vaxx:


And about them, they are not even an authority on the subject, they have NOT produce well noted experiment to validate their claim and their claim have not receive a single award from any recognised authority.

budaatum:

Neither of those two were creationists! I've posted about them above!

vaxx:
It is just stop now. What are their main contribution to science?

vaxx:
what are their contribution to mainstream science? Are they noble laurel holder or had they perform any experiment that is scientifically used till date.



This does not discredit evolution. Evolution doesn't state The arrival of species but the evolving of species. Stop reading meaning out of nothing.

budaatum:

It is not their qualifications that matter! They can be very well qualified and still know jack and produce invalid research just as doctors can be well qualified and still be crap at treating patients!

budaatum:

It does not boil down to "who is the majority"! If it did, Darwin, Galileo, Corpenicus etc would not have stood a chance in a world where creationists were a majority!

It boils down to facts and evidence!

budaatum:

No! Its not about where they got their degrees! If you are truly a doctor, I'm sure you must have gotten your degree from a reputable institution, but I can bet my last dollar that in none of your exam papers did you ever mention God or what you are claiming here!

It's about research they have published and its review by their peers, and I bet you they published none or their peers told them it was crap!

budaatum:

All preachers! Not one of them even works in university! Doesn't that tell you anything? It's not as if they've published their "theological biology" in any reputable scientific journal for their peers to review!

budaatum:

Name just 3! I bet you not a single one of them would be teaching in any reputable school!

budaatum:

Here is a list of your PhD scientists. None of them work or lecture in a reputable accredited educational institution, and all probably live off the contributions of the gullible. But you are very welcome to prove me wrong!

budaatum:

The following is from your "well qualified" link. Show me just one credible scientist who agrees with this crap!

On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end.

budaatum:

Name these "well qualified scientists" who "think otherwise" so we can access their credentials ourselves. I've done two above, both evolutionists, and would gladly do others you name. You might also wish to include your credentials since you mentioned yourself too as a "think otherwise". But bear in mind that science is hardly about what one "thinks" but what one can provide scientifically researched evidence for which would be reviewed by one's peers.

vaxx:
I repeat,

science evidence and claims are both operational and historical. NOTHING separate the two. Every hypothetical or theoretical claim of scientist can be tested, observed, verify, documented, and measurable. .



Scientific finding are entirely emperical......



They are

budaatum:

Evolution is however, not speculation. There is way more evidence for it than "God said"!

vaxx:
but subscribe to the concept creationists ""created"" and hence developed it with backwater science. NOTHING like science is divided into two. Science is both historical and operational. Full stop.

budaatum:
What youve posted amounts to claiming, "knowledge of the past is not essential for todays living",

and while that may be true as far as daily bread goes, we can easily observe how a deficiency in history affects societal development, though, those with no knowledge of history would not see their deficiency since they have no knowledge of the past.

The following is from the article to which yours below is a response.

While Egnor’s misguided attack on evolution tells us nothing about the truth of Darwinism, it does prove one thing: Doctors aren’t necessarily scientists. Some, like Egnor, seem completely unable to evaluate evidence. Why does he so readily dismiss a theory that has been universally accepted by scientists for over a century?

Apparently because a rather old book, Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, first published in 1985, convinced him that evolutionary theory was underlain by very weak evidence. If Egnor had bothered to look just a little into Denton’s book and its current standing, he would have learned that the arguments in it have long since been firmly refuted by scientists. Indeed, they were recanted by Denton himself in a later book more than 10 years ago.

Since Egnor is decades out of date and shows no sign of knowing anything at all about evolutionary biology in the 21st century, one wonders what could have inspired his declaration at this time.

The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor.

Among genuine scientists, there is not the slightest doubt about the truth of these ideas. In contrast to Egnor’s claim, the evidence for all of them is not only strong but copious–so much so that evolution has graduated from a scientific theory to a scientific fact.
Why Evolution Is True

vaxx:
i have trashed this rubbished of historical and operational science once with you before. Those creationist you are quoting are only doing that because scienctifc evidence is against their claim......every scientific evidence is both operational and historical because claim and fact can be study , documented , observed and verify overtime......




And about, evolution, it is stupid to debate it with you, you don't even understand how science works. How can you know how evolution works?.




