hakeem4:
Good day guys. As the topic says “science refutes God”. This is a debate between hopeforcharles and I https://www.nairaland.com/5166360/im-confused#78073126. Anyone is free to join as far as you do not derail the thread.

As the speaker speaking for the motion. I start by saying I have the advantage of winning this debate because I have evidence reason, logic empirical method and rationality on my side, where as hopeforcharles has nothing but vague hopes, fears, and not to forget “FAITH”.
I think I should first clarify the nature of the motion. The motion says “science REFUTES god” not “DISPROVE”. This is very important because you can’t disprove something which has not been proven. As Carl Sagan says “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
And today I am here to tell you with over 500 years of science, god (whatever you define it as) is not relevant to this universe. It is actually irrational to believe in god.
Now to refute god is to refute several assertions made by theists. Here is just some of the major assertions
1. That god Is necessary for the creation of the universe and complex life
2. There is evidence for god
3. Believing in god is rational.

But with the progress of science, it has shown us that there is no need for any intelligent designer for what so ever. A lot of creation myths have been created throughout our history and science has come out to tell us they are false.

I am sure my opponent is surely going to come up with this point that the universe is fine tuned for life, so it must require an intelligent designer. That is blatantly false! This was the same type of reasoning people thought that made us think we were created specially from other animals before Charles Darwin came up with Evolution (the theory of natural selection). But what Darwin showed us was that there was just genetic variation among the population combined with NATURAL selection means that you do not need any intelligent designer. That all the living thing on earth came from the same ancestors (theory of modification by descent) by natural law. Darwin never knew anything about DNA but he knew it was plausible. Now with the invention of DNA more evidence for evolution has come to light and the only people who do not believe in evolution are scientifically illiterate people. Evolution is a scientific theory same way Gravity is. Now Darwin has removed the need for god the next evidence was the creation of the universe.

Back to the argument that the universe was finetuned for life. I am sure hopeforcharles would say that if there is a little change is any of the given laws of nature that we would not be here today. I am here to tell you that it is an illusion. What we are seeing here is an example of cosmic natural selection. The universe was not created for us but rather we evolved to adapt to this universe. Most of the universes are not even conducive for life. There is a plausible explanation for how a universe could come from nothing. Hopeforcharles could also argue that the multiverse scientist talk about was created so as to do away with god because scientist don’t like god, because it’s the same characteristic that god is supposed to have. To be honest I do not like the idea of the multiverse but our calculation and observation has shown us more outside our universe. There are still a lot of unanswered questions but god is not required in the answer

And now` to conclude science has taught me that
1. We do not need god to create the universe
2. We do not need to believe in god
3. It is irrational.

So clearly you should become and atheist.

EmperorHarry:
If you believe evolution refutes the God theory,then you might just be as thick and deluded as the theist you are criticizing.

hakeem4:
well, evolution said there was no need for any intelligent design

EmperorHarry:

What if there was/is an intelligent designer who is different from the theistic and religious perception of the nature of said intelligent designer? Would you still wholeheartedly support the evolution theory?

titigenius:
OP, i would like to ask a question. How old is the earth, and how long will it take a monkey to become a man since evolution agrees to that?

hakeem4:
evolution does not work that way. We did not come from monkeys. Rather about 3 million years ago we had a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos

hakeem4:
well, evolution said there was no need for any intelligent design

hakeem4:

Evolution is a scientific theory same way Gravity is.

hakeem4:
evolution does not work that way. We did not come from monkeys. Rather about 3 million years ago we had a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos

OpenYourEyes1:



Do you think it is possible for even the simplest software codes to arise spontaneously & evolve through natural process?

hakeem4:
you are mistaking evolution for abiogenesis. but muller and urey performed an experiment that showed life can arise from non-living matter

titigenius:

in other words, the ancestors gave birth to three siblings; a chimpazee, a bonobos and a human. interesting!

OpenYourEyes1:



Post the experiment.

OpenYourEyes1:


Between Newton and Einstein who is right about gravity?

hakeem4:
yes but not modern chimpanzees, bonobos or human.

hakeem4:

https://www.britannica.com/science/Miller-Urey-experiment

OpenYourEyes1:



Is the organic compound alive?


You cannot mix different metals together to form a car. But mixing metals can produce complex and stronger metal. Did you get the point?

Old news by the way

titigenius:

noted. but enven while typing this i know you don't believe this story. there is no sound proof to any theory of evolution just thesis

hakeem4:
I know evolution happened. Evolution is a scientific theory. Same way gravity is

hakeem4:
Yes we found monomers but we do not still understand how the monomers turn into protein yet. Monomers are the building blocks of life

titigenius:

since you believe evolution happened you must also believe the earth is 5.6

---

billion years and if according to evolution, the earth is that old the changes as claimed by evolutionist happen through time, don't you think present day man's anatomy should have already revealed loud changes, afterall 5.6 billion is a great number

OpenYourEyes1:



It can't be alive bro. You should be talking about the assembling of RNA & DNA before life can emerge. Did he find organic compound self-organising into an RNA or DNA?

Monomers add nothing important. Metals are building blocks of cars too.

hopeforcharles:

Quite impressive @ hakeem4 you must have done some research. But there are facts you missed out, and most of your quotes and saying are half baked.
I accept your challenge but I must have to do my research and carve out time we will update this post intelligently and at our own pace to enable us handle other needs we have outside the internet because I am usually a busy person.
I am very happy you are a Nigerian and A man from the south, A place where is there is be right back duty calls

hakeem4:
still waiting for you