₦airaland Forum

(d) Much of the evidence supposedly supporting Darwinian evolution has either been challenged by the progress of science or else involves question-begging assumptions resulting from a prior philosophical bias in favour of atheism or agnosticism. Take, for example, the argument that homology (i.e. similarities of body structure or biochemistry between different species) proves evolutionary descent from a common ancestor. Could this not instead be evidence of common design by a common Creator? Different types of car also share similar features in terms of wheels and engines whilst still remaining the common product of human intelligence. Advances in microbiology, moreover, call into question the notion that genetic similarities between different species implies common ancestry. As molecular biologist and former atheist, Dr Jonathan Wells, points out, similar genes within different species often lead to different bodily features, while different genes sometimes lead to similar features, thus turning the supposed homological ‘proof’ of macro-evolution on its head. To quote his words: “We know some cases where you have similar features that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of cases where we have similar genes that give rise to very different features. I’ll give you an example: eyes. There’s a gene that’s similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there’s a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What’s more striking is if you look at a fruit fly’s eye – a compound eye with multiple facets – it’s totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene.”

(c) Darwinian evolution cannot explain the origin and existence of the incredibly complex biological information systems required for the construction of even the simplest living cells. Its designer- substitute mechanism of natural selection and random mutations cannot therefore effect biological change on its own. Living organisms must first exist before they can ‘evolve’ in response to environmental change! To quote Fred Hoyle: “Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve the Rubik Cube. The chances against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body’s 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly by chance.” (from his book, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, 1983). Equally devastating is the admission of the Nobel Prize-winning atheist scientist, Francis Crick, one of the joint discoverers of DNA: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which had to have been satisfied to get it going.” ( Life Itself, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p.88).

(b) Darwinian evolution cannot even get off the ground as a non-theistic explanation of life because it cannot account for the existence of our ‘finely- tuned’ universe. It cannot answer the question addressed so convincingly by the cosmological argument for a Creator: why does anything exist at all if something cannot come from nothing?

(a) While no-one denies the reality of ‘micro-evolution’ (i.e. limited variation within species in response to environmental changes or selective breeding programmes), a growing number of scientists totally reject ‘macro-evolution’ – or, to put it in colloquial terms, large- scale ‘particles to people’ evolution. On October 1st 2001, for example, a hundred scientists published a two-page advertisement in the American magazine, The Weekly Standard, headed “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”. In this statement they declared: “We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This list now includes over 800 anti-Darwinian scientists included biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, geologists, astrophysicists, and others, with doctorates from such prestigious universities as Cambridge, Stanford, Cornell, Yale, Princeton, Rutgers, Chicago, Berkeley, and other elite institutions. It also includes Nobel nominee, Henry F. Schaefer, a world-class chemist, and scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute. Nor is this list of scientific critics of Darwinism an exhaustive one. Over 1,000 scientists with post-graduate degrees have belonged to the Creation Research Society (USA) since its establishment in 1963, and by 1993, to take another example, the South Korean Association of Creation Research also had a membership of over 1,000 scientists, the majority with at least a Master’s degree or doctorate, and including 100 full-ranking university professors. There are many other openly- avowed creationist scientists in other parts of the world, particularly in Australia, as well as scientific critics of Darwinism who keep quiet about their dissident views for fear of blighting their professional careers. As American cosmologist, Allex Sandage put it in July 1998: “…there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer, the opprobrium is so severe.”

(9) Atheists commonly argue that Darwinian evolution provides an adequate explanation of the appearance of design in Nature, without needing to invoke God as its intelligent cause. The action of natural selection on random genetic mutations supposedly provides a designer-substitute mechanism by which unguided natural forces bring about complex biological change. As a result, it is not only possible that all living creatures evolved from the same simple ancestral organisms, but – Darwinists insist – evolution is a fact in that it has actually taken place, and only religious fundamentalists deny this. These claims do not stand up to critical examination for the following reasons: now, I will dissect Darwinism

cloudgoddess:
good thing you mentioned this, because there is a huge difference.

evolution will clearly show you how different lineages of species diverged from common ancestors. creationist attempts at "evolution" will tell you that evolution means bananas turning into fish

here is a good, simplified introductory video on actual evolution, and not the BS touted by ignorant creationists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

i thought d few well explained points I earlier stated will give some atheists a re think, bt dey wanna drag....
now let me dissect Darwinism

