₦airaland Forum

davidylan: If your only reason for supporting the evolutionary theory is that it is not shy about being taken apart and examined then i put it to you that you are on very tenuous ground and that at the end of a very rigorous scrutiny, evolution ends up being the opposite side of the same coin... religion being the other side. The only difference between you and I then is that while i exercise faith in Jesus, you would prefer to exercise blind faith in a scientific theory that is no where near being proven as true.

"God did it" may not be a satisfactory answer to you but is "random chance" a more logical alternative?

My response to the two questions is very simple - the same evasive illogic that atheists desperately use to plug the gaping holes in their favorite theory.
KAG's point for example... if indeed evolution from apes to humans was not the purpose and random chance is why we are what we are then why dont we see semi-humans with only one set of lungs? why really do we need two when medicine has proven without a doubt that we are capable of adapting just as fine with only one? Why do we not have half-apes and half-humans? would they not be capable of adapting just as fine as gorillas in the wild for example?

I dont exercise blind faith. May I point out once more that I am not an "evolutionist". If I hold it more credible, its simply because its willing to undergo scrutiny and modification as things become clearer. That to me is better than a take it or leave it approach.

Why we dont see "semi humans" ?
I dunno. Search me. I'm no expert. Perhaps the "random chance" didnt pan out in the "semi human" direction

Why do we see siamese twins ?

I doubt that the theory of evolution says species have to be the best fit/design for their environment; just that they should adapt and survive (or go extinct).

Its not my field and evolution doesnt affect my stance one way or another.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]church-goer to agnostic to meddling with new age to atheist to toying with satanism .......and eventually to Christ.[/quote]Ah, ok. Cool.

Thanks for answering.

davidylan: Satisfaction shouldnt be the end result... as long as it makes logical sense. I find it hard to take atheists seriously when they bawl about how unreasonable religion is... only to spend their time desperately using mental gymnastics to defend insanely illogical viewpoints.

Let me ask for the 3rd time, are you going to answer the question? You all seem to spend your time evading giving simple answers to a lot of problems arising from evolution.

You are too hasty.

I am not an "evolutionist". I do hold however that it makes more sense to investigate evolution than creation. The reason is because the theory is not shy about being taken apart and examined.

So for creationists, "god did it" is an answer. Apparently its not satisfactory to others.

Since you speak about an answer making logical sense, I would like to see your response to the following.

KAG: Why should we see an ape (ape in the colloquial non scientific usage) change to a human?It seems you are under the impression the evolving to humans is an evolutionary goal, well that's not the case.

nferyn: Hi davidylan,
Humans did not evolve from living apes. Apes and humans have a common ancestor. Both evolved in different directions from that point onward.

davidylan: I dont bother asking it because none of you has been able to give a satisfactory answer in 6 yrs of asking it. Can you?

Maybe, maybe not.

One can always give an "answer". For it to be "satisfactory" is another thing.


Edited.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Yes I was..........and God saved me.[/quote]Out of curiousity, what was your sequence

a) Christian----->Atheist----->Christian
b) Atheist------->Christian
c) Other (please specify)

davidylan: why not? Can you answer the question? go right ahead.

I'm just "researching" remember ?

Its just that I've seen you argue against evolution and that question doesnt come up anymore. I wondered if you had found a satisfactory answer to it which made you drop it.

davidylan: I get tired of the blaise and lazy way you folks ask "questions" without making any effort to study up first. Read that post you quoted again... i wasnt asking those questions seeking an answer, they were RHETORICAL questions meant to provoke some debate on the illogicality of the evolution theory.
Why do you expect me to keep asking it?

So you still think its a good question to ask why apes havent evolved to humans (even if "rhetorically" )?

davidylan: Read the entire post again... it was a question posed as a way to show up the inherent illogic in the theory of evolution. I'm glad that at least someone is researching.

I did read the entire post and I've heard many others ask the same question. Your question was answered by others on the thread, but as you never responded to them, I have no way of knowing if their answers were satisfactory to you.

Also, I've noticed you dont ask the question anymore.

So my question is, did you find the answer and if you did, what is it ?

Davidylan, there was a question you asked some time ago. I'm wondering if you now know the answer and care to educate us. I ask this because I dont see you ask that question anymore.

davidylan: Question is: Is man here by the actions of a divine being or are we a result of natural selection?
If so why have we not seen an ape change to a human by natural selection? Why are we yet to observe a half man half ape?
https://www.nairaland.com/5432/god-creation-miracles-evolution/1#179960

Thanks M_Nwankwo

I think I understand what you mean when you say "that particular soul", but just for the avoidance of doubt what I meant was your general take of the book.

The idea of higher and lower planes, the beings that inhabit them which which ascend or descend into planes depending on their conduct whilst in a particular plane, the mirror image of cities that existed during ones earthly years, the notion that ones thoughts draw like minded "spirits".

Do you hold these things to be true ?


EDIT:
I just read your response again and it clarifies some of what I just asked.

Thanks for your time.

justcool: @jayriginal
No, I have not read “A Wanderer In The Spirit Lands” hence I’m not qualified to pass judgment on it. The bases of my conversation in this thread and in this entire forum is “In the Light of Truth; The Grail Message” by Abd-ru-shin. I invite you to read this book and judge my writings in the light of it.
Thanks

Oh I read all three books years ago including "A Wanderer In The Spirit Lands". Just wondering.
Thanks.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]@mazaje, your are arguing besides the point even if Jephthah actually burnt his daughter, it still doesn't prove that it was with God's consent.

The task for you is to show us explicitly where God accepts this alleged human sacrifice either by showing us a verse where God demands it from Jephthah or a verse where God commends Jephthah for it. You still haven't done this.

(...and please don't argue from silence)[/quote]I believe it is clear by now that the girl was roasted.

