OLAADEGBU:

If you cannot answer how the universe and life originated then your evolution myth has no foundation to stand on.  What is the point of building your castle in the air for when you have no intention of starting from the foundation?

OLAADEGBU:

You are still asking questions.  A big bang needs a banger, what is the cause?  If someone knocks on your door would you ignore the knock as if no one is at the door or will you get up and answer it?

OLAADEGBU:

Evolution is not even an hypothesis as it cannot be tested in the laboratory.  And which questions are you ready to ask when you fail t answer any? do you think you atheist evolutionists have the monopoly to asking questions without answering the ones posed to you? 

OLAADEGBU:

There is no escaping here as there can only be 3 possible answers as to what caused this universe to be and they can only be one of the following options, what is your pick? Explain your point.

1. The universe created itself;
2. The universe has always existed;
3. The universe had to be created.

OLAADEGBU:

This videoclip is shows how the Bible's account in Genesis disproves the theory of evolution, crunching the  numbers and hitting the bull's eye.  Make sure you watch the three parts of this programme.

thehomer:

Rubbish. I won't waste bandwidth watching the video. Why don't you present the arguments from the video to show that you really understand the arguments being made in it?

OLAADEGBU:

The videoclip is not meant for you who has his head buried in the sands, it is meant for those who are teachable and are willing to learn the facts of life.  I have stopped teaching you how to sing.

thehomer:

Yet again, you show your anger and inability to sing after attempts at being taught. Here it is again:
[size=18pt]Evolution is not about the origin of life but about the diversity of life.[/size]

thehomer:

And here we have another fallacy called the red-herring. What is the relevance of a door and knocking to the Big bang?

thehomer:

Evolution is a scientific theory that has been tested in labs and outside of labs. See this link for an informative primer.
Can you demonstrate why evolution cannot be a hypothesis?

thehomer:

The universe had always been in some form is another possibility.

5solas:

OLAADEGBU:

The fact that you now type in bold letters is the evidence that you are frustrated and annoyed because I am forcing you to sing.

OLAADEGBU:

The question of what caused the universe to come into existence and where it got it's original energy from is important to ascertaining the very foundation or beginning of your entire evolution worldview.  Without a mass/energy source there can be no big bang, evolution of stars or diversity of life.

OLAADEGBU:

I know it is counterproductive trying to teach you to sing but for the benefit of those following this dialogue I will try and explain what is obvious.  If you are sitting in your living room and all of a sudden you hear a knock on your door would you think no one knocked, that it just knocked itself or you will go and attend to the door, and that is if you are not hiding from the law enforcement?  Let's see whether you can process that.

OLAADEGBU:

You must be joking if you think that I will attempt to annoy you again.

OLAADEGBU:

Tell me how this possibility of yours does not fall under option 2 if you know what 'am talking about?

OLAADEGBU:

Creation in The 21st Century - Crunch The Numbers (Part 2)

This is the continuation of how real scientists proves evolution wrong by using the Mathematics, which is the language of science.  Carl Baugh talks in his studio with John Heffner.  See how they put the theory of evolution and creation to the test of mathematics.

thehomer:

Have you watched the video?

OLAADEGBU:

Crunch The Numbers Part 2 (Continued)

Researchers suggest that virtually all modern men 99% of them are closely related genetically and share genes with one male ancestor, dubbed Y-chromosome Adam.

"We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor. That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe, and then it spread out from there." -- U.S. News & World Report, December 4, 1995

thehomer:

Still picking and choosing I see. When and where was this supposed to have occurred? You need to avoid selectively presenting information. That is another way of lying called lying by omission.

OLAADEGBU:

Earth's population refutes evolution.

This is what Grant R. Jeffery had to say in his book, The Signature of God:

"The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family. . . The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet. To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe. If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletions of those who had died in past generations. However, despite the tremendous archaeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists."

thehomer:

. . . .
How did he perform this calculation? You have started again with your cut and paste without understanding what it is you're doing. What was the death rate? Why did he use 2.5 and not 4.5 %? Do you know that the current world birth rate is about 19.4? So how is he picking the values?


