Yes it is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

viaro:

The term 'first fruit' is used in Christianity - albeit in a different sense. Read Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:23 and James 1:18. You cannot argue that there is "nothing like first fruit".

Okay. I would like to know how that can be reconciled with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (from the ESV).

Clearly, these two things stand in contrast:

(a) you said: "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"
(b) Jesus said: "I have not come to abolish them"

An explanation (not a quarrel or name-calling) is all I seek; and that would be greatly appreciated.

Yes, indeed, I sometimes wonder whether Jesus also abolished the law calling for parents to kill their disobedient children. My view is that he did not. In fact, Jesus explicitly reinforced that law in the New Testament.

[size=18pt]Intelligence Squared debate: Catholics humiliated by Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry
[/size]
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100014133/intelligence-squared-debate-catholics-humiliated-by-christopher-hitchens-and-stephen-fry/



I have just witnessed a rout – tonight’s Intelligence Squared debate. It considered the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world”. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, opposing the motion, comprehensively trounced Archbishop Onaiyekan (of Abuja, Nigeria) and Ann Widdecombe, who spoke for it. The archbishop in particular was hopeless.

The voting gives a good idea of how it went. Before the debate, for the motion: 678. Against: 1102. Don’t know: 346. This is how it changed after the debate. For: 268. Against: 1876. Don’t know: 34. In other words, after hearing the speakers, the number of people in the audience who opposed the motion increased by 774. My friend Simon, who’s a season ticket holder, said it was the most decisive swing against a motion that he could remember.

The problem (from the Catholic point of view) was that the speakers arguing for the Church as a force for good were hopelessly outclassed by two hugely popular, professional performers. The archbishop had obviously decided that it would work best if he stuck to facts and figures and presented the Church as a sort of vast charitable or “social welfare” organisation. He emphasised how many Catholics there were in the world, and that even included “heads of state”, he said, as if that was a clincher. But he said virtually nothing of a religious or spiritual nature as far as I could tell, and non-Catholics would have been none the wiser about what you might call the transcendent aspects of the Church. Then later when challenged he became painfully hesitant. In the end he mumbled and spluttered and retreated into embarrassing excuses and evasions. He repeatedly got Ann Widdecombe’s name wrong. The hostility of both the audience and his opponents seemed to have discomfited him.

So it was left to Ann Widdecombe to defend the Church single-handedly. She did well, showed a light touch and took Hitchens to task for exaggerations and so on. But in the end Hitchens and Fry were able to persuade decisively by simply listing one after another the wicked things that have been done in the Church’s name over the centuries. More than anything they focused on the “institutionalisation of the rape and torture and maltreatment of children”. That’s what Hitchens called it – that’s pretty much what it was – and Fry returned to it. I don’t blame them for harping on about these unspeakable crimes, because there is no answer to them. Then they talked about the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. When Zeinab Badawi in the chair asked the archbishop whether Christ himself ever actually said anything about homosexuality, he replied by saying “that’s not the point” or words to that effect, and sounded slippery.

Even if you didn’t agree with him you’d have to concede Hitchens especially was spectacular and hyper-articulate. Fry, who is less avuncular somehow now he is so slimline, was visibly nervous and appeared to have a dry mouth. Hitchens drank bottled water mostly, and plenty of it, though from time to time when he was sitting down he raised a glass of amber fluid from out of sight, down on the floor somewhere, and took a slug from that. I don’t know why he kept a drink under the table like that, perhaps because the debate was filmed for broadcast. He sweated profusely and dabbed his shiny forehead, eyes and cheeks with a handkerchief. But his diction was clear and he was in control, like a revivalist tent preacher, building the volume to a crescendo at the end, to applause and roars from the audience.

It was a gripping evening’s entertainment but a little discouraging for those of us who are Catholics. I found myself wishing, one, that the Catholic debaters would for once not content themselves with offering pettifogging excuses but instead actually own up to some of the charges, and, two, I wished that there still existed a great Catholic apologist like Chesterton or Belloc, someone who was not only brave and prepared to square up to the Hitch, but was his intellectual equal. Surely there is someone today who could do that?

Where did Jesus say that ONLY those that believed in him will make it to heaven? Did Jesus really say this, or are you mis-reading Jesus's words?

tpia.:

so the men were breaking up with her because of sex?

I doubt they'd have married her after the sex anyway.

And what kind of men is she attracting.

I guess their excuse is they want to be sure she's fertile.

The men would have found just what a lousy lover she is and would have left her. Sex, lovemaking and the maintenance of a relationship is a skill - you get good at it by being more involved with it.

Only a desperate man would want to associate with her now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp6KKg1MVtA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw0P0H9jcQA&feature=video_response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWt2Hxj3D60&feature=video_response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvP4qiswy3E&feature=video_response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2XV-gv6A1w&feature=video_response

He surely should have gotten an education, for he erroneously described the mustard seed as the smallest seed in the world, when it most definitely is NOT. What an ignoramus!

Deep Sight:

Huxley, you havent even quoted it fully, because he said - "not the angels, nor the son, but only the father. . ."

How do you know this is the correct version?

Matthew 24:

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


Does Jesus know when he shall return?

What do we mean when we use the word[b] righteous [/b]or righteousness. Is there or has there been an examplar of [b]righteousness [/b]in the world?


Is [b]righteousness [/b]is necessary and sufficient requirement for salvation?


Some biblical references would be most welcome.




