Purist:


Despite years of endless debating and educating people on this forum, it still amazes me to see a lot of folks ridicule the notion of scientific theories as though they are a mere guesswork. I can understand if such ignorance is peddled by people with no science background. What I can't forgive, however, is when self-acclaimed students of science don't prove to be any different. Even worse coming from someone who is so quick to inform us of his lofty achievements in the almighty WAEC, UME, and of course, the most prestigious of all, the Covenant University aptitude test.

For the umpteenth time, people...

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Purist:


Despite years of endless debating and educating people on this forum, it still amazes me to see a lot of folks ridicule the notion of scientific theories as though they are a mere guesswork. I can understand if such ignorance is peddled by people with no science background. What I can't forgive, however, is when self-acclaimed students of science don't prove to be any different. Even worse coming from someone who is so quick to inform us of his lofty achievements in the almighty WAEC, UME, and of course, the most prestigious of all, the Covenant University aptitude test.

For the umpteenth time, people...

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

KoloOyinbo:


I BELIEVE the word of God because of FAITH, I cannot prove it.

You cannot use scripture to prove God because the Atheist rejects scripture so WHY are you quoting it??

Beginning of life is another thread - but I believe (not prove) that is it part of Gods plan.

Not just the Joshua example. ALL of what you said claiming to be proof of God is just begging the question and is only accepted by those who ALREADY believe.

IF there exists a PROOF of God all rational thinking people would have no choice but to accept it! Then we would not need belief/faith because it would be reduced to, do you have the intellect to follow what would be basically a mathematical/physical equation. FAITH would be irrelevant and not even mentioned in the bible. Any fool can believe what is already proven.

KingEbukasBlog:


Understand the context before typing. Understand why I "bolded" it .

Purist:


The context was very well understood, and you're fooling no one with your attempted revision.

KingEbukasBlog:


Understand the context before typing. Understand why I "bolded" it .

plaetton:


You know what buddy?
When you think hard about this problem, you cannot put the blame too much on these kids.

Garbage in , garbage out is a fundamental rule of social engineering.

We have to put more blame on the system that puts soooo much garbage in minds of kids long before they begin to articulate thoughts of their own.

Western countries recognized this long ago, by yanking religion out of the public educational system.

This is one lesson from the west that we have yet to learn and imitate.

plaetton:


There you go again, for the third time I think, publicly quoting with cheerful eagerness, something for which you barely understand.

I can bet money that you did not read the entire article whose portions you highlighted above, let alone comprehending the full import of what ideas are being advance here.

plaetton:


You know what buddy?
When you think hard about this problem, you put the blame too much on these kids.
Garbage in , garbage out is a fundamental rule of social engineering.

We have to put more blame on the system that puts soooo much garbage in minds of kids long before they begin to articulate thoughts of their own.

Western countries recognized this long ago, by yanking religion out of the public educational system.

This is one lesson from the west that we have yet to learn and imitate.

plaetton:


Thank you very much for gifting me another stark example of the failure of critical thinking in an adult Nigerian person.

If your IQ was as good as your jamb score, lol, you would recognized that Cameron also visited mosques, Hindu temples, etc as part his campaign tour of minority communities to seek votes in the upcoming elections.

Again, you were to dumb to recognize what is so obvious, let alone figuring it out on your own.

Purist:


Indeed, we have a long way to go. Like you correctly noted, the system has to be reviewed some way. Since I moved to Europe, I have observed at great length the stark differences between the way kids are raised here and back home. Independence is perhaps the strongest focus - independence in thinking, in living, etc. I have yet to meet a Christian here who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. Of course, being the religionists that they are, they have somehow managed to reconcile their beliefs with scientific realities as is often the case.

One thing is clear here though, you are allowed to nurse any beliefs no matter how ridiculous, but you can't expect to get away with publicly uttering nonsense. The other day a minister had to resign after she argued along religious lines against abortion.

Purist:


Indeed, we have a long way to go. Like you correctly noted, the system has to be reviewed some way. Since I moved to Europe, I have observed at great length the stark differences between the way kids are raised here and back home. Independence is perhaps the strongest focus - independence in thinking, in living, etc. I have yet to meet a Christian here who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. Of course, being the religionists that they are, they have somehow managed to reconcile their beliefs with scientific realities as is often the case.

One thing is clear here though, you are allowed to nurse any beliefs no matter how ridiculous, but you can't expect to get away with publicly uttering nonsense. The other day a minister had to resign after she argued along religious lines against abortion.

GerogeI:


I do not even get your point, I already told you the bible says that every other thing was evolved, man is the only thing God sat down to make, and added a nature to him that was not of the earth, something alien in today's language.