HWatt:
hey
though am not a graduate for now bt I run my projects wit simple ideas that look stupid wit these simple ideas of mine I was enble to create my own transformer n it works well n now am lukin forward to create my fuelless generator wit same simple ideas of mine.for ur wind turbine I think low rmp motor means a lot so to knw a beter motor to use is the revese of wat u wnt to do I.e fine an electric motor which consume either highvolt when connected to electricity or highcurrent when connected to electricity wat it consume when connected to electricity is wat it wil produce if its revese. I hv experiments on this wit little dc motor the which use highvolt to operates produce highvolt high enough to light 2 led light d other uses highcurrent to operates n produce highcurrent to light a current bulb light. when I tested it wit a meter d highcurrent produce lowvolt n highvolt produce lowcurrent. so wit dis simple ideas u can find a low rmp(d one wit just little turns produces volt)which is the highvolt electric motor. soon to finish my fuelless generator .see u bro to produce ur windturbine. I will share more ideas wit u now I need to practicalizes more k see u ME from EE hwatt

how did d fuel less gen go

micayo:
You want a good lover? A Football 'Faithful' fan is your best option. Football watchers and lovers are faithful and committed lovers just as they are to their respective football clubs. From this best option, your best option would also be an Arsenal Fan though I am a Man Utd Fan. Those guys dey try. Go to a viewing center once and see passion.

give this guy a very cold bottle of ORIJIN

donnffd:
I believe your post was why does science refutes religion,not why does science refutes God...science can't refute God anymore than science can refute fairies and spaghetti monsters... On the other hand, all claims made by religions have been proven false by science, the world was not created in six days, living organisms ddnt just appear on earth...science has explanation for how we got here and it is backed up by evidence and facts,something religions don't have...



Your post is too long,try summarizing ur points, but I would say that science still has room for a God,but its really really unlikely, you know why, the universe is for free, if you summed up the energy content in the universe,you get zero, that means your God wouldn't have done much at the big bang, then as for ur finely tuned universe, vast majority of space would kill you in an instant, even on earth, tsunami, earthquake, e.t.c...so much for intelligent design

and u must be 1 of those Darwinian scientists....
talking about life. have u taking time to read about d fossils? lemme just tell u in case u haven't read. the fossils hive no explanation for the intermediate life forms....... etc

pet4ril:
ok ooooo

I don't have time to present all d arguments sef

GeorgeKaydee:
eyesabi.com/2015/12/photos-multiple-gas-explosion-rocks-jos-plateau-state/

where is this in jos

wat abt d e.diot DAT invented d longest cigar.... 300metres

pet4ril:
Though too long, science believes every natural phenomenon has a natural cause.......

hi, i am also a scientist, bt am a strong Christian


some of us get it wrong

hahn:
Lol. Where I dey sh1t go?

hahahahaha..... e 1 come ur house ne

[b](8 ) The logical and scientific data pointing
to God’s existence is so overwhelming,
that an increasing number of scientists
are publicly acknowledging the
metaphysical implications of both the ‘Big
Bang’ and the ‘fine-tuning’ characteristics
of the universe. Here below is a sample of
their views, beginning with one great
name from the past:
Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize 1921):
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the
pursuit of science becomes convinced that
a spirit is manifest in the laws of the
universe – a spirit vastly superior to that
of man, and one in the face of which we
with our modest powers must feel
humble.”
Paul Davies (former professor of
theoretical physics at the University of
Adelaide): “Through my scientific work I
have come to believe more and more
strongly that the physical universe is put
together with an ingenuity so astonishing
that I cannot accept it merely as a brute
fact. I cannot believe that our existence in
this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an
accident of history, an incidental blip in
the great cosmic drama.”
Sir Fred Hoyle: “A commonsense
interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super-intellect has monkeyed with
physics, as well as chemistry and biology,
and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in Nature.”
Allan Rex Sandage (famous astronomer,
dubbed the 'Grand Old Man of
Cosmology' by the New York Times, and a
former atheist): “It was my science that
drove me to the conclusion that the world
is much more complicated than can be
explained by science. It was only through
the supernatural that I could understand
the mystery of existence.”
Dr Arno Penzias(Nobel Prize-winning
astrophysicist): “I invite you to examine
the snapshot provided by half a century’s
worth of astrophysical data and see what
the pieces of the universe actually look
like…In order to achieve consistency with
our observations we must…assume not
only creation of matter and energy out of
nothing, but creation of space and time
as well. The best data we have are exactly
what I would have predicted had I
nothing to go on but the five books of
Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
Professor Vera Kistiakowski (professor of
physics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and former president of the
Association of Women in Science): “The
exquisite order displayed by our scientific
understanding of the physical world calls
for the divine.”
Dr Stephen Meyer (a geophysicist with a
Cambridge doctorate in origin-of-life
biology): “If it’s true there’s a beginning to
the universe, as modern cosmologists now
agree, then this implies a cause that
transcends the universe. If the laws of
physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as
contemporary physicists are discovering,
then perhaps there’s a designer who fine-
tuned them. If there’s information in the
cell, as molecular biology shows, then this
suggests intelligent design. To get life
going in the first place would have
required biological information; the
implications point beyond the material
realm to a prior intelligent cause.”[/b]

