₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO:
Actually I think that you are right in that we are talking past each other. I also think that the confusion is past unravelling. Perhaps it's best that we just leave it.

Although, I feel I must make one last attempt to defend (for the record) my statement that has caused your disagreement. I said: "Some people seem to get a mental orgasm from manipulating theological arguments against an opponent. Perhaps it's the feeling of 'being proved right', that vindication feeling, that drives them. Therefore the goal of their debates is not to uncover truth but rather to be proved right at all cost. Even at the cost of distorting and convoluting the truth. This goes for Atheist and evolutionist as much as for religious people. They are exactly the same, the only difference is the perspective that they are arguing from."

I was referring to s[b]ome people[/b] and not to absolutely everyone. I made no reference to just how many those 'some people' were. I just gave an example of how a neuroses can manifest in some people. That is not broad brushing. To mention the example of Gravity in a discussion about forces is not to imply that every force is gravity. That Atheists and religionists are included amongst these 'some people' does not mean that this is the case with every atheist and religionist.

Oops, then it was my mistake *doh!* My apologies. I somehow managed to mistake your statement as a broad generalisation. In that case, I agree with you.

Pastor AIO:
Na wa O, Mr KAG! I hope it is not that your particular neuroses is driving you to be a compulsive disagree-er.

If I were a "compulsive disagree-er" I would have disagreed with everything you wrote, no?

Whether or not there is grounds for disagreement. I'm so afraid to use an analogy on nairaland as I've seen the creative way members choose to miscontrue and distort them. But I'll give it a go as I feel the situation is becoming that desperate.
If in an attempt to demonstrate that movement is the result of forces that act on bodies I present a couple of examples. e.g apples fall from trees because there is a force called gravity that attracts them to earth. Magnets attract each other because of the magnetic force, is another example of the force. I thereby conclude that behaviour of bodies is due to forces that act upon them.
Imagine now my consternation when some dude goes: 'yes, but there are a "multiplicity of driving forces" and you've only given the example of gravity earlier so that doesn't count. What about the wind that was blowing when the apple fell. That was applying force as well.' How does the conclusion that forces determine behaviour "not embrace" the fact that Gravity is a force. How does the fact that human behaviour is determined by a complexity of neuroses 'not embrace' the fact that some people are neurotically driven to disagree with everything whether it makes sense or not.

I don't think you're getting my points. You seem to think that I'm arguing against the idea of the humyn brain directing humyn actions - at least, I get the impression that's what you're getting from my posts. Not so. My initial disagreement (which has spawned this debate) was more specific: I disagreed with the broadbrushing that was implied here: "Some people seem to get a mental orgasm from manipulating theological arguments against an opponent. Perhaps it's the feeling of 'being proved right', that vindication feeling, that drives them. Therefore the goal of their debates is not to uncover truth but rather to be proved right at all cost. Even at the cost of distorting and convoluting the truth. This goes for Atheist and evolutionist as much as for religious people. They are exactly the same, the only difference is the perspective that they are arguing from."

etc.

Well you are right about that. Atheism is not a philosophy and I would go further and say that no philosophy could ever stem from it.

That's wrong. Several humanistic and materialist philosophies have their roots in atheism.

Atheism is in fact a complex mess, but tied with it is not just the disbelief in a God or Gods, but also a denial of a supernatural world.

That's wrong too. Atheists can believe that superatural things exist. Not believing a god exists is all that is required to fall under the atheist label.

To accept that human behaviour can have a source beyond Neurology is to believe in a supernatural agent and thus is not a typically atheistic standpoint. In fact you are the first self acclaimed 'atheist' that I know to take this stand.

Um, that's not my stand. Now I know we were talking past each other.

My brother please explain to me, what is the difference between Social Context and Social conditions with or without variations.
It seems to me that in your compulsive need to be contrary you have twisted and turned and squeezed until you end up making statements like that above.

They can be pretty synonymous, but I'd say one is synchronous and the other is dichronous.

It seems to me that in your compulsive need to be contrary you have twisted and turned and squeezed until you end up making statements like that above. Let me, bravely, atttempt another analogy which is closer to the topic of this thread. Darwin postulates that there are certain basic laws and principles that determines the evolution of all the creatures on this planet. You however point out that there is too much variation and individual nuance in species for them all to have been derived (at a broad stroke) from the very same laws and principles.

"Individual desires and motivations" are products of those same laws of neurology that apply to absolutely everyone.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing anymore. We both seem to be arguing about different things.

Ah, I see. You are just being snobbish. Somehow you don't like being put in the same category with religionists.

Um, no. I have no problem being in the same category as a religious person.

Well I'm sorry but the fact is that your behaviour is determined by your neurology and so is theirs.

I agree. that was the idea implied in one of my points.

If I called you both humans would that also be broadbrushing.

No; however, if you precribed a particular type of acts of behaviours to wide group of people, then you'd be broadbrushing.

I was making a reference to the human conditions which as it happens contains atheists and religionists. And I'm sorry but I do not see the difference between you and them. You are just difference manifestations of the same processes. . . . and I certainly don't think you are smarter.

Okay.

Finally, I don't hate your attribution of humyn characteristics to your god, I simpy disagree with it.

Dude what's wrong with you? I never said God had human characteristics. I said Humans potentially have divine characteristics. There is a big difference.

You've misinterpreted my post again. What I mean was, contrary to your claim that I'd hate you giving your god credit for the characteristics humyns possess, I don't. I disagree with, not hate, the assertion. I thought that was clear, given the context.

Pastor AIO:
I hope that you realise that my 'very good point' is the entire crux of the post I wrote. Because I am rather taken aback that you get that point but you have objections to the examples that I use to illustrate it.

Although you may consider that part the crux of your post, I see it as a point that doesn't embrace the whole of your post. For instance, in that point of your post, there is the allusion to the idea of a multiplicity of driving forces when it comes to humans. I feel that aspect was absent in the initial portion of your post.

For someone who claims to be an atheist you sure have some non atheistic opinions. Perhaps it's vestiges from a religious upbringing. I'll repeat my statement that Humans behave compulsively, according to programs neurally formed by genetic inheritance and circumstances.
Perhaps you'd find my applying this to all humans as broadstroking, yet the irony is that I'd expect this to be your stance and I to be the one with issues against it. Why? Because it is an accepted fact that human behaviour and thinking is a product of genes and environment (nature/nurture). This is the point where most atheist would stop and the point that I would expect you to be most comfortable with. I however would be more likely to postulate another influence on human behaviour which you are bound to hate. Namely that we have in us a divinity and God (supernatural) expresses himself through us thereby being an influence on our behaviour that is neither genetic or circumstantial.

