honeric01:

good night guys

Sweet dream dude.

michelin89:

What is my type? Those who don't follow your doctrines are now a type? That's even more offensive.

Everyone is a type. . . .i am a type that blv in His existence and i am sure you know what your type is all about.

davidylan:

I wish you'd take time to understand those terminologies yourself. Every tom, d-ick and harry now tries to explain science these days . . .

Well said

Believe me I know the difference between creation and generation. And I am not a scientist neither have I tried to explain Science.

Why do you always get worked up like this? I mean it's not worth it.

michelin89:

Believe me I know the difference between creation and generation. And I am not a scientist neither have I tried to explain Science.

Why do you always get worked up like this? I mean it's not worth it.

I pay some extra interest in issues like this especially when i'm sure the protagonist has absolutely no idea what they claim to be arguing about.

True there is a linguistic difference between creation and generation but lets look at this:

1. The earth and all that is in it was created by God.

2. The earth generated itself from a cloud of hot dust . . .

Which of the two requires greater faith to believe?

Sometimes i doubt you folks understand the incredulity of your own claims.

It is not even that, people claims that things generate from one into the other, and here is my question to them, the first thing that started the generation was created from what and formed by who.
Some of the people thinks man was formed from Apes, and here is my question, Ape is from where and what?
people think the world was created from some big bang nonsense, and before the big bang, what was. . . .they have no clue.
I have noticed that many people these days think it is so kool to be an atheist and therefore just wanna blv anything and everything, as long as it makes them look kool

Generation is not necessarily linked to religions whereas creation is.

Generation doesn't imply life out of nothing. It states there must be something for something else to be born out of it. Generation is pretty much a worldly word and requires no faith. Simply because it is adopt by religion doesn't mean you must claim ownership of the word.

This Christiancentrism is becoming really boring.

michelin89:

Generation is not necessarily linked to religions whereas creation is.

Generation doesn't imply life out of nothing. It states there must be something for something else to be born out of it. Generation is pretty much a worldly word and requires no faith. Simply because it is adopt by religion doesn't mean you must claim ownership of the word.

This Christiancentrism is becoming really boring.

this makes absolutely no sense at all.

Yeah generation isnt linked to religions so that makes a claim such as "the earth appeared from hot gases" valid?

Generation doesnt imply life out of nothing but what then did the earth evolve from?

Do you read your own posts before clicking?

michelin89:

Generation is not necessarily linked to religions whereas creation is.

Generation doesn't imply life out of nothing. It states there must be something for something else to be born out of it. Generation is pretty much a worldly word and requires no faith. Simply because it is adopt by religion doesn't mean you must claim ownership of the word.

This Christiancentrism is becoming really boring.

Boredom happens when the brain tissue is too tired to fathom reality from what is not real.

davidylan:

this makes absolutely no sense at all.

Yeah generation isnt linked to religions so that makes a claim such as "the earth appeared from hot gases" valid?

Generation doesnt imply life out of nothing but what then did the earth evolve from?

Do you read your own posts before clicking?

Lol

David you fail to see something: I am not here to discuss science with you. I am here to simply highlight the differences between two words.

If today you haven't had your daily fight with atheists I suggest you visit Religion because you won't have any with me.

Now that I have stated why creation must not even be associated with Atheism, whereas generation is acceptable, I am done.

Peace.

michelin89:

David you fail to see something: I am not here to discuss science with you. I am here to simply highlight the differences between two words.

If today you haven't had your daily fight with atheists I suggest you visit Religion because you won't have any with me.

Now that I have stated why creation must not even be associated with Atheism, whereas generation is acceptable, I am done.

Peace.

So were you created or you generated/
If you were generated, from what and how?
If you can answer that . . . .then, kool

Fhemmmy:

So were you created or you generated/
If you were generated, from what and how?
If you can answer that . . . .then, kool

I generated from my parents. They had to exist before I could.

michelin89:

I generated from my parents. They had to exist before I could.

that is fair.
So the first person in your family, the first person that started that family generated from where?

Ever wondered why we talk of GENERATIONS?

I am not the first and won't be the last (hopefully) generation of my family.

u yet to answer the question, the beginning of the person that started your generation came from where and generated from who?

Fhemmmy:

u yet to answer the question, the beginning of the person that started your generation came from where and generated from who?

I have answered your question in case you didn't notice that. But I know where you are driving at: the very first generation of mankind so you can legitimate your Creationism, but you won't get me.

