₦airaland Forum

imhotep:
Yes, these brains have similar structure, but store WIDELY differing experiences of widely differing people. Some of these people might also have suffered brain problems.

Okay? I'm not sure I see how that detracts from my earlier response.

I am concerned with those that had NDEs. Many reviewed their outlook on life after these experiences.

And many didn't. Where do we go from here? Why aren't the people that didn't experience NDEs of concern to you? I know of one person who changed his outlook on life after no experience of an NDE. He became convinced that there really is nothing after death, and after a great deal of thought deconverted.

SysUser:
About your Nylon Degrading Bacteria,

Your example about Nylon Degrading Bacteria, is not an example of an evolutionary development of new genetic information, rather it is an evidence of a designed organism which is well designed enough to be able to adapt to different environment, toxins or food sources.

Designed by whom?

First and foremost the simply english explanation for it , is that the bacteria was using already present genetic information for adaption. It did not evolve "new genetic information" from nothing to make that adaptation.

Not quite. The bacteria wasn't using already present genetic information, the rise of new information was what helped it achieve the feat of degrading nylon. What do mean by "it did not evolve 'new genetic information' from nothing"?

As such its adaption is something of an "intelligent design" robust control mechanism to ensure it survives via adaption, and not that it evolves into another kind of bacteria.

But it has essentially become a new type of bacteria. Where did you get the implication of intelligent design?

IT IS STILL A BACTERIA THAT HAS SIMPLY ADAPTED TO THE PRESENCE OF A KIND OF FOOD OR TOXIN.
NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS,

Of course it's still a bacteria; an adapted one at that. No one has said otherwise.

By the way after digesting the nylon, the bacteria was still a bacteria, it did not become a fish which then became a reptile which then became a man.

That's not evolution.

Even we humans have a differentiation in the kinds of resistance to certain different diseases or environment, does that mean we are then , evolving into different humans, i don't think so.

So people eat excess sugar yet they do not develop medical problem while othes eat a little sugar and then develop medical problem , simply because their bodies adapted and the other peoples body could not adapt to the presence of sugar.

"STOP BELIEVING THAT SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT AND CANNOT HAPPEN NOW WOULD SOMEHOW MAGICALLY HAVE OCCURED IN THE PAST SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU THINK ABOUT IT"

What, exactly, does not and cannot happen now?

Evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale story for atheists,

Which is exactly why the number of theists that accept evolution far outnumber the atheists. Like, whatever.

Please below is an excerpt from a more scientific explanation for the degradation of nylon by a bacteria, it was obtained from this linkd that you can check yourself, http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

It's not scientific.

SysUser:
come one stop deceiving yourself.


Speciation is nothing more than variation within a kind,

Which brings us back to the question you've managed to miss on goodness knows how many occassions:



What exactly is a kind? Like I asked another poster, are horses and donkeys the same kind? Why? What about a lion and tiger? What are the kinds within the insect and plant world and what distinctions are used?

it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

What, if not evolution, does speciation have to do with then?

Just like you have a Black Man , Indian, Caucassian , Asian, Ekimos, they all share certain similarities and subtle differences as humans. YET THEY ARE ALL STILL HUMANS

Yes, they are all the same species. Speciation is a different concept.

What evolution has decided to "deceitfully call" nothing more than variation, which is normal and nothing fantastic.

Now KAG, assuming you have brothers or sisters or parents, are there not subtle differences and obvious similarities between you , your siblings and parents. Does that mean that you are a new species of their family, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Oh gosh! Yet another thing that you unsurprisingly don't understand. LoL. No, we'd still be the same species.

SPECIATION IS variation and nothing more,

Well, that's different. So you're saying speciation does occur, but you'd prefer it to be under your specific terminology?

[snip]

I wonder what St. Augustine would have had to say to you.

SysUser:
mR. kaG, does the earth have a minor moon,

Yes, the Earth's moon and mars, (suprised abi, ) Well do you research properly and well maybe you would realise that Plate Tectonics, (which you think you know), also shows up in the shaping of the features of the near side of the moon relative to the far side of the moon.
It is also shows up in the relatively less crater parts of mars and the older but more cratered parts of mars.

tHE NET IS THERE FOR YOU TO FIND OUT SINCE ITS OBVIOUS FROM YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU ARE YET TO DO SO,

See above.

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

The usual KAG, typical misinformation

Okay let me break it down for you, in plain statements.

Pangea is a stupid idea (without) proof about a "Super Continent" and movements of those super continents from one location to another, as examplified by the word Continental Drift , notice the english word "Drift", that is the continents are moving, e.g. Pangea and Continental Drift says, India was part of Africa and then broke off from Africa "Drifted" towards Asia where somehow then "superglued itself" to Asia,

Actually, there are several lines of evidence, including, but not limited to the distribution of fauna and flora.

The non scientific reader would say why did the continents move, how, where they floating or something.

Yes according to other things related to Pangea, the continents were supposed to be floating hence why "drifting" was possible. Please,

Actually, no, continental drift wasn't a referrence to "floating"; the proposal also wasn't that continental separation was caused by floating.

Plate Tectonics
---------------
However according to the "concept" of Plate tectonics, that is complete "bulloony" and utter nonsense.

Your strawman is, yes. Actual continental drift? Not quite.

Plate Tectonics is about the surface of the earth being divided up into plates which then move against each other (Due to expansion of the Earth) and they do not move because they are floating on anything. The tectonic plates are not floating on anything.

LoL. Anybody else want to take this? The idiocy is getting too funny.

By the way contrary to another of your misinformation, Plate Tectonics is not (and I repeat) a old theory that encompasses continental drift, on the contrary, plate tectonics is a relatively new theory (about 30 years ago) that contradicts the continental drift theory of formation of the continents.

LoL, I didn't say it was an old theory. In fact, that that I posted that it encompassed and superceded the older theory of continental drift, should have given you some clue. Once again, plate tectonics supports the formation of continents.

Wait, I'm dying to ask another question that will be ignored. Are you proposing that all the continents were created just like that in their current states, by your God?

By the way, I want to believe that the deep "sutures" showing the location of were the Tectonic plates meet were only recently discovered, so maybe you can then once again brainwash me into believing that those ones have already existed for a long time like the idea of continental drift.

Come KAG you can do better than that, at least give me something that is so scientifically complicated that only a Genius like you could be able to understand and explain it,

Why? You haven't been able to understand even the simplest of concepts (some of which you presented by way of copy/paste) yet.

Mr. KAG, aba when are you going to stop intentional misinformation and propaganda.

Mu

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

By the way less I deviate, the bottomline here is that parts of evolution was based on the Pangea "rubbish", continental drift "rubbish".
As such that fact Plate Tectonics contradicts those rubbish ideas shows that those parts of evolution that were based on Pangea are likewise just mere speculations that have "gone with the wind".

No.

imhotep:
I am open to scientific, mystical, philosophical and theological explanations that are in tune with right reason illumined by faith.

That's another way of saying I'll only accept responses that affirm my bias. Anything else will be rejected automatically by a lot of handwaving and ignoring. Thanks for playing.

I understand that science alone cannot comprehend the whole of reality (visible and invisible).

Out of curiousity, why?

Let me now stretch your explanation a bit. Imagine that all brains 'close to expiration' eventually expire, but all record similar experiences before they expire.
How can you explain the fact that these brains (from diverse people with markedly different backgrounds and belief systems) record similar [/i]experiences, or that these experiences are somewhat [i]patterned

Any ubiquity is explainable by one thing they all share: the presence of the same neurons and chemicals that make up the brain. That is, all human brains, as far as has been discovered, contain the same general make-up and chemicals.

However, not all NDEs are the same. There are many variations between individual near death experiences. That is a function of their experiences. Furthermore, the majority of people don't seem to get any NDEs. Why do you think that is? And what can you deduce from that?

SysUser:
mR. kaG, does the earth have a minor moon,

Technically, yes. Cruithne

Yes, the Earth's moon and mars, (suprised abi, ) Well do you research properly and well maybe you would realise that Plate Tectonics, (which you think you know), also shows up in the shaping of the features of the near side of the moon relative to the far side of the moon.

Very surprised, especially considering that "the Moon has a thick, solid lithosphere (unlike the Earth), and therefore has no plate tectonics" (sauced)

Did you say you are an engineering graduate, again? First class was it?

tHE NET IS THERE FOR YOU TO FIND OUT SINCE ITS OBVIOUS FROM YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU ARE YET TO DO SO,

Who would have thunk it, he missed the questions again. Oh dear, maybe next time?

imhotep:
@KAG
Yet another dogmatic response. Not scientific enough to explain NDEs.

https://i25.tinypic.com/2qu0ufk.jpg

"You keep using that [phrase]. I do not think it means what you think it means."

