it seems you still don't get it,

, it is not how many of your peers say that you are right ,

, it  is not what kind of scientific journal you posted your report on,

what matters is the content of your material, so if the only sources giving useful and truthful scientific materials are those for which peer reviews has been rejected, denied or not found , does it mean their report is wrong.

it seems you are using a basis that if the peer reviews says it is right then it must be right.

Watson and Crick didn't have any peer review, Fermi's own was initially rejected, Mayer's law of Thermodynamics was initially rejected by a peer review journal, NOW ARE YOU NOW TELLING ME ALL THE THINGS THESE PEOPLE DID WERE NONESENSE, OFF COURSE NOT.

It only goes to show the peer reviews are not completely objective and neither are they the only means of verifyign the veracity of a report.

Advancement of scientific knowledge is not limited to peer review, STOP THIS UNDERTONE OF I AM SMART YOU ARE NOT SMART,

A evidences as to why evolution is nonesense are proven by science whether or not I know of a peer review that did so,

DNA by Watson & Crick still  remain so even though they did not use any peer review, so please stop all this intellectual pontification about the infallability of Peer Review.

DNA by Watson & Crick still remain so even though they did not use any peer review, so please stop all this intellectual pontification about the infallability of Peer Review.

their work was later proven correct and actually modified in later peer-reviewed journals. in this day and age, it's ethical for one to have their work reviewed for clarity and credibility. again u are waisting my time here. u have no evidence to back ur statement that God came from nowhere nor can u argue against evolution effectively. where was the mugu that said no new bacteria or virus exists??

bawomol:

You should have asked where did devil come from if you really want to be possessed. As already implied get real

u Christians on nairaland are similar to the Muslims u hate. rather than declaring fatwahs, u call me a devil and claim am possessed. the defensive tactics no go work lai lai.

Simple plain English: Now let me rephrase it, ask yourself where did the devil come from?

Question: Why was 1st law of thermodymics finally accepted despite rejection from a peer review .
Answer: It was scientifically proving to be true via scientifc experiments.

Question: Does that still mean evolution is true.
Answer: No it does not.

Question: Why,
Answers: It is still based on subjective supeculations which science has been showing not to be true.

Question: Is creation supported by science.
Answer: Yes it is.

Question: How come you don't know any peer review supporting creation.
Answer: First because I don't know everything. Secondly, because there is conspiracy to prevent and separate anything that proves the creation of God.Thirdly because the scientific evidence of why creation is the best scientific explanation to the fossil record, fossil fuel, size and heigth of dinosaurs, shape form of the earth, would prove and defend itself to be true whether or peer reviewers initially accept it or not. Creation beign true destroys a lot of things in the atheist and secular establishment hence it is an unwelcomed topic for peer review discussion.

Watch these videos and learn about evolution;

Watch out for the DNA evidence showing that human and some existing apes evolved from a common ape ancestor. (Chromosome No. 2 provides the evidence)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ


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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb1xFtDWSlU


If you are really interested, you would do well be reading the brilliant book by Kenneth Miller, "Finding Darwin's God"
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202408252&sr=8-1

it's ethical for one to have their work reviewed for clarity and credibility.  again u are waisting my time here.  u have no evidence to back your statement that God came from nowhere nor can u argue against evolution effectively. where was the mugu that said no new bacteria or virus exists??

It is rather sad that it seems you are starting to either get angry , agitated or frustrated wity our inability to have your way, as a result you are starting to making "statements" undertones of "insults", whereas the discussion ought to be limited to the material and not the personality of the individuals. , you calling someone "mugu", is not polite nor right.

I would appreciate that you refrain from insulting me even though you might not agree with what I have tried to explain to you.

You mentioned: Dating of fossil by either geologic column or radioactive dating, I showed you reason why both methods are inherently flawed, instead you keep your stand as to why the are correct despite the physical evidences that show that they inherently flawed.

You mentioned viral and bacterial evolution, I explained to you using human examples that its just mere variation and adaption, and that it does not involve a change in the genetic make up of those organisms that survived it simple shows that those organism had an inbuilt design to withstand the problem hence why they survived.

