Abdulgaffar22:


Honestly you're an atheist by ignorance. You didn't know anything about genetics.

You should draw the curtains, I warned you about his ignorance but it seemed as though I wanted to derail everything. By the way, I really would want us to talk {outside NL}.

Blabbermouth:

You should draw the curtains, I warned you about his ignorance but it seemed as though I wanted to derail everything. By the way, I really would want us to talk {outside NL}.

Here is my Gmail address; abdulgaffaradebayo@gmail.com

Abdulgaffar22:


Honestly you're an atheist by ignorance. You didn't know anything about genetics. An acquired trait is not hereditary in nature.
If a man get his right arm amputated through an accident, then can his children inherit this amputation ? Certainly not. This is because there is nothing wrong with the DNA that codes for the construction of the two arms during embryonic development.

Similarly, if it was the first male duck' s phallus that caused the first female duck' s vaginal tract to be corkscrew as you think, then there is no way for this trait to be inherited by the subsequent generations of the female duck. Besides, do you think the phallus of the male animals are so strong to make a permanent shape of hole in the body of the female animals ? Was it the shape of human penis that created the shape of the human vagina ?

Sorry ! You get it wrong

The corkscrew shape of the male and female duck' s reproductive structures is already encoded on their DNA just like shape of male human' s penis and shape of female human' s vagina are already encoded on human DNA.

The creation of two complex biological structures ( like male and female duck' s reproductive structures and male and female human' s reproductive structures ) which are COMPLEMENTARY with each other is beyond the work of chance.
It is definitely the work of intelligence to those who have inner eyes to see things

And are a dumbfuck theist who thinks their god designed a species of bird with corkscrew dicks while leaving 97% of bird species without one. The more dumbfucks like you talk the more you make your god out to be an insane being.

Instead of letting me get to my point you get ahead of yourself and reveal your dishonesty. I was not going to be referring to acquired traits but your dumbass only knows nonsense apologetics and thought you were making a valid point.

Dumbass this species has been studied to find out why they evolved. Dumbfuck theists like you see corkscrew penis and start jizzing all over your pants with out understanding what is going on.

This suggests the Instruments of males and females have evolved to surpass each other in a kind of escalating arms race over which sex gets to control reproduction.

"Despite the fact that most waterfowl form monogamous pairs, forced copulations by other males—the avian equivalent of rape—are common in many waterfowl," said Prum. The length of the phallus of a species is strongly linked with the frequency of forced copulations.

"In response to male attempts to force their paternity on females, female waterfowl may be able to assert their own behavioral and anatomical means of controlling who fathers their offspring," Brennan said.

This means that male waterfowl evolve more ornate phalluses to attempt to successfully overcome the physical defenses raised by ever more elaborate vaginas, and vice versa.

https://www.livescience.com/amp/4426-ducks-wage-genital-warfare.html

Dumbfuck theist.

@ LordReed

Honestly, what you're bringing to counter my points has a serious devastating effect on your belief .

See what Brennan said in your reference "Ducks wage genital warfare"

"I became very GOOD at PREDICTING what the genital structure of one sex would look like by looking at the other sex first".

If Brennan can GOODLY PREDICT how the genital structure of one sex would look like by merely looking at the other sex, then there must be a PERFECT CORRELATION between the male and female genital structures.

Now can this perfect correlation exist by process of chance ?

Can you continuously make good prediction about something that is base on chance ?

If something is not by chance, then it must be intended. But intention can only exist in a mind. Yet according to your own world view, such mind does not exist .

If ducks really wage genital warfare as the author declared, was it by process of CHANCE mutations in their DNA ?
Yet there must be a warfare in their genotype (DNA )before such warfare can be reflected in their phenotype.

So what other factors that can cause the genotype to change apart from CHANCE mutations if not INTENDED mutations ?

Abdulgaffar22:
@ LordReed

Honestly, what you're bringing to counter my points has a serious devastating effect on your belief .

See what Brennan said in your reference "Ducks wage genital warfare"

"I became very GOOD at PREDICTING what the genital structure of one sex would look like by looking at the other sex first".

If Brennan can GOODLY PREDICT how the genital structure of one sex would look like by merely looking at the other sex, then there must be a PERFECT CORRELATION between the male and female genital structures.

Now can this perfect correlation exist by process of chance ?

Can you continuously make good prediction about something that is base on chance ?

If something is not by chance, then it must be intended. But intention can only exist in a mind. Yet according to your own world view, such mind does not exist .

Abdulgaffar22:

If ducks really wage genital warfare as the author declared, was it by process of CHANCE mutations in their DNA ?
Yet there must be a warfare in their genotype (DNA )before such warfare can be reflected in their phenotype.