NOTHING IS BORN OUT OF NOTHING.

You seems to be afraid to talk about what you seems to beleive in?
Throw away the "get me" "get you" mindset, we are just talking and trying to reason together.
Like i said at the start, i am not here to force you to blv what i blv

You ignored the answer I gave you simply because instead of saying A B C D I used ALPHABET instead.

Life is also about simplifying what could take you a million words in just one.

Like i said, i know ur type, so i will leave it at that.
Stay blessed

michelin89:

David you fail to see something: I am not here to discuss science with you. I am here to simply highlight the differences between two words.

If today you haven't had your daily fight with atheists I suggest you visit Religion because you won't have any with me.

Now that I have stated why creation must not even be associated with Atheism, whereas generation is acceptable, I am done.

Peace.

When you folks get stuck in your own piffle you start claiming you werent discussing "science" anyway.

The reason why generation but NOT creation is accepted by atheists has NOTHING to do with their definitions. Its simply because creation connotes something divine which the atheists hates.

michelin89:

I have answered your question in case you didn't notice that. But I know where you are driving at: the very first generation of mankind so you can legitimate your Creationism, but you won't get me.

NOTHING IS BORN OUT OF NOTHING.

This is a meaningless claim that has no proof.

Where did the earth come from?

michelin89:

Ever wondered why we talk of GENERATIONS?

I am not the first and won't be the last (hopefully) generation of my family.

Where did the first member of your generation come from? Hot gases or monkeys?

You people are beyond confused.

davidylan:

Where did the first member of your generation come from? Hot gases or monkeys?

You people are beyond confused.

They also generated from someone.

Why are you religious people obsessed with origins? You are setting yourself for an endless discussion, you know?

michelin89:

They also generated from someone.

Why are you religious people obsessed with origins? You are setting yourself for an endless discussion, you know?

That's really funny because evolution itself is obsessed with origin. Infact much of science is obsessed with origin. To insinuate to religious people are obsessed with origins is a fallacy and exposes the huge gap in your own knowledge.

The theory of the big bang is an attempt to explain the origin of man, space exploration, geology, anthropology . . . are all man's obsession with origins. And you think only religious people are guilty of this?

Sorry we are not setting ourselves up for "endless discussion", that's principally because you really have no idea what you talk about.

Did I tell you I worshiped Darwin? And why do you believe every Atheist eats, talks and dreams about Evolutionism? As far I as concerned all this search for an origin is just pure madness.

Why won't men accept their limits? I am not an Atheist because I think Evolution is more credible but because I find the whole Creation too desperate. Mind you just because Creation is peculiar to Christianity, it doesn't mean Evolution must be the same to Atheism.

michelin89:

Did I tell you I worshiped Darwin? And why do you believe every Atheist eats, talks and dreams about Evolutionism? As far I as concerned all this search for an origin is just pure madness.

Why won't men accept their limits? I am not an Atheist because I think Evolution is more credible but because I find the whole Creation too desperate. Mind you just because Creation is peculiar to Christianity, it doesn't mean Evolution must be the same to Atheism.

1. Why do you find the creation story desperate? Simply because its the convenient alternative to belief in God?

2. Creation is NOT peculiar to christianity . . . again i have had to correct you on this false assertion. Yoruba folklore talks about creationism, islam and the rest all do the same.

3. Isnt it funny how atheists claim creationism is "desperate" but have absolutely no reason WHY they think so nor do they have an alternative?

But you can't be a Christian and refuse Creationism, right? That what I mean. But you can be an Atheist and refuse Evolutionism? Even those Christians who seem to sympathize with Darwin still do identify God as a creator, so no Christianity and Creationism go hand in hand.

I find Creationism desperate because it's simplicistic and too Aristothelic for my liking which is so Middle Aged.

michelin89:

But you can't be a Christian and refuse Creationism, right? That what I mean. But you can be an Atheist and refuse Evolutionism? Even those Christians who seem to sympathize with Darwin still do identify God as a creator, so no Christianity and Creationism go hand in hand.

You dont seem to have a good grasp of your own subject. No creationism and christianity do not go hand in hand . . . creationism is a part of islam, ifa, sango, ogun religions, yoruba, igbo folklore . . . e.t.c.

The idea of creationism is not exclusive to christianity alone. We simply believe in the biblical narrative that God created the earth. Others have different ideas of who created the earth . . . just the same way scientists have their own opinion.

