Enigma:

David, I will recommend please don't grant the request. I'm sorry to the requester and I mean no disrespect ----- but David should only do it if he accepts that his anonymity is indeed likely to be compromised ultimately.

Abeg, please! This clown davidylan comes here making dismissive and derisive comments about settled issues in biology and he wants us to believe him because he's a big man immunologist and works with RNA everyday? So where is the proof that he's a published scientist? Is it in the same place he kept the proof that God exists? Nègrö please!

Also, "immunology has nothing to do with evolution"?!! Really? A "scientist" said that? That's all the proof I need to evaluate his level of knowledge on both immunology and biology in general.

I'm willing to bet my left tèsticle that davidylan is some kind of lab technologist who has forgotten his place. You know what they say,half knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.

If you want to use you profession or status to prove your point, then you should be prepared to sacrifice annonymity. Don't expect us to believe any of your claims unless you can show some proof (which is the main difference between athiests and theists).

Also, I haven't failed to noticed that our so-called "pubMed cited scientist" has failed to provide even a single link to a scientific study supporting his argument. Is it that none exists, or does he not know how to use google?

Davidylan failed to convince the big scientists about his RNA findings, they thought it was bullcrap. From his tone, you can sense that he is angry about the rejection, he is trying to vent his frustrations on NL while at the same time screaming, "I AM AN IMMUNOLOGIST, I NOW RNA BETTER THAN ANY OF YOU OUT THERE."
Take it easy son. We believe you are the next Einstein. Just calm down.

Make una please allow mr david to have some rest, am sure he will bounce back soon. I admire his zeal and relentlesnes, where is the kid sexkillz, that started it all.
I give kudos to you all.

Just had to jump in. They say we believe in faith, there aint no God, realy. U know its clear that the nitty gritty of d question we asked u, u said u didnt know. Shows how shallow ur reasoning and fact findin is. If u dnt knw jux shut d heck up!
U said the world came 4rm a mass of gas, hw did the gas came abt? Maybe 4rm somefin else u'd think up, yet hw did that fin came abt. Everyfin under this earth has an origin, who started it 4rm d origin. They say man came 4rm animal, who made d animal? Maybe they'd say asexual cells dat metamorphosed over the years, d questn stil z who made the cells. Seriously u atheist well knw there is God buh u have choosen not to acknowledge it! Apex of myopism!

Few points to make:

1. An Athesist must either be an evolutionist, scientist, biologist or any other similar "ist". That is the only way they can sound intelligent and to some certain point, logical
2. If they are neither none of above, then, they are all dumb because if they don't believe in one creator how can the explain their existence and the world.
3. If those who belive in God are called unintelligent,narrow minded and dreamers, then Atheists are even bigger dreamers beacuse all they do is quote from other peoples books and theory. None them leaving or dead witnessed evolution, big bang thingy or some other scientic jargons they are throwing about.
4. They said they are free minded, logical and factual people, bull! logic and facts in evolution =0, logic and facts in big bang = 0. Any logic or fact should have created another world or human so we all can see the logic and fact. What i logically know is that until science creats a world and human and all the other species from NOTHING, its all fantacy and mega dream.
5. If i am a betting man and i have to bet on one super unfathomable being that made all conditions perfectly suitable for my existence or some 7million yrs accidental creation and subsequent evolution that ensued, i know where exactly where i will put my money.
Finally for those that want common sense and logic in believing in God, Look up "Mere Christianity" by C. S Lewis or "Reasons to Believe" by Scott Harn. And one more thing, try and be openmined.

omo_to_dun:

@Joecoollorenzo
Brother, I am not going to pick on your grammar. I just implore you to consider those of us who find it deeply hard to follow badly written sentences.
Our reasoning is shallow because we do not know the answer to a question? Does that make any sense to you? If I read this wrong, kindly correct me and let me know what you meant above.
So, if man does not understand a phenomenon, then that phenomenon must have been created by a creature whom you have never seen or spoken to before, a creature most people refer to as God. Let us say for the sake of argument that God is the creator of all things. How do you know this? Were you there? Is there any proof? What about other hundreds of creation stories? What makes yours more valid?

Please, answer the questions. . .

