Fekwa:
I am not saying the thesis of Darwinian evolution is wrong. I accept the claim that species evolve, albeit through a long period of time with gradual changes during this time period. I think that Darwinian evolution is incomplete on the subject of "human evolution." I think that on the issue of human emergence on earth, creationists and Darwinian evolutionist have it wrong. I believe that at a certain point in history, aliens manipulated the genes of Homo-Erectus and Homo-Neanderthals, did some mixing and hence humans were created. This makes a lot of sense when you compare the skeletons and fossils of Homo-erectus which mainstream science tells us we evolved from and recognize the massive transformational changes that couldn't possibly have occurred through evolution and definitely not during such space of time. It also makes sense when you compare our level of cognitive intelligence and spiritual awareness with that of every other animal. The difference is patently obvious.

I also believe that the hominoids - the likes of Big foot, the abominable snowman and the Olma are the evolved forms of the homo erectus and Neanderthals and this belief is grounded in a lot of evidence.

You are just believing this and believing that. Unfortunately, science and evolutionary processes do not rely on beliefs.

Can you point to any scientific theory that postulates the existence of Aliens?

Stop believing and start knowing science by reading it clearly.

Darwinian evolution may be silent on human evolution because at that time the concept was new. But now, it has been extended and many progress has been made. I suggest you read more about evolution before you start giving us hints on your baseless and factless beliefs.

Thank you.

mhizesther:





U say what?

Witches and Wizards, of course.

lovingJehovah:
I guess scientists would understand better. My point is, to what extent does Science agree with the Bible?
I never asked you such a question in the emboldened below. Read our conversation again. I only asked you if you read the article before commenting, that's all.

Oga I have read your article and there's no trying to hide behind it.

You didn't simply ask to what extent science agrees with science, you cherry picked what favors the bible in science, I and Martinez just came up with the facts you ignored.


If hide and seek is what you want to keep playing, then in Martinez's voice, carry your wahala and go.

lovingJehovah:
That is why I asked if you read the article before commenting. It says, "does science agree with..." not if the Bible agrees with...
We are not talking about scientific Theses, we are talking about scientific facts compared to the Bible's message.

The topic of the thread is "Does science agree with the bible?"

You're totally asking if the scientific thesis agrees with the Bible. And I said NO. What are you defending against?

Scientific facts are born out of scientific thesis. You got no point of note.

And the scientific facts also do not still agree with the Bible.

lovingJehovah:
We are not going into scientific theses. Did you read the article before commenting?

How do you want to talk about science without going into its thesis?

If the Bible does not agree with scientific thesis, then your post is shambles

Fourth of all, There is nothing like an eternity in science. And nobody created the universe by just commanding it to happen.

Third of all, science does not believe there are souls and spirits.

Second of all, science does not agree that a person can be born without the genetic composition of a father.

Why on earth am I still following this thread of witches and wizards

Organs:



If only you knew how many Christians are converting to Islam in the west, boy or boy. Pls use google, educate yourself my chairman. Also, note this is not Islam Vs Christianity, nope, or oya lets see who will win, Nope its not about that, but its a fact the Monotheistic nature of islam, the belief in one God and that one God only and orientating yourself, your being everything to nothing but that one God only is so practical and straightforward that it is attracting so many people to the faith. Do yourself a favour like people in the west do, stop learning Islam from what people say por what you see some muslims do, rather learn, do research have an objective mindset and see how you will become enlightened. Good luck.

I have to advise you to conduct a research too particularly on monotheistic religions. Google is your friend too or is it your enemy?

OkaiCorne:


I said total chaos because you implied life started by accident with zero intelligence or planning involved sir

But this does not mean total chaos. I already told you it's a RANDOM process which means it can be orderly or disorderly and it can be both.

OkaiCorne:


Please be a bit more patient with me sir. I am the type of student that reads and ask a lot of questions... I can understand if you are past your tolerance point

Is it right to conclude that the world is not in order based on exceptions (natural disasters) rather than the norm?

The world also has a lot of places with stability and order ... why conclude based on exceptions?

If we look at things on a large Scale, is the Universe in order (programmed and planned) or in Total Chaos?

Order can be said to be when there is zero disorder. Do you agree?

