butterflyl1on:


You claim the wisdom teeth are a remnant from days of chewing a different diet and I say they are not and are seen as useless because we do not chew the right diet meant for it. I guess we both agree that the problem is poor or wrong diet.

Claiming that we have vestigial organs simply because their functions have not been discovered in this day is extremely unscientific and a hypothesis at best.

We had a list of 180 vestigial organs prior to modern times and today what happened to the 180?

As animals evolve, their diet and lifestyle change. So, organs that do not support the new lifestyle are left behind. It's not a matter of wrong diet, it's a matter of useless, irrelevant diet. Why remain a herbivore when you already developed omnivorous capabilities?

There's nothing unscientific about vestigial organs. Things change, as much more knowledge becomes available, descriptions change. Pepsin was thought to be the cause of stomach ulcer at a point.

You're low-key using the "science has been wrong before" argument.

I also forgot to mention that we have not "evolved" to the point of not growing wisdom teeth at all. If we have, can you tell me when this happened because this would mean the evolutionary process does not take millions of years Afterall but happens in a hundred or 200 years because as far as I know people are being born today with wisdom teeth and for many who have had them pulled, they ended up growing back.

CatfishBilly:

As animals evolve, their diet and lifestyle change. So, organs that do not support the new lifestyle are left behind. It's not a matter of wrong diet, it's a matter of useless, irrelevant diet. Why remain a herbivore when you already developed omnivorous capabilities?

There's nothing unscientific about vestigial organs. Things change, as much more knowledge becomes available, descriptions change. Pepsin was thought to be the cause of stomach ulcer at a point.

You're low-key using the "science has been wrong before" argument.

Well for one I do not believe I was a herbivore before becoming an omnivore. I am a creationist so that argument to me is like looking at myself in a mirror and seeing a white man when I am pure black African.

As omnivores we obviously still need our wisdom teeth same way we need our canines and incisors due to our variety of diet choices. Our tool box (teeth) has to come well equipped for our varied diet as humans.

If you say we were once herbivores then that's your claim but I say we were always omnivores and came fully prepared for the job.

AgentOfAllah:

You're wrong! Logic is a tool merely used to formulate conclusions about a set of predefined premises. If the premise is objectionable, then logic can never provide the truth. Science on the other hand, seeks to establish empirical premises upon which logic can rely to come to truthful conclusions. Logic can be applied to any premise. The question is, how reliable is that premise?

You can if the premises prove questionable.

This claim is objectively false! Religion is hopelessly dependent on blind faith, which is the direct antithesis of critical thinking.

But attributing complexity to god is not a logical argument, it is resignation. Water is transparent, hence does not take its colour from anything. It can however, sometimes scatter, reflect or transmit light from other things around which may give the apparition of colour. But make no mistake, water has no colour! Hence, whatever your friend's logic is, it is wrong.




My last paragraph was just to demonstrate that common ancestry is not the same as common designer.

I differ with you..... your conclusion can only be reliable if there is empirical evidence that has proven the premises not to be true but setting aside subjective and physical evidence which is the premises we have at hand logic can be used to explain the truth...

logic is a taught experiment that use the mind to recognize the processes of , the cause and effect of any idea to verify truth. Logic do not only explain truth it also validate it.....it is the duty of science to work with idea ,prediction of data or any testable theory likewise it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective....

Taught experiment is part of work design for any good scientists to carry out research....

Therefore the logics of design creature can't be thrown into garbage because science has not been able to prove the premises to be false.... Yes is questionable just like the topic at hand... evolution theory....

Most religion can logically validate the truthfulness of their believe ...religion base their belive with knowledge ,faith and confidence... To say is a blind base will be wrong


Design complexity isn't only logical it also has a science Base.. Design arguments are empirical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments do not only show the complexity in the design it also shows the goals and purpose of the design..

