₦airaland Forum

dp

imhotep:
Another ex eventu explanation

The same accusation leveled against Prophesies in the Bible.

It's absolutely nothing like that.

j-girl:
Yes I know what the K-T boundary is. We create human gadgets to tell us what date something happened. What's to say that dating materials are accurate? just because they can detect correctly within hundreds of years doesn't mean that it's accurate for longer periods.

Repetitive testing: of both the chemistry involved and the datings. Independent tests and testing methods showing the same range.

4Him:
sometimes you wonder about their sanity at times.
They ask us to prove Noah's flood ever occured and here they are telling us about events that happened 65m years ago as if they were there and had any proof.

There's evidence. That's usually counts for a lot.

JeSoul:
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

I was trying to summarise a notion that I find thought-provoking: all of nature should also be taken as a testimony.

You're not getting the point KAG. I'm not saying I believe my interpretation of the bible, I'm saying I believe the bible! 2 different things. My interpretation might be wrong sometimes because I'm human just like everyone else, but that doesn't nullify the truth that the scriptures explicitly state. If the bible says this is what happened, then that is what happened. Period.

Not necessarily. Several parts of the Bible are meant to be read as allegorical descriptions, rather than "as is" facts. It then becomes important to not assert that one must always be a strict literalist in ones reading of the Bible, as that - to get back to the point raised in my first post - is not only impossible, but also causes one to miss the import of those allegorical tales.

I should make clear that it wouldn't be disbelieving the Bible; it would, instead, be, in my opinion, a wise approach to reading and interpretation of Judeo-Christian scriptures.

For example is says Judas hung, it also says he fell and his bowels split. I don't care how it happened or for my interpretation of how it happened but I believe and accept that it happened!
Get it?

I get it. The point, though, is that to make every facet of the story work, the shackles of strict literalism have to be loosened. This, of course, as I said before, iis just one such example.

The forces needed to make the feat occur would be noticeable in many, many parts on Earth. none exist.

In your opinion! yes it is your opinion!

No, according to every available findings and evidence of and in the sciences, and animal and plants cultures.

Like I said this ground has been covered so many times, there are many proponents and opponents of numerous theories, each person will believe which theory they want. I don't see any use in repitition as I have nuthin new revelation to add to the already exsiting ones.

As far as scientific theories and history go, there is none that can possibly be used to support sudden geocentricism.

Look like I said you're still trying to look at these events from a scientific and rational point of view when the very purpose and definition of a miracle or supernatural event is that it defies explanation! I know you're saying the explanation should not be more incredible than the miracle itself but hey Christians don't need explanation and proof - that's where we differ.

It's also not just about the explanation being more incredible than the event, it's the characterisation of the deity behind it as well. In fact, at this point, my argument isn't so much that miracles can't happen, but that it seems odd to suggest a literal reading of an event that, though miraculous, it's after effects of it were also miraculously removed.

I could care less how or whether in the first place humans evolved or how the flood occured or if there's evidence of it beneath glaciers or if Nasa can/can't prove we're missing a day - because all these matters very little.

I suspect that they do matter in their own way. In my opinion, the validation or falsification of any of those things may help to indicate or confirm how a particular part of the Bible should be read.

Tasma summarized it very well here: and that's really what it all comes down to - faith.

I guess it depends on how you see faith. Either as Luther stated it, something that "must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding," or in Acquinas's sense, something that can "possibly be supported by reason." Or indeed some other subset of the two.

between. thanks for being a gentleman in discussion, most other atheists here are verbally violent and unreasonable, dishonest and resort to insulting christianity. But not so you from what I've seen. Keep it up!

Thank you for being cordial too.

imhotep:
anyone = evolutionist OR creationist ?

Anyone.

imhotep:
@KAG
How are you doing?

I'm alive. You?

Yes, I read it. It's quite long. What struck you the most?

That anyone could think most of those things are problems with or for the theory of evolution.

imhotep:
I stumbled upon a criticism of the theory of evolution. I have listed some of the salient points of the document below. I do hope the evolutionists on this forum will think again.

* Evolution is just a theory, not a fact

* Evolution has never been observed

* Past evidence for evolution has been overturned

* Evolution's evidence is unreliable or inconsistent

* Life is too unlikely to arise by chance

* Evolution does not explain certain human behaviors

* Evolution cannot create complex structures

* Evolution cannot create information

* Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics

* Evolution says that humans are animals

* Evolution leads to immorality and social ills

* Evolution leads to atheism

* Atheism can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.



Main Source -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolution

Did you actually read the contents of the link? Radical idea: Maybe you should

Kuns:
therationa,

The view clip is not right and exact.

First, the man did not say when human existence began.

A general timeframe was given, though. I don't see why you think that's relevant.

Secondly, he did not account why the other species of races lost their original hair and grew furs.

The hell? Other species of races? what on Earth is that. Who grew furs instead of hair? Wait, fur isn't hair?

Considering the fact that the DNA contains the code for the genetic make-up of every living organism i.e your DNA determines the Height, the illnesses that you could be affected by, the colour of your skin, the shape of your Face etc, etc.

Another good example of where "Human Ancestry Made Easy" is misleading and untrue, is where the author claims the ancestors who migrated before the continental drift lose their melenin due to the colder climate. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Again, people do not go from Black- brown skin tone to pale skinned because they move to a colder claimate. For peoples hair to change from a woolly textures to Furs (similar to what animals have) is unheard of, this does not happen. Black people have lived in colder and temperate climates for thousands of years and still maintain their original features

I don't think continental drift was mentioned. I agree with you, though. It wasn't climate that caused the mutation; however, climate did ensure the success of the mutation becoming set in the population. again with the fur?

.

The only time when someone goes from a Black- brown skin tone to pale skinned (so- called white) is when they mix in their DNA (Deoxy Ribonucleic acid) and RNA (Ribonucleic acid) with a beast with Furs or other beings of a another (different) genetic strands of DNA and RNA.

Absolute nonsense. Variations in skin colour occurs a great deal. They have nothing to do with inter-species intercourse.

[all of that]

Where the hell do you get your rubbish from?

JeSoul:
You're still beating around the same bush KAG. They're multitudes of scientists both christian and non-christian who've put forth theories that either show the flood could or could not have happened.

The distinct lack of evidence for a worldwide flood, and positive evidence against it say it couldn't have happened. Or if it did, a deceptive being cleaned up all the evidence for the flood and even planted several that falsify a deluge.

A lot of the time it comes down to their personal opinion.

No, it doesn't.

And it comes down to you or anyone one else, you'll either believe the biblical account or not whether there is proof or not.

To paraphrase a profound notion, nature - the Earth, the Universe and basically every empirically testable thing - is God's word too. If that aspect that testifies to God's glory seriously contradicts your interpretation of God's spiritual word, the Bible, then it's more than likely that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. To simply state that you believe your interpretation of the Bible whether the evidence suggests otherwise, is tantamount to Biblidolatry.

Um, you had to implant your own external notions into both texts to make your version seem feasible to you.

Your opinion and I respect but vehemently disagree with it.
To me its plain logic and accepted everywhere: If one statement can be true without the other being wrong/both true without excluding the possiblity of the other, then I really don't get what the hassle is all about This is plain logic.

I'm not sure I know what you're vehemently disagreeing with.

I gave you one possiblity, another many people have put forth is that the pharisees took the money and bought the field like it says in the text, but the author in acts attributed the purchase of the field to Judas because it was his money, though the pharisees bought it. Another possibility. I don't know which is the right one and will not pretend to.

Exactly! Thus, again, strict literalism is thrust out the window.

But if you or anyone else is going to discredit the bible based on this one so-called contradiction that many theories have been put forth to answer, I think that is highly disingenious. The bible is 66books long, and the only evidence to say it's not trustworthy is this little' query with Judas?