So, when you were asking for what we can learn or deduce from that specific phenomenon, you were really asking for a scientifc study of some kind? Pourquoi?

bawomolo:
here's some more striking similarities. coincidence??

http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/egypt-bible-similarities.html

Several are coincidental, yes. Most have been "doctored" to create similarities that aren't there.

imhotep:
What can we learn/deduce from this phenomenon?

That portions of the brain remain active even when it's close to expiration.

stimulus:
@therationa,

It all depends on what category of atheism you espouse, for I don't know of many atheists who can honestly sustain the argument that there are no atheistic principles.

Not as a collective whole. Atheism is pretty much like Theism. They each describe a very broad range of individuals and communities that share just one aspect between them: disbelief in the gods for the former, belief in gods for the latter.

That is a revisionistic apology. Atheism proper has always involved the (active) denial of the existence of God or any deity. All others are simply adjectival and admissible remorse.

I think active disbelief is a more apt representation.

SysUser:
The usual KAG, its nice to hear your rant!, hmmm here goes the Genius personality of KAG again!, maybe you should ask me next about
whether I know about your obstinance, even in the face of blunt truth.

We can discuss that after you post some "blunt truth"^TM By the way, I haven't ranted in this thread yet. Trust me, when I go on a rant, you'll know.

Well Mr Genius, i do know what plate tectonics is and I do know what Continental Drift is, and it is rather deceitful of you to try and misinform the readers into believing that Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics are one and them same concept.

It's still painfully apparent that you as yet don't know what plate tectonics means. I also didn't try to misinform anyone, nor did I say continental drift and plate tectonics (or the individual theories described each) are one and the same. What I did post, however, was this:

"Plate tectonics (from Greek τέκτων, tektōn "builder" or "mason" is a theory of geology that has been developed to explain the observed evidence for large scale motions of the Earth's lithosphere. The theory encompassed and superseded the older theory of continental drift from the first half of the 20th century and the concept of seafloor spreading developed during the 1960s." (see source in previous post).

I bought you a clue; you misused it. Not surprising, to say the least.

No they are not,

If they were then Plate Tectonics ought not to be occurring on both Mars and Moon, in contrast to the concept of Continental Drift.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. By the way, which moon? The Earth's major moon?

KAG and fellow readers , "They are as similar as saying that because a Motorcycle is a moving machine and a Motor Car is also a moving machine, then they are similar."

By the way readers Plate Tectonics is one of the most obvious contradictions to Pangea, and, Continental Drift is one of the most obvious supporters of the Pangea concept. So KAG since you have smartly tried to pull the wool over people's eyes into believing that plate tectonics and continental drift are similar maybe you can then explain why one contradicts the concept of pangea and the other supports the concept of pangea.

Except Plate Tectonics actually support the Pangea conception.

[size=14pt]Look, maybe you should explain how plate tectonics "is one of the most obvious contradictions to Pangea."[/size]

I've chosen to enlarge and bold the request, because you seem to have a penchant for missing questions and requests.

KAG please find out more about Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics , you will easily see that they are simply "contradictory" and not similar in any way.

I have; I don't see the exact contradiction you mean.

Evolution, as in the theory of evolution, is a important subject in biology

Nice try KAG , sorry it doesn't cut it,

Naaaaa, aaa KAG, sorry to bust your atheistic bubble!

Evolution is not a subject of biology, (Your notion that it is, makes your Mr Genius position rather sad, )

There is Biological Evolution (the one you wonderfully think is the only one, )

There is Geologic Evolution,

There is cosmic evolution,

, blah blah blah,

Look again at what I wrote. I wasn't referring to the English term "evolution" (which can be simply defined as change, and hence be applied to any concept that undergoes that), I was referring to evolution, as in the theory of evolution. That is a major aspect of Biology. It shouldn't be mistaken and conflated with every other thing that can have evolution attached to it.

The usual MANTRA , with no repeatable or viable evidence,

The hell? What then do you call the presence of shared endogenous retroviruses? What then do you make of chromosome 2, observed speciation and the other examples I gave?

hmm, do you mean the dinosaur-bird transitionals that do not have any evidence,

I gave just one example; there are several.

By the way KAg how and when was there an increase in the genetic information of the dinosaurs that made it possible for them to evolve into birds like evolution says, (Mind you there is no evidence of Increase in genetic information, although we see evidence of bad mutations, )

Change in their allele frequencies made it possible. I gave two examples of increase in genetic information in about two different previous posts. I'll give them again:

- Nylon oligamer degradation by Bacteria;
- Apo-AI to Apo-AIM in humans.

That's also not counting the examples of speciation.

Yet the same amount of DNA "alphabets still either "remains the same or decreases", yet the genetic information must increase for your evolutionary fairytale,

I responded to a similar claim made by you in this post: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-110730.128.html#msg1931092

I'll give the snippet again:

"I also calculated a rough estimate based on the paper DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22 and arrived at a 168000 mutation difference in coding DNA between humans and chimps.

Could these mutations account for the difference? Sure, especially given that the 64000 mutations is only based on strictly beneficial mutations and lower end time frame of 5 million years. This doesn't take into account fixation of neutral or even possibly deleterious mutations which could account for many more differences between humans and chimps. Plus, the 64000 mutations is based on a relatively conservative estimate of both beneficial mutation rates and effective mutation rates in humans. Conceivably, there could numbers of beneficial mutations that are magnitudes higher.

So are mutations a problem for evolution? Based on limited and conservative data, the answer is no." (link in original post)

KAG STOP SPREADING LIES AND DECEITS, THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS, AND THERE WOULD NEVER BE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST,

Actually, there are a relatively good number of transitional fossils. Turkana boy: always a good example.

Maybe if evolutionist saw a dead bone of a "chiwawa" they might have theorirised that Dogs evolved from it, since it looks slightly less than a dog.

No.

THE RAIN OF SPECULATIONS, WHEN SHALL IT END.

I've been wondering when you'll stop. Maybe if you bothered to learn what it is you're arguing against, you'll stop the Hovindisms and speculations.

Let me guess you dogmatic believe that Archaeopteryx is a transitional dinosaur because it has claws on its wings,

No. I accept that it's a transitional because in addition to proto-bird features, it also had:

- No bill
- socketed teeth
- Nostrils far forward on the snout
- Free, not fused, trunk vertebrae
- abdominal ribs
- Downward facing shoulder joints
- A mobile wrist, unfused digits and claws
- A long tail with free vertebrae
- Solid bones
- A skull that bears sutures.

So to bust your bubble again, Archaeopteryx, is not a dino-bird, it is just a bird. KAPISH!
My brother the way Archaeopteryx is a Full-Blown Bird simply because:

[snip]

Then maybe you can explain how a "true" bird with absolutely no dinosauran traits has these:

1. The lack of a bill
2. The presence of socketed teeth
3. Nostrils far forward on the snout
4. The vertebrae of the trunk are free, not fused
5. The presence of abdominal ribs
6. The ribs do not articulate with the sternum
7. A shoulder joint that faces downward
8. A mobile wrist, unfused digits and claws
9. A long tail with free vertebrae
10. Solid bones
11 A skull that bears sutures.

Heck, I'd be surprised if you could tell me what differentiates a dinosaur from a bird.

According to your "faith" and "believe" that Archaeopteryx is a dino-bird then the following modern birds (with no reptile charateristics) should also be dino-birds:

a. touraco
b. hoatzin

(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html)

Why? How would you distinguish a dinosaur from a bird?

Come on KAG you can do better than , just believing a lie, hook, Line and Sinker, Please do a little research about your "believe" and "faith" in the "Icons" and "Stars" of Evolution,

ANOTHER EVOLUTION EVIDENCE BITES THE DUST,

Problem is: I did do my very extensive research. I know what I'm talking about, and I know why I accept the theory of evolution as the best and most parsimonious explanation for the origin of species and further developments. In contrast, you haven't done any research; you mistake extensive copy/pasting with the acquisition of knowledge; and hope that burying a subject with links and copy/pastes will be mistaken for debate. Heck, at just about nine pages, you still know surprisingly little on the subjects that have come up in this thread.


By the way, I notice that yet again, you missed the questions. I can't explain how that seems to happen so often. Here let's try again, with one other pertinent question you missed (making three):

[size=14pt]

So, what's your explanation for both the distribution of animals, and the similarities species in different continents (that were thought to be once joined) share? This ought to be good.

What curse is causing animals to go extinct?

What exactly is a kind? Like I asked another poster, are horses and donkeys the same kind? Why? What about a lion and tiger? What are the kinds within the insect and plant world and what distinctions are used?[/size]


I wonder what will happen this time.

*bolded again, and this time size increased for your extra comfort.

I don't know where else to put this, but considering the fact there's been some debate here about the theory he helped formulate, this is as good as any.

