Wonders shall never end

Nairaland and people

People and Questions!!!

Mr man asking this question
Dont even bother your tiny head with Gods Origin
Your mind is to little to grasp it
Leave it alone and concentrate on Living for Him

that is an atheist question.

SysUser:

KAG,, why is it that you decided to know where God came from, let me guess, YOU DON'T HAVE CLOSURE ON WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS, YET IT SEEMS YOU ARE SCARED TO PIECES WHILE YOU ARE ALONE AND IN SECRET, THEREFORE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OR SELF CONVINCING LOGIC TO GIVE YOU PEACE OF MIND THAT WHEN YOU LIVE THIS WORLD , YOU WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE ECOSYSTEM.

No, on all counts. I haven't decided to know where the Christian God comes from, since that endeavour would be a rather shortlived and moot one. While, I may be anxious when alone, it has nothing to do with the existence of gods. I am not looking for any conclusive evidence as so far it would seem there isn't any for the existence of gods, and there isn't likely to be any. If shown otherwise, I'll amend my opinion accordingly. Stop presuming things about me: your understanding of what makes me tick is just as poor as your understanding of the theory of evolution - and that is saying a lot.

i AM SORRY TO INFORM YOU THAT WHEN YOU LEAVE THIS WORLD AND LIVE, THEN JUDGEMENT , AND, UNFORTUNATELY, ANYBODY WHOSE NAME IS NOT FOUND IN THE BOOK OF LIFE, THE SECOND DEATH (LAKE OF FIRE IS GUARANTEED, AFTER THE SORROW AND PAIN OF THE FIRST DEATH,

That's nice. Well, as long as you can hold on to your dreams of an exclusive club, everyone else be damned.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Matthew 27:

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

--------------------------

KAG's you said and I quote:



KAG, K? Against God

No.

I find it suprising that you fail to see or realise that you have already indirect insults at me, when you said and I quote " Don't try and say , you did bring up insults when it was mentioned that , "those that don't believe evolution lack understanding" (same thing as saying we cannot understand the noneexistent scientific and academic evidences for evolution. )", and yet you seem to still be promising me more insults, due to your self perception of relatively higher intelligence in comparison to your personal assessment of my lower intelligence, , PLEASE!

No, I'm not going to insult you because I feel you have a lower intelligence than I do - I don't know whether you do or not. I am going to insult you because you have been disingenuous and decided to argue vehemently against theories you clearly don't understand in the least. I am going to insult you because rather than bothering to get a decent understanding of what it is you intend to argue against, you instead chose the dishonourable road of block spamming with pratts, idiotic rhetoric and a host of links - several of which were even refuting your claims. Despicable people like yourself get the derision they deserve.

Hmm interesting maybe according to your criteria of eligibility of being able to discuss evolution, then ALL ENGINEERS THAT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, AND ALL ENGINEERS THAT BELIEVE IN CREATION, SHOULD BETTER STAY AWAY FROM DISCUSSING EVOLUTION, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE DUMB-O-METER MEASUREMENT, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE OR QUALIFICATION TO DO SO.

I stand corrected, it does seem that I might have a higher level of intelligence than you (not that it matters that much, I suppose). That is the very antithesis of what I wrote. There's absolutely nothing in my post to give the starnge interpretation you've drawn from it. In any case, I repeat:

" You DO NOT have a sound scientific background. You may have some idea about engineering, but that subject isn't being debated at the current moment."

@KAG, while you were responding to me you said and I quote:


You are now claiming to have a higher intelligence and science given authority to know who is academically and scientifically capable of speaking on the falacies and lies of evolution (The Judge, Juror and Executioner, ) , yet you either ignore or simply refuse to see that the statements which you make in defense of evolution in itself are subjected to "Pure" Review , by people that are ready to speak the truth in love.

No, no, no. It's really easy to deduce that you not have a sound scientific background from your posts. For crying out loud, you mischaracterised the incidence of dust on the moon and claimed that it somehow falsified evolution. Nobody with a decent background in science, particularly evolutionary science, makes inane arguments like that.

Still you make statements with blatant insults or statements with undertones of insult and inherent pride of as an infinitly wise and intelligent individual, that others must bow down to in the arena of academic understanding and intelligence.

Projection.

[color=#990000]Psa 14:1 <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

So you worship Loki, the trickster God? I guess Nordic mythology is really back with a bang.

Nonetheless after claiming you did not insult me earlier, you then go ahead anyway to insult me (a lesser intelligent mortal, please! ) , WHAT MORE COULD BE FAR FROM THE TRUTH,

Here's an advice for you: stop whining, pick up a book that adequately explains the theory of evolution, and then come back to debate it if you still have your doubts. See above for why you deserve insults, which by the way came after you falsely accused me of doing so. C'est la vie.

[snipped inane rant]

See if you can figure out the differences between your methodology and Einstein's

It is understandable, if you want to believe that you evolved from a primordial soup/stew/ogbono (millions or billions of years ago, in a galaxy far far away , STAR WARS ). It is also understandable if you think you evolved from a APE like ancestor , millions,billions, trillions, zillions, oops sorry, millions of years ago, on a rocky primordial stew holding planet known as Earth.

You are mixing up two different theories again. Apes didn't arise from a primodial soup. While it's probable that life may have arisen fom inorganic "life", that's not the same thing as the exploation of diverse species.

It is understanble that you believe the APE like ancestors could , have developed a beneficial mutation (after they had been killed by the initial destructive mutations) (), you somehow developed that Nonetheless that would still not mean that I would not tell you that:

See my previous post that shows why beneficial mutation rates is not a problem for evolution.

1. YOU DID NOT JUST COME FROM PUFF, (NOTHING),

Actually, I did come from nothng; we all did. By "I" and "we", I mean essence. I believe "Existence precedes essence"

2. YOU ARE JUST NOT HERE FOR NOTHING,
3. YOU WILL NOT JUST LIVE FOR NOTHING,
4. YOU WILL NOT JUST DIE FOR NOTHING,

I agree.

5. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO NOTHING AFTER DEATH,

Well I'm not really going anywhere after death, so I suppose that includes nothing as well.

1. You are her because you were created by God

No, I'm really not her. Gods don't exist.

2. You are made according to His Purpose
3. You either live for God or the Devil
4. You either die in the knowledge of the hope of salvation or die like a man with no hope.
5. Its either Heaven or (Hell and Lake of Fire).

All this kind of hopeless future can be avoided IF AND ONLY IF YOU ACCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOUR,

THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO PISS ME OFF, THANK GOD FOR HELPING ME NOT TO GET TOO PISSED OFF.

Blah blah to the sentences preceding the final shout. I'm not trying to piss you, so it's doubtful that any god is helping you not get angry. I do find it interesting, though, that you think I'm trying to annoy you. Things that make you go hmm?

SysUser:

Thank you to the person that posted about Anthony Flew, I never heard of him before, until then.

SHOULD i PASTE MORE OF MY SUPPOSEDLY "LESS INTELLIGENT LINKS"[/color]

You think they serve a purpose?

