₦airaland Forum

cgift:
KAG,

those of us who understand and live by prophecy know that it is about Catholicsim.

Of course! I keep forgetting that each sect and/or individual that manages to interpret the Bible in a certain way is the sole example of a True Christian^TM, and all others that don't agree, are defective in some way. I mean, I could go the xtra mile of googling and then showing you the interpretatins of other Christians (who probably believe that they understand and live by "prophecy", but what would be the point.

The Word of God has never failed in its fulfilment right from Daniel to Revelation.

Except when it has, but that's another topic.

They have all happened at one point in time or the other. History is there for the records for all to see.

I certainly agree that history is there and the reality can be seen.

The Vatican is the beast and the LovePeddler of revelation. The papacy is the tool of the antichrist whose over dozens of the so-called official titles all add up to 666, the number of man, the beast whose deadly wound was healed!

It is very simple.

I'm just glad I don't share your mindset or "logic" - if there was God I'd be thanking her.

OLAADEGBU:
Evolutionary racism

The false belief system of evolution has been used since its inception to dull people to the moral absolutes of Scripture, whether justifying Nazism,

That's a lie.

Stalinism,

A lie

the abortion holocaust, indifference to starvation in Africa, or the maltreatment of indigenous people.

Lie, lie and more lies.

God’s Word has always stated that He has ‘made of one blood [i.e. from one man, Adam] all nations of men’ (Acts 17:26, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45). The answer to racism is in Genesis, which tells us that all people are closely related.

by Carl Wieland

Unless, of course, you're a member of the KKK, a White supremacist, or just one of the clery that managed to find Biblical verses to support racism and slavery.

The rest of your posts can be rebutted with a few lines: Darwin was racist, the theory of evolution is not. Eugenics was stupid; it's not evolution. Blaming the theory of evolution for all those instances of racism and apartheid is not only disingenuous, it's bordering on delusional, then again, it is AiG.

Jen33: I think the writer is stressing here the basic dishonesty of the church, by stressing that the insertion of ''St.'' in the some bibles constitutes an interpolation.

In that case, he's wrong. It is doesn't constitute as an interpolation.

KAG, sorry I don't buy your explanation for their silence. Unless the forumers here are barely literate, lazy dolts, your rationalisation for their silence makes no sense.

Really? It makes no sense? Don't tell me you haven't noticed the general dearth in responses to your long copy/pastes, because that would just be weird.

And what does it matter in whose words they are written?

It matters because copy/pastes - especially, the long ones - tend to stifle debtes and dialogue - after all, if people wanted to debate Walker, they would have said as much. Furthermore, the fact that you seem to be the kind of person that mistakes copy/pastes for debates doesn't help matters, because - as has happened in this thread - if a full rebuttal is offered to the copy/paste, without even acknowledging the many points that may have been raised in the rebuttal, you just copy/paste yet another long article. It's, basically, disrespectful and intellectually dishonest.

I'm pretty sure if I'd pasted an article providing conclusive evidence of Jesus' existence, such considerations as you're suggesting would not come into play.

It would.

Put simply, I reckon its the silence of surrender.

Afterall, WHAT can they possibly argue against there?

I guess that settles it.

It's such a heavily researched article that you just have to read it and chill. Cool

I wouldn't say it's heavily researched - good research at most.

The most they can do is to pick up little inconsequential things like you did.

Don't forget I skimmed through it

As for your other points, I consider them far too minor and pedantic to constitute any form of credible riposte to the article.

Fair enough.

I even sensed a slight embarassment on your part at the paucity of viable objections to the article, perhaps explaining your haste to include yourself among the skeptics. Wink

Um, I am one of the sceptics.

Ladapo:
Why would you want to deviate from a religion You were born into to another one?


Can you tell?

Because life isn't static.

pilgrim.1:
What could be "wrong" with a system that calls itself 'Christianity' and yet we hear the clear call of the Lord Jesus Christ saying:

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." (Revelation 18:4-5)

There is nothing "wrong" in Catholicism abi? - and why is God calling His people to COME OUT of that system? This has nothing to do with anybody's "personal" beliefs, especially when such people are no longer reading the Bible.

The call of God is clear: "COME OUT of her" and be not partakers of her sins!

Hmm, that's curious. I looked up the verses and the preceding and following verses, and for the life of me, I couldn't find "Catholicism", or any of its derivatives, anywhere. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, John wasn't talking about the Catholic sect?