You then tried to play the "WE ARE SMART YOU ARE STUPID CARD", by implying that once creation does not have a scientific paper that has undergone peer review, then it means it was wrong, I then informed you with examples that peer review is a subjective matter that does not prove whether or not something is right or wrong. The only thing it proves it whether or not it is accepted to be right or wrong. I showed you examples of scientific breakthroughs that did not have or did not initially have peer review support but yet they have been proving to correct in the long run and not by the majority acceptance of peer review.

You said it is ethical to submitt once work for peer review, I am now saying that althoug I agree that it is ethical , yet it does not mean that it is compulsory, since a correct and fantastic , scientific fact can easily be rejected by the majority of peer reviewers because they either do not understand it or because they simply do not meet popular opinion of how it should be. Yet it still comes back to be accepted by the same peer reviewers who initially rejected it the last time.


@bawomol, I think I might have to refrain from replying to your posts , because it seems you are starting to make things personal,

"By their fruits ye shall know them"

Please don't let us deceive ourselves into thinking that similarity between aPE and human genome is the same explanation for evolution, for more details please read the excerpts below, it was taking from http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=33 :


Chimpanzee genome unravelled and the media's evolutionary 'agenda'
Andrew Sibley


2nd September 2005

A group of 67 scientists in the ‘Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium’ have recently pieced together the entire genome of the Chimpanzee (Pan Troglodytes). This interesting and important piece of research has been published in Nature of the 1st September 2005.[1] This project’s findings claim that 98.8 % of functioning Chimp DNA is identical to human DNA, a 1.2% difference, although the difference is larger when all DNA is taken into account with a figure closer to 96% similarity, or 4% difference. There is nothing new in these claims as similar figures have been around for sometime.


Although some evolutionists have claimed that this proves evolution, it only demonstrates what creationists have been saying all along, that similarities of this kind point to a common designer, not to common descent. Creationists dispute as well that any DNA can be labelled ‘junk’. A computer uses for instance an operating programme such as MS Windows, and functional programmes such as MS Word or MS Excel. Both are essential for the functional use of a computer and we cannot label the operating programme ‘junk,’ while expecting the computer to work without it. In the same way all DNA is essential for the health of an individual.


The mutational problem for evolution


The difference of 4% between human and chimp DNA represents a 120 million base pair difference, with changes being expressed as deletions, insertions and rearrangements. Evolutionists claim that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor over 6 million years; therefore if we allow an average of 10 years for each generation, then there would have been 600,000 generations. Every generation would have to have a mutational genetic change of 200 base pairs to turn an ape into a man.[2] There is no evidence of this genetic drift in the present day human or chimp genome. What is more is that natural selection claims that such mutations would be entirely random, but to turn an ape into a man would be a progressive improvement from a non-sapient animal into a sapient human being.


This random search would be through the entire genome of 3 billion base pairs, each of 4 types, to find the correct progressive change each time (That is; 43,000,000,000). That is an unimaginably large number of permutations and an impossible bridge to cross by chance. It is made worse when natural selection requires modified animals to become isolated, either through the death of non modified forms, or geographic isolation, in order for mutations to spread through the new population. The other major problem is that when animals are reduced to small gene pools, it leads to inbreeding and the compounding of harmful mutations, which weaken an animal’s ability to survive. Because mutations are random and non-specific, the vast majority actually harm a species ability to survive. It is ironic, but biologists are concerned for a species survival when it becomes reduced to a tiny gene pool, although evolution requires such situations to be the mechanism for progressive change. Infact there is concern that apes are under threat of extinction from mankind.


Major protein differences


Previous research in Nature on the Chimpanzee genome has also suggested that even small changes in genes can have big effects on proteins. Studies between human chromosome 21 and the equivalent Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 show 83 % of proteins are different,[3] and further deletions or insertions mean that 20% of proteins show major changes between chimpanzee and man.[4] The Times Chimp genome helps reveal secrets of man also reports at least 53 genes that are completely or partially absent from apes.