Enjoy the discussion.

viaro:

Yes, I would be inclined to say that is a testable hypothesis.

OK -  have a good hols and we shall pick this up when you come back!

viaro:

I don't know - you tell me, afterall you described them as akin to those of a cow.

It could be, but I don't know and cannot hazard any guesses. Science does not work by guesses but by testable hypothesis which progress to falsifiable theories. You are well informed on that, I assume - so that is why you should appreciate the fact that if I have to discuss with you in the language of scientists, I should not expose myself to an attitude of dogmatism.

OK - I like statement. Suppose I were to make the following hypothesis:

The genome of the whale animal would show genes for the development of mammalian hindlimbs. These genes are most of the time suppressed but occasionally they are expressed.

Do you think this is a testable hypothesis?

posakosa:

Jesus came into the world to LOVE. Religion made Jesus into a judge!~

So why does Jesus keep talking about JUDGING? Was this word forced into his mouth?

viaro:

Thanks - it's a great relief to see the brevity of your reply. Now to answer your two questions:

No. Let me explain - my answer remains No until you explain what you mean.
To expect me to just "accept" anything said is to commit me to a position that would turn out knotty later on. The reason why I would ask for clarification is simple: the Darwinian arguments often shifts. An example? I've pointed out the idea of an argument of Birds evolving from Dinousaurs - I also stated clearly that such an argument is not mine. If someone then says that "do you accept that lifeforms have changed and are charging over time?", I would then ask them to tell me where and how the 'Bird-evolved-from Dinos' argument would be "accepted".

I did not say anything about Darwinism or Darwin in my question, did I?  Changes in lifeforms is somethings that had been observed for many tens or hundreds of years before Darwin.  And further, I am not asking you about the HOW this happens.  I am simply asking whether the evidence on the ground shows that lifeform is immutable or mutable.  Forget about Darwin, Natural Selection, theory, etc, etc, for now.  Let us just deal with the facts on the ground, which are:


a)  Why are the fossils of mammals NEVER found in the pre-cambrian era?  Why is it that about 600 MYA to 800 MYA, there are no evidence of multicellular organisms?   What happened between 600MYA and today that resulted in multicellular organisms with complex bodyplans?

viaro:

I would not 'explain' that as the "change" on a grand scale Darwinism. It would lead to a necessary question: what is the whale 'evolving' to in that form with hindlimbs as cows?

No - you have not addressed the question.  I asked - What explains the fact that about 5% of Whales are born with fully developed hindlimbs?  Where did these limb come from?  Could it be that whales have the genes for making legs, which for 95% of the time are not expressed?

Just watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo

viaro:

@huxley,

To make things a bit tidy, it would simply have done a good turn if you disagreed with something and point it out. Essentially, your long riposte agrees with some of my points while seemingly arguing against your premises. Let me lay them out for you:

Your statement was an assumption - and I clearly showe HOW that is so. Now, if you did not agree your were assuming things far too much, you should have saved your comments and use it for other answers, rather than come back and agree with "Of course, many theories do not yet answer ALL questions. . " The assumption in your initial statement is that you assumed "A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far". That is where the assumption was - and how then do you come back agreeing when you tried to argue it was not an assumption?

True, you made a statement. But that statement WAS and IS an assumption - because even you could acknowledge that MANY theories do not yet answer ALL questions, blah blah. "A theory" is what you quipped about - which in your view HAS PASSED ALL currently verificational tests (whatever that means to you). But then you can see that you are the same person who came back noting the serious problem in your own assumption. Ha.

There. I thought you quipped earlier that a theory is one that HAS PASSED ALL tests?

Anyways,

Thanks for the example - that again is why I saw huge problems with your initial assumption about what a theory is.

Again, that was essentially why I took time to draw from Thomas Kuhn about ad hoc additions to scientific theories. Take the claims of the BB, not that your foreseeable 'YES' would completely discredit the BB as "false" - because as you rightly observed, any such theory would have to possess such explanatory powers as to sweep everything associated with the BB into oblivion. That would indeed be remarkable - and to happen in our lifetime. I shy away from making far too assuming postulations as such; but m-e-n, you had better know what you're talking about.

I quite understand what TOE is, thank you. Your explanation simply makes me wonder whether or not you know what you are trying to convey. If you did, you would have seen that the "iff" as a 'biconditional logical connective' is precisely the reason why Darwinism remains limp in the face of paleontology, regardless what Darwinists have tried to argue to the contrary.

But thanks all the same, while I take time yet again to explain the "iff" in this regard. Taking from various sources, the "iff" is a biconditional logical connective that acts in this way:
source.
source
Application of the "iff" to your own "if" about mammals in the pre-cambrian: Give or take, it is not a static case of "if" mammals are found in that epoch, then evolution falls on its face - that would simply mean that it was not a 'theory' to begin with, because it ignores both sides of that postulation. For it to be valid as a theory, one has to look at BOTH sides of any "if"-statements, not just a dogmatic one-sided "if"="then" this and that. That is why even though Darwinism cannot answer the difficulties posed by Paleontology (or let me say, it has not been able as yet to answer them), it does not therefore discredit evolution as a "theory". Why? Because as a 'scientific theory', you have to look at boths sides of a postulation ('if A then B' on the one hand; but on the other hand, what happens where you have 'if not A then not B'?).

I hope you can grasp the biconditional logical connective here?