3. If those who belive in God are called unintelligent,narrow minded and dreamers, then Atheists are even bigger dreamers beacuse all they do is quote from other peoples books and theory. None them leaving or dead witnessed evolution, big slam thingy or some other scientic jargons they are throwing about.

Eh, excuse me, Mr. Olugboo? You say atheist quote from other books and theories, are you not doing the same thing? Quoting from books written by other men i.e the BIBLE. .
Did you witness when God created the Earth? Made man from dust? Please, come up with something reasonable. .

5. If i am a betting man and i have to bet on one super unfathomable being that made all conditions perfectly suitable for my existence or some 7million yrs accidental creation and subsequent evolution that ensued, i know where exactly where i will put my money.

Have you seen this super unfathomable being? 7 million years? Does that also include the Bigba[i]ng[/i]? Seriously?

kandiikane:

Please, answer the questions. . .

I already answered all your questions in detail on pages 2 and 3 of this thread. Feel free to go back and read them. Or you could just look through my posting history.

Not you. . . I am also referring to the people you are asking the questions.

Btw, I do not recall asking you questions. . What questions?

omo_to_dun:

Good. But I'll let Mr davidylan be the judge. It still disturbs me why a scientist would want to hide his or her work. Anonymity and scientist should never be used in the same sentence. Why would a scientist want be anonymous?

Perhaps because some of us have private lives that involve families no? Send me your email and i will send the link to you.

Evil Brain:

Abeg, please! This clown davidylan comes here making dismissive and derisive comments about settled issues in biology and he wants us to believe him because he's a big man immunologist and works with RNA everyday? So where is the proof that he's a published scientist? Is it in the same place he kept the proof that God exists? Nègrö please!

Also, "immunology has nothing to do with evolution"?!! Really? A "scientist" said that? That's all the proof I need to evaluate his level of knowledge on both immunology and biology in general.

I'm willing to bet my left tèsticle that davidylan is some kind of lab technologist who has forgotten his place. You know what they say,half knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.

you wish i guess.

Dude now lay aside the snide remarks. Immunology has nothing to do with evolution. Please grab Janeway's immunobiology, that is the holy grail for serious immunologists . . . and i own 2 copies. if you find a chapter on evolution there then i will refuse to post here ever again. too many id[i]i[/i]ots posting away on what they know not about.

Evil Brain:

If you want to use you profession or status to prove your point, then you should be prepared to sacrifice annonymity. Don't expect us to believe any of your claims unless you can show some proof (which is the main difference between athiests and theists).

Also, I haven't failed to noticed that our so-called "pubMed cited scientist" has failed to provide even a single link to a scientific study supporting his argument. Is it that none exists, or does he not know how to use google?

Why should i be prepared to sacrifice my anonymity? because of some half-baked nuisances crying their eyes out over their failure to prove darwin correct? Abeg go and sit down my friend.

mazaje:

You claim to be a scientist and Mantraa posted a scientific paper that was done by some scientist in England, you dismissed it off compleletly on the grounds that you work with RNA every day.

1. This is typical of the nigerian mentality; because the paper was written by an English scientist then automatically a nigerian cannot challenge it because he/she is inherently inferior? As a result of skin color or what?

2. Did you read the paper? You clearly didnt and neither did mantraa because that paper is itself riddled with way too many holes. Lets start from the basics for the id[i]i[/i]ots who dont even know how RNA works and why the paper is bullcrap.

NB: i'm surprised no one spotted this error . . . i had the purines and pyrimidines wrong.

a. RNA is made up of 4 bases - 2 are pyrimidines (uracil and cytosine) and 2 are purines (adenine and guanine)
- Sutherland's work synthesised only the 2 pyrimidines. Now how can you claim to have formed pre-RNA without the purine bases?

b. the experiment was carried out in an isolated system. That much is clear by the fact that even Sutherland acknowledges that he kept phosphate addition until the last stage of this experiment. Clearly oxygen was not included here as well as it would simply have oxidised the entire system thus producing no ribonucleotides. The usual excuse for this is that in the primordial soup, oxygen did not exist . . . even if we take this huge assumption . . . how did the early earth system create an isolated system for the creation of pre-RNA?

Coming back to the oxygen question . . . since oxygen was certainly present in the pyrimidines formed, it therefore means it must have existed in the primordial soup for Sutherland's claims to be true . . . but where did this oxygen come from? The prevailing opinion is that oxygen didnt appear until it started appearing as a by-product of respiration.

