₦airaland Forum

noetic:
@KAG
lets assume imhotep was imagining a God. credit to him, he has explained the concept of God within logical and intellectual concept, without any refrence to the bible.

this disproves your belief of an imaginary God. your counter arguments are baseless and reflect an idle mind, that is bent on saying things for the pleasure of being lousy.

very unfortunate.

First, his arguments were based on false syllogims, made several incredible leaps, and on several occasions, begged the question ((see my first response in this thread).

Second, I don't where you got the idea that being able to create arguments for an allegedly imaginary concept means that the concept is then not imaginary, but it's wrong. Bertrand Russell's teacup argument is based on a imaginary concept: the teacup orbiting the sun doesn't automatically become real just because the argument can be articulated.

Finally, he didn't explain the concept of God.

who assesed the existence of God and concluded that d possibility is low? u or who?

I and other non-theists made that assessment. That is not to say some theists haven't drawn the same conclusion too.

and whats the basis of your belief that God is in incapable of being evidenced?

There's a reason religions plae great emphasis on faith. Furthemore, as at yet, no tangible evidence for the existence of any god hs been provided.

your opinion is a reflection of a beclouded mind, that has chosen to run to run away from realities, neccesities, spiritual awareness and consciousness which readily leads to the attainment of understanding.

Except it isn't.

the non-existence of God, has been unprovable over and over again because the service of God has survived all generations(including pre-Christ). I wonder y the world is moving towards Him for directions in the name of several religions including the great religion and judaism?.

Like I said, the existence of imaginary and mythological creatures can't be disproved. Religious beliefs that are amenable to communities draw people.

gods don't exist, they are an invention of man. God exists, man is His creation.

God (with a capital "g" is a subset of gods. Why do you presume that other gods are inventions of humans, but your god isn't?

for u to seek tangible or intangible evidence for His existetence or otherwise would amount to wishful thinking. I only hope u don't run out of His given grace because like Jesus said "omo egbe oni se alayi segbe"

Exactly!

this is thesis, prove it.

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.

depends on where u read about this properties or qualities from. I can however vouch for the christian God. every inherent quality the scpture says he pocesses are provable.
if u follow the laws that abide with each of them, then u will get d desired reults.

e.g if u re sick or in need, it says ask and u shall be given. u must however ask in faith.
the scripture also defines faith as hoping for the things we want, the evidence of things not seen.
and many more examples.

The properties come from the different theists that seak for their gods. So, let me guess, those that are sick, ask and don't get given, are those without faith?

i deduce 2 things from this stsement.
1) this ideas are not urs. urs is a confused mind, that is continuosly influenced by jejunic facts butressed by your rather unfortunate intellectual inadequacies.
2) if these ideas are urs, then I guess u are one of the attention seekers, proliferating nairaland.
y? because u should have read from the bible that the Christian God, came in flesh, he wsa visible, tangible and real (un-imaginery). he ate, drank, walked, slept and shows the way to eternal life.

Um, Jesus wasn't a god. He was a man.

if u refer to sango, ifa, obatala et al, then I agree with u.

I meant all gods. Why do you agree about those ones?

says who?

Says the terms in use.

no. its the other way round.
God is real and existent. to expirience Him, follow the rules as stated in the bible.

you have to establish your belief within logical limits, as to y u think God does not exist.

I did.

then science is stupid.
so i can say u are as good as a goat without proof.

does that readily mean u re a goat? since me too like science don't do proof.
stupid talk

Wow! I'm really starting to reconsider my opinion on the type of people that are drawn to Christianity based solely on the discussions I've had with you guys in the past few days.

First, that's not a scientific statement, that's merely an utterance.

Second, modern science tries to avoid dogmatism, leaves room for falsifiability, and relies on evidence. The concept of "proof" doesn't follow that school of thought and is more appropriate to mathematics.

Finally, there's no need to use the scientifc method to show I'm not a goat because the terms you've used have very particular meanngs and implications; and those things adhere to certain modes of behaviour. However, using the scientific method can show to a ridiculously high degree that I'm not a goat.

exactly!
that explains y u re a goat.
I am not an alcoholic, so I have no prove.

poor joke?

this is readily established in the bible, read to attain knowledge.

Except it can't.

no he wasnt.

he only asked u to prove the basis of your statement that God is unevidenced and mythological

He was, but that bit is referrence to another thread.

olabowale:
@KAG; KAG, as much I may disagree with SysUser, about his choice of god/gods, at least he has a clarity of mind that there is a source of creations.

That is your sole criteria for judging clarity of mind? Seems exceedingly shortsighted, to say the least.

Something created things, known and yet unknown.

Somthing isn't necessarily a cognizant entity. And there is the possibility of processes occuring that are counter-intuitive.

There is no doubt that there are still things yet on known, and even things that we know,we presently do not have complete knowledge about them.

I agree.

Now, tell me about the size of the material/matter /particle that was the centre of the BIG BANG? How large is it? What was its weight? If it was very very very very small (I am emphasising the truth about it. Instead of your atheist fallacies), and having a correspondent weight, we can imagine what kind of of internal (potential turned kinetic energy) force and resultant sound energy it would have produced? A wimper instead of a big bang? Maybe, because there was no noise at all before the 'Big Bang', a starting point of creation, it is termed as such.

No size, no weight.

But in reality, you will have to admit after asking yourself, why did the matter/material/particle of the Big bang actually break apart? What brought the energy that made it break apart? What was there before the Particle and then the energy that broke it apart? What brought the matter to existence? What brought the initial energy to place, as well as the initial particle?

Read my previous posts. I've gone over it at different points.

KAG, unless you are disingenious, you will find God there.

I'm not disingenuous. I didn't find any gods there.

SysUser:
How disingenious of you,

How was I disingenuous?

