sino:


I apologize for misrepresenting your post, it was a honest mistake; I thought you were already thinking right, but alas!

I am certain I explicitly pointed out the correlation between earth and air, and what my arguments were. That you want to fault my analogy based on your own interpretation of 'facts' is absolutely ridiculous...

First and foremost, I never said we use air for respiration, when I proposed my analogy; I was specific about the use of oxygen and for what purpose!

Lol, you keep trying hard to defend this apology, it is a poor example. I wonder who's not thinking between me and you.

sino:


Secondly, my analogy is based on the source of what is being used, hence, earth and air should be in the same category, for both comprises of mixtures of different materials! Science acknowledges this facts!

Your analogy is based on what is being used and leaves out what is being quoted by the the Qur'an and science. I seriously think you deserve a Nobel Prize for this analogy for it's nebulousness.

I maintain that science has never claimed that air is used for respiration.
But the Qur'an has always claimed that Earth was used to make man.

sino:

Thirdly, Earth is used, so also air is used, and what is needed is embedded in these two sources!

Yes, earth is used to make man according to the Qur'an, but air is not used for respiration. At least science does not claim that.

This is my position and it is what makes your silly analogy faulty.

You have really tried to sway that into helping and promoting your narrative. Well done.

sino:

Lol, what else can you say except denials, but I am not here to tell you to believe in creation, I know you guys better than that, but you are here arguing about process of creation you know nothing about, but want to pontificate?!

You should first get a good grasp of what analogy is and how it is applied accordingly, that you do not believe in creation or it is a myth is absolutely insignificant to the discussion at hand. My analogy brings to fore what is known to you, to explain the possible similarities to what you clearly are ignorant of!

Thanks for not telling me to believe creation, it's very unbelievable so I'm not yielding. Why would we even need to believe truths and facts? You only believe something that is not a fact. I salute you for believing in creation. You're really intelligent sir


Just point to where the Qur'an said we use some of the constituents of earth to create man, just as your analogy points to one of the constituents of air being used for respiration. Only then will the analogy stand. Simple enough

sino:


Intelligence is not only about regurgitating things already explained by others but the ability to synthesize peculiar thoughts from what is known to understand the complex and the unknown…I deal with “thinking about thinking”, I am way ahead of the likes of you!

I know that part of intelligence is to believe things without facts, part of being intelligent is to assume or believe that a being which is a spirit exists and created man from Earth. Lol.

I also know that part of being intelligent is to provide a poor analogy and try to escape scrutiny and criticism of such analogy. I don't know the peculiar thoughts you have synthesized in this argument, I see how you think about thinking by repeating that as air is used for respiration, so was earth used for the creation of man is a valid representation of logic.

You sir, are one hell of an intelligent human being.

You are ahead of the likes of us, that's true only when your ignorance is considered.

sino:


Of course, respiration is respiration, even though there are different types, the fact that different organism can respire anaerobically; gives credence to my position and analogy. It is part of complexity of life, humans use oxygen out of the myriad of other possibilities available in air, likewise, plants for example, make use of carbon dioxide rather than oxygen...But again, we are talking about humans here![

Let me just laugh off your ignorance, you just proved that air is not what we use for respiration here. This approves my faulting of your analogy that you cannot place air in the same category with earth in an analogy when this argument is concerned.

But since you're a thinker of thinking, you know it all. Lmao.

sino:


Lol, does the earth not contain what we are made up of? Does air not contain oxygen for respiration? Does human respiration need other gases in air? Why do we have to breathe in the air wholly?

By the way, I never said a part of earth was used; perhaps you should take your own advice as you've posted above!

Let me quickly nullify your explanation which supports your narrative again.
The Qur'an said, man was created from Earth. Specifically and nothing more. No further explanation like we took part of earth to create man.

But science was explicit too and said, man need oxygen for respiration. But the only place man get the oxygen from is from the lungs and the lungs hat the oxygen from the atmosphere. The purpose of air to man is not specifically to produce oxygen, air has many purposes.

sino:


It is your logic that is failing you, the reason you can’t answer a simple question oga biochemist! Where do humans get oxygen for respiration from?!

You are terribly mistaken and ignorant of chemistry and biochemistry. Man gets oxygen from the atmosphere. Do you understand that?

Oxygen exists as molecules even in air, oxygen is not bound to anything. Maybe because they call it air and a mixture actually confuses you which I am surprised because you said you are ahead of the likes of us. Tell me now , do you think we need to separate oxygen from all other gases before we respire, you know like breaking some chemical bonds?

Air is not even a necessity for respiration. It has been demonstrated many times. Divers, swimmers etc.

Air is not a molecule or a compound, air does not have a quantity, it's just like mixing things together and the constituents are existing independently.

sino:


This is hilarious, school me on abiogenesis?! What is even your area of specialty in the field of biochemistry?!