What about sky? Will you not say the same thing about sky? Remember sky isn't Always blue...

butterflyl1on:
I also forgot to mention that we have not "evolved" to the point of not growing wisdom teeth at all. If we have, can you tell me when this happened because this would mean the evolutionary process does not take millions of years Afterall but happens in a hundred or 200 years because as far as I know people are being born today with wisdom teeth and for many who have had them pulled, they ended up growing back.

Feast your eyes then.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1458632/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11220165

CatfishBilly:


Feast your eyes then.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1458632/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11220165

If your claims are valid then why do we still have these today?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=Humans+still+have+wisdom+teeth

There are over 21000 publications there about modern wisdom teeth. The operative word is modern. You claimed we have evolved to the point of not growing them at all.

butterflyl1on:


If your claims are valid then why do we still have these today?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=Humans+still+have+wisdom+teeth

There are over 21000 publications there about modern wisdom teeth. The operative word is modern. You claimed we have evolved to the point of not growing them at all.

Of course, the penetrance of the gene/mutation that removed wisdom teeth from humans vary wildly across populations reaching almost 100% in Mexicans. It's all in the link I posted.


Vestigiliaty is a thing in science.

Yeah! if you want to lose extra weight then you must try out the Diet for Weight loss, GM Diet plan is one for the best Diet Plan. For more information follow the link.

butterflyl1on:


The message speaks for itself and speaks my mind as well in understandable detail. Being a creationist may seem offensive to some who think science is everything and knows everything when in fact science is still a baby.

Instead of acknowledging and moving on after being caught plagiarizing you want to take the Felixmoron route and start blabbing nonsense. Were you not the same person haranguing hopefulLandlord on another thread for plagiarism? Must you be a hypocrite?

OliviaPope:
of course. since we're yet to fully understand it, why don't we fill up the gaps with god

I check on your recent thread it seems you are a Muslim... What is your stand on this topic either on islam perspective or your own rational taught.

butterflyl1on:


There is no such thing as vestigial organs as this is not admissible in science. What was said to be "useless" today can be discovered to have a function tomorrow. We once had about 180 vestigial organ list and today we have about 4 or 5 and the list keeps shrinking as their functions are finally discovered.

This vestigial organ assumption uses as an assumption the claim that an organ has no function. There is no way in which this negative assertion can be arrived at in a scientific manner. What I mean is that one can't prove that something does not exist for example, such a case like this, a certain function, since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it based on science.

As it is today, the vestigial organ claim has as an assumption, either a statement of ignorance such as, I couldn’t identify the function, or a scientifically invalid claim such as, it does not have a function. This kind of claim isnt scientifically valid, and isn't admissible in observational or experimental science.

I appreciate the premise upon which your scepticism rests. In summary, you assert that our ignorance of the function of an organ is not a reason to declare it vestigial. In other words, the absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. On this note, I absolutely agree with you, so does the theory of evolution! However, your conclusion is spurious. You hastily declare it impossible to show that vestigial organs exist because by your estimation, evolution qualifies an organ as vestigial from ignorance. Your reasoning is that it is impossible to make a negative claim about the obsolescence of an organ.

That conclusion is demonstrably false, and here's why:
(1) If it can be shown that organs exist which have specific, well defined functions.
(2) If it can further be shown that all or parts of such organs exist in other species, but fail to carry out these well defined functions.
(3) Then this constitutes a negative proof of said function; thus the organ's vestigiality.

The question then must be, does such an organ exist? And the answer is yes! Most def!!

I mentioned the blind mole rat before, so let's examine the eye development of the blind mole rat (spalax), shall we? Thankfully, this subject is thoroughly studied, so there is good material at our disposal.

