truthislight:


Lol. Mention the ones that have ran away except Your friend Enigma.

There goes one that has run away, though he was no friend of mine, rather he was a perfect example of the neurosis that inflicts many people who cling on to false beliefs. The one that surprised me though is Olaadegbu. Since this section has become dry I'm surprised to note his absence. I always used to believe that he would be the last man standing even after NL becomes a wasteland. It seems that even his doggedness has limits.

EvilBrain1:


Every culture has known about contagious diseases for thousands of years. Ancient people were not stupid, they would have noticed that some diseases tended to spread among close contacts. Even animals know this. To claim that people didn't know that they should isolate people with contagious diseases before they saw it in the bible is stüpid.

Just stop using probability here. It is only your evolutionary discovery that you can term "would have" cos they are all speculations. God gave the Jews law on leprosy. They never invented it themselves nor is it from there human experiences. Which other nations had that law at that time. Tell me.

We're not made from dust, that's just stüpid.

The World Book Encyclopedia says: “All the chemical elements that make up living things are also present in nonliving matter.”

Abiogenesis is a very rapidly evolving field and a lot of breakthroughs have been made in recent years. There is still work to be done before we figure out how to create life de novo, but things are moving very fast and the problem might even be solved in our lifetime. This video is a bit outdated, but it gives a good general overview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQLyqWaCbA
If you want the hard unprocessed science stuff, here's some links:
Nucleotides naturally forming spontaneously
Amino acids forming spontaneously in space
Amino acids spontaneously forming functional proteins
Metabolic pathways (probably the most important feature of living things) appearing spontaneously.
Spontaneous formation of protocells.
Spontaneously forming protocells that self replicate and grow.
Sauce: Reddit user /u/Superb_Simian

The evidence we have strongly suggests that given the conditions that existed in the early earth, the appearance of life is basically inevitable. And Darwin has already shown us what always happens when you have living things, competition and time. In short, there is no need for a god to explain anything about life on earth.



This is good advice. I totally agree.

All you presented are speculations which different evolutionist come with. None of those rubbish are based on observation and experiments. Those are speculations of what was claimed to have happened years back. You know how scientific method goes, NOT those speculations you pasted there.

There is no even an evidence of a self replicating molecule that existed in the time past.

Even billions of years ago, the difference between living and non living thing is large.

Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”

Some scientists conclude that the odds of even one protein molecule forming spontaneously are extremely improbable. “Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins,” writes physicist Paul Davies, “it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone.”

The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion.

And this is what a reasonable person will put faith in. Belief in a God does not even require that stretch of faith.

PastorAIO:


There goes one that has run away, though he was no friend of mine, rather he was a perfect example of the neurosis that inflicts many people who cling on to false beliefs. The one that surprised me though is Olaadegbu. Since this section has become dry I'm surprised to note his absence. I always used to believe that he would be the last man standing even after NL becomes a wasteland. It seems that even his doggedness has limits.

Well, you have a point though, some oldies have not shone up for sometime now, it may be a phase though, you maybe surprised, they May show up, sooner or later.

I have also been able to learn more about other religions, most especially the islamic religion.

JMAN05:


Just stop using probability here. It is only your evolutionary discovery that you can term "would have" cos they are all speculations. God gave the Jews law on leprosy. They never invented it themselves nor is it from there human experiences. Which other nations had that law at that time. Tell me.

Actually, the bible doesn't say anything about Leprosy the disease. The Hebrew word that gets translated as leprosy is "Tzaraath" which refers to any condition causing scaly skin. Scaly skin can be caused by the disease we now call leprosy, but it can also be caused by many other conditions like syphilis and non infectious diseases like psoriasis. Also, non-living things like clothes and houses could also have tzaraath. Clearly the ancient hebrews had no clue about Leprosy as a distinct disease. If you still have have doubts, read Leviticus 14 and let us know if the home video juju ritual it describes is likely to cure leprosy in your opinion.

The World Book Encyclopedia says: “All the chemical elements that make up living things are also present in nonliving matter.”

How does this suggest that we came from dust? Unless you're saying that dust mean any preexisting matter, in which case your statement is obvious and hardly worth stating. The bible saying 1+1=2 wouldn't be proof of a divine author, neither is this.

All you presented are speculations which different evolutionist come with. None of those rubbish are based on observation and experiments. Those are speculations of what was claimed to have happened years back. You know how scientific method goes, NOT those speculations you pasted there.

There is no even an evidence of a self replicating molecule that existed in the time past.

Even billions of years ago, the difference between living and non living thing is large.

Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”

Some scientists conclude that the odds of even one protein molecule forming spontaneously are extremely improbable. “Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins,” writes physicist Paul Davies, “it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone.”

The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion.

And this is what a reasonable person will put faith in. Belief in a God does not even require that stretch of faith.

I admire the way you casually dismissed the peer reviewed scientific papers I linked to. 6 different sets of rigorously done scientific experiments that have been replicated and verified by independent scientific teams is just "speculation"? You should go and work for a tobacco company, or those climate change denying oil companies. You'd fit in very well there.

Also, the irreducible complexity argument is nonsense, it only exposes your lack of understanding of evolution. If you'd taken the time to actually learn what the theory says, you'd know why complexity is not a problem and start arguing more intelligently. There are plenty potential ways to prove evolution wrong, but the complexity of life is not one of them.

In any case, my last post wasn't about evolution, it was about life emerging from non-living precursors, Abiogenesis. Completely different field, and your canned anti-evolution arguments do not apply. Now please, actually read the stuff I posted and say something sensible. You can ask questions if there's anything that isn't clear, I'll try and explain as best I can. But you need to drop that smug attitude, and realize that you cant just read one small magic book and assume you know anything.