HOW HARD IS IT FOR YOU TO SEE, THAT IN TIMES OF TIMELINE, THE HIGGS FIELD CAME IN AFTER THE BIG BANG HAS OCCURED, YET THE QUESTIONS ALL ALONG IS THAT WHERE DID THE INITIAL "HOT", "SUPER HOT" "HYPER HOT" "INFINITLY HOT" MATTER/ENERGY THAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG COME FROM, HIGGS FIELD IS NOT AN EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE MATTER/ENERGY THAT EXPLODED TO GIVE THE BIG BANG,

It appears you've misunderstood. Yes, the Higg's field appears after the Big Bang: the state of the universe after the Big Bang was one of incredible heat. I responded on the "antedescent" of the Big Bang in a previous post: I said it ultimately depends on which theory is right. However, the singularity that inflated and emergent energy could have arisen from a quantum fluctuation. That is one probable avenue.

higgs is your "speculative" explanation of how "inertial mass" matter formed "after" the big bang (It beats me how you can see that even from your own referenced article)

No, the Higgs field possibly played a part, but it isn't the explanation. Read what I wrote.

So once again tell me where did that matter and energy come from,

Matter:

"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."

Critique?

Energy: Energy could have arisen in several ways. It's possible though that it could have come to be from quantum fluctuations.

I guess some people need things repeated over and over again before they can come to grips with it. It happens.

imhotep:
Our scientific atheists have failed provide a satisfactory response to this thread.

That's because no response can ever seem satisfactory to you.

What we have seen are dogmatic decalarations - and we don't have to take their word for it.

Ha! Strangely enough, you still haven't shown how my responses were dogmatic. Carry on.

What general advice should we give these scientific atheists

What is a scientific atheist? My advice to them would be don't trust Christians. Many are dishonest and hypocrites. Worse still, they are patronising about it.

imhotep:
These proofs of the existence of God take the form of philosophical arguments:

See above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@KAG
Give us your proof that God does not exist, stop high-lighting imaginary flaws in our posts. Simple request, isn't it?

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.

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

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

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


____________________________________________________________ __________________________________

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

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

SysUser:
KAGS here are some questions from your reference article:

1. First potential energy (not the only type of energy) is zero, but Higgs Fields is non-zero (meaning there is a pre-existing value of energy, a pre-existent energy)

2. Higgs field is "supposed" to be responsible for the genesis of inertial mass

3. Higgs field kicks in when the "Universe cools down",

The above don't contain any questions

4. What about the "active" and "passive" masses.

I'm assuming this is a question. Newtonian physics applies generally to macroscopic events.

Well done KAG, onces more there is lot of puff and huff, and still no substance.

I suspect that your definition of a post with substance is one that, regardless of its contents, extols te Christian God and contains Bible passages.

Your so called article does not answer the question, in fact it raises the question, "WHAT CREATED THE HOT UNIVERSE"

Um, it specifically answered the question you asked. Stop shifting the goalposts. The effect of the Big Bang created a hot state.

SysUser:
Thank God you at least accept that you are not sure about something, , finally KAG, I would have hugged you now, If you were not 1. a guy 2.far away in uk.

Lol. Figures that would be the onlyt hing you'd see in my response. I thought it was common knowledge that there are many things I'm not certain of. Oh well.

SysUser:
From what KAG said
So you are not sure, yet you base you "faith" and "believe" on it, HOW WONDERFUL!

No it has little to do with faith. It has more to do with avoiding dogmatism. Having said tha, no I'm not sure, and I'm open to critiques.

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

kAG said:
, dummy, hmmmm, here we go again, the usually profanity. Temper, Temper

Pointing out as is.

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




Well bro, even a blind man can see that you have not answer the question of WHERE MATTER/ENERGY CAME FROM,

Only because the blind man can't see my response. You quoted it, but I don't think you've read it yet.

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


It's good to see that your are showing the kind of stuff that you are made of

Um, okay?

SysUser:
I asked that does it mean that according to your Dumb-O-Meter, that:

Richard Dawkins, was also not smart or intelligent enough that he could not answer the simple question of providing an evidence of beneficial mutation

No. Richard Dawkins is a very, very smart man, make no mistake about it. I suspect that he could answer the question.

I then gave you this link, www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g,, showing where he was dumbfounded by a very simple question


KAG you said and I quote

Come , if he knew or had a simple and truthful answer to that question, he didn't have go and prepared an article on it, he would have given a straight answer. Anyone, who watched that video clip of where Richard Dawkins was dumbfounded (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g) would notice that they even stopped that camera for a while for him to gather his taughts off-camera, yet he still gave a rather "speculative answer", that shows that his evidence for beneficial mutation is based on the usual "could have" "may have" "would have" "migth have", "millions of years fantasy/speculations of evolution.

Wait, what is your point? Is your argument something along the lines of: that Richard Dawkins may not have been able to answer a question about rise of information on a show, but could in article, therefore, beneficial mutations don't exist.

I really hope not.

By the way KAG, i noticed in one of your posts that you have already tried to dissociate yourself from Richard Dawkins as if he's not smart enough to defend evolution,[

FOR GOODNESS SAKE , PLEASE STOP THIS "DUMP THEM WHEN THEY ARE NO LONGER USEFUL" MENTALITY!

Lol. What? Dude, why do you keep doing this to yourself?

SysUser:
1.lack of understanding
2. not intelligent
3. not very bright,

KAG, temper temper, bro!

I'm not angry, I'm just pointing out as is.

You don't have to try and TASER me with derogatory words, THE DICTIONARY MIGHT SOON BE EXHAUSTED OF DEROGATORY WORDS AT THE RATE YOU ARE GOING.

That's why we have reiteration.

, amount of whining you're displaying, , now that's a good "new" one, KEEP COMING UP WITH YOUR MELODRAMATIC STATEMENTS, THEY ARE QUITE FOR COMMUNICATION, DON'T YOU THINK!

