Deep Sight: Its quite obvious our atheists have no answers.

I also noticed you had non to my post. We'll get to the rest, but please, start with that.

And do note, again, we don't claim to have all the answers, but let's proceed.

Chibuebem: see sir? Now you bring up more excuses. I know God and worship him in spirit. Jesus is alive, and we do not know him according to the flesh anymore. We know him as the alive and powerful son of God. Not a white man. Is it not pathetic that you're a racist sir? I dont think i'm saved, i know i'm saved from sin. Yes, sin. This is mans problem. The inability to get above the desires of his flesh and mind. This is the fundamental problem of humanity. We need salvation from the passions of the corrupt flesh, its appetites, and physical desires, and the corrupt mind, with his huge ego, his selfishness and self-consciousness.

You know who I think is alive?
The Flying Pig...This is the God who created the universe and life and only to the Flying Pig do I owe my worship.

All you who do not worship the Flying Pig therefore need salvation from Yahweh, who himself is sin.

This is how dumb your logic is.

ooman:

You who I think is alive?
The Flying Pig...This is the God who created the universe and life and only to the Flying Pig do I owe my worship.

All you who do not worship the Flying Pig therefore need salvation from Yahweh, who himself is sin.

This is how dumb your logic is.

1 corinthians 2: 12-14 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we MIGHT KNOW the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, NOT in the words which MAN'S WISDOM TEACHETH, BUT WHICH THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH; comparing SPIRITUAL THINGS WITH SPIRITUAL. But the natural man RECEIVETH NOT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD: for they are FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM: neither can he KNOW THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED. I understand.

Chibuebem: 1 corinthians 2: 12-14 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we MIGHT KNOW the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, NOT in the words which MAN'S WISDOM TEACHETH, BUT WHICH THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH; comparing SPIRITUAL THINGS WITH SPIRITUAL. But the natural man RECEIVETH NOT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD: for they are FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM: neither can he KNOW THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED. I understand.

You are perfectly right.. Yahweh is complete foolishness to me...I just wonder how he makes sense to you.

ooman:

You are perfectly right.. Yahweh is complete foolishness to me...I just wonder how he makes sense to you.

good good. You just agreed with what the bible said in 1 corinthians. It makes sense to me, because i believed in his power on the day i got saved. You see, God is plain simple, and he made salvation an easy thing too. The message is a straight-forward one: you ooman, are a natural man whom a supernatural God loves. You ooman are in the bondage of sin and satan, you ooman need to accept the salvation Almighty God has made available to you through Jesus' death and resurrection, to be free from the slavery of sin and darkness of mind.

Chibuebem: good good. You just agreed with what the bible said in 1 corinthians. It makes sense to me, because i believed in his power on the day i got saved. You see, God is plain simple, and he made salvation an easy thing too. The message is a straight-forward one: you ooman, are a natural man whom a supernatural God loves. You ooman are in the bondage of sin and satan, you ooman need to accept the salvation Almighty God has made available to you through Jesus' death and resurrection, to be free from the slavery of sin and darkness of mind.

Ah..I see.

seems what you think is darkness is light to me. On the contrary, I think you are the one in logical darkness.

To worship Yahweh, I'd have to support murder and human sacrifice. You are in bondage of sin, Yahweh himself is the sin and the Flying Pig can save you..that is how your logic sounds.

If yahweh is got mouth, let the gods speak for themselves.

wiegraf:

You're saying it cannot happen. Why not limit anonysms?

That's clearly false. Evolution has never been about 'more' or 'less' successful, that's fairly obvious. It's simply about what is successful.

Hence the ridiculous amounts of patch work and less than stellar designs in nature. Or do you think, for instance, the human female reproductive system, with its stellar design that has led to millions of deaths through the ages, is the most successful around? Or the design of our eyes against that of species with better, healthier eyesight? Or all the other species we lord over, they have more successful designs? Or even judging by biomass, those with more are than us are better designed than we are? Etc etc.

All of these less than perfect features/species did evolve, no? Or are you saying someone went around (and is still doing so, considering micro evolution) creating/incubating these? Only the optimal designs evolved naturally?