Yes, absolutely. I will and can school you on abiogenesis if you don't mind.

sino:


And here it, that pride which is only expressed as a result of small, tiny knowledge you think you have...You have studied biochemistry to what level if I may ask? You don't know me, nor do you know my background, but can write that I haven't studied biochemistry?! As the saying goes, “na empty korodom dey make noise pass...”

Lol, what an irony. You speaking of pride is really an irony. Mr better than the likes of us, how dare you?

Whatever you have studied is your problem, if you had studied biochemistry even for a year, you wouldnt have made most of the statements you've made here.

sino:


The Qur'an is not Harpers or Lehniger, you may read my response to tr.ue2god in my previous post...

Me I no sabi anything o. But you wey sabi, what do you even know about life?! Can you bring the dead back to life?!

On this I concur. The Qur'an can never be Lehninger or any biochemistry textbook. They are not in the same category when it comes to truths and facts. The facts in lehninger are testable and verifiable. Well, how can we verify the claims in the Qur'an? By you explaining what you think? I guess not.

sino:


Lol, you trying to be smart by half, but I do understand your plight, by the way, I never claimed Merriam Webster is a scientific or biological dictionary, while I was clear on the use of general terms in my definition of respiration, but you know, since you are a biochemist, English seems to be very difficult for you to understand, the pathways seems to be inhibiting the level of your comprehension!

The laughable thing about you is that all these stories had already been captured in my simple analogy; I am only asking you for the source of oxygen for man’s respiration, and not what is needed and what is not! Do we breathe in air?! Is air the source of the oxygen for respiration?! Are there other gases in air?! Why it is that only oxygen is needed while we take in all the available gases?!

By the way, like the source of Adam (AS), the earth was used “WHOLLY”, so also man uses air “WHOLLY”….But what is NEEDED for creation, is what can be found in present day man, just as only oxygen is NEEDED for respiration!

Oya argue, mr biochemist!

PS: This is from the site you posted the above definition:

“Aerobic respiration

Glucose and oxygen react together in cells to produce carbon dioxide and water and releases energy. The reaction is called aerobic respiration because oxygen from the AIR is needed for it to work.”

There is no general term for respiration, that's a wrong definition from the dictionary. Respiration is what it is.

Lmao. So can man respire in the absence of air and the presence of only oxygen? I believe you will answer this.

I have answered many times that man uses oxygen from the atmosphere. Air is a mixture of gases, just a mixture. If one or two of the constituents disappear today and it remains oxygen and carbondioxide alone, it will cease to be air and respiration will continue.

Do you need me to break all these explanations down for you? Lol.

If oxygen only is available and air is not, we will still respire and live normally. This is not secondary school science. Learn.

Oxygen is the needed source of electron for respiration and science has claimed that.

But the claim of the Qur'an is that earth not part of earth was used for creation of man. In light of this, your analogy is a wreck.

I agree that you tried bringing an analogy, but you're only close. The analogy is wrong.

Air contains oxygen used for respiration, it was stated.
Oxygen is what we use for respiration, it was stated.

Earth was used to create man. It was stated
Part of the constituents of earth was used to create man. No it wasn't stated.

Is this not simple enough that the analogy can't work? Mr intelligent and ahead of the likes of us, I am terribly disappointed!

Rashduct4luv:


See biochemist thrashing the years of research of a Professor. Since you were against the Qur'an i was thinking you would believe your science scholars. Never knew you were not even scholastic sef!

Alright! I end my discussion with you!

What do you mean here? You're so prejudiced.

So because a professor made a wrong hypothesis, I cannot trash it? You think there's seniority when it comes to scientific findings? Lol

Since I was against the Qur'an? So I'm supposed to accept the words in the Qur'an which are lies and are against reality?

You expect me to believe science scholars?

You think I'm you who believe without honestly scrutinizing what you believe? So being scholastic is by believeing anything scholars present to you? Lwkmd

Goodbye , your level of prejudice is so mighty.

tintingz:
We don't believe in science scholars we look up to scientific experiments, theories. The beauty of science is that criticism and disagreement is very allowed, if an hypothesis is well and professionally experimented and tested then we will accept it and if it's the opposite we will thrash it out, in fact it's one of the main principles for scientific progress.

For your above claim to be valid, you need to answer the following questions:

what's your field of Specialistion?

At what degree go you operate? (1st, 2nd,...)

How many papers have you submitted?

In what Journal were your best research(es) published?

And was it accepted nationally and internationally?

If you pass the above test then you may certainly be scholastic enough to thrash "a Professor's years of research" otherwise you're just a jape!

Rashduct4luv:


For your above claim to be valid, you need to answer the following questions:

what's your field of Specialistion?

At what degree go you operate? (1st, 2nd,...)

How many papers have you submitted?

In what Journal were your best research(es) published?

And was it accepted nationally and internationally?

If you pass the above test then you may certainly be scholastic enough to thrash "a Professor's years of research" otherwise you're just a jape!

Are these the requirements for being a scholar?

Rashduct4luv:


For your above claim to be valid, you need to answer the following questions:

what's your field of Specialistion?