hahn:
How is it supposed to work?

its a. toilet on wheels, has a speed of 68mph

[b] (6) The realms of microbiology and biochemistry provide equally compelling evidence that life in all its forms is the product of intelligent design rather than unguided natural forces. For example, how do atheists explain the origin and existence of complex biological information systems like DNA, whose chemical structure within every human cell contains the coded instructions for creating the proteins out of which our bodies are built? Each one of the thirty thousand genes embedded in our twenty- three pairs of chromosomes can yield as many as 20,500 different kinds of proteins! Is it likely that this extraordinary biological ‘software’ arose by chance? To quote science writer, George Sim Johnson’s article, ‘Did Darwin Get It Right?’ ( Wall Street Journal , 15/10/99): “Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopaedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces.” And if this astounding fact were not sufficient in itself to indicate the presence of intelligent design in Nature, Australian geneticist, Michael Denton, points out that the biological information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived - a number estimated to be approximately one thousand million – “could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written.” Illustra Media’s documentary video, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, shows how DNA serves as the information storehouse for a finely choreographed manufacturing process by which the right amino acids are linked together with the right bonds in the right sequence to produce the right kind of proteins that fold in the right way to build biological systems. Detailed study of this “absolutely mind-boggling” procedure helped to convince Dean Kenyon, America’s leading chemical evolutionist, that unguided naturalistic processes could not explain the origin of life, as he had once believed. On the contrary, he argues: “This new realm of molecular genetics [is] where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth.”




(7) Atheism is not only challenged by the cumulative evidence for intelligent design uncovered by the progress of science; it cannot even answer the most fundamental of all questions: why does anything exist in the first place? Is the universe self-sufficient and self- explanatory or does it require an intelligent cause? The cosmological argument for God’s existence addresses this vital question, and is based on the premise that something cannot come from nothing – a self-evident truth supported by logic and experience. To state the obvious: the absence of something not only cannot at the same time account for its presence; it is also a principle whose truthfulness is constantly confirmed in our daily lives. We never see meals appearing from nowhere, symphonies composing themselves, or babies materialising out of thin air. This means that for anything to exist, it must either be self-sufficient and therefore have always existed (i.e. be self-existent); or it must be the product or effect of something else that is self-existent. Furthermore, the concept of self- sufficiency implies that the self-existent Being supporting the existence of all other beings, must necessarily be an unchanging Being. It must be in full and constant possession of all its properties and attributes, because it cannot call into existence a quality, characteristic, or power, it does not already possess. In other words, we cannot explain the mystery of existence without acknowledging the ultimate necessity of grounding it in a self-sufficient Being whose own existence is necessary, unchanging, and therefore eternal. Given these self-evident truths, does our knowledge of the universe suggest that it is self-existent? Obviously not, since all organic life has a beginning and an end (animals and humans are born, live, decay and die) and inorganic structures and processes are subject to constant alteration and change. Even if the universe had no beginning but is instead the product of the continuous creation of matter, it still lacks that attribute of self- sufficiency which is the essence of self- existence, since the question that still arises is ‘what accounts for the creation or appearance of matter?’ Where does the ‘stuff’ of the universe continually come from? Why does change occur at all? Who or what brings it about? If, on the other hand, the majority of scientists are right in their belief that space, time, and the universe suddenly sprang into existence through some ‘Big Bang’ cosmological explosion, its lack of self-sufficiency and its inability to account for itself is even more apparent! Either way, the evidence points in the same direction: the universe has an eternal self-existent Creator. If, then, God is real, what can the cosmological argument tell us about His attributes and character? A great deal. All we have to do, as St. Paul reminds us in Romans 1:19-20 , is look at His creation – at all that He has made. This tells us, first of all, that since the universe and all it contains is unimaginably vast and powerful in terms of its mass, extent, and energy, its Creator must be supremely powerful. Secondly, since the universe contains living, intelligent, and personal beings, and many other hallmarks of design, its Creator must be living, intelligent, and personal. Thirdly, since human beings possess moral awareness and feel guilty when they do wrong, their Creator must be Goodness personified, or ‘holy’, to use the language of the Bible. Finally, since the distance between non- existence and existence is an infinite one, a God who can create an entire universe out of nothing must be all-knowing and all-powerful . At the very least, God must be a Being to whose knowledge and power we can set no limits.[/b]

