Why does this thing keep signing me in as Abuzola? . Moderator what is this?

Testing, testing, testing. Moderator what is this? why am I being signed in as Abuzola?

Abuzola has finally carried out his threat of jihad on NL. . . This is e-terrorism!

lmao

toneyb:

When has the moon ever produced its light?

Didn't you just imply that it could later be shown by science that the sun does not produce its own light?

whats the meaning of all this? I believe u understand simple english. that was an illustration and there is a big[i] IF[/i] before it.

Did you not say on another thread that the biblegod created some kind of light that can not be understood by the "human organs"?

How? With or with out the moon light nothing will change at night, take away the sunlight for a year and there will be little light left on earth, take away the moon light with it reflects from the sun for 10 years and it will not affect any part of the develpoed world, Light bulbs rule the night more than the moon will ever do. So how does the moon rule the night? The moon use to rule or proive some form of light back in the days not any more except in places where there is no electricity. light bulbs are what rule the night now.

What is this firmament? The scientist are yet to see how it seperates the waters above from the waters below as the bible says it does, do the windows of the clouds open when it rains? Huh Huh. Scientist have seen the sun, moon, stars and have studied it in great details, where is the firmament that houses the heavens and the stars? The same firmament that seperates the waters below from the waters above, the same firmament whose windows open when ever it rains. Where is it? By the way the bible refers to the clouds as a different entity from the firmament.

What bible knowledge have you displayed other than saying things that the bible does not even say.

I am sorry you did not even say anything that made any sense.

Are you know relying on your "common sense" to tell you what is written? . Can you show me where the bible says that genesis 1 is the biblegod's account and genesis 2 man's account. i don't want your common sense because you have non as far as I know. Just show me where it is written in the bible. You did not write the bible and nothing in the bible says anything like that. If there is then show me.

What was the earth orbiting before the sun and other planets were created? yahweh's head?

Again you are lying here.

Gen 1:30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground everything that has the breath of life in it I give every green plant for food." And it was so .

According to the tale death had not yet come into the world, so what were the lions feeding on since death had not yet come into the world? yahweh's fingers?

what is the difference between the the light created in verse 3, the light created in verse 14 and the ones in verse 16?

What is this? Don't you guys go around saying that the biblegod spoke everything into existence? Who was the biblegod talking to when he said "let the earth bring for plants"? Was he speaking to the earth, the plants, the mythical adam or you? . Did you attend any school? Who was the bible god talking to when he said "let there be light"? Was he talking to you?

How have you "addressed this"? You are yet to tell me how the stars will fall into the earth on the day jesus will come or how stars can fight along side humans. Are you not the one mocking the muslims for believing that their prophet was able to divide the moon into two? How is that absurd tale different from you own bible absurd tale of stars fighting along side humans in a war?

When did i talk about evolution? What is it about evolution that scares you guys so much? I said the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is the big bang. It is flawed but that is the scientific explanation for now.


Discredited by who? Or self acclaimed "scientist" that doesn't even know who to write a scientific paper or who? . Do you want to win a Nobel peace prize and become famous? The discovery institute have been looking for scientist that will discredit the theory of evolution for decades but have yet to find one. You can do them a lot of good. You will become a Nobel laureate and become and instant celebrity if only you take up the challenge and disprove evolution. Let me know when you have written your scientific paper that disproves or discredits the theory of evolution to the NAS.

Define what u understand by PERFECTION?

at thread starter

does the soul exist?

What is a soul?

noetic2:

whats the meaning of all this? I believe u understand simple english. that was an illustration and there is a big[i] IF[/i] before it.

Next time make sure you give illustrations that make sense. This is no "illustration" but a display of ignorance.

what is the difference between the the light created in verse 3, the light created in verse 14 and the ones in verse 16?

You keep running in a circle. I have told you so many times how the people that wrote the bible thought about the celestial bodies they see up above the sky, they thought the moon produced its own light and that stars were these tiny objects that hang in these strange thing called the firmament. They had NO idea that the tiny stars they saw were SO many times bigger than the earth. This is what they believe will happen as revealed by the bible god to the writer of revelation when the world will come to an end according to the bible.