Sanyal et al.¹ detailed the eye development of an embryo spalax in the abstract of their publication as follows:

"In the early embryos the presumptive eye regions--the epithelium, lens vesicle, and optic cup--appear initially normal. As development progresses, the iris-ciliary body complex originates prematurely from the margin of the optic cup and shows a very rapid and massive growth. This pigment-laden tissue mass remains attached to the corneal stroma, obliterates the anterior chamber, and prevents the formation of the corneal endothelium and Descemet's membrane. In the developing lens the elongation of the lens fibers leads to the formation of a rudimentary lens nucleus that becomes disorganized and vacuolated and eventually also becomes vascularized. The optic fissure fails to close, the eyes remain colobomatous, and the optic disc appears atrophic."

Here, we can understand that at the initial stage of development, the everything seems to be forming normally, then the iris-ciliary, responsible for growing the iris (a heavily pigmented muscle that specifically controls light intake for vision, overgrows, thereby destroying the anterior chamber and inhibiting the growth of corneal endothelium (cells responsible for maintaining optical transparency of the eye). Furthermore, a rudimentary lens nucleous forms, but is unable to fully develop because it becomes disorganised.

Now, we know that
(a) A rudimentary form of lens exists, but does not collect light
(b) The iris muscle exists, but fails to regulate light intake
(c) The optic cup exists, but lacks corneal endothelium for visual transparency.

This tells us that organs which are specifically adapted for vision exist in the spalax, but fail to perform the functions for which they are specifically adapted. Such organs are thus, said to be vestigial.

[1] Sanyal, S.; Jansen, H. G.; de Grip, W. J.; Nevo, E.; de Jong, W. W., The eye of the blind mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi. Rudiment with hidden function? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990, 31 (7), 1398-404.

vaxx:
I differ with you..... your conclusion can only be reliable if there is empirical evidence that has proven the premises not to be true but setting aside subjective and physical evidence which is the premises we have at hand logic can be used to explain the truth...

logic is a taught experiment that use the mind to recognize the processes of , the cause and effect of any idea to verify truth. Logic do not only explain truth it also validate it.....it is the duty of science to work with idea ,prediction of data or any testable theory likewise it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective....

Taught experiment is part of work design for any good scientists to carry out research....

Therefore the logics of design creature can't be thrown into garbage because science has not been able to prove the premises to be false.... Yes is questionable just like the topic at hand... evolution theory....

Most religion can logically validate the truthfulness of their believe ...religion base their belive with knowledge ,faith and confidence... To say is a blind base will be wrong


Design complexity isn't only logical it also has a science Base.. Design arguments are empirical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments do not only show the complexity in the design it also shows the goals and purpose of the design..

What about sky? Will you not say the same thing about sky? Remember sky isn't Always blue...

Mmmm ! Awesome Vaxx !
Your rebuttal is higher logic, pure science, simply instructive and mature unlike AgentOfAllah who twists arguments to fit his preconceived
ideas to enable a dying Atheism to live longer.

vaxx:
I differ with you..... your conclusion can only be reliable if there is empirical evidence that has proven the premises not to be true but setting aside subjective and physical evidence which is the premises we have at hand logic can be used to explain the truth...

Any conclusion that derives from a speculative premise is itself, a speculation. Period!

logic is a taught experiment that use the mind to recognize the processes of , the cause and effect of any idea to verify truth. Logic do not only explain truth it also validate it.....it is the duty of science to work with idea ,prediction of data or any testable theory likewise it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective....

Surely, you're not suggesting that logic, whatever its premise, takes preponderance over empirical observations?

Taught experiment is part of work design for any good scientists to carry out research....

Therefore the logics of design creature can't be thrown into garbage because science has not been able to prove the premises to be false.... Yes is questionable just like the topic at hand... evolution theory....

Most religion can logically validate the truthfulness of their believe ...religion base their belive with knowledge ,faith and confidence... To say is a blind base will be wrong


Design complexity isn't only logical it also has a science Base.. Design arguments are empirical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments do not only show the complexity in the design it also shows the goals and purpose of the design..

The argument for design isn't logical/observational, it is resigned speculation. "Oh it looks complex, therefore design!" I fail to see the logic in that.

