₦airaland Forum

Why do people laugh at creationists 11


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttnU8Tbwtd0

Maamin:
Enough already with the primordial universe which you cant explain...eucledian geometry has two fundamental type of measurement..which do you choose to use here? True north was supposed to be a clue for you but you digressed am going to leave it at that..so you think over 50 billion galaxies popped out o a 0-dimensional singularity ... u are the one that believed in a 13.8 billion old universe which is in contradiction with your 0-dimensional infinite singularity..you should provide me with a point in time where nothing exist,

lol you figured it out that the classical definition of "nothing" doesn't exist like you were looking for...so now you point back the question.
Like i've already pointed out...a vacuum is the closest thing to a "nothing"...and even that contains vacuum energy that possess quantum fluctuations allowing virtual particles to exist or cease to.

You will end up telling me the whole thing poofed out of that nothing..i guess!

Can you give me an example of a "nothing" that the bible "god" used?

Why do people laugh at creationists 10


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg

Why do people laugh at creationists 9


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzDYVFa1TR0

Why do people laugh at creationists 8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc

Why do people laugh at creationists 7


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6_o1GxgNMQ

Why do people laugh at creationists 6


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg

Why do people laugh at creationists 5


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o

Why do people laugh at creationists 4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I

Why do people laugh at creationists 3


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss

Why do do people people laugh at at creationists 2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s

voodoo85:
hahaha love your signature

It's the easiest slap on christianity anyone can give..."

Maamin:
My network is very bad this night. Pls! Bare with me

No problem my friend.

You must be able to give a clear account of a primordial universe. A skyscraper does not appear out of the blue going by scientific logic.

That is the point...the primordial universe being a 0-dimensional singularity is not understood by classical eucladian geometry.

No! A vacuum is void of any form of matter..how then do you arrive at it being prone to quantum fluctuations ? Remember a quantum is the smallest quantity of energy and energy can be measured even as weak as a photon.

A vacuum is indeed devoid of anything(that is why it is termed "nothing" by astrophysicists)...
Vacuums contain vacuum energy....of which are prone to quantum flunctuations..
It is the vacuum energy that possess quantum fluctuations...hence virtual particles pop in and out of existence.

And you've not really giving me something meaningful about a matter states of nothingness. even Isolation from the outside world still implies containment of that entity within something.

The mundane "nothingless" you believe cannot be demonstrated to be the factual state of the universe at any point in the 13.8 billion year history of the universe...if you object to this.. can you provide a point in time when "nothing" in the classical sense existed?

A primordial universe still possess space and time period..according to your logic space and time was the result of big bang..how then you are telling me space and time is a prerequisite of location..if this merely came to be during the explosion?

I terming it a primordial universe for easy understanding(hence I used brackets when talking of the singularity to cite it as a primordial universe)...the singularity(primordial universe) is virtually a 0-dimensional state of pure fundamentals of existence..
space and time do not exist at a 0-dimensional plane(hence I noted this as an infinite regress that requires a new non-eucladian geometric conjecture)

A primordial universe must be somewhere in time..and yes a north of the north pole is possible..that is why we have something call True North in a celestial sphere

True north is a geographical direction towards the north pole....
There are four north poles. The terrestrial North Pole is a fixed geographic point that’s diametrically opposed to the terrestrial South Pole on our planet’s axis of rotation; it’s the top of the spinning top that’s Earth.
I am asking...if you can point to a north of a diametrically opposed north pole.

Have you heard of the fourth dimension? May be you should start from there.

And of what relevance is the fourth dimension when you haven't understood a 0-dimensional singularity as infinitely regressed?

.

Why do people laugh at creationists is a video series produced by atheist youtuber thunderf00t..
http://m.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t?gl=NG&hl=en-GB

I would like to know everyone's comments regarding various creationist claims examined in each video..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&list=PLAC3481305829426D


If you are a creationist by the way...I would like to also know your rebuttals....

Maamin:
No, you are misunderstanding me. Time and space came from thin air nowhere? I know a handful in astronomy and the celestial bodies..let me ask you at what point can nothingness be define or better yet describe when it comes to states of matter.

I never claimed time and space came from "nothing"..but is an emergent property of inflation from the singularity(primordial universe).
if you do however are referring to astrophysicists definition of "nothing" then that would be a vacuum of which possess vacuum energy and is prone to quantum fluctuations..

Maamin:
Ok now you are not sure is just a prediction,a theory you are not a practical witness to right?..

Can you tell us where the single extremely dense mass of matter that exploded(big bang) to form the universe came from?

