₦airaland Forum

alexis:
You are here again going around in circles. If you want to discuss intelligent design, I will happy to indulge you. I will respond with the statement I made earlier:

It is in micro evolution where the real scientific evidence for evolution exists - and I have always supported that. As far as progressive, macro evolution is concerned it really doesn't even qualify as a science. Can a concept that requires eons of time be experimentally tested or observed? No. What would it take to disprove it? It is so plastic that it "explains" virtually all possible outcomes. All highly plastic concepts are "supported" by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientific concepts must be falsifiable. Macro evolution is not, therefore it is not science. It is simply storytelling.

You got a link above informing you about how it is testable. You are the one going around in circles.

alexis:
What evidence do you want me to provide? I am not the one making claim of macro-evolution. Evolution states that we evolved from simple organisms to complex ones; the burden of proof is on the evolutionary process to confirm that. I am using the same standard that scientist use to confirm if macro-evolution is true - an observable, repeatable experimental process. This same process applies to micro-evolution and we can easily observe and repeat it but we can't do the same of macro-evolution

Darwin didn't provide any proof that simple organism spawned into complex entities. He made that conclusion after observing birds and beaks.

It's similar to you asking me to prove God when I made the claim He exist and I tell you to provide evidence that you don't believe in him.

you really need to get over Darwin. He was the one who suggested the general idea of evolution. Ever since his idea has been refined, added to and modified. Did you even read that link? But he was right. Nothing has been able to falsify it so far, instead all new disciplines involved have confirmed it over and over again.
No, you are not making claim of evolution. You are making claim of intelligent design which is backed up by ZERO evidence and science. And I have a feeling you know that. There is good reason for you to avoid that discussion.

alexis:
Liekiller



What do you mean when I bring forth nothing?



I will take a look at it, thanks

I mean that you continue to challenge us to "prove" evolution, but when you are asked to provide evidence for your ideas you ignore it and come around with insults, if anything. Anyway, have a good read

alexis:
You are not addressing the entire question I raised; we have both agreed that science can't address the origin of life. This was what I said:

Nor does it explain the existence of the mutating replicator on which it depends

Simple to complex forms need a mutating replicator; a way to copy itself. If life started as A SINGLE ORGANISM; how did it replicate; how did it change; how did it "evolve" from one cell to a different cell. I am asking HOW questions, not WHY questions.

You seem to be doing what every evolutionist does; ignore the core scientific query and brush it aside as irrelevant.

Sorry, I took that as part of the other question. But then again do I have any obligation to adress each of your questions when you bring forth nothing? Well anyway, we are certainly all interested in that, but there is no definite answer. Here is a review what science has so far: http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/unravel.htm
I also find this whole article useful to demonstrate the type of science that is involved in evolutionary biology nowadays.

plaetton:
So my question for Nairalanders is this :
What kind of emotions does this tragedy invoke inside you?

Do you think it marks the obituary of god as we know it, or do you think it rather marks the final obituary of common sense as we know it in Nigeria?

Since I'm finally getting there with the shayo make I answer
The kind of emotion this invokes inside me is hard to describe. Apart from the pleasant effects of shayo flowing through me, it invokes a deep contemplation. Obviously, God does not love those who travel the world to worship his belligerent, blood-thirsty and jealous persona. This is evidenced in many other observations too. So the next emotion flowing through me is that of pity and regret for those who STILL worship the belligerent, blood-thirsty and jealous sky dweller. Furthermore I am in deep meditation over the question whether perhaps the worshippers were caught having s.ex in a sinful position before, which would of course justify this atrocity by the sky dweller.
Sarcasm aside... it's sad that people got killed while doing what they thought was the right thing to do. Unfortunately I doubt anyone will question whether the sky dweller really exists after this though. Instead it will be the usual "mysterious ways" argument.

alexis:
The existence of life is not explained by biological evolution.

I think this is the main question here. YOU ARE RIGHT. And guess what, evolutionary biology never attempted to, does not and never will answer that question, because that's not a question within its scope. Evolutionary biology does not address the "WHY" question. So all your efforts in distorting biology are futile. There is no reason for it. As far as I'm concerned anyone can claim that something "created" the initial step of life if they must. So far we don't have scientific proof how it happened, and maybe we never will.
Apart from that... I'm not even going to reply to any "intelligent design" propositions. It's not science. If you wish to claim it is then go right ahead and bring out the testable evidence. The claim "but it's obvious" is NOT testable evidence.

alexis:
Liekiller
Christian fanatics? Really - do yourself a favor do more research. There are many respectable scientists that do not believe in macro-evolution and it has nothing to do with their faith - refer to John Lennox and William Lane Craig to mention a few. I have never denied micro-evolution or any other evolution that can be observed and repeated and I don't know where you got that idea from.

