₦airaland Forum

Sbucareer, can you start another thread on the questions you posed? I believe this thread is about Layi's case against evolution

Nferyn, Abiogenesis is a field I have very deep rooted interests in. My active field is Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics Engineering, but I dabble in other fields as well.

Sbucareer, are you saying there would be another "big bang"? Could you please attempt to make your response more understandable? It sounds like greek from where I am sitting. Layi, I should be in Lagos on thursday the 9th at Sofitel the moorehouse in Ikoyi, in case you would like to meet in person and take some materials as well as carry this debate further (If that is to your liking). Nferyn, could you please PM what address you want the materials sent to? (Mind you there are over 9,000 pages of essays, theories, and postulations).

@Virozuru, I commend you. It means you research a lot. However, if you are talking about plegiarism, kindly note that I did mention my sources of information and since these are scientific postulations, I doubt very much that plegiarism comes to play here. I did also mention a site where some of the reasonings originated from. This is aside the Urey's thesis on Abiogenesis which I used freely. Plegiarism is stealing from one, reasearch is stealing from many. What I did was not and is not plegiarism. If some of the postulations or portions of it i posted on a website, it is ok.

Most of the text I posted is taken from the journal of the ISGEC (International Society for Genetic and Evolutionary Computation). Did you notice that I did not potray them as my personal thoughts or findings? What I did was attempt to answer Layi's question based on the materials available from the ISGEC. You will definitely notice that I did not define life or Abiogenesis, wont you agree. I even offered to send the material and others like it to Layi. Do you still call that plegiarism?

I am intending to post a longer explanation for layi's benefit tommorrow from the same ISGEC journal which I believe will help answer his question.

4get_me, I apologise as well if i seemed rash in responding to your post. I agree with you, one can never have too many friends. All my regards mate.

Can the bible provide any other source of proof outside of itself? I have told you what I set out to do. I do not think it fair that you tell me what you think I should do. I have done what I set out to do, the day i decide provide my own proof as to the existence of god, I certainly will do so. In the mean time, do you have any thing to counter my observations?

Layi, I think Abiogenesis maybe the answer you are looking for. But to understand it, you first have to understand the meaning of "life".  Life is defined as the specific position and movement of the quantifiable energy (Quantum State) which permits that some quasi-stable thermodynamism systems be structured and to establish autonomously a series of periodic intervals that delay the dispersion of diffusion of their internal energy to more available microstates.

From this definition, we can safely conclude that the quantum energy promotes a temporary delay in the increase of the thermodynamic systems’ local entropy through a set of physicochemical processes that confer autonomy to the whole system as a result of a specific position and momentum of that quantum energy. Quantum energy means any amount of energy that exists in discrete packages or “quanta”.

Before I continue to describe the scientific concept of life, let me call your attention to the words of Dr. Frank L. Lambert with respect to the real meaning of entropy,  “Entropy is not disorder, not a measure of chaos, not a driving force. Energy's diffusion or dispersal to more microstates is the driving force in chemistry. Entropy is the measure or index of that dispersal. In thermodynamics, the entropy of a substance increases when it is warmed because more thermal energy has been dispersed within it from the warmer surroundings. In contrast, when ideal gases or liquids are allowed to expand or to mix in a larger volume, the entropy increase is due to a greater dispersion of their original unchanged thermal energy.” “From a molecular viewpoint all such entropy increases involve the dispersal of energy over a greater number, or a more readily accessible set, of microstates. Frequently misleading, order-disorder as a description of entropy change is also an anachronism. It should be replaced by describing entropy change as energy dispersal--from a molecular viewpoint, by changes in molecular motions and occupancy of microstates.” (Citation: Lambert, Frank L. J. Chem. Education, 2002, 79-187). What Dr. Lambert describes here is the real concept of Entropy established by the modern Physics and accepted by modern Physicists.

Life was an energetic possibility in the whole universe since the end of the inflationary period, some milliseconds after the big bang. The terrestrial living beings arose billions of years after the big bang (about 9,000 million years later). The elements were synthesized at the solar nebula thanks to the radiation emitted by the nuclear thermo-reactions of the young sun. Water and other short organic and inorganic molecules formed in the solar nebula, just when a fluctuation of the density of energy of the solar system allowed the elements to bond forming more-complex compounds.

Frozen dust at the protoplanetary nebula allowing the synthesis of organic compounds, for example, carbohydrates, ammonia, quinones, amino acids, lipids, glyceraldehydes, and globulins, into the grains of dust containing also icy water. Diverse chemical reactions that produced biomolecules could occur inside ice crystals embedded into fractals thanks to irradiation and uv photolysis. Perry a. Gerakines, marla h. Moore and reggie l. Hudson from the physics department of the university of Alabama, at Birmingham, Alabama, have experimentally confirmed the formation of organic molecules from frozen mixtures (at 20 -100 k) due to irradiation (0.8 mev protons) and uv photolysis (6-10 ev). This experiment supports the theory about the high probability of inorganic synthesis of complex biomolecules at the protoplanetary clouds, which contained frozen crystals of diverse materials, like water, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methyl, acetylene, sulfur dioxide, phosphate groups, etc.

Uv light, heat and gravitational, electromagnetic and electrodynamic forces caused the synthesis of complex carbohydrates, proteins, globulins, organic bases, phosphate groups, and lipids. The last can form simple bilayered membranes. Lipids and phosphate groups jointed as phospholipids and formed amphiphilic membranes that integrated as microscopic globules inside water drops trapped into grains of dust (fractals forming the planetary nebulas). This synthesis occurred into the planetary clouds; for example, the disk-like cloud in orbit around earth.

Jamie e. Elsila, j. Seb gillette, richard n. Zare, max p. Bernstein, jason p. Dworkin, scott a. Sandford and louis j allamandola from the department of chemistry of stanford university, at stanford, ca have demonstrated experimentally that the frozen grains of dust at 10-20 k can be photo-processed by uv light to form more complex biomolecules. This observable fact is known as uv-photochemistry of biomolecules and supports my theory.

Thanks to uv light emitted by the sun and the heat generated by multiple collisions between particles of the planetary cloud, after the planetary nebula cooled as much as necessary, more microspheres were synthesized, being limited spontaneously by membranes of lipoproteins. The microspheres contained a larger diversity of organic compounds and continued retained into the particles of dust (fractals) already orbiting as planetary atmospheres.

The grains of dust (fractals) acted as protective “eggshells” for the biomolecules against ionizing solar radiation and uv photolysis (remember that the dimension of the icy particles at planetary clouds fluctuates from a few centimeters to one meter in diameter). Therefore, chemical mutations permitted the synthesis of molecules still more complex of carbohydrates, proteins and lipids, which built highly stable and lasting membranes that wrapped the microspheres. However, those membranes were ephemeral by the intensity of the cosmic radiation that could destroy them; however, many microspheres enclosed by membranous vesicles subsisted under that hostile environment because they were held into solid grains of dust and water ice.

Due to their very low resistance against cosmic radiation, nucleotides only had resisted if they had been synthesized behind protective screens at temperatures lesser than 70° c; thus, it would not be possible the synthesis of dna at that moment. However, rna nucleotides would be able to keep stable at temperatures lower than 70° c.