Anatomically modern humans were not present until about 200,000 years ago so, here you go with your outright lying.


Your so-called Creation Model is not even a hypothesis. How do you scientifically evaluate sin? How about the image of God? The other lines not affected by this fantasy have been demonstrated to be false going by scientific analysis. So, you're just copying stuff that was made up.


Your values are simply made up to arrive at our current population. This is a fallacy called a Texas sharp shooter fallacy.


See the above mentioned fallacy. You have also failed to show how you arrived at your starting figures neither have you shown why anyone should consider the Bible as a credible source of scientific information better than using circular reasoning. This is besides the lies you posted above.

. . . .

OLAADEGBU:

God created Mathematics

The mysteries of Pi and e (the Natural log and) Euler's identity

e ^{i pi} + 1 = 0 (Euler's number or Euler's identity)

These are five constants that symbolizes the four major branches of classical mathematics, which was discovered by the devout Christian Euler.

[list]
[li]1. Arithmetic is represented by 1 and 0;[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]2. Algebra is represented by i[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]3. Geometry is represented by Pi[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]4. Analysis is represented by e[/li]
[/list]

It connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, P[i]i[/i], i, 0 and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication and exponentiation).

e is also found in the Bible in a rather unusual way. The Greek alphabet has a number corresponding to each letter of its alphabet. If you take the first verse from John 1:1 in the New Testament,

in its original Greek; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

and calculate:

The number of letters x the product of the letters divided by the number of words x the product of the words;

You end up with:
= 2.7183 x 10⁶⁵

e correct to 4 decimal places.

e ^{i Pi} + 1 = 0

Pi is also found in the Bible in a rather unusual way. The Hebrew alphabet also has a number corresponding to each letter in its alphabet.

If you take the first sentence of Genesis 1:1 in its original Hebrew:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" = "Beresheet bara Elohim, et ha-Shamayim et ha-Eretz."

and calculate:

The number of letters x the product of the letters divided by the number of words x the products of the words = 3.1416 x 10¹⁷
= Pi correct to 4 decimal places.

e ^{i Pi} + 1 = 0

i was proposed in the 1600's as an imaginary number and is defined as the square root of -1. It was proposed to help solve equations like x2+1=0
Today[i] i[/i], though originally proposed as an imaginary number to solve algebraic problems, is very useful in science and engineering for solving "real world" problems.

That Pi would be found to combine with the number e, and with the number i, to produce such elegant equation is like discovering that three broken pieces of pottery, each made in different countries, could be fitted together to make a perfect sphere. The finding strongly argues for a overarching "Intelligent Design" to mathematics from God.

To further discover that P[i]i[/i] can be found in Genesis 1:1, and e can be found in John 1:1 is like finding that the potter of this "perfect sphere" of mathematics signed His name and is none other than our Lord Jesus Christ !!! I am just left wondering if Jesus hid i, the square root of -1, in the Bible somewhere. Maybe in John 3:16

Euler is considered among the greatest Mathematicians of all time. He was a fervent Christian who defended the Christian faith against many notorious Atheists of his day, such as Voltaire. Among his many accomplishments in higher mathematics, Euler also discovered the "most famous formula" in all of mathematics:

e ^{iP[i]i [/i]} + 1 = 0 This formula is called Euler's Number or Euler's Identity.

Euler's number has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystics, the scientist, the philosopher and the mathematician."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9OazsRfTVQ&feature=related

OLAADEGBU:

Since our resident evolutionists would not or could not answer the questions put to them let's ask some other unbiased qualified scientists some if not all are cronic evolutionists and find out how they sincerely would have answered them:

OLAADEGBU:

Where and how did matter and energy originate?

-- In the Discover magazine, Guth's Grand Guess , vol. 23, Apr. 2002, p.35. 

"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada.  And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere".   