Jen33:
The crescendo of silence is so strong as to shatter my eardrums.

Could it be because most people don't have the patience for long, overdrawn copy/pastes? I mean, if it was an argument in your own words you might have a case, but as it is, I can understand the silence.

Anyway, just some minor points I noticed while skimming that I would like to address (bear in mind I agree that tangible evidence for a Jesus as portrayed in the Bible is virtually non-existent):

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories.

I think Mr Walker has made an error. If I understand correctly, the term apostles, especially as applied to the Gospel writers, means someone that follows and believes in Jesus. Basically, a Christian, not as Mr. Walker imagines, someone that met and walked with a physical Jesus.

Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ.

Evidence?

Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood.

Um, they - the writers - didn't bestow sainthood on themselves: the Church did.

The $10,000 Offer
A transitional form (or missing link) is an example of one species “evolving” into another species. Excited scientists thought they had found one when they discovered “Archaeopteryx.” The fossil led to the theory that the dinosaurs did not become extinct, but rather all turned into birds. The Field Museum in Chicago displayed what was believed to be an archaeopteryx fossil on October 4-19, 1997. It was hailed as “Archaeopteryx: The Bird That Rocked the World.”

I thought I should mention that archeopteryx isn't the only dinosaur-bird transitional. Microraptor and - to an extent - Oviraptor comes to mind.

However, Dr. Alan Feduccia (evolutionary biologist at the University of North Carolina), said, “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleo-babble’ is going to change that.” [Science, February 5, 1993].

Of course, you also forgot to mention that Feducia, while in the extreme minority when it comes to dinosaurs to birds evolution (for some reason he thinks it's implausible that dinosaurs became modern birds), actually accepts the theory of evolution and common descent. By the way, I disagree with what Feduccia thinks about what paleontologists are doing.

So here’s my challenge: I will give $10,000 to the first person who can prove to me that they have found a genuine living transitional form (a lizard that produced a bird, or a dog that produced kittens, or a sheep that produced a chicken,

But, Ray, those are not transitionals. In fact, those things are against the evolution and if things like you mentioned are found, will effectively end the theory of evolution. Are you sure you understand what is meant by a transitional organism?

or even as Archaeopteryx—a dinosaur that produced a bird).

But archeopteryx is a dinosaur and bird.

Species do not cross, no matter how long you leave them. The whole of creation is proof that evolution is truly “a fairytale for grownups.”

Ray Comfort.

Something tells me Ray Comfort hasn't heard of fairytale creatures like mules and hinnies or tigons and ligers. Oh dear.


In any case, here are two examples of living transitionals:

Lungfish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
Axolotl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl

OLAADEGBU:
It was G.K. Chesterton who rightly stated, "If there were no God, there would be no atheists."

And if there were no gremlins, orcs, and a supehero that came from Krypton, there'd be no a-gremlins, a-orcs, and a-Superman. We know that the idea of something has to be created first before we believe or disbelieve what has been presented

A thinking person will tell you that it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.

It's not impossible; it's just a darned sight difficult when the definition of God, when not severely lacking, is extremely unstable or virtully useless. It also doesn't help when the evidence for any God's existence is intangible and often not even evidence.

Before someone can say, "There is no God," he or she needs to have all knowledge — because somewhere in the universe there may be evidence that God does exist.

Not quite. First, no, you don't need to have all knowledge to actively disbelive in the existence of God - you just need enough knowledge to be able to weigh up the concepts of and evidence for the various Gods that have been presented.

Second, while it's possible that evidence for a God - particularly, in this instance, the Christian God - exists in some as yet unknown part of the Universe, you have to see that it contradicts the idea of the Gods wanting humans to know them and how it sort of defeats the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being, no?

And there is, right under our noses. A building is proof there was a builder. A painting is proof there was a painter, and creation is absolute proof that there was and is a Creator.

What creation? Mountains are evidence that natural processes occur, snowflakes - pretty little things that they are - are evidence that nature needs no little invisible-snowflake making men. That's the way it is. Natural.

[snip]

Since there are no Gods, all of that is totally unnecessary.


P.S. Look, I'm sure you're a decent guy when you're not copy/pasting and ignoring any counter-arguments to your extensive copy/pastes, but I have tell you that dismal apologetics laced with so many inaccuracies, filled with ridiculous points, only serve in alienating the people you're pretending you're trying to reach. Just my two pence.