So what other factors that can cause the genotype to change apart from CHANCE mutations if not INTENDED mutations ?

You don't listen do you? How many time will you be told it is not chance? Evolution by natural selection is not chance. It means you either do not understand evolution by natural selection (and probably don't want to understand it) or you do understand it and are just being obtuse by a large factor.

BTW what has recognising patterns got to do with it? Humans are good at recognising patterns so why is it anything of note to this discussion? Besides this is a person who has studied extensively how biology works so why is this a point?

It is not chance and is not design, it is outcomes based on constraints. If you can't understand that I have no help for you.

LordReed:



It is not chance and is not design, it is outcomes based on constraints. If you can't understand that I have no help for you.

Please read carefully



When identifying the cause of things in everyday life—an object, an event, a signal from space—there are only three possibilities: (1) Constraint, (2) Chance, or (3) Design.

Everything exist either by constraint or by chance or by design.


(1) Constraints/ Necessity /Coercion/ Compulsion

To say that something is caused “by constraints or necessity” requires that it can happen in one and only one way. In other words, only one possible outcome exists, and that possible outcome must always occur. There is no any other alternative outcome that can compete with the only possible outcome.

The following are all examples of "Constraints" ;
(i)"Heads" come up while flipping a two-headed coin.
(ii) 2 + 2 = 4.
(iii) Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
(iv) Massive bodies exert a gravitational force according to a specific formula.
(v) Sun rises in the east and set in the west.
(vi) All living things will die

In our universe, these events cannot have alternative outcomes. It is impossible for any other outcome to occur.


(2) Chance/Luck/Accident/ Coincidence
For something to be caused “by chance or accident” requires the event or outcome to be:

(a) Contingent: There must be more than one possible outcome.

(b) Plausible: There must be a reasonable probability of the outcome occurring “at random” or “by accident.” If the probability is exceedingly small, i.e. beyond plausibility, then “chance” is not an acceptable explanation.

The following are all examples of "Chance";
(i) "six" come up while tossing a fair die
(ii) falling of a leaf from a tree on a particular spot
(iii) a beautiful pattern formed by the flock of birds flying in the air

(3) Design
In order to attribute something to design, the event or outcome must be:

(a) Contingent: The must be more than one possible outcome.

(b) Complex: A complex event is one that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance, so low that we consider it implausible. (Example: Flipping "heads" 100 times in a row using a fair coin.) High complexity and low probability go together.

(c) Specified: Something is “specified” if it conforms to a specific recognizable pattern, or has evidence of structure. Something specified is more than just a random pattern; it matches a distinctive pattern that we recognize.

The following are all examples of "Design" ;
(i) a written information found on a sheet of paper
(ii) a sculpture of a man sitting on a horse
(iii) a vehicle produced in an engineering company


Here's a simple example of Constraints vs. chance vs. design;
Let’s assume that you win the lottery. Depending on the circumstances, your "win" could be the result of Constraint, or chance, or design:

Constraint : You were the ONLY PARTICIPANT in the lottery; thus, you had to win, by constraint or necessity. Only one possible outcome exists, and that possible outcome must always occur. There is no any other alternative outcome that can compete with the only possible outcome.

Chance: There were MANY PARTICIPANTS, the lottery was conducted fairly, and you just happened to win at random by chance.

Design: There were also many participants but your friends RIGGED the lottery so that you were chosen the winner by design.


Now having understood the THREE causal possibilities, then the type of reproductive structures found in male and female ducks was caused by what ?


Constraint or Chance or Design ?


If it was by constraint, then ONLY THE TYPE of reproductive structures found in the ducks must exist on the earth. This is because if something exist by constraint, then as explained above using an illustration of a lottery, only one possible outcome must always exist. However, there are many other types of reproductive structures that exist on the earth. Therefore, the existence of ducks' reproductive structures was not caused by constraint or necessity as you claimed.


Again, if it was by chance, then there should be NO PERFECT CORRELATION between the male and female ducks' reproductive structures. But such perfect correlation exist. Therefore, the creation of their reproductive structures was not by chance.


Pls do you also have any logical explanation why they could not have been caused by design ? If you have, tender it as I have done with constraint and chance.


After the elimination of "Constraint" and "Chance", the only option remain is "Design or Purpose" . And design or purpose can only exist in a MIND. But according to your own world view, such mind does not exist.

Abdulgaffar22:


Please read carefully



When identifying the cause of things in everyday life—an object, an event, a signal from space—there are only three possibilities: (1) Constraint, (2) Chance, or (3) Design.

