SysUser: Don't try and say , you did bring up insults when it was mentioned that , "those that don't believe evolution lack understanding" (same thing as saying we cannot understand the noneexistent scientific and academic evidences for evolution. ).

I don't remember saying that. Could you perhaps show me where I said that? However, it is clear that you don't understand the theory of evolution, or in fact geology and several aspects of physics and chemistry dealing with cosmological issues and the half lives of elements.

Therefore I decided to make my academic standing known so that anyone who likes to make a personal insult to me (for not supporting evolution) based on wrong assumption that creationist do not have sound scientific background, would at least think twice before doing so.

You DO NOT have a sound scientific background. You may have some idea about engineering, but that subject isn't being debated at the current moment.

Well it doesn't really matter whether you insult me or not , you would not be the first evolutionist to insult a believer in God , based on intellectual prejudices.

So you don't actually have any evidence that I insulted you? Then why say I did? I might insult you after this.

Also I did not institute an argument based on popularity, i was just trying to mention the example of the scientist that believe in God as against those evolutionist who always imply that only those very stupid people and non-scientist believe in creation. Since you have stated that I was the one who based the argument on popularity, I would be happy if you can point it out from any of my previous post where I did that, instead of accussing me again!

"First and foremost there is a propaganda being spread to make it look like scientists are the ones that believe in evolution and non-scientist are the ones
that believe in creation. That is entirely false, there are lot of scientist that are convinced that evolution is false."

Cue links with scientists

Well it has a lot to do with the discussion , because someone support evolution insinuated that evolution was right and creation was wrong simply because the supreme court ruled that creation was pseudoscience.
Hence I was simply trying to point ot that , in matters of science, , a court rulling is irrelevant, in the determination of what is actually scientifically true.

I see. I should point out though that in the Dover ("Kitzmiller vs Dover"?) case, it was the nature of the ruling that was significant. Having accepted that Creationism is in fact religious, Creationists were pushing for the pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design in schools. That was deemed religious too. That may have been what whoemever you were responding to, meant.

Some of the answers that you are giving are still based on "uncertainties", yet you expect people to dogmatic accept it as facts and reasons as to why evolution is true. Please come on,

First, what answers are based on uncertainties? I know several are, but I'm curious as to which ones you mean.

Second, I don't want you to accept anything dogmtically. Considering I've tried to show several times that science tries to avoid dogmatism, it would be very strange for me to advocate dogmatic acceptance.

Currently, a lot of nonsense assumptions are made, are a result please let me know About carbon dating:

1. How do you know the amount of Carbon 14 that was initially in the atmosphere,

2. How do you know the atmostphere/earth has already reached the equilibrum

3. How do you know the initial amount of carbon 14 in the animal being dated

4. How do you know the final amount of C14 in the animal after death,

SysUser:
Quote
@bawomol said , put up or shutup
Temper temper bro, no need to get all feisty with me,


Examples of carbon 14 giving bullshit dates include:

The dating of the shell of a snail (carbon dating methods have rated a snail shell at 2300 years old, yet it was known to have died only days before the examination),

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp



About your other absolute dating methods, take a look at the messup that K-Ar (Potassium - Argon) as gotten itself into


Potassium -Argon method is used to date/test fresh lava for which correct and exact date is known, yet the potassium -argon still gave , false dates, so much for absolute dating methods. (Ar-Ar dating assumes there is no excess argon) (200 year old lava dated 2.96 billion years old?) (Fresh lava dated as 22 million years old.)

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html
http://www.icr.org/article/353/
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie023.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/dating-f.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/radiometric.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

Once again, just in case you missed it in your haze of posting idiotic links and mistaking that for actual acquisition of knowledge:

Seal's dating: reservoir effect: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

Snail's: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

potassium-argon dating and lava: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html


By the way, who said potassium- argon dating is absolute? You do know it ihas been superceded, right? Oh wait, of course you don't.

And now we are on to the copy/pastes. It was inevitable, really.

SysUser: Please don't let us deceive ourselves into thinking that similarity between aPE and human genome is the same explanation for evolution, for more details please read the excerpts below, it was taking from http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=33 :

How, then, do you explain shared endogenous retroviruses, and the presence of chromosome no.2?

