I'm just demonstrating the amount of absurd things that are possible according to "scientific" theories. Yes Amino acids have been known to exist but it's the idea of life originating from 20 amino acids that I'm attacking LMFAO. I'm comparing that to time-travel, in fact life originating from amino acids has even less evidence than time-travel does Wallahi. IMO, it's more absurd than time travel.

I did not even quote this to disprove the idea of amino acids being used to explain the origin of life, I was being lenient to you...

"The origin of life could only have resulted from the action of an intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural universe."

"There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know."

"Later, concerning the question of the origin of such a molecule, Pross said, ". . . one might facetiously rephrase the question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?"2

One of the points he made was:

"An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an incredible clutter."

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. "

He raises a lot more interesting points and questions that would leave one (who thoroughly understands the points he made) astounded at the fact that there are still people who claim the evolution can be used to explain the origin of the universe:

http://www.icr.org/article/few-reasons-evolutionary-origin-life-impossible/

points to parry your argument

1. there are currently 55 amino acids identified including the amino acids that are the constituents to the proteins. transaminase enzymes would be capable of changing the useless amino acids into the useful ones to accelerate the production of life.
2. scientists are certain that primitive prolonged life on earth did not start immediately. Life started and ended haphazardly, due to the harsh condition of the planet in its early years,(typically a large margin of error).
3. The racemix mixture of amino acids and the sugars due to the chiral carbons, actually support the theory of evolution as the proteins and sugars require a very precise degree of specific receptors to absorb them and carry out the necessary processes to function. The receptors which are coded by genes could only be inherited from other organisms.
4. The publisher forgot to take into account, natural selection. If the sugars and the proteins where to become different enantiomers, this would result in natural selection...
Bruh, i don't even have a degree in biology, and I can see the faults.

 

[Zak Jingo]

Forget this Basic Science Amino Acid BS, lets talk about Zam Zam Water.

 

[supz]

reverse rna transcriptase enzyme

 

[Hitman]

points to parry your argument

1. there are currently 55 amino acids identified including the amino acids that are the constituents to the proteins. transaminase enzymes would be capable of changing the useless amino acids into the useful ones to accelerate the production of life.
2. scientists are certain that primitive prolonged life on earth did not start immediately. Life started and ended haphazardly, due to the harsh condition of the planet in its early years,(typically a large margin of error).
3. The racemix mixture of amino acids and the sugars due to the chiral carbons, actually support the theory of evolution as the proteins and sugars require a very precise degree of specific receptors to absorb them and carry out the necessary processes to function. The receptors which are coded by genes could only be inherited from other organisms.
4. The publisher forgot to take into account, natural selection. If the sugars and the proteins where to become different enantiomers, this would result in natural selection...
Bruh, i don't even have a degree in biology, and I can see the faults.

LMFAO the idea that there's more amino acids only solidifies the points he made. He did not forget about natural selection, rather the points he made was purposely to reject that the idea of natural selection could have been plausible. The amino acids and sugars (the type and nature of these amino acids) he made mention of also cause one to doubt the idea of amino acids being used to explain the origin of life. He did not say a "race mix" occurred you liar, he made mention of the fact that "hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced" and that most amino acids today are largely left-handed, whilst a balance would have been required. Why are you changing his words/putting words in his mouth?

The "possibility" of amino acids being a reason to explain the origin of life means nothing. Time-travel is possible according to some scientific theories ffs.

 

[Hitman]

@supz, some more important points he made:

"The absence of the required atmosphere.

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.

2. All forms of raw energy are destructive.

The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy.The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source.4 Here evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In his comments on Miller's experiment, D. E. Hull stated that "These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."

We both know that your stance on this issue is that amino acids explaining the origins of life is merely "possible" according to science, it can never be proven; and if something is possible, it does not make it a legitimate conclusion.

Continue to believe in your irrational nonsense.

 

[supz]

LMFAO the idea that there's more amino acids only solidifies the points he made. He did not forget about natural selection, rather the points he made was purposely to reject that the idea of natural selection could have been plausible. The amino acids and sugars (the type and nature of these amino acids) he made mention of also cause one to doubt the idea of amino acids being used to explain the origin of life. He did not say a "race mix" occurred you liar, he made mention of the fact that "hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced" and that most amino acids today are largely left-handed, whilst a balance would have been required. Why are you changing his words/putting words in his mouth?

The "possibility" of amino acids being a reason to explain the origin of life means nothing. Time-travel is possible according to some scientific theories ffs.

A racemix mixture refers to a mixture of a specific amino acid or any other enantiomer that is 50% right handed and 50% left handed. hortaba the publisher made a big mistake. homochirality acts as evidence that all organisms are related, as chirality is inherited. An organism using left handed amino acids cannot produce offsprings that produce right handed amino acids, or its entire biochemistry would fall apart. In addition to that the incorporation of D- sugars in rna and dan cannot produce an organism With Lsugars in dna and rna. Its not logically sound. Natural selection is plausible as it gives a reason as to what happened to all the organisms that are inclined to produce the D-sugars and amino acids. where are all the organisms producing right handed enantiomers?

amino acids are a possibility after all ,they are the building blocks of life.