Are you kidding? If I wanted to discredit the Bible, then, surely, defending allegorical interpretation of certain portions of the Bible would be the wrong way of going about it, don't you think? No, I brought the Judas reports to show that strict literalism is not applicable to the Bible. It was one example.

To make that possible, the forces governing motion will have to be shoddily reworked. More importantly, though, yet again, the memories of everyone else on Earth would have to be tampered with, their envionments too would need reworking in such a way as to make the original miracle both unnecessary and unbelievable.

Could not disagree more.
Again you're saying this evidence of the sun going backward is absent. . .what kind of evidence would you be looking for to prove this did or didn't happen?

The forces needed to make the feat occur would be noticeable in many, many parts on Earth. none exist. furthermore, practically everyone on Earth would really feel the effects of a sudden change to geocentricism. A sudden recreation would both have to occur and memories implanted to ensure the impressive lack of evidence. Shoddy and deceptive.

Like I said before there's tons of work already done of this supporting or attempting to disprove this possiblity and I don't really have anything new to add to them. . .each person will believe what they want. I'm not going to pretend like I have all the answers and can explain everything, no way. And some things I cannot prove or disprove.

I understand that.

And the sad thing is all these miracles are not even close to the primary message of the bible, that's not what is important and God is not intrested in proving His existence or supremacy or sovereignty to man.

I said as much in my first post.

But relying on "proof" and "evidence" in order for you to believe in the bible is pointless. It really is. Faith puts your heart in a position to be receptive and learn what really is true. Using your mere intellect with prove frustrating nd get you nowhere.

That's another discussion for another time.

JeSoul:
I don't think so. Tasma is asking if we believe all the miracles in the bible actually happened. If you don't believe in miracles then you've already answered no to that question.

Yes, but my beliefs are irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of literally interpreting every part of the Bible.

Based on what I've said so far you've concluded I'm prob not a "strict literalist" - I'm not sure what you classify as a strict literalist but all I know is I believe everything written in the bible.

A strict literalist would be someone that interprets every part of the Bible literally. Qualify what you mean by "believe".

You led me to my next point . . . like i said before there's no point in trying to reconcile some stories in the bible with known and accepted scientific principles. Becos the essence of a miracle is that it cannot be explained in the first place!

It's not so much the miracle as the absence of any thing showing that an event has occured. Let's go back to the flood. The problem isn't so much that the event couldn't have occured, but that the evidence that it occured is suspiciously lacking. That is, cultures, history and gelogic features and happenings carried on unperturbed. To then make a literal reading of Noah's flood work, it becomes necessary to claim that perhaps the Judeo-Christian God cleaned up afterwards and then proceded to make it appear like nothing happened by implanting false memories and supplanting the environment. Like I said, it presents a shoddy and deceptive entity.

lol. . . def in your opinion brotha. I think the fact that both verses can be true without contradicting the other should be more than sufficient an answer to your challenge.

Um, you had to implant your own external notions into both texts to make your version seem feasible to you.

Okay maybe I'm not a strict literalist according to you, really makes no difference to me as long as what I believe and stand for is pretty clear.

Which is kind of the point, isn't it?

The purchase of the field is also the same, one doesn't contradict the other and it is also one you need to have read another part of the bible to solve.
We're told in John 12 that Judas was a theif and frequently stole from the disciples "no intrest-savings account" (okay my words)

4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because [b]he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

The verse in Acts 1 says "With the reward he got for his wickedness (or the reward of iniquity), Judas bought a field". With the money he stole he bought a field. . .it doesn't say the money he got from the Pharisees! It simply says with the reward/money he had gotten through his wickedness, obviously through his stealing he used to buy a field. Since we're already told he was a theif and frequently stole from the other disciples/Jesus. This should sufficiently answer your question.

Um. no, not even close. Notice again that you aren't being literalist in your interpretation. The field purchased was the same field: "the field of blood. It got its name in the Matthew account from from the sale involving the pieces of silver given to Judas to betray Jesus, and in Acts because Judas died in it.

I really don't see how any of the explanations I've shown amount to being more incredible than the story itself. It seems pretty straightforward, there's no manipulation whatsoever, just plain logic.
If both can be true without contradicting the other, then where's the beef?

Your post:

"I think the big thing you need to know is that I firmly believe God can do absolutely anything, anything. So if He chose that day to have the sun move instead of the earth, I believe it. If He chose to make the earth stop and become unmoveable - then it so be it. So saying I'm down with geocentrism might be kind of right Wink depending on the day and the miracle God chose to do. "

To make that possible, the forces governing motion will have to be shoddily reworked. More importantly, though, yet again, the memories of everyone else on Earth would have to be tampered with, their envionments too would need reworking in such a way as to make the original miracle both unnecessary and unbelievable.

JeSoul:
nope. No mental gymastics here brotha . . . faith faith and more faith! that's all I can say to you.

But already that inclination is seemingly noticeable.

therefore any further discussion might not really be fruitful Becos we need a common ground to work off from. If you don't believe in miracles then there's no point in discussing how it might have happened in the first place or how science can justify it or anything else about it

Since the emphasis here is on literalism, that should mean my views on miracles are irrelevant.

Kinda. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.
Like I'd mentioned to Tasma above, I think it is really pointless to try to reconcile science with some biblical events and those who go to the ends of the universe with wild theories to try and "validate" the scriptural account are wasting their time and those who listen to them. I'm not down with those outrageous claims as you say but simply take what I'm given in the bible as all I really needed to know about it. I mean who cares how the earth got flooded? or how we 'evolved' or whatever?

The problem isn't reconciling the Bible, its the reverse: reconciling a literal reading of certain texts with, in some cases, every facet of scientific findings.

I know I'm a science head and we like to figure out and investigate things but still I recognize when a search might be pointless and avoid it. Especially if it makes no difference in my 'practical' life.

I can respect that.

I simply hold that not all biblical events can be explained by science, but it doesn't make it any less believable to me that is.

That really hasn't been the point.

I think most christians on this forum are usually suspicious of challenges because 99% of them are rarely honest one.

Mine are.

but brotha there is no contradiction because both can be true without contradicting each other! one verse does not exclude the possibility of the other one. Judas coulda hung himself, died, then his body fell and all that nastiness gushed out.

Rather than point out that the explanation proffered is spurious IMO, I'll state instead that you're not being a strict literalist. Further, you haven't reconciled the purchase of the field.

I think the big thing you need to know is that I firmly believe God can do absolutely anything, anything. So if He chose that day to have the sun move instead of the earth, I believe it. If He chose to make the earth stop and become unmoveable - then it so be it. So saying I'm down with geocentrism might be kind of right depending on the day and the miracle God chose to do.

Like I said, when the explanation to try to explain away the disreprancies is even more miraculous than the one reported in the Bible itself, then you know you have a problem. That view seems awfully fraught with

JeSoul:
ah ah I'm telling you I believe the bible 100% and I'm the strictest of the strictest literalists n you're saying you're sure I'm not?

Yup. The amount o mental gymnastics required to be a strict literalist is beyond any one.

Of course many bible stories defy understanding and contradict the norm or science or "reality" as you put it. That's why they were called miracles! Duh!

Oh no, I'm claiming at this point that there can't be miracles, but when the explanation to try to explain away the disreprancies is even more miraculous than the one reported in the Bible itself, then you know you have a problem. For instance, since the flood story has been mentioned, to explain how the flod could happen and how the evidence for it can be virtually non-existent, literalists of the flood account have to turn the Christian God into a shoddy, somewhat deceptive being. Their explanations have become so outrageous that the flodd as reported in the Bible is the least miraculous thing. I hope that makes sense.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mir·a·cle Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mir-uh-kuhl]
–noun 1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

If you now say you don't believe in miracles then there'll be nuthin left to discuss because that'll be the fundamental difference that makes any future conversation useless.

I don't see why.

plus every so-called "contradiction" in the bible is an illusion n can n has been refuted. Next. . .