Besides the fact that the primordial universe at the singularity isn't a ball of extremely dense matter that "exploded".
Your question is invalid....
This is because no locations existed at such a time(space and time are prerequisites required to determine a "where" )....so asking me a "where" at a time before there were locations is invalid.
For mundane understanding it would be like asking me where north of the north pole is.
Can you give me a definition of your creationist kinds classification scheme?

GooseBaba:
God is your essence......

When you're pounding a very sweet toto and your trouser snake is ready to vomit.. .... Bros, That is where God resides..

So "god" is dopamine?
That would explain the euphoric feeling...people have when "filled with his prescence"

Maamin:
On evidence of big bang

What prediction has the theory not been vindicated on?

The topic is already fallacious.....I do not have to believe "god" doesn't exist when the notion of its existence have never been established...hence the multitudes of contradictory denominations of the same religion.

Maamin:
I will take that as a hypothesis and not real facts

On what grounds?

How can people make bold statements like "god made that"... and yet want to disprove other people who also claim different things like "allah made that" or "krishna made that" or "xenu made that" or "zeus made that" just by merely taking them on faith?... whatever "holy books" claims are never passed through any error-margin...they tend to be believed on faith because they cannot be taken as factual anyway else...why is this?
How can you claim to "know god/gods" yet your fellow theist who also claims this would disagree with you on any notion regarding the same "god"?

chy22:
I do not know of any evolution based predictions that is not based on assumptions. Paternity test on the other side does not need evolution to be valid.

Assumptions of what?
So you are claiming the same method used to determine paternity suddenly becomes invalid when used for common ancestry?

Europeans breaking up from Africa, pause and listen to your self, that is based on unproven assumptions.

I am referring to the migration of native africans to euroasia that would later become europeans that geological distribution have proven...the hardy weinberg equation coupled with differential equations cross-confirm the findings...

If you disagree you can always point me towards a journal article that perfumed those initial experiments.

okay...this new journal still confirms this split..

[b] "They studied segments of genetic code
that have a mutation and are located closely on the same
chromosome and are often inherited together. This specific mutation
in SLC24A5, called A111T, is found in virtually everyone of European
ancestry.
A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian
subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans. Researchers found
that all individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and
South India who carry the A111T mutation share a common
“fingerprint” -- traces of the ancestral genetic code -- in the
corresponding chromosomal region, indicating that all existing
instances of this mutation originate from the same person.
These findings were reported in the journal G3.
The pattern of proportions of people with this lighter skin color
mutation indicates that the A111T mutation occurred somewhere
between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.
“This means that Middle Easterners and South Asians, which includes
most inhabitants of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, share significant
ancestry,” Cheng said.
This mutated segment of DNA was itself created from a combination
of two other mutated segments commonly found in Eastern Asians --
traditionally defined as Chinese, Japanese and Korean.
“The coincidence of this interesting form of evidence of shared
ancestry of East Asians with Europeans, within this tiny chromosomal
region, is exciting,” Cheng said. “The combining of segments occurred
after the ancestors of East Asians and Europeans split geographically
more than 50,000 years ago; the A111T mutation occurred afterward.”
[/b]
http://news.psu.edu/story/299166/2014/01/02/research/studies-skin-color-gene-across-global-populations-reveal-shared

Fossils: I will assume you understand how radioactive dating works and should know that discrepancies remains a problem. But that will need another thread to discuss, perhaps you should open one on it.

I have a substantial rudimentary understanding of them..
can you answer if you consider transitional forms plausible and why?

But just remember that fossils proves noting, mainly because fossils can not tell you if bones had any children. If you understand the process by which fossils form you would know that represents a problem in the validity of radioactive dating results.

Paleontology identifies creatures by anatomical structures so indeed children of fossils can be known by studying the fossils dentition,anatomical framework and even the genetics..
And relative dating coupled with a wide range of radiometric decay methods are used to derive reliable results..
Past radiometric dating methods were expressed differently....even dated objects in actual carbon years...lol

Oh you do agree it is a history, so just a story but not testable, then we have noting to argue about, after all BIBLE is a history. The difference between us is: while accept my believe in GOD is not science but religion, you fail to accept that your homoid history (story telling) non testable model is also not science but religion.

150 years of peer review in the scientific community is what I discussed not fairy tales(stories)...
You are still employing kent hovind's creationist assertions that "evolution is a religion"..
Tell me how evolution is a religion.

Now when you say evolution has withstood peer review I seriously think you are been dishonest. The evolutionists have long used embryology as a prove of evolution, even though this was clearly based on faked drawings they still cling to it.

heckhels drawings were a known fraud.....
Evolution were never based on his drawings....but are based on modern embryological depictions that are used to only portray evolutionary development..

