₦airaland Forum

felixomor:
I hope u know u havent touched the question.

I answered far better than i ever can in definition - not define it rather show it.

If you can't grasp it then obviously i can't help you

Moreover, personally speaking, we know u dont av a telescope, nor a microscope

Speak for yourself

felixomor:
Please who is "nature'?
Where does she or he live?
How do u know he is ruled by chance?

Next time ask what not who... this egoistic anthropomorphism has always being the greatest problem humans have in understanding the universe.

Everything is not limited to who, he, she.... when next you ask

what is nature?

widening the horizons of possible answers then my reply to you becomes..

-Drop your phone and go outside, buy a telescope, buy a microscope.

That's all.

4.Design: It is Obvious that the entire Universe and Human body are a product of design.Evolutionists believe the Universe came into existence by chance.

LOL.. 'Let there be light' is not design, even the pope agrees and avows that it takes more of magic.

You must show us what an undesigned universe should be like so we can compare to draw a conclusion.

What is Chance? Chance is something to occur unexpected or unplanned.this contradicts Scientific method which is the very foundation of Scientific Research.Scientific laws or principle is established only after the theory has been proven.those laws are based on observed and proven patterns not chances.Their is no way a Man will have a Penis and a woman will have a vigina by chance and yet they complement each other ,or how will a man produce sperms and concidentally or by chance a woman also has a womb that needs that sperm to procreate.

Yes there is no way some organisms reproduce sexually while others reproduce asexually.. isn't 'sexual' reproduction your example of design? meaning 'asexual reproductions are 'undesigned'.

lol.. face it brother no matter how much you yank it nature is very diverse, uncharted and unplanned, happens in every way.

Diversity of gametes in sexually reproducing organisms developed from a simpler initial asexual form, splitting of daughter cells, assimilation of mitochondria into the cellular composition, these add credence to a consistent development.

---

Let me further buggle your mind - even if we add a God to the picture it still falls down back to chance.

- a chance that there somehow is a God and not 'nothing'
-a chance that this god turns out to have an ability to create
- a chance that in a literal unending loop of existence this god just pops up one day and decides to create everything
- a chance that the things created are part of the things he created and other inexistent things are not.

You cannot ruled out the infinite reach of chance, how ever you may try to wriggle around it, it will always fall back down to remarkable chance.

Yet again this God you are invoking; isn't it precise? isn't it a functional system like every other living entity?

Isn't it equally as intricate or more? If going by your argument humans must require design then won't this God also require design if we follow your arguments?

-since complexity connotes design to you therefore this God must require design, if not your argument shatters as usual

or is it just a conscious nebulous cloud of nothing

Birds have wings to enable them fly

wouldn't wings be a very wonderful thing for humans to have also? why don't we have it then?

Ostrich has wings but yet don't fly, did the designer encounter difficulty there or should be we say it is incompetent of pulling off a better design?

,Fishes have fins and gills to enable them Live in water.

Adaptation and natural selection.

the body of both fishes and birds are streamlined to enable them move in water and Air with less frictional resistance.

Human body also is, snakes also have that even more so but there move on land.

all this can not be by chance they were designed to be this way.

It points to a random selection since these features you may point out also exists in other examples starkly unrelated to the given examples.

infact Science have adopted the shapes of birds and fishes in the design of Airplanes and Submarines.

showing design require pre-existing materials and inspirations to occur and not magic 'let the oceans produce fishes' is not design.

we did not design an aeroplane by speaking to ourselves without any pre-existing inspiration and materials and it took very many long periods of trials and errors.

Evolution can not do this. this requires design and design requires a mind and life.

Says who?

Evolution is a process just like burning,farting.e.t.c they lack thought.

but yet they produce result.

Bible Answer
In Psalms  139:14, it says , I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
This shows that Man and the Universe was carefully designed and made not by chance but by God Almighty.where is the logic in believing, that Robots must be designed and created ,while Man came into existence by chance.

If this universe is your idea of a carefully made system, you have a serious problem of observation of obvious facts.

5.Death and Decay:
Evolution and Bigbang theory suggests that objects or things move from simple cells or things to complex things or organism .they suggest that man and the Universe is evoluing into higher state. This is contray to the law of Entropy,
The genes of plants,insects, animals, and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving .

You see where your problem lies is arguing against a premise you simply don't even understand.

One can simply point out - Natural selection..

An evolutionary mechanism, organisms that are capable of adapting to a given habitat continues and thrives while ones unable die off [extinction]

Evolution is not a linear process of improvement, it is diversely random. It can go any way and every way in coincide with the given factors involved.

Not a linear one way development.

You need to read, understand before rushing off to argue against things you don't even have an idea of.

Scientific observation of the world confirms that there is an inexorable law that
things decay from more complex forms into
simpler ones over time.  Radioactive elements decay into simpler elements over time. A car or house left to itself will decay over time back
into the earth from which its constituent elements came. A recent cable-TV
documentary called “Life After Humans”
affirmed and described this process very
well. It asserted that within hundreds of
years, even New York City would be reclaimed by the elements. Streets, buildings,
metallic objects, etc. would all decay into
simpler forms. rends don’t exist.Humans and animals decay immedately after death.
In order for evolution to exist,
there would have to be an immutable,observable law that simple things automatically and inexorably recombine
themselves into ever-more complex forms. It
is an observable, testable fact that such necessary evolutionary trends don’t exist.

The truth is you don't even know what the word evolution is..simpler values can accumulate into intricate values and complex values can be broken into simpler values - thus is the relationship, the complex things derive a fundamental bedrock from simpler values.

tiny atoms makes everything from these micro scale and not the other way round, giving cliche examples like humans decaying lends testimony to the fact that complex values are dependent on micro values.

hydrogen and oxygen molecule reacting will move from being simple elements into becoming a complex compound : water or hydrogen peroxide which still can be broken down into oxygen and hydrogen bits.