Richard Dawkins, also was not smart or intelligent enough that he could not answer the simple question of providing an evidence of beneficial mutation

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Which is why he answered the same question in a detailed article. Doh! By the way, that wasn't the question.

, LORD THANK YOU THAT , VICTORY IS SURE!

, the LORD GOD REIGNS,

SysUser:

[color=#000099]Praise the Lord God Almighty , WHO WAS, WHO IS AND IS TO COME,

Lol. Hyperbolic much? I can see why you can't bother to a get a cursory understanding of the science theories you oppose.

Just so you know, many Christians accept evolution.

Then Richard Hawkins

Who the hell is Richard Hawkins? Is he any good at what he does?

stranger26:

Consider this, the famous scientist and atheist Prof. Anthony Flew, whose arguments were being used by atheists worldwide to support their claims that God does not exist. He changed his mind. He has now written a book about the existence of God.

That he has changed his views does not invalidate his arguments. Not that you said it does. I also don't think he wrote the book.

Imagine, the unrelenting atheist has become a deist! I always say, and will continue to do so, that only an ignorant person will say God does not exist. Study the beauty and perfection of the world around you, of yourself, of the smallest cell and tell me how that came about by chance!

I suppose it's a matter of perception. Some non-theists think like you do: that is, only an ignorant person will say gods exist. While I make no judgement either way on who is being the ignorant one, I do believe that the naturalistic explanations make more sense than the religious beliefs.

That's partly why I'm a science student. i looove it! How amazing the tiny mitochondria in the cell is! The perfection of creation! Just study DNA; how could that have arisen out of chance?

Not necessarily chance. Sure a few fortiutous incidents may have occured, as they tend to do, but to some extent, since certain chemicals react in certain ways and certain processes can only proceed in a limited way, it's not appropiate to think of it as chance.

Study a bit of astrophysics and tell me how that could have come about by chance.

Easily, apparently.

i partially believe the Big bang Theory but in a modified way. And It includes God. You should read the book "The Unified Theory of Existence" by The Great Prophet Al'Mahdi. The author was a die-hard atheist who once said "If there was ever going to be the last person on Earth who didn't believe in God it would be me". He did three and a half PhD programs, studied physical sciences, social sciences, educational psychology and all. His books explain the existence of God from an objectively scientific view. It's really interesting and incorporates the Big Bang, evolution, Quantum Physics, etc.

a fair enough view.

The KAG pot is calling the kettle black,

let me give u a scripture to inform u what He had said not me about people like you,

still i want you to read it just i have taken the time to read your reference
Rom 1
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. i don't have to try, He is the one that does that
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(KJV)

the bible was written by men. how do u know some mystical figure that can't COMMUNICATE in human terms was able to write the bible

ok so your evolution theory was written by MATTER abi? take the time to read the above to see what i have quoted just as you quote from your source.


uptil now you have not convince me about the origin of matter

it's strange u refuse to read about abogenesis, probably because that would sway your beliefs. there is no concrete explanation of the origin of matter.
oh thats wat u think? well if you can prove by giving me a concrete evidence of the origin of matter then i will take the time read more on abogenisi

different scientific theories are available in journal. there's one thing we know for sure. a collision/explosion was involved in the creation of earth.

oh for sure abi? so its not matter but some collision/explusion that brought about the earth ehh?
it's funny how u want to be convinced but refuse to convince anyone other than using bible passages that have been known to be historically inaccurate.

great u use wat you believe human theories to try and make me see your way and am i not free to show you from where i believe the bible?

First and foremost , I am not saying that majority opinion or the personality of those who believe determines whether or not there is a God, what I am simply against is that you have tried to play the "I am smart you are not smart enough card against me", I am just trying to use the following examples to show to you the ones academic field or status as little or nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. Also It also does not mean that those people below are worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth. I am just trying to point out to you that at least there are people out there would should be smart enough for you to discuss the Lies of Evolution with , (that is off course assuming your insinuations are true, which I want to believe they are not) ,

Well Mr or is that Mrs KAG, since you have implied that I must be really stupid (IQ wise) or (academically wise) to have decided to ignore you're seemingly undeniable facts (, fallacies, ) of evolution, I would there would like to know whether the majority of people living in the US who believe in God are also all have a IQ lower than yours.

I find it interesting that the data provided by this website shows that one can still have a high IQ and still believe in God, yet it seems that you are implying that a lack of understanding/intelligence is the reason for "lack of faith", "lack of believe" and "lack of comprehension" of evolution.

So kindly check out the website and give your opinion on this would you,

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html


Again also, since I (that person you have said is not so qualified to discuss with you) might not be able to engage your "High Intellectual Lordliness", at least I think geniuses like Albert Einstein might have able to.
Wait maybe the following list of "maybe" more qualified individuals might be able to your "High Evolutioness" in a discussion as to why there is God, OR WAIT MAYBE THEY ARE ALSO NOT SMART ENOUGH FOR THEM TO HAVE BELIEVED THAT THERE IS A GOD, since your smartiness does not believe that there is a God!


Disclaimer, I don't support certain believe systems such "Catholism" etc, I am just pointing that at least they believed that there was a God.


Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels, ' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html


Finally since you believe that random chance and natural election "selection" ensured that an APE evolved into human, maybe you can give me a little explanation about the mathematical probabilistic conundrum that organisms would have to overcome when faced with "Precise Alternate Splicing" relative to DNA when we talk about Humans and APEs,

Probably a little more millions, trillions, and zillions of years giving to your primordial gook to change to "postmordial" ape would allow for the enormous obstacle brougth about by alternate splicing.

Read it for yourself in this little weblink for "Pure Review" ,
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/02/07/yet-another-genetic-difference-between-humans-and-chimpanzees/

Let me repeat my earlier post for the benefit of the poster. I don't know why he is bogged down by the wrong questions:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we assume that God came from somewhere (call it point X) and settled at the point He is now, then we must also ask:

- Where was He before He came to point X?
- And where was He before that?
, and on, and on, and on.

@kag and bawol

i appreciate ur effort to prove that you are a descendant of an APE which happen to appear by chance from a big bang millions of years that no one was there to phanthom, for me i am a descendent of adam and eve made by a Higher Intelligence called God which is after His image. i wish you would take the time to re read the bible again with a open mind for u can know Him just by believeing His word.
i ask myself why dis discourse on evolution and i realise is that man dont want to acknowledge God so that S/he can do as they please just like animals do as they please. for instance a chick can grow up and still climb its mom. i dont mean to insult you but please when u see yourself as a descendant of an ape you tend to leave just as you please which can almost be equal to animals.

@kag and bawol

i appreciate ur effort to prove that you are a descendant of an APE which happen to appear by chance from a big bang millions of years that no one was there to phanthom, for me i am a descendent of adam and eve made by a Higher Intelligence called God which is after His image. i wish you would take the time to re read the bible again with a open mind for u can know Him just by believeing His word.
i ask myself why dis discourse on evolution and i realise is that man dont want to acknowledge God so that S/he can do as they please just like animals do as they please. for instance a chick can grow up and still climb its mom. i dont mean to insult you but please when u see yourself as a descendant of an ape you tend to leave just as you please which can almost be equal to animals.