Ultraviolet radiation, heat and inorganic chemical reactions promoted the synthesis of catalytic proteins. Later, these catalytic proteins directed the synthesis of short molecules of rna, then the synthesis of larger rna molecules that already could contain the encoded information for the synthesis of more catalytic proteins identical to the initial catalytic proteins in their molecular arrangement. The flexibility of this theory permits us to assume that the ribozymes were not central for the synthesis of catalytic biomolecules, which could replicate themselves in a similar way as prions replicate themselves.

The gravity force and the electrodynamic force coerced the small dust grains to form lumps (fractals), containing microspheres enclosed by membranes made of phospholipids, at the planetary orbits. They formed a very dense cloud of lumps of dust, water vapor, ammonia, methane, quinones, acetylene, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfurs and other gases; however, the orbital angular moment of those particles and the intense heat irradiated by the planetary crusts prevented the grains of dust to fall down onto the planets’ surfaces.

Orbiting in planetary atmospheres, the microspheres agglutinated inside the grains of dust and liquid water to form the prebiotic structures called protobionts, which at that moment were not yet living forms, but limited by membranes of peptoglycan vesicles, into which happened few metabolic processes.

The subsequent chemical evolution directed the fusion of protobionts. One protobiont engulfed to other protobionts. The integration of molecules of proteins, nucleotides, carbohydrates, lipids, and other chemical substances to the protobionts’ plasma involved the formation of complex structures. Despite the fact that most protobionts did not persist for large periods, many assemblies of protobionts can maintained stable structures near the next and very important planetary event.

Fortuitously, only the protobionts that had formed in the protective planetary clouds (water vapor and dust clouds) persisted. Protobionts were the ancestors of archeobionts.

At this time, only those protobionts that possessed the adequate molecular arrangement experienced the energy state of life, thanks to a phase transition in the terrestrial nebula caused by a fluctuation in the density of energy in the solar system. As a result, the first living archeobiont appeared on earth. Archeobionts were the ancestors of all living beings that exist on our planet and, perhaps, on other world of our solar system.

Many thermodynamic and electrodynamic incidents occurred all through the integration of our solar system. The fluctuations in the energy density and a series of drastic phase transitions in the solar system as a whole were the most important episode. For the early period of nucleosynthesis, the intermittent emissions of particles -derived from nuclear fusions- generated fluctuations in the energy density of the system, besides the development of energy holes. We think that the molecules of the protobionts were excited at one of those spontaneous oscillations, so their internal energy acquired the indispensable positions and momentum that block for short periods its diffusion or dispersion toward more possible microstates.

When the crusts of the planets got colder and pluvial precipitations took place, the drops of water dragged the fractals enclosing archeobionts onto the surfaces of the planets. For this to occur, the orbital angular moment of the dust and gases cloud had to have diminished to a speed lower than the speed of the rotational movement of the primitive earth. This lessening of the orbital angular momentum of the grains of dust was possible thanks to earth’s gravity and the collisions of the lumps of dust between.

Once placed in planetary soils, bionts remained stable by means of staying behind protective screens, for example, the dense clouds of water vapor, icy water and dust of the planetary atmospheres. Billions of bionts were destroyed by the aggressive conditions of the planetary environment; however, when the planets got colder enough and the sun got more stable, bionts could remain as integral structures more easily. The difference consisted on having or not each factor essential to confer them more resistance against the hostile environment, and to prevail under the pressure of the fundamental natural selection caused by the environments of all the primitive planets. I should clear up that in agreement with this theory, only was needed a viable biont to generate all the living beings that have existed and exist on our planet.

Protected by a sky full up with dust, water vapor, hot volcanic ashes and diverse vapors, submerged in deposits of water at no more than 36° c, the bionts can reproduce themselves generating more living molecular systems. Apparently, the earth was the unique planet in our solar system with all the favorable conditions for bionts survival. The emission of particles from the sun propitiated the biotic energy field, or life (the term “biotic” refers to any thing related to life, the term “abiotic” to any inert thing, while the term “biont”, whether used like substantive or as a suffix, refers to any living being).

Here is what is deemed to have occured during the solar fluctuations of energy.
1. The arrangement of simple molecules in molecular more complex structures (microspheres) in the solar nebula.
2. The adhesion of complex molecular structures (microspheres) in the planetary nebulas forming microspheres enclosed by membranes.
3. The fusion of multiple and diverse microspheres enclosed by membranes forming protobionts or coacervates.
4. The induction of those conglomerates toward an energy state that induced those conglomerates to produce no-spontaneously intervals in the dispersion or  diffusion of their internal energy.

These four energy processes converged in earth. However, we cannot exclude other planets of our solar system like probable hosts of living beings. The divergences that could have occurred at other planets of our solar system correspond to times, places and events that continued after the energy fluctuation that generated the autonomy of some molecular arrangements. Perhaps, the first primitive living organism did not need organic or inorganic sources of chemical energy. Perhaps the first biont can capture energy and simple chemical substances directly from the environment to elaborate the necessary structures for its subsistence.

The first living thermodynamic system could have been a myxotrophic (able to take energy both from radiation emitted by the sun and from chemical substances) and hyperthermophyllic (resistant to extreme high temperatures) organism. However, the contemporary hyperthermophylles are not equivalent to those primitive bionts. The current hyperthermophylles (which tolerate more than 70° c) evolved from a later group called archaea, which evolved from chemosmotic primitive bionts.

Recently, some scientists have found bacteria from the group archaea that survive to very low temperatures, under antarctic glacial. All these recent discoveries will turn out an unyielding competition between adherents of the smoldering origin and the fans of the frosty origin to find out which one of them had the reason, if the followers of the scorching origin of living beings or the followers of the frosty origin of living beings. However, the theory is clear at this issue: the first living organisms synthesized spontaneously in the warm (not too cold, not too hot) environments formed by the clouds of dust and water. Let us say, into gentle surroundings, which temperatures should not reach up to 36° c.

Has this helped? I don't know. Should you require further research material, let me know and I could send you some by FEDEX or DHL. I apologise for the very long post

4get_me, fair enough, I totally agree with you. Shall we start another thread as to aceeptability of the word "the written english"? Surely you must know that there is "THE written English and THE Spoken English". As for Z4M4Eva, I do not see how that affects the matter at hand, unless you are the myke to begin with. Having said that, shall we let that issue lie? It is not the subject matter of this thread.

To correct your point of view, it was not my objective to provide proof of my own as to the existence of god. My objective was to use the very core of the christian believe as proof that there is no god. To that effect, I believe I have been largely successful. Does this make sense? Maybe not. I will try putting it another way. My purpose was to subject the evidence or pieces of evidence as stipulated in biblical writtings to critical analysis and find out if it will hold on it's own against pure rational logic. My intention was to apply the writtings against logic. My intention was to project a logical analysis of biblical writtings in an atmosphere devoid of dogma. Do you know the result? Of course you do, you responses exemplifies the result. Abyssmal failure. Do I need further proof? Do I need to condescend to conjectures so as to presents issues that will not stand the test of logic? No, I will not go that route, I have done what I set out to do, if it is not satisfactory to you, disprove them. Apply logic and attempt an explanation. As a matter of fact, go beyond logic and apply spirituality to explain it, so long as we are in the know as to the spiritual steps or reasonings you may have used to arrive at your conclusions.