At what degree go you operate? (1st, 2nd,...)

How many papers have you submitted?

In what Journal were your best research(es) published?

Im not a scholar nor a scientist, but I've read a lot of scientific theories.

And was it accepted nationally and internationally?

There is scientific consensus, this is where community of scientists come together to make judgments, opinions, position of a particular subject.

If you pass the above test then you may certainly be scholastic enough to thrash "a Professor's years of research" otherwise you're just a jape!

What I said in my previous post is what science is all about.

Akin1212:


Are these the requirements for being a scholar?

Help me ask am again.

Akin1212:


Lol, you keep trying hard to defend this apology, it is a poor example. I wonder who's not thinking between me and you.



Your analogy is based on what is being used and leaves out what is being quoted by the the Qur'an and science. I seriously think you deserve a Nobel Prize for this analogy for it's nebulousness.

I maintain that science has never claimed that air is used for respiration.
But the Qur'an has always claimed that Earth was used to make man.



Yes, earth is used to make man according to the Qur'an, but air is not used for respiration. At least science does not claim that.

This is my position and it is what makes your silly analogy faulty.

You have really tried to sway that into helping and promoting your narrative. Well done.



Thanks for not telling me to believe creation, it's very unbelievable so I'm not yielding. Why would we even need to believe truths and facts? You only believe something that is not a fact. I salute you for believing in creation. You're really intelligent sir


Just point to where the Qur'an said we use some of the constituents of earth to create man, just as your analogy points to one of the constituents of air being used for respiration. Only then will the analogy stand. Simple enough



I know that part of intelligence is to believe things without facts, part of being intelligent is to assume or believe that a being which is a spirit exists and created man from Earth. Lol.

I also know that part of being intelligent is to provide a poor analogy and try to escape scrutiny and criticism of such analogy. I don't know the peculiar thoughts you have synthesized in this argument, I see how you think about thinking by repeating that as air is used for respiration, so was earth used for the creation of man is a valid representation of logic.

You sir, are one hell of an intelligent human being.

You are ahead of the likes of us, that's true only when your ignorance is considered.



Let me just laugh off your ignorance, you just proved that air is not what we use for respiration here. This approves my faulting of your analogy that you cannot place air in the same category with earth in an analogy when this argument is concerned.

But since you're a thinker of thinking, you know it all. Lmao.



Let me quickly nullify your explanation which supports your narrative again.
The Qur'an said, man was created from Earth. Specifically and nothing more. No further explanation like we took part of earth to create man.

But science was explicit too and said, man need oxygen for respiration. But the only place man get the oxygen from is from the lungs and the lungs hat the oxygen from the atmosphere. The purpose of air to man is not specifically to produce oxygen, air has many purposes.



You are terribly mistaken and ignorant of chemistry and biochemistry. Man gets oxygen from the atmosphere. Do you understand that?

Oxygen exists as molecules even in air, oxygen is not bound to anything. Maybe because they call it air and a mixture actually confuses you which I am surprised because you said you are ahead of the likes of us. Tell me now , do you think we need to separate oxygen from all other gases before we respire, you know like breaking some chemical bonds?

Air is not even a necessity for respiration. It has been demonstrated many times. Divers, swimmers etc.

Air is not a molecule or a compound, air does not have a quantity, it's just like mixing things together and the constituents are existing independently.



Yes, absolutely. I will and can school you on abiogenesis if you don't mind.



Lol, what an irony. You speaking of pride is really an irony. Mr better than the likes of us, how dare you?

Whatever you have studied is your problem, if you had studied biochemistry even for a year, you wouldnt have made most of the statements you've made here.



On this I concur. The Qur'an can never be Lehninger or any biochemistry textbook. They are not in the same category when it comes to truths and facts. The facts in lehninger are testable and verifiable. Well, how can we verify the claims in the Qur'an? By you explaining what you think? I guess not.

This is the most pathetic attempt for an argument, I never claimed air is used for respiration, and my analogy is based on the fact that what we are made up of, can be found in earth! Just as what what is used for respiration can be found in air! How this is nebulous for someone claiming to be a biochemist is scandalous!

But I will entertain your folly a little further, please answer the following question

How does man get the oxygen for respiration?! Is it by oxygen tanks?! Do we all carry oxygen tanks about?!

Does air not contain oxygen?! And does air not contain other gases?!

When we breath, what do we take in?! Only oxygen?!

Now after answering the questions, tell me where in my analogy that I claimed air is used for respiration?

Now read carefully: Man respire using oxygen "from" air! Is this statement wrong?!

From your own source we read:
“Aerobic respiration

Glucose and oxygen react together in cells to produce carbon dioxide and water and releases energy. The reaction is called aerobic respiration because oxygen from the AIR is needed for it to work.”

The Qur'an states, Adam (AS) was created "from" earth

You do not need to be told that oxygen is PART of air, likewise, you need not be asking silly questions or make silly statements that the Qur'an should have stated part of earth and not from earth...