Everything exist either by constraint or by chance or by design.


(1) Constraints/ Necessity /Coercion/ Compulsion

To say that something is caused “by constraints or necessity” requires that it can happen in one and only one way. In other words, only one possible outcome exists, and that possible outcome must always occur. There is no any other alternative outcome that can compete with the only possible outcome.

The following are all examples of "Constraints" ;
(i)"Heads" come up while flipping a two-headed coin.
(ii) 2 + 2 = 4.
(iii) Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
(iv) Massive bodies exert a gravitational force according to a specific formula.
(v) Sun rises in the east and set in the west.
(vi) All living things will die

In our universe, these events cannot have alternative outcomes. It is impossible for any other outcome to occur.


(2) Chance/Luck/Accident/ Coincidence
For something to be caused “by chance or accident” requires the event or outcome to be:

(a) Contingent: There must be more than one possible outcome.

(b) Plausible: There must be a reasonable probability of the outcome occurring “at random” or “by accident.” If the probability is exceedingly small, i.e. beyond plausibility, then “chance” is not an acceptable explanation.

The following are all examples of "Chance";
(i) "six" come up while tossing a fair die
(ii) falling of a leaf from a tree on a particular spot
(iii) a beautiful pattern formed by the flock of birds flying in the air

(3) Design
In order to attribute something to design, the event or outcome must be:

(a) Contingent: The must be more than one possible outcome.

(b) Complex: A complex event is one that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance, so low that we consider it implausible. (Example: Flipping "heads" 100 times in a row using a fair coin.) High complexity and low probability go together.

(c) Specified: Something is “specified” if it conforms to a specific recognizable pattern, or has evidence of structure. Something specified is more than just a random pattern; it matches a distinctive pattern that we recognize.

The following are all examples of "Design" ;
(i) a written information found on a sheet of paper
(ii) a sculpture of a man sitting on a horse
(iii) a vehicle produced in an engineering company


Here's a simple example of Constraints vs. chance vs. design;
Let’s assume that you win the lottery. Depending on the circumstances, your "win" could be the result of Constraint, or chance, or design:

Constraint : You were the ONLY PARTICIPANT in the lottery; thus, you had to win, by constraint or necessity. Only one possible outcome exists, and that possible outcome must always occur. There is no any other alternative outcome that can compete with the only possible outcome.

Chance: There were MANY PARTICIPANTS, the lottery was conducted fairly, and you just happened to win at random by chance.

Design: There were also many participants but your friends RIGGED the lottery so that you were chosen the winner by design.


Now having understood the THREE causal possibilities, then the type of reproductive structures found in male and female ducks was caused by what ?


Constraint or Chance or Design ?


If it was by constraint, then ONLY THE TYPE of reproductive structures found in the ducks must exist on the earth. This is because if something exist by constraint, then as explained above using an illustration of a lottery, only one possible outcome must always exist. However, there are many other types of reproductive structures that exist on the earth. Therefore, the existence of ducks' reproductive structures was not caused by constraint or necessity as you claimed.


Again, if it was by chance, then there should be NO PERFECT CORRELATION between the male and female ducks' reproductive structures. But such perfect correlation exist. Therefore, the creation of their reproductive structures was not by chance.


Pls do you also have any logical explanation why they could not have been caused by design ? If you have, tender it as I have done with constraint and chance.


After the elimination of "Constraint" and "Chance", the only option remain is "Design or Purpose" . And design or purpose can only exist in a MIND. But according to your own world view, such mind does not exist.

No, no, no.

Constraints are a set of conditions not just a predefined outcome. Every time the conditions change a new outcome is determined. That is how speciation comes about, this is why even merely changing location is enough to allow speciation.

LordReed:


No, no, no.

Constraints are a set of conditions not just a predefined outcome. Every time the conditions change a new outcome is determined. That is how speciation comes about, this is why even merely changing location is enough to allow speciation.

So mere changes in the environmental condition caused the bacteria to evolve gradually, gradually and gradually into human being ?

How does a change in environmental condition lead to evolution of completely new biological systems ?

Abdulgaffar22:


So mere changes in the environmental condition caused the bacteria to evolve gradually, gradually and gradually into human being ?

How does a change in environmental condition lead to evolution of completely new biological systems ?

The changes were not mere to the species that lived in those times. The changes where pretty drastic leading to extinctions in some cases. Also bacteria did not evolve gradually, gradually and gradually into human being. They evolved into many, many, many things way before humans even came on the scene.

By the accumulation of many relatively small changes over time.

LordReed:


The changes were not mere to the species that lived in those times. The changes where pretty drastic leading to extinctions in some cases. Also bacteria did not evolve gradually, gradually and gradually into human being. They evolved into many, many, many things way before humans even came on the scene.