If you are unable to do this, I will suggest to you what I suggest to Z4M4Eva, go home and get your facts, otherwise, concentrate on issues that are more to your understanding. By the way, I shall habe you know that when the word "THE" is directly preceding the word "Written English" the connotation is that the word "Written english" is used as a branch of the english language. Does that make sense?

I have been told that the link does not open. So here is a summary of what is contained in the site: Bible atrocities
By capella
People of Judah shout and God helps them kill 500,000 people

God slaughters 70 men for looking into the ark

God has the earth swallow people

God drowns almost everyone on earth

God orders and joins in on the genocide of all of Canaan

God threatens people with having to eat their children’s flesh

Sons of Levi are blessed for randomly slaughtering cow worshippers

God kills all the Egyptian babies for Pharaoh’s stubbornness

God kills the meat eaters

God allows people to sacrifice their babies to him to teach them a lesson

God kills a man for not impregnating his sister-in-law

God comes out of the sky to kill David’s enemies

God allows babies to be dashed and pregnant women to be ripped open

God threatens to have wild animals carry away the Israelite’s children

God tells people to kill their loved ones if they worship other gods

Bible says beat your child with a rod

Bible says beating and wounding people is good for them

God promises to punish children for their parent’s sin

God terrifies and causes tumors

Jesus doesn’t allow a disciple to bury his dead father

God rewards Jacob for deceiving his dying father

————————————————————————-


Supposedly the people of Judah shouted and God helped them kill 1/2 million Israelites.

(2 Chr 13:15 NRSV) Then the people of Judah raised the battle shout. And when the people of Judah shouted, God defeated Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah.

(2 Chr 13:16-18 NRSV) The Israelites fled before Judah, and God gave them into their hands. Abijah and his army defeated them with great slaughter; five hundred thousand picked men of Israel fell slain.

Thus the Israelites were subdued at that time, and the people of Judah prevailed because they relied on the LORD, the God of their ancestors.

————————————————————————-


God slaughters 70 men for simply looking into the Ark.

(1 Sam 6:19 RSV) And he (God) slew some of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they looked into the ark
of the LORD; he slew

seventy men of them, and the people mourned because the Lord had made a great slaughter among the people.

————————————————————————-


Korah questions Moses’ leadership and God makes the earth open up and swallow his people: men, women, and children.

(Num 16:20-21 NRSV) Then the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying: Separate yourselves from this congregation, so that I may consume them in a moment. They fell on their faces, and said, "O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one person sin and you become angry with the whole congregation?"


(Num 16:27 NRSV) (…)and Dathan and Abiram came out and stood at the entrance of their tents, together with their wives , their children , and their little ones .

(Num 16:32-33 NRSV) The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, along with their households–everyone who belonged to Korah and all their goods. So they with all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol; the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

(Then God burned some other followers)

(Num 16:35 NRSV) And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the two hundred fifty men offering the incense.

(Then the whole congregation were upset about what God had done)

(Num 16:41 NRSV) On the next day, however, the whole congregation of the Israelites rebelled against Moses and against Aaron, saying, "You have killed the people of the LORD."

(God is further angered)

(Num 16:45 NRSV) "Get away from this congregation, so that I may consume them in a moment." And they fell on their faces.

(God strikes them with a plague. Moses finally intervenes to prevent the entire congregation from being killed) .

(Num 16:49 NRSV) Those who died by the plague were fourteen thousand seven hundred, besides those who died in the affair of Korah.

————————————————————————-


God drowns all the men, women, and children on the earth during the flood story:

(Gen 7:21 NRSV) And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings;

————————————————————————-


Here are some examples of the battles of Joshua for the possession of Canaanite cities and genocide of inhabitants as commanded by God

(All verses from book of Joshua NRSV)

(City of Jericho)(6:21) Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.

(City of Ai)(8:22)Israel struck them down until no one was left who survived or escaped.

(8:29) And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, threw it down at the entrance of the gate of the city …

(The Amorites) (10:10) …(the Israelites) inflicted a great slaughter on them at Gibeon …, and struck them down as far as Azekah and Makkedah.

( God throws boulders down from heaven onto fleeing Amorites )

(10:11) As they fled before Israel, while they were going down the slope of Beth-horon, the LORD threw down huge stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died because of the hailstones than the Israelites killed with the sword.

(There wasn’t enough time in the day to complete the slaughter so God makes the Sun stop moving in the sky )

(10:12-13) …Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon."

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

(God’s mission accomplished with the Amorites) (10:20) When Joshua and the Israelites had finished inflicting a very great slaughter on them, until they were wiped out, …

————————————————————————-


More battles of Joshua for the possession of cities and genocide of Canaanite inhabitants as commanded by God

(All verses from book of Joshua NRSV)

(City of Libnah)(10:30) The LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left no one remaining in it;

(City of Lachish)(10:32-33) … and struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. Then King Horam of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua struck him and his people, leaving him no survivors.

(City of Eglon)(10:35) and they took it that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish.

(City of Hebron)(10:37) and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left no one remaining, just as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it.

(City of Debir)(10:39-40) and he took it with its king and all its towns; they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining;

So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

————————————————————————-


One last big battle of Joshua for the possession of cities and genocide of the Canaanite inhabitants.

Here finally, all the inhabitants of Canaan are exterminated.

(all verses from the book of Joshua NRSV)

(11:1-4) People of Hazor, Madon, Shimron, Achshaph, northern hill country, Arabah, Naphoth-dor, Canaanites in the east and the west, the Amorites (again?), the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites and the Hivites unite against the Israelites.

(11:14) All the spoil of these towns, and the livestock, the Israelites took for their booty; but all the people they struck down with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, and they did not leave any who breathed.

(Let there be no doubt whose idea it was for these genocides)

(11:20) For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts (the Canaanites) so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

————————————————————————-


God threatens to punish the Israelites by forcing them to eat the flesh of their children.

(Lev 26:27-28 NRSV) But if, despite this, you disobey me, and continue hostile to me, I will continue hostile to you in fury; I in turn will punish you myself sevenfold for your sins.

(Lev 26:29 NRSV) You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.

(Jer 19:9 NRSV) And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and all shall eat the flesh of their neighbors in the siege, and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.

————————————————————————-


Here Moses says "kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor."

In this story, Moses is gone for a long time at the top of a mountain. Meanwhile the children of Israel start partying and worshipping a golden calf.

When Moses comes down from the mountain he relays an order from God to start the bloodbath.

(Exo 32:27-29 NRSV) He said to them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.’"


The sons of Levi did as Moses commanded, and about three thousand of the people fell on that day.

(Moses then speaks to the sons of Levi)

Moses said, "Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the LORD, each one at the cost of a son or a brother, and so have brought a blessing on yourselves this day."