These are simple comprehension issues, you do not need to have studies the whole of principles of biochemistry before you can understand!

To all other vituperations above, they do not worth any form of response!

Akin1212:


There is no general term for respiration, that's a wrong definition from the dictionary. Respiration is what it is.

Lmao. So can man respire in the absence of air and the presence of only oxygen? I believe you will answer this.

I have answered many times that man uses oxygen from the atmosphere. Air is a mixture of gases, just a mixture. If one or two of the constituents disappear today and it remains oxygen and carbondioxide alone, it will cease to be air and respiration will continue.

Do you need me to break all these explanations down for you? Lol.

If oxygen only is available and air is not, we will still respire and live normally. This is not secondary school science. Learn.

Oxygen is the needed source of electron for respiration and science has claimed that.

But the claim of the Qur'an is that earth not part of earth was used for creation of man. In light of this, your analogy is a wreck.

I agree that you tried bringing an analogy, but you're only close. The analogy is wrong.

Air contains oxygen used for respiration, it was stated.
Oxygen is what we use for respiration, it was stated.

Earth was used to create man. It was stated
Part of the constituents of earth was used to create man. No it wasn't stated.

Is this not simple enough that the analogy can't work? Mr intelligent and ahead of the likes of us, I am terribly disappointed!

Oga biochemist:

respiration 1 the process of gaseous exchange between an organism and its environment. In plants, microorganisms, and many small animals, AIR or water makes direct contact with the organism's cells or tissue fluids, and the processes of diffusion supply the organism with dioxygen and remove carbon dioxide. In larger animals the efficiency of gaseous exchange is improved by specialized respiratory organs, such as lungs and gills, which are ventilated by breathing mechanisms. These organs possess respiratory surfaces, across which gases are exchanged with the blood or other transport medium. This then carries dioxygen to the body tissues, and removes carbon dioxide.

2 or oxidative metabolism the various energy-yielding reactions of cells or organisms that require oxygen as the final electron acceptor. See respiratory chain. —respiratory adj.

Source: Oxford dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (2000). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (emphasis are mine)


Lol, I think you have gotten the point of my analogy, but just want to argue to save face!

sino:


This is the most pathetic attempt for an argument, I never claimed air is used for respiration, and my analogy is based on the fact that what we are made up of, can be found in earth! Just as what what is used for respiration can be found in air! How this is nebulous for someone claiming to be a biochemist is scandalous!

But I will entertain your folly a little further, please answer the following question

How does man get the oxygen for respiration?! Is it by oxygen tanks?! Do we all carry oxygen tanks about?!

Does air not contain oxygen?! And does air not contain other gases?!

When we breath, what do we take in?! Only oxygen?!

Now after answering the questions, tell me where in my analogy that I claimed air is used for respiration?

Now read carefully: Man respire using oxygen "from" air! Is this statement wrong?!

From your own source we read:
“Aerobic respiration

Glucose and oxygen react together in cells to produce carbon dioxide and water and releases energy. The reaction is called aerobic respiration because oxygen from the AIR is needed for it to work.”

The Qur'an states, Adam (AS) was created "from" earth

You do not need to be told that oxygen is PART of air, likewise, you need not be asking silly questions or make silly statements that the Qur'an should have stated part of earth and not from earth...

These are simple comprehension issues, you do not need to have studies the whole of principles of biochemistry before you can understand!

To all other vituperations above, they do not worth any form of response!

I seriously love to see you fail at every attempt to make this analogy valid.

I am done with showing you that your apology of an analogy is wrong.

For educational purposes. Air does not contain oxygen, air is only a term for many gases present in a place at a time. It is different from quantities and compounds such as water, salt etc.
Air does not have a quantity, it is not a compound. I have realized this need to be hammered into your head. The mixture of gases in the atmosphere that we call air are not bound together chemically. You really need to be taught chemistry.

When we breathe in air, we breathe oxygen. To avoid this kind of misinterpretation was why sometimes in biology and life sciences instead of saying we breathe in air and breathe our air, they'll rather say we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbondioxide. For clarity purposes.

While I'm done with respiration,

We needed to be told that oxygen is one of the mixture of gases in the atmosphere, we needed to be taught and it was stated before we were taught respiration. It was stated clearly.

But since the Qur'an has decided to confuse the lots of you by not giving explicit definition and explanations, it is subject to misinterpretation's from self acclaimed intelligent beings like you who attempt to explain it to suit their narrative.

While I like schooling you on certain things, I am so done with this back and forth.

These are simple comprehension issues and your own comprehension seems to be the best, right?

Goodluck with deceiving gullible people with it.

But don't forget that the Qur'an is a trash book that is insufficient at all levels in explaining the existence of man.

You want to discuss a very important issue like the existence of man , you just don't say man was created from Earth and end it there. You have to go further to explain the process and the constituents used. A biochemistry text book would have done that. But behold, the Qur'an is the best book the world has ever seen.

Be advised, get a good grasp of the term 'analogy'. So you might present a good logic next time and not this apology.

