₦airaland Forum

SysUser: 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. ).

I don't remember saying that. Could you perhaps show me where I said that? However, it is clear that you don't understand the theory of evolution, or in fact geology and several aspects of physics and chemistry dealing with cosmological issues and the half lives of elements.

Therefore I decided to make my academic standing known so that anyone who likes to make a personal insult to me (for not supporting evolution) based on wrong assumption that creationist do not have sound scientific background, would at least think twice before doing so.

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.

Well it doesn't really matter whether you insult me or not , you would not be the first evolutionist to insult a believer in God , based on intellectual prejudices.

So you don't actually have any evidence that I insulted you? Then why say I did? I might insult you after this.

Also I did not institute an argument based on popularity, i was just trying to mention the example of the scientist that believe in God as against those evolutionist who always imply that only those very stupid people and non-scientist believe in creation. Since you have stated that I was the one who based the argument on popularity, I would be happy if you can point it out from any of my previous post where I did that, instead of accussing me again!

"First and foremost there is a propaganda being spread to make it look like scientists are the ones that believe in evolution and non-scientist are the ones
that believe in creation. That is entirely false, there are lot of scientist that are convinced that evolution is false."

Cue links with scientists

Well it has a lot to do with the discussion , because someone support evolution insinuated that evolution was right and creation was wrong simply because the supreme court ruled that creation was pseudoscience.
Hence I was simply trying to point ot that , in matters of science, , a court rulling is irrelevant, in the determination of what is actually scientifically true.

I see. I should point out though that in the Dover ("Kitzmiller vs Dover"?) case, it was the nature of the ruling that was significant. Having accepted that Creationism is in fact religious, Creationists were pushing for the pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design in schools. That was deemed religious too. That may have been what whoemever you were responding to, meant.

Some of the answers that you are giving are still based on "uncertainties", yet you expect people to dogmatic accept it as facts and reasons as to why evolution is true. Please come on,

First, what answers are based on uncertainties? I know several are, but I'm curious as to which ones you mean.

Second, I don't want you to accept anything dogmtically. Considering I've tried to show several times that science tries to avoid dogmatism, it would be very strange for me to advocate dogmatic acceptance.

Currently, a lot of nonsense assumptions are made, are a result please let me know About carbon dating:

1. How do you know the amount of Carbon 14 that was initially in the atmosphere,

2. How do you know the atmostphere/earth has already reached the equilibrum

3. How do you know the initial amount of carbon 14 in the animal being dated

4. How do you know the final amount of C14 in the animal after death,

SysUser:
Quote
@bawomol said , put up or shutup
Temper temper bro, no need to get all feisty with me,


Examples of carbon 14 giving bullshit dates include:

The dating of the shell of a snail (carbon dating methods have rated a snail shell at 2300 years old, yet it was known to have died only days before the examination),

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp



About your other absolute dating methods, take a look at the messup that K-Ar (Potassium - Argon) as gotten itself into


Potassium -Argon method is used to date/test fresh lava for which correct and exact date is known, yet the potassium -argon still gave , false dates, so much for absolute dating methods. (Ar-Ar dating assumes there is no excess argon) (200 year old lava dated 2.96 billion years old?) (Fresh lava dated as 22 million years old.)

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html
http://www.icr.org/article/353/
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie023.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/dating-f.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/radiometric.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

Once again, just in case you missed it in your haze of posting idiotic links and mistaking that for actual acquisition of knowledge:

Seal's dating: reservoir effect: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

Snail's: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

potassium-argon dating and lava: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html


By the way, who said potassium- argon dating is absolute? You do know it ihas been superceded, right? Oh wait, of course you don't.

imhotep:
Good, now, why does anyone have to take your word for it that it doesn't

You don't.

SysUser:
You did not talk about polystrata fossil details.

I didn't need to, the links that, well, you provided but didn't read gave the answers.

You have also started making personal attacks instead of basing the discussion solely on the information at hand,

What personal attacks? What discussion?

By d way I have a first class degree in engineering and I am soon going to start a PhD program in Robust Control System, so look before you when trying to play the crap academic intelligence card and insult.

I'm happy for you. I don't remember talking about your academic intelligence etc. So, um, paranoid much?

By the way who told you that a lot of scientist believe in evolution, give me a poll result data showing that,

Here you go: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth

also a lot of people believed the sun was once going round the earth, it was later found to be false. Galileo was isolated because his science did not tally with the popular opinion.

That's right. However, it was the church that isolated him, and after most scientists and people accepted what the evidence was showing, it was still the Bible literalists that held on to the belief that the Earth is stationary.

Abeg popular opinion has nothing to do facts and figures.

I didn't say it did. You were the one that initiated an argument based on popularity.

Also that the supreme court declared something to illegal does not make it wrong. Racism was wrong and yet supported by law for a while. Communism was wrong and yet supported by law, Nazism was wrong and yet supportef by law.

Okay? What does any of that have to do with nything?

Scientific facts do not need a court of law to justify whether or not they are true, (The fact would prove itself and stand firm in the face of opposition.)

Exactly.

luvus:

@kag
Quote
If u want to believe that there's no God, then ask yourself why is it that all these things have happened and there are witnesses to it.

It's likely they didn't happen. What witnesses? Are supposed witnesses always a reliable source, especially when they are biased?

lets see if u consider that witnesses given are not true, then who were the witness when according to evolution theory, the earth formed out of disk of gas and dust.? where they there when it was formed or it was just assumed to be?? and please quote it completely

You lost me. The witnesses portion was for something different. In any case, never mind. First, the theory of evolution makes no judgement about planetary formation. It deals, instead, with biodiversity.

Second, witnesses aren't necessary in order to deduce scientifically what may have occured in the past.

Finally, quote what completely?

It is not known with certainty how planets are formed. The prevailing theory is that they are formed during the collapse of a nebula into a thin disk of gas and dust.


so its not certain how it was formed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Formation

Yes, it's not known for certain.

@kag
- 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.

[Quote]
If humans are not descendants of living apes then which apes were we descendant from?

Extinct apes. humans and other currently living apes share distant common ancestors.

hello are u not contradicting yourself?[/quote]Um, no. Where do you see a contrdiction?

imhotep:
No, does not make sense. Since the Universe (together with the vacuum, singularity and/or quantum flunctuation) has to be located somewhere,

That's the point, it doesn't. The quantum fluctuations in a vacuum means instability in "nothing", where nothing really does mean nothing. The problem is that because the human mind has never encountered "nothing" as a reality, the concept is counterintuitive. In any case, if a singularity came to be from a quantum instability and that singularity expanded, then that would be everything - the Universe.

the right sequence of questions will be:

In what is the Universe contained? And what contains the container of the Universe? and so on for sequence of containers. And so we question ad infinitum.

