GJames:
Were the airplanes not designed? Did they get advanced by the law of nature?

Nature is the ultimate creator. We human are a part of Nature. Nature and homo sapiens are not mutually exclusive. From Mt. Fuji to the Pacific to Mt. Everest to all plants & animals to the stars... Everything is nature. Nature is the master sculptor. Land slides, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, rainfall....Are these designed by a man? Have u seen the sky-daddy you thump about before?

GJames:
Were the airplanes not designed? Did they get advanced by the law of nature?

airplanes vs biological processes....make sense please

Liekiller: ask a specific questions when they arise

1. How did life originate?
Evolutionist Professor Paul
Davies admitted, “Nobody
knows how a mixture of
lifeless chemicals
spontaneously organized
themselves into the first
living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll,
professor of biology,
Harvard, said, “we don’t
really know how life
originated on this planet”.2
A minimal cell needs several
hundred proteins. Even if
every atom in the universe
were an experiment with all
the correct amino acids
present for every possible
molecular vibration in the
supposed evolutionary age
of the universe, not even
one average-sized
functional protein would
form. So how did life with
hundreds of proteins
originate just by chemistry
without intelligent design?

Q. 2
How could mutations—
accidental copying mistakes
(DNA ‘letters’ exchanged,
deleted or added, genes
duplicated, chromosome
inversions, etc.)—create the
huge volumes of
information in the DNA of
living things? How could
such errors create 3 billion
letters of DNA information
to change a microbe into a
microbiologist? There is
information for how to
make proteins but also for
controlling their use—much
like a cookbook contains
the ingredients as well as
the instructions for how
and when to use them. One
without the other is useless.
See: Meta-information: An
impossible conundrum for
evolution
. Mutations are known for
their destructive effects,
including over 1,000 human
diseases such as
hemophilia. Rarely are they
even helpful. But how can
scrambling existing DNA
information create a new
biochemical pathway or
nano-machines with many
components, to make ‘goo-
to-you’ evolution possible?
E.g., How did a 32-
component rotary motor
like ATP synthase (which
produces the energy
currency, ATP, for all life), or
robots like kinesin (a
‘postman’ delivering parcels
inside cells) originate?

Q. 3
How did multi-cellular life
originate? How did cells
adapted to individual
survival ‘learn’ to cooperate
and specialize (including
undergoing programmed
cell death) to create
complex plants and
animals?

Q. 4
How did sex originate?
Asexual reproduction gives
up to twice as much
reproductive success
(‘fitness’) for the same
resources as sexual
reproduction, so how could
the latter ever gain enough
advantage to be selected?
And how could mere
physics and chemistry
invent the complementary
apparatuses needed at the
same time (non-intelligent
processes cannot plan for
future coordination of male
and female organs).

GJames:
1. How did life originate?
Evolutionist Professor Paul
Davies admitted, “Nobody
knows how a mixture of
lifeless chemicals
spontaneously organized
themselves into the first
living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll,
professor of biology,
Harvard, said, “we don’t
really know how life
originated on this planet”.2
A minimal cell needs several
hundred proteins. Even if
every atom in the universe
were an experiment with all
the correct amino acids
present for every possible
molecular vibration in the
supposed evolutionary age
of the universe, not even
one average-sized
functional protein would
form. So how did life with
hundreds of proteins
originate just by chemistry
without intelligent design?

Apparently you are reading about "intelligent design" instead of evolution. That is NOT science but religious pseudoscience. Don't let yourself be fooled by the various smart words being used in that text. I suggest again that you read the links I gave you earlier as they answer these questions based on today's scientific knowledge. I would also like to point out that the origin of life is not the same thing as evolution. There are various ideas about this in science, but it is not known for sure how it happened. Remember that it happened about 3 billion years ago. Many factors are still unknown and will maybe never be fully understood.

Q. 5
Science involves
experimenting to figure
out how things work; how
they operate. Why is
evolution, a theory about
history, taught as if it is
the same as this
operational science? You
cannot do experiments, or
even observe what
happened, in the past.
Asked if evolution has been
observed, Richard Dawkins
said, “Evolution has been
observed. It’s just that it
hasn’t been observed while
it’s happening.”

