₦airaland Forum

duduspace:
@KAG

are you a physicist? and where can I get your earlier posts in the forum on the theories of The big bang.

A lot of them are in my previous posts.

Adam Brody:
I actually admire kag and her posts.She is extremely enlightened about science and i love her rebuttals against people like davidylan. I read her posts alot to get more information about evolution, its various theories and contradictions especially inlation to dispelling the creation myth!

Good work KAG keep it up. You have a loyal fan here!

Thank you ever so much. It's my pleasure.

Chrisbenogor:
Nimshi you are right the less complicated the better for everyone, I told you earlier that biology bores me I was gearing up to read the debates shame david ran away.
Kag is also doing a wonderful job for the rebuttals.
I cannot prove a negative so I cannot prove there is no God, burden of proof is on them. I am waiting patiently.

Thanks for the compliment.

davidylan:
A theory cannot be the basis of another theory. We don't know the big bang occured.

Actually, you are wrong there. Theories are often used as the basis for other theories. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity forms the basis for many other theories in physics and cosmology, as do the theories of the Earth's movement and its orbit around the sun.

Further, the big bang theory is currently the best explanation for cosmological observations. So, it's as close to knowing as we currently have.

Although the question is worded somewhat paradoxically, I understand what you mean. Space.

the correct answer is we don't know. You can only define space in the context of something else . . . in this case earth. Since earth didnt exist millions of years ago, what was in existence then?

No. Not at all, no. Space is a dimension of its own and, like many things in the universe, is perhaps counter-intuitive. In any case, space is define in relation to the inflation that may have occured before the big bang. Also, no, we should not and do not define space simply as a function of the earth - the earth is one tiny dot in the expansiveness of space. Finally, I don't know where you get the idea that the earth didn't exist millions of years ago. The earth is at least 4+ billion years old.

[quote]More estimating, more hypothesis . . . in short science has no answer.

I like that you typed that on a computer and sent it via the intertubes. Makes irony more than just a word that contains iron.

Straw man alert. Does science have an answer for how we came to arrive on planet earth?[/quote]Um, no, it isn't a strawman, as it directly addresses the part of your post that asserts that science has no answers.

Does science have an answer for how we came to arrive? Scientists have, using available evidence, concluded that we must have eveolved from other species, theorised that, going far back enough, abiogenesis occured, and further on: planetary formation, solar system, etc.

davidylan:
KAG and his/her trade mark long long long posts that say essentially nothing.

Seems we are getting somewhere.

Time is nothing but an estimate . . . based on what?

The big bang

What existed before time?

Although the question is worded somewhat paradoxically, I understand what you mean. Space.

More estimating, more hypothesis . . . in short science has no answer.

I like that you typed that on a computer and sent it via the intertubes. Makes irony more than just a word that contains iron.

davidylan:

KAG: Also, yes, energy can come into being spontaneously. Science doesn't do proof nor "100%"s.

Essentially a fraudulent cop-out for those who scream that religion MUST do proof or 100%'s

Actually, no. First, I don't know the "those who scream that religion MUST do proof or 100%'s", so maybe your misunderstanding of science should be directed to them.

In any case, science doesn't do 100% anything for several important reasons, particularly the need to avoid dogmatism and promote honest enquiry. Further, it is important that any theory proposed leave room for falsification. If nothing else, probable falsification would at the very least ensure that nothing is hundred percent.

By that I assume you mean: can matter exist without the need for a conscious creator? Yes, it certainly is possible. How so? One possibility is explored in researchs involving baryogenesis

In other words . . . another unproven hypothesis simply given a high-fallutin name to make it sound mysterious,

Um, no. It's: in other words, the last few times I bothered to post anything of the subject none of you was interested, so I'm bloody well not going to do it at three a.m. And yes, if I remember correctly, I've posted a brief summation of the probable origins of matter for you on more than one occassion.

The Big Bang may have started the process that eventually led to matter. No one need have been there for the observation of the hallmarks that have led to the formulation of the theory. The tests need not be based on the assumption that it happened. However, even if they are it wouldn't necessarily invalidate what is found, in much the same way a forensic scientist assuming that a victim was murdered by a human agent as opposed to an elf wouldn't make his or her findings wrong.

