adexsimply:
If you're telling us that creating the whole universe in 7 days is more logical, simple and inclusive, then I think those three words have different meanings from what I know.

chy22:


1. What singularity do you keep pointing out, you have not answered the question of how the matter came to be, so singularity is a theory.

2. Even a quantum state needs mathematical constant to function, it needs materials to function irrespective of how small this material is. Bringing us back to the question where did the materials come from.

3. Sometimes people say things in assumption and I will class this one as one.
4. A kindergarten understanding of science? Really I do a PhD research in molecular biology. Just like science I prefer proves http://youtu.be/u1ODL8g4ygk have a look around 1:17 that is me. so I do understand science more than you can imagine.

Get me proves of all you claims sir

blym4real:

One of the best examples of evolution
nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird
began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur
is not answered by evolutionists. The wing
stub did not make the bird more adaptable
to his environment. The first wing stubs
would be much too small for the bird to fly.
Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are
useless? This is backwards from the
evolutionary theory of natural selection,
which states that birds adapt and change in
order to survive better in their environment.
The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a
disadvantage in its environment.
Why would the bird continue for millions of
generations to improve a wing stub that is
useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on
natural selection of the most adaptable
member of a species, not the weakest. A bird
with a useless wing is at a severe
disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection

all4naija:
DNA are chemicals and as you break those chemicals down you will find out that they aren't different from what make up the stone or plant. In a nutshell, ape and human are make up of the same thing though they look different because of the way the are formed or lack of the quantity that make up their composition of of those chemicals. I am using those kiddie's terms for clarity sake.

all4naija:

This is not all about Darwin's Theory. This what have been scientifically proven. Evolution is completely a process that exist. In biology, it takes a very long period of time and slowly that you cannot seem to recognize it if you aren't careful.

blym4real:

Personalize it to yourself, since we will continue evolving base on your theory why hasn't man evolved to another creature.

. It is a gradual process. Men were more hairy creatures in the past than of today(that example might not be very correct but I am using that to point to a process that can take a very long time without knowing the minute changes).

davien:
Never did I state singularity as the theory but rather the initial singularity not being understood....matter on the other hand is derived from energy...energy and matter can be derived from each other... hence we convert mass into energy during atomic chain reactions...
what mathematical constant is required for virtual particles?
Lets say I do believe you have such a degree...now what has a molecular biologist have to do outside his field of study?
And I never claimed "proves".....but evidences that support the big bang theory.

blym4real:

Darwin theory of evolution is the most acceptable theory of evolution in biology, darwin claim had been disproved severally by so many scientists .
Evolution is unscientific, because it is not
testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about
events that were not observed and can never
be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores
important distinctions that divide the field into
at least two broad areas: microevolution and
macroevolution. Microevolution looks at
changes within species over time--changes that
may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new
species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic
groups above the level of species change. Its
evidence draws frequently from the fossil
record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct
how various organisms may be related.
Why hasn't man developed to another advance creature yet?

chy22:


Are you joking or what? Do you now how many mechanism go on during the synthesis of these biological matter. The stone has definitely got no amino acids, and does not contain any genetic code.

Ape has different genetic information compared to humans. Just think about the serious health complications one will go through if any mismatch of DNA occur. Also think about the outcome of transplanting any organ from ape to human with or without immune suppression.

all4naija:
. It is a gradual process. Men were more hairy creatures in the past than of today(that example might not be very correct but I am using that to point to a process that can take a very long time without knowing the minute changes).

chy22:


Because i clearly understand the complex mechanisms of life and biology. And has quite a great deal of interest in understanding what the mean of life is and I will continue to learn till I find a prove, of what life or what life is not.

Just say motivation sometimes can be better than any degree, you should know that.
Why do biology if you can less about life and its origin

all4naija:

I think the link below would be helpful to you for your misconception.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

blym4real:

Give me a correct example and verifiable one or remain silent on this.

all4naija:
Oh, go and drink a cyanide if I don't want to remain silent on it. It can happen by chance or random. Mutation occurring in bacteria.

davien:
chy22 why is it that upon examination of the human genome we found chromosome number 2 to be a fused primate chromosome corresponding to what we would expect to find if indeed we shared a common ancestor?

davien:
Never did I state singularity as the theory but rather the initial singularity not being understood....matter on the other hand is derived from energy...energy and matter can be derived from each other... hence we convert mass into energy during atomic chain reactions...
what mathematical constant is required for virtual particles?
Lets say I do believe you have such a degree...now what has a molecular biologist have to do outside his field of study?
And I never claimed "proves".....but evidences that support the big bang theory.

davien:
What bothers me is your subscription to convicted charlatan kent hovind's apologetics for creationism...why such a person to subscribe to his extremist beliefs.
I mean the man asserts that during the biblical adam and eve story an ice shield surrounded the earth and aging is a result of being bombarded by x-rays

chy22:


Just imagine that you are making a house of different sizes, and you need the door to allow passage of cars, would you not make the doors in the same shape in both houses?

Because the gene sequence is the same does not prove it has evolved from apes.

I might have been because who made recognised they will play the same function.

Also remember in molecular biology and biology scientists trys to understand how things work, this clearly supports a creation view, since scientists believe every event has a particular mechanism and every molecular has a particular function.