Poor News reporting


News reports have varied in quality with most of the broadsheets reporting the findings fairly accurately, although even the Telegraph report Chimpanzee genes show what it means to be human wrongly said it gave ‘unambiguous conformation’ of evolution. However, the BBC National television News reports seriously lacked objectivity, claiming on the 9:00 to 9:30 PM BBC24 News that scientists are now ‘absolutely certain’ that we have evolved from Apes highlighting the 99% figure as evidence. Similar reports were shown on the evening BBC1 News, but statements such as these are really a gross violation of the language of science. This may of course have been the result of an over enthusiastic journalist, but Christopher Booker writing recently in the Telegraph 07/08/2005 Talking with Dinosaurs suggests that the National BBC has an ‘agenda’ to promote evolution and attack Intelligent Design. If this were true, as it sometimes appears to be, then it would violate the BBC’s own charter, which is to represent all viewers interests, (who are forced by law to pay a license fee to watch television) and the charter requires the BBC to avoid bias. However, the BBC website was a little more careful in its comments Reading the chimp book of life


Of course the correct response would to make a formal complaint, but after ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera’ scandal, where the BBC simply ignored 50,000 complaints from viewers, there is little confidence that the BBC would listen. However, thanks to the Internet the BBC no longer has such a tight control on the media in the UK.


Summary


As Creationists we welcome this piece of research, which shows how mankind and chimpanzee’s have a common designer. As both apes and man are made of flesh and blood, is it any wonder why our genetic make up is so close? However, when we try and build a pathway to explain naturally how an ape might turn into a man by natural means alone we are faced with unbridgeable gaps. It is a shame that the evolutionary community does not recognise this, and down plays the very real differences that exist between ape and man.

[b]Another evolutionnary foundation bites the dust, all you so called evolutionists should check this out (http://www.physorg.com/news115312740.html) or read the thing as copied and pasted below:
[/b]
Studies of ancient supercontinent don't match up
For a quarter-century or more, the prevailing view among geoscientists—supported by paleomagnetic records in rock—has been that the portion of the ancient supercontinent of Pangea that is now the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah shifted more than 1,300 miles north during a 100-million-year span that ended about 200 million years ago in the early Jurassic Period, when Pangea began to break up.

Sponsored Links (Ads by Google)

Free Technology Research - Browse Our Technology & IT Articles Online. Subscribe to Weekly Report!
www.ITBusinessEdge.com

The Theory of Everything - Some physicists think the mind is at the heart of modern physics.
NewPhysicsAndTheMind.net

Geology Articles - The New York Times is a valuable resource for students and faculty.
www.nytimes.com/college
But new research by a team of geoscientists from the University of Michigan and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln challenges that theory, based on extensive climate modeling studies and sedimentary records found from Wyoming into Utah and Arizona.


In a paper published in the Nov. 23 issue of the journal Science, U-M geophysicist Rob Van der Voo and co-authors report findings that indicate the area must have remained at the equator during the time in question.

"It's a puzzle, a 'conundrum' is the word we like to use," said Robert Oglesby of UNL. "And in the Science paper, we're not solving the conundrum, we're raising the conundrum."

The puzzle revolves around ongoing research by UNL researcher David Loope in the Colorado Plateau. A sedimentologist and an expert on dune formation, Loope found that from central Wyoming into central Utah, ancient dunes preserved in the region's sandstone formations from 300 million to 200 million years ago all faced southwest, meaning that the winds over that extensive area were almost constantly from the northeast.

As his study progressed, he discovered that the direction of the dunes shifted to the southeast in what is now southern Utah, meaning the wind direction shifted to the northwest. What's more, those prevailing winds were consistent over the entire 100 million years in question and the shift in wind direction could only have occurred at the equator.

"I thought that was very curious," Loope said. "It didn't seem to fit with what we think we know about where the continents were."

Loope is also a paleoclimatologist (someone who studies ancient climates), as are his UNL co-authors Oglesby and Clinton Rowe. The three geoscientists began working together, trying to find a computerized climate model that would explain the discrepancy, but they couldn't find one that worked.

