mazaje:

I know that Lee Strobel is a lawyer NOT a scientist. . . .So he clearly does NOT know what he is talking about. . .

- Straw man argument . . .

Don't mind mazaje he is definitely grasping for straws.  What about this man, Professor Doctor Werner Gitt, is he not a qualified scientist?  Look out for his biography.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyyVGQJ9n1c&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

Click here for his biography.

@OLAADEGBU,

OLAADEGBU:

@viaro,

It is becoming clear to me that you speak more like an atheist evolutionists more than a creationist.  Why do you say that these guys don't know what they are talking about, do you know their qualifications and professions?  Who do you think invented the scientific method, evolutionists?  Go figure out before you begin to say what you know little or nothing about. You can tell that to your evolutionist bedfellows.

I'm familair with your frustrations, but take heart - I didn't mean any harm. It is clear that you either have no clue what you're trying to talk about and are just bandying the words 'science', 'evidence', etc around in a cosmetic fashion. So, tell me: who invented the scientific method - your hand-clapping pastors at Deeper Life?  

There's no need to get all jumpy, my pal. Science is science and was not invented as a religious thing or the key to atheism. This is why when people begin to use such words as highlighted above as 'evidence' for what is beyond science, they make matters worse than when they first began.

The laws of nature or the scientific laws depend on other laws of nature which ultimately depend on God's Will.

How do you know? How do you determine God's Will as the determinant of the laws of nature or scientific laws? Is that another one of your 'just-say-so' lines that we have to wait forever for you to prove?

God created the laws of physics in just the right way so that the laws of chemistry would be correct so that life can exist.

Please shut up. God did not create any laws of physics or laws of chemistry! This is the nonsense that people like ICR will tell you - and without thinking, you just vomit the same! Yea, I get you: 'laws of physics/chemistry' indeed. Let's review some of them:

       Newton's Laws of Motion
       Law of Archimedes (or Archimedes' principle)
       Avogadro's Law
       Dalton's law of multiple proportions
       Einstein's General and Special Laws of Relativity
       Boyle's Law in thermodynamics
       Charles' Law (or law of volumes)
       Gay-Lussac's Law
       Noether's theorem
       Pauli Exclusion Principle
       BCS theory (Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer)
       Biot-Savart law
       _{. . . and if you like to add:  'OLAADEGBU's Contant'.}

Dear bros, please don't make me laugh. Which one of the Laws in physics and chemistry did God 'create'? Do you even know the meaning of a scientific law and how they are formulated? Try this for size to get a hint: 'Laws being consequences of mathematical symmetries'. Let's try again: who created mathematics? Huh?  I want to know if you understand the nature of Maths before you begin to run riot accusing me of evolutionary bedfellows again!

It is doubtful that any human would have been able to solve such complex puzzle.  Yet, God has done so.

Hahaha! So, let me guess: you already know God has solved the puzzle, and OLAADEGBU has the answers, right? If you know what you're talking about, I guess you already know that answers as solved by God - so please share with the public and do humanity proud. Or just stop creating a 6-day problem for us.

The atheist cannot account for these laws of nature, even though he agrees that they must exist, for such laws are inconsistent with naturalism.

What are you babbling about? Atheism is not science, nor is Christianity: so what is so special about the atheist not being able to account for these laws? And who ever said that any Religion is able to account for those laws either? Bobs, you may not yet have understood the nature of science, for even when you do, it should be clear to you that there are many things that we cannot account for as religious people. I'm not an atheist, nor am I sounding apologetic for atheism - but truth be told, many religious people talk a lot of rubbish that is neither scientific nor coherent, because they hope that when they spice up their talk with 'science'  and 'laws', etc., then all is well.  

Yet they are perfectly consistent with the Bible.

