₦airaland Forum

Its sad seeing the misuse of the generic term atheism.

^^

I have explained that already.

But even with that, there were at least 56 000 generations of this E.coli species and the changes recorded seem far more consistent with what I think is called micro-evolution where a species changes to fit its environment without ever losing its identity.

Let's start from points we agree. Micro evolution as you put it, are micro changes over short periods wherein genetic changes (mutations) with advantageous qualities assist an organism to survive in a particular and temporary environment.

Note that the small beneficial mutations are beneficial and permanent, and will eventually be passed down to the next generation. The next generation will also experience its own peculiar micro evolution and be able to pass it on to the "nexter" generation.

Note that these mutations are permanent and don't revert.

So paint a picture of a bird, remove the ability to fly and replace with that to glide. Later give it stronger legs, then later reduce the feathers, later elongate its beak. At the end of the day, substantial changes will be seen on the bird.

Ihedinobi: Uh, you lost me at " newer species come from older ones". Are you saying that the experiment proved that generations down the line, whole new and completely different organisms are formed from the parent? If you are, please show me the part of the experiment that showed a whole new and totally separate organism that arose from the E.coli anywhere down the more than 50 000 generations and how it is a completely separate organism from the parent E.coli. Or show me anything that concretizes the possibility of that.

The experiment didn't not produce a multicellular organism nor a human, however it does confirm the fundamental reasoning of how evolution works. It shows diversity, and how mutation shapes organisms. Different / new individuals are reproduced from a dissimilar parent organism.

The experiment however has not run as long as a million years or so, whereby drastic changes in organisms are expected.

It is.

It proves that newer species come from older ones. Over time, the emerging species lose their identity with the old species. The new species in turn go thru the same process for years and years and years.

So the end result could be surprising.

Yes it is empirical and a scientific theory.

okeyxyz: can you give an example? Note: an event must ultimately be useful whether by direct evidence or by induction. Eg: If we say that other stars out there are without purpose and evidence says so, On the other hand We have the sun which supports life with overwhelming evidence, and this sun is a star, then we can induce that the purpose(or at least one of the purposes) of stars is to create/support life. Yes it's subjective, but it is evidence based speculation.

So how are dropping apples frm a tree useful to its cause Gravity??

The theory dwells on the dynamicism of life, and claims that the similarity of all life suggests a common ancestor. That incredibly complex and structured life has simpler and commoner roots. That life operates on a mechanism of survival.

It also claims species emerge from older species due to genetic alterations (mutation) and also survive better if such alterations are beneficial to the new species.

How does this affect Christianity? The Bible, the foundation and voicebox of Christianity, claims a Creation within a period of 7 days. All life is created on the 5th and 6th days. All in the first week. Whereas in evolution life keeps evolving.

In Christianity the emergence of species is done by the supernatural power of God, while in evolution it is done by a natural means and its continuous.

So that one.

The miracle simply raises the bar for Christians.

Who witnessed it to write it down?

@ihinedohi

Ok, I'd pick Darwin's theory of natural selection.

The Church been the universal one was the personification of Christianity. It represented Christianity in its time. Hence not straws.

^^

I have made myself clear over twice and mentioned more than one conflict. But I will over it one more time:

Supernatural vs Natural.

@ihinedobi

Noo!! Then don't share any similarity with Christianity or Science.

The fundamental difference and outlook with both Science and Christianity, lies in their reliance on natural and supernatural assumptions. Also the quality of Truth being one, automatically places both science and christianity on a war path.

For example, the Galileo vs Church. The Church was convinced that years ago, by supernatural means, the state of astronomy was revealed to them. On the other hand, Galileo believed exploration finds truths and such truths are the guidelines for religion rather than the other way round.

And the debate on Consciousness

Also that on evolution and creation

Also on the origin of life.

Also psychological explanations and demon possession.

okeyxyz: Maybe you have some logical point you are trying to make, but the words you choose fail you. "Creator" is automatically purposed. "Cause" likewise is also automatically purposed. Both words produces some outcome, whether for creation or for destruction. The only things that "seem" to happen without purpose are chaos. Even at that, we can reasonably conclude that the purpose of chaos is destruction. Even christian doctrine teaches that both good and evil are intended for their respective purposes.

Cause does not imply purpose, its fatally false to assert that.

Ihedinobi: Lol. Really? Do those three employ the same tools?

Are art, commerce and banking pursuits of truth??

OLAADEGBU: Circumstantial evidence about the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ is available to all diligent sincere seekers of the truth.

MR OLA

The Gospel accounts are themselves in question.

Ihedinobi: We can safely say then that Science conflicts with art, banking and commerce, right? By that requirement, that is.

Such a conclusion couldn't have bin drawn from my post

OLAADEGBU: Where is the book or epistle that Timothy wrote? You have chosen to believe fictitious books as the books of the Bible but that's your choice.



Tell us specifically any of their claims as to the origin of life and let us put it to test. The Bible has passed all tests put before it.



Spell it out specifically where science is in conflict with the Christian faith? if anything at all science only confirms the claims of the Bible.

1. Rather Paul.

2. The Bible merely provided explanations. Buddhists point to the eternity of the soul/life and explain the existence of Evil and its solutions. Islam owes all to a Supreme Abstract Being.

