ooman:

do you call a cell life or do you call DNA life. how do you define life?

Well, that's complicated and scientists are still scratching their heads on the best way to define life. Can something be alive without dna or any of its components? Is non-carbon based life possible? Is non-dna life possible? It all depends on how you define life. I have no general definition for you.

@Deepsight.
Am not one to hurl insults just for the sake of doing so.
Whether thesis or deist, I guess that when your sky daddy us threatened, you all behave much in the same combative and irrational manner.

This discussion has certainly brought you down from your olympian heights.

I know that the practice of law requires certain skills of cunningness, evasion and obfuscation of facts with words. But those skills are not required in honest discussions among friends.
You are puttiby your legal skills to good use by ignoring relevant points, by refusing to elaborate on your version of evolution, and by running all over the place throwing fanciful words.
I do not believe that you are ignorant of salient points raised by myself and others on the issue of amino acids. No. I think you are just pretending.

Deep Sight:

Do successful species over time evolve into less successful species?

The question is that simple. You can start with a yes or no and then elaborate.

You can start, as you've been trying to, with giving us a description of this 'less successful'. You say numbers? By that simplistic definition, which clearly matters not to nature mind you, homo sapiens is one of the less successful species around (ah, but that's why we need GOD!!?).

You can pretend you missed the part where I said being successful is all that's required, not 'more' or 'less' successful. Good enough to survive is all, simple. Nature will continue to throw dice, no 'will' or 'impetus' needed, sorry.

However, do they get worse at particular tasks? I think penguins are a lot worse at flying than their ancestors, yes? And flight would certainly aid their chances in various scenarios, no? So why did they loose the ability? Do species become extinct? I believe quite a few do, for a variety of reasons, while other 'lucky' ones claw on through time. Do they're populations wane? Rather frequently, I believe.

Alfa Seltzer:

Well, that's complicated and scientists are still scratching their heads on the best way to define life. Can something be alive without dna or any of its components? Is non-carbon based life possible? Is non-dna life possible? It all depends on how you define life. I have no general definition for you.

well for me personally, because it has been experimented that if you strip a cell of its nuclear matter, that is DNA, it "dies", it becomes and behaves like normal elements and when you return the nucleus, it metabolizes again, I personally have defined life as DNA in nucleus, other organels are its needed components. Bacteria exist without most organels, virus exist without organels but only reproduce with hijacked organels so I think its right to define life as combination of DNA.

Now to the rest of your very poor attempt at addressing the posers.

plaetton:

1. The theory of evolution cannot address whence the singularity derives from or why it exists at all because no one knows or presumes to know.

The Theory of the Bi Ba.ng, you mean.

And yes, this answer shows, that you cannot claim that the said theory explains our origin, since, as you say, no one knows or presumes to know.

No need to fill in the gap just for the sake of filling in the gaps.

I say exactly the same thing back to you.

Same is often put to you about your invisible conscious being. From whence does it derive and why does it need to exists in the first place?

O it derives from logical necessity:

1. The universe had a beginning
2. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
3. Nothing finite can be its own cause
4. As such it had an external cause or trigger - this grounds transcendence.
5. As such it could not itself be matter - this grounds immateriality.

Whatever can be true for the invisible omni omni omniness can also be true for the singularity of scientific thinking.

No, matter being mutable cannot be self existent.

2. Again, no one knows for sure, but the right questions are being asked , and some day, we might arrive at answers.
So what?

So your explanation is not an explanation. Simple.

Am sorry, but asking atheists why an event such as the big occurred in the first place is well below your league. These are the kind of questions one expects from curious little children, not informed adults.

This has to be the funniest remark I have ever heard on this forum. For goodness sake, you just wrote above that "we don't know" and you do not presume to know. Then you swing about and say that an "informed adult" cannot ask this question, and that it is for children!

Boy o boy, what wrong with you today?

3. I am not aware of any proponent of the BB theory saying that space began to exist at any certain point.o

That is what they say: go and read around you will see it stated everywhere: that space and time began to exist and expand from the point of the singularity at the Big Bang. Also your homey on this board, thehomer, says this.

https://www.nairaland.com/577313/thehomer-now-lets-discuss-big

I dont know where you got that from and why you think it is of any relevance in this discussion.

It is of every relevance because it discloses an existence outside this universe.

1. Aboigenesis accounts, in broadest form, for what may have been the first processes that produced the first living form.

No it does not: and this is exactly why you have deployed careful and hesistant language here.