@KAGS you said

That he has changed his views does not invalidate his arguments

It is interesting to note that you consider that you consider "that ones view and argument are two different things, ",

KAG it sounds like you are trying desperately to hang unto straws,

Well according to KAG, Let me ask you as question: If 2 years ago, someone "A" accused a person "B" as being a thief, but now the same someone now changed his views and now says that person "B" is not a thief as he had once said, DOES THAT MEAN ACCORDING TO YOUR STATEMENT, THEN PERSON B IS STILL A THIEF EVEN THOUGH THE PERSON WHO MADE THE SPECULATION HAD ALREADY CHANGE HIS VIEWS AND THUS INVALIDATE HIS EARLIER STATEMENT ABOUT PERSON.

Come on , I think you can do better than that, Anthony Flew changing his views simply invalidates his earlier arguments.

At least KAG, you being a "Genius" ought to be able to see that, CAN'T YOU!


Isn't it funny that your claim "millions of years" based on the geologic column,, the geologic column claims millions of years based on the age of the stratas, yet the scientific dating methods (radioactive dating) are very inaccurate (they cannot give a correct answer to a known age).

Isn't it funny that within and across different layers/strata of your millions year old earth layers, there as been found polystrata fossils.

There polystrata fossils span different layers, meaning that those layers , cannot be millions of years old. Polystrata fossils (tree trunks, whales). It is funny that you tried to wish aways the existence of polystrata fossils by claiming that they "might be" (another speculation) tree roots that continued growing (, for millions of years through different layers, WHAT!), come on listen to yourself!.
Well maybe according to KAGs, , creationists are the ones that planted the polystrata evidence.

The POLYSTRATA FOSSILE EVIDENCE (found in "supposedly millions of years old" earth/coal material) alone , DESTROYS THE AGES PROPOSED BY GEOLOGIC COLUMN!,

MR KAG, CAN YOU ONCE AGAIN PLEASE GIVE ME AN EVIDENCE OF A BENEFICIAL MUTATION THAT IS WELL DOCUMENTED TO HAVE INCREASED THE GENETIC INFORMATION PRESENT IN AN ORGANISM,
At least according to evolution, organism were evolved from simple ones to more complex ones, meaning that there was an increase in their genetic information. So please kindly give me an example of a beneficial mutation and another example of an increase in the genetic information,


By the way , the so called artificial organism that one of the evolutionist on this thread was talking about,, was it CREATED by the scientist or did it EVOLVE from raw materials  PROVIDED by the scientist. Did they start from primorial stew when creating the artificial organism, How did they create the initial building blocks for that artificial organism, in what environment was that organism created by the scientist.

Since it is practically impossible to make proteins from scratch without some already made aminoacids, can you please let me know , how the scientist who made this artificial organism were able to go around this problem,


KAG,Bawomol, et al !

1. Cosmic Evolution is dependent on the pre-existence of matter and energy, (No matter no planet)
2. Geological Evolution is dependent on Cosmic Evolution (No planet no geology)
3. Biological Evolution is dependent on Geologic Evolution (No geological materials no primordial soup/stew)

So can you please tell me how the matter and energy came to be (in the first place), before your random chance of biological evolution started.

4. Can you please let me know how your biological evolution started,

Did biological evolution start from non-living materials,

OR

Did biological evolution start from neither nor dead "Primordial Stew",

OR

Did biological evolution start from an already living material,


By the way KAGs just like you are claiming that those who don't believe and accept evolution must be lacking scientific understanding, LET ME REMIND YOU THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE (even though you and some other evolutionist are trying hard via propaganda to make evolution look like science), SIMPLY BECAUSE EVOLUTION DOES NOT PROVIDE A SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF ALL ITS SPECULATION, All that evolution is saying is that it happened "millions" "trillions" and "zillions" of years ago, (MEANING THAT THEY BELIEVED IT HAPPENED BUT THEY CANNOT PROOF IT NOW) , dooh!

KAG just like you are trying to "play; the you are not scientifically qualified enough card", against someone like me who is against evolution , Let me remind you that even Jesus Christ Himself was accussed of not being LEARNED enough, as such your tactics and methods are not new, rather they are historic!

Mat 13:53  And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
Mat 13:54  And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
Mat 13:55  Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56  And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Mat 13:57  And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Mat 13:58  And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

By the way, how is your Dumb-O-Meter, has it caught any other person yet apart from me!

@KAGS you said

That he has changed his views does not invalidate his arguments

It is interesting to note that you consider that "that ones view and argument are two different things, ", AN INTERESTING TWIST IN THE USE OF ENGLISH

KAG it sounds like you are trying desperately to hang unto straws,

Well according to KAG, Let me ask you as question: If 2 years ago, someone "A" accused a person "B" as being a thief, but now the same someone now changed his views and now says that person "B" is not a thief as he had once said, DOES THAT MEAN ACCORDING TO YOUR STATEMENT, THEN PERSON B IS STILL A THIEF EVEN THOUGH THE PERSON WHO MADE THE SPECULATION HAD ALREADY CHANGE HIS VIEWS AND THUS INVALIDATE HIS EARLIER STATEMENT ABOUT PERSON.

Come on , I think you can do better than that, Anthony Flew changing his views simply invalidates his earlier arguments.

At least KAG, you being a "Genius" ought to be able to see that, CAN'T YOU!


Isn't it funny that your claim "millions of years" based on the geologic column,, the geologic column claims millions of years based on the age of the stratas, yet the scientific dating methods (radioactive dating) are very inaccurate (they cannot give a correct answer to a known age).

Isn't it funny that within and across different layers/strata of your millions year old earth layers, there as been found polystrata fossils.

There polystrata fossils span different layers, meaning that those layers , cannot be millions of years old. Polystrata fossils (tree trunks, whales). It is funny that you tried to wish aways the existence of polystrata fossils by claiming that they "might be" (another speculation) tree roots that continued growing (, for millions of years through different layers, WHAT!), come on listen to yourself!.
Well maybe according to KAGs, , creationists are the ones that planted the polystrata evidence.

The POLYSTRATA FOSSILE EVIDENCE (found in "supposedly millions of years old" earth/coal material) alone , DESTROYS THE AGES PROPOSED BY GEOLOGIC COLUMN!,

MR KAG, CAN YOU ONCE AGAIN PLEASE GIVE ME AN EVIDENCE OF A BENEFICIAL MUTATION THAT IS WELL DOCUMENTED TO HAVE INCREASED THE GENETIC INFORMATION PRESENT IN AN ORGANISM,
At least according to evolution, organism were evolved from simple ones to more complex ones, meaning that there was an increase in their genetic information. So please kindly give me an example of a beneficial mutation and another example of an increase in the genetic information,


By the way , the so called artificial organism that one of the evolutionist on this thread was talking about,, was it CREATED by the scientist or did it EVOLVE from raw materials PROVIDED by the scientist. Did they start from primorial stew when creating the artificial organism, How did they create the initial building blocks for that artificial organism, in what environment was that organism created by the scientist.