Radioactive dating has shown discrepancies in many instances.
That is not without saying that there are quite a good amount of scientist if not 50% who objects to the workability of these theories.

where did you get your "50% of scientists object to" claim from?....
Even still,its funny how you can claim a substantial amount of scientists agree with you and yet be appalled when told the same by people in the case for evolution
And do you know that different objects require different dating methods?

Just because atheist always think that opinions of creations can be valid, those not mean they are not equally intelligent and their criticisms can not stand.

I really want to see a non-creationist peer-reviewed journal demonstrating creationism hypothesis or fulfilling a prediction of it...if indeed it is testable.

asalimpo:
without God or an objective moral standard you choice to do good rest on d whims of ur will .

Lets out this to the test shall we?
You claim without a "god" or an objective standard...doing good is solely on will.
Lets pick one of your "god commandments"... "though shalt not kill".
You claim it being objective(right on all grounds)....yet as omnivores we constantly require to feed off on other killed beings and cultivated produce.

Your reasong bcomes ur moral standard and the pull of ur desire may overwhelm ur conscience (if there's still much left of it after the searing).

Reasoning is important in making moral decisions....we have varied choices of what to do constantly...
And desires are our kin needs(necessary or not) that we require to be met urgently...we tend to arrive at them anyhow feasible..
But as empathic beings that have self reflective thoughts(conscience)...we question the way we fulfill our desires and seek to fulfill them without causing unnecessary harm.

The issue is without a moral standard with time society will degenerate into depravity and not even know this because they'll b convinced theyre living right.

Depends on what you define depravity to be as regarding moral choices...to the aztecs it would mean depravity if one person wasn't sacrificed to appease the "sun god"
We arrive at good moral conducts in a community by discussing them and reviewing if it would make the community or individual have equal unbiased level of comfort as long as nobody infringes on anyone else's wellbeing.

The only reason we cud look at past cultures and shudder at their depravity and inhumanness is because we hav experienced the perspective of life under better standards enforceable by a legal system.

This is my point with the aztecs...we create better moral codes for communities by discussing them in an open arena...where various codes would be established that will allow a fair amount of comfort for citizens who have regard for their wellbeing and others.

Wen u've been in d light u can see how bad distasteful darkness is. But wen in d dark you grope and fall and not know where ur going.

Okay...

The best legal systems of d world were predicated on biblical principles.
World prosperity is a religious thing.

Biblical principles advocated for the death of homosexuals....the stoning of unruly children...slavery...and racism and bigotry(chosen ones/reprobates).
Wrong doers or "sinners" also go scot free of their crimes if they admit to a special loop-hole I.e "repentance and the belief in jesus"

As men spurn the light, they'll enact laws to their liking,in other wrds legalisng darkness, e.g gay rights, animal rights, etc.

Can you tell me what is morally wrong with gay rights and animal rights?
How does someone cause you harm or infringe on your wellbeing by being gay?
How do laws put in place to protect animals from harm and extinction harm you or infringe on your own wellbeing?

The so called smartness of man will only b used to advance his depravity, eventually with d bible completely outta d way, we'll go back yet again to d dark ages.

It would be best if you actually read the ruling moral codes of the dark ages...they were mostly superstitious and religious..
It was the refutation of superstitious acts like "witch trials" and scrutiny of religious dominance that led to various modern legalized systems.

Man will b ruled by his desires, the logical justification for this wud b - survival of d fittest.

Everyone is ruled by desires(knowingly or unknowingly)...
You are ruled by the desires also...faith based desires to reject anything that contradicts your views..including reality itself.
And ending your post with a "this is due to survival of the fittest" lends you no credit when the notion is merely to address the point that well adapted or "fit" organisms propagates or survives...
It isn't a "muscle through" notion as you think it to be.

That "horse" is a toy figurine of a pony imposed there..
Sorry to say but if you believed this,then it's best you go back to school and learn how horses look in contrast to pony toys.

AlfaSeltzer:
both.

Firstly the theory of evolution adapts to new discoveries and changes through the years. This is not a bad thing because that's how science works. Example the theory of evolution used to affirm that life started via a single molecule that somehow came alive with the right combination of chemicals. Today the theory has evolved and is saying that it does not deal with the origin of life.

you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

Genetics is complicated. There are confirmed predicted outcome of evolution theory but there are also outcomes that contradicted the theory. Infact, most of the changes to evolution theory was due to discoveries in genetics. Example, genetics showed that evolution of present species are not vertical like in "family tree" representations that we are used to. Rather there are many horizontal links between species. Genetics has shown that we share more than 70% of our dna with sea sponges. Same amount we share with some species of monkeys. But sea sponges are not considered our cousins. How come?