EvilBrain1:


Actually, the bible doesn't say anything about Leprosy the disease. The Hebrew word that gets translated as leprosy is "Tzaraath" which refers to any condition causing scaly skin. Scaly skin can be caused by the disease we now call leprosy, but it can also be caused by many other conditions like syphilis and non infectious diseases like psoriasis. Also, non-living things like clothes and houses could also have tzaraath. Clearly the ancient hebrews had no clue about Leprosy as a distinct disease. If you still have have doubts, read Leviticus 14 and let us know if the home video juju ritual it describes is likely to cure leprosy in your opinion.

They do. Even if the word are used for other uncleanness. The contagious human leprosy is known. Num 12:12 shows that this is so.

Lev 14. you quoted is about someone who jad been cured of leprosy already. Those things has to be done to declare him clean.

If you refuse to show me a land at that time that had such law, i will take it that you agree that they had knowledge of a contagious disease without scientific discovery on it. Science was able to know it was contagious latter.

How does this suggest that we came from dust? Unless you're saying that dust mean any preexisting matter, in which case your statement is obvious and hardly worth stating. The bible saying 1+1=2 wouldn't be proof of a divine author, neither is this.

I think that work shows that we are made of dust. If you dont get it, I cant help you.

I admire the way you casually dismissed the peer reviewed scientific papers I linked to. 6 different sets of rigorously done scientific experiments that have been replicated and verified by independent scientific teams is just "speculation"? You should go and work for a tobacco company, or those climate change denying oil companies. You'd fit in very well there.

Also, the irreducible complexity argument is nonsense, it only exposes your lack of understanding of evolution. If you'd taken the time to actually learn what the theory says, you'd know why complexity is not a problem and start arguing more intelligently. There are plenty potential ways to prove evolution wrong, but the complexity of life is not one of them.

In any case, my last post wasn't about evolution, it was about life emerging from non-living precursors, Abiogenesis. Completely different field, and your canned anti-evolution arguments do not apply. Now please, actually read the stuff I posted and say something sensible. You can ask questions if there's anything that isn't clear, I'll try and explain as best I can. But you need to drop that smug attitude, and realize that you cant just read one small magic book and assume you know anything.

Your spontaneous generation of life has always been a decoy.


Your situation is really pitiful. So it is that rubbish you gave there that you cast such a trust on? Sorry.

I am telling you that none of them observed those rubbish they spew there. They are just assuming this and that happened.

Self replicating molecule. Where did they see this? Where they there billions of years ago to see this prebiotic ocean?

Or should I have faith that it happened so? How did the RNA appear since it cant appear without protein and protein cant appear without RNA. Which came first? Did Darwin miraculously went back billions of years ago to make it work? Where has your brain gone to my friend?

Has Pasteur not proven that abiogenesis is false? I have also shown you that protein spontaneously appearing is impossible. Yet you have that GREAT faith to believe it happened. Once again, Sorry. I have no such faith!

Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’” RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”

If RNA require protein to appear, and protein require RNA, there appearing is now a miracle.

Okeeeeeey! Now assuming your Pastor Dawkins or those your science pear revealed rubbish entered there lab and produced RNA in there speculative "earth".

Assuming they have proved this in there lab. And so what? What great point is that? It is still speculation of what they "thought probably" happened. That does not prove that chance can do the same.

For example: A scientist makes a research, assembles required materials and was able to make or manufacture a computer. What has that person proven?

He has proven that a human being, an intelligent one for that matter can produce a computer or make something more sophisticated than a computer, but it does not show that it can all appear by chance. Does it? does that mean that by chance those materials can assemble by itself and produce a computer?

Even if you drop all the marerials in a warehouse, and give it billions of years, these materials wont assemble itself and form the computer we use today.

If you make a robot, it does not mean that if you drop materials used for making robot somewhere and allow billions of years that by chance those materials will assemble themselves and form a robot with ability to think as we do.

Where has your brain gone to man?

Where on earth has RNA ever emerged by itself from nonliving thing?

All those things are not based on observation, they are all speculations turned into a living "organism". Thats why theory upon theory will continue to emerge.

You guys dont deserve someone's time, I tell you.

Paul Davies is aware of issue concerning spontaneous generation, but maintained that such complex thing as cell cant come by chance alone

@Jman05

You are dealing with men with large faith, extra ordinary faith.
They have faith that runs into "Billions upon Billions of years" i tell you, it is an extra ordinary faith they(atheist) have.

It takes extra ordinary petience to help them see the absurdity of such faith of theirs.

Peace though.

truthislight:
@Jman05

You are dealing with men with large faith, extra ordinary faith.
They have faith that runs into "Billions upon Billions of years" i tell you, it is an extra ordinary faith they(atheist) have.

It takes extra ordinary petience to help them see the absurdity of such faith of theirs.

Peace though.

Honestly, they do have strong faith.

After cooking a delicious meal, someone will tell me "Guy do you know that I was trying to prove that melon, oil, meat, maggi, ukazi, pot, stove etc can assemble itself and produce a meal of that kind?".

It requires an extraordinary faith to believe I must say.

It appears you took a leave from nairaland sometime ago?

JMAN05:



It appears you took a leave from nairaland sometime ago?

Yea. a brief one, though i do peep through from time to time, a change of routine was responsible for that though.

well done bro.

truthislight:


Yea. a brief one, though i do peep through from time to time, a change of routine was responsible for that though.

well done bro.

ok. guess u are enjoy d jw broadcast.

JMAN05:


ok. guess u are enjoy d jw broadcast.

Yap. True, i sure do.