The core point remains: you cannot smirk and smugly say evolution accounts for consciousness, when in fact, it does not even explain how life arose.

The rest of your ramblings are meaningless.

Escapism.

2. Again, we have a general idea of how the first life may have begun.

You do not: and that again is why you speak hesitantly.

It also could have begun in similar or different processes in a far away galaxy billions and billions of years ago.

Idle speculation.

If you know the exact origin of life, the human race is very eager to hear it. But no fairy tales please.

And yet YOU are permitted to tell fairy tales like the one you did up there about formation of cells?

Did I hear you say mere matter?

Yes because matter is not alive.

mere matter as opposed to what else? Is there anything else in the universe? Is everything in the universe not made of this "mere matter"?
Pray tell, what do you know that is comparable in any way to "mere matter?
Am sensing complex ignorance on display here.

And I AM sensing massive delusion at play here. For you are saying that a rock if left alone somewhere in the universe, given sufficient time, may just produce a human being.

4. If an organic molecule can self-replicate and then begin to store and catalogue it's replicating data on another molecule, believe me, anything is very possible over billions of years.

He glibly says, glossing over the giant question of what would induce such self replication at all. For why and for what. For magic, abi? And yet you scoff at Santa Claus.

If you can be here today, unguided, writing for strangers in an online forum, something that your parents never ever envisage on the day your were born, then any complex arrangement of form and function is possible over any given length of time.
I hope you get the gist.

I am not unguided.

Infact, the brain has only evolved to use just 10% of our mental capacity.

You ignorantly subscribe to this old urban legend and yet you lament the ignorance of others?

Please get online and start reading on this myth.

Again, when man achieved the threshold of consciousness,what I assume to be a quantum mechanical process, My own notion is that the brain gained access to other spheres of energy beyond it's immediate environment , or in other dimensions. This called quantum entanglement.

Circular reasoning. This is like saying a car moves because of the sum of its parts. And then saying that the purpose of movement is the sum of the cars parts. Thoroughly illogical, but it appears it may take you a few years to get this one.

If am correct, then higher reasoning, music and other abstract things would not be a surprising thing.

If you are correct, you accede to the existence of higher realms of existence, and thereby insinuate the existence of God.

As for the rest of your posers, they are not really posers per se. They are just questions that anyone who has read or studied a little bit of evolutionary science should easily deal with.
I see nothing that particularly stands out that needs any detailed explanation that a book in a public library cannot address.

Waffle. Cowardice. Raw undiluted escapism.

Address the question on se.xual reproduction and stop waving it off with an escapist dry laugh. How and why did organisms become se.xual and se.xually reproductive. How does evolution account for this. What is the evolutionary explanation?

wiegraf:

You can start, as you've been trying to, with giving us a description of this 'less successful'. You say numbers? By that simplistic definition, which clearly matters not to nature mind you, homo sapiens is one of the less successful species around (ah, but that's why we need GOD!!?).

You can pretend you missed the part where I said being successful is all that's required, not 'more' or 'less' successful. Good enough to survive is all, simple. Nature will continue to throw dice, no 'will' or 'impetus' needed, sorry.

However, do they get worse at particular tasks? I think penguins are a lot worse at flying than their ancestors, yes? And flight would certainly aid their chances in various scenarios, no? So why did they loose the ability? Do species become extinct? I believe quite a few do, for a variety of reasons, while other 'lucky' ones claw on through time. Do they're populations wane? Rather frequently, I believe.

Piffle. Empty waffle.

Do successful species evolve into less successful species.

Simple question.

Stop hiding, running and obfuscating. That only shows that you know the question has you undone. Your responses are wearisomely unintelligent.

Alfa Seltzer:

I wouldn't call lack of birth control a "success", . But on a serious note, I think ooman has given a good response about a population not outnumbering its food source.

And seeing the number of species that perform sexual reproduction and the ever increasing number of them under the right conditions, I'll say there's definitely an evolutionary reason why this method of reproduction is preferable for these species. (Maybe pleasure? )

There's even some experimenting with rats, which show that males, when they over populate an area, stop doing anything. They stop fucking, etc. I know they stop going out, not sure if they even stop eating completely as well. I'm on mobile atm so I'll have to get back with the links.

