Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,551 members, 7,955,054 topics. Date: Saturday, 21 September 2024 at 03:34 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Darwin's Day (38049 Views)
Charles Darwin To Receive Apology From D Church Of England 4 Rejecting Evolution / Charles Darwin's 10 Mistakes / Does Anyone Not Know About The Giant Hawk Moth: Darwin's Prediction (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 3:59pm On Jun 03, 2012 |
PAGAN 9JA: Calm down. You don't need to burn a gasket because your fellows are here to support you. Paul has a little information here for you evolutionists out there: "Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen" (Romans 1:21-25) 2 Likes |
Re: Darwin's Day by PAGAN9JA(m): 4:07pm On Jun 03, 2012 |
^^^^^^ what the hell that is not information. he is just taunting us! |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 4:28pm On Jun 03, 2012 |
PAGAN 9JA: Did you say he was taunting you? 1 Like |
Re: Darwin's Day by PAGAN9JA(m): 5:50pm On Jun 03, 2012 |
OLAADEGBU: yes hes just being a sly fox. |
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 6:16pm On Jun 03, 2012 |
OLAADEGBU: More abysmal ignorance on your part - it is the Australian branch of AiG that has now tranformed itself into CMI - surely with your slavish belief of anything AiG, I'd have expected you to at least know something about the organisation you use as a proxy for using your own faculties? Hovind has been criticized by other creationists, including young Earth creationists and old Earth creationists, who believe that many of his arguments are invalid and, consequently, undermine their causes. Disagreements over how to respond to Hovind's claims have themselves contributed to acrimony between creationist organizations. The Australian and U.S. arms of Answers in Genesis (AiG) were critical of Hovind[68] after he had criticized[69] a position document from Creation Ministries International, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".[70] In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments"[67] and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".[71]
Jesus paid - he did what was required, unlike your fraudulent and disgraced pseudo 'Dr' Hovind, a man who cannot comply with simple instructions and was fraudulently trying to evade taxes by paying people in cash. Again, without personal integrity, there is even less reason to trust his fraudulent and mendacious viewpoints, which include global warming being a communist conspiracy. |
Re: Darwin's Day by jayriginal: 6:28pm On Jun 03, 2012 |
debosky: Really ? He said that ? |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 6:23pm On Jun 04, 2012 |
debosky: That they were once AiG does not translate that they are still part of AiG. CMI is different from AiG and what part of that don't you understand? Anything creationists to you is AiG since you are now trying to make a case that they are one and the same to save your behind. debosky: Rabbis or religious leaders are not required to pay tax even in this day and age. The fact that Jesus chose to pay it does not mean that He had to pay. Kent Hovind's organisation, being a charity had a case not to pay "tax" whether he was right or wrong is for another thread. Daniel was conspired against by those who envied him and they convinced the king to sign an edict that will catch him concerning his faith, was he not justified in the end? What happened to his conspirators? |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 6:25pm On Jun 04, 2012 |
Big Daddy (Continued).
|
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 7:11pm On Jun 05, 2012 |
Big Daddy (Concluded).
|
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 11:26pm On Jun 05, 2012 |
jayriginal: He's said worse things. . . . apart from not paying his own taxes or deducting tax from his employees. |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 6:51pm On Jun 06, 2012 |
PAGAN 9JA: No, Paul is the one telling you the truth. The fox you should watch out for and be wary of is the one hiding behing the rock seeking the gullible ones to devour. All those who fall into the trap of the theory of evolution, theist evolution or atheist evolution, even the gap theories have swallowed the lies of the fox hook, line and sinker.
|
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 4:47pm On Jun 07, 2012 |
Evidence of the missing link?
