₦airaland Forum

Yet another convert to Islam misunderstands his new religion and gets the crazy idea that it has something to do with violence against unbelievers.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/canadian-michael-zehafbibeau-thought-to-be-the-gunman-in-ottawa-shooting-20141023-11aa17.html

Weah96:
You posted the quote and assigned your meaning to his words. Why did you post the quote instead of referring everyone to his book?

Are you daft - I clearly wrote in bold that I disagreed with his view point; not only I but some of his fellow professors. Instead of you to review his book and verify if I am misquoting or quoting the man - you come here and start talking crap - why do you always insist on being stupi.d?

Weah96:
Richard Dawkins didn't say that evolution knows how life began. You're making a big deal out of nothing. You've heard of natural selection. It does explain the existence and variation of life.

Dude - why do you insist on being stu.pid. Go read his book and confirm it or not. Stop opening your mouth and saying trash you haven't confirmed

Weah96

A palm tree is more closely related to a mango tree than to a human being. One doesn't need to know how everything began to recognize that.

Are you daft? Who is denying this fact? However, you can't plant palm kernel and expect mangoes - there are differences that separate the two and as evolutionist, you should recognize that as well.

Your homeboy has run out of arguments

Is it you talking or are the fairies helping you out here

pesty100

When I bought my phone, a manual came with it, have been using this phone for years now and I haven't read the manual. The vendor tell you about upgrades, gives support e.t.c . But are you saying if you see a phone on the ground you won't be able to make sense of the phone unless you have spoken to the phone's vendor or read it manual?

The phone doesn't tell you anything about itself. For example, you pick up the phone and turn it on and it asks you for a password; you try all the passwords in the world you know and it doesn't allow you in - what will you do next?

If you say richard dawkins was wrong, what then is the is the cause of the existence of the variation of all life

I am not the one saying He is wrong; His fellow professor John Lennox is telling him he is wrong.

Read this link - www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/haldanes-nondil.html

Please do some justice to my response and provide an appropriate answer instead of referring me to a link. You posted and said we are 96% similar to apes - I didn't deny that. I responded and told you that you should also recognize the core difference in our DNA that separates us from apes. There are over 125 million DNA differences between us and apes - that is HUGE

That isn't mutation, its pure evolution... At this point am not sure you know what evolution means

Then define what evolution is and give us a simple practical example. If your meaning of evolution is my meaning of adaptation; then we are talking of the same thing using different terms. My interpretation of evolution is that we all originated from a single cell organism and evolution is responsible for life as we have it.

You say an evidence is empirical if each changes shows our lineage from a fish to am human yet the site I gave you said; we share
"96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with
mice, and so on" And yet you say the site gives no empirical data; it either you are an hypocrite or you don't know what empirical means.

I didn't deny this - I said there are differences that you are ignoring as well. In the case of apes and men - we have over 125 million DNA differences and it is those differences that makes us humans and they apes. It is those differences that confirm why we can't cross breed. Apes are unique to their kind and humans are unique to their kind. We are separate and unique. So, sharing 96% gene doesn't make any case of evolution if we can't cross breed.

So, your empirical data doesn't say anything about the differences; it only talks about the similarities. How does evolution account for the 125 million DNA differences?

Did you check the link I gave you at all?

Do some justice and answer the question - you didn't provide a link here. You claimed that two of the same KIND of animals with a different specie will produce another specie. You didn't include any link. My response was that the animals don't change; their KIND is the same. Evolution is saying their KIND changes i.e. dog to cat? or Apes to men

Weah96

What are you arguing now? You began by saying that evolution is hogwash because it suggests that life originated from non living materials.

Bros, perhaps you should read more. Evolution does make such claims.

I replied by saying that evolution says nothing of the sort, that it is the study of how life has progressed, not how it began.

Really, tell that to Richard Dawkins. He said evolution is the explanation for the existence and the variation for all of life

What is your latest argument now?