Its funny I had thought we had already started discussing evolution, NAAHAAAAAHH , KAGS MUST FIND HIS IQ SOULMATE FIRST FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED A DISCUSSION, my mistake!

Copy/pastes and subsequent ignoring of responses do not an argument make.

kAG, LET'S TRY AND WORK ON THAT TEMPER, so now sing along with me;, I WILL PRETTY, ALL SO PRETTY,AM SO HAPPY, I FEEL FUNNY, ALL SO FUNNY,

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

Psychological Projection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

imhotep:
@KAG
You are inconsistent,

How so? How have I been inconsistent?

and deserve to be ignored.

You weren't already doing that?

God is the uncaused cause. Let me repeat one of our proofs here:

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

And I'll repeat the response that is applicable to it:

False syllogisms and begging the question.

First, the argument that we can deduce that everything is moved based on limited and material observations is a false one. It inores the fact that things which are counterintuitive exist. 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. Finally, actually, not everything has a mover. Radioactive decay, for instance doesnt. Virtual particles don't either. Those alone render the argument moot.

Edit: In my haste I forgot to incllude a final refutation of the argument that begs the question.

Although it has been shown that the basic premise of the "ex mutu" argument is flawed, there is no harm in pointing out that the final argument is just as bad. The argument presupposes that there has to be a mover that wasn't moved; however, there is no logical reason to call that final mover (in the context of the argument) "God". In fact, there's absolutely no reason to suppose that the "unmoved/unstarted/etc" would be a cognizant or, in fact, something with life. What's more, if decide to accept the principles laid out in the arguments, we'd have to conclude that based on our wider experience, the thing termed God must also be a mindless force.

(substitute uncaused for unmoved where necessary).

You are still battling to understand the things God created millions of years ago. You have no basis on which to question His existence.

Whose existence?

therationa:
The YT videos about Richard Dawkins being stumped by the questions about mutation are the result of Intelligent Design advocates (ID'iots) doctoring the initial interview. I have got a link to the initial interview but unfortunately I cannot find it at the moment.

While there is the suggestion of doctoring, I don't think they did. I accept Dawkins' explanation, though: that he was annoyed at getting tricked to give Creationists an interview. Apparently, they lied that they weren't Creationists to get him to do the show. Which reminds me.

SysUser:
So since they voted in Bush for second term, you are implying that they must be stupid,

It was a joke, dummy. The sentence that preceded it should have turned you on to that.

WELLDONE ONCE AGAIN, by your fruits we shall know you!

Hey, I don't have any fruits. If I was going to own gay guys, I'd prefer butch ones

Quarks, Fermions, gluons, baryons, hardrons,leptons, muons, photons, blah, blah, blah, yadah, yadah, yadah, et al, we can go on maybe for a little while more about DESCRIPTION OF MATTER, and still not be able to answer the question of where matter came from.

Lol. Just lol.

KAG what you are doing is trying to give a description of matter as if that is the origin of matter/energy, YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE MATTER / ENERGY CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Stop begging the question, rather answer the question that: Where did the Quarks (different flavours of quarks et al) come from in the first place.

Um, read my response.

How did the Higgs Field come to existence in the first place (, MAYBE THE HIGGS FIELD JUST EXISTED OUT OF NOWWHERE HEY, DOOH!), IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR ARE DIGGING DEEP AND YET ARE FINDING MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWER, WHEN THE ANSWER IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE ALL THE WHILE.

Higgs field: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Leib-Clk/higgs.html

It really, really is a complex science

I am not asking you for how precise you can get (i CAN ALSO BE AS PRECISE AS PERSONALLY POSSIBLE AS TO HOW A CISCO DEVICE WORKS, YET IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE CISCO DEVICE CAME FROM )

I gave a very brief summary of how matter may have arisen. Essentially, where it came from.

SON ONCE AGAIN , I AM ASKING YOU A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION; "WHERE DID MATTER / ENERGY COME FROM" , Please KAGs try and answer the question this time!

We don't have "millions and millions of years" to wait for your TRUTHFUL answers

I already answered it. And the question isn't a simple one.

SysUser:
New's Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (This means in simple english that, SOMETHING CANNOT HAPPEN WITHOUT A CAUSE)

Newton's laws of motion apply, generally, to macroscopic events, not necessarily micro and quantum effects.

So KAG can you please explain again you statement that:

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.

This is because your statement raises a few pertinent questions that show that you have not answered where matter and energy came from.

1. Where did the energy come from,

That in itself is totlly dependent on which theory or theories are right. Hwoever, like I pointed out to another poster, quantum instability can cause virtual particles to arise from nothing.

2. Why did the energy fluctuate,

I don't know that your question makes sense.

3. What makes the fermion and its anti-particle to collide with each other usually,

Their characteristics

4. What causes the repulsive gravitation pull,

No idea.

Come one KAG you can do better than just speculative answers as reasons for origin of matter/energy!


ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHERE MATTER AND ENERGY CAME FROM,

Um, I did already.

imhotep:
@KAG
Please answer:

Every effect must have a cause.

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.

What causes energy to fluctuate at the most quantum level?

Quantum instability.

If you claim that it is uncaused, then you will be going against your scientific principles. Then I will convict you of inconsistency.

It's uncaused.

SysUser:
@KAGS you said

It is interesting to note that you consider that you consider "that ones view and argument are two different things, ",

KAG it sounds like you are trying desperately to hang unto straws,

They are. Arguments can be used to support a view point; hwoever, as long as those arguments remain internally consistent and are as yet unrefuted, they don't lose their validity simply because of changed viewpoints. For example, that Einstein changed his view on the cosmological constant didn't mean that it was wrong or invalid.

Well according to KAG, Let me ask you as question: If 2 years ago, someone "A" accused a person "B" as being a thief, but now the same someone now changed his views and now says that person "B" is not a thief as he had once said, DOES THAT MEAN ACCORDING TO YOUR STATEMENT, THEN PERSON B IS STILL A THIEF EVEN THOUGH THE PERSON WHO MADE THE SPECULATION HAD ALREADY CHANGE HIS VIEWS AND THUS INVALIDATE HIS EARLIER STATEMENT ABOUT PERSON.