Uh so which came first? Oxygen for the formation or pre-RNA or oxygen from respiration? Did elemental oxygen exist then? If it did then Sutherland's experiment falls apart. Oh dear!

c. Sutherland carefully used UV radiation at carefully calculated periods to "zap" impurities that would have prejudiced his system. How did this occur in the primordial soup that would definitely have accumulated these impurities?

d. Problem of stereoisomers - Sutherland used only one mirror image for several of his starting molecules. How did the primordial soup successfully isolate one stereoisomer long enough to make precursor RNA?

e. Purification problems - At each stage of his experiment, Sutherland purified his products . . . how does he propose this happened in a primordial soup?

f. carefully controlled ph, heat?

g. Even if the primordial soup created pre-RNA, just how were the first codons read without a single error at the first try (coding errors would lead to a useless protein anyway)?

You really dont need to write a ground-breaking paper to dismiss Sutherland's claims. Even a secondary school student of biology should be able to do this easily. The problem though is we have many who are too desperate for evidence (anything at all) to convince themselves that life could have started spontaneously that they are quite prepared to suspend logical thinking.

What Sutherland proposes is simple - given mounds of sugar, flour, baking powder and vegetable oil . . . the probability that chin chin will spontaneously occur is 1 in 1000.

But of course we all know that making chin chin requires a certain level of precision that is not likely to be recreated spontaneously in a pond.

mazaje:

My position is this, if you TRULY know what you are talking about then you should have your own scientific papers challenging their claims, no?

Again daft. Having an opinion does not mean i have to write a paper to challenge someone's claims in nature. Unfreeze your brain and try to think without your anger. Its making you unable to reason clearly.

phxc:

Davidylan failed to convince the big scientists about his RNA findings, they thought it was bullcrap. From his tone, you can sense that he is angry about the rejection, he is trying to vent his frustrations on NL while at the same time screaming, "I AM AN IMMUNOLOGIST, I NOW RNA BETTER THAN ANY OF YOU OUT THERE."
Take it easy son. We believe you are the next Einstein. Just calm down.

That is the one fact i could pick out of your ramblings. I make no bones about the fact that 90% of you here have never in your lives handled RNA before. If you had such experience you would be taking the Sutherland paper with a lot more skepticism.

omo_to_dun:

Good. But I'll let Mr davidylan be the judge. It still disturbs me why a scientist would want to hide his or her work. Anonymity and scientist should never be used in the same sentence. Why would a scientist want be anonymous?

I thought i should disabuse this daft idea real quick. I am not anonymous to the science community that truly matters. I am not anonymous to my colleagues who critic my work and push me to do better. . . my work is not hidden. It is on pubmed for all to read and i have certainly gotten calls and emails regarding my work . . . i dont have to share it with empty heads who have no clue what the work is about but are more interested in mockery.

Evil Brain:

Abeg, please! This clown davidylan comes here making dismissive and derisive comments about settled issues in biology and he wants us to believe him because he's a big man immunologist and works with RNA everyday? So where is the proof that he's a published scientist? Is it in the same place he kept the proof that God exists? Nègrö please!

Also, "immunology has nothing to do with evolution"?!! Really? A "scientist" said that? That's all the proof I need to evaluate his level of knowledge on both immunology and biology in general.

I'm willing to bet my left tèsticle that davidylan is some kind of lab technologist who has forgotten his place. You know what they say,half knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.

and pray what would be your own "level of knowledge" on immunobiology? I just had to read this a second time . . . my dear - evolution is but a theory that depends on science to validate it. it is NOT a science of its own. That is why you can take immunology or biology as major's in college but you cant go take evolution as a major now can you? Big diff there.

Secondly, immunology is simply the "logy" or study of the immune system i.e. how your body equips itself to fight off foreign antigens while recognizing self-antigens long enough to prevent triggering autoimmune diseases . . . what has that to do with evolution?

You folks should put your heads in cold water . . . you zeal to "prove david wrong" is driving you to make me wonder if you ever stepped into a classroom in your lives. And to think these are the "scientific" atheists . . .

omo_to_dun:

But since you are arguing with empty heads 24-7, doesn't that make you one of us? Don't argue with fools, lest people from a distance can't tell who is who. Someone who is high and mighty as yourself shouldn't be in a forum arguing with idiots like us. You should be amongst your so called peers who revere your work.