Chimpanzee genome unravelled and the media's evolutionary 'agenda'
Andrew Sibley


2nd September 2005

A group of 67 scientists in the ‘Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium’ have recently pieced together the entire genome of the Chimpanzee (Pan Troglodytes). This interesting and important piece of research has been published in Nature of the 1st September 2005.[1] This project’s findings claim that 98.8 % of functioning Chimp DNA is identical to human DNA, a 1.2% difference, although the difference is larger when all DNA is taken into account with a figure closer to 96% similarity, or 4% difference. There is nothing new in these claims as similar figures have been around for sometime.


Although some evolutionists have claimed that this proves evolution, it only demonstrates what creationists have been saying all along, that similarities of this kind point to a common designer, not to common descent. Creationists dispute as well that any DNA can be labelled ‘junk’. A computer uses for instance an operating programme such as MS Windows, and functional programmes such as MS Word or MS Excel. Both are essential for the functional use of a computer and we cannot label the operating programme ‘junk,’ while expecting the computer to work without it. In the same way all DNA is essential for the health of an individual.


The mutational problem for evolution


The difference of 4% between human and chimp DNA represents a 120 million base pair difference, with changes being expressed as deletions, insertions and rearrangements. Evolutionists claim that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor over 6 million years; therefore if we allow an average of 10 years for each generation, then there would have been 600,000 generations. Every generation would have to have a mutational genetic change of 200 base pairs to turn an ape into a man.[2] There is no evidence of this genetic drift in the present day human or chimp genome. What is more is that natural selection claims that such mutations would be entirely random, but to turn an ape into a man would be a progressive improvement from a non-sapient animal into a sapient human being.

I'll stop it here, since the rest will be addressed in the response anyway:

Here: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=15972001&postcount=31 Pete Harcoff, does an estimation of beneficial mutation rates and shows that the rate isn't a problem. That is applicable to the shared ancestry of humans and chimps.

"I also calculated a rough estimate based on the paper DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22 and arrived at a 168000 mutation difference in coding DNA between humans and chimps.

Could these mutations account for the difference? Sure, especially given that the 64000 mutations is only based on strictly beneficial mutations and lower end time frame of 5 million years. This doesn't take into account fixation of neutral or even possibly deleterious mutations which could account for many more differences between humans and chimps. Plus, the 64000 mutations is based on a relatively conservative estimate of both beneficial mutation rates and effective mutation rates in humans. Conceivably, there could numbers of beneficial mutations that are magnitudes higher.

So are mutations a problem for evolution? Based on limited and conservative data, the answer is no."

SysUser: Another evolutionnary foundation bites the dust, all you so called evolutionists should check this out (http://www.physorg.com/news115312740.html) or read the thing as copied and pasted below:

Studies of ancient supercontinent don't match up
For a quarter-century or more, the prevailing view among geoscientists—supported by paleomagnetic records in rock—has been that the portion of the ancient supercontinent of Pangea that is now the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah shifted more than 1,300 miles north during a 100-million-year span that ended about 200 million years ago in the early Jurassic Period, when Pangea began to break up.

, Here goes another evolutionary theory, Puff Puff Puff, it also bites the dust. Grin Angry Shocked Cool Huh Tongue Embarrassed Cry


Dunes, climate models don't match up with paleomagnetic records
For a quarter-century or more, the prevailing view among geoscientists has been that the portion of the ancient supercontinent of Pangea that is now the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah shifted more than 1,300 miles north during a 100-million year span that ended about 200 million years ago in the early Jurassic Period, when Pangea began to break up.

Is it too much to ask that you don't behave like an ass, and actually bother to grasp what the theory of evolution is? At the very least stop acting stupid and copy/pasting long articles on subjects that have nothing to do with evolution.

Any Creationists to answer these questions:


1) How come there are no fossil remains of multi-cellular life pre- 500 millions years ago?

2) How come multi-cellular life developed late in the life of the planet, during the Cambrian explosion?

3) If all life was created in one instance as asserted in Genesis, how come there were no rabbit, dinosaur etc fossils in the Cambrian

4) Do you know what stromatolites are?

5) There have been many extinction events in the history of the planet. The most devastating occurred in the end-Permian period, about 250 million years ago, in which 99% of all life (plant and aminal) was wiped out. The dinosaurs had not even appeared then. Yet many millions of years later, the planet was able to re-populate itself. How do you account for the regeneration of diversity?

KAG,

You seem to conflate evolution (biology) with plate tectonic (geology).

therationa:

KAG,

You seem to conflate evolution (biology) with plate tectonic (geology).

