₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
over 6000yrs since modern man appeared on earth . . . we have still NO EVIDENCE of mutations leading to species evolution. Why?

For every positive mutation there are thousands others that would have made survival inconducive for life . . . if selective pressure was enough to evolve new species . . . why have we not seen it occur? Why can man acclimatize to varying degrees of environmental conditions without the need to evolve? Do Africans need to evolve narrower noses to live in Antarctica?

davidylan:
I cannot also but despair at the crass ignorance, propensity for over-generalisation, blind hatred of christianity and mass delusion of the class of atheists who seek to push the anti-religion agenda solely for their own selfish benefit.

Horus, the one who claimed Darwin was racist, is not a christian AT ALL. He has made that clear from day one on this board and has 99% of the time sided with atheists against christianity. Horus it was who accused christians here of worshipping the sun god for christmas . . .

It is not surprising to see huxley make such an elementary error . . . as far as he is concerned everyone on earth is a christian.

davidylan:
Questions:
1. How long did it take the simple fly to evolve?
2. If we already had a fully formed fly as old as 15 million yrs ago . . . why did it not evolve again?

davidylan:
Do not bug Huxley down with facts . . . he doesnt care. Allow him to spew his anti-christianity jargon . . . listening to him you'd be tempted to think he is truly a scientist . . . that he doesnt know such elementary facts is testament to his illiteracy. they just copy paste what they see from atheist webpages.

Below are fossilized amber remains of a fly and mite found in northern Peru . . . they are estimated to be about 12-15 million yrs old. Why did they fail to evolve?

https://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j82/davidylan/fly.jpg https://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j82/davidylan/mite.jpg

Finally:
U can justify whatever u deem fit. Dont bug me one bit.


Darwin's theory relied heavily on fossil records. His theory would be true if there were found transitional (or what Darwin called intermediate forms) littered all  over the history. His theory would hold more credence if there was also a time differential in the appearance of these life forms on earth. Darwin stated that life forms started from the simple to the complex , meaning that there has to be a progressive gradation (from simple to complex) during evolution.

Well, recent fossil discoveries are not compatible with these claims.  Transitional life forms is now a mirage. A 250 million yr old fossilized dragon fly looks exactly the same like ur modern day dragon fly. Recently , an ant found in fossils over 100 million yr old looks exactly the same when compared with an ant living on modern day earth. If Darwin was right, a dragon fly would have morphed into something else or at least made some striking morphological and phenotypical changes over a period of a million years.

The shark is particularly interesting. Not only does  the fossil records bear a striking resemblance to the sharks that we have now but they have an uncanny ability to renew their teeth. In the tree of life, no ancestors of the shark were found to have that attribute. It just suddenly appeared. That is so contrary to Darwin's theory where there has to be a transitional state. Even Jean Lamarck's theory of use and disuse cant be used to explain that.

Finally, about the time differential thingy. If Darwin was right, U would predict that most simple life forms and complex life forms would not co-exist in the same time frame or at least, fossil records would show that unicellular life forms were on this earth millions of years before multicellular life forms. Well, research from the deep sea have  already come up with fossil records of some star fish whose C12 dating puts its age at about 400 million year old. These starfish have been shown to have all the complexity of a modern star fish and co-existed also with some very simple life forms.

davidylan:
Olwabowale . . . address the flaw first. this islamic attitude of hiding the quran's defficiencies by crying . . . "see here see here!" wont help.

Finally:
I dont know what is the relevance of these questions U have posed to the discourse at hand?  Man to man inhumanity has been around for ages even before Darwin but I think that Horus point is that Man to man inhumanity based solely on race was enhanced by Darwin. That might or might not be true but u pointing out religious strife does nothing to the argument.

Finally:
Darwinism cant even boast to be any better. Matter of fact , there are lot of loopholes in the theory of evolution than the creationist version.

Darwin is a clever and ingenious man. He tried to explain the diversity of species without the luxury of genetics , molecular biology and biochemistry available to the modern day scientist. He based his conclusions just by merely observing. Observation can only get U to a certain point. At some point , U would want to put those observations to the test and Darwinism have not particularly stood up to scientific probe , not to talk of a religious one.

huxley:
You think the bible is very pro-knowledge and pro-wisdom?  How do you explain these verses?