Do successful species over time evolve into less successful species?

The question is that simple. You can start with a yes or no and then elaborate.

ooman:

Ah..I see.

seems what you think is darkness is light to me. On the contrary, I think you are the one in logical darkness.

To worship Yahweh, I'd have to support murder and human sacrifice. You are in bondage of sin, Yahweh himself is the sin and the Flying Pig can save you..that is how your logic sounds.

If yahweh is got mouth, let the gods speak for themselves.

yes yes. Its a pity. What you esteem as necessary in life is utter nonsense before God. The one you deny. He speaks today. But when he came and lived among men, few recognized him. Others fought against him. This is more than a simple logical argument ooman, its life or death, victory or defeat. Your real life is more than a passing thing, a shadow. Judgement is coming. This same God you want to speak will speak. But the words wont be what one will want to hear. You have chosen your path. There is still hope shaa

Chibuebem: yes yes. Its a pity. What you esteem as necessary in life is utter nonsense before God. The one you deny. He speaks today. But when he came and lived among men, few recognized him. Others fought against him. This is more than a simple logical argument ooman, its life or death, victory or defeat. Your real life is more than a passing thing, a shadow. Judgement is coming. This same God you want to speak will speak. But the words wont be what one will want to hear. You have chosen your path. There is still hope shaa

Logic and reason are utter nonsense before your god? then your god is utter nonsense before me.

you seriously believe a god came and lived among men? sounds more like the tale of Sango and Oya, will you tell me more about this myth of god walking among men?

when people die, they are dead, there is no afterlife anywhere. This is the only life there is to live so enjoy it.

How risible to think that people would leave the perfect heaven only to come live on earth when they know that they may not make it back there...pathetic

ooman:

Logic and reason are utter nonsense before your god? then your god is utter nonsense before me.

you seriously believe a god came and lived among men? sounds more like the tale of Sango and Oya, will you tell me more about this myth of god walking among men?

when people die, they are dead, there is no afterlife anywhere. This is the only life there is to live so enjoy it.

How risible to think that people would leave the perfect heaven only to come live on earth when they know that they may not make it back there...pathetic

he left the perfect heaven to die for you. For us. Dont mock this act of love

Deep Sight:

Do successful species over time evolve into less successful species?

The question is that simple. You can start with a yes or no and then elaborate.

what do you mean by successful, complex?

you can start with a yes or no and then elaborate.

Chibuebem: he left the perfect heaven to die for you. For us. Dont mock this act of love

why does he have to die if he is god?

ooman:

why does he have to die if he is god?

there was no other way to save us. Why do u think there is no afterlife?

plaetton:

Abiogenesis attempts to account for the emergence of life from simple organic molecules.


Abiogenesis – A brief history Even though Darwin himself focused on the origin of species, some scientists have tried to apply the concept of evolution to the first life to form the concept of abiogenesis. In 1924, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin proposed that living cells arose gradually from nonliving matter through a sequence of chemical reactions. According to Oparin, gases present in the atmosphere of primitive earth, when induced by lightening or other sources of energy, would react to form simple organic compounds. These compounds would subsequently self-assemble into increasingly complex molecules such as proteins. [size=16pt]These, in turn, would organize themselves into living cells.[/size] In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested Oparin’s hypothesis by conducting an experiment that attempted to simulate the atmospheric conditions of primitive earth. In their experiment, water boiled into vapor at the bottom of a flask and then passed through an apparatus, combining with ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. They then subjected the resulting mixture to a 50,000-volt-spark before cooling and collecting it in a trap at the bottom of the apparatus. When Miller and Urey examined the resulting tar-like substance, they found a collection of amino acids, the building blocks of life. - See more at: http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm#sthash.SQtMSzwJ.dpuf

Now although the theory of abiogenesis still has many problems and many questions to sort out, it lays the basic scientific idea of how simple living cells may have emerged from chemical reactions billions of years ago.
Infact, for all we know, such a process may have initially taken place in another galaxy several billions years further down the road,and perhaps transported to earth by meteorites or crashing comets.

