Brilliant video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc

Enjoy

people were laughing and scoffing at noah before the flood came, YOU AND YOUR COMMENT IS NOT THE NEXT BEST THING SINCE SLICE BREAD.


I JUST WANT US CHRISTIANS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE READY FOR THE SECOND COMING OF THE LORD , SIMPLY BECAUSE GOD PROMISED TO DESTROY THE WORLD DURING THE TIME OF NOAH AND HE KEPT HIS PROMISE. LIKEWISE HE HAS PROMISED TO DESTROY THE WORLD WITH FIRE THIS TIME AND I BELIEVE HE IS GOING TO KEEP HIS PROMISE WHETHER WE ARE READY FOR HIM OR NOT. AS SUCH WE NEED TO KEEP AND MAKE OURSELVES READY SO AS TO AVOID BE PARTAKERS IN THE PUNISHMENT TO COME


The constant barage of insults , persecution and ridicule from SCOFFERS (M.u.slims , Atheist, Evolutionist, Catholics etc) on True Christians who dare to speak the truth against their lies and idolatory is actually nothing new.
Below is what the bible has to say about them,


2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


Lets note the following from the verses above:

1. Scoffers (someone who jeers or mocks or treats something with contempt or calls out in derision) = Evolutionist, islamists, atheists

2. Scoffers walk after their own lusts (selfishness, murders, suppression of truth, homosexuality, animal rights movement nonsense, humanism) and say that Christ would not come, things continue as they always have from the beginning (shown by when they said that evolution has always being there from the beginning)

3. People that make jest of the bible and everything in it (Creation etc) are not new they had existed before even in the perished world of the time of Noah.

4. The world during the time of Noah perished, via[b] Water[/b].

5. Our world during our time (or time of our children) would also perish, this time via Fire

SysUser:

people were laughing and scoffing at noah before the flood came, YOU AND YOUR COMMENT IS NOT THE NEXT BEST THING SINCE SLICE BREAD.


I JUST WANT US CHRISTIANS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE READY FOR THE SECOND COMING OF THE LORD , SIMPLY BECAUSE GOD PROMISED TO DESTROY THE WORLD DURING THE TIME OF NOAH AND HE KEPT HIS PROMISE. LIKEWISE HE HAS PROMISED TO DESTROY THE WORLD WITH FIRE THIS TIME AND I BELIEVE HE IS GOING TO KEEP HIS PROMISE WHETHER WE ARE READY FOR HIM OR NOT. AS SUCH WE NEED TO KEEP AND MAKE OURSELVES READY SO AS TO AVOID BE PARTAKERS IN THE PUNISHMENT TO COME


The constant barage of insults , persecution and ridicule from SCOFFERS (M.u.slims , Atheist, Evolutionist, Catholics etc) on True Christians who dare to speak the truth against their lies and idolatory is actually nothing new.
Below is what the bible has to say about them,


2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


Lets note the following from the verses above:

1. Scoffers (someone who jeers or mocks or treats something with contempt or calls out in derision) = Evolutionist, islamists, atheists

2. Scoffers walk after their own lusts (selfishness, murders, suppression of truth, homosexuality, animal rights movement nonsense, humanism) and say that Christ would not come, things continue as they always have from the beginning (shown by when they said that evolution has always being there from the beginning)

3. People that make jest of the bible and everything in it (Creation etc) are not new they had existed before even in the perished world of the time of Noah.

4. The world during the time of Noah perished, via[b] Water[/b].

5. Our world during our time (or time of our children) would also perish, this time via Fire

Exactly. That's why you are laughed at. You got your buried in the cesspit that is the bible and can't think beyond it. When are you going to stop being indoctrinated and start thinking?

Didn't the bible say rely not on your own understanding?

tpaine:

Exactly. That's why you are laughed at. You got your buried in the cesspit that is the bible and can't think beyond it. When are you going to stop being indoctrinated and start thinking?

That's right. The religion of evolution has many dogmas describing things that happened 100 million years ago.