Since it is practically impossible to make proteins from scratch without some already made aminoacids, can you please let me know , how the scientist who made this artificial organism were able to go around this problem,


KAG,Bawomol, et al !

1. Cosmic Evolution is dependent on the pre-existence of matter and energy, (No matter no planet)
2. Geological Evolution is dependent on Cosmic Evolution (No planet no geology)
3. Biological Evolution is dependent on Geologic Evolution (No geological materials no primordial soup/stew)

So can you please tell me how the matter and energy came to be (in the first place), before your random chance of biological evolution started.

4. Can you please let me know how your biological evolution started,

Did biological evolution start from non-living materials,

OR

Did biological evolution start from neither nor dead "Primordial Stew",

OR

Did biological evolution start from an already living material,


By the way KAGs just like you are claiming that those who don't believe and accept evolution must be lacking scientific understanding, LET ME REMIND YOU THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE (even though you and some other evolutionist are trying hard via propaganda to make evolution look like science), SIMPLY BECAUSE EVOLUTION DOES NOT PROVIDE A SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF ALL ITS SPECULATION, All that evolution is saying is that it happened "millions" "trillions" and "zillions" of years ago, (MEANING THAT THEY BELIEVED IT HAPPENED BUT THEY CANNOT PROOF IT NOW) , dooh!

KAG just like you are trying to "play; the you are not scientifically qualified enough card", against someone like me who is against evolution , Let me remind you that even Jesus Christ Himself was accussed of not being LEARNED enough, as such your tactics and methods are not new, rather they are historic!

Mat 13:53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
Mat 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Mat 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Mat 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

By the way KAG (K? against God), how is your Dumb-O-Meter, has it caught any other person yet apart from me!

@sysuser
So can you please tell me how the matter and energy came to be (in the first place), before your random chance of biological evolution started.

please ask them oh my brother, i have been asking them esp bawol to please explain the origing of matter and he keeps dodging it and finally says there is no concrete evidence of matter. so with all the various scientific tools they are not able to determin the origin of matter yet same tools can determine the age of the earth? and go ahead to say they are descendants of apes it gives me some creeps

I asked that does it mean that according to your Dumb-O-Meter, that:

Richard Dawkins, was also not smart or intelligent enough that he could not answer the simple question of providing an evidence of beneficial mutation

I then gave you this link, www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g,, showing where he was dumbfounded by a very simple question


KAG you said and I quote

Which is why he answered the same question in a detailed article. Doh! By the way, that wasn't the question.

Come , if he knew or had a simple and truthful answer to that question, he didn't have go and prepared an article on it, he would have given a straight answer. Anyone, who watched that video clip of where Richard Dawkins was dumbfounded (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g) would notice that they even stopped that camera for a while for him to gather his taughts off-camera, yet he still gave a rather "speculative answer", that shows that his evidence for beneficial mutation is based on the usual "could have" "may have" "would have" "migth have", "millions of years fantasy/speculations of evolution.


By the way KAG, i noticed in one of your posts that you have already tried to dissociate yourself from Richard Dawkins as if he's not smart enough to defend evolution,

FOR GOODNESS SAKE , PLEASE STOP THIS "DUMP THEM WHEN THEY ARE NO LONGER USEFUL" MENTALITY!

SysUser:

The KAG pot is calling the kettle black,

Hey, that's racist! In any case, how so?

SysUser:

First and foremost , I am not saying that majority opinion or the personality of those who believe determines whether or not there is a God, what I am simply against is that you have tried to play the "I am smart you are not smart enough card against me",

It wasn't a card. Read my posts and read your contributions in this thread so far.

I am just trying to use the following examples to show to you the ones academic field or status as little or nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. Also It also does not mean that those people below are worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth. I am just trying to point out to you that at least there are people out there would should be smart enough for you to discuss the Lies of Evolution with , (that is off course assuming your insinuations are true, which I want to believe they are not) ,

Oh, I know there people that are smart enough with whom I can discuss the basis of the theory of evolution. I have discussed and debated with such people and learnt a great deal from them, irregardless of their views on evolution. Stop trying to pretend I've stated or implied that people that don't accept evolution aren't smart.

Well Mr or is that Mrs KAG, since you have implied that I must be really stupid (IQ wise) or (academically wise) to have decided to ignore you're seemingly undeniable facts (, fallacies, ) of evolution, I would there would like to know whether the majority of people living in the US who believe in God are also all have a IQ lower than yours.

Once again, many Christians accept evolution. I don't think the majority of people in the US have a lower Iq than I do - I don't know either way. Having said that, they did vote George Bush in for a second term.

I find it interesting that the data provided by this website shows that one can still have a high IQ and still believe in God, yet it seems that you are implying that a lack of understanding/intelligence is the reason for "lack of faith", "lack of believe" and "lack of comprehension" of evolution.

So kindly check out the website and give your opinion on this would you,

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html

Um, no. That's exactly what I haven't been saying. In fact, I've kept informing you that many (most?) Christians accept evolution. I haven't even commented on intelligence and religious beliefs, so I really have no idea where you're getting those implications. I really don't think I can be balmed for thinking you're not very bright.

Again also, since I (that person you have said is not so qualified to discuss with you) might not be able to engage your "High Intellectual Lordliness", at least I think geniuses like Albert Einstein might have able to.

Lol. With the amount of whining you're displaying, one would actually think you had made an effort to discuss evolution with me or anyone.

Wait maybe the following list of "maybe" more qualified individuals might be able to your "High Evolutioness" in a discussion as to why there is God, OR WAIT MAYBE THEY ARE ALSO NOT SMART ENOUGH FOR THEM TO HAVE BELIEVED THAT THERE IS A GOD, since your smartiness does not believe that there is a God!

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

If you want to discuss my reasons for disbelieving any gods exist, then feel free to begin such a discussion. If, however, you want to discuss evolution, then stop confusing acceptance of evolution with atheism.

Finally since you believe that random chance and natural election "selection" ensured that an APE evolved into human,

Humans are apes.

maybe you can give me a little explanation about the mathematical probabilistic conundrum that organisms would have to overcome when faced with "Precise Alternate Splicing" relative to DNA when we talk about Humans and APEs,

Probably a little more millions, trillions, and zillions of years giving to your primordial gook to change to "postmordial" ape would allow for the enormous obstacle brougth about by alternate splicing.

No and no

Read it for yourself in this little weblink for "Pure Review" ,
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/02/07/yet-another-genetic-difference-between-humans-and-chimpanzees

I will. Will you read Pete's Harcoff's little exploration on mutations ratesand why they aren't a problem for evolution? It's in one of my previous posts.

luvus:

@kag and bawol

i appreciate your effort to prove that you are a descendant of an APE which happen to appear by chance from a big bang millions of years that no one was there to phanthom,

That's not how it works.

for me i am a descendent of adam and eve made by a Higher Intelligence called God which is after His image. i wish you would take the time to re read the bible again with a open mind for u can know Him just by believeing His word.