Now, It is entirely up to you whether you accept or reject it.

Now , on the second issue of consciousness, again scientific thinking is now looking at the possibility that it arises as a result of quantum mechanical processes in the brain cells. In other words, it is possibly a biochemical function that occurs when the conditions are right , and not a divine attribute.
Again, it's either you keep an open mind or you keep your mind closed.

You are EXCEEDINGLY FUNNY!

And you dare go about saying this or that is "laughable" is a "fairy-tale" laughing at sky daddies and Santa Claus and all that! You are FAR worse! You make astonishing logical leaps and you believe in pure fantasy and even outright falsehood, and you dare pass it off as science or logic!

VERY SIMPLY:

ARE AMINO ACIDS LIVING THINGS?

Look at the bold in your quote above. Is there any experiment that has EVER shown that? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Just one? Any at all? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You refer to an experiment producing amino acids said to be the building blocks of life. You could just as well refer to an experiment producing star dust, as we are made of star dust, no? You could also refer me to an experiment producing water, as we are 70 per cent water, no? Can we not show an experiment combining Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce water? Is water not cardinal to life? Does such an experiment therefore disclose emergent life?

In fact look here, about your Amino Acids -

Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds made from amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids. About 500 amino acids are known[1] and can be classified in many ways. Structurally they can be classified according to the functional groups' locations as alpha- (α-), beta- (β-), gamma- (γ-) or delta- (δ-) amino acids; other categories relate to polarity, pH level, and side chain group type (aliphatic, acyclic, aromatic, containing hydroxyl or sulfur, etc.) In the form of proteins, amino acids comprise the second largest component [size=16pt](after water)[/size] of human muscles, cells and other tissues.[2] Outside proteins, amino acids perform critical roles in processes such as neurotransmitter transport and biosynthesis.

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

Just look at the bold!

Note that it says "the second largest component AFTER WATER!"

So in fact, it is apt to look at water as the most important component - and as such, an experiment producing water should be even more important than your experiment producing amino acids!

Is water a living thing. Does an experiment producing water therefore show emergent Life? Are Amino acids living things. Does an experiment producing Amino Acids therefore show emergent Life?

If an experiment produces the matter on which living things dwell, has such an experiment shown the emergence of life? Are amino acids living things? Has any experiment demonstrated the bold in your post above?

The truth is, the bold in your post above is a bare faced LIE: fantasy and imagination at work. It is a lie. It has not been shown to happen in ANY experiment anywhere ever, and you are yet happy to interpolate it to plug a gaping hole, a massive gap, in your worldview.

How dare you sound so presumptuous and then go ahead to cite something such as that bare faced LIE? Which experiment has ever shown that to happen anywhere? Such components forming living cells as said in the bold of yours? Just which? Kindly show me, good sir!

You see, we have seen this over and over. The gloating atheist intoxicated with the aroma of pseudo scientific philosophy such that he imagines himself reasoning at some higher level than the regular theist. It ALWAYS emerges that you fellows do not even have a clue of what you seek to discuss!

If you are so ready to gulp down such unsubstantiated claims, what makes you any different from the Santa Claus gang who you deride?

The bold in your post is a MOST disgraceful assumption built on nothing a fantastic leap of fantasy, never experimented, and never observed to occur anywhere at any time. It is far worse that Santa Claus!

And yet you smugly advance it? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

ooman:

what do you mean by successful, complex?

you can start with a yes or no and then elaborate.

Numerical success. Propagation.

Chibuebem: there was no other way to save us. Why do u think there is no afterlife?

then he is limited....

because afterlife is a wish, there is no single shred of evidence for life out side this body.

Deep Sight:

You are EXCEEDINGLY FUNNY!

And you dare go about saying this or that is "laughable" is a "fairy-tale" laughing at sky daddies and santa claus and all that! You are FAR worse! You make astonishing logical leaps and you beleive in pure fantasy and even outright falsehood, and you dare pass it off as science or logic!

VERY SIMPLY:

ARE AMINO ACIDS LIVING THINGS?

