How to prepare CTAB reagent for DNA extraction

MVI 0113

How to prepare tris HCL FOR dna extraction by CTAB method

How to prepare 50 mM EDTA for DNA extraction by CTAB method

How to prepare 5M and 0 7M NaCl solutions for DNA extraction by CTAB method

google-site-verification: google1d87524db82ac982.html

Detection of amplification of DNA by addition of Sybr Green Dye in Daylight

Vitiligo-a distressful disease

White patches or vitiligo is a disease that is theorized to be autoimmune or oxidative , but it is yet to be confirmed what actually is the cause of this disease. It affects people of all ages , and is common in the teen age group. It can be generalized or patchy in which case it is said to be segmental vitiligo. The melanocytes[colour producing cells] of the skin are destroyed by autoimmune or oxidative mechanisms and the skin loses its colour. The white patchy lesions extend centrifugally, ie from the centre outwards and ultimately cover the whole body in case of generalised vitiligo. 10% of the cases are genetic but the rest are idiopathic, without an apparent cause.

How to treat vitiligo?

1. The first line of treatment is the use of immune inhibitors like corticosteroids or glucocorticoids. This may be in the form of a Dexamaethasone tube used topically. However, immune inhibitors do not work in all patients.

2. The second line of treatment is tacrolimus and its analogues , which inhibit the oxidative damage. It also comes as a cream and is also ineffective in a proportion of the population.

3. Treatment with UV B light induces repigmentation. this is called photoactivation. The mechanism of this treatment is that at the root of the hair follicles in the skin, there are melanocyte stem cells and upon irradiation by the UV rays they get stimulated, transferred to the skin and produce the melanin pigment, which recolours the skiin. this can alsoi be done by sitting for half an hour daily in direct sunlight , because the sun itself has UV rays. however, it is better to go to a clinic to do the procedure 2-3 timesa a week.

This treatment works in about 90% of the population.

4. Gingko biloba, vitamin B12 and Folic Acid: These are shown to be curatiove in vitiligo , possibly because of their antioxidative effects. Many success stories are posted on youtube and these items can be purchased from amazon.in. They have reversed the patches of many patients. the reversal begins at the edges and proceeds centripetally, leading ultimately to disappearing of all the pactches.

This treatment is to be taken for at least six months. The patches begin to disappear 2 months onwards ans spots begin to appear at the edges.

5. Copper and zinc: Vitiligo may be caused by a copper or zinc deficiency and thus these need to be taken in the diet. Copper is absorbed topically{ie through the skin] and thus a copper ring would suffice. Zinc can be taken as a supplement.

6. Herbal Treatments: Ginger extract, cucumber juice and spinach have been seen to be helpful in vitiligo. A paste of crushed black gram may be applied to the patches.

to be improved ia...

16۔گلایسیرال کیسے بنائے: سیپونیفیکیشن کا طریقہ:

سیپونیفیکیشن نام ہے ای کیمیائی تعامل کا جس میں ایک اساس(الکلی ، سوڈیم ہائڑرکسائڑ یا پوٹیشم ہائڑرکسائڑ ) کو تیل سے ملایا جاتا ہے تاکہ صابن  اور گلايسیرال بنیں۔ اس عمل کیلئے ناریل کا تیل، زیتون کا تیل، کیسٹر آیل، پالم ایل اور بہت سے دوسرے تیل استعمال ہوتے ہیں۔ جانوروں کی چربی بھی استعمال ہوسکتی ہے ، مثلا ، گاے کی چربی، بھینس کی چربی، بھیڈ کی چربی وغیرہ۔ الکلی کی موجودکی میں 115 فارنہائٹ درجہ حرارت پر تیل گلایسیرال اور صابن میں تبدیل ہوتا ہے۔ در اصل ہوتا یہ ہے کہ چربی ٹرائگلائسیرائڈ وں کی بنی ہوتی ہے اور تیل بھی ٹرایگلائسیرائڈوں کے بنے ہوتے ہیں اور الکلی کی موجودگی میں  ٹرائگلايسیرائڈ اپنے حصوں میں تقسیم ہوتا ہے، یعنی گلایسیرال  اور چربی ترشوں میں۔یہ چربی ترشے الکلی سے مل کر پابی اور نمک بناتے ہیں۔ جو نمک اس صورت میں بنتا ہے اسسے صابن کہتے ہے ۔ الکلی گلایسیرال اور چربی ترشوں کے دومیان جوڑون کو توڑتی ہے اور ہر ایک ٹرائگلایسیرايڈ  کوتین چربی ترشوں کے سالموں اور ایک کلایسیرال کے سالمے میں توڑتی ہے اور پھر اس الکلی کا ہائڑراکسل گروہ ترشہ کے ایچ پازیٹیو آین سے مل کر پانی بناتا ہے اور الکلی کی دھات ترشوں سے مل کر صابن بناتی ہے۔ سوڈیم کی صابن سخت ہوتی ہے اور پوٹیشیم کی صابن ملایم ہوتی ہے، جو کہ سوڈیم کلورائڑ ملانے پر سخت ہوجاتی ہے۔ گلیسیرال پیچھے رہ جاتا ہے۔