Aladunni:
i will be grateful for an answer but if not,, all i know is that,

OLAADEGBU:
KAG is in the best position to answer that question.

In that case, no, contrary to Ray Comfort's extremely dire apologetics, the banana isn't the atheist's nightmare.

By the way, I just realised that coconuts and pineapples are the theist's nightmare. Through reasons directly opposite to Comfort's, they prove that there couldn't have been a designer. FTW.

andrew3338:
Are Catholic Xtians?

Yes, protestant, they are.

debosky:
secular humanism exists no doubt, but to link the opposition to Mugabe by the West to that is laughable and a wild stretch of the imagination. Who cares whether homosexuality is allowed in Zimbabwe or not? what is the overall importance of Zimabwe in international affairs? Granted Mugabe is an irritant, but the opposition stems more from his suicidal economic policies and the white land grabs.

There is, no doubt a surreptitious movement to introduce their philosophies into mainstream society, but I don't think they devalue human life - their policies of live and let live and tolerance, acceptance and general liberalism doesn't fit into a devalued human life box. I suspect the permissiveness to abortion is what the poster is referring to.

Okay, thank you.

dreamnaira:
KAG
Read the Bible if you want to get some fact just like i said ' no mistake or collision had occured'. Read the Book of Job from chapter 38 to the end of the book. There you will have no doubt who created heavens and the earth.

Look, no offence, but reading the Bible to get "facts" about the Universe and cosmos at large is extremely ridiculous - the book isn't a science book. For instance, you say no mistake or collision has occured; now, while I'm not completely sure about what you mean by mistake, I can assure you that collisions have occured and it's highly likely that mistakes must have happened too.

It is quit obvious that no human being from this our solar have make inter solar journey so all that we have been getting is just with lens of telescopes which can not give you the whole view of these other worlds created by God.

While I don't believe that any worlds were created by any God (in the classical sense of the word), I can agree that we humans haven't yet developed the technology to know intimate details about many other planets.

Those other planets, some are inhabited by beings that have been in perfect accordance with there maker is only this our world that rebelled against our maker and that was why we are cut out of the cosmic civilation., that is why we can't make inter solar visit.

But thanks to christ Jesus who had paid the penalty of our sin that whosoever believe in him today will be privileged to visit all these other worlds created by God when we shall come to take home as he premised in { John 14:1-3}.

That's nice.

"The latest name that they have developed now is the secular humanism which is now a religion responsible for all the degrading and immoral influence as well as the devaluation of human lives in our society today. This is the main reason that the secular governments in the western world are against Mugabe of Zimbabwe because of his stance against homosexualism in their constitution. Nigeria I believe has not been able to pass the homosexualism bill into law because of this reason."

Well, do you?

dreamnaira:
RRVOLUTION OF EARTH
our earth belong to a family of planets revolving round the sun,which is the closest star to us. Our earth moves round the SUN at the speed of 18.5miles per second, 1110 miles per minute, 66600 miles per hour, 1598,400miles in one day, 47,95200 miles in 30days and 558 million miles in a year. In its thousands of years of orbital revolution it has not make mistake. This fact sinks well with most astronomers. The earth is not dependent upon us to make her orbital journeys. Should man be sxtinct today on this planet, it would continue her movements undetered.

Interesting. Incidentally, you say in "thousand of years of orbital revolution it [the Earth] has not make mistake", what, exactly, do you mean by mistake?

Movement and communication in the universe is beyond the understanding of mortal man.

Just a point on the last sentence. No, movement and communication in the Universe are NOT beyond the understanding of humans - otherwise we wouldn't have been able to understand those figures you presented nor, interestingly, would we be abole to do a lot of cosmology.

It should be mentioned that our neighbouring galaxy, about the same size as the Milky Way, is called Andromeda. Astronomers says that to make a journey to this closest galaxy at the speed of light, two million years will elaps before one enters her region. Millions of galaxies have been identified in the vast universe. It seems the more sophisticated the telescope lens the more galaxies and other mysteries are revealed.

I agree. It's a wonderfully vast and strange Universe.

Scientific discovering have blessed us with more insight into the awesomeness of God's majesty.

To each his/her own. I don't begrudge anyone seeng a God's majesty through the lens of scientific discoveries.