I'll address as much as I can in this block. First, it's always startling to see someone refer to atheism as if it were philosophy containing well defined aspects of behaviour and ethics. Atheism isn't that. Atheists are so grouped because they don't believe in the existence of gods. Nothing more. Individual or group philosophies may stem from that non-belief, however.

Secondly, while a great deal of humyn beaviour is decided by social context and their genes, differing shades of experiences and variations in social conditions and genes help to create individual nuances. So, since those nuances can be characterised in many, many different ways, individual desires and motivations cannot be discounted.

Thirdly, it isn't so much your argument about humyn behaviour being caused by environment et al. that I was arguing against, as your blanket characterisation of the actions of both atheists and religious fanatics. Like I said, a caveat that broadbrushing has taken place has to be given for the blanket statement that started this discussion.

Finally, I don't hate your attribution of humyn characteristics to your god, I simpy disagree with it.

I never once suggested that the influences that drive human neuroses were anything but complex. I was merely furnishing you with single simplified examples of how they can influence thinking and behaviour.

Nor did I say that you said it was anything other than complex (I didn't mean to imply that), I was arguing, instead, that the aspect you mentioned constitutes only one part of the drives of many.

olabowale:
@KAG; Seriously, you need to rethink your position. You will see why in a minute.


"Potential" is not "actual." The fact that something may look like something or even look like something, is not a proof that it is. There are tremendous example that I can give you: Artificial sweeters of verious types are not sugar from Sugarcane. Although, it may even have the same nutrional values and crystalization (not really, but am exciting you to think and understand), the truth is that they have different distinct sources. You have not seen Virtual particles 1 and or 2 before. The scientist theorist just provide a seed of this potential possibility. For it to make any sense, you have to hav a completely controlled "vacuum enviroment," which is impossible. If it were possible, them for a particle to form and appear from this nothingness. You have agreed that it is not possible because of your usage of potential as a word to qualify the something from nothingness.

First, your analogy is probably the worst use of an analogy I can remember seeing. Yes, it was that bad.

Second, potentiality does not preclude actuality. I used potentially intentionally, because virtual particles aren't, by reckoning, always present. Also, te use of potential represents an element for possible falsification of the idea of virtual particles; however, like most things in quantum physics, their existence is measurable by a great deal of mathematical equations, which should give an idea of the potential for their existence.

Third, it isn't Virtual particles 1 and 2; it was virtual particles plus two links labelled 1 and 2 so you could do some more research on your own.

Which is why I said I do understand metaphors. You did it wrong.

I see that your thinking is not as deep. Maybe you have carried the water on the Evolution mumbo jumbo to long. You need a change of concept. If your non god can help you it is time you try The One true God.

Lol. All that because you don't know how metaphors work? Wow.

The reason I am asking you to talk about human evolving to 'super humans,' breathing C02 is to let you proof to us that man can still advance. Afterall, human are not perfect being, yet. Are we, because we should be able to defeat single handedly all that have potentials to defeat us. The body of human is not 100% efficient, vis a vias imput and output ratio.

Even common singular celled organism, like the ebola virus do kill humans very quickly. My question to you, again, is that which being are we going to evolve to? When?

If I simply go along with your C02 process, I could easily turn it around that you should tell us when will this organism will evolve to breathing in 02 or others or even what is even more abundant to them, and abandone the C02, for it?

We see that lions and other flesh eaters die of in the time of scarcity of their praeys. But they have plenty of trees and other grasses, why have'nt they evolved to a better adaptable animals suitable to thrive in this strange conditions? Intead their populations dwendle down dramatically. No pregnancy for new birth could be reported at this time.

And I wonder why crocodile and other water animals like that can not survive for a long time win places without their God designed appointed enviroments?

I'll ask again, do you even know what evolution is and how it works? Now, I'm asolutely certain you don't, but it's also necessary that you realise and accept your ignorance on this topic.

First, yes, humyns can still evolve into another species, but it wouldn't necessarily be an evolution to breathing in co2, for several reasons: oxygen is bountiful in most parts of the Earth and our bodies have evolved with oxygen as an important aspect; also, evolution doesn't work by the willful imagination of individuals who want to go in a certain direction. For humans to evolve into a carbondioxide rich species, the mutations necessary for changing the respiratory organs and process needs to arise and become staple in the population.

Second, there are good reasons for the ebola virus problem. You mentioned the most pertinent factor: "the ebola virus do kill humans very quickly."

Finally, I would give yout one advice I seem to remember giving you on a number of occassions: at least take some time out to learn the basics of the thing you're arguing against. You only end up looking like a damned fool, when you keep prattling out inane ideas and questions that contravene the basics of the theory you don't like.

Listen to yourself, talking about hypothesis (outside the subject matter of math; i am following your lead because I did not include physics, etc). I want you to go back to a time before "Universe's first moments," to provide "evidence" of no need for the presence of GOD.

The explanation for the expansion of space and time require no beings. I'm tired of having to explain the same things over and over again, so start your research here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

If you notice, you said moments and conditions about Universe. It point to the theorem that many things of different forms, rates of completions and nature, etc happened at the same period of time. Yet you can not see the Power of a Mightier Entity in this? But of course you have not provided evidences to what the none matter/vacuum state was before this nothingness all of a sudden change to "Universe first moments/conditions?" As I have said, KAG, provide evidence, but please provide how you came about without any part of your "Human Parents?" It is very easy to postulate, but the Evidence of the pudding is in the eating.

The hell are you on about? Did any of that really make sense to you? Came about without humyn parents? What? To answer what I think I can conclude from the above, the evidence for virtual particles lays in the findings of quantum physics; some of the evidence for the Big Bang is in the link above; and since I didn't say i didn't have humyn parents, I don't know what to say.

You just don't get it. I am not ignorant of Science. But thats beside the point. But am not interested the supposed theories and hypothesis, where there are no (proof) Evidences. Theories are good without evidences with those whose mind are fickled. Well, am not.

No, you are [B][U]MOST DEFINITELY[/U][/B] ignorant of science.

Lol. I guess a disagreement with you will bring your evil side.

Evil side? Put the persecution complex down and stp away slowly. Continued idiocy, like the kind you were displaying, deserves stern words.

I guess when you evolve you will evolve to that Mr. Hype personality.

You really, really don't know how evolution works, do you?