?

KAG,

did I misread your entries and ascribed a wrong understanding to you. Shout if I did

therationa:

KAG,

did I misread your entries and ascribed a wrong understanding to you. Shout if I did

Yuppity!

KAG,

My apologies. I mistakenly took one of the cut/paste in your posting as representing your views.

therationa:

KAG,

My apologies. I mistakenly took one of the cut/paste in your posting as representing your views.

No problem. With the amount of copy/paste SysUser posted, it's not really surprising.

guys to be honest, other than circular reasoning i doubt we would get any answers to our questions.  u know something is wrong when u use the work of a geoscientist to counter evolution. 


Yes, God did it. Study His works, but don't deny Him the credit due to Him.

i would ask this question again, how did God do it and how do u KNOW god did it. is the question to question

@bawol

ok matter is both living and non living things abi?
ok now what made matter or rather how did matter come to exist? and yes u may simplify as further as you can for the forum to understand as much as possible.

what are u talking about?? this is a topic about evolution and creation not about manufacturing balls. maybe u should ask a factory worker about that.
great that is nice u have acknowledged a factory work. so with common sense we agree that a ball was made or created by the factory worker. Now look at the definition of create
acording to answers.com
cre·ate (kr-t)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates
1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.
adj. Archaic
Created.

so if a factory worker can create/make a ball, then look at this intricate, beautiful world and you will tell me that there is nobody [/b]that made it but just appears? oh com'on think my friend.

[b]great, now can u explain how this "thing" came into existence.

ok so u agree that "it" exist abi?

@ bawol
# Creationists who use this claim fail to note that the snails lived in an environment that did not have access to atmospheric C14 (a pool formed from a limestone sinkhole). The C14 that the snails did have access to was dissolved out of the limestone, itself, and as a result, was "old" C14.

if using c14 u could determine the age of the earth, how come it is impossible to deterine a snail that lives in a pool fromed from a limestone sinkhole? is the pool not part of the earth?

[b]# The scientist didn't measure the living snails themselves. He measured their shells. [/b]The whole point is that the process through which the mollusks builds its shell (taking carbon from the water it lives in and NOT the atmosphere) doesn't "reset" the C14 "timer".

again same question is the shell not part of the snail, so why didnt the reading give an accurate figure?

therationa:

Any Creationists to answer these questions:


1) How come there are no fossil remains of multi-cellular life pre- 500 millions years ago?

2) How come multi-cellular life developed late in the life of the planet, during the Cambrian explosion?

3) If all life was created in one instance as asserted in Genesis, how come there were no rabbit, dinosaur etc fossils in the Cambrian

4) Do you know what stromatolites are?

5) There have been many extinction events in the history of the planet. The most devastating occurred in the end-Permian period, about 250 million years ago, in which 99% of all life (plant and aminal) was wiped out. The dinosaurs had not even appeared then. Yet many millions of years later, the planet was able to re-populate itself. How do you account for the regeneration of diversity?

i really dont understand your point but for the sake of the argument here goes:

1. creationists believe God created the earth, so if He did, He must have created them less than 500million years ago.
by the way critics of evolution claim the sudden appearance of multicellular life on earth is exactly opposite of what thedarwinian gradual approach to complexity (or in this case multicellular life) predicts

2 Because if God really created the earth and all in it i think He has the right to create them at any time He saw fit

3. unlike many Xtians i do not take the biblical account strictly literarilly. i think its silly 4 critic to take the account that way. The bible never explicitly said all life was created at an instance. the bible account although true in content was not written with accuracy in mind. it was not written 4 scientists or educated people, it was written for simple minded uneducated folks

4. yes

5. duh, er, creation?

ok now what made matter or rather how did matter come to exist? and yes u may simplify as further as you can for the forum to understand as much as possible.

science for dummies

http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/whatismatter.html

the theory is that matter has always existed. the reaction of matter leads to the creation and destruction of planetary bodies.

so if a factory worker can create/make a ball, then look at this intricate, beautiful world and you will tell me that there is nobody that made it but just appears? oh com'on think my friend.

the earth was created through matter reaction. there aren't many inert elements or compounds on earth. who created something as powerful and omnipresent as God then. read about abiogenesis please

ok so u agree that "it" exist abi?

no i am politely asking u to prove it "exists". how do u know it exists if u can't see,feel, touch, or communicate with the boogie man. claiming there must be a creator is an assumption by narrow minded people. the square root of -1 exists in math but it's an abstract entity in reality.

if using c14 u could determine the age of the earth, how come it is impossible to deterine a snail that lives in a pool fromed from a limestone sinkhole? is the pool not part of the earth?

carbon dating isn't useful for environments were c14 is absent. there are other dating techniques other than carbon-dating used in these cases.