Accumulation of varying simple values leads to a complex system, a consistent building from the scratch not a remarkable drop of fully complex system from no where.

Bible Answer.
Ecclesiastes 10:18 , Says  By much slothfulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of the hands the house droppeth through.

Ecclesiastes  3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Job  34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.

Ecclesiastes  12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
All this Bible verses agree with Science law of Entropy.
Things wear down. Nothing gets better by itself.

Drop the bible, pick up more science books at least you may yet go past this pitiable stage of always yapping about "thermodynamics" and always getting it wrong and pully out laws of thermodynamics from no where.

Or equating thermo manifestations to biological activities.

In Conclusion
There are lots of examples that prove that Science is in agreement with Bible facts and not in oppostion. but i cannot exhaust all the examples due to limited Space and time.

Bros you simply have no point here, not even one. You first of all need to understand science from the basic level before you can come back and try again.

You only poured out your personal beliefs all hewn from one ancient book you probably should be way above but rather choose to be bound mercilessly in a primitive ideology that deserves respect only as a product of human enquiry and probing audacity but must be recognized to be just as naive as it is ignorant and limited like most other ancient works.

All you have done here is to show you have no idea about the premises you have invoked but instead of agree to ignorance you fill that void of ignorance with the word 'God' convincing yourself that you've got the answer even without honest enquiry.

Through out the course of history and scientific development- things attributed to Gods has always dwindled and waned as more breakthroughs and discoveries are made.

God has always shown to be no more than the projection of human ignorance, a placeholder for ignorance.

E.G: Ptolemy of the Hellenistic age after observing planetary motions remarked "As i observe for my pleasure the to and fro movement of the planetary bodies, i no longer stand on the earth with my two feet but in the presence of zeus himself"

Ptolemy was awed by the remarkable manifestation of celestial motions, his ignorance more so inducing greater awe instead of agree ignorance to how their came about or the mechanism behind it, Ptolemy invoked God, zeus.

Centuries later, isaac newton figured out the problem of planetary motion - gravity and God was canceled from the mechanism of planetary motion as Ptolemy did because unlike Ptolemy he figured out how they happened.

But Newton came to the problem of solar stability, he came to the apex of his knowledge and mathematics, he was ignorant of that level of solar orbital dance, he did like Ptolemy and invoked his own God [christian God]

Laplace came along years later and solved the problem of stability with this calculations of perturbation and thus goes, the God of Newton was shattered from the equation; a small beautiful maths found in the 'principa mathematica' removed the God of newton from the solution of solar stability.

when asked the role of god in the equation leplace simply answered "i have no need of that hypothesis"

You see; Gods may exist or not [billions of them if you will] but if you only hide God in a place shielded by scientific ignorance in order to derive basis or relevance for the existence of god then i'm sorry that is a feeble attempt because as more discoveries are being made and as study progresses 'God will always be a receding pocket of scientific ignorance'


as Paul Heinrich Dietrich, Baron von Holbach once out it

"If a faithful account was rendered of Man’s ideas upon Divinity, he would be obliged to acknowledge, that for the most part the word ‘gods’ has been used to express the concealed, remote, unknown causes of the effects he witnessed; that he applies this term when the spring of the natural, the source of known causes, ceases to be visible: as soon as he loses the thread of these causes, or as soon as his mind can no longer follow the chain, he solves the difficulty, terminates his research, by ascribing it to his gods . . . When, therefore, he ascribes to his gods the production of some phenomenon . . . does he, in fact, do any thing more than substitute for the darkness of his own mind, a sound to which he has been accustomed to listen with reverential awe? "

......

No wonder the great Scienctist and Physics great ,Albert Einstein said " Science without Religeon is Lame,Religeon without Science is Blind"

Exactly cus science and religion are siblings, children of philosophy. but there is more to religion that yours.

there are very many religions with deep profound cosmogony very relatable to modern scientific findings even though very old more so than your bible - Hinduism

even on ones with no pointer to creator deities - Taoism, Buddism, Jainism.

and i have always found them more honest, sincere and open minded to the possibilities that are and always recognize their postulations and myths to be eloquent human philosophies and speculations about the natural world that possibly may be or not be true.

even though Hinduism proposes a deity, it always holds the idea of an unending universe going in circles going through births and rebirths [Almost same as the big bang cosmological model proposes of there is sufficient matter in the universe to reverse the expansion like i mentioned earlier above]

But yet in one of the hindu Vedas: One of the hymns in the Rigveda speculates on various cosmic forces which might have fashioned the universe. It concludes with a passage of most Sophisticated scepticism , beginning: 'But, after all, who knows, and who can say whence it all came, and how creation happened.'

That is a remarkable and deep clear cut honesty and intellectual humility something both you and your religion lacks rather boast of intellectual dishonesty buttered with arrogance even in ignorance.

that is surely a dangerous factor to the intellectual evolution of the human species.

Thanks

Thanks too, hope you learn a thing or two. at least intellectual honesty and humility and learn more before attempting to teach to avoid the sad show above.

BlueAgent

Johnydon22 signing off..

Cc. Teempakguy, Loj, donffd, hardmirror, cloudgoddess, davien, frecocoa, weah, frank317, dalaman, theEYe21

3.Orderliness in the Universe:Evolution and Bigbang theory suggests orderliness in the Universe came into existence by chance or by action of forces like gravity on the Universe.
They believe that Man is responsible for the destruction of the Earth rather than Sin.they believe that random events led to the orderliness in the Universe.

Bolded is so on point: Gravity is in fact the leading cause of cosmological patterns we observe in the universe.

As i have always said here: You need a thorough teaching on these subjects before you can ever grasp it because you always argue from a simplistic ignorance.

In the universe it is evidently clear that is is both chaotic and random and these activities leadings to a resulting pattern.