For me you and your theorists are just seeking attention, without any possible of validation from the rest of the world. Of course the thought of the fact that you can eliminate God out of the equation of your existence is good enough for you. Yet you have no control of what will happen to you in your distant future. Or when you will die, or even though you were present, but you did have the experience or remember during your birth.

How old are you now? You see how quickly we forget? Just imagine therefore how forgetful mankind is towards the Creator?

That's nice.

I don't fall for everything, and that is the reason i call myself a layman. I do not need you or the evolutionist to tell me who God is or is not. My heart and soul already acknowledge His presence. I am a firm believer in Creation and that the Creator has provided in us all elements and processes for our adaptabilities to our conditions until death overtake us.

I'm happy for you, it doesn't change the fact, though, that "if you really were interested, as a layman, to understand the different theories, you wouldn't keep making the same basic errors at every turn and refusing to acknowledge answers that specifically address the things you clearly need to understand." Carry on.

And in all there is no evidence that there is no God either.

You mean other than the lack of tangible evidence?

In your curiousity, you should have known that there is a place called Egypt, even if you disbelief every other evidence of existence of One Powerful God. In the land of Egypt, there used to be a king Pharaoh in the time that Moses was a 40 year old man . In a nutshell, this king was defeated along with his army, by drowning in the read sea. Moses was able to lead the people who followed his authority through and out of the sea to the otherside. Moses claimed that he was God messenger for this. Notivce that I did not say a (god). This God saved Moses and the defenseless followers with him, while the King and his well equiped army perished in the same sea.

The sea was a source of victory for Moses and his followers and the same see became at an instant the source of defeat for King Pharaoh and his followers. That God who was powerful enough to easily help a weak people by the stick in the hand of Moses and make a mighty warriors of Egypt under pharaoh suffer such great defeat is ever alive and well. That God is the Creator of all things. Your mumbo jumbo will never cut it with any sane mind.

That's all well and good, but I can tell you of a greater man: Odysseus. Through his travails and journeys, he had the true Gods guiding and pushing him. Those Gods kick you god's ass any day.

I intentionally leave everything as your computer brought it on this thread. I guess you spoke without thinking. The mistake is from you personally, or your computer or both. It goes to show that humans and or the machines that they design, in this case could no be mistake proof or faultless. Look to your writings and mine as well before yesterday. You will see that I did not make mistakes, but you did.

Ha ha ha. Here's the sequence again:

Olabowale: It is then that you will begin to explain how the elements in the earth and you are perfect with one another. I wonder why you could not go to the Moon near to us to live, except that you have to replicate the earthly condition on you whenever you even venture to a height just short distance off from the surface of the earth.

KAG: [/b]humyns are not compatible with most of the elements on Earth. In fact, slight increases of the one we are compatible with will hurt or kill us. Having said that, humans did become compatible with several elements on Earth because we did evolve on Earth. See if you can figure out why humans can't live on the moon. I'll start you off: think gravity and oxygen.
[b]
Olabowale: You are a joke KAG. I think you are getting off on this type of meaningless postings. I ask you a direct question, you went all over the places without giving me a single answer of how you have not evolved to be able to live on the other planets without any aids/equipments from the earth?

KAG: Oh dear, that should be a lesson to me: never assume a Mohammedean Creationist has basic intelligence. I have quoted the whole sequence so that anyone with a half decent brain that decides to read this will get a feel for how laughable you're being. How haven't humyns evolved to live on other planets? Um, we evolved on Earth - take a moment and let that sink in.

Lol

First there is nothing called Muhammedean. I am sure it is the Europeans and the Orientalists who coined this word. We in I.s.lam are not that. And as such we reject your label. This is your mistake. Just think for a moment, if you make this blatant mistake by calling me a name that does not belong to me, how can you be certain that there are no mistakes in the Evolution concept?

Due to threats of violence from a Mohammedean, this site doesn't allow the other term for people who share your beliefs. Besides, Mohammedean was in wide use for a long time, so it serves its purpose.

You need to reflect on the fact that if it is true that all things evolved and not created, there is not reason for things to be existing in the place where they are best suited to thrive.

If organisms evolved then they wouldn't exist in an environment that is best suitable for them thriving? Is that argument? Seriously?

Please look at how you spelled humans. I am not mocking you, but am pointing out to you how easily humans can make mistakes and think that they have been dilligent. Am sure your computer has a lot to do with it. Then imagine what equipments focused on a more distant places, who knows how accurate the information gathered were to arrive at possible and conclusive evidence? We only know what we know and thats all. But the truth lies somewhere and it may not be where you think it is. In this case, am sure that you are completely wrong. The Creator knows His role. The Owne of creations knows what He created.

thanks for your concern about the way I spelt humyns.

You still continue to say humyns. Is that the new evolutionnist way of writing humans?

No.

You are truly not deep. Maybe you need to emigrate to USA, or Africa. USA being the newest world, according to the Europeans and Africa being the "Cradle of mankind." Afterall you are a believer that you came from some of "monkey." And by the way logic could be used to deceive. Truth is One and it is always direct.

That's nice.

I hope that you are a friendly person. Show it. You can not just have that in your head without practicing it.
You sound like people who believed their 'gods' or 'godheads' created. Yet when there is real test to show that either have power on anything, the impossibilities surface then. I wonder if gods and godhead fail to evident their capability, how do you think that it is possible that this vast and beautiful thing called universe came by its own process, without the Programmer of the process. That programmer is God, and stop being so childlike in using small g to talk about Him.

gods are, in my opinion, non-existent - especially your god.

But then you are looked upon as a disingenuous, lacking the ability to be honest when there is no other way about it.

No, that would be you. Don't forget then number of times your disingenuousness has been pointed out to you.

lystola:
even scientist themselves are begining to doubt their own theories, they are discovering artifacts that they themselve are testing and are saying all support the theories in the bible,

That's not quite true. There are a relatively few number of scientists that retroactively interpret portions of the Bible to fit scientific findings (in fact, many people, both of the Christian faith and otherwise, do that with their holy books).

they found the ark of Noah, and after doing the carbon dating found it matched the exact period in the bibe,

That' not true.

even recently i heard there are groups of archieologist trying to locate the garden of eden.

There are people trying to locate Atlantis and Bigfoot too.

firstly why should anyone believe a set of people who even dooubt themselves, who are not even sure of there own theories.

Evidence and potential falsifiability.

i'm into science but i realize that science actually has its origin in the bible, i can also tell you that virtually all scientific inventions has its roots in the bible, do you know that the submarine was created on the inspiration of Jonah's experience in the belly of the fish.

somehow I doubt that.