There is one important factor you have left behind; Genetic factor (i:e DNA sequence of the living organisms).

The zygote of a goat species would only developed into a goat.

The zygote of a lion species would only developed into a lion

The zygote of an elephant species would only developed into an elephant

This implies that zygotes of different animal species must have different DNA sequence.

Therefore, before the evolutionists can proclaim that changes in the environmental condition lead to speciation, they have to explain how these environmental changes can affect the DNA SEQUENCE.

Without changes in the DNA sequence, speciation can never occur.

This changes in the DNA sequence is what the evolutionists called mutations.

According to the evolutionists, these mutations are RANDOM AND CONSTANTS process. See;

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution6.htm

Therefore, being a random event, mutations can be harmful, neutral and beneficial.

However, the evolutionists believed that it is the work of natural selection ( this is where the changes in environmental condition come into play) to keep the mutations that are beneficial while weeding out the harmful ones. So in their view, when these beneficial mutations accumulated enough, a new species would emerged. This is exactly how evolution works according to the evolutionists.

From this little explanation, you can see that "natural selection ( determined by changes in environmental condition)" can only work AFTER "mutations" has finished its work.

Yet mutations are RANDOM. This is the reason why some are harmful while some are neutral and beneficial.

Therefore, proclaiming that existence of male and female ducks' reproductive structures were based on environmental constraints is nothing but sheer ignorance.

If they cannot be created by CHANCE nor NECESSITY, then they have to be created by IINTELLIGENCE.

Abdulgaffar22:


There is one important factor you have left behind; Genetic factor (i:e DNA sequence of the living organisms).

The zygote of a goat species would only developed into a goat.

The zygote of a lion species would only developed into a lion

The zygote of an elephant species would only developed into an elephant

This implies that zygotes of different animal species must have different DNA sequence.

Therefore, before the evolutionists can proclaim that changes in the environmental condition lead to speciation, they have to explain how these environmental changes can affect the DNA SEQUENCE.

Without changes in the DNA sequence, speciation can never occur.

This changes in the DNA sequence is what the evolutionists called mutations.

According to the evolutionists, these mutations are RANDOM AND CONSTANTS process. See;

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution6.htm

Therefore, being a random event, mutations can be harmful, neutral and beneficial.

However, the evolutionists believed that it is the work of natural selection ( this is where the changes in environmental condition come into play) to keep the mutations that are beneficial while weeding out the harmful ones. So in their view, when these beneficial mutations accumulated enough, a new species would emerged. This is exactly how evolution works according to the evolutionists.

From this little explanation, you can see that "natural selection ( determined by changes in environmental condition)" can only work AFTER "mutations" has finished its work.

Yet mutations are RANDOM. This is the reason why some are harmful while some are neutral and beneficial.

Therefore, proclaiming that existence of male and female ducks' reproductive structures were based on environmental constraints is nothing but sheer ignorance.

If they cannot be created by CHANCE nor NECESSITY, then they have to be created by IINTELLIGENCE.

An adaptation is only an adaptation if it can be passed onto offspring through genetic means. Height, then, could be an adaptation, but the ability to speak English is not. Organisms with helpful adaptations tend to live longer and reproduce more. If the environment of their progeny also makes those adaptations beneficial, the progeny will also reproduce more effectively, increasing the presence of a particular gene or set of genes in a species' gene pool.

https://education.seattlepi.com/role-dna-play-adaptation-5720.html

LordReed:




By the accumulation of many relatively small changes over time.

According to theory of evolution, a very complex system came to exist little by little over millions of years through slight modifications.


But this concept of gradual evolution can never work for the urinary system found in all vertebrates including human


Even if we assume that kidney managed to be completely evolved in a single generation, it would still be useless if the pipe (i:e the ureter) through which the urine will exit the kidney is absent. This implies that both kidney and the ureter must came to exist together in a single generation.

Similarly, urinary bladder without the urethra through which the urine will exit the bladder is also useless.

Furthermore, an ejaculatory duct cannot just evolve without being linked perfectly with the urethra . Otherwise, semen would not be able to flow out from the penis during the time of ejaculation.

Therefore, the urinary bladder, the urethra and the ejaculatory duct that linked perfectly with the urethra must also came to exist together in a single generation.

See how simutaneous creation of the main parts of urinary system in a single generation completely nullify the theory of gradual evolution through slight modifications over millions of years.

Abdulgaffar22:


According to theory of evolution, a very complex system came to exist little by little over millions of years through slight modifications.