Rev 6:2  I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red,
Rev 6:13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind

Moon turning red and stars falling down into the earth. This gives you a perfect example of what they thought the stars were, they thought the stars were tiny stones hanging in the sky that could be made to fight along side humans in a battle. If the knew better they wouldn't have written any of that RUBBISH.

Define what u understand by PERFECTION?

I said I don't know you tell me. Is it that hard?

toneyb:

Next time make sure you give illustrations that make sense. This is no "illustration" but a display of ignorance.

You keep running in a circle. I have told you so many times how the people that wrote the bible thought about the celestial bodies they see up above the sky, they thought the moon produced its own light and that stars were these tiny objects that hang in these strange thing called the firmament. They had NO idea that the tiny stars they saw were SO many times bigger than the earth. This is what they believe will happen as revealed by the bible god to the writer of revelation when the world will come to an end according to the bible.

Rev 6:2  I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red,
Rev 6:13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind

Moon turning red and stars falling down into the earth. This gives you a perfect example of what they thought the stars were, they thought the stars were tiny stones hanging in the sky that could be made to fight along side humans in a battle. If the knew better they wouldn't have written any of that RUBBISH.

what is the difference between the the light created in verse 3, the light created in verse 14 and the ones in verse 16?

I said I don't know you tell me. Is it that hard?

isnt it stupid, that u dont know the meaning of perfection, but yet claim that God is not perfect.


What is the meaning of PERFECTION?

lol @ saw the stars fall to earth!! Whoever wrote that part must be am idiot! and whoever believes that part must be a fowl!!

The sun gives the moon its light, as such the moon reflects the light it obtains from the sun, the moon is therefore a [b]source [/b]of LIGHT.

Not even a primary school child should say this. Does the moon not rule over the night?

Noetic is a worse illiterate than i imagined, the nomadic shepherds who wrote Genesis had more scientific knowledge than him.

How can a person living in the 21st century make those above assertions and many more i do not have time to go into.

Is Noetic saying he does not understand the meaning of the word source? Is he saying he does not understand that the sun is the source of all the light we visualize objects with with ( except the stars). Every thing we see is as a result of reflected light from the sun including you and the moon and planets.

You also do not know that the sun makes its own light, it does so by a process know as nuclear fission.

You said "Not even a primary school child should say this", yes you are worse than a primary school child. Who does not know that the moon sometimes is not even present in the night sky? sometimes it follows the sun for more than 24hrs of a complete day, then the moon is not in the night sky even for one hour. It is only when it move to the other side that it stays in the night sky for 12 hours, that is when you have a full moon. Even a toddler is aware that the moon rises an hour later ever night and eventually it will rise just before dawn.

Go back to nursery school.

wirinet:

Noetic is a worse illiterate than i imagined, the nomadic shepherds who wrote Genesis had more scientific knowledge than him.

How can a person living in the 21st century make those above assertions and many more i do not have time to go into.

Is Noetic saying he does not understand the meaning of the word source? Is he saying he does not understand that the sun is the source of all the light we visualize objects with with ( except the stars). Every thing we see is as a result of reflected light from the sun including you and the moon and planets.

What is the meaning of SOURCE?

I know u are going to run away again, cos u know that u are going to carry ur tails and run away again. just define source.

You also do not know that the sun makes its own light, it does so by a process know as nuclear fission.

You said "Not even a primary school child should say this", yes you are worse than a primary school child. Who does not know that the moon sometimes is not even present in the night sky? sometimes it follows the sun for more than 24hrs of a complete day, then the moon is not in the night sky even for one hour. It is only when it move to the other side that it stays in the night sky for 12 hours, that is when you have a full moon. Even a toddler is aware that the moon rises an hour later ever night and eventually it will rise just before dawn.

Go back to nursery school.

Now who is more deluded u or a primary school kid? whats the meaning of the rambling above?
does the sun rule over the night? does the moon not rule over the night?

where did u study ur own science? is it under the tree or where? abeg go siddon.

noetic2:

Now who is more deluded u or a primary school kid? whats the meaning of the rambling above?
does the sun rule over the night? does the moon not rule over the night?
where did u study ur own science? is it under the tree or where? abeg go siddon.

Now if the moon gets its light from the sun, then doesnt that still make the sun the indirect "ruler of the night"?? Whatever that means.

