PastorAIO:


Your post is resounding with your failure to answer the most pertinent question without which everything else you say is baseless. I'll repeat the question.


What do you Mean by a scientific basis?

What does acupunction have in common with an Economic theory such as Ricardo's theory of Profits that makes them both scientific while Astrology is not?

Or maybe we can approach it another way. What does Astrology Lack that Darwin's theory of evolution has making it not scientific?

That definition of astrology was from a dictionary. Check it out yourself.

Please don't go there. Darwin's theory is the bedrock of biological, anthropological and paleontological science. Proven by numerous fossil and DNA evidence.

Economic theories are social sciences.

Acupuncture is alternative medicine, proven by scientific research to alleviate noninflammatory pains.

Astrology is baseless myth.

Jeromejnr:


This man, you are still talking. After your beating round the bush on our last discussion and your eventual evasive action.

I have exhausted my energy abeg! I don't even have your time.

With all you said in our last discussion, I had closed your case already.

In "our last discussion", you revealed not only a lack of understanding of my beliefs, but also exposed your confusion over yours.

You started this thread, mentioning me in the opening comment, so complaining about a lack of energy now seems almost like desperation.

You seem like a smart guy. Indoctrination does this to even the greatest minds. But they all eventually break free.

I'm happy you began searching for "scientific evidence" to back up your beliefs. That's the crucial first step any reasonable person would take. The end of the journey is mental freedom.

Jeromejnr:


Talk for yourself not for me.

Lol. I once shared the same arrogance. I know how difficult it is to shake off the idea that every other living thing was made for your pleasure.

Have you ever heard of Neanderthals? Do you know some living humans aren't genetically 100% homo sapiens? It happens that some of your "destroyed world" 'survived' and interbred with modern humans. Check it out.

Jeromejnr:


Yea and you believe you mutated from an ape. Too much X-men.

Don't even talk here. You ran away from our last discussion.

Yes, we both did. Our ancestors parted ways from modern apes two million years ago. There are fossils and DNA evidence, among others to prove it. And No, I've never seen Xmen.

I know it's almost impossible to convince you to discard beliefs you've held since childhood indoctrination by arguing on an internet forum, so that's not exactly what I'm here for.

I'm here to sow seeds of doubt in your baseless beliefs. To hopefully get you thinking rationally and craving for more knowledge, because when you do, there's only one outcome.

I'm also here for the on-the-edge religious reader of this thread. To explain that because almost everybody around you believes something doesn't mean it has to be real.

So no, I can't "run". I'll devote as much time as I can to liberating people from the mental slavery of organised religion.

Jeromejnr:
Dedicated to Chizzled06, Ifeness, Menesheh, and the fellow deluded lots.

Nah.

I believe in this story:

A super powerful (good) guy was bored. So he created little beings for his entertainment.
But this was still too boring. So he created an alter ego to become his antagonist. This evil being became very evil, but the all powerful guy wouldn't make him cease to exist, that's just too boring.

Rather watch the antagonist terrorise his creatures till he gets bored again. Then he'll watch the ones who don't believe he exists burn forever.

But don't forget he knows the future, so these creatures think they're in control, but they really aren't. He already knows the ones he's chosen to burn.

Makes more sense.

PS. Have you considered praying for Lucifer? Maybe if God decides to change him to become good, all the evil will end? Just a thought.

PastorAIO:


What do you mean but a 'scientific basis'?

Does acupuncture have a scientific basis?

Does Theory of Evolution have a scientific basis?

Does Herbal medicine have a scientific basis?

Does Economic theory have a scientific basis?

Yes, they all do. If you research each of those topics, you'll find so.

But Astrology does not. Pure myth.

Jeromejnr:


Hmph. Vague reply as usual.

Enjoy the vanity of your deception. Good luck in your life.

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?"
Mark Twain

Jeromejnr:


Lol!

O great science one! I would like you to enlighten me on one last matter.

Take a look at the creature below and answer this questions rationally. It's a leaf bug. It looks like a leaf that's its defense mechanism.

1. How did evolution give the leaf bug such defense mechanism, such incredible design to make it look like a leaf?

2. How did this creature have the perception/consciousness to know that if it blends with the leaf it would be secure from it's prey?

3. How did the big bang happen to create such perfect design at just one tryout?

4. What are the chances of a single explosion to occur one time to produce designs as such and defense perception?

5. Or did a particular leaf eventually evolve to having legs, hands, eyes a stomach e.t.c.?

I mean if I shatter a glass now, what is the possibility that some of its pieces will create a Ferrari? But yet a chaotic explosion brought much more than that. If I was to show you a Ferrari and I said it all came from an explosion, how would you view me?

If I was to also show you a Da Vinci painting and I said all that came out as I just threw a bucket full of paint on the canvass without even lifting a brush, what will you say?

N.B There has only been one explosion not many.