But this concept of gradual evolution can never work for the urinary system found in all vertebrates including human


Even if we assume that kidney managed to be completely evolved in a single generation, it would still be useless if the pipe (i:e the ureter) through which the urine will exit the kidney is absent. This implies that both kidney and the ureter must came to exist together in a single generation.

Similarly, urinary bladder without the urethra through which the urine will exit the bladder is also useless.

Furthermore, an ejaculatory duct cannot just evolve without being linked perfectly with the urethra . Otherwise, semen would not be able to flow out from the penis during the time of ejaculation.

Therefore, the urinary bladder, the urethra and the ejaculatory duct that linked perfectly with the urethra must also came to exist together in a single generation.

See how simutaneous creation of the main parts of urinary system in a single generation completely nullify the theory of gradual evolution through slight modifications over millions of years.

Why must the "simultaneous" development be in one generation? And who told you any of the systems developed full grown as you see them now? Like how many times will it be repeated that they develop from simpler forms to the more complex structures you see today?

One path the development could have taken is a group of cells with a common opening, elongating till the mass of cells is at one end, the open at another and a duct joining them. Complexity then begins to develop in that state. See these documents that better explain it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10s2s6LFKqH7wU_hd4aA4iNtTES8KMrKa/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10cCzGFbALx6aH5Vx62du5fG4TP7q7mC0/view?usp=drivesdk

You have a very funny view of evolution like most people who refuse to understand it. You think it's a magic show, with things appearing out of thin air full grown.

LordReed:


Why must the "simultaneous" development be in one generation? And who told you any of the systems developed full grown as you see them now? Like how many times will it be repeated that they develop from simpler forms to the more complex structures you see today?

This is a very simple matter to understand if you don't allow your prejudice to block your faculty of reasoning.


Now reason along with me;

Can a pumping machine be useful without a connecting pipe through which water drawn by the machine will pass ?

Similarly, if kidney exist without the pipe ( the ureter) through which urine produce inside the kidney will EXIT the kidney, then what do you think is going to happen ? The urine will cause the kidney to SWELL and BURST. This implies that kidney and ureter must came to exist at the same time.

Again, can a storage tank be useful if the inlet pipe through which water will ENTER the tank is absent and the outlet pipe through which water will EXIT the tank is also absent ?

Similarly, if urinary bladder ( the storage tank) exist without the inlet pipe ( the ureter) through which urine will ENTER the bladder and without the outlet pipe (the urethra) through which urine will EXIT the bladder, then the urinary bladder is useless. This implies that the ureter, the urinary bladder and the urethra must also came to exist at the same time.

Abdulgaffar22:


This is a very simple matter to understand if you don't allow your prejudice to block your faculty of reasoning.


Now reason along with me;

Can a pumping machine be useful without a connecting pipe through which water drawn by the machine will pass ?

Similarly, if kidney exist without the pipe ( the ureter) through which urine produce inside the kidney will EXIT the kidney, then what do you think is going to happen ? The urine will cause the kidney to SWELL and BURST. This implies that kidney and ureter must came to exist at the same time.

Again, can a storage tank be useful if the inlet pipe through which water will ENTER the tank is absent and the outlet pipe through which water will EXIT the tank is also absent ?

Similarly, if urinary bladder ( the storage tank) exist without the inlet pipe ( the ureter) through which urine will ENTER the bladder and without the outlet pipe (the urethra) through which urine will EXIT the bladder, then the urinary bladder is useless. This implies that the ureter, the urinary bladder and the urethra must also came to exist at the same time.

You are like a man who during a conversation puts his fingers in his ears and goes tra la la la, I am not going to listen.

Good luck with that.

LordReed:


You are like a man who during a conversation puts his fingers in his ears and goes tra la la la, I am not going to listen.

Good luck with that.

What exactly have you said that I have not listened to ?

If you're very sure that kidney and ureter (or ureter, urinary bladder and urethra) did not come to exist at the same time, then explain how there individual existence can be possible. Better still, give us examples of living organisms that posses only one part of all these parts.

Abdulgaffar22:


What exactly have you said that I have not listened to ?

If you're very sure that kidney and ureter (or ureter, urinary bladder and urethra) did not come to exist at the same time, then explain how there individual existence can be possible. Better still, give us examples of living organisms that posses only one part of all these parts.

I did, you then acted like I didn't. I see no further gain in engaging with you on this subject because you have no real interest in understanding it, you just want to debunk the strawman you've created.

LordReed:


I did, you then acted like I didn't. I see no further gain in engaging with you on this subject because you have no real interest in understanding it, you just want to debunk the strawman you've created.

