donnffd:


No, i am not a physics student sorry to dissapoint...

Now there really could be a God who is timeless if anything like that exists.
My main point was there was no way for you to know for certain because you are bound by space and time, and anything that exists outside it is unknowable because you cant leave space and time to get the knowlge of timeless and spaceless entity

sirthisthickkal:

don't get me wrong! I never said getting answers to questions especially the about world is bad, what I mean is that it is impossible to get get answers to questions like the existence of God, where God came from,.. Etc
To me, those questions should be left unanswered.

Do you support fossils record? And If those points I raised are conspiracy theories , can you unravel or shed more light on them ?

If you are really impressed by the beauties and complexity of nature, don't you think someone powerful must have put those things in the right place and at the right time, or do think they came just by chance or by accident?

Dejideji1:


Being unable to proof the existence of something doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist. It's dependent on our present level of scientific methods and technology. And besides, there are so many mysteries in the world and universe at large that scientists will not be able to unravel everything till the end of time. As long as the word "infinity" exits there will still be something unknown.

ettaetta:
all this are signs of the end as prophesied in the bible, in due time God will take away pain and suffering and wipe away our tears.


You didnt even answer my question,

deluxez12:

spare me that crap u guyz have being saying that for centuries

donnffd:

If they should be left unanswered and God is the highly improbable answer to the where the universe came from question, then why dont u just say the same thing about the universe and not use God to answer it?

Evolution is a fact, we see changes in organisms, you cant tell me that you are the exact same person with your parents, you changed. The issue is how do you explain the changes and differences in all the species we see today and how is it that species are so well adapted to their environment, it bugged people for ages until the 18th century when two scientists came along, their names where Lamarck and Darwin

Lamarck's take on it was termed Theory of evolution by use and disuse. What he was basically saying was that organism acquire traits during their lifetimes and then pass it on to the next generation, and after successive generations, the organisms would have changed. His main example was the giraffe, he claimed that the ancestors of giraffes where short necked but over the course of their lives, they stretched their necks to reach higher branches and their neck grew longer and longer, and they were able to pass these new acquired trait to their offsprings, the reverse happens for the parts they dont use.

Darwin on the otherhand had a different opinion, his take was termed Theory of evolution by Natural selection. He argued that organisms produced far more offsprings than nature could cater for, so there tends to be competition, the organisms with the traits that enables it to survive better in that environment would do better than the others and pass its traits down to its offsprings, giving its offsprings a selected advantage over other members and after many generations, that trait would spread across the population and be the new normal trait which would cause another competition and selection, e.t.c

Now its important to note that these two men never knew anything about hereditary or genes or how they worked. Another famous scientists named Mendel was around the same time working on the foundation of what is now known as Modern genetics and he for the first time explained how hereditary works. You cant look it up, cant go into details but his works showed that lamarck got it wrong, you cant pass on traits you acquire during your life time, it doesnt work.
What happened to lamarcks theory of evolution, thrown into the dustbin, Nobody uses it anymore except for history purposes, i would guess this is the first time you are hearing of it.
On the otherhand, Darwin was vindicated, his theory fits exactly how hereditary worked, Mutation was a phenomenon discovered later which showed how new traits arise, which supported Darwins idea even more, and the Fossil record also supports darwin idea because it shows how older rocks contain simpler lifeforms and as it gets younger, the life forms becomes more complex...you cant see a rabbit bone in the rock from 1 billion years ago, if you did, you would win a nobel prize and dismantle Darwins theory which without any thought would be thrown inside dustbin like lamarcks own.
Noone and i mean noone was disproved darwin on the contrary every evidence we find points to one conclusion...Darwin was right.

No, i dont think someone powerful put it there, the sky is blue because i interpret it as blue, if my brain was wired a different way, i could as well have seen the sky has black, Nature is not there to please you, its just there...because you have a brain that interpret what u see as colours doesnt mean those things actually have colours...its all in ur head

JackBizzle:
one question for the theist.


WHERE IS YOUR GOD?

OVER 40 YEARS NO CONSTANT ELECTRICITY IN NIGERIA
BOKO HARAM KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THE NORTH
NIGER-DELTA MILITANT BLOWING UP PIPELINES
KIDNAPPING AND RANSOM EVERYWHERE
POLICE BRUTALITY
ARMY BRUTALITY
EXPENSIVE FUEL AND DIESEL


IS GOD DEAD OR JUST NONEXISTENT? HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT HIS PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING?

JackBizzle:

EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM.

ettaetta:
but i have heard many athetst saying they belive in evolution. Now tell me

what then do you believe in?

donnffd:


Your first paragraph: The Universe is here, thats why we are trying to understand it and know where it came from...Nobody in Science is trying to understand God or find out where God came from, You know why? because God is not here, we dont see him, we are not even sure he exists, so why bother on that and not focus on what is here?

