PA1982:

What fun!
Ola answers to amuse myself with.
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?

I posted a scientific journal and all you could see was a AiG's assertion?

PA1982:

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

Have you also ever wondered why the mammary gland of the nonlactating female is not considered vestigial? Respectable scientists know that the female mammary glands are never fully developed and functional unless they start breastfeeding.

PA1982:

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

Wrong. I said that you are fascinated with this AiG website. Have you heard the phrase that says: When America sneezes the rest of the world catches cold?

PA1982:

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

You are entitled to your beliefs. Can you also tell me whether Adam had a belly button?

PA1982:

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.

I answered that question pages ago, maybe you overlooked it.

PA1982:

Amusingly enough your tag-line 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.

You should be concerned with the Darwinist theory of evolution that indoctrinates you that black people are closer to baboons and you believe it.

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.

Don't you believe there is intelligence out there in the universe?

Intelligence in form of what??

Aliens??

OLAADEGBU:

Hold your strings until you've done your homework.

OLAADEGBU:

I don't believe you are an atheist.

I dont believe you are a christian.

OLAADEGBU:

That means you had some faith in her, no?

I told you to drop the analogy. Its a bad one.

OLAADEGBU:

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

No, it does not mean I believe in intelligent design and even if I did, you would still have to prove your god which is the task you have assigned yourself on this thread.

I'm waiting. Enough of the "toing" and "froing"

OLAADEGBU:
. . .You should be concerned with the Darwinist theory of evolution that indoctrinates you that black people are closer to baboons and you believe it.

Well Darwin's most famous book is titled:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

^^^

I don't think there is a RACIST suggestion, Races seems to cover all life.

^^ Apply a similar standard or approach next time somebody (especially an evangelical atheist) makes an unseemly allegation about Christianity.

Plz provide what's racially offensive in the title and the book itself.

Kay 17:

Intelligence in form of what??

Aliens??

In whatever form, especially an intelligent designer.

Kay 17:

Plz provide what's racially offensive in the title and the book itself.

Firstly: will YOU apply the same standard you use for judging criticism of Darwin's work when someone (especially an evangelical atheist) makes a similarly unseemly allegation about Christianity?

Second, all I have done is point to the title of Darwin's work and, in any event, he did write the below:  

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

jayriginal:

I dont believe you are a christian.

You say you don't believe in God, believing that 'am not a Christian is not a big deal. God doesn't believe in atheists either.

jayriginal:

I told you to drop the analogy. Its a bad one.

The analogy fits "atheists" and since you are not one I'll drop it.

jayriginal:

No, it does not mean I believe in intelligent design and even if I did, you would still have to prove your god which is the task you have assigned yourself on this thread.

This is a quote of yours admitting the possibility of the existence of a supernatural deity, this disqualifies you being an "atheist". you are rather an agnostic which is different.

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.

jayriginal:

I'm waiting. Enough of the "toing" and "froing"

You have already admitted that there is a possibility of there being a supernatural deity. When you insist that you are an atheist you are actually attacking your conscience, not God.

Kay 17:

Plz provide what's racially offensive in the title and the book itself.

Enigma has now quoted what is offensive in Darwin's book, what sayest thou?

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. . .   

1. whats the basis of this affirmation? considering that you are yet to produce any empirical evidence to suggest that Yahweh does not exist? how do you explain the esoteric personal experiences of millions of people the world over, who attest to the existence of Yahweh? To state that Yahweh is a man-made creation acknowledges His existence, what differs is the cause of His existence.

2. You are being unscientific and superstitious here. Within the limits of science we can analyse IFA, the yoruba god of divination. Through the penchant ability of its adherents to seek its counsel about future events or the causes of present events or solutions to problems. We can hence, assert that IFA exists because it adherents (babalawo) are able to communicate its (IFA) thoughts to us, many of these communication is personalised and hence true in individualistic sense. By all rationality, IFA exists and so does Yahweh.

3. However, you are free to choose to disbelieve the existence of Yahweh. All I ask is . . . .Where is your evidence that supports your assertion?

4. Why the universe was created is quite different from who created it. perhaps if we can agree that the universe if the product of superior-intelligence then we can infer that it does have a creation. what are the chances that a jeep has no manufacturer?

