₦airaland Forum

I'm seeing a lot of morally reprehensible posts by the holier than thou Christians, this thread is a testament to the fact that religion is not equivalent to morality.

It also shows us the major shortcomings of the so-called 'perfect' judeo-christian god.

Finally, we can see clear examples of people who are far too blinded by indoctrination to see what is right in front of them.

Truly something, that these are the very same people that decry the actions of Islamic terrorists. That's compartmentalization on clear display.

There's no rationalization that can justify blatant infanticide but people would damn well try when their religion is the one under attack.

We seriously need to wake up to critical thinking in this part of the world.

VomeSchakleton:
That war was not about Bin Laden, it was about Sadam and the lie Bush sold that he had WMD. This actually made it easier for terrorists to recruit gullible minds.

Bush lied. But Saddam was still a mass-murderer and a war criminal.

VomeSchakleton:
This is a lie. The Quran never specifically. mentioned the age of the earth. we just know its very old, but the prophet has spoken of different species of humans that lived before us. You see it as vague, for me its quite clear, The Quran is a book of fact, whatever follows the fact is the true interpretation.

When you connect the genealogies that's what you get. But obviously you've abandoned that notion since it doesn't fit into reality.

VomeSchakleton:
i would like to know some of these predictions. predictions dont always rely on the authenticity of a theory. There are other factors involved.

Gravitational waves, discovery of neutrinos for starters.

VomeSchakleton:
Forget the media, forget the propaganda. no religion makes more sense than islam. if you were to bring all 4000 religions together, islam carries elements of all. This is because the Quran says, there is no nation in this world that wasnt sent a prophet.

I can't just take your word for it. This is exactly the same thing a Christian, a Jew or any other believer would say about the religion that he or she was born into.

VomeSchakleton:
Indoctrination? thats a pretty lame excuse dont you think.

If it was a lame excuse then why do we have people of other religions?

VomeSchakleton:
This is a blatant lie. The top ten countries when it comes to rape are,the US, SA, Sweden, India, the UK, Germany, France, Canada, Sri lanka and ethiopia. not a single muslim country makes this list. id like to see where you got your facts from.

It's quite simple, they don't get reported, because rape victims may get flogged (or executed for adultery) in a sharia court. Islamic honour killings are also
practiced against victims. There's also no such thing as marital rape in those countries.

VomeSchakleton:
Germany has the 6th largest cases of rape in the world. what in Gods name are you saying? i thought atheists believed in facts?


the facts and statistics say we have.

Ha ha! You just failed a morality test (or maybe you actually don't know).
When so few cases are actually reported, statistics may be misleading. Less than 15% of sexual assault cases in secular states are reported but it is even worse in muslim and similarly repressive countries. All the islamic laws and customs succeed in doing is preventing even more rape victims from speaking out.

Studies show that about 10% of Bangladeshi men have committed rape at some point. Over 80% of them felt that entitlement was the reason, more than half felt no guilt afterwards (women a subservient, remember?) And 95.1% of them experienced no legal consequences.

Should I talk about Pakistan, where village courts can prescribe rape as punishment? Or where customs dictate the marriage of the victim to the perp, or honour killings?

Or the child trafficking that's so prevalent in Saudi Arabia which they happily turn a blind eye towards?

Of course now you point towards official records when your Islamic laws have taken care of official records. But independent statistics can still attest to that fact. As an atheist, I encourage people to look at reality. Rape reports and actual rape cases are quite different.

VomeSchakleton:
how is that an excuse to act like a barbarian? can you please explain?

Simple. Create customs that force women to wrap themselves up "'cause men can't control themselves", when a woman then gets raped, she can be blamed for showing off her sexy collarbones and ankles.

VomeSchakleton:
lol! you're wrong, that was a hadith. and hadiths did not defend his actions, they were pretty straight forward and reportive. no hadith tried to say he did it because or something like that. please read up on facts before you make bs claims.

It was still well evidenced that she was 9.
www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/pedophile.htm

VomeSchakleton:
which Quran? you think people need an excuse to persecute someone or something different? as a member of the black race, a race that has been persecuted throughout the history of human existence without cause, i should think youd understand.