But there is a reasonable amount of disorder, so the best explanation is to say there is order and disorder. Do you agree again?

Now. this order and disorder are due to a property call ENTROPY.

ENTROPY is the degree of disorderliness in the universe. It is called energy death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Cosmology

Ignore the scientific Jargons at the beginning and skip to cosmology part, you will see something useful there.

In summary, entropy increases and disorder increases.
There is order, I agree but there is disorder. Again, energy is responsible.

You are not being sincere in the comment I bolded above in your posts. You said total chaos and didn't say total order. That's not honest where this discussion is concerned.

OkaiCorne:


I still can't establish a logical connection on how energy is solely responsible for Consciousness and Intelligence.

Is it possible for a Creator (Energy) to create what it does not have? especially the direct opposite? (I don't mean God creating Devil o)

Does Science and Logic support this?

It is because you have not been taught science. There is advance science and there is basic science. That is why I have argued it in the past that science shouldn't be a choice. It should be taught to everybody, every child in school. Whether you're going for arts or administration.

You can see the dilemma here. The logical connection is in advance science. Like deep physics, biochemistry, biology and chemistry.

Yes science and logic support the creation of something out of nothing! Scientific logic has proved it many times.

For example, there are concepts called entropy and enthalpy. The world is actually not in order. That is why we do have natural disasters and other bad things happening around. We will have to talk about molecules, matter. We will have to talk about bond and bonding energies. We will have to touch science in depths.

I said we cannot get there today not in the nexy year because you don't have the background to absorb these things.

OkaiCorne:


I respect your patience sir, please can I explain why I don't agree?

Go ahead.

OkaiCorne:


In summary you are saying life was created by accident and coincidence with zero planning and intelligence involved in the process?

Exactly sir, that is what I am implying. But it goes deeper than this. We have to talk about the electrostatic, biochemical, chemical and biological interactions. I doubt we can really get there today.

OkaiCorne:


Where does consciousness and intelligence come from? Can energy give what it does not have?

Creation is not giving what you have out. Or is that what it means to you?

Energy did not make anything in its own image, it just caused things to happen randomly. Whether it'll be conscious or not is not its problem nor his decision. It's a random process.

No intelligent thing will create this world the way it was or is. It would have been better than it was if it was created by an intelligent being.

OkaiCorne:


Care to share any example of Energy (with zero intelligence and consciousness) creating a Conscious and Intelligent life form?

You are a perfect example of a conscious and intelligent life form created by the universal energy.

You agreed on all the properties of energy.

I believe you understood the unconscious and unintelligent properties of energy is for energy alone and not necessarily it's creations.

When we agree on this, then we can move to the properties of its creations.

OkaiCorne:


Dear Graycoder, I bolded the part where you misunderstood me...

But if I might ask...what makes Unconscious energy Spontaneous?

Consciousness is the opposite of Spontaneous and ...can Spontaneous and Unintelligent Energy create something Conscious and Intelligent?

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=spontaneity&oq=spontainei&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.7586j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#dobs=spontaneous

I think you are making a breakthrough here Graycoder

Just help me clarify if something can be spontaneous (act on its own) without any iota of Intelligence to Create the Universe.

Thank you sir.

With all due respect sir, the opposite of spontaneous is not conscious in this context. In this context the opposite is "Planning".

Besides, I did not say the energy is conscious. I said it is unconscious which means I am still correct on the basis of consciousness.

See, if consciousness is the opposite of spontaneity, so energy cannot be conscious because it is spontaneous. Then we are still right. We are not saying energy is conscious, we are saying it is unconscious.


Yes, spontaneous and unintelligent energy can create something conscious and intelligent as well as something unconscious and unintelligent.

OkaiCorne:




Graycoder;

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed ....I agree
Energy is spontaneous (acts on its own) ....I agree
Energy is not conscious nor intelligent ... I agree
Energy can be converted from one form to another ...I agree

After all I have stated above...how is Unconscious and Unintelligent Energy solely responsible for creation of Conscious and Intelligent life forms and intelligence or consciousness is not involved in the process What makes energy act? nothing?

Can energy just stand up on its own and create things

If you read what Akin1212 typed...he stated Energy (alone) is what we perceive as God that we worship...

