₦airaland Forum

Niflheim:
"I think I find the Bible much more credible than evolutionary storytelling."................................................................So is this what you believe?

1.Men eating bird shit from the sky?

2.Termites on a wooden boat?

3.Dinosaurs waiting for Agege Bus?!!!

Spamming the thread with meaningless pictures in the name of trolling will not make you look any more logical than you do now.

dalaman:
If we are to believe what the bible says, all evil things come proceed from God too.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". Isah 45:7

Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” How does Isaiah 45:7 agree with the view that God did not create evil? There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV). The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.

(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.

Source:https://www.gotquestions.org/Isaiah-45-7.html

Niflheim:
"Animals that fly in the air have still other similarities dictated by the severe demands of flight"...................................................HEEEEEYYYYY!!! MAKE I NO GO FAINT OOOOHHHH!!!

SO YOU HAVE SEEN A PENGUIN THAT CAN FLY?!!! yOU HAVE SEEN AN OSTRICH CARRYING PASSENGERS LIKE BOEING 737?!!!

No wonder your fellow christians have finally abandoned you on this your useless thread!!!(The thread is not even thick enough to sew a torn second hand pant)!!!

Are you okay?

butterflyl1on:
Doctor Alien now here he is shifting to pseudoscience and talking about an eternal universe aka a multiverse as a demonstration that there is no such thing as nothing.

No mind am

Niflheim:
@op,

DOCTOR ALIEN'S QUESTION: From what was the Universe created?

6 YEAR OLD JAPANESE BOY: You mumu qwistian need to update yourself wit modan day fysics!!! 4 DIARIS NO SACH TING AS "QWEASHAN"!!!

TRANSLATION: You mumu christians need to update yourself with modern day physics, for there is no such thing as creation!!! For if matter is neither created or destroyed, then it has always been in existence!!! We have seen what we call "A REARRANGEMENT OF PRE-EXISTING MATERIALS INTO NEW FORMS". but we have never witnessed anything being created!!!

E.g. Car used to be iron, which used to be buried under the ground, and iron is formed in the core of heavy stars, and the energy that makes up such stars......................WAS NEVER CREATED(a better word would be "MANUFACTURED/PRODUCED"!!!

Are you saying that the universe is eternal?

butterflyl1on:
You seem re-tarded. He is not talking about physical appearance. He is referring to certain specific traits which he clearly pointed out.

You are the one obviously conflicted and claiming things which the OP did not say.

DoctorAlien you have very strong points and are entitled to them. Not everyone must flow in the same direction. Even as exposed as the USA is scientifically, only a minority of them fully accept evolution through natural selection .

Thank you bro.

Niflheim:
@All Nairalanders on the face of this Earth!!!


Please come and help us ooohhh!!!

This dude wants to know which 2 are more similar!!! I say fish and alligator!!!

BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT TOLD HIM TO SAY "HUMANS AND ALLIGATORS"!!!

This is why I thank Satan everyday that I am no longer a christian!!! AND I THANK GOD EVERY DAY THAT I AM AN ATHEIST!!! FOR ALL THINKING MEN ARE ATHEISTS!!!

This is the original post in its context:

"Anyone who has ever watched the monkeys and apes at a zoo couldn’t help but notice their resemblance to humans. By comparison, the bears in the zoo are not nearly as similar to humans as are the apes. Still, bears are warm-blooded mammals and thus are more similar to humans than are cold-blooded reptiles like the alligators. Alligators, however, do have legs and true lungs and thus are more similar to humans than are the fish. But even fish have bony vertebrae and thus are more similar to human than are the insects. And even insects are made up of many specialized cells and thus are more similar to humans than are the bacteria. Finally, all living things, including bacteria, have basically the same type of molecules that appear to be essential for life itself and share a common genetic code mechanism for their reproduction."

Continue trying to construct a strawman.

Niflheim:
"Alligators, however, do have legs and true lungs and thus are more similar to humans than are the fish"..................................These words could only have come from the mouth of a lunatic!!! But why would you quote a lunatic?!!! Alligators more similar to humans?!!! Bros, abeg nah?!!! Even your fellow christians are running away from you now!!!