Where Islam is predominant, atheists are treated as apostates. And we both know what sharia law says about apostacy.

VomeSchakleton:
unknown?

Afraid to turn your back on what you've been raised to believe.

VomeSchakleton:
sympathize with who?

You neglected to directly refer to them as terrorists. Which is what they are.

VomeSchakleton:
amend which law? there is only one law and that is the law of the almighty. anything else is man made mumbo jumbo, just about as important as the paper you use to wipe your as.s.

And this is exactly why sharia law has no place in the modern world.

VomeSchakleton:
The quran has no protagonist, jesus was mentioned more times than Muhammad. But a low life rascal is a person without ethics, or someone who has been blinded by the delusions this world is filled with.

Like a guy who takes advantage of children, right? I say yes, Islamic law says no.

Objectively, it causes both physical and emtional harm to the victims. Therefore objectively, Islamic law cannot be the yardstick used to determine who the low-life rascals are.

KingEbukasBlog:
I think plants could prove consciousness does not need a brain

Not a brain per se but it would need some form of analogous structure.

VomeSchakleton:
LOL! yeah sure, and Bush was looking for WMDs in Iraq. smh

No mention of Bin Laden, though?

VomeSchakleton:
I am intrigued by the big bang theory, as a muslim i always try to explain religion with science and vice versa, i focus on facts, not theories. The big bang theory is intiguing because there is actually a verse in the Quran similar to it but it is still an UNPROVEN theory.

“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)

this covers both the bang bang theory and the primordial soup theory. water is life, every scientist will agree with that.

Nah, it's just one of those vague verses whose interpretations change at will. You're telling me the Quran supports the Big Bang theory when it postulates that the universe is about 6,000 years old? Sounds more like the outdated Cosmic Egg theory to me.

Secondly, you should understand that the Big Bang theory has made several scientific predictions that have been found to be true.

VomeSchakleton:
the fact that i understand the diversity of thought and belief, which is in the nature of man is why i try to see the good in people, not their religious affiliation as i am sure Allah does.

“If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” [Sûrah Yûnus: 99]



Quran 006:111

And even if We had sent down unto them angels, and the dead had spoken unto them, and We had gathered together all things before their very eyes, they would not have believed, unless Allah willed, but most of them behave ignorantly.

This is only a cheap cop-out to avoid giving actual concrete evidence. Your lack of evidence does nothing to put your religion above the other 4,000 religions from an unbiased point of view.

This goes to show you the power of indoctrination.

VomeSchakleton:
the niqab is not compulsory, but women are enjoined to cover themselves, just as men to a lesser extreme and to lower their gaze. Look at the horrors around you, rape is rampant, men hardly give women with hijabs a second look. It is in mans nature to be rash when it comes to women, Allah knows this, so he enjoined us to take these measures.

Oh please! Don't give me such bull! The rate of sexual assault in Central Europe is still less than that of the Middle East. The recent spike was, in part caused by islamist immigrants.

Some countries have no laws against public nudity and still have less rape cases (take Germany for example).

As you can see, these laws have done nothing to reduce rape cases but rather
has helped rapists by stigmatizing victims (they get flogged in some countries).

They hijab law is a product of man-children who can't control their urges and look for excuses to act like barbarians.

VomeSchakleton:
i think what you speak of is pedophilia. first of all, her age has been disputed. Secondly this was normal in those ages as not even his enemies kicked against this, Just like as recently as in medieval England, puberty is the condition for marriage. unless youre willing to admit every man who lived in those days is a criminal and a sicko. The christians who like to point to this should know that their god "impregnated" a 12-14 year old mary who was married to a 30-90 year old joseph. The atheists should also understand the importance of difference of standards and acceptability between ages.

Don't do this! You'll lose your credibility. Dolls are not allowed for pubescent girls in Islam, but she was playing with dolls which clearly shows us that she was a child.