"We ran the model in any different number of configurations just to see if we could make it do something different," Rowe said. "It didn't matter what we did to it, as long as you had some land, and it was distributed north and south of the equator, you would end up with this monsoonal flow that matched these records from the dunes. The equator is the only place you could get this large-scale arc of winds that turn from the northeast to the northwest as they moved south. Nowhere else would you get that as part of the general circulation unless the physics of the world 200 million years ago was very different from what it is today. And we just don't think that's the case."

Puzzled by the discrepancy between their research and the paleomagnetic records, they turned to Van der Voo, an expert on paleomagnetism.

Paleomagnetic records are found in igneous rocks that permanently record the direction of the Earth's magnetic field at the time they solidify from the molten state. They're an important tool for geoscientists in tracking the movement of Earth's tectonic plates over time, and records in North America indicate that the Colorado Plateau moved from the equator to about 20 degrees north latitude from 300 million years ago to 200 million years ago.

"We brought Rob in to try to see if he could help us sort it out, and he's like, 'Gosh, guys, I don't know. This is a conundrum,'" Oglesby said. "It's important to note that we have not just a paleomag person as a co-author, but arguably the best-known paleomag person in the world—and he's as confused as we are."

"The nicest thing would have been if we had a solution, but we don't," said Van der Voo, the Frank H. T. Rhodes Professor of Geological Sciences at U-M. "All we can say is that we have this enigma, so perhaps our model of Pangea for the period in question is wrong or the wind direction didn't follow the common patterns that we recognize in the modern world. Neither seems likely, but we're bringing this inconsistency to the attention of the scientific community in hopes of stimulating further research."

Van der Voo's co-authors agree there's only one thing to do: keep attacking the problem.

"We'll come up with everything we can possibly think of," Oglesby said. "From the point of view of the climate model, the paleogeography, the vegetation, the topography, local-scale vs. large-scale, paleomag, going back and rethinking everything that the dunes tell us. We'll go back to square one in everything, trying to figure it out."

In addition to Van der Voo, Loope, Oglesby and Rowe, former UNL graduate student Charles Broadwater was a co-author on the paper.

Source: University of Michigan

, Here goes another evolutionary theory, Puff Puff Puff, it also bites the dust.


Dunes, climate models don't match up with paleomagnetic records
For a quarter-century or more, the prevailing view among geoscientists has been that the portion of the ancient supercontinent of Pangea that is now the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah shifted more than 1,300 miles north during a 100-million year span that ended about 200 million years ago in the early Jurassic Period, when Pangea began to break up.

Paleomagnetic records are found in igneous rocks that permanently record the direction of the Earth's magnetic field at the time they solidified from the molten state. Paleomagnetism is an important tool for geoscientists in tracking the movement of Earth's tectonic plates over time and records in North America indicate that the Colorado Plateau moved from the equator to about 20 degrees north latitude from 300 million years ago to 200 million years ago.



But new research by geoscientists from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the University of Michigan challenges that theory, based on extensive climate modeling studies and sedimentary records found from Wyoming into Utah and Arizona.

In the Nov. 23 issue of the journal Science, UNL geoscientists Clinton Rowe, David Loope and Robert Oglesby, former UNL graduate student Charles Broadwater, and Rob Van der Voo of the University of Michigan, report findings that indicate the area must have remained at the equator during the time in question.

"It's a puzzle, a 'conundrum' is the word we like to use," Oglesby said. "And in the Science paper, we're not solving the conundrum, we're raising the conundrum."

The root of the conundrum is Loope's ongoing research in the Colorado Plateau that began when he was working on his doctorate at the University of Wyoming in the early 1980s. A sedimentologist and an expert on dune formation, he eventually saw that from central Wyoming into central Utah, ancient dunes preserved in the region's 200 million- to 300-hundred-million-year-old sandstone formations all faced southwest, meaning that the winds over that extensive area were almost constantly from the northeast. As his study progressed, he discovered that the direction of the dunes shifted to the southeast in what is now southern Utah, meaning the wind direction shifted to the northwest. What's more, those prevailing winds were consistent over the entire 100 million years in question and the shift in wind direction could only have occurred at the equator.

"I thought that was very curious," Loope said. "It didn't seem to fit with what we think we know about where the continents were."