Again, it depends on which theory or hypotheis is the right one. I was trying to point out, though, that an infinite sequence isn't necessary, through one example.

There is something senseless about such an ad infinitum sequence of questions.

It's turtles all the way down.

imhotep:
Nothing A vacuum in a container presupposes the existence of non-vacuum outside the container.

It seems you've gotten something wrong soewhere. Assuming the singularity from whence Space and Time emerged came to be as a result of a quantum flunctuation, then the Universe would be all that exists. Therefore, any vacuum would be in the universe. I hope that makes sense.

I don't think that 'Nothing' is a good enough answer. Please try again.

You may think it's not a good enough answer, but it would be an hypothetically right answer.

imhotep:
Now, if the universe was initially a vaccum in which particles suddenly came into existence, the next question will be:

- What surrounded this vacuum; in what was it contained?

Nothing.

- What also contained the container of this vacuum?
- etc, etc, etc,etc.

Nothing.

And the pratt train just keeps a-rolling only this time it's chosen to hurl a garbage of links with it. hurray!

SysUser:
First and foremost there is a propaganda being spread to make it look like scientists are the ones that believe in evolution and non-scientist are the ones
that believe in creation. That is entirely false, there are lot of scientist that are convinced that evolution is false.

Oh no, most everyone knows that there are a few scientists that don't accept evolution. However, the number of scientists that reject the theory of evoluton is relatively low, and lower still in those involved in biological science.

---------------------------
The lies of Charles Darwin

check this link to find out about he scientists that believe that evolution is false, Charles Darwin was propagating falsehood,

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com
http://www.discovery.org/csc/

The list of those scientist against Darwinism is given here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Chaffin.pdf

Project Steve is still ahead:

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Check out the Steve-o-meter.

Also there are a lot of scientific evidences that simply show that evolution is false.

so please don't try to use a smoke screen of saying evolution is science (it is not), evolution is just mere speculation based on the "prejudiced

interpretation of the individual", it is not supported by science.

Untrue. I've addressed that in my previous posts.

Even Charles Darwin himself was confused about he impossibilty that the "Eye" could have evolved, check out "Charles Darwin comments on the human eye.

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/darwineye.htm"
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118

Not really. However, even if Darwin was confused, modern scientists aren't confused on how the eye - including human eyes - may have evolved and evolved again and again.

See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

The unfortunate thing is that since those that believe in evolution ultimately do not believe in God, it simply influences their world view and decisions.

which ultimately leads to sadness, evil actions and violence for which they are simply accountable only to themselves.
Check out about Stalin : http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276
Check out about Karl Marx :

Nonsense. Most of the people that accept the theory of evolution are theists. Marx wasn't influenced by Darwin and neither was Stalin. Stalin's biological basis was Lysenkoism (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism)

Like I have said random mutation can cause damage, but please can you tell me where random mutations can cause evolution of one animal to another (please

don't tell me it has happened millions of years ago, i am interested in repeatable evidence) . Check this weblink about the lies about mutation out:
http://www.pssiinternational.com/

Two examples:

Allopatric speciation in fruitflies: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_45

Speciation in African elephants: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/5534/1473

---------------------
Ancient Dragons or Dinosaurs

Please let us understand that Dinosaurs where mentioned in the bible (Leviathan and Behemoth anyone).

Leviathan and Behemoth weren't references to dragons. You've misinterpreted those verses.

Also let us understand that the word Dinosaur is a

recent word, it is possible that Dinosaurs were called Dragons before,

It's possible, but highly unlikely.

Also were do you think the legends of Dragons in England came from , the legends of dragons in the Chinese culture.

Same place the legends of unicorns, fairies, mermaids and leprechauns came from.

Also ask yoursel how there are drawings of dinosuars in this particular ancient cambodian temple (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm), even

before the present day nonsense of evolution.

That's not a dinosaur.

You can cross check for yourself occurences of dinosaurs in history, via ://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Even the sumatrans had dinosaur pictures,
South American Nasca
Cree Indian art
Bambara peoples of Mali
A dragon was said to live in the wetlands near Rome
European reports of flying serpent living in Egypt persist through the 1600’s
Khmer civilization
Bushmanland, South Africa
A similar petroglyph (carved rock drawing) has been found in Arizona’s Havasupai Canyon (photo taken by Dr. DeLancy)
The January 2003 issue of National Geographic magazine presents an artifact described as a "cosmetic palette . . . from a cemetery of the first dynasties in

Manshaat Ezzathttp

What I find interesting is that the most inocuous of drawings - which on close review indicates something other that what you suppose - is all the evidence you need that dinosaur were dragons and coexisted with humans, but scientific evidence is dismissed out of hand.

-----------------------
Blood in T Rex. Bone

Blood found in T.Rex bone simply shows that the bone could not have been millions of years old, simply because Science says that DNA does not survice for

more that 100000 years.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=97jYngUaepA

The wrong notion about fossilisation does not explain the existence of testable blood in the TRex simply because DNA cannot survive as long a millions of

years. Hence the bone simply cannot be millions of years.

Not quite. It was assumed that organic matter couldn't survive fossilistion. that was the wrong assumption. That collagen was found in the bone of the t-rex is no indication of its age, nor does it change the dating of the fossil.

See also: http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21549748-948,00.html

-----------------------
The Mammoth Conundrum

It is true that I might have wrongly stated that evolution says that mammoths were millions of years , nonetheless evolution still wants us to believe that

mammoths live many thousands of years, ago. Yet it becomes very difficult to comprehence how it was possible for an undigested food to be found in one of

the frozen mammoths.

Um, the mammoth was frozen!

The undigested food found in the Mammoth simply shows that:

1. The Mammoth died while eating

2. The Mammoth did not die for millions of years , or else the food would have rothed not be found at all.

Why? Why would the state of the mammoth and its inards change if it was completely frozen?

