₦airaland Forum

prettyH:
Better start another thread to really buttress your point because all this evolution thing is totally off point

As a wise man once said, you can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot force it to drink

Nicetohave, as I already said before, I do not need to prove at all there is no God. This is impossible anyway, unless you ascribe properties to God. At that moment, you can disprove God if his preporties are contradictory. Something that is the case for the Judeo-Christian deity.

I am an agnostic explicit atheist, which means:
1. I can have no definitive knowledge of a supreme being. As that supreme being is supernatural and all we have is our natural faculties, we cannot [/b]possibly [b]know
2. The lack of positive evidence for the existence of a supreme being, actively leads me to the position not to believe in it's existence. It is an explicit stance where I choose [b]not [/b]to believe

If all of you want to believe, fine, but your belief is and remains irrational and for most fear driven.

prettyH:
Nice to have and nferyn what are all these explanations for? Does it av anything to do with the topic at hand. Please if u guys want to show off go start another thread.

Yes it most definitely has a lot to do with the topic at hand. If you would have read the thread instead of browsing it, you would understand (that is, under the presupposition that your neurological pathways are capable of processing the information presented, of which I have a positive feeling, the lack of intellectual curiosity seems to be a self-imposed condition)

layi,

If the Bible is scientifically accurate, why don't you define unchanging [i]kinds [/i]to me?

nicetohave:
you leave me speechless nferyn, all that intellectual strength you've got and not chanelled in the right direction, what a waste

Is this all you have to say?

It ain't no shit at all, Sir. It may be incomplete, but it is certainly no shit.

1. Humans are a near monogamous species, meaning that they have multiple partners (women too, mind you), but are relatively faithful (investment in time and effort) to one partner at each given time.
2. This does not mean that they are naturally inclined to stay with one partner for the rest of their lives, only the time it takes for their offspring to reach an age at which they are less vulnerable, hence serial monogamy and the famous 'seven year itch'
3. Men stay faitful, not that much because of societal pressures, but rather because of the possible consequence for their actions on their main relationship. If no risk was involved, they would be much more unfaithful
4. Don't forget that women are as unfaithful as men. It takes two to tango.

nicetohave:
Hi nferyn,

got some to time to answer your question even though i still can't see how it applies to this present discussion:

Greetings to you too, Sir
It is very relevant to the discussion, as you have called the Theory of Evolution ludicrous [/i]and bacterial resistance against antibiotics is a prime example of evolution at work.

nicetohave:
The Mechanism of drug resistance:

I was specifically asking about bacterial resistance against antibiotics, but you want to broaden the scope to the overall immune system, no problem. This too is a good example of the principles of random mutation and natural selection at work, even though it does not lead to speciation - or as creationists like to call it, [i]macro-evolution.

nicetohave:
now any organism can develop resistance to any substance, even humans.it simply means they are no longer sensitive to it , "desensitization" simply put.

Although correct, this is painting with a very broad brush. You are talking about all sorts of resistance - the rejection of substances that are not the body's own?

nicetohave:
Now this is the mechanism, when repeated suboptimal doses of any substance, compound or drug are used then instead of the drug achieving its therapeutic or deleterious effect as the case may be, it becomes incorporated in the organisms genetic material, commonly the DNA

Here you're joining two mechanisms together:
* one operating on the bacterium, whereby the bacterial population develops resistance against the specific antibiotic
* one operating on the human immune system, whereby the tolerance of the immune system against a specific pathogen or substance is increased. This effect is commonly and deliberately obtained through vaccination.

Both mechanisms are caused by random mutation of the genetic material (DNA, or RNA in case of viruses) followed by natural selection working on those mutated organisms.

In case of the bacteria, those mutations work on the coding DNA portions that specify the characteristics of the organisms. These characteristics are passed on to the next generation (and as you know the lifecycles of bacteria are considerably faster than those of multi-cellular organisms), this is the core process of Evolution

In case of the immune system, it is the B lymphocyte that undergoes mutation and is subject to selective pressure. Unfortunately this immunity is not passed on to the next generation and thus even though one of the parents may be immune against a specific disease, the children are not. (obviously this is not the only immunity mechanism, but it is the most prominent one)

nicetohave:
and then even when a full dose or optimal dose is subsequently used it will never achieve its therapeutic effect anymore.reason why there are widesread antibiotic resistance because people use antibiotics for any and everything, and even when they do they use it in suboptimal doses

Using suboptimal doses of antibiotics is the perfect way of aiding the bacterial evolution. As these doses do no kill of the specimens that are in the body. The mutated survivors can then go and spread to another person and remain within the human population. A perfect selective environment.

nicetohave:
and because we are constantly exposed to all these bacterias, viruses, fungi, parasites etc, (remember we only come down with the disease when our immunity falls, or when there is a sudden increase in the load of these organisms in us) then resistance has been effected and the drug in effect "fails" to work, so newer ones has to be found and then the same fate soon or late will befall that too.