Okay, okay, I get you bro. Please share with me how the following are consistent with the Bible:

       Newton's Laws of Motion
       Law of Archimedes (or Archimedes' principle)
       Avogadro's Law
       Dalton's law of multiple proportions
       Einstein's General and Special Laws of Relativity
       Boyle's Law in thermodynamics
       Charles' Law (or law of volumes)
       Gay-Lussac's Law
       Noether's theorem
       Pauli Exclusion Principle
       BCS theory (Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer)
       Biot-Savart law

I just want to see where such laws of physics and chemistry are taught in the Bible, as viaro claims absolute ignorance and in all his reading of the Bible, he has not found any verse where these laws appear (I know the Law of Moses like the back of my hand, though). So please share.

We expect the universe to be organised in a logical, orderly fashion and to obey uniform laws because the universe was created by the Power of the uncreated Creator.

Please sir, show me the laws of physics and chemistry in any version or translation of the Bible, and it sufficeth me.



____________________

@mazaje, please hurry up and arrange that debate between Ken Ham and viaro. . . it seems delay is dangerous now.

@viaro,

I was about to post a response to your post but then the words of Jesus Christ my Lord dawned on me that I should not force the truth on rebels who have no stomach for it, that I should not give holy things to fault finders, mote hunters or evil speakers. Jesus was certain when He uttered these timeless words:

"Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." -- Matthew 7:6

For others who sincerely seek for answers to these questions click: Here

@OLAADEGBU,

I am not a rebel, a dog or swine - and there's no need for me to quote any verses in like manner to take a swipe at you, while feigning that it came to me by my Lord Jesus Christ. The one thing we should understand is this: as Christians, if we owe no other community on planet earth, we owe ourselves the duty to stop circulating confusion and misusing words about science. That was just the plain reason why I took you to task about in my reply, because you were making very gutted statements that make absolutely no sense at all - not to you or anyone else.

For example:

'God created the laws of physics in just the right way so that
the laws of chemistry would be correct'

What sense does that make? God created the laws of physics - so that - the laws of chemistry would be correct? What?!? So, the laws of chemistry would not be correct until the the laws of physics were divinely created in 'the right way'? Where did you learn that kind of science?

It is not as if I'm here to harm you, nor does your allegation that my posts sound atheistic make any sense either. I'm sure that even the Lord Jesus Himself would not be speaking any verse to encourage that kind of 'science' that makes no sense.

This is Paul talking (by inspiration) about the weapons of our warfare.

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ -- 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

Destruction of strong holds: We as Christians destroy reasonings of pagan philosophers and Jewish rabbis and their dogmas that nullify the Word of God and the facts of the Gospel.  We pull down and demolish these fortifications.  We put to flight the demon powers and alien armies, as we raise the banner of the cross high on the field of battle.

Casting down imaginations: We demolish all theories, reasonings and any high system of ethics, religion, mythology, metaphysics, sublime doctrine or philosophy that has been positioned to defy the knowledge of God.  The high sounding phrases of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics and even Judaism fell before the preaching of the crucified and risen Christ.  Heathenism shrank before the Gospel and it has now called on secular powers (such as evolutionism, theist evolutionism, progressive creationism, gappist theories, reconstruction theorist etc) to defend it.

Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ: We take every thought prisoner and lead it into captivity to obey Christ.  Vain and evil thoughts are brought down and made obedient to His laws.  That includes any thinking which is contrary to virtue, purity and righteousness (Matt.15:19;1 Cor.13:5).

God has quite a few interesting things to say about those who put an inordinate emphasis upon worldly knowledge and lack the wisdom to use it properly.

"For God's [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative. [19] For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them. [20] For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],  [21] Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honour and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and silly speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]". Romans 1:18-29 (Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified).

The deification of knowledge--otherwise known as Gnosticism--is blasted by the Apostle Paul in the following verses:

"O Timothy, guard and keep the deposit entrusted [to you]! Turn away from the irreverent babble and godless chatter, with the vain and empty and worldly phrases, and the subtleties and the contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge and spiritual illumination" 1 Tim. 6:20 (Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified).