More issues about how the mammoths fits with the bible and how the false view of evolution about mammoth is dicredited :

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mammoth.html

http://corior..com/2006/02/part-2-polar-regions.html

Wrong. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

-----------------------
Polystrata Fossils

I am sorry that I said Stratafied fossils (i did't remember the name then), the correct name for such fossils is "Polystrata Fossils". This means fossils

that are found extending different strata of layers. They have been found between Sedimentary rock and coal. Their existence simply shows that those layers

simply cannot be millions of years as false stated by geologic evolution.

An the geologic evolution (geologic column) is the one which is used to try and

date fossils,

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html

How would explian that Whale skeleton was found standing upright through different layers that was supposed to be "millions" of years old, rather it simply

shows that the layers are not millions of years old as you want people to believe (cause evolution is based on baselles faith in the existence of things

which cannot be proven with science, ). Yet because evolution gives a reason to remove God from the equation people quickly want to believe it so that they

can continue living the same kind of self indulging lifestyle.

Look let us stop deceiving ourselves the presence of polystrata fossils and lack of transitional form of fossils, simply shows that there was a sudden

catastrophe (Noah's Flood) which buried all of this animals alive. Hence the position we are now finding most of them.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Polystrate_fossils_indicate_massive_sudden_deposition

I think it would be best if you read a few of the links you provided:

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

Also, they don't indicate a worldwide flood, they indicate exactly what they state in the above.

Whale polystrata which you helpfully provide below: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

-----------------------
Is it a Whale or no wait is it a Swimming Cow or a swimming Deer

Evolutionist say whales came from cows and/or deer, and that the small bone found in a whale is a vestigial organ. Well that is a lie is known that the

small bone found in the whale is used for sexual excapades in the whale, so that alone says it is not a vestigial organ as speculated by evolution.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/manatee/sirenian_evolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-03-11-wonderquest_x.htm

It's vestigial because it's reduced in function. Not a cow nor a deer.

----------------------
Falacy of the Dating Methods

The so called dating methods used to deceive people into believing that fossils are millions of years old, simply show that those dating methods are not

correct.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp#table1


Variosu examples are shown of when wrong results are obtained from the dating methods on which the millions of years of evolution is based .e.g.


Ficticious results obtained from Mollusk Shells

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634


or


when they are used to test freshly killed seal,


or



Caborn dating methods have been giving bull shit dates, e.g. The dating of the shell of a snail (carbon dating methods have rated a snail shell at 2300

years old, yet it was known to have died only days before the examination),

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

or


Potassium -Argon method is used to date/test fresh lava for which the age is certainly know

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html

http://www.icr.org/article/353/

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436

Ar-Ar dating assumes there is no excess argon? http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html

200 year old lava dated 2.96 billion years old? http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie023.html

Fresh lava dated as 22 million years old. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/dating-f.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/radiometric.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf


Look there is no need to keep hanging unto straws, about evolution.

Seal's dating: reservoir effect: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

Snail's: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

potassium-argon dating and lava: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT ALL THE PREVIOUS SPECULATIONS OF EVOLUTION ARE BEING SHOT DOWN

ONE BY ONE TRUE SCIENCE.

Actually, no such thing has occured. And true to form, a great deal of your pratts still have nothing to do with evolution.

Furthermore, you do know that your "arguments" are based on misinformation and poor understanding, right?


I'm tired so I'm stopping now.

imhotep:
We cannot all be arguing so heatedly about God unless He truly exists.

How so?

imhotep:
By the time they agree on the one almighty scenario, they would still have to ask about the [b]scenario [/b]that led to this one almighty scenario, and on, and on, and on,

Not necessarily. Although it certainly depends on which theory is right, there's no need for an infinite sequence, because something can emerge from nothing. For instance, virtual particles can come into existence in a vaccuum.

Tasma:
This sort of argument tends to go round and round in circles. Perhaps some things need to be clarified. From human observation of the universe there may be reason to believe there is a "force" behind the existence of everything we know. Even those that believe in evolution can claim a "designer" that set up the process from the outset. The existence and nature of this "force" is an interesting topic to dwell on.

I don't.

imhotep:
Question: where did the scenarios for the state that led to the expansion of space materialize from

Findings and calculations in theoretical physics. Like I said previously, it's difficult to be certain which scenario is correct at the present moment, but in about a year or so, some theories will either be falsified or confirmed.

~Lady~:
@ KAG

Please let me know the historians who would disprove Christ.

Acharaya S. is one well known example. There are others. Really, though, that wasn't what I said. I said: "there's no evidence to support that Jesus performed miracles or that he said all that was claimed he said." The syntax is all over the place, but I believe it's still understandable.

A2J:
@KAG

John Chapter 1 verse 1-4 says:

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4: In him was life; and the life was the light of men.


I believe verse 3 answer your question you put to me and imhotep,

bawomol:
this is a circular argument. u are using bible passages to proof a concept that originated from the bible?? what independent accounts PROOF that without God there wouldn't be existence??

What he said.

imhotep:
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature


Question: Where did this primordial condition of enormous density and temperature come from?

It's difficult to be certain. Several cosmological theories and hypotheses propose different, though often similar in composition, scenarios for the state that led to the expansion of Space; however, since anything proposed is currently out of the scope currently available to scientists, nothing can be definite.

Kuns:
Theo (from where the word theory is derived) means God. So theo = God

Theory isn't derived from Theos.

The name God is also similar to the Germanic name Gud or Good.

Which is where the origins for the English word "God" can be found.

~Lady~:
There is no "what if God wasn't real?"

We seem to forget our history. No historian can claim that the prophets weren't real, or Christ wasn't real. It is aknown fact. So if they were real, why wouldn't God be?

That it can be determined that a prophet existed in history is not an indication that what that prophet said is true. History determines the existence of the person and not their metaphysical claims. So for example, that Zarathustra existed wouldn't be evidence that Ahura Mazda also does; or, tht Odysseus existed isn't evidence that Hera and Athena also exist.

imhotep:
If God wasn't real, none of us will be existing today and typing these messages.

A2J:
Simply put:

No God = No Existence of anything

Why?

SysUser:
How do you explain that an undigested food found in a frozen mammoth, that is supposed to be millions of years old

Where did you get millions of years from? I suspect the food was undigested either because of the mammoths digestive process or because it got frozen before it could digest them; or even, a combination of both.

How do you explain the blood that was found in the bone of a T Rex that is supposed to be millions of years old.

Fossilisation

How would you explain that no transitional form has been found for apes to man, cow to whale , etc

Turkana boy for one says you're wrong. For another, cows didn't evolve into whales.