Since we were not around as at then, we are supposed to accept these dogmas by faith.

This sounds very much like the sola fide (by faith alone) of Martin Luther.

imhotep:

That's right. The religion of evolution has many dogmas describing things that happened 100 million years ago.

Since we were not around as at then, we are supposed to accept these dogmas by faith.

This sounds very much like the sola fide (by faith alone) of Martin Luther.

Goodness me!

Let's say you walk 20 miles into the forest and find a 90 metres Mahogany tree down on its side having smashed a great deal of the shrubs and vegetation around it as it fell.

Now, how would you know this tree fell? You were not there when it fell and hit the ground. But can tell from the evidence it left behind that it fell?

tpaine:

Goodness me!

Let's say you walk 20 miles into the forest and find a 90 metres Mahogany tree down on its side having smashed a great deal of the shrubs and vegetation around it as it fell.

Now, how would you know this tree fell? You were not there when it fell and hit the ground. But can tell from the evidence it left behind that it fell?

At least I SAW a fallen tree.

In the case of evolution, they see no tree, but an empty patch of land. They then conjecture that a tree must have been growing on that patch of land, and that this tree somehow disappeared from sight.

imhotep:

At least I SAW a fallen tree.

In the case of evolution, they see no tree, but an empty patch of land. They then conjecture that a tree must have been growing on that patch of land, and that this tree somehow disappeared from sight.

Good, we are making progress.

Now, let's say by the time you arrive, the tree had been eaten up by some really hungry termites and bugs, leaving no visible trunk and branches and leaves. Do you think it is still possible to determine that a tree once stood there but fell and was eaten or rotted away?

tpaine:

Good, we are making progress.

Now, let's say by the time you arrive, the tree had been eaten up by some really hungry termites and bugs, leaving no visible trunk and branches and leaves. Do you think it is still possible to determine that a tree once stood there but fell and was eaten or rotted away?

There are many ways to make a fallen tree disapper.

It smacks of religious dogmatism to insist on ONLY ONE way for the tree to disappear.

imhotep:

There are many ways to make a fallen tree disapper.

It smacks of religious dogmatism to insist on ONLY ONE way for the tree to disappear.

Far be it from me to be dogmatic. I was simply suggesting a proposition that happens to millions of trees daily out there in the forest of the world. Which is more like? That a fallen tree in the middle of a jungle would be eaten by ants and bugs or that it would be carted away by something else?

Please, don't thrash about. Answer the question.

tpaine:

Far be it from me to be dogmatic. I was simply suggesting a proposition that happens to millions of trees daily out there in the forest of the world. Which is more like? That a fallen tree in the middle of a jungle would be eaten by ants and bugs or that it would be carted away by something else?

Please, don't thrash about. Answer the question.

A fallen tree can be ->
- decayed and re-fertilize the soil
- carted away by elephants
- carted away by men
- eaten by ants
- eaten by termites
- eaten by a combination of goats, antelope, ants and termites
- etc etc etc

The end result is the same - the tree disappers.

imhotep:

A fallen tree can be ->
- decayed and re-fertilize the soil
- carted away by elephants
- carted away by men
- eaten by ants
- eaten by termites
- eaten by a combination of goats, antelope, ants and termites
- etc etc etc

The end result is the same - the tree disappers.

Really weeeeeeeell done. weeeel done. We are getting somewhere. You are beginning to use those little gray cells

End result is that the tree is no longer there when you arrive on the spot however long after the tree fell.

Within reason, do you think it is possible to tell that a tree once stood on that spot and had fallen and been eaten up (or carted away, etc, etc, etc)?

tpaine:

Really weeeeeeeell done. weeeel done. We are getting somewhere. You are beginning to use those little gray cells

End result is that the tree is no longer there when you arrive on the spot however long after the tree fell.

Within reason, do you think it is possible to tell that a tree once stood on that spot and had fallen and been eaten up (or carted away, etc, etc, etc)?

