₦airaland Forum

vaxx:
The truth nobody want to hear

Well, whether one wants to hear it or not, one knows the truth. There's afterall not one single person on here who would not have seen what happens to their dead people.

DoctorAlien:
It means nothing bro. If anything, these awards only signify acceptance within the ruling paradigm. Is anybody going to give you awards if you keep challenging their evolutionary teachings? We both know the answer.

No, we both don't appear to "know the answer"! You can challenge anything you want if you have evidence to back you up, otherwise you are just some crackpot whom sensible people will rightly ignore.

vaxx:
will I be separated from my flesh to enjoy life elsewhere.

You'd be dead! As in you will not be alive anymore! Worms would be enjoying your dead rotten body!

[quote author=DoctorAlien post=79331656][/quote]Very good. Now, can you provide anything similar and worthy as that for any creationist on your list of scientists?

OLAADEGBU:
https://youtu.be/U0u3-2CGOMQi

Watch the movie God vs Evolution and be prepared to have your faith shaken. Over 3 million views already.

This isn't the first time you've posted this junk and I've bothered to watch it. The evidence for evolution far outweights that for creationism and a simple use of a brain would show which is more valid.

vaxx:
What actually do you think happen after death?

Think? Why "think" ? Have you not got evidence to rely on?

When you die, we will put your dead body in a box and throw it in a hole dug in the ground where your flesh will rot and become food for worms!

DoctorAlien:
Are you seriously asking what the contributions of Ernst Mayr and E. O. Wilson are to mainstream science?

Neither of those two were creationists! I've posted about them above!

realmindz:
At the bolded , you have said it all and that proves that the Bible is anti science, built on myths and exaggerated stories.

I would not agree that the Bible is anti science. I'd say people's misunderstanding of the Bible is what makes some people anti-science. As Paxonel said, the bible is primitive science.

budaatum:
Actually, Genesis 1 was primitive humans' 'scientific attempt' to explain what they observed with their senses, which is what science is. We today, standing on the shoulders of those early primitive giant 'scientists', are just way too arrogant (or most likely too stupid) to understand what they began and clearly informed us to keep on doing.

Or would you like to argue that "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" is not very clear instruction to do science and be blessed?

What is evolution?

As taught in KS2! (Second year in nursery school).

DoctorAlien:
But let us even agree, for the sake of argument, that no creationist scientist is teaching in "any reputable school", would this still discredit their qualifications?

It is not their qualifications that matter! They can be very well qualified and still know jack and produce invalid research just as doctors can be well qualified and still be crap at treating patients!

DoctorAlien:
Surely are there evolutionists peers going to welcome their papers which challenge their evolutionary teachings? Just as they themselves are never going to welcome the evolutionary papers.

Yeah, I know, it boils down to who is the majority. But majority does not validate arguments.

It does not boil down to "who is the majority"! If it did, Darwin, Galileo, Corpenicus etc would not have stood a chance in a world where creationists were a majority!

It boils down to facts and evidence!

DoctorAlien:
I see what you did there with the word "reputable". But in case you didn't know, they actually have a Journal of Creation.

You mean the Journal of the Creation Ministries International? You are not serious!

In 1977, the Creation Science Association (CSA) was organised in Adelaide, Australia by Carl Wieland. In 1978 the organisation began the magazine Ex Nihilo (from the Latin phrase Creatio ex nihilo, meaning "Creation out of nothing" ). Soon after, the Creation Science Foundation (CSF) took over production of Ex Nihilo (later renaming it Creation Ex Nihilo, and eventually simply Creation). In 1984, CSF started the Ex Nihilo Technical Journal for more in-depth analysis of creation issues (it was later renamed Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, then simply TJ, and now the Journal of Creation).

DoctorAlien:
is the argument now where they work/teach? And not where they obtained there degrees or even the qualifications they have?

No! Its not about where they got their degrees! If you are truly a doctor, I'm sure you must have gotten your degree from a reputable institution, but I can bet my last dollar that in none of your exam papers did you ever mention God or what you are claiming here!