 

[supz]

You forget that life began deep in the ocean and deep crevices according to evolutionists, the organisms were sheltered from the harsh sun. There was also a different biochemical pathway for respiration. I am currently studying chemical engineering so i know a hefty amount about thermodynamics haha.

 

[JohnDoe]

You forget that life began deep in the ocean and deep crevices according to evolutionists, the organisms were sheltered from the harsh sun. There was also a different biochemical pathway for respiration. I am currently studying chemical engineering so i know a hefty amount about thermodynamics haha.

You're not at @Hitman level I'm afraid. The brother is a polymath.

 

[Zak Jingo]

You forget that life began deep in the ocean and deep crevices according to evolutionists, the organisms were sheltered from the harsh sun. There was also a different biochemical pathway for respiration. I am currently studying chemical engineering so i know a hefty amount about thermodynamics haha.

'according to evolutionists' that's the problem. Your stating everything on evolutionists, and we are stating everything on the Quran. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Hitman]

A racemix mixture refers to a mixture of a specific amino acid or any other enantiomer that is 50% right handed and 50% left handed. hortaba the publisher made a big mistake. homochirality acts as evidence that all organisms are related, as chirality is inherited. An organism using left handed amino acids cannot produce offsprings that produce right handed amino acids, or its entire biochemistry would fall apart. In addition to that the incorporation of D- sugars in rna and dan cannot produce an organism With Lsugars in dna and rna. Its not logically sound. Natural selection is plausible, where are all the organisms producing right handed enantiomers.

amino acids are a possibility after all ,they are the building blocks of life.

Dude what the f*ck? You just proved my point and the point that the author has made. He clearly mentioned that most amino acids are left handed and a balance would have been required for them to produce right-handed offsprings, thus reproduction would have been impossible since there isn't a balance. Also you've not addressed the many points that this scientist has made. Would you believe me if I told you that you've not even addressed one? Dude you're confused as f*ck lmfao.


Ok, you let this "possibility" (according to science) shape your beliefs if that's what you want. Time-travel and many other absurd phenomena are possible according to scientific theories.

There are many alternative conclusions from the same material, it's up to you if you want to research that. "What other conclusions can be drawn"

 

[Zak Jingo]

You're not at @Hitman level I'm afraid. The brother is a polymath.

@JohnDoe, you didn't stack enough doe to go Dugsi.

 

[supz]

Dude what the f*ck? You just proved my point and the point that the author has made. He clearly mentioned that most amino acids are left handed and a balance would have been required for them to produce right-handed offsprings, thus reproduction would have been impossible since there isn't a balance. Also you've not addressed the many points that this scientist has made. Would you believe me if I told you that you've not even addressed one? Dude you're confused as f*ck lmfao.


Ok, you let this "possibility" (according to science) shape your beliefs if that's what you want. Time-travel and many other absurd phenomenon are possible according to scientific theories.

There are many alternative conclusions from the same material, it's up to you if you want to research that. "What other conclusions can be drawn"

Are you stupid? Has it ever occurred to you that not all scientists share the same views on hypotheses?
This publisher is the one confused and heavily biased. Phylogenecists believe that circular polarised radiation was accountable for the selective destruction of the right orientated chiral. I did address it sxb.
I think that you're the one confused, you clearly agree that all the amino acids are left handed enantiomers. Doesn't that equate to the belief that you believe that all organisms are related since, this trait can only be passed on? This is fact btw. (the part about the genes to produce left handed chiral).

 

[Hitman]

Are you stupid? Has it ever occurred to you that not all scientists share the same views on hypotheses?
This publisher is the one confused and heavily biased. Phylogenecists believe that circular polarised radiation was accountable for the selective destruction of the right orientated chiral. I did address it sxb.
I think that you're the one confused, you clearly agree that all the amino acids are left handed enantiomers. Doesn't that equate to the belief that you believe that all organisms are related since, this trait can only be passed on? This is fact btw. (the part about the genes to produce left handed chiral).

Look dude, I don't give a shit what some phylogeneticists believe lmao... There's absolutely no evidence to support their hypothesis on how these amino acids where destroyed... I don't believe that all amino acids are right-handed, I believe that a large number of them are (relative to those that are right-handed). You've still not addressed the points that the author has made, I've read the article in its entirety and no where does he display confusion (in the slightest).

 

[Hitman]

The part where he said "not all scientists share the same views on hypotheses", this idiot just admitted that his views are shaped by a bunch of lab dwellers (the vast majority of them being on the payroll) that frequently contradict each other. I don't have anything against scientists by the way, I have respect for scientists who develop theories that actually hold weight in real life.

Continue...