In other words, the apparent age of 27,000 years for these snail shells is another example of the reservoir effect. The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells, which resulted in the excessively old apparent date.

Contrary to the complaints of creationists, conventional scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. This is not the fatal flaw to radiometric dating that some creationists claim it to be. It just shows that dates from mollusks from streams and lakes need to be carefully evaluated as to their reliability. Other materials, such as wood, charcoal, bone, and hide, would remain unaffected by this type of reservoir effect. If found with shells in the same layer, these materials could be dated to determine if shells are locally affected by the reservoir effect and, if so, how much their radiocarbon dates have been skewed by it.

can Christians all admit that their religion is based on assumptions that can't be verified??

Can all atheists admit that they cannot disprove the existence of God, and therefore cannot defend their position?

Can all atheists admit that they cannot disprove the existence of God, and therefore cannot defend their position?

the burden of proof lies on theists that propose the idea of a creator. u proposed the idea, now prove it.

bawomol:

the burden of proof lies on theists that propose the idea of a creator. u proposed the idea, now prove it.

Now you are sounding dogmatic. We don't have to take your word for it, you know,

Now you are sounding dogmatic. We don't have to take your word for it, you know,

it's an irony u are calling me dogmatic when u are asking for proof of an idea proposed by u. abstract things can't be proved.

Then prove that God is abstract in the first place.

bawomol:

u proposed the idea, now prove it.

Ha! You have also proposed an idea, dude - that God does not exist. That is as much a proposition you have made - and it would be interesting to see you prove it as well.

the theory is that matter has always existed. the reaction of matter leads to the creation and destruction of planetary bodies.

uptil now you have not convince me about the origin of matter all u are saying is it has always existed blah blah. if you can't phantom or imagine where it existed from, all u have been saying slips to the oblivion of my inert mind to be forgotten for all i care. and if u want to simply know where God comes from, you have to be able to convince me where matter comes from. and don't think i am walking on assupmtion because i know Him and this is only through faith so if u want to prove him using human ideology or scientific theory etc sorry u may never know.
let me give u a scripture to inform u what He had said not me [/i]about people like you,

Rom 1
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. [i]i don't have to try, He is the one that does that
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 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.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 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.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 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.
(KJV)

so friend you can shout u appeared because there was a big bang or you evolved from some where, that wouldnt change what i believe i was created by God period. call me one sided, i don't care but hope you take time to "evolve" .

and before i forget, could you take time to read the Bible just as we have taken time to go through your reference to see if we can be convinced to be "made from some matter that has been existin"

take care

Ha! Grin You have also proposed an idea, dude - that God does not exist. That is as much a proposition you have made - and it would be interesting to see you prove it as well.

my idea that God doesn't exist comes from the notion that theists are unable to prove the existence of their mystery God. this isn't an original proposition but a response.

Then prove that God is abstract in the first place.

God can't be seen,felt, touched,communicated with or experienced. do u have any substantiated physical accounts of God??


let me give u a scripture to inform u what He had said not me about people like you,

the bible was written by men. how do u know some mystical figure that can't COMMUNICATE in human terms was able to write the bible

uptil now you have not convince me about the origin of matter

it's strange u refuse to read about abogenesis, probably because that would sway ur beliefs. there is no concrete explanation of the origin of matter. different scientific theories are available in journal. there's one thing we know for sure. a collision/explosion was involved in the creation of earth. it's funny how u want to be convinced but refuse to convince anyone other than using bible passages that have been known to be historically inaccurate.

bawomol:

my idea that God doesn't exist comes from the notion that theists are unable to prove the existence of their mystery God. this isn't an original proposition but a response.

Your idea does not prove anything - it ducks behind a classic excuse, which is that you stand to deny the other's proposition, but have not proven yours.

bawomol:

God can't be seen,felt, touched,communicated with or experienced. do u have any substantiated physical accounts of God??

And that constitutes the non-existence proof? The entity "bawomol" cannot be seen, felt, touched, communicated with or experienced - and it would be great to see that entity substantiate its physical account.