Genesis, 2: 17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it

I Corinthians, 3: 19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God


Colossians, 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy



1 Corinthian 1
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Here is a Christian, Martin Luther, acting on what he had learnt from the bible
Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.  - Martin Luther


Did the bible provide any useful knowledge about how to develop and progress a society?   Did it say anything about medicine, agriculture, human rights,  geology, transpost, etc, etc.   In fact, what it does say about the nature of reality is downright wrong and dangerous, as in:

1)   It says PI = 3

2)   It gives a weird model of breading animals

3)  It says the bat is a bird

4)  It says rabbits chew the cud

5)  On law, it says we can punish the innocent for the crimes or sins of the quilty.

6)  It implies the earth is flat

7)  It implies the world is about 6000 years old.


Which of the above do you accept as biblical truth  and do you think they correlate with present day knowledge about the state of reality?


The Christian who oppose and persecuted Copernicus and Galileo got their inspiration from the bible.  Why?  

Because, the heliocentric worldview they were promoted was at odds with the view that humans and the earth was the sole and main raison-d'etre for god's creation.  Any other view would have marginalised man's importance.  The same reason lies at the heart of the opposition to the Theory of Evolution.


Where do you think the witch-hunters got their inspiration?  Let me help you out:

Exodus 22:18 (King James Version)

18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.


This one verse was probably responsible for the death of millions of people in Christian Europe and America.   It is sad to say that it is still happening across Africa today, thanks to the religious mindset of the people.



I did ask some questions earlier, which have been tactfully ignored by you and your ilk.  Let me re-state them here again;

1)    What is the current accepted view about the age of the earth?

2)    How would one account for the fact that there are no placental mammals native to Australia?

These two questions are important features about the world that need an explanation.  Where would you suggest one goes to seeks answers to such questions?

No2Atheism:
Unfortunately, when it comes to evolution, there is always the archtypical "chicken and egg" problem, i.e. which one came first "the egg or the chicken", now in terms of your so called reference to definition of evolution, let's just same am going a step further by giving you the big picture of what it really means to say you believe in evolution.
Obvious problem is that once of the different stages of evolution is found to be impossible and illogical, then those other stages that come after it simply cannot exist or be logical also.

Different kind of evolution but all which are inevitably related because you cannot have one without the one before it:


1. Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter

2. Stellar and planetary evolution - the origin of stars and planets

3. Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen

4. Organic evolution - origin of life from inanimate matter

5. Macro-evolution - origin of major kinds

6. Micro-evolution - variations with kinds. (i.e. how a dog turns into another dog and how a man turns into another man, )


So you see

, without Cosmic evolution you cannot have Stellar evolution,
, likewise without Stellar evolution you cannot have Chemical Evolution,
, likewise without Chemical Evolution you cannot have Organic Evolution,
, likewise without Organic evolution you cannot have Macro-evolution,
, Likewise without Macro evolution you cannot have micro-evolution.

So you see my dear @huxley, when we talk about evolution it cannot be done in solation of biological evolution alone, it has to be done in context of the different stages of evolution simple because if "the egg does not exist, then how did you get the chicken or also you can say that if the chicken did not exist who then laid the egg."

So unfortunately for atheists discussions about evolution always boil down to the simple question:

1. How and why did the universe come to exist
2. How and why did life start.

Hence since evolutionist have invariably , decided to put God out of the equation, then they have to bear the burden of explaining those two simple questions stated above, thus that is why you cannot simply restrict yourself to mere variations within animals and plants of the same kind and then try to extrapolate that to mean the origin of life.

that aint possible, sorry.

No2Atheism:
@huxley,
1. , unfortunately your comments show that you have ignored the context of my post concerning how Atheism and Evolution have contributed to worst possible genocides known to man ,  yet probably not spoken about in the media (yes i mean the nausating genocide against Native Americans, Africans, Native Australians just to mention a few), hence the time frame context is actually related to recent memory and not to biblical history.