Go do your homework and search out your so called rational thinking.

Peace.

Lol.

"Animals are too complex! Evolution can't do that! For every garden there must be a gardener!"

Google search "Evolution of Phylliidae"

When you learn that the earth has been around for billions of years, you realize there's more than enough time for nature to play around with stuff.

Enjoy.

PastorAIO:


What is the 'scientific' basis?

I'm more concerned with you saying that it is not 'real' rather than it's scientific status, but first I would like to know what you understand as a scientific basis.

It is not real. No proof or evidence to support irrational claims. It is not science.

Jeromejnr:


So you got your life beliefs from wikipedia?

Typical.

Since you are a cousin to a monkey I would expect that you try visiting them once in a while. It's heartless all this while you ignored them since they are part of your family.

I will end with this:

Psalm 106:20 "Thus they exchanged their glory For the image of an ox that eats grass. They forgot God their Savior, Who had done great things.."

Ciao!.

Of course, I visit them. Exploring and understanding nature has made me lose the arrogance you currently possess and embrace the likeness we share with other creatures.

Are you in Nigeria currently? There's a Biology program at 19:55 on the Education channel - DStv channel 190 (I think it's on GOtv too) that you might learn a thing or two from.

My beliefs are gotten from science. Built on rational thinking and evidence based conclusions.

PastorAIO:



"Sir, I have studied it, you have not" -Isaac Newton, Astrologer said in defense of astrology to disbeliever in Halley (comet discoverer)

Isaac Newton was a super smart guy, but unfortunately he had his limitations, understandable when you consider the era he lived in. Are you aware that he was an alchemist?

I repeat, Astrology is not science.

Pseudoscience (n): any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.

Jeromejnr:


Wikipedia.

Have you ever done a research project before?

Then you will know you just committed a faux pas.

Lol. I admire your selective rationalism. Electing to be reasonable only when it suits your mischief.

There are references at the bottom of the pages. Follow the links attached to each timeline of event for further explanation.

Jeromejnr:


You are still establishing what I am saying Mr. Man.

Man as we know started 6000 years ago.

The earth existed long before that. And there was a world long before that 6000 years of man that was later destroyed.

I'm sorry, but man as we know "started" >100,000 years ago.

Your story is grossly flawed. With no single piece of evidence or proof.

The only thing "started" 6000 years ago was the invention of writing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_prehistory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion

As I said earlier, I'm here to encourage you to seek knowledge, not argue.

Adios.

Jeromejnr:


Okay looked back at your earlier statement. I saw only world and not earth.

World is different from earth.

World is made up of a system of culture or life. Earth is the planet itself.

There was a world long before it was destroyed. The earth existed long before man was created.

The world was on the earth. The first man was commanded by God to replenish the earth.

Okay. Earth first. (Undocumented) Initial world next. Before man.

Are you aware that Adam, according to biblical claims lived 6000 years ago?

How do you explain fossils of mankind in our current form that date longer than that, some up to 100,000 years?

Jeromejnr:


Nope. The earth existed long before man in God's image was created.

When God then created man He said they should replenish it.

Replenish= Fill again, Replace used items...

But, you just said your destroyed world existed before earth was created.

Are you retracting your statement? Are you confused?

Jeromejnr:


Yup!

That's new to you isn't it.

If something existed before planet earth, why is its remains being found inside earth?

Jeromejnr:


The bible also shows that there was a world before ours that was destroyed.

That's why the hebrew word used in the Genesis account denoted a recreation.

Ok hold on you've lost me.

This destroyed 'world' existed before the creation story, hence before earth was created?

Jeromejnr:


Genesis chapter one and two is my belief.

In fact, that is the only sane belief I have encountered.

But seriously, why don't you check out studies on how the DNA in seeds and humans function. You will see that the evolution theory doesn't make sense.

How do you explain fossils?

Jeromejnr:


And you mutated from a monkey right? X-man.

No, actually we all share a common ancestor with monkeys. I've tried to explain that earlier.

I'm genuinely curious. What's your current belief about the origin of mankind?

Jeromejnr:


Since you decided to base your life on a theory,

Congratulations on your successful evolution from being a monkey.

As for me, I was created by the Almighty.

Peace man.

Rom 1:21 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools,…"

23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Another Prophecy fulfilled.

"Created by the almighty"

You fell from the sky?

Jeromejnr:


You divert the discussion ignoring the concepts you can't explain.

First of all know that I am from a science field.

Secondly the word theory I used is such:

Theory: idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Thirdly, There are various arguments from different scientists that oppose your own version of evolution. So I don't know what you're saying.

So are you sure if I prove you wrong I will be world famous??

Read this: From the Guardian Newspaper US.

First read the conclusion of the article. And note, it wasn't written by a christian so no bias.