So today is his day. Good show, man. Have an organism on the house.

skyone: ]Another simple reason why God truly exist and Why Jesus will remain our saviour is the fact that those nations who has decided to follow Christ will always be highly defensive and continue to prosper i.e USA, Great Britain, Canada, Ireland, Germany, Isreal, France, Australia etc. Therefore to those who are still not sure of their faith i guess you follow the King of Kings and make heaven.

Please contribute politely and encourage those who can't find a good reference attatched to Jesus to start to follow Him. i.e Olabowale. Smiley

How absurd. So what about unsuccessful Christian countries? And successful non-Christian nations like China, Japan, U.A.E., etc? What are they evidence of? Silly rabbit.

By the way, Israel is not a Christian nation. Most of the countries you've mentioned aren't either (as has been pointed out to you already). On a positive note, it's nice to see that Christians are finally accepting Germany into the fold.

@Bawomolo
Check this out http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-religion-map.htm always have your fact ready before you post.

Japan economy rest on Wall Street.

Does that mean that when the Anglo-American economy rested mainly on the decimation and colonisation of countries in Africa, India and other places, they weren't Christian?

imhotep:
But you earlier claimed to be able to show that the probability of the existence of mythological beings (God inclusive) is very low.

Did you not intend to SHOW this using the scientific method of experimentation and observation

Amongst other things, yes. Why?

SysUser:
Please give me an example of a date done with geologic column and how it was confirmed by independent methods, how many radiometric methods were used in those independent methods and how many different dates were obtained in those independent methods.

See here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#theoret and here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#specific. The various dating methods usually agree.

Well notice my use of english word "some", when i said "Some of the current or past methods which use this means are given as:", the emphasis here is the word "some".
Meaning that I am not a "Mr Know all"

That's fair enough. I was pointing out, though, that there are many radiometric dating methods and they all act as independent lines of evidence.

All that is needed to contaminate a test specimen containing Carbon 14 or any other radioactive element is to find it in an environment in which carbon 14 is present.

Um, that wasn't what I asked. This was my question: "how exactly would contamination affect the half-life of an element?"

How are you evolutionist sure that outside radioactive elements from the environment in which the sample was found has not a way into the specimen after it died and before you found it.

That would be because individual elements can be detected and therefore separated or taken into account. Specific radioactive elements act in certain ways, several can't be taken in after death.

The answer is that : you simply cannot be sure , you simply have to assume that there was no similar radioactive elements from outside.

No.

Wait maybe by a means of magic , the specimen was the only one containing that particular radioactive element within a 100km radius of the fossil site, COME ONE THIS IS NOT FANTASY , THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE SCIENCE , ABEG!

, interesting that just a few lines ago you were asking me , who a radioactive sample could have been contaminated, yet here you are , you are using the excuse of contamination as the reason why radioactive dating did not work for that particular mammoth.

First, that wasn't what I asked. Second, yes one mammoth was contaminated - the presence of glycerin made that clear. Third, I notice you've chosen to disregard the fact that you presented misinformation.

Thus my question is this:

1. Are you ever going to be sure that there is never going to be contamination in a shape or form

To different specimen? No. There are, however, a great number that haven't been contaminated.

2. How then can you justify that previous tests have not also being either contaminated or dogmatic accepted by evolutions because it tallies with expected evolutionary dates of millions of year.

The lack of any evidence suggesting contamination that affects results. The support of other radiometric dating methods.

3. As any radiometric dating method (apart from carbon dating) ever giving any dates less than 10000 years for a test sample whose age is known 100% certain to have been less than 10000 years.

I have no idea.

There is no issue of grosss misunderstanding here, it ain't good to try and twist the issue, the fundamental issue here is that whether or not you publicly accept it or not, Pangea was used by evolution as an explanation for the distribution of organism over different places,

So are boats, wind, etc. That doesn't mean those things are a part of the theory of evolution. They are examples of things that can be given as specifics that can effect or affect the mechanism of evolution.

So what I am basically trying to point out is simple for everyone to see: that the nonsense speculative concept of the evolutionary distribution of organisms and formation of continents via continental drifts have been shown to be mere "Hot Air" via the ridicule and exposure of the inherent rubbish in the concept of Pangea.

So, what's your explanation for both the distribution of animals, and the similarities species in different continents (that were thought to be once joined) share? This ought to be good.

As usual, the KAG way is to , kill the messenger if he doesn't like the message,

Temper Temper bro, are we already back to derogatory words again,

Again, not angry just point out the obvious. You're clearly clueless.

If you read the area "Those links show the initial idea and how (as usual) evolution is gradually dumping the unprovable idea of Pangea for other newer ideas (which are likewise unprovable).

Where? could you quote the specific portions that are being used to "dump the unprovable idea of Pangea", please.

In the process of checking those weblinks you might come across issues like "Plate Tectonics (idea started about 30 years ago)", "Continental Drift", "Magnetism", "Paleomagnetism", "Fossil Similarities" "Rock Similarities"" carefully and the corresponding links, you will notice that I did not generalise that the words ("Plate Tectonics (idea started about 30 years ago)", "Continental Drift", "Magnetism", "Paleomagnetism", "Fossil Similarities" "Rock Similarities"" where either in support of pangea or not, I simply told people that they would come across those words,

That was awfully nice of you then. Do you know what those terms mean?

By the way Plate Tectonics does not support the idea of Pangea, even though Continental Drift supports the idea of pangea,

You either don't know what plate tectonics means, or you don't know what pangea means. Or even possibly both.


Here, let me buy you a clue:

"Plate tectonics (from Greek τέκτων, tektōn "builder" or "mason" is a theory of geology that has been developed to explain the observed evidence for large scale motions of the Earth's lithosphere. The theory encompassed and superseded the older theory of continental drift from the first half of the 20th century and the concept of seafloor spreading developed during the 1960s." (Clue

So Mr. Genius, you can do well to see the context of the phrase or statement before scattering "vitriol" as usual.

What phrase?

Its obvious you are really trying hard to restrict evolution to biological evolution alone ,

I'm not trying that hard, because with your learning and understanding difficulties, it would just make the long process of responding to you that much longer. I will point out again that when the term evolution is used, it is meant in reference to biological entities.

even though "the term" and "complete concept of evolution" is deeply rooted and revealed, in cosmis evolution, biological evolution, geological evolution etc,

No.

TRY AS YOU MAY TO PULL THE WOOL OVER PEOPLE EYES, UNFORTUNATELY I SHOULD INFORM YOU THAT PEOPLE AIN'T READY TO BE SPOON FED ABOUT WHAT IS EVOLUTION AND WHAT IS NOT EVOLUTION.

THE VERY CONCEPT AND IDEA OF EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, COSMIC EVOLUTION, GEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, AMIGO PLEASE TRY AGAIN.

For some reason you seem to be mistaking the appropriation of terms with, perhaps, reluctance or inability to discuss the issues raised by your numerous links and cop/paste. I don't know why you find it hard to understand that biology is different from geology, chemistry and physics.

Evolution, as in the theory of evolution, is a important subject in biology. It doesn't seek to explain things in geology or other unrelated sciences. Plate tectonics and the makings of the geologic column fall under geology, another scientific field in its own right. It has no need to explain the Universe any more than someone studying Laplace transforms needs to explain why the Universe exists for them to be able to do calculations. In the same vein as the others, Cosmology and the different branches of physics are different sciences from those already mentioned.

Surely, that's simple enough for even you to understand. That people on a message board are willing to accomodate your conflations and inability to stick to a subject shouldn't be mistaken for affirmation that the sciences are just one blob designed "to keep you true and faithful Christians (ha ha) from getting to heaven or where ever.

The pull the wool over their eyes trick again, abi, na,

It is clearly seen that biological is being related and intertwined into the concept of geological evolution. Yet KAG it seems that in your infinite Geniusness, you want us to believe otherwise,

Actually, no. Putting developments within their geologic dates is not the same thing as teaching geology. Just to make the point by way of analogy, your suggestion is akin to someone claiming that because Pythagoras lived in 520 BC or Attila the Hun in 439 AD, they were both influenced by Jesus and that talking about them means you're automatically teaching the ways Christians and they were in fact Christians. Surely, you realise how asinine that is.

KAG aba, wayo wayo,

KAG WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, JUST LIKE THE WALL OF JERICHO, THE WALL OF IGNORANCE, DECEPTION AND INDOCTRINATION VIA EVOLUTION IS BOUND TO COME DOWN SOONER RATHER THAN LATER,

You're mistaking Evolution for Young Earth Creationism.

It is writing that devil knows that he has but a little time, hence he's going about kill stealing and destroying, via deception and other means .