Not if you're a strict literalist. The contradictions are remarkably difficult to explain away when one isn't a literalist. They are impossible to explain when one sticks to literalism.

On occasion I've posted the Easter challenge (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-47997.0.html). To my knowledge, it has never been reconciled. Many attempts have been made using non-literalist methods. I don't see how literalism can fare.

Or, another example, the case of Judas. Two canonnical books report thus:


Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.


Matthew 27:

5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.


Notice the disreprancies. How can they possibly be reconciled by a strict literalist? Notice also, that those verses aren't necessarily salvation issues if taken in a certain spirit.

I'm wary of taking this route you want to use.
Here let me make this clear. . . I believe pretty much everything that's been established in science and written in textbooks except where the science contradicts or doesn't support the biblical account. There I draw the line. Or in other words, the bible is my first book of reference and all other books must bow to it and agree with it or else never make it to my bookshelf,

So no. I believe as science teaches, that the earth revolves around the sun.

Then you are not a strict literalist. A strict reading of biblical instances like the sun going backwards for Hezekiah and references to an unmovable Earth strongly support geocentricism. There was a reason the Church pre- and after Galileo could support their view Biblically.

I like to retain complete anonymity but I shall oblige you this time, I'm in drug discovery/development, Process Sciences but mostly protein analytics.

Interesting. Thanks.

JeSoul:
did you say impossible? this forum and a large percentage of the world, including myself are "strict bible literalists" so I'm not sure how you formed that opinion.

I'm pretty sure you're not a strict literalist. How did I form that opinion? From knowing the Bible. Instances in the Bible, if read literally, not only contradict reality and misses the point - the purpose of the tale gets shrouded in attempts at historicism and revisionism, they also contradict other literally interpreted verses and chapters [b][i]in[/i[]/b] the Bible.

I believe every word, syllable, comma, full stop, impossible sounding, scandalous, incredible, beautiful, perfect, hopeful story in the bible. You wan try?

Okay, let's try just the one for now. Are you a geocentrist? That is, do you believe the Earth is stationary and evrything revolves around it? Based on your reply, we'd see if there's a necessity to point out other things that can't be taken literally.

And you're talking to a scientist here, I've heard it all in this field but I'll take my bible over any nobel prize winner textbook or thesis or theory any day! so don't say it's impossible at all.

What kind of scientist are you?

therationa:
Science may one day explain why we have intensely feelings of the religious type. Some of the heighten feeling of religious arousal have been replicated in the lab with the subjects reporting exactly the same type of feelings and sensations that religious believers experience.

Watch the attached video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuOpa7OzMNU.

Cool stuff. The cliche "there go I but for the grace of God" comes to mind - for both the being an evangelist and a member of the flock.

4Him:
here is the problem, christianity is a religion to those who either don't understand it or for those to whom it is merely a label. To the rest christianity is a way of life and an intimate relationship with One who is both God and Father, it does not depend on touchy feelings of religious arousal.

It occurs to methat your claim echoes a thougt I have. To people who don't feel the "magic" or whatever, reading is just a hobby, merely something you do for leisure. To me and others like myself, reading is something so much more: an intimate, indispensible way of life, so to speak.

What's my point? Christianity is still a religion.

4Him:
your only link to this "unimpeachable evidence" is a youtube video?

Let me remind you that other examples of chromosomal translocations are associated with disease - t(2;5)(p23;q35) - anaplastic large cell lymphoma
t(8;14) - Burkitt's lymphoma (c-myc) among others.

And others aren't. See: Robertsonian translocation

Tasma:
Hi everyone,
my question is this, is it possible to be a literal believer in the Bible. When I say this I mean can Christians believe that events like the flooding and Noah's Ark, parting of the sea, origin of the earth etc to be literal, historical facts? I can understand the "spiritual" nature of Biblical stories i.e. that biblical stories cannot be understood without spiritual insight. The consequence of thinking like that is that the bible may be largely metaphorical, can only be understood with deeper insight and knowledge.

I don't believe that thinking of the bible in this way takes away from the central message of the bible and in fact think that insistence on a literal interpretation of the bible only ends up in endless argument and quarrel. Would like to hear what people think of this.

In my opinion, it's virtually impossible to be a strict Biblcal literalist. I suspect even the Charles Johnsons of the Flat Earth Research Society fame would have conceded that much. I agree with what you: many sections in the Bible were meant to be taken allegorically as opposed to an historical fact. I believe those that take the Creation story and Noah's flood as historical portrayals not only miss the point of those stories, but also give ample fodder for the Bible and their gospel - redemption through Jesus - to be discarded wholesale.

My two pence, take it for what it's worth.

olabowale:
@KAG: Unfortunately, all you are good for, and i am assuming that you can not support your argument with some explanation

Of course I can.

is a one line responses and questions.

Most times, all that is necessary to convey a point or idea is a line. The basis to what you need to know are usually contained in the lines of my post. You need to break free of the mentally that believes a long post littered with irrelevances, non-sequiturs and inanity is the fountain of knowlege.

It is however good and comforting to know that you are not disputing the existence of God, but in your own word and in the foodstep of your mentor, Hawkins, you are only arguing that god may not be necessary.

I don't believe any gods exist. The gods aren't necessary in the explanation of origins, therefore, one more bastion is torn down.

Do I understand your positioning of God correctly, then?

What do you understand of my position? From what I've seen, you have great trouble understanding the words of others.

If this is the case, then I will pay less attention to you and talk to the trinity guy. I am assuming that one should be on topic, and not straying too far from it.

You probably should talk to the "trinity guy" because based on your last post, you are having trouble coming to grips with the theories I mentioned. That's not a blast in itself, as it requires some dedication and asking questions of those that teach and study the theories fulltime; but that you should then carry on mischaracterising the theories - to be charitable - doesn't help in anyway.

olabowale:
@KAG; The eminent biblical scholar, Stimulus have engaged me, and this is the reason i have not had anytime to respond to you. I find him boring and his ignorance borders on juvenile pranks; I expected that from him, though.

I thought several of his answers directly responded to what you were discussing. I think you're copping out

However i am not in the business of mutual admiration society, but of course, it does mean that I will be dishonest in my responses. But I want us to focus on the subject, since I do not see our dialogue as social clubbing:

Really?

Could you tell us if there was a time in the history of human kind that the word evolution was not even in the vocabulary and was not used?

Yes, according to the etymology of the word, before the 17th century.

Or prior to its existence in human vocabulary, it was used, like your Virtual Particle or the Particle in the Big Bang?

No. What particle in the Big Bang?

The reason am asking these questions is to know how advanced was mankind before they knew that they evolved; thats based on your evolutionist concept now.

Prior to Darwin, Hume hit on an idea of a similar tenor. Several Greek philosophers also had ideas that, though not explanatory or scientific, could be seen as coming close to the concept of Darwin's and Wallace's. Darwin and Wallace, though, were the major benchmarks for the theory of evolution, with Darwin being for human evolution.

I thought you would fair better than Stimulus. But I guessed I overrated you. Oh my God in Yoruba language is Olorun mi o. Every one have a rough interpretation of Oh my God in their language.

First of all, if you don't want me to take your posts at face value, then quanlify it properly.

Second, no, not everyone has an interpretation, rough or otherwise, of "Oh my God!" in their language. Several communities don't even have the paternalistic conception of a God.

You must never forget that English is a very young language and their are many more languages of the world older than it. W are in a medium where we all agree without saying it to communicate in English, and since i do not know what your mother tongue is, and you reside in England, it is a safe bet to assume that you speak and understand English. Please don't disappoint me with a simple mind thinking mentality.

That's fair enough. To prevent me taking it at face value, though, make that qualification.

And you do not know Buddhists then, neither do you know Chinese, or any non Christian.

Um, I'm pretty sure I do.