(4) Atheists commonly reject the design argument for God’s existence because of the problem of evil, arguing that a world marred by death, disease, cruelty and suffering cannot be the creation of an infinitely good and powerful Being. This objection, however, though emotionally powerful, is not a logical one because the reality of evil does not cancel out the extensive evidence of intelligent and benevolent design in Nature. To use two analogies: the existence of badly constructed buildings in one particular area does not disprove the existence of competent architects elsewhere, anymore than the existence of hatred within some families disproves the reality of human love in others. What the problem of evil does is to raise challenging questions such as: why does God allow it? What is its origin? What, if anything, has God done about it? It does not obliterate the many traces of His goodness and creativity in the world around us. Furthermore, part of the evidence for God’s existence and goodness is that very moral standard which enables us to detect evil and complain about it! Atheism, by contrast, cannot make sense of the problem of evil because it cannot explain how we can attach any objective significance to our thoughts and values if we are merely accidental by-products of an ultimately random and purposeless universe.




(5) The advance of science over the last half-century has revealed powerful new evidence that life and the universe are the product of intelligent design, especially in the fields of astrophysics and microbiology. At the cosmological level, it has become increasingly apparent that the physical laws and parameters governing our universe (e.g. the force of gravity, the energy density of empty space, the difference in mass between neutrons and protons, etc.) are so exquisitely fine-tuned to permit the emergence of life, that even the tiniest alteration in any of these laws and parameters would have catastrophic consequences. Astrophysicist, Dr Hugh Ross, for instance, has identified 148 astrophysical parameters that must be ‘just so’ for a planet to exist that can support human life, yet the odds against this happening by chance are, he calculates, many times greater than the total number of stars in the entire universe! Given such facts, even so great an astronomer and former atheist as Fred Hoyle, has written: “I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars.” That and other such observations from Hoyle have prompted Harvard astronomy professor, Owen Gingerich, to comment: “Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a super-intelligence.” Or to put it even more plainly, consider the verdict of Robin Collins, an American scientist with three degrees and two doctorates in mathematics, physics, and philosophy: “The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility – all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short.”

[b]The common assumption that science
contradicts religion can be illustrated
either from your own personal
experience, if this is relevant, or by
quoting the words of atheistic scientists,
philosophers or journalists. Richard
Dawkins, for example, has described the
idea of God as “a very naïve, childish
concept”, and similar comments have
been made by many other Darwinian
scientists.
Harvard geneticist, Richard Lewontin, for
instance, stated in a 1997 book review:
“The problem is to get [people] to reject
irrational and supernatural explanations
of the world, the demons that exist only
in their imaginations, and to accept a
social and intellectual apparatus, Science,
as the only begetter of truth.” Another
typical comment is that of Eugenie Scott,
of the American National Centre for
Science Education, who observed in 1994:
“You can’t put an omnipotent deity in a
test tube.” Such quotes drive home the
charge that science is the only path to
objective truth and is therefore in moralict
with the subjective feelings and irrational
dogmas supposedly characteristic of
Christianity.



(1) If science contradicts religion, how do
atheists explain the fact that most of the
great scientists of the past believed in
God and took the Bible seriously? The
Institute of Creation Research (USA), for
example, lists 31 such scientists together
with the scientific disciplines they helped
to establish. They include Kepler
(astronomy), Pascal (hydrostatics), Boyle
(chemistry), Newton (calculus), Linnaeus
(systematic biology), Faraday
(electromagnetics), Cuvier (comparative
anatomy), Kelvin (thermodynamics), Lister
(antiseptic surgery), Mendel (genetics),
and many other equally famous names.




(2) If religion is an obstacle to science,
how do atheists get round the fact that
empirical science first arose in Christian
Europe, three centuries before the rise of
Darwinism? It did so precisely because of
the almost universal belief in a Creator
God. This gave the founders of modern
science the confidence they needed that
the natural world was orderly and
therefore capable of systematic
investigation. They expected to find ‘law’
in Nature because they believed in a
Lawgiver. Or, to use another analogy, they
assumed that the ‘Book of Nature’ had a
readable ‘text’ because Nature had an
Author.