Exactly. Evolution at work.

nicetohave:
Remember i said "resistance" can occur with human too, a simple example is allergy, allergies to a particular substance are often cured by exposing an individual to repeated suboptimal concentration of the allergen and with time it is incorporated in the DNA of the individual and his allergy is in essence "cured" it is called systematic desensitization

Again. Evolution at work

Sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/11/14/chronicle_of_a_death_foretold.php
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/512378
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/survival/enemy/index.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195161998/qid%3D1135172595/202-1739926-3627808
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140179186/qid=1135172628/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/202-1739926-3627808
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099439824/qid=1135172671/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_11_5/202-1739926-3627808

nicetohave:
Did all these make any sense to you? anyway can you answer my question now and how this relates to our present discussion?

I will normally answer your question this evening.

Regards

allonym:
funny how some of the most unchristian people are christians. . .

Now you do have to explain that. I am at a loss

@ allonym,
glad to have you back, I missed your posts

nuru:
Nferny, can you answer a simple question

' If you are twenty two years today, where were you twenty three years ago'

Nowhere. I did not exist

nuru:
' Do you remember the day you were born into this world '

Nobody does

nuru:
' As a person, did you make any contribution to your emergence in the world '

These are questions that can lead one to God for those who have doubt in him.

Of course I didn't. I was not actively involved in my coming to this world

Nicetohave, would you be so kind to answer my question if you have the time?

nicetohave:
and that fear shouldnt be strong enough to topple their conviction in the existence and sovereignity of God, if indeed they do believe in him at the first instance.

It is that fear that makes them believe in the first place.

All you people seem to be driven by an irrational fear of death.
I wonder....

Seun:
[SNIP] illusion of euqality and freedom!

Is that some horse-like quality?

I will, the moment you answer the question I asked before:

nferyn:
As a sidenote, can you, as a medical doctor, explain how bacteria become resistant against some antibiotics? What mechanism changes those bacteria to enable their resistance?

nicetohave:
I do not assume defeat, i am just following instructions of the bible "after the first and second exhortation we are advise to leave the rest to God" you have heard enough of our empty words, it is left to the almighty himself to water it in you.it is not my job to convince you, it is his job to do so, that is why my words seem empty.

Yes and I'm probably wicked and evil if I do not put my intelligence in limbo (or maybe I am not entitled to use Catholic phraseology ) and just accept the Eternal Truth (c) ?

nicetohave:
Define gravity nferyn? what is the measure of gravity of earth, on pluto and on mars? what about the sun?

Do you want me to quote an introductory textbook in physics? If that is your requirement, I can certainly do so. What actually is the point of this? Are you saying that it is not gravity that is keeping the world in orbit around the sun?

If any of you are interested in a very thorough presentation of the different processor architectures, visit this site: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu.ars

nicetohave:
if all that is presented here is not enough evidence of God's existence and the reference material i suggested to you to authenticate the viability of the power that keeps the world in its orbit, one out of many, you can't even even take the pain to read.then i have no further evidence to give to you, when the time comes you shall confess with your mouth his Lordship.

1. What has been presented cannot - by any stretch of the imagination - be considered evidence for God's existence.
2. The power that keeps the world in orbit is the power of gravity. No further Deus ex Machina [/i]needed.
3. How can I even consider reading a book in print you have presented to me yesterday. There are only 24 hours in a day and a limited set of bookshops around that carry English language books. I will read it if you enter the debate with something of substance, just like [i]Geez [/i]tried to do
3. I have gone over all the articles [i]Geez [/i]presented. You have not shown that you went over any of the urls I presented
4. Obviously, when you say that [i]i have no further evidence to give to you you are just admitting defeat on the arguments. It is sad for your belief that you can only bring so weak a case.
5. The argumentation needs to be much stronger to make me confess with [my] mouth his Lordship. The only ones that have been able to touch a nerve here are the Muslims on this board and [i]RhondaRose [/i]at times. All arguments by you or other apologists have more in common with my son talking about monsters in his bedroom than with an actual intellectual debate.

nicetohave:
all of that on this forum nferyn? are you getting as ludicrous as your theory too?