Let's push the hypothesis a little further. Let's assume that person B did steal "those" things and is in fact a thief. Would A's unexplained change of view invalidate the reality of what B is?

Come on , I think you can do better than that, Anthony Flew changing his views simply invalidates his earlier arguments.

How does it?

At least KAG, you being a "Genius" ought to be able to see that, CAN'T YOU!

No, I can't.

Isn't it funny that your claim "millions of years" based on the geologic column,, the geologic column claims millions of years based on the age of the stratas, yet the scientific dating methods (radioactive dating) are very inaccurate (they cannot give a correct answer to a known age).

Actually, no. I already pointed out that the Hovindite utterance you're repeating is hogwahs, so there's no need to repeat that. I will point out though, that the millions and billions of years dates are arrived at especially using several, independent radiometric techniques.

Isn't it funny that within and across different layers/strata of your millions year old earth layers, there as been found polystrata fossils.

Not really, no. Especially considering that has been responded to in previous posts.

There polystrata fossils span different layers, meaning that those layers , cannot be millions of years old. Polystrata fossils (tree trunks, whales). It is funny that you tried to wish aways the existence of polystrata fossils by claiming that they "might be" (another speculation) tree roots that continued growing (, for millions of years through different layers, WHAT!), come on listen to yourself!.

Wow, dishonest much? My speculation was because you were really vague about what you were asking. If you bother to look back, you'll see that your current question, to which you've appended my initial response, is significantly different from the one that my answer was meant for. In any case, rapid sedimentation was responsible for polystate fossils. I already responded to that, howebeit with links.

Well maybe according to KAGs, , creationists are the ones that planted the polystrata evidence.

No.

The POLYSTRATA FOSSILE EVIDENCE (found in "supposedly millions of years old" earth/coal material) alone , DESTROYS THE AGES PROPOSED BY GEOLOGIC COLUMN!,

No.

MR KAG, CAN YOU ONCE AGAIN PLEASE GIVE ME AN EVIDENCE OF A BENEFICIAL MUTATION THAT IS WELL DOCUMENTED TO HAVE INCREASED THE GENETIC INFORMATION PRESENT IN AN ORGANISM,
At least according to evolution, organism were evolved from simple ones to more complex ones, meaning that there was an increase in their genetic information. So please kindly give me an example of a beneficial mutation and another example of an increase in the genetic information,

You know, just because you've chosen to not read my responses doesn't mean I haven't taken the time to answer your questions. I answered this about four or five pages ago, and what's more a few posts agao, provided a write-up detailing the incidence of beneficial mutations. I'll give the previous examples again:

Apo-AIM: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html
Nylon degradation bacteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

By the way , the so called artificial organism that one of the evolutionist on this thread was talking about,, was it CREATED by the scientist or did it EVOLVE from raw materials PROVIDED by the scientist. Did they start from primorial stew when creating the artificial organism, How did they create the initial building blocks for that artificial organism, in what environment was that organism created by the scientist.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Since it is practically impossible to make proteins from scratch without some already made aminoacids, can you please let me know , how the scientist who made this artificial organism were able to go around this problem,

You're wrong.

Making proteins from scratch: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070522210926.htm

KAG,Bawomol, et al !

1. Cosmic Evolution is dependent on the pre-existence of matter and energy, (No matter no planet)
2. Geological Evolution is dependent on Cosmic Evolution (No planet no geology)
3. Biological Evolution is dependent on Geologic Evolution (No geological materials no primordial soup/stew)

Yeah, only the last one is generally called evolution.

So can you please tell me how the matter and energy came to be (in the first place), before your random chance of biological evolution started.

I did it in the post above.

4. Can you please let me know how your biological evolution started,

Did biological evolution start from non-living materials,

OR

Did biological evolution start from neither nor dead "Primordial Stew",

OR

Did biological evolution start from an already living material,

Biological evolution - as the name implies - is a component of living things. It started with the imperfect replication of living organisms.

By the way KAGs just like you are claiming that those who don't believe and accept evolution must be lacking scientific understanding,

NO! Once again, I said YOU lack scientific understanding. I'll repeat it again, since you have a hard time understanding simple concepts: YOU. Not everyone, not otehrs I haven't witnessed, you.

LET ME REMIND YOU THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE

Actually, it is.

(even though you and some other evolutionist are trying hard via propaganda to make evolution look like science), SIMPLY BECAUSE EVOLUTION DOES NOT PROVIDE A SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF ALL ITS SPECULATION, All that evolution is saying is that it happened "millions" "trillions" and "zillions" of years ago, (MEANING THAT THEY BELIEVED IT HAPPENED BUT THEY CANNOT PROOF IT NOW) , dooh!

From my first response to that sort of thing in this thread:

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


Those are just a few examples of the evidence available.

KAG just like you are trying to "play; the you are not scientifically qualified enough card", against someone like me who is against evolution , Let me remind you that even Jesus Christ Himself was accussed of not being LEARNED enough, as such your tactics and methods are not new, rather they are historic!

You're not Jesus. I know you don't have even a decent understanding of science based on your posts.

luvus:
@kag and bawol

i appreciate your effort to prove that you are a descendant of an APE which happen to appear by chance from a big bang millions of years that no one was there to phanthom,

That's not how it works.

for me i am a descendent of adam and eve made by a Higher Intelligence called God which is after His image. i wish you would take the time to re read the bible again with a open mind for u can know Him just by believeing His word.

Don't presume to know my state of mind when I read the Bible.

i ask myself why this discourse on evolution and i realise is that man don't want to acknowledge God so that S/he can do as they please just like animals do as they please. for instance a chick can grow up and still climb its mom. i don't mean to insult you but please when u see yourself as a descendant of an ape you tend to leave just as you please which can almost be equal to animals.