And that constitutes the non-existence proof? Grin The entity "bawomol" cannot be seen, felt, touched, communicated with or experienced - and it would be great to see that entity substantiate its physical account.

we are communicating with something called the WWW on something called a message board. behind bawomol is an human being whose identity can be verified. God can't be verified even though he is allegedly omnipresent.

bawomol:

we are communicating with something called the WWW on something called a message board. behind bawomol is an human being whose identity can be verified. God can't be verified even though he is allegedly omnipresent.

Should I then assume that the link between the "WWW" and "bamowol" is an index of the MPD that you touted?

See? I could as well rest your psychosis with the same mundane arguments you have proposed. Point is that nothing comes out of it either way. But that is not of any interest to me here - I've seen it time and again in other Forum and it got no one anywhere.

Consider this, the famous scientist and atheist Prof. Anthony Flew, whose arguments were being used by atheists worldwide to support their claims that God does not exist. He changed his mind. He has now written a book about the existence of God. Imagine, the unrelenting atheist has become a deist! I always say, and will continue to do so, that only an ignorant person will say God does not exist. Study the beauty and perfection of the world around you, of yourself, of the smallest cell and tell me how that came about by chance!

That's partly why I'm a science student. i looove it! How amazing the tiny mitochondria in the cell is! The perfection of creation! Just study DNA; how could that have arisen out of chance? Study a bit of astrophysics and tell me how that could have come about by chance. i partially believe the Big bang Theory but in a modified way. And It includes God. You should read the book "The Unified Theory of Existence" by Muhammad Al'Mahdi. The author was a die-hard atheist who once said "If there was ever going to be the last person on Earth who didn't believe in God it would be me". He did three and a half PhD programs, studied physical sciences, social sciences, educational psychology and all. His books explain the existence of God from an objectively scientific view. It's really interesting and incorporates the Big Bang, evolution, Quantum Physics, etc.

But he finally had to accept that God exists; he could no longer hide from the truth. His first words when that realization dawned on him were "Oh no!".


From http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mark_vernon/2007/11/god_is_back.html:

When Professor Antony Flew, the world's most famous "philosophical atheist", announced in 2004 that he had changed his mind, it caused something of a theological earthquake. The aftershocks were amplified because it was further reported that he was persuaded by intelligent design.

Now he has published a book, There is a God, setting out his new position. He does not pull his punches: Richard Dawkins is engaged in an exercise of "popular mystification", he says. He also now believes that the presumption of proof is on the atheists to make their case.

He deploys a parable to capture something of what's at stake. Consider a satellite phone washed up on the shores of an island and found by a lost tribe. The tribe have had no contact with modern civilisation and have no idea what it is. However, they discover that some combinations of key punches lead to what sound like human voices being heard through the device. The proto-scientists of the tribe get to work on it and find that if they damage the phone in various ways that the voices cease. They conclude that the voices are an epiphenomenon of the phone's mechanism. A debate then ensues between the scientists and the priests of the tribe - the priests arguing that it could be that the phone is communicating with some other place. The scientists are not convinced.

Flew's new creed, in a nutshell, is that the universe was brought into existence by a superior mind - an infinite intelligence - as were the intricate laws of nature; and that life and reproduction originate in God. Contemporary science produces three reasons for thinking this: first, that nature obeys rational laws; second, that life emerged from lifeless matter; third, the very existence of the natural world itself. He still does not believe in an afterlife for humankind.

Three scientific puzzles have been particularly important in his change of mind: how did the laws of nature come to be; how did life come to be from non-life; how did the universe come into existence? Put together, these lead him to believe that the design argument for the existence of God can be formulated clearly. To put it another way, the universe is "reason incarnate", that incarnation being of divine reason - or as Flew has it: "The laws of nature pose a problem for the atheist because they are a voice of rationality heard through the mechanisms of matter." The universe as the mind of God makes sense of that.

Consider one issue, the so-called fine tuning of the universe. This is the observation that various fundamental constants have to be "set" to an unimaginable degree of accuracy for order and life to have emerged. One response is to propose the existence of a multiverse, which is essentially to say that somewhere all combinations of the constants have been tried out, we just happen to live in the place where they are right, as we inevitably would. Flew rejects this since saying everything is possible explains nothing, does not answer why everything is possible, and is a massively complex proposal to say the least. Intelligence behind the fine tuning, the laws and the existence of the universe is far simpler.