Evolution is real, it happened, don't be over zealous is disputing something scientifically seen and biblically acknowledge. Just that while man might have also evolved, Evolution was not the origin of man. Man is an exception, and further "stagnant water@ was not the source of the seed of evolution, a creator was in charge.

KingEbukasBlog:


The gap theory exists between Genesis 1: 1 and Genesis 1:2
Evolution does not have a first cause bro . God created everything as seen in Gen 1:1 obviously ... John 1:3 , Eph 3 :9 and so on

First cause is God . Whatever you are describing isn't evolution . And you keep contradicting yourself in relation to paragraph 4 and 6 Much later in the day... ... and paragraph 6

Here are proofs that there are seven days of creation were 24-hour days
1.God made the light day and the darkness night . The day ended in the evening and the night started with the morning .(Genesis 1: 5,8,13 etc)
2.How will water cover the earth for millions of years before God dividing them in day 2 after He had made light ?
3.How did the earth lie desolate for millions of years before vegetation came forth ?
4.How will Adam be naming the animals millions of years before God created Eve?

All you are trying to do is accommodating evolution in the creation story and its a huge mess
Now let me give you this bullet =>>> what then accounts for fossils if not pre-adamic creation biblically . You saying evolution occurred for every other living thing except man . There are evidences of man's ancestor that lived millions of years ago. A 2 million year jawbone was auctioned recently .

Now here are proof of pre-adamic creation

1.Water from Lucifer's flood during the age of the first earth before its restoration explaining Gen 1:2b ... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters .Water from where ?Lucifer's flood in the first age or Antechaotic Age . If this is untrue then the bible contradicts itelf as seen in Genesis 1 : 6, 7 and 9 where waters were mentioned

2.Man and nations were on earth when Lucifer ruled . This is seen in Isaiah 14 :12-14 , Jeremiah 4 :23-26 and my favourite 2 Peter 3 : 5-7 which says :

5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgement and destruction of the ungodly.

Ayayayaya !!!

3. The earth was not just flooded but covered with total darkness , the sun , moon and stars withrew their function causing all life in the pre-adamic world to die . This is seen clearly in Jeremiah 4 :23-26


23 I looked at the earth,and it was formless and empty;and at the heavens,and their light was gone.

24 I looked at the mountains,and they were quaking;all the hills were swaying.

25 I looked, and there were no people;every bird in the sky had flown away.

26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

Reply if you have any questions ... I'm kinda busy

KingEbukasBlog:


I totally understand what you mean , but dont forget personal experiences and miracles . It could be questionable , but doesnt mean its not true

plaetton:


I can see why you are mixing atheism with faith.
The trick word here is "believe".
You are either doing deliberately or ignorantly.

Christians and atheists do not use the word "believe" in the same context.

In Christianity, one needs faith to believe in a talking snake or talking donkey, or that a ho.r.NY holy spirit r.a.ped a virgin to beget the saviour of the world. You need FAITH to BELiEVE in that crap.
On the other hand, I do not need faith point out that a so- called spirit cannot have sexual urges, let alone intercourse, produce sperm to produce babies.
I Believe that is impossible, because it is not possible.

Like wise, if you BELIEVE that sun stood still for Joshua, that requires a lot of faith.
If I say that I BELIEVE it didn't and couldn't have happened, that requires on common sense based on personal observation and thousands of years of science.
So you see that "BELIEVE " in these two instances, are from two different frames of mind.

So, it is disingenuous of you to try to prove that the act of "Believing" for both Christian and atheist, portray the same mindset.

KoloOyinbo:


Not really. You are merely playing with words. I stand by my premise and see nothing to shake it except if we adopt your definition mixing agnostics and atheists together.

manmustwac:
@post
So if atheism is a religion what is the meaning of the word atheist? So there's no such thing as a non religious person is there?

KoloOyinbo:


Good that you are seeing where the debate is coming from. Personal experiences are just that - PERSONAL and thus because of this (and of course their SUBJECTIVITY) cannot be offered as proof. And YES, just because we cannot prove some of them true does not mean that they are not.

jayriginal:


Mod emeritus, that's for KoloOyinbo to address, not me.

manmustwac:
@post
So if atheism is a religion what is the meaning of the word atheist? So there's no such thing as a non religious person is there?

KingEbukasBlog:


You right . I stumbled on this article minutes ago wile blogging

jayriginal:


No Sir. He isn't playing with words.

Trusting my car will start tomorrow isn't faith, at least not in the real sense.

Believing that there is a God with such and such characteristics who wants us to do such and such is faith.

Even one who believes there is no God cannot be said to have faith and no religion can be made of that.

KoloOyinbo:


May I also state that I am NOT making a religion of Atheism - I did not create the thread or choose the wording.

My original premise was that to believe their is no God requires just as much a leap of FAITH as to believe there is a God. Only the Agnostic does not require FAITH.

MUCH of the discussion here has been because of people not being clear on the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism AND indded on the poor definitions we have seen of them.

jayriginal:


No Sir, it is not a case of poor definitions. If you will recall several days back that you would be hard pressed to find an atheist who says that there is no God.

If any definition is poor, its the one you adopt. While I can understand it, I have tried to clarify for you that that is not the essence of atheism and that people you define as agnostics ARE in fact, atheists. Agnostics (as you define them) do not believe in God.

Again, you stubbornly stick to your position so you can be able to say an atheist has faith but even if we accept your definition, I have asked a simple question which you havent answered. The question is if I trust that my car will start tomorrow morning, can I be said to have faith in that, the way a person is said to have faith in a God with defined traits and rules for worship?

KoloOyinbo:


Well this is QUITE the separate issue.

But what if EVOLUTION was Gods mechanism?

Lets keep that (please) for a different thread.

KingEbukasBlog:


I'l do that on Sunday - its called the pre-adamic creation . Fossils are not evidences of evolution instead they are of the pre-adamic world . Seriously Sir , I doubt the strength of belief of a Christian when he tries to accommodate evolution in the creation story .

KoloOyinbo:


LO! I doubt the understanding of any Christian who does not!

KingEbukasBlog:


A quick one -

1.evolution says man evolved from beast , so our Lord Jesus Christ was an evolved beast or a product of evolution?
2.The bible clearly stated that we (men) are created in God's image , ET clearly denies that
3.ET also degrades God's image to a mere beast
4.It nullifies the idea of the Bible creation by God
5. It denies miracles , the supernatural and the bodily resurrection of Christ ... and I can go on and on

Sir , can you in any way or form present cogent reasons why Evolution should be accepted a bible-believing Christian ?

KoloOyinbo:


OK different thread but:

One species evolves from another. It is NO Longer the first species.

Apes-animals at some point took the form of humans today (Homo Sapiens) through various stages (Neanderthal, Homo Habilis etc etc etc). At some point (so the BELIEVER considers) God grants a soul or call it what you will and we have MAN.

Where do you think a MAN is a different species? Is not the creation of evolution itself and the universe a miracle? And a much more intelligent and sophisticated one that the 'crash bang shazzam God is just a magician' simplistic view of the Fundamentalist minority.

The Bible is a theological and moral work. A divine MESSAGE is conveyed by HUMAN medium words, phrases and language constructs used by MAN so that it can be understood. It uses metaphore, it uses allegory etc. We do not take them as literal. When we speak of a parable what is the MESSAGE? Is it that a Good Samaratan actually existed or was a much more important point trying to be made?

Do you not think God realised that his message would not wait until we developed our science to a level to understand many of the processes involved? He gave us the message in a way to understand the moral and theological aspects. NOT as a scientific work.

God put man in a world where SCIENCE works and we know to be true. Why would he do things in one way and then allow the world to prove them false?

Of course not. That is why fundamentalism is for the less educated Christian.

Who are we to limit God as to how he creates things.

Many Christians believe in 'Intelligent Design' (I have seen a few different concepts of this).

I do have a request. As a former scientist for over 20 years AND a committed Christian AND someone with a tested IQ of 148 I get involved in this argument over and over and over and over for decades.

Fundamentalists will NEVER change nor be convinced BY ANY facts. It also does not matter. If you have FAITH you are saved. God welcomes all. Now how can a fundamentalist possible hope to convince anyone of non scientific untruths?

I am just too tired for this irrelevant argument.

What is the issue with God creating everything as the Scientist is revealing he actually did (As I believe God created the Universe and the scientific laws it follows he must be the ultimate scientist). He then revealed his nature and plan using allegory and metaphor in literature through the bible.

This is so simple - it allows us to understand God AND his CREATION.

The fundamentalist point of view sets out BELIEF against what is demonstrable and proven (Age of Earth, Universe etc) and convinces the less intelligent that a choice must be made between two opposites instead of a rather obvious fitting together of science and religion.

I also find fundamentalism a little at fault for putting people off so the debate is unpleasant for me.

Please just accept my point of view as legitimate for me. By all means open your thread and I may even on occasion pop in to make SHORT contributions - long would be wasted as the Fundamentalist is not equipped to understand the science or much more importantly to think with a mind both open AND CHRISTIAN

KoloOyinbo:


May I also state that I am NOT making a religion of Atheism - I did not create the thread or choose the wording.

My original premise was that to believe their is no God requires just as much a leap of FAITH as to believe there is a God. Only the Agnostic does not require FAITH.

MUCH of the discussion here has been because of people not being clear on the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism AND indded on the poor definitions we have seen of them.