Your second paragraph : ok

Your third paragraph : cool

sirthisthickkal:



[b] I understand what you mean I really do. it's sometimes difficult to believe what you cannot see, besides like they say "seeing is believing". But if we allow that saying to determine the way we live our lives then we will all be heading towards self destruction and mental darkness.
You believe that there is gravity, right? But can we see gravity? No! Yet we believe in it because we can feel or sense it and that is what keep our planet plus the whole universe in a balanced state.
We all breath in air to survive, don't we? But can we see air! No! Yet we believe in it because we can feel or sense it and that is what keeps us alive.
The almighty God has created many things so that we can know he exist even though we can't see him, when we bleed within days we heal, when we sleep we become unconscious and all of the sudden we come back to life so to speak, when we cram something we have the ability to remember exactly the way it was stored for the next 20 years, I can go on and on. All this evidence. After perceiving this things and we marvel at them, don't you think it would be ungrateful of us if we fail to give the credit to the one who created them? how would you feel if people refuse to give you credit for something you worked hard to create or build for their benefits? no doubt you will fill bad perhaps even calling them ingrates. How much more God. Don't you think he really deserves our praises and worship? Yes of course.

Gracias! [/b]

sirthisthickkal:


The almighty God has created many things so that we can know he exist even though we can't see him

donnffd:


Ofcourse, but why do you ascertain that God is real when you acknowledge we are currently unable to proof it?

donnffd:


Ofcourse, but why do you ascertain that God is real when you acknowledge we are currently unable to proof it?

donnffd:


How do you know it was God(Yahweh) that did it?

what if its Allah or Zeus or Krishna or Vishnu or Thor or Odin or Sango or Amadioha or Poseidon or Apollo

what if the universe was simulated by an intelligent alien kid for his school assignment

what if what caused the universe is inanimate or not intelligent at all

what if the universe is the group work of many entities that came together to create a masterpiece

how can you be sure that your God is the right one

SirWere:

And can this God not talk for himself. Can he not identify himself out of the many that has been purpoted to be him??

There are many texts in this world, all claiming to know exactly what this unverified deity wants.
And yet, all of them seem to be conflicting with each other; and the said deity remains silent.


Look, you claim there is a Deity above. Good, no problem.

But if you can't give conclusive evidence for his existence, why, how do we know YOUR deity is the true one

UyiIredia:


God is everywhere. He exists all around us as the universe and is made even more obvious in the spiritual realm. When you die you can sort yourself out with him.

sirthisthickkal:

Very simple!


1.) He has given us freewill to choose whatever we want, he is never going to hold us against our will neither will he punish us for whatever decision we make. Even though you deny his existence, you are still benefiting from the rain and the sun he has created. He his not like some of those false and demi gods you watch in movies like you mentioned who demand sacrifice or dues in return for their so-called blessings.


2.) He has given us varieties. Varieties of fruit, varieties of food, varieties of colors, varieties of birds, varieties of fish, varieties of meat, varieties of raw materials, varieties of emotions, varieties of women etc. Imagine a world whereby we eat eat only mango, we eat only beans, we wear only black, we see only dove in the sky, we eat only crayfish, we eat only beef, we discovered only oil from the ground, we only cry to express our feelings all the time, and we only see fat and robust women catwalking on the street every time , most definitely life would be so so boring and sad and folks would be committing suicide on a daily basis. But happily we serve a God who has a sense of humor, he knows what will make our live enjoyable for us all. No doubt, variety is the spice of life.

So far I have given you enough evidence to show that there is God not because I think but because I know. Unfortunately you have not given me concrete proofs to support your beliefs.. I guess that is the difference between you and I, you only base your beliefs on if's, assumptions, and doubts but we base ours on facts and the Bible.


Gracias!

donnffd:


Look, if you structured your arguments well and a little bit more intellectually honest, then maybe we would have a reasonable debate, but has of now, your arguments have been swallow, incoherent, baseless and full of conspiracy bits.

I asked how you know that jehovah created the universe, why couldn't it have been thor or zeus or allah...and just look at your response, it doesnt even correlate

sirthisthickkal:

for every question you asked I gave my honest opinion with simple and straightforward example so that you can grasp easily, I compared and contrasted all my point for you to understand, I even asked questions to get your feedback. In spite of all, you have failed to provide answers to those questions while I continue to give you my countless and structured opinions.

If you have run out of ideas, don't be ashamed to admit it. Besides Nobody knows it all.. Meanwhile if you can provide answers to my questions, feel free to inundate my mentions. I am willing to learn.