It depends on WHEN you, the observer, arrive at the scene.

If you arrive 60 million years after the tree disappears, YOU WILL NOT have anything to hold on to in order to make an informed decision about the existence of the tree.

imhotep:

It depends on WHEN you, the observer, arrive at the scene.

If you arrive 60 million years after the tree disappears, YOU WILL NOT have anything to hold on to in order to make an informed decision about the existence of the tree.

My goodness, you are surprising me today. Absolutely correct. That is why I said "within reason" in my last post.

But let us say you arrive on the scene 1 - 4 years after the event.

In fact, a good analogy would be a forensic car accident investigator who arrives at the scene of a hit and run accident where the vehicle crashed into a wall or road intersection, but the vehicle has been drive away from the scene. And there wer no eye-witness at the scene.

Anyway, you arrive at the scene. Can you formulate a hypothesis to investigate what might have happened at the scene (of the fallen tree or the car crash) given that you were not there, nor was anyone there to witness the event?

Imhotep,

Are you still there?

imhotep:

At least I SAW a fallen tree.

In the case of evolution, they see no tree, but an empty patch of land. They then conjecture that a tree must have been growing on that patch of land, and that this tree somehow disappeared from sight.

nonsense. There's plenty of currently observable evidence for evolution, and plenty of repeatable evidence. You've been given some on several insances.

great thread

bawomolo:

great thread

I thought I was getting somewhere with Imhotep, when he realised I had cornered him he never came back. My analogy about a fallen tree and car accident remains unanswered by him. Hope he comes back some time. But I will not hold my breath.

tpaine:

My goodness, you are surprising me today. Absolutely correct. That is why I said "within reason" in my last post.

But let us say you arrive on the scene 1 - 4 years after the event.

In fact, a good analogy would be a forensic car accident investigator who arrives at the scene of a hit and run accident where the vehicle crashed into a wall or road intersection, but the vehicle has been drive away from the scene. And there wer no eye-witness at the scene.

Anyway, you arrive at the scene. Can you formulate a hypothesis to investigate what might have happened at the scene (of the fallen tree or the car crash) given that you were not there, nor was anyone there to witness the event?

@tpaine
I'm glad you used the word hypothesis.
Yes, MANY hypothesis can be formulated. If you arrive the scene a few moments after the event, your hypothesis just might be close to the truth.

If you arrive 90 million years later, you need an act of faith to hold on to the hypothesis.

imhotep:

@tpaine
I'm glad you used the word hypothesis.
Yes, MANY hypothesis can be formulated. If you arrive the scene a few moments after the event, your hypothesis just might be close to the truth.

If you arrive 90 million years later, you need an act of faith to hold on to the hypothesis.

Yes, I used the word hypothesis deliberately because that is how science works. First you construct a hypothesis to investigate and explain the set of facts/evidence you have observed. And then you test out you hypothesis. If it consistently explain the facts (observed data) then it is termed a theory. Even after it is called a theory it should continue to consistently explain the data. Where it fails to explain the data, then it may need modification or total rejection and maybe replace by a better theory.

Just like the germ theory of disease replace the miasma theory of disease.

Now, what if you have a situation that leaves behind evidence (facts ) that last millions (or billions) of years rather than just a few tens of years.

For instance, can you formulate a hypothesis (theory) as to the origin of petroleum fuels from natural processes? If you own a car, you MUST be interested in how that fuel you use all got formed, as a modern day enlightened man. How do you think it got formed.

Another example, can you formulate a hypothesis as to how diamond gets formed naturally. Have you ever given a diamond ring to a loved one? Do you know how it is formed naturally? Do you think it would be possible to artificially mimic the process to produce diamond in the lab?

@Tpaine: I watched 2 or so segments of the video series on You tube. I did not find anything outstanding from it, that goes against the Is"lamic Creationist perspective. I think the evolutionist always try to justify or explain their theory not from the start, but always from after the truly original beginning! But the Creationist, at least from the Is"lamic point of view and I also take it that the Jews and Christians are also in on this, is that there is a Causer that brought the true start or original beginning of things to bear!