That's the catch-22: "if there has not been some degenerating process". This remind me of my previous reply, that falsifiability helps a paradigm by providing the grounds for some scientists to add 'ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories' (not my argument, but Thomas Kuhn's). How do you determine what is "more complex" from "less complex"?

In every stage of development of living organisms there are complexities at a very advanced stage in their epoch to function as what they are. I'm only making this summizing on the way that some darwinists try to argue evolution - from one form to another (such as 'dinosaurs into birds'). I know that example is controversial; but if at surface value we are to examine their "complexities", which would be said to have more complex bodyplans than the other? Should we apply the "iff" yet again?

Please don't twist my arguments. I have maintained that "you're delving into the field of Paleontology - and paleotolotogists have a huge problem for Darwinists to this very moment." That is not saying that Paleontologists as a whole reject Evolution - rather, that they have difficulties which Darwinists find perplexing. Even at that, I also stated this:

   "Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed
    by paleontology. That one challenge alone does not necessarily invalidate evolution as
    a 'theory'"

That Paleontology poses difficulties for Darwinism does not mean therefore that I argued that paleontologists "do not accept" the TOE.

As an example of one of those difficulties, we have often read claims of fossils being an 'evidence' for evolution in terms of its 'transitional' record (aka 'missing link'). To be honest with you, after having tried to objectively examine such claims, a paleontologist remarked that -
Not that there are no fossils anywhere; but rather that evolution cannot continue to make a claim of 'transitional fossils' as evidence for validating TOE. Palentology does not help Evolution in this regard.

My explanation is simple, really. I'm not a fan of Darwinism, no matter how the arguments of his "-isms" may go. What I have pointed out in consonance with the topic of this thread (the Aim of Science) is simply that your assumptions of what a theory is just does not hold any substance. That is the point here, huxley. If you hold a contrary view, you should not have come back to accede my point. However, as regards the FACT that a 'theory' is not one necessarily so because it has passed ALL tests (whatever you may mean), I gave the example that Paleontology simply dismisses the 'fossil' claim as evidence for Darwinism. The logically objective examination of the fact was why such evolutionists agree that Paleontology poses some serious problems to Darwnism, which paleontologists as Patterson quips that Gould and the American Museum are hard to contradict on that note. This is simply showing you one thing: that your assumption of what a theory is is an assumption, not carefully thought out.

Now, the absence of mammals in pre-cambrian does not "prove" anything about life-forms 'changing'. If anything, evolutionists know that paleontology shows there is no fossil that can help Darwinism to a fine point. So, if one does not find a fossil (any fossils) specifically of mammals in any gelogical epoch, does the absence "prove" anything? You would be working out of an empty basket to claim your 'change' in sands.

I know the modifying paradigms of theories in scientific enquiries, huxley. I have noted that already from Thomas Kuhn's observations - so let's sweep this your lectures aside, please. If I did not know that already, you would be making a point. But what point would you be making if I already showed that such things happen with ad hoc hypothesis? The issue is that your assumptions are not sound on the question of what theories actually are.

I acknowledge your example: mammals in pre-cambrian.  Now, this talk about "complex" orgnanisms was why I asked about the complexities between dinosaurs and birds - which is more complex and which is less? Note: the "dino-birds" are not my arguments; but I only just drew from that as an example to illustrate the point of complexity. We know that dinosaurs are very complex in bodyplans - so are birds. Some have argued that birds "evolved from" dinos; so does the argument hold that dinos are less complex than birds?


I am not wont to do that - which is why I have discussed an example at length above. It was such difficulties in Paleontology that was catalyst for Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" to close the gap in that regard.

As for the paleontology difficulty, see above. As to the second, I don't remember having claimed that any singular theory has answered ALL the questions in its field. You may need some friendly reminders that such an assumption was your own postulation, quoted below:Are you quickly forgetting that was YOUR own assumption? Ha! I cannot answer your roll-call for you, you know - in as much as I did not urge it upon you by any craft.

Let me cut to the chase by asking two questions. I shall address the rest of the post later:



1) Do you accept that lifeforms have changed and are charging over time?




2) How would you explain the fact that some whales (about 5%) are born with fully developed hindlimbs, much like a cow's hindlimbs?

Anyone fancies these 20 questions?

viaro:

First, that is an assumption. I don't know who has dribbled that idea that a theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL current verificational tests. What do you mean by ALL - that the theory does not have any difficulties that still puzzle its adherents? No, Darwinism still has its problems and can't be said to have passed "ALL" verificational tests - otherwise that is not longer a theory but something else.

I made a statement. What assumption did I make. What assumption is there in this statement?

A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far. And futher, has been accepted by the community of scientists who are specifically interested in this area of inquiry.

Of course, many theories do not yet answer ALL questions conceivable that one might throw at it. It is classed as a "valid" or acceptable theory if it keeps answering more and more and more of such questions.

Take for instance the Theory of Cosmic Expansion, commonly called the Big Bang. This explains the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc, etc. But does it explain everything about the universe? NO.

Is it likely that BB will be overturned by an even better theory soon. Hell, YES - and this will happen within our lifetimes. And for any new theory to be valid, it will have to have more explanatory capability than the BB - it will have to better explain the expansion, CMB, the uniformity of the cosmos, etc, etc, in addition to provide other explanation not covered by the BB.