(3) Why did the ‘founding fathers’ of
modern science believe in God? For one
very simple reason: the natural world
bears all the hallmarks of intelligent
design. To take only a few examples:
hands seem designed for grasping objects
and making tools; the human body is
equipped with an immune system for
combating disease; birds have an instinct
to build nests for their young and escape
winter through migration; eyes and ears
have the precise structures required for
seeing and hearing; living creatures have
the digestive systems they need to
process the particular foods their bodies
depend on; sexual organs seem designed
for reproduction.
Is this not powerful evidence for the
existence of an Intelligent Designer who
created the universe and is the Author of
life? That has certainly been the view of
most of the great philosophers and
thinkers of the past, like Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Bacon, Newton,
etc. Even famous sceptics like David Hume
(18th century) and John Stuart Mill (19th
century) recognised the credibility of the
‘design’ argument (or ‘teleological proof’)
for God’s existence – as did Immanuel
Kant (18th century), despite his rejection
of all the traditional arguments for God’s
existence except the moral[/b]

hahn:
I don't get it

it is also an invention o...

johnydon22:
This is nice ... Kudos bro

thanks sir

RobinHez:
A needle-free vaccine?

Why did they not invent this in 199* ?






Ps: I detest syringes

lol.... I fear as I c am o

hahn:
Lol. Nothing wey we no go see

lol... was going though some stuff, and I saw something like world's fastest toilet

good morning, my fellow lovers of amazing scientific feats... I am new on dis board, hoping to make a mark....
respect to jonnydon22,explore, robinhez,Hahn,teempakguy,and d others I can't recall....
let's roll....
Every year, the Popular Science Invention
Awards celebrates 10 scrappy inventions
designed to solve real problems. To find the
winners of the ninth annual awards, we
reviewed dozens of reader submissions,
combed through hundreds of news stories,
and reached out to schools and
hackerspaces across the country. The 10
finalists tackle a range of issues, from taking
the needles out of vaccination to preventing
the destruction of coral reefs--and, of
course, bringing the flying car from science
fiction into reality.
This year, maker extraordinaire Bre Pettis,
co-founder of the revolutionary 3D-printer
company MakerBot, helped us choose the
Invention Award winners, and shared his
advice for other would-be inventors. At his
skunkworks Bold Machines, Pettis offers
guidance and prototyping help for those
who want to travel the thorny path from
concept to marketable invention. Similarly,
without the support of a corporate R& lab,
the amazing designers and tinkerers behind
these 10 creations have had to raise their
own money, build their own prototypes, and
often form their own companies. Which
makes their achievements all the more
remarkable.
The Winners
A Plane That Folds Into A Car
Needle-Free Vaccination
A Braille Printer Born From LEGO
Personal Pollution Monitor
Hands-On Virtual Reality
A Self-Balancing Vehicle
An Artificial Reef For Any Seafloor
Medical Lab In A Music Box
A Printer For Circuit Boards
A Frying Pan That Teaches You To Cook
credit: www.popsci.com/2015-invention-awards

Gleenvent:
Everyday for the thief but one day for the owner.... Av always known this day was going to cum

@ bolded.....

Estharfabian:
Love football?? Hell No!!!!


Uh...My cumulation huh.. I won just twice tho..everything was like 45k..Couldn't believe my Eyes, The thing is, i'm really good at guessing..(one of my super powers)!!

I rest this case... hehehe.... can u predict my arsenals next game ?

PulseWeb:
Hello, are you out of cash or struggling to maintain a steady income? Have you heard of Bulksms platform and would like to venture into it. Are you unable to pay the fee set by the developer? I am here to help you out. With N5000 you can get a bulksms website designed for you.

What is the N5000 for?
The N5000 covers the domain and hosting registration.

What is the cost of designing the website?
You will get the website designer for you for FREE but you have to purchase the domain and hosting from us.

What if I have a domain and hosting?
All you need to do is pay the N5000 and the website will be designed for you.

Where can I purchase sms units?
We sell sms units to reseller at N1.40k per unit BUT U CAN BUY UNITS FROM ANY PROVIDE OF YOUR CHOICE

Below are some site we have designed:

Www.tripleclicksms.com
Www.chatup9ja.com
Www.instantglobalsms.com
Www.smsbaseng.com
Www.ebanksms.com

And many more. U can contact 08062207346 BBM: 24D2A0CC

what if everytin will be done for me