Loope is also a paleoclimatologist (who studies ancient climates), as are Rowe and Oglesby, who also have expertise in climate modeling. The three geoscientists began working together, trying to find a computerized climate model that would explain the discrepancy, but they couldn't find any that worked.

"We ran the model in any different number of configurations just to see if we could make it do something different," Rowe said. "It didn't matter what we did to it, as long as you had some land, and it was distributed north and south of the equator, you would end up with this monsoonal flow that matched these records from the dunes.

"The equator is the only place you could get this large-scale arc of winds that turn from the northeast to the northwest as they moved south. Nowhere else would you get that as part of the general circulation unless the physics of the world 200 million years ago was very different from what it is today. And we just don't think that's the case."

Puzzled by the discrepancy between their research and the paleomagnetic records, they turned to Van der Voo, an expert on paleomagnetism.

"We brought Rob in to try to see if he could help us sort it out, and he's like, 'Gosh, guys, I don't know. This is a conundrum,'" Oglesby said. "It's important to note that we have not just a paleomag person as a co-author, but arguably the best-known paleomag person in the world -- and he's as confused as we are."

Van der Voo agreed that, for now, there's no clear answer to the conundrum.

"The nicest thing would have been if we had a solution, but we don't," Van der Voo said. "All we can say is that we have this enigma, so perhaps our model of Pangea for the period in question is wrong or the wind direction didn't follow the common patterns that we recognize in the modern world. Neither seems likely, but we're bringing this inconsistency to the attention of the scientific community in hopes of stimulating further research."

And further research is exactly what's on the agenda, Oglesby said.

"We'll come up with everything we can possibly think of," he said. "From the point of view of the climate model, the paleogeography, the vegetation, the topography, local-scale vs. large-scale, paleomag, going back and rethinking everything that the dunes tell us. We'll go back to square one in everything, trying to figure it out."

Source: University of Nebraska-Lincoln

, Here goes another evolutionary theory, Puff Puff Puff, it also bites the dust.

check it out yourself from this link (http://www.physorg.com/news115307452.html) or read the following

Dunes, climate models don't match up with paleomagnetic records
For a quarter-century or more, the prevailing view among geoscientists has been that the portion of the ancient supercontinent of Pangea that is now the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah shifted more than 1,300 miles north during a 100-million year span that ended about 200 million years ago in the early Jurassic Period, when Pangea began to break up.

Paleomagnetic records are found in igneous rocks that permanently record the direction of the Earth's magnetic field at the time they solidified from the molten state. Paleomagnetism is an important tool for geoscientists in tracking the movement of Earth's tectonic plates over time and records in North America indicate that the Colorado Plateau moved from the equator to about 20 degrees north latitude from 300 million years ago to 200 million years ago.



But new research by geoscientists from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the University of Michigan challenges that theory, based on extensive climate modeling studies and sedimentary records found from Wyoming into Utah and Arizona.

In the Nov. 23 issue of the journal Science, UNL geoscientists Clinton Rowe, David Loope and Robert Oglesby, former UNL graduate student Charles Broadwater, and Rob Van der Voo of the University of Michigan, report findings that indicate the area must have remained at the equator during the time in question.

"It's a puzzle, a 'conundrum' is the word we like to use," Oglesby said. "And in the Science paper, we're not solving the conundrum, we're raising the conundrum."

The root of the conundrum is Loope's ongoing research in the Colorado Plateau that began when he was working on his doctorate at the University of Wyoming in the early 1980s. A sedimentologist and an expert on dune formation, he eventually saw that from central Wyoming into central Utah, ancient dunes preserved in the region's 200 million- to 300-hundred-million-year-old sandstone formations all faced southwest, meaning that the winds over that extensive area were almost constantly from the northeast. As his study progressed, he discovered that the direction of the dunes shifted to the southeast in what is now southern Utah, meaning the wind direction shifted to the northwest. What's more, those prevailing winds were consistent over the entire 100 million years in question and the shift in wind direction could only have occurred at the equator.

"I thought that was very curious," Loope said. "It didn't seem to fit with what we think we know about where the continents were."