No, scientific paradigms are not that ad hoc, huxley. That is why philosophers of science have continued to note that 'scientists' who reason that way are not doing science. To say that "if" it could be shown that mammals existed in the pre-cambrian, then the TOE is "false" - that does not validate Darwinism at all. You're delving into the field of Paleontology - and paleotolotogists have a huge problem for Darwinists to this very moment. One could also make the same postulation of an "iff"  ('if and only if' - a biconditional logical connective) and therefore find no answers in paleontology for Darwinian claims.

Yes, indeed. You do not seem to understand what TOE contends. Simply put, it is COMMON descent with modification. This implies simpler and less complex organisms (or bodyplans) precede more complex ones. TOE will absolutely NOT survive any discovery of more complex bodyforms preceding less complex ones if there has not been some degenerative process in the lineage.

Can you show me any reputed paleontologist who does not accept TOE? Can you explain the paleontological difficulties that exist in TOE?


Evolution, defines as change of lifeforms, is a FACT. TOE by Natural Selection is but one (of possibly many) mechanisms by which this change of lifeforms can be explained. Genetic drift is another process that drive and explains evolution. However many driving forces and theories scientist can invent, the FACT remains that lifeforms change. If you think lifeforms don't change, you will have to explain why it is that no fossils of mammals are ever found in the pre-cambrian,

I would give this simple quip: let us assume that it could ONE DAY be "proven" that mammals infact lived in the pre-cambrian, then you would find darwinists making other ad hoc hypothesis to refine Darwinism, not acknowledge it to be "false".

Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed by paleontology. That one challenge alone does not necessarily invalidate evolution as a 'theory' - and that is why it is not actually seasoned to say that this or that 'theory' is to pass any 'test'. It is hypotheses that are 'tested', while theories are falsifiable.

Some theories can survive counter-evidence by modification of the theories. That happens in science ALL the time. Think of what is generally called Einstein's big mistake, when he modified his equations, re-inserting the gravitational expansive constant.

However, the theory of common descent with modification CANNOT survive the discovery of more complex organism preceding less complex one.

You are wont to make ad hoc statements without providing and supporting references or evidence, such as this:

Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed by paleontology

What is the difficulty posed by paleontology? Can you show some scientific reference for such difficulties? While you are at it, can you also show me a scientific theory that ANSWERS all the questions in its field?

the_seeker:

just google up Drosophilla and you will learn the whole story.
Stop getting confused about nylon eating bacteria or human resitance to HIV. These are all examples of variation not speciation. No matter how much nylon or glass bacteria eats, bacteria will always remian bacteria. That is why they have remained unchanged for over 1 billion years despite being the most mutant of organisms

As a man of science, why don't you get the examples you refer to and post then here so that all can see them.


OK, you say bacteria have remain bacteria for over 1 billion years. That is absolutely true. But why were there no other more complex organism, like bats, sheep and sycamore trees 1 billion years ago?

Why are about 5% of whales born with fully developed hindlimbs, like those of a cow. Take a look at this link for a typical whale hindlimb.

Why is it that more complex animals are built on the bodyplan of less complex ones?

John 3:

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal.

17[b] For God has not sent his Son into the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him.[/b]

18He that believes on him is not judged: but he that believes not has been already judged, because he has not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God.


John 9:

38And he said, I believe, Lord: and he did him homage.

39[b]And Jesus said, For judgment am I come into this world, that they which see not may see, and they which see may become blind.[/b]

40And [some] of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and they said to him, Are we blind also?

John 12:

46 I am come into the world [as] light, that every one that believes on me may not abide in darkness;

47[b]and if any one hear my words and do not keep [them], I judge him not, for I am not come that I might judge the world, but that I might save the world.[/b]

48He that rejects me and does not receive my words, has him who judges him: the word which I have spoken, that shall judge him in the last day.




So did Jesus come to judge the world or not to judge the world?


You decide!

viaro:

Much as I'm not a fan of the '-isms' of Darwinism , I don't think it is apt to argue that 'Evolution' does not "qualify" as a theory. What we have to understand is that Darwinism is not 'tested' alone on fossils (even Darwin himself had huge problems with fossils). He theorized, yes; whether his theory is 'testable' is another matter entirely (actually, it is the hypothesis that should be 'testable', while the theory should be 'falsifiable').

A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far. And futher, has been accepted by the community of scientists who are specifically interested in this area of inquiry.

Something accepted as a theory does not mean that it is forever incapable of being rejected.  Every good scientific theory has to pass the test of falsifiability, which is a way of demonstrating the theory false.  In the case of The Theory of Evolution, if it could be shown that complex animals with complex bodyplans, such as mammals existed in the pre-cambrian, that would demonstrate that the theory was false.

SO far, NOT a single tests has proved evolution false.  So as a theory it is a valid one.

the_seeker:

science is a progressive field. What was believed to be 'fact' toaday may be debunked 2moro.
For instance a couple of decdes ago geologist  'knew' basalt crysalized from ocean water
scientists also 'knew' the universe is timeless.
We all knw today these are not true.
Evoultion however does not even qualify as a theory cos to take a line of fossils and claim that it represents a lineage is not a scienific hypothesis that is testable.
[b]There has been several futile attempts to create empirical evidence for evolution.
an example is the case of drosophillia (fruit flies) that hve been bombarded with so many kinds of radiation to induce evolution for the past sixty years. Considering a species that produces a [/b]new genation evry 7 days, this is a lot of time. However this experiment has remained unfruitful. Not even a single new enzyme has appeared!

Can you show us examples of these so-called failed experiments? Or are you just making that up? Show us references of such experiments and explain why you consider them a failure.