The Evolutionist can not in a Trillion years explain how the first thing began to form. If they were to attempt it, they will fall flat in their effort, since they must have to start from sometimes before the beginning of the existence of that thing. Say for example the particle that the big bang theory action took place on. How did it come into existence? What was it that made it come to existence? All of these are many more are what the evolutionists have to go back and research and come up with concrete evidence. And not just suppositions.

From Is"lamic view, all things that mankind will ever know, even when knowledge is so advance and at the highest level in the future, just before the world and mankind extinct, all of these knowledge and advancement will still be enveloped in discoveries of things enveloped by the 1st HEAVEN! All of these knowledge will still lacks something not yet discovered in that envelope. Interestingly, the first heaven is enveloped by the second Heaven. The second heaven is enveloped by the third. Each seccessive higher numbered heaven therefore enveloped the one before it, which enveloped all that the previous heaven enveloped anyway.

Since there is heaven heavens, therefore the Seventh Heaven enveloped, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and all that it enveloped. Yet the seven heavens is part of our world or universe! In other words, there is no matter of hypothesis that the evolutionists amay provide, there is a true Causer that existed long time before that. He has always remain in existence and He is God the Almighty Creator!

I remember asking KAG a question in another thread about what was happening to human being prior to the first evolutionist came with his supposition? What possible data did he present and what was he trying to proof? That Adam did not exist or that Adam came from Ape or have the same source as Ape? My additional question is this, which source did they have in common, and how did it come to being? If you go back to thefoundation of that source, and you ask the same question as you go further back, you still have to the first question: How did it come to existence? What happens and what are the facts before it came to existence?

As you and Imhotep go back and forth on a down tree in the forest, it seems that you are laying down a view that the place must have a tree in the first place. It is not so necessary that a forest must have a tree. It could have been water, as a pond that was there. The water may just have dried up, for whatever reason. Furyher it could have been a big rock or boulder that was there. The possibilities are many. So in essence an empty space may or may not have something in it all along. It could have been a phenomina. God is capable to do all things. The Creator is powerful. He created the creationists and evolutionists alike, without a remarkable differences in their physicallity and their ability to accept or reject ideas. It is no wonder you and others can reject creation. Other creationists and I are free to reject your pure concept of evolution without the Original Causer who is constantly directing all affairs, God!

olabowale:

@Tpaine: I watched 2 or so segments of the video series on You tube. I did not find anything outstanding from it, that goes against the Is"lamic Creationist perspective. I think the evolutionist always try to justify or explain their theory not from the start, but always from after the truly original beginning! But the Creationist, at least from the Is"lamic point of view and I also take it that the Jews and Christians are also in on this, is that there is a Causer that brought the true start or original beginning of things to bear!

The Evolutionist can not in a Trillion years explain how the first thing began to form. If they were to attempt it, they will fall flat in their effort, since they must have to start from sometimes before the beginning of the existence of that thing. Say for example the particle that the big bang theory action took place on. How did it come into existence? What was it that made it come to existence? All of these are many more are what the evolutionists have to go back and research and come up with concrete evidence. And not just suppositions.

From Is"lamic view, all things that mankind will ever know, even when knowledge is so advance and at the highest level in the future, just before the world and mankind extinct, all of these knowledge and advancement will still be enveloped in discoveries of things enveloped by the 1st HEAVEN! All of these knowledge will still lacks something not yet discovered in that envelope. Interestingly, the first heaven is enveloped by the second Heaven. The second heaven is enveloped by the third. Each seccessive higher numbered heaven therefore enveloped the one before it, which enveloped all that the previous heaven enveloped anyway.

Since there is heaven heavens, therefore the Seventh Heaven enveloped, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and all that it enveloped. Yet the seven heavens is part of our world or universe! In other words, there is no matter of hypothesis that the evolutionists amay provide, there is a true Causer that existed long time before that. He has always remain in existence and He is God the Almighty Creator!