Liekiller:

Apparently you are reading about "intelligent design" instead of evolution. That is NOT science but religious pseudoscience. Don't let yourself be fooled by the various smart words being used in that text. I suggest again that you read the links I gave you earlier as they answer these questions based on today's scientific knowledge. I would also like to point out that the origin of life is not the same thing as evolution. There are various ideas about this in science, but it is not known for sure how it happened. Remember that it happened about 3 billion years ago. Many factors are still unknown and will maybe never be fully understood.

I read one of them, learnt some things about the similarities among animals. I'm sorry i still keep naming evolution as the origin of life. Why do you still accept the theory when you can't fully understand it

GJames:
I read one of them, learnt some things about the similarities among animals. I'm sorry i still keep naming evolution as the origin of life. Why do you still accept the theory when you can't fully understand it

As I said before, evolution explains the processes that took place once life existed. It does not explain the origin of life. So you read one and learnt about the similarities among animals? I guess you didn't understand how any of it relates to evolution though? As I also said before I accept evolution because it is backed up by overwhelming scientific evidence. Whether or not you care or are able to understand any of it is irrelevant. It still is the way it is.

You 've never witnessed an animal growingw longer necks for stretching to eat something beyond its reach neither have you seen a Snake transforming into an alligator, you just accept it because scientists (who can't even physically prove it) say it is so.
[/quote]And don't tell me you have ever seen a snake talking nor a man walking on the sea but you believe it.. Perhaps you don't know what you are taking about

GJames: May i ask how you all came to accept evolution. It seems you all just accepted it because you can't accept creationism and not because you 've seen evolution at work. You 've never witnessed an animal growing longer necks for stretching to eat something beyond its reach neither have you seen a Snake transforming into an alligator, you just accept it because scientists (who can't even physically prove it) say it is so.

And don't tell me you have ever seen a snake talking nor a man walking on the sea but you believe it.. Perhaps you don't know what you are taking about

oyewolestephen: And don't tell me you have ever seen a snake talking nor a man walking on the sea but you believe it.. Perhaps you don't know what you are taking about

these are very possible with the super natural.

GJames: Q. 3
How did multi-cellular life
originate? How did cells
adapted to individual
survival ‘learn’ to cooperate
and specialize (including
undergoing programmed
cell death) to create
complex plants and
animals?

dont mind them, i can c how biased they are.

EMILO2STAY: these are very possible with the super natural.

And what is supernatural sir?
Is it like Santa clause riding a reindeer chariot in the sky?

EMILO2STAY: dont mind them, i can c how biased they are.

But you are biased towards the supernatural, right?

And you are here to argue supernatural versus scientific observation, right?

You are a bright fellow.

plaetton:

And what is supernatural sir?
Is it like Santa clause riding a reindeer chariot in the sky?

dont start sounding like a kid. super natural is simply beyond natural i.e metaphysics, somthing u cant explain scientificaly or using logic. A being with supernatural power can make a donkey talk.

plaetton:

But you are biased towards the supernatural, right?

And you are here to argue supernatural versus scientific observation, right?

You are a bright fellow.

am simply open minded, if u present a theory of evolution that makes sense i will accept, but what u guys have been doing is pouring abuses instead rebuting.

EMILO2STAY: dont start sounding like a kid. super natural is simply beyond natural i.e metaphysics, somthing u cant explain scientificaly or using logic. A being with supernatural power can make a donkey talk.

This is hilarious.
Look who is sounding like a kid.
lol.
I always wonder whether you religionist think before you post or even re-read what you post.

Here you are , arguing against the scientific theory of evolution.
And as the proof of your argument, you are invoking the supernatural, something similar to, say, santa flying through the snowy sky on a chariot of reindeers.

And to you, supernatural is something you cannot explain using science , logic or common sense, right?.

Would I be correct then , sir, to say that supernatural is something that can only be explained using the highest degree of idio.cy and insanity?