Evolution is a deception with no scientific backing no matter the propaganda

Posted here and here


"Actually there are several independent lines of enquiry that support the theory of evolution. These include:

- Shared endogeneous retroviral insertions between species, including humans and other apes

- shared genetic sequences and genes between species, and in particular, the presence of chromosome no.2 in humans. A very strong indication of the shared ancestry between chimps and humans.

- The fossils of transitional animals, e.g. Archaeopteryx and other dinosaur-bird transitionals.

- observed speciation both in anature and in labs. e.g Hybridisation peonies resultng in speciation

Also discovered an unanswered question:

What curse is causing animals to go extinct?

To add to this still unanswered one:

What exactly is a kind? Like I asked another poster, are horses and donkeys the same kind? Why? What about a lion and tiger? What are the kinds within the insect and plant world and what distinctions are used?

*Bolded so you don't miss them again.

imhotep:
Do you now see why science should make no categorical statements about God

It doesn't.

imhotep:
I have retrived your earlier post. Now let me analyze it:

First, that no tangible evidence exists for 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

Is there any tangible evidence for the non-existence of gods/spirits

I have to admit I'm stumped: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the question. I don't know what to say. I'm tempted to just advice you to read what you wrote very slowly until it hits you, but, I don't know. I said "no tangible evidence exists for the existence of gods." Why would you even ask that after my statement?

Mythology refers to a body of myths/stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.
None of the scholarly definitions of "myth" imply that myths are necessarily false. In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods", but it does not mean "false story". Therefore, scholars may speak of "religious mythology" without meaning to insult religion

Um, yeah, I know, that's why I said gods belong in mythology.

Science is based on causality, experimentation and observation. The observed fact is the supreme arbiter in science. That is why I am challenging scientific atheists to PROVE (scientifically) that God does not exist.

Science doesn't do proofs. Mythological beings are outside the scope of the scientific method because they can't be empirically observed or tested, nor is there any way to falsify them.

SysUser:
I want to believe that the use of the word "Species" for Charles Darwins book is just a subtle attempt at brainwashing individuals,

LMAO.

I find it funny that Scientist are having a hard time deciding on "Species"

Abeg stick to the biblical word of "Kind",


If it looks like a dog , smells like a dog, feels like a dog, eats like a dog, gives birth like a dog, procreates like a dog, men come on then its a DOG "Kind".

What exactly is a kind? Like I asked another poster, are horses and donkeys the same kind? Why? What about a lion and tiger? What are the kinds within the insect and plant world and what distinctions are used?

imhotep:
@KAG
You have a lot to learn from Albert Einstein (who did not believe in a personal God, but knew that there was something more than relativity and quantum mechanics at work in the universe)

Take this quote ->

"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)"

That's nice.

You can never be a better scientist than Einstein was.

That much is [almost] certain. I say almost because you never know, I may get a blow to the head and then kablam I become insanely productive in the sciences. Very, very, very unlikely though.

imhotep:
Ok. Now show us something that will convince us that the probability for the existence of God is very low.

I already sort of did. You reply was "Nice words. But just words nonetheless" or something like that. That discouraged any further need to address the point.

noetic:
I have re-read both your reply and his initial post. and I can only deduce what i initially connoted.

he has logically offered an explanation to the concept of the existence and supremacy of God.
what have u offered in return? u only kept beating about. u did not this-approve his claims, nor explained your belief about God`s non-existence. u only insisted God does not exist, yet asking for proof for His existence, when logic has been aapplied.

I'm pretty sure I did more than that. Apart from the post to which you responded, I also wrote a rebuttal to the op in this post.

u create the impression of someone who has grudges against God.

I don't hold grudges against the non-existent.

and the only way to relieve yourself is by denying His existence.

Actually, I'm pretty partial towards the existence of gods, particularly the Christian one. It's pity She (the Christian God) doesn't exist, that would have been swell.

if not, i wonder y u have given no tangible reason, fact or point to butress your claims.
what a waste of time

I did.

who is alleging He is imaginery? and whats the basis for this claim?. until u answer this, I think u are chasing shadows.

You mean apart from those who point to the distinct lack of positive evidence, the disparate conceptions of gods, and the contradictions contained in those conceptions?

imhotep has proved within logical sense that God is real and not nihilant like u claim.

Actually, he didn't.

I have emphasised that there are procedures to communicate and expirience God, first hand.
just obey the rules.

What are those procedures, and what the rules?

thats russels` teacup argument.

Yes, what about Russell's teacup argument?

imhoteps claim is based on logic to butress the reality of the existence and supremacy of God as emphasised in the scriptures.

No, Imhotep's arguments weren't to buttress the reality or existence of the Christian God, they were to present - using several false syllogisms - the existence of a generic ontological entity he simply slapped the term "God" upon.

the onus is on u to prove that this is imaginery.

If there's a god that exists, then something will prevent me from being able to post this response.

now u re contradicting yourself.
sounds like u have a pre-concieved idea of who God is. and thats why u keep using using the words imaginary and evidenced

No, I wasn't contradicting myself. Also, to some extent I do have a conception of the connotations of the term God. That's generally irrelevant though.

so if he didnt explain the concept of God as u expected, maybe u can start from there to explain God better to us.
jibberish talk

He didn't explain it at all. The term "God" is used to represent a non-existent entity.

clap for your self

if what u have said so far in this thread is the basis of such conclusion, then permit me to say that your union with this group of fellow theists is a union of purposeless backward thinking aimed at conclusions that are next to nonesense.exactly, arrant nonsense .

Except it isn't.

so also have there been non-theists who have discovered their folly and subsequently accepted Christ. _{of course they are of no relevance to u}

So, there have been theists, including Christians, who have discovered their folly and subsequently accepted no gods exist. _{Are they of relevance to you?}

There's a reason religions place great emphasis on faith

and whats that reason?

Lack of evidence.

this discussion will be purposeless if u don't define what tangible is?

Tangible would be something that's not only capable of being empirically verified and ascribed to a particular source without ambiguity, but also potentially falsifiable.

are the events witnessed in the bible not enough evidences?

How?

is your day to day life, not an evidence?
keep looking for whats not lost

No.

if the imagination is done by u and for u, then u are right. because no one here is imagining except u.

I wasn't the one that dreamt up the bulk of the mythological figures

whats your point?

That Religious beliefs that are amenable to communities are attractive.

first u don't believe there is a God or gods, now u say He is a subset. i think u re confused

Do you know what a subset means? I ask because it seems you're mistaking the appropriation of terms with belief in the existence of what the terms describe.

of course they are, the baal and hinduism practiced by indians here in london is an evidence. the make objects and symbols and then worship them.

And I ask again, why do you presume their gods are human inventions but yours isn't?

Zeus' fury was used to explain the occurence of lightening; Loki, the incidence of suffering and mishaps; and so on. In todays world, when something is as yet unknown by scientists, theists are forever quick to proclaim their god as the cause - except if it's some kind of infectious disease that isn't related to homosexuals, that is.

so whats your point?

That the fortress of the gods is within the cracks in knowledge.

yes, it is possibly due to their lack of faith and/or inactions on their part
no, there is a purpose for everything.

Which is it?

first u claim there is no God and that He is only a figment of man`s imagination, now u know so much about God that u can confidently assert that Jesus is not God.

Um, it's simple logic. No gods exist, Jesus was a man that lived and died, therefore, Jesus wasn't a god. I could go further, but you get the point - hopefully.

u re a confused person with no basis for his lack of convictions. u can't even be consistent with your positions on this issues. what a sham

That, or you are incapable of following simple concepts. Like, you know, whatever.

because to me, they are like the hindus gods.

Why and how?

from what u have written so far, i believe u re not a consistent person (opinion wise). so u changing your opinion on xtianity is no news.says who?

Lol. It is the foolish man that is incapable of change, especially when the evidence compels such a change. In the past few days of debating Christins on this forum, including you, let's just say I don't have a lofty view of the majority anymore.

scientifically, i deduce that your inability to logically counter imhotep`s claims about God are goat-like in nature. and so it is the baisis of my position that u are a goat.

You probably missed my first post in this thread. By the way, you making a very fundamental linguistic mistake: goat-like is not the same thing as goat. One describes a behaviour akin to a stereotypical view attached to a particular animal; the other is the actual animal. The two aren't synonymous. So, your claim falls on two fronts.

what a contradiction. first u say science has no proof, now u say it relies on evidence.

Evidence is not the same thing as proof.

I insist that urs is a confused mind

No.

says who?

Says the definition of the term.

how u can u common-sensically make a claim without providing proof.
and so because u think in your disputable wisdom, that science does no proof, we should take your claim that God does not exist.

By providing evidence. Not quite.

this is the height of un-intelligence I have seen on nairaland.
u will c above why my claims are founded.
please use that scientific method and lets see.

First, from an analytical statement perspective, the term "goat" refers to a particular type of animal, and since humans are a different, distinct type of animal, then it can be concluded that I'm not a goat.