(The sons of Levi are blessed for randomly killing family members, friends, and neighbors, whose only crime was worshipping the calf)

————————————————————————-


God kills scores of innocent babies and children.

This is the popular Exodus story in which God is imagined to strike down innocent babies and children for the actions of a Pharaoh whose heart Yahweh himself had hardened (thus rendering the Pharaoh incapable of complying with God’s demands).

(Exo 11:10 NRSV) Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; but the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.


(Here God has hardened Pharaoh’s heart and then turns around and punishes Pharaoh’s "decision" by murdering innocent babies and children)

(Exo 12:29 NRSV) At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.

————————————————————————-


God kills the children of Israel who wanted some meat.

(The people of Israel complain and God gets angry)

(Num 11:1 NRSV) …Then the fire of the LORD burned against them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp.

(The Israelites get tired of eating manna (something vaguely like corn flakes). They start crying and wishing they were still slaves in Egypt, so God gets angry again and says)

(Num 11:19-20 NRSV) You shall eat (meat)… for a whole month– until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you– because you have rejected the LORD who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, ‘Why did we ever leave Egypt?’"


(Num 11:31 NRSV) Then a wind went out from the LORD,

and it brought quails from the sea and let them fall beside the camp.

(The people work all day and night gathering their meat and as they are taking their first bite suddenly and unexpected…)

(Num 11:33-34 NRSV)…the anger of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD struck the people with a very great plague.

So that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had the craving.

————————————————————————-


Because they were wicked enough to ignore the part in his commandment for human sacrifice that allowed them to substitute an animal for the baby, God lets them go ahead and sacrifice their babies to him so they would be horrified and know he is Lord.


(Ezek 20:26 NRSV) I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the LORD.

————————————————————————-


God kills a man for not impregnating his brother’s wife.

(Gen 38:9-10 NRSV) But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.

What he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also.

————————————————————————-


King David is getting older and needs some help from God to complete another slaughter:

(2 Sam 22:9-16 NRSV) Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him.

He bowed the heavens, and came down; thick darkness was under his feet.

He rode on a cherub, and flew; he was seen upon the wings of the wind.

He made darkness around him a canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water.

Out of the brightness before him coals of fire flamed forth.

The LORD thundered from heaven; the Most High uttered his voice.

He sent out arrows, and scattered them –lightning, and routed them.

Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

————————————————————————-


God allows Jewish babies to be dashed to pieces and pregnant Jewish women to be ripped open.


(Hosea 13:16 NRSV) Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

————————————————————————-


Here God threatens to have wild animals carry the Israelites children away.

(Lev 26:22 NRSV) I will let loose wild animals against you, and they shall bereave you of your children…

————————————————————————-


The Bible says to kill your wife, your daughter, your son, your brother, your friend, etc… if they worship other gods.

(Deu 13:6-10 NRSV) If anyone secretly entices you–even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend– saying, "Let us go worship other gods," whom neither you nor your ancestors have known,

any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them.

But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, …

————————————————————————-


The bible says to beat your kids with a rod.

(Prov 23:13 NRSV) Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die.

————————————————————————-


The bible says that beating people and inflicting wounds is good for people.

(Prov 20:30 NRSV) Blows that wound cleanse away evil; beatings make clean the innermost parts.


————————————————————————-


God unfairly promises to punish innocent children for the sins of their parents "to the third and fourth generation".

(Exo 20:5 NRSV) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

————————————————————————-


The Lord terrifies and causes tumors to grow in the people of Ashdod because they have the Ark of the Covenant.

(1 Sam 5:6 NRSV) The hand of the LORD was heavy upon the people of Ashdod, and he terrified and struck them with tumors, both in Ashdod and in its territory.

————————————————————————-


Jesus doesn’t allow one of his disciples to bury his father.

(Mat 8:21 NRSV) Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."

(Mat 8:22 NRSV) But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."


————————————————————————-


Deception of a suffering, dying father by his son is rewarded by God.

Jacob steals Isaac’s blessing pretending to be his brother Esau and playing a trick on his dying father. God then rewards the deception.

(Jacob is nervous about pulling the wool over his dying father’s eyes.)

(Gen 27:11-12 NRSV) But Jacob said to his mother Rebekah, "Look, my brother Esau is a hairy man, and I am a man of smooth skin. Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be mocking him, and bring a curse on myself and not a blessing."

(Here Jacob does the dirty deed)

(Gen 27:19 NRSV) *Jacob* said to his father, "*I am Esau* your firstborn. I have done as you told me; now sit up and eat of my game, so that you may bless me."


(Dying Isaac blesses Jacob thinking he is blessing Esau his other son)

(Esau shows up later and is angry about Jacob stealing his blessing, oblivious to the fact his father is suffering and dying in front of him)

(Gen 27:35 NRSV) But he (Isaac) said, "Your brother came deceitfully, and he has taken away your blessing."

(Here is God rewarding Jacob for stealing the blessing)

(Gen 28:14 NRSV) and your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth

And here is the link to the article, in case it opens for you.

http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=atheism&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fweb2.airmail.net%2Fcapella%2Faguide%2Fattroc.htm

It's all there read for yourself and comment

Layi, that, is the spirit of a good debater. keep it up

"The difference between evolution and Creationism is that evolution is real and Creationism is not real. Creationism is based on the Bible that says that God created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago. Clearly the world was not created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago so therefore the Bible is just plain wrong. If the world were merely 10,000 years old then how do you explain the dinosaurs that are millions of years old? We've discovered life fossils that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve.

If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see starts that were more than 10,000 light years away. That's because if a star were further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn't have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn't be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn't be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding.

Our modern technology has proved the Bible wrong. That means that if there is a God, he didn't write the Bible and the Bible is not his word. If the Bible were the word of God and the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong. And if God can't be wrong, then the Bible, which is wrong, can't be the word of God.

Men who lived thousands of years ago wrote the Bible. The authors had limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and wrote the Bible based on what they believed at the time. They didn't know the Earth was round and that it orbited the Sun, which is a star among billions of stars in the galaxy which is but one galaxy in billions of galaxies that have existed for billions of years. To them, the world was flat. There was up and there was down and God lived in the sky. They didn't know the world was round and there was no such thing as "up". They didn't know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet. We have been to the sky and we have been above the sky and God isn't living there.

As to evolution, evolution is science. We have the bones of creatures living millions of years ago that are the links between different forms of life. The bone exist that link us humans we our common ancestors that we share with other primates. In fact we have unearthed many civilizations that go back further than 10,000 years and predate Adam and Eve. And these discoveries actually exist and can be measured. We know them to be real.

Evolution is happening right now. Farmers have been using evolution for thousands of years to bread new and better farm animals and crops. The corn we eat today is very different than the corn that was raised by the ancient Egyptians. Today's cattle are very different from cows a few hundred years ago. The difference is that farmers controlled the breading to select the best individuals and to cause them to reproduce instead of the inferior ones. We have taken control of evolution and used it to out benefit.

Do we know everything about evolution? No, we don't. But we know a great deal, and we're learning more every day. As we pursue science and research we are expanding our knowledge of the reality of the universe and the world around us. This is real knowledge about the way that the world actually is. Knowledge that has come from scientific discovery rather than the mythology of past and primitive civilizations.