He also examines the current biological theories for the origins of life. Flew finds them unconvincing since, first they require the universe to have existed for far, far longer than it has; second they still don't explain how life can have emerged from lifeless matter. The deep philosophical question is how mindless matter can produce life, some of it conscious, with intrinsic ends and self-replicating tendencies. Putting it down to chance simply misses the point.

Further, there is good reason to think that all such issues simply fall outside the remit of science alone. Science presumes laws and so cannot ask how the laws came into being. When it does, it conjures up more laws, and so on, and so on. Flew recalls Einstein's comment that the man of science is a poor philosopher.

Incidentally, Intelligent Design, as advocated by conservative evangelicals, is not addressed head-on in There is a God. I suspect Flew wouldn't have much time for it as an alternative to Darwinism: divine intelligence, for him, is an issue where natural selection falls short, notably at the origins of life.

Needless to say, this is only to skim the arguments that Flew presents in his book, though he explores intricacies with admirable clarity. He is keen to point out throughout that the conclusion he has reached now should not be seen as a conversion. This is a wholly rational discovery of the divine for him - natural theology not revealed theology, in the traditional terms. Or as Flew says, he is just continuing to follow the evidence where it leads, as he has done across a lifetime considering the arguments about theism.

He says the book is his "last will and testament": he is a deist. The conclusion can provide only limited comfort to believers since his is the God of the philosophers, not Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What is the case now, though, is that as he was once the chief architect of profound challenges to believers, he now does the same against atheism. His position echoes that of Einstein (who he goes to some length to "reclaim" from Dawkins in The God Delusion). Einstein said: "My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.'"

KAG,, why is it that you decided to know where God came from, let me guess, YOU DON'T HAVE CLOSURE ON WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS, YET IT SEEMS YOU ARE SCARED TO PIECES WHILE YOU ARE ALONE AND IN SECRET, THEREFORE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OR SELF CONVINCING LOGIC TO GIVE YOU PEACE OF MIND THAT WHEN YOU LIVE THIS WORLD , YOU WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE ECOSYSTEM.

i AM SORRY TO INFORM YOU THAT WHEN YOU LEAVE THIS WORLD AND LIVE, THEN JUDGEMENT , AND, UNFORTUNATELY, ANYBODY WHOSE NAME IS NOT FOUND IN THE BOOK OF LIFE, THE SECOND DEATH (LAKE OF FIRE IS GUARANTEED, AFTER THE SORROW AND PAIN OF THE FIRST DEATH,

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

--------------------------

KAG's you said and I quote:

Quote from: SysUser
Don't try and say , you did bring up insults when it was mentioned that , "those that don't believe evolution lack understanding" (same thing as saying we cannot understand the noneexistent scientific and academic evidences for evolution. ).

I don't remember saying that. Could you perhaps show me where I said that? However, it is clear that you don't understand the theory of evolution, or in fact geology and several aspects of physics and chemistry dealing with cosmological issues and the half lives of elements.


Quote
Therefore I decided to make my academic standing known so that anyone who likes to make a personal insult to me (for not supporting evolution) based on wrong assumption that creationist do not have sound scientific background, would at least think twice before doing so.

You DO NOT have a sound scientific background. You may have some idea about engineering, but that subject isn't being debated at the current moment.


Quote
Well it doesn't really matter whether you insult me or not , you would not be the first evolutionist to insult a believer in God , based on intellectual prejudices.

So you don't actually have any evidence that I insulted you? Then why say I did? I might insult you after this.


Quote
Also I did not institute an argument based on popularity, i was just trying to mention the example of the scientist that believe in God as against those evolutionist who always imply that only those very stupid people and non-scientist believe in creation. Since you have stated that I was the one who based the argument on popularity, I would be happy if you can point it out from any of my previous post where I did that, instead of accussing me again!

"First and foremost there is a propaganda being spread to make it look like scientists are the ones that believe in evolution and non-scientist are the ones
that believe in creation. That is entirely false, there are lot of scientist that are convinced that evolution is false."

Cue links with scientists


Quote
Well it has a lot to do with the discussion , because someone support evolution insinuated that evolution was right and creation was wrong simply because the supreme court ruled that creation was pseudoscience.
Hence I was simply trying to point ot that , in matters of science, , a court rulling is irrelevant, in the determination of what is actually scientifically true.