Your angle is to show that god did not approve.

Arent you yourself arguing from silence here ? If you reason that because god did not commend it, he must have condemned it, dont you think we could look at the other side of the coin.
The god in the bible is certainly not shy and has been known to condemn acts he was displeased with. So if he was displeased with the act, dont you think he would have condemned it ? And if he did not condemn it . . .

Also, since he was god, couldnt he have rejected the sacrifice or prevented the girl from coming out or simply absolving Jephthah from his sworn obligation ?

This god certainly seems to have a thing for "only" children; Isaac, Jephthah's daughter, Jesus (another human sacrifice by the way).

Just Cool and M Nwankwo,
have you read "A Wanderer In The Spirit Lands" and if you have, whats your take on it ?

^^^
Still trying to salvage a point ?

Be a good boy and run along will ya.

You're just not built for this.

^^^

Have a good day. Try and brush up on the basics. It leaves you looking less like a lightweight.

^^^
Must I teach you basics ?

Did I ever argue that it was theoretically possible ?

You can insult all you want. It only shows exactly how "deep" you are.

Deep Sight: Yep. Deliberate. That post says it all. Besides, its in the same page with your statements, so anyone can see the whole discussion.

Your post says it all? I thought I was the one who said those things ? Wouldn't a "Deeper Sighted" person making these assertions link instead to the posts that would confirm what you are saying ? Its easy enough to say something, but when you are called out you want to play games.

Deep Sight: His EXACT WORDS were "theoretically possible".

Stop being dishonest.

Im being dishonest ? Wow, you have a lot of nerve indeed. You say things people did not say and then you are called out, you try to bamboozle your way out of it. When that fails, you start with the names. Funny chap. Yes, "theoretically possible" were indeed his exact words and I knew that, but you didnt. Instead, you took him out of context and I called your attention to it.


Here, I'll do what you cannot do.

Deep Sight: but nowadays we have nit wits like Richard Dawkings writing that the eye could have "sprang into existence in a single lucky mutation".

Notice, theres no "theoretically" in your statement. My response . . .

jayriginal: Wow! In your hatred for Dawkins, you are willing to take liberties with the truth.

Its quite telling you know?

Here is what the man said.

And I went on to quote what the man said and even provided you with the link to verify it.

Deep Sight: Oh no, lest thou perish in thine own folly, thou corectedest me not: Dawkins DID say that it is "theoretically possible" for an eye to spring into existence in a single lucky mutation, and I remember I specifically explained to you what "theoretically" means - and such a thing is NOT "theoretically" possible. Nor possible.

Later, my illogical friend.

Someday, you will wake up from the delusion that following dolts like Dawkins is some form of sophistication.

Nope you said "Dawkins said" not "Dawkins said theoretically". Theres a difference. I did tell you you were "taking liberties with the truth".

I shouldnt have to give you basic lessons should I ?

Oh, and I follow nobody. I'm sorry, you cant stick that one on me.

Learn to argue ok ?

^^^

Ok I laughed really hard when I opened the link. It leads to one of your posts. You really want to be taken seriously ?

Come on.

Deep Sight: Really? REALLY? REALLY? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

The thread is there, and you know your words. Frankly, I am shocked.

The thread is there and I know my words. Frankly, I am not shocked because you displayed your wonderful talent for constructing strawmen and misconstruing arguments throughout the thread. I even remember having to correct you recently over a Dawkins quote.

I'm not responsible for what you understand.

^^^
No need for hysterics. Simply quote me if you dare.

Deep Sight: Sorry, I don't have the energy or time for that mate. Nor the inclination. It beggars belief though, that you would attempt to deny your own words.

You see yourself ?

Just like I asked you to quote me and you couldn't. Its always easier to argue after you have distorted the other position.

wissezy: Yes they do. Jst around 2:00am u will be partly awake, u will feel a heavy a weight on u dat u cant even shake. Then in the morning u have something like razor marks all over ur body, especially on ur chest.

Sleep paralysis?

Deep Sight: How so? Need i dig up your words?

I'd like that very much.

Deep Sight: I was rather thinking about your issues with current scientific laws being "assumptions".

Thats a clever misstatement.

Deep Sight: I would strongly recommend this post to my learned brother jayriginal.

Lol, I remember using the story of the blind men and the elephant to illustrate a point to you.

No wahala.

I guess I could stand to ignore a few posts.

https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist

Enjoy.

Deep Sight: Did you really post all that nonsensical garbage?

Honestly, I expect better from you. . . unfortunately you hold so firm to your belief that it is impossible to logically infer God, that you tenaciously reject even the sensible arguments for God's existence that there are. . . and there are several. But you would descend to culling and posting nonsensical mockeries of arguments, eh. Well done. Carry on. So long as it makes you sleep better at night.

None of the mockeries you culled up there are even faintly as nonsensical as your own position on the issue of causality alone. Plain irrational harry-potter voodoo; and yet you have the nerve to post mockeries. What a funny world.

So you say. You should understand the thread from which it came and the context it was posted in first.

And as for nerve, you have a lot of it to use words such as "mockeries", "nonsensical" etc, in reference to anything.

Its a funny world indeed.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The scales were already tilted from the moment one gender's natural instinct was to be 'the protector' and the other gender's natural instinct was to be 'the protected'.

Marriage as defined by the bible allows both genders to be their true selves. If Christian marriage were properly followed in principle, there would be no failed marriages.

The more you respond on this issue, the more apparent it is to me that you really don't have a proper understanding of what love is.[/quote]Ok.

buzugee: the man is over the woman. opari. its biblical. cant say more than that.

Ok boss.

Logic Mind: what if the man wanted to buy the latest sports car instead, should the woman submit?

Buzugee already told you.

The man has the final say.