Both order and randomness are equally represented in the cosmos and these orderliness are always effects of chaotic interactions.

It will take a total dunce to assert a universe where asteroids and other planetary bodies crash into planets, galaxies colliding into each other, intercepting wobbling orbits and so many others is perfectly ordered, it shows total ignorance on the premise being argued.

This was the same very mistake Johannes Kepler made when he argued for a perfectly ordered cosmos, perfectly geometrical orbits that later as he studied turned out to be irregular ellipses and not perfect circles leading him to say

" The truth of nature, which I had rejected and chased away, returned by stealth through the back door, disguising itself to be accepted . . . Ah, what a foolish bird I have been!"

Following this same line of thought - Kepler once thought after observing moon craters that they must be works of intelligent species on the moon, that such perfect circles could not be a work of chance by random nature.

But he was also wrong - Moon craters even though perfectly ordered geometrical depressions were not made by any intelligent species neither does it need any, turns out nature is fully capable of making such highly ordered geometrical perfection from randomness, chaos and by chance.

A falling rock of great speed [meteorite or asteroid] impacting on a surface would produce a local explosion, perfectly symmetric in all directions and would carve out a perfectly circular cavity

This contractdict The second law of thermodynamics which
proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of
a higher form as claimed by evolutionists.

Bros please stop disgracing yourself, thermodynamics deals with heat [temperature] and other crude form of energy manifestations not biology.

it is a very obvious fact that complexity is derived from simplicity.

This is scientifically backwards according
to the second law of thermodynamics,
which has never been proven wrong.The universe is slowing down.

Damn!!! is "thermodynamics" the only word regarding scientific laws you know and you always attribute wrong propositions of your own making to it. Please sir the universe is not slowing down, it is actually speeding up most recently.

And if the universe is to slow down then it is a reach of gravity sir which will lead to a reverse of the course crunching everything back together [if the universe has enough matter] and if this is the case it means the universe is a circle, an unending regress of end and causality, then if the big bang be true, it certainly was not the first or last.

if the universe has not enough matter then it will race on forever. .

Let me again reverse this argument - [even though the universe is not ordered as you'd have us believe, you are trying to explain the universal complexity and order with God (an even more ordered and complex entity that should be) because for God to be intelligent and conscious enough to create the universe then it must be equally as complex at least or far more complex than the universe.

if you aim at explaining universal complexity with God then you'd need to invoke another God to explain God's complexity and again another infinite regress.

But if you maintain God is uncaused even though more complex than the universe - then you have defeated your own argument since you have shown something can be complex without being caused by another therefore you have no case against the universe being complex without being made so by another complex thing.

It is clear that complexity is derived by consistent intrinsic development of simpler values.

Climate change,Flooding,Famines,Droughts,Frequent Earthquakes .e.t.c are proofs that the World is becoming more Chaotic.

and they laugh at your delusion of an ordered cosmos.

Order will always move
naturally towards disorder or chaos, Not the Opposite.Our complex universe is
wearing down, and becoming more chaotic...

Another shouty load of half baked nonsense - like saying cold can become hot but hot cannot be become cold.

Bible Answer:
Paul was aware of this when he wrote his letter to the Hebrews:
Everything ".. waxes old like a garment" (quoted
in both Psalm 102:25-27, and also Hebrews
1:10-12).
"This verse "anticipates the famous second law of
thermodynamics, or law of entropy, indicating
that everything in the physical universe is
growing old and wearing out. God created
everything in the beginning, winding it up like a great clock, so to speak. Because of sin and the curse, however, it has been running down and "perishing" ever since. Jesus also said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away" (literally, "are passing away" (Matthew 24:35)" - Waxing Old, like a Garment.
Isaiah  24:4 Says"The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish"
Verse5
Isaiah  24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Verse6
Isaiah  24:6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.
A chaotic process can never led to an organised state on its own.

Here we have it people, the boy hews his cosmogony from biblical passages which he is trying to hard to reconcile with modern science even though he believes the bible is an absolute truth. [since the bible is the literal absolute truth shouldn't every other part of human enquiry be the ones hoping to reconcile with the bible and not the other way round as you are doing here?]

To even stretch his dishonesty more, he is cherry picking the parts of science to reconcile with his beliefs and chastises ignorantly the parts he feels are direct threats to his beliefs.

it's obvious you are not aiming at finding the truth of nature with open mind just hoping to find feeble reasons to make yourself feel good with the fantasy of religious correctness.

Nairaland said the reply was too long so i had to cut bit by bit... continued

2.Origin of Life:Evolution and bigbang cannot explain the origin of life.life cannot originate from lightening or by chance as suggested by atheists.

Just when i thought you couldn't get dumber you just had to prove me wrong, who ever proposed origin by lightening.. lol.

Nature itself is ruled by chance, in fact even if there is a God behind the causality of the universe and life it is still a subject to chance that it decided to create us after all.

Life is a chemistry, an organic chemistry we are still struggling to understand due to the intricate nature of the chemistry involved, building blocks of life as we know it has been synthesized from abiotic agents through very many means showing life almost certainly arose from abiotic organic factors.

atheists view about origin of life contracdicts science law of  Biogenesis, that states all life can only come from pre-existing life.

.. and this pre-existing life then from another and that one from another and we are in another infinite regress and loop.

I think it is more rational and obvious that the universe [which life is not independent of] develops from a simple level to more intricate level with time and random interactions of values within it's confines and life was a result of these interactions and development.

Biogenesis and abiogenesis are both scientific hypothesis and i do not recall ever knowing of any law that states 'Biogenesis must be the case'

Again almost every experiment is pointing towards an abiotic origin of life, you are basically Hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon and these are the most common elements in the universe alongside helium, if life as we know it is made from the most common values there are how is it then a surprise that there is life?