|
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 5:51pm On Jun 13, 2012 |
PAGAN 9JA: All evolutionists' claim for the missing links have been refuted by real scientists that are creationists. Back to the topic on hand. I Love Lucy? |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 8:49pm On Aug 02, 2014 |
Evolution refuted. |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 12:04pm On Aug 08, 2014 |
The Designed Creation August 7, 2014 "Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?" (Psalm 94:8-9) The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but brute-like foolishness. If an automobile presupposes an automaker, and a clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and complex eyes and ears of living creatures require an eye-maker and an ear-maker! “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them” (Proverbs 20:12). The most basic of all scientific laws—the law of cause and effect (no effect greater than its cause)—becomes utmost nonsense if the cosmos is the product of chaos and the universe evolved by chance. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). Every creature, from the single-cell amoebae to the amazing human body, bears the impress of intricate planning and construction. The notion that such complex structures could evolve by random mutations and natural selection is simply a measure of the audacity of human rebellion and the absurdity of humanistic reasoning. Such things never happen in the real world, and there is no real scientific evidence whatever for “vertical” evolution from one kind to a higher kind. The only genuine evidence for evolution is the fact that the leaders of intellectualism believe it, and the only reason they believe it is their frantic desire to escape God. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). The ear did not “evolve”; it was planted. The eye did not “happen by chance”; it was formed. Every wise man and woman will say with the psalmist, “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well” (Psalm 139:14). HMM For more . . . . |
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 10:08pm On Aug 19, 2014 |
But there are transitional forms. . . http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03 There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. What do you have to say to that? |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 11:57am On Aug 20, 2014 |
debosky: Give me one example of your so called transitional form and let's put it to the test. |
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 1:19pm On Aug 21, 2014 |
What qualifies you as able to put transitional forms to the test? Are you a biologist/zoologist or possess any skills (other than copy paste) to make an assessment? |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 12:28pm On Aug 22, 2014 |
debosky: No. Are you? |
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 1:01pm On Aug 22, 2014 |
No, but I didn't make the claim that transitional forms do not exist. On what basis have you made that claim? |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:16pm On Aug 22, 2014 |
debosky: On what basis are you questioning that claim? |
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 11:14pm On Aug 23, 2014 |
On the basis of the renowned University of California Berkeley - a renowned school with extensive discoveries in scientific endeavour stretching back to 1868. I have posted their view on the matter. What credibility does your assertion possess? |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 9:08am On Aug 24, 2014 |
debosky: And they discovered that neo darwinism is scientific? |
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 8:24pm On Aug 26, 2014 |
Stay focused - are you more credible than UC Berkley on the subject of transitional forms? |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 3:51pm On Aug 27, 2014 |
debosky: You should be the one to stay focussed, because If I rememeber clearly Darwin's Day is the topic of this thread not the UC Berkley. The quote below reminds you of what we are talking about. Any authority that is not subject to the Word of God should be discarded. OLAADEGBU: |
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 4:23pm On Aug 29, 2014 |
Your post on 'Darwin's day' includes an assertion about transitional forms. How am I losing focus if I am referring to one of the assertions about Darwin's day? If your assertion is baseless, by inference your 'Darwin's day' begins to lose credibility and value. So answer the question - what is the basis/credibility of your 'Darwin's day' claim about transitional forms compared to that of UC Berkeley? |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 12:16pm On Sep 01, 2014 |
debosky: Real science confirmed by biblical creation accounts in the Bible. |
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 1:57pm On Sep 01, 2014 |
OLAADEGBU: Who conducted this 'real science'? What credibility do they have? Are they peer-reviewed? Last I checked, there is no verse in the bible saying 'fossil data shows no transitional forms' so that statement must come from your alleged 'real science'. |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 2:18pm On Sep 01, 2014 |
debosky: Real science confirms what the Bible says. What you have is the words of mere fallible men whose pseudo science is peer reviewed by scientists that are evolutionists. Your circular reasoning as to the age of the fossils can only be determined by the age of the rocks they are found in and when asked about the age of the rocks your professors say they can be determined by the age of the fossils. If that is not circular reasoning then I don't know what it is. |
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 2:37pm On Sep 01, 2014 |
OLAADEGBU: In other words no peer-reviewed articles from your real science?
Just admit you are unable to understand the difference between relative and absolute dating methods (which isn't the subject of this discussion anyway). Some reading material for you - http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044 So to recap - your 'real science' isn't peer reviewed. Is it considered credible? |
Re: Darwin's Day by OLAADEGBU(m): 2:56pm On Sep 01, 2014 |
debosky: Peer-reviewed by who? Atheist evolutionists? |
Re: Darwin's Day by debosky(m): 3:41pm On Sep 01, 2014 |
OLAADEGBU: Peer-reviewed by other scientists. Or can 'real science' only be conducted in isolation without room for critique? |
(1) (2) (3) ... (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (Reply)
Pastor Sam Adeyemi: Sex In Marriage, Other Things That Make Family Work / Testimonies On Why We Stopped Tithing Here / Richest Rv Father In Nigeria
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 68 |