₦airaland Forum

cocoduck:
Rubbish, no Muslim ever Leaves their faith and makes any noise about it

TrajansKong:
Either you are kidding, or you have no idea of the scale and variety of life on Earth?

There are approx. 8.7 million species on earth and counting. That makes 17.4 million lifeforms to feed on your magic boat for 40 days and forty nights.

Each panda would need 26-84 pounds of bamboo per day. What about the anteaters? What did they eat?

Let's not forget the 350,000 different species of beetles. Who fed them and how during the voyage?

How did 8 people clean the waste of the 5,416 (x2) mamals, 8,240 (x2) birds, and the 9,956 (x2) reptiles? Daily.

And you say we have "senseless believes"!!

braithwaite:


The Universe, in it’s silent dwarfing beauty, may not care about human life – but we do. So our brief and improbable time here may best be spent experiencing its wonders together, not in indentured servitude to an imaginary celestial dictator.

cooltobex:
I almost can't believe you are a lady! With this mindset? What happened? I'm wondering. How did your heart get so cold towards God! Open it up and experience God's love!
God's love is unconditional! Say what you will.
You don't understand it because you keep rejecting Him; so I'm not surprised!

Once again, open up your heart and ask God Himself with all sincerity to reveal Himself to you if He is real. Then you'll see His wonder! Until then, you'll keep thinking and writing gibberish like this. You can't truly understand what you keep rejecting. If you want to understand God and the Bible, accept Him!

Amberon11:
There is only one heaven.

God doesn't require a price as we wouldn't be able to pay for it.

Splinz:
God is a loving Father who loves all of His children.

have you ever cared to open the Bible and comfirm these things by yourself

chistev12:
Evolution is not random and it is directed? Wow. You really really need to explain that because I'm completely confused

orunto27:
You want Food, you pay for it. Heaven is for The Righteous. You want to enter, pay by. being righteous.

chistev12:
"Evolution isn't undirected. It's very much guided and shape" how can random processes be directed and guided, does that make sense to you? If evolution was directed then we aren't here by chance right? But evolutionist say the opposite.

"The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues” (Behe, Michael J., Molecular Machines).

chistev12:
After reading that you still believe wholeheartedly that the human eye came about by a series of undirected processes? Something intelligent humans cannot replicate perfectly is assumed to have been produced by nature?
Even when the brightest minds have tried and failed to produce simple living cells in controlled environmental conditions, nature is thought to have done itself?

And even if scientists do manage to create a simple living cell, with a controlled environment that is supposed to be that of prehistoric times, do the scientists represent blind chance or intelligent creator?

chistev12:
Splinz:
The Amazing Human Eye

The balance of this discourse contains a series of brief examinations of various examples reflecting God’s creative genius and bear testimony to a literal, divine creation. Each of these miracles of engineering defies atheists and evolutionists! Think carefully about what you are reading and ask yourself if even one of them could have evolved.

Begin with the human eye. This mechanism is spectacularly complex and is a particularly inspiring testimony to the greatness of God’s supreme intelligence.

Here are three statements from Dr. David N. Menton. The first represents the magnitude of difficulty in having the human eye evolve to its current state of extraordinary design and complexity:

“The most amazing component of the camera eye is its ‘film’ or retina. This light sensitive layer, which lines the back of the eye ball, is thinner than a sheet of Saran Wrap and is vastly more sensitive to a wider range of light than any man-made film. The best man-made film can handle a range of 1,000-to-one. By comparison, the human retina can handle a dynamic range of light of 10 billion-to-one (or 10 million times more) and can sense as little as a single photon of light in the dark! In bright daylight, the retina bleaches out and turns its ‘volume control’ way down so as not to overload.

