OLAADEGBU:

Since you guys are too lazy to do your own research on google, here is a suggested link to educate you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/four-women-boat-kids

Perffect, perfect.
I'd asked for a source here:

Source, please. I'd like to read the article, especially considering the lack of 'brown' eye colour chromosones in those us who don't have brown eyes.

Of course I googled the key phrase (the way light scatters off of the thin layer of brown-coloured melanin)of this poster's answer and came up with the source
AiG, plus various White Supremicist and Rapture blogs.
No scientific paper, just AiG assertions.

And of course AiG dances around the subject, claiming Adam and Eve had both blue and green eye chromosones on the one hand, on the other that green and blue eye chromosones are the 'wages of sin'.

Which is it?
Well, we know b&g coloured eyes don't show in the mitochondrial legacy until some 6,000 years ago, from one generaction to another.
That is to say, the parents of the first blue eyed human did not have those chromosones.
Mutation.

eventually some human beings stop producing these lactase while others have a nucleotide switch in their DNA which can keep lactase into adulthood.

Yes, a mutation.
Nowadays we all know the milk tolerance capacity in human adults is a mutation dating from some 15,000 years ago.

But what about male ni pp les?

mazaje:

Stop taking Olaadegbu and his creationist scientific "explanations" seriously. . .

I don't, actually.
I find his arguments by comix and proof by debates and oratory hilarious.
Just look at the way he can't make up his mind whether blue eyes are the wages of sin or were 'planned'.

PA1982:

I find his arguments by comix and proof by debates and oratory hilarious.
Just look at the way he can't make up his mind whether blue eyes are the wages of sin or were 'planned'.

Any body that uses "bible science" to show that the universe is 6000 years old is crazy and should not to be taken seriously. . .

OLAADEGBU:

Frosbel will not, could not and did not advocate for the killing of atheists, and that's if they exist. To call yourselves atheists you must have absolute knowledge of the universe. Let's say that a circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, to have absolute knowledge you must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock, nothing is hidden from your eyes, that you know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother, what amount of gold or petroleum there is in China if there are any.

Well he has. He posts too much. I really dont want to have to dig through his posts to go find it.

OLAADEGBU:

To call yourselves atheists you must have absolute knowledge of the universe. Let's say that a circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, to have absolute knowledge you must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock, nothing is hidden from your eyes, that you know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother, what amount of gold or petroleum there is in China if there are any.

You are labouring under an assumption here. You have a notion of what it means to be an atheist, but that notion is wrong. I do not need absolute knowledge of the universe to be an atheist.

OLAADEGBU:

If foundational questions are too complicated for you let me ask you the question John Lennox asked Dawkins. Do you have faith in your wife if you are married? When you walked up to her on your first date and asked her to give you her name did you believe her or did you say you doubted it? When she told you where she worked did you say "I don't believe that either" If you did I don't think you will have a relationship right now.

Faith in a marriage is not the same as faith in god. I mentioned that before. You must not be reading what I wrote. For one thing, the woman actually exists. For another she has a name. Did she give me a false name ? There is a possibility of that but there are ways to prove her identity. This is a really bad analogy please drop it. You cannot prove the existence of your god.

OLAADEGBU:

I am still waiting for your committment.

You had me at "commitment".

OLAADEGBU:

That would be called idolatory.

I believe that they are idols.

As is your god (the only idol you worship). One idol, all idols. Seriously !

OLAADEGBU:

Did you see the videoclip posted by Enigma about an atheist who had a change of mind due to the evidence of DNA?

Sure I saw the clip and I pointed out that he didnt become a christian. I have warned you about this but it seems I have to resign myself to the fact that you are actually going to attempt to use DNA as evidence for your god.

OLAADEGBU:

All you need to do is to agree to believe and worship the Infinite Creator God if I give you the evidence that He exists.

This is truly mind boggling. I thought it was implied. Anyway I agree to your terms and conditions.
Maybe you should send a notary over.

No excuses Ola, lets have your evidence.

The ball is in your court.

For Ola, since he likes pictures so much.

OLAADEGBU:

Let's say that a circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, to have absolute knowledge you must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock, nothing is hidden from your eyes,

Just wanted to point out that the person you're arguing with still thinks with his heart or at the leaset he reasons like a 11th century peasant.