In a previous post you said I should email you, but as I was about too, I happened upon this marvelous and overwhelming good natured remarks you made about us, I included. So do you still want me to send it to you? Because it seems that you have already made up your brilliant mind that I am going to mock you, regardless of whatever proof you tender. However intelligent you claim to be, you lack humility and that in itself is disturbing: refrain from singing your praise, let others do it; and instead of insulting folks because you  want to make yourself feel better or because you want to pass a point across, relax, think twice like an adult that you claim to be and tender your points with maturity.

apologies for the "insult". sure feel free to send your email.
you made some good points dude. I quite agree with you. My bad.

Surreptitiously, atheism has become a faith. a quasi-religion of those who worship at the alter of science.
A "science" most are either too ignorant to comprehend or are too delusional to understand its inherent limitations.
Like laity they worship at the feet of their science masters, nodding mindlessly to their theoretical gymnastics.
Like unthinking braying sheep, they trumpet debunked speculations,  making a fool of their own much vaunted "intelligence".
They are like chaff, tossed about with the prevailing winds of atheistic dogma yet lacking the courage of their own personal convictions.

davidylan:

1. This is typical of the nigerian mentality; because the paper was written by an English scientist then automatically a nigerian cannot challenge it because he/she is inherently inferior? As a result of skin color or what?

What is this man saying?. . . .You have lost your bearing, because i did not insinuate that at all. . .All I asked you to do is put your mouth where your money is and stop crying blue murder on nairaland. . . .

2. Did you read the paper? You clearly didnt and neither did mantraa because that paper is itself riddled with way too many holes. Lets start from the basics for the id[i]i[/i]ots who dont even know how RNA works and why the paper is bullcrap.

Am not a biologist so couldn't understand much of what the paper was all about. . . .

a. RNA is made up of 4 bases - 2 are pyrimidines (adenine and guanine) and 2 are purines (uracil and cytosine)
- Sutherland's work synthesised only the 2 pyrimidines. Now how can you claim to have formed pre-RNA without the purine bases? the purine bases are CLEARLY very important here because the difference between DNA and RNA lies in the purine base called uracil.

b. the experiment was carried out in an isolated system. That much is clear by the fact that even Sutherland acknowledges that he kept phosphate addition until the last stage of this experiment. Clearly oxygen was not included here as well as it would simply have oxidised the entire system thus producing no ribonucleotides. The usual excuse for this is that in the primordial soup, oxygen did not exist . . . even if we take this huge assumption . . . how did the early earth system create an isolated system for the creation of pre-RNA?

c. Sutherland carefully used UV radiation at carefully calculated periods to "zap" impurities that would have prejudiced his system. How did this occur in the primordial soup that would definitely have accumulated these impurities?

d. Problem of stereoisomers - Sutherland used only one mirror image for several of his starting molecules. How did the primordial soup successfully isolate one stereoisomer long enough to make precursor RNA?

e. Purification problems - At each stage of his experiment, Sutherland purified his products . . . how does he propose this happened in a primordial soup?

f. carefully controlled ph, heat?

g. Even if the primordial soup created pre-RNA, just how were the first codons read without a single error at the first try (coding errors would lead to a useless protein anyway)?

You really dont need to write a ground-breaking paper to dismiss Sutherland's claims. Even a secondary school student of biology should be able to do this easily. The problem though is we have many who are too desperate for evidence (anything at all) to convince themselves that life could have started spontaneously that they are quite prepared to suspend logical thinking.

What Sutherland proposes is simple - given mounds of sugar, flour, baking powder and vegetable oil . . . the probability that chin chin will spontaneously occur is 1 in 1000.

But of course we all know that making chin chin requires a certain level of precision that is not likely to be recreated spontaneously in a pond.

Ok nice, very good and simple explanation even though am not a biologist i understand the point you are making with the way you laid out your objections. . .So fair enough. . . .I don't know much about these things cos am not a biologist but I believe that Sutherland can answer your objections. . . .Both sides have to be examined, no?. . .