مکمل طریقہ:

1۔ 1600 ملی لیٹر تیل ایک برتن میں لیا جاتا ہے۔

2۔ اس میں 800 ملی لیٹر پانی ملایا جاتا ہے ، جس میں 200 گرام لے پہلے سے ملی ہو۔

3۔ان دو چیزوں کے آمیزہ کو 115 ڈگری فارنہایٹ پر رکھا جاتا ہے۔ مزکورہ برتن کو  حرارت دینے اور پھر اس میں ایک تھرمامیٹر رکھنے سے یہ کیا جاتا ہے۔

4۔ آمیزہ کو لگاتار 20-25 منٹ تک حرکت دی جاتی ہے۔ تھوڑا سا عام نمک اس میں ڈالا جاتا ہے تاکہ صابن بن کر سطح پر رہ جائے اور آسانی سے حاصل ہو۔اس عمل سے صابن بنتا ہے۔

5۔ مادے کو کجھ دیر رکھنے پر گلیسیرال کی ایک لییر ،جو ٹرانسلوسنٹ ہوتی ہے ، بنتی ہے۔ اس کے نیجے باقی ماندہ سوڈیم ہائڑراکسائڑ  اور اس کے فاسفیٹ وغیرہ ہوتے ہے۔ یہ لیییر زرد ہوتی ہے۔ اکر اس میں ایچ سی ایل یا پھاسپھورک ایسڈ  ڈالا 

جائے تو باقی ماندہ الکلی کا اثر زائل ہوتا ہے اور وہ نمک بناتی ہے ،جو کہ سطح پر فلوٹ ہوتے ہیں۔ 

نائٹرک ایسڈ بنانے کا طریقہ::

نائٹرک ایسڑایک طاقتور تیزاب ہے اور سلفیورک ا یسڑ کے بعد دنیا کا دوسرا سب سےطاقور تیزاب ہے۔

بنانے کا طریقے:

1۔ سوڈیم نایٹریٹ یا پوٹیشیم نائٹریٹ کو جب سلفیورک ایسڑ کے ساتھ جب ملایا جاتا ہے تو نائٹرک ایسڑبنتا ہے۔اس میں گرمی کی ضرورت پرتی ہے اور ڈسٹیلیشن کی بھی۔   

ایچ ٹو ایس او فور+این اےایناو تھری----------ایچ این او تھری+این اے ایس او فور

2۔ حائڑروکلورک ایسڈ بھی استعمال  کیا جا سکتا ہے لیکن پھر کاپر کو نائٹریٹ نمک میں ایچ سی ایل کے ساتھ ملانا ہوگا، جس سے این او ٹو بنتا ہے۔۔ اس  این او ٹو کو پانی سے ملانے پر نائئٹرک ایسڈ بنتا ہیں۔ پانی یا حائڑروجن پرآکسایڑ سے ملانے کے دو طریقے ہے:

(الف) چار  بیکر لیے جائے ۔ ایک میں نائئٹریٹ ڈالا جائے، دوسرے مینں ایچ سی ایل اور کاپر اور تیسرا خالی رکھا جاے۔ خالی بیکر میں دوسرا بیکر رکھا جائے اور اس کے اوپر ایک اور بیکر رکھا جائے، تاکہ جو بھی این او ٹو بن جائے وہ ماحول میں نہ نکل جائے۔