To those who want to learn. Pls this is Harvard uni report and lab demonstration of what is called evolution.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

budaatum:

Indeed one's worldview can be "preconceived opinion", and fantasy. But a proper worldview should be based on evidence and facts and not just that which one chooses to believe despite, and regardless, of the evidence.

budaatum:
Evolution is essential to our curriculum and to scientific literacy. Imagine teaching social science without teaching history; students would lack perspective on events going on today. Similarly, to understand the big picture of biology, students need to understand life on Earth in terms of its history and its future — the changing life forms and ecosystems that have arisen and changed over billions of years, as well as the mechanisms that have brought about those changes.

The Understanding Evolution project aims to help instructors develop student understanding of:

Basic evolutionary patterns and processes

Evolutionary theory's ability to explain phenomena across the many subdisciplines of biology

The many applications of evolutionary theory, both in solving real world problems and in scientific research

The evidence supporting evolutionary theory

As is true of any subject, to teach evolution successfully, teachers need to be prepared with a conceptual understanding of the topic and with effective curricular strategies. Teachers that develop a depth of knowledge beyond what is actually expected of students will be able to confidently adjust instruction in response to students' needs and inquiries. This is particularly true in the teaching of evolution, where students' questions can be numerous and challenging.

We've assembled a variety of resources to help you increase student understanding of evolution. To improve your own content knowledge, explore Evolution 101 and our resource library. To prepare yourself with lesson plans, teaching tips, and pedagogical strategies, visit a Teacher's Lounge or explore the all-level resources listed below and to the right.
Teaching materials

budaatum:

"Worldview", as in how you chose to view the world, and not seeing the world how it is Doc? I call that fantasy, and if that's your preferred 'worldview', who am I to argue with you that you don't see what you see.

I'll continue preaching the doctrine of open your eyes and look and see though. One never knows who might catch on.

budaatum:

No, not chew, but study, research, learn and understand.

That's also what you ought to do where your religion is concerned, and not just, not use your God given brain and believe whatever you are told to believe!

kkins25:

Belive?? My brother the concept of evolution has nothing to do belief. Care observations have been made priori by Mr Charles D. Whom based on observations proposed his ultimate findings- that life is evolving in line with environmental changes. Today scientist have confirmed that at every strata of organization.

vaxx:
EVolution is an open science vis a vis a lab science.

It is one of the most tested scienctifc theory and any idiot refusing it are doing it purposely because it portray the truth they are not willing to accept.

PrecisionFx:




''I think you're the one who needs to go back and read the Bible more calmly."

U didn't read from the bible, u just woke up and ran assumptions of unborn children being who Cain was telling God that they will kill him.



There were no other people recorded on the bible to be in existence,

Only Cain, Abel, Adam n Eve were on earth as at the time Cain killed Abel (this is what the bible said).

Cain told God that the people over there will kill him and God gave him a mark to prevent that......that confirms that Adam n Eve weren't the only ones on earth and even suggest they may not even be the first humans.

PrecisionFx:


Stop confusing urself.

Cain wasn't imagining that through the period of his life that people would be born, he clearly referred to existing people that would kill him. Goan read ur bible.

PrecisionFx:


So who did Cain marry?

So who are those people Cain tols God that they are going to kill him wen God wanted to banish him?

Remember that there were only 3 people on earth that time namely Adam, eve n cain

Martinez39:
My mother, my christian course mates, many of my former church members, many pastors, some of the christians that commented on this thread etc. I have heard this excuse from so many people, so many times, that I decided to create a topic on it. Good day.

Martinez39:
The word "only" is very valid and appropriate. There is no strawmanning here.

Martinez39:
Despite the bible talking about Yahweh being capable of healing and his promises to answer prayers of faith, many christians still can't bring themselves to put these in practice when shit hits the fan in life. Many, within them, know that the promises of Yahweh to heal the sick, who ask with faith, are laughable but since they want to keep on believing, they resolve the cognitive dissonance with illogical excuses such as "god is not a magician," "doctors and nurses are god provisions for healing" etc. in other to obviate their responsibility of embracing the miraculous as christians.