As for talk about preprogrammed behavior, that $hit is common everywhere. Eg certain dogs will chase cars (mistaking them for sheep, their ancestors usually being herders), others won't. No training whatsoever involved, they would do that naturally, other won't. Simple behaviors encoded into their dna... (Just as is likely with a significant part of human personality, the nature vs nurture debate)

But nah, magic is necessary to produce any of that...

Deep Sight:

Piffle. Empty waffle.

Do successful species evolve into less successful species.

Simple question.

Stop hiding, running and obfuscating. That only shows that you know the question has you undone. Your responses are wearisomely unintelligent.

Really? Dohohohohohoho

@Deepsight
If the unseen guiding hand of evolution is itself guided by the same biological, chemical and physical logic as evolution, then of what necessity is it ? Is it not redundant?

Why does the univelse need a being guided by logic to guide the logical flow of universal evolution?
And by the way, it the being is guided entirely by logic, does it not mean that being in question neither has a will nor ultimate purpose. The being can hardly be said to be conscious let alone self-aware.

I hope you see how your logic is found to be wanting.

plaetton: @Deepsight.
Am not one to hurl insults just for the sake of doing so.
Whether thesis or deist, I guess that when your sky daddy us threatened, you all behave much in the same combative and irrational manner.

This discussion has certainly brought you down from your olympian heights.

I know that the practice of law requires certain skills of cunningness, evasion and obfuscation of facts with words. But those skills are not required in honest discussions among friends.
You are puttiby your legal skills to good use by ignoring relevant points, by refusing to elaborate on your version of evolution, and by running all over the place throwing fanciful words.
I do not believe that you are ignorant of salient points raised by myself and others on the issue of amino acids. No. I think you are just pretending.

I am not pretending about anything whatsoever. You are failing to address the simple and clear posers and most of your responses have been nothing more than a handwave and an attempt to laugh and scoff.

Address for me the question of the evolutionary explanation for se.xuality and se.xual reproduction.

wiegraf:

Really? Dohohohohohoho

And this is the sort of response from Plaetton and yourself throughout this thread to very simple questions. Handwaves and laughs.

You cannot answer yes or no if creatures ever evolve into less successful species.

And you expect to be taken seriously when you yawn evolution in your discussions.

Pity.

@sight

Still waiting for your definition of 'more' successful boss. Please, do you mean to imply apex predators, which usually have less numbers than their prey and indeed biomass, are 'less' successful. Perhaps you have some special insights to counter my piffle?

plaetton: @Deepsight
If the unseen guiding hand of evolution is itself guided by the same biological, chemical and physical logic as evolution, then of what necessity is it ? Is it not redundant?

The being is actually just that: the logic itself. The sum of self existent logic. The sum of self existent laws.

Why does the univelse need a being guided by logic to guide the logical flow of universal evolution?
And by the way, it the being is guided entirely by logic, does it not mean that being in question neither has a will nor ultimate purpose. The being can hardly be said to be conscious let alone self-aware.

I hope you see how your logic is found to be wanting.

Being the sum of self existent logic could very well exclude a will, because all that exists already IS, eternally. That, however, does not exclude a purpose of BEING or self awareness.

I do not know if God is self aware. That question is too transcendent to be addressed or even contemplated by any human being.

wiegraf: @sight

Still waiting for your definition of 'more' successful boss. Please, do you mean to imply apex predators, which usually have less numbers than their prey and indeed biomass, are 'less' successful. Perhaps you have some special insights to counter my piffle?

Sustained numerical success.

Deep Sight:

Sustained numerical success.

That's silly

Deep Sight:


I do not know if God is self aware. That question is too transcendent to be addressed or even contemplated by any human being.

I was always under the impression you knew. This is good

Ps, note, this doesn't mean I endorse your view

Deep sight, I think you are confusing evolution with "being succesful" or "being better than before". No. Evolution is NOT progression. It is just change. A continuous change. It is a change to adapt to the environment at a given moment. You may not agree, but right now, you are evolving. Every living thing is evolving at their own pace. Some end up worse than previously. Others adapt better. That's life. It's not a static.

ooman:

there is torah code now?? what I know is the bible code that failed wholly, there is no future for this new torah code of yours.

What Torah or bible code failed woefully? its quite obvious that u guys just post things without bordering to read them. Go and do ur research well, its been published in scientific journals that the bible codes are very valid. Pls go and update urself, I challenge u 2 provide proof that the bible code failed.

Deep Sight:
I have no issues with this, I know and recognize this. What I state is that on
the bare face of evolution, already
successful unicellular organisms would
have had no evolutionary impetus to
develop into different species.