They are begining to accept the truth of creation but they are to proud and egotistical to accept defeat.

yeah, that's got to be it.

Personally i got a question for all who believe and support evolution; Where did the material that evoluted into us come from? you define matter as anything that has weight and occupies space, and that all things are composed of matter, now where did matter come from, and what evoluted into matter, what is the matter that evoluted into the raw materials and tisue that formed life?

That's not evolution, that falls under the origins of matter and/or baryogenesis. I already attempted to explain the matter thing on a number of threads. I won't bother here.

and even if evolution is true, why is it so difficult ot replicate life? why can you create another life without a life? why do you have to rely on another living cell to reproduce another one? because evolution is simply saying life evoluted out of nothingness, then why can we create another life out of nothingness? make life out of nothing? Evolution is more like an uncompleted search of an endless journey.

From what can be deduced, it took billions of years for life to emerge. Trying to recreate that feat in a laboratory in a very short time isn't easy. Further, the official study abigenesis has been relatively short and underfunded in relation to many other sciences.

TV01:
Hiya,
Or you could say "The as yet unproven fact is", or "the belief without supporting evidence is" = "Faith"

Or not. Facts don't get proven in science. Also, there are some pieces of supporting evidence for the genral thesis.

Please re-read the links you posted. It was clearly stated as hypothetical. I post excerpts;

What was stated as an hypothetical? I'm not sure I see that. Unless, we are talking past each other.

Microspheres

they are protocells though. Ones that meet the strict definition of life, at that.

In 1957, Sidney Fox demonstrated that dry mixtures of amino acids could be encouraged to polymerize upon exposure to moderate heat. When the resulting polypeptides, or proteinoids, were dissolved in hot water and the solution allowed to cool, they formed small spherical shells about 2 μm in diameter—microspheres. Under appropriate conditions, microspheres will bud new spheres at their surfaces.

Although roughly cellular in appearance, microspheres in and of themselves are not alive. Although they do reproduce asexually by budding, they do not pass on any type of genetic material. However they may have been important in the development of life, providing a membrane-enclosed volume which is similar to that of a cell. Microspheres, like cells, can grow and contain a double membrane which undergoes diffusion of materials and osmosis. Sidney Fox postulated that as these microspeheres became more complex they would carry on more lifelike functions. They would become heterotrophs, organisms with the ability to absorb nutrients from the environment for energy and growth. As the amount of nutrients in the environment decreased, competition for those precious resources increased. Heterotrophs with more complex biochemical reactions would have an advantage in this competition. Over time organisms would evolve that used photosynthesis to produce energy.
Au contraire! It gave rise to more of it's kind. Organic non-life I would call it. Please excuse my terminology, I'm no scientist.

Here lies the centrality of the debate. By the accepted definition of the characteristics of life: nutrition, movement, growth, reproduction, responsiveness, excretion, and respiration, Sydney Fox's protocells are alive. They meet that criteria. It is, however, the extention of life to passing on of genetic traits that they don't meet and ordinarily souldn't. I can see where you'r coming from, though.Also, the term "organic non-life" seems paradoxical.

Which makes absolute sense. As it's not life it need'nt be specific. It can't concieve and needs no genetic material to pass on.

The question is: is the ability to pass on genetic material a prequisite for life?

Biogenesis I believe is the scientific term. Or "after/according to it's kind" as the "The Uncreated Creator" says (and did)

Excerpts from Genesis 1.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

God bless
TV

I'm not arguing from a theological standpoint.

TV01:

"Non-living" things, after a long process, became living.

- Kindly document and/or replicate.

I should have prefaced the statement with something along the lines of "the idea is" In any case, as far as I can tell, the problem isn't so much causing life to arise from non-life, as it is attempting to replicate the perceived process of the central one that spawned, eventually, those that may have eventually given rise to the genuses I mentioned. For instance, in the case of Sidney Fox's protocells [url=http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/]1[/url] 2, one finds that life can come from non-life. It is documented and can be replicated. The thing is, though, it isn't specific enough to the conception of RNA and DNA, etc.

First, no faith is necessarily required.

- If you cannot replicate as requested above, then obviously it is.

I doubt that.

Pastor AIO:
Many may not be like that but the significant majority are like that. Human's behave compulsively, according to programs neurally formed by genetic inheritance and circumstances. It's so Pavlovian it is almost scary.

Again, I'll have to disagree. For one thing, while an argument could be made that having observed the behavour of a few members of a particular group, it becomes easier to predict the characteristic traits of most, the argument would still suffer if an admission of broad-brushing isn't made.

Many religionist debaters often get off on that vindication buzz. As indeed many atheist who seem to secretly feel that being an atheist make them more intelligent and superior to those who believe in God. They get a kick out of the feeling and that is what drives them on.

I suspect you're partly right. I say partly becuase I suspect that the things mentioned form only one aspect of the complex nature of things that drive many in the two groups on.

It doesn't have to be a feeling of superiority mind you. Some might adhere to a religion because it feels cosy. Perhaps they were raised in that religion and so they have a connection with it. To argue with these people about their religion is to attack their security. And they will react in such a manner as anyone would if their security was being threatened. I wouldn't hold out for a logical discussion here. It would be more advisable to prepare yourself against being physically attacked.

I'd have to disagree here I have come across a few people who did have that kind of relation to their religious beliefs, and they admit that the sense of security offered by their religion was shattered because of their search for "truth and knowledge" often in the form of discussions and arguments with others of different beliefs. Logical discussion can and does happen with people you've described.

Likewise many atheists are simply not comfortable with the idea of god's existence. For whatever compulsive reason. It could be the loss of a loved one that has them angry and leads them to denounce the existence of God.

I agree. It happens.

Basically there are a thousand and one reasons why anyone would advocate or denounce a doctrine that has nothing to do with the validity of that doctrine. Until you make a proper appraisal of your motivations, whether neurotic or otherwise, you run the risk of catering for other urges other than the quest for truth.

Very good point.

Pastor AIO:
But that is besides the point. I see a thread that could go on forever and ever and there will be nothing gained. Why? Because of a lack of interest in the Truth. It must be understood that the human mind is a very complex phenomenon. Most people are bound by some sort of compulsive behaviour or the other. Subsequently It is not everyone that clings to the bible that is thirsting after truth. Some people seem to get a mental orgasm from manipulating theological arguments against an opponent. Perhaps it's the feeling of 'being proved right', that vindication feeling, that drives them. Therefore the goal of their debates is not to uncover truth but rather to be proved right at all cost. Even at the cost of distorting and convoluting the truth. This goes for Atheist and evolutionist as much as for religious people. They are exactly the same, the only difference is the perspective that they are arguing from.