Chrisbenogor:

That is a very vacous argument, you can prove an explanation wrong even when you do not have the certain answer.

x² -4x -2 = 0

The answers to the above equation can be tested if they are right without knowing what the real answer is no?

The logic is simple, plug the answer back into the question if we get a zero we know if we are right or wrong.

The opposite is true in testing for scientific facts.  In science you can easily refute a false idea that does not stand up to the laws of nature or scientific laws.  Let us see a couple of ideas where scientific laws can tell us whether they are false or true.

In Mathematics:

(x + y)²= x²+y²

This is false because the law of Mathematics has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

(x + y)²= x²+2.xy + y²

In Chemistry:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₃O (This is a false equation because the law of Stoichiometry has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₂O

In Biology:

The statement "Man has evolved from a long process of evolution"

How do we know whether this statement is true or false?  We can know by testing it with the law of nature otherwise called scientific law.  There are at least three realities that we can observe, which are life, information and matter.  Louis Pasteur is the only scientist who has formulated and scientifically discovered the law of life that God originated; that life can only come from life, otherwise called the law of biogenesis (correct me if 'am wrong).   All other attempts by evolutionists, including the statement in the quote above, have all been  proved to be false.

The father of Microbiology, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), who was an outstanding scientist and opponent of evolution formulated this law.  Each time you go to the refrigerator and take out a bottle of milk, you should be reminded of the work of the outstanding French scientist, Louis Pasteur.  He discovered Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Sterilization, Immunization etc.  He also proved the scientific law that life came from life, He said that: “Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves”.  This was a kick in the teeth to the evolutionists that have been peddling the fallacy of spontaneous generation and they still teach this in textbooks and schools inspite of the fact that it is unscientific, illogical, irrational and unreasonable. 

Despite all the efforts of the evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found, hence it remains a theory and not a fact.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/pasteur.asp

Even evolutionist Stephen Hawking said "the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on . . ."

OLAADEGBU:

The opposite is true in testing for scientific facts.  In science you can easily refute a false idea that does not stand up to the laws of nature or scientific laws.  Let us see a couple of ideas where scientific laws can tell us whether they are false or true.

In Mathematics:

(x + y)²= x²+y²

This is false because the law of Mathematics has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

(x + y)²= x²+2.xy + y²

In Chemistry:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₃O (This is a false equation because the law of Stoichiometry has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₂O

In Biology:

The statement "Man has evolved from a long process of evolution"

How do we know whether this statement is true or false?  We can know by testing it with the law of nature otherwise called scientific law.  There are at least three realities that we can observe, which are life, information and matter.  Louis Pasteur is the only scientist who has formulated and scientifically discovered the law of life that God originated; that life can only come from life, otherwise called the law of biogenesis (correct me if 'am wrong).   All other attempts by evolutionists, including the statement in the quote above, have all been  proved to be false.

The father of Microbiology, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), who was an outstanding scientist and opponent of evolution formulated this law.  Each time you go to the refrigerator and take out a bottle of milk, you should be reminded of the work of the outstanding French scientist, Louis Pasteur.  He discovered Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Sterilization, Immunization etc.  He also proved the scientific law that life came from life, He said that: “Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves”.  This was a kick in the teeth to the evolutionists that have been peddling the fallacy of spontaneous generation and they still teach this in textbooks and schools inspite of the fact that it is unscientific, illogical, irrational and unreasonable. 

Despite all the efforts of the evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found, hence it remains a theory and not a fact.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/pasteur.asp

Even evolutionist Stephen Hawking said "the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on . . ."

Yawns, More meaningless ramblings from people that can only cry about evolution yet have never attempted to discredit it as a scientific fact. When will the "scientist" in the discovery institute and answers in genesis write a scientific paper discrediting the theory of evolution and present it to other scientist? How many times will their lies be exposed and defeated? Why is their intelligent design theory not thought in schools as science?

What a bunch blowhard and deluded freaks.

@ Noetic
It is beyond belief you do not know the meaning of the word source. Here are some definitions to help you out;

beginning: the place where something begins, where it springs into being; "the Italian beginning of the Renaissance"; "Jupiter was the origin of ,

Source - http://www.google.com.ng/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Z4M&defl=en&q=define:source&ei=OF5QSqOSC8WYtgfPpemfBA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

person, place or thing from which something comes or is acquired

A source is where something originates from. It is not and can never be a transmitter of the thing in question. If you give a thing to be passed on to another person and then passes to another person ad infinitum, no other person along the chain can claim the source of that thing but you.