In other words we really don't have a clue. We are just grasping for theories to explain away why the creation could have come about without God.

Clearly you didn't understand this part of my post, hence the red herring and strawman rolled into one. The part you bolded was meant to emphasise a correction to a point in the original question. Also, the rest of the post deals with the fallacy that implies that assumptions necessarily lead to a faulty experiment.

By the way, this part of your post is also a strawman because it assumes that the Big Bang theory or the theory dealing with the origins of matter are held only by atheists and were created for and by atheists. It overlooks the fact that there are many theistic physicists that work on and accept the theories.

Have you experimented the big bang?

Nope.

Actually your answer to that question should truthfully be no because the large haldron collider hasnt even proven that it can recreate matter through a big bang. In other words, its just another white elephant built to validate an assumption. Wait for it to work first before trumpeting it.

That's not what the LHC was made to do. Also, the LHC and Nuclear weapons are both right because they are both examples of ways of repeating things that hadn't been previously observed.

Not all tests work as they are expected. See above.

In other words u already have an excuse shld the haldron collider fail.

Fail in what? In any case, I wasn't even thinking of the LHC at that point in my response.

davidylan:
which means we really have no clue when matter or time appeared . . . we just have a "concept" which we can neither prove nor are we sure is correct.

Not quite. Time is estimated to be at least 13.5 billion years old and matter a few planck seconds after the Big Bang.

onyinye2: Well today I was given a link to a video that contained very thought provoking questions, for me atleast.

And I wanted to share it with you guys, being if you haven't seen or heard them before some where prior to.

Here it goes:

1. Do you believe energy has always existed?

It is uncertain. In our conception of time and how we are bound by it, there is some suggestion that, even if one doesn't resort primarily to quantum physics (a very difficult task), time would have started "after" energy thereby ensuring that it would always have existed - so to speak.

1A. Do you believe it existed within vacuum fluxes in a timeless, spaceless, matterless, void before a big bang?

1A-A. Can energy create itself?

1A-B. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it does still today)

Now, to the addendums to the original question. Energy wouldn't have existed within vacuum fluctuations, but could have come into existence - and out of existence - through them.

Also, yes, energy can come into being spontaneously. Science doesn't do proof nor "100%"s.

It is scientifically believed that energy can't be created or destroyed, henceforth law of conservation of energy.

No, it isn't.

For something to be labeled as science, it should be able to be observed, tested, and then repeated.

That's not the definition of science.

Since it's seemingly impossible to be able to observe whether something is eternal or not, (since you're not eternal you can't observe it) which means it's seemingly impossible to be able to test whether it's eternal or not since you can't observe it, which definitely means you can't repeat it if you've never tested it.

That's neither logical nor sensible.

2. Has matter always existed?

No.

2A. can matter create itself?

2A-A. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it does still today)

By that I assume you mean: can matter exist without the need for a conscious creator? Yes, it certainly is possible. How so? One possibility is explored in researchs involving baryogenesis.

3. Do you believe a mass of matter and energy rotated until it exploded?

3A. Did that mass of energy and matter create itself?

No. Yes for A - provided we aren't assigning conscious functions to the things mentioned.

3A-A. Do you believe that all matter and energy in the Universe was created by a Big Bang 14 billion years ago?

3A-B. Were you or anyone existing today, existing at that point to observe this occurrence?

3A-C. If you didnt exist to observe it, how can you test it today? And wouldn't your tests be based on the assumption that it happened since no one was there to observe it?

The Big Bang may have started the process that eventually led to matter. No one need have been there for the observation of the hallmarks that have led to the formulation of the theory. The tests need not be based on the assumption that it happened. However, even if they are it wouldn't necessarily invalidate what is found, in much the same way a forensic scientist assuming that a victim was murdered by a human agent as opposed to an elf wouldn't make his or her findings wrong.

3B. Can you repeat an occurrence that no one has observed?

3B-A. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how you can)

Yes. Large Haldron Collider. Nuclear weapons, etc.