Loope is also a paleoclimatologist (who studies ancient climates), as are Rowe and Oglesby, who also have expertise in climate modeling. The three geoscientists began working together, trying to find a computerized climate model that would explain the discrepancy, but they couldn't find any that worked.

"We ran the model in any different number of configurations just to see if we could make it do something different," Rowe said. "It didn't matter what we did to it, as long as you had some land, and it was distributed north and south of the equator, you would end up with this monsoonal flow that matched these records from the dunes.

"The equator is the only place you could get this large-scale arc of winds that turn from the northeast to the northwest as they moved south. Nowhere else would you get that as part of the general circulation unless the physics of the world 200 million years ago was very different from what it is today. And we just don't think that's the case."

Puzzled by the discrepancy between their research and the paleomagnetic records, they turned to Van der Voo, an expert on paleomagnetism.

"We brought Rob in to try to see if he could help us sort it out, and he's like, 'Gosh, guys, I don't know. This is a conundrum,'" Oglesby said. "It's important to note that we have not just a paleomag person as a co-author, but arguably the best-known paleomag person in the world -- and he's as confused as we are."

Van der Voo agreed that, for now, there's no clear answer to the conundrum.

"The nicest thing would have been if we had a solution, but we don't," Van der Voo said. "All we can say is that we have this enigma, so perhaps our model of Pangea for the period in question is wrong or the wind direction didn't follow the common patterns that we recognize in the modern world. Neither seems likely, but we're bringing this inconsistency to the attention of the scientific community in hopes of stimulating further research."

And further research is exactly what's on the agenda, Oglesby said.

"We'll come up with everything we can possibly think of," he said. "From the point of view of the climate model, the paleogeography, the vegetation, the topography, local-scale vs. large-scale, paleomag, going back and rethinking everything that the dunes tell us. We'll go back to square one in everything, trying to figure it out."

Source: University of Nebraska-Lincoln

SysUser,

You seem to conflate a number of issues. There is overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution by natural selection. How else to you account for the diversity of flora and fauna on the planet. The Intelligent Design advocates like Michael Behe do not dispute this fact. The disputes lies in the mechanism that they claim started life and drives the diversification process.

Now some questions for you:

1) How come there are no fossil remains of multi-cellular life pre- 500 millions years ago?

2) How come multi-cellular life developed late in the life of the planet, during the Cambrian explosion?

3) If all life was created in one instance as asserted in Genesis, how come there were no rabbit, dinosaur etc fossils in the Cambrian

4) Do you know what stromatolites are?

5) There have been many extinction events in the history of the planet. The most devastating occurred in the end-Permian period, about 250 million years ago, in which 99% of all life (plant and aminal) was wiped out. The dinosaurs had not even appeared then. Yet many millions of years later, the planet was able to re-populate itself. How do you account for the regeneration of diversity?

Simple plain English: Now let me rephrase it, ask yourself where did the devil come from?

since God was alleged to have created Lucifer, whether the devil exists or not depends on whether we can prove God exists. the whole evolution argument is redundant and is going around in circles. why are u guys having problems telling me where God came from. u have a personal relationship with this "God" and can't even tell me where he came from or it's nature. that's mind boggling.

@bawomol

You, on your part, have failed to prove (convincingly) that God does NOT exist.

You, on your part, have failed to prove (convincingly) that God does NOT exist.

you are the one that made the claim that God exists not me. if i told u that my poop was blue, it's my job to show some evidence relating to this. u theists brought up the idea of an "infinite" god. u dodge the question repeatedly while asking for proof of an abstract entity.


by the way, what does the work of a geoscientist have to do with evolution. no one was arguing about the rock's magnetic field

Since you are scientific in your approach, perhaps you can conduct an experiment to show that God does not exist.

I would like to read your publication as per this experiment. I am waiting

Since you are scientific in your approach, perhaps you can conduct an experiment to show that God does not exist.

I would like to read your publication as per this experiment. I am waiting

what would be the parameters of the experiment. u know this God more than me. tell me how i can perform an experiment to study the effect of this god. u have any ideas. it's kind of stupid to perform an experiment on something that is deemed infinite and abstract.

bawomol:

What would be the parameters of the experiment. u know this God more than me. tell me how i can perform an experiment to study the effect of this god. u have any ideas. it's kind of stupid to perform an experiment on something that is deemed infinite and abstract.