Akin1212:


You obviously think all hypothesis lead to theories, no they don't.

Most hypothesis such as this useless one die at this point, when the lies are detected.

I cannot continue the research because the hypothesis is not true and unreasonable. They claimed that clay hydrogels were responsible for holding the cell membrane together. Lol.

Like I said, the cell membrane has been extensively studied and it does not contain clay hydrogels. The cell membrane is a fluid of phospholipids. We understand how they work. That hypothesis is a lie. I can't waste money on a lie project. Do you ever wonder why the research was discontinued?

Trust me, I have found the truth but it's not in the Qur'an. I know how much you wish the Qur'an is a truth book, but it is not.

This how you know a lousy scientist (in this case one claiming to be a biochemist), show me where the researchers claimed that clay hydrogels were responsible for holding the cell membrane together or that cell membrane was made from clay hydrogels?!

One of the important point of the researh is the following:

"In simulated ancient seawater, clay forms a hydrogel – a mass of microscopic spaces capable of soaking up liquids like a sponge.

Over billions of years, chemicals confined in those spaces could have carried out the complex reactions that formed proteins, DNA and eventually all the machinery that makes a living cell work.

Clay hydrogels could have confined and protected those chemical processes until the membrane that surrounds living cells developed."

The researchers where combining geology and biochemistry (molecular biology) to propose an hypotheses, carrying out some simulated analysis, that could possibly answer some of the knotty questions in abiogenesis.

For better understanding of what the research was all about you may read the abstract below:

"In most contemporary life forms, the confinement of cell membranes provides localized concentration and protection for biomolecules, leading to efficient biochemical reactions. Similarly, confinement may have also played an important role for prebiotic compartmentalization in early life evolution when the cell membrane had not yet formed. It remains an open question how biochemical reactions developed without the confinement of cell membranes. Here we mimic the confinement function of cells by creating a hydrogel made from geological clay minerals, which provides an efficient confinement environment for biomolecules. We also show that nucleic acids were concentrated in the clay hydrogel and were protected against nuclease, and that transcription and translation reactions were consistently enhanced. Taken together, our results support the importance of localized concentration and protection of biomolecules in early life evolution, and also implicate a clay hydrogel environment for biochemical reactions during early life evolution."

To think you claim you can school anyone on abiogenesis, makes your above post disastrous to your supposed knowledge of anything science!

But again, what do I know?!

Akin1212:


I seriously love to see you fail at every attempt to make this analogy valid.

I am done with showing you that your apology of an analogy is wrong.

For educational purposes. Air does not contain oxygen, air is only a term for many gases present in a place at a time. It is different from quantities and compounds such as water, salt etc.
Air does not have a quantity, it is not a compound. I have realized this need to be hammered into your head. The mixture of gases in the atmosphere that we call air are not bound together chemically. You really need to be taught chemistry.

When we breathe in air, we breathe oxygen. To avoid this kind of misinterpretation was why sometimes in biology and life sciences instead of saying we breathe in air and breathe our air, they'll rather say we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbondioxide. For clarity purposes.

While I'm done with respiration,

We needed to be told that oxygen is one of the mixture of gases in the atmosphere, we needed to be taught and it was stated before we were taught respiration. It was stated clearly.

But since the Qur'an has decided to confuse the lots of you by not giving explicit definition and explanations, it is subject to misinterpretation's from self acclaimed intelligent beings like you who attempt to explain it to suit their narrative.

While I like schooling you on certain things, I am so done with this back and forth.

These are simple comprehension issues and your own comprehension seems to be the best, right?

Goodluck with deceiving gullible people with it.

But don't forget that the Qur'an is a trash book that is insufficient at all levels in explaining the existence of man.

You want to discuss a very important issue like the existence of man , you just don't say man was created from Earth and end it there. You have to go further to explain the process and the constituents used. A biochemistry text book would have done that. But behold, the Qur'an is the best book the world has ever seen.

Be advised, get a good grasp of the term 'analogy'. So you might present a good logic next time and not this apology.

When your source for defining respiration sated that oxygen used for man's respiration is from air, they must have been illogical right?!

Does the air we breath contain oxygen or doesn't Mr. Biochemist?!

And where did I claim the oxygen in air is combined to other gases?! Are you sure you know the meaning of mixture at all?! Are you sure you did compound and mixture in your secondary school chemistry?!

Atmosphere ko, biosphere ni....

"Humans, and many other species, need air to live. They breathe in the combination of elements and compounds and exhale a similar set with different proportions. Exhaled air consists of 78 percent nitrogen, 16 percent oxygen, 4 percent carbon dioxide and potentially thousands of other compounds." Source

Oga Ade wants to us to say we breath in atmosphere oh, sorry, oxygen lol, our distinguished Biochemist!

Rashduct4luv:


For your above claim to be valid, you need to answer the following questions:

what's your field of Specialistion?

At what degree go you operate? (1st, 2nd,...)

How many papers have you submitted?

In what Journal were your best research(es) published?