3B-B. If you do attempt to repeat it, wouldnt the outcome be based on the assumption that it happened like you thought it did?

3B-C. How not? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it wouldnt be)

Not all tests work as they are expected. See above.

4. If I work to solve a math problem, and I start solving it at the middle of the equation will the outcome be an assumption based on the fact that I skipped half the equation?


4A. If I started watching a movie half way through, will I truly understand the outcome since I missed the beginning the movie?

Do you see that the ending is contingent upon the beginning and the beginning on the end? If you don't have the beginning the end result will be an assumption, which cannot be regarded as science, but religion. I assume there's an intelligent designer because I can't prove 100% that there is one. I believe theres one however.

Nonsense. The analogy is stupid.

5. Since the beginning of your theory can't be proven, nor is it a part of science, how do you expect people to think it's not a religious belief, and why don't you think it's a religious belief since your theory can't be proven, nor is it a part of science

For any of the previous or following questions, if you're going to fill in the gap by saying we don't have the answer now but we will in the future, answer me these questions.

The follow up is worse. I think we are about done here.

davidylan:
Another unoriginal copy and paste job from the internet. 

the problem is the poster makes no attempt to do a thorough study before coming up with what is essentially nothing but the false theories of Gerald Massey.

Before Massey in 1828, no one new anything about Horus . . . where did he get his tales from?

Can Bastage help us with any historical documents to confirm these Horus mumbo jumbo?

Just to point out that people did know about Horus and his supposed divine heritage before Massey. However, one would have to point to stretch items of similarities - that one would expect to find anyway in demigods - to "prove" that one was derived from the other.

olabowale:
! think this girl named KAG, is gone kuku. This is merely playing on word. I substitute K for the C. One flew over the cockle's nest is what am using here.

It's cuckoo's nest. For obvious reasons it's remarkably difficult to fly over a cockle's nest.

We in Islam do not believe in trinity or multiple godheads. Allah is One. Why do your unscientific mind (lol) have to bring your magic, into the belief of Muslims, when there is just One Indivisible Lord!

Implicit in your mode of conduct lies the worship of a god with many heads

Yes. There is life for those still left alive.

huxley:
In the commandments, God warns that his name not be taken in vain. And instructively, he tells us what his name is. But do bible-believers take any notice of God's real name? The bible tells us in many instances that Gods name is JEALOUS.

So the next time you use this word, bear in mind that you may be calling your God's name in vain

Where in the Bible was the Biblical God titled Jealous?

Kuns:
Why would God choose a Name that when spelt backward spells Dog? , When he knows that there are people like the Hebrew ans Islamic scholars who read from left to right.

From left to right God spells Dog? Why would any one want a name like that?

English is neither Hebrew nor Arabic, so the quip about the name being read from left to right isn't applicable.

No need to find additional members from different religions. For Christianity you could do: The father, the Son, the Spirit, the Devil, and Mary, mother of God. Islam: Muslim overlord, Mohammed, Jinns, Quran, Aisha.

Incidentally, in Jungian psychology rather than a quintet or triple head, it is argued that the archetype should be a quartet.

I hear it's in Nigeria; and apparently if you send a few thousand pounds to some guy there you'll get a tour guide or something.

davidylan*:
That is not true. You need genes to create the proteins essential for life. If you deleted certain genes from a cell it will cease to exist not because it can't reproduce but because it cannot generate the required mechanisms for life.
Hence Fox's protocells do NOT meet the basic considerations for what constitutes life.

Yes, and protocells do have a very basic and proto-genetic (though untransferable) regulator of amino acids. Fox's protocells do meet the basic technical considerations of life which constitute of: respiration, reproduction, the need for some form of nutrition, growth, movement to at least a small extent, irritability, and excretion. They accomplished those.

From what? How do perfectly created amino acids just spontaneously appear? If you believe proteins spontaneously appear then i wonder why creationism is such a huge impossibility to you.

It hearkens back to what was shown by the Miller-Urey experiments: amino acids can be formed spontaneously.

davidylan*:
Nope. Microspheres do not pass on any genetic material which is the basis for life itself.