Also, even if this was normal, you'll expect the all-loving God's servant to know better than primitive men and that paedophilia is both physically and emotionally damaging, won't you?

Besides, there's consensus that this didn't sit too well with all of his followers hence the hadiths defending his actions.

And don't give me that different standard thing, people are prosecuted or physically threatened for being atheist as per the instructions of the Quran.

Look, paedophilia is always bad, I know it, and I feel that deep down you know it too but are too afraid of the unknown to criticize your prophet.

VomeSchakleton:
That is the way you and the media choose to interpret islam. And the so called terrorists interpret it as such only they dont see anything wrong with that. But that is absolutely wrong, those who do that do it out of willful volition. Its like the Quran says, the truth is indeed clear from falsehood. shariah is more of a constitution than a political system. Shariah when it comes to vote is like a democracy to a lower extent.Not every lowlife rascal should be allowed to vote. Seriously, people are willing to vote for Donald Trump.

So-called terrorists eh? You sympathize with them right?

Anyway, when a sharia system is in place, is it possible for the people to vote to amend the law? Would it be possible to fairly foster diversity of beliefs that
you claim to admire?

Also, how do you choose who the low-life rascal is? Definitely not with an ancient text whose main protagonist was a paedphile warlord!

VomeSchakleton:
And johnnydon and i have a long history though he may not know it. He did something repulsive a long time ago and I do enjoy teasing him and calling him names but its just banter. I would never approach a gay person by calling him that.

Fine. You're right, I apologize for sticking my nose into your business.

VomeSchakleton:
what is misogyny? what is subjugation? what defines such terms? who defines them? the hollywood chipolata has truly bought into the deceptions and delusions of so called "morality". smh. i'm not one to be dramatic, but if only you knew.

No, the west is not Islam's enemy. You only see them as such because they do not hold Islam's contemptible values. You were born and raised a Muslim, so who are you to talk about indoctrination. Tell me Mr Vome, would you be defending Islam on this forum if you were born in Anambra state?

You've boxed your mind in from other forms of knowledge, you probably believe in the winged horse story (which has zero verification) but disregard the theory of evolution and the Big Bang that have a good amount of empirical evidence supporting them.

VomeSchakleton:
"Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or intercessor except God: if it offered every ransom, (or reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts: they will have for drink (only) boiling water, and for punishment, one most grievous: for they persisted in rejecting God. (The Noble Quran, 6:70)"

"Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:3)"

If God existed and wanted truly wanted us enough to save us
. In his infinite wisdom, he should have found a way to reach his unambiguously and not through several conflicting stone age myths. If he didn't want people to "drink boiling water" then he should have ended this debate about his existence a long time ago.

Once again the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being has failed to live up to his name. This is because he simply exists in the minds of believers.

VomeSchakleton:
The Prophet Muhammad said, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him: Your Heaven lies under the feet of your mother (Ahmad, Nasai).

A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Messenger of God! Who among the people is the most worthy of my good companionship? The Prophet said: Your mother. The man said, ‘Then who?' The Prophet said: Then your mother. The man further asked, ‘Then who?' The Prophet said: Then your mother. The man asked again, ‘Then who?' The Prophet said: Then your father. (Bukhari, Muslim).

This is definitely what "misogyny" looks like.

Misogyny looks like the niqab. Let me ask you, do these women get a say in whether they want to look like ninjas or not? What would be the actions of others towards them if they disagree to wear them?

Also, I don't think you deserve to talk about misogyny when your Prophet had sex with a nine year old girl. It is extremely hypocritical to try to put yourself on the moral high ground when your prophet is guilty of paedophilia. He's the indirect cause of most of the child marriages that occur within islam.

VomeSchakleton:
When we try to focus on the negatives of things, and we ridicule others believing we're better than them, that is when the real issue arises. I am a muslim, and i have buddhist, hindu and christian friends, their beliefs might strange to me, but i dont look down on them for that. Things appeal to people differently. No one is brought up the same way. I try to be peaceful as possible because the islam i was brought up with, the islam i fell in love with, was all about love, and peace and goodness. so what do we do? why try to focus on positives, not point out the what you perceive as unorthodox and shove it down the throat of others just to feel better about yourself.