It is in micro evolution where the real scientific evidence for evolution exists - and I have always supported that. As far as progressive, macro evolution is concerned it really doesn't even qualify as a science. Can a concept that requires eons of time be experimentally tested or observed? No. What would it take to disprove it? It is so plastic that it "explains" virtually all possible outcomes. All highly plastic concepts are "supported" by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientific concepts must be falsifiable. Macro evolution is not, therefore it is not science. It is simply storytelling.

respectable scientists eh? "it has nothing to do with their faith"? SUUUUUUREEEEEEEEEE

"William Lane Craig is an American analytical philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. Craig's philosophical work focuses on philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of time. "

"Professor John Carson Lennox is a British mathematician, philosopher of science and Christian apologist who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. [...] He is a leading voice defending the notion of the relationship between science and religion. Lennox is considered to be a leading figure of the evangelical intelligentsia movement."

See, we are talking about biology here, not philosophy and theology. Biologists are the only "respectable scientists" in this field. Or will you ask an aeronautic engineer when you want to form an opinion about linguistics?! Please!!
According to scientists, it is science. It uses scientific methods. It doesn't matter if it fits into your own personal definition. Period.
Listen, your only problem here is that you are outrageously biased, and the reason for this is very clear. You feel that evolution threatens your belief. I understand that. What I don't understand though is why you don't get information other than what you find on biased creationist websites. If you are not truly fanatic you should actually find it simple to accept evolution (by that I mean its scientific version and not the creationist lies about it) AND be a Christian. All it really requires is to read genesis as an allegory. Millions of Christians around the world do that. The only thing "believing in evolution" threatens is the incest stories in genesis. No big loss I'd say.

As for your claims that it is not scientific/testable/falsifiable: read here how macroevolution is tested and how it could be falsified (but hasn't been so far): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#falsifying

alexis:
You keep talking without presenting a complete example. You keep saying I don't know what I am talking about. Can you please provide an example of a fossil record showing how one biological group "evolved" into another biological group with different properties showing complete transitional and gradual change at each stage for us to study.

Please make sure there are no near absence of intermediaries; also explain in stages the Cambrian explosion and how they actually came about step by step to put things into perspective. If you want more information about it, read up what Darwin said on the cambrian explosion

No i won't. I really don't have time for this. The evidence is all out there, you can easily find it yourself. As i said before we "evolutionists" are arguing for what is considered state-of-the-art science and a proven fact by pretty much everybody except christian fanatics. As such it's YOU who has to prove your point. Ours has been proven a zillion times. I have not seen any of that from you. All you do is come around calling us foolish, however without providing proof that the science we "believe in" is factually wrong or providing an alternative falsifiable theory. Just because you dislike and fear a scientific theory does NOT make it wrong, sorry.

alexis:
Liekiller
I am continually amazed at how eagerly some embrace the evolution theory which proposes that eons of time passes while creatures make the minute changes that eventually makes them into a new creature. With those billions of changes, surely there would be billions of examples in the fossil record of intermediate species or billions of examples we can easily reproduce. There is however, not one example of an intermediate specimen. We find some extinct species fossils, we continue to find formerly unknown species fossils, but still no intermediate fossils. Why do you think that is? Because Charlie's theory is simply imagination.

More lies. There are loads of transitional fossils. Furthermore EVERY species could be considered "intermediate" since the change is GRADUAL and does not stop at some point or jump from one form to a radically different form. Every form is therefore in between the previous and the next form. Apart from that you don't seem to understand the process of fossilization, else you'd easily see why you can't expect to find "billions" of fossils for every branch of the tree.

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

.

alexis:
AgentOfAllah
Coming from someone who is still trying to prove humans came from an amoeba!

Actually, in a reasonable world, YOU are the one who is in the position to prove your point. Evolution is proven, whether you like it or not. So if we are realistic you would have to prove why it is not true, which of course you can't, because you don't even understand the basics of it and secodly even those who do understand it have not been able to falsify it the past 150 years..