Hmm, so that's what I've been doing wrong. To think that all this time I could have been doing as I please everytime because of the liscence giving to me by evolution. Doh! Well, now that I know,

By the way, for the upteenth time, acceptance of evolution =/= atheism

luvus:
@sysuser
So can you please tell me how the matter and energy came to be (in the first place), before your random chance of biological evolution started.

please ask them oh my brother, i have been asking them esp bawol to please explain the origing of matter and he keeps dodging it and finally says there is no concrete evidence of matter.

Hey, I gave a response in another thread where you asked the question. I'll repost it here (for some reason that took a long time to find):

I wrote this brief summary a good while back:

"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."

Critique?

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.

SysUser:
The KAG pot is calling the kettle black,

Hey, that's racist! In any case, how so?

SysUser:
First and foremost , I am not saying that majority opinion or the personality of those who believe determines whether or not there is a God, what I am simply against is that you have tried to play the "I am smart you are not smart enough card against me",

It wasn't a card. Read my posts and read your contributions in this thread so far.

I am just trying to use the following examples to show to you the ones academic field or status as little or nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. Also It also does not mean that those people below are worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth. I am just trying to point out to you that at least there are people out there would should be smart enough for you to discuss the Lies of Evolution with , (that is off course assuming your insinuations are true, which I want to believe they are not) ,

Oh, I know there people that are smart enough with whom I can discuss the basis of the theory of evolution. I have discussed and debated with such people and learnt a great deal from them, irregardless of their views on evolution. Stop trying to pretend I've stated or implied that people that don't accept evolution aren't smart.

Well Mr or is that Mrs KAG, since you have implied that I must be really stupid (IQ wise) or (academically wise) to have decided to ignore you're seemingly undeniable facts (, fallacies, ) of evolution, I would there would like to know whether the majority of people living in the US who believe in God are also all have a IQ lower than yours.

Once again, many Christians accept evolution. I don't think the majority of people in the US have a lower Iq than I do - I don't know either way. Having said that, they did vote George Bush in for a second term.

I find it interesting that the data provided by this website shows that one can still have a high IQ and still believe in God, yet it seems that you are implying that a lack of understanding/intelligence is the reason for "lack of faith", "lack of believe" and "lack of comprehension" of evolution.

So kindly check out the website and give your opinion on this would you,

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html

Um, no. That's exactly what I haven't been saying. In fact, I've kept informing you that many (most?) Christians accept evolution. I haven't even commented on intelligence and religious beliefs, so I really have no idea where you're getting those implications. I really don't think I can be balmed for thinking you're not very bright.

Again also, since I (that person you have said is not so qualified to discuss with you) might not be able to engage your "High Intellectual Lordliness", at least I think geniuses like Albert Einstein might have able to.

Lol. With the amount of whining you're displaying, one would actually think you had made an effort to discuss evolution with me or anyone.

Wait maybe the following list of "maybe" more qualified individuals might be able to your "High Evolutioness" in a discussion as to why there is God, OR WAIT MAYBE THEY ARE ALSO NOT SMART ENOUGH FOR THEM TO HAVE BELIEVED THAT THERE IS A GOD, since your smartiness does not believe that there is a God!

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

If you want to discuss my reasons for disbelieving any gods exist, then feel free to begin such a discussion. If, however, you want to discuss evolution, then stop confusing acceptance of evolution with atheism.

Finally since you believe that random chance and natural election "selection" ensured that an APE evolved into human,

Humans are apes.

maybe you can give me a little explanation about the mathematical probabilistic conundrum that organisms would have to overcome when faced with "Precise Alternate Splicing" relative to DNA when we talk about Humans and APEs,

Probably a little more millions, trillions, and zillions of years giving to your primordial gook to change to "postmordial" ape would allow for the enormous obstacle brougth about by alternate splicing.

No and no

Read it for yourself in this little weblink for "Pure Review" ,
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/02/07/yet-another-genetic-difference-between-humans-and-chimpanzees

I will. Will you read Pete's Harcoff's little exploration on mutations ratesand why they aren't a problem for evolution? It's in one of my previous posts.

imhotep:
@KAG
I am not bogged down by low level rationalizations,

What is with you and constant handwavings? It really is pathetic. Look, if you can't think of a rebuttal but for some reason you can't acknowledge that fact, then it's best to just not respond at all.

and I have been able to prove the existence of God without resorting to biblical references.

When did that happen? Where is it? That would be an incredible achievement if true. I for one can't wait for you to post that accomplishment.

YOU, on the other hand, are yet to prove that God does not exist. Use your logic, science, rationality, or whatever. Give us a proof. Don't just counter what we say with cheap jabs. We are waiting.

I did respond to the idea of proof and indicated why the concept of a god is unlikely. If I remember correctly, your most erudite response was something along the lines of : "Nice words; but only words nonetheless"


Go figure.

imhotep:
4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

First, this argument presupposes the existence of something akin to the Platonic Forms; however, like Plato's Forms, no evidence or logical argument for its existence has been provided. Also, there is no indication on how the "perfection paradigm" works. Finally, the syllogisms are begging the question again, particularly the final one.

5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.

No, to act for ends is characteristic of instinct. There's no logical reason inherent in the argument or externally to support the idea that an intelligent being guides all natural bodies.


Those were perhaps some of the worst arguments for the existence of a god I've seen.

Oh dear!

imhotep:
These proofs of the existence of God take the form of philosophical arguments:

Before I start I should point out that what you've posted are not proofs. Philosophical arguments, yes. Proofs, most definitely not.

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.

False syllogisms and begging the question.

First, the argument that we can deduce that everything is moved based on limited and material observations is a false one. It inores the fact that things which are counterintuitive exist. 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. Finally, actually, not everything has a mover. Radioactive decay, for instance doesnt. Virtual particles don't either. Those alone render the argument moot.