What about sky? Will you not say the same thing about sky? Remember sky isn't Always blue...

Yes, the sky also scatters light, so only appears blue when there is an abundance of blue light around (such as from the sun). Otherwise, yes! The sky is also colourless like water.

vaxx:
brilliant approach....I already give kudos to scientist for been able trace who are my ancestors... a complicated problem for me a non scientist...

so far it is the best explanation scientist can give .....applicable to the religious folks ....the best explanation for the designer of the universe is God and nothing. more....... I think science needs to also agree with this concept....because best explanation do not need an explanation due to an infinite regression of explanation which will render the whole purpose of science and philosophical thinking useless...


for example it is an established theory that living organism are made up of cells...no new evidence is likely to change this scientific verified evidence...


God design the universe that is the best explanation.... nothing more....


I also note one thing if science agree we are both from one common ancestor , is it not also suggesting we are from the same common designer....

Vaxx, the awesome facts you present here is enough to strengthen those that believe in a "Creator God."
It got me thinking about those Scientists that are deeply involved in science. How they muster the courage to challenge then break from established scientific theories that they once worshiped as the Holy Grail. One recent example that comes to mind is about the top scientist in the Human Genome project, prof.F.Collins conversion from Radical Atheism to Christianity.

Prof. F. collins says he was forced to examine the evidence concerning the truth or falsity of religion, prof. collins was eventually led to read C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, where, he says, '...within the first three pages, I realised that my arguments against faith were those of a schoolboy.'

vaxx:
I check on your recent thread it seems you are a Muslim.

That's not a recent thread and no, i'm not a muslim. That story is as fake as a talking donkey. It was just a trick to get these hot blooded theists to play the "my god is better than your god" game (and see if any christian would try to convince me i'd still be barbecued anyway ) they didn't disappoint seeing as they wánked all over the thread.

What is your stand on this topic either on islam perspective or your own rational taught

I think its primitive and ignorant to believe in a concept that's completely based on assumptions that cannot be proven and have no credible evidence to support its claims, especially when a better explanation with lots of verifiable evidence exists. Its a deliberate glorification of stupidity to ignore compelling evidence that validates evolution, but continue to believe ancient folktales which lack any evidence whatsoever.

Creationist arguments only try to poke holes in the evolution theory and fill them up with god, they never try to provide answers, god did it is just an easy way out of a complicated question for them. Attempting to introduce an external, unjustifiable variable into the picture in order to put a stop to further quest for answers is a declaration of defeat to further intellectual challenge, not an explanation...

This thread is interesting, if only for the fact that people haven't started insulting each other! long may that continue. i'll just like to point out the evidence for common ancestry is so staggering you won't even know where to start. Phylogenetic studies seem to be the strongest evidence we have so far. Simply if organisms have a common ancestor, they should all have genetic imprint common in all organisms. Studies into ribosomal RNA (rRNA) especially the 16S rRNA by Carl Woese and many others shows its existence in all organisms. rRNA has the remarkable ability of preserving itself intact no matter how many times it is replicated. Similarities in the rRNA sequences of all living organisms point to common ancestry. Now, there are so many other proofs like all eyes sharing a similar set of light sensing proteins called opsins (puts paid to the idea of irreducibility complexity of the human eye) or the homoebox set of genes present in all vertebrates. Google is ur friend.

OliviaPope:
That's not a recent thread and no, i'm not a muslim. That story is as fake as a talking donkey. It was just a trick to get these hot blooded theists to play the "my god is better than your god" game (and see if any christian would try to convince me i'd still be barbecued anyway ) they didn't disappoint seeing as they wánked all over the thread.



I think its primitive and ignorant to believe in a concept that's completely based on assumptions that cannot be proven and have no credible evidence to support its claims, especially when a better explanation with lots of verifiable evidence exists. Its a deliberate glorification of stupidity to ignore compelling evidence that validates evolution, but continue to believe ancient folktales which lack any evidence whatsoever.