Astronomers says that given a position out in space with a light miscrope it would be difficult to locate our earth under its powerful magnifying lens. They observed that although our earth might seem to be very big or large to us { about 25 000 miles in diameter}, it is actually so small in the univers that it lost in cosmic dust, if the earth is so small as to go almost unnoticed under a magnifying lens, what about the human beings on it? Yet, many of us claim there is no God.
Man on earth with all his impressive achievement appears subatomic.
{ Isa 40:15-17, John 3:16, Ps19:1-3, Gen 1:27}

Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot comes to mind. You should look it up - it's amazing. By the way, as one the many that claims no Gods exist, the vastness of the Universe, the minute Earth (relatively speaking, of course), and the many galaxies, are atually one basis for my view.

No collision occurs. Our sun is speeding through space carrying all of us along, at this trememdous speed.

No collision occurs because the objects that might have strayed into both its and our Sun's orbits have been engulfed. In time though, their gravitational pulls may eventually drag other objects into their orbits.

'' The fool had said in his heart there is no God, '' { Ps14:1]

You just had to spoil it with a cliche, didn't you?

OLAADEGBU:
"THE [empty-headed] fool has said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt and evil are they, and doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good."



In my 'nigbati' translation it puts it more succintly as "a mad (crazy or kolo- mental) man says in his heart that there is no God"

But the righteous say it aloud that there is no God.

Here are 10 facts why atheism is proved to be absurd.

And this is by:

1. The existence of the universe.
2. The constitution of the body.

What about them? How do they PROVE atheism is absurd? Heck, how are they even evidence against atheism? Don't be shy, please be as detailed as possible.

3. The innumerable living creatures in existence, each one so perfect and intricate as to make all chance of its coming into existence automatically, an impossibility.

Perfect and intricate? Harlequin babies say otherwise; poor unfortunate beings who have been blessed with perfectly designed diseases, defects and handicaps that have maimed, killed or destroyed any chance of living fulfilling lives say you're being ignorant and/or naive.

Furthermore, um, you know life has been around for a long time, yes? I'd wager that a couple billions of years of continued evolution and living is more than enough time to account for the innumerable living creatures. If you truly know otherwise, show your work - preferably in mathematical format.

4. The Character of God's work.

Ah! You forget, though, there is no God; ergo, there can't be a character of said God's work. In any case, what tangible evidence do you have to show that there is indeed a character to the - as yet - unevidenced beings work?

5. The preservation and government of all creations. To think that all things came into existence and are being governed by themselves is folly.

Why?

6. It's ungodly mockery.

What is? Atheism? Okay, if you say so. How does that prove it's absurd.

7. It's powerlessness to help a man to better himself and others.

Nonsense. Concepts and philosophical leanings of atheists and atheism have been to know to foster goodwill and encourage lofty ideals. For example, many atheists, knowing that this life is all that there is and joy, love and happiness make this life beautiful, try to ensure that even a small taste of that is enjoyed by as many people as they can possibly reach. Different types of humanists are another examples.

8. It's degrading and immoral influence.

You're confusing atheism with the fundamentalist practices in the Abrahamic religions.

9. It's vastness of unproved claims.

Like?

10 The renouncing of it by it's followers in times of affliction and death. Sir Francis Newport, Voltaire, Tom Paine, David Hume, Altamont, Ethan Allen, Thomas Hobbes and many others pleaded for mercy from God and regretted their atheism in their dying hour.

Yay! For a second there I was worried that you wouldn't at least try to blatantly "lie for Jesus" at least once. By the way, you forgot to include Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Albert Camus and Richard Dawkins (he's not dead yet, but there's no reason to preemptively lie).

The bottomline of all these ideologies that I 'lumped together' earlier is the belief in the big bang theory, the evolutionary theory and natural selection and the theory of eugenics which are the common denominations that binds them together.

Untrue. There were atheists centuries before any of those theories were formulated. Also, eugenics doesn't belong.

The latest name that they have developed now is the secular humanism which is now a religion responsible for all the degrading and immoral influence as well as the devaluation of human lives in our society today. This is the main reason that the secular governments in the western world are against Mugabe of Zimbabwe because of his stance against homosexualism in their constitution. Nigeria I believe has not been able to pass the homosexualism bill into law because of this reason.

Wow! Just wow. I have to know, do all Christoans believe that, or is this your own brand of crazy ignorance? I sense a new thread coming.