AgentOfAllah:
Aaah!! The tyranny of the ignorant mind is relentless. I'll leave the readers to determine who the disingenuous and incoherent babbler is.

na sooo. Tyranny is the right word.

EMILO2STAY:
my grandfather is human a black man so is my father and me we even share facial resemblance and character. so it is common sense that human can only produce human in most cases you dont even need a dna test to prove that, the evidence is observable and can be reapeted but not so for the case of the evolution theory that claims that man descended from fish.
can u provide an observable evidence that man descended from a fish that transitioned into a lemur that turned into a monkey that became a man. You evolutionist are no different from the indoctrinated jihadists.

I think you don't WANT to understand it, and even if you did, you lack the minimal knowledge of biology required to understand it.

Will you go tell an engineer how to construct an airplane when you don't know how an airplane looks, and when you know nothing about aerodynamics and engins? Seriously, will you? Or would you know you'd make a fool of yourself and conclude you'd better defer to the specialists?

But when it comes to the corner stone of modern biology you and too many others feel entitled to trumpet your imaginary superior knowledge? Your superior knowledge in the scientific fields of molecular biology, palaeontology, zoology, anatomy, geology etc.

YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION AND ITS MECHANISMS. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. But in your deluded arrogance you can't even see or admit that? You are arguing with several people with a profound knowledge of palaeontology, molecular biology, zoology, anatomy, geology etc. (I would guess at least 2 of which have a Ph.D. in biology). You know what I mean... like in the example above with the airplane...?

alexis:
Let's get specific and use one case example so we are not running and chasing our tails. Darwin claimed that complex organisms came from simple organisms i.e. from an amoeba came a human. To be sure we are on the same page, is my statement correct?

bros, you have already admitted you're a troll using your other profile. I take your word for it. Let me guess, another jobless American kid on social welfare? How much of our time do you still want to waste? You're clearly not as dumb as you pretend to be (ever since you use this profile you are able to string sensible sentences together, haha), so what's your point?

alexis007:
you now want me out of this thread?i hope you are joking...because the last time i checked,i still reserve my freedom of association...and naughty me,that Allah guy worked himself out just to convert me to darwinism....he tried battering his way 2ru an impenetrable fortress.i sincerely do hope that long dissertation he wrote me was copied-and-pasted from Wiki (which is relatively easier than trying to form arguments on your own)....and just like peter,i've backed out of the debate(it's no use trying to convince one to see abiogenesis the biblical Genesis way when he is already more evolutionist than charles darwins)....i'm only here to inject a brief comic relief after alexis and you hotheads must have wasted your tym and data typing vain crap...

I rest my case. you ARE a troll, and a fool, and you are wasting everybody's time

alexis007:
now i'm dumb and incoherent because i don't see things your way?who on earth said that scientists can't be arrogant fanatics as well?If this one has met Islam b4 science...he'd make a devout,rank-and-file member of the ISIS group

no, I would NOT say such a thing if we were talking about mere opinions. I respect your opinion (and your belief too btw - as long as you keep it out of science). But we are talking about scientific facts which, when presented to you, you refuse to even read and instead make fun of without having read and understood the meaning. See the great efforts AgentofAllah has gone through in order to explain things in great detail. Yet the only thing I have seen from you so far is mockery and nonsense. I mean... if you don't wish to learn what you are ignorantly talking about, and you don't wish to have a sensible debate what are you doing in this thread?!

alexis:
Where does biology show with proof that you can get one kind of specie from another kind of specie?

FOSSILS. GENETICS. COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. ATAVISMS. AND SO ON.

alexis007:
so the fundamental knowledge is that a fish,rather than your mum,birthed you?....I prefer my common-sense to your super-intelligent style of reasoning....Even in developed countries,not every1 is buying the theory of 'evolution',and these are people of same race and colour with Darwins....and here you are,a member of an inferior race,swallowing a joke of a theory because it was brilliantly presented to you at a tym when you weren't wearing a tin-foil hat.....trust me when i say that you won't believe this same theory if an african was 1st to propound it.....and talking about being taught in schools in the west....i know it won't have crossed his city let alone crossing the shores of africa...Africans and their inferiority complex sef...