Creationist arguments only try to poke holes in the evolution theory and fill them up with god, they never try to provide answers, god did it is just an easy way out of a complicated question for them. Attempting to introduce an external, unjustifiable variable into the picture to put a stop to further quest for answers is a declaration of defeat to further intellectual challenge, not an explanation...

ooh you also trick me into beliving you are muslim..


It is wrong for you to conclude that religion belive is base an assumption. There is different between belive and assumotion because assumptions are mostly based on instinct without any further information gathered Whereas belief can have proof to testify it with faith.... In belive there is concreteness of confidence..

I welcome the evidence of evolutionist on the subject matter. And likewise that of creationist. creationists may not provide a convincing truth about it.... But they do not also fail to correct evolutionists where they need to cover or where their evidence isn't concrete.... At this junction both of them can work together...


There was an articule I read online that statescientists only accept the evolution theory not because it agree with science but its disagree with church...

dalaman:


I've debated muslims and christians here for years. I was a former christian myself. If Christianity made logical sense to me, I will still be one.

It was obviously a one sided debate with your demented Atheist trolls to back you up.

On a serious note, what affected your mental astuteness Dalaman, that Christianity never made logical sense to you ?
It is extremely enlightening to genuine truth seeker that a leading scientist in the Human Gnome Project, Prof. Francis Collins who was a self-proclaimed "radical Atheist" quickly confronted the serious weakness of Atheism and bravely embraced Christianity.

As a man so deeply influenced by the theories that dominate science, the honorable Prof.F.Collins proves that science is extremely limited as a guide to the whole truth about life. That truth will forever remain out side the purvey of science.

The creator God made sure that secular education will not be the measure of a mans wisdom. The Atheist god of science is dishing out brutal embarrassing blows to the belly of the Atheist fraternity.

Scientific facts ;
1) Atheism is a mental disease

2) The honorable Prof.f.Collins a leader in the scientific community broke the brutal chains of Atheism and bravely embraced
the life-giving power of Christianity.

3) Emmanuel TV provides the whole world with abundance of scientifically verifiable evidence 24hrs per day every day, that Jesus Christ, the Gospels and Acts are very real. This is a serious blow to the already crumbling foundations of Atheism. Atheism has no more influence
to block Christianity. World-wide stadiums are filled, the blind see, the deaf hear, terminal diseases are instantly healed, doctors come for their own healing then proudly testify live to a joyful world.

butterflyl1on:


Science tries to offer a detailed explanation of what creationism summarises. That's the difference. I always tell people that science validates creationism.

However due to the position of creationism and the impression that science is against it then it becomes hard for science oftentimes to adequately explain the process creation took and when they meet this hurdle they simply look for a reason to fill the gap and therein is the reason for all the suppositions and assumptions and speculations.

Only an intelligent designer position can explain the reason for all their speculations.

Remember, creationism offers a summary while science tries to offer detail (this they are struggling with terribly)

Mmmm. Interesting post Sir. Could it be that they (Atheists) are battling to get their minds around these easy facts
because they are unwittingly hindered by the mental disease that the recent Scientific findings allude to ?

vaxx:
if you dare it... I will invite a Muslim to defend their claim likewise i will call butterflylion or any other to also defend the Christianity faith... You will see they will hold on to some logical reasons you yourrself will find it difficult to debunk....... I asure you i can defend my paganism faith logically....

That is a brilliant idea. I know how Atheists use psychological DENIAL:
This mechanism is very simple: the agnostic/atheist/deist simply denies reality and does so with intensity and persistence.

There are Atheists who are told by doctors daily that they have a terminal illness. They hear and see many people have been miraculously healed. The Atheists way of coping is to deny that it could be true. They intensely and persistently deny that God could exist to provide such awesome help that is above the abilities of their Scientific gods. They block out the possibility and fight it with all their might.