You have jumped from Isaiah 7:14 to evolution. Concentrate on that first

pesty100

Your illustration is off point... And this is even like saying you can explain how a phone works unless you know its origin

No, what I am saying is you need the manual, you need to know the vendor and core details of the phone. The phone can't tell you anything about itself. The vendor can. For example: the vendor can tell you when it was made; can tell you if a new firmware was upgraded and what features it support; can tell you if it has APIs and how you know every single working and detail of the phone.

My contention is on biological change in DNA of an organism from one kind to another - I think it's not true and there have been no instances to say otherwise. Richard Dawkins said evolution is the explanation for the existence and the variation for all of life - THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE. I am not the only one that share such views

The existence of life is not explained by biological evolution. Nor does it explain the existense of the mutating replicator on which it depends. The language of life, the genetic code of life has scarely changed at all. So the question is raised - how did it develop; how did it evolve from a simple organism as you claim to a complex one. You have admitted that science has no answer to the origin of life - not a problem.

Now, let's get down to the simple origin of life - the cell. The cell is an information processor, what we have in the biological mirco-molecules is something that Physics and Chemistry don't know and don't claim to know in the sense that, you have got a signalling system, you have got a code, you have got a translator of the code. Now, in every other area where we see anything like this - the inference up to intelligent design is INSTANT and IMMEDIATE.

It seems to be without going further into it that if you look at the cell as an information processor machine, it then can be simulated by a turing machine which is a kind of an abstract computer and if you know anything about computers, you know this - JUNK IN - JUNK OUT. This is born out of the sophistication of what the cell is and what it does. Now, Chemistry and Physics do not have the capacity to produce these things. You can't produce it by evolution because evolution can't get going until you have a mutating replicator.

"Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately
96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in
common with cats ( source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with
mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved
from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common
ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our
genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged"

Let me take the case of humans and the Chimps to give you some details. Evolutionists believe that the similarity in the DNA sequence of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans is proof that they all share a common ancestor, you sited 96% similarity - I won't debate that as there is some truth in it.

The use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn't sound like much until you realize that it represents about 35 million differences! But that is only the beginning. There are 40–45 million bases present in humans that are missing from chimps and about the same number present in chimps that are absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added to or lost from the original sequence.

This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million total separate mutation events that would separate the two species in the evolutionary view. To put this number into perspective, a typical 8½ x 11-inch page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such pages full of text to equal 40 million letters! So the difference between humans and chimpanzees includes about 35 million DNA bases that are different, about 45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp, and about 45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human. Go look up Haldane’s dilemma

There are many other differences between chimpanzee and human genomes that are not quantifiable as percentages:

At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called telomeres. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23,000 base pairs of DNA at their telomeres. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10,000 long

There are many others we can discuss. My point is simple - The similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is really in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario. Emphasis on percent DNA similarity misses the point because it ignores both the magnitude of the actual differences as well as the significance of the role that single amino acid changes can play.

"Bacteria colonies can only
build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is
important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny
few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.
This is because of the random nature of mutations."

I am not arguing against mutations - it's a form of adaption and I agree on this. So, there is no controversy here.

Check my last post

You didn't include an authoritative source.

Check the link I gave you above

No empirical data was given

You said adaptation, I showed you how it is evolution, see what you are asking again.

Listen, you haven't shown any proof. All I asked was evidence pointing that we came from a fish. Evidence would be empirical data i.e. each changes showing the lineage from a fish to a human. You can't generalize and say we came from fishes because we share 98% gene with a monkey. But there are millions of things that make us different. It's like saying the fish has blood, humans have blood so we are of the same KIND - that is so unscientific

If you take two different species of the same animal and you allow them mate they would produce another different specie of animal... Evolution has officially taken place in this situation.

I am not debating that and I agree with you on that. The issue is the evolution you are talking about produces a different KIND of animal. A German Shepard dog can mate with an Alaskan Husky and produce another specie of DOG but it's still a DOG - however, the dog doesn't change into another animal - it's still a DOG. That is not the claim evolution is making; evolution is saying that every living organism came from a simple life form and it doesn't provide any empirical evidence that can be tested, repeated or observed.

pesty100

You got what the site is trying to wrong, check what the same site thinks on evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml

You can't explain life if you can't explain it's origin. It's like you trying to run for a US president and don't want to produce your birth certificate to prove you were born in America. Also, read the statement posted from the same website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml

When did life originate?

Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.

So, on one hand evolution claims it doesn't investigate or give empirical data on how life originated but it claims how it knows how life diversified. No matter how hard you twist it; the question is simple - how did we get where we are today? Evolution claims that all species has a common denominator. The question some of us keep asking is how can you trace all living things to the single life organism with evidence.

You sir don't know what a scientific law means, check this out I copied it om wiki

"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they
do not posit a mechanism or explanation of
phenomena: they are merely distillations of the
results of repeated observation. As such, a law is
limited in applicability to circumstances
resembling those already observed, and may be
found false when extrapolated"

That is why I have asked you, can you tell me one scientific law that is false. Also, read the definition you posted; it said : RESULTS OF REPEATED OBSERVATION. I can repeat and observe the law of gravity; I can repeat and observe the law of bio-genesis; I can repeat and obeserve the laws of thermo-dynamics. No one can repeat or observe any empirical evidence of evolution.

If you are hell bent on saying what I have is faith, when I have tried showing you I believe based on proof, no p then.

I have asked you to provide the proof; can you please provide verifying proof that I can repeat and observe?

You still don't know what a scientific law is.

Read your definition you posted above and confirm if evolution can provide empirical evidence of life or even how life branched out. Use any case example for us to investigate

I will post a line from the link you gave me

"Evolution encompasses a wide
range of phenomena: from the
emergence of major lineages,
to mass extinctions, to the
evolution of antibiotic resistant
bacteria in hospitals today.

"

Bros, I believe you have a brain and can deduce objectively. Can you explain how humans came from say a fish.

evolution is part of our daily life, you just don't see it

Really, can you site an example that we can observe and repeat?

pesty100

I now see where you get it all wrong, evolution doesn't tell us how life began, what it tells us is how life became what it is now.

I think you are being dishonest here - evolution tells us life started billions of years ago and it uses fossils as evidence. So, to claim otherwise is ignorance or dishonesty. Please refer to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

I gave you instances that further strengthened my proposition.
Faith is believing without proof, evolution has proofs... The instance I gave you were enough proof to tell us chemical evolution has a solid standing

If it's proof; why hasn't science made evolution a scientific law? The instances you gave didn't have any links to them for us to review them.

You re the one arguing from the impossibility stand say because it hasn't been done yet, then its impossible... In the case of the empty garage if you work hard for fifty years you will have enough money to put a bmw in the empty garage... Science is working towards chemical evolution, biological evolution has already being proven

That is exactly what faith is - believing in something that hasn't been proven and that is what you are doing.

Evolution definitely comply with science... Or else it would have been discarded a long time ago

Then why isn't it a scientific law? If evolution is 100% accurate and it claims can be proven; why is it just a theory? Why can't scientist say evolution is on the same level with say the law of gravity?

Am not a scientist, but look at malaria you could once treat is with chloroquine, but now malaria is immune to chloroquine... This is where evolution comes in... How did malaria get immune to chloroquine

Adaptation not evolution. Malaria didn't become a virus; it's still malaria but has adapted to chloroquine. Just the same way if I go and live in ice-land, I don't grow fur and become a bear to protect against the cold, I adapt by wearing warmer cloths and I get used to the weather

Expert don't possess blind faith, experts have faith based on what they have experimented on.

Yet no one has experimented on evolution that we can review or test by

Weah96

My friend, you're a classic creationist. You claim to have studied evolution and yet here you are fuming that its take on the origin of life is absurd. Who's doing the flexing here?

I believe in science and so far the theory of evolution doesn't produce any scientific empirical data or evidence. If there is one, do let me know

Evolution is not abiogenesis. Even if it turned out that a magic rodent was the creator of the universe, the theory of evolution would remain our best explanation, by far, about how life has progressed to this point.

And yet evolution can't answer how life began? Your babbling is not going to change that? Can you explain how our universe came about or how life came about in simple terms with empirical data that we can observe and possibly test?