Empirical: All available evidence show that goats don't have the brain capacity to: think critically, use language, nor operate a computer, so it stands that I can't be a goat since I'm in fact doing all those things. There are other avenues, but those will have to do for now.

I'll check back in a few days to address any concerns, if there are any.

imhotep:
@KAG

Thanks for all the (unscientific) dogmatic declarations.

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word [dogmatic]. I do not think it means what you think it means."

They are not convincing, and we don't have to take your word for it.

Take my word for what

Now, give us a proof that God does not exist.

I don't know how many times I have asked this of you and bawomol. If you can analyse people's posts so well, you can provide a convincing proof. Hit the nail on the head.

"Imaginary and mythological creatures can't be disproved. However, the probability for their existence can be shown to be very low, and the necessity for referring to something incapable of being evidenced can also be shown."

SysUser:
Once again KAG the one and only Nairaland Scientific Mr Genius has spoken again,

Hey, get your lips off my ass.

Sorry hey , did I get under your skin, I have a feeling that I have got under your skin, don't worry its for your own benefit, hmm raising oneself.

Psychological projection.

Next time I will try and allow you to steam roll people into accepting your fallacies of evolution, and presentation of non-evidence as evidence,

Maybe we'll get the "Theory of Everything" from you soon,

No.

SysUser:
So Mr Kag, Mr Bawomol, et al,

Can you now kindly show me

1. how , the magnetic reversal was supposed to be an explanation for evolution

2. how , the magnetic reversal was supposed to have occured millions and millions of years ago, in a galaxy far far away.


Evolution sounds more like a movie script for science fiction , for things that occured in a galaxy far far away , which movie would soon be coming to a cinema near you

I have no idea what that is about, so I'll leave it to anyone who feels inclined to address it.

SysUser:
The vitriol by evolutionist and their dogged determination , to prove that God does not exist might be seen from the following verses that I plagiarized from the bible:

Evolution =/= atheism.

SysUser:
First and foremost, I want to correct myself: when I said "Otto Man Clouds" in reference to the "speculative" clouds of comets that were leftovers

from the cosmic evolution of the solar system, that name that I called those clouds was wrong. The correct name is "Oort Clouds".

Natuarally. lol.

You can check the lack of evidence for Oort Clouds at the following links , please remember that Oort Clouds were stated to be leftovers from the evolution

of the solar system (Cosmic Evolution):
http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/Spring00/7-Solsysform/solsysform.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Logical_Fallacy
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j15_2/j15_2_11-12.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

There are a lot of speculative statements with no physical or mathematical proofs in evolution, yet they are being propagandered as if they were statements

of immutable facts.

Actually, the existence of oort clouds is often portrayed as an hypothesis, not fact nor statement.

Once again before you proceed:



Please note that this peculiar order that can be obtained from Evolution:

Big Bang Theory is dependent on the pre-existence of Matter and Energy.

Cosmic Evolution (Formation of Stars and Planets) is dependent on the Big Bang Theory.

Geological Evolution (shaping, type and form of the planets) is dependent on the presence of Stars and Planets in the first place.

Biological Evolution (origin of life and progression of life from non-life) is dependent on the presence of matter, energy, planets,

So Evolution ultimately deals with the Origin of Matter/Energy, Life, Planets, Time and Space

Ooh, I like this game. can I play too?

Cosmic evolution is dependent on the Big Bang theory; Geological evolution is dependent on the presence of stars ad planets; Biological evolution is dependent on abiogenesis;

Theories on the evolution of human society and community are dependent on Biological evolution, because you can't have a community without humans

Evolution of language theories are dependent on theories on human society and community, because language develops due to the need for communication with others

The evolution of literature is dependent on the evolution of langauge theories, because you can't have literature without language. So evolution of literature ultimately deals with the origin of language, societies, abiogenesis, biological, etc.

Oh my goodness, anyone else feel sorry for those literature students? Not only do they have to contend with Art subjects that have nothing to do with their field, they also have to grapple with the sceinces too. Do you get the point?

By the way, you probaly noticed that I omitted your first entry. That's because the Big Bang probably preceded matter. Also, the theory of evolution doesn't seek to explain the origins of life.

Secondly, I made a previous post in which I made the following observations about evolution and what they don't know for sure! My observations which I made

[snip]


Although it was harder to extract actual useful content from KAG's post, yet the following is the spirited effort at doing so.


KAG clearly says that:

1. Evolution Theory has nothing to do with matter, energy and life.

Actually, what I said was: "You think that might have something to do with the fact that the theory of evolution isn't intended to explain any of those things? I don't expect the germ theory or a theory in linguistics to explain any of those things either." There is a subtle difference between what I said and what you've reported.

3. Creationists are dishonest

Well, it was more than that. I also gave a reason for giving the appropriate label of dishonesty.

One thing that KAG has still not done yet is this:

1. KAG has not explained to me/us, the clear contradiction brougth upon evolution by the presence of "Polystrata Fossils" in the rock/soil layers that are

supposed to have been millions of years old.

Wow! Just wow! I explained it both tersely and with links (a few that you provided unawares). For instance, here


See links; see answer; see Joe run:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Polystrate_fossils_indicate_massive_sudden_deposition

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


Evolutionary Ages:
--------------------

How does evolution determine that age of materials.

You mean geologists. Evolution isn't an entity.

Well just like an evolutionist recently mentioned on this thread, evolution determines the ages of materials using methods classified into two:

1. Relative Dating (Geologic Column),

2. Absolute Dating (Radiometric Dating),

Relative Dating as to do with dating the age of a fossil by the criteria of using the age of the rock or soil in which the fossil was found as the

reference age. Also it involves dating a rock by the age of the fossils that "have been" found in that type of rock.
[snip]
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm#Rock Strata Dating

Wrong. While fossils can be dated relativel (emphasis on relative), that only occurs when the fossil in question is well known to fit a certain age range. The same for vice versa. However, absolute dating is done and that is a neccesary step for the process of peer-review. By the way, relative dating works because the column and fossils have been dated numerous times and their date ranges confirmed by independent methods.

Absolute Dating

Absolute Dating by evolution is carried out using the methods known as Radiometric dating, this is a method that depends on the concept of the half-life of

a radioactive element.Some of the current or past methods which use this means are given as:

a. Carbon Dating:
b. Rubidium-Strontium:
c. THORIUM-LEAD DATING:
d. POTASSIUM-ARGON DATING:
e. POTASSIUM-CALCIUM DATING:

I think you'd find that there are a lot more than five. What is it now? Forty?

Unfortunately, for evolution and evolutionists, Radiometric dating is based on the following assumptions:

1. It is assumed that the original composition of a radioactive samples in the material can be made, such that the amounts of the radioisotopes present can

provide a measurement of the time elapsed.

2. The presence of contamination or lack of contamination of the sample must be determined (and this is more based on faith rather than fact, since they can

never know whether or not the material was contaminated with alien but similar radioactive materials before or after death)

3. It is assumed that radiometric dating that do not work for samples whose ages are known , would work for samples whose are unknown.

The assumptions stated above, are obviously contrary and contradictory to scientific logic, yet evolutionist would still wants us to believe that evolution

is based on science.

Examples of problems with Radiometric Dating are obtained in the following links:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message315547/pg1
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm

First, the concept of half-lifes works both mathematically and chemically. Secondly, how exactly would contamination affect the half-life of an element? Finally, actually, things with known dates like tree rings,etc are used to gauge the accuracy of several radiometric datings. They agree.

Assumptions made during the use of Carbon Dating

1. Radiocarbon (Carbon-Dating) dates are based on the assumption that the atmospheric 14C to 12C ratio has been constant in the past, (which they the

evolutionist simply don't know and would never be able to know since they were not there in the past)

2. Radiocarbon (Carbon-Dating) dates are based on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant in the past.

WTF? Do you know the amount of pressure, etc, that would be required to hypothetically change the ratio?

[snip]
Examples of testing and calibrating samples in which the radiocarbon dating has been shown to be complete inaccurate are:

1. The dating of freshwater clams
2. The dating of the shell of a snail.

Responded to it here. See reservoir effect.

3. The problematic dating of Lunar Rocks, http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm#Problems with Lunar Rocks
4. The pennsylvania coal
5. Natural Gas,

Radiocarbon dating wouldn't have been used to date any of those.

6. The inaccurate dating of the famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found

immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176)

LoL

"The dates come from different mammoths. The reference cited by Brown and cribbed by Hovind likely refers only to a Fairbanks mammoth, which Brown also mentions (Péwé 1975, 30). The 15,380 and 21,300 BP dates come from separate mammoths, and it is noted that the 21,300 date is invalid because it comes from a hide soaked in glycerin. It is uncertain what is Brown's source for the 29,500 and 44,000 dates.