What is wrong with the statement i made;
[quote]
You also do not know that the sun makes its own light, it does so by a process know as nuclear fission.

You said "Not even a primary school child should say this", yes you are worse than a primary school child. Who does not know that the moon sometimes is not even present in the night sky? sometimes it follows the sun for more than 24hrs of a complete day, then the moon is not in the night sky even for one hour. It is only when it move to the other side that it stays in the night sky for 12 hours, that is when you have a full moon. Even a toddler is aware that the moon rises an hour later ever night and eventually it will rise just before dawn.

Are you that ignorant that the moon is not always present in the night sky?
Let me teach you a bit on how to exercise your brains scientifically;
Go out every evening say around 8:00pm and mark the position of the moon every night for 28 days. You will learn that the sun moves nearer the sun every day until it moves exactly with the sun, and in such times the moon is not present in the night sky.

Please explain what you mean by the moon ruling over the night, because i think you have a problem with understanding English definitions of words.

I sometimes hate pursuing a scientific argument with you because you show absolute ignorance of science and ready defend your ignorance to irrational heights. You are not even disposed to reading the argument and deciphering its meaning before arguing. You then beat your chest and repeat your motto "I Have Been Able To Show" or I have Been Able To prove" this and that.

[/quote]

edit the post above to a meaningful layout.

@ Noetic
It is beyond belief you do not know the meaning of the word source. Here are some definitions to help you out;

beginning: the place where something begins, where it springs into being; "the Italian beginning of the Renaissance"; "Jupiter was the origin of ,

Source - http://www.google.com.ng/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Z4M&defl=en&q=define:source&ei=OF5QSqOSC8WYtgfPpemfBA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

person, place or thing from which something comes or is acquired

A source is where something originates from. It is not and can never be a transmitter of the thing in question. If you give a thing to be passed on to another person and then passes to another person ad infinitum, no other person along the chain can claim the source of that thing but you.

What is wrong with the statement i made;

You also do not know that the sun makes its own light, it does so by a process know as nuclear fission.

You said "Not even a primary school child should say this", yes you are worse than a primary school child. Who does not know that the moon sometimes is not even present in the night sky? sometimes it follows the sun for more than 24hrs of a complete day, then the moon is not in the night sky even for one hour.  It is only when it move to the other side that it stays in the night sky for 12 hours, that is when you have a full moon. Even a toddler is aware that the moon rises an hour later ever night and eventually it will rise just before dawn.

Are you that ignorant that the moon is not always present in the night sky?
Let me teach you a bit on how to exercise your brains scientifically;
Go out every evening say around 8:00pm and mark the position of the moon every night for 28 days. You will learn that the sun moves nearer the sun every day until it moves exactly with the sun, and in such times the moon is not present in the night sky.

Please explain what you mean by the moon ruling over the night, because i think you have a problem with understanding English definitions of words.

I sometimes hate pursuing a scientific argument with you because you show absolute ignorance of science and ready defend your ignorance to irrational heights. You are not even disposed to reading the argument and deciphering its meaning before arguing. You then beat your chest and repeat your motto "I Have Been Able To Show" or I have Been Able To prove" this and that.

wirinet:

@ Noetic
It is beyond belief you do not know the meaning of the word source. Here are some definitions to help you out;
Source - http://www.google.com.ng/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Z4M&defl=en&q=define:source&ei=OF5QSqOSC8WYtgfPpemfBA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

A source is where something originates from. It is not and can never be a transmitter of the thing in question. If you give a thing to be passed on to another person and then passes to another person ad infinitum, no other person along the chain can claim the source of that thing but you.

I am tempted to ask: do u have a brain at all?

From ur definition a source is the the point of origin of a thing. Take for instance light originates from point A to point B. It also originates from point B to point C, even though point B does not independently generate its light but derives it from point A.

is point A not a source of light to point B?
is point B not a source of light to point C? 

replace point A with the sun, point B the moon and point C the earth. U are more DELUDED than I think.