One of these illogical excuses that I want to address is "doctors and nurses are god provisions for healing." When christians use this line, what they mean is "Yahweh doesn't heal anyone directly instead the only way he heals is through doctors and nurses." They cleverly do this because, within them, they know that the miraculous healing is βullshit but they want to keep on believing. They try to absolve themselves of the responsibility to believe and practice faith healing instead of going to hospital. Does this excuse really make sense? No it doesn't. To use such excuse means you indirectly admit that Yahweh, being all powerful, can't properly implement appropriate solutions to problems or is plain wicked.

If Yahweh can provide healing for those who ask in faith, why leave them in the hands of doctors and nurses? Doctors and nurses are not perfect and can make mistakes that can be fatal at times. Medicine doesn't have solutions to certain ailments but Yahweh supposedly does, then why make medicine his only provision for healing when he can use his raw power? If medical science, not his raw power, is the only provision for healing then such provision is not sufficient for cancer patients, people with Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome, AIDS patients, the with ebola hemorrhagic fever etc. People with these end up dying. So why make medicine the only possible way when Yahweh could have used his raw power? With his allegedly raw power, these difficulties in medicine would be avoided and no one would die.

Does it make sense for Yahweh to ignore his perfect efficient power and opt for the imperfect and evolving medical science? Does this not make him an unintelligent god incapable of making sound choices? If he is perfectly sane and intelligent, does this not make him psychopathic? Why ignore your raw power that has a cure to all diseases for medical science that is limited in proffering solutions to many deadly illnesses? In many cases of manageable illnesses, the patients go through daily discomfort and spend money when this would not have been the case if Yahweh had made his raw power the provision for healing instead of the imperfect medical science. What about cases of mentally ill people who are confined to the psychiatric wards? Which would have helped them better, medical science or Yahweh's raw power(assume it exists as the bible claims)? Is this a foolish god or a psychopath? If he is sane and perfect in intellect, then he is wicked to watch people suffer and die when he could have used his raw power.

Before anti-malarial drugs were discovered, millions of children and adults died from malaria and there was nothing medical science, the provision of God for healing, could do but had god made his raw power the provision, such would not have happened. I ask you, do you think it is wise for Yahweh, being all powerful, to make the imperfect medical science his provision of healing when he could have used his raw power? So much for this divine provision of healing that many surgeries are predicted to have slim chances of success but this would not have been the case if Yahweh had used his raw power. He did it in biblical times, why should now be different? Does this make sense to you?

Given all I have stated, we can conclude that for Yahweh to make the imperfect medical science his only provision for healing instead of his raw power, then either he is too dull to proffer apt solutions to problems or he is simply a psychopath. Perhaps, we depend on medical science because it all we've got and there is no god existing.




HardMirror, Tozara, jesusjnr/Jesusjnr2, johnydon22, IAmSabrina, GreatResearcher, shadeyinka, budaatum, OLAADEGBU, CAPSLOCKED, OtemAtum, Advocate666, HopefulLandlord, Hahn, LordReed, JujuSugar, Seun etc.

Ihedinobi3:

DoctorAlien, here's a quote:

'The Duffy antigen is not especially important to red blood cells. Nonetheless, researchers have written hundreds of papers about it. The reason is that Plasmodium vivax also uses the Duffy antigen as a receptor. Like a burglar with a copy of the front-door key, it inserts itself into the Duffy antigen, fooling the blood cell into thinking it is one of the intended compounds and thereby gaining entrance.

Duffy's role was discovered in the early 1970s by Louis H. Miller and his collaborators at the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory of Parasitic Disease. To nail down the proof, Miller and his collaborators asked seventeen men, all volunteers, to put their arms into boxes full of mosquitoes. The insects were chockablock with Plasmodium vivax. Each man was bitten dozens of times--enough to catch malaria many times over. Twelve of the men came down with the disease. (The researchers quickly treated them.) The other five had not a trace of the parasite in their blood. Their red blood cells lacked the Duffy antigen--they were "Duffy negative," in the jargon--and the parasite couldn't find its way inside.

The volunteers were Caucasian and African American. Every Caucasian came down with malaria. Every man who didn't get malaria was a Duffy negative African American. This was no coincidence. About 97% of the people in West and Central Africa are Duffy negative, and hence immune to vivax malaria.'
- Charles C. Mann (1493, Alfred A. Knopf, 2011, pp. 99-100)