noetic2:

what were the pioneer elements of the first diversifying evolvement? were they living organisms? whats their very source?. . . . . .why is this a nut cracker?. . . .are u so dumb?

Does abiogenesis contradict with the theory of gravity? Why?

It is not a hard nut to crack because that is not the nut we are cracking. What do you want to talk about? Abiogenesis or Evolution? I confess, I not very familiar with Abiogenesis, and a lot of the ideas in this pioneering field are still very speculative. So I would rather talk about something about which there is no longer any controversy in the scientific community and for which there is a wealth of public work.

You decide - Evolution or Abiogenesis.

huxley:

Does abiogenesis contradict with the theory of gravity? Why?

It is not a hard nut to crack because that is not the nut we are cracking. What do you want to talk about? Abiogenesis or Evolution? I confess, I not very familiar with Abiogenesis, and a lot of the ideas in this pioneering field are still very speculative. So I would rather talk about something about which there is no longer any controversy in the scientific community and for which there is a wealth of public work.

You decide - Evolution or Abiogenesis.

I have reframed the question and excluded all traces of abiogenesis. . , , so why not just answer
what were the pioneer elements of the first diversifying evolvement? were they living organisms? whats their very source?

noetic2:

I have reframed the question and excluded all traces of abiogenesis. . , , so why not just answer
what were the pioneer elements of the first diversifying evolvement? were they living organisms? whats their very source?

I don't understand this. Allow me to rephrase it. Did you mean?


What were the first living organism?

is that easier for u to answer?

noetic2:

is that easier for u to answer?

That is not the issue. I want to make sure I capture the essense of your question. You use the word "evolvement", which is quite vague in this context. Do you mean biological evolution? Let us stick with words that are simple and in more current use.

So what exactly is your question?

I simply meant evolution. . , . . .

noetic2:

I simply meant evolution. . , . . .

Current scientific thinking puts the first biological elements as these: archaea, eukaryotes, aubacteria. These are the onces that are best known, but obviously there is bound to be earlier that are not currently well known.

But the Theory of Evolution still stand without a knowledge of the first ever living organism because it is not contingent of knowing the first ever organism, ONLY the STRUCTURAL relationship between them.

So for example TTE will predict (might be more correct to say post-dict) any lifeforms earlier that archaea, eukaryotes, aubacteria will be structurally more simple than these. That is all it can say. And such prediction of TTE have never failed.

huxley:

Current scientific thinking puts the first biological elements as these: archaea, eukaryotes, aubacteria. These are the onces that are best known, but obviously there is bound to be earlier that are not currently well known.

But the Theory of Evolution still stand without a knowledge of the first ever living organism because it is not contingent of knowing the first ever organism, ONLY the STRUCTURAL relationship between them.

So for example TTE will predict (might be more correct to say post-dict) any lifeforms earlier that archaea, eukaryotes, aubacteria will be structurally more simple than these. That is all it can say. And such prediction of TTE have never failed.

1. you come across as rather unintelligent. . .I asked for all the elements that were present in the first evolution process? what was their source?
2. And what is the common source of archaea, eukaryotes, aubacteria?. . , . .they could not have sprung up from no where or could they?

noetic2:

1. you come across as rather unintelligent. . .I asked for all the elements that were present in the first evolution process? what was their source?
2. And what is the common source of archaea, eukaryotes, aubacteria?. . , . .they could not have sprung up from no where or could they?

The elements that were present in the first evolution process were protoria and these were built up from simple minerals and elements and amino acids.

So, where are you heading with this line of argument?

Analysis of Noetic's answer to Question 6:

6) Where did sin originate? The bible paints the view that sin originated in god's own kingdom with the disobedience of Lucifer. Does this mean that
Adam and Eve were really not responsible for sin and that sin has always existed? If so, how can we be sure that God is capable of dealing with sin
given that his own kingdom is not free from sin?

Noetic's Answer


1. Sin is NOT an entity. . . .sin is the transgression of the law. . , .sin is the absence of Love. A sin can take place ANYWHERE onces a person/being chooses to disobey/disregard the prevailing laws in that place.