The basics of genetics are all the same... we all use ATP as energy,we use
DNA for heredity, we all have 20 amino acids to make up
proteins and many many more similar things. This is the
same with single celled organisms.
For you to be closely related would mean not only your genetics but physiology,
anatomy,
behaviour,
vestige(once useful structures),
avatism(re-occurent feature that lay dormant but expresses itself from time to time in a population like humans with semi-functional tails etc) are closely the same or convergent...

chy22:
I understand your point.
But remember wikipedia are usually contributed by random individuals and can often be wrong.
I am also a writer, I have contributed to several online pages, I also have 3 contributions on wikipedia as well as SAGE encyclopaedia, the problem is usually lack of peer review. So these entries might be wrong, and it take some times for corrections to occur. Some times these corrections do not occur.

Because many atheist accept the theory of evolution those not mean it is proven, nor those it mean there are not enough scientist across the globe who objects to it.

Sources are cited so you could follow up any claim...

chy22:
But your experiments never measured or quantified the claims of a phylogenetic tree, it only characterised chromosome 2, that alone does not prove anything about origin or life nor about the evolution you refer to.

Actually it does..to be concise I left it out.
The hardy weinberg equation(the basis for paternity tests) is used with distinct gene markers(plus differential equations) to determine when life-forms diverged...
This was used to determine europeans breaking up from africans 50,000 years ago,the homo genus breaking off 6 million years ago etc...
If the results are correct then the genetics and distribution of fossils in the geological column should refect that and indeed it does...
we never found amphibians in sediments older than the devonian...
we never found primates older than sediments in the cretaceous...
you will find only aquatic life older than the silurian....
and you will never find a fossil bunny in the precambrian...
etc

I will assume you are a scientist as well, so I will ask you this simple question, If you take out assumption that when fusion occurs resulting in DNA sequence becoming deactivated it proves evolution?
Also can you point to any peer reviewed journal that has proved the hominid ancestors without any assumption that evolution occurs.

Peer reviewed papers are used to work on testable models...you asking me to provide a peer reviewed paper on homonid history without evolution would be like me asking you to provide one that is about the motion of planets without newtonian mechanics and relativity...
It is because the prospects are testable that a paper can actually cite evolution...untestable models don't stand peer review.

Just remember that each hypothesis has two sides to it, till you prove one statistically you can not really dismiss the opposing hypothesis.
Simply put it this way, void of any assumptions do your conclusion still stand?

No conclusions stands without the assumption....same with how a christian theist can't conclude being "saved" without the assumption of "jesus" being involved...
That said....for the hypothesis to be referred to as a theory it's predictions have to be verified...and it also has to have a myriad of evidences..
Even still it has to be peer-reviewed rigorously.
And evolution has withstood peer review for over 150 years.

And chy22 the theory of evolution is by no means atheistic....infact majority of theists accept the theory....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups
Note: I am not implying because most theists accept it that you should too...merely to point out it not being atheistic

chy22:
What our genome has to do with house is quite simple, for example the gene sequence for some type of bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP) is the same in all mammals and plays similar function in all the mammals, functions like mediating production of extracellular matrix.
Just like the first question all mammals need to reproduce and the stimulations of ovaries and its release can be controlled by the same set of genes among species. From an atheist point of view this is due to evolution, but since it has not been proven. What if in actual fact it is because the designer recognised the need to make it the same way?. Of cause both school of thoughts has not been proven, therefore they remains belief in equal measures.

I am not referring to specialized proteins that functions the same in each lineage...chromosome two is the result of fusion of two telomere of which each contain a centromere(one of which was deactivated but still present)..
Chromosome two is unique to homonid lineage and not shared with other mammals..
This isn't an "all mammals" structure but one shared by our predicted homonid ancestors thus confirming the phylogenetic tree of life,why is this?

What I meant by that is, the whole purpose of this field of study is to understand how things work, no doubt it can be applied medically when you have figured out how it works. (simple science).
I have not avoided most of your questions, because of the way you reply I may have missed some of your point, but be assured I will go back and reply those.

good...now can you answer my above question?

chy22:
If you never claimed evidence supports big bang theory, then accept it is a belief and stop looking down on people with opposing view to yours since it is not proven.

It has been a good conversation so far, we continue tomorrow when I weak up.

I said I could give evidences that support the big bang....proofs I cannot give...because proofs are mathematical and I have no consensus to use conjectures about the cosmic microwave background(i.e I'm not an astrophysicist)..
If you are looking for proofs...then consult an astrophysicist for mathematical conjectures(proof)

chy22:
I don't know where you got that from.
For the record x-rays cause DNA damage and enhances ageing.
That does not mean ageing is solely by that purpose.

And also I never mentioned that in any of my conversation.

I know x-rays causes dna damage....
What I am talking about is your continued use of kent hovind's creationist apologetics...
perhaps I'll create a thread or video series on this.