Christianity does not have exclusivity on God, in thye English speaking countries of the world. Nor the English speaking people have any exclusivity to identify the Creator by name (considering that they all accept that their is one.

I didn't say it did. However, considering many Buddhists don't have a conceptualisation of a God, and don't see any reason in swearing in or yelling out in an idea foreign to them, I'm pretty certain they (Chinese speaking Buddhists) don't do the "Oh my God" routine in whatever translation.

Yet you who is pretending to disbelieve in His existence, will in crucial situation will remember God in a heart beat: Afterall, thats how Cat Steven wondered into the world of Great Religious monotheism).

I'm pretty sure Yusuf Stevens's life is different from mine.

I wonder if you believe that something can come out of nothing,

Sweet mother of God! What do you think virtual particles are?

did the Big bang particle came out of nothing too, without anything that broughtit?

What particle?

And which came first, the Big bang Particle or the Virtual particle?

[1] If you were wondering which came first, then you were indeed lying in your statement above. Contrary to what you claimed, you weren't being sarcastic. In any case, the Big Bang occured before the incidence of virtual particles in our Universe.

It will seem to me that the Virtual particle came first from nothing to the space which was a vacuum.

Then you'd be wrong.

If its the Big bang Particle, then we can assume that there are series, at least two times we have a Virtual particle occurences. And why has there not been another and even why has not been another Big bang? If you can not find a logical explanation to any of this, i wonder if all was not a fluke?

Your question and statement in general make no sense.

[1][/b]Finally, how did the space that the Big bang particle and the subsequent [b][2](Unbelievable is the process that something so small that it has not weight and no size could become this collossal and collage of things that we have today, both known and unknown!), and the Virtual particle occupied and came into existence in, respectively came about?[3] There must be a dimension to the space, even though a vaccum before. What I am saying is that there must be something which your HYPOTHESIS can not explain, is behid it all.

I'm going to attempt to make sense of the above. If I interpret wrongly, then I can't be held responsible.

[1] A singularity expanded. Space occured due to the inflation.

[2] Where did you get the idea the singularity was small? It was infinite. There's a marked difference between the two. Also since weight requires gravity, I don't know that it makes sense to talk of weight

[3] There is a dimension to Space: the third.

What brought about the Particle that was under the cation of the Big Bang (Force)? re you saying here that the Big bang is imperfect and can not bring about the metomorphosis of all thing and it needed Virtual particle(s), prior to the Virtual Particle coming to place? If this is so, then what role has virual particle participated in the evolution/metamorphosis of things? If your answer is no, and that the Big bang particle is the one involved in evolution of things (I am using metamorphosis and evolution to mean the same thing; afterall the butterfly and its pupae do not look alike),

The above is just nonsense. Not to seem priggish or anything of the sort, but you have to have an idea of what it is we are discussing before critiquing or making statements that lead to questions, or else you'll just continue to type nonsense that appears as gibberish probably even to you.

I want to know what active role or in active role Virtual particle is playing? If none, then it seems that it is irrelevant for it to even occur, since everything has its usefulness, what will be the usefulness of an perceive particle?

Why should it have an inherent usefulness? How did you arrive at the argument that everything has its usefulnesss?

But you are trying to answer it. But because it geared you to consciousness, and a realisation that evolution is a fluke, all of a sudden the question does not make sense to you.

Which evolution?

However since you brought about inflation of space, I wonder if you know what made the space in flated? Afterall, inflation can only take place if there are differences in internal and external pressures: Yet all of these must be explained before you will be given a reprieve: So please explain how inflation came about before it helps the expansion of the space fom nothingness?

No, inflation doesn't require external pressures.

[3]There was no particle that inflated, a singularity did (or to put it in your terminology, a singularity "banged". There is no certainty as to the occurence of the singularity. String theory currently offers some of the better answers, but they can't be totally falsified as yet. However, to use string theory, sigularities may have emerged from collisions branes. Another possibility in theoretical physics, is that a quantum fluctuation could cause a singularity to emerge.

Nonsense! You have said nothing to go to the core of the matter. More hypothesis that will in time be defeaed. Yet their real reason was not to disprove the existence of God, but only an explanation, according to their scientific discoveries. But you will have to latch on to it to explain away your lack of undestanding of and acceptance of Creation.

Um, why would they be defeated? String theory, though currently unfalsifiable, works on a mathematical level. That certainly indicates that, if not all of it, certain aspects of it are right. Also, yes the theories aren't intended to disprove gods - neither do I, to be frank. However, to paraphrase Stephen Hawking, "This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, just that he is unnecessary."

I wonder when we will see you evolve into a Monkey or something other than what you are, presently (I am not sure what you are since I have provide an opinion that you may be a machine, or something other than human).

That's not how it works.

[7] I didn't see any gods there or here, either. I don't see any evidence to support a god being behind it all, let alone your god.

When all fail, be defensive. I see your problem. However, when you dig deep enough, like layers of Onion, you will find the Core: GOD ALMIGHTY.

What's defensive about my response? Besides, what failed?

Oh, you're right, it's Mohammedanism. I spelt it with an "i" that shouldn't have been there. When all fail, be defensive.
You truly prove to me your Western oriental value: The great ones are known only as Great Ones, and there is no derivitive name that is bearing The Great Prophet, , none!

You're wrong.

stimulus:
@KAG,

Yes, I'm quite aware of a few others (atheists and skeptics) who concentrate on debating Mu[color=Black]sl[/color]ims on Is[color=Black]la[/color]m. However, I was inclined to take the view that quite often (but not in every single case), atheistic debates are actually geared more against "Christianity" than any other faith. But like I said, I would not be unreasonable to dismiss your submission that it be explained culturally.

That's fair enough.

I would disagree that Christianity isn't coherent - as a whole. True, the manifestation of numerous denominations as well as unifying and/or 'heretical' creeds may seem on the outside to question its coherence; but at least we can honestly acknowledge that this is based perhaps more on the interpretations that result from the denominational exegesis of Biblical texts.

But doesn't that point to a lack of coherence? If so many differing and sometimes opposing viewpoints can be interpreted from a book to purports to be the word of a being that doesn't foster confusion, then one can only conclude, in my opinion, that incoherence is at the heart of the text.

Haha! Okay, I knew that was coming; but I was just being too lazy to respond to at least one of such on the Easter question. Goodness - it's nearly another Easter season, and I should be able to address the question and not scoot off with mere promises.

Strangely enough, that was probably one of the few threads I've started that got more than a couple of answers.

I agree that at the initial stage, they seemed to have been raising legitimate questions - and that was why I was interested in offering answers to some of those concerns. However, when it became pretty obvious that these guys were never quite settled to deal with their own assumptions but have been yoyo-ing from thread to thread, I thought it was best to allow them enjoy their break!

All the same, I acknowledge the legitimacy of your observation.

I suppose. Yeah, that's a good point. I did find that irritating too.

olabowale:
@KAG The word evolution must be very special to you. Is there anything that has no foundation in evolution, KAG?

I used evolution in the context of the English term - that is, change and development - not in its biological sense - that is, change in allele frequencies of population. Hence, the concept of gods seem to have evolved from their primal stages.

Yes, there are several things that don't have a foundation in evolution.

Yet when anyone is in special and peculiar condition: we hear people say "Oh God, or My God, or Oh my God, etc."

An we find that most of those people are Christians that have a foundation in English. I have yet to hear a Chinese-speaking Buddhist say "Oh God, etc."

[quote]But you an atheist on the other hand do not believe in anything like that. You believe that you are an accident of nature (mother nature) or evolution as a result of big bang actio or as KAG will say it 'the Virtual particle Theory!' It just does not hold water.

Afterall, you are the one trying to prove that god does not exist.

No, the Big Bang theory is not the same as the conception of virtual particles. I used virtual particles to refute the argument that claims something can't come from nothing. Virtual particles indicated something different from the premise of the argument. It holds water, but of course you wouldn't know that.