It's about research they have published and its review by their peers, and I bet you they published none or their peers told them it was crap!

DoctorAlien:
I don't know what credible means but here is a list of some scientists who agree with the "crap".

All preachers! Not one of them even works in university! Doesn't that tell you anything? It's not as if they've published their "theological biology" in any reputable scientific journal for their peers to review!

DoctorAlien:
C'mon, a host of them are at [url]creation.com[/url]. Can I even finish naming them? I don't think so. These are PhD scientists in various disciplines who obtained their degrees from acclaimed institutions around the world. Check them out. Try it. It's harmless.

Here is a list of your PhD scientists. None of them work or lecture in a reputable accredited educational institution, and all probably live off the contributions of the gullible. But you are very welcome to prove me wrong!

DoctorAlien:
C'mon, a host of them are at [url]creation.com[/url].

Name just 3! I bet you not a single one of them would be teaching in any reputable school!

DoctorAlien:
well qualified scientists,

The following is from your "well qualified" link. Show me just one credible scientist who agrees with this crap!

On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end.

DoctorAlien:
I, together with many others including well qualified scientists, think otherwise.

I'm going to assume the "Doctor" in your moniker implies you are a doctor. Could you point to anything in the link above that relates to what you were taught while studying to be a doctor please?

DoctorAlien:
I, together with many others including well qualified scientists, think otherwise.

Name these "well qualified scientists" who "think otherwise" so we can access their credentials ourselves. I've done two above, both evolutionists, and would gladly do others you name. You might also wish to include your credentials since you mentioned yourself too as a "think otherwise". But bear in mind that science is hardly about what one "thinks" but what one can provide scientifically researched evidence for which would be reviewed by one's peers.

DoctorAlien:
not exactly. I think this is a strawman. History I believe is important for us today on many levels, but I agree with Skell that speculations about how organisms arose is not important to operational science today.

Evolution is however, not speculation. There is way more evidence for it than "God said"!

vaxx:
He once throw the same gabbage with me in olagbedu thread ( The name might not be correct) and I explained to him that the statement is nonsensical........

If I were satan, would it not be in my interest to soil every enlightening thread with the darkness of lies and distortions so that the light does not shine through? It is for this reason that lightbearers must be wise and diligent so the darkness does not overcome and they be crucified.

vaxx:
i have trashed this rubbished of historical and operational science once with you before.

Aha! So you have history? Just goes to justify my "Peace" and "dust", I guess.

DoctorAlien:
It remains for you to demonstrate that creationism as a worldview is not "based on evidence and facts".

I don't need to demonstrate anything to you since it concerns me not what you personally chose to believe or understand or know. Those who have ears to hear and eyes to see will hear and see and learn. As for the rest, those like you, I don't mind saying "Peace of the Lord be with you", as I clean your dust off myself and depart from your presence.

vaxx:
like break it down into simple terms and well to understand analogy.

The following is from the K-2 teachers' lounge (K-2 is kindergarten, equivalent of nursery school in Nigeria.)

Though you will probably not be teaching evolution in grades K-2, you will be laying the foundation for student understanding of evolution in later grades. You can also help your students avoid confusions that may lead to misconceptions later on.

And the following is 4 years later in K6 to 8, the equivalent of our primary 4.

Students at this level are ready to look more closely at evolutionary concepts that explain the diversity of living organisms and the history of life on Earth. As a teacher, you will be building upon basic concepts students have learned at lower grades: variation within a population, the suitability of different traits for different environments, and inheritance.

As you can see, it is broken down, but building on knowledge acquired earlier in nursery school at 4-5 years old by which age a Nigerian child has been convinced God done it in 6 days and rested on the 7^th and on which all it's future education is based.

DoctorAlien:
No, worldview as in the preconceived opinion on the nature of things. Worldviews could be materialism, naturalism, creationism, etc.

Indeed one's worldview can be "preconceived opinion", and fantasy. But a proper worldview should be based on evidence and facts and not just that which one chooses to believe despite, and regardless, of the evidence.

