Inova:
Have you ever bothered to think of what broilers or layers (chickens) think about who their creator is? They would obviously say its the humans feeding them abi. Dats just how our underdeveloped brain concieves things at the moment. But until we develop the brain thru science dat is wen we will know exactly our origin. Quantum physics is the answer to our question. And by the way electrons are viewable. So are cells and even much more smaller entities. Quantum physics deals with the study of the tiniest entities in the world. Dat is the structure of an atom and how the elements came together to form it. GBAM. Till we know dat we will still be grouping in the dark calling on imaginary gods to come to our aid.

can you explain your statement that quantum physics is the answer? And who viewed the electron? With what did they use?

ooman:

because science is a triumph of man over God.

don't be naïve my guy. Science does not seek to explain away god. Pure science seeks to understand our surroundings and how the things we see around us are made and how they function. Science is still playing catch up to nature at all levels. The development of most high tech equipments were made by studying their natural equivalents, birds and planes, helicopters and hummingbirds etc... Science is not the opposite of God. It only seeks to understand creation. Don't make me laugh.

brokoto: don't be naïve my guy. Science does not seek to explain away god. Pure science seeks to understand our surroundings and how the things we see around us are made and how they function. Science is still playing catch up to nature at all levels. The development of most high tech equipments were made by studying their natural equivalents, birds and planes, helicopters and hummingbirds etc... Science is not the opposite of God. It only seeks to understand creation. Don't make me laugh.

isn't it funny how you deceive yourself, you think that science seek to understand creation that makes no sense.

creation in it various forms are all senseless, there is nothing to understand about them.

ooman:

isn't it funny how you deceive yourself, you think that science seek to understand creation that makes no sense.

creation in it various forms are all senseless, there is nothing to understand about them.

so going by your last sentence, is it correct to say that you are senseless and there's nothing to understand about you? Why create this thread with such a caption then?

brokoto: so going by your last sentence, is it correct to say that you are senseless and there's nothing to understand about you? Why create this thread with such a caption then?

the difference between me and your god is that I exist, but your god does not. I did not write to your non existent god but to existing but brainwashed xtians.

ooman:

the difference between me and your god is that I exist, but your god does not. I did not write to your non existent god but to existing but brainwashed xtians.

lol. You are funny. Can you prove that God does not exist QED? And you said science does not seek to understand creation because creation is senseless, really? So what is science my friend?

brokoto: lol. You are funny. Can you prove that God does not exist QED? And you said science does not seek to understand creation because creation is senseless, really? So what is science my friend?

god has been disproved qed many times.

science is knowledge

davidylan:

Really? Is that why the sun is still going billions of years after and your scientists where only able to keep the generated heat for only 1 billionth of a second?

As long as you have watched TV,you have seen electron....
WHAT A LOGICAL CONCLUSION...LWKMD.

ooman:

god has been disproved qed many times.

science is knowledge

so what is knowledge if not trying to know what we previously don't know? And how is that opposite of belief in God? Do you mean to say that those who believe in god have no knowledge or are bereft of reason? Do you say that because you know how a house is built therefore the house has no builder? Science, my friend is knowledge because it questions, probes and tries to fathom the many mysteries around us. It is not opposite of belief in God. Don't lean on science and imply that science is atheism.

You say it has been proved? Can you show me sources, links and quotes to butress your point?

brokoto: so what is knowledge if not trying to know what we previously don't know? And how is that opposite of belief in God? Do you mean to say that those who believe in god have no knowledge or are bereft of reason? Do you say that because you know how a house is built therefore the house has no builder? Science, my friend is knowledge because it questions, probes and tries to fathom the many mysteries around us. It is not opposite of belief in God. Don't lean on science and imply that science is atheism.

You say it has been proved? Can you show me sources, links and quotes to butress your point?

the presence of theoryof evolution is enough prove against creation. even after giving you links u wont still believe so what is the point..

I am not implying that science is all there is to know when I said science is knowledge. there are other areas of knowledge, theology included.

science and god has never agreed, they are enemies. for instance, science find nothing wrong with abortion, homosexuality but god does. god is. encroaching on us.

ooman:

the presence of theoryof evolution is enough prove against creation. even after giving you links u wont still believe so what is the point..