اس کے بعد باہر والے بیکر میں نائٹرک ایسڑ برآمد ہوتا ہے۔

()            دوسرا طریقہ: یہ ہے کہ  دو ہی بیکر استعمال کئے جائے اور دونوں کو پائپ سے ملایا جائے۔ یہ پائپ این او ٹو کو دوسرے بیکر میں یے جاتا ہے، جہاں وہ پانی یا ہائڑروجن پرآکسایڑ سے مل کر نائٹرک ایسڑ بناتا ہے۔ اس بیکر میں تھوڑی سی برف ڈالی جاتی ہے تاکہ این او ٹو ٹھیک سے پانی کے ساتذ مل جائے۔

۔

نائٹریٹنگ آمیزہ:

سلفیورک ایسڑ اور نایٹرک ایسڑ کا جو آمیزہ ہوتا ہے اس میں یہ صلاحیت ہوتی ہے کہ یہ لگ بگ کسی بھی مادے میں نائٹریٹ گروہ  داخل کرتا ہے۔ اس لئے اس کو نایٹریٹنگ آمیزہ یا مکسچر کہتے ہے۔ مثلا، سیلیلوز کو یہ سیلیلوز نائٹریٹ پناتا ہے اور گلیسرول کو گلیسیرول نایٹریٹ بناتا ہے۔ اسی طرح ہیکزاماین کو ہیکزامین نائٹریٹ بناتا ہے۔

نائٹرک ایسڈ کی لئے ٹیسٹ

جب کاپر یعنی تانبہ اس میں ڈالا جاتا ہے تو وہ گھل جاتا ہے۔ یہ ٹیسٹ نایٹریٹ کی مرجودگی کے لئے بھی استعمال کیا جاتا ہے۔

دوسرا ٹیسٹ ؛ ایلومونیم کو بھی نائٹرک ایسڈ حل کرتا ہے لیکن کاپر کو صرف نائٹرک ایسڈ ہی حل کرسکتا ہے، جب کہ ایلومونیم کو دوسرے کیمیائی مرکبات بھی جل کرتے ہے:مسلآ؛ سوڈیم ہائڑروکسایڈ۔

نائٹرک ایسڈ بنانے کا دوسرا طریقہ:

اصول: 

ہوا میں  الیکٹرک آرک چلانے پر نائٹرک آکسایڈ بنتا ہے ' جس کو پانی کے ساتھ ملانے پر نائٹرک ایسڈ بنتا ہے۔ الیکٹرک آرک پیدا کرنے کے لئے 17000 وولٹ  کی ضرورت پڑتی ہے، جو ایک ٹرانسفارمر کے ذریعے  سے حاصل کیاجا سکتا ہے۔ مطلوبہ ٹرانسفارمر امیذان ڈاٹ کام پر ملتا ہے۔  بجلی کو خاصی مدت چلانے پر نائٹرک ایسڈ کی ایک خاصی مقدار بنتی ہے، جس کو سوڈیم کاربونیٹ سے ملایا جا تا ہے ٹیسٹ کرنے کے لئے۔ ملانے پر مایع کے بلبلے ابلنے لکتے ہے ، جو کیمیائی تعامل کا ثبوت فراہم کرتے ہے اور یہ ثبوت بھی کہ محلل میں نائٹرک ایسد موجود ہے۔

 

مکمل طریقہ:

1۔ دو تاورں سے ٹرانسفارمر کو  ایک بوطل سے ملاتا جاتا ہے۔

2۔ ان تاورں کو بوطل میں ملاتا نہیں جاتا بلکہ قریب رکھا جاتا ہے تاکہ ارک بن سکے۔

3۔ بجلی کی سپلائی کو کھول دتا جاتا ہے اور بوطل مین پانی بھر کر بوطل کا ڈھکن بند کیا جاتا ہے۔ کچھ گھنٹوں کے بعد بوطل برون رنک کی ہوجاتی ہے [ہلکا براوں] جو اس بات کا ثبوت ہوتا ہے کہ این او ٹو بن رہا ہے۔ مذید رکھنے پر نائٹرک ایسڈ بنتا ہے۔