2. , notice that the time frame how Atheism and Evolution contributed to the issue of sufferings of black race was made within the context of the sadistic genocide of the things that Europeans did to Blacks (Native Australians, Native Americans, Africans) during the recent history. I have not referred to other cases of immorality or bad behaviour,

3. The context of the number of black people(Native Australians, Native Americans, Africans) that died  and perished at the hands of the European (under the pride and deception of White Supremacy) can be quantified in 100 millions, comparing that number to what happened during the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide et al makes what was done to black even look more mind bunglingly scandalous and barbaric,

4. I cannot say for 100% certainty whether or not Darwin was a racist or not ,  how recorded history shows that his "hypothesis" obviously contributed to racist policies and actions. Even True Christians are not christians because they have a perfect character, but rather because of the saving grace of Christ.

5.
   a. The scientist in me tells me that Mutation causes loss of information, yet for evolution to even start there must be a gain in information.
   b. How did "something" come from "nothing" we considering the evolution of the universe, yes I know about the Big Bang, still exactly where did the material that "big banged" come from, unless of course evolution now says there was never a beginning to start with.  
   c. At the beginning of evolution of life (whether you choose to start on planet earth or planet Krypton), however exactly did non-living material become a living material,   considering that we have a little problem known as "irreducible complexity"

6. I would henceforth stop responding to you ,  since i have noticed that you have resorted to name calling, cheap shots and insults ,  (something common with anybody who can no longer communicate a point in a civil and logical manner)

@toneyb
     

Horus:
[size=18pt]Charles Darwin's Racism[/size]

One of the most important yet least-known aspects of Darwin is his racism: Darwin regarded white Europeans as more "advanced" than other human races. While Darwin presumed that man evolved from ape-like creatures, he surmised that some races developed more than others and that the latter still bore simian features. In his book, The Descent of Man, which he published after The Origin of Species, he boldly commented on "the greater differences between men of distinct races".1 In his book, Darwin held blacks and Australian Aborigines to be equal to gorillas and then inferred that these would be "done away with" by the "civilised races" in time. He said:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes,  will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.2 
Darwin's nonsensical ideas were not only theorised, but also brought into a position where they provided the most important "scientific ground" for racism. Supposing that living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called "Social Darwinism.
Supposing that living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called "Social Darwinism".
Social Darwinism contends that existing human races are located at different rungs of the "evolutionary ladder", that the European races were the most "advanced" of all, and that many other races still bear "simian" features.

Source: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter3.php

No2Atheism:
@huxley.

sounds like you are using the classical technique of "If u can't debunk the message, shoot the messenger, or start name calling", or character assasination, well frankly am not really suprised by your comments huxley, at least as an Atheist you don't really have a frame of reference for the definition of good or morals values since having good or moral values would mean you have to reference the Biblical values as the basis. Unless off course evolution has come up with an explanation of why there is good or bad or evil.

@posters
To the other individuals on this thread who are interested in knowing the difference between what the bible really says about Creation of Life , and what Atheists claim about Evolution of  life from non-living material to living material, please take your time to compare and contrast the picture attached to this posting, (it was obtained from Answersingenesis), and i believe it gives a good summary of why someone CANNOT claim to be a True Christian who believes in the bible and at the same time claim to believe in evolution (as it is written, you cannot serve two masters, God Almighty or Devil / Self )

Also i want True Christians and people with a not yet hardened heart to understand that "unfortunately" this battle between Christ and Devil (Truth against Lies, Creation against Evolution) would be fought in the minds and society of Men until Christ comes , hence True Christians need to understand that this is not a sprint, it is a marathon for the souls of men, hence since Atheist, Agnostics, Evolutionist, Peadophiles, Occults, War Mongers, Neo Cons, Racists are the ones who control the world and the affairs of the world right now, then it means that the ride is bound to be rough for a while for True Christians.
However we just need to understand that saving a soul is not our job, that's the Holy Spirit's job, our own job is to preach the gospel and always make we tell the truth even  if people don't like or want to hear it for their own selfish or demon possessed reasons. We need to take it one person at a time,

Adios,

Horus:
It seems a little ironic, that Charles Darwin and most of the white people deem themselves genetically superior with the oxymoron of white supremacy. There is nothing supreme about a genetic defect. White people are merely mutated inbred albinos. This alone adds credence to them being an inferior stock. To feel better about themselves they develop totally senseless propaganda to flatter them and to make they feel better about their genetic condition at the expense of people of color.