“The light sensitive cells of the retina are like an extremely complex high gain amplifier. There are over 10 million such cells in the retina and they are packed together with a density of 200,000 (per millimeter) in the highly sensitive fovea. These photoreceptor cells have a very high rate of metabolism and must completely replace themselves about every 7 days! If you look at a very bright light such as the sun, they immediately burn out but are rapidly replaced in most cases. Because the retina is thinner than the wavelength of visible light it is totally transparent. Each of these minute photoreceptor cells is vastly more complex than the most sophisticated man-made computer.”

Now notice: “The evolutionist Dr. Ernest Mayer once said: It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.”

Even Darwin once said that the very thought of the complexity of the eye gave him chills. Here is another reason Darwin said this. This quote, while inspiring, certainly is chilling: “It has been estimated that 10 billion calculations occur every second in the retina before the light image even gets to the brain! It is sobering to compare this performance to the most powerful manmade computer. In an article published in the computer magazine, Byte (April 1985), Dr. John Stevens said: ‘To simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous non-linear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways it would take a minimum of a hundred years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second’” (Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D., The Eye, Missouri Assoc. for Creation, Inc.—emphasis mine).

You are left to draw your own conclusions about how such a marvelous organism—the human eye—could have evolved. No wonder my own optometrist told me that he believes that the eye did not evolve. He understands that it could not! It was “invented” by the Great Inventor.

Okay. What's up people........? Later.

JacksonD7:
No they don't deflate their arguments. If I told you that a tornado passed through a garage and a junkyard and by a string of random accidents mechanical components were arranged in perfect order and when the storm cleared a brand new Ferrari in working order popped out would you believe me?.

Probably not, but you expect me to believe that simple bacteria which is infinitely more complex than anything man has ever created arose by chance. You expect me to believe that the human eye which is more efficient than any camera on earth arose by a series of freakish accidents, that is illogical.

Unless you can prove to me that a Ferrari can be crafted by accident in a tornado I'm going to have a hard time believing that the human brain which has more connections than the entire communications system on earth and which has a billion times more memory than the largest computer network on earth arose by accident and chance. So, if you put up a plausible theory explaining the accidental Ferrari maybe I'll start taking your arguments seriously.

If I told you that a tornado passed through a garage and a junkyard and by a string of random accidents mechanical components were arranged in perfect order and when the storm cleared a brand new Ferrari in working order popped out would you believe me?

Probably not, but you expect me to believe that simple bacteria which is infinitely more complex than anything man has ever created arose by chance. You expect me to believe that the human eye which is more efficient than any camera on earth arose by a series of freakish accidents, that is illogical.

Unless you can prove to me that a Ferrari can be crafted by accident in a tornado I'm going to have a hard time believing that the human brain which has more connections than the entire communications system on earth and which has a billion times more memory than the largest computer network on earth arose by accident and chance. So, if you put up a plausible theory explaining the accidental Ferrari maybe I'll start taking your arguments seriously.

Ferisidowu:
oh God!! oh God!! oh God!! pls let theses people Have an encounter with you

joshysmartie:
Nice u very vast in this evolution thingy.. Can I pm for details?

Martinez19:
read the original text in Hebrew. You have to observe that the translation of the scripture to English is not accurate when subject to close comparison with the originals.

UyiIredia:
@ odijeks: Keep on slaying cloudgodesss with sense. She needs it . . . DESPERATELY.

JacksonD7:
I read them and I still believe in God. Those comments don't convince me and their arguments seem illogical.

UyiIredia:
Where are the evolutionists? Let them come and defend their precious theory from this barrage.

UyiIredia:
Have you ever considered the fact that you could be the one indoctrinated in materialist dogma. Because the evidence for God from the universe and life in it is plainly manifest.

OLAADEGBU:
Then fire must consume any dry leaf in its path.

OLAADEGBU:
The nature of the holy God and the sinful nature of human beings are like a burning fire and dried leaf respectively. It is natural for fire to consume any dry leaf because if its nature. God is a consuming fire and it will do you good to come under the covering of our Lord Jesus Christ who prevents burning. The Son prevents burning.

odijeks:
A gene known to be responsible for a particular trait duplicates itself by error. Does that really count as addition of new information that could lead to more complex-organism formation?