Again daft. Having an opinion does not mean i have to write a paper to challenge someone's claims in nature. Unfreeze your brain and try to think without your anger. Its making you unable to reason clearly.

Now its finally down to opinion , eh?. . . .I thought you had scientific facts that destroys evolution. . .Didn't know that all your screams all these while are based on mere opinion. . .

mazaje:

What is this man saying?. . . .You have lost your bearing, because i did not insinuate that at all. . .All I asked you to do is put your mouth where your money is and stop crying blue murder on nairaland. . . .

i'll be real patient in pointing out the illogicality of this statement. I disagree with evolution and interesting since it comes up as a topic on this forum, i choose to air my opinions on the issue. Now do you put your mouth where your money is by challenging the pope? Why dont you start writing papers into religious journals arguing your case? See how hopelessly foolish your point sounds now?

mazaje:

Am not a biologist so couldn't understand much of what the paper was all about. . . .

Ditto for pretty much all of you here who still go ahead quoting papers you dont understand.

mazaje:

Now its finally down to opinion , eh?. . . .I thought you had scientific facts that destroys evolution. . .Didn't know that all your screams all these while are based on mere opinion. . .

i just outlined scientific facts debunking the silly theory of abiogenesis through RNA. You just commented on it dude so what exactly is your point here? Are you just willfully blind?

davidylan:

Surreptitiously, atheism has become a faith. a quasi-religion of those who worship at the alter of science.
A "science" most are either too ignorant to comprehend or are too delusional to understand its inherent limitations.
Like laity they worship at the feet of their science masters, nodding mindlessly to their theoretical gymnastics.
Like unthinking braying sheep, they trumpet debunked speculations,  making a fool of their own much vaunted "intelligence".
They are like chaff, tossed about with the prevailing winds of atheistic dogma yet lacking the courage of their own personal convictions.

The way you always contradict yourself is really mind boggling. . . .Some of the staunchest advocates of evolution are theist and christians like you. . . .A lot of atheist like me do not believe in evolution(I accept parts of it though). Scientist have ALWAYS stated that science has its limitations and are quick to say that science relies on laws of probability which may or may not be true. That is what allows room for modification and advancement. . . .You have been crying blue murder through out the thread, declaring that you are a scientist, but when asked to do what scientist do you quickly backed off.  The challenge is simple. . .Since you claim that your scientific knowledge has shown you that evolution is not science but a fantasy of deluded people and scientist have claimed and maintained that they theory has not been falsified up till date, I will expect you to show them that the theory is all crap by challenging their assertions. You will win a Nobel peace price, become very rich, famous and help show them that they are wrong. Parroting your opinion about the issue is of no use to any body here since you can't put your money where your mouth is. . . .

mazaje:

The way you always contradict yourself is really mind boggling. . . .Some of the staunchest advocates of evolution are theist and christians like you. . . .

You cant have it both ways . . . just yesterday one of you was bellowing about how the greatest obstacle to evolution was christians and US right wingers. Today you say the largest followers of evolution are christians? Prior you had said the bulk of scientists who revere evolution are non-believers . . .

WHICH IS IT DUDE? 

We know the above isnt true, the staunchest advocates for evolution are NOT christians. Period.

mazaje:

A lot of atheist like me do not believe in evolution(I accept parts of it though).

the typical cop-out. Doesnt believe in God but has no understanding of the alternative so its just easier to sit on the fence cheering on "science" when it seems its getting close to an answer then rushing back to the "i dont believe in evolution" fence when the arguments are exposed for the charade they are.

mazaje:

Scientist have ALWAYS stated that science has its limitations and are quick to say that science relies on laws of probability which may or may not be true. That is what allows room for modification and advancement. . . .

Justgood argued this point a few weeks ago. You dont understand science at all . . . it doesnt rely on the laws of probability . . . you either have empirical evidence or you dont.

mazaje:

You have been crying blue murder through out the thread, declaring that you are a scientist, but when asked to do what scientist do you quickly backed off.  The challenge is simple. . .Since you claim that your scientific knowledge has shown you that evolution is not science but a fantasy of deluded people and scientist have claimed and maintained that they theory has not been falsified up till date, I will expect you to show them that the theory is all crap by challenging their assertions. You will win a Nobel peace price, become very rich, famous and help show them that they are wrong. Parroting your opinion about the issue is of no use to any body here since you can't put your money where your mouth is. . . .