Johanness Kepler once asked 'if a letuce, milk, carrot, cabbage has been floating eternally, could there have by chance met and salad is made?' his answer was 'yes'

You lot harbour an egoistic mindset placing yourself as the 'purpose' behind universal causality.

Life is not the cause of the universe but an effect .... obviously..

Bible Answer:
The Bible in John  5:26 says For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

In Job  33:4 Says "The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life"  Life Requires a LIFEGIVER.it is
impossible to have life without a lifegiver?Only God has Life inherent in Himself. This
is, after all, what makes Him God. No one created God, because He has Life inherent in
Himself.   The  Bible also  states that God created all life during the first six days of the creation week of Genesis 1.

Here we go again another nonsensical special pleading: Life must be given by a life giver and then this life giver even though also alive does not need another life giver - therefore life does not necessarily need a life giver as you'd want to argue.

Always destroying your own arguments.

blueAgent:

Does Science agree with Bible facts or that of Evolution?
Most Atheists argue that Bible facts like the Creation,are inconsistent with Scientic views.hence they promote Evolution as the Logical answer, to explain the Origin of Man.
My purpose is to verify if this Claims are consistent with Science or if Science agrees more with the Bible.

You see it is something remarkable to me that someone can so proudly spew from a blind point of what i'd like to call 'Self induced ignorance' reading this post filled me with a mixed feeling.

-One is 'laughter' if i should laugh at such stark naivete and unparalleled ignorance masquerading as an apologetic article.

-The other was a feeling on 'being pissed off' pissed off at the arrogance from which ignorance is being shoveled out, pissed because it is a self induced ignorance, straight out dishonesty seeking out which science facts can be reconciled with your beliefs and which is not yet still on a lunatic mission of trying to butter science into old outdated primitive superstitions, i am pissed at the fact that the person that has pulled off such feeble laughable attempt at refuting scientific findings [even though it was a mission aimed at reconciling his beliefs with science but ended up being cherrypicking of scientific findings] you've have done so with a pitiable ignorance on the topics you touched.

People attacking something they don't even understand, this is the case and it makes me even more pissed.

I am not going to go easy on this reply, i will condescend and i will belittle you, i will reveal the idiocy of your arrogance while swimming in humongous ignorance - because i'm beginning to see my recent mild approach has given people the go ahead to spew nonsense everywhere, my recent silence and so busy schedule has given you lot the leverage to shovel outright absurd apologetic lunacy with abject ignorance proudly - I won't take it easy with you because you don't deserve it.

Let us start with the bolded coloured words How so is the discipline of science different from the scientific branch of study: Evolution?

this the most idiotic assertion i have seen in a while.

Evolution is a scientific branch of study and so is no different from science unless of course you have your own personal definition of science [this is something i thought only kids would be ignorant of but alas a full grown asss adult is the one here - pity]

It is clear at first glance to people reading this that the OP is a very dishonest person who aims at distinguishing scientific fields that contradicts his personal beliefs with science.

Let us proceed.

1.Origin of the Universe and Matter.
Bigbang theory says the Universe came into existence, as a result of a massive explosions ,but this contractdicts Newtons first law of motion. Which states that a body will remain in its state of rest or remain on a straight line if in motion unless it is acted upon by a force.

The second blunder this is - first the big bang didn't propose an explosion rather expansion, a massive inflation of a universal singularity.

As usual arguing from ignorance.

further more - Laws of physics are observed principles of how physical properties behave in the universe, therefore [even though the Big Bang did not propose nothing] even if you run everything back to a state of nothingness, it means no physical particles or values exists therefore there cannot be a law of physics.

If there is nothingness there is no law of Newton meaning simultaneously things can happen from no where - Laws of Physics only apply in an already established universe not in a state of nothingness.

-Lets further show your naivete - laws of macro physics breaks down in the micro state, in the quantum level there is no such thing as Laws of motion, every laws of physics we know in this macro state is contradicted when we look down into the micro world.

-subatomic particles can accelerate all by themselves without being acted upon by an external force
-quantum tunnelling
-quantum fluctuations - where particles pop into existence from seeming nothingness

And if we agree the macro state is build from the micro bits then there was a time the universe can be referred to be in a micro state and therefore holds no established observed behavioural tendencies [laws of physics ]of the macro state we now observe …

If you knew this you wouldn't have pulled out this naive argument.

it also contractdicts science law which states Matter can neither be created or destoryed.

Law of energy conservation (thermodynamics) which even voids your argument below where you are invoking a god to answer the problem of causality.

If energy cannot be created nor destroyed as stated above - doesn't this mean the universe [which is both energy and matter -matter still a form of energy] didn't need to be created?

You already destroyed your own argument.

for bigbang to occur someone(God) or a force must first create the object that exploded and also provide the force to intiate the explosions.this force its self must have the ability to exert force without itsself ,requiring force  and also have the ability to create matter from nothing.

You see the idiocy of religious dishonesty?

This is the same person who wanted to argue that the universe must require a force [A god he wants to put there] to cause it because of first law of motion he stated then turns around and propose a force that doesn't require an external force thereby contradicting the very first law of motion he pulled out to support his argument.

This is not only a blind clutch at a dishonest special pleading it also shoots the OP in the foot bringing out a sad show of someone refuting his own argument without even realizing it.

If you propose a force that needs no external force to be caused then why exactly were we looking for a cause for the universe in the first place?

Why then don't we apply the same method, save a step and propose the universe has the ability to be without interference from an external force.

If you say everything must have an external cause behind then this your proposed force [conscious humanoid it outstandingly is] must require another force which in turn must require another force and we are caught in a chain of infinite regress of external causes.

Let me say even if there was an external force behind the universe [not necessarily an ominous weird conscious entity from where] then the question is what is it?

If according to obviously what you believe in - is a humanoid who loves the jews, gets jealous, has anger issues and is more childish, petty and insecure than humans then you not only lunatic but lacks deep knowledge and reverence of what the universe stands for.