Psalm 14 vs 1

Martian:

Just wanted to point out that the person you're arguing with still thinks with his heart or at the leaset he reasons like a 11th century peasant.

Psalm 14 vs 1

ROFLMFAO 
Good looking bro !

I'm still hoping Ola will make up his mind about whether blue eyes are:
the wages of sin
or
inherent in all humans.



And I haven't forgotten about male n i p p l e s, either.

mazaje:

Some times you really need to read what you are writing. . . .How does this prove that sin is what causes mutation as you ridiculously claimed?. . . .Keep on jumping and singing all over the place. . . .

Would you accept answers from the Bible if I show you?

PA1982:

Perffect, perfect.
I'd asked for a source here:
Of course I googled the key phrase (the way light scatters off of the thin layer of brown-coloured melanin)of this poster's answer and came up with the source
AiG, plus various White Supremicist and Rapture blogs.
No scientific paper, just AiG assertions.

Good job!  I must congratulate you for your effort unlike other lazy atheists who wouldn't, couldn't or didn't bother to make an effort.  But are you sure that there was no scientific paper quoted their?  I even posted it, did you not see it?

PA1982:

And of course AiG dances around the subject, claiming Adam and Eve had both blue and green eye chromosones on the one hand, on the other that green and blue eye chromosones are the 'wages of sin'.

Which is it?
Well, we know b&g coloured eyes don't show in the mitochondrial legacy until some 6,000 years ago, from one generaction to another.
That is to say, the parents of the first blue eyed human did not have those chromosones.
Mutation.

You must have read what they meant but it is up to you what you choose to take as the fact.

PA1982:

Yes, a mutation.

Nowadays we all know the milk tolerance capacity in human adults is a mutation dating from some 15,000 years ago.

But what about male ni pp les?

What about male n ipples?  Are you suggesting that males once gave suck to babies in their evolution but no longer do so now?

jayriginal:

Well he has. He posts too much. I really dont want to have to dig through his posts to go find it.

I fink you should get your evidence in place if you are to make that kind of allegation, don't you think?

jayriginal:

You are labouring under an assumption here. You have a notion of what it means to be an atheist, but that notion is wrong. I do not need absolute knowledge of the universe to be an atheist.

There is nothing like atheists, they don't exist.

jayriginal:

Faith in a marriage is not the same as faith in god. I mentioned that before. You must not be reading what I wrote. For one thing, the woman actually exists. For another she has a name. Did she give me a false name ? There is a possibility of that but there are ways to prove her identity. This is a really bad analogy please drop it. You cannot prove the existence of your god.

If you need evidence to confirm her name and what she claims to be before you can trust her then I wonder what kind of relationship that will be.

jayriginal:

You had me at "commitment".

I did not mean marital commitment.

jayriginal:

As is your god (the only idol you worship). One idol, all idols. Seriously !

You can even have yourself as your own idol, when you say that man created god in his own image.

jayriginal:

Sure I saw the clip and I pointed out that he didnt become a christian. I have warned you about this but it seems I have to resign myself to the fact that you are actually going to attempt to use DNA as evidence for your god.

At least he now knows that there is intelligence responsible for the DNA which is a positive step in the right direction and if he is wise he will not stop there.

jayriginal:

This is truly mind boggling. I thought it was implied. Anyway I agree to your terms and conditions.
Maybe you should send a notary over.

No excuses Ola, lets have your evidence.

The ball is in your court.

It took you this long to get an agreement out of you. I will be using transcendental arguments to make my case so tighten your seat belt.

OLAADEGBU:
. . .

At least he now knows that there is intelligence responsible for the DNA which is a positive step in the right direction and if he is wise he will not stop there. . . .

He is dead now, sadly. At the time of his renouncing atheism, he maintained his renunciation of Christianity also. However, he was always in private communication with Christian ministers and theologians with whom he was good friends and some of whom were partly responsible for convincing him of the existence of God (especially Gary Habermas and perhaps also N T Wright). 

Martian:

Just wanted to point out that the person you're arguing with still thinks with his heart or at the leaset he reasons like a 11th century peasant.