@noetic16, welcome back to the battle front.

noetic16:

1. whats the basis of this affirmation? considering that you are yet to produce any empirical evidence to suggest that Yahweh does not exist? how do you explain the esoteric personal experiences of millions of people the world over, who attest to the existence of Yahweh? To state that Yahweh is a man-made creation acknowledges His existence, what differs is the cause of His existence.

2. You are being unscientific and superstitious here. Within the limits of science we can analyse IFA, the yoruba god of divination. Through the penchant ability of its adherents to seek its counsel about future events or the causes of present events or solutions to problems. We can hence, assert that IFA exists because it adherents (babalawo) are able to communicate its (IFA) thoughts to us, many of these communication is personalised and hence true in individualistic sense. By all rationality, IFA exists and so does Yahweh.

3. However, you are free to choose to disbelieve the existence of Yahweh. All I ask is . . . .Where is your evidence that supports your assertion?

4. Why the universe was created is quite different from who created it. perhaps if we can agree that the universe if the product of superior-intelligence then we can infer that it does have a creation. what are the chances that a jeep has no manufacturer?

Here is a video that answers all the questions you asked.  .It is titled Gods do not exist, I hope you find time to watch it. . ,

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwjAX_r2kIU[/flash]

@Enigma

Is your quote from the book??

In the preservation of races, what do you think he meant?

@noetic16

You are confused. Aren't you suggesting there are other Gods other Yehovah??

If you have no proof for your god, what is it you believe??

Besides why is belief so important? The Truth need not be accepted with faith but proof.

Kay 17:

@Enigma

Is your quote from the book??

In the preservation of races, what do you think he meant? . . .

The quotation is from 'The Descent of Man'. I thought you might ask that, so I want to remind you that what Olaadegbu referred to was Darwinist theory and I'd be surprised if you were to say we should only look at 'Origin of Species' for that.

On your other question, why don't you tell us what you think he meant? EDIT Also, in this respect, please tell us what you think he meant by the quotation I've extracted.

Meanwhile, note that you have not answered the question I have asked you at least twice now!

Will YOU apply the same standard you use for judging criticism of Darwin's work when someone (especially an evangelical atheist) makes a similarly unseemly allegation about Christianity?

@Enigma

You hang a man for another man's crime. I expected you to take out a passage in Darwin's own book which suggests racism, and inferiority of Negro. "Descent of Man" is very likely to provide that evolution is a religion and a conspiracy and represents every misconception Ola has about science.

That's not good enough.

I will use a rational approach. But I have bias toward the Supernatural. Reason does also.

Kay 17:

@Enigma

You hang a man for another man's crime. I expected you to take out a passage in Darwin's own book which suggests racism, and inferiority of Negro. "Descent of Man" is very likely to provide that evolution is a religion and a conspiracy and represents every misconception Ola has about science.

That's not good enough.

What on earth are you talking about?

Is 'The Descent of Man' not Darwin's book? And are the words not the words of Charles Darwin?

Or is 'Origin of Species' his only book?

Kay 17:
I will use a rational approach. But I have bias toward the Supernatural. Reason does also.

I am not surprised you don't give a straight answer; at least you admit some bias. All good. 

OLAADEGBU:

@noetic16, welcome back to the battle front.

thanks Ola, I have been enjoying ur posts so far . . . ,

mazaje:

Here is a video that answers all the questions you asked.  .It is titled Gods do not exist, I hope you find time to watch it. . ,

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwjAX_r2kIU[/flash]

how about posting the transcript?

Kay 17:


@noetic16

You are confused. Aren't you suggesting there are other Gods other Yehovah??

If you have no proof for your god, what is it you believe??

Besides why is belief so important? The Truth need not be accepted with faith but proof.

The confusion here is yours. Mazaje denies the scope of existence of any Yahweh. So my question was, a god able to communicate to its followers, would such be said to not-exist? what then is mazaje's definition or understanding of existence?
Not only does Yahweh exist, but the manifestations of local gods like IFA suggest the existence of an immaterial world beyond the scope of our present senses.
To state that Yahweh does not exist is the height of ignorance. No true intellectual or scientist can/would deny the possibility of an event/existence whilst dismissing prevalent facts.