People don't like the idea of evolution because of our fear of death and that we like to think of ourselves as something special. The idea that we "came from monkeys" is as disgusting as sex. If God made man in his image and we are the only life in the universe and we are dominate over all other things and we're going to live forever, that would be a great reality for us. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is.

On the other hand, this planet is but a speck of dust in the universe. We are a small planet rotating around a star that is one of billions of stars in a galaxy that is one of billions of galaxies in a universe that existed for billions of years. The universe is likely teaming with life, some of which is so evolved that they would never visit here because we are too primitive to even be considered interesting, unless we were considered tasty food. We exist as a result of random chance and the only reason we exist is because our parents and their parents before them gave into overwhelming sexual instincts, like the animals have, and we were formed as a chance DNA combination. We exist for no other reason.

Now, which one would you rather believe? It's simple. We would all rather believe that we are special and that God has a special purpose for us and that we are important. But which one is real? The one we would rather believe? Or do we believe what is supported by scientific fact. Sometimes what we want and the way things are not the same. It takes courage to believe in what's real. Those who are afraid of what's real are attached to maintaining the illusion of a creation rather than facing the facts. The reason I'm here is because my father didn't have it together enough to use a condom properly. It's that simple.

Christianity itself has evolved over the centuries. In order to survive it has had to change an adapt. Many religions and many branches of Christianity have become extinct over the centuries. In order to survive, Christianity has had to merge with the cultures of other religions. For example, Christmas is not a Christian holiday. Christmas was originally Yule and people cut down and decorated trees long before Christ was born. Easter had nothing to do with Christ rising from the dead. Easter was a pagan fertility ritual where pagans prayed to the Gods for reproduction and food. Hence, the rabbits and the eggs.

The religions of the world are threatened by modern science. We humans have evolved to the point where we know a lot more than we ever did and we now know that a lot of what we believed for centuries is just plain wrong. However, we humans are still herd animals and it is our instinctive nature to continue to believe what the tribe believes rather than what's logical. Our minds have not yet evolved to the point where logic and reason dominates over tribal patterns. (Except for me of course. That's why I'm writing this.) But because of technology, and especially computers, the day is coming where the rest of humanity can move up to my level and beyond. (Sorry, it's not ego, it's my warped sense of humor. In your heart you know I'm right though.)

As religion evolves people will turn from mythology to reality. As humans become smarter, people will want to understand the real world the way it really is. The 21st century will be the century of the global mind and the Church of Reality will evolve into the dominate religion on the planet. And I will go down in history as the Dalai Lama of nerds"

Please note that the above texts are excepts from the website http://www.churchofreality.org and I have used it with permission from the authors. They represent my entire belief and stand as to the issue between evolution and Creationism, however, I am willing to listen to divergent views if they make sense.

El-Baron

It seems to me that when a thread is posted, people, instead of taking critical looks at the issues posed, tend to make fun out of it by turning the debate away from what is was meant to be to other mundane matters. Maybe this might be for lack any knowledge of the subject matter, in which case it would have been better to simply stay away from the thread or in the very least, read intelligent opinions posted by others.

As regards evolution, Layi, this is a very nice thread you started, but surely you dont believe half of the things you wrote, do you? Let us tackle the issue of evolution as a "Thoery" as you stated. If Evolution is a theory in the sense you use it, would it not follow logically that the concept of "god" is also a "theory"?

There are several pieces of evidence in support of evolution. There is the theory of Homologies. Now let us look into that and see if it makes sense. Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. They can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.

An example of homology is the forelimb of tetrapods (vertebrates with legs). Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.

Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the movie that is the history of life on Earth.

Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent.

Individual organisms contain, within their bodies, abundant evidence of their histories. The existence of these features is best explained by evolution.

Several animals, including pigs, cattle, deer, and dogs have reduced, nonfunctional digits, referred to as dewclaws. The foot of the pig has lost digit 1 completely, digits 2 and 5 have been greatly reduced, and only digits 3 and 4 support the body. Evolution best explains such vestigial features. They are the remnants of ancestors with a larger number of functional digits.

People (and apes) have chests that are broader than they are deep, with the shoulder blades flat in back. This is because we, like apes, are descended from an ancestor who was able to suspend itself using the upper limbs. On the other hand, monkeys and other quadrupeds have a different form of locomotion. Quadrupeds have narrow, deep chests with shoulder blades on the sides. Hoatzin chicks have claws on their wings, as do some chickens and ostriches. This reflects the fact that bird ancestors had clawed hands.

Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities. Sometimes the similarities are conspicuous, as between crocodiles and alligators, but in other cases considerable study is needed for a full appreciation of relationships.

Whales and hummingbirds have tetrapod skeletons inherited from a common ancestor. Their bodies have been modified and parts have been lost through natural selection, resulting in adaptation to their respective lifestyles over millions of years. On the surface, these animals look very different, but the relationship between them is easy to demonstrate. Except for those bones that have been lost over time, nearly every bone in each corresponds to an equivalent bone in the other.

Studying the embryological development of living things provides clues to the evolution of present-day organisms. During some stages of development, organisms exhibit ancestral features in whole or incomplete form.

Some species of living snakes have hind limb-buds as early embryos but rapidly lose the buds and develop into legless adults. The study of developmental stages of snakes, combined with fossil evidence of snakes with hind limbs, supports the hypothesis that snakes evolved from a limbed ancestor.

Layi, I do not know if this has answered any misgivings you have about evolution. If it has not, please visit http://www.evolutionhappens.net/. I am very sure you will find pertinent information relating to evolution.

@4get_me, first I wish to apologise if I have offended you or anybody else. Believe me that was not the intention. What you take for strong dislike for people who believe in god is in actuality a display, though subconsciously, of my passion for the subject matter. It is not my intention to sound derogatory to anyone. On the other hand, when I am personally attacked, I try to give back as good as I get. And just like you have told me that I dont make sense, so do I tell others who make no sense to me. Now if this is a source of worry to you, I cannot help it, maybe what you should have done is advice everybody on the forum to be civil, maybe that was an oversight.

Back to the post, let me start from your last paragraph

If God didn't exist, then I take it that you know everything - because only someone who knows everything from start to finish can categorically state that something does not exist.

Will you be amazed if I told you that I dont know everything? I bet not, because even the god portrayed in your religin does not know everything, you want proof of that? He definitely did not know that Adam and Eve will eat of the forbidden tree, if he did, he would not have "repented" of creating man. If he did, he would not have stated that "Man has become like one of us, let us lock him out of the garden that he may not eat of the tree of life and live forever". Do you see my point? No, I do not know everything and I doubt there is any one man living who does, but I know enough to question issues and a mythical existence without proof

I will ignore your post as to my response to z4m4eva, the only reason I am doing that is because, I sincerely believe you took the entire response out of context, forgetting the fact that my response to her was simply a plea for her to either get her facts together and present a logical arguement of concentrate on other things, the fact that I asked her to go back to loving myke was simply because she has a passion for loving him and in my opinion she would do better there instead of posting a one liner response without any sort of background or proof supporting it. In this, therefore, I will ignore your comments regarding this.