Passing on genetic material is the basis for continuing life, not life itself. To that effect, Fox's protocells meet the most basic and technical considerations for what constitutes life - including reproduction.

Besides Fox fails to tell us how his amino acids suddenly appeared.

Spontaneously

huxley:
KAG, you have been gone a long while. How are ya?

Thanks for this contribution. I have been racking my brain trying to remember baryogenesis. Many thanks for that and I hope others find it useful too.

I'm fine thank you. You? How do you do? No problem, I was just passing through.

On the origins of matter, Huxley is right about matter not being a general part of the Big Bang theory, as the Big Bang theory can exist and be unfalsifiable without any reasonable answer for the origin of matter existing, and more importantly, matter would only have come into existence after the Big Bang occured. A good while ago I posted a brief summary of how matter may have arisen - if anyone cares to find it, that would be nice. Also, if anyone is interested, reading about baryogenesis may give some insight into possible explanations for the origins of matter.

davidylan*:
This is a flawed concept that again HAS NO PROOF. Science has continously modified the BB theory for the last century and no one is any closer to any real explanation.

For the last century, eh? Even the older conception of the Big Bang theory isn't up to a century old. In any case, there really isn't any thing wrong with modifications to a theory when new information is discovered. The essence of modern science is to avoid dogmatism and leave room for future falsification and improvements.

The theory itself begs the question - where did the "primordial hot and dense initial condition" appear from? When did "time" start?

The presence of the singularity ("primordial hot and dense initial condition" may have arisen through a quantum fluctuation or even a reaction on a possible brane. There is no way to adequately determine that aspect and it is as a result of your next question: time. Time appears to have "started" after the expansion of space. Now, scientists can only go back to very early periods of time (planck time), but at the moment breaching a space without time is almost paradoxical for science.

If the universe is truly still expanding why have we seen no significant changes to the earth in over 6000 years?

The Earth is an extremely minute object in the universe. In fact, less than minute is probably flattering the size of the Earth. Further, expansion of the universe wouldn't exert any noticeable force on the state of the Earth.

Why has someone not generated life all these years?

Technically, Sidney Fox did just that.

tarezulu:
does this not mean that something is pushing the brain to make that claim or does the brain just decides to carry out such working?

I would say neither is the case. The brain didn't "decide" to carry out workings of that kind; rather, consciousness most likely arose as an emergent property of the way the brain was already functioning. So, instead of there being an active decision to create an "I" or a self (that would be the one claiming possessions), it simply worked out that way due to the evolution of our species.

kola oloye:
@KAG,
FYI am an Architect, an Evangelist as well, i understand what you are talking about.The bible says that God
has used the little things of this world to confuse the wise.Get understanding.God is the Chief scientist,
there are some things that your mind cannot comprehend when it requires GOD's FACTOR.

For some reason I don't think you understood what I wrote. The majority of your post is irrelevant as gods don't exist.

favcom:
wouldn't have commented on this thread, but I feel someone needs my contribution. That God exists is nothing to debate about.

Of course it's something about which needs to be debated. That the existence of gods is debated certainly should give one reason to pause for thought, if nothing else.

His existence isn't depended on anybody's logic, thinking and science. I doubt if these postulators would have been here if not through God's divine mercy. Enough said

Nor is her non-existence dependent on anybody's logic - or lack thereof. It is what it is. The mercy of the gods in favour of our lives strikes me as dubious

tarezulu:
Do you mean that the brain possesses the body? or the brain is the owner of the body?

No I mean that the foundation of the conscious is the brain. The brain doesn't possess the body - it's part of the body; however, the subject "I" is a manifestation of the workings of the brain and it is that subject that, in viewing the body as a related object, claims the body.

kola oloye:
You see what i've been saying about theories.THEORIES KILL,
JUST BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR & HAVE PEACE.