Do you know about the new Nylon eating bacteria? Where did this new ability to eat nylon come from?

KunleOshob:

I am sure what you mean is the "Law of Gravity" gravitational force is a well established and proven law unlike evolution which is merely a theory and remains unproven to date. i am sure you know the difference btw laws and theories in science.

No, I do NOT know the difference between a LAW and a THEORY as used in the scientific community. Can you explain the two concepts to me, please, providing any relevant references?

I await your response with bated breath.

No one who is well educated in the matters of science, religions and philosophy would ever claim that Science disproves God or that Evolution disproves God.

These are particularly sloppy statements and anyone who makes pronouncements like this deserves to be taken to task. A better way of conveying the message would be something like this;

The results of some of our best sciences and rational enterprise makes the belief of the traditional gods (eg Abrahamic gods) unjustified or unwarranted.

Science, by itself, is not in the business of disproving things. It is in the business of revealing the truth about the nature of reality. It is up to the individual to formulate their worldview either based on the fruits of science or in contravention of these results.

If anyone claims that sciences have disproved God, he has to demonstrate that experiment which has achieved this feat. Appeal to evolution, which is a mere theory, will not do the job.

It is grossly unscientific to preceed the word THEORY with the adjective MERE. We see this particularly from opponents of The Theory of Evolution. I listed the other scientific theories because if it is justified in describing TToE with the adjective MERE or MERELY, it must also be reasonably in describing the others as such. If you disagree, can you say why it would be wrong in saying;

1) Merely Cell Theory

2) Merely The theory of Gravity

3) Merely Atomic Theory?

How would the modern world, with all its cultural diversity and  zeal for growth and innovation, function if all we had as guiding principles were the rules, laws and injunctions from the bible?

How would you deal with issues such as the following?

1)  Infertility therapies that call for masturbation, sperm/egg donation

2)  Therapies that call for organ transplant, blood donation

3)  Disputes between nations over natural resources

4)  Disputes in business

5)  The charging of interest on loans

6)  Deal with aggressive individuals or nations

etc, etc, etc.

pastorjose:

The aim of science is to investigate matter and energy. To discover their properties and behaviour pattern. If a particular thing is neither matter nor energy, then it cannot be investigated in a laboratory. For example, love is a fact of life, but since it is neither matter nor energy it cannot be investigated by science. There is no gadget to measure the mass, length, breadth, or temperature of love.

The aim of science is not to investigate all reality, but rather to investigate those realities that are seen in the form of matter and energy. The investigation takes place with the help of repeated experiments. All negations and affirmations depend upon experimental observations, and nothing can be established without relevant experiments.

Physics investigates the physical properties of matter and energy. Chemistry, biology, astronomy, and the various scientific disciplines known to us investigate the physical behaviour of things pertaining to their respective fields.

LIMITS OF SCIENCE

Science is a tool, a methodology, developed to study matter and energy. It, therefore, is able to investigate truths only in this region. If there is any truth in the world besides matter,

science is not able to investigate it. One should not be surprised at this.

Science was developed to study and investigate only nature, and therefore it cannot be used for other things. For example, science cannot pronounce any opinion about the existence of king Ashoka. A historical person or incident cannot be brought into the laboratory for experimental investigation. The maximum that science can do is to provide tools to study the material objects discovered by archaeologists. But conclusions of history depend upon techniques of historical investigations, not on techniques of natural sciences.

In the same way, truths about people and their relationships cannot be investigated by science. No equipment can measure love, hatred, or fear. These are realities, but since they are neither matter nor energy they are beyond the scope of science. Love is not a property of matter, nor is anything else connected with human relationship.

Science can investigate matter and energy, but nothing more. Historical realities are studied with methods of historical investigations, while truths related to individuals can be investigated only by methods of relational verification. One has to enter into a personal relationship with a person to verify truths that are relational in nature.

HAVE SCIENCES DISPROVED GOD

It should be clear by now that the purpose of science is to study matter and energy, and nothing beyond that. Even if someone tries to broaden its boundaries, that is not possible. All affirmations and negations have to be established only on the basis of repetitive experimental observations.

God is neither matter nor energy. Therefore the methods of experimental sciences cannot be applied to disprove His existence. Nobody in the world has devised an experiment that can disprove God.

If anyone claims that sciences have disproved the existence of God, he must be asked to defend his position. He has to explain the experiment, the place where this was performed and the place where the results were published. Anyone can make any claims saying that science has demonstrated this or that fact, but then he should be able to support his claims by pointing to relevant experiments.

No one claiming that science has disproved God has ever come up with experimental evidence to support this claim. This is because they are using the name of science to intimidate the ignorant. There is no truth in their claims, but they will continue repeating this false claim as long as they can successfully disturb people.

If anyone claims that science has disproved God, he has to describe the experiment that finally disproved God. Discussing anything else is irrelevant to the argument.

HAS EVOLUTION DISPROVED GOD

On talking of science and experiments, some might think that the theory of evolution has disproved God. This is false.

First of all, The Theory Of Evolution is only a theory. It is a mere hypothesis or supposition. It is not a law of science, nor is it a fact of science. If it were a law, they would have called it the LAW of evolution. But the scientific community itself accepts that it is the THEORY of evolution.

The theory of evolution needs first to establish itself, and then only it can question the existence of God — if it has any bearing on the subject. Till then you need to remember only this much: a hypothesis or supposition is not a fact of science.