Psalm 14 vs 1

There is no such thing as an "atheist" that verse says he is a fool. Read what Dwight Eisenhower wrote about the so called atheists:

"It takes no brains to be an atheist. Any stupid person can deny the existence of a supernatural power because man's physical senses cannot detect it. But there cannot be ignored the influence of conscience, the respect we feel for the Moral Law, the mystery of first life . . . or the marvelous order in which the universe moves about us on this earth. All these evidence the handiwork of the beneficient Deity . . . That Deity is the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ, His Son."

Enigma:

He is dead now, sadly. At the time of his renouncing atheism, he maintained his renunciation of Christianity also. However, he was always in private communication with Christian ministers and theologians with whom he was good friends and some of whom were partly responsible for convincing him of the existence of God (especially Gary Habermas and perhaps also N T Wright).

It is a pity that he doubted Christ but he will certainly not be in any doubt now.

PA1982:

I'm still hoping Ola will make up his mind about whether blue eyes are:
the wages of sin
or
inherent in all humans.

Can you tell me why God passed a law forbidding people from marrying close relatives in Leviticus 18?

PA1982:

And I haven't forgotten about male n i p p l e s, either.

Vestigial mammary glands in males can only be understood in terms of embryology and not evolution. Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.

OLAADEGBU:

I fink you should get your evidence in place if you are to make that kind of allegation, don't you think?

If I have time, I will. Its buried deeply in the plethora of posts he churns out daily.

OLAADEGBU:

There is nothing like atheists, they don't exist.

You cant wish atheism away.

OLAADEGBU:

If you need evidence to confirm her name and what she claims to be before you can trust her then I wonder what kind of relationship that will be.

I'm pretty sure I didnt say that.

OLAADEGBU:

I did not mean marital commitment.

Dont flatter yourself.

OLAADEGBU:

You can even have yourself as your own idol, when you say that man created god in his own image.

OLAADEGBU:

At least he now knows that there is intelligence responsible for the DNA which is a positive step in the right direction and if he is wise he will not stop there.

He still didnt become a christian. Need I remind you that your task is to prove your biblical god and not "intelligence".

OLAADEGBU:

It took you this long to get an agreement out of you. I will be using transcendental arguments to make my case so tighten your seat belt.

On the contrary, the "agreement" was not needed. You were just using it as an excuse and you dont have that anymore.

Please make with the arguments.

jayriginal:

I do not need absolute knowledge of the universe to be an atheist.

Oh yes you do. And even beyond the universe, you will need perfect knowledge of every possible dimension in reality and be so omniscient regarding them as to assert that there is no originating creator being anywhere in existence.

Unless you are not a pure atheist, but some agnostic or anti-religionist admixture thereof.

Deep Sight:

Oh yes you do. And even beyond the universe, you will need perfect knowledge of every possible dimension in reality and be so omniscient regarding them as to assert that there is no originating creator being anywhere in existence.

Unless you are not a pure atheist, but some agnostic or anti-religionist admixture thereof.

Does Yahweh the christain God exist?. . .Why or why not?. . .

What fun!
Ola answers to amuse myself with.

OLAADEGBU:

Good job!  I must congratulate you for your effort unlike other lazy atheists who wouldn't, couldn't or didn't bother to make an effort.  But are you sure that there was no scientific paper quoted their?  I even posted it, did you not see it?

You must have read what they meant but it is up to you what you choose to take as the fact.

Your answer makes me wonder if you've ever seen an actual scientific report.
AiG simply asserts that 'scientists' have made this rather foolish claim.
You know the difference, don't you?


What about male n ipples?  Are you suggesting that males once gave suck to babies in their evolution but no longer do so now?

[/quote]

Of course not.  Have you never wondered why ALL male mammals have them?
Humans are mammals, remember?

OLAADEGBU:

There is no such thing as an "atheist" that verse says he is a fool.  Read what Dwight Eisenhower wrote about  the so called atheists

Another AiG quote, yes?
Does anyone really care what a (long dead) US president's opinions are on religious subjects?


[quote author=OLAADEGBU link=topic=869536.msg10329329#msg10329329 date=1330895971]
Can you tell me why God passed a law forbidding people from marrying close relatives in Leviticus 18?