The number of validly named species of
prokaryotes is currently slightly more
than 6200. This is because they reproduce by fission, meaning mutations are rear and when and if it occurs, are quickly removed by death, so it doesn't accumulate.

wiegraf:

That's silly

Nope: when the question is the change, mutation and survival of species, then it is spot on. You cannot have such a successful species develop gradually into a form that renders its species less successful. That would be an evolutionary absurdity: and this is what has happened with development from unicellular life to advanced multi-cellular life. There would have to be an X factor that compels and even necessitates such a development or progression.

ooman:

sexual diversion evolved when a chromosomal aberration led to different sex defining chromosomes being in different daughter cells during cell division.
sex chromosomes x and y in mammals, y and x in birds, xx and x in some insects, x and none in some other insects, Bleep and x in still other organisms and different other combinations in other organisms are results of mutations in ancestors.

mutations proving that sexual diversion occured by evolution include multiple sexual parts like two VJs in a woman in America, our very own bisexual female player Iyabo (who is now a male by operation btw), xxy in males and a single x in humans human female.

Concerning the evolution of psychology of sexual attraction. I have no answer presently.

You may want to stop stating hypotheses as facts.

Alfa Seltzer: Deep sight, I think you are confusing evolution with "being succesful" or "being better than before". No. Evolution is NOT progression. It is just change. A continuous change. It is a change to adapt to the environment at a given moment. You may not agree, but right now, you are evolving. Every living thing is evolving at their own pace. Some end up worse than previously. Others adapt better. That's life. It's not a static.

I have no issues with this, I know and recognize this. What I state is that on the bare face of evolution, already successful unicellular organisms would have had no evolutionary impetus to develop into different species.

Deep Sight:

Nope: when the question is the change, mutation and survival of species, then it is spot on. You cannot have such a successful species develop gradually into a form that renders its species less successful. That would be an evolutionary absurdity: and this is what has happened with development from unicellular life to advanced multi-cellular life. There would have to be an X factor that compels and even necessitates such a development or progression.

You seem so stuck on this "successful" definition of yours that you refuse to take other factors into account. What is evolution without mutation and adaptation and survival? If being "less successful", as you put it, permits a specie to adapt and survive and be content, then it wouldn't be an absurdity for that specie to evolve towards that state.

Why are you stuck up on numbers? Numbers is not everything. Right before our very eyes, oyibo women are evolving into les fertile females. They have less babies than before and their bodies are adapting. Would you say that oyibo families are "less successful" than over-numbered african families?

Deep Sight:

I have no issues with this, I know and recognize this. What I state is that on the bare face of evolution, already successful unicellular organisms would have had no evolutionary impetus to develop into different species.

Yes, they would: adaptation to environmental changes.

Most often it is better to overlook and ignore your ignorance that have driven you into the state you are right now.

But for this folly below, i take an exception.

ooman:

a machine cannot function without electricity, does creating electricity mean creating a machine? NO

The issue under discuss is 'life'. > consciousness(in animal).

Is a machine the 'life' in question ?

It is a fact that a machine is an organisation of inanimate material, including its brainbox etc, are lifeless.

The electricity also is inanimate, and cannot pass for 'life/consciousness' that is under deliberation here.

Why then did you bring such analogy here in the first place ?

So, your example is lost for wrong application. Why you could not see it beats me big time.

ooman:

life and water are different but life is dependent on water just like machine and electricity are different but machines are different from what powers them.

So, where does the amino acid fits in that "once it is reproduced life is achieved or it leads to life/consciousness" like plaeton is struggling to feed is perceived dummies here ?

Are you aware that the life in question attained 'consciousness' ?

That a machine is even powered with electricity does not means it is conscious ?

Is my car conscious, my phone ? My electronic devices at home ? Which of them is conscious like living things(animal) does ?

Dont you know what the life under consideration involves ?

You mr man, you are lost!

ooman:

Water would be useless without DNA, at least to life. so when talking about life components, water may be excused, just like when talking about a machine components, electricity maybe excused

those things you have listed does not necessary account for animal 'life/consciousness'.

If you arrange those together it will still remain inanimate/without consciousness.
That you mould them as a human statue will not give it consciousness with your amino acid and water, if you think it will, then mould one and pump oxygen into it and see it come to life.

Yes, why not ? Is amino acid not there ? Is water not there ? So, consciousness should be attained then. No ?