Are fish more similar to humans than alligators?

[s]

Niflheim:
@op,

Relax!!! No need to make yourself look so ridiculous in public!!! You might need to brush yourself up on modern day physics,rather than disgracing an entire race of christians out here rooting for you!!!

QUESTION: How did the earth come from nothing?

ANSWER: That is a "super-imbecilic" assumption!!!"Forr there is "NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING"!!!


Deliver yourself from stupidity 1: ..............................................................http://www.jonkaufman.com/2014/05/no-such-thing-as-nothing/

Deliver yourself from stupidity 2:...............................................................http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/theres-no-such-thing-as-nothing-according-to-quantum-physics

Deliver youeself from stupidity 3:...............................................................http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2017/04/theres-no-such-thing-as-nothing.html#.WdJgRDUo_cs

Deliver yourself from stupidity 4:................................................................https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/11/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-empty-space.html

[/s]

It is not much of a Physics question. It's simple logic: something cannot come from nothing. From what was the universe created?

vaxx:
I am not a an evolutionist or creationist ...am a student of the two....I just love learning that is all...it doesn't matter who among the primate our ancestor really look at.....chimpanzees , gorillas , monkey , apes and human are all primate... But in a conclusion present human are more closely related with modern apes than any of the primate....


Get the AUTHOR book himself origin of species..... By the evolution theory propounder himself..Charles Darwin

I don't even know what you mean by closely related.

Anyway, I decline to read that fairytale. This below is enough reason:

"In the first edition of his book On the Origin of Species, Darwin said that he had no difficulty imagining a race of bears entering the water to catch fish and then slowly developing wider mouths, shorter legs, and longer tails, until they evolved by chance into the great whales."

Source: answersingenesis.org

Proudgorgeousga:
It is entirely stupid to believe a virgin conceived without sex or sperm from artificial insemination and conceived a male child. where did the Y chromosome come from?


proudgorgeousga

nairaland 2017.

From the One who created everything from nothing.

Proudgorgeousga:
good 4 you.

"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." -Ernst Mayr (Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296)

Proudgorgeousga:
is there a probability of an intelligent designer that kick started the process and sustains it? yes, possible maybe


Bible more credible than evolutionary biology? fùcking hilarious. a booking filled with folklore, myths, talking donkeys and rib woman with absolutely no evidence contradictions puhleease! miss me with the bullshìt.

Okay. I'D rather believe the Bible than believe that a single cell in the ocean gave rise to every living thing by unprovable processes.

Proudgorgeousga:
according to the bible the earth popped out of nothing na "let three be" and pop like the power puff girls there was

That's the point, dear. Most evolutionists believe, by faith too, that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

I think I find the Bible much more credible than evolutionary storytelling.

vaxx:
have you read Charles Darwin origin of species.... If not go and get a copy....no one really know how our proto primate look....i created a thread for this question....they are suggestion anyway....human are more closely related with mordarn apes than monkey,, gorilla and chimpazee...and that suggest our ancestor , proto primate ...may have similar feature of apes and human

Well, this website below tells us that the ancestor looked a lot like a chimpanzee or gorilla.

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-homo-pan-last-common-ancestor-03220.html

I like how you evolutionists sound so sure when you make proclamations about evolution.

Niflheim:
@op,

1.The website you are promoting teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old!!!

2.It teaches bible inerrancy(a man lodged in the stomach of a fish for 3 days)!!!

3.It is run by a fraudster!!!

4.He teaches that the moon is a source of light(Imbecility)!!!

Link 1:......................................................https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

Link 2:......................................................http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2012/06/ken-ham-wants-other-christians-to-be-con-artists-like-he-is.html

Link 3:......................................................http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/ken-ham-is-a-quack-not-a-_b_4734881.html

Link 4:......................................................https://skepticalteacher./2013/08/17/ken-ham-drops-all-pretense-and-admits-creationism-isnt-scientific/

Hey hey hey!

Easy with spittle-throwing and rants.

DoctorAlien:
Well, a quick search will reveal to you that, allegedly, the "Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like Gorilla or Chimpanzee."

What can we call such a thing?