I see. I should point out though that in the Dover ("Kitzmiller vs Dover"?) case, it was the nature of the ruling that was significant. Having accepted that Creationism is in fact religious, Creationists were pushing for the pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design in schools. That was deemed religious too. That may have been what whoemever you were responding to, meant.


Quote
Some of the answers that you are giving are still based on "uncertainties", yet you expect people to dogmatic accept it as facts and reasons as to why evolution is true. Please come on,

First, what answers are based on uncertainties? I know several are, but I'm curious as to which ones you mean.

Second, I don't want you to accept anything dogmtically. Considering I've tried to show several times that science tries to avoid dogmatism, it would be very strange for me to advocate dogmatic acceptance.

Currently, a lot of nonsense assumptions are made, are a result please let me know About carbon dating:

1. How do you know the amount of Carbon 14 that was initially in the atmosphere,

2. How do you know the atmostphere/earth has already reached the equilibrum

3. How do you know the initial amount of carbon 14 in the animal being dated

4. How do you know the final amount of C14 in the animal after death,


Quote from: SysUser
Quote
@bawomol said , put up or shutup
Temper temper bro, no need to get all feisty with me,


Examples of carbon 14 giving bullshit dates include:

The dating of the shell of a snail (carbon dating methods have rated a snail shell at 2300 years old, yet it was known to have died only days before the examination),

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp



About your other absolute dating methods, take a look at the messup that K-Ar (Potassium - Argon) as gotten itself into


Potassium -Argon method is used to date/test fresh lava for which correct and exact date is known, yet the potassium -argon still gave , false dates, so much for absolute dating methods. (Ar-Ar dating assumes there is no excess argon) (200 year old lava dated 2.96 billion years old?) (Fresh lava dated as 22 million years old.)

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html
http://www.icr.org/article/353/
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie023.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/dating-f.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/radiometric.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

Once again, just in case you missed it in your haze of posting idiotic links and mistaking that for actual acquisition of knowledge:

Seal's dating: reservoir effect: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

Snail's: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

potassium-argon dating and lava: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html


By the way, who said potassium- argon dating is absolute? You do know it ihas been superceded, right? Oh wait, of course you don't.

Report to moderator Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(\__/)
(O.o )

Gone. May be back soon (hopefully not Jesus's kind).

KAG, K? Against God

I find it suprising that you fail to see or realise that you have already indirect insults at me, when you said and I quote "Don't try and say , you did bring up insults when it was mentioned that , "those that don't believe evolution lack understanding" (same thing as saying we cannot understand the noneexistent scientific and academic evidences for evolution. )", and yet you seem to still be promising me more insults, due to your self perception of relatively higher intelligence in comparison to your personal assessment of my lower intelligence, , PLEASE!

You DO NOT have a sound scientific background. You may have some idea about engineering, but that subject isn't being debated at the current moment.

Hmm interesting maybe according to your criteria of eligibility of being able to discuss evolution, then ALL ENGINEERS THAT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, AND ALL ENGINEERS THAT BELIEVE IN CREATION, SHOULD BETTER STAY AWAY FROM DISCUSSING EVOLUTION, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE DUMB-O-METER MEASUREMENT, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE OR QUALIFICATION TO DO SO.

@KAG, while you were responding to me you said and I quote:

You DO NOT have a sound scientific background. You may have some idea about engineering, but that subject isn't being debated at the current moment.

You are now claiming to have a higher intelligence and science given authority to know who is academically and scientifically capable of speaking on the falacies and lies of evolution (The Judge, Juror and Executioner, ) , yet you either ignore or simply refuse to see that the statements which you make in defense of evolution in itself are subjected to "Pure" Review , by people that are ready to speak the truth in love.

Still you make statements with blatant insults or statements with undertones of insult and inherent pride of as an infinitly wise and intelligent individual, that others must bow down to in the arena of academic understanding and intelligence.

[color=#990000]Psa 14:1 <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.


1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.


Nonetheless after claiming you did not insult me earlier, you then go ahead anyway to insult me (a lesser intelligent mortal, please! ) , WHAT MORE COULD BE FAR FROM THE TRUTH,

Learning in is not restricted to ones, academic field, understanding is not restricted to ones academic field, or else according to the Evolutionary Dumb-o-meter, Albert Einstien who was a CLERK at the patent office, had no right to challenge the prevalent ideas of the Professors of his day.