ٹیسٹ:

کیلشم کاربونیٹ ڈالنے پر  نآئٹرک ایسڈ ابل سا جاتا ہے۔ 

پوٹیشم ہائڈراکسایڈ یا لے کہاں سے جاصل کریں ؟

اصول:

پوٹیشم چونکہ جاندارون کے بنیادی خلیوں میں ہوتا ہے، اس لئے یہ لگ بگ ہر چگہ موجود ہے، خصوصا  جانداری مادے (آرگینک میٹر)میں ، لیکن عام طور پر یہ کچھ چیزوں مین دوسری چیزوں کی بہ نسبت زیادہ ہوتا ہے۔ مثلا، کیلے کے چھلکے میں پوٹیشم کی خاصی مقدار ہوتی ہے۔ ان چیزرں کو جلانے پر جو راکھ بچ جاتی ہے اس میں پوٹیشم کی خاصی مقدار ہوتی ہے۔ اس کو پانی سے ملانے پر پوٹیشم ہائڈراکسایڈ ملتا ہے۔ سلیس الفاظ میں پوٹیشم ان چیزوں سے حاصل ہوتا ہے:

1۔ مٹی

2۔ کیلے کے چھلکے

3۔ دوسرے جانداری مادہ سے۔

4۔ لکزی کی راکھ سے۔

5۔ کسی بھی چیز کی راکھ سے۔

6۔ صابن سے۔

مکمل طریقہ:

1۔ لکڑی یا کیلوں کو جلایا جاتا ہے تاکہ ان کی راکھ تیار ہوجاے۔

2۔ اس تیار کردہ راکھ کو ایک بالٹی میں رکھا جاتا ہے۔

3۔ بالٹی میں پانی بھر دیا جاتا ہے اور پھر پانی کو راکھ کے ساتھ ملایا جاتا ہے۔

۔4۔ دوسری بالٹی اے دہانے پر ایک کپڑا باندھا جاتا ہے تاکہ اے راکھ اور پانی کے آمیزے کو فلٹر کیا جائے۔

5۔ مزکورہ آمیزہ کو فلٹر کیا جاتا ہے اور فلٹریٹ کو دوسری بالٹی میں جمع کیا جاتا ہے۔  جو ٹھوس مادہ فلٹریشن کے بعد بچ جاتا ہے اسسے پھینک دیا جاتا ہے۔

6۔ فلٹریٹ کو ابالا جاتا ہے اور ڈیکینٹیشن کے ذریعے سے صاف کیا جاتا ہے۔

7۔ اس کے بعد پھر ابالا جاتا ہے جب تک ٹھوس مادہ ہاتھ میں نہ آجائے۔ اس کے دوران ایک خاص نوعیت کا مادہ بنتا ہے جو اس وقت بھی بنتا ہے جب لکڑی کی راکھ اور خشک کردہ پیشاب کو ابالا جاتا ہے تاکہ اس سے نائٹریٹ نکالا جائے۔ دیکھئے باب مرکوم بہ نکتہ ---۔

The Athmor Paradox and the Argument from Conscience

The Atheist Morality paradox is a dilemna of atheists and agnostics that if there is atheist morality, what is it based on? the answer given may be 'on human reason and logic' but given the fact that morality is not amenable to scientific testing, this reason and logic will vary from person to person. Thus, there can be no objective morality based on reason and logic alone. 
Some people talk about atheist morality that atheists are as moral as theists or even better. the basic problem is that what thing are you basing your morality on? If the answer provided is reason, then each individual has his own reason. For example, a thief will argue that he gets easy money by stealing, then why should he work? This is the atheist morality paradox(athmor paradox). Actually, morality is something related to the soul and is non-material or spiritual. There can be no materialistic and objective reason for it . All material reasons cited are subjective and differ from person to person. In materialism, good cannot be proven to be good and bad cannot be proven to be bad. But everybody knows that whenever someone murders anyone else, one feels a bad feeling in the heart and one judges it to be bad. This judgement is not from any material reason only(though material reasons may be cited , which are however secondary), but by a moral and spiritual reason. this is the argument from conscience. No doubt, hormones play their role in it, but the ultimate perception of the good and the nad is related to the soul(see the concept of soul).