[size=18pt]If anyone claims that sciences have disproved God, he has to demonstrate that experiment which has achieved this feat. Appeal to evolution, which is a mere theory, will not do the job. [/size]

Another Christian ignorant of what a theory is in science - Have you ever heard of the following theories:

1) The Germ Theory of Disease

2) The Theory of Plate Tectonics

3) The theory of gravity

4) Quantum Theory

5) Cell Theory


Does this suggest that these are mere conjectures?

the_seeker:

huxely i quite apprecite your honest responses. Am a bit handicaped cos my pc crashed and have been following up on  my phone 4 d past few day so i may not be able provide detailed sources and research documents. I wil however provide u with strong arguements u cant refute. Also inserting quotes is proving a bit of a challenge on my phone browser. Am sure u will be able to match my responses to yours.

Like i said ealier it does not matter how many number of phd thesis was done. The point is that this fraud escaped detection for 50 years. Yet enough 'research' was done to establish its righful place on the human  family tree. How were they able to establish this from a forged skull of an orangutan and a man.  This shows a willingness and desperacy of evolutionist to accept anything as evidence as long as it furthers their cause. This is the reeason several frauds have passed unnoticed.


Answers to your questions

1. Mamalian Fossil were not found before cambrian simply because God had not created them. god is sytematic and created things in stages. Are u aware that some toads hve more dna per cell than man? Thou u may claim man man is the 'peak' of evolutn. Our dna is not the most complex.

2. I sincerly dont understnd wat u mean by hind limbs. Do u mean dorsal fins cos i have neva heard of whale with legs.

3. Placentals are not found in australia cos God did not put them there. Are u aware that masurpial mice and fox are very identical to their mamalin cousins. How is this possible?


Are u aware how complex the trilobites eyes are? Although very diff in structure yet its complexity rival that of humans
i admit that i misplaced optic nerves for photo cells. My argument however still hold. How did photo cells evolve into the human eye which we knw is ireducibly complex

what explanatn do u need abt human races. Ok negroid, causacoid. Mogoloid etc are human races. because we can interbreed we belong to same species. Did homosapins interbreed with neanderthal? Yes. Same species diff race.

U have set up urslf by repeating this precambrian crap. Yes birds and mamals were abseent in precambrian. But how come complex species just appeared out of nowwhere without any apparent 'ancestors'?

It is obvois u hav no understanding of punctuated equilibrum. Stephen jay gould and neil deredge prosed this theory to explain absence of intermidiary forms. Being geologists they knew geological records were more or less compplete and this could not be used as an excuse for absence of missing links. They had to propose a theory whre massive mutation occured and intermediary forms  were few. This theory gained popularity among geologist but biologist proved it wrong.
U stll have not answered my question regaring the fact that intermediry forms(based on mainstream evolutn)  btw single specis A and B are expected to be in the thousands yet we find fossils of A and B, but these intermediaries remain elusive.
Abt the blind cave fish. God created it witout eyes cos it did no need them in the dark. He however gave it other complemntary senses.


u av answered my questions poorly

1. U  apear to be well read. D reason you have not come across explantn of evolutn of behaviour is that evolutionist have not found a way to get aroun the riddle.

2. I am not asking u how  sexual selection chose the first peacok with a pattern tail aginst one witot such tail. Am asking u how mindless mutation could have created such perfect and dizzingly complex pattern.

3. All the examples u gave me of humman mutations are just examples of resitance to disease. Our bodies were designed to do that. Have u heard of immunization? Lol

4. The bacteria so baffled a leading evolutionist that he has to confess 'what use is their incessant mutation if they do not produce evolutionary change'

5. Pls look up for my ealierr explanatn of cambrian explosion. What were the 'ancestors' of these complex organism tht appeared out of nowhere

6. I knw drosophillia has not evolved cos after 60 yrs of scintist trying to induce evoultn in it, not even a single new enzyme has appeared

u. I will let u free on the origin of life cos it will ever elude u and fellow evolutionists

Man, you lack of knowledge shines throw everytime you reach for the keyboard. Why don't you educate yourself here:


1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34GeUa7RzvY&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div
2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvkntXYnKW0&NR=1

Check out evolution at work here: 

1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34GeUa7RzvY&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div
2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvkntXYnKW0&NR=1

I have agonised over many years about whether, in addition to holding an atheistic worldview, I should also hold a materialistic worldview. For many years, I have called myself a naturalist, disavowing all forms of the supernatural. A naturalist basically claims that everything that exists in the universe (or metaverse) can be explained in purely natural form. Thus, a naturalist claims that if it turns out that a "supernatural" realm does exist, this realm is actually a manifestation of the generality of the natural, and would become subsumed into the natural.

On the other hand, a materialist makes the claim that ONLY the material world exist and everything in the universe (or metaverse) is a manifestation of matter in one form or the other. I have found it hard to square materialism with my knowledge of the feature of the universe?