Evolution doesn't say anything about life descending from non living materials. You need a refund for your courses.

Which evolution are you talking about? Cosmo, macro, micro? Don't be too hasty to show your ignorance

Weah96

Don't just write Isaiah 7:14 after reading the biblical version of it. Fair minded people can see that you're being deceptive.

Here is Isaiah 7:14_16 in the Torah

14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. יד. לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל:
15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. טו. חֶמְאָה וּדְבַשׁ יֹאכֵל לְדַעְתּוֹ מָאוֹס בָּרָע וּבָחוֹר בַּטּוֹב:
16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
L
Where is the virgin?

I am not being deceptive; you asked for the verse and I told you. I was careful to ask you specifically where it mentioned there was no virgin birth in the Torah but you refused and instead said it was never mentioned. Can you mentioned the Jewish word that was used to refer young woman and also, can you confirm the Hebrew manuscript you are referring to here so we can look into this some more?

Regarding your second question, of course, consciousness can be perceived by the senses.

Which of the senses can perceive consciousness?

pesty100

An we can test evolution with certainty

If we can, you sure haven't been able to. I asked your evolution take on how life came about; you said you have no clue.

You shouldn't say we can't, you should say we haven't being able to. science evolves, and even we have been able to monitor the processes, though we haven't been able to re-create it, that doesn't mean recreating it is impossible.

This is where faith comes in; you believe in something that hasn't been proven yet. For example, you claim that we can get living organisms from non living chemical reactions. If this was the case; why aren't there multiple occurrences of this phenomena. Why can't simple life-forms pop up from random chemical reactions all over the place?

Also, you can't argue from the impossible stand; scientist don't do that. It's like saying, you have an empty garage, you leave it for 50 years and come back and expect a brand new BMW to be in it. You wait for 100 years and there is nothing. Your generations wait for 100 million years and still there is nothing BUT somehow you believe the BMW will appear. All I am asking is for empirical evidence to support your theory and so far you have provided none

Science isn't rigid, read this wikipedia page a bit more. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

When it comes to evolution; it doesn't comply with the laws of science; that is and has been my point

Evolution has been observed and it is still being observed

Can you provide empirical data and evidence of this observation?

Well the most funniest thing is that, the expert hasn't and wouldn't mention a flying hippo

You are right; the expert we have seen is someone that possesses blind faith

pesty100

A scientific law is a statement based on
repeated experimental observations that
describes some aspect of the universe.

I will assume you have some scientific background; let's be honest and not play semantics. You don't have to go to wikipedia to copy and paste the definition. A scientific law is a proven and tested phenomena that can be observed, tested and replicated. For example, we can test gravity with relative certainty. We can test and observe the laws of thermodynamics and bio-genesis because we can observe them, repeat them with certainty. Evolution is not even a scientific theory because the hypothesis brought forward can't be supported with any empirical data. It is a theory and that is where it ends.

For example, you have stated clearly that you don't know how life began and evolution has no answer either. You are assuming that it began from chemical reactions when you have no empirical data to support this claim. We can't observe this phenomena, neither can we monitor it to deduce any experimental answers. All you are doing is repeating what others are saying; that is why it's called a THEORY; howbeit not a scientific one.

When a chemist by the name of Fredrick whooler accidentally produced urea in his lab without urine. It got scientists to think again that life might have been powered by normal chemical reactions. Chemist have been able to re-create numerous nucleus and cellular activities have been recreated in the lab... Suggesting further that life might have come from non chemicals

They didn't create living organisms from non living chemicals; if they did - they would have refuted the law of bio-genesis and we can both be sure that scientific laws are rarely or never refuted.

Evolution isn't based on blind faith, it is a based on pure science, Check the earlier definition of evolution I gave you.