Am I wrong is stating (Intellect + Consciousness +Energy) = Eternal Creator

Please help me on this

If you agree on what I have bolded in your comment above. Then with all due respect sir, there's no point in further discussions.

You agreed that energy is spontaneous? This means energy does not need anybody to use it before it creates something.

You agreed energy cannot be created or destroyed? That means energy is Eternal, it can exist forever.

You agreed energy is not conscious or unintelligent? That means it doesn't know itself as energy and cannot make decisions on what's wrong or right when it creates things.

You agreed that energy can be converted from one form to another? That means no matter what form it exist, it is still energy and we have many forms of it.



So sir, in light of all your agreements above. You have ultimately agreed that spontaneous Energy is enough to create something by itself, and that this energy which cannot be created nor destroyed is eternal, and that this energy is unintelligent and not conscious and cannot as a result make decisions on what is wrong or right when it creates, and that this energy has many forms.


May I ask? Why are you then arguing and going back & forth? You already agreed to everything Akin has been saying.

OkaiCorne:


Thanks for your patience Graycoder...can I make reference to where I think I misunderstood Akin? And perhaps you can straighten things out.

Please go ahead sir

OkaiCorne:


Haba nau... I just brought out all the types of energy I could lay my hands on...is there any type that can solely create things with no input of intellect or consciousness?

This goes beyond proving Akin1212 wrong. I really want to understand how unconscious energy alone is responsible for conscious life.

That way...Akin1212 would have solved one major problem causing atheists and theists in quarreling. Hopefully this thread would be a reference which will pass the message across more clearly.

WHAT I WOULD FIND MORE FULFILLING IN PROVING AKIN1212 WRONG IS LEARNING HOW THIS UNCONSCIOUS ENERGY CAN CREATE CONSCIOUS LIFE ALONE

I disagree with you sir. Based on what happened here yesterday, I have seen things exactly the way they are. You are a doubter of science despite that you have seen what it can do. I don't know if you are doing that deliberately but that does not speak well of you sir. You see facts clearly and you say otherwise. You actually stressed me much yesterday, after telling you that we cannot NORMALLY see what other animals see and vice versa, and that science has invented instruments that we can use to do that now. You still wetn ahead to bring some links that says we cannot see what other animals see. What is the difference? You see, that is so frustrating and uncharacteristic of intelligent discussions.

Now to the Energy part. I want to assume Akin has told you that energy can be interconverted.

All the FORMS of energy you listed are still ENERGY. They can be interconverted according to what they are needed for.

For example, Electrical energy can be converted to Heat energy for cooking.

Those forms of energy are all ONE, they are the same.

Saying which type of energy is SOLELY responsible is actually barbaric(Please don't see this as an insult). I don't know how I can make you understand this. I wish we were not doing this online. You could have understood better.

I didn't expect you guys to drag this too long to this stage. I guess the inabilty to understand each other is really the reason. Okaicorne is not ready to learn what he does not know, he is however ready to question what he does not know, by deliberately not paying attention.

Akin, on the other hand, is not a very patient person. You don't insult someone who is not scientifically oriented when you're supposed to explain some things to him.

Well, I will watch on anyway and contribute when I need to

Akin1212:


I'm really glad to know that you want to learn, but which of those energy listed do you know anything about?

It's even good that you have started browsing for links again, I'm sure you will soon find the truth now.

But please, answer my questions above on where we stand now. I have been able to thrash with viable evidence that your claims(the parallel universe and planes of existence) are false. So the former is a fiction and the latter is religious and unreal. Are we on the same page?

I want to answer your questions once and for all, but these impediments won't let me. Let me know if we are on the same page.

I will reveal secrets about energy and teach you about all the listed energies.

I must commend you sir, you're really doing a nice job here. Your patience is heroic although mixed with insults.

OkaiCorne:


You are not on the same page with them if the human eye alone is concerned.
You are on the same page with them where you mentioned how scientific tools can help the humans see what cannot be seen with the naked eye...

Please ride on..so we do not derail from the point you are trying to make. I AM WAITING

Meanwhile is there anyone that can explain the logic on the possibility of life existing without a conscious and or intelligent creator?

Akin1212:


Have you married bro? You are a very cunny person. To be honest I cannot deal with you in real life.