2. Lucifer transgressed against the laws of God, hence he sinned. . . . .how is that a problem with God?

3. Adam and Eve commited a sin called DISOBEDIENCE.

4. Adam and Eve received a word of wisdom and a commandment with regards to the tree of life, they disregarded this word of wisdom and ate of the tree. . . .the commandment was not to eat of the tree. . .the words of wisdom was the consequences of eating/not eating the tree. . .they made their choices and lived by the consequences.

5. The bible never said Adam and Even INVENTED sin. . .the bible says through them sin came to the world. . .as such all have sinned.

6. God's capacity to deal with sin has never been in question. . .all that is required of u is to submit urself to His spirit.


============================================================================================================


What this question was trying to tease out was whether it is possible for God to ultimately deal with or conquer sin, given that from the start, in his own kingdom, there has always been sin. Christianity teaches that sin is the result of freewill - if this is true, then the being who inhabit god's kingdom also have freewill, thus enabling them to commit sin.

We are also told fron Christianity that god is going to conquer sin and eliminate it in his new dispensation. This cannot be achieved if humans and the heavenly beings retain a measure of freewill. So God is gonna have to once and for all have to excise freewill from ALL beings to achieve his goal of defeating and eliminating sin. Further, god will not only have to purge the earth, he is also gonna have to purge heaven of all beings with freewill. If he does not purge heaven, then there is good chance that the whole cycle with begin all over again.

Now, what is the track record of God'a attempt at dealing with sin. I would say it is dismally poor.

1) First he carelessly create a world in which he ensure there is the capability to sin.

2) Some beings in heaven exploit this weakness that god designed in his creation and started sinning like hell.

3) Gods gets mad at these beings and he kicks them out of heaven, rather than squashing them and their sin dead once and for all.

4) He sends then out of heaven into the space of the universe, knowing that these sinful beings are going to one day torment the beloved creatures that he planned to create.

5) Then he create his beloved humans in this hostile environment replete with the possibility and temptation of sin.

6) He does not give these humans the ultimate resistance to fight out sin but makes them vulnerable to sin.

7) As weak as they are, these humans succumb to the inevitable, and they sin.

8.) What DID GOD expect? Did he know that they were gonna sin?

9) He gets angry and punishes them

10) Humans carry on sinning like hell

11) He wipes out the entire population of Sodom & Gomorah, hoping to wipe out sin in these places, but fails miserably

12) Humans carry on sinnin like hell.

13) In his wisdom, he decides to wipe out the ENTIRE population of the earth save Noah's and his family (less than 20 people in total).

14) Starts a brand new generation of people with Noah and his family, dumbskulledly thinking that this time he had dealt with sin for good.

15) Guess what - he still has not deal with sin, and sin returns as if nothing at all had happened.

16) To this day we are here still sinning away like we are in hell.


[size=18pt]Is this God not a bumbling incompetent fart?
[/size]

The elements that were present in the first evolution process were protoria and these were built up from simple minerals and elements and amino acids.

So, where are you heading with this line of argument?

what was the source of these simple minerals and amino acids?

What this question was trying to tease out was whether it is possible for God to ultimately deal with or conquer sin, given that from the start, in his own kingdom, there has always been sin. Christianity teaches that sin is the result of freewill - if this is true, then the being who inhabit god's kingdom also have freewill, thus enabling them to commit sin.

We are also told fron Christianity that god is going to conquer sin and eliminate it in his new dispensation. This cannot be achieved if humans and the heavenly beings retain a measure of freewill. So God is gonna have to once and for all have to excise freewill from ALL beings to achieve his goal of defeating and eliminating sin. Further, god will not only have to purge the earth, he is also gonna have to purge heaven of all beings with freewill. If he does not purge heaven, then there is good chance that the whole cycle with begin all over again.

Now, what is the track record of God'a attempt at dealing with sin. I would say it is dismally poor.

1) First he carelessly create a world in which he ensure there is the capability to sin.

2) Some beings in heaven exploit this weakness that god designed in his creation and started sinning like hell.

3) Gods gets mad at these beings and he kicks them out of heaven, rather than squashing them and their sin dead once and for all.

4) He sends then out of heaven into the space of the universe, knowing that these sinful beings are going to one day torment the beloved creatures that he planned to create.

5) Then he create his beloved humans in this hostile environment replete with the possibility and temptation of sin.

6) He does not give these humans the ultimate resistance to fight out sin but makes them vulnerable to sin.