3. In the areas of explanations and methods. Also note that both are in the business of explaining phenonmena

OLAADEGBU: Jesus is exciting, taste and see that He is good. You ask how do I know that the Bible is God's breath? The Word of God said it:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . ." (2 Timothy 3:16).

If God said it and I believe it then that settles it for me.



Give me one philosophy that has a clue as to the origin of life for instance?


As my brother ihedinobi asked, what are the conflicts?

1. Was the Book of Timothy the last book of the Bible? Did Timothy have all the Christian doctrinial books (judith, Barnabas, Gospel of Peter, Thomas) in mind or the specific books presently in the Bible prior to the Bible's own existence??

Was Timothy speaking from a revelation?

2. Buddhism, Atenism, Islam, Hinduism.


@ihinedohi

Conflicts with Science include epistemological tools. For christianity faith and revelation, for Science empiricism and exploration.

^^

True, a creator presupposes an intent and therefore mind.

BUT why presume an intent/a creator?? Why should we do that at all, if we can likewise rely on mechanical cause-effect?

@ihinedobi

Conflicts with Christianity and Science can be dated back Galileo's drama.

Also their different orientations, one is naturalist and other is dependent on the supernatural

One is materialist and empirical, the other dwells on spirituality and mysticism.

@Godfather

Free will is a very broad term which encompasses freedom of actions and thought, not just thought as you think.

Freewill/freely willed actions/voluntary actions, I repeat

Hence any necessity, dissuasion, deterrence that weighs in the mind of a free agent, and limits his actions. Can be said to diminsh his free will, bear it in mind that its irrelevant if he thought about it, cos even the impossible can be thought of.

You also don't address the pre programme and conditioning of the human mind towards pleasure and away from pain. This has an overwhelming influence on the so called free agent.

Free will is in essence impracticable.

greatgenius: says who..they are both not better

defenitely not a statement from the creator
how is this a command

exactly. mosaic laws. not God laws or commands. God does not have or give commands.

I'd assume you are not a christian, or at least the typical christian.

Punishment is preceded by a Command, hence the existemce of hell presumes a command.

Looooool!! Ola you are quite interesting

1. How is the supposed fact that the Bible is God's breath known?

2. Many philosophies and religions equally satisfy ppl with their answers on morality, purpose of life, afterlife, etc

3. We are all aware of Xtianity's conflict with Science

^^

"Obedience is better than sacrifice"

"Thou shall not put any Gods before me"

"Follow me cos I'm the way, the truth and the light"

Mosiac laws etc.

Mee234: He did not ditch logic. He simply realise what foolishness and limitation ur so call logic present

Ok, remove Reason. And if one doesn't think, then he is a fool

1Godfather: Freewill - and this definitely needs clear emphasis - does not rise or fall on whether there is punishment or reward for a purportedly freely willed action. In other words, any freely willed or freely executed action is completely independent of the consequences for said actions. Actions do not lose the quality of their being freely executed merely because there may be punishment or reward for them. I suspect a serious conflation is going on here. To counter the idea of freewill is not (as you seem to be thinking) to suggest that people may have strong disinclination to refuse a prescribed action because of some possible negative consequence - it is quite plainly to suggest that people are automata or robots and have no say or control over their actions; it is to suggest that questions of morality are about as involuntary as the body's autonomic processes like heartbeat, digestion, respiratory rate etc. As a matter of fact, in daily life we see that people are in fact capable of refusing to comply with some directive despite any accompanying promise of reward or punishment. Such refusal is only possible if people are free moral agents and not genetically pre-programmed automata.

@greatgeniIus

Sin is simply disobedience to God's activated will (Commands). Its a contravention of instructions from God. To deny God's commands and rules is to deny sin.

Mr Godfather

Commands operate with a disregard for free will, commands preempt the free agent and EXPECT an automated response in line with stimulus either reward or punishment. To claim God grants and thereafter issues a Command, implies God immediately withdrew the free will at the issuance of the command or else a conflict evolves.

Its impossible to believe rewards and punishments are ineffective at a free agent, with our modern knowledge on psychology; positive reinforcement, conditioning play a big role our psychological setup. We impulsively avoid pain. We seek out pain to gain greater pleasure. Our bodies and minds are pre-tuned.

Hence to claim our free will is outside the influence of the consequence of our actions, is ridiculous.

greatgenius: freedom and free will are one and the same. just diffrent words. freedom is choice. choice or free will is freedom

God gave no commands to no one. only free will.

This will contradict the concept of Sin. And the accounts of the Bible as a lawgiver. The 10 commandments and the Mosaic laws.

okeyxyz: where exactly did god give "free will" as you put it? Did he not say: "if you keep my laws blahblahblah..", then "so and so" will happen? "And if you disobey my laws blahblahblah..", then "so and so" will happen? If the freedom to choose between these two is what you mean by freewill, then you are correct.

However, everything changes if commands are followed by punitive measures, then free will is deliberately and intently diminished, because punishment is accompanied by an intention to enforce compilance.

Its different from deliberately jumping off a cliff

OP you havent answered my question.