I am on your side. God does not exist. But I need scientific proof. There should be something you can do in your lab to debunk those who claim that God exists somewhere.

I am on your side. God does not exist. But I need scientific proof. There should be something you can do in your lab to debunk those who claim that God exists somewhere.

u don't get it do u. a scientific proof can't be given for an abstract entity. theists have to give scientists something more than "faith", "love" or "belief" before anything can be done in a lab. what do u expect scientists to do, a lie detector test?? u can only argue against God's existence using logic and philosophy not science.

again people, where did God come from and how do u have a personal relationship with him.

bawomol:

A scientific proof can't be given for an abstract entity.

Beautiful. Now we see where science has failed woefully. So, why do you use scientific arguments to discuss God?

Before science can discuss God, it has to prove (or disprove) his existence using the scientific methods.

Otherwise, science should just keep mum and sit down quietly.

Anyone to answer these questions:



1) How come there are no fossil remains of multi-cellular life pre- 500 millions years ago?

2) How come multi-cellular life developed late in the life of the planet, during the Cambrian explosion?

3) If all life was created in one instance as asserted in Genesis, how come there were no rabbit, dinosaur etc fossils in the Cambrian

4) Do you know what stromatolites are?

5) There have been many extinction events in the history of the planet. The most devastating occurred in the end-Permian period, about 250 million years ago, in which 99% of all life (plant and aminal) was wiped out. The dinosaurs had not even appeared then. Yet many millions of years later, the planet was able to re-populate itself. How do you account for the regeneration of diversity?

Beautiful. Now we see where science has failed woefully. So, why do you use scientific arguments to discuss God?

actually that doesn't help your argument, an abstract entity is something that doesn't exist and is all imagination. god doesn't really exists and is basically imagination and hallucination by a few folks. the square root of -1 doesn't exist in reality but it can be used to solve Fourier transforms

Before science can discuss God, it has to prove (or disprove) his existence using the scientific methods

don't theists have to prove God exists before they can discuss him 2. do i smell double standard here??

bawomol:

An abstract entity is something that doesn't exist and is all imagination. god doesn't really exists and is basically imagination and hallucination by a few folks. the square root of -1 doesn't exist in reality but it can be used to solve Fourier transforms

Perhaps you should read about Near Death Experiences (NDE). A number of atheists (and theists) have had this experience. What they 'saw' is at variance with the concepts they carry about in their minds.

You can search wikipedia for this. Happy reading.

Imhotep,

Your argument is much like saying that because science has not yet found a cure for AIDS, Cancer, therefore science is deficient. Science is the contineous quest for knowledge, with no endpoint.

You are making an argument to seize all currently existing scientific endeavours because we have not yet found a solution to all of human ills and we have not yet reveal the set of ALL possible human knowledge.

therationa:

Anyone to answer these questions:



1) How come there are no fossil remains of multi-cellular life pre- 500 millions years ago?

2) How come multi-cellular life developed late in the life of the planet, during the Cambrian explosion?

3) If all life was created in one instance as asserted in Genesis, how come there were no rabbit, dinosaur etc fossils in the Cambrian

4) Do you know what stromatolites are?

5) There have been many extinction events in the history of the planet. The most devastating occurred in the end-Permian period, about 250 million years ago, in which 99% of all life (plant and aminal) was wiped out. The dinosaurs had not even appeared then. Yet many millions of years later, the planet was able to re-populate itself. How do you account for the regeneration of diversity?

No evolutionist was alive 250 million years ago. Why do they expect everyone to accept whatever they say happened millions of years ago when nobody on earth today was alive. Are they spinning yarns?

therationa:

Imhotep,

Your argument is much like saying that because science has not yet found a cure for AIDS, Cancer, therefore science is deficient. Science is the contineous quest for knowledge, with no endpoint.

You are making an argument to seize all currently existing scientific endeavours because we have not yet found a solution to all of human ills and we have not yet reveal the set of ALL possible human knowledge.