Tismitiwtesbador argument for the existence of the Day of Judgement

Tismitiwtesbador is a vovel-corrected acronym for there-is-so-much-injustice-in-this-world-that-there-should-be-a-day-of-recompense and is self explanatory. No doubt people do get justice in this world but not all the cases of rape, murder, loot, theft, oppression, tyranny and the like are addressed. Many times the courts give decision against the truth. how many rapes are turned down in a court due to lack of evidence. How mant thefts go on without justice due too lack of evidemnce? How many abductions occur without an inkling of who has done it? How many judicial judgements are orchestrated by the influence and power of the accused. In short, an unimaginably large portion of the population on this earth is subjected to injustice and does not get justice and dies without justice. 

Now, a human being can take three positions in this case, all of which of which are not amenable to scientific testing;

- there is a day of recompense, where all the wrongs done will be redressed and the right things done will be rewarded.

-there is no day of recompense at all. 

- i do not know.(the IDNK argument based on the assumption that scientific method can be used to arrive at all reality. )

The first belief is the most logical of all the three and it provides an incentive for people to do good and acts as a threat to do bad. this helps to build a better society. the second belief is illogical, and it will motivate people towards bad deeds for personal gains. this has been seen in the world. Some people talk about atheist morality that atheists are as moral as theists or even better. the basic problem is that what thing are you basing your morality on? If the answer provided is reason, then each individual has his own reason. For example, a thief will argue that he gets easy money by stealing, then why should he work? This is the atheist morality paradox(athmor paradox). Actually, morality is something related to the soul and is non-material or spiritual. There can be no materialistic and objective reason for it . All material reasons cited are subjective and differ from person to person. In materialism, good cannot be proven to be good and bad cannot be proven to be bad. But everybody knows that whenever someone murders anyone else, one feels a bad feeling in the heart and one judges it to be bad. This judgement is not from any material reason only(though material reasons may be cited , which are however secondary), but by a moral and spiritual reason. this is the argument from conscience. no doubt, hormones play their role in it, but the ultimate perception of the good and the nad is related to the soul(see the concept of soul).

A brief postmortem of atheism and its basic arguments and assertions

An Introduction to the Scientific Method

Watch this video:

Two divisions of reality or experience

Reality is perceived by human experience, which is of two types:

• Material experience(The Scientific method and others).
• Non-material experience: These are the things experienced by humans but not proven by the scientific method. Morality, consciousness, love, hate, emotion, anger and humanity and all other emotions all fall under non-material experience or non-material reality. no doubt hormones play a role in these emotions but the Question 'who is the perceiver' cannot be answered by materialism. The perceiver has to be non-material. in other words, it has to be the soul.  Hence, it is clear that materialism is not a complete perception of the reality. 

Invalidity of the Smitmtktr argument

Scientific-method-is-the-only-method-to-know-the-reality(smitmtktr) argument asserts that the whole of human experience and reality can come under the purview of the scientific method.  However, this is not the case. this is not the case. Morality, which exists, is not provable by the scientific method. The scientific method cannot tell us why morality exists or what is the cause of morality. Hence, realities do exist that are not amenable to testing by the scientific method. The scientific method covers only the material realities nd not the non-material ones , like morality. The smitmtktr argument is a consequence of materialism, reductionism and scientific naturalism,  all of which are faulty notions. Human experience consists of

• Material experience(The Scientific method and others)
• Non-material experience: These are the things experienced by humans but not proven by the scientific method. Morality, consciousness, love, hate, emotion, anger and humanity and all other emotions all fall under non-material experience or non-material reality. no doubt hormones play a role in these emotions but the Question 'who is the perceiver' cannot be answered by materialism. The perceiver has to be non-material. in other words, it has to be the soul.  Hence, it is clear that materialism is not a complete perception of the reality. 