Edit: In my haste I forgot to incllude a final refutation of the argument that begs the question.

Although it has been shown that the basic premise of the "ex mutu" argument is flawed, there is no harm in pointing out that the final argument is just as bad. The argument presupposes that there has to be a mover that wasn't moved; however, there is no logical reason to call that final mover (in the context of the argument) "God". In fact, there's absolutely no reason to suppose that the "unmoved/unstarted/etc" would be a cognizant or, in fact, something with life. What's more, if decide to accept the principles laid out in the arguments, we'd have to conclude that based on our wider experience, the thing termed God must also be a mindless force.

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

Essentially the same argument as that above. Therefore, look up. Selah.

3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.

Again, pretty much the same argument as the first one.


Gotta go, I'll address the rest later.

SysUser:
Thank you to the person that posted about Anthony Flew, I never heard of him before, until then.

SHOULD i PASTE MORE OF MY SUPPOSEDLY "LESS INTELLIGENT LINKS"[/color]

You think they serve a purpose?

Richard Dawkins, also was not smart or intelligent enough that he could not answer the simple question of providing an evidence of beneficial mutation

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Which is why he answered the same question in a detailed article. Doh! By the way, that wasn't the question.

, LORD THANK YOU THAT , VICTORY IS SURE!

, the LORD GOD REIGNS,

SysUser:
[color=#000099]Praise the Lord God Almighty , WHO WAS, WHO IS AND IS TO COME,

Lol. Hyperbolic much? I can see why you can't bother to a get a cursory understanding of the science theories you oppose.

Just so you know, many Christians accept evolution.

Then Richard Hawkins

Who the hell is Richard Hawkins? Is he any good at what he does?

stranger26:
Consider this, the famous scientist and atheist Prof. Anthony Flew, whose arguments were being used by atheists worldwide to support their claims that God does not exist. He changed his mind. He has now written a book about the existence of God.

That he has changed his views does not invalidate his arguments. Not that you said it does. I also don't think he wrote the book.

Imagine, the unrelenting atheist has become a deist! I always say, and will continue to do so, that only an ignorant person will say God does not exist. Study the beauty and perfection of the world around you, of yourself, of the smallest cell and tell me how that came about by chance!

I suppose it's a matter of perception. Some non-theists think like you do: that is, only an ignorant person will say gods exist. While I make no judgement either way on who is being the ignorant one, I do believe that the naturalistic explanations make more sense than the religious beliefs.

That's partly why I'm a science student. i looove it! How amazing the tiny mitochondria in the cell is! The perfection of creation! Just study DNA; how could that have arisen out of chance?

Not necessarily chance. Sure a few fortiutous incidents may have occured, as they tend to do, but to some extent, since certain chemicals react in certain ways and certain processes can only proceed in a limited way, it's not appropiate to think of it as chance.

Study a bit of astrophysics and tell me how that could have come about by chance.

Easily, apparently.

i partially believe the Big bang Theory but in a modified way. And It includes God. You should read the book "The Unified Theory of Existence" by The Great Prophet Al'Mahdi. The author was a die-hard atheist who once said "If there was ever going to be the last person on Earth who didn't believe in God it would be me". He did three and a half PhD programs, studied physical sciences, social sciences, educational psychology and all. His books explain the existence of God from an objectively scientific view. It's really interesting and incorporates the Big Bang, evolution, Quantum Physics, etc.

a fair enough view.

SysUser:
KAG,, why is it that you decided to know where God came from, let me guess, YOU DON'T HAVE CLOSURE ON WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS, YET IT SEEMS YOU ARE SCARED TO PIECES WHILE YOU ARE ALONE AND IN SECRET, THEREFORE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OR SELF CONVINCING LOGIC TO GIVE YOU PEACE OF MIND THAT WHEN YOU LIVE THIS WORLD , YOU WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE ECOSYSTEM.

No, on all counts. I haven't decided to know where the Christian God comes from, since that endeavour would be a rather shortlived and moot one. While, I may be anxious when alone, it has nothing to do with the existence of gods. I am not looking for any conclusive evidence as so far it would seem there isn't any for the existence of gods, and there isn't likely to be any. If shown otherwise, I'll amend my opinion accordingly. Stop presuming things about me: your understanding of what makes me tick is just as poor as your understanding of the theory of evolution - and that is saying a lot.

i AM SORRY TO INFORM YOU THAT WHEN YOU LEAVE THIS WORLD AND LIVE, THEN JUDGEMENT , AND, UNFORTUNATELY, ANYBODY WHOSE NAME IS NOT FOUND IN THE BOOK OF LIFE, THE SECOND DEATH (LAKE OF FIRE IS GUARANTEED, AFTER THE SORROW AND PAIN OF THE FIRST DEATH,

That's nice. Well, as long as you can hold on to your dreams of an exclusive club, everyone else be damned.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Matthew 27:

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

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

KAG's you said and I quote:



KAG, K? Against God

No.

I find it suprising that you fail to see or realise that you have already indirect insults at me, when you said and I quote " Don't try and say , you did bring up insults when it was mentioned that , "those that don't believe evolution lack understanding" (same thing as saying we cannot understand the noneexistent scientific and academic evidences for evolution. )", and yet you seem to still be promising me more insults, due to your self perception of relatively higher intelligence in comparison to your personal assessment of my lower intelligence, , PLEASE!

No, I'm not going to insult you because I feel you have a lower intelligence than I do - I don't know whether you do or not. I am going to insult you because you have been disingenuous and decided to argue vehemently against theories you clearly don't understand in the least. I am going to insult you because rather than bothering to get a decent understanding of what it is you intend to argue against, you instead chose the dishonourable road of block spamming with pratts, idiotic rhetoric and a host of links - several of which were even refuting your claims. Despicable people like yourself get the derision they deserve.