What is wrong with the statement i made;

Everything was wrong with that statement.
What does the rubbish about the moon travelling and sometimes not being present in the night sky got to do with the fact that "the moon rules at night"?

Are you that ignorant that the moon is not always present in the night sky?
Let me teach you a bit on how to exercise your brains scientifically;
Go out every evening say around 8:00pm and mark the position of the moon every night for 28 days. You will learn that the sun moves nearer the sun every day until it moves exactly with the sun, and in such times the moon is not present in the night sky.

Meaningless Rants.

what rules at night? you? does the intermittent absence of the moon in the sky, dispute the fact it is the SOURCE of light at night?
whats the meaning of the rant in RED?

Please explain what you mean by the moon ruling over the night, because i think you have a problem with understanding English definitions of words.

How can u in ur IGNORANT mind not know what this phrase means, considering that u SHAMELESSLY lifted it from the bible and chose to antagonise it. It simply means the predominant VESSEL/SOURCE of light at night.

I sometimes hate pursuing a scientific argument with you because you show absolute ignorance of science and ready defend your ignorance to irrational heights. You are not even disposed to reading the argument and deciphering its meaning before arguing. You then beat your chest and repeat your motto "I Have Been Able To Show" or I have Been Able To prove" this and that.
 

you simply hate pursuing scientific facts with me, cos u know that I always reveal ur IGNORANCE and FOLLY.
when u learn to TRUTHFULLY state and analyse facts, then u might be worth the attention.

There you go again twisting and turning logic on its head, the nomadic, that tribes men that wrote the bible said what they thought was obvious that the moon rules the sky because on some nights the moon is indeed very bright and stays in the sky all night, and you are twisting it to mean the moon is the source of that light because of your ignorance of how light is made. There cannot be two sources for the same thing.

If you do not understand what you highlighted in red, Go and grab your elementary geography test book and study eclipses and how eclipses are formed. Alternatively go back to elementary school.

you simply hate pursuing scientific facts with me, cos u know that I always reveal ur IGNORANCE and FOLLY.
when u learn to TRUTHFULLY state and analyse facts, then u might be worth the attention.

That is the greatest fallacy on Nairaland, you have never, and i mean never made any meaningful  argument, you lift one or two quotations from the Bible, most times out of context, and when people like Toneyb, Kag, etc present incisive and well researched arguments, you simple answer each argument with a one liner or at least two liners like;
Noetic Standard Answers

I have repeatedly told u that this no point.

I must confess that u have a limited knowledge of the bible. This is forgiveable because u are an atheist.

This is a mere assumption, which u have failed to substantiate.

Now this is RIDICULOUS.

It has been shown to have NO answer at all.

Meaningless Rants.

He now interlace these with one biblical quotation, then use your signature tune " I have been able to  reveal ur IGNORANCE and FOLLY."

I have never seen Noetic present one fact. He waits for others to do all the work of typing and presents arguments then makes his usual contributions as above.

The source of Noetics ignorance must be the same source that says the moon is the source of light that shines from the moon at night.

Also the source of Venus must be Venus itself and when the moon is not out and Venus is the brightest object in the night sky, then temporarily Venus will rule the Night.

wirinet:

There you go again twisting and turning logic on its head, the nomadic, that tribes men that wrote the bible said what they thought was obvious that the moon rules the sky because on some nights the moon is indeed very bright and stays in the sky all night, and you are twisting it to mean the moon is the source of that light because of your ignorance of how light is made. There cannot be two sources for the same thing.

If you do not understand what you highlighted in red, Go and grab your elementary geography test book and study eclipses and how eclipses are formed. Alternatively go back to elementary school.

whats mu business with ur uninformed assumptions about imaginary nomadic tribes men. Now that u understand what source means, and that the moon is also a source of light, dont u think u should consider going back to primary school?

That is the greatest fallacy on Nairaland, you have never, and i mean never made any meaningful  argument, you lift one or two quotations from the Bible, most times out of context, and when people like Toneyb, Kag, etc present incisive and well researched arguments, you simple answer each argument with a one liner or at least two liners like;
Noetic Standard Answers
He now interlace these with one biblical quotation, then use your signature tune " I have been able to  reveal ur IGNORANCE and FOLLY."