Ioppactaftool Argument

This is an acronym for the inability of physicochemical processes and chance to account for the origin of life, which is a fact. If life did not come about by chance and unguided physicochemical processes, then its origin is beyond the natural forces. This argument is ignored by atheists and agnostics. They will say , " I do not know."(the IDNK argument), but this is a false claim as we do know that life cannot come about by chance. Watch this video:

An Analysis of the The Tinsetbig Argument

Tinsetbig is an acronym for there-is-not-enough-evidence-to believe-in-God, which is an argument put forth by atheists and agnostics that the evidences at hand are not sufficient to believe in God. There are several faults in this assertion:

1. The decision that there is not enough evidence to believe in God is a subjective one and many may argue that there is enough evidence to believe in God. Hence, this argument of insufficiency gets deflated on the grounds of lack of objectivity.
2. 
   
3. The second thing that makes this argument weak is the covert assumption made by the proponents in proposing this argument that the scientific-method-is-the-only-method-to-know-the-reality(smitmtktr argument), while this is not the case. Morality, which exists, is not provable by the scientific method. The scientific method cannot tell us why morality exists or what is the cause of morality. Hence, realities do exist tha are not amenable to testing by the scientific method. god is one such reality. However, other methods like argument from design, reasoning by analogy, the Sakina effect, fulfilment of prophecies, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument and the inability of physicochemical processes and chance to account for the origin of life(ioppactaftool argument )prove the existence of God. The methods other than the scientific method to arrve at the reality are:

•                         Tawatur(based on a large number of witnesses of different backgrounds)
•                         Conscience
•                         Reasoning by analogy
•                        Human logic(scientific method is only a part of human logic

Third, the tinsetbig argument does not take into consideration the evidences of the existence of God which are overwhelmingly important.

The Gravity Fairy Argument or The Russel's Teaspot Analogy

This is an argument which states, " Just as the existence of gravity fairies is highly unlikely, the existence of god is also unlikely, since both are assumed to be present, while in the reality, they are not. '. This is a very shallow argument, though, on the face of it, it looks bright. the existence of god is supported by evidence, while that of Gravity fairies is not. The teleological argument, the argument of design, the argument from morality and many others are the evidences of theism. hence, Theism is not based on a wild guess but a carefully thought out reasoning. 

The RATRP Science

The reaction-to-religion-pseudoscientific(RATRP) science is a form of pseudoscience that comes into existence as a result of reaction in the mind of the proponent against religion. On hearing some religious facts, the proponent makes some conterstatements, which later come to be known as science. These statements are not proven by the scientific method but are just a reaction to the what the proponent hears from religionists. Hence, they are not science but opinions , which in due course of time are passed down as science. 

Analysis of the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

              The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to modern versions of the argument from design for the existence of God. It was introduced by Richard Dawkins in chapter 4 of his 2006 book The God Delusion, "Why there almost certainly is no God".   The argument is a play on the notion of a "tornado sweeping through a junkyard to assemble a Boeing 747" employed to decry abiogenesis and evolution as vastly unlikely and better explained by the existence of a creator god. According to Dawkins, this logic is self-defeating as the theist must now account for the god's existence and explain whether or how the god was created.

 In his view, if the existence of highly complex life on Earth is the equivalent of the implausible junkyard Boeing 747, the existence of a highly complex god is the "ultimate Boeing 747" that truly does require the seemingly impossible to explain its existence.

     [According to Dawkins, this logic is self-defeating as the theist must now account for the god's existence and explain whether or how the god was created. ]  In this argument, the author is making an assumption that God is created just like other things that are created. Suppose this assumption is true. If god is created by x, x will be created by y and so on to an infinite regress. Hence, the beginner of the creation would not be reached. This would mean that if such an infinite regress were actually present, there would have been no universe as the first maker would never be reached , or simply does not exist. The infinity minus oneth maker also does not exist and this will ultimately mean that the infinity minus (infinity minus 2) th God also does not exist, as its existence would necessitate the existence of an infinitieth god. If we say that the last God also does not exist, we fall into a logical fallacy as the teleological and other arguments prove the existence of God. Hence, there is a god who is uncreated. that is the only explanation of the universe being present. the teleological argument does not apply to god as we do not know what God is? Atheists cannot claim that God is a machine or a human being or more complex or less complex than his crweation. how can dawkins prove that god is more complex than his creation. He is using a false analogy in this case. 

see the video;

    

Basic Flaw in Russel's teaspot Analogy

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.^[1] Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapotorbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

The basic fault with this assertion is that it is the common SBOPT ie shift the burden of proof tactic, commonly used by atheists. but the problem is two fold. 