I remember asking KAG a question in another thread about what was happening to human being prior to the first evolutionist came with his supposition? What possible data did he present and what was he trying to proof? That Adam did not exist or that Adam came from Ape or have the same source as Ape? My additional question is this, which source did they have in common, and how did it come to being? If you go back to thefoundation of that source, and you ask the same question as you go further back, you still have to the first question: How did it come to existence? What happens and what are the facts before it came to existence?

As you and Imhotep go back and forth on a down tree in the forest, it seems that you are laying down a view that the place must have a tree in the first place. It is not so necessary that a forest must have a tree. It could have been water, as a pond that was there. The water may just have dried up, for whatever reason. Furyher it could have been a big rock or boulder that was there. The possibilities are many. So in essence an empty space may or may not have something in it all along. It could have been a phenomina. God is capable to do all things. The Creator is powerful. He created the creationists and evolutionists alike, without a remarkable differences in their physicallity and their ability to accept or reject ideas. It is no wonder you and others can reject creation. Other creationists and I are free to reject your pure concept of evolution without the Original Causer who is constantly directing all affairs, God!

I thought you were more discerning that the above, but alas.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It only explains the diversity of life. This MUST be made clear. Evolition by natural selection only kicks in once life had already started.

There are many hypotheses as to the origin of life; but none of these is evolution.

@Tpaine: What I tried to do is what you have done in your response: Simple proposition. Unfortunately the a good number of academias took it and run with it. Maybe because the garb of religiousty is too uncomfortable or became mind clouding.

I tried to provide that even though evolution is plausible from the surface, but when you seriously consider the initial foundation, it is just not possible. I have explained that I am never against evolution, which simply mean a change from one stage to another. From simple to complex, for the most part or vice versa.

I felt that I needed to agitate your mind to think as far back as the mind, or conscience can take you. You will find that cow, even though a cattle will not be a sheep or goat, or neither can produce cow. As a creationist, I have no doubt, and not foolishly that God Created everything, distinct from others that are supposed to be diffrerent and separate from it! All humans, regardless of diffrerences came from a common ancestor, primarily Adam. But all primates do not have a common ancestor, other than that they have a common Causer to being what they are. That Causer is the Creator. So from Islamic perspective, creation points to the many diverse varieties we find today.

My proof is very simple: polar bear will not exist in the desert of Sahara, for long unless its housed in cold place. So the Africans will not able to survive the spring of Alaska Siberia, like the natives, without putting on layers of clothings. In both cases, we will not have the offsprings looking like the natives, if there is no native blood in its body. Regardless of how long a group of Black people live in Siberia, if they do not intermarry, the future generations may be able to deal with cold better than their original parents in Siberia. However, it will not be possible for them to look like Siberian whites. That proves that evolution as you may think it does not happen. Yet I did not even go far back to prior before human ever existed.

olabowale:

@Tpaine: What I tried to do is what you have done in your response: Simple proposition. Unfortunately the a good number of academias took it and run with it. Maybe because the garb of religiousty is too uncomfortable or became mind clouding.

I tried to provide that even though evolution is plausible from the surface, but when you seriously consider the initial foundation, it is just not possible. I have explained that I am never against evolution, which simply mean a change from one stage to another. From simple to complex, for the most part or vice versa.

I felt that I needed to agitate your mind to think as far back as the mind, or conscience can take you. You will find that cow, even though a cattle will not be a sheep or goat, or neither can produce cow. As a creationist, I have no doubt, and not foolishly that God Created everything, distinct from others that are supposed to be diffrerent and separate from it! All humans, regardless of diffrerences came from a common ancestor, primarily Adam. But all primates do not have a common ancestor, other than that they have a common Causer to being what they are. That Causer is the Creator. So from Great Religious perspective, creation points to the many diverse varieties we find today.