If it was, why don't you know how and when living organisms came on the scene? Evolution is based on a theory but it's not scientific. You can't provide any empirical data of evidence that it's scientific. All you have done is provided assumptions i.e. it could have come from chemicals but I have no evidence; I don't know how it all started but I believe science will find the answers - these are your premises but they are based on faith

To be frank some of my statements are based on assumption not all... Just read up on the theory of evolution

I have taken evolution in college and in summary this is what my professor said - "If the experts said it was true; it's true". That sound no different than believing in a flying hippo

pesty100

Bio genesis says living comes from living...but it doesn't answer how the first living appeared, what this idea tries to achieve is just that. Bio genesis talks about biological evolution why this idea talks about chemical evolution

Bio-genesis is a SCIENTIFIC LAW i.e. it is established in the entire scientific community. Scientifically, we know that non living things/chemicals can't produce living organisms. Your claim of the first living thing from chemicals is an IDEA, it has no scientific basis

This is the question you ought to ask first, if you looked at my previous post you would see I said the most promising idea right now is that life might have come from non living chemicals

This has been my stand the entire time - evolution is based on blind faith and not on any scientific principles. You have confirmed that and honestly, thank you - other evolutionists here don't have the balls to be this honest

Science have the hints that life came from non living chemicals... But science still has many questions to answer like this one; and there are also many hypothesis available to answer it

Your entire statement is based on assumption but I appreciate your honestly. The theory of evolution is not a scientific one; it is based on assumptions and belief. Hence the reason, it shocks me when people talk about evolution as if it's proven.

pesty100

yap life came from non living chemical which is something, and not nothing as you put the question in ur oda post

Okay, this raises some questions:

1. How can you reconcile that non living chemicals produced living organism with the scientific law of bio-genesis?
2. Are you claiming your statement is scientific or an assumption?
3. Where did the non living chemicals come from?

pesty100:
if you want to say chemistry is nothing or chemical reaction is nothing, then no p

You have to be specific. The study of Chemistry is not the study of living organism. Your claim sounds as if you are stating that life came from non living chemicals; Is that your statement?

pesty100:
there wasn't any other organism, life gets simpler and simpler as we go back in time, and the most promising idea right now is that life evolved from chemistry.

So life came from nothing?

pesty100:
One funny difference btw a theist and an atheist is ; an atheist will read the bible but the theist wouldn't read about science

Is this a response to the question I asked above? There is nothing scientific about evolution because all of evolution claim doesn't hold up to scientific laws. Adherents of evolution require blind faith. For example; you claim life started with a simple organism; is that something we can observe or test? Also, how does that statement fit with the law of bio-genesis?

pesty100:
life started from a simple reproducing organism, the variation in species is caused by the variation in the distribution of heritable traits which occurs when the organism reproduce and also through mutation over a period of billion of years in earth's case. which is essentially what evolution is mean

Was the simple reproducing organism created from non living organism or where they created from other organism?

MacCantStopMe

Origin of life and evolution are two different things entirely

I didn't claim they are the same but you can't explain one without the other. Evolution is based upon the origin of life expect you are from a different planet

MacCantStopMe

Gone are the days that I would waste time explaining and linking to scientific sources for ignorant fellows like you.

I will say it again - if you don't have anything to say; sit down and shut-up. Every-time I asked you for specifics; you continue with your mantra that I should go and read.

What kind of scientist will say - I don't know the origin of life BUT all the assumptions I have shows that it's scientific? Truly pathetic!

MacCantStopMe

1) Evolution starts after the first life (or lives). It has nothing to do with the origin of the first living organism. Evolution is a process of life and not the other way round. Life first, then evolution.

Can you please explain how the first life came about i.e. what was it's origin? Whilst you are working on your "first life" theory - please try and align it with the laws of bio-genesis

2) No one knows how the first life or living organisms came about

Of course you don't that is why it's a theory. More importantly, you believe it yet can't use any scientific method to prove it; do you know what that is called? BLIND FAITH. There is no known scientific laws that can support this argument - all the more shocking that you will claim it's scientific.

3) Evolution is a scientific theory!!!! It is one of the most challenged scientific theories which has stood its ground.

If one is patient with you evolutionist; you will always shoot yourself in the foot. You just claimed that no one knows the origin of first life which is an evolution theory yet you call it a scientific theory. A scientific theory can be OBSERVED and it's claims or predictions TESTED. Can you please reconcile how we can test your "first life" scientific theory?