Bible answer.
Hebrews11:3 Says God spoke the word and formed the Universe from Nothing .
God is the Unmovable mover, he created the entire Universe from nothing.
This is consistent with the laws of Science i mentioned above.it requires faith to believe in the Bible ,same way bigbang theory requires faith.

Here we go, the same dishonest clutch at special pleading and again contradiction of own stance.

You forgot the third law of motion that states for every action there is an equal reaction, so there cannot be such a thing as unmovable mover, for something to move the other it must have likewise same motion.

so going by the Laws of Newton you naively brought up - there cannot be such a thing as unmovable mover, you must be moving for you to move another.

God spoke the 'word' this is not an act of design, this is rather magic... it takes a magician and abracadabra to pop out things from no where.

Regarding the 'Faith based belief of the bible' you got that part absolutely right on the other hand the big bang [science] do not require faith because it is neither a dogma or doctrine or a claim of absolute certainty.

It's a systematic approach through observations and using consistent logic and mathematical tools to arrive at a truthful approximation without at any point claim absolute truth has been reached.

HCpaul:
I love it when religious fanatics are trying to associate science with religion. All the rapid and progressive development achieved in science are part of evolution itself.
But did you know that Science is a superset of religion while religion is just an aspect of philosophy.

If you are not ignorant of what scientific theories entails, you will realize that beliefs and other religious theories are discarded.
You can't be a science genius and retain the standard of a real Christian. Science and Religion are two different things.

Africans are the only setback that the world has.
The whites presented us Education, Religion, Civilization, Science and Technology, but among all these, Nigerians only anticipated Religion so as to easily hide their ignorance and assumptions.
Everything about Africans have been lame, irrational and apparently not worthy of emulation.

Bro! We don't create value for our lives when we don't know and we are not ready to know.

We are the most religious but still unable to control our economy. What a religious jugi - jugi.

I'm loving this new HCpaul, i'm wondering if getting free from religious and superstitious mumbo jumbo makes someone a bit smarter?

You still haven't replied my question bro, whats with the new atheistic stance?

theEYe21:
Who's this mugu? Science contradicts most things in the bible.

There was a time i'd have time to reply his load of nonsensical junks up there, it really irks me when people argue from a state of stark ignorance..

I have always maintain there is no problem or shame in ignorance only when irrational thoughts and untold arrogance takes the place left by ignorance, exactly what the OP is.

In fact i will reply and take that piece of of junk apart... I'm coming.

mcemmy0z:
WHY WOULD A GOD BE JEALOUS ...IS JEALOUSY NOT PART OF SIN.?

Jealousy is as a result of emotional vulnerability, insecurity and envy - shouldn't it baffle any rational mind how an all powerful, all knowing and all perfect god can be subjected to such petty mundane flaw as Jealousy.

-Even in humans, Jealousy is an undesirable idea, a projection of human insecurity.

The bible paints a very petty childish insecure God [Jealous God]..

It seriously baffles me why some people never give these things a thought..

God is a jealous God people should think about it, take all the time they need.

The universe may be teaming with life everywhere else, there is no restriction for that chemistry to occur in the low radiative zones.

It is highly possible that ingredients for life on earth were not earth born but were rained down on earth on meteors that bombarded earth during it's early age, intricate organic molecules [necessary for life] has been found on recent meteors on earth and replicating the meteor impact has created amino acids [building blocks of life as we know it].

We are only familiar with one type of life and chemistry, even though we might be chauvinistic about the organic chemistry of life found on earth or the conditions necessary for it - this doesn't mean it is the only way universally.

One thing in nature is that it is diverse and happens anyway ..

there could be life anywhere in the solar system or universe, Jupiter, mars any of them all having distinct organic origin and chemistry from life on earth, distinct evolutionary pace, routes.

Life on earth is made up of mainly

-Hydrogen
-oxygen
-carbon
-nitrogen

and these elements alongside helium are the most abundant elements in the cosmos, that is a remarkable pointer that Life can be anyway because we are made from the most common elements there is, though the complexity of the chemistry cuts it down a bit.

But all in all the universe may be teaming with life even if there are just very tiny microbial life forms not necessary highly developed and intelligent entities.

Fingers crossed, we may yet confirm certainly if we have interstellar neighbours and universal relations.

I shudder at the possibilities

Elohim1:
Atheim Doesn't Mean U Don't Believe In God It Only Means U Lack Belief Of A God Truly Existing And Thats It If U Think That U Can Be Religious And Still Be An Atheist Its impossible Cause Being Religion Means Holding So Kind Of Religious Beliefs What Kind Of Religious Beliefs Do U Hold??

Even after all the explanations. . . I give up, there is nothing more i can say

Elohim1:
Why Are U Christians So Dumb Atheist Has No Religious Belief Buddhist Do Have Religious Belief How Can They Be The Same?? Common sense Is Not Common

Let me help you understand this a bit better.

-Theism and atheism are not religions, cannot be religions. both are simple words used to quantify the virtue of belief and unbelief as regards Gods.

Even though theism and atheism are just labels of belief and unbelief and are not and can never be religions, religions can be derived from the essence of these positions.

E.G islam, christianity, Mithraism are theistic religions.

Jainism, Taoism are broadly atheistic.

Being an atheist does not mean you don't have a religion or conform to any religious philosophies or doctrines, it only means one thing

[You don't believe in God(s) ]

Being theistic doesn't mean you have a religion, you might not even conform to any religious philosophy or doctrine.

So someone can be atheistic and religious and another be theistic and irreligious.

Someone can be atheistic and irreligious while one can mostly be theistic and religious.

Atheism and Theism are not religious positions.

Misplaced thanksgiving. . A fellow human help you, you opened a thread to give the credit to a god that is no where to be found and not the person who really helped you.