Hmm interesting maybe according to your criteria of eligibility of being able to discuss evolution, then ALL ENGINEERS THAT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, AND ALL ENGINEERS THAT BELIEVE IN CREATION, SHOULD BETTER STAY AWAY FROM DISCUSSING EVOLUTION, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE DUMB-O-METER MEASUREMENT, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE OR QUALIFICATION TO DO SO.

I stand corrected, it does seem that I might have a higher level of intelligence than you (not that it matters that much, I suppose). That is the very antithesis of what I wrote. There's absolutely nothing in my post to give the starnge interpretation you've drawn from it. In any case, I repeat:

" You DO NOT have a sound scientific background. You may have some idea about engineering, but that subject isn't being debated at the current moment."

@KAG, while you were responding to me you said and I quote:


You are now claiming to have a higher intelligence and science given authority to know who is academically and scientifically capable of speaking on the falacies and lies of evolution (The Judge, Juror and Executioner, ) , yet you either ignore or simply refuse to see that the statements which you make in defense of evolution in itself are subjected to "Pure" Review , by people that are ready to speak the truth in love.

No, no, no. It's really easy to deduce that you not have a sound scientific background from your posts. For crying out loud, you mischaracterised the incidence of dust on the moon and claimed that it somehow falsified evolution. Nobody with a decent background in science, particularly evolutionary science, makes inane arguments like that.

Still you make statements with blatant insults or statements with undertones of insult and inherent pride of as an infinitly wise and intelligent individual, that others must bow down to in the arena of academic understanding and intelligence.

Projection.

[color=#990000]Psa 14:1 <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

So you worship Loki, the trickster God? I guess Nordic mythology is really back with a bang.

Nonetheless after claiming you did not insult me earlier, you then go ahead anyway to insult me (a lesser intelligent mortal, please! ) , WHAT MORE COULD BE FAR FROM THE TRUTH,

Here's an advice for you: stop whining, pick up a book that adequately explains the theory of evolution, and then come back to debate it if you still have your doubts. See above for why you deserve insults, which by the way came after you falsely accused me of doing so. C'est la vie.

[snipped inane rant]

See if you can figure out the differences between your methodology and Einstein's

It is understandable, if you want to believe that you evolved from a primordial soup/stew/ogbono (millions or billions of years ago, in a galaxy far far away , STAR WARS ). It is also understandable if you think you evolved from a APE like ancestor , millions,billions, trillions, zillions, oops sorry, millions of years ago, on a rocky primordial stew holding planet known as Earth.

You are mixing up two different theories again. Apes didn't arise from a primodial soup. While it's probable that life may have arisen fom inorganic "life", that's not the same thing as the exploation of diverse species.

It is understanble that you believe the APE like ancestors could , have developed a beneficial mutation (after they had been killed by the initial destructive mutations) (), you somehow developed that Nonetheless that would still not mean that I would not tell you that:

See my previous post that shows why beneficial mutation rates is not a problem for evolution.

1. YOU DID NOT JUST COME FROM PUFF, (NOTHING),

Actually, I did come from nothng; we all did. By "I" and "we", I mean essence. I believe "Existence precedes essence"

2. YOU ARE JUST NOT HERE FOR NOTHING,
3. YOU WILL NOT JUST LIVE FOR NOTHING,
4. YOU WILL NOT JUST DIE FOR NOTHING,

I agree.

5. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO NOTHING AFTER DEATH,

Well I'm not really going anywhere after death, so I suppose that includes nothing as well.

1. You are her because you were created by God

No, I'm really not her. Gods don't exist.

2. You are made according to His Purpose
3. You either live for God or the Devil
4. You either die in the knowledge of the hope of salvation or die like a man with no hope.
5. Its either Heaven or (Hell and Lake of Fire).

All this kind of hopeless future can be avoided IF AND ONLY IF YOU ACCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOUR,

THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO PISS ME OFF, THANK GOD FOR HELPING ME NOT TO GET TOO PISSED OFF.

Blah blah to the sentences preceding the final shout. I'm not trying to piss you, so it's doubtful that any god is helping you not get angry. I do find it interesting, though, that you think I'm trying to annoy you. Things that make you go hmm?

imhotep:
Just that the arguments sounded dogmatic ( the same accusation leveled against Church/theist arguments).

How so? I don't see how or why you think they are dogmatic. It's even more puzzling considering the comparism you've made.

We want to see and touch the proofs, the scientific way.

Wait, what? Okay, now you've confirmed my earlier suspiscions. I'm out.

imhotep:
Nice words. But words none the less.

You expected pictures?

Not enough to convince anyone (beyond reasonable doubt) that God does not exist.

Why not? If the subject was the existence of, say, a leprechaun or Zeus, would those words have been enough?

imhotep:
We don't have to take your word for it that God is imaginary and mythological.

Give us a scientific proof, beyond reasonable doubt that God is imaginary, mythological and does not exist.

It appears you haven't understood my post. I should point out that at this point that it appears you're being asinine and simply appending the same catch-all to any response that is posted.

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

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

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


______________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

luvus:
@bawol
the burden of proof is bound on the proponents of a new idea to show that it's true. the job of the atheist is to attack the shoddy beliefs of theists. the only proof theists have is "faith". how do u bring up physical evidence against "faith" especially involving an abstract entity. what are the parameters for which we can test the existence of God??. if so, bring it on. the tables have been turned brother

so you don't have faith abi?

it seems you are asking about the existence of God? well i think i have a simple question for you.

xtian: do you breathe in air?
atheist: yes

xtian: do you see the air you breathe?
atheist: no

xtian: do you see the evidnce of the air around us?
atheist: yes

conclusion: so the air does not exist because i don't see it.

I doubt disbelief is based simply on sight. Just saying.

hi bawol
i am still asking you in the other thread, where did matter come from? how did it come to exist?