Are you saying you did explain how kidney and ureter can independently exist or how ureter, urinary bladder and urethra can independently exist ?

Don't you think it is better to stay on a safer side (theism) than to stay on a dangerous side ( atheism). By being a believer you have nothing to loss if at all you later discover that God does not exist. But by being an atheist, you have lost everything if later you discover that He actually exist

Abdulgaffar22:


Are you saying you did explain how kidney and ureter can independently exist or how ureter, urinary bladder and urethra can independently exist ?

Don't you think it is better to stay on a safer side (theism) than to stay on a dangerous side ( atheism). By being a believer you have nothing to loss if at all you later discover that God does not exist. But by being an atheist, you have lost everything if later you discover that He actually exist

If I live a good life and your god sees fit to still punish me, then so be it. But I am willing to bet your god doesn't exist any more than the thousands of gods men have worshipped and which we consigned to the history books.

LordReed:


If I live a good life and your god sees fit to still punish me, then so be it. But I am willing to bet your god doesn't exist any more than the thousands of gods men have worshipped and which we consigned to the history books.

What's the essence of living a good life after someone has denied his Creator. Does it even make sense to you to believe that your great great ancestors are apes, gorillas and chimpanzees ? Is this not an insult to the precious intelligence of man ?

There are thousands of evidence for the existence of God. But you choose to close your eyes against those evidence because of the hatred you have developed for the existence of God.

You now believe that ;


1. Universe is BLIND, yet given enough time a creature that can SEE emerged from the same very Universe.


2. Universe is DEAF yet given enough time a creature that can HEAR emerged from the same very Universe.


3. Universe is DUMB, yet given enough time
a creature that can TALK and SPEAK over six thousand different languages emerged from the same very Universe.

4. Universe has NO KNOWLEDGE about ITSELF yet given enough time a creature that possesed EVERY ASPECT OF KNOWLEDGE about the Universe emerged from the same very Universe

5. Universe is NOT INTELLIGENT, yet given enough time a creature that possessed INTELLIGENCE emerged from the same very Universe.

6. Universe CANNOT THINK yet given enough time a creature that CAN THINK logically and formulate a rational argument emerged from the same very Universe.

7 No part of Universe can move voluntarily, yet given enough time a creature that can MOVE VOLUNTARILY emerged from the same very Universe.


Ask yourself; is this not a CONTRADICTION? Positive qualities which are NO WHERE to be found in the Universe later emerged from the SAME VERY Universe without any external influence.

Can something give to itself what it doesn't have ?

The only factor responsible for all these miraculous transformations is ENOUGH TIME according to your belief.

But does TIME has the capacity to change anything in a positive manner ? What we generally know about time is to cause something left to itself to DISINTEGRATE and never to INTEGRATE

Yet despite all these CONTRADICTIONS in your belief, you still have the mouth to proclaim that God does not exist.

When we meet on the day of resurrection face to face, then you will agree with me that you have allowed your prejudice to tamper with your faculty of reasoning.

Hopefully, this will be my last post for you on this thread. Don't even bother to reply because I won't read it.

LordReed:


If I live a good life and your god sees fit to still punish me, then so be it. But I am willing to bet your god doesn't exist any more than the thousands of gods men have worshipped and which we consigned to the history books.

What's the essence of living a good life after someone has denied his Creator. Does it even make sense to you to believe that your great great ancestors are apes, gorillas and chimpanzees ? Is this not an insult to the precious intelligence of man ?

There are thousands of evidence for the existence of God. But you choose to close your eyes against those evidence because of the hatred you have developed for the existence of God.

You now believe that ;


1. Universe is BLIND, yet given enough time a creature that can SEE emerged from the same very Universe.


2. Universe is DEAF yet given enough time a creature that can HEAR emerged from the same very Universe.


3. Universe is DUMB, yet given enough time
a creature that can TALK and SPEAK over six thousand different languages emerged from the same very Universe.

4. Universe has NO KNOWLEDGE about ITSELF yet given enough time a creature that possesed EVERY ASPECT OF KNOWLEDGE about the Universe emerged from the same very Universe

5. Universe is NOT INTELLIGENT, yet given enough time a creature that possessed INTELLIGENCE emerged from the same very Universe.

6. Universe CANNOT THINK yet given enough time a creature that CAN THINK logically and formulate a rational argument emerged from the same very Universe.

7 No part of Universe can move voluntarily, yet given enough time a creature that can MOVE VOLUNTARILY emerged from the same very Universe.


Ask yourself; is this not a CONTRADICTION? Positive qualities which are NO WHERE to be found in the Universe later emerged from the SAME VERY Universe without any external influence.