Ukraintseva (1993) reviews the Kirgilyakh mammoth, also known as Dima, and cites three dates obtained for it. All are around 40,000 years before present. Dates for deposits surrounding the mammoth are consistent with dates for the mammoth." saucily

For example consider this excerpt from the site "http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm#Problems with Lunar Rocks", showing

problem with dating of the lunar rocks, :

The following weblinks would give further material that you can digest and that can help you to make up your own mind as to whether

Do you realise that your pathlights links consist mostly of quotemines, as opposed to something, I don't know tangible?

In any case, an overview and it deals with the lunar issue
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html

[snipped]

About Pangea:
--------------

First and foremost, Pangea is a "speculative" idea by evolutionists that there was a "SUPER-CONTINENT", which was "supposed" to have existed millions, millions and millions of years ago, Because, one of the evolutionist on this thread, mentioned that Pangea has nothing to do with Evolution, I decided to do a little lecture on it, because the "theories" being tendered by evolutionists show that they consider that Pangea is part and parcel of the theory of evolution.

Therefore the statement by that Nairaland Evolutionist that Pangea has nothing to do with evolution, is certainly a completely untrue statement,

The Nature Magazine says and I quote:

"Several possible configurations of the Pangaea supercontinent have been suggested for the interval from late Carboniferous to early Triassic. Here we re-examine the palaeomagnetic basis for these models, emphasizing the trends of the paths of apparent polar wander for the individual components of the supercontinent rather than simply averaging poles of presumed similar age. Two of the alternatives, Pangaea B and C, may result from averaging poles of dissimilar age along common polar wander paths, giving rise to spurious tectonic displacements. The most likely model appears to be the formation, in late Devonian time, of a modified Pangaea (A2) followed by evolution to the traditional configuration (A) during the Triassic."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6075/abs/322162a0.html

The evolutionary concept of Pangea and how it is entwined in the current fossils and the concept of the geologic column, can be read in detail from this

Gross misunderstanding of what is being stated. While the movements of land can affect and effect evolution, that doesn't mean it itself is evolution. Factors like the Sun, also affect evolution, it would be just as silly to claim that the Sun is a part of the theory of evolution. Furthermore, what the section you've quoted is talking about is evolution as in change, not evolution as is used in the context of the change in allele frequencies of a population. That is, "evolution", the English word.

weblinks:

http://geology.csupomona.edu/drjessey/class/Gsc101/Plate.html.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html


Those links show the initial idea and how (as usual) evolution is gradually dumping the unprovable idea of Pangea for other newer ideas (which are likewise unprovable). In the process of checking those weblinks you might come across issues like "Plate Tectonics (idea started about 30 years ago)", "Continental Drift", "Magnetism", "Paleomagnetism", "Fossil Similarities" "Rock Similarities"

LoL. You really are clueless. Do you know what those terms mean? I'll give you a hint, they actually support the idea of Pangea.

Further information (and videos) about the fallacies of Pangea can be obtained (a keen researcher) at the following link: http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

THE BOTTOMLINE OF THIS INFORMATION ABOUT PANGEA, IS THAT CONTRARY TO THE FALSE INFORMATION THAT SOME EVOLUTIONIST ON THIS THREAD ARE TRYING TO PROPAGATE, THE SPECULATIVE CONCEPT OF PANGEA IS INTERTWINED INTO THE WHOLE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND THE EXPLANATION FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANISMS ON THE PLANET. ALSO CERTAIN ASPECT OF EVOLUTION ARE DEPENDENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF PANGEA. THEREFORE BY SHOWING THAT PANGEA IS JUST ANOTHER FANTASY OF EVOLUTION (actually this has been done already) THAT CANNOT BE PROVED, IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT THOSE AREAS OF EVOLUTION THAT DEPEND ON IT WOULD ALL FALL DOWN LIKE A PACK OF CARDS.

THEREFORE SINCE THE RELATIVE NONSENSE OF PANGEA IS BEING SHOT DOWN ONE BY ONE BY SCIENTIFIC FACTS (NOT WISHFUL SPECULATIONS), IT BECOMES IMPERATIVE FOR USE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION IN THE PAST AND PRESENT IS BEING BUILT ON SHAKY AND SPECULATIVE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE OR PROOF.

There's no need to shout; you're still wrong. Evolution, as used in the context of changes within and beyond species, has nothing to do with pangea, and vice versa. The theory of evolution seeks to expore biological evolution.

About Evolution not being about origin:
---------------------------------------

please take note of the following information about Evolution from the University of Waikato in New Zealand. An excerpt from the information says and I quote: [snip]

University of Waikato, eh? Since I can't be bothered to try to find information from other universities, here's just one better known university's teaching. Berkeley: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Would I be mistaken in assuming that Waikato's teaching isn't actually implying that evolution deals with the formation of planets, but rather that it would help the students understand evolution better if they knew what the early Earth probably was like?

Actually, looking at it again, it appears you're wrong. Their plan doesn't include anything outside of biological evolution.

THEREFORE PLEASE NOTE THAT CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME EVOLUTIONIST ON THIS FORUMN ARE TRYING TO DO BY SEPARATING EVOLUTION FROM GEOLOGIC EVOLUTION AND COSMIC EVOLUTION, THE TRUTH IS THAT COSMIC EVOLUTION, GEOLOGIC EVOLUTION AND BIOLOGIC EVOLUTION ARE ALL RELATED AND DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER.

Um, not even a strict interpretation of Waikato university's teaching plan goes that far. So, where are you getting that from?

IN CONSEQUENCE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ULTIMATESLY DEALS WITH ORIGIN OF LIFE, EVEN CHARLES DARWIN CALLED HIS BOOK "The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life First Edition"

Lol. Yes, Darwin's book was called The Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life. I guess we know another term that you don't understand. What a waste of time, eh?

luvus: @kag
thanks but please u have not answered this

Before I go into it, I should point out that I did infact answer most of the proceding questions here. I will repeat the answers to the ones already answered and possibly expand on them if I see fit.

kag: I already answered it. And the question isn't a simple one.
me: so the question of the origin of matters, fermious higgs etc is difficult to ANSWER and not a simple one??

Yes

kag: quantum instability can cause virtual particles to arise from nothing.
me: wooow wooow woooooooow so from NOTHING uhh am i not seeing belief in action here doesnt this sound biblical?

Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(KJV)

kaaaaaaaaaag kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag kkkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggggg ggg

Okay? Simple answer, no.

Quote
4. What causes the repulsive gravitation pull,

Kag: No idea.

me: i tot you are the great evolutionsit, the APE that ansers and you say no idea, ?

I don't know what it is exactly that you expect. I didn't know the answer; I responded accordingly.

see what you said

quoted kag Furthermore, there has to be a clear and logical link between material observations and the application of those observations to something intagible, for the argument to be accepted as a logical one.

me: so where is the link between what casues repulsive gravitaional pull you stated?
oh how absurd please try again.

The link would be in its effects.

kag: we'd have to conclude that based on our wider experience, the thing termed God must also be a mindless force
me: so are u trying to accept that there is a God who u think is mindless after what around us is a doing of AN INTELLIGENT BEING ?

No, I was pointing out the fallacy in trying make the leaps made in his argument. What do you mean by the things(?) "around us" that point to intelligence?

kag:
The idea that something cannot come from nothing is one that is based soley on our experiences in the macroscopic world. While the idea is an understandable one, it presupposes that the universe works only in ways amenable to our intuitions. Scientific discoveries, however, have shown that that sort of anthropomorphic thing is flawed. The same goes with the idea of the impossibility of something coming from nothing.

Virtual particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle) are a very good example of something coming from nothing. They also indicate how quantum fluctuations my occur, and how strange, from the human perspective, the quantum world and the universe is.

While it is certain which of the models in the various theories that go beyond the big bang is completely right, we can ascertain that it is possible for quantum fluctuations to give rise to a smething, a singulrity, that can possible expand.

me : are you still insisting that SOMETHING can come from NOTHING?

I thought that was apparent.

@bowaol
as suspected, the creationist go back to personal insults. hey when all else fails, assasinate your opponents character .

hello but if what u rote is about my addressing u as an APE offends your sensibility, sorry but that is what kag said "HUMAN ARE APES" EVOLUTIOIST. SO if i address you as such i am not insulting you but calling you as you are else if you don't want then you are the image of God hence accept that you are created by God. feeel me?Huh

i read through the radiometric article but i didnt see it discusiing the scientific instrument used to determine the origin of matter which is what i want to hear from you. so kindly give me am waiting

ALL humans are apes.

Things like particle accelerators can help in the understanding of the origins of matter.

luvus:
@all + the APE creatures(evolutionsit) note accordig to kag

we are waiting.