If you think that the stories recorded in the Bible could not have happened, I challenge you to tell me how the universe could have popped into existence from nothing.

vaxx:
evolution theory don't claim human evolve from apes...it only state we share common ancestors with them...they are called proto primate..... Sincerly speaking we have more similarities with monkey....

Well, a quick search will reveal to you that, allegedly, the "Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like Gorilla or Chimpanzee."

What can we call such a thing?

source: https://answersingenesis.org/biology/is-human-embryo-essentially-fish-without-gills/

Almost from the beginning, evolutionists have attempted to equate the process of evolution with the progressive development of the embryo. During the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial” in 1925, for example, lawyers and expert witnesses defending teaching Darwinism in public schools, repeatedly confused evolution with embryology. The lawyers even insisted that evolution must be taught if physicians are to understand the development of babies in the womb! The very word “evolution” (which means “unfolding”) was taken from the name of an early theory of embryonic development which proposed that humans are completely preformed in miniature in the fertilized egg, simply “unfolding” during the development of the baby. Obviously, the blind chance process of Darwinian “evolution” has nothing whatever to do with the exquisitely controlled process of embryological development. Still, evolutionists have long attempted to relate embryology to evolution, presumably in an effort to extrapolate the readily observable process of embryonic development into the unobservable process of macroevolution. Embryology continues to play a role in current evolutionary dogma. Generations of students have been told, for example, that the human embryo developing in the womb passes through stages of its evolutionary ancestry—even at one point having gills like a fish!

Like most students of biology, I was required to memorize the “biogenetic law” which states that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” This means that the developing embryo (ontogeny) of each vertebrate species retraces (recapitulates) its evolutionary history (phylogeny). Specifically, each embryo in the course of its development, is said to pass through a progression of abbreviated stages that resemble the main evolutionary stages of its presumed ancestors.

Thus, in the case of the human embryo, recapitulation scenario goes something like this: 1) The fertilized egg starts as a single cell (just like our first living evolutionary “ancestor”). 2) As the fertilized egg repeatedly divides, it develops into an embryo with a segmented arrangement (the “worm” stage). 3) These segments develop into vertebrae, muscles and something that sort of looks like gills (the “fish” stage). 4) Limb buds develop with paddle-like hands and feet, and there appears to be a “tail” (the “amphibian” stage). 5) By about the eighth week of development, most organs are nearly complete, the limbs develop fingers and toes, and the “tail” disappears (the human stage). Now the mother can finally claim the baby as her own, or at least one of her own species. This ludicrous scenario has actually been used as a justification for abortion—after all you are only killing lower animals!

The “biogenetic law” was first promulgated in the late 1800s by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, a committed disciple of Darwin. Impressed by the general similarity among vertebrate embryos, Haeckel chose to ignore their differences. (Haeckel was a scientific charlatan who even stooped to publishing two copies of the same woodcut side by side to demonstrate the “remarkable similarity” between human and dog embryos!) Haeckel’s “law” was shown to be unsound by many of the most distinguished embryologists of his own day, but its appeal to evolutionists was so great that it remained impervious to scientific criticism. In her book Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology (MIT Press, 1967, p. 150), Jane Oppenheimer said that the work of Haeckel “was the culmination of the extremes of exaggeration which followed Darwin.” She lamented that “Haeckel’s doctrines were blindly and uncritically accepted” and “delayed the course of embryological progress.” Embryologist Erich Blechschmidt considered Haeckel’s biogenetic “law” to be one of the most serious errors in the history of biology. In his book The Beginnings of Human Life (Springer-Verlag, Inc., 1977, p. 32), Blechschmidt minced no words in repudiating Haeckel’s “law”:

"The so-called basic law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong."

We could ignore this whole sorry chapter in the history of evolutionism, were it not for the fact that the biogenetic “law” is still being taught as a fact in our public schools! Of 15 high school biology textbooks being considered for adoption by the Indiana State Board of Education in 1980, nine offered embryological recapitulation as evidence for evolution.