I am not implying that science is all there is to know when I said science is knowledge. there are other areas of knowledge, theology included.

science and god has never agreed, they are enemies. for instance, science find nothing wrong with abortion, homosexuality but god does. god is. encroaching on us.

is the theory of evolution a scientific fact? Why are you grasping at straws? Even the evolution you lean is by definition against homosexuality because homo does not favour the propagation of species, likewise abortion.
You say science has never agreed with God? Give instances...

[quote author=J12]Lol. I'm yet to meet an atheist who is totally against abortion and homosexualism. [/quote





I am an agnostic and I am totally against abortion. Cuz it doesn't make any sense to me .why planting a seed when u know that u are going to destroy it. Funny enuff most abortionist are xtians .in lil town called owerri where I live ,the same girls that sing in their churches are the same people who wuld find in the club protituting .about 90 percent if not more than of thiefs , greedy politicians,adulterers,etc are religious people .big irony isn't it?


But homo sexuallity I am not against. Its their lifes .thank u

brokoto: is the theory of evolution a scientific fact? Why are you grasping at straws? Even the evolution you lean is by definition against homosexuality because homo does not favour the propagation of species, likewise abortion.
You say science has never agreed with God? Give instances...

what you dont understand, which is why I forgive ur comments on evolution above is that the homosexual gene is needed for population control. human race has become too much already, nature 's response is the homosexual gene to check population.

homosexuality is not a behavior, its a mutation right from conception. people are not homosexual because they choose to be, they cant help it, its who they are, just like you are attracted to opposite sex, they are attracted to same sex and its purely natural.

tympanoctomys barrerae is one living example of evolution. google it, its a recently evolved organism.

ooman:

what you dont understand, which is why I forgive ur comments on evolution above is that the homosexual gene is needed for population control. human race has become too much already, nature 's response is the homosexual gene to check population.

homosexuality is not a behavior, its a mutation right from conception. people are not homosexual because they choose to be, they cant help it, its who they are, just like you are attracted to opposite sex, they are attracted to same sex and its purely natural.

tympanoctomys barrerae is one living example of evolution. google it, its a recently evolved organism.

lol. Is that your explanation for homo? Population control? Do you know that some people are born with violent tendencies? Does it excuse them From punishment if they commit murder? You need to understand homos from a more wholistic perspective. There's a thread about it somewhere but I can't find it again. Dunno how to search for topics here sha.

About that specie, I've googled it and found that its just a specie of rodents with double its number of chromosomes. I saw no indication of recent evolution of that rodent. Can you show me the link where you saw that it was a recently evolved specie?

brokoto: lol. Is that your explanation for homo? Population control? Do you know that some people are born with violent tendencies? Does it excuse them From punishment if they commit murder? You need to understand homos from a more wholistic perspective. There's a thread about it somewhere but I can't find it again. Dunno how to search for topics here sha.

About that specie, I've googled it and found that its just a specie of rodents with double its number of chromosomes. I saw no indication of recent evolution of that rodent. Can you show me the link where you saw that it was a recently evolved specie?

if you have inclination for murder, it has to do with your mind. homosexuality is not an inclination so it is not psychical, it can be passed down from father to son, mother to daughter. it is a genomically imprinted gene. experiments conducted by scientists decades ago confirms this.

HOMOSEXUALITY HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN ALMOST ALL ANIMALS, starting from rat, to mosquitoes, fish, sharks, rays, dogs, cat, lions etc. it is a gene not an inclination and IT IS ONLY OBSERVED IN ANIMALS WHEN THEY OVER POPULATE A PARTICULAR HABITAT. once they are divided, everything comes back to the old man-woman way. u need to understand gene regulation to understand why homosexuality comes and goes in animals. once human species return back to carrying capacity of earth, the gene will be subdued again and that which favors propagation will be expressed.

concerning the rodent, the information you have on it is correct but not complete, I will look for the journal and post it.

ooman:

if you have inclination for murder, it has to do with your mind. homosexuality is not an inclination so it is not psychical, it can be passed down from father to son, mother to daughter. it is a genomically imprinted gene. experiments conducted by scientists decades ago confirms this.