I can only laugh.

if my comments are not facts, then neither u KAG or toneyb have ever stated a fact, all u do are rants, KAG is a master deviator, u and toneyb just recycle uninformed misinformation and many times ur folly is revealed.

I have never seen Noetic present one fact. He waits for others to do all the work of typing and presents arguments then makes his usual contributions as above.

what fact have u EVER produced?

The source of Noetics ignorance must be the same source that says the moon is the source of light that shines from the moon at night.

Also the source of Venus must be Venus itself and when the moon is not out and Venus is the brightest object in the night sky, then temporarily Venus will rule the Night.

now what are EXACTLY are u talking about.

OLAADEGBU:

The opposite is true in testing for scientific facts.  In science you can easily refute a false idea that does not stand up to the laws of nature or scientific laws.  Let us see a couple of ideas where scientific laws can tell us whether they are false or true.

In Mathematics:

(x + y)²= x²+y²

This is false because the law of Mathematics has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

(x + y)²= x²+2.xy + y²

In Chemistry:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₃O (This is a false equation because the law of Stoichiometry has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₂O

In Biology:

The statement "Man has evolved from a long process of evolution"

How do we know whether this statement is true or false?  We can know by testing it with the law of nature otherwise called scientific law.  There are at least three realities that we can observe, which are life, information and matter.  Louis Pasteur is the only scientist who has formulated and scientifically discovered the law of life that God originated; that life can only come from life, otherwise called the law of biogenesis (correct me if 'am wrong).   All other attempts by evolutionists, including the statement in the quote above, have all been  proved to be false.

The father of Microbiology, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), who was an outstanding scientist and opponent of evolution formulated this law.  Each time you go to the refrigerator and take out a bottle of milk, you should be reminded of the work of the outstanding French scientist, Louis Pasteur.  He discovered Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Sterilization, Immunization etc.  He also proved the scientific law that life came from life, He said that: “Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves”.  This was a kick in the teeth to the evolutionists that have been peddling the fallacy of spontaneous generation and they still teach this in textbooks and schools inspite of the fact that it is unscientific, illogical, irrational and unreasonable. 

Despite all the efforts of the evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found, hence it remains a theory and not a fact.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/pasteur.asp

Even evolutionist Stephen Hawking said "the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on . . ."

You miss the point I was making to david, the right question is this,
How did human life start on earth?
That question is valid because there is life on earth, meaning the right hand part of our equation is satisfied.
Model Equation
Something + Something = Life on earth

Now what david and I were discussing about is if we know what the values of the left hand side of the equation is, and one way to test is to plug it into the his answers into the equation and see if they give us life on earth.
In summary one does not need to know the components of the left hand side to prove that the components another person plugged into it are wrong.

bindex:

Yawns, More meaningless ramblings from people that can only cry about evolution yet have never attempted to discredit it as a scientific fact. When will the "scientist" in the discovery institute and answers in genesis write a scientific paper discrediting the theory of evolution and present it to other scientist? How many times will their lies be exposed and defeated? Why is their intelligent design theory not thought in schools as science?

What a bunch blowhard and deluded freaks.

If you had only taken the time to study the post before making an uninformed assertion you would have realised that the post actually discredited evolution to be irrational, unreasonable and unscientific.

Mathematics and science have laws guiding them and most if not all have scientific and mathematical formulas that must not be violated. The statement that man has evolved from a long process of evolution cannot be sustained by any scientific law. The only scientific law that we know of is the law of Biogenesis that says life can only come from life which also supports the Bible account of creation in Genesis and Louis Pasteur did a good job to discover and formulate the law that God had originally invented. If you have another law that explains how human life got here you are free to share this with us.

Chrisbenogor:

You miss the point I was making to david, the right question is this,
How did human life start on earth?
That question is valid because there is life on earth, meaning the right hand part of our equation is satisfied.
Model Equation
Something + Something = Life on earth

Now what david and I were discussing about is if we know what the values of the left hand side of the equation is, and one way to test is to plug it into the his answers into the equation and see if they give us life on earth.
In summary one does not need to know the components of the left hand side to prove that the components another person plugged into it are wrong.

It is quite obvious that there is human life here on earth.  But what about the other part of the coin, how did it get here?  Christians have two sources of information to arrive at the answer and these are through God's Word and the study of God's World.