You mentioned that I did not present any logical supporting facts. Maybe our problem is with the interpretation of what is logical and what are supporting facts. If this be not the case, the only other alternative would be to assume that you either do not understand the written english or you were too consumed with the passion to lash out at me that you did not take a moment to read the original post. If the latter be the case, dont worry about it, you are not alone, there are millions of people who do not take their time to study literature before they swallow it, organised religion practitioners are one of those, so dont worry. However, if it is that you did not read the original post, I suggest, with utmost respect, that you do so. And if you do, you will see for yourself that you will be able to gather relevant facts to counter the arguements and address any of the issues specifically, believe me, if that happens, you will not even have the time to lash out at me.

Oh, just in case you are wondering where god said he doesn't want man to live forever check Genesis chapter 3 from verse 22 to verse 24 and here is the text of those scriptures

22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

(Scriptural text is taken from the New King James version of the bible).

Thales of Miletus (624-547 B.C.) is widely regarded as the "first" philosopher for his insights into the workings of nature. While people of his time understood the natural world through mythology, Thales invested in a critical style of thinking. Through mathematical calculation, he accurately predicted a solar eclipse that occurred in 585 B.C. His famous statement that "everything is water" was one of the earliest attempts to account for the physical aspects of a changing world.

By today's standards "everything is water" seems too simplistic, but in his time it represented an important step away from mythological constructions of reality. In the ancient world of Thales, one can count a number of philosophers who were equally significant to the development of science. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) not only wrote on ethics, rhetoric and poetics, he also composed studies of biology and physics. His concept of "causality" attempted to introduce a material understanding of reality into the philosophical conversations of his generation and generations that were to follow.

After the ancients and philosophers of late antiquity, we can turn to medieval philosophy for additional instances of the relationship between science and philosophy. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.) was deeply interested in the nature of reality and its theological implications. His logical proofs for the existence of God share a great deal with the concept of "intelligent design," especially the idea of teleology. The French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), the father of modern philosophy, was a "natural scientist" and mathematician who made great advances in "analytical geometry." Like other modern philosophers from the 17th century onward, Descartes' interests included physics and physiology. During the 18th century, for instance, what we understand as "science" today was pre-figured as "natural philosophy" and leading Enlightenment philosophers, including Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), taught courses on natural phenomena. Not exactly science by our standards, these courses rested largely on ideas from metaphysics and ordinary observation. With the birth of modern science and the availability of better technology, "natural philosophy" underwent a series of continued transformations — many initiated by Sir Isaac Newton's "The Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy," published in 1729. The philosophers of the Enlightenment were influenced by this work and viewed it as an opportunity to redefine philosophy's purpose. In fact, Immanuel Kant accepted Newton's laws, but came to view our understanding of those laws as predicated on subjective experience.

Today, "the philosophy of science" is a thriving field. Many important philosophers over the centuries have made valuable contributions to the development of science. In many ways, science has important connections to "natural philosophy." This history that I have sketched leads inevitably to the status of ID as a scientific theory and the largely philosophical claims of ID as it pertains to the origin of life. Since biologists seem to have rejected ID on scientific grounds, perhaps the conversation about the origin of life should take place within the wider spaces of religion, philosophy or natural philosophy.

How does life as we know it begin? Isn't this the question that gives rise to the "alternative perspective" underpinning ID? Philosophers have asked this question, too. What does philosophy have to do with the issue? Everything, it seems, if one wishes to challenge or validate claims in a logical way. If evolution cannot, as ID claims, account for the genesis of life, then what other ways of thinking critically do we have? Evolutionary biology states that an answer has not yet been found. ID asserts that evolutionary biology has reached an impasse on the question of the beginning of life. In this debate, ID seems to point beyond the scientific paradigm for a "scientific" answer. In claiming that small complex organisms are irreducible to less complex smaller organisms, ID invites two possibilities.
The first is that none have been found yet, which is science's response.

The second is that none are possible "in nature" and therefore they (simple-complex organisms) must have been fabricated by something outside the natural order. The latter poses an interesting metaphysical problem that Aristotle identified as the "uncaused cause." Or, how do you go from nothing to something?
In philosophy and religion there are numerous examples that ask the question of origins. Myths from African and Native American cultures tell of "maker" gods that fashion clay or mud into living things. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic account portrays God not as a maker but as a creator; that is, God brings creation forward from nothing (ex nihilo), which resonates with ID. In all these accounts something outside the natural order designs life, which is contrary to science that holds that all phenomena will have a natural cause — not an "uncaused cause."

While an overwhelming number of scientists conclude that ID fails the science test, the question of origins may still have a place in discussions of philosophy, religion and myth. Furthermore, thousands of years of human questioning and pursuit of the origins of life do not rise or fall on the merits of ID. Philosophy, religion and myth have not provided scientifically sound accounts of creation.

@ Mosaic2, thanks for your post. Does your entire concept and explanation not sound contradictory even to yourself? You contend that God did not create evil when the same bible you have tells you that God made everything? Let us assume that man created evil or to put it in your own words, if man has made the world evil and if we are to further agree that God made man in his own image, does that not follow that God must have certain parts of him that are evil? Wont you agree that for man to know evil he must have learnt it from somewhere? Of course we can argue that man learnt from Satan, but God himself created this Satan. Am I making sense?

Did you say that God is hurt when he sees what his world has come to? If we must speculate to that, would it not, as a matter of simple logic follow, that God had no idea at the time of creation what his world would turn to? And if we agree that this is correct, would it not be safe to assume that God is not omnipotent? A god who does not have foresight does not appear to me to be all powerful. Let's think about these things.

Ghana is considering the adoption of a bill currently in parliament which is to be called the Domestic Violence Act. This Bill if passed to law may cause the breaking up of several families. Section 1 paragraph B states as follows: (a) Specific acts or, threats to commit, or acts likely to result in (i) physical assult or any use of physical force against another person including the forcible confinement or detention of another person and the deprivation of another person of access to adequate food, water, clothing, shelter, rest, or subjecting another person to torture or any other cruel, inhuman degrading treatment or punishment; (ii) Sexual abuse. namely the forceful engagement of another person in any sexual conduct that abuses, humiliates or degrades the other person or likewise violates another person's sexual intergrity whether married or not or any sexual contact by a person aware of being infected with HIV or any other STD with another person without that person being given prior information of that infection;

(iii) Economic abuse, namely the deprivation or threatened deprivation of economic or financial resources which a person is entitled to by law, the disposition or threatened disposition of moveable or immoveable property in which another person has a material interest and hiding or hindering the use of property or damaging or destroying property in which another person has a material interest; and

(iv) emotional, verbal or psychological abuse namely any conduct that makes another person feel constantly unhappy, miserable, humiliated, ridiculed, afraid, jittery or depressed or to feel inadequate or worthless.