Of course, science is deficient. Who teaches new born babies how to suckle, or when to cry? Can science explain that

Some aspects of knowledge are pure (not taught by anyone). God is closer to pure knowledge that some lowly knowledge derived from restricted experiments.

You also need to look at a book by Immanuel Kant: The Critique of Pure Reason ->

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Critique_of_Pure_Reason)

Of course, science is deficient. Who teaches new born babies how to suckle, or when to cry?Huh Can science explain that

Some aspects of knowledge are pure (not taught by anyone). God is closer to pure knowledge that some lowly knowledge derived from restricted experiments.

actually there are scientists whose sole job is to find genes and proteins responsible for certain bodily functions. year after year, more breakthroughs are being made. actually aspects of knowledge are either in our DNA or through socialization. there is nothing supernatural about it. all u are doing is attributing the unknown to some "God". science is about finding logical answers to problems while religion is about having faith in God controlling our destiny and actions.



Perhaps you should read about Near Death Experiences (NDE). A number of atheists (and theists) have had this experience. What they 'saw' is at variance with the concepts they carry about in their minds.

am sorry using wikipedia as ur primary reference in a science or philosophy conference would make u a laughing stock. did people that had NDE see God or something. i thought was too infinite for humans to comprehend??

bawomol:

actually there are scientists whose sole job is to find genes and proteins responsible for certain bodily functions. year after year, more breakthroughs are being made. actually aspects of knowledge are either in our DNA or through socialization. there is nothing supernatural about it. all u are doing is attributing the unknown to some "God". science is about finding logical answers to problems while religion is about having faith in God controlling our destiny and actions.

Am sorry using wikipedia as your primary reference in a science or philosophy conference would make u a laughing stock. did people that had NDE see God or something. i thought was too infinite for humans to comprehend??

f

Good, the DNA and proteins were put there by a Great Scientist, only to be discovered by a junior scientist who is basically groping in the dark.

You have not read the NDE articles (from wikipedia or wherever). Are you afraid it might affect your much cherished views

Good, the DNA and proteins were put there by a Great Scientist, only to be discovered by a junior scientist who is basically groping in the dark.

when and how did the Great Scientist put the DNA and proteins there?? u seem to know a lot about this Great Scientist, can u tell me more about him/her/it. or are we going to fall back on the "he is too infinite to understand cop out"


You have not read the NDE articles (from wikipedia or wherever). Are you afraid it might affect your much cherished views

i have heard and read about NDE, it doesn't move me at all.

bawomol:

when and how did the Great Scientist put the DNA and proteins there?? u seem to know a lot about this Great Scientist, can u tell me more about him/her/it. or are we going to fall back on the "he is too infinite to understand cop out"

i have heard and read about NDE, it doesn't move me at all.

You study His works everyday, and yet you do not know Him. In fact His works never seem to obey all your mathematics. The unified field theory is still patchy and elusive. The more it answers, the more questions are asked.

Perhaps you should READ about NDEs. Don't limit yourself to hearing.

The more it answers, the more questions are asked.

that's the beauty of science, more and more questions and answers are revealed everyday. the study of nature never ends since the nature is always changing or evolving blah blah blah. how do u know God's work doesn't obey mathematics. is that an assumption or a fact proven by WHAT.

religion gives rigid and bland explanation for things. God did it but please don't question God or challenge the accuracy of the bible.

Perhaps you should READ about NDEs. Don't limit yourself to hearing.

i have read about it, not moved.

bawomol:

that's the beauty of science, more and more questions and answers are revealed everyday. the study of nature never ends since the nature is always changing or evolving blah blah blah. how do u know God's work doesn't obey mathematics. is that an assumption or a fact proven by WHAT.

religion gives rigid and bland explanation for things. God did it but please don't question God or challenge the accuracy of the bible.

I remember someone saying (after solving some awkward maths) that the Universe is 'finite but unbounded'. Made me laugh to my heart's content. The universe terrorizes all your scientific methods, where does it end? What exists beyond that?? Maybe differential tensor calculus can answer that.

Yes, God did it. Study His works, but don't deny Him the credit due to Him.