davidylan:

Our resident cheerleader. Should introduce him to thehomer.

Here is the problem dudes . . . serious christians know that religion and science are NOT inter-related. With me, religion/faith is a way of life while science is a career. Both are distinct. I can go work in the lab without that having a prejudicial influence on my faith and vice versa. Rather it is the atheist who has a problem with religion and tries too hard to use science as a stick with which to beat it

I have to point out one thing . . . the inconsistent use of the term "logic" as if this is strictly the domain of science. On this thread alone, we have been treated to several completely illogical science articles purporting to describe the origin of life . . .

.

mazaje:

Because most scientific facts are verifiable.

mazaje:

different  religions also use scientific assertions to beat each other up. . .Back in the days either Mushin or Abuzola posted a video on you tube explaining creation from the Islamic point of view and the Christians here was using scientific explanations to discredit it and show that it was false. . .Every body runs to science when trying to disprove the religious assertions of another person especially when such assertion is supposed to have scientific backing. . .

sexkillz:

@ MAZAJE!
But You said SCIENCE & RELIGION is NOT the same! Why OH Why Should ATHEISTS BELIEVE ANYTHING? AND Why did you ONLY analyze that part of RELIGION as PROVEN to have FAILED by SCIENCE? HOW ABOUT CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM ETC? NO?

sexkillz:

@ MAZAJE!
But You said SCIENCE & RELIGION is NOT the same! Why OH Why Should ATHEISTS BELIEVE ANYTHING? AND Why did you ONLY analyze that part of RELIGION as PROVEN to have FAILED by SCIENCE? HOW ABOUT CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM ETC? NO?

mazaje:

Why should atheist believe anything?. . . .What's that supposed to mean?. . . . .As I said before. . .Both Muslims and Christians use science to discredit each others assertions. . .Check out the you tube videos that were posted with regards to creation and how human's were formed according to the Islamic point of view. . .Science was what the Christians in here used to demolish the Islamic assertion. . .So what exactly are you talking about. .

davidylan:

Very true. UNTIL you stray into the realm of evolution (which you falsely call mainstream science) where conjectures and speculation remain the order of the day.

Very simple. Islam makes the claim that the quran is scientifically innovative. That is the only reason science does come to play. the bible has made no such claims[b] neither are christians interested in pushing it[/b].

mazaje:

True, evolution to me is nothing but conjecture and mere speculation. . .I said main stream science not because its true, but because it is the acceptable scientific explanation. . .

sexkillz:

So why tha HELL do ATHEISTS INSIST on Bringing in POINTS from SCIENCE whenever they are trying, to REFUTE RELIGION? Cant you guys use your own ARGUMENTS for ONCE? NO?

thehomer:

Have you considered that it is because science is the best way that we currently have of obtaining accurate information on our universe.

mazaje:

Look who is talking. . .pseudo-scientists, eh. . . Imagine some one that goes about posting BASELESS "scientific"  evidence to show that the earth and the universe were created 6000 years ago, or that the entire earth was covered in a flood calling others  pseudo-scientists. . . 

davidylan:

Our resident cheerleader. Should introduce him to thehomer.

Here is the problem dudes . . . serious christians know that religion and science are NOT inter-related. With me, religion/faith is a way of life while science is a career. Both are distinct. I can go work in the lab without that having a prejudicial influence on my faith and vice versa. Rather it is the atheist who has a problem with religion and tries too hard to use science as a stick with which to beat it.

davidylan:
I have to point out one thing . . . the inconsistent use of the term "logic" as if this is strictly the domain of science. On this thread alone, we have been treated to several completely illogical science articles purporting to describe the origin of life . . .

On the need to confront the big environmental problems facing us in the 21st century, he parts company with his friend and colleague Stephen Hawking, who famously once said that humans will have to colonise distant planets if they are to survive. "I think that's an an ill-thought through statement and we have to bear in mind that there is nowhere we know about in our own Solar System that is even as hospitable as the top of Everest or the South Pole. The problems of the Earth must be solved here on the Earth and we must not divert attention from that necessity," Lord Rees said. He is equally scathing about Hawking's more recent comments about there being no need for God in order to explain creation. "Stephen Hawking is a remarkable person whom I've know for 40 years and for that reason any oracular statement he makes gets exaggerated publicity. I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read very little philosophy and even less theology, so I don't think we should attach any weight to his views on this topic," he said.

mazaje:

True, evolution to me is nothing but conjecture and mere speculation

toba:

Interesting. I have learnt something from your view on this subject.

Of course many of your fellow atheists here on Nairaland might choose to disagree with u, cos some feel so strongly about this Evolution that they can defend it as if they were present or any of the world scientists were present when the world/universe actually evolved :-

Same way Christians defend the biblical creation account. I can say non of us were present when the whole thing took place.

Job 38
The LORD Speaks
1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

Its obvious none of us were present during this time. We can only use logical reasoning to deduce what could have possibly happened

mazaje:

The bible has a detailed account of creation that does NOT agree with observable reality and as such christians have relegated it to mere allegory. . .Evolution is no better because it relies heavily on speculations and conjectures. . .