"The irony in all this is that Darwin himself never claimed that it was. He went to his deathbed protesting that he'd been misinterpreted: there was no reason, he said, to assume that natural selection was the only imaginable mechanism of evolution. Darwin, writing before the discovery of DNA, knew very well that his work heralded the beginning of a journey to understand the origins and development of life. All we may be discovering now is that we remain closer to the beginning of that journey than we've come to think."


Now read from the beginning.....

The story, still sometimes repeated in creationist circles, goes like this: it is the 1960s, at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, and a team of astronomers is using cutting-edge computers to recreate the orbits of the planets, thousands of years in the past. Suddenly, an error message flashes up. There's a problem: way back in history, one whole day appears to be missing.

The scientists are baffled, until a Christian member of the team dimly recalls something and rushes to fetch a Bible. He thumbs through it until he reaches the Book of Joshua, chapter 10, in which Joshua asks God to stop the world for . . . "about a full day!" Uproar in the computer lab. The astronomers have happened upon proof that God controls the universe on a day-to-day basis, that the Bible is literally true, and that by extension the "myth" of creation is, in fact, a reality. Darwin was wrong – according to another creationist rumour, he'd recanted on his deathbed, anyway – and here, at last, is scientific evidence!

Inevitably, those of us who aren't professional scientists have to take a lot of science on trust. And one of the things that makes it so easy to trust the standard view of evolution, in particular, is amply illustrated by the legend of the Nasa astronomers: the doubters are so deluded or dishonest that one needn't waste time with them. Unfortunately, that also makes it embarrassingly awkward to ask a question that seems, in the light of recent studies and several popular books, to be growing ever more pertinent. What if Darwin's theory of evolution – or, at least, Darwin's theory of evolution as most of us learned it at school and believe we understand it – is, in crucial respects, not entirely accurate?

Such talk, naturally, is liable to drive evolutionary biologists into a rage, or, in the case of Richard Dawkins, into even more of a rage than usual. They have a point: nobody wants to provide ammunition to the proponents of creationism or "intelligent design", and it's true that few of the studies now coming to public prominence are all that revolutionary to the experts. But in the culture at large, we may be on the brink of a major shift in perspective, with enormous implications for how most of us think about how life came to be the way it is. As the science writer David Shenk puts it in his new book, The Genius in All of Us, "This is big, big stuff – perhaps the most important [discoveries] in the science of heredity since the gene......

For more: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

Now that's another bible amazement.

How the leap year came about.

So this shows your views are not accepted by all.

Accepted by scientists. Not national journalists looking to sell papers.

The NASA 'story'. Guess what? MYTH!

Your article says itself that the Darwin death bed story is RUMOUR AMONG CREATIONISTS.

You like science and facts eh? I beg you, start reading actual scientific stuff.

This level of gullibility is very dangerous.

Jeromejnr:
@ Chizzled06 do you still want to be enlightened more? Do you even know what the process of natural selection is? Isn't it amazing that the man whom you base your belief on said he might have been wrong on his death bed.

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate. Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas. The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

The following proofs will show that evolution is not a scientific fact. The reverse will be proven. Evolution is scientifically impossible. Evolution is simply a theory that was developed one hundred forty years ago by Charles Darwin, before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to prove the Theory of Evolution.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth.

Children believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. These government-educated kids actually believe this nonsense. Just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense.

Kent R. Rieske

You're in science? And you think Scientific Theories graduate into Laws? You just shot your own foot.

You've gone to scour the internet to search for more mindless propaganda to back up your claims, to win an argument that you are having with yourself.

There'll always be crazy people saying stuff to feed the billions of religious people currently living.

You have refused to try to learn. But once again, I'll implore you to do so. There's a reason this theory is thought in biology classes instead of the biblical creation story.

It's funny how in all of this, you never mentioned your own "fact based" theory on the origin of man.

Take some time off internet warlordship and try to understand this concept, backed up by anthropology, paleontology, archeology and (relatively recently discovered) DNA evidence.

Facts will always be facts. It's up to you to choose between insurmountable evidence and Jewish folklore.

Jeromejnr:


Mr. Man.

Go and do your research again.

All these things your guys are calling facts are actually theories that are still subject to debate.

So what was the gene that separated Men from monkeys from the so called common ancestor whom cannot identify?

And what they them have more complex brains than the monkeys? Don't give me vague ideas give me details.

And also tell me why man has a conscience and sense of guilt but monkeys do not?

Don't judge the questions but answer them in detail.

Lol. You want me to give you a Biology lesson on an internet forum?

The funny part is that your questions are are very common among people that haven't learnt about evolution.

Please, just try to learn about the theory, it won't kill you. Or better still, type your questions into Google if you're genuinely curious and impatient.

It's obvious you have no background in science, because if you do, you'll realise a Scientific Theory is not the same as your everyday use of the word.