EMILO2STAY: am simply open minded, if u present a theory of evolution that makes sense i will accept, but what u guys have been doing is pouring abuses instead rebuting.

there is absolutely nothing that anyone call tell you here about the theory of evolution that would make you accept it. I repeat , it is neither a philosophy nor a religion.
It is a scientific theory.
Scientific theories are taught in school.
If you missed that part, you might need to devote your time, without hurry, to studying it with a view to understanding it.
Simple.

No one here owes the onus of proving it to you here on NL. The information and facts regarding the scientific theory of evolution are out there in the public domain.

EMILO2STAY: am simply open minded, if u present a theory of evolution that makes sense i will accept, but what u guys have been doing is pouring abuses instead rebuting.

Unfortunately the thing is a bit too complex to explain it in 2 minutes. It WILL take some time and effort to learn it because you'd have to first get a grip on a few basics of science in general and biology in particular. If that's asking too much I don't understand why everybody who has no clue about it keeps coming out to argue against it and make fools of themselves.

Liekiller:

Unfortunately the thing is a bit too complex to explain it in 2 minutes. It WILL take some time and effort to learn it because you'd have to first get a grip on a few basics of science in general and biology in particular. If that's asking too much I don't understand why everybody who has no clue about it keeps coming out to argue against it and make fools of themselves.

summarize them dont be afraid to present. It would be better than insult.

EMILO2STAY: summarize them dont be afraid to present. It would be better than insult.

I never insulted anybody, did I? I sincerely don't believe that leads anywhere.

plaetton:

there is absolutely nothing that anyone call tell you here about the theory of evolution that would make you accept it. I repeat , it is neither a philosophy nor a religion.
It is a scientific theory.
Scientific theories are taught in school.
If you missed that part, you might need to devote your time, without hurry, to studying it with a view to understanding it.
Simple.

No one here owes the onus of proving it to you here on NL. The information and facts regarding the scientific theory of evolution are out there in the public domain.

so why engage the op when you cant present a reasonable rebuttal.

EMILO2STAY: so why engage the op when you cant present a reasonable rebuttal.

How does one rebut an op with less than kindergarten knowledge of his subject matter.

To argue against scientific facts, the op has to have superior scientific facts.

Creationism is not scientific. It is wishful thinking that invokes magic to explain away anything that is too hard to think about and figure out.

Science has answered every nagging question on the theory of evolution and more discoveries are made everyday that substantiate rather than repudiate it.

It has stood the test of 150yrs of vigorous testing.

Creationism is so silly in this day and age that it not worth arguing with.
it is for dummies who are beholden to stone-age superstitions.

The funny thing is that every religiotard comes to argue against evolution when they know zilch about it.

plaetton:

This is hilarious.
Look who is sounding like a kid.
lol.
I always wonder whether you religionist think before you post or even re-read what you post.

Here you are , arguing against the scientific theory of evolution.
And as the proof of your argument, you are invoking the supernatural, something similar to, say, santa flying through the snowy sky on a chariot of reindeers.

And to you, supernatural is something you cannot explain using science , logic or common sense, right?.

Would I be correct then , sir, to say that supernatural is something that can only be explained using the highest degree of idio.cy and insanity?

u are busy blabling, if u can explain the supernatural with logic or science then why dont you believe in it instead you call it idiocy . my dear u are still sounding childish. All i need is a reasonable proof for evolution. Present them make it breif. If u cant then stop disturbing those who belive in God.

EMILO2STAY: u are busy blabling, if u can explain the supernatural with logic or science then why dont you believe in it instead you call it idiocy . my dear u are still sounding childish. All i need is a reasonable proof for evolution. Present them make it breif. If u cant then stop disturbing those who belive in God.

Just listen to yourself.
" All I need is reasonable proof of evolution. present them, make it brief".

He he he.

Therein lies your folly and ignorance.
How many times need we remind you that it is neither a religion, nor philosophy that can be summed in kindergarten phrases, or needs your belief.

It requires study and understanding, something you neither have nor willing to endeavor.