"For I want you to know how great is my solicitude for you [how severe an inward struggle I am engaged in for you] and for those [believers] at Laodicea, and for all who [like yourselves] have never seen my face and known me personally. [2] [For my concern is] that their hearts may be braced (comforted, cheered, and encouraged) as they are knit together in love, that they may come to have all the abounding wealth and blessings of assured conviction of understanding, and that they may become progressively more intimately acquainted with and may know more definitely and accurately and thoroughly that mystic secret of God, [which is] Christ (the Anointed One). [3] In Him all the treasures of [divine] wisdom (comprehensive insight into the ways and purposes of God) and [all the riches of spiritual] knowledge and enlightenment are stored up and lie hidden. [4] I say this in order that no one may mislead and delude you by plausible and persuasive and attractive arguments and beguiling speech" Col. 2:1-4 (Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified)

"See to it that no one carries you off as spoil or makes you yourselves captive by his so-called philosophy and intellectualism and vain deceit (idle fancies and plain nonsense), following human tradition (men's ideas of the material rather than the spiritual world), just crude notions following the rudimentary and elemental teachings of the universe and disregarding [the teachings of] Christ (the Messiah). [9]  For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form [giving complete expression of the divine nature]" Col. 2:8-9 (Parallel Bible/KJV/Amplified).

This is the MOST interesting topic I have read on nairaland for a very long time. . . Had to read it from begining to end. . . .

And the award for propaganda and conpiracy theory goes to. . . . . .OLAADEGBU

Viaro much respect man, My hat is off for you. . . .I am now convinced that you are not pilgrim after going through this thread. . .

The debate between you and Ken Ham will be coming very soon you be prepared. . . . .

mazaje:

This is the MOST interesting topic I have read on nairaland for a very long time. . . Had to read it from begining to end. . . .

And the award for propaganda and conpiracy theory goes to. . . . . .OLAADEGBU

Viaro much respect man, My hat is off for you. . . .I am now convinced that you are not pilgrim after going through this thread. . .

The debate between you and Ken Ham will be coimg very soon you be prepared. . . . .

Birds of the same feather

In the Beginning was Information.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGJmQgl4hWo&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

OLAADEGBU:

Birds of the same feather

Will you answer a simple question? . . . . . Which of these laws of science did yawheh create since you said that all laws of science were created by yahweh. . . .

Newton's Laws of Motion
Law of Archimedes (or Archimedes' principle)
Avogadro's Law
Dalton's law of multiple proportions
Einstein's General and Special Laws of Relativity
Boyle's Law in thermodynamics
Charles' Law (or law of volumes)
Gay-Lussac's Law
Noether's theorem
Pauli Exclusion Principle
BCS theory (Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer)
Biot-Savart law

The Tree of Science

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17)

In this age of science, it is well to remember that the basic meaning of "science" (Latin, scientia) is "knowledge." Thus, it is instructive to substitute "science" whenever the word "knowledge" is used in Scripture. For example: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of science" (Proverbs 1:7).

It is significant that the first mention of knowledge in the Bible is in connection with the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" (Genesis 2:9). God warned Adam not to partake of that which would become in him "the science of good and evil" (Genesis 2:17). Adam already was familiar with good science, because everything God had made was "very good" (Genesis 1:31). But Satan tempted Eve with the humanistic lie that "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5), and ever since, "science" has been both good and evil. Real science, properly applied, is good and beneficial to mankind, but "science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20)--that is, pseudo-sciences, such as evolution and the humanistic social sciences--is both useless and harmful.

There are many references to knowledge in the Bible, and it is good to remember that in Christ "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and science" (Colossians 2:3). And it is very significant that the last mention of knowledge, or science, in the Bible is in the last verse written by the apostle Peter before his martyrdom: "But grow in grace, and in the science of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18).

One can be ever so learned in all the sciences and the various intellectual disciplines of mankind, but if he does not know the Lord Jesus Christ, he has failed in the one science that yields everlasting life. He has eaten of the tree of science but has ignored the tree of life. HMM

mazaje:

Will you answer a simple question? . . . . . Which of these laws of science did yawheh create since you said that all laws of science were created by yahweh. . . .