This bill is asking that anybody found guilty of this offences is to be fined 500 penalty points or two years imprisonment or both. The offender is also to be banned from within 50 metres of the victim. So let's say I get home one night and I want sex and my wife says no, I am supposed to sleep or take a cold shower because I am not expected to commit adultery and if I do and I am caught it leads to divorce. If, however, I dont sleep, and because the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent taketh it by force, so I take it by force, I am to pay 500 penalty points at 50,000 cedis a point which is about 820 naira or spend two years in jail or pay the penalty points and still go to jail.

The bill is asking that when I come home and there is no food I am not supposed to raise my voice at my cook and ask for food. The bill is asking that when my wife spends 6 hours in a beauty salon I cant order her not to do that again because it will constitute verbal abuse. The bill is asking that if I have a quarrel with my wife I am to be arrested because I am not giving her rest. The bill is asking that i cannot tell my son to stop being stupid. It is asking that I cannot spank my daughter for some childish foolery in order to correct her. And this is just part 1 paragraph B. I am a Nigerian living in Ghana and obviously I will have a girlfriend who is Ghanaian. So any attempt for me to tell my girlfriend who has caused me so much grief to get out of my house is defined as domestic violence for which I get two years imprinsoment or a fine or both. Nigerians what do you think?

Seun, are you seriously going to pay someone $300 per month to run this site? Cant believe you are serious. Where will you get the money from? Does this site generate any kind of income for you? I contend that whoever should run it should do it for free. Now if Nairaland wants their site administrator to get paid, it is a beautiful thought. But first things first, let's make the site a subscription based forum. Nothing fancy. Just enough so we can pay the administrator $300 per month and renew the site's licence when it expires and maintain our servers.

Now if we don't want to pay for that, I believe the administrator can forget about getting paid.

Seun, you've done a good job and everybody who works this hard deserves a break. However, I suggest that when you do get a replacement, you keep him as an assistant for say 3 months, kind of grrom him. I am not a prophet of doom, however, if you do not take the neccessary precautionary measures this move could see your entire efforts fall apart. Some of us are in too deep on this site that it will be a shame to see that happen. Just my 2 cents. Take it easy now.

Any proof?

@Goodguy, to answer your question, I do not believe in god, any god for that matter. And like Nferyn asked you, what is the relevance of that?

@myname, so you know men who cannot be satisfied no matter what you do to and for them? Fair enough. Stop for one second and ask yourself if those things you are doing are being done the way they like them done and whether it is what they want done to them at that moment.

All friend of mine took me up on my coffee example and I wish to state here that it is possible to take that example out of context. Now here is what I meant. I have a house help and I can command her at all points to do my bidding while she is still my house help that is. If she decides to leave my employ, that is besides the point. The point is that while she is still in my employ, she will only do my bidding. Now if she decides to leave as a result of my "commanding her" that is one of the liens. Which means that she did not have free will while she was in my employ. As long as she is under my roof as my house help she does my bidding without question. Now that is not free will.

Quite an interesting debate. First for us to able to accurately determine whether God gave man "Freewill" we have to determine two things. Firstly, we have to determine whether there is a God and secondly whether this God created man and by extension, whether he has to ability to bequeath anything at all on man let alone free will. @Shredbaron you contend and I quote, that

I think there is a lot of evidence to support the fact that God gave man free will. One obvious one is Him putting a tree of which fruit man was never to eat in the garden of eden. This gave man the option to do so at any time if he should choose to. This was at the very beginning of time. Why, if he already knew how this will end? Where it starts getting dicey for me is the all knowing concept that people keep throwing around. To what extent is that the case?

Brings me back to my first question: IS there a God? If there is, what is the evidence that he created a garden and put man into it? Where was the geographical location of the garden of eden? What evidence exists that such a garden existed? The Bible in Genesis Chapter 3: 11. says and I quote

God asked, "Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat fruit from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?

Genesis Chapter 3: 14

The lord God said to the serpant, because you have done this, a curse will be placed on you........

Genesis Chapter 3: 21

The lord God said: The man has become like one of us, he knows Good and evil. We must keep him from eating of the tree of light so that he will not live forever

(All scripture quoted here is for reference purposes and serves only the purposes of this debate and are taken from the Everyday study edition of the bible).

This does not seem to me like a god who knew before hand that the serpant will tempt the woman who will in turn convince her husband to eat of the fruit let alone one who had foreknowledge that man will fall to that temptation.

On the other part, you do not command somebody who has free will. You ask the person. For instance, if I want my colleague at work to get me a cup of coffee, I ask him and quite nicely. I will say to him knowing that he could refuse "Fred, could you please get me a cup of coffee?" To which he can either say yes or no. That, is someone with free will. But when I want to ask my househelp to do just the same thing for me I will tell her in no uncertain terms infact, I will command her to "go bring me a cup of coffee". Now that doesn't seem like free will. Free comes "without liens or encumberances" without fear of reprisals or sanctions. Now if my house help refuses to give me my coffee, I might decide to cut down her salary but in the case of my colleague, if he refuses, I will take it in stride and look for alternatives. Now, if God gave Adam free will to decide what he wants to do as and at when he wants to there will be no liens attached to it. Am I making sense?

It seems to me, that God does not have free will to give and as such could not have given it. There are several logical examples that can be given regarding this issue. If it was his to give, he would have given it to Adam, his first human creation.

@Shredbaron, Joseph McCabe, a 20th century author on Atheism, Atheism is the absense of belief in a god of whatever nature and of whatever name so called. Chapman Cohen, the president of Britain's National Secular Society defined it as below:

If one believes in a god, then one is a Theist. If one does not believe in a god, then one is an A-theist -- he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely, exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God

.

To expand this debate a little, I am going to give you Flint's definition of Atheism. By the way, Robert Flint is an adent defender of theism. Here is his declaration regarding Atheism

The atheist is not necessarily a man who says, There is no God. What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds.... [E]very man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God.

Flint concludes that

The word atheist is a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less

Which leads me to the issue of the burden of proof. As an unbeliever in any god or gods, I believe that the onus of proof lies on the person making the allegation to come forward with the said proof to substantiate his or her claims. In this, therefore, I am totally in concurrence with Annie Besant who defined atheism as without God. Here it is in her own words

If my interlocutor desires to convince me that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence in support of his contention. The burden of proof evidently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God's existence to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden of proof lies on him.

@Baronesshreder, there is no point debating with you. And if there is anyone here with a bloated ego, I think it would be you. As to the matter at hand, it is obviously out of your depths. As to your rejoinder about me not flattering myself by your choice of screen name, very funny, I am sure I have many more things to flatter myself about than your screen name. Have a nice day

@Shredbaron, you are correct in your assumptions regarding me and my post. This point is that I am truely confused. So let's start from your explanations.

Genesis 1:14-15 Then God said, let there be lights IN THE SKY to separate day from night. These lights will be for signs, seasons, days, and years. they will be in the sky to give light to the earth. And it happened. (Everyday Study Edition).

And here is how you explain it

So as you can see there was night and day from day one. On the fourth day, improvements galore! Let's now place the light (which is already separating day from night) in the sky above the earth to shine down on it for illumination. Let them also (in addition to telling night from day) be signs for seasons, years etc.  No contradiction here!