I disagree with the blanket statement. While there are atheists (whether they be evolutionists or not) and religious people that fit into the description you've given, many aren't like that.

There is nothing wrong with being wrong or speaking untruths out of ignorance. But when one gets the sense that the Liar is not misinformed but rather willfully ignorant, and when it is as blatant as 'new methods in of measuring the age of the earth which proves that the earth is young,' then there is absolutely no point in engaging with such a discussion. Lies have one source, from he who is called the Father of Lies. You give yourself over to him the minute you cease to be interested in the truth as it may present itself and concentrate on winning an argument at all costs, and maintaining a certain position, whether it is for egotistical reasons or something else.

Good points. I've encountered the dude on a few previous occassions, so yeah - Sometimes, I don't mind being optimistic, so I engage them in discssion (or arguments)

olabowale:
@KAG;
Regardless of your short or long reasons afterwards, you make absolutely no sense, except that you keep providing silly and unproven theories.

Lol. Absolutely no sense? Well, I guess I'm beginning to understand why legible, understandable words will make absoultely no sense to you. Carry on.

Particles coming out of nothing? You see how clownish your thinking is? Even magicians can not produce something out of nothing. There whole gimmick is slight of hands. Thats the same situation with the proposal of the Evolutionists; much talk without substance.

That's nice, except, in quantum fluctuations, virtual particles 1 2 are potential somethings from nothing. The quantum world is notoriously counter-intuitive.

What i said about the heart is not about everybody's hearts. I was talking about your heart and the hearts of the Evolutionists, because it is devoid of truth. A heart that will not accept the truth is hard and dead.

Which is why I said I do understand metaphors. You did it wrong.

KAG, I wonder if you thinking process has any depth. I simply ask you a question, you avoided it and begin talking about some organism. I spoke about human, you and me. You are talking about some organism. You are so clogged up with your evolution mumbo jumbo that you will avoid serious dialogue about it. Your escape route is always to go fall back on an unproven theory. You sound as if a tree will ever become a human being.

No, you said "humans and others" that includes and demands an indication of the processes in other organisms. Again, how or why would humans evolve to breathe in CO2? Do you understand how evolution works?

All unproven theories. And noticed that you said that there are more than one processes of planetary formation. And it is your singularity that expanded with great deal of energy that brought all the above to being. Then I want you to tell me how that singularity came about and what was its potential properties; mass as in weight, etc? And I have not heard of any thing that expanded, without some thermal changes. What created the initial thermal change, and what amount of it to make the singularity expand to the point that conversions took place? Are the conversions all at the same time or you don't know?

Actually, proof is for maths and liquor. Theories, however, do require evidence. Yes, I indicated that more than one conception of planetary formation exists. No, the initial expansion didn't cause planetary formation - it came long afterwards. There are several hypotheses regarding the singularity; the most pervasive, however, is string theory. No, the singularity didn't have weight (I've told you that on more than one previous occassion. Keep up), as gravity must have appeared after inflation and expansion. I don't know what you're talking about with thermal change, as there was great amount of heat after the expansion of the Universe. Several elements came into being in the instance of the Universe's first moments because of the conditions

KAG, the evolutionsists have been making unsubstantiated blanketed statements for a long time, and have been left unchallenged. You now have to provide a proof. You are now to to tell us the layman about your thesis. And if you can not, then know that God is the Creator of all things. And mankind does not know all things at anytime. Afterall, we do not know the future in full.

That's nice, except that's not how science works. First, most of what you've been asking about have nothing to do with evolution (as in the theory of evolution which the moniker of "evolutionist" refers).

Second, science theories are always challenged. That's an important aspect of science. The challenge happen by people who tend to know what the hell the theories are and what they entail, not some almost retarded person on the internet with a poor grasp of even basic knowledge.

Third, if you really were interested, as a layman, to understand the different theories, you wouldn't keep making the same basic errors at every turn and refusing to acknowledge answers that specifically address the things you clearly need to understand.

Finally, I have never said that humyn beings know everything. However, that shouldn't be an excuse to refuse to sate some of our curiousities, nor does it mean that it is evidence of gods.

[quote]It is then that you will begin to explain how the elements in the earth and you are perfect with one another. I wonder why you could not go to the Moon near to us to live, except that you have to replicate the earthly condition on you whenever you even venture to a height just short distance off from the surface of the earth.

humyns are not compatible with most of the elements on Earth. In fact, slight increases of the one we are compatible with will hurt or kill us. Having said that, humans did become compatible with several elements on Earth because we did evolve on Earth. See if you can figure out why humans can't live on the moon. I'll start you off: think gravity and oxygen.

You are a joke KAG. I think you are getting off on this type of meaningless postings. I ask you a direct question, you went all over the places without giving me a single answer of how you have not evolved to be able to live on the other planets without any aids/equipments from the earth?[/quote]Oh dear, that should be a lesson to me: never assume a Mohammedean Creationist has basic intelligence. I have quoted the whole sequence so that anyone with a half decent brain that decides to read this will get a feel for how laughable you're being. How haven't humyns evolved to live on other planets? Um, we evolved on Earth - take a moment and let that sink in.

Is.la.m prohibits me from drinks. I simply thought that you were under the weather when you responded to an inquiry, that you are now better than the week before. Anyway, I see that you are devoid of human emotion. So whatever humans evolved from, pardon me is now modern day human grand parents. So how are they? I am trying to get you to think that your theory of evolution is just a lousy theory from a demented mind, who could not logically or physically prove it, if his life depends on it. Your reputation depends on it, KAG and you are failing terribly.

Logic: learn it; use it. That I'm better than thought I'd be last week is neither implies flu nor "under the weather". Geez! Humyn grandarents? Extinct.

By the way, where is that guy, Afern, or with a similar name? I hope he is well.

I wouldn't know.

Has science proves already that there is no Primary Mover, the Creator who is God? Now that is the truth that they need to commit to or prove it wrong.

Science doesn't set out to falsify the existence of gods. What one can assert, however, is that with new findings, one can propose that gods aren't necessary for the state of things and beings. That is not to say, though, that one cannot be both a believer in a god and accept scientific findings.

Need I say more, since all you could say is "that's swell?"