Can something give to itself what it doesn't have ?

The only factor responsible for all these miraculous transformations is ENOUGH TIME according to your belief.

But does TIME has the capacity to change anything in a positive manner ? What we generally know about time is to cause something left to itself to DISINTEGRATE and never to INTEGRATE.

Yet despite all these CONTRADICTIONS in your belief, you still have the mouth to proclaim that God does not exist.

When we meet on the day of resurrection face to face, then you will agree with me that you have allowed your prejudice to tamper with your faculty of reasoning.

Hopefully, this will be my last post for you on this thread. Don't even bother to reply because I won't read it.

Abdulgaffar22:


What's the essence of living a good life after someone has denied his Creator. Does it even make sense to you to believe that your great great ancestors are apes, gorillas and chimpanzees ? Is this not an insult to the precious intelligence of man ?

There are thousands of evidence for the existence of God. But you choose to close your eyes against those evidence because of the hatred you have developed for the existence of God.

You now believe that ;


1. Universe is BLIND, yet given enough time a creature that can SEE emerged from the same very Universe.


2. Universe is DEAF yet given enough time a creature that can HEAR emerged from the same very Universe.


3. Universe is DUMB, yet given enough time
a creature that can TALK and SPEAK over six thousand different languages emerged from the same very Universe.

4. Universe has NO KNOWLEDGE about ITSELF yet given enough time a creature that possesed EVERY ASPECT OF KNOWLEDGE about the Universe emerged from the same very Universe

5. Universe is NOT INTELLIGENT, yet given enough time a creature that possessed INTELLIGENCE emerged from the same very Universe.

6. Universe CANNOT THINK yet given enough time a creature that CAN THINK logically and formulate a rational argument emerged from the same very Universe.

7 No part of Universe can move voluntarily, yet given enough time a creature that can MOVE VOLUNTARILY emerged from the same very Universe.


Ask yourself; is this not a CONTRADICTION? Positive qualities which are NO WHERE to be found in the Universe later emerged from the SAME VERY Universe without any external influence.

Can something give to itself what it doesn't have ?

The only factor responsible for all these miraculous transformations is ENOUGH TIME according to your belief.

But does TIME has the capacity to change anything in a positive manner ? What we generally know about time is to cause something left to itself to DISINTEGRATE and never to INTEGRATE.

Yet despite all these CONTRADICTIONS in your belief, you still have the mouth to proclaim that God does not exist.

When we meet on the day of resurrection face to face, then you will agree with me that you have allowed your prejudice to tamper with your faculty of reasoning.

Hopefully, this will be my last post for you on this thread. Don't even bother to reply because I won't read it.

Even though we share different believed, I must confessed, you did a good job here, God bless you my friend. thank you.

malvisguy212:
Even though we share different believed, I must confessed, you did a good job here, God bless you my friend. thank you.

abdulgaffar22 and blabbermouth are really skilled in the faith they profess even though they are standing on different grounds.

Lordreed on the other hand always go head to head in every facts unlike some of his empty skull colleagues(atheists) that spew trash here when met with facts face to face. Kudos to him for this and I know that very soon he will come to the true knowledge of the light; The Lord Jesus Christ.


TRUTH IS TRUTH AND FALSE IS FALSE. YOUR BELIEF DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING BUT GIVES YOU A PROPER UNDERSTANDING ON A BETTER FOUNDATION ON WHICH TO STAND.

The truth will definitely reveals itself in the passage of time without any effort of men and I'm glad it's happening already. I'm also more delighted because I believe in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ thereby saving me of more stress and aches.

There is God, and whether you believe or not doesn't change the fact and also have no effect on Him but you.

Thanks.

God bless.

Abdulgaffar22:
Whenever there is need for the production of a particular protein inside the cell, the following summarized events take place;

1. The enzyme known as RNA polymerase make a "copy" of little relevant information from the DNA located inside the nucleus of a cell. This little transcribed copy of DNA is called the messenger RNA.

2. The messenger RNA now "travel" out of the nucleus and head toward the cytoplasm to find the ribosomes.

3. The ribosomes then "read" and "translate" the information carried by the messenger RNA.

4. The transfer RNA "transport" the necessary raw materials (different amino acids) from the cytoplasm to the factory (i:e the ribosomes) where they would be assembled and processed into a functional protein base on the translation process done by the ribosomes on the information carried by the messenger RNA.

5. The functional protein would now be "transfer" to the exact place where it is needed, either inside the cell or outside the cell.