No2Atheism:
@Horus, by the way, off course history shows that Atheism and Evolution were at the foundation of the genocides committed against the black race, the number and extent of genocide committed against the black man in the name of evolution is ming-bungling, the German/Jewish Holocaust pales into insignificance when compared to what has  been done to the black man and what is still being done. One simply has to question the sanity of the kind of mind that can look at someone and then just declare based on skin color that one is a beast , while another is a beauty in evolutionary terms.
it even becomes more ridiculous when one considers that White men are even scientifically genetically inferior to the black man (their attributes are recessive when compared to the genes of the black man) hence why they are plagued with a myriad of medical and ageing problems that sound ridiculous when compared to how healthy your average black man is genetically.

Evolutions (most of whom were all White men in the beginning by the way) claimed that Blacks (Native Australians, Africans and some Native Americans (yes there we blacks native to America even before columbus dreamt of making the journey)).

Before i used to question why did God Almighty say that even future generations get punished for the sins of their fathers, I came to understand that statement recently, because I realised that:

1. Present day Whites are actually actively benefitting from the fruits of the genocides and robbery committed by the fore fathers on Native Americans, Native Australians and Africans, hence it does not really matter whether or not they pretend not to support what happened in the past and neither does it really matter that they pretend not to benefit, the truth still remains that they are benefiting from the bloodshed against Blacks (Native Australians, Africans and some Native Americans) on the basis of Evolution and Greed.

2. People who support and believe in Evolution are invariably and indirectly saying that they believe in the foundation evolution, simply because if the foundation of evolution is not true (i.e. man developed from beast, hence blacks are closer to beast) then it means everything evolution stands for crumbles to the ground. Hence invariably also it means that those people who beleive that foundation also end up being qualified for the wrath of God as spoken about punishing future generations for the sins of the father.

3. History of Ancient Black civilisations (Egypt, Olmecs, Nubia etc) shows that their contact with "Caucus mountain cave dwelling white men, were usually not destructive to the race of white men ,despite that the opportunity was there, yet current history shows that hundreds of millions of people (mostly black men) were either wiped out or completely robbed and subjucated whenever they come in contact with White men, (goes to show that the colours of the skin is completely different from the colour of the heart) (Some Native American people and Native Australian people were completely wiped out upon contact with White men ,  who simply wanted to take over their land and resources while at the same time using evolution as a excuse).

It is funny that a long time ago ,  when people were still deceived and ignorant, the bible was used to justify genocide and robbery of blacks , however once people stated realising that the bible was against it, some white men obvious had to find refuge in the development of evolution so that any inhibition brought about by the bible can simply be overcome via the use of the "survival of the fitest theory of evolution",

All that can be said is that its unfortunate that so many people are being condemned to eternal suffering in the lake of fire,  and are also being subjected to present day deception and delusion by the theories (conflicting versions) of evolution which says "A Frog can indeed turn into a Man" (so long as you give it millions of years to evolve into different missing links which themselves have remained missing   )

Horus:
Charles Darwin was himself a racist, referring to native Africans and Australians, for example, as savages.

davidylan:
21 dead = massacre?

Tayo-D:
@Huxley,
How stupid your conclusion.  Can you tell us what religious doctrine my contribution was based on?
You sure have a very myopic understandig of what religion is (christianity to be precise), otherwsie you wont make such an uninformed statement.  I'm a Christians who understand big time that my faith necessarily places aa burden on me to do everything that is ethically right to make this world a better place.  The goal of technology and religion are the same - service to humanity.
You talk as if these people received their marching orders from the Bible.  They are people with a natural inclination to oppose anything they do not understand and used the Bible as justification for their actions. The same Bible which declares that wisdom gives insight into witty inventions cannot and has never opposed knowledge. If anything it declares that people are destoyed for lack of it. Insight, development and progress are concepts the Bible clearly teaches and advances.
In order words, development and religion are not mutuially exclusive.
And you might want to tell us the religion of each of these scientists as you list their inventions.