And was it accepted nationally and internationally?

If you pass the above test then you may certainly be scholastic enough to thrash "a Professor's years of research" otherwise you're just a jape!

The dude doesn't even understand the content of the journal, talk more of being able to critic or refute it! As I have opined earlier, these guys parading themselves here as intellectual atheist here, are just parochial and full of pride! The truth or even seeking it, is alien to them!

sino:


This is the most pathetic attempt for an argument, I never claimed air is used for respiration, and my analogy is based on the fact that what we are made up of, can be found in earth! Just as what what is used for respiration can be found in air! How this is nebulous for someone claiming to be a biochemist is scandalous!

But I will entertain your folly a little further, please answer the following question

How does man get the oxygen for respiration?! Is it by oxygen tanks?! Do we all carry oxygen tanks about?!

Does air not contain oxygen?! And does air not contain other gases?!

When we breath, what do we take in?! Only oxygen?!

Now after answering the questions, tell me where in my analogy that I claimed air is used for respiration?

Now read carefully: Man respire using oxygen "from" air! Is this statement wrong?!

From your own source we read:
“Aerobic respiration

Glucose and oxygen react together in cells to produce carbon dioxide and water and releases energy. The reaction is called aerobic respiration because oxygen from the AIR is needed for it to work.”

The Qur'an states, Adam (AS) was created "from" earth

You do not need to be told that oxygen is PART of air, likewise, you need not be asking silly questions or make silly statements that the Qur'an should have stated part of earth and not from earth...

These are simple comprehension issues, you do not need to have studies the whole of principles of biochemistry before you can understand!

To all other vituperations above, they do not worth any form of response!

Was Adam created from earth or part of earth?

Kindly answer and stop beating round the bush.

sino:


This how you know a lousy scientist (in this case one claiming to be a biochemist), show me where the researchers claimed that clay hydrogels were responsible for holding the cell membrane together or that cell membrane was made from clay hydrogels?!

One of the important point of the researh is the following:

"In simulated ancient seawater, clay forms a hydrogel – a mass of microscopic spaces capable of soaking up liquids like a sponge.

Over billions of years, chemicals confined in those spaces could have carried out the complex reactions that formed proteins, DNA and eventually all the machinery that makes a living cell work.

Clay hydrogels could have confined and protected those chemical processes until the membrane that surrounds living cells developed."

The researchers where combining geology and biochemistry (molecular biology) to propose an hypotheses, carrying out some simulated analysis, that could possibly answer some of the knotty questions in abiogenesis.

For better understanding of what the research was all about you may read the abstract below:

"In most contemporary life forms, the confinement of cell membranes provides localized concentration and protection for biomolecules, leading to efficient biochemical reactions. Similarly, confinement may have also played an important role for prebiotic compartmentalization in early life evolution when the cell membrane had not yet formed. It remains an open question how biochemical reactions developed without the confinement of cell membranes. Here we mimic the confinement function of cells by creating a hydrogel made from geological clay minerals, which provides an efficient confinement environment for biomolecules. We also show that nucleic acids were concentrated in the clay hydrogel and were protected against nuclease, and that transcription and translation reactions were consistently enhanced. Taken together, our results support the importance of localized concentration and protection of biomolecules in early life evolution, and also implicate a clay hydrogel environment for biochemical reactions during early life evolution."

To think you claim you can school anyone on abiogenesis, makes your above post disastrous to your supposed knowledge of anything science!

But again, what do I know?!

What do you understand by clay hydrogel?

sino:


The dude doesn't even understand the content of the journal, talk more of being able to critic or refute it! As I have opined earlier, these guys parading themselves here as intellectual atheist here, are just parochial and full of pride! The truth or even seeking it, is alien to them!

What do you understand from the hypothesis?

- Creation of Adam and the Clay hypothesis.

Was the hypothesis talking about creation of man? NO!

Was the formation something that happened in few minutes? NO, it took billion of years.

Was Allah mixing chemicals in a very slow process ? Hell NO, that God must be imperfect and a joke.

Was there any clay gene or life found on clay? NO, there is no evidence to that, no clay gene found in human.

Are we Silicon based life? Hell NO!

Is the hypothesis reliable? NO

Is Creation story a myth? YES, there are other similar myths in other cultures.

Do Muslims here understand the hypothesis? NO

This is Mufti Abu Layth al-Maliki. He talks a lot on evolution, human before human being and briefly on Adam's being created from clay.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CYLT19GX5k

His opinion on Adam's creation:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ8YbFc_emg



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJe0SL67QzM

AlBaqir,

The guy in the video didn't touch much about clay creation of man, he's trying to fit in Quran with evolution which comes with problems, hope you know that?

tintingz:
AlBaqir,

The guy in the video didn't touch much about clay creation of man, he's trying to fit in Quran with evolution which comes with problems, hope you know that?

He has actually done a full lecture on it where he brought diverse views. When I see the video, I will share it.