Let me make one thing clear to you; I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD OR ANY SUPERNATURAL DEITY NOR IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Therefore, calling me a christian would not help your case.
Now,

OLAADEGBU:

You say you don't believe in God, believing that 'am not a Christian is not a big deal.  God doesn't believe in atheists either.

_________________|

OLAADEGBU:

The analogy fits "atheists" and since you are not one I'll drop it.

Nope. By virtue of not believing in god, I am an atheist. Period. Your analogy is bad because you are comparing something which cannot be proven with something which is very easily proven. The woman has obvious and regular attributes. There is nothing extra ordinary in her being a woman or having a name or any of the other attributes you want to bring into play. Your god on the other hand cannot be proven to exist. Its not the same thing.

OLAADEGBU:

This is a quote of yours admitting the possibility of the existence of a supernatural deity, this disqualifies you being an "atheist".  you are rather an agnostic which is different.

Cherry picking arent we?
Even if you call me a christian, I still do not believe in your god or any other. I've made that clear several times on this thread and elsewhere. Call me an agnostic if you like. Ive defined terms for you as simply as I can. An agnostic is an atheist. The only difference is that the agnostic has no active position. I do. NON BELIEF.
I see you are trying to run away from your brash claims. Maybe you should read the quote again and understand it.

OLAADEGBU:

You have already admitted that there is a possibility of there being a supernatural deity.  When you insist that you are an atheist you are actually attacking your conscience, not God.

How cute! This tendency of yours to make statements like the above. It is this that has left you looking for escape outlets for 5 pages now. You have elevated cherry picking into an art form. I guess you missed the part where I said I do not believe in any of the existing gods. Typical of you.

You have been squirming uncomfortably (possibly you regret your words). Simply accept defeat and move on. Its not the end of the world and even if it is, I'm sure you are "rapturable". 

Maybe I should refresh your memory

OLAADEGBU:


I can give you evidence for the existence of God and why there has to be a God.  I can equally prove to you that you are an intellectual schizophrenic, who knows of the existence of God but you are trying to convince yourself that you do not believe in God, this is also called an iterated belief.  [s]All those gods you mentioned up their are all going to meet their waterloo before the Judgment Day of the Lord.[/s]

Rather than accept defeat, you have sought to subtly shift the goal posts. I knew that would happen, hence

jayriginal:

I do notice an escape route you seem to be giving yourself though. I thought we were talking about your own god (of the bible) and not a generic "creator god". Do you want to prove the god you worship or merely that a god created this world ? I'm not bothered either way, but lets know what/who we are dealing with here.

Your reply was

OLAADEGBU:

When I say the Creator God I mean the biblical God, the Creator of heaven and earth.  He is the infinite God who is going to judge you by the Moral Law.

So although I have said clearly that I do not believe in intelligent design or god, even if I did believe in intelligent design or some deity (other than yours), it is irrelevant. Your task is to prove your god. Enough of the back and forth.

Kay 17:

@Enigma

You hang a man for another man's crime. I expected you to take out a passage in Darwin's own book which suggests racism, and inferiority of Negro. "Descent of Man" is very likely to provide that evolution is a religion and a conspiracy and represents every misconception Ola has about science.

That's not good enough.

I will use a rational approach. But I have bias toward the Supernatural. Reason does also.

That is not good enough.  Let me reiterate what Enigma quoted about Charles Darwin and what his disciples learnt from his theories and tell us if what his theory portrays is anything but racism.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." -- Charles Darwin

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." -- Thomas Huxley

"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo sapiens." -- Henry Fairfield Osborn

All of you that call yourselves black atheists shoud cover your faces in shame for believing this fairytale and take it for science.  It is actually bad science that you guys practice.

And when people shout science, science, science and "science is everything", they often forget that even science, for all its good, can be abused, can be manipulated and when misused can be quite horrific!

Take for example an old claim that I think people will be aware of:

For many educated American who shunned the stigma of racial prejudice, science became an instrument which verified the presumptive inferiority of the Negro and rationalized the politics of disenfranchisement and segregation into a social-scientific terminology. To understand attitudes of racial inferiority in the context of nineteenth century science and social science is a first step in fathoming the depth of race prejudice in our own day.