Mazaje! You are getting the gist now! ALL you have to do is ASK QUESTIONS without BIAS! Mind you, EARTH was not CREATED in 6000 years! Creation on EARTH was done in 6000 years! They are not the SAME thing!

davidylan:

it is also the best way we currently have of obtaining so much deliberate misinformation on the origin of the universe

davidylan:

Very true. UNTIL you stray into the realm of evolution (which you falsely call mainstream science) where conjectures and speculation remain the order of the day.

davidylan:

Very simple. Islam makes the claim that the quran is scientifically innovative. That is the only reason science does come to play. the bible has made no such claims neither are christians interested in pushing it.

davidylan:

1. If the atheist believes nothing, then on what basis is he disagreeing with the beliefs of others?

2. I already answered the science against islam story. It comes largely from islam's own claim to a scientifically true quran.

thehomer:

Can you point out the deliberate scientific misinformation about the origin of the universe and what you think it should be? i.e can you point out the scientific answer that is misinformation then let us know the correct information?

thehomer:

You really think evolution isn't mainstream science? I wonder how you determine what actually is mainstream science. Sorry you must be getting the theory of evolution confused with something else.

thehomer:

The Bible claims that it is the word of God. This implies that God himself doesn't even understand his own "creation".

thehomer:

Actually, the thing is that the atheist doesn't believe your God claims.

davidylan:

That would have been ok if the atheist merely stopped here. to go ahead and insult science and logic with a warped defense of the evolutionary origins of life with poorly understood research is the problem.

davidylan:

you must not have been reading this thread. next.

davidylan:

If by "mainstream" you mean being forced down the throats of everyone by virtue of the courts then be my guest.

davidylan:

What exactly where you responding to here? Incoherent.

mazaje:

Because science has disproved many Gods and religious assertions and it will continue to do so. . .Humans have always invented Gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand.  But then science comes along and tells them to stop sacrificing virgins to please some imaginary fertility Gods, science has shown people that there are no weather Gods that need pleasing, and we can do better by using irrigation and planting weather resistant crops instead of wasting time sacrificing animals to please the weather Gods. . .When sick science has provided us with drugs to cure and help us out instead of praying to some Gods for healing or sprinkling the bloods of some animals on sick people to heal them. . . Science has provided the best explanations for most things. . .The rainbow use to be explained as a necklace of some Goddess or a covenant between some Jewish tribal God and  his chosen people, but science came along and showed that its simply a refraction of light waves in the earth's atmosphere. . .Where are the Gods of thunder and lighting? Once the scientific explanation was provided for these two phenomenon the Gods of thunder and lighting all died natural deaths , no?. . . .Our ignorance is God, what we know is science. . . .

thehomer:

Of course evade and tremble. Simply show the misinformation and the correct information. It shouldn't be too hard.

thehomer:

No, mainstream as in a scientific theory[b] widely accepted[/b] by the vast majority of qualified scientists in the appropriate field and in other fields.

thehomer:

Take the time to read what it was in response to. It was above that quote of mine in the original post.

thehomer:

How does not believing your God claims imply insults to science and logic?

thehomer:

The theory of evolution is not on the origin of life but on its observed diversity on earth. I really don't expect you to still be making such basic errors.

thehomer:

I wonder if the biologists too poorly understand their research.

davidylan:

dont be so obtuse. Mantraa, idehn and myself have just been thrashing 3 scientific articles for the last 5 or so pages. Surely it wont take you 30 yrs to go through them.

davidylan:

Depends on what you mean by "widely accepted". It still remains a huge controversy that is being pushed primarily by the growing secularity of most western states.

davidylan:

After you have taken the time to read the misinformation inherent in many of the origin of life theories.

thehomer:

How does not believing your God claims imply insults to science and logic?

davidylan:

because many of you that push the alternative "science" claims have just proven to us that you are largely unintelligent and merely copy-paste the arguments of fellow god-deniers.

davidylan:

Stup[i]i[/i]d. Forgive the language . . . but for something to evolve it must exist right? Where did the first organism that "evolved" come from? to argue about evolution while ignoring the more important origins of the evolving life is to put the cart before the horse. But of course i understand why you would do such a thing, you have zero clues on the origins of life.

davidylan:

I'm not bothered so much about the biologists, but about the empty-headed folks here who parrot research they cant explain.

thehomer:

Why don't you just place a link to the relevant post(s) of yours that you think address the request?

thehomer:

By widely accepted, I mean accepted by more than 90% of biologists and more than 90% of the expert scientists in other fields.

thehomer:

Keep ducking and dodging.

thehomer:

Do I need to shout? The theory of evolution is supposed to explain the diversity of life. Simply think about it. For comparison, does the theory of continental drift explain the origin of land?

thehomer:

So the biologists are right just that non-biologists cannot explain it? In that case, why don't you simply read what the biologists themselves have written? Or are there some empty heads that are unable to read the writings of biologists too?