HOMOSEXUALITY HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN ALMOST ALL ANIMALS, starting from rat, to mosquitoes, fish, sharks, rays, dogs, cat, lions etc. it is a gene not an inclination and IT IS ONLY OBSERVED IN ANIMALS WHEN THEY OVER POPULATE A PARTICULAR HABITAT. once they are divided, everything comes back to the old man-woman way. u need to understand gene regulation to understand why homosexuality comes and goes in animals. once human species return back to carrying capacity of earth, the gene will be subdued again and that which favors propagation will be expressed.

concerning the rodent, the information you have on it is correct but not complete, I will look for the journal and post it.

Mr. "Living Molecules" -

Read -

https://www.nairaland.com/431192/homosexuality-demonic/3#10877499

Deep Sight:

Mr. "Living Molecules" -

Read -

https://www.nairaland.com/431192/homosexuality-demonic/3#10877499

DeepSight, erm....ehem.....I hope you know that one guy doesnt represent all atheists

Deep Sight:

Mr. "Living Molecules" -

Read -

https://www.nairaland.com/431192/homosexuality-demonic/3#10877499

thank you for that. I couldn't have said it any better. Ooman makes weak premises and draws outrageous conclusions from them. Pls ooman show me the journal.

Deep Sight:

Mr. "Living Molecules" -

Read -

https://www.nairaland.com/431192/homosexuality-demonic/3#10877499

after reading through, this is the best and the only true response

wirinet: Let me add my 2 kobo to this natural/
unnatural debate.
I believe natural means occurring in nature
without human intervention or
manipulation. For example sand is s natural
compound but glass is an unnatural
compound as glass cannot be formed by
nature. Same way we have 92 naturally
occuring elements in the universe but man
has been able to create about 10 more
which cannot be found in nature.
Now as per homosexualism, since some
humans and some animals too are born
naturally as homosexuals without any
artificial human manipulations, then
homosexualism cannot be said to be
unnatural in nature. Uncommon yes, but
unnatural no.
Rãpe cannot be said to be in the same
category because it had not been proven
that rãpists were born rãpists. They are
most likely that way due to psychological or
mental disorders or even acquired
behavior. And besides rãpists have a
destructive effect on natural human
societies not to talk of the victims involved.
Aslo it would be dificult classifying human
behavior or even animal behavior as
natural/unnatural because animal
behaviour is highly unpredictable and is
dependent on a lot of other factors and
interaction of factors like instinct, sociology,
physiology, emotions, intelligence, etc. This
is why morality is said to be fluid between
societies separated by space and time. In
certain societies it is natural to sacrifice
babies, in others societies or even the
same society at another time it would be
viewed as unnatural. Same for death
penalty for murderers, to some societies
any form of death sentence is unnatural.
Even such mandane issues of women voting
can be unnatural in some societies.

homosexuality is perfectly normal and totally natural.

brokoto: can you explain your statement that quantum physics is the answer? And who viewed the electron? With what did they use?

electrons has been seen by ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY.
see the pictures and more info here

www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/08/29/see-the-first-images-ever-of-an-electron-orbiting-a-nucleus/

I think now, all you illiterates can shut up about seeing electrons.

brokoto: thank you for that. I couldn't have said it any better. Ooman makes weak premises and draws outrageous conclusions from them. Pls ooman show me the journal.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.02016.x/abstract

ooman:

electrons has been seen by ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY.
see the pictures and more info here

www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/08/29/see-the-first-images-ever-of-an-electron-orbiting-a-nucleus/

I think now, all you illiterates can shut up about seeing electrons.

I need to be clear on something. It is quite correct that with the AFM scientists were able to view the motion of electrons around the nucleus but let me ask? Before this breakthrough, was it not a given that electrons existed before even seeing them? That is the point when people bring up the electron argument. Their manifestations could be seen and that was proof enough. If you wait till science discovers God through looking through a microscope or telescope, that time might never come. The evidence is all around us. When you look at the complexity in even the tiniest microorganism, that should tell you that it was designed. Now, we might not know why it was designed or how but it doesn't take away the fact that it was designed. Do you know the probability of a scattered library arranging itself?