Don't presume to know my state of mind when I read the Bible.

i ask myself why this discourse on evolution and i realise is that man don't want to acknowledge God so that S/he can do as they please just like animals do as they please. for instance a chick can grow up and still climb its mom. i don't mean to insult you but please when u see yourself as a descendant of an ape you tend to leave just as you please which can almost be equal to animals.

Hmm, so that's what I've been doing wrong. To think that all this time I could have been doing as I please everytime because of the liscence giving to me by evolution. Doh! Well, now that I know,

By the way, for the upteenth time, acceptance of evolution =/= atheism

luvus:

@sysuser
So can you please tell me how the matter and energy came to be (in the first place), before your random chance of biological evolution started.

please ask them oh my brother, i have been asking them esp bawol to please explain the origing of matter and he keeps dodging it and finally says there is no concrete evidence of matter.

Hey, I gave a response in another thread where you asked the question. I'll repost it here (for some reason that took a long time to find):

I wrote this brief summary a good while back:

"Matter is composed of elementary fermions, which makes protons and neutrons matter by definition; and protons and neutrons are composed of [three] quarks respectively. So basically, quark clumps are what make up basic matter. I should mention that matter is basically anything that has mass and fermions. What’s the origin of fermions?

Particles, which is what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.


Fermions interacted with the Higgs field and gained mass, which resulted in matter.

That's as brief and precise as I can make it, feel free to pick up a book on it or something. Kudos to R. Lippens as well."

Critique?

so with all the various scientific tools they are not able to determin the origin of matter yet same tools can determine the age of the earth? and go ahead to say they are descendants of apes it gives me some creeps

Different mechanisms wre used to determine those things.

What’s the origin of fermions?

Particles, which is what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.


Fermions interacted with the Higgs field and gained mass, which resulted in matter.

@KAG
Please answer:

Every effect must have a cause. What causes energy to fluctuate at the most quantum level?

If you claim that it is uncaused, then you will be going against your scientific principles. Then I will convict you of inconsistency.

Once again, many Christians accept evolution. I don't think the majority of people in the US have a lower Iq than I do - I don't know either way. Having said that, they did vote George Bush in for a second term.

So since they voted in Bush for second term, you are implying that they must be stupid, WELLDONE ONCE AGAIN, by your fruits we shall know you!

Hey, I gave a response in another thread where you asked the question. I'll repost it here (for some reason that took a long time to find):

I wrote this brief summary a good while back:

"Matter is composed of elementary fermions, which makes protons and neutrons matter by definition; and protons and neutrons are composed of [three] quarks respectively. So basically, quark clumps are what make up basic matter. I should mention that matter is basically anything that has mass and fermions. What’s the origin of fermions?

Particles, which is what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.


Fermions interacted with the Higgs field and gained mass, which resulted in matter.

That's as brief and precise as I can make it, feel free to pick up a book on it or something. Kudos to R. Lippens as well."

Critique?

Quarks, Fermions, gluons, baryons, hardrons,leptons, muons, photons, blah, blah, blah, yadah, yadah, yadah, et al, we can go on maybe for a little while more about DESCRIPTION OF MATTER, and still not be able to answer the question of where matter came from.

KAG what you are doing is trying to give a description of matter as if that is the origin of matter/energy, YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE MATTER / ENERGY CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Stop begging the question, rather answer the question that: Where did the Quarks (different flavours of quarks et al) come from in the first place.

Fermions interacted with the Higgs field and gained mass, which resulted in matter.

How did the Higgs Field come to existence in the first place (, MAYBE THE HIGGS FIELD JUST EXISTED OUT OF NOWWHERE HEY, DOOH!), IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR ARE DIGGING DEEP AND YET ARE FINDING MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWER, WHEN THE ANSWER IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE ALL THE WHILE.

That's as brief and precise as I can make it, feel free to pick up a book on it or something. Kudos to R. Lippens as well."

Critique?

I am not asking you for how precise you can get (i CAN ALSO BE AS PRECISE AS PERSONALLY POSSIBLE AS TO HOW A CISCO DEVICE WORKS, YET IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE CISCO DEVICE CAME FROM )

SON ONCE AGAIN , I AM ASKING YOU A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION; "WHERE DID MATTER / ENERGY COME FROM"


, Please KAGs try and answer the question this time!

We don't have "millions and millions of years" to wait for your TRUTHFUL answers

New's Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (This means in simple english that, SOMETHING CANNOT HAPPEN WITHOUT A CAUSE)

So KAG can you please explain again you statement that:

Particles, which is what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.

This is because your statement raises a few pertinent questions that show that you have not answered where matter and energy came from.

1. Where did the energy come from,

2. Why did the energy fluctuate,

3. What makes the fermion and its anti-particle to collide with each other usually,

4. What causes the repulsive gravitation pull,


Come one KAG you can do better than just speculative answers as reasons for origin of matter/energy!


ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHERE MATTER AND ENERGY CAME FROM,

SysUser:

@KAGS you said

It is interesting to note that you consider that you consider "that ones view and argument are two different things, ",

KAG it sounds like you are trying desperately to hang unto straws,

They are. Arguments can be used to support a view point; hwoever, as long as those arguments remain internally consistent and are as yet unrefuted, they don't lose their validity simply because of changed viewpoints. For example, that Einstein changed his view on the cosmological constant didn't mean that it was wrong or invalid.

Well according to KAG, Let me ask you as question: If 2 years ago, someone "A" accused a person "B" as being a thief, but now the same someone now changed his views and now says that person "B" is not a thief as he had once said, DOES THAT MEAN ACCORDING TO YOUR STATEMENT, THEN PERSON B IS STILL A THIEF EVEN THOUGH THE PERSON WHO MADE THE SPECULATION HAD ALREADY CHANGE HIS VIEWS AND THUS INVALIDATE HIS EARLIER STATEMENT ABOUT PERSON.

Let's push the hypothesis a little further. Let's assume that person B did steal "those" things and is in fact a thief. Would A's unexplained change of view invalidate the reality of what B is?

Come on , I think you can do better than that, Anthony Flew changing his views simply invalidates his earlier arguments.

How does it?

At least KAG, you being a "Genius" ought to be able to see that, CAN'T YOU!

No, I can't.

Isn't it funny that your claim "millions of years" based on the geologic column,, the geologic column claims millions of years based on the age of the stratas, yet the scientific dating methods (radioactive dating) are very inaccurate (they cannot give a correct answer to a known age).

Actually, no. I already pointed out that the Hovindite utterance you're repeating is hogwahs, so there's no need to repeat that. I will point out though, that the millions and billions of years dates are arrived at especially using several, independent radiometric techniques.

Isn't it funny that within and across different layers/strata of your millions year old earth layers, there as been found polystrata fossils.