Newton's Laws of Motion
Law of Archimedes (or Archimedes' principle)
Avogadro's Law
Dalton's law of multiple proportions
Einstein's General and Special Laws of Relativity
Boyle's Law in thermodynamics
Charles' Law (or law of volumes)
Gay-Lussac's Law
Noether's theorem
Pauli Exclusion Principle
BCS theory (Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer)
Biot-Savart law

Those are scientific laws which all confirm the Bible.  Why don't you tell me why there are no working formulas for evolution theory and why they have not been considered to be scientific law for the past 150 years?

OLAADEGBU:

Those are scientific laws which all confirm the Bible.  ?

Ok care to tell me how Newton's Laws of Motion or Avogadro's Law confirm the bible. . . .

Why don't you tell me the working formulas for evolution theory and why they have not considered to be scientific law for the past 150 years?

I did not say anything about the working formula of evolution, you did. . . . .

mazaje:

Ok care to tell me how Newton's Laws of Motion or Avogadro's Law confirm the bible. . . .

Educate yourself Here

mazaje:

I did not say anything about the working formula of evolution, you did. . . . .

What's your alternative to the creation account, since you don't believe in it?

OLAADEGBU:

Educate yourself Here

Is there anything that looks or sounds educating on the propaganda site called answers in genesis. . . . . . .Its very clear that you do not know what education means. . . . .

What's your alternative to the creation account, since you don't believe in it?

I personally have non. . . .but that does not mean that your mythical tales about the creation of the earth or the universe have any basis in reality. . . .

mazaje:

Is there anything that looks or sounds educating on the propaganda site called answers in genesis. . . . . . .Its very clear that you do not know what education means. . . . .

I should have taken to the advise of John Paul Getty who said "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."  No be me talk am o. 

mazaje:

I personally have non. . . .but that does not mean that your mythical tales about the creation of the earth or the universe have any basis in reality. . . .

You and your bedfellows should remember not to discourage the other person's plans unless you have better ones.

In the Beginning was Information (Part 4) - Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcpZZ8YvvQY&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

mazaje:


I personally have non. . . .

so why are u vocal . . . since u admit u don't know

No2Atheism:

so why are u vocal . . . since u admit u don't know

Don't mind him. It was Robert Frost that diagnosed his condition when he said:

"Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half is composed of those who have nothing to say and keep on saying it."

OLAADEGBU:

Don't mind him.  It was Robert Frost that diagnosed his condition when he said:

"Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half is composed of those who have nothing to say and keep on saying it."

I think you have perfectly described yourself and your irrational belief that the earth and the universe are 6000 years old. . . . .You keep on saying it over and over again when the truth is that you really have nothing to say. . . .

OLAADEGBU:

I should have taken to the advise of John Paul Getty who said "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."  No be me talk am o. 

Even if you are trying to teach a pig how to sing you will take him to a music school not a mechanic work shop because he won't learn any music in a mechanic work shop. . . .

You and your bedfellows should remember not to discourage the other person's plans unless you have better ones.

Not if their plans are pure propaganda. . . .

@mazaje,

I know you atheists all have a common goal and that is to attack God but listen to what you are really doing:

"When a man calls himself an atheist, he is not attacking God, he is attacking his own conscience." -- Michael Pearl

OLAADEGBU:

@mazaje,

I know you atheists all have a common goal and that is to attack God but listen to what you are really doing:

"When a man calls himself an atheist, he is not attacking God, he is attacking his own conscience." -- Michael Pearl

According to the myth god is supposed to be all powerful being. . .so how can an atheist attack god if you truly believe that such a being exist?. . . . .Do you guys really think through some the things you write before posting them?

mazaje:

According to the myth god is supposed to be all powerful being. . .so how can an atheist attack god if you truly believe that such a being exist?. . . . .Do you guys really think through some the things you write before posting them?