Look at the bold in your quote above. Is there any experiment that has EVER shown that? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Just one? Any at all? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You refer to an experiment producing amino acids said to be the building blocks of life. You could just as well refer to an experiment producing star dust, as we are made of star dust, no? You could also refer me to an experiment producing water, as we are 70 per cent water, no? Can we not show an experiment combining Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce water? Is water not cardinal to life? Does such an experiment therefore disclose emergent life?

In fact look here, about your Amino Acids -

Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds made from amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids. About 500 amino acids are known[1] and can be classified in many ways. Structurally they can be classified according to the functional groups' locations as alpha- (α-), beta- (β-), gamma- (γ-) or delta- (δ-) amino acids; other categories relate to polarity, pH level, and side chain group type (aliphatic, acyclic, aromatic, containing hydroxyl or sulfur, etc.) In the form of proteins, amino acids comprise the second largest component [size=16pt](after water[/size]) of human muscles, cells and other tissues.[2] Outside proteins, amino acids perform critical roles in processes such as neurotransmitter transport and biosynthesis.

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

Just look at the bold!

Note that it says "the second largest component AFTER WATER!"

So in fact, it is apt to look at water as the most important component - and as such, an experiment producing water should be even more important that your experiment producing amino acids!

Is water a living thing. Does an experiment producing water therefore show emergent Life? Are Amino acids living things. Does an experiment producing Amino Acids therefore show emergent Life?

If an experiment produces the matter on which living things dwell, has such an experiment shown the emergence of life? Are amino acids living things? Has any experiment demonstrated the bold in your post above?

The truth is, the bold in your post above is a bare faced LIE: fantasy and imagination at work. It is a lie. It has not been shown to happen in ANY experiment anywhere ever, and you are yet happy to interpolate it to plug a gaping hole, a massive gap, in your worldview.

How dare you sound so presumptuous and then go ahead to cite something such as that bare faced LIE?Which experiment has ever shown that to happen anywhere? Just which? Kindly show me, good sir!

You see, we have seen this over and over. The gloating atheist intoxicated with the aroma of pseudo scientific philosophy such that he imagines himself reasoning at some higher level than the regular theist. It ALWAYS emerges that you fellows do not even have a clue of what you seek to discuss!

If you are so ready to gulp down such unsubstantiated claims, what makes you any different from the Santa Claus gang who you deride?

The bold in your post is a disgraceful assumption built on nothing as fantastic leap of fantasy, never experimented, and never observed to occur anywhere at any time.

And yet you smugly advance it? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Now this is wrong..there is no life without DNA. life is not an irreducible unit. therefore DNA combination can be said to be life. DNA makes amino acid so the connection is right and you misunderstand. This is what I onced said and you misunderstood it to mean i claim life has been synthesized.

ooman:

Now this is wrong..there is no life without DNA. life is not an irreducible unit. therefore DNA combination can be said to be life. DNA makes amino acid so the connection is right and you misunderstand. This is what I onced said and you misunderstood it to mean i claim life has been synthesized.

There is also no life without water! Would an experiment showing the creation of water therefore show emergent Life?

Deep Sight:

Numerical success. Propagation.

then are you sure you really mean this

Deep Sight:
Do successful species over time evolve
into less successful species?
The question is that simple. You can
start with a yes or no and then
elaborate.

any natural process can cause decimation of organisms. But normally, a species cannot outnumber its food source so number of species is based on comfort provided by the environment, I.e germ free environment and food availability. So "successful" species, under normal condition should remain fairly constant.

I still would love a response from deepsight on my question about successful species.

Deep Sight:

There is also no life without water! Would an experiment showing the creation of water therefore show emergent Life?

a machine cannot function without electricity, does creating electricity mean creating a machine? NO

life and water are different but life is dependent on water just like machine and electricity are different but machines are different from what powers them.

Now if a man makes a machine without making electricity, is it right to say he has created a machine? Now there is your answer.

Water would be useless without DNA, at least to life. so when talking about life components, water may be excused, just like when talking about a machine components, electricity maybe excused

plaetton:

You believe in evolution. As a matter of faith or do you have any solid grounds to believe that everything, including biological systems, evolve?
Upon what solid grounds do you believe in evolution? when did it start, when does it end,if at all,what are the processes?
If you cannot answer any of the above, then it's quite obvious that your belief in evolution if grounded faith and zero or fragmented knowledge.
If so, you need to do a lot of homework .