No, ignorance kills. Thank goodness most scientists didn't and don't share your viewpoint. On the other hand, if they had shared your stupidity, no one would have been subjected to your silliness. Win some, lose some.

simmy:
What do you mean by the Laws need to be modified, as opposed to them breaking down at the micro-level? Further, doesn't the notion of modifying a law invalidate the purpose of the law? That is, it ceases to be a law at that point'
thats wrong dude1 quick example, Newtons law was modified by Einstein, but we don't exactly consider Newtons gravity laws wrond do we? Also Darwin s laws have been mofified more times than i can count and even though i m convinced Darwin is crap im sure you don't consider his theory wrong. or do you?

First, no, Newton's gravitational law wasn't modified by Einstein, it was superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity; and while Newton's law isn't exactly considered right, it's still a useful tool for explaining and showing the workings of several things - especially to non-physicists and students.

Second, what laws of Darwin have been modified? As far as I know, the closest Darwin came to establishing a law would have been indicating that mutations tend to happen with reproduction. No, I haven't seen any reason to think the theory of evolution is wrong. It isn't a law, though.

I[b] agree that scientists have been searching for a unifying theory for decades. Such a theory would need to be able to explain and unify quantum physics with classical physics, that is, the micro and macro worlds. In other words, there exists a division in how both states operate. And, you'd be wrong to say the two cannot be separated - if they couldn't, quantum physics wouldn't be so damn annoying and cool.[/b]

im assuming the fact that scientist assume that a unifying theory has to exist SHOWS that the two worlds are considered a continuation of the same thing.dog, the term UNIFYING theory says it all.

Oh no, the two worlds influence each other, there their relatedness lies; but to be clear, the

Also, there's a reason the Nigerian guy has been ignored, and it's not because he's Nigerian.

can't remember alluding to that. i just mentioned that as an aside. i have no idea of the veracity or otherwise of his claims.

Oh, I know you weren't implying he gets ignored because he is Nigerian, I just thought I'd mention that.

Yeah, I didn't say any of that

DIRECT QUOTE FROM KAG

So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive.
[i][/i]

yes u did kag

Read it again. I don't see where I even imply that the "thermo laws are impractical for the macro world". Also, it is known how the thermodynamics laws work.

Well, it is. Someday some genius or group of geniuses may find a way to fully unite both.

It isnt really. the two worlds just seem to follow two different laws. we all know they follow the same rules, we just don't know the rule yet.
yes. some genius will do that

I believe this is a major point of contention: do the quantum and classical world follow the same rules? I don't think so, but I'm open to the idea that they might.

First, I'm inclined to state that there is a possibility of zero existing. You mentioned something about limited knowledge earlier. It would seem that's applicable here, as we should not conclude dogmatically that something mathematical can't exist based on nothing more than our intuition.

Kag, all things at present point to zero not exisiting. so for now, zero can't exist!

Um, it doesn't work that way. For one thing, all things don't point to zero not existing. For another, that you intuitively feel zero can't exist doesn't logically lead to a conclusion that zero can't exist.

Second, again a false syllogism seems to have crept in: the argument for the unlikelihood of a zero in reality is no indication on the likelihood of a one, as they are slightly different conceptions in reality. What may be considered a perfect one? Would one photon suffice?

No! except you find another photon that is perfectly symmetrical to the first photon

Come again. Why would you need to find another perfectly symmetrical photon to have one perfect photon. That makes no sense.

Finally, again, I'm disinclined to believe that a perfect vacuum can't exist. It certainly can. In any case, if we agree that a singuarity is something then we are back to the beginning of the line that started the discussion (and perhaps the end), where I indicated that a singularity is something.

A singularity is a something, in the sense that zero as a concept is a something. a singularity is zero, which is nothing.

Again you've missed my points. Ignoring those for a second, though, a singularity isn't just a concept, it's something that exists. So, if it is nothing, then, following your logic, it directly implies that nothing does in fact exist.

Coming back to the final points, "Two things. like I said above, if that's your present argument then it would seem you now don't object to the notion of a singularity being something - a something antecedent to the Universe.