That's idiotic

Atheism is sweeping through the world like a wild fire, fighting it is futile. It will take the God(s) if they be, flying down to earth to stop it.

yinkuscious:
Obviously, we all met religion on earth and we will surely leave d practise behind at demise.
Is it worth dying for ?

Your religion is almost certainly due to geographical point of origin and parents, if you were born in northern Nigeria by Muslim parents, you are likely to be a muslim, if you were born in israel you are more likely to be jewish, if you were born in greece 3000years back, surely you'd be a Hellenist.

You never chose your religion, tell me why you should spend your life defending and die for what you never chose.

orisa37:
No. But it is worth living for. Christians don't talk about dying but about living.

Anybody who is vying for another better life after this even though not yet through with this, is not really living just waiting to die.

Good submission this is; i find the position of both Gnostic theism and Gnostic atheism both ridiculous and nonsensical.

These positions are rather that of personal emotions than honest enquiry: On one hand the other claims absolutely that God(s) exists even though without empirical evidence, on the other hand the other claims absolutely that God(s) don't exist.

How can you be so sure when the subject is one that is uncertain, unproven and conceptual.

You can tell me there is a diamond cut pig man somewhere in the universe [i might or will doubt you due to lack of empirical evidence] but for me to claim absolutely there is no such thing means i must have been to every corner of the universe to be sure.

AKAKAK:
Only player to score in every minute of an official football game

Bros abeg no blame me but i don't believe this... which kind lie be this na... na im be say im score 90goals for one match, how many goals im come get for all im career.

Biko clarify

cloudgoddess:
What a ridiculous and utter waste of money.

Because using cranes, bulldozers and every heavy modern machinery to build an ark proves one 500 year old man and his 3 sons did same

lol

HCpaul:
Longest time here too bro.

Yeah. i have noticed changes in your posts recently but most recently you claimed "agnostic atheist" whats up with that?

HCpaul:
At least, Christians deserve a sense of belonging, just that it doesn't look sane to me any more and I doubt its reality with curiosity.

Everything about Christian and the entirety of religion is just the work and manipulation caused and invented by ancient primitive men who chose to substitute their ignorance and inabilities with an imaginary theory framed Bible.

The Bible is mere a manuscript of men (works of sane historical and fictional writers of old) rather than the message of any mythological being or diety.

I don't consider it as a bunch of lies since I know that men of old will at one point in their life want to satisfy their doubts, their unknown, and their inabilities with something less primitive and more superior.

They overestimated the complexity of the universe and chose to believe that it must have been the creative work of a higher or a superior being.

Am not opposing the fact that superior personalities do exist (at least aliens do) but what about some beings that we are superior to??

They coined a name for this superior being and framed it GOD (The triune personality) .

They did all that out of their own ignorance and eventually exhausted their lifetime in the pursuit of living in the realms of the supernatural. Loving an ever lasting life, they initiated the concept of Heaven and Hell.

Heaven for the Isrealites and hell for others.... I just don't get it.

Now, some men living in the generation of the sane still choose to follow the path of those primitive men and their organized precepts.

99% of Christians don't love God, Heaven, Supernatural and the likes but had to be enforced with the fear of Satan, hell, Darkness, Demon, Eternal damnation and the likes.

Is not thayt you really love to make heaven but you've been mentally and emotionally captured with the fear of hell, the judgement day and eternal damnation.

You really don't have passion for heaven, do you?

We are all atheist just that some smart folks among us are pretending.

If you were to live forever, what will you live for??

It is better to die for something that to live for nothing.

What is the essence of living forever when all you will live for is prayer (exempted), fasting (exempted), then what exactly? ?

Ok! You guys will all become a chorister and start singing a lifetime song with a single lyrics.

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!! Hallelujah!!!

OH! Sigh... Am out of the game.

It's now my time to fully relate with knowledge and become a companion of the wise, to implore, deploy and explore universal knowledge and to inventually become the pioneer of my own impacts and inventions.

We guys cannot just live forever with you guys cuz we may later rebel just like Satan did.

And mark my word, some of you guys will later rebel in the new heaven and the new earth when you are so bored and overwhelmed.

How will I spend eternity with folks that are deaply conceived with ignorance and insanity.

Even people that were alive during the ministry of Jesus didn't believe him, so how did you expect the computer age filled with scientific revolutions to give a damn at it??

Every religion is subject to fallibilism.

THE IGNORANCE OF RELIGION IS THE GREATEST IGNORANT TO EVER EXIST.

Those creative writers deserves to be accredited, to be titled as inventors for inventing the greatest ignorance to ever exist in the entirety of human race.

I love my life now for taken responsibility for the consequences of my actions and not putting the blame on some imaginary foes that never exist, knew me and not to talk of fighting me.

For your information, I didn't become a non - theist because I have any challenge which God failed to answer or whatsoever. My personality has long ago been contrary to such fallacious tales. I became an agnostic atheist because I love sanity and I choose to be sane by not encapsulating the religious concepts into my framework of scientific pursuit.

I did that in a legal way.

I only regretted my time used in defending the flaws in religion.

Jonnydon22, Ifeness, Kevor and other great atheist on Nairalands successfully did the job.

Kudos to sanity!!!

Hhmmmm

KingEbukaNaija:
Wow . HCpaul is now an atheist . Hian .

Hahahahaha . . . I have always told you, it is dangerous for a theist to argue against atheists, they need not convince you or try win an argument or out troll you.

All they need is just plant that tiny mustard seed of doubt, your natural curiosity will do the rest, it may take years.

Frosbel will explain better.

Let's keep going and keep counting.

People should not blame the victims for the evil of the perpetrators, her killers had no right what so ever to kill her no matter what.

This was an act sorely the responsibility of those mindless savages that murdered her and not her fault.