"O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one's] faith. And whoever does not repent - then it is those who are the wrongdoers."


"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it! And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it. (The Noble Quran, 99:7-"

This is true, I may look at a Muslim and stereotype him as a 'repressive pedo terrorist' and you may look at an atheist and think 'anarchial LGBT-sympathizing devil-worshipper'. This is wrong as is one of the shortcomings of human nature.

But let's look at this, there's something that Islam is guilty of: the Qu'ran has given rules on what to do to non-believers (as the newer instructions take precedence over the older ones) and we've seen how Islam treats different people of different faiths when it is in majority. Sharia law is basically the anti-thesis to democracy, it can't be challenged or regulated really.

If you're truly a tolerant individual (although I did see you shouting 'fa.ggot' to someone who supports the LGBT cause earlier in this thread), then you're drawing that part of your morality from outside your religion.

jayriginal:
This ought to be in the autos section but I guess you posted it here cos you heard that Jesus and his crew moved about in one accord?

*applause*

virginboy1:
Why is it that insightful thread like this hardly hits frontage?

'Cause the mods tend to suppress atheist threads. Pretty sure they do it to maintain traffic.

Logicbwoy:
The lust for revenge can leave one full of hatred. But hatred is an emotion and we humans cant and shouldn't suppress our emotions all the time.

If someone killed your family member would you not feel like taking some revenge on the killer?


I have realised that many people actually take the moral high road on nairaland when it is easy. But in real life, they take the less moral road.


It is easy to be all moral online and say "no" to revenge but I tell you, revenge is a lust and it can be so sweet when you actually get your target.

True, but that's why we have laws in place. Very rarely would you see a black and white situation, the world operates in varying shades of grey morality.

We all view ourselves as the protagonist of the story. Hence, in a lot of cases you'll find that everyone genuinely thinks that he or she is in the right. Also, unbiased observation would reveal that most of the time, nobody is really a saint in conflict situations.

So if everyone starts taking laws into their own hands, society would fall apart.

Princewell2012:
Mmmmm, but they have also showed you some prophesys made by Christians that didn't come to pass

So what do you say to that?

Hmmm, if you must hold that as a ground to disqualify them, then Christians too needs to be disqualified, is that what you think?

Yeah. Pretty much.

plaetton:
Lol.
Look at what happened to those that praised god.

This is savage.

UyiIredia:
You are the one spewing nonsense, making claims of speciation where there is none. In your link for example changes happen but the fruit flies still remain so. Compare this to the speciation that change apes into humans.

Ha ha!

If you're conversant with the meaning of the term 'species', you'll know that for animals, the species line is drawn where two populations can no longer reproduce with each other.

This is why I say you should read a little about a subject before trying to argue for or against it. You are disappointingly inept in this subject that you argue so much against.

Read a book.

Joshuabase:
Follows my rule

Where the 1st term is a. The general of the sequence is as follows: a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a
Using the sequence that you provided: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
a=2
Therefore we get, 2, 2(2), 3(2), 4(2), 5(2)
In my sequence: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15
a=3
We get, 3, 2(3), 3(3), 4(3), 5(3)

What about 3, 6, 9, 12, 15?

UyiIredia:
This is just crap. Species no matter how much they change remain the same. Dogs are still dogs and cats are still cats. In light of this manifest fact it is foolish to insist on common Descent.

I hate it when people make ignorant claims against experimental evidence. Speciation has been observed in the lab.

You can't come to a public forum and expect to spew nonsense without getting called out.

UyiIredia:
So sequencing DNA is observing evolution right ? Wrong. DNA sequencing assumes evolution beforehand. There's nothing about DNA sequences that shows a species begat another one.

The relative compatibility of genes across the animal classes are consistent with earlier assumptions that mammals share a common ancestor with fish.

We've seen countless examples of species undergoing great changes through breeding. (Eg: designer dogs)

Speciation, on the other hand has been observed experimentally in fruitflies.