Once more - and you continue circling the main question - where is the theory ludicrous and for what reason? Your talk is empty.

Swish:
Well, u see my friend, for LOGICAL doesn't always mean right

No, but in this case it certainly is. There is no ground for your position

Swish:
yeh...i know times have changed but i still believe there's a whole lot of things women shouldn't delve into...it was when the woman tried to control things by giving adam that fruit that the whole prob began...you ladies end up losing one thing or the other at the end...is either you become independent from your husband(divorced or separated) becaues you feel he's been too bossy and not allowing you to express yourself totally...or one thing sha sha...and again please don't believe too much in "LOGIC"...i can lead you astray atimes(too much belief in self)

Well, you certainly shouldn't indulge yourself into a belief in Logic. You do not seem to be one of the most gifted people in it's use. Better to leave that to others who are naturally more inclined to do so.

nicetohave:
Ludicrous__amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity,exaggeration, or eccentricity__meriting derisive laughter or scorn.

Regardless of your scorn, you have not presented one piece of evidence that falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Your assertions are wholly without merit.

As a sidenote, can you, as a medical doctor, explain how bacteria become resistant against some antibiotics? What mechanism changes those bacteria to enable their resistance?

Geez:
nferyn, I'm not a scientist by profession or career but I can tell you that evolutionists are beginning to see evidence that contracdicts their theory,

What evidence contradicts the Theory of Evolution? there is none. Which evolutionists (this is actually a term only used by creationists when addressing people that follow the evidence of the Theory of Evolution.

Geez:
hence biologist like Micheal Behe

Michael Behe is not a biologist, but a biochemist. Close enough, but not exactly the same. he has not been able to publish one article on Intelligent Design in a peer reviewed journal.

Geez:
and others are finally coming out of the closet of having to accept falsehoods in science.

Who else? What falsehoods?

Geez:
I am not against science but against claims that are wrong.

Which claims are wrong and on what basis do you falsify these claims. assertion is neither evidence, nor proof.

Geez:
According to Dr. Michael Behe of University of Lehigh, the complexity of protein structure alone does not support the theory of evolution.

You really must love the guy Anyway, from what I have read about him, he is quite amicable
His claims however are thoroughly refuted

Geez:
I will read your reference but I will not be surprised to read the same old arguments that are now being disproved.

Please do, then you will understand that no same old arguments have been disproved at all. Could you please be explicit about what these same old arguments are? How else can I indicate that they have not been disproved?

Geez:
I am a trained engineer and I have worked closely with scientists in the medical field for many years. Many have reservations on the theory of evolution.

Now I understand it better. Have you worked with working medical practitioners or with scientists working in the medical field (e.g. doing research in pharmacology)? The mindset needed to be a good medical doctor is at least partially opposite to that of a scientist (e.g. as a medical doctor you cannot wait until the evidence is scientifically substantial enough, you have to go by your experience and gut feeling). And as an engineer, you will have undoubtedly sensed the tension between the departments of Civil Engineering and those of Physics at the University, haven't you?
But even here, it does not really matter. Only evidence speaks. I have seen plenty in favor of the Theory of Evolution and none in favor of Intelligent Design or any other variation of Creationism.

@ Geez,

Have you even read my reply?
1. Organisms do not originate from other organisms by chance. I explicitly said that your misrepresented the theory of evolution.
2. What similarities do you talk about?
3. Similarities in living organisms are an indicator for evolution and common descent, especially when better mechanisms would be available to an 'Intelligent Designer'
4. We share a common ancestor with apes, as we do with all mammals, all therapods, with all living organisms, including bacteria. The Biological clock (determined by the rate of mutation on non-coding or junk [/i]DNA) shows when exactly we share an common ancestor with what organism, which happens to be perfectly in tune with the geometric dating of the relevant fossils.
5. Some scientists are divided on the claim is an intellectually vacuous claim. There are immensely more working scientists called Steve than the total number of scientist supporting Intelligent Design Creationism or any other form of Creationism (see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/ or http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18 ) Moreover most of these [i]scientists [/i]make claims on a scientific field that falls outside of their specific field of expertise. What is the value of a mathematician (e.g. Dembski) making claims about biology, without actually having studied the field?
6. Find me one living, working biologist who has contributed anything of value to his field that refutes the Theory of Evolution (which is greatly enhanced after Darwin, by the way) and we'll something to start talking.
7. Please get your facts straight when you're talking about scientific laws and theories:
from http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/940942724.Sh.r.html

[i]1. Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
2. Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

You're turning the argument against the wrong person. It is [i]you [/i]that is unwilling to see the other side. I have seen the other side and it is not convincing.

nicetohave:
and your many erroneous words are full of proof?