How would you explain that fresh lava/rock from a volcanic activity was dated and yet gave a result as if it has existed foer thousands or millions of years.

You'd have to be a lot more specific than that. I don't know what was being dated or what was used for the dating.

Even without big bang (cosmis evolution) there would be no biologic evolution, and yet without the prior existence of matter/energy bigbang is not possible.

Um, what? I didn't get that. Not necessarily an indication on you; I just didn't get what you were driving at. Could you perhaps clarify?

What I like is how basically ignored my post and answers, ignored the questions I asked, and just rolled on with the pratt (point refuted a thousand times) machine. Nice.

SysUser:
The so called dinosaur bird transitional form that you are talking about have been shown to frauds made from the gluing togther of various bones by scrupulous idividuals who sold them.

Untrue. You're thinking of the archaeoraptor fossil. Incidentally, it was a fraud that was composed of genuine transitionals.

Can you explain why we have Stratafied fossils of tree trunks that are still standing uprigth and which go through different strata of coal.

What, specifically, do you mean? In some instances, the roots of a tree may keep "burrowing" even fter a upheaval.

What does this have to do with evolution?

I find it stupid the no scientific dating methods is accurate enough enough to give you consistent answers, yet you still go ahead to give you speculative dates for different fossils based on the geologic column.

Um, most scientific dating methods are accurate enough and do give consistent and supporting answers. What does this have to do with evolution?

About the geologic column, the geologic column is based on circular reasoning, e.g A saying A is true based on B , while at the same time B says B is true based on A.

Nonsense. That's not how the geologic colum works. What does this have to do with evolution?

how do you explain petrified clamps (in a closed position) that are found on the top of everest , please note that being in a closed position means that they were still alive before a catastrophe brought them to everest.

My guess would be the same way animals like fish and frogs have rained down because they got carried during evaporation What does this have to do with evolution?

How do you explain that even though there evidences bad mutations that show that animals are losing there genetic information, yet there is no evidence showing the existence of a beneficial mutation (which increases genetic information in an animal) that then makes an another become another animal.

Untrue. Some examples of beneficial mutation, include the ability to degrade nylon by a bacteria and the mutation of Apo-AI to Apo-AIM in an Italian family.

Why is it that dating methods could not accurately date the shell of a living snail and a freshly killed seal (for which we already know the correct age). Yet we are expected to believe (in faith) that they can accurately date fossil bones as millions of years.

What dating methods? Some dating methods can't be used for specific things, like for instance: carbon dating can't date a living thing, but it can be used for other specific datings that are within a particular range.

Explain to me why they found human foot prints and dinosaur foor prints within the rock,

They haven't. The paluxy tracks aren't wht Hovind wants you to believe that they are. Even AIG have conceded the point.

Please there is no single scientific evidence that you can use to proof evolution.

Proof is for maths and alcohol. If, however, it's strong evidence that hasn't been falsified that you're after, there are several to been seen. I mentioned a few in my last couple of posts.

You mentioned Archeoptrix , they have been shown not to be transitional forms as you have falsly claimed on this thread.

How so?

How come they are finding evidences of where children of isreal crossed the sea, evidences of desrtroyed chariots of the egyptians in the red sea, evidences of Noah's Ark.

Nonsense. Ron Wyatt's "findings" are a fraud. By the way, do you knwo how many chariot have ben found? The truth lies within the answer. There's no evidence of Noah's ark.

How come they are finding metal shapes and works inside coals that is supposed to be "millions and millions years".

I don't know.

The simple truth is that Evolution is a religion of those that do not want God to exist, so that they can do whatever they like.

Don't be silly. Many theists, including Christians, accept the theory of evolution. You haven't shown how evolution is a rligion, you've so far shown, though, that you know very little about it.

Even Charles Darwin himself knew that the "Eye" was to complexy to have occured by chance.

Evolution isn't chance.

Genetic scientists specify that without the presence of about 20 specific aminoacids a protein cannot be formed.
Yet atheist and evolutionist still think live came from a primordial soup by chance.

Not all "evolutionists" or, indeed, atheists acept abiogenesis. That doesn't mean that what you've written above is quite right, though. No one that accepts the possibility of abiogenesis thinks life came just by chance immediately from non-life. Several processes that follow the principle of an action coming from a reaction occured.

If the moon were to be millions of years old the dust accummulation on the moon would have swallowed up the american astronauts, yet they walked on a relativley thin dust layer.

Hovindite rubbish. I'd advise you to use a better source for your pratts.

The is not one evidence showing how life could have came from nonliving materials to living things. Instead all we keep hearing is "could have " "Should have "may have ""might have" "would have", speculations that we are expected to accept without at least one prove.

No one expects you to accept them without evidence.

4Him:
sysuser thank you . . . i get weary of KAG's seemingly intelligent posts that essentially have no basis.

I suppose we now know that you're not the honourable "kind".

SysUser:
Evolution is not true , First of all, let us define what yu mean by evolution is it cosmic evolution or is it macro evolution or is it micro evolution.

No, I meant evolution as described by the theory of evolution; which is essentially what is meant when someone is talking about evolution in reference to humans, transitionals etc. basically, biological evolution. If I want to talk about cosmological theories, it would be just as clear - as you can dedce from my other posts where I mention both the Big bang theory and planetary formation. And if for some reason that wasn't clear, the context of my previous post should have indicated what was meant.

Also, microevolution and macroevolution aren't really different. Both occur due to the same mechanisms.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the speculation of evolution , you said there is evidence from extinct apes (another fantasy and speculation), animals are going extinct because of the curse not because of evolution!

Did you read my previous post? I'll repeat exactly what I wrote:

"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


In any case, what curse is causing animals to become extinct?

Microevolution is not evolution instead it is just variation, within the same kind hence why a black man can give birth to an albino (because of variation in the makeup). A tall dog can give birth to a short dog, but it is still a dog, ,no matter how many times you try it will always give you an animal that is " kind of" like a dog.

What exactly is a kind? Are lions and tigers the same kind? What about a donkey and a horse?

Evolution requires faith, because you expect people to believe things that hav no evidence whatsoever.

Actually, no. Please read both my previous post and this one.

where did the matter come from.
Where did time and space come from.

You realise that at this point we are no longer talking about evolution, right? In any case, if I bother to attempt an explanation, will you listen?