7) As weak as they are, these humans succumb to the inevitable, and they sin.

8.) What DID GOD expect? Did he know that they were gonna sin?

9) He gets angry and punishes them

10) Humans carry on sinning like hell

11) He wipes out the entire population of Sodom & Gomorah, hoping to wipe out sin in these places, but fails miserably

12) Humans carry on sinnin like hell.

13) In his wisdom, he decides to wipe out the ENTIRE population of the earth save Noah's and his family (less than 20 people in total).

14) Starts a brand new generation of people with Noah and his family, dumbskulledly thinking that this time he had dealt with sin for good.

15) Guess what - he still has not deal with sin, and sin returns as if nothing at all had happened.

16) To this day we are here still sinning away like we are in hell.


Is this God not a bumbling incompetent fart?

I can hardly make sense of the post above in view of my primordial response. . . .so help me here. . .[B]CAN U DEFINE SIN IN ONE SENTENCE?. . .WHAT IS SIN?[/B]

noetic4:

I can hardly make sense of the post above in view of my primordial response. . . .so help me here. . .[B]CAN U DEFINE SIN IN ONE SENTENCE?. . .WHAT IS SIN?[/B]

Sin - is a meanless word in my worldview. But in the theistic worldview, it is a contravention of god's will.

noetic4:

what was the source of these simple minerals and amino acids?

These were created by the natural processes of the universe, such as supernovae, etc, etc, which creates elements, which aggregate into compounds, which aggregate into amino acids, etc, etc.

Time for School fees,

If your an Independent reader, is time you pay your school fees,

$20 per page.

huxley:

Sin - is a meanless word in my worldview. But in the theistic worldview, it is a contravention of god's will.

Really Huxley? So you mean that there are no things which are inherently and naturally wrong. Such as Genocide?

The holocaust was okay, in your view, and so was the 9/11 bombing of the WTC?

If these things are wrong, what makes them wrong?

1. Human Laws

2. Natural Law (any thing anti-nature or anti-life)

Deep Sight:

Really Huxley? So you mean that there are no things which are inherently and naturally wrong. Such as Genocide?

The holocaust was okay, in your view, and so was the 9/11 bombing of the WTC?

If these things are wrong, what makes them wrong?

1. Human Laws

2. Natural Law (any thing anti-nature or anti-life)

These thinsg are NOT sins, but they are CRIMES. BIG different.

SIN is a theological concepts whose referent is a God.

CRIME is a secular concept whose referent is humankind.

Quotes from Huxley

Sin - is a meanless word in my worldview. But in the theistic worldview, it is a contravention of god's will.

ur world view is ridiculously distorted. . , , ur theistic definition is also ridiculous. . . .what were u taught in sunday school.
Sin is simply the transgression of God's Laws and commandments. . . .not will.

These were created by the natural processes of the universe, such as supernovae, etc, etc, which creates elements, which aggregate into compounds, which aggregate into amino acids, etc, etc.

what was the components of this natural process? I want u to define each element that took part in this first evolution process? I am also interested in the source of each of these elements?. . . .is this a hard nut to crack?

huxley:

These thinsg are NOT sins, but they are CRIMES. BIG different.

SIN is a theological concepts whose referent is a God.

CRIME is a secular concept whose referent is humankind.

I hope you realize the implications of your statement. The implication is that if there were no Human Laws against such things as murder, there would be nothing wrong with murder, rape, etc.

I take a different view: namely that there is something inherently wrong about such things, human laws notwithstanding.

Otherwise on what grounds would you condemn Paedophilia in Islam? What makes it wrong (since their Human Laws permit it?)

Let me bring my legal background to bear on this.

There are two types of crimes in legal philosophy (Jurisprudence).

There is "Mala in se" and "Mala prohibita".

"Mala in se" refers to things that are inherently evil: e.g: murder.

"Mala prohibita" refers to things that are only wrong because the law says so: e.g: parking your car in the wrong place on a street.

Does this make some sense to you? I want a point by point response.

I need you to affirm to me that in your view, if there is no secular law against eating your son or daughter, then there would be nothing wrong with such an act.

Deep Sight:

I hope you realize the implications of your statement. The implication is that if there were no Human Laws against such things as murder, there would be nothing wrong with murder, rape, etc.