And when are you challenging the pope too? put your mouth where your money is too. You've repeated this claptrap over 20 times now and its been an ongoing refrain from you for over a yr. Got any other arguments left? This tripe is getting old.

davidylan:

i'll be real patient in pointing out the illogicality of this statement. I disagree with evolution and interesting since it comes up as a topic on this forum, i choose to air my opinions on the issue. Now do you put your mouth where your money is by challenging the pope? Why dont you start writing papers into religious journals arguing your case? See how hopelessly foolish your point sounds now?

There is nothing illogical about what I have stated. . .Religion is not like science, science welcomes criticism and very vigorous debate. Religion does NOT. . .There is no religious publication that will accept opposing views. . .If the Vatican has such papers that allows people to criticize its religion tell me what it is and I will write an article and submit if they will publish it. . . .Science on the other hand welcomes challenge and open criticism all the time,that is why some laws are changed and advances are made. . . .So your comparison is silly to me because religion and science do not function the same way. . .One accepts and welcomes open challenge and criticism while the other does not. . .

Ditto for pretty much all of you here who still go ahead quoting papers you dont understand.

Others, but i doubt  if you will ever see me quote from a paper i don't fully understand. . .

i just outlined scientific facts debunking the silly theory of abiogenesis through RNA. You just commented on it dude so what exactly is your point here? Are you just willfully blind?

I think you don't understand what am saying. . .Am not talking about abiogenesis even though i know that is what what you are talking about in this case, just talking about evolution in general since that is what you love to hate.

mazaje:

There is nothing illogical about what I have stated. . .Religion is not like science, science welcomes criticism and very vigorous debate. Religion does NOT. . .There is no religious publication that will accept opposing views. . .If the Vatican has such papers that allows people to criticize its religion tell me what it is and I will write an article and submit if they will publish it. . . .Science on the other hand welcomes challenge and open criticism all the time,that is why some laws are changed and advances are made. . . .So your comparison is silly to me because religion and science do not function the same way. . .One accepts and welcomes open challenge and criticism while the other does not. . .

hmmm actually there are. Just say you are too ignorant to know.

mazaje:

Others, but i doubt  if you will ever see me quote from a paper i don't fully understand. . .

This is what you said - You claim to be a scientist and Mantraa posted a scientific paper that was done by some scientist in England, you dismissed it off compleletly on the grounds that you work with RNA every day.

Why would you be interested in my take on a paper you clearly didnt understand and never read? Did you know if the arguments in the journal was valid or not? Just because it espoused atheistic viewpoints and it was "done by some scientist in England" you felt you had to "defend" it?

mazaje:

I think you don't understand what am saying. . .Am not talking about abiogenesis even though i know that is what what you are talking about in this case, [b]just talking about evolution in general [/b]since that is what you love to hate.

I doubt you understand evolution at all . . . i think you should go study up on it first. Abiogenesis is the theoretical precursor to evolution itself. For something to evolve, it must first exist in a certain form . . . abiogenesis is the scientist's way of explaining that begining.

Really? You made the above statement?

davidylan:

You cant have it both ways . . . just yesterday one of you was bellowing about how the greatest obstacle to evolution was christians and US right wingers. Today you say the largest followers of evolution are christians? Prior you had said the bulk of scientists who revere evolution are non-believers . . .

True, the right wingers and Christians don't want it to be thought in public schools and are always fighting it, no?. . . .

WHICH IS IT DUDE? 

We know the above isnt true, the staunchest advocates for evolution are NOT christians. Period.

When evolution was taken to court in one of the states in the US in 2002 under president Bush, Ken Miller and another guy who was also a Christians where the guys that went and defended it against the intelligent design ovement and won,no?. . .I said some of the advocates of evolution are christians and many of my christians friends here in Europe believe in evolution.

the typical cop-out. Doesnt believe in God but has no understanding of the alternative so its just easier to sit on the fence cheering on "science" when it seems its getting close to an answer then rushing back to the "i dont believe in evolution" fence when the arguments are exposed for the charade they are.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God/Gods. . . .There have been atheist long before the theory of evolution was copped out and long before the scientific age of enlightenment so your argument is silly. . .The position does not always have to be either God or science. . .