Over the last few months, I have been looking at some research in what is generally term the paranormal, and am quite impressed with some of the results of work in this area. What stands out clearly is that the paranormal is amenable to being studied by naturalistic means. What also stands out is that there is a lot which cannot yet be explained using existing materialistic theories. Checkout the following two lectures:

1) Dean Radin

2) Rupert Sheldrake


I recommend you watch at least one of the videos above before commenting.

the_seeker:

huxly before i start with u let me warn u dat i am well researched in paleontolgy and evolution so u cannot just dump junk u googled up on me. I expext that u should at least have the intelligence to read through your post and compress it to a comprehsible volume. nairaland is not for copy and paste but  for intelligent discusions and arguements.
My responses

1. It does not matter whether it was 50 Phd thesis or 500. I might even excuse u for what the motive of the forger was. It just proves how closed minded evolutionist are. This skull sat in the museum of natural history for 50 years but nobody cared to properly date(which would hav exposed the fraud) it instead they were busy writting thesis and drawing photos and tell us what this fossil eat and how it lived. There are countless examples of fogery or misrepresentations like nebraska man, embrayonic recapitulation theory, peppered moth story etc. Most of these are still deliibertly repeated as evidence of evolution even after the hoax was discovered. The problem is evoulutionist manufacture 'facts' from what is at best circumstantial evidence.
When it comes to evolutn and creation they act as if the hav neva heard of the theory of multiple working hypothesis.

I am so disappointed with your knowledge of the field.  I asked you for publically available documentation that you know the subject matter, yet you have NOT produced a SINGLE one.  Just some references of the so-called 50 or 500 PhDs would be nice.  Any scientifically credible references - yet you produce NOTHING.  And you have the audacity to come out and claim to know the field.

Yes - I admit there has been some hoaxes and fraud in biology as there has been in physics and chemistry.  But does that invalidate the entire field?   Absolutely NOT.   Who are the people that fine out these hoaxes and fraud?   Have you ever heard of a proclamation or revelation that some scientific theory is valid or in valid from some spiritual being?


I asked several questions, which you singularly failed to address.  Let me repeat them here:

1)  Why are fossils of mammals and birds NEVER found in the pre-cambrian?

2)   What explanation can you give for the fact that some whales (about 5%) are born with hindlimbs?

and additionally

3)  Why are there no placental mammals native to the Australian continent?



Please, Please, Please, try and address these question, with scientific material and references as much as possible.  I would appreciate it if your answers takes the form:

1)  Fossils of mammals and birds have never been found in the pre-cambrian BECAUSE - - - - -

2) Some whales are born with hindlimbs BECAUSE  - - - - -

3)  No placental mammals are native to Australia BECAUSE - - - - -


And provide some scientific reference that WE can all refer to.

the_seeker:

5. The eye and other organs of irreducible complexity will always remain a problem for evolutionist. My arguement is not whether differnt complexities of eye type does not occur in  nature as u r making it seem. The point is a human eye for example could neva have evolved from an optic nerve. How can a human eye function without a lens or partly developed one or a retina of cornea etc. This defied explanation.

Another question for you.

Why is there no evidence for a complex eye, of the type of mammals today, amonsgt creatures that live in the pre-cambrian?

You are strawmaning here again.  You are making a claim that evolution does not make.  Evolution does NOT make the claim that the eye evolved from the optic nerve.  This shows your total lack of knowledge in this area.  YOU ARE A BIG FAT CHRISTIAN LIAR 4 JESUS.  I have not option but to call you this.  Evolution ABSOLUTELY does NOT make this claim.

The most credible evolutionary explanation for the eyes says the eye evolved from a bundle of photo-sensitive skin cells.  So here again, you are a liar for Jesus.

the_seeker:

2. First of all i neva said neanderthal and homo sapiens i said neanderthals and cromagnon. Mind u evolutionist ealier assumed neandethals were ancestors  of homosapiens until overlap in time proved them wrong.  same is beginning to hapen in case of cromagnon and neanderthals.

This is what you said:

There is no doubt that neanderthals. Cromagnon. And the likes were just diff races of humans. This will make more sense to you if you compare the skeletons of a negroid an inuit, a caucasiod and a pgymy from africa to realize that the differences are more stark than those of modern humans and their alleged ancestors.

Recent discoveries of serious ovelaps in time of 'modern humans' and their alleged ancestors is beginning to cause serious headaches for evolutionist.

I asked you to explain what you meant by "difference races of humans".  Yet you did not.  Please explain this comment.

Neanderthal, Cromagnon, are what are loosely called humanoids - meaning the possess humanlike features.  There are many possibly hundreds of these different species.  But know, with DNA, we can check whether they are actually humans (Homo Sapien Sapien) or not.  It turns out that  Neanderthals were on a different evolutionary branch than Homo Sapiens Sapiens, exactly the result the comparative anatomy predicted.

Why would you Jesus create a different species of humans only to wipe the entire population all out again?

the_seeker:

3. Missing links? Am sure if evolutions found a bat fossil (assuming bats dont exist today) they would tag it as a missing link btw mamals and bird .
I am so suprised that u claim to knw anything abt evolutn and call achopteryx a missing link.  
something intersting happens often in evoultionary circles. One they find a 'missing link' they jubilate for the world to see. After a few year of thorough rsearch and criticism(by open minded scientists) it is uncermonously withdrawn as a fake or misrepresentation.
missing link is a series of thousands of transitns from a point A to a point B where a new species can be said to have formed. The implicatn of this is that we expect millions more fossils of the intermedies compared to Species A or B. So how come we cant find any (that is tangible) and we have plently of A and B?

You have no understanding for what evolution beings by transitional species.  The term "missing link" is unscientific, that is why I don't like to use it.

Transitional species are species that possess features intermediate between a primitive form and a more advance form.  For instance,

1)  Were there birds in the pre-cambrian?  Are there birds today?

These questions, if answered honestly will show that ato some point in the past some species started to develop features that are common in birds today.  