I take a different view: namely that there is something inherently wrong about such things, human laws notwithstanding.

Otherwise on what grounds would you condemn Paedophilia in Islam? What makes it wrong (since their Human Laws permit it?)

Let me bring my legal background to bear on this.

There are two types of crimes in legal philosophy (Jurisprudence).

There is "Mala in se" and "Mala prohibita".

"Mala in se" refers to things that are inherently evil: e.g: murder.

"Mala prohibita" refers to things that are only wrong because the law says so: e.g: parking your car in the wrong place on a street.

Does this make some sense to you? I want a point by point response.

I need you to affirm to me that in your view, if there is no secular law against eating your son or daughter, then there would be nothing wrong with such an act.

OK, consider the following scenarios;

1) A little toddler, about 2 years old, walks into your living room and picks up one of your prized books and rips to shreds.

2) I, a 40 year old, walks into your same living room, picks up your prized book and tears it to shreds.



A) Did the toddler commit a crime, offense, sin, or nothing? Yes or NO and state WHY in each case.

B) Did I commit a crime, offence, sin, or nothing? Yes or NO and WHY in each case.


Which of the above situation could be actionable in a court of law and why?

huxley:

OK, consider the following scenarios;

1) A little toddler, about 2 years old, walks into your living room and picks up one of your prized books and rips to shreds.

2) I, a 40 year old, walks into your same living room, picks up your prized book and tears it to shreds.



A) Did the toddler commit a crime, offense, sin, or nothing? Yes or NO and state WHY in each case.

B) Did I commit a crime, offence, sin, or nothing? Yes or NO and WHY in each case.


Which of the above situation could be actionable in a court of law and why?

You give me a very easy question which i will answer in 1 line. You dey ask me legal question, you forget say i be lawyer.

Answer: Under the law, Children are not liable for crimes or torts (civil wrongs). A child is a person under the age of 12.

Young persons (12 - 18) are liable but only for correctional purposes.

Adults (18+) are fully liable.

Now you have NOT aswered my questions here: ANSWER THEM NOW.

Deep Sight:

I hope you realize the implications of your statement. The implication is that if there were no Human Laws against such things as murder, there would be nothing wrong with murder, rape, etc.

I take a different view: namely that there is something inherently wrong about such things, human laws notwithstanding.

Otherwise on what grounds would you condemn Paedophilia in Islam? What makes it wrong (since their Human Laws permit it?)

Let me bring my legal background to bear on this.

There are two types of crimes in legal philosophy (Jurisprudence).

There is "Mala in se" and "Mala prohibita".

"Mala in se" refers to things that are inherently evil: e.g: murder.

"Mala prohibita" refers to things that are only wrong because the law says so: e.g: parking your car in the wrong place on a street.

Does this make some sense to you? I want a point by point response.

I need you to affirm to me that in your view, if there is no secular law against eating your son or daughter, then there would be nothing wrong with such an act.

Tell me why muslim paedophilia is wrong, since their human laws permit it.

Tell me why Military Oppresive Decrees were wrong, since they were Human Laws?

Tell me why witch-burning was wrong (was it not a human law?)

You cant escape this one.

Deep Sight:

You give me a very easy question which i will answer in 1 line. You dey ask me legal question, you forget say i be lawyer.

Answer: Under the law, Children are not liable for crimes or torts (civil wrongs). A child is a person under the age of 12.

Young persons (12 - 18) are liable but only for correctional purposes.

Adults (18+) are fully liable.

You have not answered the question. You have simply stated the LAW. But who made this law?


WHY are children NOT liable for crimes? For instance, the age of responsibility for action is NOT a universal Law, is it? It is different in different countries, legal systems and cultures, isn't it? WHY is it not a universal limit, applicably to ALL people ALL the time and to all cultures.

Deep Sight,

Are still using your legal mind to contemplate the questions I asked?  Here they are again, in case you have forgotten:

You have not answered the question.  You have simply stated the LAW.  But who made this law?


WHY are children NOT liable for crimes?    For instance,  the age of responsibility for action is NOT a universal Law, is it?  It is different in different countries, legal systems and cultures, isn't it?   WHY is it not a universal limit, applicably to ALL people ALL the time and to all cultures.

I hope that while considering these question, you have now got the answers to the questions you asked me, chiefly of which was the one about paedophilia in Islam.