Not really, no. Especially considering that has been responded to in previous posts.

There polystrata fossils span different layers, meaning that those layers , cannot be millions of years old. Polystrata fossils (tree trunks, whales). It is funny that you tried to wish aways the existence of polystrata fossils by claiming that they "might be" (another speculation) tree roots that continued growing (, for millions of years through different layers, WHAT!), come on listen to yourself!.

Wow, dishonest much? My speculation was because you were really vague about what you were asking. If you bother to look back, you'll see that your current question, to which you've appended my initial response, is significantly different from the one that my answer was meant for. In any case, rapid sedimentation was responsible for polystate fossils. I already responded to that, howebeit with links.

Well maybe according to KAGs, , creationists are the ones that planted the polystrata evidence.

No.

The POLYSTRATA FOSSILE EVIDENCE (found in "supposedly millions of years old" earth/coal material) alone , DESTROYS THE AGES PROPOSED BY GEOLOGIC COLUMN!,

No.

MR KAG, CAN YOU ONCE AGAIN PLEASE GIVE ME AN EVIDENCE OF A BENEFICIAL MUTATION THAT IS WELL DOCUMENTED TO HAVE INCREASED THE GENETIC INFORMATION PRESENT IN AN ORGANISM,
At least according to evolution, organism were evolved from simple ones to more complex ones, meaning that there was an increase in their genetic information. So please kindly give me an example of a beneficial mutation and another example of an increase in the genetic information,

You know, just because you've chosen to not read my responses doesn't mean I haven't taken the time to answer your questions. I answered this about four or five pages ago, and what's more a few posts agao, provided a write-up detailing the incidence of beneficial mutations. I'll give the previous examples again:

Apo-AIM: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html
Nylon degradation bacteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

By the way , the so called artificial organism that one of the evolutionist on this thread was talking about,, was it CREATED by the scientist or did it EVOLVE from raw materials PROVIDED by the scientist. Did they start from primorial stew when creating the artificial organism, How did they create the initial building blocks for that artificial organism, in what environment was that organism created by the scientist.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Since it is practically impossible to make proteins from scratch without some already made aminoacids, can you please let me know , how the scientist who made this artificial organism were able to go around this problem,

You're wrong.

Making proteins from scratch: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070522210926.htm

KAG,Bawomol, et al !

1. Cosmic Evolution is dependent on the pre-existence of matter and energy, (No matter no planet)
2. Geological Evolution is dependent on Cosmic Evolution (No planet no geology)
3. Biological Evolution is dependent on Geologic Evolution (No geological materials no primordial soup/stew)

Yeah, only the last one is generally called evolution.

So can you please tell me how the matter and energy came to be (in the first place), before your random chance of biological evolution started.

I did it in the post above.

4. Can you please let me know how your biological evolution started,

Did biological evolution start from non-living materials,

OR

Did biological evolution start from neither nor dead "Primordial Stew",

OR

Did biological evolution start from an already living material,

Biological evolution - as the name implies - is a component of living things. It started with the imperfect replication of living organisms.

By the way KAGs just like you are claiming that those who don't believe and accept evolution must be lacking scientific understanding,

NO! Once again, I said YOU lack scientific understanding. I'll repeat it again, since you have a hard time understanding simple concepts: YOU. Not everyone, not otehrs I haven't witnessed, you.

LET ME REMIND YOU THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE

Actually, it is.

(even though you and some other evolutionist are trying hard via propaganda to make evolution look like science), SIMPLY BECAUSE EVOLUTION DOES NOT PROVIDE A SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF ALL ITS SPECULATION, All that evolution is saying is that it happened "millions" "trillions" and "zillions" of years ago, (MEANING THAT THEY BELIEVED IT HAPPENED BUT THEY CANNOT PROOF IT NOW) , dooh!

From my first response to that sort of thing in this thread:

Actually there are several independent lines of enquiry that support the theory of evolution. These include:

- Shared endogeneous retroviral insertions between species, including humans and other apes

- shared genetic sequences and genes between species, and in particular, the presence of chromosome no.2 in humans. A very strong indication of the shared ancestry between chimps and humans.

- The fossils of transitional animals, e.g. Archaeopteryx and other dinosaur-bird transitionals.

- observed speciation both in anature and in labs. e.g Hybridisation peonies resultng in speciation


Those are just a few examples of the evidence available.

KAG just like you are trying to "play; the you are not scientifically qualified enough card", against someone like me who is against evolution , Let me remind you that even Jesus Christ Himself was accussed of not being LEARNED enough, as such your tactics and methods are not new, rather they are historic!

You're not Jesus. I know you don't have even a decent understanding of science based on your posts.

imhotep:

@KAG
Please answer:

Every effect must have a cause.

How many times is this now? At least we now know for certain why you arealways handwaving away posts. No, not every effect has a cause. Radioactive decay, for example, doesn't. Virtual particles are another example. Maybe this time you'll notice the answers. Fingers crossed.

What causes energy to fluctuate at the most quantum level?

Quantum instability.

If you claim that it is uncaused, then you will be going against your scientific principles. Then I will convict you of inconsistency.

It's uncaused.

KAG:

It's uncaused.

@KAG
You are inconsistent, and deserve to be ignored.

God is the uncaused cause. Let me repeat one of our proofs here:

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.


You are still battling to understand the things God created millions of years ago. You have no basis on which to question His existence.

The YT videos about Richard Dawkins being stumped by the questions about mutation are the result of Intelligent Design advocates (ID'iots) doctoring the initial interview. I have got a link to the initial interview but unfortunately I cannot find it at the moment.

I really don't think I can be balmed for thinking you're not very bright.

1.lack of understanding
2. not intelligent
3. not very bright,

KAG, temper temper, bro!

You don't have to try and TASER me with derogatory words, THE DICTIONARY MIGHT SOON BE EXHAUSTED OF DEROGATORY WORDS AT THE RATE YOU ARE GOING.

Lol. With the amount of whining you're displaying, one would actually think you had made an effort to discuss evolution with me or anyone.

, amount of whining you're displaying, , now that's a good "new" one, KEEP COMING UP WITH YOUR MELODRAMATIC STATEMENTS, THEY ARE QUITE FOR COMMUNICATION, DON'T YOU THINK!

Its funny I had thought we had already started discussing evolution, NAAHAAAAAHH  , KAGS MUST FIND HIS IQ SOULMATE FIRST FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED A DISCUSSION, my mistake!

kAG, LET'S TRY AND WORK ON THAT TEMPER, so now sing along with me;, I WILL PRETTY, ALL SO PRETTY,AM SO HAPPY, I FEEL FUNNY, ALL SO FUNNY,

---------------------------------------------------------

SysUser:

So since they voted in Bush for second term, you are implying that they must be stupid,

It was a joke, dummy. The sentence that preceded it should have turned you on to that.

WELLDONE ONCE AGAIN, by your fruits we shall know you!