Those early morning preachers disturb my sleep almost all the time i have not killed anyone for it yet. we are all in this world together we must learn sometimes to make sacrifices for peace and our continuity..

c3503521:
Believe what you want , but don't go shooting gay people because it is against your beliefs.

Believe what you want, but don't fúcking hurt other people in any way just because it's against what you believe.

Better still, believe nothing at all.

You don't see atheists killing anyone, now do ya?

Being an atheist doesn't make you any more morally superior than every other person in the planet.

Praying is now a profession used to earn, advertised for workers for specific jobs... what a massive financial enterprise Christianity is..

No wonder Pope Leo X once said

"We and our predecessors know what great profit it has been for us this fable of Christ"

...

Believers of a paradise in an everlasting afterlife are the only set of people i know who still are afraid and don't want to leave their meaningless earthly houses in a troublesome world and go to a serene blissful paradise with golden mansions.

I mean literally it's like not wanting to leave your small one room apartment for a big beautiful mansion in Banana Island - who does that?

Maybe after all they are even unsure of the belief in afterlife and paradise..

The way they fear death makes one wonder, do they really believe what they preach?

THE HEARTBEAT OF ADAM


Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed .... There is grandeur in this view of life . . . that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859



Juok created every thing living and non living, The way
in which he modeled men was this. He took a lump of earth and said to himself,
'I will make man, but he must be able to walk and run and go out into the fields, so I will give him two long legs, like the flamingo.'
Having done so, he thought again, 'The man must be able to cultivate his millet, so I will give him two arms, one to hold the hoe, and the other to tear up the weeds.'
So he gave him two arms. Then he thought again, 'The man must be able to see his millet, so I will give him two eyes.' He did so accordingly. Next he thought to himself,
'The man must be able to eat his millet, so I will give him a mouth.' And a mouth he gave him accordingly. After that he thought within himself, 'The man must be able to dance and speak and sing and shout, and for these purposes he must have a tongue.' And a tongue he gave him accordingly.
Lastly- the God Juok said to himself, 'The man must be able to hear the noise of the dance and the speech of the great men, and for that he needs two ears.' So two ears he gave him, and sent him out into the world a perfect man.'

Creation myth of the SHILLLUK people from Africa

A very colourful explanation to the origin of man. The origin of all species has always been a question of unmatchable magnitude that has ever bothered the mind of man.

There are several thousand creation myths littered in every avenue of human culture, all orchestrating an answer aimed at addressing and giving a purpose to the manifestation of man.

Kukulkan made man from corn - in the Mayan creation myth

Odin made man from log - in Scandinavian creation myth

Prometheus made man from clay - in Greek myth

Ra- atum made man from tears - in the Egyptian creation myth.

Yahweh [Elohim] made man from dust - in Jewish creation myth

Obatala made man from dirt -Yoruba creation myth

Man is a divine thought, a project of the divine will, a design of divine providence and on a more minimal scale every other specie are directly or indirectly a divine act of man's divinely designated purpose to subdue and dominate, that has always been the theme, the motif, the plot of every creation story.

To elevate, to exalt one specie and place it in the apex of natural organisms thriving within the belly of Gaia.

A bit of a blaring testimony to the egoistic nature the intelligence of man endowed him with, a condescending act of man seeing himself as apex of universal manifestations.

In medieval biology, there was a mapped out thorough recipe for life.

The chemical reaction includes, A jar, a piece of dirty cloth, some wheat or barely, put the cloth and wheat in jar and seal tight, leave for a long period of time probably weeks then come back to check, Mice must have appeared in the Jar.

A breathtaking miracle that would be if it somehow was true, at least they got one part close - Life was a chemistry.

Life is not just chemistry but a very intricate organic chemistry - our life dependent on carbon to be the building foundation of this organic complex.

Every organism on earth from the simplest unicellular microbes of no more than 10,000 atoms to the most complex of organisms with an atomic composition of trillions -they all share a similar organic chemistry, a relationship very written in their DNA, a long chain of information accumulated over a long duration of accumulating intrinsic complexity and diversity fueled by mutation due to abundant natural agents.

Like shown in the preceding chapter - we are predominantly made of:
-Hydrogen
-Carbon
-Nitrogen
-oxygen
(and some other elements of little presence but undeniably of remarkable significance)

and outstandingly these very elements with the addition of helium to the list are the most abundant elements in the universe.

-Hydrogen
-Helium
-Carbon
-Nitrogen
-Oxygen

We are made of the most common elements in the universe just like water also is made of the most abundant elements, a simple compound derived from a reaction of hydrogen and oxygen, the only difference is that the organic chemistry of life even though of common causality is highly intricate.

So how did this chemistry occur? was our direct existence a work of clay moulding or sand forming Gods or an accidental causality of an uncharted random event?

For a longer period of human history and philosophy we have recognized Gods as the causes of organisms, attributed the distinct nature of organisms to an act of divine providence, most recently to a sinister project by extra-terrestrials in another planet - all to figure or include a purpose to our baffling existence.

In the cosmic song of human enquiry of the origin of species one name crops up Anaximander ofMiletus, a friend of Thales,
A brilliant natural philosopher and radical one at that.

One of the lots who measured accurately the length of the year and seasons using sticks, first to make a celestial globe depicting star constellations, first Greek to make a sundial to measure time of the day.

Like many others in his time he believed the sun, stars and moons are fires burning in outer space visible through holes in the sky but also held a more differing view that the sky had no pillar or support but stands on it's own unmoving.

Anaximander evidently held on to many conventional scientific views of his time but his outre radical views will echo through out history, he made mention in the simplest way for the first time the inclination of an evolutionary origin of species and a spontaneous emergence of life.

He argued that if human babies were put on this planet only by themselves there would die off shortly therefore he proposed emergence of humans from other animals that spontaneously emerged from Mud, first of these emergence being fish.