Show me where my word are erronous. Assertion is neither evidence, nor proof.

Geez:
nferyn, you have dug in to your position and I am not surprised.

How so?

Geez:
The complexity of DNA alone is enough proof that humans did not evolve by chance as stated by some scientists.

Nowhere in the theory of evolution is chance a determining factor. The only place where chance has any effect is in the random mutations. Natural selection is anything but chance. An environment where a specific mutation increases the fitness of an organism to survive and reproduce is anything but chance. This is once more a complete misrepresentation of a crucial aspect of the theory of evolution.

An analogy: look at mutation as a chance drive process whereby a pile of rocks is formed, all of different sizes.
Natural selection is one hole of a specific diameter that will only let the rocks of that diameter or less pass. You try to make thousands of rocks fit that hole. Some pass, some don't. the resulting selection of rocks are all of a diameter smaller than or equal to that of the hole. the result is anything but random, but meets specific conditions.

The complexity of DNA is perfectly understandable when you take into account:
* the non-random, non-chance driven process of natural selection
* a geological timescale
* gene duplication
* a cumulative increase in complexity in some organisms where complexity increases the fitness.

Geez:
A noted authority in microbiology from the University of Lehigh, USA recently put forward a convincing case for an intelligent design as evolution couldn't have been responsible for the complexity of human system.

You probably mean Prof. Michael Behe, who's positions are not even recognised by his own university?
See: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
Anyway, his arguments for irreducible complexity are thoroughly refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Geez:
Whether you like it or not, there is no fool proof link that humans evolved, hence science is partly based on false faith.

Proof is for mathematics and logic, not for the real world. If you are talking about convincing evidence, this is blatantly false. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Geez:
From the Smithsonian Institute to any archeological findings, the link is still missing. If you cannot show me the fool proof link, then why maintain a position that lacks solid evidence [your quote]. Contradiction or what?

Again, if specific fossils would be the only line of evidence for human evolution (and the lack thereof a refutation), you might have had a case, but this is most definitely not the only line of evidence, on the contrary.
By the way, what evidence is there available that all humans evolved from Adam and Eve and what counterevidence is there for that claim. If you look at it with an open mind, you might come out quite surprised.

Why do you people continuously repeat the same empty talking points?

This is going to be my last and final reply to this thread (part 1 ).
Geez, I have read you links and found them lacking.
I will take the arguments from the first link (http://www.probe.org/content/view/638/0/) and discuss them.

I cannot possibly discuss everything the links of other Christian Apologists touch on, because it would take me literally days, if not weeks to pick apart the false analogy, misrepresentations, out of context quote mining and blatant falsehoods in defense of the Christian position. I have neither the time, nor the patience to invest for an argumentation that will fall on deaf ears anyway.

For those of you who have a sufficiently open mind to look at arguments that do not sprout from a Christian perspective, have a look at the following url's:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/trees.htm
http://www.becominghuman.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Next post: http://www.probe.org/content/view/638/0/ skinned ... the Emperor has got no clothes after all.

[quote author=larger_20 link=topic=3883.msg131780#msg131780 date=1134749992]IC..it was not explained to me but i know ....that CBN has an exchange program for larger buisness firms..which I am lucky to be part of[/quote]So I guess your transaction costs are minimal

goodguy:
Seems this thread was created by an atheist and has been left for another atheist to drag. Where is the Original Poster??

I don't think it was created by an atheist, but rather by an agnostic.
Anyway, if God is all he is supposed to be, why can't he give any one of you people the inspiration to come up with a compelling, undeniable argument for his existence?

Can't anyone here present a rational argument for the existence of God?
Apparently not

[quote author=larger_20 link=topic=3883.msg131647#msg131647 date=1134739074]That is what i have been doing for the past 4 years now...I don't know much about it though. All I have to do is complete some forms and send it to the embassey in NY. They will start the process. Is wire tranfer diffrent from SWIFT?[/quote]SWIFT is the international system for money transfers between banks. No government agency is involved in either way. Each bank has a unique swift code, for some transactions (like most when you're dealing with Nigeria), you need to pass through an intermediary bank. See http://www.swift.com/ for more info.