--  Paul Davis, a physicist and evolutionist, in The Edge of Infinity gave this answer:


"[The big bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing.  It represents a true miracle . . ." 

-Joseph Silk (Ph.D. Astronomy and Professor of Astronomy at the University of Oxford), wrote in The Big Bang, 2001, pg.15 that:

"It is only fair to say that we still have a theory without a beginning."   

-Sten Odenwald, (who has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics and Chief Scientist with Raytheon STX Corp at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre), said in The Astronomy Café, 1998, pg.120  that:

"I was happy to announce that astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness."

OLAADEGBU:

Since Evolution is based on naturalism, all things in the universe must be explained in terms of naturalism.  If evolutionists can’t explain where matter came from then evolution is left with a giant hole- No foundation. If they cannot explain their foundation for the origin of the universe and life.  They have to accept it by faith.

Why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence?

I already have a faith.  Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith.  Therefore, the logical deduction that I can derive from this is that it is not only rational but also reasonable to believe that God, not unknown magical events, created matter and energy.

thehomer:

Yet again, you show your anger and inability to sing after attempts at being taught. Here it is again:
[size=20pt]Evolution is not about the origin of life but about the diversity of life.[/size]

. . . .

OLAADEGBU:

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." -- 1 Corinthians 15:39

The Book of Genesis tells us that everything was created by God nothing evolved.  Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own kind as is stated ten times in Genesis 1.  Dogs do not produce cats.  Neither do cats and dogs have a common ancestry.  Dogs began as dogs and are still dogs.  They vary in species from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, but you will not find a "dat" or a "cog" (part cat and part dog) throughout God's creation.  Frogs don't reproduce oysters, cows don't have lambs and pregnant pigs don't give birth to rabbits.  God made monkeys as monkeys and man as man.  Each creature "brings forth after its own kind."  That's no theory; its a fact.

OLAADEGBU:

Why should we believe that man comes from another species?  If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false.  However, the whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory of evolution.

thehomer:
 
What are kinds?

thehomer:

If cats produced dogs or if you had a mix between a modern cat and dog that occurred naturally, that would be evidence against evolution. You really need to try to understand what you're trying to criticize.

thehomer:

Not necessarily as scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller show. Actually as a scientist, if the creation story stands against the theory of evolution, then the creation story is wrong.

OLAADEGBU:

I don't think you are ready to be taught what we mean by kinds.  Answer the elementary questions first then we can move on to the complicated ones.

OLAADEGBU:

You don't even understand what the evolution theory means so there is no point trying to answering it.

OLAADEGBU:

Those so called scientists you mentioned are not known to be Christians, maybe you mean to say theist evolutionists but certainly not real Christians.  Real science disproves the evolutionary theory.

OLAADEGBU:

Evolution's Circular Reasoning.

OLAADEGBU:

Let's see what some scientists say about these evolutionist jokers:

"At least six different radiometric dating methods are available.  The assumed age of the sample will dictate which dating method is used because each will give a different result.  For example: when dinosaur bones containing carbon are found, they are not carbon dated because the result would be only a few thousand years.  Because this would not match the assumed age based on the geologic columm, scientists use another method of dating to give an age closer to the desired result.  All radiometric results that do not match the preassigned ages of the geologic column are discarded."  -- Dr. Kent Hovind

OLAADEGBU:

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interprete the fossil record.  By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." -- Ronald R. West, Ph.D.

OLAADEGBU:

This is what the Bible has got to say:

"Praise the Lord.  Praise the LORD, O my soul. . . . Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keeps truth for ever."  Psalm 146:1, 6

OLAADEGBU:

Seeing that our resident evolutionists have no clue to the foundational questions asked about the universe and of life, and having seen what some sincere evolutionists admitted let's move on to some worldview questions to see whether they will be able to answer them without throwing temper tantrums.

1. Where did the dinosaurs come from?

2. Where are all the millions of transitional fossils in the Precambrian and Cambrian layers?