Even if they hear a thousand people of different parts of the world explaining and demonstrating the same experience, Atheists say they wont believe something if they did not experience it. Yet they believe in all the solar systems, an earth that is billions of yrs old which they have never experienced

ScienceWatch:
That is a brilliant idea. I know how Atheists use psychological DENIAL:
This mechanism is very simple: the agnostic/atheist/deist simply denies reality and does so with intensity and persistence.

There are Atheists who are told by doctors daily that they have a terminal illness. They hear and see many people have been miraculously healed. The Atheists way of coping is to deny that it could be true. They intensely and persistently deny that God could exist to provide such awesome help that is above the abilities of their Scientific gods. They block out the possibility and fight it with all their might.

Even if they hear a thousand people of different parts of the world explaining and demonstrating the same experience, Atheists say they wont believe something if they did not experience it. Yet they believe in all the solar systems, an earth that is billions of yrs old which they have never experienced

there is one thing about you.... You have a full confidence.... But the way you pass your message is a bit harsh...i do read your post I found it interesting...

vaxx:
there is one thing about you.... You have a full confidence.... But the way you pass your message is a bit harsh...i do read your post I found it interesting...

Aaah, apologies Vaxx. I thought being frank/straightforward makes things easier when engaging with skilled deceivers who are on a mission to destroy innocent young peoples treasured beliefs.

The youth must experience the truth, that it is a viscous battle everywhere, where falsity is made to appear as truth.
I appreciate your observations.

vaxx:

It is wrong for you to conclude that religion belive is base an assumption. There is different between belive and assumotion because assumptions are mostly based on instinct without any further information gathered Whereas belief can have proof to testify it with faith.... In belive there is concreteness of confidence..

you call faith proof? that's funny! look, it's very okay to believe that god created the universe or that the tooth fairy exists but you must also understand that beliefs are just that, beliefs and should never be mistaken for facts. you might have "proof" or might be able to provide reasons for believing but if they can't withstand thorough scientific scrutiny and counterargument then perhaps you should have a rethink.

OliviaPope:
you call faith proof? that's funny! look, it's very okay to believe that god created the universe or that the tooth fairy exists but you must also understand that beliefs are just that, beliefs and should never be mistaken for facts. you might have "proof" or might be able to provide reasons for believing but if they can't withstand thorough scientific scrutiny and counterargument then perhaps you should have a rethink.

the issue here is every evidence of truth shouldn't be base on scientific evidence.... Religion isn't science and therefore most not necessary follow scientific method to verify truth....they are other method truth can also be verified ...religious follower may look at nature, history, logic or other departments of human inquiry and assembled fact to conclude that God does exist, even though material proof is lacking.

The development of a full-fledged religious conviction and practice is built on "Faith" where hard evidence is lacking.

Those who deny God still have faith in other areas where proof is lacking. The atheist may have faith (may "believe" that he or she is loved by someone, yet this is a condition which can't be scientifically proven. But there IS evidence; selfless acts of kindness, physical expressions and more....

OliviaPope:
you call faith proof? that's funny! look, it's very okay to believe that god created the universe or that the tooth fairy exists but you must also understand that beliefs are just that, beliefs and should never be mistaken for facts. you might have "proof" or might be able to provide reasons for believing but if they can't withstand thorough scientific scrutiny and counterargument then perhaps you should have a rethink.

Faith is the connecting power into the spiritual realm, which links us with God and makes Him become a tangible reality to the sense perceptions of a person.

Someone with this faith does not require scientific validation as he knows how he feels in the face of faith and how real this faith makes God appear to him.

Science only validates what is tangible so is limited to what we perceive via our senses. However faith is what makes our senses perceive God so in essence faith is beyond the grasp of scientific evaluation but the results and physical responses to faith are not.

If you do not understand the divide between faith and science then stop talking about it.

OliviaPope:
Next time you want to copy and paste someone's intellectual property, don't forget to include the source, as failure to do so is akin to plagiarism which is a serious offence


But just incase it skipped your mind, here's the source; http://creation.mobi/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry

You're welcome

Hello Sherlock, may the invisible flying calabash shower you with blessings.