Yup. Some polemics don't deserve anything other than whats amounts to a patronising pat on the head.

OLAADEGBU:
@KAG,

the reason I post those weblinks is for you and others to get information, but I know that as long as you keep putting on those dark goggles you will find it difficult to see the light.

False information is worse than none at all. You're posting false information. I see the light. The light sees me.

Your worldview requires a giant leap of faith which is usually blind to believe that primordial slime evolved into intelligent human beings today. Show me fossils or living beings that are in the transitional process of changing from one specie to another. You require people to believe that nothing turned into something and something evolved into someone, tell us then what someone has/would turn into

Yeah, most of what you've written is wrong. First, no faith is necessarily required. Second, primordial slime didn't evolve into intelligent humans today. "Non-living" things, after a long process, became living. Living organisms, after long processes, became bacterial, etc. vertebrae-mammals-primates-blahblah- humans

If you really are interested in discussing the facts of life, first take off your goggles or spectacles of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis etc. and be sincere in your conscience in searching for the truth. Jesus said that you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free, for if the Son shall make you free you shall be free indeed. If you still have questions then ask creation scientists in the weblink below and they will be happy to answer you. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/05/09/dinosaurs-man-bible

That's great and all, but considering that I accepted the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life after dilligently looking through as much of the evidence and peer-reviewed journals I could stand, I'm pretty sure I'm not blinded to truth. Now, if you would like to put dogma aside and look at the evidence and discuss the facts and findings, then - Yes, the truth shall set you free, but often with Creationists, the truth makes them flee.

I wish you the best in all your searching, that is if you have not already made up your mind and stopped investigating.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/05/09/dinosaurs-man-bible

I wish you the best in your - whatever it is.

olabowale:
@KAG: Am not a Christian, but I am a Creationist. Your ability to continue to simple say Wrong about everything, does not mean that you are correct!

Except, I didn't just say "Wrong", I also gave short reasons afterwards. I'd say I'm more correct than both you and the other clown.

I often wonder how you have not be able to tell us how the initial particle that existed before the big bang came about into existence? You should try to explain that to all of us and your heart that is harder than steel, deader than stone, yet it is flesh, pumping blood through your body to keep you alive. Yet this very simple process of life support has kept you alive from the time of your inception in your mother's body.

First, as I've told you several times, your understanding of the Big Bang theory is terrible. However, if one were to argue that it was a "particle" that expanded into time and space, one could point to the quantum fluctuations which cause the rise of particles out of nothing. I've told you that before.

Second, the heart is not harder than steel, nor deader than stone (yes, I understand how metaphors work, but you did it wrong in your attempt to equivocate). The heart came as a result of evolution.

And why has not a group of humans and others evolved to breath in the huge amount of CO2 that is killing off the created humans and other animals who are designed to using O2 like humans?

Um, why or how would humans evolve to breathe CO2. Do you understand how evolution works? In any case, there are organisms that did evolve to breathe in CO2. See if you can guess what they are.

After you do this, and others, I will ask you to tell us how the first particle that is so small that it has no size andno significan mass but that since it existed it must have a position, hence one is arbitrarily given to it by the theorist. The theorist can never proof their theory, because they know that nothing can exist (except God Almighty the Creator), without a causer to bring it about. They theorised something so small exploded with such a force that it had to be called Big Bang. And this then produced and continues to produce the tremendously immmeasurable large amount of weight of things, some already extincted, while others are not yet descovered, but what is known are so varied that we can't possibly explain how they could have had a direct link and common origin! How can you explain that Jupiter or any of those other planets and you come from the same father and or mother?

A singularity expanded. The singularity had a great deal of energy, which has, in turn, made conversions, etc. Jupiter, like other planets, came to be through one of the processes of planetary formation. It's existence is not necessarily supernatural nor does it require the help of any beings.

KAG, you see that i cleverly did not say you and the earth, since you live on the planet earth. It is then that you will begin to explain how the elements in the earth and you are perfect with one another. I wonder why you could not go to the Moon near to us to live, except that you have to replicate the earthly condition on you whenever you even venture to a height just short distance off from the surface of the earth.

Humans are not compatible with most of the elements on Earth. In fact, slight increases of the one we are compatible with will hurt or kill us. Having said that, humans did become compatible with several elements on Earth because we did evolve on Earth. See if you can figure out why humans can't live on the moon. I'll start you off: think gravity and oxygen.

Now tell me how is grandma Gorilla doing? And grandpa Chipanzee, too? Am sorry KAG, you have flu or at least under the weather? I don't see the earth sneezing with watery eyes, and running nose in all my years alive. Ask those people who have been alive longer than all of us.

Humans didn't evolve from gorillas or chimpanzees. I don't have the flu, nor am I under the weather. Dude, have you been drinking? For your sake, I hope that's your excuse.

And your claim that science disagrees with theology, I bet you have based it only on what you know. n the Q.your'an, in Surah Rahman, the Creator says penetrate the space, if you can. But you can not except with what its allowed for you to penetrate.

No, I said science is commited to truth and theology to dogma. I didn't say it disagrees with it, although on many occasions it does.

In other parts of this Glorious Book, the Creator gives hints, inferences on known science branches and what is yet on known, but will be only for the future generations. You see, you have cheapened the Awesomeness of the Bringer of what you think is the source of your life. You need to change your ways.

That's swell.

No, it isn't safe. Fire will stream from your head to the sky, scorching all that you hold dear. Then your eyes will roll inwards, thereby blinding you. then worse of all, you will be forced to wander the Earth for a thousand years as one of the undead.

OLAADEGBU:
@KAG,

How are you doing?

I have been doing better than I expected a week ago.

I hope you are being commended by your masters as you have been committed in doing the work of the devil's advocate as the image on your signature depicts.

LoL. Since when did bunny become an image of the Devil's advocate? You really can't help being wrong, can you?

The worldview that you have been propagating is a desperate effort of your master to put smokescreen on the eyes of people to make them believe that the book of Genesis is a myth while the book of Revelation is depicted to be a book of mysteries so that they would not learn of his impending doom, his entry and undignified exit as well as the prophecy in Gen.3:15. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/war-of-worldviews

Whatever worldview you ascribe to does not validate your presuppositions as facts. It only validates the panic attack that secularists, humanists, atheists and your master have because of the impending judgment and accountability.

One fact that you should realise is that nothing ever turns into something by itself and the Cause of all things is the Eternal being.

That's wonderful. As rhetorics go, I suppose yours wasn't too bad. Feel free to can it for some discussin about evidence without copy/pastes, at your discretion, though.