The joke is on you. I was being very sarcastic.[/quote]You are either lying, or you don't know what sarcasm means.

[1][/b]I was wondering which came first, the Big bang or the Virtual particle? [b][2][/b]Let me ask you this though; If the Virtual particle just came from nothing, was there an empty space in existence before the Virtual particle? How did that space came into existence, and where was the space? [b][3][/b]And to the Big Bang, before it happened on that particle that had the bang, how did the Particle came to existence and where ws it? [b][4][/b]Inshort where were these Particle before the Big bang and the other that was Virual particle. [b][5][/b]Where was the force and how did the force came about before it acted upon the Big bang Particle? [b][6][/b]Do we now believe that there are concepts or occurrences that are not under any scientifically acceptable Principle? [b][7][/b]When you finish slicing through it all you will see that God is in there. He is indeed behind it all.

[b][1] If you were wondering which came first, then you were indeed lying in your statement above. Contrary to what you claimed, you weren't being sarcastic. In any case, the Big Bang occured before the incidence of virtual particles in our Universe.

[2] Yes virtual particles particles emerge in vacuums. Space is linked with inflation. There was no Space before the occurance of space. In fact, the question makes no sense.

[3][/b]There was no particle that inflated, a singularity did (or to put it in your terminology, a singularity "banged". There is no certainty as to the occurence of the singularity. String theory currently offers some of the better answers, but they can't be totally falsified as yet. However, to use string theory, sigularities may have emerged from collisions branes. Another possibility in theoretical physics, is that a quantum fluctuation could cause a singularity to emerge.

[b][4] Just to reiterate the point, it wasn't a particle. Virtual particles, like I explained in my previous post, are a different concept entirely.

[5] What force? Just so you know, before expantiating, force isn't an ontological entity, nor should it be rendered as such.

[6] No.

[7] I didn't see any gods there or here, either. I don't see any evidence to support a god being behind it all, let alone your god.

There is nothing called Mohammedianism.

Oh, you're right, it's Mohammedanism. I spelt it with an "i" that shouldn't have been there.

Yes, I remember, it is cultural. So was the falsehood of your assumption about The Great Religion.

What "falsehood of my assumption about [Mohammedanism]"?

I remember my friend who we even considered ourselves as brothers, that was pre 911. But Boy, after that day, he flipped 180 degrees. And it took him all those years untill 2006, before we even began to see eye to eye. He is is Swiss Catholic by the way.

stimulus:
@KAG,

Okay, I see the sense in yours; although I'm not so sure about it being more a matter of cultural background than anything else. Yet, I cannot dismiss that remark; because on the other side of the pane, my background is Mu[color=Black]sli[/color]m-Christian and I think that (or it appears that) Christianity offered more coherence in discussions than I have witnessed in the case of I[color=Black]sl[/color]am. There again, just my assumptions.

That's fair enough. I have encountered several atheists that focus solely on Islam, though. The last time Davidlan suggested that atheists don't attack Islam, I gave him a link to a group of people headed by a guy that goes under the pseudonym of T.H Huxley.

Maybe not; but I wonder why?

Because Christianity as a whole isn't coherent. The necessity of several unifying creeds, "heretical" creeds, and numerous denominations attest to that. Sure, there are a few necessary beliefs for one to be termed a Christians, but that's about it.

Well, it all depends on what exactly the basic question would be.

A few of my old threads suffered from loneliness and promises.

Well, in the case of therationa and bawomolo (minus yourself, which is why I didn't want to name any names initially), I still hold to that point. These gentlemen have not impressed us with their arguments.

They are not so bad. In my opinion, they have raised pertinent issues and made good points. Just my opinion, though

SysUser:
A nice coating of .00001% poison with 99.99999% food,

I blame heliocentricity too.

please spare me the politically correct statement you just gave above, its either God or nothing, i am not interested in any compromise with you,

I wasn't asking you for a compromise; just pointing out the obvious: acceptance of the theory of evolution does not preclude belief in the Christian God nor the doctrine of salvation inherent in the belief.

I am only interested in revealing the deceit inherent in evolution and how that has being contributing to the destruction of lifes, and eternity of individuals with Souls,

Good luck with that. Let me know when you find something.

Exactly you have every right to doubt me as a Christian, simply because its a personal relationship with God, hence you are not expected to follow or copy whateever I do, you are expected to search the scriptures yourself.

Somebody mentioned "by their fruits you shall know them" earlier, and thinking about it now, I don't think they were talking about homosexuals.

---------------

A religious statement there ever was one ,

I agree. It sometimes becomes necessary to acknowledge, in a sense, the theology of fundamentalist belief in Christianity. My natural view is that anyone that believes in Jesus is a Christian. Several pockets disagree with that and point to fruits as a determination.

By the way Which fruits might that be , the one that evolved or the one the was created, JUST KIDDING,

I am interested in knowing you criteria for good fruits and bad fruits,

I refer to Paul's letter to the Galatians:

Gal 5:

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Fruits are to be tested in accordance to the bible , people can bear fruits the looks like
fruits to an unbeliever but which themselves are actually poison to the body of Christ.

Yes. However, I have to accept their acknowledgement of their belief in Jesus and couple it with their actions.

--------------
Good to hear that you are in London,

Funny enough you and I might still end up being close friends provided you accept , Christ, as of now your nothing more than an acquitance,

Even though a christian might be helpful, friendly and close with a non-christian yet, he/she must not be unevenly yoked with an unbeliever,


I came only pray that in this midst of arguments/discussion, that God would show you mercy to see the truth and understand the truth.

Simply because he's the one that calls us out of the kingdom of darkness into His marvellous light,

Much knowledge does not and would never amount to understanding, hence we may have knowledge of God yet not understand God, we may have knowledge of the word and yet not be saved, we may have eloquent speech skills and yet be depressed and miserable in our souls due to the lack of the presence of the peace the God brings,

KAG, I can only pray that one day you and I would still be brethren in Christ

I'm sceptical of that.

stimulus:
@Lapkenne,

However, when atheists bring up the question/denial of the existence of God, a few irrefutable points are always seen again and again:

(a) atheists often launch their attacks against Christianity - often so because Christianity proves to be the most coherent worldview that brings the question of the existence of God to the heart and conscience of man! When atheists say that they are questioning "religion", it doesn't take long to see that their efforts are actually geared more against "Christianity" than any other faith!

I suspect this is often down to cultural background than anything else. It isn't coincidental that most of the atheists in the Western world - most of whom make up an astounding number on messageboards - come from a Christian background. The assumption, then, is that since Mohammedianism was shown false while I was Christian, then the religion that remains to be faced (in a manner of speaking) is the one that I came from. I don't think it has much to do with coherence.

(b) when atheistic threads are floated in any public forum/blog, Christians have always been the ones who address atheistic questions - and they often do so in a rational, coherent manner which in fact leaves the atheist unable to defend his assumptions. This is what we have seen even in this forum.

The reverse has often been my experience.

(e) And this is even more fascinating: those who think themselves "champions" of atheistic rationalism have never proffered sane, sound or serious answers to the responses Christians have offered in their threads.

I disagree, with a degree of reservation.

olabowale:
But you an atheist on the other hand do not believe in anything like that. You believe that you are an accident of nature (mother nature) or evolution as a result of big bang actio or as KAG will say it 'the Virtual particle Theory!' It just does not hold water.

Afterall, you are the one trying to prove that god does not exist.

No, the Big Bang theory is not the same as the conception of virtual particles. I used virtual particles to refute the argument that claims something can't come from nothing. Virtual particles indicated something different from the premise of the argument. It holds water, but of course you wouldn't know that.

stimulus:
It is not a coincidence to observe that those who are actively non-religious and "godless" in such developed countries are morally bankrupt.

