davodyguy:
This is so not true to say the least.

Have asked from the Japanese why they chose the design for Honda and Toyota?
Have you heard of the word conceptualisation?
Have you heard of creativity?
What about inspiration?

I compose songs and my lyrics are from my inner minds and not my environment.

So many designers would say, I just decided to make this shirt this way

Whilst not saying environmental impacts makes not contribution to a design, I'm saying not in all cases. Creativity can be inborn

Lets say, you imagine a mass of iron to move faster than light, wouldn't that work out perfectly in your mind? of course it will. Now, in reality, can you make a mass of iron move faster than light? Why? The reason is a result of physical laws, which dictate how the Universe works. So any imagination and your creativity, have to be manifested in conformity with the physical laws. Think about thermodynamics and the perpetual machine. Or relativity. Or motion.

AllNaijaBlogger:


It was a lie by omission.

*You claimed that one would last a few hours after his/her DNA is completely removed from the body
*I then countered that one would die immediately on a cellular level.
*You then said that trillions of cells function without DNA
*What you failed to mention was that 10 times more cells (majority of cells) need DNA. It is only red blood and cornified cells that can function without DNA.

What do you think they do with DNA that would make them die instantly at the cellular level but red blood cells live for weeks without it? I still don't see how I lied.

AllNaijaBlogger:

So when British or American people say "he is literally a dead man walking", does that mean that the man walking is exactly dead? No it doesnt mean that the man is exactly dead but has something that will essentially make him dead soon. Literally does not mean exactly.

That is a misuse of the word and that is what the dictionary will tell you. Secondly, that isn't the meaning that was implied in the use on this thread.

AllNaijaBlogger:

Also, the definition is clear- "literal" refers to the essence of the character (nature) of something. When they say "literally a dead man walking", this is what they mean- A man walking around with terminal brain cancer is a dead man walking; the brain cancer is essentially death for the man. Terminal brain cancer is not exactly death but it will bring about death.

So if you were to shoot a man walking around with terminal cancer, would that be murder? After all, everyone will die at some point so are you literally a dead man walking just because you've not been diagnosed now with terminal cancer?

AllNaijaBlogger:

You misunderstood the definition and retorted in derision that "eba/DNA has character". The definition is not using "character" in the sense you used it. It means "character" as in the "nature" of something.

More rubbish.

AllNaijaBlogger:

Also, Eba is not exactly garri but you agreed that eba is literally garri. Eba is 40% water and 60% garri.
Why then will you argue that your DNA is not literally you? When your DNA defines your physical self?

So what can you do with eba that you can't do with garri?

AllNaijaBlogger:

Very clearly before, I stated that your DNA is not exactly you- about 2 posts ago.

Can you DNA type on a keyboard?

KingEbukasBlog:


Yes he did , with hands :

Genesis 2:7

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Psalm 8:4-6

4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,human beings that you care for them?
5 You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet:

Light and darkness

Isaiah 45:7

7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things.

form verb

make or be made into a specific shape or form

"Let there be light " . This might give you the perception of magic or something coming from nothing but continue ...

Meaning : Made visible

The earth was restored 6,000 years ago not created ; let was used to restore the orderliness of the once-created . Everything ... universes , planets were created billions of years ago

Isaiah 48:13

13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens ; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Dinosaurs , mammoths , were created far back . Now Ive understood their purpose of creation (everything has a purpose of existing because God made it so). To provide resources needed for man to create or give the ability of functionality to his creations . Cars , planes , just name it

Psalm 82:6

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

... this shows we have the ability to create just like Him

Genesis 1:26 a

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness ... "

Likeness - meaning : outward appearance of ; resemblance

We have hands just like God ; we can create with our hands or form .

We form dough into balls - with our hands . Their circular shape was as a result of dexterity ; same with other hand made stuff

In conclusion : Our ability to create - a reflection of man's resemblance to God

C'est fini !

Where are God's hands today?

KingEbukasBlog:


Oh davien ... understand who Christians call God and why we hold fast to the belief in Him . You just gave a wrong perception @ bold . *sigh* read my little explanation in my response to thehomer 's question "did God create humans with hands" . It should help


Watch www.chosen.tv around 11: 30 pm today

What were God's hands made of?

MrAnony1:

If that is the case, then you haven't answered my question in any meaningful sense.

This was my question: What reasons do you have that convinced you that the universe is not designed despite the fact that it appears designed to you?