So with this knowledge, it is easy to infer that over time, it should be possible for species to undergo divergent evolution, cross the species barrier, and still continue to undergo separate evolutionary changes over successive generations. We can then use DNA sequencing to find the closest evolutionary cousins.

UyiIredia:
This is a lie. Universal Common Descent can't even be observed in nature and it certainly can't be seen in the lab.

I said that evolution has been observed in the lab.

DNA sequencing proves Common Descent.

UyiIredia:
I have to say. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe in evolution.

For the umpteenth time evolution is not a belief but rather a hard scientific fact that has been observed both in nature and the laboratory.

I know you will still fail to comprehend that this time around and the only reason I'm even bothering to type this is for the sake of others.

0rex:
Why is it only the human specie that is affected by this homosexuality?

I am yet to see a he-goat mating another he-goat or hen or cow or ... If that doesn't exist then that affirms something really is wrong somewhere.

Just for your information, homosexual behaviour has been observed in over 1000 species of animals.

Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

IsaacBuchi:


That was a very good background check up.
They only thing you found out was to discredit them...Clap for yourself

Even Jesus disciples had false expectations or wrong understanding
Acts 1:6 'So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?”

Your background check was too shallow & biased.....Do more background check up.

Phooey! This is the redefinition of success that I'm talking about. JW started off as a death cult that thought that the apocalypse was the next week. It wasn't until they're (hilarious) failures that they became what they are today.

They made prophecies that were demonstrably false. There is no honest way around that fact.

Back in my Christian days I used to respect the JW church, until I did a background check and found out that they were a bunch of loons (and not the good kind).

List of Failed Predictions:

1877: Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over the earth in 1914; the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor; the "saints" would be carried to heaven.

1891: 1914 would be "the farthest limit of
the rule of imperfect men."

1904: "World-wide anarchy" would follow the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.

1916: World War I would terminate in Armageddon and the rapture of the "saints".

1917: In 1918, Christendom would go down as a system to oblivion and be succeeded by revolutionary governments. God would "destroy the churches wholesale and the church members by the millions." Church members would "perish by the sword of war, revolution and anarchy." The dead would lie unburied. In 1920 all earthly governments would disappear, with worldwide anarchy prevailing.

1920: Messiah's kingdom would be established in 1925 and bring worldwide peace. God would begin restoring the earth. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful patriarchs would be resurrected to perfect
human life and be made princes and rulers,
the visible representatives of the New Order on earth. Those who showed themselves obedient to God would never die.

1922: The anti-typical "jubilee" that would
mark God's intervention in earthly affairs
would take place "probably the fall" of 1925.

1924: God's restoration of Earth would begin "shortly after" October 1, 1925. Jerusalem would be made the world's capital. Resurrected "princes" such as Abel,
Noah, Moses and John the Baptist would give instructions to their subjects around the world by radio, and airplanes would
transport people to and from Jerusalem
from all parts of the globe in just "a few hours".

1938: Armageddon was too close for marriage or child bearing.

1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.

1942: Armageddon was "immediately
before us."

Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Failed_predictions

But you know, when your prophecies fail... Redefine success.

HardMirror:
100% impossible to fake, except the pastor wants his fraud career to end prematurely.

Reason why I laugh at noise makers such as oyedepo, chris and tb joshua. They can boast and make mouth, all na lie. The can't pray a fly dead.

What happened when ebola was ravaging west africa?
Not a single man of god did anything about it. All they know how to do is lie and collect money fro their mumu sheeps.

I swear I can never respect a christian. they are just soo gullible. How can adult be this D_ft?
Once you tell me you are a christian, I immediately know how smart you are.

I can definitely see where you're coming from. But I prefer to dislike the idea rather than the person perpetuating it, because childhood indoctrination is the main method of promoting religion and is quite difficult to break out of.

Coupled with the fact that the nigerian system teaches us WHAT to think rather than HOW, a large number of people may never question their beliefs unless prompted.