Unlike religious fairy tales, the scientific of evolution does not need belief. The world has already moved on because the theory has been substantiated and beneficial in the areas of genetics, medicine, agriculture and industry.

There is no heavenly promises for the scientific community that have anchored our basic understanding change on it .
Therefore, people who have mortgaged their brains to stone-age fairy tales are very free to remain where they are.

GJames: In much of the scientific and educational community today, evolution is the main view given for the origin of life and the universe. I want to believe this but can't due to the following reasons:
1. The teaching of evolution is not truly scientific. According to science, all conclusions must be based on indisputable evidence. The evidence must come from experiments that can be duplicated or repeated over and over with the same end results. However, no experiments could test and prove assumptions like the ''big bang'' theory, nor can it be proven that living things developed gradually from the simplest to the most complex forms( this point defies the second law of thermodynamics that describes how physical matter tends toward disorder-not higher order-as it changes.)
2. Change and development will occur within various species. For example, we occasionally see new developments or mutations within species. But there is no evidence, not even in earth history or fossil records which supports the theory that one kind of living thing ever evolved from another kind.
3. The order of the solar system cannot happen by chance. Lets say there's an explosion and out of it came the Sun, the Stars, the nine planets with their natural satelites (e.g. Moon). These planets decided on their own to revolve in elliptical orbit arround the Sun in anti-clockwise direction (except Neptune).
I can't consider these things and still believe in evolution, this is like having faith in human theory. I am a baby Christian who knows very little about his religion, but i would rather believe in a God i know nothing of than to believe i evolved from an Amoeba. Lets discuss this. Mod abeg frontpage

Op I hope to break your backbone and leave you paralyzed with this logical though,hypothetically man evolves from the homo habilis to homo sapiens and the reason man is called homo sapien is your ability to THINK,ofcourse animals don't think and we were created in God's image right? For the Fact that God thought and Created man in his own image and likeness has proven that God is homo sapien because he actually could think?

Could you guys just give me the answers to the 5 questions i asked.
My post never said anything about me believing in santa claus or fairies. I don't believe they exist but i strongly believe in the supernatural, because i have seen things science can't explain

EMILO2STAY: am simply open minded, if u present a theory of evolution that makes sense i will accept, but what u guys have been doing is pouring abuses instead rebuting.

Thank you

plaetton:

How does one rebut an op with less than kindergarten knowledge of his subject matter.

To argue against scientific facts, the op has to have superior scientific facts.

Creationism is not scientific. It is wishful thinking that invokes magic to explain away anything that is too hard to think about and figure out.

Science has answered every nagging question on the theory of evolution and more discoveries are made everyday that substantiate rather than repudiate it.

It has stood the test of 150yrs of vigorous testing.

Creationism is so silly in this day and age that it not worth arguing with.
it is for dummies who are beholden to stone-age superstitions.

The funny thing is that every religiotard comes to argue against evolution when they know zilch about it.

present reasonable facts that makes sense to convince instead of raining insults. He presented some scientific fact that makes him doubt evolution. Rebut that instead of ranting.

science has not explained zilch about the origin of life on earth. They also depend on wishful thinking and ridiculouse assumtions. Funny how u say evolutions is a hundred and fifty years old, The ancients knew about the solar system and the planets for thousands of year before modern science yet are still religeous and believed in creationism.

plaetton:

Just listen to yourself.
" All I need is reasonable proof of evolution. present them, make it brief".

He he he.

Therein lies your folly and ignorance.
How many times need we remind you that it is neither a religion, nor philosophy that can be summed in kindergarten phrases, or needs your belief.

It requires study and understanding, something you neither have nor willing to endeavor.

Unlike religious fairy tales, the scientific of evolution does not need belief. The world has already moved on because the theory has been substantiated and beneficial in the areas of genetics, medicine, agriculture and industry.

There is no heavenly promises for the scientific community that have anchored our basic understanding change on it .
Therefore, people who have mortgaged their brains to stone-age fairy tales are very free to remain where they are.

so u cant rebut the op, u cant present science facts to at least try to convince the op yet engage him just to pour in ur hatred.