Everything in the universe is bound by laws, which it has no choice but to obey. The Word of God tells us that there are laws of nature (Jeremiah 33:25). These scientific laws describe the way God normally orders His will in the universe.

God's logic is built into the universe which makes it in order and not in chaos. It obeys the laws of chemistry which are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. You as an atheist would find it difficult to comprehend the fact of a logical orderly state of the universe because if you admit that it is orderly then you have to conclude that there must be a law giver. The scientific laws are consistent with biblical creation.

As I said earlier on, there is only one scientific law of life which is the law of biogenesis. This law states that life always comes from life. This is what real scientists will tell you, that organisms or human life reproduce other organisms or human life respectively. Louis Pasteur disproved one form of spontaneous generation when he proved that life can only come from life. This supports the claims in the Bible in Genesis 1 where God supernaturally created the first diverse kinds of life on earth and made them to reproduce after their own kind. With this you will see that the evolutionists have no leg to stand on here, and that the molecule to man evolution violates the law of biogenesis. You can now see that real science confirms the Bible.

OLAADEGBU:

If you had only taken the time to study the post before making an uninformed assertion you would have realised that the post actually discredited evolution to be irrational, unreasonable and unscientific.

Mathematics and science have laws guiding them and most if not all have scientific and mathematical formulas that must not be violated.  The statement that man has evolved from a long process of evolution cannot be sustained by any scientific law.  The only scientific law that we know of is the law of Biogenesis that says life can only come from life which also supports the Bible account of creation in Genesis and Louis Pasteur did a good job to discover and formulate the law that God had originally invented.  If you have another law that explains how human life got here you are free to share this with us.

What about abiogenesis? Evolution supports the your idea of life coming from life only it states that life evolved from simpler forms.

bindex:

What about abiogenesis? Evolution supports the your idea of life coming from life only it states that life evolved from simpler forms.

And what is abiogenesis? Can you prove it in the lab?

davidylan:

And what is abiogenesis? Can you prove it in the lab?

I thought you said you are said you are a "scientist". Do some reading if you don't know what abiogenesis is and stop asking silly questions. Miller–Urey experiment,has been used to explain and test abiogenesis.(Where is your scientific test for creationism?) I am still waiting for you to present a scientific paper that disproves evolution as a scientific fact. Will you stop disgracing your self and explain to the NAS why they all wrong in accepting evolution as a scientific fact by writing a peer reviewed article that disproves evolution as a scientific fact? Mr pseudo scientist. Do that or for ever keep your dirty mouth shut.

OLAADEGBU:

It is quite obvious that there is human life here on earth.  But what about the other part of the coin, how did it get here?  Christians have two sources of information to arrive at the answer and these are through God's Word and the study of God's World.

Everything in the universe is bound by laws, which it has no choice but to obey. The Word of God tells us that there are laws of nature (Jeremiah 33:25). These scientific laws describe the way God normally orders His will in the universe.

God's logic is built into the universe which makes it in order and not in chaos. It obeys the laws of chemistry which are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. You as an atheist would find it difficult to comprehend the fact of a logical orderly state of the universe because if you admit that it is orderly then you have to conclude that there must be a law giver. The scientific laws are consistent with biblical creation.

Veering off point yet again, the issue at stake is if we can show that the biblical God brought life into this world. But I will bite ,

As I said earlier on, there is only one scientific law of life which is the law of biogenesis. This law states that life always comes from life. This is what real scientists will tell you, that organisms or human life reproduce other organisms or human life respectively. Louis Pasteur disproved one form of spontaneous generation when he proved that life can only come from life. This supports the claims in the Bible in Genesis 1 where God supernaturally created the first diverse kinds of life on earth and made them to reproduce after their own kind. With this you will see that the evolutionists have no leg to stand on here, and that the molecule to man evolution violates the law of biogenesis. You can now see that real science confirms the Bible.

A primary school child will ask you first of all what is the correlation between the supernatural and biogenesis? What part of the law of biogenesis includes the supernatural?
The above shows one the faulty and bad reasoning that one can get only through being religious. Lets take a look at what you are saying ,

1. there is only one scientific law of life which is biogenesis
2. the law stater that life always comes from life
The above supports the claims in the bible of a supernatural creation of the first kinds of life on earth
Please arrange your inferences and conclusions coherently.