Evolutionists themselves have conceded that the biogenetic “law” has become so deeply rooted in evolutionary dogma that it cannot be weeded out. For example, Paul Ehrlich said “its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology” (The Process of Evolution, 1963, p. 66). Even Dr. Benjamin Spock saw fit to perpetuate Haeckel’s recapitulation myth in his well-known book, Baby and Child Care (Cardinal Giant Edit, 1957, p. 223). Spock confidently assured expectant mothers that:

"Each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of man-kind, physically and spiritually [sic], step by step. A baby starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as he lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish."

It is a well-established fact that the human embryo (like all mammalian embryos) never has gills in any sense of the word. The fanciful notion of gills is based upon the presence of four alternating ridges and grooves in the neck region of the human embryo (called pharyngeal arches and pouches) that bear a superficial resemblance to gills. While similar arches do give rise to gills in certain aquatic vertebrates such as fish, their developmental fate in mammals has nothing to do with gills or even breathing. In man and other mammals, these arches and pouches develop into part of the face, muscles of mastication and facial expression, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

The embryological development of the heart has been another popular textbook example of embryonic recapitulation, and thus “proof” of evolution. Evolutionists argue that as the human heart develops, it goes from a two-chambered “fish heart” to a three-chambered “amphibian heart” and, finally, forms the four-chambered mammalian heart. In his book Comparative Anatomy and Embryology (Ronald Press, 1964, p. 509), William Ballard said, “No false biological statement has had a longer or more popular life than the one about the ontogeny of the four-chambered heart.” Ballard pointed out that “in real life, all vertebrate hearts are composed of the same four chambers at the pharyngula stage.” As the heart develops, these four chambers become specialized in different ways that are uniquely suited to the demands of aquatic, amphibious, or terrestrial life.

Embryologists are now aware that the embryos of each species of animal are unique and dynamically functional systems. The human embryo does not become human at some point during its development; rather it is uniquely human at every stage of its development. While scientists continue to learn much about the marvelous process of development in the embryo, the inspired words of King Solomon (Ecclesiastes 11:5, NIV) remain true:

"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things."

..

Bump!

Good afternoon.

Up!

adepeter2027:
You've already answered the question naw

Do you want me to edit that post where I said "No" so you can read it?

adepeter2027:
@op

I didn't read only for me to scroll down and see you've already answered the question yourself.

Hope you're okay sha?

Why don't you read it?

No!

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/if-we-resemble-apes-does-that-mean-we-evolved-from-apes/

Anyone who has ever watched the monkeys and apes at a zoo couldn’t help but notice their resemblance to humans. By comparison, the bears in the zoo are not nearly as similar to humans as are the apes. Still, bears are warm-blooded mammals and thus are more similar to humans than are cold-blooded reptiles like the alligators. Alligators, however, do have legs and true lungs and thus are more similar to humans than are the fish. But even fish have bony vertebrae and thus are more similar to human than are the insects. And even insects are made up of many specialized cells and thus are more similar to humans than are the bacteria. Finally, all living things, including bacteria, have basically the same type of molecules that appear to be essential for life itself and share a common genetic code mechanism for their reproduction.

Clearly there is an underlying common theme to all of life. Inquisitive people will naturally wonder why this is so. Until the time of Darwin, over 130 years ago, most scientists considered the underlying commonality of all living animals to be evidence of the handiwork of their common Creator. It seemed quite reasonable to these great pioneers who established the foundations of nearly every branch of science that God would use the same underlying principles to design and create the various kinds of animals. After all, even human designers, builders, and artists, tend to manifest their distinctive approach in everything they create and build.

There are several possible reasons why certain animals are more similar to one another than they are to others, permitting them to be arranged into groups. Animals that live in a similar environment and eat similar food would be expected to have structural and even chemical similarities. Animals that live and move on land, for example, have a certain class of similarities based on the restrictions imposed by the natural terrain of our earth. Animals that live and swim in water have certain similarities necessary for aquatic locomotion and feeding. Animals that fly in the air have still other similarities dictated by the severe demands of flight. In the same manner, man-made machines designed to serve a common type of purpose share common features, despite their many differences. Consider the various modes of transportation designed by man. Most vehicles that run on land, from roller skates to freight trains, share a class of similarities based on wheels. Vehicles that move on water, from a canoe to a battleship, share basic similarities based on flotation. Vehicles that fly in the air, from hang gliders to the space shuttle, have similarities that are essential to flight.