I vehemently disagree. Prisons in such countries attest to a different reality. If that isn't enough, from an anecdotal point of view, most of the atheists I know are law abiding and highly moral.

Lakpenne:
So, how do xtians address atheist? I will elaborate further as we go but I believe the answer for all xtians is based on the same reason why the person became an atheism (there is also more of course). There is a driving force, as strong as the internal feeling for love and hate, that tells all humans to question where they came from and how they got here. No non-mentally challenged human being, not one, has ever escaped this question. The question or drive is as strong and natural as the natural drives that birds have to migrate and do so, without being taught how to do so. Its purely natural and being an atheist is actually unnatural. When atheists are faced with the question of who created me and how did I get here, they choose the less natural disposition and conclude, against their primordial pull, that God does not exist.

Really? Is that how it happens? Interesting pschoanalysis.

Even if one were to say that God belief was needed as a response to pre-homosapien man's lack of knowledge about the world, then why has God belief remained after all these centuries.

Evolution of the concept; archetypal remnants; pleasure principle attached to the concept; social and cultural pressure.

Since, as many atheists, and now anti-theists suggest, there is no need for God, it is odd that humans can some how not shake off this annoying God belief. I suggest that God-belief is inescapable. Those that choose to ignore it just choose to be psychopaths that go against their natural inclination.

Lakpenne

Silly me, I used to assume, for some reason, that the psychopaths were those of that religion that encourages killing and maiming of people of a different stance from theirs, and deals in promising 72 virgins to the killer man after death (I'm guessing the women get 72 raisins). Well, you set me straight, thanks.

bawomolo:
Its purely natural and being an atheist is actually unnatural.

all humans are born atheist, that's as natural as they come. u were socialized to believe in a supreme being. that's what's unnatural.

I have to agree with Stimulus here. I think it's more apt to say that it's more probable that no one is born with a concept of a supreme being until their society encourages that belief. You could probably push it and say, everyone is agnostic at first, but I feel that would be pushing it.

SysUser:

LoL. Evolution is not a salvation issue. In fact, many (most?) Christians accept evolution.

And you as an Atheist or Christian or former christian would know that right, come spare me the nonsense

Well, yes, frankly.

Let me repeat and this time read my lips, scientific facts and biblical truth is not a popularity contest, so whether 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of Christians believe in evolution does and would never make it true, STOP DECEIVING YOURSELF[b] via the mob mentality[/b]

You're right, they aren't popularity contest; however, they can help one gauge the prevailing ideology of people and in so doing, asses one's position. That many Christians don't find that accepting evolution hampers their faith and beliefs in God/Jesus and the Christian doctrine indicates a great deal. It also helps abolish the idea that the theory of evolution's purpose is something nefarious.

By the way who deceived you into thinking that every one who calls himself or herself a Christian is a Christian ,

No one, which is why I have my doubts about you.

So don't deceive yourself into thinking couch individuals who falsly claim to be a Christian are actually Christians, Being a Christian is not a Title its a way of life and practical application of Biblical Believes in deeds and thoughts,

Many of the Christians I know that accept evolution - not all, mind you, by their actions and characteristics, I accept their claims. I obviously don't know their inner thoughts, but if their fruits are anything to go by, then they are Christians.

At least look how you turn out, , (Am assuming that you were born into a "so called Christian home" since your utterances at least don't sound jihadist in nature, my assumption could be wrong about your background though, )

No, you're right. Whether I was ever a Christian, though, is up for debate.

SysUser:
KAG I woould really miss you,

I like that fact that you keep me company on the net , and at least help me with exercising my brain a little, otherwise it would atrophy and make me evolve into another specie of man ( sounds familiar )

Are you in manchester, maybe I could pop in into your place sometime like that , to share the good news of Christ with you, since most things in UK is either Alchohol, WAGs, women, porn, fat, etc

London.

SysUser:
nice of you to tender glaring falsehood:

1. I never said everything in existence was one kind, please show me where i said that

"Answer to you question about a Kind:

A Kind of an animal is simply and animal the shares the same fundamental genetic information as the animal which gave birth to it or from which it was breed." (from here)

To which I responded with:

"Um, you couldn't be more vague if you tried. All currently living things share the same fundamental genetic information. To stress the point: all animals share the same fundamental genetic information. Could you perhaps be a bit more clearer. Also, are horses and donkeys the same kind? What about tigers and lions?" (here)

That was the last we saw of that. Till now that is.

2. I have already giving a definition of a kind (although I have to admit I am not sure whether it was on this thread or another thread)

Nonetheless let me repeat: A kind of an animal is a category of animal distiguished by their common charateristics (e.g. physical , biological , behavioural etc)

Eg. Dog Kind, Chiwawa, Altsaian, African Breed, Greyhound, Bloodhound, Pit Bull

Wait, so if I understand rightly, a horse and a donkey are the same "kind"; and so are a lion and tiger, right?

By the even when man tried to cross breed different kinds of animals , we were still left with animals showing characteristics from both, and not characteristics from a non-existent animal

E.g. Man Kind, slant eyed chinese, flat nosed african, long nosed european, black skinned african, ,

The theory of evolution has never posited that characteristics come from a non-existent animal. That's your strawman version.

SysUser:

Not really, no. It is kind of fun, though, cause I don't remember ever pwning another poster as much as the lame duck I'm "discussing" mostly with in this thread.

-------------------
And that would be me , right , haaaaaaaaaa!

Yep, that would be you.

----------------------------------

another word of wisdom (make that wisdroll) from the mouth of his geniusness,

YES I DO PASTE AND COPY and infact if it were possible, I might have CUT AND PASTED , WHY , cus its very useful.

Useful? Dude, you don't know the contents of most of your copy/pastes and links, let alone understand the theories you're against.

CUS ITS THERE ON MY SYSTEM TO BE USED, hmm, the holy and hypocritical , royal geniusness KAG is speaking once again and hanging unto straws once amunitions for direct vitriol, insults and vulgarity have start to run low.

Its funny that you've started to hang unto straws once again, I would advise that you leave some straws for[b] therationa[/b] to hang unto too, by trying not to use them all up.

Hmm, considering the amount of things I've rebbutted, compared to the topics you've abandoned, those must be some straws.

---------------------------

Hmm, Wishful, thinking! of a man "currently" without hope of salvation (but hopefully soon going to get hope), now wishing that a man with hope shuld join him in hopelessness[b], NAh, aint going to happen[/b]

I ain't going to look back , those that endure to the end shall be saved,

LoL. Evolution is not a salvation issue. In fact, many (most?) Christians accept evolution.

, Why should i go back to the vomit of evolution, I have been there I have already done that with atheism, evolution, science fiction, profanity, its nonsense and hopeless

I wager you're lying.

---------------

sorry Mate, scientific facts are not about popularity contest , a million KAGs can believe the nonsenses they want to believe for a millions years, still it ain't going to change the truth that Evolution is a "very good fairytale for adults", and brainwashing scheme for the "speciated" KAGs of this world,

Fairytale? Then you shouldn't have any problems falsifying ERVs. Go for it.

-----------

You outright denial and feign ignorance is stating to sound legendary (probably dwarfed only by Olabowale's), cus I have not only touched your so called challenges (plus or minus reference links), I HAVE PRACTICALLY BLOWN THEM TO PIECES,

A cursory look back through this thread shows you're lying. Baby Jesus wouldn't be pleased.

SysUser:
Although i have already given you answer to why you believe in speciation as evidence for evolution is a mere fallacy let me now come to this question and answer level, to explain further:

What you claimed was that speciation is just variation within a "Kind" and when pressed for a definition of a "Kind", you vaguely implied that everything in existence is one "Kind". Further requests for clarification were not honoured.