My proof is very simple: polar bear will not exist in the desert of Sahara, for long unless its housed in cold place. So the Africans will not able to survive the spring of Alaska Siberia, like the natives, without putting on layers of clothings. In both cases, we will not have the offsprings looking like the natives, if there is no native blood in its body. Regardless of how long a group of Black people live in Siberia, if they do not intermarry, the future generations may be able to deal with cold better than their original parents in Siberia. However, it will not be possible for them to look like Siberian whites. That proves that evolution as you may think it does not happen. Yet I did not even go far back to prior before human ever existed.

With respect, this is all bogus.  How could you say you accept (note, I did not say believe) evolution and yet say such rubbish. Have you not learnt anything in your adulthood apart from the superstitious fables from your community?


Let me help you out.  It have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that humanity started in Africa, using all sorts of genetic studies. 500 thousand years ago there simply were no homo sapiens on the planets. Homo sapiens evolved from pre-existing humanoid ancestors. The evidence for this is overwhelming.  Have you heard about chromosome No. 2, Vitamin C synthesis.

HAve you ever heard of things called Neandarthal? What relationship (or lack thereof ) do they have with humans. Have you heard about the result of the study comparing human DNA to Neandarthal DNA?

I think you are just paying lip service to evolution to appear intellectually sophisticated but deep down you do not know or appreciate what it really is.

How can you assert that if African lived in Alaska, they would never develop lighter skin tones. For goodness sake, we are all African, everybody on the planet is an African. PERIOD.

I am exaperated by such ignorance, especially from someone of whom I thought better.  Please, if you can get hold of the following books

1)  The Great Human Diasporas,
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Human-Diasporas-Diversity-Evolution/dp/0201442310/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205159518&sr=8-1

2) The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Man-Genetic-Odyssey/dp/0812971469/ref=pd_sim_b_title_3


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j0U8dKavsI

Our civilization is at risk if ignorance is left unchecked.

Watch Spencer Wells tallk about his research
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j0U8dKavsI

@Tpaine: I have stated my own viewpoint; Evolution as you think it is not a possibilty. The Homosepen and Neandertal species are close in resemblance to human, but they are not humans. It is not impossible that God who is capable of creating created all types of varied upright standing beings, which in various degrees almost look like human. Yet they are not. Remember that they are almost, and not human.

My viewpoint is very diferent from yours. Just because that you will argue yours with a limited arrays of academic resources, you will never be able to come to absolute conclusion from it. Thank God that I have a good size of outside my community experience. I am thinking globally, but I am not thinking stupidly!From within and outside my community, my mind is able to accept throughout my experiences that creation is the only possibility. I do not have to present to be accepted.

How can you assert that if African lived in Alaska, they would never develop lighter skin tones. For goodness sake, we are all African, everybody on the planet is an African. PERIOD.

Your statement that everyone from Africa is unacceptable to me. And I am a good african. But I always want to be on the side of the truth. Unless Makka is considered part of Africa, it is then acceptable that humans first inhabited africa. That human wsa Adam and his wife. He did not live in Nigeria or South Africa! A proof of my statement is the Ka'aba itself. They were the original builder. The foundation is known to all who researched it. Do your own research.

Your statement that humans (Adam and his progenies), came as their own advancement from neandertal is unacceptable. You do not have a concrete evidence. And just because is said and pushed as truth with any evidence to its truth does not stand as truth. It must be unacceptable and rejected. I for one and all who think like me reject it. We do not deal in blind faith!

I said again that just because these humanoids looked like humans could not directly meant human came from them. God who created all kinda of oranges and even allows by the knowledged He gave to humans to engineer hybrids of citrus fruits, is the One who created all these things. They are similar but not exactly. Finally, you can try to argue that African group if isolated, married one another exclusively may one day produce a a white Arian person, in Siberia is just not a good argument. They can produce albinos or light skin persons, that could have happened in Africa anyway but not whites with all its features!

Evolution CANNOT explain the origin of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.

Evolution CANNOT explain the origin of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.

what part of evolution doesn't deal with origin dont' u understand.