So, um. where are these aliens now?

jagunlabi:
Breakdown Nr.3[center][/center]

During these ancient times, there were mad scientists (angel-demons) who cloned anything they wanted. The mythological animals were real; they were genetic experiments. Also, wars of the gods occurred. Nuclear warfare was not beyond the capability of the angels. Robert Oppenheimer, creator of modern atomics and a student of early books of India, knew that nuclear wars happened in the Old World. The deserts of today are the result of ancient, atomic wars. Assuming that these conclusions are true:

They aren't. There's absolutely no geological evidence to suggest that the deserts of today were caused by atomic wars. Moreover, the fact that the natural processes that caused deserts to form through the dearth of vegetation and things are still occuring should tell you something.

There was a Great Flood that covered all of the land.

No there wasn't.

Sea shells were found on top of Mount Everest.

Yes. So?

There is water erosion on the Sphinx.

It's wind and sand erosion. Colin Wilson, Graham Hancock and Rand Flem-Ath, amongst others, are either grossly wrong or intentionally misleading people.

All land is a sedimentary deposit.

That's not true. Besides, how would sedimentary deposits be evidence for a worldwide flood?

Many Noahs sailed during Waterworld. The Chinese have their old stories of an Ark and a Great Deluge. Numerous indian cultures have their legends of a Flood, a Noah and an Ark.

And some cultures don't. In keeping with the evidence thus far, it's more likely that many cultures share the stories either because of a coastal flood in the past that has become legendary or flooding is some type of an archetype.

Most people do not believe in the Biblical story of Noah because of a basic problem: How could a few people gather ALL the animals, feed and care for them on board a ship for months?

Actually, it's a lot more than that. There's also the distinct lact of evidence; the timeline problem; the distinct lack of evidence; the fact that it seems allegorical; the distinct lack of evidence; and rain falling for forty days would do unthinkable things.

The answer comes from, who controlled the Earth thousands of years ago? The angels (the humans with the technology) built the Arks, collected the animals and caused the rains. The chosen animals were probably the best examples of their specie and worthy of being saved. It is scientifically possible to place a life form in suspended animation reduced down to its DNA. This was the cargo within the Arks. The samples of DNA would be revived, later, after the waters receded. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention that Noah went out and gathered each animal. It only says Noah brought them into the Ark. If the 'life cannisters' were all assembled for the Noahs by the gods and the simple people merely carried them in and secured them in place, then this does explain the Noah story.

The story also mentions the animals being carted into the ark two by two. and or by their sevens. It also mentions two physical birds (not DNA thingymabobs) being released from the ship. Furthermore, the story has Noah building the ark, not angels (and the rest of the people of the town were amused. Something you wouldn't expect from people witnessing angels building a structure). Finally, if they had that much technology and stuff, why not just take Noah, his family and the animals out of orbit? What's the deal with building a boat?

The world began again. In Genesis, it says that after the Flood: Noah went to live with the 'gods.' This was one of the few plural references that survived the editors of the Bible. The reference 'gods' was later changed to the singular 'God.' The simplified term was changed to accommodate a world that had become extremely simple.

Well, in my Bible it says after the flood Noah sacrificed one of the animals he revived from the DNA pool, then he got proper liquored.

Orikinla:
Being gay is by choice.
Because, I have been close to gays to the extent of even getting paid thousands to show my privates to them when they showed me their own. They found me quite attractive and begged for relationship. But I refused. And they confessed that they knew that homosexuality was evil and both morally and naturally wrong.

If I wanted to be gay, I would have been gay since age 11.

I met a young student from the University of Benin online who wanted to be gay, because she thought she looked more like a man even though she had perky boobs and round buttocks. So, I travelled to her campus and took her away from the negative crowd. I took her to our popular Nollywood Guest House in Surulere, Lagos, in 2005. And I spent three nights with her to convince her that she was not born lesbian and she could be loved by a man and she would be a great wife and mother.

I can convert any gay.
It is all in your mind.

God did not create anyone to be gay.

The Western Society and Churches have been preaching their own erroneous and ambiguous theology that you can be gay and be cool.
No.
No one can be gay and be cool.

Anyone who is gay is sick and needs a good and upright shrink and rehab.

All gays need therapy and rehabilitation.
This is the TRUTH.

I will not argue over my conclusion.

Ha ha ha! This post delivers in delusion, hubris, idiocy, and ignorance. Good on yer, mate.