Today, evolutionists insist that the underlying similarity of all animals, including man, and our ability to arrange and classify them into groups, is compelling evidence for their progressive evolution from a common ancestor. They insist that there is simply no other thinkable explanation for their similarities. Evolutionists argue further that the degree of similarity between any two animals attests to their degree of evolutionary “relatedness,” and thus how recently they separated from a common ancestor. They are quite certain, for example, that the similarities between apes and humans prove they evolved from a common ape-like ancestor “only” 2 or 3 million years ago. By comparison, evolutionists say we are far more distantly “related” to our insect “relatives.” The Living World exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo at one time had a sign by a dish of fruit flies that confidently declared, “Humans and flies had a common ancestor 630 million years ago.” This hypothetical “common ancestor” is not identified because no one has the slightest evidence of what it looked like, or even if it existed at all!

This belief, that similarities between animals can only be understood in terms of an evolutionary relationship, is the most fundamental axiom of evolution—almost all arguments for evolution depend upon it. Evolutionists do not feel compelled to prove their claim that similarity necessarily means common evolutionary ancestry—they assume it. Indeed, evolutionists never question or investigate whether evolution is true or not; rather they ask which animal evolved into which, and their answer is generally based on similarity! No scientist would ever succeed in getting funding from major federal or private sources to investigate if evolution has really occurred or not. The evolutionist Richard Leaky approached the National Geographic Society to get funding to look for the ape ancestors of man, not to investigate if man evolved from apes. It is interesting to note that when the Society gave Leaky his funds, he was warned: “If you find nothing you are never to come begging at our door again.” With this motivation, Leaky soon found 40 specimens of the “human ancestor,” Australopithecus, whose very name, by the way, means “Southern APE”! Most evolutionists are dead certain that this very apelike ape evolved into man because of certain arguable similarities to man in its teeth and pelvic bones. Perhaps you heard the story of the evolutionist who dug up a fossilized fragment of an ape’s jaw and promptly declared it to be an ancestor of man—he was so excited about the find he said, “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.”

One of the problems with the similarity equals evolutionary ancestry axiom is that evolutionists ignore it whenever it doesn’t fit their evolutionary scenarios. There are many instances of remarkable similarities between animals that evolutionists consider to be only distantly related. The eye of the squid, for example, is strikingly similar to the human eye. Sometimes almost the whole body and even the behavior of animals are obviously similar, and still evolutionists argue they are not closely related! For example, many of the Australian marsupials have strikingly similar counterparts to certain North American placental mammals. There are both marsupial and placental mammal versions of mice, moles, rabbits, wolves, and badgers. There is even evidence that there once were both marsupial and placental saber-toothed tigers! Yet evolutionists consider marsupials and placental mammals to be only distantly related because their mechanism of reproduction is so different. Evolutionists believe that the primitive ancestors of marsupial and placental mammals split off from a hypothetical common ancestor about 120 million years ago, long before there were mice, moles, rabbits, wolves, and badgers, and have been evolving separately ever since. How then did both these separate lines manage to come up with such similar animals?

Incredibly, evolutionists explain away amazing similarities between animals they consider to be only distantly related by simply invoking “convergent evolution.” Convergent evolution is the unobserved and unexplained process whereby two very different animals independently evolve into two very similar animals by an incredible run of countless lucky mutational coincidences extending over tens of millions of years! It seems that some folks will believe almost anything, as long as it doesn’t appear in the Bible.

adepeter2027:
I was an Ex-christian..

Hope you know.
BTW, It seems you know the Bible, Salvation & this God too well, can you educate us

What don't you understand?

adepeter2027:
If you think freewill is an escape route to explain god OMNI-blablabla
Then it's still paradoxical to the fact that god is the master planner. And if he gave us freewill, why punish people despite giving them the right to choose good and bad. Explaining this will land you to defiling the OMNI-nature of God

What do you know about the Bible and the plan of Salvation?

...