And please don't start me going on the lie that evolution is science, evolution is not science simply because it does not give any prove or scientific evidence that can be tested any where else,

the fossils records say nothing about evolution instead what they say it that an animal died , You simply cannot say when or where the animal lived or died. You also cannot accurately say what the animal looks like.
Lucy, Java man, Pekking man have all been shown to be questionable/or downright frauds.

Dragons (what we now call dinosaurs) have always existed with man, check your bible Leviathan and Behemoth. There are ancient drawings showing that there were once dinosaurs that lived with man.

The amino acids experiment which was tried to see whether they could create protien was shown to falsified.

It's easier to just point out that all of those are wrong. If you want me to go into further details, don't hesitate to ask.

Big Bang theory assumes that there was initially matter or energy , yet not how come it did't start from nothing.

Energy. Energy can arsie from quantum fluctuations in a vaccuum- essentially, from nothing; although, that is not to say that was what hppened in the case of our universe.

The earth's magnetic field is decreasing gradually at rate that if the earth were to be billions of years old, the early magnetic field would have been too strong for life.

That's Hovindite nonsense.

4Him:
Neither is God such a mystery except to those who are constantly trying to use this argument to justify their godlessness.

Wait, so God isn't incomprehensible then? I guess we can now safely discard a part of your "theory" in your previous post. What do you mean by godlessness?

There is no ample evidence for evolution but ample theoriesa and speculations.

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.

If humans are not descendants of living apes then which apes were we descendant from?

Extinct apes. humans and other currently living apes share distant common ancestors.

How did science know that we descended from pre-historic apes and can they prove it by creating another man?

It can be surmised from the shared characteristics - often of a unique combination - with other apes and the fossil record. Why would they need to create another man? And on earth would that prove anything? WTF, man?

Science can always explain anything . . . they just have a problem proving that their explanation is indeed correct.

It's not just about being able to "explain anything" with any cursory tale that comes to mind - that is left to religion and politics. It's being able to explain things using the scientific method and sometimes mathematics, and allowing for falsifiability. By the way, science doesn't prove.

neither has creationism been completely shut down. Until science can accurately demonstrate that their "theories" are correct then i still have a basis to hold on to creationism.

Then it's time you let go of Creationism, because several scientific theores have been shown to be correct.

the question is not whether it occurs but whether you have ever experienced it.

Well, we are all experiencing it now.

4 Play:
"The prevailing theory" is your idea of a proven answer?

No. Proof is for math and alcohol.

4Him:
"The prevailing theory is that He [God] is timeless, incomprehensible, the alpha and the omega, the begining and the ending. He created the heavens and the earth, made man in His own image and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Through the process of redemption He came down to earth, took up the likeness of sinful flesh to die for the sins of you and me that through Him we might have eternal life.

After His ascension, He came down and shed Himself abroad in the hearts of those who believe in the form of the Holy Spirit . . . a process of drawing us to Himself by Spiritual attraction."

Evidence? Is your assertion falsifiable? If you have no evidence and your assertion isn't potentially falsifiable, then it isn't a theory.

A few more pertinent questions:

1) If the God of your supposed theory is incomprehensible, how then do you know and understand all those properties attached to his (why his?) person?

2) For a being to be timeless, it means that thing should be transcendental. How, then, does a transcendental entity suddenly become so immanent as to descend not just into the universe, but to a "pale blue dot" somewhere in the universe?

3) How exactly did God create the heavens (what are the heavens?) and the earth, and humans?

4) Returning again to the concept of transcendence and immanence, why would a transcendent (amongst other properties) God need to become human and die as a human, to forgive human failings?

5) Finally, what principle(s) govern the Spiritual attraction concept, is/are it/they also falsifiable, and why would the being first mentioned in your "theory" require some kind of misplaced "holy spirit"? In fact, what exactly is a "holy spirit"?

(source: the bible)

I see.

Hope i've answered your question

Not even close.

prince_onx:
u came from your mothers womb after your dad impregnated her! why didn't your dad have you himself since you originally came from him and don't believe in mysteries?

Men don't have the capability to get pregnant because human beings - like other mammals - are of two varieties. The female is the one with the evolved capacity to give birth to an offspring.

where and what do you do when you're sleeping?

Rest, dream. It's a lot more complicated than that, but it boils down mostly to those.

why is there day and night? I guess all that are science to you! men u better go check yourself na so e dey start.

The Sun. The Earth and the moons orbit around the Sun and vice versa.

~Lady~:
@ bAWOMOL

You won't get the answers u want. But I just wnat u to understand that the proof u need is in history. There is no historian on this earth that can claim that the events that led to our belief in God did not take place they happened and most importantly that Christ walked the earth and he performed miracles and he said the things he said.

Not quite. There's no evidence to support that Jesus performed miracles or that he said all that was claimed he said.

If u want to believe that there's no God, then ask yourself why is it that all these things have happened and there are witnesses to it.

It's likely they didn't happen. What witnesses? Are supposed witnesses always a reliable source, especially when they are biased?

Logically and with the backing of history u cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

You can try though

4Him:
If the evolution of man is a mystery (that has NO proof), then how are you able to write it down in textbooks and teach your kids such bull? Its pretty hard to look an ape in the face and claim that he is your ancestor don't you think?
why can't science explain HOW you descended from an ape?

Evolution isn't such a mystery. There's ample evidence for evolution. Human beings aren't descendants of other presently living apes. Science can explain how you descended from an ape and explain how it's possible for humans to have evolved from other extinct apes.

The big bang theory has also been shut down repeatedly.

No it hasn't.

What do you think about evolution? Have you ever witnessed it?

Evolution occurs. Yes.

4Him:
how did the earth come into existence?

As soon as you provide a logical, coherent and proven answer i will promptly tell you how God came into existence.

If however there is no answer to my question then permit me to wonder why you believe that the earth exists.

"The prevailing theory is that they [planets, including the Earth] are formed during the collapse of a nebula into a thin disk of gas and dust. A protostar forms at the core, surrounded by a rotating protoplanetary disk. Through accretion (a process of sticky collision) dust particles in the disk steadily accumulate mass to form ever-larger bodies. Local concentrations of mass known as planetesimals form, and these accelerate the accretion process by drawing in additional material by their gravitational attraction, " (sauciness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Formation)


Your turn

~Lady~:
@Olabowanle

I honestly don't have the time to decipher the Qu'ran for u and then explain the Bible to u.

But something that caught my eye is your ignorance to the fact that Hitler was atheist.

Seriously man that is common knowledge. He doesn't acknowledge God.