What youve posted amounts to claiming, "knowledge of the past is not essential for todays living", and while that may be true as far as daily bread goes, we can easily observe how a deficiency in history affects societal development, though, those with no knowledge of history would not see their deficiency since they have no knowledge of the past.

The following is from the article to which yours below is a response.

While Egnor’s misguided attack on evolution tells us nothing about the truth of Darwinism, it does prove one thing: Doctors aren’t necessarily scientists. Some, like Egnor, seem completely unable to evaluate evidence. Why does he so readily dismiss a theory that has been universally accepted by scientists for over a century?

Apparently because a rather old book, Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, first published in 1985, convinced him that evolutionary theory was underlain by very weak evidence. If Egnor had bothered to look just a little into Denton’s book and its current standing, he would have learned that the arguments in it have long since been firmly refuted by scientists. Indeed, they were recanted by Denton himself in a later book more than 10 years ago.

Since Egnor is decades out of date and shows no sign of knowing anything at all about evolutionary biology in the 21st century, one wonders what could have inspired his declaration at this time.

The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor.

Among genuine scientists, there is not the slightest doubt about the truth of these ideas. In contrast to Egnor’s claim, the evidence for all of them is not only strong but copious–so much so that evolution has graduated from a scientific theory to a scientific fact.
Why Evolution Is True

DoctorAlien:
Are you sure that evolution is essential to our curriculum? (I'm not gonna bother myself about the "scientific literacy" part, because evolutionists can at will label anyone who doesn't agree with them illiterate, as is observed even on this forum). Hear Dr. P. S. Skell, a member of the US NAS:

“It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”

Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html

DoctorAlien:
The basic difference is worldview.

"Worldview", as in how you chose to view the world, and not seeing the world how it is Doc? I call that fantasy, and if that's your preferred 'worldview', who am I to argue with you that you don't see what you see.

I'll continue preaching the doctrine of open your eyes and look and see though. One never knows who might catch on.

Evolution is essential to our curriculum and to scientific literacy. Imagine teaching social science without teaching history; students would lack perspective on events going on today. Similarly, to understand the big picture of biology, students need to understand life on Earth in terms of its history and its future — the changing life forms and ecosystems that have arisen and changed over billions of years, as well as the mechanisms that have brought about those changes.

The Understanding Evolution project aims to help instructors develop student understanding of:

Basic evolutionary patterns and processes

Evolutionary theory's ability to explain phenomena across the many subdisciplines of biology

The many applications of evolutionary theory, both in solving real world problems and in scientific research

The evidence supporting evolutionary theory

As is true of any subject, to teach evolution successfully, teachers need to be prepared with a conceptual understanding of the topic and with effective curricular strategies. Teachers that develop a depth of knowledge beyond what is actually expected of students will be able to confidently adjust instruction in response to students' needs and inquiries. This is particularly true in the teaching of evolution, where students' questions can be numerous and challenging.

We've assembled a variety of resources to help you increase student understanding of evolution. To improve your own content knowledge, explore Evolution 101 and our resource library. To prepare yourself with lesson plans, teaching tips, and pedagogical strategies, visit a Teacher's Lounge or explore the all-level resources listed below and to the right.
Teaching materials

DoctorAlien:
How is it that evolution has nothing to do with belief? So what, apart from believe, am I to do with statements like these which comes from evolutionary teaching: "our earliest ancestors were single-celled organisms", "The first animals evolved from their single-celled ancestors around 800 million years ago." I should chew the statements?

No, not "chew", but study, research, learn and understand.

That's also what you ought to do where your religion is concerned, and not just, not use your God given brain and believe whatever you are told to believe!

vaxx:
Evolution is poorly understood by students and, disturbingly, by many of their science teachers. it should be part of the compulsory science curriculum in nigeria schools. I have discuss evolution with a biological student from Nigeria before and her reaction and understanding about the topic was very foolish. Permit me with the use of my word.

Nigerians are taught creationism from very early at home by their parents and their teachers in school. We don't even learn history so how could we possibly understand evolution?