God doesn't believe in atheists either. For you to be an atheist you will have 100% knowledge of the past, present and the future of all things. An atheists says with certainty that there is no God, we all know that they are only saying this because you detest Him, we know that most of you are member of secret societies because of your hatred for God.

@mazaje. . hey pal, take a chill pill! Why are you firing away at my 'bedfellows' any-which-way?

Lol, the argument is not so much between science and religion. That is the first thing I would have hoped you guys come to understand, so that these banters would not be necessary. On either side of theism and athiesm, viz-a-viz science and religion, the problem of interpretation has assailed us all to no end!

_{Pst: by the way, when is viaro facing Ken Ham? I told you before: delay is dangerous, and so it appears at the moment.}

OLAADEGBU:

God doesn't believe in atheists either. For you to be an atheist you will have 100% knowledge of the past, present and the future of all things. An atheists says with certainty that there is no God, we all know that they are only saying this because you detest Him, we know that most of you are member of secret societies because of your hatred for God.

viaro:


_{Pst: by the way, when is viaro facing Ken Ham? I told you before: delay is dangerous, and so it appears at the moment.}

The debate will be arranged soon. . .Ken Ham has a busy a very schedule, I know very well that delay is dangerous. . . .

@OLAADEGBU,

How are you sir? Yes, I'm here again, but not to cause you any harm. Believe me, I would have just remained in the sidelines and wonder at the amazing goings-on in this thread, but I felt it necessary to point out a few things yet again. If it helps you, good; if not, still good.

OLAADEGBU:

Those are scientific laws which all confirm the Bible.

That's okay. But since you said earlier that God had created the laws of physics and chemistry 'in the right way', I was hoping by now you would have shown where you find it so in the Bible. When you make statements like that, it makes many people wonder what you're talking about when they already are aware that there is just no coherence in some of your declarations.

Do I doubt that the Universe obeys certain laws of nature? Not for a moment. Do I also believe that these laws of nature were set by a supernatural cause that cannot be explained away naturally? You bet I do.

But the problem is that we should not on such basis be making far too presumptions tales about these matters. When people say that 'God created the laws of physics', I just wonder if such a person understands the difference between the laws of nature and the laws of physics. Let me break it down for you in layman's language:

      (a) laws of nature
         - they describe the way that nature functions and cannot be changed

      (b) laws of physics
         - they try to explain how nature works theoretically and can indeed be modified

In (a) above, it does not matter what theories any brilliant mind can postulate, nature canot be changed or affected in any way by such a theory, whether the theory itself is correct or wrong, or even whether or not people understand it.

But in (b) above, people postulate theories in order to try and explain how nature works - and because some of these theories have problems as they are tested out, they are subsequently modified or altogether abandoned where they are found to be untenable.

Let me give you two examples:

   Whether or not anyone understand the nature of the Universe, it would not be affected
   by any theory or laws of physics devised by the human mind; it is for this reason that the
   two examples below have been (i) modified, and  (ii) abandoned:

   (i) the equation for Eistein's theory of relativity was first written as
                     Gμν  =  8πTμν
   but when it faced certain problems of explicability, it was modified as
                     Gμν - gΛμν   =  8πTμν

   (ii) there are some theories that have been proposed and now abandoned
    and an example is the luminous ether which was once believed to exist.

Regardless of these, nature still works independent of what teories man devises - and that is why you need to be grounded in these matters when you present you case and just parroting what AiG or ICR are arguing with very confusing notes.

Why don't you tell me why there are no working formulas for evolution theory and why they have not been considered to be scientific law for the past 150 years?

Well, you may not be aware that there are so many theories which do not have 'formulae' of the type you asking for. In Psychology, for example, one would find numerous 'biological theories' which are not based on mathematical formulae, but psychologists are respected for these theories nonetheless because of their applicability to solve psychological problems. Examples include:

      * 'The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime' by Nicole Rafter.