Oh hey, have you heard? The Earth stands firm on the back of four elephants standind on the back of a turtle. True story.

OLAADEGBU:
Science as I said has its own limitations and is in a transitional investigative stage. There are changes in the knowledge that atoms are the smallest particles, the X & Y chromosomes as male and female, they have now discovered that the earliest form of life had DNA (which is a language),

Change is good; investigtion is excellent. If only Craeationists could come to grips with ideas of that kind.

new methods in of measuring the age of the earth which proves that the earth is young,

Ding! First lie. Not true.

Science and Scriptures are both committed to the truth.

Wrong. Science is committed to seeking out the truth, Scriptures are committed to theologially based dogma.

Scientists starts with a big leap of faith by producing hypothesis or theories and then moves to test their compliance with the facts.

WRONG. Theories come after investigations, calculations and a production of potential falsifiability. Hypotheses, on the other hand, haven't been given potential falsifiability, but also follow investigation and calculations. Faith? Not so much.

Facts fits The book of Genesis perfectly. The Bible explains a universe where those principles are valid; without the Bible (and, more importantly, the God of the Bible), there is no basis for science. Furthermore, there is no indisputable “evidence” that speaks for itself and needs no interpretation; rather, we interpret the raw facts of science through a worldview.

WRONG. Some facts are bent and others fabricated to fit the book of Genesis. Even then, they barely fit and hang loose. Evidence can be said to speak for itself if it is observed in the same way by numerous others, can be potentially recreated or tested, etc.

Evolutionists on the contrary have not been able to back up their conjectures, myths or beliefs with facts, instead they try to interprete the facts that the scientists have arrived at through their own fanciful ideologies and philosophies which none of them had observed.

WRONG. There is no requirement for myths et al. in the theory of evolution - that is left to Creationists - as there are a number of evidence that support the theory. That many of the evidence found are testable and potentially falsifiable creates more of a problem for your delusion. And yes, many have been observed.

What they propagate as proof of biological evolution is the downward evolution or should I say de-evolution of mutation and selection where organisms change and adapt to new environments.

WRONG. While it's interesting to see a sly admission of facets of evolution, it's no less dishonest to claim devolution is what occurs. In any case "devolution" would still be evolution and so would adapting to new environments.

They try to convince the gullibles that living organisms came from non-living organisms

WRONG. That is abiogenesis, not the the theory of evolution.

and evolved to the complex organisms we have today, hiding under the thin finger of billions of years. We all know that things depreciate, information in the DNA reduces, (the fact that information in the DNA in the earliest form of life proves that the language must have a person behind it) and living things eventually die out. The non-existent missing links has been fraudulently made up by the use of the jaws of animals, bones of diseased humans and rearranging of fossils.

WRONG. There's more than just claiming a billion years, to the theory of evolution. Second, yes things depreciate, but before depreciating they grow and in their state of growth they can reproduce. Finally, there have been a number of fossils of transitionals found.

Their main purpose of propagating this lie is to be independent of God and hoping to get ahead by using their axiom "the survival of the fittest" which is used in the business world of capitalism, facism, nazism (Hitler hated christianity because "it kept weak people going", colonialism, communism, secularism etc.

WRONG. Social Darwinism - which incidentally has nothing to do with Darwin - is not Evolution. Hitler was definitely a theist and probably a Christian - stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

If you have any questions and sincerely need answers to them then visit the weblink below

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/05/09/dinosaurs-man-bible

http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

WRONG. Neither of those sites are honest or interested in appraising information dilligently and truthfully.

So many wrongs in one post. Well done. Another copy/paste coming up?

OLAADEGBU:
Biblical creation. The evidence is with us i.e. fossils, rocks etc that the scientists (geologists, biologist, cosmologist, anthropologists, archeologists, physcists, chemists etc) have discovered, it is now left for us to interprete the evidence based on what spectacle we are using.

The Holy Bible is where you will find the account of the Person who was there at the beginning, and that is the spectacles that I am using to interprete the origin of the evidence.

Other spectacles are evolutionary theory, is'lamic theory, Roman catholic theories etc but the question is, was the basis of your theory present at the origin of the evidence? The conclusion you arrive at depends on what your presupposition or worldviews are.

Biblical creationism uses the spectacles of the book of Genesis to interprete the origin of cosmology, biology, geology, geography, anthropology, archeology, physics, chemistry, history etc in this 3 dimensional earth and cosmos ie matter, time and space.

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Whatever worldview you believe, I say believe because none of you were present in the beginning, you should look for the answers of :
1. The origin of the universe,
2. The origin of species ie life here on earth,
3. The purpose of our existence here on earth,
4. Why we die and what happens to us after death.

Science has its own limitations, it cannot and will not interprete what actually happened before the discoveries. The only One who knows all the answers and more is The Alpha and Omega, The beginning and The end, The first and The last, who was there at the beginning.

You're so wrong on so many things, it's almost impressive.

cgift:
OLAADEGBU,

fire on. You are the man. Let this people come and prove evolution and lets take them to the cleaners using their own claims. How can someone say that the world evolved? Ask him if the shoe he is wearing evolved as well?

Funny how it's the opposite that tends to happen. Delusion: the ever-present weapon in the Creationist's arsenal.

Ujujoan:
Eternal rest!!! Think of all the hustle and bustle of this world. The idea of enternal rest is definitely enticing; at least compared to the only other choice , Enternal damnation!!!

hmm, so heaven is synonymous with death. Who'd have thunk it.

tonib:
We were told in the Bible that Heaven is our home and our place of rest for all believers.As a true child of God that should be our focus to make heaven after all the hustle bustle of this world. Heaven is a place where there is no sorrow where we will be happy and sing forever

I like kool-aid. How about you? ignore the cyanide, it leads to happiness.

but hell is the opposite, the Bible records that in hell there gnashing of teeth and weeping and fire burning with sulphur that no water can quench. I pray that the almighty God will give us the grace to make heaven. PEACE

Sounds like fun.

MC Usman:
One day the same scientist will double promote it to a bigger postion

How, exactly, do you suppose that would happen, and how would that change the reality of Pluto?

wendymanda:
It has been demoted.

oh, from the way you wrote earlier, I thought scientists had come to the conclusion that it no longer exists. I can rest easy now that I know it wasn't "disproved".

Well, that settles it, I guess.

wendymanda:
Some scientist have also discovered that many beliefs they had about dinosaurs are invalid. So scientist will always change what they proved formerly. Look at the planets Poor Pluto!