Aladunni:
was my spelling wrong?

No.

Aladunni:
you seem to be confusing me now, you said its right and i wish to know how right, its a little scary to me thatz all, or you r being sarcastic

Sarcastic.

Aladunni:
@ all

bananas i don't seem to get that analogy of bananas.

It's like a can of coke (or, according to one fruity lass, cock) from Ray's perspective, therefore God.

Excellent news. I think it's about time that people totally unrelated to a Jew (or collection of Jews) that was killed a couple of millennia ago - possibly - take a stand and sue in a country with no ties to the aforementioned Jew. I do wonder why it has taken so long for someone with their tongue firmly tucked in their cheek to make a post on the idea.

OLAADEGBU:
@KAG, Nferyn and the gang,

I know that it will be insultive to say that the so called atheists are ignorant, if I put myself in your own shoes that is, looking through your own goggles I will be seeing the same thing you are now seeing. The goggles that I wear are the goggles of faith in the living God. 'Faith' meaning seeing what God sees and acting on it. Your goggles are the goggles of the evolutionary theory that is based on conjectures or hypothesis that has not been proven as facts and will require more faith than mine to believe.

Don't be silly. If the theory of evolution required faith, it would be a theory. By the way, no, my "goggles" aren't the theory of evolution which, fyi, isn't based on conjectures, etc.

But both of us have the same fossils or evidences to work on. The only difference is the presupposition that we start from. I start from the assumption of the Creation theory as revealed in the book of 'Genesis' while you start from a different assumption to mine, you start from the assumption of the 'big bang' theory as to the reason of existence.

The Big Bang theory isn't the reason for existence.

If I say that you should read out this sentence through your own goggles "Godisnowhere" where would you place the spaces or the emphasis in the sentence? You will definitely read it as "God is nowhere". But if I should read the same sentence using my own goggles I will read it as "God is now here". You will realise that we used the same evidence, material or words but with different spaces, emphasis or presuppositions, hence we arrive at different conclusions.

Copy/paste:

Are you sure it isn't "God I snow here"? That makes the most sense. Incidentally, I did read it as "God is now here" - for whatever it is worth. However, when it comes to things like science theories versus Creationism, or even religion against non-religion, it most often isn't a case of interpreting the evidence differently using the same materials, etc, it's usually a case of one claiming "God is now here", but the letters are invisible or there's no need for letters anyway.

According to my own goggles I read in the book of Genesis that Adam was the first man to be created.

According to mine, Oceanius had a hand in the birth of the Earth. Go figure.

If you were to be transported back in time and space to that day using your goggles to determine the age of Adam then I am sure that you would say that he was about 30 years old even though he was just some seconds old. That is why your determination of the ages of the fossils or rocks would be defective because you where not there and your knowledge as to the events that took place around that time would be limited.

Would I also say that he has tooth missing from a fight he got into when he was 16? And, he had an appendix removed when he was 12, hence the missing appendix at age 30? What about memories of his favorite barber - who for some bizarre reason has kept most of Adam's hair - and his hospital having records of when and where his placenta was removed?

The point is, if you haven't gotten it, the Earth has a history - radiometric dating is only one aspect of dating the Earth's age. While, it certainly is possible that a God or Being created the Earth last Thursday (see "last Thursdayism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism) with embedded history ad stuff, it's hardly parsimonious. Besides, a being that does that is either deceitful or mischievious.

The bottomline is that God who created the universe and the earth has revealed to us His mind and purpose in the Truth book and the earlier we take it as the truth the better it will be for us to keep us healthy spiritually, mentally, morally, socially, physically and emotionally.

You Lovecraft peddlers are all the same: always calling him God and a collection of his books, the Truth book. Look, let me tell you something, I already have a copy and it hasn't kept me healthy and stuff and, also, I'm no longer scared of being eaten because I have the Dianetics.

OLAADEGBU:
The question is first of all an abstract which has no basis in reality. Secondly, the question of God being created is oxymoronic,

Not really, no.

that means that you cannot ask a blind person to describe the colour of red,

Actually, you can. Their description, though, if any, may vary from yours and from person to person - depending on their circumstances.

or for a seeing person to describe the smell of red.

Once again, you can. Colour synaethesia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapheme-color_synesthesia

To begin with the first question, everything that has a beginning must have an end the universe has a beginning and therefore must have an end.