Hitler wasn't an atheist. The issue of Hitler's beliefs have little to do with ignorance, and more to do with the views he claimed to hold.

Logical:
@Olabowale : Hitler was not a Christian, that is not a fact, infact he rejected Christianity according to Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young

Hitler says and I quote

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together, The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity, Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

He also wrote and said:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice, And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

Here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm


Let's just say the man was a strange man.

4Him:
what "proof"? That the earth came about via a big bang? That we evolved from apes?

The Earth didn't come via the Big Bang: theories dealing with planetary formations are a different beast from that dealing with the early period in the Universe. Technically, yes, we did evolve from apes - humans are apes. We didn't evolve from any other cureently existing apes, though.

There are several types of evidence that suggest that those theories are right.

4Him:
that is mere speculation. The fact that the big bang remains a theory indicates that science is yet to come up with rationale evidence as to how the earth was formed.

No, that's not what theory means in a scientific context. Theories are based on facts, empirical evidence and potential falsifiability. The fact that the Big Bang theory remains a theory is because that's the "highest level" of enquiry in science. As I said before, its purpose isn't explaining the formation of the Earth.

Creation of stars and planets? that is nothing but speculation . . . scientists shld try and create a star first before talking of "proof".

No, it really isn't. Stars have been observed to seemingly form and other factors which include computer projections of stats, and mathematical calculations, help in the study of star and planetary formations.

How do you propose scientists create a star on Earth?

Surprisingly 99% of the human genome is identical to everyone else . . . those characteristics that differentiate us from each other are carried on only 1% of the entire genome . . . so that again is no surprise that we share some characteristics of our DNA with apes.

I suppose it depends on which types of genes you're talking about. I'm curious though, what would a high percentage of shared genes between species indicate to you?

olabowale:
@KAG ; Like i said since you are a machine to me, with the probability of 50/50, if I limit it to between man and programmed machine,

First, you contradicted that impression by the various admissions and inaccuracies in your other posts. That shows that you are still being dishonest.

or 25/, 1 out every 4 possibility, if I expand the possibility to animal and plant (The animal part is using the chipanzee and the (horse known as Mr. Ed; if you can dream it, it may not be accurate, but you can push the idea. And the plant part is Venus the fly trap, and others which eat; a function of animals),

Um, you do know that humans are animals; and that plants, including the venus fly trap, aren't capable of reasoning, right?

Gosh, as if this wasn't silly enough already. One can only hope that other Muslims aren't as stupid as you. Then again, I suppose that would explain why many have to resort to violence to coerce people into the religion.

it is no wonder that you can be pretending that you are a human. Finally there is no credence due to you, because your handler, have done poor job in presenting you as a one track minded thing.

Uh, what? Did you read my previous posts?

See I gave you at least a one in four chances that you could be a live human, with pulse. Thats the quality of a human, on my part. Your one track mind is that you fail to even give a possibility that God exists, yet you have mentioned Him, in other other form, eg "MOVER,'
but yet your linear ability and limited knowledge will not let you admit, any possibility.

That's not quite accurate. I do think that there is a possibilty that gods exist; I just believe it's highly improbable that they do exist. Tangible, testable and potentially falsifiable evidence will sway me. However, none has been presented so far.

Also, no, I haven't referred to "God" in another form: I have referred to material possibilities that operate in the universe. They are neither cognizant nor living, so if you want to think that's what is meant by god, then that's your prerogative.

Yet if you are human, you will one day die and if you are machine, you will one day be discarded. In either case, it shows that you have a limited knowledge, and whatever is beyond your scope does not exist. That is the deficiency on your ability to reason, if you are a human and the inferiority of your efficiency (less than 100%), if you are a machine.

At least we can all take some solace in the fact that if nothing else, you've at least learnt one thing: that machines can't be 100% efficient. I say that because in my previous post, I told you that I have no problem acknowledging that my knowledge is limited. What's more, I have never asserted that "whatever is beyond [my] scope does not exist." I have simply asserted or implied that the gods are improbable and unnecessary in the explanations of all things, and that since evidence for them is seriously lacking despite many people attesting to their "supernatural" existence, it makes sense for me to disregard them as things in existence.

olabowale:
@KAG: The bulk of your entry is irrelevant. I do not waste my time on irrelevance. If I ignore anything about you, that was my answer to you; 'Silence is the best answer to a _______!',

You're being incredibly duplicitous. You ignored the bulk of my post not because they were irrelevant, but because you couldn't rebutt them. That they contained the very thing you asked for, gives credence to that.

as the adage goes. My debate with you is about your baseless denial of your Creator, God! I am using my denial of you as a living thing, if you are and you are not a machine (see I have doubt about your being a human being), to express your exact position about God!

Then you're doing a piss porr job, because you already all but admitted that you know I'm human and that my refutation of your supposed denial holds.

olabowale:
@KAG; What I have just done, if you are a human is to deny your existence, the same way that you denied the existence of your Creator, God!

Actually, they aren't quite the same. For one thing, you paradoxically denied my existence while chtting to me and asking me - the supposed non-existent - to provide evidence for my existence. For another, I was able to provide independent, empirically based, and potentially falsifiable lines of enquiry and evidence for my existence; the same can't be said of any deity.

Afterall, you were once a none existing thing (before your parents got together in a conjugal way). Infact, all of us were not in existence at sometimes in the past. There was something that brought us to existence, at least crank up, into motion the stationary (Potential energy loaded thing, (the thing you atheists hypothesised to be the giver of life), and long time before the thing came into existence?) matter/particle, into a kinetic energy loaded thing, which in your mind brought you and all things to existence. This initial matter/particle, was it a Biological materials or what was it actually, if you know, which in time metamorphosised to life giver (the Bilogical part of of existing thing is what am referring to, you machine!)?

Your question isn't very clear, so I'll do my best to answer what it is I think you're asking. Yes, I didn't exist until my parents gave me life, so I guess that settles that aspect. If you go back far enough, there's a possibility that Space and Time came from a singularity. Since the singularity - and indeed Space - was in existence before Time, it makes little sense to ask how it started. In any case, since energy can possibly emerge from quantum instabilities, that puts paid to the idea that something can't come from nothing

If it was easy for me to deny your human existence (I still believe that you are a machine because you are to mechanical in your responses, which is devoid of any human emotions), by just saying that you do not exist, since I have never seen you, yet we are both of the same species (If you are human, since i have limited knowledge and also zero knowledge of what the future hold, since we are not in the future yet. But at least I am human enough to admit it, while you are mechanical enough to deny all that you are not fed information on), in the creation, you can imagine how easier it is for you to deny the existence of God, though it is false denial, without any possible rational support of your position.