These "theories" have been tested and verified countless times, and the minute any of them is proven wrong ONCE, it is thrown out.

This is one of the most widely accepted scientific theories OF ALL TIME. If you can prove it wrong, I'll make you world famous.

Jeromejnr:


Oh enlightened one.

So you're more smarter than the scientists that said the Genesis account and the Big Bang are in harmony?

They knew nothing about gravitation but talked about the gravitational pull of the Orion and Plaeidas which some scientists have even written a book on.

The knew nothing about biology and others but declared in Genesis that all creation is based on space, matter and time.

They new nothing but yet claimed the earth was in a circle.

If you don't know how to refute the argument then just like that lady said to you, Keep quiet.

People write books, to sell books. To gullible people. Like you.

If you start talking about "smart people," this won't end well for you.

If they knew anything about gravitation, they would've explained it before Newton did.

I'm not here to argue. I'm here to open up you mind to the realisation that you're looking for extra meaning to books that are plainly Jewish folklore.

If we want to go down that "refuting" road, you'll have to start with refuting the 3999 other Gods that you don't believe in.

I only believe in one less God than you do.

Jeromejnr:


Na don't push the question to me.

What was the common ancestor?

Why is it that Centuries have passed and we have not seen any evolution even by a small margin?

How is it that after men and monkeys all evolved from a common ancestor, humans happened to have different language consciousness from the monkeys and also how various primitive humans had different language factors?

"Language factors"?? You're beginning to sound like an illiterate.

Humans and monkeys parted ways millions of years ago, enough time for us to develop more complex brains and differing physical structures. Evidence of this progression can be found in fossils.

Actually, evolution is STILL happening. Natural selection is still being observed till today. Good, you've learnt something new today.

If you truly want to learn about evolution, read about it yourself. Google is your friend.

And onto you. What's your more believable, "fact based" story of the origin of man?

Jeromejnr:


Let me also lay it out for you, I talk science and facts and not assumptions like you just did.

Why don't you bring up facts to refute the argument instead of giving us your own opinions.

BTW, why don't you help your friend explain how primitive men knew about the gravitational pull of the Orion and its friend.

Science? Facts? That's laughable because 'sensible' religious people run from those two things.

Science and religion have been at war since the days of Galileo; the first man to claim the earth revolves around the sun, imprisoned by the church for his heretic views.

No 1 scientific fact: The bible is nothing but a fictional book. Have you noticed it's NEVER quoted in any scientific discipline?

In fact, the foundations of biology (evolution) and physics(big bang) completely contradict biblical claims.

And then paleontology, anthropology, astronomy.

They knew nothing about gravitation, my friend. That's why the bible claims there's a 'firmament' preventing heavenly bodies from falling onto the earth.

"One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad."

Jeromejnr:


I am guessing from your own theory humans came from monkeys.

Not exactly. Humans and monkeys evolved from the same common ancestor. Understand the theory first.

And yours? You believe mankind is 6000 years old? Really?

Anas09:
Thank you @JeromeJnr.

Biblical prophecies and these guys kicking against the pricks (to their own hurt) are the reason I believe that am in the right direction. Christianity is True.
I was hoping that the light weight Meneseh and Chuna will pick up the scriptures and tear them up, bring out the lies and inaccuracies in them, and make me change my mind about what I believe, but instead, they once again displayed their foolishness, and make me hold firmly to my beliefs.
And the other guy Chizzled06 if you don't ve what to say just shut it. You must not appear whenever a thread is opened.

And what is it that you believe?

I think I know where we can begin. You think the bible is all the unedited words of a supreme being, don't you?

Let's start with the creation story. You think that's how humans came into existence?

Jeromejnr:


You just wasted your time writing nothing. Leaving out the scripture I gave you and talking smack about God.

That is how they always behave when they have no explanation for anything. SMH.

Btw @ the bolded was a very useless assumption just to try to get your silly point across.

Let me lay it out for you;

Your bible, the Qur'an, the Jewish Torah and all other holy books are the same; Words of men, explaining their (limited) understanding of the world at the time they were written.

All the 4000 religions in the world, including yours are all the same; human inventions, born of fear and ignorance, attributing things that mankind could not explain to the supernatural.

In the 500+ years since humanity took the bold step to start looking for rational explanations to 'natural phenomena', we've made more advancements than any other period in human history.

If your God is the God of heaven and earth, then he is a very very small god. Our solar system is smaller than a tiny dot when placed in a map of the observable universe.

Learn a little. Free your mind from the shackles of indoctrination and religious propaganda.

adullam210:

read the book of Daniel you will see it there that 'Knowledge shall increase'

Lol. Good prediction. Knowledge has increased to the extent that we have realized religion is bullshit.

Still nothing on electricity though.

Astrology is not real. Astrology is not science.

The position of celestial bodies at the time of your birth has no correlation with your personality.