He also believed in an infinite number of worlds all fully inhabited by varying species like earth.

As unconventional as his view was at that time, it gave credence to the audacious nature of our enquiry and philosophical leap, a leap Saint Augustine would later bemoan thus

" ‘did he[Anaximander], any more than Thales, attribute the cause of all this ceaseless activity to a divine mind?.’ "

A similar reaction tendered when after many centuries later, Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace proposed and championed the evolution of species by natural selection.

So the chemistry that began life on earth, how did it occur?

A subject still treated with so much uncertainty as to avoid diminishing errors that can be incurred by hasty conclusions, head ways has been made by experiments lighting a beacon to the nearness of the end of our enquiry.

It may be an act of divine providence, an act of alien intervention or yet still an accidental generation by natural ingredients with time.

A bothering question mark still lingers on the divine providence and alien intervention as the philosophical questions for the causality behind these sources becomes relevant- exempting them from causality is a dishonest clutch at special pleading therefore consonant with science and the philosophical art of honest enquiry.

Very many experiments leads an exciting journey towards abiotic - organic generation by very chaotic causality; Meteorites, on a very primaeval earth environment we would recognize as hostile to life.

Early earth environment was hot and was under violent bombardment from meteorites heating up a hellish condition from whence Life might possibly have begun.

life is based on an organic chemistry and organic compounds can be synthesized from inorganic compounds.

The origin of life as we know it must first begin with a very simple form of life, so simple that a unicellular organism of today would be too complex when compared to it.

It would be so simple that the only distinguishable trait between this simple form of life to every other thing or chemical compound around was that it had the ability to replicate and self organize but yet there are still instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting similar replicating trait - giving insight to how possibly the first organic adams must have emerged.

An experiment conducted by Miller Urey shows that by simulating the primaeval earth conditions - hot, charred, meteor washed, volcanic, oxygen-less, sulfuric, nitrogen and other values that constituted the early earth conditions, organic compounds can be synthesized from inorganic compounds and these organic compounds remarkably are the building blocks of the life we know.

Earth is dated at approximately 4.5billion years just like every other planet in our system, fossil records of the earliest known evidence of microbial life on earth dates to 3.5billion years, possibly life may have began much earlier.

Through out the course of our planet's history meteors have bombarded in different magnitude of different timelines, perhaps these little celestial bullets wreaking of catastrophe may not be a 'not too bad' deal after all.

Complex organic molecules has been found of meteorites on earth, possibly these organic compounds were created at the earliest stage of the solar system stuck on randomly dancing celestial objects even planets.

Earth's abundant organic compound necessary for life may not necessarily been earth born but was an alien bombardment from outer space by a seeming unfriendly meteorite serving as a biological space ship for organic compounds condemned by fate to be the seeder of planet earth.

An experiment conducted to know the fate of an organic compound after the very hard meteor impact - a similar compound was injected in a metal container and shot with a canon at exact same impact force of a meteorite, remarkably contrary to expectations the organic compounds were not annihilated but rather became even more complex -amino acids.

Could these impacts possibly could have being the next step of Life's process?

If these hypothesis are somewhat correct then possibly life could be anywhere in the solar system, our galaxy or the universe.

Early earth was devoid of oxygen, these life forms thrived and photosynthesize for food birthing the oxygen contents of the earth, as the hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere were consistently lost to space due to earth's weak gravity unable to hold them, oxygen produced by these early life forms became a major part of earth's atmosphere.

Another step had been take, a vital ingredient that would determine the path of the evolutionary journey of these life forms.

These life forms would go through very slow development mainly because of radiation, assimilation and adaptation.

Most life on earth are quite identical in their nucleic information, the DNA of humans share very outlined similarity with that of a tree, this code of information accumulated over billions of evolutionary journey in reaction to several evolutionary factors, mutations re-writing the codes, changing the tunes of life and unknowingly and slowly a difference is born, a diversity in a simple oneness.

The genetic code turns out to be not quite identical in all parts of all organisms on the Earth. At least a few cases are known where the transcription from DNA information into protein information in a mitochondrion employs a different code book from that used by the genes in the nucleus of the very same cell.

This points to a long evolutionary separation of the genetic codes of mitochondria and nuclei, and is consistent with the idea that mitochondria were once free-living organisms incorporated into the cell in a symbiotic relationship billions of years ago.

Synthesizing the organic building blocks of life seem to be quite simple for us to make in our laboratories but the chemistry of life still is so complex that making the organic building blocks of life is only but just 30% of the way that needs to be gone.

With each defying steps of curious alacrity we are taking gradual strides towards deriving certainty to the origin of how life came to be on earth - determining with crystal certainty the very origin of our own existence would sate a bugging curious thirst of unparalleled importance.

The songs we could derived being played from these old fossils backed up by our own confirmatory experiments shines a ray of hope to our undying lust to know, to listen to the cosmic song of our own emergence into the cosmic field.

Perhaps we are are almost on the verge of discovering the heartbeats of Adam.

keep em coming brother

Because that'd take away the ultimate leverage that gives credence to the ultimate hustle of religion.

Don't you see, religion is the ultimate hustle. Like you rightly pointed out God is supposedly All powerful therefore can take Satan out of existence if he wants to but why is he not doing it?

If God was all loving he'd want to do it and an omnipotent God can do it and save christians the trouble of countless unending battles at the prayer houses.

God is supposedly both loving and omnipotent why then is satan still there?

This is the exact same reason a protagonist in a movie won't defeat the antagonist or vise versa at the beginning or middle of the movie, it has to be the at the end part - that's how fictions go.

If God defeats satan now then the story is ruined, the plot is shattered because if that happens then there is no fear anymore and no reason to be shouting in crusade grounds anymore, the one leverage they have in scamming people is gone.

This is the ultimate fiction that yields the best dividends...

Songs of the worlds continues tomorrow.