Based on the events of protein synthesis explained above, let us ask some reasonable questions;

How did RNA polymerase manage to RECOGNIZE and COPY the required little information out of the bank of information contained inside the DNA ?
It is like you are being asked to go and copy a little information written on a particular page of a voluminous encyclopedia. See how difficult the task would be for you to do despite your intelligence and consciousness.
But now consider an ordinary enzyme like RNA polymerase that lack such intelligence and consciousness. How did it manage to carry out this difficult task ?
How did the enzyme "know" where to start copying the information and where to stop ?
Can this biological information itself (i:e DNA) and this enzyme (meant to recognize and copy different portions of it ) evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design?

Again, how did messenger RNA manage to travel out of the nucleus and head toward the ribosomes ?
Out of all the organelles (like mitochondria, golgi apparatus, lysosomes, smooth endoplasmic reticulum, secretory vesicles, centrosomes etc) present inside the cytoplasm, why did messenger RNA decide to "choose" ribosomes and move toward it ?
Can this wise choice evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ?

Furthermore, how did ribosomes manage to "read" and "translate" this biological information ? Was this process of reading and translating evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ?

Moreover , look at the transfer RNAs that transport the raw materials (different amino acids) to the factory (ribosomes) where they are assembled and processed to become a functional protein. Again, why did transfer RNA also manage to deposit those raw materials inside the ribosomes out of many other organelles present inside the cytoplasm ?
Was this also evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ?

Finally, after the production of the required protein, how did protein manage to be transported to the site where they are exactly needed ? Was this process of transportation to the targeted site also evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ? Does chance has any "will or power" to choose what the cell require ?

If all these events are too complex, specific, directional and purposeful to be evolved by CHANCE, then is it not "INTELLIGENCE" that is orchestrating all these events ? Is there any third option ?

But if this "intelligence" cannot be attributed to unintelligent and unconscious atoms or entities that make up the cell organelles or the physical universe, then who is the owner of this very intelligence other than the Creator of all living things ? It is this very intelligent Creator we describe as God

please send me your email address.

Thanks.

God bless

CaveAdullam:
abdulgaffar22 and blabbermouth are really skilled in the faith they profess even though they are standing on different grounds.

Lordreed on the other hand always go head to head in every facts unlike some of his empty skull colleagues(atheists) that spew trash here when met with facts face to face. Kudos to him for this and I know that very soon he will come to the true knowledge of the light; The Lord Jesus Christ.


TRUTH IS TRUTH AND FALSE IS FALSE. YOUR BELIEF DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING BUT GIVES YOU A PROPER UNDERSTANDING ON A BETTER FOUNDATION ON WHICH TO STAND.

The truth will definitely reveals itself in the passage of time without any effort of men and I'm glad it's happening already. I'm also more delighted because I believe in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ thereby saving me of more stress and aches.

There is God, and whether you believe or not doesn't change the fact and also have no effect on Him but you.

Thanks.

God bless.

Well it seems that god doesn't have any effect in my life either so I am gud.

CaveAdullam:
please send me your email address.

Thanks.

God bless

Abdulgaffaradebayo@gmail.com

hakeem4:
sorry abdulgaffar22, i was about responding to your question. But reading down to the end i noticed you just want to ridicule all atheist and evolution.


first of all not all atheist can answer the questions you put up there cause atheism means lack of belief in god or gods simple! atheism does not tell you how to behave or what is right or wrong. Atheism is just a name used to categorize people who do not believe in supernatural beings.

Back to your question you keep claiming evolution is random. That just shows you do not understand the topic you are trying to debunk. Evolution is not random or by chance!

now cells know how to go about the activities you mentioned up there by a process called mitosis and meiosis.

please stop reading the quran in 2019 ( there is no wisdom in that book)

Especially the Quran

RIGHT THINKING PERSONS DON'T CHANGE THEIR MINDS WITHOUT A CONVICTION. SO TRY TO GIVE THEM A TANGIBLE REASON TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS!

Abdulgaffar22:


What exactly have you said that I have not listened to ?

If you're very sure that kidney and ureter (or ureter, urinary bladder and urethra) did not come to exist at the same time, then explain how there individual existence can be possible. Better still, give us examples of living organisms that posses only one part of all these parts.

Baraak Allaahu Feek Akh, you ended the guy here You just earned a follower. There's one stubborn ex-muslim atheist in Islam section, maybe you could lecture that one too

Demmzy15:
Baraak Allaahu Feek Akh, you ended the guy here You just earned a follower. There's one stubborn ex-muslim atheist in Islam section, maybe you could lecture that one too

LMFAO! Tintingz don dey put fire for una nyash abi?! Bwahahahahaha!

Tintingz dey don dey look for how to commot you from Islam section. Bwahahahahaha!