Are you making sense to yourself? According to your acceptances, God created the sun and the moon on the first day to separate day from night (Genesis 1: 4-5). God named the light day and the darkness night. Which means that from the very first day there was already night and day. Evenly divided by God as he saw fit. Now as a rational thinking female, let me ask you a very simple question: Since darkness was already separated from light thereby creating day and night on the very first day, what was the essence of repeating the experiment on the 4th day? The biblical account represented in Genesis 1:14 states specifically that God commanded Lights to appear in Heaven (Your own version of the bible) to separate day from night and to be used as a landmark for identifying the seasons. Day and Night were already separated. Now what other lights do you know about that identifies seasons?

By the way, you used the Everyday study edition of the bible as your point of reference. Genesis 1:14-15 of that edition did not say

Let's now place the light (which is already separating day from night) in the sky above the earth

. It says

Then God said: Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night........

. Nowhere in that account did God command that light be "placed", that would have meant that the said lights were already in existence and only needed a place to be placed. I suggest you either go back to your bible classes or get your pastor to explain. In the absense of this, kindly ask your parents to put you back in Elementary school or get reading glasses.

You claim that it took God 7 days of planning and modification to finish the earth? I humbly submit that you have never read the bible not once in your entire life. There is no single paragraph in the account of the "Creation" where it says anything was modified from what it originally was or do I need to define Modification to you as well?

Take you for instance, it must have taken you a while to write this exceedingly long article on biblical contradictions. You probably hammered out the bare bones first, then made amendments as it would appear, it did God.

. Reading is obviously not one of your stronger points. Go back to the initial article and READ it. All I did was quote passages of the bible that did not make sense. Now those passages are self explanatory and sufficient in themselves not to be taken in conjunction with any other passage (s)

Now, before you start throwing a lot of words beginning with OMNI- at me, imagine the following: You are playing toy soldiers or writing a screen play, you set the stage, the boundaries, the works. You know who dies and who wins. You may have changed the scenes/characters a few times but in the end it's your world. You are all the OMANI-S there are. BUT TO WHAT EXTENT?  You decide.

. You and I who is getting confused here? Let us take your toy soldier example: I happen to be a programmer as well so I understand where you are coming from but the basic difference as relates to God is as follows: My green toy soldier I have already decided would be the bad guy who will be slaughtered at the end of the day and the white one is the one I have decided will carry the day, Now let us take this assumption further and say that I have control of the joystick being the controlling force of this green guy but I do not take him anywhere close to the yellow line so he continues fighting the white guy and I know for a fact that his end is doomed and he will certainly die and he does certainly die as i originally intended him to.

Let us bring this closer home and apply it to God. So he knows exactly what he is doing and knows the ones who will perish and the ones who will survive, what wickedness, my dear, is that? Is this the kind of God your religion teaches you exists. What is the essence of creating a guy whose fate is He knows to be destruction? Let us say that in my game I create a line and in a specific line of my code, I state that the Green guy will become one of the good guys when and if he crosses the yellow line, however, I have already programed him never to go near the yellow line not to talk of crossing it, does this describe your God and the said Garden of Eden?

Question- Was he waiting to see if Adam or Eve will be curious enough to disobey Him or was it just a matter of time that someone comes along and parttake of the forbidden fruit?

. This is a God who is all knowing, which means that before he created Adam, he already knew what they will do and when they will do it, if he knew all this and he knew the serpent will tempt them into eating it, the question now will be: Why did he leave the tree there? Free will and choice, I hear you say, if this were to be correct, then does it not negate the theory of his omni-potence? Do you guys actually think about these things before you swallow them hook, line and sinker?

Eitherway free will does not work without such alternatives.  Take present day events for instance, particularly a case sighted in yet another one of your long articles: A kid is frustrated enough to pick up a gun, go to his school and start shooting. He had free will he decides to point the gun and shoot at somebody. When he does so the person will die. As Innocent as he/she is. No sudden intervention on behave of the Innocent. Our actions/choices have consequences some very ugly. Hopefully others may learn from this.

. Rubbish, in that article, this woman was praying to God believing as Jesus had promised her that if she prays God will answer and the said Jesus according to your beliefs was right at that moment, sitting at the right side of God. Why didn't God send a meteor to strick down the young man and save this saintly woman and ten of her pupils from certain death? Or does your God answer your prayers only when it suits him?

Your thinking is totally inconsistent with your believes. An Oxymoron you say? Read your post again and tell me whether you were lucid at the time of writting or not. By the way, what sort of a name is "Shredbaron"? Someday soon there would be "Shrednferyn". Christians!!!

@Nferyn, thank you for answering this person from Uyo. You said it in a much better way than I could have. What the original post is about is to prove that God as portrayed by Revealed Religion does not and cannot exist. However, people will not look beyond their myopic ways of reasoning to examine facts and juxtapose them with the realities of life before rushing into premature conclusions. Once again, thank you for replying the lady in such elegant fashion.

@Kodewrita, nice, very nice CV you have. So my post was based on mathematical inconsistencies? Very well. Would you mind quoting the mathematical laws with which my observations are inconsistent?

So you passed cambridge A level Physics? Congratulations. Kindly apply it to the original post with a view of making meaning out of it or otherwise. So all you did is A level physics. Let me tell you a little secret of life, A level physics is the most basic, strike that, it is the basic introduction to quantum physics and to make sense out of what I first posted, you need, my dear brother, much much more than an introduction to quantum physics as represented by A level physics. You need, as a matter of fact, knowledge and exposure to a much higher level of physics to do so. Please note that this level is not attained by subscribing to science magazines.

Time is independent of earth's planetary revolution

. Agreed, but how do you measure time? You obviously are not conversant with the laws of physics. Time is calculated by the revolution of the earth around the sun which occurs on a 24 hourly basis. I suggest you subscribe to more magazins to ascertain this fact. But come to think of it, the fact that you dont know this up until now tells me either of two things. (1) you never entered a physics class of whatever level, or (2) Somebody wrote the exams for you.

@Nferyn, I do not see what you are apologising for. You responded to a post by Kodewrita and made your assumptions based on the facts available to you. That is not starting off on a wrong foot. That is objective criticism based on available facts from his post.

@Kodewrita, I bet I have a better Job than you. But I understand what you mean when you say

(not everyone is jobless enough to sit in front of a pc when you can be doing serious work.)

. I agree with you completely, when you are doing menial jobs, I agree your job description may not leave you enough time to do any other thing. But when you run your own gig like I do and when the said gig is established enough that you are able to delegate authority and concentrate on the overall well being of the business as is my case as a Chief executive of a very successful medium sized business, then you have enough time to indulge your passions.

Exactly.

@Goodguy, I think it will lead to a better quality debate as against an arguement. Dont you think?

@Z4M4eva, nobody said Myke had anything to do with it. All I said was that since you dont have any facts supporting your arguement you should concentrate on loving Myke as your byline says. Maybe you will do better in that department.

@Goodguy, I cant believe a guy of your intellect will send me on this sort of wild goose chase. Have you realised that everything contained in that thread is gibberish, conjectures and wishful thinking. As someone asked LadyC in that thread: Are you into science fiction? Because there is no pronouncement contained in that post that has anything to do with the biblical passages quoted to support them.