What happened to Pluto?

My last post

imhotep:
I asked the questions. Remember?

I've seen your mode of asking questions. Like I said, "you don't care!" You don't ask questions because you are interested in the answers or thoughts of others, you ask so as to give the impression that your notions on such matters haven't already assured the occurence of cognitive dissonance. You're not a very honest person; nor, to be frank a very smart dishonest person.

Then they should prepare for more groping in the dark.

Yet in groping they have found more than many dogmatic theologians who revel in being blind to the actualities of the universe.

Not a joke but a question. If the 'X particle' caused the higgs boson, what caused the X particle to come into existence?

I take it you didn't read the article you posted, just the title.

Then the issues remain outstanding.

In your sphere of existence? If you cared enough.

imhotep:
Science does. Since science is very interested in effects and their causes.

you misunderstand, it's "you don't care!"

But you just asked 'Who cares?'. Is this how they hope to address the 'problem' of an infinite regress of causes?

yes, yes it is.

Not kidding at all.

I suppose i can't be blamed for hoping that it was a jokes, especially considering the fact the question about what may have caused the higgs boson is coming from the guy who started a thread with links about the force behind the higgs boson.

I'm not sure I can rustle up enough of a damn to continue to respond to your posts.

imhotep:
Good. Next question -> what caused the big bang?

Who cares?

Well, it needs to be addressed if the research is to be thorough.

It is being addressed.

Ok. Lets call it the 'X particle'. Now, again, what caused the X particle to come into existence?

You're kidding right?

Witness:
Further prove about a global flood:

Job 12:15 Behold, he withholdeth the waters, and they dry up: also he sendeth them out, and they overturn the earth.

That's neither proof nor evidence. In fact, that verse is arguably not concurring with the literalist's view of a global flood, but
about localised floods and the psalmist's view of YHWH's role.

Yes it does make sense, population projections fit the time frame of the flood , othewise far more people who have been on earth than we have now,

Not really, no.

imhotep:
It actually begs the questions =>

- What caused this force to come into existence in the first place?

the force that caused the higgs boson? the big bang.

- Can an infinite regress of causes be possible?

from a pure-reason based stance, no, i don't think so. However, things that are counter-intuitive have shown themselves possible in the past.

In any case, that's not what was posited.

What I find amusing is that they call it the 'God particle' - are they now tired of searching for natural causes of these phenomena?

you are getting tangled up in nomenclature again. I forget now why it was given its name, but it certainly has nothing to do with deities an their realm.

imhotep:
British physicist Peter Higgs said on Monday it should soon be possible to prove the existence of a force which gives mass to the universe and makes life possible -- as he first argued 40 years ago.

More here ==> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080407/sc_nm/science_particle_dc

Good stuff. Uh, you seem to be mistaking an issue of nomenclature for evidence of your theological stance. If this discovery pans out it will be more supportive of those who point out that no gods are necessary for the origins of matter, etc.

imhotep:
Not the proof we demanded.

It takes an act of faith to disbelieve the existence of God -- whose existence you cannot disprove.

Hopefully, with continued repetition of the post, the import of the contents of my post will hit you.



First, that no tangible evidence exists foe the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

Secondly, god by its very definition is of a mythological nature. To ask that I prove that a god is mythological is to misunderstand what the terms imply. so, unless you have positive evidence you've been keeping secret, god belongs to mythology [2].

Finally, like I said on numerous occasions, science doesn't do proofs. Alcoholics who practise science may, but science doesn't. What can be shown though is the likelihood of something or the other. by the way, were you seriously asking me to use science to prove an unevidenced god is mythological?


____________________________________________________________ __________________________________

[1] Flew, Anthony, "Theology and Falsification", from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

[2] Meaning of mythology and its implications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

Not good enough.

What's not good enough? Edit: Not good enough for what?

imhotep:
Our beloved atheists CANNOT disprove the existence of God. What a pity.

They are holding on to a position they CANNOT defend.

All we have seen are dogmatic declarations ---- these are not the convincing proofs we demanded.

First, that no tangible evidence exists foe the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

Secondly, god by its very definition is of a mythological nature. To ask that I prove that a god is mythological is to misunderstand what the terms imply. so, unless you have positive evidence you've been keeping secret, god belongs to mythology [2].

Finally, like I said on numerous occasions, science doesn't do proofs. Alcoholics who practise science may, but science doesn't. What can be shown though is the likelihood of something or the other. by the way, were you seriously asking me to use science to prove an unevidenced god is mythological?


____________________________________________________________ __________________________________

[1] Flew, Anthony, "Theology and Falsification", from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

[2] Meaning of mythology and its implications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

----------------------------
Atheism is a belief system, it requires a certain act of faith not to believe in God (whose existence CANNOT be disproven).

It requires disbelieving the central claim of theists: that an unevidenced, intangible entity exists.

Atheism tries hard to hide under the cloak of rationalism, but it is ultimately faith-based.

No. By the way, the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

imhotep:
Good. This should make it very easy to design an experiment to prove that God does not exist.

Stop being daft, and actually read what I wrote:

"First, that no tangible evidence exists foe the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1].

Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary"


I'm just hoping that the explanaton for the response you wrote is that you didn't bother reading my post.

Then design an experiment to PROVE that gods are imaginary. Dont just say it.

No, seriously read what I wrote. This has got to be an act, right?

Check this out --->
Source ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#Religion_and_mythology

Um, yeah, I know that: I did post the link after all. Geez!

lafredo:
please tell me

Nothing.

Ibime:
Please give us scientific explanations for our rationale, subconscious, mental facilities, will power, nerological faculties, morality etc.

I am waiting. Do not duck this one.

Cognitve science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science

imhotep:
We are also waiting for them to prove that God does not exist.

They have dodged this proof for weeks on end ---- but the issue is still waiting for them.

First, that no tangible evidence exists foe the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

Secondly, god by its very definition is of a mythological nature. To ask that I prove that a god is mythological is to misunderstand what the terms imply. so, unless you have positive evidence you've been keeping secret, god belongs to mythology [2].

Finally, like I said on numerous occasions, science doesn't do proofs. Alcoholics who practise science may, but science doesn't. What can be shown though is the likelihood of something or the other. by the way, were you seriously asking me to use science to prove an unevidenced god is mythological?


____________________________________________________________ __________________________________

[1] Flew, Anthony, "Theology and Falsification", from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

[2] Meaning of mythology and its implications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology