₦airaland Forum

gidig:
Science has done so much for us through discoveries and our ability to use same to better our lives but there are many thing that science will not unravel that we witness daily.A few years ago, TIMES magazine carried a report on its front page that says 'Can we believe in Miracles?' It was an investigative report that interviewed many medical practitioners who witnessed inexplicable changes from the acts of faith of certain patients.The magazine not being religious one concluded that there are indeed factors that works outside those controlled by the five senses.

Wouldn't that be akin to the placebo effect? Which like acts of faith, also results in sometimes "miraculous" occurences.

A Scot friend and I had this discussion in 98 and she explains everything rationally.I asked her about David Copperfield,the great magician and what within her scientific discourse explain how an individual will in full glare of the press allow himself tied down with chains and locked in safe inside a building that was detonated with explosives.And she said it is a trick.I then asked her with her scientific knowledge to explain how the trick took place? It is in moments like this that the entire concept of intelligence that we know of come to their end.It is em.em, tele ki, em em,

She's right, it is a trick. That she couldn't explain it, doesn't make it any less of a trick. For example, I couldn't at on point explain how the quarter out of the ear trick was done, but that didn't mean people were "poofing" quarters into existence out of ears.

How does a magician levitate and defy the laws of gravity.

Stands on one leg, while the street audience marvels, then camera tricks are later used to wow the TV audience.

What of soul travel.

What of soul travel?

Why are most Near death experiences so similar?

Why are most ayahusca (sp?) experiences similar? Parsimonious explanation: something to do with the brain. Also, from what i understand many (most?) don't have NDE's.

Why do deities have such hold on people who can be considered very intelligent?

Intelligence doesn't preclude beliefs of the supernatural kind.

How do people who indulge in money ritual actually get the money and how scientifically is in connected to the people they kill?

You what?

There is a world that we can not see and whether it is popular or not,something in us all crave for that world;that world where our sense and physical experiences cannot limit us.This craving is the reason why there has been an upsurge in the eastern religions in the past decade and it is the reason why the Harry Porter series was a best seller.

There very well may be another world or dimension we can't see or test for, but there also could be a pink llama dancing in front of me too, *shrugs*. Also, by Eastern religions, I'm assuming you mean those religion that are far older than Christianity, and whose followers at one point may have been complaining about the upsurge in western religions. My guess would be, people probably find their Truths in those religions, perhaps they make more sense to them than christianity.

P.S The Harry Potter series are bestsellers, because they are well written, imaginative stories, that appeal to people of every age. The Famous Five series on the other hand…

Often times when we are comfortable, we do not remember this but when life brings us face to face with uncertainties like death(what does our intelligence say about life after death,since we need to be sure) we come to place when we really evaluate our concept of intelligence.

i'd say death isn't an uncertainty, it's pretty certain (as far this things go).


On the intelligence issue, I actually don't agree with the idea that irrational people aren't intelligent. By my reckoning, you have to have at least some intelligence before you can be irrational. What I'd say though, is that sometimes religion can act as a stumbling block to learning and thinking. Often a time, people would rather stew in their ignorance, than learn or see anything that may cause them to think for themselves, even for a little while.

baby4u2:
jagunlabi wrong again, Bible is not fiction. Kag common now i didnt say the whole book but all in all the book is ficticious not true events.

My bad, sorry.

baby4u2:
Dan Brown has clearly stated that "THE DA VINCI CODE" is a book based on fiction. pluz the book was also plagiarized. why would u want to believe a thief? whatz wrong with u jagunlabi? you have choosen to believe it clearly because u have always despised christianity. its like reading the harry porter and saying its a true account of the life of a boy. as for dre you can go ahead and watch the movie its coming out this friday it wont hurt to see it, go there with an unbiased mind sha.

The book wasn't plagarized, some claims in the book were said to have been plagarized.

dafizee:
The Author and publishers of the book, The producer and director of the movie, and the actor and actresses used are all sick.

No they aren't they are mostly healthy.

This is a typical example of psychopaths who are suppose to be in an asylum but are allowed to be with normal people.

Are you projecting?

This is a practical work of the agents of satan. Imagine an idiot telling u that Christ isn't real,

Bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wll I know someone who hasn't read the book.

People are stupid, I really dislike people. I'm going to bed.

jagunlabi:
@KAG
The book is based on other books that treated this issue with much more insight and scholarly research.
Books like;
The Templar Revelation
Holy blood,Holy Grail
Woman With The Alabaster Jar
The Nag Hammadi Texts

These are all non-fiction,scholarly works on which DVC was based.

Very loosely and a lot embellished in the name of fiction. Also, a lot of the conclusions and research done by the authors of some of those books, should be taken with a grain of salt.

gidig:
All these guys who are waxing philosophy know like all humans that there are things in life beyond the scope of their understanding and knowledge.

On behalf of all the philosophy waxers (I'm not one of them though), so?

In their heart is that thought 'what if, ? lingers.Daily,they drown it with arguments and presentations that tries to explain away a reality that they fear may exist.

You know, mind reading tends not to pay that well, especially if all you are doing, is projecting. Just a friendly advise.

Anyone can pretend to have fun saying this but you never know what is in the heart of man.I have been there before and I can tell you the fear of everyone who scorns God!

Do you mind if I ask, where you've been before, and why you were afraid?

And I hope that this will be posted!

Okay?

By the way, I was reading what was more or less the original comic, and it's even more offensive (in my opinion) than the parody. See http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp

jagunlabi:
That the church/christianity has been decieving it's congregation for 1800 years about the humanity of Jesus.The movie is about to tell you part of the greatest cover up in history.

This might help save a lot of explanations, go to your local bookshop, look for the Da Vinci Code book. Now bear in mind most bookshops are divided intofiction and non-fiction sections, take good note of which section the book is in. Now ask your self, would the film be that much different from the book?

That late Italian painters like to mess with people's minds, and French people are complex?

kimba:
Na ehn, you people really try o,

still discussing Evolution or Creation

does your discussion change the fact that God created this world?

Yes . IIRC, there was a question you were supposed to answer, are you going to answer it?

simmy:
Evolutionists will not give up

That's probably because evolutionists (whoever they are) know evolution does happen, they know it's a fact.

@kag
u seem unable to understand (or maybe u just refuse to) Xkp's point on evoluiton in humans.
What is responsible for the phenotypical differences observed in humans? Did all humans originate from the same source and then diverge at apoint in time? Is the white man the same specie with the black man, or the oriental man? Or are they all different species, Is that an example of speciation?

Actually, you seem unable to have understood his point. His point was one human race or population should be more evolved than the other, which was of course a silly straw man.

To answer your questions, most likely mutations, yes all human beings most likely originated from the same population, yes white people are the same species as black and orientals, and no it's obviously not an example of speciation.

Be objective, if u where an alien from space would you think the hottentot (very short and blackskinned) and the typical Northern European (tall and whiteskinned) where the same species?

No, I wouldn't, but beng an alien who managed to travel for millions of light years, just for a laugh, I'd have enough sophisicated equipment to be able to test them genetically (yes I'd abduct some humans, sue me, I'm an alien), and realise they are so close genetically, they'd have to be the same species.

Wouldnt that be an example of speciation to a diehard evolutionist alien?

Maybe you should have waited for my reply.

Like I said earlier, evolutionists will find speciation anywhere and everywhere they want to.
It's sad, really to see such dishonesty and pretence amongst scientists. It makes you wonder what science (as practised by some) is really about.

…and anti-evolution proponents will never accept speciation, even if it slaps them in the face. It's sad to see such ignorance in those who should know better, but I guess that's the way it goes.

The fact about evolution reamins
1) Fossil evidence DOES not support evolution
2) There is no evidence for speciation, sorry let me rephrase,
There is NO REAL evidence! a lot of claims exist

Then what's your explanation for transitionals, especially fossilised ones ? In fact maybe you can answer the question everybody else seems reluctanct to answer, "explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation."

xkape:
@ KAG
If u don't realise that thisand all that follows is in answer to some of the issues u raised then maybe it is really wasted

Really? You're not trying to be duplicitous once again, are you? Let's review, shall we:

First bit: It’d be nice to have your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue; Did your post address it? Nope.

Second: presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”, Did your post address it? Rather vaguely, with the only figures touted out, starting with "I've heard", , and nothing explained in any way.

Third: explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation? Addressed? Nope.

Fourth: “Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.", addressed? Vaguely.

Fifth: What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.”. Addressed? Nope.

Sixth: “Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind.”. Addressed? Still keeping fingers crossed, but not holding breath.

And once again u have sidestepped all the additional issues raised like stereo-specificity, ubiquity of respiration, interdependence of biochemical processes etc

Not really, I just decide not to include my response, in the hopes that you'd actually address my points before the goal posts got shifted again. In any case, here's my response (I had most of it done alkready, but finished it today), and it will be my last to you, until my points are addressed.

[b]

A pity u gave up on math but i am sure wil be able to follow this.

One can only hope,

Experiments like the above point away from evolution.

No they don’t.

Everything in the end can be broken down to simple numbers. And the probabilty of the nylonase formation can be pegged down to araound 0.0001.

Not everything, for example the God concept, and also most things can be misrepresented by simple numbers, see Hoyle’s abiogenesis calculation for example, but I digress. I’m glad you accept the figure given by the bloke of bloke of TalkOrigins letter of the month fame, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you are going to conflate several issues together, using it as your ramming rod (okay I cheated a little, I peeked).

Most biochemical changes however are interdependent forming long chains and sequences with little margin for error.

But there are still errors, even in ones less error prone like the human genome.

The sequece of respiration has been exhaustively elucidated and also shown to be almost identical at the cellular level across species and hence eons of evolution.

IA scenario where this biochemical chain reaction developed through a random development of its component enzymes, pathways and substrates would involve multiplying all the component probabilities together. I have seen some estimates of this numbers to be in the order of 10**40 (10 raised to the power of 40). In statistics an event that has a probability of 10**20 is considered not to be possible(the possibility is so low as to be considered immposible).

Really? I’ve seen estimates that place the probability at exactly one, funny that…but seriously, do you mind showing how those estimates were calculated? As in, what factors were taken into consideration, what kinds of processes, etc.?

Secondly a gradual evolution would suggest a wide variation in the basic mechanism for respiration involving a wide variety of substrates different pathways etc but i don't think this is the case.

The gamut of anaerobic and aerobic respiration exists in varying degrees in almost all species.

You mean on the cellular level? I can’t see any reason why there should be wide variations on a cellular level, there are somewhat wide variations involved in respiration in different organisms though. Also a short from TO (thanks for reminding me they don’t just debunk creationism)

“The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving" and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago).
Photosynthesis evolved around 3.4 billion years ago. Photosynthesis is a process that allows organisms to harness sunlight to manufacture sugar from simpler precursors. The first photosystem to evolve, PSI, uses light to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to glucose. This process releases sulfur as a waste product. About a billion years later, a second photosystem (PS) evolved, probably from a duplication of the first photosystem. Organisms with PSII use both photosystems in conjunction to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) into glucose. This process releases oxygen as a waste product. Anoxygenic (or H2S) photosynthesis, using PSI, is seen in living purple and green bacteria. Oxygenic (or H2O) photosynthesis, using PSI and PSII, takes place in cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria are closely related to and hence probably evolved from purple bacterial ancestors. Green bacteria are an outgroup. Since oxygenic bacteria are a lineage within a cluster of anoxygenic lineages, scientists infer that PSI evolved first. This also corroborates with geological evidence.” (from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html).

Another issue is the stereo-specificity of many of the components of life. Random changes should have incorporated various configurations into amino acids ( for example) in the early formation of life. But almost all those necessary for life are skewered in the laevo- direction. these are gaps in logic evolutionists cannot just bridge (my biochem has gone a bit flaky but i am sure these are the basic facts)

Okay that I don’t get, so I’ll ask why you’d expect so many vast differences, in fact IIRC, what you are talking about would have been (and still probably is) a problem for abiogenesis, and not evolution.

But evolutionists know these things and will tell u that because it happened it must be true. But if u were a policeman u would never arrest a blind man for assasinating kennedy because of the improbability of a blind man shooting that accurately. But what if his prints were on the gun and he was found on the scene of the crime. Would u still arrest him or woulld u look for another explanation? like
1. He isnt really blind
2. The was someone there holding his hand

You what? No, you’d just assume the ghost of Christmas past did the shooting, and was trying to frame the blind guy.[/b]

I will get u references on the lions and stuff. Be patient, i do have else to do apart from nairaland

I'm sure.

xkape:
quote]Another famous one-liner. U have completely side stepped the issues raised in the question

Er, there was no question at that point, there was a claim made on my behalf, “…So by your argument this evolution should add some complexity or material to the genes of some races.”. The question which comes later on was answered, and it looks like you responded to it below.

I repeat myself again. Is the difference in human appearance a result of evolution and addition of genetic material or the manifestations of combinations of genes inherent in the human?

You are not repeating yourself, don’t pretend you are. To answer your question, it’s most likely both. I’d add deletion into the mix too.

In the same way variations in Pseudomonas strains do not make for Evolution or make one strain more evolved than the other !!!!!
Thank u for making my point for me

Good work, looks like you just beat your straw man to death, nice, very nice. Before you celebrate the demise of your straw man though, maybe you would like to point out where anyone but you has alluded to one being "more evolved".

Actualy i do. But it would be rather wasted on u. And i don't care for soundbites.

But of course that’s what it is https://i2.tinypic.com/zn4u4y.gif. You know what, that does it, I'm not responding to you again, until you respond to these:

It’d be nice to have your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue; presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”; explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation; “Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.”; What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.”; “Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind.”.

Don't worry, we will get to those

[/quote][sarcasm]I’m sure.[/sarcasm]

[quote]In simpler English, the objection is, almost every assumption in biology since Darwin has been based on the FACT of evolution.
If anyone fails to see that this is a fundamental systematic error, then i wonder. It is no different from the creationist basing all their inference from observations on Genesis. It is a case of Genesis vs Origin of the Species. Like I have said before, a lot of evolutionary explanations to phenomena are merely a lot of imagination and wishful thinking. Like the long hair theory, like the Galapagos finches ( i am waiting to hear an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality, that should be interesting)

That would be before Darwin actually, and that’s because evolution is a fact. Also, I still don’t see what the problem is, because I can’t think of any lab experiment where assumptions are not made before the experiment. The assumption is then either proved true or false by the experiment. Sheesh, this is elementary stuff.

No, u missed the point. Go and do your research and find out what the difference in base pairs is for the old and the evolved strain, compare with existing strains . Also Yomo et al did not mention an addition but a modification of existing genetic materials. Later writers added this

Will do, By the way, IIRC, there was an addition of nucleotides, which resulted in a new enzyme.

Also find out the statistical deviation of the position of the modified gene to the mean.Then compare with progressive deviation that would be required for a bacterium to evolve into a fish, U just don't get it do u?

No I don’t,. I gave up on real math a long while ago, maybe you can do it and show how it relates to unicellular organism going through numerous evolutionary changes to become fish.

Good. I can assume that at a point in time modern man was made up of a small group of individuals in a particular a locale before they migrated to other parts, right? We can also assume that they hade sihadr phenotypical characteristics like skin color, hair color and texture, eye color etc, right? As they migrated, they must have evolved into the variants we see today. these variations are also passed on to the offspring.
So by your argument this evolution should add some complexity or material to the genes of some races.

No, that’s by your argument, which from where I’m sitting is leading up to a strawman.

Some races should be more evolved if we assume that that the original strains still exist (because the emergence of mutants does not necessarily destroy or stop propagation of the "pure" strains) Answer this please.

….and there it is. Simple answer to a question which is nothing but a glorified “which race is more evolved”; no race is more evolved than the next. In much the same way variation in each individual does not make any one human “more evolved”.

With respect to your question on thermodynamics and statistics, maybe i will write a paper. I know of people who are currently looking into building a computer model for evolution but are limited in technical knowledge and resources but those can be overcome by collaboration with others, I think simmy said he was a biochemist, maybe he would be interested. (its good the genome project is going on so everybody will have access to genetic information) So keep your fingers crossed

So you don’t actually have any “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”? You just thought that would make for a nice soundbyte? Well, I’ll keep my fingers crossed, but I won’t be holding my breath.

And " It just happened by Chance " is a better one?

Nice try. Now, how about instead of attempting a dodge with a straw man, you actually answer the question. “In fact how about you rise to the challenge, and explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation.”.

Yes, evolution cannot extricate itself from this and many other dilemmas

No, it’s a case of damned if you do, because anti-evolution proponents have been howling for lab demonstrations of the processes of evolution, before they’d accept it could have happened. When that’s done, the goalposts are shifted, and the new claim becomes, “see a human did it, therefore God”. If the experiments aren’t done, there’s an outcry, when they are done, there’s more outcry.

You are also in the habit of avoiding glaring holes in evolutionary arguments with your famous one-liners. I hope u get in the mood soon

You mean like the many you’ve avoided? Nferyn and I have asked of you before, so I’ll post some again: It’d be nice to have your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue; presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”; explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation; “Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.”; What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.”; “Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind.”.

A worthy response to at least three or four of the above may just get me in the mood. Also, could you give some examples of me avoiding “glaring holes in evolutionary arguments with famous one-liners”? Thanks in advance.

Thank you Sir/Madam (since u seem to be of indeterminate sex) for telling me what I am. I was of the opinion that I was an evolved bacterium

You are welcome. You may as well brush up on the theory of evolution too, while learning about frame shift mutations.

nferyn:
@KAG,
You seem to change gender at will, didn't know that was possible amongst mammals

It's an internet thing, it only seems to happen on the interweb.

spikedcylinder:
Take a look at this scenario. . . .
A christian sister is giving out tracts which i politely decline.
She says"why not"?
I say i'm not a christian.
She says (with a shocked look on her face)"Really?are you a muslim?"
And I say,NO,am not a muslim either.
She says,"then what are you?"
I say,I'm not a religious person and then she looks at me,tells me with a loud voice to give my life to christ,rolls her eyes and walks away in a rude manner!

This ind of thing happens EVERY TIME I encounter the christian types.
Now,if thats not offensive,i don't know what else is!

What's also interesting is, it's not just the fundy "Good news" spreaders that are offensive, the tracts they hand out tend to be more offensive than the tract in OP. What's more the original author of the parodied tract, like many Christians, even insults other Christian denominations, so you can imagine his take on "false religions".

Where is the world heading to?

The Sun?

Afeni:
It's also funny when you consider the fact that Islam forbids singing.

Reference? Preferably from the Koran.

Ajisafe:
[b]
Abraham was neither a Jew nor christian. He was a Yorubaman, and I can prove it to you.

I'd like to see this "proof" of yours, if you don't mind.

lioness:
you mean this evolution crap is still going on?

Yeah, for billions of years, and counting .

xkape:
@KAG

Was trying to keep my posts on this as simple as possible but since u brought the big guns out,lets do it.

The big guns? Hardly! The oligomer degradation enzyme, though important in its own right, pale in comparism to factors like transitionals, ERVs, and nested hierarchies; and is just another worthy example of increase in information.

Firstly, the case of Nylon oligomer degradation enzyme in Pseudomonas is a classic example of subjectivity in science. One of the preliminary objectives of the experiment was to "evolve a new metabolic activity under laboratory conditions". The assumption was already made before the experiment.

Don’t be silly, that was the objective. On the other hand, of course assumptions were made before the experiment. Surely you are not suggesting that was wrong? I fail to see what your objection was about. Curiouser and curiouser.

Secondly, Psuedomonas was shown to be able to metabolise plastic under the right conditions (when u strip away all the jargon), a quality it did not have before. the question is, does this prove evolution? Does this go agianst my thermodynamic/complexity assertion. here are direct quotes from the original paper ( i studied quite some biochem in school so i should be able to interprete a scientific paper don't u think?)

These results suggest that PAO5502 acquires some genetic alterations in the course of acquiring the new metabolic activity

These results indicate that P. aeruginosa PAO5501 and PAO5502 are true derivatives of PAO1.

The experiment gave rise to another modified starin of the bacteria. what simmy would call micro-evolution. It did not increase the numder of genomes in the organism, it only changed the arrangement of the existing genomes and hence phenotype.

Looks like someone missed the point. Of course it's micro-evolution, it's an example of a mutation increasing information.

This is comparable to the case of a certain species of parrot that was vegetarian but later adapted to eating meet. it was still a parrot., it would still be genetically similar to vegetarian strains and given the right conditons it would revert back to its orginal state. In British zoos in World War 2, lions were fed hay and they survived, is this evolution? Is the lion evolving into a goat. Dogs have been fed beans and such food by humans for hundreds of years, are they anything but dogs. Was the change in diet cosed by and sustained by mutation? or vice versa

It would be comparable, if the parrot suddenly developed an enzyme that wasn’t formerly in existence, to help it digest meat. Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind. Also, one more thing about reverting, while that’s possible, the bacteria /parrot/whatever, would still most likely retain the new information. This was clear to some extent in the bacteria, “The newly obtained abilities of PAO5502 were retained even after five successive cultivations on Glu minimal medium” (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf)

Also look at this article attacking creationist explanatin to this phenomenon (though i do not totally support some of the assertions by creationists) the evolutionist was just out to make the creationists look silly, avoiding legitimate questions and covering up with jargon (like is done on this forum).

The only one who’s done just that, has been you xcape. Any word yet on your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue, or failing that, how about presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”? In fact how about you rise to the challenge, and explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation.

I even have a strange suspicion that this is the article that KAG is basing her assumptions on, just regurgitating the opinions of a similarly biased evolutionists. I have taken the time to read the original findings of Yomo et al

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

You pretentious prick, nice attempt at poisoning the well. First, I had actually never seen the TalkOrigins page you posted, in fact I very rarely use TO, and mostly use it to find refutations to the many quote mines of anti-evolution proponenets.

Secondly, you really are an arse.

Finally, I’ve taken the time to read the Yomo et al’s paper (for those that are interested: http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf), and I’ve read several variants of the paer, so…

The very fact that these conditons were induced in a lab suggest an outside cognate force behind this "evolution"

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, eh?

Let me show examples of questions raised and flimsy answers

I’m not in the habit of answering arguments on behalf of others, especially if they are as long as your attempted rebuttal, and especially when I’m not in the mood. I will suggest though that you e-mail TO with your rebuttal, and I’ll suggest you read up on frame shifting mutations before you send your e-mail. If I do get in the mood later on, and I can be bothered….

And @KAG
Earlier in this thread i was trying to explain to you how we could use evolution in lower organisms to study in days that which would have taken eons in higher ones. U said u didnt know what i was talking about. I hope u do now

If by that, you meant studying processes like the different types of mutations, then you did a good job in shrouding it in a cloud of inanity. Which is exactly why my response from earlier still stands, “The evolution of virii are used in the study of evolution (e.g. infections and resistance of virii like the AIDS virus), but it's nonsensical to suggest that modern virii would follow the evolution path that lead to humans, there's absolutely no reason for that to happen.”.

zebudaya:
what about Beelzebub, Belial, and Baalshatzar. beautiful names don't you think so?

Nah. Beelzebub, and Baalshatzar are too long, and some may find them hard to spell; while Belial has a lie sound at it's end, and sounds like the name of an asylum.

spikedcylinder:
Yes!That way we can name them God,Jesus and Holy Spirit!

Sweet! I didn't think it was possible, but now I've fallen even more in love.

mlks_baby:
@Nwoke, you really haven't said anything and I respect your opinion simply because that's what you really want to believe. Even the most respected atheists and skeptics are not that brazen - they'll always tell you that the non-existence of God cannot be proven! So, could you break the record and tell us how you came by your omniscient discovery?

The christian God? I've met several who have claimed just that.

spikedcylinder:
KAG,I love you!Honestly,i do!

I love you too, lets make beautiful babies together - I hope.

xkape:
I have been qietly observing the exchanger bw KAG nferyn and simmy.
Thank God someone else has pointed out some of the points i have been screaming at my evolutionist friends

The big inter- family jumps observed within species cannot be explained away with a graduall speciation. Present observations do not support this, at best we can see within species variation.

What points? Inter-family jumps?

And within species variation can lead to speciation.

We can also see Our current knowledge of genetics does not support this. we have maped the human genome, we have broken inheritance down to its most basic elements. we can match genes exactly to a sequence of numbers. proven mathematical and statistical methods do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms (but this whole argument seems to have gone over everybody's head).

You say it's been proven? Well show your work, and let's hope it's peer reviewed too.

i even tried to to explain the thermodynamic improbability of of evolution but i heard rebuttals such as.
"the earth is not a closed system", duh then no experiment concerning a closed system on earth should be valid. the abstraction of a closed system was used just to demonstrate a basic principle. as nferyn rightly pointed out energy enters and leaves the earth all the time. but even he will not argue that there is a net absorption of energy, and this energy applied within a genetic framework will lead to a degradation of genetic structure, not a build up.

Leaving the closed system argument aside, you know you didn't actually address my post rebutting your claim (well apart from the disingenious "snowflakes-evolution" thing)

like simi said, mutations cannot consitently add to genetic material over time, it just doesnt make sense.

I don't think that was what she said, but in all honesty, we see mutations adding to genetic material all the time, rearranging, and creating information all the time. I've given the Nylon oligomer degradation enzyme in bacteria as an example, polyploidy is another.

mutations are degradatory (is that a word?) in nature. the larger portion of mutations we observe in organisms today are detrimental or at worst neutral. the seemingly beneficial ones, like those that give resistance to pathogens or chemicals are all within the scope of making a species more adaptable to its environment. it doesnt make the spcies another thing.

That's because mutations alone do not make a new species. Mutations in a population, coupled with selection, and in some cases other factors like isolation, can cause speciation.

even KAG has shown that virii have been mutating for eons, but are sttill virri. the mythical unicellular organism that became a multicellular one has nevr been demonstrated
even fossilation show a clear stratification instead of gradiation in species

Any reason why they shouldn't still be virii? When you say demonstrated, do you mean the unicellular organism hasn't been produced, or that no working theory exists? Also, like I've said before, in the grand scheme of things we've a good number of fossils, but providing fossils for every species and every inter species change would be impossible.

but as always people will believe what they chose to believe

Sometimes, other times they go where evidence leads.

On that note, it seems this thread has turned into a defend evolution thread, so I'd like to ask the opponents of the theory of evolution, for their explanation for how man and other animals came to be. Not just "Goddidit"s, but a detailed - or semblance of one - explanation of how humans and other animals came to be.

TayoD:
The evidence of the Bible being God's word is numerous. We could take it from the point of view of prophecies fulfilled, current world event, the veracity of its claims adn the power it has to heal the sick, raise the dead and meet all needs based on faith in the God who wrote it.

Even if Logical doesn't care for your suggestion, may I still see them (the evidence that is)

While you can also try to prove other stuffs to me, I can tell you I do not acknowledge them and they are nothing but BULL**** to me. The Bible reveals the beginning of creation, what goes on between the beginning and the ending. It reveals God's plan for salvation and the eventual conquest of evil. What other books does this. What other book makes such bold claims that can be verified by today's events? I dare say none, but you can prove me otherwise.

Erm, a literal reading of the Bible, does not align with today's science, and I'm sure I've heard Hindus, Muslims, and Jews make the same claim you have. I'm sure there are other people from other religions who will make that claim.

Ajisafe:
I can prove to anybody that the Author of the al-Qur'an was Allah. The Qur'an was Alah's inspiration to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Neither Allah nor Muhammad wrote the Qur'an by their hands; the Arch-Angel Jibril (Gabriel) was the Conduit in this wise.

If you do, you'd be the first. Can I see your proof? If you don't mind, and you have time to spare.

zebudaya:
I teach people how to use photoshop. I guess i am proficient in photoshop, but that's not the point. You post a cartoon in which Zeus tells the man that he was worshiping a fake God, and his religion is a facade, but you would not dare post/talk about the muslim version. Like gbengaijot it's all about respect. "You don't ram a shopping cart in my ankle intentionally then tell me sorry."

That is the point. The author created it as a rebuttal to the constant use of Pascal's wager and it's variations by Christians. It would be a tad odd rebutting people you haven't even come into contact with, no? There was absolutely no reason for him to have created a muslim version, but now that you feel so strongly about it, you can make your version.

zebudaya:
In that case I want the MUSLIM VERSION posted, the one where the guy believed in ALLAH and not ZEUS.

Well this is what you do then, get photoshop (or something similar), get a tutorial or a tutor to teach you how to use the software; then you go on Jack Chicks website, pick a tract of your choice, save/copy/paste, then edit it. Voila! you have yourself a muslim version, be as creative as you want.


by the way, like I sated before, I don't think I've ever heard or met a muslim use Pascal's wager as an argument. I'm sure there are muslims that do, but it seems to be overwhelmingly used by Christians. I'd wager the author of the comic has had a similar experience.

Ndipe:
Blasphemy!!!!

I know that the God that I worship, Jesus Christ is Alive, whether the world likes it or not.

Can you imagine the nerve , ?

It isn't blasphemy, as it doesn't insult any of the Christian Gods ().

gbengaijot:
I wont be suprise if i am banned from Nairaland with my comments below,

$eun, what is the motive behind your first post?, is it to make a mockery of christaindom?. why did i asak, the above tract u got seems to only mock rather than give a ground for discussion.
I personally think your are feeling thesame way like you were when you were a christian. Trying to let people believe you that there is no God. In as much as everyone has their own beliefs, there is no point to mock.

In Nwoke's defence, the "tract" he posted in the OP, is not as much an attack on christianity, as it is a satirical rebuttal of Pascal's wager.

Damest09:
All what you know suppose to change you. maybe you should think about it. good night.

I will, force of habit really. And a good night to you too.

Damest09:
oh i thought you are. when you know some of it why ain't you a Christian or you don't have any religion or believe?

You won't be the fisrt to make that assumption, and probably wont be the last. I'm not christian, because I'm not a theist. I'm an atheist.

An atheist who's going to bed as soon as people on some other forum tell me what Smh and nothing dey par mean.

Damest09:
@KAG

So you know all this before, that means you are a Christian? Good.

I knew several, not all, but I'm *blushes* not a Christian. Sorry?

Damest09:
@KAG

It poem is OK, I understand some while i don't understand some part. I understand bible more. Were you just teasing me or you meant the question you've being asking? Anyway it all good 'cause i don't always talk about things like this. Thanks for the questions. I might be wrong in few points of what i said, it will help me to ask more questions about it someday soon and also the questions made me realize some things too. Thanks

I was teasing a little, sorry (I'm in an impish mood for some unknown reason), but I agree with you though, thinking never hurt anyone. Thanks for indulging me too, and yes I admit it, you made me think too - especially of memories long forgotten.