It apparently wasn't easy for you to deny my existence, because your posts are littered with implications and assertions that belie your supposed denial. Of course it was easier to deny the existence of gods: they don't exist. The evidence for theiur existence is seriously lacking, and when one is presented it's usually devoid of logic and impossible to verify empirically.

Afterall, God is a being which does not look like you and you tend to be a visual person, and you have never laid eyes on Him, wanting to test all conditions by sense of sight, if possible.

No, that is wrong. I don't want or need to test all conditions by sense of sight at all (sight in a machine, signore doofus?)

The same God is far away from you, having an elevated status, and exists in a place at minimum, heaven, a distance to earth, which is not known. Yet you believe that the 'heaven,' exist, even though you have never seen it.

No, I don't. That is, unless by "heaven" you mean the universe.

Further you have not heard the voice of this God, but yet you hear the rumblings of the Thunder, and you have seen the lighting flashes. But none of these things; thunder and lightening and heavens and the earth, do we have absolute knowledge about, and can claim that there will not be any new discovery on them, in the future!

Yeah, that's nonsense. We know what causes thunder and lightening and believe me they have nothing to do with either your god or Zeus. They are both caused by material forces.

You will have to accept that your knowledge is very limited about yourself, afterall yor can never see your own eyes, neck, nostrils, back, without using a mirror! Then you have never seen your own inside and the workings of the organs, except you have MRI or other image providing devices in medicine.

I know I have a limited knowledge about myself; I also know that is an unnecessary admission in the matter of the existence or non-existence of a deity.

Since you have not seen God, then look around you at His creations, on this earth. Start from yourself, then your family, how much you resemble some and yet not so with others, even though you come from the same source. Reflect and ponder about the animals and how the trees look aa dead and forgotten in the winter and yet in Spring, the come alive!

The gods aren't needed to explain any of those things. In fact, by Ockham's razor, they can be eliminated all together.

How has the earth been able to float all these while since it came to existence, without going off course. I know its the magnetic forces and other forces, but how did they come into being? These are your problems: you and me have limited knowledge, but you fail to admit it, but try hard to expalin away the unexplainable.

The Earth isn't floating, it's being acted upon by other bodies in space through gravity. I have no idea what gravity is as an ontological property - it's possible no one does; however, that the gods can only hide in the cracks between knowledge, is telling.

olabowale:
@KAG: That figures.

Actually, it doesn't.

They did not program you to have human feelings and be able to identify that 33 1/3 % is what I meant, since I was discussing 100/3. I should have known that when I am addressing a Machine, all he reads is th punch cards (Binary informations on thems).

Not quite. While you may have meant 33 1/3%, that wasn't what you wrote. Don't blame your typos on me.

Whatever cunt means here! I have used the contradictions, to confuse the one track mind of the Computer program/Machine!

Lol. You really are bad at debating or discussing ideas, aren't you? You do know that if I had a one track machine mind, I wouldn't have been able to easily spot the contradictions, right? That's because your arguments and, in turn, your several contradictions aren't based on any mathematical properties but on poor philosopical logic, inability to conceive of and understand complete thoughts, and linguistics.

For the lurkers: you'll notice that he's completely ignored the bulk of my post, and avoided the positive evidence and individual lines of enquiry I've provided to satisfy his foolishness. You'd also notice that he hasn't bothered to provide any such thng about the subject of the initial debate.

KAG, I do believe there is a thing I dentified as KAG; possibility is that it is a Machine being fed information, so that the lazy Mr Hyde, can continue his experiment of "Human like responses from a Machine, code KAG"

I've responded to this in the post above.

The edification is for you Mr. handler (Dr Jerkell) of Machine code name KAG! Mr. Handler, you need to refine the programming, because I can see your machine is about to break down!

Wit isn't one of your strongest suits (which is saying a lot); I'd leave it out if I were you.

imhotep:
If NDEs point to the existence of life-after-death and the Divine, then atheism must be an exercise in futility.

Atheism becomes a case of "so much motion and no movement".

Then, atheists should review their belief system, based on OBSERVED FACTS.

Seun:
They don't. Near death experiences merely demonstrate that the human brain
is hyper-active when deprived of oxygen. They are mere hallucinations.

What he said.

imhotep:
Nice one. Then how come the hallucinations are THE SAME for everyone, irrespective of gender, race, age, religion, etc

Um, wouldn't that be an indication that they are in fact caused by material factors? Not that I agree that they all the same, as there have been varying accounts and experiences.

Also, what about those that almost die and have no near death experience? Don't they count?

hotfunmi:
Agreed, like the gap theory.

That's not a theory. That is to say, it's not scientific.

olabowale:
@KAG; I am amazed that you simply can propose and think that everyone accept that (those people who have seen you, and people like me, who may never see you, physically, that), you exist. That you are a physical material, a matter, a substance, having quantumfied properties!

Well, first of all, you've made some rather silly errors. People that have seen me accept that I exist because not only is that the most parsimonious idea, it's also one that can be verified again and again by either continued interaction (where, eventually, the probability of my line of thinking stemming from the person's imagination becomes so unlikely that the idea has to be discarded), or by the verification of other individuals. Consensus on physical entities is one step in empirical verification.

Second, since the alternative to something without any quantum properties is non-existence (at least from a materialist point of view), and since you quoted my post and are responding to my words, it stands to reason that I have to exist; ergo, since I exist, then the one that suggests the possibility of my non-existence while actively providing evidence of it, is either mentally retarded or insane. To sum up: actively responding to my post is evidence that I exist.

How do you think I will fall for your mere saying that just based on your KAG identity, which is a staged (Nairaland is a computer board, you know) name?

Irrelevant. That I can produce a stream of cogent arguments and ideas is verifiable evidence that a corporeal personality is represented by the username "KAG". A further step is to decide which option identifying the type of entity behind the username is the more parsimonious. Ockham's razor is highly in favour of my being, at the very least, human-like.

I have never seen you and I am going to assume that no one on Nairaland have ever seen you! Nobody knows your true identity. For me you are only a voice/writing, but without anything that is testable/verifiable behind it!