By the way, your second link refused to open. Its showing an error message. Pls check it out.

brokoto: I need to be clear on something. It is quite correct that with the AFM scientists were able to view the motion of electrons around the nucleus but let me ask? Before this breakthrough, was it not a given that electrons existed before even seeing them? That is the point when people bring up the electron argument. Their manifestations could be seen and that was proof enough. If you wait till science discovers God through looking through a microscope or telescope, that time might never come. The evidence is all around us. When you look at the complexity in even the tiniest microorganism, that should tell you that it was designed. Now, we might not know why it was designed or how but it doesn't take away the fact that it was designed. Do you know the probability of a scattered library arranging itself?

By the way, your second link refused to open. Its showing an error message. Pls check it out.

there is no complexity in the tiniest microorganisms, the tiniest virus has 4genes and a protein cote. more important is the fact that when you disorganise TMV tobacco mosaic virus, it will spontaneously form a complete virus-pls google that. that is the same way the first simple cells spontaneously formed and has been evolving till it got to us.

google the other link too.

concerning god, I will not believe in him till I see him. isn't that the essence of evidence? and even after seeing him, I will not worship him immediately. I have to make sure he is not an alien and that he is worthy of worship .

nature is not perfect so it does not suggest the existence of a perfect god

ooman:

there is no complexity in the tiniest microorganisms, the tiniest virus has 4genes and a protein cote. more important is the fact that when you disorganise TMV tobacco mosaic virus, it will spontaneously form a complete virus-pls google that. that is the same way the first simple cells spontaneously formed and has been evolving till it got to us.

google the other link too.

concerning god, I will not believe in him till I see him. isn't that the essence of evidence? and even after seeing him, I will not worship him immediately. I have to make sure he is not an alien and that he is worthy of worship .

nature is not perfect so it does not suggest the existence of a perfect god

see oga, as I said before I'm not a religious person so I'm not asking you to worship God.
As for seeing before believing, let me ask you... Did you see the atom first before believing that all matter were made of atoms? Have you ever heard of circumstantial evidence? You can choose to believe what you like sha but don't make the mistake of thinking that you are smarter than people who believe otherwise. Your signature here comes to mind. Its funny and childishly presumptuous.

brokoto: see oga, as I said before I'm not a religious person so I'm not asking you to worship God.
As for seeing before believing, let me ask you... Did you see the atom first before believing that all matter were made of atoms? Have you ever heard of circumstantial evidence? You can choose to believe what you like sha but don't make the mistake of thinking that you are smarter than people who believe otherwise. Your signature here comes to mind. Its funny and childishly presumptuous.

I can sense you are agreeing to defeat and so you choose to pick on another topic: my signature is not your business.

concerning atom, it was mathematically proven accurately before we see it. my argument against god is that: a perfect god cannot create an imperfect matter. there are mistates in nature that lead to spontaneous abortion and embryological death. if an intelligent perfect god made nature, then there will be nothing like downs syndrome in children, cosmic rays that cause cancer, earthquake and others. there is no perfection in nature, there is therefore no ground to believe that a perfect god must have made it with humans in mind.

ooman:

what you dont understand, which is why I forgive ur comments on evolution above is that the homosexual gene is needed for population control. human race has become too much already, nature 's response is the homosexual gene to check population.

homosexuality is not a behavior, its a mutation right from conception. people are not homosexual because they choose to be, they cant help it, its who they are, just like you are attracted to opposite sex, they are attracted to same sex and its purely natural.

tympanoctomys barrerae is one living example of evolution. google it, its a recently evolved organism.

Bros! I have to disagree with you on homosexuality as population control. Thank God for science the same homo will donate sperm or eggs and have a surrogate carry it to term. So no control there...science answers a lot of things but its not absolute...

ooman:

I can sense you are agreeing to defeat and so you choose to pick on another topic: my signature is not your business.

concerning atom, it was mathematically proven accurately before we see it. my argument against god is that: a perfect god cannot create an imperfect matter. there are mistates in nature that lead to spontaneous abortion and embryological death. if an intelligent perfect god made nature, then there will be nothing like downs syndrome in children, cosmic rays that cause cancer, earthquake and others. there is no perfection in nature, there is therefore no ground to believe that a perfect god must have made it with humans in mind.

was this argument about a winner/loser? Who is keeping scores? Anyway, your signature is what you think or agree to so it can be attached to your person.