AgentOfAllah:



Yes, the sky also scatters light, so only appears blue when there is an abundance of blue light around (such as from the sun). Otherwise, yes! The sky is also colourless like water.

if that is the case... My friend logical evidence of water taken its colour from sky hasn't been prove wrong...

vaxx:
the issue here is every evidence of truth shouldn't be base on scientific evidence.... Religion isn't science and therefore most not necessary follow scientific method to verify truth....they are other method truth can also be verified ...religious follower may look at nature, history, logic or other departments of human inquiry and assembled fact to conclude that God does exist, even though material proof is lacking.

The development of a full-fledged religious conviction and practice is built on "Faith" where hard evidence is lacking.

Those who deny God still have faith in other areas where proof is lacking. The atheist may have faith (may "believe" that he or she is loved by someone, yet this is a condition which can't be scientifically proven. But there IS evidence; selfless acts of kindness, physical expressions and more....

True, faith is applied in many areas of life. Some consciously and some unconsciously. Atheists believe faith only speaks about God but they do not know that faith also makes real a promise from a fellow human even when the promise is yet to be fulfilled.

If Dangote promises to give me 1million naira tomorrow morning I quickly asses the capability and ability of the one who promised ( that is Dangote) and I know he is more than able and he would not want to embarrass himself by failing on such a small promise when he is worth billions. So I have faith that Dangote would honour his word as he said.

This begins to affect my joy, my mood, my life, my thought process and the result is a happier and more peaceful me. Then when the promise is fulfilled, my faith is justified!

butterflyl1on:


True, faith is applied in many areas of life. Some consciously and some unconsciously. Atheists believe faith only speaks about God but they do not know that faith also makes real a promise from a fellow human even when the promise is yet to be fulfilled.

If Dangote promises to give me 1million naira tomorrow morning I quickly asses the capability and ability of the one who promised ( that is Dangote) and I know he is more than able and he would not want to embarrass himself by failing on such a small promise when he is worth billions. So I have faith that Dangote would honour his word as he said.

This begins to affect my joy, my mood, my life, my thought process and the result is a happier and more peaceful me. Then when the promise is fulfilled, my faith is justified!

until we begin to see difference between logic and science.... The issue will never be settle... The empirical evidence isnt the only method of truth seeking... In court of law for instance... They are so many method of truth seeking which do not follow scientific method...

AgentOfAllah:

Any conclusion that derives from a speculative premise is itself, a speculation. Period!

Surely, you're not suggesting that logic, whatever its premise, takes preponderance over empirical observations?

The argument for design isn't logical/observational, it is resigned speculation. "Oh it looks complex, therefore design!" I fail to see the logic in that.

Yes, the sky also scatters light, so only appears blue when there is an abundance of blue light around (such as from the sun). Otherwise, yes! The sky is also colourless like water.

on this case ... Can we both agree that evolution theory and creationist ideology still need more evidence of truth .....before we can finally give a conclusion..... ?

vaxx:
It is wrong for you to conclude that religion belive is base an assumption.

Not just assumption but false assumptions.
No religion has been able to explain 1% of everything it claims to match reality.

There is different between belive and assumotion because assumptions are mostly based on instinct without any further information gathered Whereas belief can have proof to testify it with faith.... In belive there is concreteness of confidence..

I welcome the evidence of evolutionist on the subject matter. And likewise that of creationist. creationists may not provide a convincing truth about it.... But they do not also fail to correct evolutionists where they need to cover or where their evidence isn't concrete.... At this junction both of them can work together...

You say faith is proof?
Proof of what?
Seems you don't know how to define faith.


Definition of faith
faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1.

There was an articule I read online that statescientists only accept the evolution theory not because it agree with science but its disagree with church...

This is serious.

Can you provide link or are they just mere critics of science?