For the latter, you do know there are a number of ways to actually verify the existence of a human being behind a username, right? I'll give you a quick series of examples:

Ignoring the security issue, the ip I'm posting from can be traced, revealing the human entity using the username; contact can be established by several others on the forum who in turn verufy the identity of the human behind the username. There are several ways, those who make contact can do such a verification, the easiest being watching me log in and then type responses that can be scrutinised for similarities.

Those are just a few independent lines of enquiry that are testable and potentially falsifiable. That in turn nullifies the assertion made in your final statement.

The possibility is at the minimum 50% that the responses we read under the KAG identity, is from a computer program/a machine generated responses.

If a computer program or generated machine is capable of such human fallibility, quirks, differentiating ideas, and apparent consciousness, then it too deserves to be identified as human.

In any case, you're ignoring one fundamental thing: computer programs can only respond in very limited, terse and often convoluted language. Do the math.

Proofs: The Old American TV series titled 'Charlie's Angels, feauturing Farah Faucett, in the 70s and early 80s, is a good inkling of my hypothesis, rather theory and possible theorem about your none existence! There was a Movie in the 90s called Ferris Beular day off, about high school students playing hoakies from school!

If the rudimented technology at that time of Charlies Angel TV show, could fool a host of American and indeed the world, then Imagine what the technology of today can do! Today, computer had advanced to the level that a man-like machine is being tested and being further refined! Afterall, computer gave Andre Gasperov, the chess world champion a run for his money in a chess match!

There's no kind way to say this, so I'll just come out with it: you are an idiotic buffoon. No, seriously. I don't mean any offence by it, jut simply stating things as they are.

If you think I will fall for your gimmick, giving a false, rather weak argument about your existence, just because you identify 'yourself,' by 'I' and a pseudoname, 'KAG,' you have assumed that you are talking to a dummy! I could be everything, but a dummy!

No, no, you're a dummy.

Finally, you have assumed that you are communicating with me, in English language. But this language is a very young language, which has her root from germanic root, and other languages of europe. Now that English is refined, I bet some people with some form of delution or out right denial will claim that English language is a language that has nothing to do with her father(s)/mother(s), indeed the european language! Yet some old languages of the world are already dead (Old Egyptian language long time prior to Moses, and others Babylonian, Byzentin and other) and forgotten and yet some are in some degrees of death! I state this idea for your edification, in the sense that you are using a young knowledge (in this case English Language) to identify and justify your existence, whereas, the languages which English originated from are even denied by some, assumed dead by others, and to some, yet relegated to insignificant, compared to English. But those who have knowledge, will always acknowledge this collective languages as identifiable and at least an oral means of passing informations, within the community of people, in Europe before the now dorminiaring English language.

A lot of irrelevances just to make it appear you have something to say? What a cunt. You've contradicted yourslef so many times that it's hard to know where to begin in that block of crap. I guess I'll start with the most obvious:you've shown that you actually believe I exist and capable of human reason How? You stated: " I state this idea for your edification." I'm hoping you can work out the rest for yourself.

Second, that you constantly refer to the English language as a language in its own right contradicts the implication of your opening sentence. A language exists indepently of whatever its history may, provided it's used as a form of communication by several people and is markedly different from others.

Finally, I have no idea why you've bothered to post a block of text on the English language. I suspect it's a red herring, but on the other hand, it could be just down to your stupidity.

Yet the English language of England, is almost distinctively different from the Ameicans. Some words are different and even none existing, yet some common words are written differently. Since knowledge is continuous, we have not gotten to the end of discoveries!

https://i27.tinypic.com/35aw5r4.jpg

So, there will be some new things to learn, always. Hence, KAG, if you are a human being, (50% chance that you are), your knowledge is very limited, even about the time that you live in, presently.

Um, considering you don't know anything about my educational background, nor did I intimate anything about it, that's exceedingly presumptious on your part.

You do not know everything. You and no technology had penetrated so far to the end of space/galxies, milky ways, etc, to get to a possibility to discover the heavens, or disprove their existence. However, if you are not a human being, say you are a machine generated voice, (50% chance that you are), your ability of today, however lifelike you are in structures and performance, especially your claimed ability to respond to others and me, in answers to questions, as you stated above, even in your best effort to immitate human beings, will be primitive to what the future machines can do!

Irrelevant. I've never claimed to know everything. Where's a good strawman picture when you need one?

In whatever way you exist, presently, as a human being lacking a good knowledge of your enviroment, except that you read from those who have greater knowledge than you, hence using other people's knowledge and opinions to come to your own, or as the best designed machine, of all times, to date, giving an out put of 100% efficiency, in total,

You idiot, no machine is 100% efficient. The laws of thermodynamics see to that.

your limited knowledge has not proven your own human existence, hence in the same knowledge you can not prove that God (The Great Mover) does not exist! Just the same way I do not see you, and you are not a tangible/physical essence to me, and your handiwork is known to a small group of people, you could not disprove the existence of God Whose handwork is known by several Billions of people, presently around the world. Even the Hindus believe that there is a MIGHTY GOD, and He is different from their many gods in their temples and their homes!

If you bothered to read the contents of my post you'd see why your comparisms and objections are moot.

As I think about you, I tend to believe that you are a machine, whose programmer is more like Mr. Jerkell!

As long as it isn't Mr. Hyde, Ockham's razor can shave another beard tonight. We try to keep Mr. Hyde away from razors.

Whatever that means! I thinketh, it is a computer language, like Cobol or Fortran! Thats all you have mustered all day, on your own without the programmer's on sit!

No, it's English.

You Just proved my theorem that you are a machine! You are not capable of independent thought! Creation activites, you inefficient machine!

If I were your builder, I will dismantle you and scrap for parts, especially the softwares for the recycling bin!

First, will you make up your bloody mind?! Just earlier you asserted that I was 100% efficient and capable of thought, now you are asserting the direect opposite. What's up with that, man. By the way, it would seem you don't know the meaning of independent thought. That would explain a lot (hey, that rhymes!).

Good way to dodge a question, though.

@Obanikoro: You are very childlike. I really do not want to say tha you are childish. There are no dragons here. I am a human being, bowing my will, voluntarily to my Creator. Maybe you are proposing that KAG may be a possible gragon, reducing the chances that it is a computer or he (assuming that you a male) is human to 331/3% each?

For some one who went on a long unnecessary rant about the English languae, you seem oddly ignorant of the concept of metaphors. Shame. You maths skills seem to be just as lacking.