Second, I've stated that it's wrong because I don't see how you can consider something that exists, the closest to nothing we have, considering we do indeed have notions of nothing especially with vacuums of different states and observations being the most prevalent examples used to represent a state of nothing"

tarezulu:
If someone can assert that he or she does not believe that man is spirit, when the statement is made MY BODY what does it mean?
I would think that there are 2 things involved, i.e. something making a claim(spirit), and something that is claimed(body). would like to get the views of the atheists'

What do you mean by spirit? In claiming that I possess my body, I assume that it is the conscious part of my psyche that is making that assertion. However, irrespective of which psychical element is making the claim, i would argue that they all have a foundation in the brain.

babaearly:
but do you really think evolution can lay its foundation on only fossils? is it sensible?

Lay its foundation on only fossils? No. Which is why, amongst other independent lines of evidence, genetics and morphology constitute some as yet unfalsified foundations for the theory of evolution.

Evolved from where? and how come?

What evolved from where? That is, to which species are you referring?

Its great i'll open a thread where we trash out these issues once and for all maybe make some converts.

I guess we should explain our arguments with details

Feel free.

simmy:
Simple, for one thing, many of the laws that apply in the macro-world break down in the micro-. Further, several of the things that the macro-world has urged us to consider intuitively impossible, are in fact, possible in the micro. So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive.

the laws don't exactly break down. they need to be modified.

What do you mean by the Laws need to be modified, as opposed to them breaking down at the micro-level? Further, doesn't the notion of modifying a law invalidate the purpose of the law? That is, it ceases to be a law at that point.

the scientific community since the days of Einstein have been searching for a unifying theory (the theoryof everything which by the way a nigerian scientist claims to have discovered to everyone elses indifference). the micro and macro worlds cannot be seperated, where is the dividing line? whatever happens in the macro should be explainable in the macro and vice-versa.

I agree that scientists have been searching for a unifying theory for decades. Such a theory would need to be able to explain and unify quantum physics with classical physics, that is, the micro and macro worlds. In other words, there exists a division in how both states operate. And, you'd be wrong to say the two cannot be separated - if they couldn't, quantum physics wouldn't be so damn annoying and cool.

Also, there's a reason the Nigerian guy has been ignored, and it's not because he's Nigerian.

saying the thermo laws are impractical for the macro world is fasle! we havnt just found out (in our limited capacities) how these laws work together.

Yeah, I didn't say any of that.

Neatly? I'd say not.
i dare say it isnt divided at all, or shouldnt be.

Well, it is. Someday some genius or group of geniuses may find a way to fully unite both.

Yes, the macro comprises of the micro, but the behaviour of things in the two separate instances gives reason to differentiate. Also, the micro may not necessary determine what occurs in the macro, as it is certain that the macro also influences occurences in the micro-. As to your second point, I don't see how it follows from the first. How does the fact that the macro-world constitutes of the micro- lead to a point that perfection doesn't exist? As it stands it seems a false syllogism

i gave you a simple example to demonstrate how zero does not exist in one of my earlier posts. since im convinced the micro world and the macro world are one and the same, then i can conclude that no absolutes exist, if zero doees not exist, an absolute one cannot exist. what exists in reality is 0.9999999999 to infinity and if an absolute 1 does not exist it means nature approximates in its calculations and perfect situations don't exist. if perfect situations don't exist, then a perfect vacuum will not exist, all you ll have is the closest thing to the perfect situation, which is what a singularity is!, the closest thing to nothing! my point is [b]nothing does not and cannot exist!

First, I'm inclined to state that there is a possibility of zero existing. You mentioned something about limited knowledge earlier. It would seem that's applicable here, as we should not conclude dogmatically that something mathematical can't exist based on nothing more than our intuition.

Second, again a false syllogism seems to have crept in: the argument for the unlikelihood of a zero in reality is no indication on the likelihood of a one, as they are slightly different conceptions in reality. What may be considered a perfect one? Would one photon suffice?

Finally, again, I'm disinclined to believe that a perfect vacuum can't exist. It certainly can. In any case, if we agree that a singuarity is something then we are back to the beginning of the line that started the discussion (and perhaps the end), where I indicated that a singularity is something.