The section of the gene that duplicates by error had a function and this function doesn't change as only one part of the duplicate can participate in the cell's consequent activities.

Now, the idea of gene duplication is that the estate manager by error drops 2 Nokia 3310 mobile phones in a single building, instead of the usual one. Has any new function really been added to that house? The point the evolutionist is trying to make is this: "the presence of 2 Nokia 3310 mobiles in a single house could lead to the presence of the functions of an Iphone 6". we both see how that can't be true.

Furthermore, Gene duplication is known to occur by random error. That means any section at all in the gene can be copied twice. If somehow such a mutant organism lives and possesses superior qualities, for it to establish a new specie it has to mate with an opposite sex that had exactly the same form of mutation i.e exactly the same section of its gene altered as it did.

Remember that all of these is by random chance. Why would I believe such a scenario occurred accurately several times in the past?

If gene duplication doesn't bring about new function, evolution becomes impossible. you can read this later on wiki as regards gene duplication and evolutionary change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication#Gene_duplication_as_amplification

Here is also another link (this is not a Christian site this time) that shows that there are indeed huge issues with the evolution theory
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50

If germ line mutation is the back bone of evolution and speciation (at least in the multicellular level), that means every time or at least most of the time it occurred in the course of evolutionary change, it always had a positive outcome in the progeny.

But even a single germ line mutation that is beneficial to the offspring is non-existent. In fact, most of the germ line mutations we see today are lethal

you expect me to believe that germ line mutations that occurred in the past were beneficial to the proceeding offspring.

but if its this sort of chance is what you attribute to the formation of about 8million species that walk the earth today and several millions that have gone extinct, then that's just unlikely.

Yet you can't show me one positive germ line mutation from those occurring presently.

Tellemall:
Awww. That's a lot of defense, for such little guilt.

You do remember you claimed I was some case, right? And blatantly said I was not intelligent. If you didn't mean to come across that way, why did you come across that way? You either are saying what you mean or you are silent. That's how it works.

Well
, as I said, most people(theists) who have encountered you in here know what they know about how you try your hardest to be overbearing and insulting if possible when others don't agree with your view and your self acclaimed "logic".

It would help if you stopped looking down on the intellect of the people you try to argue with. It's conceited and pathetic. We are all educated. We all read accounting and differential calculus and studied the sinuses and know of the origin of stars, etc. The only difference is in matters of religion, and that doesn't make you better off intellectually. Because that's exactly what you sound like every time you mention me, conceited and arrogant (except today, of course. Are you not in a good mood today? I'm sincerely concerned. )

Not ready to start another round of mentions and counter-mentions. So, see you later.

Tellemall:
Do you wish to be friends now? Or why the low tone?

Most theists are familiar with your ways, though.

odijeks:
I've simply analyzed the evolution story and I'm being sincere when I tell you it just doesn't add up. I once discussed with a Geneticist Professor and asked questions regarding certain vital processes of the theory and she couldn't give an answer to them.

The truth is, a lot of atheists are not sincere to themselves as regards the evolution theory. they are just willing to hold on to anything (no matter how absurd it sounds) that pushes God out of the picture.

JacksonD7:
This might just be the best article I've read on nairaland so far it's great and it's pretty clear that God exists. Some atheists will still deny though.

Tellemall:
You.... Why are you being civil today? Have you forgotten to call me dumb and name cases after me because I'm a theist?

Anyway, I suppose you're saying what I'm saying. Rather than looking for means to call theists dumb and unintelligent, I've given you atheists a perspective to stew on. Maybe you guys will understand that intelligence has nothing to do with lack of religion. You, in particular, have been looking down on the intelligence of theists, simply because they do not agree with you. You have tried to call me unintelligent in your past posts, due to certain overbearing tendencies.

For that reason, I will end this post right here.