This is very contrary to the view that every things is random and in chaos.

MissMeiya:


I don't need Google. I studied American history since I was in primary school. And one thing every American child knows is the famous "separation of church and state" coined by one of the fathers of the country, and author of the Declaration of Independence.... Thomas Jefferson. Who was disgusted by the vagaries and inconsistencies of Christianity. Very vocal about it, he was.

Do you know why those colonists fled from Europe? Religious persecution for their beliefs. They were determined that religion would have absolutely nothing to do with their new government.

So, no. America is not, was never, and never will be, a Christian country. In fact, the Treaty of Tripoli signed and passed unanimously by the Senate in 1796, says just that, in blunt English:

"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."


Maybe you should take a look at Google.

chy22:

I don't know where you got that from.
For the record x-rays cause DNA damage and enhances ageing.
That does not mean ageing is solely by that purpose.

And also I never mentioned that in any of my conversation.

blym4real:
According to researchers at King’s College in
London, the latest model scientists hold about
the Big Bang may in fact be false.
A March 2014 experiment known as “Bicep2″
supposedly found evidence in favor of the Big
Bang model of the universe. The Big Bang
model, the belief that the universe originated
from being less than an inch across, is the
belief that most scientists hold about the origin
of the universe today. Proponents of Bicep2
believe that the universe expanded rapidly
after the moment of the Big Bang.

However, now the researchers at King’s
College have come to the conclusion that the
universe could not have remained intact if
Bicep2 was the case. Instead, there would
have been a “Big Crunch” of the universe. The
leader of the study, a PhD student at King’s
College in London, commented about this as
follows:
This is an unacceptable prediction
of the theory because if this had
happened, we wouldn’t be around to
discuss it.

His argument is still based on no evidence to prove it. Bicep2 is telescope replacement for Bicep1 to carry out experiments on CMB[R]. The findings are still ongoing. Why would I have to support what Kings college PhD student has to say? Without providing evidences that a Big Crunch, which by simple definition, is a theory of the universe collapsing on itself and repeating another BB. It is nothing more than a hypothesis. The Big Bang never said the universe expanded rapidly but it expanded through billions of years.

The image below might be of good help.

anex4real:

Our ideas about the history of the universe are
dominated by big bang theory. But its
dominance rests more on funding decisions
than on the scientific method, according to Eric
J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of
Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists
from around the world.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New
Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)
The big bang today relies on a growing number
of hypothetical entities, things that we have
never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark
energy are the most prominent examples.
Without them, there would be a fatal
contradiction between the observations made
by astronomers and the predictions of the big
bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual
recourse to new hypothetical objects be
accepted as a way of bridging the gap between
theory and observation. It would, at the least,
RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.
But the big bang theory can't survive without
these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical
inflation field, the big bang does not predict the
smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation
that is observed, because there would be no way
for parts of the universe that are now more than
a few degrees away in the sky to come to the
same temperature and thus emit the same
amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any
that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years
of experiments, big-bang theory makes
contradictory predictions for the density of
matter in the universe. Inflation requires a
density 20 times larger than that implied by big
bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation
of the origin of the light elements. And without
dark energy, the theory predicts that the
universe is only about 8 billion years old, which
is billions of years younger than the age of
many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of
no quantitative predictions that have
subsequently been validated by observation.
The successes claimed by the theory's
supporters consist of its ability to
retrospectively fit observations with a steadily
increasing array of adjustable parameters, just
as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy
needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

davien:
What does our genome have to do with houses?...you are merely stating the creationist favorite straw-man "same design....therefore same designer".
Really?...Tell me again what natural factors can make a gene sequence the same in a respective lineage apart from evolution from a common ancestor
It is a molecular vestige of early primates...
I do not require a lecture on the purpose of molecular biology...
And you seem to imply they think everything has a purpose....would you mind to clarify this?
You are equivocating here...nobody claimed "everything is ramdom" then again....you've avoided most of my questions so far.

chy22:


If you never claimed evidence supports big bang theory, then accept it is a belief and stop looking down on people with opposing view to yours since it is not proven.

It has been a good conversation so far, we continue tomorrow when I weak up.

davien:
I know x-rays causes dna damage....
What I am talking about is your continued use of kent hovind's creationist apologetics...
perhaps I'll create a thread or video series on this.

davien:
I said I could give evidences that support the big bang....proofs I cannot give...because proofs are mathematical and I have no consensus to use conjectures about the cosmic microwave background(i.e I'm not an astrophysicist)..
If you are looking for proofs...then consult an astrophysicist for mathematical conjectures(proof)

chy22:

What our genome has to do with house is quite simple, for example the gene sequence for some type of bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP) is the same in all mammals and plays similar function in all the mammals, functions like mediating production of extracellular matrix.
Just like the first question all mammals need to reproduce and the stimulations of ovaries and its release can be controlled by the same set of genes among species. From an atheist point of view this is due to evolution, but since it has not been proven. What if in actual fact it is because the designer recognised the need to make it the same way?. Of cause both school of thoughts has not been proven, therefore they remains belief in equal measures.

What I meant by that is, the whole purpose of this field of study is to understand how things work, no doubt it can be applied medically when you have figured out how it works. (simple science).
I have not avoided most of your questions, because of the way you reply I may have missed some of your point, but be assured I will go back and reply those.