If not, then note that matter will remain matter nomatter how you organised them, it will not, never gain consciousness.

How do you fellows think sef ? Smh.

It is obvious why some of you are where you are, proper thinking ability is missing

Deep Sight:

Nope: when the question is the change, mutation and survival of species, then it is spot on. You cannot have such a successful species develop gradually into a form that renders its species less successful. That would be an evolutionary absurdity: and this is what has happened with development from unicellular life to advanced multi-cellular life. There would have to be an X factor that compels and even necessitates such a development or progression.

Let's consider a mutation that is ostensibly helpful; sickle cell. Had black man continued in ignorance and isolated, eventually branching off, and assuming malaria was left to spirits to cure (like dolts like @david would have us do), what could that have meant for us?

The changes could have been drastic, our populations vastly reduced, we'd likely be less successful by your definition (also dependent on environment), yes? Does that mean we'd be extinct?

I highly doubt it, other factors would come into play. We'd likely still be successful, and that is all that matters. If it's good enough to survive, then it does, simple. 'More' or 'less' is irrelevant, no perfection evidenced anywhere, just 'good enough'. I have asked you what happened to flight for penguins? Do you really think they wouldn't find that ability useful, that it won't make them more successful?

The vast majority of mutations serve no purpose, that much is obvious, I don't think you're the carbon copy of your parents, yes? Some changes may occur which may aid your survival atm, some not. And this is still ignoring population control, etc.

This is a complete non-point, and I'll be dropping it unless something better is thrown in.

Next up on my list, though bear the time thingie, do you really think there's no evolutionary 'impetus' for death (this from one who believes suffering is necessary, no less, not that death necessarily equates to suffering)? And indeed, do you think nature had much of a choice in affecting this fact; living things die?

Deep Sight:
Now to the rest of your very poor attempt at addressing the posers.



The Theory of the Bi Ba.ng, you mean.

And yes, this answer shows, that you cannot claim that the said theory explains our origin, since, as you say, no one knows or presumes to know.



I say exactly the same thing back to you.



O it derives from logical necessity:

1. The universe had a beginning
2. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
3. Nothing finite can be its own cause
4. As such it had an external cause or trigger - this grounds transcendence.
5. As such it could not itself be matter - this grounds immateriality.



No, matter being mutable cannot be self existent.



So your explanation is not an explanation. Simple.



This has to be the funniest remark I have ever heard on this forum. For goodness sake, you just wrote above that "we don't know" and you do not presume to know. Then you swing about and say that an "informed adult" cannot ask this question, and that it is for children!

Boy o boy, what wrong with you today?



That is what they say: go and read around you will see it stated everywhere: that space and time began to exist and expand from the point of the singularity at the Big Bang. Also your homey on this board, thehomer, says this.

https://www.nairaland.com/577313/thehomer-now-lets-discuss-big



It is of every relevance because it discloses an existence outside this universe.



No it does not: and this is exactly why you have deployed careful and hesistant language here.

The core point remains: you cannot smirk and smugly say evolution accounts for consciousness, when in fact, it does not even explain how life arose.



Escapism.



You do not: and that again is why you speak hesitantly.



Idle speculation.



And yet YOU are permitted to tell fairy tales like the one you did up there about formation of cells?



Yes because matter is not alive.



And I AM sensing massive delusion at play here. For you are saying that a rock if left alone somewhere in the universe, given sufficient time, may just produce a human being.



He glibly says, glossing over the giant question of what would induce such self replication at all. For why and for what. For magic, abi? And yet you scoff at Santa Claus.



I am not unguided.



You ignorantly subscribe to this old urban legend and yet you lament the ignorance of others?

Please get online and start reading on this myth.



Circular reasoning. This is like saying a car moves because of the sum of its parts. And then saying that the purpose of movement is the sum of the cars parts. Thoroughly illogical, but it appears it may take you a few years to get this one.



If you are correct, you accede to the existence of higher realms of existence, and thereby insinuate the existence of God.



Waffle. Cowardice. Raw undiluted escapism.

[color=#990000][b]Address the question on se.xual reproduction and stop waving it off with an escapist dry laugh. How and why did organisms become se.xual and se.xually reproductive. How does evolution account for this. What is the evolutionary explanation?[/color[/b]]

Why don't you address the question of sexual reproduction according to your own version of evolution. Afterall, you do ACCEPT evolution as a fact, don't you?

And what if I am unable to address sexual reproduction to suit you, does that mean that ...?