God didn't , the writers of the OT did.
Can you tell me why God created male n ipples?

Vestigial mammary glands in males can only be understood in terms of embryology and not evolution.  Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.

Well, I'm not surprised you've dropped the blue eyes are the result of sin argument.
It's so silly even AiG doesn't espouse it.

Amusingly enough your tag-line

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/l_102_01.html

is actually a misquote:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/l_102_01.html


Once you leave the hallowed precincts of AiG, haven't you noticed the folk who condone these last-ditch defenses of Creationism are mostly White Supremicists and Rapture advocates?
The survival of this in West Africa can be seen as one of the most extreme cases of the Stockholm Syndrome in modern times.
Stockholm Syndrome united to a traditional belief in witchcraft, of course.

Deep Sight:

Oh yes you do. And even beyond the universe, you will need perfect knowledge of every possible dimension in reality and be so omniscient regarding them as to assert that there is no originating creator being anywhere in existence.

Unless you are not a pure atheist, but some agnostic or anti-religionist admixture thereof.

Oh no I dont. We've touched this issue before, you and I. You even attempted to classify me as an agnostic, which I said I am not.
Your position as well as Olaadegbu's and shockingly, a great many others stems from a misconception of what it is to be an atheist.
Put simply, an atheist is one who does not believe in god(s). Even if you were to insist that I am an agnostic, it still makes me an atheist because agnostics do not believe in god.
Do not confuse me as saying that agnosticism and atheism are interchangeable.
If I say a donkey is an animal, I am not at the same time saying that an animal is a donkey.

An atheist is one who does not believe in god
An agnostic does not believe in god.
Therefore, an agnostic is an atheist

To assert that there is no god is what will "possibly" require the kind of knowledge that you harp on.

EDIT

you will need perfect knowledge of every possible dimension in reality and be so omniscient regarding them as to assert that there is no[b] originating creator[/b] being anywhere in existence.

Ok I just noted the bold. That really is outside the scope of this thread here. If you have followed the discussion, Olaadegbu is trying to prove his biblical god and not a generic creator. He is being specific. I'm familiar with your ideas, but I'd like to focus on Olaadegbu's god for the purpose of this thread.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athiesm

jayriginal:


To assert that there is no god is what will "possibly" require the kind of knowledge that you harp on.

Exactly.

EDITOk I just noted the bold. That really is outside the scope of this thread here. If you have followed the discussion, Olaadegbu is trying to prove his biblical god and not a generic creator. He is being specific. I'm familiar with your ideas, but I'd like to focus on Olaadegbu's god for the purpose of this thread.

Okay, duly noted.

mazaje:

Does Yahweh the christain God exist?. . .Why or why not?. . .

The idea of this god is one that has evolved. In its original pre-Judaic form it was little more than a tribal pagan deity. As assumed by Judaic cosmogony, the idea underwent several evolutionary stages - none of these stages are in my view a representation of an existent deity, but rather the paganistic ideas of primitive men. Another possibility is that at some point there was some extra-terrestial involvement of beings just like our selves, either from the physical or astral universe. But not in my view, the originating creator GOD.

However it is important for me to say that the idea continued to evolve. In its later evolution it began, in the mind of its users, to refer to a universal element that created all that exists. This precept of GOD, certainly is an idea of GOD in consonance with the originating GOD that does indeed exist, imo.

Deep Sight:

The idea of this god is one that has evolved. In its original pre-Judaic form it was little more than a tribal pagan deity. As assumed by Judaic cosmogony, the idea underwent several evolutionary stages - none of these stages are in my view a representation of an existent deity, but rather the paganistic ideas of primitive men. Another possibility is that at some point there was some extra-terrestial involvement of beings just like our selves, either from the physical or astral universe. But not in my view, the originating creator GOD.

However it is important for me to say that the idea continued to evolve. In its later evolution it began, in the mind of its users, to refer to a universal element that created all that exists. This precept of GOD, certainly is an idea of GOD in consonance with the originating GOD that does indeed exist, imo.

What do you mean by God?. . .Creator(s) of the universe?. . .Again do you believe that Yahweh as a God exist?. . .Yes or no?