*sigh* I'm starting to think you must be a troll because nobody could possibly be THIS dumb and incoherent

alexis007:
I am a christain,a follower of Christ,the only one who rose from the dead [not coma,mark you]after 3 days...Christanity has lasted for more than 2000 years...can you and folks like you,O ye men with access to hidden truths,explain how a religion wìth 'blind followers' has achieved such longevity?could it be that once one steps in2 a church,a thick spell is cast upon his insight and understanding or what?

There seems to be a spell on the understanding of certain individuals who are trying to debate things they know nothing about. I more suspect it's the result of a combination of a totally defunct education system in combination with omnipresent religious brainwashing. more moderate believers have no problem with it, only fanatics do. Our "hidden truths" are by no means hidden. It's all one mouse click away. In more developped countries it is taught from primary school onwards. It's common and fundamental knowledge.

plaetton:
Greed is the word.
Imagine this same guy saying that tithe is not meant to be given to the poor.
Shocking statement coming from a Christian.

I guess Jesus must have right when said that the rich( in this case,greedy conmen) shall take from the poor and add to whatever they already had.

There is a proverb that says "The Devil always sh*ts on the biggest heap". Sums it all up. Just weird that Christians would approve of this and promote it!

Blakjewelry:
my guy, agentofallah try well well o. as for me I have given up since.

So have I. They don't understand biology on primary school level, so how would one have any reasonable discussion with them about a topic that involves rather elaboate genetics etc. to fully understand it?

Babs2040:
I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN D PRINCIPLES OF TITHING. PRESENTLY CHRIST RECEIVES OUR TIHES IN HEAVEN AS WE PAY IT HERE INTO D HANDS OF OUR PST. HEB 7vs8.

uhm, whaaaat? The image you have of Christ is truly shocking. You see him like one of our polithieves and scam pastors amassing wealth for their selfish purposes in heaven!!!?

AgentOfAllah post=27661153
[...:
I leave you with a food for thought: There are two versions of ignorance, one born out of the lack of knowledge, and the other, from misleading education. It can be said of the latter, that it is the more malignant form because, not only does the ignorant individual not know anything on the subject, they adamantly defend their conviction of ignorance because they tenaciously cling to the presumption that they know.

I admire your patience. Everything you say is absolutely correct, but this is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing can seemingly overcome the incredible arrogance of the ignorant when they think they are "refuting" 150 years of intense research and a scientific theory that has never been falsified in the process - without understanding even the most fundamental basics of it all.

GozieDiora:
Lol...

But why does this tithe topic always come up on first Sundays of the month?

I don't know the intention of the OP but I've learned a lot on this thread.

Someone asked, what would Jesus have done? I think this should be a control question in everything we do.

Do you think Jesus would pass the begger, the homeless, the motherless, etc and mindlessly walk into a church built with gold to give 10% of his earnings to a man who could afford 3 square meal just to fulfill some heavily influenced old testament law?

If you think so, happily pay your tithe.

But if you think he would rather give shelter to the homeless, clothes to the naked etc, then channel your tithe in that direction.

Whatever turns you on.

Personally, I used to pay my tithe. I did cause I felt obliged to do so. It does not really affect me much financially so why not? But then I still have not felt the kind of inner joy I felt on the Valentine day of 2012 when I went out of my way to put smiles on the faces of some motherless kids.

Brothers, I think I have just realised what turns me on. And I believe it's all clearly spelt out. Jesus was an advocate of giving, not grudgingly, not cause of one law out there; but willingly and cheerfully. He was a propeller of the concept of widow's might. He did not leave any stone unturned, he did not forget some things. He said all he wanted to say. Though we have chosen to hear only what we want to hear.

I was about to go to church this morning and do the 'necessary'. That was before I came across this thread. I can't wait to go out there in search for the one who really needs my doe. I'm willing to spend exactly that 10% but in a more fulfilling way. It's not by chance I came across this thread. I think it's all planned out by God. The OP is God sent and someone's prayer is about to be answered today. I pray God leads me right as I go in search of the needy.

Op, thsnks a million times. God really works in mysterious ways. He has spoken to me and I have listened.

Happy Sunday All!