As an atheist you can refuse evolution primarily because you simply have no proof for it anyway . . . its just easier to pretend not to believe in it than be forced to face the problem of defending its idiocy.

michelin89:

I find Creationism desperate because it's simplicistic and too Aristothelic for my liking which is so Middle Aged.

This makes no sense too. Does the simplicity of an idea discountenance its validity? 1+1=2 so arithmetic is desperate? What would have made you believe creationism? If the intricacies where described in excruciating detail in a 10000 page volume?

Really you need to come up with a more credible explanation.

Actually I am too lazy to write, reason why I never take parts in those debates. How can you go on an entire day debating over the same issue and then continue the next day.

1. I noticed you ignore my other adjective: Aristothelic. I don't buy his idea of the world and knowing Christianity borrowed the whole concept of FIRST CAUSE from him automatically extends my refusal to this religion.

2. You seem not to understand something. I didn't say if you believe in Creation then you are Christian, I said you can't be a Christian and refuse Creationism. Is this also wrong. So coming up with the same blah blah. I don't write essays but I believe my words are very clear unless you decide on your own to give a different interpretation.

3. 1+1=2---I can't believe you actually came up with this example. If I may remind you this is just one of infinite operations in Mathematics and you know Maths is everything but simple. This is science.

And by the way Maths is about logic. Creationism isn't.

michelin89:

1. I noticed you ignore my other adjective: Aristothelic. I don't buy his idea of the world and knowing Christianity borrowed the whole concept of FIRST CAUSE from him automatically extends my refusal to this religion.

I didnt ignore it, i simply dismissed it because i doubt you understand it anyway. Besides to say that christianity borrowed its concepts from aristotle simply destroyed whatever credibility you had on that issue.
The bible simply states that God created the earth . . . as a matter of fact . . . this has nothing to do with borrowing a concept.

Besides . . . is the big bang theory itself not a borrowing from Aristotle? Why did they believe the earth must have been created by the smashing of atoms together? Could not the earth just have existed?

michelin89:

2. You seem not to understand something. I didn't say if you believe in Creation then you are Christian, I said you can't be a Christian and refuse Creationism. Is this also wrong. So coming up with the same blah blah. I don't write essays but I believe my words are very clear unless you decide on your own to give a different interpretation.

err this makes no sense again. The concept of God's creation of the earth is part and parcel of the bible . . . how do you divorce that from christianity? My point (which you strenuously avoid) simply states that creationism isnt exclusive to christianity alone.
you dont need to write essays . . . just make some sense and stop borrowing from the web.

michelin89:

3. 1+1=2---I can't believe you actually came up with this example. If I may remind you this is just one of infinite operations in Mathematics and you know Maths is everything but simple. This is science.

And by the way Maths is about logic. Creationism isn't.

1+1 = 2 anywhere in the world . . . its just that simple. You can try bigging it up with more verbose and irrelevant language though.

What you are discussing isnt science at all sorry.

Maths is about logic . . . creationism is also about logic. If we threw creationism away then how would you describe why there is life on earth but none on the moon? That shld have a logical explanation no? Afterall this is science.

1. Oh please anyone who studied Aristothelis would know Christianity borrowed big time from him. They just added a couple of figures (Son and Holy Spirit) and other characteristics and there we went: God. And guess what I studied him. Kind of liked him even though I didn't share his ideas.

2. David we are basically saying the same thing but who knows why you must claim you are righter. Ok carry go. You don tire me for this one.

3. There is no logic about Creationism. It has the same fallacies Aristothelis's idea of FIRST CAUSE had.

No comment

michelin89:

1. Oh please anyone who studied Aristothelis would know Christianity borrowed big time from him.

Do you mind giving specific examples or is this just one of those claims that will remain unsubstantiated?

michelin89:

1. Oh please anyone who studied Aristothelis would know Christianity borrowed big time from him. They just added a couple of figures (Son and Holy Spirit) and other characteristics and there we went: God. And guess what I studied him. Kind of liked him even though I didn't share his ideas.

That is absolutely not true, i mean to be honest does anyone with half a brain believe this? Aristotle was born in 382 BC, long long after Genesis was written.

michelin89:

3. There is no logic about Creationism. It has the same fallacies Aristothelis's idea of FIRST CAUSE had.

Your own opinion. What fallacies are you talking about? Please expantiate.