However, the biggest problem most traditional tafsir are facing is literal interpretation and literal/rigid/fanatical understanding. Qur'an remains constant but there's differences of opinion in its tafsir. With the help of new discoveries in science world, many things is unraveled.

At this age, to think that Allah mould Adam with clay soil by "His own hands" is dump and stupid. It is even against the natural cause of things as Quran says "everything is created from 'water'". Although to literalist, it's "miracle" and Allah can do whatever He will. Anyway, thats their own view.

AlBaqir:


He has actually done a full lecture on it where he brought diverse views. When I see the video, I will share it.

However, the biggest problem most traditional tafsir are facing is literal interpretation and literal/rigid/fanatical understanding. Qur'an remains constant but there's differences of opinion in its tafsir. With the help of new discoveries in science world, many things is unraveled.

Ok.

At this age, to think that Allah mould Adam with clay soil by "His own hands" is dump and stupid. It is even against the natural cause of things as Quran says "everything is created from 'water'". Although to literalist, it's "miracle" and Allah can do whatever He will. Anyway, thats their own view.

But Allah created Adam from clay? Yes?

Did Allah created Adam through evolutionary process? Yes?

tintingz:
Ok.

But Allah created Adam from clay? Yes?

Did Allah created Adam through evolutionary process? Yes?

If you take the word "clay" literally, that's a view that cannot be proven except with the idea of "Allah creates whatever He will and how He will it". And that's the popular traditional view but that doesn't meant it is correct.

Surah Al-Mumenoon, Verse 12 - 13:

"And certainly We created man of an extract of clay,

Then We made him a small seed in a firm resting-place"

The above verses are so flexible that it accommodate new views till tomorrow.

First, there are diverse opinion as to who the verse actually refer to. Majority are of the opinion it refered to Adam but the question is if he was LITERALLY created from LITERAL clay, why then "...made him a small seed in a firm resting place" for further development?

Some mufassirun submitted the verse first refer to Adam then the later part to his children. Interestingly, the verse is in singular, not plural (that might said to have refer to his children).

Later scholars that do not follow the usual old interpretation, explore that the verse refer to Adam but do not take the word "clay" literally. And they are also of the opinion that Adam developed in a "womb" as the verse says, "And We made him a small seed in a well resting place".

Like I said earlier the problem is in literal interpretation of the word "clay". And it affect further interpretation of whatever follows.

Today, scientists themselves have not unraveled:

1. How exactly life began on earth, and

2. Connect (evolution) of one particular "homo" to homo sapien. All what we know for now are similarities between man and previous homos.

I believe that's gonna be unraveled sooner or later likewise the "clay" part of Quran interpretation by scholars. Both still have more to study.

AlBaqir:


If you take the word "clay" literally, that's a view that cannot be proven except with the idea of "Allah creates whatever He will and how He will it". And that's the popular traditional view but that doesn't meant it is correct.

Surah Al-Mumenoon, Verse 12 - 13:

"And certainly We created man of an extract of clay,

Then We made him a small seed in a firm resting-place"

The above verses are so flexible that it accommodate new views till tomorrow.

First, there are diverse opinion as to who the verse actually refer to. Majority are of the opinion it refered to Adam but the question is if he was LITERALLY created from LITERAL clay, why then "...made him a small seed in a firm resting place" for further development?

Some mufassirun submitted the verse first refer to Adam then the later part to his children. Interestingly, the verse is in singular, not plural (that might said to have refer to his children).

Later scholars that do not follow the usual old interpretation, explore that the verse refer to Adam but do not take the word "clay" literally. And they are also of the opinion that Adam developed in a "womb" as the verse says, "And We made him a small seed in a well resting place".

Like I said earlier the problem is in literal interpretation of the word "clay". And it affect further interpretation of whatever follows.

The Quran didn't only mention clay, it also mention mud, dust, earth etc and from the logical view we can deduce Allah is talking literally about these materials.

The man in the video also suggest Allah placed Adam inside something like a womb, non of this can be found in the Quran, the seed part might be talking about another thing. I've wanted to ask, did Adam also have a belly button(navel)?.

Today, scientists themselves have not unraveled:

1. How exactly life began on earth, and

2. Connect (evolution) of one particular "homo" to homo sapien. All what we know for now are similarities between man and previous homos.

I believe that's gonna be unraveled sooner or later likewise the "clay" part of Quran interpretation by scholars. Both still have more to study.

Yes we don't certainly know the origin of life(abiogenesis), we have various theories regarding this and the clay theory is very weak in this case.

Like I asked do you believe we are as result of evolution? If yes, do you believe it took Allah billions of years to form humans and do you believe Allah was modifying and changing his creation? I hope you know what evolution means?

tintingz:
The Quran didn't only mention clay, it also mention mud, dust, earth etc and from the logical view we can deduce Allah is talking literally about these materials.

What Quran use is tin and turab. Turab means earth and tin (clay, soil, loam, etc etc) is part of earth.