Inferiority was at the very foundation of their evolutionary framework and, remaining there, rose to the pinnacle of "truth " with the myth of scientific certainty. To see racial prejudices in their scientific robes is to understand why, despite later conceptual changes in evolution and methodology, attitudes of racial inferiority have continued to plague western culture.

See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Azo_HKEXiigC&pg=PR14&lpg=PR14&dq=haller+science+became+an+instrument&source=bl&ots=FsgxZrqwXK&sig=_wmS4ELZxqDN2hFNhNlQ8lYtHLk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jLxZT8mRH9TY8QP_mt3tDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Or try this our friend:

"The German Fuehrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application."

-Sir Arthur Keith, Essays on Human Evolution (London: Watts & Co., 1946), 210

See e.g. here (under quotations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Keith

noetic16:

how about posting the transcript?

Its unavailable, but it squarely addresses all the questions you have asked and all the points you have made. . .I hope you find the time to watch it, else no problem. . .

^^^
Science as a tool of discrimination against Negros?? That's an absurd argument. Science is more or less the body of knowledge acquired through the scientific method (hypothesis, theory, evidence). To put science at the level of religion, as a system in finding the truth and as an ethical basis is absurd and untrue. Science's relevance is only in finding the truth. Ethics is developed upon the needs and desires of social man.

Darwin a racist?? His use of "Race" in his times were wide enough to cover species of life and throughout his discussion in his book, he made it clear that advantageous traits were the defining factor in surviving in the struggle for life and that new species emerge as a result of these traits and preexisting species (Race) were sustained by that too. The Origin of Species didn't focus on human evolution, but on his theory of natural selection among life. Insisting his use of Race was in reference to human evolution, WHICH he didn't mention; makes no sense!

19th century Europeans didn't believe Negros were equal to Europeans, of course by that they are racists. These beliefs were built in Christian theology, where there are favoured peoples and others are cursed. Where genocide against perceived inferior Canaanites were justifiable. Where Abraham Lincoln didn't think Negros and Whites deserve equal political and civil rights. People didn't think that Africans were homo sapiens and referred to them as preAdamic peoples.

Didn't he claim whites and Negros are from the same ancestors?? He also went against the general view that blacks weren't homosapiens, but it was variations that accounted for the differences. His use of savages was a usual term in his time to refer to tribal and unadvanced societies. For his time, he was a liberal, more liberal than Lincoln.

Yea, he looked down on Africans and inuits and Brazilian natives as primitive BUT he never reduced them to a level below homo sapiens.

Thomas Huxley wrongly believed evolution culminated to the Victorian man.

^^^ Hear the words of a foremost evolutionist* who even contributed forewords to editions of Darwin's book. 

Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?

The fellow even indirectly confirms the superiority of the Christian position. 



*The same Sir Arthur Keith mentioned earlier.

On sale at evolutionary biologist and atheist richard dawkins website: http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/we-are-all-africans



Written on the back:
"The Bible says modern people are the result of incestuous relations
Cain and his brothers had with their sisters.
Science says we are all descendants of Africans.
I believe science"

The evidence from evolutionists show that all humans are from Africa. What is racist about that?
We are the original humans. White people are africans who evolved lighter skins in a colder climate and thats all.

This is the atheist evolutionist Intelligence as taught by Charles Darwin.

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/ltbt/let-there-be-truth-v3-n2.jpg[/img]

Global Warming?

[flash=500,400]http://media.chick.com/preview.swf[/flash]

I hope our evolutionists would have ready answers for this.

@Olaadegbu
There is overwhelming dna evidence that all life on this planet is related biologically, and that we are all related to the earth chemically, and we are also related to the universe atomically. The heavy elements that form part of our bodies and this planet were formed  in the nuclear fusion furnaces of exploding stars billions of years ago.
You need to at least look at the evidence and face the facts. Dont let answers in genesis website close your mind to the real world. This universe is not just 6000 years old. The observable universe is at least 13.5 billion years old. These are facts that you need to brush up on.