Patience is not just the name of the prostitute down the street.

you see what i see in this thread is that there are technical and non technical respondent to this question of evolution.

technical like sysuser, stimulus etc who do a lot of technical analysis of the fallacies of evolution

Neither of those two have done a technical analysis on evolution. In fact, SysUser is not ignorant about the most simplest facet of evolution, he also apparently doesn't even know the contents of several of the links he's using to spam.

while the not so technical ask simple questions like WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF MATTER , fermous higgs etc like me. but by and large we all come to conclusion that evolution theory is another lie from hell against the word of God.

That's a nice sentiment, but as it so happens it's a polemic that has little foundation. It probably doesn't help that Christians make up a large percentage of people that accept evolution.

Okay I'm back for a little while having cleared up a backlog of pending work. Where necessary I'll try to be as indepth as possible. Others, not so.

Imhotep: KAG has finally dropped a scientific heresy by saying that:

Energy fluctuates at the most quantum level to create fermions,etc: this fluctuation is uncaused.

This is a gross violation of the scientific principle of causality.

Actually, no it isn't. However, just to prove a point, even if causality in modern science means what you think it means, provided that examples of things that violate can be found, the "principle" will then either have to be discarded or amended.

Since science does not admit effects without a cause, we see that KAG has finally arrived at a point of contradiction.

Considering there are quite a few things that occur without a cause, that's wrong

By agreeing that: everything has a cause, except the first cause., KAG has unknowingly crossed over to the side of the creationists.

That wasn't I said. Quantum fluctuations that eventually led to matter, aren't "the first cause". Virtual particles aren't either.

For no created thing is uncaused.

Radioactive decay?

If evolution is true, then God initiated the process. He is the uncaused cause.

Begging the question.

No amount of low level logic can escape from this very tight corner.

What tight corner?

Each child is different and function in individual ways (in the limited sense of the word), so I don't think we random people on the internet can effectively tell you what to do. The best thing you can do, IMO, is talk to her about it - if she's willing to discuss it, that is - and really listen to what she has to say. It's good to hear that you ask her to join you guys; because it can be devastating to be cast aside by a parent simply due to differing beliefs.

In any case, all you can do is love her.



FWIW

SysUser:
First of all I don't have any personal issues with KAG, maybe he does with me I don't know.

After all the mumbo jumbo, the points still:

1. Evolution has no answer for the origin of matter, energy and life.

You think that might have something to do with the fact that the theory of evolution isn't intended to explain any of those things? I don't expect the germ theory or a theory in linguistics to explain any of those things either.

2. Evolution has no idea and evidence about how life came about.

See above.

3. Evolution is being contradicted by Polystrata fossils. Inaccurate Radiometric dating methods, lack of evidence for beneficial mutation, lack of evidence for transitional fossils.

Score one for Creationist dishonesty. This after posts and posts from several people showing exactly the opposite. Then again, it is Creationists after all. Most Creationists are incapable of honesty in a discussion on evolution.

4. Evolution does not have evidence for Otto man clouds,

5. The lifespan of comets contradict the time scale being presented by evolution.

6 The big bang, biologic evolution is still very speculative.

7. Glacier Ice cores, geologic column, tree rings do not give accurate dating methods and are subjective rather objective.

8. Pangea has been shown to be mere "hot air"

9. Amount of dust on the moon, earth's decreasing magnetic field, amount of silt in the ocean is inconsistent with evolution.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I'd advice that you stop swallowing up Hovind's nonsense, but considering you already swallowed them wholesale, that may be expecting too much from you. Not a joke.

olabowale:
@KAG: You sometimes, and very often regress to that One track mind: You confirm, each time that you are not far from what I thought you are; machine or machine line entity. lol. I ask you for a very simple and direct information; If you did not find God (a singular, but most majestic than 'gods; which could mean anything), at the end of it, what exactly did you find, instead you shamelessly begged the Questions. I did not ask you the difference between God and gods. And I did not ask you if God is a subset or not of gods.

I guess I expected too much from you. Let me explain this to you with a limited sketch:

Tracy: "I didn't see a single human being in no.42, down the street."
Olabowale: "Did you see Jenny' husband, John?"
Tracy: "What? I just said I didn't. John is a subset of humans."
Olabowale: "But John is a singular and mort majestic person?"
Tracy: "I'm just going to go the other way now."

By the way, I don't think you know what begging the question means.

I simply ask you, if you did not find anything there, then you must have found nothing. Then what is behind the something that we call the Big Bang?

Nothing.

You see KAG, you seen to be going around in circle (chase the proverbial dog tail), and you could have boldly answer my question?

Ouroboros?

Again if nothing is what you find, then how does nothing becomes the something that was the first thing;

WTF? What is wrong with you people? Look, Simply, I've addressed this several times. I even mentioned virtual particles to give you an idea of quantum fluctuations. Read my responses.

The Big Bang Particle?

No.

At the end of it all, when you finally have the strength to answer my direct question, boldly agreeing that it is nothing, but something that is behind the big bang, you will find "GOD," there! And not gods, which could be anything!

When you finally have the strength to read my responses you'll find a basic framework that can help you understand the Big Bang theory, baryogenesis, and various elements of particles.

TRY again, KAG. I believe you can finally do it! And the deja vu, is on you, because you refuse, again to answer any direct question, except tap dancing all over the places. Again there is my question, please provide an answer;If you say no, I am going to assume that you are saying that when you get to the bottom of it, you found nothing. If this is so, I hereby ask you, how did nothing became something? First start with whereever pleases you and you are comfortable in; either the initial matter that is the central matter of the Big Bang 'Unproven hypothesis,' or you a more complex matter than that initial matter.

Let's hope you read this one:

The idea that something cannot come from nothing is one that is based soley on our experiences in the macroscopic world. While the idea is an understandable one, it presupposes that the universe works only in ways amenable to our intuitions. Scientific discoveries, however, have shown that that sort of anthropomorphic thing is flawed. The same goes with the idea of the impossibility of something coming from nothing.

Virtual particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle) are a very good example of something coming from nothing. They also indicate how quantum fluctuations my occur, and how strange, from the human perspective, the quantum world and the universe is.

While it is certain which of the models in the various theories that go beyond the big bang is completely right, we can ascertain that it is possible for quantum fluctuations to give rise to a smething, a singulrity, that can possible expand.

@Bawomolo:

The issue here is this: Lets talk about time. Can it be measured accurately without other elements which are the basis of it, eg the rotation and revolution of the earth on its in its orbital path: 1 day which is approximately a complete rotation of the earth, while 1 year is approximately 265 or so rotations of the earth, but an approximate 1 revolution of the earth around the Sun. You can not in abstraction calculate time, except that you relate it to something(s). Hence you have to accept the existence of God, relative to what you see, feel and other unknowns.

Um, you do know that time is a dimension, right? It's not a quality that is dependent on the Earth's rotation around the Sun.

@KAG; I see somebody is giving you more than you can handle. You have resulted into hypothesis, theories, etc.

Theories and hypotheses are often the best indication of "reality"

But I am happy to know that you said laws are not answers to everything. At least you are honest. So keep it up. By so doing you will realise that there are still somethings that we have no laws for, yet, because they are unknown or we are just in the earliest, immatured stages of our understanding of them. Yet, according to you there is at least something that will be outside and and all laws, even when we finally have maturity of knowledge to develop laws for evrything we know. Take for example, Angels, Jinns are both creations of God. Yet they will fall outside our known laws; For example, Angels can have x numbers of wings, based on a particular responsibility it will have at the x winged time. It does not mean that it will have x numbers of wings if it were sent to do y thing! Angel can come as a man, yet it not a man. Hence, it is not governed by human laws; it does not eat even when it appears as human. Yet the Creator oif this super being, is God! How then do you expect that God will be known to you, in a physically tangible manner to you, which I thibk is the only reason you have this notion of His non existence.

Does anybody else do a WTF when reading this guy's post, or is it just me? Angels and jinns don't exist = moot whatever the hell you're on about, having misunderstood what Laws (the context should have given it away) mean.

Finally, the virtual particle which you mentioned is does labelled as such by the person who postulated the idea of its existence. My worries is that this person has only used his limited kniwledge to spoon feed us his thought. Since we know less about this 'Virtual particle,' before hand, we have no choice, for the sake of scientific advancement to at least consider his thought.

Which is hwy you and anybody can look them up. I've done a solid of including a wiki link. Virtual particles aren't accepted by a singular person, they are accepted by the scientific community and those on the outside too.

It is in the same vein that people have always believed in the smallest of particle, which you said has no weight and size, yet gave up a Big Bang sound, when it exploded.

The "bang" in the Big Bang is not a reference to sound. I didn't say a particle expanded.