But still, a reasonable adult should be able to see when someone is getting rich of him/her.

stonemasonn:
deep down no body really cares about the current chaotic state of things in the country, a typical Nigerian prays for fast and easy wealth so that he can own his house, a big generator and an American passport, with a large bank account we cares about phcn naira fall and fuel scarcity.

/thread. Let's pack it up boys! This is the main answer!

Because it can't easily be faked in front of people and placebo therapy won't work in this case.

KingEbukasBlog:
shut up engineer

bro you dont have to let us that your comment was modified .. lol

I make my modification process transparent to let people who may have already read my post know that a change has been made.

ATMC:
You are likely the ignorant one. This is because most living things came from dust and return to dust. If serpent eats dust, do not let your uninformed mind think it is the dust on your window panes.


Keep studying. Keep an open mind. It is important.

Weird, because the Bible clearly refers to flesh as 'flesh' in all other parts.

Your assertion sounds like mental gymnastics to me. I've always wondered why Bible verses suddenly stop being literal once they cannot stand the test of reality.

Joshthefirst:
That we are against each other in infinitely aggressive arguments does not mean we are against each other in progress bloda.

In the end, we want to see progress in this country all the same, whether I am a mighty tall christian like kingebukasblog or an athletic intellectual like johnydon22 or a little squirt atheist like Logicbwoy or a guarded feminist like kay17 or an old undecided man like plaetton or a troll like sonoflucifer.

Guess you're right, my pseudoscientist bro.

Edit: 'you're', not 'your'

Joshthefirst:
I support.


OAM4J, Lalasticlala abeg you fit move post from religion section wey go actually support mass thinking and pondering of nairalanders to front page?

Most of the religion section topics that make front page misrepresent the calibre of thinkers we have here.

I know that we're usually on opposing sides of the argument but this is a very solid post!

This does nothing to disprove evolution and speciation have been observed in the lab time and time again. It is a fact.

Also, when you start touting pseudoscientists like Ann Gauger to buttress your points, your argument loses respect.

Mysterious Ways™.

ElCount:
Firstly, no one was expecting the scientists to accept it was a footprint off cause they accepted that the trilobite was true and debunked the footstep. Totally expected from them.

Yeah, because scientists are known to be a dishonest bunch of people whose only agenda is to disprove God /s

ElCount:
Secondly, you say micro-evolution is the go to term for creationist when its actually the foundation and the only evidence evolutionists have of cause by attaching the time factor "...Billions of years ago, a the lions ancestor was a mango tree..." That's insane

The only insane thing is that you can't define the upper limit of micro-evolution. Sympatric speciation has been observed in the lab but creationists still term it under micro-evolution. Evolution is evolution is evolution.

ElCount:
Thirdly, I don't know what boundary you are asking for. Over time cockroaches get immune to a pesticide, but do you think they will ever get immune to a sledge hammer?. The limit here is that animals will always produce offsprings of thesame kind, we are yet to observe a lizard give birth to a bird and that's because its not possible.

This only shows how uninformed you are about this theory. Evolution never states that one specie would give birth to another.
That is a claim made by people who are either too ignorant about the theory of evolution or who, dishonestly misrepresent it in order to argue against his own botched definition.

ElCount:
I don't subscribe to radiometric dating cos it doesn't work.

Sure, you're only just implying that the entire atomic theory is off the mark, who knew? Maybe we just got lucky with the atomic bomb, and all that safe nuclear energy that advanced countries harness, and also all those delicate medical equipment based on radiation and electromagnetic waves. Who knew? /s

ElCount:
Collect a reasonable amount of sand sample, put it in a transparent jar, shake vigorously and allow to settle, it will definitely be in layers.
There are no erosion marks because it happened rapidly like in the little experiment above during the flood in the days of Noah.
The Horseshoe crab right, so what intermediary specie(s) whether living or fossil existed between a Trilobite and the Horseshoe crab, or did the Trilobite just sleep and wake up only to find out that its now a Horseshoe crab.

So how did the Kangaroos make it back to Australia, then?
I'm not sure if the Trilobite is an ancestor of the Horseshoe crab. I never implied that, I only said that the has a similar eye-structure. Once again, you're misinterpreting my words.