You guys are deaf and dumb.
No idea of science is afraid to be wrong and no person of science is afraid to say I dont know, or I can't explain.
Asking how and why organisms become sexual or sexually reproductive is not any different as asking why our star is yellow rather than white or red, or any other colour, or why our earth has one moon instead of ten.
One needs to know just how every atom in the universe behaves or behaved in the past to know how everything little detail came to be.
That's why I think your questions are infantile. I am not kidding.
If we dont know precisely when and how the first life in the universe began, then for you that means ....?
If we dont know why organisms decided to have sex instead of just splitting into two, so for you that means....?

You appear as some who is desperately looking for a straw to clutch on to save your worldview and identity.
Its like someone earlier trying to imply that if I cannot explain speaking in tongues, then I have to agree that god must exist.

The superiority of scientific reasoning rests on the fact that we can use what we know to speculate on what we may not be able to experimentally prove. For example,we understand Newtonian Physics, we can calculate the mass and gravitational force of a distant planet without having to go there to measure it.
And also, we are open to make corrections when we have better information.

This habit of seeking absolute magical answers is very childish and shows a lack of understanding of how basic science works.
Only an ignorant person would say that if science or a scientific theory cannot show this or that, then it must be the magic of an invisible god.
This precisely why god keeps doing the disappearing act each time science makes a new discovery.

Your positions, which you are still skirting around, are based on nothing that is observable, measurable or even mathematically deduceable. It is running on pure gas of fantasy.
" I believe that there must be a hidden force, therefore it is fact"
I really dont understand how you can make s much noise based on just your inner feeling.

At least make an attempt to just show how the almighty invisible omniness interfaces and directs the course of evolution.

If you can't , then BE SILENT!

plaetton: @Deepsight.
Am not one to hurl insults just for the sake of doing so.
Whether thesis or deist, I guess that when your sky daddy us threatened, you all behave much in the same combative and irrational manner.

This discussion has certainly brought you down from your olympian heights.

I know that the practice of law requires certain skills of cunningness, evasion and obfuscation of facts with words. But those skills are not required in honest discussions among friends.
You are puttiby your legal skills to good use by ignoring relevant points, by refusing to elaborate on your version of evolution, and by running all over the place throwing fanciful words.
I do not believe that you are ignorant of salient points raised by myself and others on the issue of amino acids. No. I think you are just pretending.

See who is talking, the one that does not know what life/consciousness is.

The one that will sell "amino acid is alive/have consciousness over time" to his dummies.

Now it is propaganda that he has resorted to.

Your lot that dont know how to think properly except copy and pest should learn how to keep quite when critical thinking is involved.

Oh, your TYPE can come when cursing competition is open.

But for this me that can lose life when all the amino acid and water is still in me, i definitely know you are saying irrelent things as far this subject is concern.

Go and sleep mr man.

Very funny how atheists and scientists don't have answers to logical questions asked and yet reject the concept of God calling it fairy tales, yet in this thread we've seen them confused and talking about life starting a distant galaxy several billion of yrs ago and so other funny stuffs from ooman. Who is the dummy hear, who is believing in fairy tales? just going thru this thread u will see the gullibility of atheists. smh whereas xtians have answers. @plaetton still waiting ur response on the Torah codes.

loveroftruth:

See who is talking, the one that does not know what life/consciousness is.

The one that will sell "amino acid is alive/have consciousness over time" to his dummies.

Now it is propaganda that he has resorted to.

Your lot that dont know how to think properly except copy and pest should learn how to keep quite when critical thinking is involved.

Oh, your TYPE can come when cursing competition is open.

But for this me that can lose life when all the amino acid and water is still in me, i definitely know you are saying irrelent things as far this subject is concern.

Go and sleep mr man.

GBAM! Simple. Tell them!

noblefada: Very funny how atheists and scientists don't have answers to logical questions asked and yet reject the concept of God calling it fairy tales, yet in this thread we've seen them confused and talking about life starting a distant galaxy several billion of yrs ago and so other funny stuffs from ooman. Who is the dummy hear, who is believing in fairy tales? just going thru this thread u will see the gullibility of atheists. smh whereas xtians have answers. @plaetton still waiting ur response on the Torah codes.

Torah codes?
Oh please!
Go and play with your mates.

Deep Sight:

GBAM! Simple. Tell them!

C'mon Deepsight,
I am surprised that you would even pay attention to , let alone cheer this breed of mental lilliputian.