In my opinion, it's probably best to state instead that based on our experiences and intuition, things that have a beginning must have an end. Furthermore, there's a possibility that the Universe didn't have a beginning - at least in the classical sense of the word.

God does not have[b] a beginning[/b] and does not have an end. God is living outside of time, space and matter, this means that He can see the past, present and future in one stretch. God lives in eternity which is the life time of the never dying God. He is the Alpha and Omega, The beginning and The End. I believe this is too big for the finite mind to comprehend, that is why we should humble ourselves and bow to the King of Kings and Lord of lords.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp

So, um, do you have any evidence for that or will you at some point - in this lifetime! - have some evidence for any of that?

OLAADEGBU:
If I say that you should read out this sentence through your own goggles "Godisnowhere" where would you place the spaces or the emphasis in the sentence? You will definitely read it as "God is nowhere". But if I should read the same sentence using my own goggles I will read it as "God is now here". You will realise that we used the same evidence, material or words but with different spaces, emphasis or presuppositions, hence we arrive at different conclusions.

Ae you sure it isn't "God I snow here"? That makes the most sense. Incidentally, I did read it as "God is now here" - for whatever it is worth. However, when it comes to things like science theories versus Creationism, or even religion against non-religion, it most often isn't a case of interpreting the evidence differently using the same materials, etc, it's usually a case of one claiming "God is now here", but the letters are invisible or there's no need for letters anyway.

According to my own goggles I read in the book of Genesis that Adam was the first man to be created.

According to mine, Oceanius had a hand in the birth of the Earth. Go figure.

If you were to be transported back in time and space to that day using your goggles to determine the age of Adam then I am sure that you would say that he was about 30 years old even though he was just some seconds old. That is why your determination of the ages of the fossils or rocks would be defective because you where not there and your knowledge as to the events that took place around that time would be limited.

Would I also say that he has tooth missing from a fight he got into when he was 16? And, he had an appendix removed when he was 12, hence the missing appendix at age 30? What about memories of his favorite barber - who for some bizarre reason has kept most of Adam's hair - and his hospital having records of when and where his placenta was removed?

The point is, if you haven't gotten it, the Earth has a history - radiometric dating is only one aspect of dating the Earth's age. While, it certainly is possible that a God or Being created the Earth last Thursday (see "last Thursdayism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism) with embedded history ad stuff, it's hardly parsimonious. Besides, a being that does that is either deceitful or mischievious.

The bottomline is that God who created the universe and the earth has revealed to us His mind and purpose in the Truth book and the earlier we take it as the truth the better it will be for us to keep us healthy spiritually, mentally, morally, socially, physically and emotionally.

You Lovecraft peddlers are all the same: always calling him God and a collection of his books, the Truth book. Look, let me tell you something, I already have a copy and it hasn't kept me healthy and stuff and, also, I'm no longer scared of being eaten because I have the Dianetics.

God created every living thing after there own 'kind' therefore the chicken was created fully matured male and female before they began to lay eggs that took after their own kind, today we may have different species but they are all after their own 'kind'.

Hmm, so what is a "kind"?

stingersmi:
No birds before eggs,

Once again, no, according to the theory of evolution and the evidence that has been found, there were egg laying animals before birds came on the scene.

According 2 creation theory of the book of Genesis,
The birds also came ist!

I'm not aware of any "creation theory of the book of Genesis".

stingersmi:
no body created God.
But the chicken exsisted far b/4 d eggs, cause accordin 2 evolution, birds came first!

According to evolution, eggs came before birds.

ricadelide:
oki might not blame them

You might not blame them for choosing to believe "the genetic makeup of populations change over time"? Well, I guess it does depend on the level of the person's education.

Because it's mechanistically implausible/improbable (i probably would address it in detail later)

It most certainly would help a great deal if you do address it in detail. Also, what makes macroevolution mechanistically improbable yet leaves microevolution unscathed?

Example: Reptile to Birds
And; universal common ancestor to all organisms

Okay. So, should I assume that when you mean macroevolution, you mean, roughly, evolution betwen classes and beyond that? In any case, there are lines of evidence of those you mentioned occuring.

I didnt say that. Having an idea of what constitutes a species does not mean there can't be unwarranted arguments about the exact definition (and perhaps boundaries) of one.

That's fair enough and I agree.

ricadelide:
from your next statement its obvious it makes a difference

How so?

now you have a whole load of unfounded speculation here.