Hey, I don't have any fruits. If I was going to own gay guys, I'd prefer butch ones

Quarks, Fermions, gluons, baryons, hardrons,leptons, muons, photons, blah, blah, blah, yadah, yadah, yadah, et al, we can go on maybe for a little while more about DESCRIPTION OF MATTER, and still not be able to answer the question of where matter came from.

Lol. Just lol.

KAG what you are doing is trying to give a description of matter as if that is the origin of matter/energy, YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE MATTER / ENERGY CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Stop begging the question, rather answer the question that: Where did the Quarks (different flavours of quarks et al) come from in the first place.

Um, read my response.

How did the Higgs Field come to existence in the first place (, MAYBE THE HIGGS FIELD JUST EXISTED OUT OF NOWWHERE HEY, DOOH!), IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR ARE DIGGING DEEP AND YET ARE FINDING MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWER, WHEN THE ANSWER IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE ALL THE WHILE.

Higgs field: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Leib-Clk/higgs.html

It really, really is a complex science

I am not asking you for how precise you can get (i CAN ALSO BE AS PRECISE AS PERSONALLY POSSIBLE AS TO HOW A CISCO DEVICE WORKS, YET IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE CISCO DEVICE CAME FROM )

I gave a very brief summary of how matter may have arisen. Essentially, where it came from.

SON ONCE AGAIN , I AM ASKING YOU A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION; "WHERE DID MATTER / ENERGY COME FROM" , Please KAGs try and answer the question this time!

We don't have "millions and millions of years" to wait for your TRUTHFUL answers

I already answered it. And the question isn't a simple one.

SysUser:

New's Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (This means in simple english that, SOMETHING CANNOT HAPPEN WITHOUT A CAUSE)

Newton's laws of motion apply, generally, to macroscopic events, not necessarily micro and quantum effects.

So KAG can you please explain again you statement that:

Particles, which is what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.

This is because your statement raises a few pertinent questions that show that you have not answered where matter and energy came from.

1. Where did the energy come from,

That in itself is totlly dependent on which theory or theories are right. Hwoever, like I pointed out to another poster, quantum instability can cause virtual particles to arise from nothing.

2. Why did the energy fluctuate,

I don't know that your question makes sense.

3. What makes the fermion and its anti-particle to collide with each other usually,

Their characteristics

4. What causes the repulsive gravitation pull,

No idea.

Come one KAG you can do better than just speculative answers as reasons for origin of matter/energy!


ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHERE MATTER AND ENERGY CAME FROM,

Um, I did already.

THERATIONA, YOU SAID AND I QUOTE:

therationa:

The YT videos about Richard Dawkins being stumped by the questions about mutation are the result of Intelligent Design advocates (ID'iots) doctoring the initial interview. I have got a link to the initial interview but unfortunately I cannot find it at the moment.

Hmmmm, now you are giving excuses to what we can see and hear for ourselves, ISN'T THAT FUNNY, Maybe you are supposed to tell us what we are supposed to be thinking/concluding,

You are calling Intelligent Design advocates  the ID'iots, HOW CREATIVE OF YOU, MUST YOU BECOME NASTY JUST BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SHAKE THE FEELING OF WHERE YOU MIGHT END UP AFTER DEATH (HEAVEN OR HELL/LAKE OF FIRE),

You don't have to get nasty, JUST KNOW THAT while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, therefore God does not want the death of a sinner but for him to repent, no one came to the Father except through Christ.

Jesus loves you and died for you, all you have to do is accept Him as your Lord and Saviour,

imhotep:

@KAG
You are inconsistent,

How so? How have I been inconsistent?

and deserve to be ignored.

You weren't already doing that?

God is the uncaused cause. Let me repeat one of our proofs here:

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

And I'll repeat the response that is applicable to it:

False syllogisms and begging the question.

First, the argument that we can deduce that everything is moved based on limited and material observations is a false one. It inores the fact that things which are counterintuitive exist. Furthermore, there has to be a clear and logical link between material observations and the application of those observations to something intagible, for the argument to be accepted as a logical one. Finally, actually, not everything has a mover. Radioactive decay, for instance doesnt. Virtual particles don't either. Those alone render the argument moot.

Edit: In my haste I forgot to incllude a final refutation of the argument that begs the question.

Although it has been shown that the basic premise of the "ex mutu" argument is flawed, there is no harm in pointing out that the final argument is just as bad. The argument presupposes that there has to be a mover that wasn't moved; however, there is no logical reason to call that final mover (in the context of the argument) "God". In fact, there's absolutely no reason to suppose that the "unmoved/unstarted/etc" would be a cognizant or, in fact, something with life. What's more, if decide to accept the principles laid out in the arguments, we'd have to conclude that based on our wider experience, the thing termed God must also be a mindless force.

(substitute uncaused for unmoved where necessary).

You are still battling to understand the things God created millions of years ago. You have no basis on which to question His existence.

Whose existence?

therationa:

The YT videos about Richard Dawkins being stumped by the questions about mutation are the result of Intelligent Design advocates (ID'iots) doctoring the initial interview. I have got a link to the initial interview but unfortunately I cannot find it at the moment.

While there is the suggestion of doctoring, I don't think they did. I accept Dawkins' explanation, though: that he was annoyed at getting tricked to give Creationists an interview. Apparently, they lied that they weren't Creationists to get him to do the show. Which reminds me.

From what KAG said

I gave a very brief summary of how matter may have arisen. Essentially, where it came from.

So you are not sure, yet you base you "faith" and "believe" on it, HOW WONDERFUL!

------------------

kAG said:

It was a joke, dummy. The sentence that preceded it should have turned you on to that.

, dummy, hmmmm, here we go again, the usually profanity. Temper, Temper

------------------

KAG said:

sysuser said
Quote
SON ONCE AGAIN , I AM ASKING YOU A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION; "WHERE DID MATTER / ENERGY COME FROM" , Please KAGs try and answer the question this time!

We don't have "millions and millions of years" to wait for your TRUTHFUL answers

I already answered it. And the question isn't a simple one.

I already answered it. And the question isn't a simple one.

Well bro, even a blind man can see that you have not answer the question of WHERE MATTER/ENERGY CAME FROM,

------------------
KAG said:

Quote
Particles, which is what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.

This is because your statement raises a few pertinent questions that show that you have not answered where matter and energy came from.

1. Where did the energy come from,

That in itself is totlly dependent on which theory or theories are right. Hwoever, like I pointed out to another poster, quantum instability can cause virtual particles to arise from nothing.


Quote
2. Why did the energy fluctuate,

I don't know that your question makes sense.


Quote
3. What makes the fermion and its anti-particle to collide with each other usually,

Their characteristics


Quote
4. What causes the repulsive gravitation pull,

No idea.



Quote
Come one KAG you can do better than just speculative answers as reasons for origin of matter/energy!

ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHERE MATTER AND ENERGY CAME FROM,

Um, I did already.