Justgood argued this point a few weeks ago. You dont understand science at all . . . it doesnt rely on the laws of probability . . . you either have empirical evidence or you dont.

You clearly do NOT know what you are talking about. . .Scientific observation can only show that a hypothesis has not yet been proven to be illegitimate. The empirical evidence derived from a test of a hypothesis proves, not that the hypothesis is true, but only that the hypothesis has not been proven to be untrue. Science does not deal in absolute truth but only in probability.

[And when are you challenging the pope too? put your mouth where your money is too. You've repeated this claptrap over 20 times now and its been an ongoing refrain from you for over a yr. Got any other arguments left? This tripe is getting old.

Religion does not accept criticism because everything has been laid out already, no?. . . .When was the last time you saw the pope in an open debate with atheist challenging them to prove the bible wrong?. . . .

davidylan:

hmmm actually there are. Just say you are too ignorant to know.

You can drop some names. . . .

This is what you said - You claim to be a scientist and Mantraa posted a scientific paper that was done by some scientist in England, you dismissed it off compleletly on the grounds that you work with RNA every day.

Why would you be interested in my take on a paper you clearly didnt understand and never read? Did you know if the arguments in the journal was valid or not? Just because it espoused atheistic viewpoints and it was "done by some scientist in England" you felt you had to "defend" it?

What is this man saying. . .You are just making things up and running commentary on them. . . .I was not defending anything in the paper. . .I was just telling you that you are supposed to do what other scientist do when you object a person's work. . . .You are not supposed to be crying blue murder here on nairaland. . .How are we to know if your objections or opinions are true?. . . .

I doubt you understand evolution at all. . . i think you should go study up on it first. Abiogenesis is the theoretical precursor to evolution itself. For something to evolve, it must first exist in a certain form . . . abiogenesis is the scientist's way of explaining that begining.

Really? You made the above statement?

Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. . .Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life from the scientific point of view while evolution deals with diversity. How are they the same?

mazaje:

True, the right wingers and Christians don't want it to be thought in public schools and are always fighting it, no?. . . .

When evolution was taken to court in one of the states in the US in 2002 under president Bush, Ken Miller and another guy who was also a Christians where the guys that went and defended it against the intelligent design ovement and won,no?. . .I said some of the advocates of evolution are christians and many of my christians friends here in Europe believe in evolution.

Some of the staunchest advocates of evolution are theist and christians

Do the above sound the same to you?

and just as an aside, there was no case such court case in 2002 and Ken Miller appeared as a witness NOT as a lawyer.

Really this is getting redundant. Its clear you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

mazaje:

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God/Gods. . . .There have been atheist long before the theory of evolution was copped out and long before the scientific age of enlightenment so your argument is silly. . .The position does not always have to be either God or science. . .

But you clearly advance science to debunk the God "myth"? Which is it dude?

mazaje:

You clearly do NOT know what you are talking about. . .Scientific observation can only show that a hypothesis has not yet been proven to be illegitimate. The empirical evidence derived from a test of a hypothesis proves, not that the hypothesis is true, but only that the hypothesis has not been proven to be untrue. Science does not deal in absolute truth but only in probability.

Stup[i]i[/i]d. I write my own protocols and papers . . . empirical evidence does sometimes prove that your null hypothesis is true. too many charlatans bleating about science all day when they've never been at a bench before in their lives.

mazaje:

Religion does not accept criticism because everything has been laid out already, no?. . . .When was the last time you saw the pope in an open debate with atheist challenging them to prove the bible wrong?. . . .

Neither does evolution accept criticism. When was the last time you saw Richard Dawkins being willing to listen to the God view outside of ridiculing it?

mazaje:

You can drop some names. . . .

try google. it doesnt bite.

mazaje:

What is this man saying. . .You are just making things up and running commentary on them. . . .I was not defending anything in the paper. . .I was just telling you that you are supposed to do what other scientist do when you object a person's work. . . .You are not supposed to be crying blue murder here on nairaland. . .How are we to know if your objections or opinions are true?. . . .

you have no idea if what i am objecting to is true so how can you know if my own objections are true? I mean does that sound sane to you?

mazaje:

Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. . .Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life from the scientific point of view while evolution deals with diversity. How are they the same?

oh boy go play with your C++, obviously biology is not something you payed attention to in school.