      * 'Sociological Theories of Deviance', such as William Sheldon's work, is based on:
             ~ tissue layers
             ~ embryology
             ~ and physiology

There are other examples of biological theories that are not 'laws', and one has but look around and you will find a plethora of them. I give just one more example: the biological theories of dyslexia, where genetic linkage theory posits that there is a genetic vulnerability to dyslexia in some individuals; as well that research has confirmed the view that dyslexia can run in families. Please check it up yourself and see what it's all about; but understand the point here - there are several biological theories that have been confirmed through researches even though they are not 'scientific laws'. So please retire this argument confusion that 'evolution' is not valid because it is 'merely' a theory but not a law - that is just plain dense and unintelligent. More so, because that is not how scientific theories or laws work.

Indeed, some of these biological theories attempt some mathematical formulae, but that is not usually what they are based upon in order to be considered 'scientific theories' or laws.

But in the question of biological evolution, you should also remember that it is not a mathematical, but a biological, science. Yet, you may not be aware that there are some formulae that have been produced for certain evolution topics in biology. An example is one that my babe has been drumming into my ears in recent times:

R. Lenk published an article: 'Time-evolution of the entropy of fluctuations in some biological systems as investigated by NMR'. The Abstract reads:

[list]A simple expression for the entropy of fluctuations has been developed, using the tunnelling-effect model. This gives the possibility to estimate the changes and evolution to entropy in non-crystalline and biological samples by NMR investigations. On the other hand, the oscillatory character of the time-evolution of some properties, experimentally found in the investigated samples of plants, is interpreted in terms of the generalized master equation with an exponential memory function.[/list]

But if that does not say much to you, what about Dalius Balciunas' article about 'biological evolution phenomenon', in which he argues biological organization is solely the product of self-replication? Not only does he set forth his case, but does so with coherent mathematical models and formulae: review it here

In these examples, I have taken care to reference easily digestible articles, not one of mathematical formulae that may prove beyond your grasp.


Pst: in setting forth these things, it does not make me an evolutionist - so the idea that viaro has atheistic and evolutionary bedfellows is quite a laugh.

mazaje:




The debate will be arranged soon. . .Ken Ham has a busy a very schedule, I know very well that delay is dangerous. . . .

Oh lawd! this guy, you're quite a crack! Nice one.

OLAADEGBU:

You and your bedfellows should remember not to discourage the other person's plans unless you have better ones.

Hehehe. . My goodness! What plans have you been trying to hatch all this time? 'Bedfellows'?? Haaha!

Talk about 'discouraging' other person's plans, I apologise - it was not my intention to do so. It just quite amazes me that this thread seemed to propound so many assertions that are flying through the pink sky. This was why I wanted to hear you out in the previous pages; and since you proposed to show "an example of how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory", I waited to see - but at the end of the day, it was all reactionary from you with very little substance to what you tried to settle.

As to the idea that when we critique your assertions, we should be able to come up with better ones, I welcomed that challenge happily - and yes, I did not stop giving a critique of your ideas, but also went on to set out the a "postscript" to discuss Systemics as an emerging branch of philosophy that studies systems based on holistic view points.

Systemics was my way of answering your challenge to have 'better ones' when reviewing your own assertions in this thread. So far, I have waited to see you response to that alternative I proposed - and the wait is quite long. Is there something missing soemwhere?

@viaro,

You should clap for yourself for being so intelligent.  By the way can you draw a circle and then write 100% in that circle.  That 100% represents all the knowledge that is in this world.  Now tell me what % of that knowledge do you think you have?

OLAADEGBU:

@viaro,

You should clap for yourself for being so intelligent. By the way can you draw a circle and then write 100% in that circle. That 100% represents all the knowledge that is in this world. Now tell me what % of that knowledge do you think you have?

I'm not that intelligent, really. The one thing I ask people who make such conjectures is that they first tell me how they intend to measure '100%' as representing all the knowledge in the world. Do we know what that is? As soon as you can answer that question with a good degree of accuracy, I shall promptly tell you where I stand in that circle.