I apologise for getting you to rack you legalistic mind in this way, because it looks like you have never done this sort of thinking before, other than just regurgitate facts from legal textbooks

You are being evasive, Huxley.

The age of full criminal responsibility is not very different in most countries, it hovers, plus or minus, around 16 - 18.

You wondered who made this law, of course humans did, because some natural laws are so self evident that all nations adopt them (e.g: Murder is a crime every where in the world)>

As far as i am concerned, you are still running away from these questions:

Deep Sight:

I hope you realize the implications of your statement. The implication is that if there were no Human Laws against such things as murder, there would be nothing wrong with murder, rape, etc.

I take a different view: namely that there is something inherently wrong about such things, human laws notwithstanding.

Otherwise on what grounds would you condemn Paedophilia in Islam? What makes it wrong (since their Human Laws permit it?)

Let me bring my legal background to bear on this.

There are two types of crimes in legal philosophy (Jurisprudence).

There is "Mala in se" and "Mala prohibita".

"Mala in se" refers to things that are inherently evil: e.g: murder.

"Mala prohibita" refers to things that are only wrong because the law says so: e.g: parking your car in the wrong place on a street.

Does this make some sense to you? I want a point by point response.

I need you to affirm to me that in your view, if there is no secular law against eating your son or daughter, then there would be nothing wrong with such an act.[color=#990000][/color]

Please address particularly the last portion emboldened in red, since you have such difficulty focusing on the point in issue.

Deep Sight:

You are being evasive, Huxley.

The age of full criminal responsibility is not very different in most countries, it hovers, plus or minus, around 16 - 18.

You wondered who made this law, of course humans did, because some natural laws are so self evident that all nations adopt them (e.g: Murder is a crime every where in the world)>

As far as i am concerned, you are still running away from these questions:


Please address particularly the last portion emboldened in red, since you have such difficulty focusing on the point in issue.

Hello Deep Sight,

I am not being evasive. The questions I ask are prior question to your question and I shall address your question once the most fundamental parts of my questions have been addressed by you. I ask them again in this simple format;

1) Who made this law about the age of responsibility for crime/offense?

2) WHY are children NOT liable for crimes?

The key question is number 2. Once you have address these, I shall answer you question.

is huxley now afraid of answering my questions?

noetic10:

is huxley now afraid of answering my questions?

Have you been pestering the moslems again? You seem to be collecting bans like there is no hell.

B.T.W, what are "your" questions you mean?

The moslems are just unrepentant e-terrorists.

how about the questions I asked in post #113

Noetic 10? ? ? ? ?

What's happening? ? ? Have they banned you 10 times already? ? ?

Noetic - Just apologise to the moderators and stop going into the Islamic Forum to disturb them, simple.

Apologise for what?

Deep sight, I have done nothing wrong, the girl in question is just used to having her way by banning people.
I'd rather not come to nairaland again than apologise, . . . .I am the one who deserves an apology?

noetic4:

Quotes from Huxley

your world view is ridiculously distorted. . ,  , your theistic definition is also ridiculous. . . .what were u taught in sunday school.
Sin is simply the transgression of God's Laws and commandments. . .  .not will.

what was the components of this natural process? I want u to define each element that took part in this first evolution process? I am also interested in the source of each of these elements?. . . .is this a hard nut to crack?

Sorry, I was not paying attention when this was posted so I missed it.   I was keeping my oyes on Deep Sights posts.

Noetic, please, lets make a deal here.  I shall attempt this question of yours if you answers this one first.  I want you to be as honest as you possibly can:


         [size=18pt]As a follower of Jesus how many cooked meals did Jesus have in total while he was on earth?
[/size]

Please, I would like the exact number - not an estimate.   All the best.

huxley:

Sorry, I was not paying attention when this was posted so I missed it.   I was keeping my oyes on Deep Sights posts.

Noetic, please, lets make a deal here.  I shall attempt this question of yours if you answers this one first.  I want you to be as honest as you possibly can:


                                               [size=18pt]As a follower of Jesus how many cooked meals did Jesus had in total while he was on earth?
[/size]

Please, I would like the exact number - not an estimate.   All the best.

Lets be civil, , I aksed the first question.

As soon as u answer mine. . . I would answer urs. . .is that a deal?