May more follow you, sir. Imagine the change we can bring to individuals and the whole society if this is the example we follow. Happy sunday to you !

majekdom2:
I have not seen a pastor who says his members must bring their tithes compulsorily to their church , yes they provide tithe booklets but thats to help discpline you . majority pay to churches because they believe the churches will always help the poor directly . rather than take it to an orphange you are not sure how it is run .

so do the churches regularly help the poor directly? I more often see them building schools that - again - only the rich can afford, and not providing free quality education for those who actually couldn't afford education at all. If anything. But that's not really my point anyway. My point is that I strongly believe that all this money should be used in a more sensible way. And it wouldn't hurt most of us to do some good personally instead of turning a blind eye and delegating the good-doing. This matter should not be about endless and pointless quote wars. Simply put, I want the next person who has an Xmas ram to give away to bring it to someone living under a bridge rather than to a pastor who doesn't need it and already has been given 10 others! I would also like to see self-proclaimed good Christians lend a helping hand to abandoned "witch children" whose suffering was caused by nonsensical teachings. Or how about inviting a cripple on the street to Xmas dinner and listening to the story of his life? I would like to see people THINK and use their heart, and remember what should be the true essence of Christian belief.

asalimpo:
if your going to critique d bible then do so within d context it presents otherwise desist .
Introducg evolutionary thinkg to make your point is illogical because its outside the viewpoint of the bible. The question still stands unanswered.

I have nothing more to say about this. It's really sad that you have been brainwashed to this point where a sensible discussion is no longer possible. I'm sad for you that you can't go out there and see life with open eyes. I'm sad for you that love will always have a SIN stamp on it. I'm sad for you that you will never experience how it is to make love with a woman you love without seeing SIN in everything you do. I'm sad for you that your life is focused on death and what you believe will come afterwards. Just that there is zero evidence that anything will come afterwards. You are wasting the little time you have on earth with your sick fanatic religion, and you don't even realize that it's probably the only time you have. Yes, it makes me sad. I wish you could approach life differently.

asalimpo:
For those sayg God doesnt know better, i'd like you all to propose how to populate a planet, through natural processes, from two people (original makes) without in-breeding.

err, what? it's your bible that promotes the idea of the planet been populated through inbreeding from 2 people. If we assume it was populated by means of "natural processes" there is no need to assume it all started with 2 individuals.

Dapo777:
Lol,are truly a female ? Just asking tho.

yup

Dapo777:
How would you describe a man that sits you down with very hot fire he created beside him,telling you: you know What? You see Dat fire over there? I created it,and It's very hot,But I don't wish you to go into the fire because I love you,But I still created the fire. Here is the deal,I know I gave u ur freewill But I don't want u to do ur will But mine. I want u to love me and do everything I say So I can be happy,But just incase you don't want to do my will,that fire over there is waiting to receive you(smiles) ,I am not forcing you to do my will ooo and I am not interfering with ur will at all ooo But I created that fire over there to torture you If u don't do my will,you see that i am not interferring at all,But I am not forcing u ooooo yet I created a very hot fire to BURN you for eternity,you see that I am not forcing you,don't think that fire is a threat against your will,see that fire as my anger for u not obeying my will because I love u and I love u enough to see you burn for eternity. Tell me who do you know loves as much as I do? Who else is as caring as to see his children burn in hell for eternity as me? You see that I am the Most caring? THAT'S my boy. Now the decision is yours, love me or burn in hell for eternity,Which one do you choose?



Hahahahahahaha, What do you think about that man above?

LOl yeah, the religitard type of "love"

Ukutsgp:
you are the one being foolish for spewing this cos if u know how merciful he is, u won't be spewing this. U are still even typing and breathing now because of his mercies. U would have been dead by now.

See u tomorrow if God wills.

Why don't we conduct an experiment? Make your fine god aware of the fact that I am among the sinners who should be destroyed. For some odd reason he hasn't noticed so far. After all I am at least as stubborn and blasphemic as the people he wiped out 2000 years ago. So lets see if I'm destroyed by tomorrow. If not you should rethink this crap abeg. If I am not dead by tomorrow (and I can guarantee I won't be) I will conclude that your fine god approves of a good MouthAction and I will enjoy just that

Ukutsgp:
God will nt destroy Nigeria because there are people calling on his name here and praying for the mercies of God. They interceed on behalf of Nigeria as a Nation.

oh right, I guess he generously overlooks the majority lying, cheating and stealing in his name. And why doesn't he instantly destroy all secular countries either?