4) Go and read.

Go and read what exactly - the proponents of evolution or the opponents of it? All I am asking you to do is provide proof that it is scientific.

MacCantStopMe

Which one is this single life theory?

I asked how did life begin; how can humans, animals trace their origin; you came up with the "first life" statement

It is called the theory of evolution

Exactly what it is - A THEORY. When you get the chance, read up the definition of a theory. There is a BIG difference between a scientific theory and a theory? Not only that; the evolution theory doesn't follow any known scientific laws. That is why it amazes me when folks talk about evolution theory as if it's a proven scientific law or fact.

When rubbish is repeated often especially by so called "intellectuals"; the ignorant and gullible followers, drop their brains, drop their reasoning and go along with the "experts" advice.

So, I will ask you one more time - can you prove scientifically using your theory of evolution how life began without requiring faith or belief.

Weah96

I just told you that the original Hebrew scriptures say nothing about any virgin giving birth. What exactly do you want me to show you?

But it does

Where did the bible get that idea? Not only does a virgin give birth in the bible, but there was a corresponding prophecy in the old testament about it.

Isaiah 7:14: That is from the Torah by the way

In response to your question about souls and spirits, I believe neither is real. Consciousness, though, is another thing, although there is no indication that it survives death or is immortal

Let us deal with what you believe in since you don't believe in spirituality. What is the origin of consciousness? Also, can consciousness be perceived by any of the 5 senses?

MacCantStopMe

See mumu....is this how you console your scientific ignorance? Dont make me laugh

Really! "Single Life" theory is scientific? - . Cha - your parents wasted their money

MacCantStopMe

I am not here to cure you of your ignorance on evolution....go and read

All the more reason you should have shut-up instead of talking about "single life" concept you can't backup. All I did was ask you a simple question and you are here trying to play pretend and avoid the question

Weah96

I'm referring to Jewish scriptures, collectively referred to as the Torah. There is nothing in them about a virgin giving birth.

You referred to the early Hebrew manuscripts, basically the scrolls that were used to compile the Torah. Since you mentioned the manuscripts and/or Torah in this case, can you refer to the specific one you are referring to? I want to avoid any ambiguity regarding the text you mentioned. So, is there a copy of this Hebrew manuscript that I can refer to for me to provide a response or is there a specific part of the Torah that supports your claim

Define soul or spirit.

An entity which is regarded as being the immortal or spiritual part of the person and, though having no physical or material reality, is credited with the functions of thinking and willing, and hence determining all behavior.

MacCantStopMe:
Visit your science textbook

And to think you had a valid response. Please sit down and shut-up since you don't have anything to say

MacCantStopMe:
Evolution starts from the first life. All creatures have common ancestry.


However, the speciation between a hegoat and a chicken is so far apart that reproduction between them is an impossibility; common ancestry is far different from reproduction

Can you take us back to the first life and what gave rise to it and from the first life how we have different species i.e. he-goat; chickens, humans etc.

MacCantStopMe:
That is the point; your mockery made no sense...it started with a misunderstanding of evolution

Oh really - what is evolution stance on how humans came about - where did we come from?

Weah96

First of all, the original Hebrew manuscript which was translated into the old testament says absolutely NOTHING about a virgin giving birth to anyone. The Christian scriptures were doctored in order to validate the gospels.

Okay, have you read the entire Hebrew manuscripts that the old testament was reconstructed from? Also, can you refer me to the original Hebrew manuscript you are suggesting for us to cross reference.

Are you saying it's possible for a woman to conceive without the presence of sem)en from a man?

I promise to answer this question if you can honor me by answering the question I posed earlier - Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?

MacCantStopMe

Is it me or do you just have nothing to say?

he-goats impregnating chickens because of evolution

Are you daft or do you have comprehension problem? The poster suggested that virgin birth is equivalent to a he-goat impregnating chickens. I mocked the idea and said only such ideas are based on evolution - after all; evolution states that we all came from a single cell organism and we are all related to a single cell i.e. humans coming from fishes.

Abeg, open your eye and read well