^ I think I have sufficiently explained that I regard Yahweh as an ancient pagan idea which people gradually refined through history as the Creator of the Universe. The creator of the universe exists.

Deep Sight:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athiesm

All the dictionaries and encyclopedias will not change the fact that atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).
Among those that lack belief in gods are those that assert that there is no god, those that do not believe in a particular god or gods that they have heard about and those that are not committed without some form of positive evidence for a deity.
As it is, you and Olaadegbu and many others hear atheism and think the person holds that there is no deity. It is not so. Its better to ask first instead of concluding from the onset.
Also, you left out other parts of the definition

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. [s]In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[/s] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I happen to disagree with the struck out part. Atheists simply hold different extremes of non belief.

^ My friend, no worries. But pure atheism denies that any deities whatsoever exist. This still requires omniscience. Indeed the portion of the text you added uses the word "ANY". That sorts it.

But no worries. Enjoy. This doesn't concern me. I would be loathe to be aligned with Olaadegbu's perception on this matter. Sorry Olaadegbu.

Cheers.

^ absence of belief is not the same as believing the opposite. One can choose not to believe without aligning to the opposite.

Anyway, maybe we can discuss this some other time. As far as I'm concerned there is only atheism. Pure, militant, new, evangelical (Enigma's best friends), shoe wearing, negative, positive, chess playing (etc) atheists are only attempts to label and categorize atheism and often lead discussions astray.

Nope, an atheist need not be omnscient to disprove or deny the existence of god. God is whatever the theist says he is. . . An atheist can't go off searching for what he has no idea of.

The theist's definition of God is what's under scrutiny, as a result arguments used against a deist's god are not the same used for a christian's god.

^^
Thanks.
For you see, for every god I have read about or once believed, I believe not, and no more. Do I say there is absolutely no god ? No I dont. There may be one but we dont know about it. Curiously the moment you define your god, you kill it. Mostly the theistic ones anyway, I dont think that holds true for the deistic concept of god.

jayriginal:

^^
Thanks.
For you see, for every god I have read about or once believed, I believe not, and no more. Do I say there is absolutely no god ? No I dont. There may be one but we dont know about it. Curiously the moment you define your god, you kill it. Mostly the theistic ones anyway, I dont think that holds true for the deistic concept of god.

I fully affirm that Gods like Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Ra, Vishnu do not exist, they are simply a creation of men and their superstitions, but for the deist concept which is about the universe having a creator or creators who simply created and have no role with their creation, I will say its possible, that such an entity or entities exist. . . .Even if they exist no body knows what they are, who they are, why the created the universe or what they want. . .I am not a deist and I also do not believe in that concept mainly for lack of evidence, but I believe its possible that such an entity or entities exist. . .

I don't believe in any god, because its a bad concept which holds an idea without any substance. Until a better definition comes up, I'm don't think any irrationality exists.

Kay 17:

I don't believe in any god, because its a bad concept which holds an idea without any substance. Until a better definition comes up, I'm don't think any irrationality exists.

Once defined, that god is dead.

mazaje:

I fully affirm that Gods like Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Ra, Vishnu do not exist, they are simply a creation of men and their superstitions, but for the deist concept which is about the universe having a creator or creators who simply created and have no role with their creation, I will say its possible, that such an entity or entities exist. . . .Even if they exist no body knows what they are, who they are, why the created the universe or what they want. . .I am not a deist and I also do not believe in that concept mainly for lack of evidence, but I believe its possible that such an entity or entities exist. . .

I agree with you fully Mazaje. None of the known gods are real. I'm no deist either but I at least allow for the slight possibility.

jayriginal:

If I have time, I will. Its buried deeply in the plethora of posts he churns out daily.

Hold your strings until you've done your homework.

jayriginal:

You cant wish atheism away.

I don't believe you are an atheist.

jayriginal:

I'm pretty sure I didnt say that.

That means you had some faith in her, no?

jayriginal:

He still didnt become a christian. Need I remind you that your task is to prove your biblical god and not "intelligence".

Does that mean you believe in intelligence design?

jayriginal:

On the contrary, the "agreement" was not needed. You were just using it as an excuse and you dont have that anymore.

Please make with the arguments.

If you believe in intelligence design do I still need to say more?