Let , High IQ , is supposed to show a high ability to learn, the area in which one majors is not essentially important , although it seems your have now put yourself high up on the pedestal of a genius , . Yet you yourself know WHAT you are , I am not suprised that you have gone down the route of howling insults at me, since the substance of your statements can stand on their own, (as the saying goes if you don't like the message, kill the messenger, ).

Let me guess, you are sitting on a professorial chair in the area of evolution, hence lesser mortals that are in the field of engineering simply cannot understand the intricate details of evolution. (in this day and age of easy access to scientific information). Well though you are now portraying yourself as undisputable Albert Einstein of Nairaland (hence we lesser mortals must stoop low at your intelligence and reasoning depth and infallible logic). As such a person like me with active interests in the search for knowledge and understanding in areas of Physics, Creation versus Evolution, Information Technology, blah , blah, blah, must simply stoop low and worship at the feet of the infallabile KAG,

It is understandable, if you want to believe that you evolved from a primordial soup/stew/ogbono (millions or billions of years ago, in a galaxy far far away , STAR WARS ). It is also understandable if you think you evolved from a APE like ancestor , millions,billions, trillions, zillions, oops sorry, millions of years ago, on a rocky primordial stew holding planet known as Earth. It is understanble that you believe the APE like ancestors could , have developed a beneficial mutation (after they had been killed by the initial destructive mutations) (), you somehow developed that Nonetheless that would still not mean that I would not tell you that:

1. YOU DID NOT JUST COME FROM PUFF, (NOTHING),
2. YOU ARE JUST NOT HERE FOR NOTHING,
3. YOU WILL NOT JUST LIVE FOR NOTHING,
4. YOU WILL NOT JUST DIE FOR NOTHING,
5. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO NOTHING AFTER DEATH,


1. You are her because you were created by God
2. You are made according to His Purpose
3. You either live for God or the Devil
4. You either die in the knowledge of the hope of salvation or die like a man with no hope.
5. Its either Heaven or (Hell and Lake of Fire).

All this kind of hopeless future can be avoided IF AND ONLY IF YOU ACCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOUR,

THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO PISS ME OFF, THANK GOD FOR HELPING ME NOT TO GET TOO PISSED OFF.

KAG, PLEASE NOTE THAT:

Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Psa 1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
Psa 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
Psa 1:5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
Psa 1:6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.


Adios Amigo, or , Senerita

Praise the Lord God Almighty , WHO WAS, WHO IS AND IS TO COME,


First Anthony Flew,

Then Richard Hawkins

Then KAGs

Then Bawomol

Then other Atheists, Evolutionists, Jihadists, Muslimists, Agnostics, Hinduistics,, otherstics WANNABES

SysUser:

Praise the Lord God Almighty , WHO WAS, WHO IS AND IS TO COME,


First Anthony Flew,

Then Richard Hawkins

Then KAGs

Then Bawomol

Then other Atheists, Evolutionists, Jihadists, Muslimists, Agnostics, Hinduistics,, otherstics WANNABES

And by this you imply?? Anthony Flew now believes in God. Moslems believe in God. The other ones, I'm not sure about. So,,,,erm, so as not to misunderstand you, what is that post supposed to convey to us?

Thank you to the person that posted about Anthony Flew, I never heard of him before, until then.


Now KAGs, Bawomol, et al.




Maybe according to the Evolutionary Dumb-O-Meter one would consider that the following is true:

Anthony Flew is lacking intelligence for him to have denounced Atheism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?em&ex=1194498000&en=bbf674f0d1c8775d&ei=5087
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html
http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html
http://jcsm.org/Ex-Atheists/AnthonyFlew.htm
http://jcsm.org/1on1/AntonyFlew.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141061,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141061,00.html



SHOULD i PASTE MORE OF MY SUPPOSEDLY "LESS INTELLIGENT LINKS"


Richard Dawkins, also was not smart or intelligent enough that he could not answer the simple question of providing an evidence of beneficial mutation

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g


, LORD THANK YOU THAT , VICTORY IS SURE!

, the LORD GOD REIGNS,

stranger26:

And by this you imply?? Anthony Flew now believes in God. Moslems believe in God. The other ones, I'm not sure about. So,,,,erm, so as not to misunderstand you, what is that post supposed to convey to us?

I agree , I do not know his heart and I also agree that I don't know whether or not he truly believes in God (God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob),

One thing I know and I am sure of is that:

Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.


, Yes , YES, AMEN