1. If it is said to the atheist, If I do not suppose that God exists, how can you prove that he does not exist?', then he will be able to provide no answer. His position is similar to saying , 'a planet x, some 300 million light years away, does not exist and i believe it does not exist.'

2.  Existence of God is based on evidence, unlike the teaspot existence which is a wild guess. Hence, this is a foolish analogy and a partial thinking process on the part of the proponent. Existence of God is proven beyond any doubt by the cosmological argument, the argument from morality, the teleological argument, the sakina effect, fulfilment of prophecies etc.  and many others. Thus, it is insane to see any analogy between the teasopt and God. Existence of god is deduced , while that of a teaspot is imagined. 

An analysis of the Argument from poor design

The argument from poor design, also known as the dysteleological argument, is an argument against the existence of a creator God based on the following reasoning:

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.( This premise is an assumption. only god knows what type of organisms he has to produce and why.)
2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. (This is a subjective argument. many organs thought to be vestigial are now known to have some functions. Hence,any conclusion is inconclusive. Not to know why an organ exists does not mean that organ is meaningless.)
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

The argument is structured as a basic modus tollens: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence. It is most commonly used in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows:

1. Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
2. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
3. This creator is God.

 The term "incompetent design", a play on "intelligent design", has been coined by Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts Amherst to describe aspects of nature that are currently flawed in design.^[2]

This argument is faulty, as God never sought to make human beings without faults.He made the human body susceptible to certain agents like bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc. This was to introduce diseases in order to test him in this world or for some greater good. Moreover, the assertion that human creation has poor design is subjective. even the most sophisticated jet fighter is susceptible to crashing. that does not mean it is not intelligently designed. failure of the machinery is, in contrast, direct proportional to the complexity of the machine and points more towards a maker. 

Did Umar RA burn the house of Fatima RA?

This is related in a weak  report, which is found in the book of a fabricator. This event is not present in any other book or collection of hadith and is , thus, a fabrication and nothing more. This event is regarde as fabrictaed even by Shia Ulema, as Maulana Ishaq says.


For the definitions of the Islamic terms in bold, refer to the Islamic Encyclopaedia at http://islamicencyclopedia.org/public/

Shift-the-burden-of-proof tactic(SBOPT)

This is a tactic that is used to avoid presenting proof of your claim by demanding proof of the opponents claim.  It is an escapist tactic used in discussions. Atheists use it quite often. 

Right to blaspheme right to insult- Is it a right?

Some people believe that right to blaspheme is their fundamental right that no one can take away from them. by this, they mean that they can insult anybody they wish and they have a right to do so. this means that anybody can insult them, their mothers, brothers , sisters, daughters and other relatives as well. the right to do so may be called the right to verbal insult. It can also be stated that anything cane be done with the relatives of the person in question or the person himself. This may be termed as the right to physical insult. If insult and abuse are to be allowed on any grounds, then the rights to verbal and physical insults are also to be allowed. Every logical person knows that these are not rights but an infringement on the rights of others. Freedom has to be within limits , keeping in  view the rights of others. if you have freedom of speech, others have freedom of respect. Your freedom of speech does not allow you to abuse somebody. How can it be logical that your freedom of speech allows you to abuse millions of people worldwide at once by insulting their figure of respect, which they may revere more than their lives. a reactionary blow on your face from a person you abuse is similar to a violent reaction shown by some people to your so called foolish '\right to insult''. In short, right to insult does not exist and you cannot get away with insulting somebody and saying,'' This is my right to insult.'" This is as foolish as it can be.

An important distinction to be made is that you can criticise a reputed figure but you cannot abuse him in public. hence, the right to criticise is a legitimate right while the right to insult is a logicall fallacy as it gives others to insult you, which may be verbal or physical. If physical, it may be death. Hence, you are inviting your own death.