What can we glean from the above definitions and explanations:

1. There is an assumption that there must be an original species

2. There is not indication of a time line of how and when this variation in between species arises,

3. There is no indication that "another kind" of animal could possibly arise from speciation,

4. Speciation is just used to explaing the noted differences between animals of the same kind.

To the first, technically yes. The second is irrellevant. Third, what do you mean by "kind"? If it means what you gave it as earlier, then speciation does happen and evolution occurs especially by your definition.

-------------
So what does this do for evolution

1. Nothing

2. Still it does not answer or prove the evolutionary problem of where the first animal came from, (well unless evolutionist want to say the speciation of rocks or primordial soup formed the first animal). This because the speciation simply assumes that an original animal had to have existed in the first place.
This then brings us back to the square one problem of evolution not being able to give a tenable answer for the origin of life,

First, the theory of evolution does not seek to address the origin of life - those are theories in abiogenesis. Those theories within abiogenesis do give viable options on how life may have originated naturalistically. The RNA world hypothesis is perhaps one of the best known is probably at the forefront of abiogenesis research. Sydney Fox's protocells are also a wonderful example of how life can arise from naturalistic non-living things.

Second, no the theory of evolution absolutely doesn't say speciation of animals arose from a primodial soup - that would be Creationists. No, the early cellular life forms would have been "simple" and probably unicellular in their make up


Third, it's strange that despite all those links about speciation, you didn't bother to read at least a couple to understand to what speciation refers.

BY the way KAG which evolved first was it the "Prey" or was it the 'Predator"
,

No idea.

3. It does not show how one kind of animal might have evolved from another kind of animal, e.g. How does a Cow evolve into a Whale, for goodness sake (another dumb idea by evolutionist)

Only ignorant Creationists posit that a cow evolved into a whale. Most textbooks and links dealing with evolution do explain how speciation works and how new species arise.

4. Even members of the same human family can exhibit speciation under the right conditions, does that now imply that they evolved from each other, NA, absolutely not!

Another strawman.

-------------------
Allopatric speciation (Due to difference in geographical location) e.g. Subtle differences betwen the blackman of trophical africa and the blackman of cold america

Um, no. Poor understanding on your part. If the genetic variance between two populations becomes great due to isolation, then speciation may have occured. Evolution isn't indivdual.

Peripatric speciation (Due to isolation of small peripheral populations e.g. The London Underground mosquito is a variant of the mosquito Culex pipiens which entered in the London Underground in the nineteenth century. Evidence for its speciation include genetic divergence, behavioral differences, and difficulty in mating.)

Parapatric speciation (Due to overlapping zones of divergin population e.g. The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.)

Sympatric speciation (Due to species diverging while inhabiting the same location e.g. Wheat)
---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Yep.

Although I must confess that I don't have an inert understanding of everything they are talking about ,

That much is clear. I also doubt "inert understanding" is the phrase you're looking for - I could be mistaken.

something is very clear, and let me explain that thing to you in simple english:

it is basically saying that variations within animals of the same kind can occur in certain circumstances and situations such as the environment in which they are or as a result of genetic failure.
Nowhere does it say nor can you find evidence that a new genetic information was somehow added to the already available genetic information in the animal.

The activeness, dormancy or outright failure of already available genetic information , is what you are trying very hard to deceptively peddle as evidence for biological evolution, HABA,

What Speciation does not say is that there is an "increase in genetic information" nor does it say that another different animal arises from speciation (a big and misleading word for variation) within a kind of animal.

Two things. Actually, increase in genetic information is usually intrisincally linked with speciation. Secondly, don't be vague, what is a kind?

The Wheat still gives a wheat,
The Mosquito still gives a mosquito
The Blackman still gives birth to a black (sometimes albino)
The Laurus Gulls still gives birth to a Laurus Gull

Yes, exactly! For instance, humans are still hominids, are still primates are still Eutheria, are still mammals, are still vertebrates, are still chordates, are still eukaryotes.

The subtle or pronounced differences between does not mean that the animals have suddenly evolved into another animal.

It's often the genetic divergence.

Once again KAG here is a classic example of how you are trying to use the observable and repeatable phenomena of "intra species variation" (sometimes called microevolution) as the evidence/explanation for the possibility of the unprovable and bogus ideas of macro evolution, cosmic evolution and geological evolution.

No

KAG Nice try , your blunt hammer still doesn't cut the ice, SHARPEN IT MORE!

Misplaced metaphor?

If give birth to two sets of identical twins and then take one set of twins each to the North Pole and the Sahara Desert to live, then you leave them to procreate for 100 years, off course there is bound to be observable differences yet the genetic material which came from you has not increased, instead part of has either failed or become dormant or active hence the different characteristics being exhibited by the 100years offsprings of the sets of twins in either the North Pole or the Sahara Desert.

KAG plaese try HARDER NEXT TIME

Read the links on speciation again.

therationa:
It this thread getting anywhere at all.

Not really, no. It is kind of fun, though, cause I don't remember ever pwning another poster as much as the lame duck I'm "discussing" mostly with in this thread.

There seems to be a lot of copy/paste of very technical material.

Yeah, true. SysUser has mistaken copy/pasting for acquisition of knowledge.

Can the originator summarise the evidence so far and put it in the main body of the post? Otherwise, this might run and run with any real results.

That would be much appreciated.

Thankx

Evolution still remains unfalsified; SysUser fears accepting it means he has to give up Christianity so he's dragged in almost every scientific field he can think of; I've rebutted and refuted most of them. Wash, rinse, repeat.

SysUser:
KAG

, the best evidence that you can still think of are "subjective evidences that are based on the interpretation of the evolutionist" they are not based on the independent non-evolutionist views, science has contradicted those evidences you are peddling about .

Hey, then you shouldn't have any problems falsifying ervs as a viable evidence for evolution. Also, considering about 99% of biologists accept evolution, it really must be hard to find those independents that can only present quotemines and copy/pastes as their only evidence against evolution.

[/quote][quote author=SysUser link=topic=110730.msg1959645#msg1959645 date=1203089166]KAG , at least admit to me in secret even if you can't do it in public,

Those hole riddled evidences that you are talking about about are just mere "MANTRA" and Bull****

Which obviously explains why you haven't been able to explain why archaeopteryx, which you claim is just a bird, has dinosaurean traits too. Or why you haven't touched my challenege.

SysUser:
here is the link for the previous refutal of Turkana Boy, or Archie

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html

Archie is achaeopteryx. Does your link explain what a human body is doing with what is essentially a chimp head?

No where in
KAG the rate at which you are spewing out "speculative nonsense" makes your commitment to scienctific discussion questionable, given that science itself has invalidated your so called evidences for evolution.

Well I am not suprised at your commitment to MANTRA

My challenge still stands:


" Falsify shared endoegenous retroviruses. If you're so sure that there's no scientific basis for the theory of evolution, it shouldn't be hard to do. Hark at it young aardvark."


By the way, I like that you've taken to spamming the thread even more than usual. What was it you said prevented you from explaining how plate tectonics disproves pangea? Bandwidth was it? Lol.

[

SysUser:
The following is a good refutal for your nonsense about Turkana boy, and co.

It's not even a half-decent rebuttal.

KAG , maybe you would soon find KAG man , to back up your falling claims.

According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus , then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European.

The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native shown here.

Let us first examine Homo erectus , which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo Habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus .

The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on its volume.197

The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking man consists of some elements made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java man is composed of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second species named Homo ergaster by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus .)

The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus ," or the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."198 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.
THE 10.000 YEAR-OLD HOMO ERECTUS

These two skulls, discovered on October 10, 1967, in the Kow Swamp in Victoria, Australia, were named Kow Swamp I and Kow Swamp V.
Alan Thorne and Philip Macumber, who discovered the skulls, interpreted them both as Homo sapiens skulls, whereas they actually contained many features reminiscent of Homo erectus . The only reason they were treated as Homo sapiens was the fact that they were calculated to be 10.000 years old. Evolutionist did not wish to accept the fact that Homo erectus , which they considered a "primitive" species and which lived 500.000 years before modern man, was a human race which lived 10.000 years ago.


Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:

One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.199

[snipped at the leakey quotemine]

Copy/paste v.s. copy/paste: Mine doesn't contain any quote mines, and relies on evidence:


The only Homo erectus fossils mentioned by many creationists (Huse 1983; Morris and Parker 1982; Taylor 1992) are the Java Man and Peking Man fossils. Many creationists traditionally considered both to be apes, but Lubenow (1992) considers both human, and that is becoming the accepted opinion in creationist circles. There are even a few creationists who consider Java Man an ape and Peking Man a human, despite the fact that many books stress their very close similarity.

A few authors do mention other erectus fossils in passing. Morris suggests, although it is not clear which specimens he is referring to, that they are degenerate humans:

"It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment" (Morris 1974).

Gish (1985) suggests that many erectus fossils would have been attributed to Neandertal Man were it not for their supposed age, and hence probably also considers the erectus morphology, like that of the Neandertals, to be caused by disease.

There is no explanation of why these adverse conditions would cause H. erectus to be so physically powerful, and in fact many erectus may have been of average human size (see the entry on the Turkana Boy fossil). Nor is it explained why all human skulls over 500,000 years old are erectus, and why, given the number of modern people who face a poor diet and a hostile environment, no erectus specimens are found nowadays.

Bowden (1981) briefly discusses ER 3733, but so vaguely that it is difficult to determine whether he thinks it is an ape or a human! This fossil, despite massive brow ridges and other primitive features, is so complete and looks so human that it seems unlikely anyone would call it an ape (and no other creationists have done so). It seems equally unlikely that Bowden would call it a human, since he acknowledges its similarity to the Peking Man skulls which he claims are apes, and all of which are larger than 3733. Bowden escapes this dilemma by instead casting aspersions on the accuracy of ER 3733's reconstruction (almost all other creationists solve it by not mentioning ER 3733).

Bowden's even briefer mention of OH 9 is just as cryptic. He notes its similarities to both Pithecanthropus [ape] and a Neandertal [human] skull. In one sentence he refers to it as "surprisingly advanced", but the next paragraph starts: "Reviewing all these fossil apes, , ". Bowden's description of OH 9 makes it sound so intermediate in nature between apes and humans that, once again, it is difficult to decide what he thinks it is.

One Homo erectus specimen, the Turkana Boy, is recognized by Gish as human. Unavoidably, since it is an erectus skull attached to a body that is almost completely modern. Gish (1985), writing soon after it was discovered, cautiously suggests that except for the brain size, all major aspects of the skeleton are within the limits of Homo sapiens, and that were it not for the estimated age of 1.6 million years it would be assigned to that species. In a later assessment (1995) Gish says that the size and shape of the braincase and a few characteristics of the body were the only differences from a modern human. Menton (1988) similarly states that WT 15000 was classified as H. erectus only because of its age.

That is incorrect; the Turkana Boy has a typical erectus skull, differing from modern humans in many aspects other than brain size. It is more similar to 1470 (H. habilis), or to other erectus specimens such as the Peking Man braincases, than it is to modern humans. It is strikingly similar to the Peking Man reconstruction made by Weidenreich, which even Gish agrees looks to be "intermediate between the Anthropoid Apes and Man".

The skeletal differences are less obvious, but in combination they show a skeleton with small but significant differences from modern humans. The length of the neck and the neck-shaft angle in the femur are respectively "well over 3" and 5 standard deviations from the modern human norm (Brown et al. 1985). The boy was extraordinarily strong, and his spinal cord had less than half the cross-sectional area of ours (Walker and Shipman 1996). According to Richard Leakey, "practically every piece of bone shows minute but unquestionable differences from modern man" (Angela 1993). Gish stresses the skeletal similarities but ignores these differences.

Menton (1988) states that the Turkana Boy was like a modern human "except for certain details of the skull", and then adds that:

"He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Menton 1988)

Menton has taken this quote out of context, omitting some text that significantly changes its meaning:

"Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Leakey and Walker 1985)

Are erectus and sapiens the same species?
Lubenow (1992) and Mehlert (1994) have argued that Homo erectus is similar enough to H. sapiens that it should be merged into it. For example, Lubenow quotes Wolpoff et al. (1984):

"In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological (i.e. temporal) criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk [into H. sapiens]."

Wolpoff and his colleagues support what is known as the multiregional theory, which holds that populations of H. erectus throughout the world evolved together towards H. sapiens (as opposed to the "out of Africa" theory, which holds that one population of H. erectus gave rise to all modern humans).

Wolpoff et al. are not saying that H. erectus cannot be distinguished from modern humans; in fact they point out that it "on the average shows clear morphological distinctions from Homo sapiens". Nor do they dispute that H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus. Wolpoff and his colleagues explain clearly why they propose that H. erectus should not be a separate species:

We regard the species distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being problematic. The issue we address stems from the difficult in clearly distinguishing an actual boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. , From a purely cladistic outlook, Homo erectus should be sunk, since species originating through anagenesis (ie, without branching) are not recognized as separate species according to the criteria of phylogenetic systematics. (Wolpoff et al. 1984)

In other words, they propose sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens only because there are so many intermediate fossils that it is difficult to define a boundary between them, and because there are theoretical reasons for calling them the same species (no matter how much anatomical difference there is) if, as the multiregionalists believe, H. sapiens did not branch off from a subset of the H. erectus population. Wolpoff and his colleagues are not saying that the two species should be merged because there is insufficient difference between them, and Wolpoff has confirmed to me (in an email) that the amount of difference is not the issue.

Most scientists disagree with the idea of sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens, believing that the differences are clearly enough to merit a species distinction. A growing number would go further, and argue that there is room for another species between them, Homo heidelbergensis, which would contain many of the fossils often called "archaic" Homo sapiens (Tattersall 1995). It is also far from certain that the multiregional theory is correct, in which case even the theoretical reasons for sinking H. erectus would disappear.

Scientists who propose sinking H. erectus therefore provide no comfort for creationists, since their reasons totally contradict creationists who would claim that the H. erectus morphology is caused by diseases of, or racial variation in, H. sapiens.

One occasionally sees creationists claiming that many scientists now believe that H. erectus is no longer a valid species. This was never true. Shipman (2003) discusses a conference in 1991 at which a proposal by Wolpoff, Thorne and their colleagues to abandon H. erectus as a species was a contentious topic. Even then, the proposal did not get far and since then it has faded away. As Shipman says, "The move to eliminate Homo erectus is largely defunct, ".
New evidence
Both Lubenow and Mehlert have stated, in support of the claim that erectus fossils should be classified as H. sapiens, that H. erectus brain sizes fall within the modern human range. Although this ignored the huge difference in statistical distribution of brain size between the two species (see my brain sizes page for more details), and the clear anatomical differences (see here), it was, strictly speaking, true, in that an extremely small percentage of living humans did overlap the brain sizes of erectus. Now, however, even that slender rationale has disappeared.

More: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_erectus.html

therationa:
Imhotep,

Sorry, I did not mean to give the impression that I was not going to read the document from Aquinas. I have had a cursory look and guess what? This is a massive document. Have you ever read it?

If I had the rest of the year I don't think I could complete reading this document even if that was the only thing I did.

If you have read it, can you summarise the salient points please.

I haven't read all of Aquinas, but he covers a lot topics and it's hard to summarise his work. The part I find interesting though - and I only know of this from secondary sources, not Aquinas himself - is his attempt to, IIRC, grapple with the idea of soul, being and the body. I hope I'm not mixing up my Christian philosophers.


If you're going to read Aquinas, anyway, I'd suggest getting a quick overview of Platonism, Aristotelean philosophy and Augustine's writings. Just a general framework should help.

I'm guessing according to modern mainstream Christian theology, Hitler would go to hell anyway, since he committed suicide.