I say a design is inspired by a designer. The designer being an intelligent force working to bring out a creation it worked out in mind, into fruition. I identify humans as such of this force. So a design goes with a designer. As I have earlier said in this thread, we extrapolate human creativity with the Universe and conclude the Universe is analogous with creations of humans, therefore the Universe has a designer. I think otherwise, that there is an overarching structure which we ignore when making the extrapolation. I am intent on dwelling on that structure. And consequences of that structure give rise to the appearance of designs. You might ask, whether the structure was ultimately responsible for human design which is true, but for the sake of the discussion and convenience, I tie design to designer. And an entity that looks like a design would be said to have the appearance of a design.

First of, to say that because we don't know what design constraints the physical laws have shows that the universe isn't designed is absurd mainly because design constraints are not a necessary component of design rather they are external things that inspire amendments to an already conceptualized design.

Please expatiate with examples.

Secondly, even if I was to assume (though I am not) that the fact that we don't know the design constraints of physical laws shows that it is undesigned, the fact still remains (and you admit this fact) that fishes, trees, planets, galaxies, supernovas e.t.c. appear designed and equally have the universe as their platform and the physical laws as their constraints just like human designed things such as aeroplanes, houses, oil rigs e.t.c.
So seeing that they both appear designed, they both operate on the same platform and they both have the same physical constraints, what then specifically is this distinction that should make us believe that one category is designed while the other isn't?

MrAnony1:
Evasion number 1:
You have not answered my question. Merely name-dropping the word "evolution" does nothing to explain how it being a purposeless process can create purposeful objects. So please answer the question: How exactly does a purposeless process (i.e. evolution) create purposeful objects?

That is not name dropping, that is a scientific theory and I'm not about to give you a science lesson for free especially when you can read up on it online.

MrAnony1:

What fact are you talking about? Are you referring to the "evolution" that you are yet to explain as “fact”?

Again, it is a scientific theory. Denying a scientific theory doesn't make it stop being the case.

MrAnony1:

Information must necessarily have meaning therefore in order to create it, one must first conceptualize it and then output it. Conceptualization is something that only minds can do. Since computers do not have minds, therefore they cannot conceptualize, therefore they cannot create meaning, therefore they cannot create information. They can only receive data, arrange it based on certain mechanistic settings and then output the rearranged data without creating any meaning whatsoever. This rearranged data may now be read as information by a mindful being capable of creating meaning. To say that a computer is creating information is to say that the computer understands the meaning of the information that it is outputing. This clearly isn't the case.

Saying information must have meaning is a category error. Unless what you actually mean is that for someone to consider something as information, they have to understand it i.e for information to be information, it has to mean something to someone. Meaning is a subjective phenomenon that requires a certain degree of brain complexity. Computers don't yet have minds. Humans also receive data and arrange is based on certain mechanistic settings and output the rearranged data. The meaning again is a subjective component that not all humans are capable of.

MrAnony1:

Now your turn: Can you make your argument as to why you think that computers - having no minds - can create information?

The way I see it, information is subjective and so depends on whether or not the recipient can understand what they're receiving. Since computers can assemble data and present it to humans in a way that they understand, they've created information that humans.

MrAnony1:

A faulty GPS is less predictable. Does a faulty GPS have a mind?

No.

MrAnony1:

Evasion number 2: Again you haven't answered my question.

What is the computing power in terms of the processing speed (in hertz) and memory (in bytes) of a mindful GPS device?

I don't know.

MrAnony1:

I see. So you are saying that the GPS acts intentionally yet doesn't have a mind?

Yes.

MrAnony1:

I asked you what fundamental philosophical reasons do you have that should convince us that other things apart from minds create information? Your answer is that minds have physical structures. This has nothing to do with the question I asked but since it is your answer: Please explain exactly how a mind with a physical structure shows that other things apart from minds can create information.

I gave you something better. The example of a GPS device.

MrAnony1:

It is not enough to make the claim. How exactly does experimental psychology show this?

For that, you need some education on psychology. And I won't be giving you free psychology lessons online. You can read up on it. I can give you links if you want.

MrAnony1:

I see that it is red herring season again.

Irrelevant question #1.
How exactly does a non-physical object have a physical location? How exactly does location affect whether or not something is functioning through another?
Where are these minds of yours that are developing with a physical brain?

You didn't answer my question. It relevance was based on your ideas of minds existing without brains. Those minds are produced by the brains.

MrAnony1:

Irrelevant question #2.
How exactly does method of picking change whether something is functioning through another?
How do your minds pick which brain to develop with?

You didn't answer my question. Please answer it then we'll get to the problems with a mind just picking a brain to affect.
In my view, minds don't pick brains to develop with.

MrAnony1:

Irrelevant question #3.
How exactly does ability or inability to switch tools change whether something is being used as a tool or not?
Can your minds switch brains and develop somewhere else?

Please answer my question. It has implications on our justice system.
In my view, minds cannot switch brains.

MrAnony1:

Irrelevant question #4.
How exactly does whether or not something can leave another change whether it is using the other as a tool?
Where do your minds go when a person dies?

Please answer my question. It has implications on how minds are supposed to work.
In my view, minds stop when a person dies. They can even stop before death is confirmed.

MrAnony1:

Irrelevant question #5. How exactly does whether a thing has multiple users or whether multiple users use one thing change the fact that there is a user/used relationship?
Are there multiple minds or just one mind developing with multiple brains?

Please answer my question. It has implications in our justice system and on certain philosophical ideas.
In my view, there are multiple minds.

MrAnony1:

Seriously your questions have nothing to do with the premises being discussed. I too will have nothing to do with them.

They have a lot to do with the premises being discussed and I answered my part. Please do your part by answering them.

MrAnony1:

I have never denied this. Now do you deny that DNA contains actual information that effects living things and this information is not merely the human abstraction?

I didn't deny that either. Just that the information is a human abstraction of the actual things the DNA does.

MrAnony1:

Yes but still they are very analogous in the sense that both DNA and the computer code are specific arrangements of objects such that they contain information that is capable of effecting changes in the organism they are defining. Do you affirm or deny this?

Websites aren't organisms so your analogy simply fails.

MrAnony1:

As I've said before and will say again, you are quite literally your DNA

Your persistent assertion simply shows you have a problem with the English language.

MrAnony1:

The information in your DNA is specifically instructing your cells. Do you deny this? You are welcome to explain in very specific terms this “mechanistic process” by which DNA works if you think I am using the word "instructing" inaccurately.

That is a lesson on genetics that I won't be giving you for free online. Here's an [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_%28genetics%29]article[/url] on the first step of the process to get you started.

MrAnony1:

Another empty assertion. What has where God came from got to do with whether or not you were mindfully created?

It has everything to do with it. It denies the undirected nature of evolution. Please answer the question.

MrAnony1:

The information that defines you is the information in your DNA as encoded by the specific arrangements of your nucleotide bonds, so are you saying that the information in your DNA is a human conception and hence doesn't actually exist objectively?

No I'm not.

MrAnony1:

Liar. This shows the emptiness of your position. Judging by how much you are fighting to cling unto this red herring of yours. I never said that God has a body neither did I ever show any willingness to follow your red herring. What I said is that you can assume God has a body if you like, it will still have nothing to do with our discussion which is whether or not you are mindfully created. Why are you so desperate to avoid the actual discussion? Do I really scare you that much?

Now he denies what he initially accepted when I raised questions with his position. Here I'll ask you directly are we working with the premise that your God has a body or not? If not, then what is the basis of your design argument?

MrAnony1:

You mean like the lies, evasions, red herrings and petty semantic games you've been throwing about? Yeah, there are indeed so many irrelevant diversions.

Actually, all the questions I asked had good reasons and could have been answered in one or two short sentences if you actually knew what you were talking about. As usual, I answered the questions you asked but you didn't answer mine. Please make sure you answer them in your next response.

MrAnony1:

Answered here. Unless your claim is that revelation (in the manner you have described) is the only basis for believing in a thing's existence then it it is irrelevant to ask whether God can or cannot do that. So are you saying that such revelation is the basis for believing in a thing's existence?

The link says nothing about your God revealing himself to me like people revealed themselves to me. It is the basis for believing in the existence of your friends. Is your God your friend? Or are you saying your God can't reveal himself to me the way other people have?

MrAnony1:

I never did. Rather I pointed out your red herring and now I point out your lie.

You never accepted it for the sake of argument? Well I already provided a link showing where you did.

MrAnony1:

This is not irrelevant. In fact it casts doubts on your sincerity especially since you are the one demanding proof. Do you seriously want to know whether God exists or not or do you only want to argue about it?

I want to know whether or not your God exists. What is the relevance of where or how I sought him? Would that somehow stop you from showing him to me if he exists? Or will that stop him from showing himself to me?

MrAnony1:

Evasion number 3: Maybe I am ignorant but it is definitely a serious question: What exactly does DNA actually do in cells?

You need to tell me whether or not you're actually ignorant about this question. After all, you may just be out to waste my time. So, are you actually ignorant on this?

MrAnony1:

Evasion number 4: If you think that nothingness was never the case then it is either the universe was caused to exist or it has always existed. So now please answer my question. Was the Universe caused to exist? If so, what properties would a thing capable of causing the universe have? . . .or do you think that the universe has always existed?

Something always existed.

MrAnony1:

I think the universe was brought into existence. Since evidently we both agree that something can only come from something, which means we both agree that there must be a first uncaused cause. What properties do you think that this first cause has?

I don't know. What properties do you think this first cause has?

MrAnony1:

Perhaps I don't know what a transition is. Please what is a transition and how exactly can we tell its occurrence from looking at fossils? i.e. what should we look out for in the fossils that will inform us that a transition has occurred?

Wikipedia:
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

You should look out for traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. Now do you know how to tell whether or not a transition has occurred?

You keep asking questions whose answers are easily found online. Why do you keep doing that?

MrAnony1:

Yet you conveniently omitted that part in your response. Why are you so shamelessly dishonest?



It means "fast to an extent" and yes I am quite literally my DNA. Why were you so dishonest in your exchange with Uyi? What stopped you from properly representing him the first time? Calling me ignorant hasn't masked the fact that your dishonesty had to be called out.

Can your DNA type on a keyboard?

MrAnony1:

This very thread will do just fine. Let those who read it judge for themselves.

Where does it show my fear?

MrAnony1:

.....so we are now dishonest and moaning. Well the thread is here for all to read and judge for themselves. I don't expect you to admit your own fear publicly.

Also feel free to highlight which line in davidylan's post was insulting to you so as to warrant the insults in your reply

I'm sure you can read. If you don't think any line there was insulting then that's a testament to your dishonesty.

MrAnony1:

Also, since you want us to examine the "substance" of your claim, can you provide any evidence for your claim there? Specifically this one:

There are three sentences there. Which ones do you disagree with whose answers you can't find online for yourself?

MrAnony1:

Yes it true that appearing to be designed doesn't prove it is actually designed. However since you have given us no alternate explanation, we have no reason not to go with how things appear i.e. assume they are designed until proven otherwise.

The theory of evolution explains why appearing designed doesn't mean they were designed in the way human artifacts are designed.

MrAnony1:

Evasion number 5: Trying to shift the burden of proof? It is you who needs to show us a reason to deny the apparent design that we observe.
Secondly, merely claiming that the theory of evolution explains your position means nothing if you cannot actually show how it does. Seeing as you are unwilling to explain your position, you have not met your burden of proof and so we haven't been presented with any reason for us to reject design which by your own admission is obvious to us as observers.
Thirdly, judging by how you keep throwing the word "evolution" about without actually explaining what you mean, I am beginning to suspect that you really don't know what you are talking about and you hope to hide this fact by making empty audacious statements. Are you afraid that your ignorance will become exposed?

More empty rubbish. Even if I can't explain what the theory of evolution is, it still doesn't lift your burden of proof. As I said, the theory of evolution explains what you think is a problem. As I've said before, I won't be giving free lessons online. If you think the theory of evolution is wrong, then it is up to you to show that it is wrong given the fact that it has multiple lines of evidence.

MrAnony1:

Evasion number 6: Trying to shift the burden of proof again?
You are a funny character. It was you who said that living things look designed. How exactly does showing a transition from one designed object to another designed object disprove design? What you need to show in order to prove your point is a non-living thing that doesn't look designed transform into a living thing that looks designed via a mindless process.

And you're a ridiculous character. I've told you again and again that the theory of evolution answers the question you're asking. If you wish to refute that theory, then you have to understand it well enough to refute it but I won't give you free lessons online. Especially when the resources are available online. My aim is not to disprove design, but to tell you why it is the case that living organisms appear designed.

MrAnony1:

Once you have done this, then I am more than happy to explain to you how I think human beings came to exist. But first of all, meet your burden of proof.....or can't you?

I've done my part. It is up to you to do your part. Secondly, even if I can't do my part, you still have to give your explanation.

MrAnony1:

My point is that you are contradicting yourself. Now can you explain how two things that (according to you) have the same definition are different?

If those two things can be synonymous.

MrAnony1:

Evasion number 7: What are you so afraid of?

Since you claim that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs, then please what are these physical properties of what you are experiencing that inform you it is hunger when the hunger pangs are absent? Or is the hunger you are experiencing non-physical?

Can you please answer my question and stop dodging?

The physical dimension would be the appropriate signals in the brain. What is your point with this question?

MrAnony1:

Another lie. Please show where I said that length isn't a physical property?

You were the one who said that hunger pangs are a physical property of hunger and that length are a physical property of hunger pangs. So please explain to us how exactly you aren't saying that a physical property has a physical property.

Where you said hunger pangs weren't a physical property. As usual, I've answered your question but you didn't answer my simple question. Here it is again. Is length non-physical?

MrAnony1:

How did you get that from what I just explained to you?

Because you only gave examples of physical objects. Please answer my question.

MrAnony1:

If hunger is not matter, how then does it have physical properties? Are you suggesting that there are physical properties that do not describe material things?Also, what question are you referring to?

Here are the questions again. Please tell me, is the stomach matter? Do hunger pangs describe the stomach under those conditions?

MrAnony1:

Similarly, I know my hunger because I am conscious. Hunger pangs are an effect of non-physical hunger on the physical body. Again what questions are you referring to?

This is why you should answer my questions when I ask them rather than just throwing about questions and irrelevant statements. Here are the questions again. Don't you agree that the mind is non-physical? Do you mean that hunger pangs are an effect of the mind not the physical body?

MrAnony1:

Osheyy "Mr Enforcer" . Actually it is you who has been dodging my questions, I have pointed out 7 clear instances of you evading my questions (not counting the posts you ignored entirely). Please make sure you answer them meaningfully before you start enforcing whatever it is you want to enforce.

You merely claimed they were evasions while ignoring the actual questions I asked. Oh yes you may consider me the enforcer.

KingEbukasBlog:


So why do you mock people that say the supernatural is responsible . Science tries to explain how it was done and religion explains why it was done

Lemme give you a quick example :

1. Why was the universe or earth formed?

Science : No answer

Religion : To be inhabited by intelligent , free moral agents to whom God will reveal Himself to

2 . How was the universe or earth formed

Science : accretion ; big bang

Religion : No answer

We were born into this earth ; science just tries to explain how all these came into being (how) . Religion tells us the cause (who is responsible ; who is in charge ) , why (the purpose of life ) and other stuff like understanding the purpose of life , how we should live our lives etc

What makes you think the religious answers are correct?

davodyguy:
This part killed it. We can keep going round and round in circle or cycle, we would still go back to default of ' what happened in the beginning of time'?

If it evolved, what propelled it to evolve?

The bible is not a scientific material, neither will it try to prove anything scientifically. But it rather gave explanations, which can be aligned with in the absence of any scientific contradiction about the origin of the universe

It isn't simply that the Bible isn't a scientific source, but that it also presents wrong information. What happens when scientific information contradicts the information in the Bible? Does that mean the information in the Bible is wrong?

thehomer:


It isn't simply that the Bible isn't a scientific source, but that it also presents wrong information.

How?

thehomer:

What happens when scientific information contradicts the information in the Bible? Does that mean the information in the Bible is wrong?

No

thehomer:


What do you think they do with DNA that would make them die instantly at the cellular level but red blood cells live for weeks without it? I still don't see how I lied.

First, red blood cells need DNA at the first stage of their life cycle. Clearly, you are ignorant of this. If your DNA disappears, a significant amount of your red blood cells will malfunction or die.

Secondly, radiation/cancer messes up your DNA, if the damage is so much that your DNA fails to repair itself properly. Now imagine if the dna disappears totally. Imagine if most of your organs were malfunctioning because its cells have all lost DNA. Multiple organ failure is death within seconds or minutes, especially if the organs that fail are 3 or more. In this case, your brain, kidney, liver, skin etc will all be affected.

thehomer:

That is a misuse of the word and that is what the dictionary will tell you. Secondly, that isn't the meaning that was implied in the use on this thread.

Yes, just make empty declarations. Please don't waste my time with your feeble attempts at dodging the facts. I did not misuse the word and I gave a dictionary definition with examples. Please.

thehomer:

So if you were to shoot a man walking around with terminal cancer, would that be murder? After all, everyone will die at some point so are you literally a dead man walking just because you've not been diagnosed now with terminal cancer?

@ bold- what a marvelous strawman!

Common sense should tell you two things

First, you cannot as a Nigerian, claim to know English more than English people and their dictionaries. I gave a common example of a phrase used in UK/US and you are now claiming that they are wrong. Not only that, I backed it up with a dictionary definition. Mr Homer, please learn to humble yourself before your humiliate yourself.

Secondly, a normally healthy person could die anytime within one second to 70 years. Death with such a person cannot be said to be imminent. However, a person with terminal cancer will die in the nearest future. Death is both certain and imminent. There is a vast difference.

thehomer:

More rubbish.

What is wrong with you?

thehomer:

So what can you do with eba that you can't do with garri?

Does your husband/wife give you raw garri to eat with soup? Or can you mould raw garri into a bowl shape?

Please, think before you type

thehomer:

Can you DNA type on a keyboard?

thehomer:


What makes you think the religious answers are correct?

Because they are correct , what makes you think scientific answers are correct ?

thehomer:


What were God's hands made of?

What are your hands made of ?

thehomer:


Where are God's hands today?

Where are your hands today ?

kay17 : Do you read http://phys.org/ ... because its becoming very obvious that your history on Nairaland can be traced to the comment section of that site

@ dalaman :

R1. Apparently , you still don't understand what roles Religion and science play in life and you are so obstinate about learning something new . Now , that's your problem .
R2. where is the location of the amputee

KingEbukasBlog:
@ dalaman :

R1. Apparently , you still don't understand what roles Religion and science play in life and you are so obstinate about learning something new . Now , that's your problem

I have already pointed out the role of religion and science, they are parallel to each other.

R2. where is the location of the amputee

Abuja.

davodyguy:


here's something from Stephen William Hawking CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA



Science May solve some problems, but there are couple of other things that science will never ever solve till maybe man or the universe ceases to exit. eg according to Hawkings, why does the universe bother to exist


1 Corinthians 1:27
Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.

Nice one ! Maybe this could help dalaman understand the role of science and religion in life .

And do you think there is life outside earth ? I believe God has other plans for the universe as regards to intelligent life outside man . What do you think ?

dalaman:


I have already pointed out the role of religion and science, they are parallel to each other.

I never said they were alike . I just said they play different roles in life . You are allowing science play both roles and whatever "explanation" you gave is a disaster . " Religion is fictitious " Religion is this or that yet you couldn't answer two good questions I asked you . For your own good understand that science can't answer all questions concerning life .

Abuja.

Can you get him to Lagos ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Nice one ! Maybe this could help dalaman understand the role of science and religion in life .

And do you think there is life outside earth ? I believe God has other plans for the universe as regards to intelligent life outside man . What do you think ?

Please is that really his answer to why the universe exist? Because the God of the bible uses things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. Is that truly the reason why the universe exist? You guys are just to hilarious.

dalaman:


Please is that really his answer to why the universe exist? Because the God of the bible uses things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. Is that truly the reason why the universe exist? You guys are just to hilarious.

Asking him to explain would have been a much better comment , honestly .

KingEbukasBlog:


I never said they were alike . I just said they play different roles in life . You are allowing science play both roles and whatever "explanation" you gave is a disaster . " Religion is fictitious " Religion is this or that yet you couldn't answer two good questions I asked you . For your own good understand that science can't answer all questions concerning life .

I have stated that their roles are parallel.

Can you get him to Lagos ?

And if it fails which I know it will, will you pay back the transportation cost.

dalaman:


I have stated that their roles are parallel.

Honestly people who combine both turn out just fine

And if it fails which I know it will, will you pay back the transportation cost.

You are not serious then

KingEbukasBlog:


Honestly people who combine both turn out just fine

If you say so.

You are not serious then

I just don't want to waste my money on something I know will turn out to be negative I will look for a bible believing amputee that truly believe that Jesus can heal him/her that lives in Lagos and send to you. You will pray for him/her and once his/her amputated limbs is restored You can post the before and after pics for us to see here.

dalaman:


I just don't want to waste my money on something I know will turn out to be negative I will look for a bible believing amputee that truly believe that Jesus can heal him/her that lives in Lagos and send to you. You will pray for him/her and once his/her amputated limbs is restored You can post the before and after pics for us to see here.

Again ... You are not serious . So you would say its photoshop ? Bring that guy to Lagos or forget it !

@ thehomer : What is the universe ? Define universe ...