By the way, I understand that your problem with God is the way religionists explain him. You just can't understand why a 'perfect' God would make imperfect creations but I really have no answer for you as regards that.

Stop lying about the atom. If you are in Nigeria you probably first heard about atoms in JSS 2 and no proof was required for you to believe it.

I can't prove QED the existence of God and you cannot prove QED of his non existence but the circumstantial evidence point to an intelligent designer. Think about it.

GooseBaba:

Bros! I have to disagree with you on homosexuality as population control. Thank God for science the same homo will donate sperm or eggs and have a surrogate carry it to term. So no control there...science answers a lot of things but its not absolute...

thanks for the post, it shows thought.

I also thought like that till I realized that the children of the homosexual will have the gene in them and so MAJORITY, not all, will be next generation homosexuals who will also pass on the genes

in doing that, homosexuality will remain forever and continue to achieve its natural purpose: reduce population since the homosexuals will not produce as much children as the heterosexual.

maybe now, u understand.

brokoto: was this argument about a winner/loser? Who is keeping scores? Anyway, your signature is what you think or agree to so it can be attached to your person.

By the way, I understand that your problem with God is the way religionists explain him. You just can't understand why a 'perfect' God would make imperfect creations but I really have no answer for you as regards that.

Stop lying about the atom. If you are in Nigeria you probably first heard about atoms in JSS 2 and no proof was required for you to believe it.

I can't prove QED the existence of God and you cannot prove QED of his non existence but the circumstantial evidence point to an intelligent designer. Think about it.

yes I probably heard about the atom around that time and believed. But around that time, I ALSO BELIEVED IN God until after much studies I didn't anymore. I am as empirical as I can be.

do you think I would just choose hell over heaven if am not certain?

all available evidence; molecular, organismal and thought suggest that an intelligence is not involved in nature. I follow the evidence wherever they lead.

ooman:

yes I probably heard about the atom around that time and believed. But around that time, I ALSO BELIEVED IN God until after much studies I didn't anymore. I am as empirical as I can be.

do you think I would just choose hell over heaven if am not certain?

all available evidence; molecular, organismal and thought suggest that an intelligence is not involved in nature. I follow the evidence wherever they lead.

you seem to base your argument ön the xtian concept of God. I'm not a follower of such so I can't prove or disprove heaven or hell to you.

Can you show me the available molecular and organismal evidence that shows the absence of intelligent design?

ooman:

thanks for the post, it shows thought.

I also thought like that till I realized that the children of the homosexual will have the gene in them and so MAJORITY, not all, will be next generation homosexuals who will also pass on the genes

in doing that, homosexuality will remain forever and continue to achieve its natural purpose: reduce population since the homosexuals will not produce as much children as the heterosexual.

maybe now, u understand.

Bros ooman, I still no gree on that concept..if that is correct how do you explain the ever increasing growth of human population. That means homo + population control no work...am I right or am I right? Bros talk true...

brokoto: you seem to base your argument ön the xtian concept of God. I'm not a follower of such so I can't prove or disprove heaven or hell to you.

Can you show me the available molecular and organismal evidence that shows the absence of intelligent design?

maybe I dont understand your concept of god, can you expatiate more on that.

presence of anatomical junks like toes, appendix which are not useful to us biologically shows lack of intelligence. biological explanation is that toes are used by our ape ancestors who climbed trees and so need it for grasping. appendix is useless in humans, if it has any function at all, its to cause appendicitis. intelligence would know to perfectly mold the human body

presence of mistakes called mutation in the molecular state shows that no intelligence was involved in its origin. scientists can now make a perfect genome by adding some synthetic genes which are not part of the genome. if an intelligence was involved in the origin of dna, it would know to prevent mistakes, the mistakes which has taken millions of live as embryonic lethal mutations, cancer, diabetes among money genetic diseases both inherited or developed.

there are many more examples that shows lack of intelligence in the universe: the earth is not perfect for life, the sun harm us, cause cancer, cosmic rays are very dangerous, solar flares, earthquake etc. this are junks of nature. A PERFECT INTELLIGENCE would know to clean them up, so they won't harm the people for whom he created all things, but such intelligence is missing.