Extrapolation.

How do we know that in this case it involves populations? in the case of humans for example, the common consensus is that all modern day humans came from a single individual (or is it pair? ). So why can't that be the case with chickens?

Evolution occurs in populations not individuals - it's highly unlikely that chickens would be different in that regard. In the case of humans, you don't have it exactly right. The genetic make-up of modern humans can be traced back to two humans (who didn't exist at the same time); however, those individuals did live ina population of other humans - the lineage of the others have ceased to exist.

Your third statement (about seamless change) is also speculation,

No, it's more extrapolation.

however on getting to the second part of your statement you cannot categorically say that the 'full' chicken came at the level of the hatched chick (or chicken) or at the level of the next egg-laying.

I'm sorry? I didn't understand that (sorry, I'm slightly knackered). Could you please clarify what you mean.

Horse and human (both very disputable - and perhaps a few others) must make for very good generalizations

They refute the claim that evidence for a gradual process is lacking in the fossil record.

ricadelide:
I'm almost sure you've heard the terms before (at least with all your reading).

Yes; however, many Creationists I've encountered have had different definitions for the terms.

Obviously, everyone knows that the genetic makeup of populations change over time; that is not to be disputed.

You'd be surprised at the number of people that have asserted that such is not the case.

However, those kinds of changes (which we have continually and repeatedly witnessed) cannot be extrapolated to justify nor imply the TOE, because it (the latter) is mechanistically not feasible from former ie the kind of changes that we see.

Why not?

Suffice it to say that by macroevolution i refer to some broader aspects of the TOE especially as it relates to a universal common ancestor.

That's an interesting and not so clear definition. Could you clarify it a little more? What broader aspects? How little broader in relation to micro-evolution?

Broader because there's no need for petty debates about what constitutes a species and all that.

I don't think having at least a vague idea of what constitutes a species is petty.

ricadelide:
To prevent equivocating on the word 'egg', i'm guessing the author of this thread referred to a chicken egg not just eggs in general (not that i beleive that eggs in general came before chickens though).

I doubt it would have made a difference either way - although I did take it to mean, at the very least, amniotic eggs.

If that is the case, the question would then be, did the reptilean ancestor of the chicken lay an egg that hatched into a chicken? (while it itself still remained a reptile or reptilo-avian?) Or let's say there is an avian intermediary between the dinosaur ancestor and the chicken; did it grow up different from a chicken and then laid a chicken egg?

It's unlikely that it occured like the scenarios you've presented above. Remember, populations not individuals. It's likely the changes were seamless from generation to generation, to put it in simple terms at some point it became organisms with characteristics that we call chickens.

I'm sure you'd say it was a very gradual process - something which is totally lacking in the fossil record.

For the evolution of chickens, yes. Generally, no.

ricadelide:
perhaps you could help those theorists know about this prize; Origin-of-life prize, it could help their research considerably

I'm pretty sure they already know about it. It's a pity they can't fulfill the criterai of the prize, though, as the theories dealing with abiogenesis are tentative at the moment. I hear that should change in ten years (give or take a few).

ricadelide:
If you're referring what is now termed 'microevolution', perhaps no-one would dispute that. If you're referring to macroevolution, i disagree.

No, I was referring to change in the genetic structure of a population over time. I'm curious, though, what do you mean by microevolution and macroevolution, and what makes one possible and the other not.

davidylan:
How do we know this is 100% true?

We don't. Science doesn't do proofs.

For all the noise making, evolution is merely a premise and not an establishe fact except for scientists who like to delude themselves.

Don't be silly. Evolution at its most basic is an established fact. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, which seeks to explain the influences of evolution, is a science theory not just a premise. By the way, would it be wrong to assume that the delusion of scientists who like to delude themselves is pretty much the same delusion of atheists?

how ridiculous, and this coming from people who keep asking us to produce CONCLUSIVE evidence that God created life.

Well, since I'm not one of the people who keep asking you (or to be frank, anybody) to produce "COCLUSIVE evidence that God created life" I'll have disregard this section of your post. Maybe you should take it up with them?

They can't even prove their own competing theories of life.

Nor are they setting out to prove any theories: proof is for maths and alcoholics that are watching their figures.

What a deluded bunch these atheists are turning out to be.

That's the third time you've used deluded. Are you sure you're not projecting?