So your argument is now that although singularities are somethings, they are conceived as the closest to nothing we can have? If that is indeed your argument, it's still wrong.[/b]

you took the words right out of my mouth. and my arguement is right!

Two things. like I said above, if that's your present argument then it would seem you now don't object to the notion of a singularity being something - a something antecedent to the Universe.

Second, I've stated that it's wrong because I don't see how you can consider something that exists, the closest to nothing we have, considering we do indeed have notions of nothing especially with vacuums of different states and observations being the most prevalent examples used to represent a state of nothing

babaearly:
Ah the internet is no man's land. I bet i could get a thousand thousand's more links proving evolution true but they are all inventions.

I take it you didn't bother clicking on the link, let alone read it, yes? Anyway, not inventions.

have you ever wondered how man could be so intelligent to invent this evolutionary sh**.? how did he get that intelligence? was it from a mutation? hell no mutants are imperfect scums. natural selection?, explain how chimps transformed to became caucasian,negro,asian, red skins,

Humyns didn't invent evolution; however, we have studied the processes and the theory of evolution is currently the best explanation for the origins and diversity of species.

Mutations and selection can certainly influence the occurence and increase of intelligence.

Chimps did not transform ino humyns. Instead, humyns and chimps share a common ancestry.

Have you ever studied the human cell. the minute one. And wondered how it operates? wow. have you taken alook at the seas,the expanse, the beauty,the millions of different species it contains?

To some extent, yes, I have studied on the human cell and understand some aspects of how it operates. Yes, I'm aware of several of the many different species that reside in seas; they, too, evolved.

do you all believe in the BIG BANG too?

I accept the Big Bang theory as currently the best model that explains the early moments of the Universe.

imhotep:
I keep wondering why Evolution keeps re-appearing in the Religion section of this website.

Yet, evolutionists argue [blindly] that evolution is NOT A RELIGION.

It's not that difficult to decipher. For the most part, the people that argue against and misrepresent the theory of evolution are religious and argue from a religious angle.

olabowale:
@KAG:
You don't want to be rude to a man, but God means nothing to you?

Well, gods don't exist so, yeah.

You see why my arguments about the existence are some of the worst to you now? A mind that is devoid of the existence of the Creator will always seem to think itself very enlightened, until it realizes that it has made a mistake all along, at the time of death.

No, your arguments are some of the worst because they are spectacularly bad and often bereft of sense.

Pharaoh thought that he was god. He even boasted and ask is minister of works to construct a structure so that he can climb up to heaven and confront Moses' God. The minister was just as bad, because he could have told him that it is structurally impossible to construct such a structure. But he dubiously told Pharaoh that he will find nothing in heaven. But we see that he Hamman had been to heave before he made such a foolish statement to Pharaoh. But when Pharaoh was dying he was now acknowledging the God of Moses, the God he had thought so little of, just before.

LOL. Doube-U Tee Eff, man? Anyway, if you see Santa, ask him about that bike he owes me.

Well God preserved his drowned body for other future generations to see. Go and make your own research, KAG and stop all this fake pride and arrogance. You were born by a mixture of sexual fluid of man and the product (egg) of a woman. You were in her stomach until you came out of her. Then you were helpless for a long time before you became this strong man. And if you live long on earth you will go back to being helpless at very old age. Then finally you will die and be buried or cremated or thrown away as if disposed and unwanted or being used for medical experiment.

Right.

Regardless of your chosen way, I guarantee you that there is a day of Judgement, whereby you will be recreated and ypu will recognize yourself as this very man who I am writing to. Then you will be judged. Now do you want for a harsh condition or a condition of ease? You will have to choose this based on your own hope.

Wrong.

[quote author=olabowale link=topic=143609.msg2393853#msg2393853 date=1213891862]@KAG: Your limited knowledge about the world, and the physical and visual issues, of our days are all signs of your inefficiency to even begin to realize that you just did not appear on this plane, by accident. If you organize your life to wards a goal that you set for yourself, then know that Someone has designed you to have those instinctive impulses to at least want to accomplish that very lofty goal that you set out to accomplish.[/QUOTE]

That's all well and good, but until Santa brings me my bike I can't begin the hunt for the treasure buried at the end of the rainbow.