Since is Sum total of its Kinetic (Energy transfer) will be equal to potential/initial energy. Or rather the total energy, using simple Albert Einstein equation of Energy is directly equal to Mass multiplied by Constant squared. We will realise that we have a small mass here and a constant 'c' squared, which is unknown, at the time of the bang, we will realise that the energy that it had potential before then was not enough to make such a bang noise and the small weight, if it has any at all, is not capable to be this much, the Billions and Trillions of massive wight that we have now. It simply points out that the small matter that was involved in the Big Bang, and the resultant masses, energy and forces, since then, have differed scientific reasoning and any kind of of logic.

Oh my goodness, I just realised something: you really, really have no idea what any of the things I'm posting mean. I guess I'm partly to blame as I probably should have tried to break it down some more. Then again, it's possible that if you had read my other responses you wouldn't be drawing such absurd conclusions. I feel bad now.

Just a heads up, "c", in the equation e=mc^2, is the speed of light.

I submit to you KAG, that there was a Causation (An Entity that makes it spring to action), at the time of the Big Bang,

That's not how it works.

Who made this simple, and insignificant matter go under this bang, and continue to react, as if there is a constant stoking of its enrgy source.

Matter came after the big bang.

Inshort, an saying that there is a MOVER who brought about the process and continues to make the process go without stopping.

No.

luvus:
@kag
How many times is this now? At least we now know for certain why you arealways handwaving away posts. No, not every effect has a cause. Radioactive decay, for example, doesn't. Virtual particles are another example. Maybe this time you'll notice the answers. Fingers crossed.

oh so one of the laws is wrong in some instance and right in another instance? i tot laws were the answer to everything?

No, laws aren't the answer to everything. Which law is wrong in some instance and right in another instance? Does tht even make sense?

Biological evolution - as the name implies - is a component of living things. It started with the imperfect replication of living organisms.
hi there Mr APe but another ape(bawol) said that matter consist of living and non living which makes up the evolution theory but what you are saying contradicts what he said in another thread.

I seriously doubt he said "matter consist[s] of living and non living, etc.," especially considering that statement makes asolutely no sense.

higgs It really, really is a complex science
oooo so its complex science and its hard for you to understand? all he asked is its origin period and just give us its origin in black and white words since u understand it.

Yes, it's complex. I already did.

I already answered it. And the question isn't a simple one.
so the question of the origin of matters, fermious higgs etc is difficult to ANSWER and not a simple one??

Yes.

quantum instability can cause virtual particles to arise from nothing.
wooow wooow woooooooow so from NOTHING uhh am i not seeing belief in action here doesnt this sound biblical?

Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(KJV)

kaaaaaaaaaag kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag kkkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggggg

Okay?

Quote
4. What causes the repulsive gravitation pull,

No idea.

i tot you are the great evolutionsit, the APE that ansers and you say no idea, ? see what you said

No. Of course I said I have no idea about what he asked. I really don't.

Furthermore, there has to be a clear and logical link between material observations and the application of those observations to something intagible, for the argument to be accepted as a logical one.
so where is the link between what casues repulsive gravitaional pull you stated?
oh how absurd please try again.

Um, that would be in the effets that resulted after inflation.

we'd have to conclude that based on our wider experience, the thing termed God must also be a mindless force
so are u trying to accept that there is a God who u think is mindless after what around us is a doing of AN INTELLIGENT BEING

No, I was pointing out the fallacy in trying make the leap made in his argument. What do you mean by the things(?) "around us" that point to intelligence?

hi please KAG please lets be objective i see you are trying to discuss some personnal isues wit sysuser, could you try and forget it and asnwer us, remember we are discusiing about the origin of matter maybe afterward we will allow you to settle "scores" with sysuser later. please anser us.

Que? No, seriously, what?

i like the way you make reference to post, could you just create a link to such so i can't be lost and understand it in relation to the subject? and don't be tired we are educating ourselves thank you

No.

@bawol
welcome ape man _{please forum i don't mean to be derogatory because kag agreed that all evolutiosit are ape so permit me to address him as such and hope he is not offened}

No, ALL humans are apes.

now if the radiometic watever was used to determine the age of the earth, can it be used to determine the origin of matter, if not what can be used.
thanks for the

No. Things like particle accelerators can help in the understanding of the origins of matter.

luvus:
@kag
Humans are apes.
Taaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! so you are an APE i gues a big ape

For some reason you think that's an insult.

"Matter is composed of elementary fermions, which makes protons and neutrons matter by definition; and protons and neutrons are composed of [three] quarks respectively. So basically, quark clumps are what make up basic matter. I should mention that matter is basically anything that has mass and fermions. What’s the origin of fermions?

Particles, which is what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.


Fermions interacted with the Higgs field and gained mass, which resulted in matter.

That's as brief and precise as I can make it, feel free to pick up a book on it or something. Kudos to R. Lippens as well."

you try should i be free to address you as Mr APE man and you can address me as God's IMage. which one sounds good/honourable to the ear
but wait bawol said that in another thread that there is no concrete explanation about its origin so how come u say the origin of matter is fermoius una no ther contradict una self, abi una no research well nay or what?

Is that your major objection?

ok as u said so fermious make up matter abi? so the so call R. Lippen as you refered to, was he there when such happened and how did he know all this? and what period or time was he when such occured?
now since matter was made of fermoius, what is the origin of fermoins and is it a living or non living thing to be able to form matter?

No to the first question. From my post: "Particles, which is what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level."

All currently known living things and non-living things are made up of matter.

Quote
so with all the various scientific tools they are not able to determin the origin of matter yet same tools can determine the age of the earth? and go ahead to say they are descendants of apes it gives me some creeps

Different mechanisms wre used to determine those things.

ok good so diffrent mechanism were used abi, ok what are the scientifc tools used to determoin it could you list them for us please?

Knowledge of chemical properties, and the half-life and decay rates were/are used to determine the lower age limit of the Earth (see bawomolo's pot above). The extensive findings in the theory of evolutin were used to determine shared ancestry.

olabowale:
@KAG: I said Gos, you said gods! We are two complete opposing point. One of us must be right for sure. So I ask you since you did not find gods there, did you find God there, then?

God (capital "g" is a subset of gods. Deja vu.

If you say no, I am going to assume that you are saying that when you get to the bottom of it, you found nothing. If this is so, I hereby ask you, how did nothing became something? First start with whereever pleases you and you are comfortable in; either the initial matter that is the central matter of the Big Bang 'Unproven hypothesis,' or you a more complex matter than that initial matter.

I'll cut you some slack because this thread is long so you may have missed it. Something can come from nothing. Virtual particles are an example of that. The quantum world is counter-intuitive. That is not to say, though, that that was wht occured in the incidence of the big bang.

dtw_sola:
The correct answer is Chuck Norris. I thought everybody knew that.

You win this thread. That is the best answer so far.

SysUser:
If i understand you correctly it seems you are staying that the "thing" that "Big Banged", had no size and no weight.

My question is this

when you said it has no size are you saying the the singularity that became the big bang, has a length smaller than Planck Length or equal to zero,

Size implies the existence of Space. Inflation was the expansion of space.

. I am interested to find out how you arrived at that since Cosmic Evolutionists believe that the supposedly "Primordial Singularity that was supposed to have given way to Big Bang, was "supposed"" to have an enormous density and temperature. Having no size means it has an infinity density, which I don't think was mentioned as thus.
How then is it possible for your Big Bang particle to have zero size.

It wouldn't have been a particle that expanded. I would have been more probably, as you state prior to this quoted section, a singularity.

Since you the:

Law of conservation of Mass states that : Matter can neither be created nor destroyed,

Yeah, that's wrong. Matter can be created and destroyed

and also since

First Law of Thermodynamics states that: energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Applicable generally to macroscopic events.

and finally since

Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy states that: the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.

The total amount of energy is generally constant.

So can you kindly please explain to me how come that your Big Bang singularity has a zero weight considering that the total mass of the initial Mass of Energy/Matter singularity that caused the Big Bang is still equal to the total mass energy/mass in the present whole Universe. And we know that matter in the whole Universe has a particular value , so how your Big Bang singularity does not have a weight.

Your question is built on false premises that I address abiove. Also, weight requires gravity.

SysUser:
I sincerely didn't mean it as a form of personal attack on you. I was just trying to make a statement of my conclusion that you were trying to sidestep the obvious implication of your statement about Higgs Field, and why I find it difficult to understand that your explanation about Higg's Field comes after the big bang,

Do you understand it better now?

as such it does not account for the Existence of Matter/Energy that was supposed to have existed at the big bang!

I guess not. Once again, the Hggs Field probably played a part in the existence of matter, it is not what solely accounts for the existence of matter.

Contrary to the perception of the word disingenious, I would prefer that KAG gets the upper hand in the throwing of insults, so long as he understands that Higgs Field Theory is a speculative field which still does not explain the origin of the matter/energy that "Big Banged" and expanded into what we have today.

Read what I wrote again.