Gracias!

donnffd:


Trust me you are not willing to learn...

I gave a description of how the theories of natural selection came to be, you called me a liar and declared darwin wrong...how do you expect me to respond to that?

I would give you one more chance and ask again

How can you be sure that it was jehovah that created the universe, it could have been Zeus or Allah...whats gives you the assurance that your God is the right God?

Dejideji1:
@ donnffd and other atheist, answer this question below..

I know you believe that life originated by chance, meaning the occurrence of random events bringing non living matter together to form life? If it's as easy as these then why as any scientist not been able to recreate this feat in the lab? Why is it that it's only life that begets life? Even in cloning, a living cell is required.

Dejideji1:
@ donnffd and other atheist, answer this question below..

I know you believe that life originated by chance, meaning the occurrence of random events bringing non living matter together to form life? If it's as easy as these then why as any scientist not been able to recreate this feat in the lab? Why is it that it's only life that begets life? Even in cloning, a living cell is required.

sirthisthickkal:

don't jeopardize your sleep for some group of atheist who have nothing to offer.

ettaetta:
but i have heard many athetst saying they belive in evolution. Now tell me

what then do you believe in?

Dejideji1:
@ donnffd and other atheist, answer this question below..
I know you believe that life originated by chance, meaning the occurrence of random events bringing non living matter together to form life? If it's as easy as this then why as any scientist not been able to recreate this in the lab? Why is it that it's only life that begets life? Even in cloning, a living cell is required.
*I doubt if anyone of you will be able to give a reasonable answer to that question.*

cloudgoddess:


Side note before I begin my explanation:
Abiogenesis and evolution are two seperate studies. The basic mechanisms behind evolution have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. We know that evolution is the process that's been driving the diversification of life on earth, since the first life forms appeared.

Abiogenesis, which tells us how those first life forms got started in the first place, is still in the works. But regardless of whether or not one accepts abiogenesis, that still does not leave room for a deity who poofed every animal onto earth in their present forms. We know that is impossible because of evolution alone.

So, now for my answer:
For us to recreate abiogenesis as it occured on earth ~3.5 billion years ago, we would both have to know exactly what conditions were present during the emergence of the very first self-replicating molecules (which were far simpler than any modern cell, likely a short strand of RNA with a lipid coat), and then be able to manipulate those conditions in a lab setting.

We have made partial progress on those two steps.

We currently know some of the conditions that were implicit in the formation of life. We know that first, the earth had to cool; in it's beginnings Earth was a harsh, blazing hot ball made from the same nebula that formed the sun, completely hostile and unstable for the delicate chemical reactions required for self-replicating molecules to form.

Then an atmosphere had to form. Current evidence says early earth's atmosphere most likely contained carbon dioxide, ammonia, and methane, and little to no oxygen in it's first stages. Lightening storms and volcanic activity were commonplace.

The results of the Miller Urey experiment, conducted in 1950's gave us good evidence that the molecules that act as the building blocks of life (amino acids & nucleotides), could have formed spontaneously on primitive earth, by the interaction of lightening with it's CO2, methane, & ammonia-rich atmosphere, and hot water (from deep sea hydrothermal vents).



This experiment produced over 20 kinds of amino acids, and has been reconducted several times since it's initial run, consistently producing amino acids of varying quantities.

As I said, research on abiogenesis is still being conducted, and just like everything science has ever discovered, it will take time to get to the point of being able to recreate life "from scratch" ourselves, if such a thing would even be desireable (for example, why start from scratch when we can already copy and edit the DNA of pre-existing organisms? it's like typing a message over and over from the beginning instead of just copying and pasting.)

But slowly we're discovering more and more, and the evidence continues to coincinde with natural physical, chemical laws we are familiar with. In other words, there is still no sign of the formation of the first cells, or the organic materials leading up to them, having been a supernatural event.

ettaetta:
Five Questions for Atheists. l'l go straight to the point.

1.What caused the universe to exist?

2. What is the Evidence for Evolution?

3 how do we account for the origin of diffrent languages spoken by humans?

4 Why do we not see humans being born in the zoos from monkeys if we came from monkeys or apes?

5 what evidence can you offer that God does not exist?

wirinet:


Senseless. You do not prove a negative proposition. it will render sciences and human knowledge useless. I might as well tell you prove that a man does not live In the centre of the earth, and if you are unable to prove it, then it must be true. I can also demand that you did not kill Stephen keshi with Benin juju, if not, then you must go to jail for murdering Stephen keshi

Stupid question. A monkey can never give birth to a human or vice versa, that is why they are different speeches. For your information, man is classified as one of 4 great apes