I try not to do this, but what the hell, why not. I wrote this brief summary a good while back:

"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."

Critique?

®~^Sly^~®:
Psalms 14:1, which states: The fool says in his heart, "God does not exist."

"But the wise say it aloud."

bawomol:
Christian: The Big Bang is impossible because you can't have something from nothing.

Atheist: Ok, so where did God come from?

Christian: God is omnipotent, omnipresent. He has always been. He doesn't need a creator.

Atheist: Ummmm, right. So the Big Bang needs a creator, but God doesn't. Good logic example there.

To add to that, it's inetersting to note that even the argument "you can't have something from nothing" is inaccurate.

imhotep:
Then, Atheist should use his all-powerful logic to prove that God does not exist.

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.

therationa:
KAG,

My apologies. I mistakenly took one of the cut/paste in your posting as representing your views.

No problem. With the amount of copy/paste SysUser posted, it's not really surprising.

therationa:
KAG,

did I misread your entries and ascribed a wrong understanding to you. Shout if I did

Yuppity!

imhotep:
I am not criticizing you. I am just saying that the scientific method is not enough to understand the universe.

Science, for instance, has failed to discover the origins of the universe. Why do u think this is so?

Because the principles of science breakdown as scientists approach the smallest unit of time. That's understandable because they probably didn't exist prior to Space and Time.

imhotep:
Science will never pin-point the origins of the universe. No amount of string theory or any such thing will lead anywhere satisfactory.

I disagree. Strin theory has made great inroads into the question of the universe and possible branes.

Theists have never sought the origins of the Creator. The Creator has no origin. Take it or leave it for science to fumble over.

Untrue. The ancient Greeks have Zeus coming from Cronus, and as you go back it goes back to Nyx and Chaos. Some other religions have had a view on that too

Hitler and Stalin were critical thinkers in their time. Put together, they are responsible for the death of at least 30 million people. Is this the kind of vision you have for Nigeria and Africa.

Religious fanaticism is not good. Neither is downright atheism. Both are extremes to be avoided

Not this silliness again. I wouldn't consider Hitler a critical thinker. Stalin, yes, not Hitler.

What is downright atheism again?

It's a religion. What a weird question.

We have encountered many atheists on this forum. It has been interesting discussing with them. I only have one outstanding issue:

I would like to see a convincing proof that God (the creator of the universe) does not exist.

Please, I am waiting,

Who?

therationa:
KAG,

You seem to conflate evolution (biology) with plate tectonic (geology).

?

And now we are on to the copy/pastes. It was inevitable, really.

SysUser: Please don't let us deceive ourselves into thinking that similarity between aPE and human genome is the same explanation for evolution, for more details please read the excerpts below, it was taking from http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=33 :

How, then, do you explain shared endogenous retroviruses, and the presence of chromosome no.2?

Chimpanzee genome unravelled and the media's evolutionary 'agenda'
Andrew Sibley


2nd September 2005

A group of 67 scientists in the ‘Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium’ have recently pieced together the entire genome of the Chimpanzee (Pan Troglodytes). This interesting and important piece of research has been published in Nature of the 1st September 2005.[1] This project’s findings claim that 98.8 % of functioning Chimp DNA is identical to human DNA, a 1.2% difference, although the difference is larger when all DNA is taken into account with a figure closer to 96% similarity, or 4% difference. There is nothing new in these claims as similar figures have been around for sometime.


Although some evolutionists have claimed that this proves evolution, it only demonstrates what creationists have been saying all along, that similarities of this kind point to a common designer, not to common descent. Creationists dispute as well that any DNA can be labelled ‘junk’. A computer uses for instance an operating programme such as MS Windows, and functional programmes such as MS Word or MS Excel. Both are essential for the functional use of a computer and we cannot label the operating programme ‘junk,’ while expecting the computer to work without it. In the same way all DNA is essential for the health of an individual.


The mutational problem for evolution


The difference of 4% between human and chimp DNA represents a 120 million base pair difference, with changes being expressed as deletions, insertions and rearrangements. Evolutionists claim that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor over 6 million years; therefore if we allow an average of 10 years for each generation, then there would have been 600,000 generations. Every generation would have to have a mutational genetic change of 200 base pairs to turn an ape into a man.[2] There is no evidence of this genetic drift in the present day human or chimp genome. What is more is that natural selection claims that such mutations would be entirely random, but to turn an ape into a man would be a progressive improvement from a non-sapient animal into a sapient human being.

I'll stop it here, since the rest will be addressed in the response anyway:

Here: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=15972001&postcount=31 Pete Harcoff, does an estimation of beneficial mutation rates and shows that the rate isn't a problem. That is applicable to the shared ancestry of humans and chimps.

"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."

SysUser: Another evolutionnary foundation bites the dust, all you so called evolutionists should check this out (http://www.physorg.com/news115312740.html) or read the thing as copied and pasted below:

Studies of ancient supercontinent don't match up
For a quarter-century or more, the prevailing view among geoscientists—supported by paleomagnetic records in rock—has been that the portion of the ancient supercontinent of Pangea that is now the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah shifted more than 1,300 miles north during a 100-million-year span that ended about 200 million years ago in the early Jurassic Period, when Pangea began to break up.

, Here goes another evolutionary theory, Puff Puff Puff, it also bites the dust. Grin Angry Shocked Cool Huh Tongue Embarrassed Cry


Dunes, climate models don't match up with paleomagnetic records
For a quarter-century or more, the prevailing view among geoscientists has been that the portion of the ancient supercontinent of Pangea that is now the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah shifted more than 1,300 miles north during a 100-million year span that ended about 200 million years ago in the early Jurassic Period, when Pangea began to break up.

Is it too much to ask that you don't behave like an ass, and actually bother to grasp what the theory of evolution is? At the very least stop acting stupid and copy/pasting long articles on subjects that have nothing to do with evolution.