Oh no, we observe growth and change in everything and as such believing that things evolve and change is not without grounds.

To say that you do not believe that it was unguided or blind is soooooo laughable that I honestly don't know what next to say to you.

To say that you believe that it was unguided or blind is soooooo laughable that I honestly don't know what next to say to you.

Let me guess, it was guided by the invisible hand of hoki poki, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or by Santa Clause, that's it.

YOU only show that you have nothing to discuss when you raise puerile strawjokes such as Santa Claus and FSM in a discussion such as this.

That't how ridiculous you sound.

You have no idea just how ridiculous you sound.

That kind of hokus pokus has no place in a debate on science, fore the simple reason that that invisible hand so proposed by you is a figment of your imagination. It does not even qualify as a theory because it is ground by nothing but a need fill the gap.

As shown in my post above, it is actually your beliefs that is a figment of your imagination. It does not even qualify as a theory because it is ground by nothing but a need fill the gap. The yawning gap between non life and life.

Why would a conscious immaterial omni omni being be guiding the very slow and error prone process of evolution when he could just snap his divine fingers, and in six days, viola! we have the universe, the stars, the earth and all living forms, including his perfect crown jewel, homo sapiens?

Because such a being would still be bound by logic and could only proceed logically. It is childish of you to expect any snapping fingers and magic tricks. Please reserve such talk for Christian and Muslim literalists when you debate them.

ooman:

a machine cannot function without electricity, does creating electricity mean creating a machine? NO

life and water are different but life is dependent on water just like machine and electricity are different but machines are different from what powers them.

Now if a man makes a machine without making electricity, is it right to say he has created a machine? Now there is your answer.

Water would be useless without DNA, at least to life. so when talking about life components, water may be excused, just like when talking about a machine components, electricity maybe excused

You are lost. Go back and absorb the point. Your ramble here only argues my case for me.

ooman:

a machine cannot function without electricity, does creating electricity mean creating a machine? NO

life and water are different but life is dependent on water just like machine and electricity are different but machines are different from what powers them.

Now if a man makes a machine without making electricity, is it right to say he has created a machine? Now there is your answer.

Water would be useless without DNA, at least to life. so when talking about life components, water may be excused, just like when talking about a machine components, electricity maybe excused

It depends on what you call "life".

Alfa Seltzer: I still would love a response from deepsight on my question about successful species.

Numerically sustained success by propagation.

Alfa Seltzer:

It depends on what you call "life".

Don't mind him. Just exclude electricity from any electronic device and see if it will be "alive."

Deep Sight:

You are lost. Go back and absorb the point. Your ramble here only argues my case for me.

certainly, you are a bigot.

Deep Sight:

Don't mind him. Just exclude electricity from any electronic device and see if it will be "alive."

still doesn't mean your device is not different from electricity. they are different but one is dependent on another. its as simple as that, why this obfuscation.?

ooman:

certainly, you are a bigot.

ooman:

still doesn't mean your device is not different from electricity. they are different but one is dependent on another. its as simple as that, why this obfuscation.?

ooman:

still doesn't mean your device is not different from electricity. they are different but one is dependent on another. its as simple as that, why this obfuscation.?

If you don't get that you analogy with electricity absolutely nailed you, then I should not bother with you.

Deep Sight:

Numerically sustained success by propagation.

I wouldn't call lack of birth control a "success", . But on a serious note, I think ooman has given a good response about a population not outnumbering its food source.

And seeing the number of species that perform sexual reproduction and the ever increasing number of them under the right conditions, I'll say there's definitely an evolutionary reason why this method of reproduction is preferable for these species. (Maybe pleasure? )

Alfa Seltzer:

It depends on what you call "life".

do you call a cell life or do you call DNA life. how do you define life?

Deep Sight:



If you don't get that you analogy with electricity absolutely nailed you, then I should not bother with you.

perhaps you should make me see in my blindness