Your kind of persons have argued so irrationally about things that are invisible: God the almighty, all His Angels, other spirits that we call jinns in Islam, Hellfire and paradise, and yes, indeed heavens, all the 7 layers of them. The lowest of the heavens, is an envelope for all that science will ever discover and even there will remain something undiscovered till the day the earth will perish.

- Leprechauns, five-headed monsters, Lochness monster, Superted, Alf - I could go on. Just so you know, I'm going to Valhalla.

How then, do you continue to tell us what is unseen, especially, when science is still just at the fringes of discoveries. Please tell me if you can, can you see the back of your neck, without anything to aid you? When you can, then come back to tell us how. As a matter of truth, post it on Youtube and let us view it for validity. I am very confident that you can never see the back of your own neck or the part of your face and neck before your shoulders. Thats even in frontal part of your body, withput you using anything as aid and you do not even have to do any gymnastics.

If you can not see any of these part of your own body, how do you then hope to disprove the existence of God, or discover him, when you fail to even discover your own self?

Same way other fictitius beings and items are falsified. That I can't see the back of my neck is a silly reason to conclude that the boujie (lol) monster is in my closet. Look, I don't mean to be rude, but you make some of the worst arguments fort the existence of gods that I've ever seen.

If you use mirrowr to see these hidden part of your body, then know that the mirror to see God is this whole world itself.

Or realise that the world isn't a mirror for any gods. *shrugs*.

Start by looking at yourself about the purpose of life. Why are you here on earth? Is there a reason that you human instead of other things that you see or not seen?

Anthropic principle?

m_nwankwo:
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A TRUE CHRISTIAN TO CONVERT TO ATHEISM.

As IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A TRUE SCOTSMAN TO EAT HIS PORRIDGE WITH SUGAR.

babaearly:
Would you explain how evolution created the Human Ability to communicate, and in divers language

A start courtesy of the google monster: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~rkopp/collegepapers/chimps.html

imhotep:
Can evolution explain the origin of thought? consciousness? emotions?

Yes.

simmy:
@kag
why is the macro world different from the micro world,

Simple, for one thing, many of the laws that apply in the macro-world break down in the micro-. Further, several of the things that the macro-world has urged us to consider intuitively impossible, are in fact, possible in the micro. So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive.

is the world neatly divided into macro and micro?,

Neatly? I'd say not.

what is the macro if it is not made up of the micro? i.e the micro determines what happens in the macro
which leads to the point im trying to make which is perfection does not exist! even nature has to approximate !

Yes, the macro comprises of the micro, but the behaviour of things in the two separate instances gives reason to differentiate. Also, the micro may not necessary determine what occurs in the macro, as it is certain that the macro also influences occurences in the micro-. As to your second point, I don't see how it follows from the first. How does the fact that the macro-world constitutes of the micro- lead to a point that perfection doesn't exist? As it stands it seems a false syllogism.

in nature nothing does not exist, it is impossible for nothing to exist,

Why is it impossible for there to be nothing in nature?

so something has to become nothing,
which is where singlarities come in handy,

So your argument is now that although singularities are somethings, they are conceived as the closest to nothing we can have? If that is indeed your argument, it's still wrong.

Exist?

simmy:
For the first, you state that "a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry". What exactly would be symmetrical in a perfect vacuum. Are you sure you are talking about the right thing?

Second, no, a perfect vacuum isn't a singularity

a perfect vacuum does not exist. but if it did, it would indicate sameness, the sameness of nothing. in other words symmetry, perfect symetry that is

A perfect vacuum probably doesn't exist, but singularities do. I don't think you're using the word "symmetry" correctly. To make an argument on symmetry as a property, one needs to be apprising something. If there's nothing in a perfect vacuum, then there can be no indication or allusion to symmetry.

What on Earth are you talking about? That one thing may be indistinguishable from another does't indicate that they are in the same space. By the way, you do realise that to posit an argument that objects are symmetrical in a singularity is to indicate that a singulaity is a something, right?
not necesarily.

Necessarily.