When Quran says, "What prevents thee from prostrating thyself to one whom I have created with my hands?" Do you expect me to treat that literally as in God mixed literal clay with water, blend it and mould Adam from it like a statue

If I didn't accept literalism of God having literal hand, why should I treat "created Adam from clay with my hands" literally?

AlBaqir:


What Quran use is tin and turab. Turab means earth and tin (clay, soil, loam, etc etc) is part of earth.

When Quran says, "What prevents thee from prostrating thyself to one whom I have created with my hands?" Do you expect me to treat that literally as in God mixed literal clay with water, blend it and mould Adam from it like a statue

If I didn't accept literalism of God having literal hand, why should I treat "created Adam from clay with my hands" literally?

Allah is depicted as an anthropomorphic deity, a God with human-like characters and figures maybe, except Allah is just like an energy like the pantheistic and deistic God which he's not.

The way Allah used in creating Adam if it's his literal hands or magic is not even the argument rather the material(Silicon dioxide) and process he used.

tintingz:
Allah is depicted as an anthropomorphic deity, a God with human-like characters and figures maybe, except Allah is just like an energy like the pantheistic and deistic God which he's not.

The way Allah used in creating Adam if it's his literal hands or magic is not even the argument rather the material(Silicon dioxide) and process he used.

@tintingz You don't have a sound knowledge of what you're saying your just coming here to attack Islam because of how illogical you think soil contains only silica, no H4SiO4, no Na2CO3, NH4NO3, no H2O? Look man you can never discredit that man was made out of clay, because it contains elements that are present in us or can transform into another element under special conditions, and there's nothing like evolution only metamorphosis and adaptation. Drawin was wrong since billions of dollars have been spent to prove this theory but it failed. So don't come here start acting like you know all about science, because your ignorance will not make you open minded.

najib632:
@tintingz You don't have a sound knowledge of what you're saying your just coming here to attack Islam because of how illogical you think soil contains only silica, no H4SiO4, no Na2CO3, NH4NO3, no H2O? Look man you can never discredit that man was made out of clay, because it contains elements that are present in us or can transform into another element under special conditions, and there's nothing like evolution only metamorphosis and adaptation. Drawin was wrong since billions of dollars have been spent to prove this theory but it failed. So don't come here start acting like you know all about science, because your ignorance will not make you open minded.

There is no evidence of early life form on clays, it is a very weak hypothesis.

I'm not arguing against other elements presented in these materials, I'm saying there is no silica life form, complex molecules like human beings are not compose of silica not even 1%, even we are 99% composed of water and 1% of silica it's still biologically wrong.

Clay, mud, dust, earth are silicates, you can't just separate silica from this materials because that's what they are. You even mention H4SiO4.

You said there is no evolution but only metamorphosis and adaptation, can you tell us what they mean in biology?

And after doing so tell us how it make sense with your God creation.

najib632:
@tintingz You don't have a sound knowledge of what you're saying your just coming here to attack Islam because of how illogical you think soil contains only silica, no H4SiO4, no Na2CO3, NH4NO3, no H2O? Look man you can never discredit that man was made out of clay, because it contains elements that are present in us or can transform into another element under special conditions, and there's nothing like evolution only metamorphosis and adaptation. Drawin was wrong since billions of dollars have been spent to prove this theory but it failed. So don't come here start acting like you know all about science, because your ignorance will not make you open minded.

You say what? In 2018 you are this ignorant?

What is adaptation and metamorphosis, are they genetic?

Ignorance is bliss...

tintingz:
There is no evidence of early life form on clays, it is a very weak hypothesis.

I'm not arguing against other elements presented in these materials, I'm saying there is no silica life form, complex molecules like human beings are not compose of silica not even 1%, even we are 99% composed of water and 1% of silica it's still biologically wrong.

Clay, mud, dust, earth are silicates, you can't just separate silica from this materials because that's what they are. You even mention H4SiO4.

Look this is God were talking about, you damn atheist should stop acting like you know everything, You have been dodging my statement of telling you that under special conditions which is called nuclear transmutation an element can be transformed into any other element, an atom is more advanced than you think brother you will have to study a bit of quantum physics to understand this.

tintingz:


You said there is no evolution but only metamorphosis and adaptation, can you tell us what they mean in biology?

And after doing so tell us how it make sense with your God creation.

There's distinct difference between evolution and metamorphosis and adaptation, I'll talk about them below:

metamorphosis is the growth and changes that take place during the life time of a single organism. which are of two types , hemimetabolous, and Holometabolous, humans undergo something similar to hemimetabolous metamorphosis without molting.
So it's just growth.

Adaptation is the mutation of a particular trait in an organism to fit into it's enviroment. Which results to difference in species.

Evolution is the complete transformation of an organism into another like humans evolved from apes (but we can't breed together )it still can't be proved till date because as science is advancing its exposing the flaws of Darwinism, while in adaptation the animals can still breed since they're from the same ancestor.

:

Akin1212:


You say what? In 2018 you are this ignorant?

What is adaptation and metamorphosis, are they genetic?

Ignorance is bliss...

read more