The vets said pets(dogs and cats) can see what humans can't see. Graycoder already said this even before you brought the link. He explained with radiations. He, however, told you the instruments that science has developed to see in the radiations these pets use to see.

Why do you find that very hard to understand? It simply means Graycoder agrees with the Vets, but he went further to tell you the developments that have made it possible for humans to also see through these radiations. But to own one, you must order or buy it. I remember he even asked you to order for one.

Please for once, be sincere with yourself.

I have work tomorrow, I have to leave you two to it. I cannot continue this discussion, it's not benefitting me. Goodnight guys.

OkaiCorne:


Calm down... tell me how I am insincere by speaking what is on my mind exactly? I am only making it clear that you are right within the current limitations of Science.

Can you be right or wrong on what Science has not discovered? NO!

You were trying to make a point about animals not having an advantage over Humans in terms of sense. Please continue

You have maintained that I am saying a different thing from what the vets said.

So you knew all along that I was on the same page with them, but you chose to argue that we have conflicts of opinions.

I am sorry, I don't argue this way. I am here to learn from you which you must also do from me. If we start using false claims, we will not get anywhere.

I also told you science is unlimited, if science is limited, then why has it not reached its limits? You cannot say something that has not reached its limits is limited.

You said fresh things are being discovered everyday, if something will discover a fresh thing tomorrow, does it seem limited to you?

OkaiCorne:


Let me summarize what the Vet doctors concluded and Graycoder's conclusion. Kindly point out where I missed a step.
You are the expert not me...

Let's read go through this Slowly

http://www.petmd.com/news/health-science/what-cats-and-dogs-can-see-humans-cant-you-wont-believe-it-31380

The topic of the article states What Cats and Dogs Can See that Humans Can’t: You Won’t Believe it!

Have you ever felt that your cat or dog can see something you don’t? Well, you may be right, according to a new study.

What purpose does being able to see UV light serve for animals such as reindeer, rodents, and other mammals? It allows reindeer to see polar bears, for example, which are nearly invisible in regular light because they blend in with the snow.

UV light also allows mammals to see urine trails. This would be helpful for predator animals, such as cats and dogs, to find food in the wild.


Graycoder rightly countered me by stating the fact that Science has invented tools that can help humans see this too. I don't have a problem with that.

I asked that given the way Science is making fresh discoveries...how are we sure the details of today are complete and further inventions be made to enable Humans see what the current implements can't do?

For example...has Science invented anything to help man see DARK MATTER?

What is your point of argument sir? You first asked what makes me right and what makes the vets wrong. But now in your posts above, you said you don't have a problem with my conclusion. Then why the first question in the first place when you know that the vets are right and I am also right? When you know that I corroborated what the vets said and I also told you about the improvements in science that has made these possible?

I must confess to you sir, I really don't like how you develop your points, it is very insincere. I don't really think we should go further because I have started seeing traits that would frustrate me here. Good day sir.

OkaiCorne:


No ideology on Earth has a monopoly over complete knowledge (FULLY GROWN MAN), which means Science is a growing (if its a toddler, or teenager...I leave you to judge)

You are just echoing what I am saying sir, I have mentioned before that every ideology is growing. But you insisted on science as if there is anyone which is fully grown. But now that you have agreed that all ideologies are just growing, then we can agree that we have a common ground now, sir?

Akin1212:


The problem I am still having with you is that you will see the truth and you will deliberately manipulate it. In all honesty, you are not a truth seeker.

Graycoder and those Vets are correctly on the same page. His message is up there you can still scroll to it and read again, but digest it this time around. Graycoder admitted that dogs and cats see differently from humans because of different radiations. He even listed the radiations for you. But you don't read what people post, do you?

He said, science came in by studying these animals and how they see, and scientists have been able to create instruments that sees in the same radiations as those animals.

Please, what is hard in understanding this? You are really making things hard for yourself. What's wrong with your comprehension? I want to believe you are deliberately doing this to gain grounds, else it's really a big problem o

Exactly, you're on point sir.

OkaiCorne:


What make you think I have no interest in Science? For example, I study stuffs on the Universe in my leisure time...that does not qualify as an interest in Science?

Do you understand me when I said Science is a GROWING BODY of knowledge? Can you compare a growing teenager with a full grown man?