ElCount:
As for the DNA sequencing in a paternity test, Have there ever been a case where the test came out and the result said that the father of the child was a monkey or plant or bacteria etc? It always said that it was a HUMAN BEING
You seem to be pouring out what you were told in school learn to ask the right questions.
Read articles from scientist and christian apologetics and make comparison

You're not really following my argument, are you? I simply stated that DNA sequencing is based upon similar principles and knowledge as paternity testing.

And once again, once species doesn't give birth to another. If you are that ignorant on the theory of evolution, then you should read it up, rather than argue for or against it on internet forums.

KingEbukasBlog:
No Christian , I repeat no christian will commit such heinous crimes Christ against Humanity . Christ teachings forbids such evil

Once again, you've thought in a circle.

ElCount:
first of all whatever evidence you think you are observing in the lab is micro-evolution no one has any qualms with that fact, it is true and observable the evolution attached to it is just meant for deception to deceive gullible minds like yours because when they attach the time factor that's when they tell you macro-evolution will occur which till today has no proof whatsoever.

Secondly, the layer of sedimentary rocks you are talking about alongside the fossils is the geologic column. For your information that was assembled artificially by geologist and even at that its still not complete, you will think someone who claimed to be enlightened as you do would know that, I am not going to go deep into that but I will just ask you:
How did you know for sure that the Jurassic rock layer for instance is 70million years old, how did they arrive at that figure?
and how come in the geologic column if it was actually formed over millions and billions of years as they claim, how come there are no traces of erosion, don't you think the rain would have left some marks? Learn to ask the right questions.
I don't know what you mean by more complex fossils I personally don't believe in that. the Trilobite is considered an index fossil by the evolutionist and very ancient, how is it that such an ancient organism ended up with one of the most sophisticated eyes ever known? Perhaps you didn't know about that



Thirdly, DNA sequencing doesn't tell you anything about ancestors that's one atrocious logic common with evolutionists. The Niger bridge and the third mainland bridge are both made of iron, therefore the Niger bridge is an ancestor of the third mainland bridge that's how ridiculous you guys sound.
If DNA sequencing should tell you anything its the fact that "a common designer is involved who decided to use thesame sequence".

Scientist can believe whatever they want they are the ones coming up with the theories to avoid the God question so if they don't believe their theory who will.

The Catholic church believes in micro-evolution which is a proven truth.

Finally, take your own advice, the internet and all informations are at your fingertips make good use of them and stop paddling a boat in ignorance. Ask the right questions. You guys are the ones to always claim to be smart and enlightened but when you start talking ignorance starts oozing out of all your orifices.

Meanwhile below is a picture of a trilobite ur index fossil, and yes thats a human foot, apparently "millions of year ago" humans existed side by side with these trilobites

Firstly, that foot print is most definitely a [url=paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm]hoax[/url].

Secondly, micro-evolution is the go-to term for creationists for any observed evolutionary change. Unfortunately, they have failed to define a boundary between what we call 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, therefore every single evolutionary change observed in the lab or in nature is shoe-horned into micro-evolution. This is not honest science. Micro-evolutin is just evolution. They put the successive additive mutation of E.coli to absorb citrates in certain conditions as micro-evolution, they put the 3-decade change of Podarcis sicula from insectivore to herbivore after a change of environment as micro-evolution. So what are the defined limits of micro-evolution sir?

1. The geologic column is gotten by dating different igneous rock material present in each sediment.
2. Traces of erosion are not found in deep rock after years of compaction. But on the other hand, if there was a global flood (that some peple believe in) there should be traces of erosion. So why aren't they there?
3. Trilobite eyes were pretty, compound eyes like arthropods. I don't know about 'most sophisticated ever known'. The closest living analog we have today is the horseshoe crab. Shows a trend to me.

Once again we have another atrocious assertion here. DNA sequencing is used for paternity tests, but for some reason it doesn't show ancestral ties when it comes to evolution, right?

Use the internet, and don't only read Christian apologetics sites.