[size=18pt]                                                                Can you explain to be this fossils:
Anchiornis, only reported last month, See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8273938.stm[/size]

the_seeker:

4. It is obvious u knw nothing about punctuated equilibrum. Why are u always lying. I neva claimed it refuted evolution. I only said it confimed its flaws in an attempt to fix it.
It claims tht orgsnisms remian stable for a long time( stasis) then undergo massive mutation to another species hence no need for intermediry forms. This theory however failed cos biologist could not comprehend such massive mutation

It is known that there are several mechanism that drive evolution:  Natural Selection being one of them, genetic drift another.  But it is not known whether these are sufficient ALONE to drive the entire process of speciation.  Evolution, like many things about nature, still remains unknown to us.

Punctuated Equilibrium itself is not a driving force, but a phenomemnon about the pace of evolution and the generation of new species.  The central thesis is like you said - long periods of stasis, punctuated by short periods of speciation.  But it DOES NOT say that there would be no transitional or intermediate form.  What you said is total nonsense and rubbish.  Just think about it - if PE is true in the way you described it, then the species from which new species arise would be the imtermediate forms.

For instance, if Species D arises from Species C via PE, then Species C is the intermediate to D.  Simple


So yet again, you are talking rubbish.

the_seeker:

5 the eye and other organs of ireducible complexity will always remian a problem for evolutionist. My arguemnt is not whether diff complexities of eyes do not occur in nature are u r making it seem. My point is, a human eye for example could neva have evolved from an optic nerve. Can a human eye function without a lens or a partly developed one or a retina or cornean or pupil or any of the over 20 vital parts. This defies explanation.  

With respect to the eye, evolution simple predicts that there will be simple eyes, with fewer features than some of the complex eyes of advance animals. Basically, once the genes to photosensitivity sensory skin cells had become established in a population, natural selection would slowly over about 400000 years fashion a more complex eyes from such simple eyes.  Many of such simple eyes have been found in nature and in the fossil record, and advance eyes appear in the fossil record much later than simple eyes.

And natural selection has the ability to work the other way.  If an animals lives in an environment were it does not uses its eye, natural selection will make the eye obsolete and eventually disappear.  There are many such species around today, exactly as predicted by Evolution By Natural Selection;

1)  The blind cave fish - Astyanax fasciatus mexicanus.  Check out an evolutionary explanation here: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/pz_myers_on_how_the_cavefish_lost_its_eyes/


[size=14pt]If Jesus created animals immutably,  why would he gives animals some organs, such as the eyes, that are no longer used?  Why would he have created flightless birds with rudimentary wings?
[/size]

Now, let me attempt your questions;

how did behaviours (something virtual) evolve?

Very good question.  This is an area I have just started to read up on and there are many good books in this subject.  One of the greatest problems here is that traces of behavior instances are not preserved in the fossil record, so a lot of this are simply inferential studies.  So the quick answer is - I don't know much about this area.

how did patterns and designs evolve? Darwin said in a letter to his friend 'the sight of the peacoks tail makes me sick'

You keep making an elementary mistake.  Evolution science is not revelation - so whatever Darwin said does not have to be taken as gospel.  There are many things that Darwin could not explain in his day, but have become explanable today.  The Peacocks tail is one such - There is  well-founded evolutionary explanation of design and patterns - It is called Sexual Selection.  I am surprise you ask question like this and you claim to be up to speed with the subject.   You are either lying for Jesus or plain ignorant.

give me one example of positive mutation in humans (apart from sickle cell. Lol)

There are plenty:

1)  Most of the population of Western Europe exists today because their descendents are those who survive the Black Death pandemic on the Middle ages. The survivors had the mutation that allowed them to survive the pandemic

2) Those prostitute in Kenya who are resistant to HIV: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080901205622.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/23/kenya.aids

3) The mutation that cause the lose of pigmentation amongst non-tropical dwelling humans, eg Europeans.  This is advantageous because people with dark skin living in the higher altitudes would not absorb enough high energy sun light to make vitamin D. So the would suffer from many developmental diseases like rickets, kwashoko, etc.

There are many more:

why has the bacteria remained unchanged for 1 billion years? Despite being the most mutant of organisms

Does evolution say that ALL organism HAVE TO evolute into other species?

what happened in the cambrian explosion?

The cambrian explosion records in fossil form the huge and diverse appearance of many different animal species with hard body parts that are easily fossilizable. It also records the early appearance of vastly new bodyplans.

How come drosphilia has showed not evolutn in the labs despite bombardment by scientis with rays for over sixty years. A pecies that produces a new genearipn every 7 days

How would you know they have not evolved?

And finally how did life originate?

I do not know.



Now, I have done my level best at addressing your question.   Would you mind returning the compliment and addressing the questions I asked directly, quoting the questions and providing your answer?  That is the only honest way of dealing with them.  As a  Christian, I would expect you to act in a most honest way, unless you are a BFCL4J.

bidemi12:

@huxley Obviously i have countered your arguement with logical, precise, and calm rebuttals. Also i am quite sure you did not read my initial post because if you did you would realise that i am against pastors taking advantage of their flocks. I believe that whatever monies i pay is to God through man. You seem hell bent on being aggressive and abusive. Or England no pay you? No be fight now.

Where have you countered me? What arguments have I made? I don't remember making any, other commentingg about the venality of the God people and the stupidity, dumbness, credulity, gullibility of the people who follow god.