Science is limited to what it can discover as at now? Anything beyond Science remains a MYSTERY to Scientists

Science is bigger than what you think. It is beyond biology and chemistry or physics.

I still maintain that all bodies are growing. Okay from your example, which is the young man and which is the fully grown man? Just tell me this one

OkaiCorne:


Are you saying science is not a limited body of knowledge? if yes...why are fresh discoveries made each day to update an existing body of knowledge?

For the records, I have nothing against Science...but I just want to point out that Science has not discovered everything there is to discover...hence it is a limited body of knowledge. You can only be right within the Scope of Science if you rely on Science ALONE

Science discovering fresh things everyday is the main reason it's not limited. If science is limited, it would have stopped discovering things. That's the limitation there. But it kept going, showing the world that it is unlimited. Do you get my point?

Limitation is when something cannot go beyond what it is, but tell me sincerely from all indications, does it seem so? Capital NO.

You may have nothing against science, but the truth is you have no interest in science, you don't believe fully in it also. That is clearly seen.

OkaiCorne:


Please be patient with me, I am a student who is very inquisitive. FOR THE RECORDS, I AM NOT ASKING YOU QUESTIONS TO PROVE YOU WRONG

If you agree with me, Science is still a growing body of knowledge which does not have the right answers to all questions.
Even what has been discovered by Science still generates different opinions among you Scientists.

The Instruments that Science has developed currently has the capacity to see everything? How are we not sure there would be an advanced instrument that would see more than what current Instruments can see?

YOU CAN ONLY BE RIGHT WITHIN THE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OBTAINED FROM SCIENCE ALONE.

If Akin1212 thinks he can ridicule the Bible or other Holy Books Theists believe in...I can do even worse than that. I can give countless reasons that would make a Theist doubt the existence of God.

NOW DO YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHY I HAVE PLAYED WITH Akin1212 all these days?

We are all students, and we learn everyday. Science is an ideology and everybody don't need to accept it. Nobody is being forced

But everybody not accepting science is barbaric. If anybody uses the amenities science has been able to spring up, like internet, electricity, phones, electronics etc. and you still don't accept its logic then the person is STUPID, really stupid.

Now I will not agree with you on the statement you made that science is a growing body, why? Here is why, every ideology is growing, speaking of religion, philosophy, Science etc. No ideology can be pointed to that is not growing. For instance, in the days of old in religion, people don't go into trance. But these days trance is the concept. Tomorrow we don't know what the new concept would be. So Idon't agree based on the fact that you mentioned science alone, all ideologies are growing is more appropriate.

On the answer to all questions, I saw Akin told you something 3 days ago that science does answer everything. Let me put it better.

Nothing can answer everything, do you agree? For example, if I ask you that since everything must be created, then who created the eternal creator? You will definitely find one answer for me, but I will not accept it.

If you ask me a question also, and I give you an answer, you will also not accept it. So you cannot be answered, I also cannot be answered. So nothing answers everything. That's how life is.
Science doesn't, Religion doesn't, nothing does.
The mistake Akin made was trying to relate scientifically with someone who doesn't accept science.

And we don't use opinions to reach conclusions in science. Every scientific work must be backed up by hypothesis, theories and facts. Where we disagree is when these premises are wrong. Some people go wrong and others correct them, We don't call that disagreement based on opinions, we don't.

On the instruments, I never did tell you that the instruments created to see in other radiations can see everything. Please don't misquote me. I said the instruments can see what other animals can see. Don't conclude out of point. Please.

The knowledge in science is not limited. Please don't commit fallacy. I really don't want to know what's between you and Akin, it would just be wise to stop dragging issues long. That's all.

Akin1212:


I know, but how can you explain something as big as science to someone who translates what you say as opposite for his own gains?

I can't even imagine this guy still asked if you can see through a dog's or cat's eyes after you explained that there are instruments meant for doing that. I don't have such patience to condone visible ignorance. If someone does not know and he doesn't know that, it's pardonable. But if someone does not know but knows that and still will not admit that he does not know, then it becomes a great sin against knowledge.

I can understand, but still if they still don't know, you still have to explain or better still leave them the way they are. I wouldn't have dragged the matter far if I were you.