[quote][/quote]

It's good to see that your are showing the kind of stuff that you are made of

SysUser:

I asked that does it mean that according to your Dumb-O-Meter, that:

Richard Dawkins, was also not smart or intelligent enough that he could not answer the simple question of providing an evidence of beneficial mutation

No. Richard Dawkins is a very, very smart man, make no mistake about it. I suspect that he could answer the question.

I then gave you this link, www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g,, showing where he was dumbfounded by a very simple question


KAG you said and I quote

Come , if he knew or had a simple and truthful answer to that question, he didn't have go and prepared an article on it, he would have given a straight answer. Anyone, who watched that video clip of where Richard Dawkins was dumbfounded (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g) would notice that they even stopped that camera for a while for him to gather his taughts off-camera, yet he still gave a rather "speculative answer", that shows that his evidence for beneficial mutation is based on the usual "could have" "may have" "would have" "migth have", "millions of years fantasy/speculations of evolution.

Wait, what is your point? Is your argument something along the lines of: that Richard Dawkins may not have been able to answer a question about rise of information on a show, but could in article, therefore, beneficial mutations don't exist.

I really hope not.

By the way KAG, i noticed in one of your posts that you have already tried to dissociate yourself from Richard Dawkins as if he's not smart enough to defend evolution,[

FOR GOODNESS SAKE , PLEASE STOP THIS "DUMP THEM WHEN THEY ARE NO LONGER USEFUL" MENTALITY!

Lol. What? Dude, why do you keep doing this to yourself?

SysUser:

1.lack of understanding
2. not intelligent
3. not very bright,

KAG, temper temper, bro!

I'm not angry, I'm just pointing out as is.

You don't have to try and TASER me with derogatory words, THE DICTIONARY MIGHT SOON BE EXHAUSTED OF DEROGATORY WORDS AT THE RATE YOU ARE GOING.

That's why we have reiteration.

, amount of whining you're displaying, , now that's a good "new" one, KEEP COMING UP WITH YOUR MELODRAMATIC STATEMENTS, THEY ARE QUITE FOR COMMUNICATION, DON'T YOU THINK!

Its funny I had thought we had already started discussing evolution, NAAHAAAAAHH , KAGS MUST FIND HIS IQ SOULMATE FIRST FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED A DISCUSSION, my mistake!

Copy/pastes and subsequent ignoring of responses do not an argument make.

kAG, LET'S TRY AND WORK ON THAT TEMPER, so now sing along with me;, I WILL PRETTY, ALL SO PRETTY,AM SO HAPPY, I FEEL FUNNY, ALL SO FUNNY,

--------------------------------------------------------

Psychological Projection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Higgs Fields


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Higgs field (named after a Scottish physicist Peter Higgs) is a field supposed to be responsible for the genesis of inertial mass (and, because of Einstein's equivalence principle, gravitational mass). When the universe is extremely hot, a Higgs field (which is supposed to have a certain curve of potential energy; as regards the shape of this curve, there is no unique consensus, except for a certain general feature, among the physicists) exerts a wild influence; but we will neglect this here. Once the universe cools down enough, below a certain temerature, the Higgs field assumes a certain value (i.e. a value of the Higgs field) which corresponds to the lowest energy level (i.e. the potential energy is zero, but the value of the Higgs field is nonzero; this level may be called vacuum). And this energy level continues to prevail throughout the whole universe (uniform, nonzero Higgs field).

Now, suppose a quark or electron moves (supposed fundamental particles which make up composite particles such as proton, neutron, or various atoms) in this uniform Higgs field. If that particle changes its velocity of movement, that is, if it accelerates, then the Higgs field is supposed to exert a certain amount of resistance or drag, and that is the origin of inertial mass. In a slightly more precise terminology, inertial mass is generated by interactions between a particle and the (nonzero) Higgs field. In a nutshell, this is the origin of inertial mass. Of course, other kinds of interaction, such as the strong interaction (governed by the force of gluons, particles gluing quarks together into a proton, say) may contribute significantly to the resulting mass. Moreover, the degree of resistance (drag) of the Higgs field is different depending on the kinds of fundamental particles, and this generates the difference between the mass of electron and that of a quark.

What if such a Higgs field did not exist? Many physicists believe that, then, all particles should be massless, like photon. Thus the difference between various particles may all disappear. Recent theories of unification suppose, in fact, that at the earliest stage of the universe, when the temperature was extremely high, that was indeed the case; and that, therefore, all differences between various particles disappeared and all forces were one. This is the essential part of the unification: i.e., at the beginning, all forces were one. Thus the formation of the nonzero Higgs field is (when the universe cools down) nothing but a phase transition of the universe: the transition which produces gravitational force (gravitational and inertial mass are the same). The manner of such a phase transition is schimatically illustrated in the following figure; imagine a ball, initially located at the top of the center hill rolls down the curve, and it will come to rest somewhere in the bottom. Also, the inflationary burst (the Higgs field is called inflaton field there) of the early universe is essentially related with this phrase transition, but we will discuss it in another page.



Leibniz, of course, never dreamt of Higgs fields; but his distinction between "active power" and "inertia" is somehow addressing to similar questions.

"The active power, which is in the form, and the inertia, or resistance to motion, which is in the matter". (Appendix A, 2, p. 89 of Ariew edition)

References

Greene, Brian (2004) The Fabric of the Cosmos, pp. 254-266, Allen Lane.

Guth, Alan (1997) The Inflationary Universe, pp. 137-145, 167-176, Perseus Books.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last modified, April 28, 2005. (c) Soshichi Uchii

KAGS here are some questions from your reference article:

1. First potential energy (not the only type of energy) is zero, but Higgs Fields is non-zero (meaning there is a pre-existing value of energy, a pre-existent energy)

2. Higgs field is "supposed" to be responsible for the genesis of inertial mass

3. Higgs field kicks in when the "Universe cools down",

4. What about the "active" and "passive" masses.

Well done KAG, onces more there is lot of puff and huff, and still no substance.

Your so called article does not answer the question, in fact it raises the question, "WHAT CREATED THE HOT UNIVERSE"

SysUser:

From what KAG said
So you are not sure, yet you base you "faith" and "believe" on it, HOW WONDERFUL!

No it has little to do with faith. It has more to do with avoiding dogmatism. Having said tha, no I'm not sure, and I'm open to critiques.

------------------

kAG said:
, dummy, hmmmm, here we go again, the usually profanity. Temper, Temper

Pointing out as is.

------------------




Well bro, even a blind man can see that you have not answer the question of WHERE MATTER/ENERGY CAME FROM,

Only because the blind man can't see my response. You quoted it, but I don't think you've read it yet.

------------------


It's good to see that your are showing the kind of stuff that you are made of

Um, okay?

KAG:

No it has little to do with faith. It has more to do with avoiding dogmatism. Having said tha, no I'm not sure, and I'm open to critiques.

Pointing out as is.
Only because the blind man can't see my response. You quoted it, but I don't think you've read it yet.

Um, okay?

Thank God you at least accept that you are not sure about something, , finally KAG, I would have hugged you now, If you were not 1. a guy 2.far away in uk.