@tpaine
Since you appear to use scientific literature to buttress your points on evolution. I have a few questions for you

1. You claimed that their is overwhelming evidence to show that man evolved from pre-existing humanoid ancestors. Please site scientific articles (not books) in peer refreed journals so that your claim can be checked out.

2. Does comparison of DNA between species show relatedness or evolution?

Thank you

bawomolo:

what part of evolution doesn't deal with origin don't' u understand.

@bawomolo
HUMAN INTELLIGENCE is part of the diversity that evolution is attempting to explain.

Evolution should please explain how HUMANS became much more intelligent than the apes/monkeys we are supposed to have evolved from.

olabowale:

@Tpaine: I have stated my own viewpoint; Evolution as you think it is not a possibilty. The Homosepen and Neandertal species are close in resemblance to human, but they are not humans. It is not impossible that God who is capable of creating created all types of varied upright standing beings, which in various degrees almost look like human. Yet they are not. Remember that they are almost, and not human.

My viewpoint is very diferent from yours. Just because that you will argue yours with a limited arrays of academic resources, you will never be able to come to absolute conclusion from it. Thank God that I have a good size of outside my community experience. I am thinking globally, but I am not thinking stupidly!From within and outside my community, my mind is able to accept throughout my experiences that creation is the only possibility. I do not have to present to be accepted.
Your statement that everyone from Africa is unacceptable to me. And I am a good african. But I always want to be on the side of the truth. Unless Makka is considered part of Africa, it is then acceptable that humans first inhabited africa. That human wsa Adam and his wife. He did not live in Nigeria or South Africa! A proof of my statement is the Ka'aba itself. They were the original builder. The foundation is known to all who researched it. Do your own research.

Your statement that humans (Adam and his progenies), came as their own advancement from neandertal is unacceptable. You do not have a concrete evidence. And just because is said and pushed as truth with any evidence to its truth does not stand as truth. It must be unacceptable and rejected. I for one and all who think like me reject it. We do not deal in blind faith!

I said again that just because these humanoids looked like humans could not directly meant human came from them. God who created all kind of of oranges and even allows by the knowledged He gave to humans to engineer hybrids of citrus fruits, is the One who created all these things. They are similar but not exactly. Finally, you can try to argue that African group if isolated, married one another exclusively may one day produce a a white Arian person, in Siberia is just not a good argument. They can produce albinos or light skin persons, that could have happened in Africa anyway but not whites with all its features!

Yet again you are not getting me. Please, Can you provide any evidence that humans originated from where you suggested?

There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that humans originated from Africa. Please, Please watch the video of one of the leading researchers in the field. The main stuff is about 28minutes into the video.

I DID NOT say homo sapiens evolved from Neandarthal. I was simply suggesting that thankx to evolution, at some point in the past (about 30,000 years ago) there would have existed side-by-side two separate types of humanoids - the homo sapiens and the Neandarthal. Genetic studies have shown that humand and Neandarthal are genetical very different homonides. Why would God have conspired to have similar looking animals (huimans and neandarthal) living side-by-side.

Would you have considered a neandarthal to be human. If you killed one, would it have been classed as murder?

Please, please, educate yourself man.

m_nwankwo:

@tpaine
Since you appear to use scientific literature to buttress your points on evolution. I have a few questions for you

1. You claimed that their is overwhelming evidence to show that man evolved from pre-existing humanoid ancestors. Please site scientific articles (not books) in peer refreed journals so that your claim can be checked out.

2. Does comparison of DNA between species show relatedness or evolution?

Thank you

How else can one support a scientific claim? With faeces? But serious, the evidences has moved from peered reviewed journals to popular books now.

I am not a biologist but I have a training in science and engineering with a very advanced interest in all things scientific. So I regular buy and read science books for the general public.

Yes, DNA studies show that all living things are indeed related.

Do me a favour. Do some research yourself. I am sure you have got the ability, or would you like to be spoon-fed?