0thello:

This is futile, it's like arguing with a third world child, as I said in my initial response to you. You're a creationist, and are going to argue in circles, when posed questions you'll deflect (which you have) when met with evidence you merely scoff at it without providing a single counter argument unless it's in the form of butchering the actual process. Just like your use of cancer as mutation in general (which is so flawed in its reasoning and accuracy that to point out where you've gone wrong would be insulting to YOUR intelligence.

David you're a lost cause, do not email me again, do not ever, ever go behind my back and then shift the onus of your deceit on to me. A message to anybody here. David is no Biologist, the only thing you need go to him is for Insurance advice.

http://www.davidylan.com/index.php

Hello Othello,

Good to see online and taking on Davidylan. I glad you have quickly realised just how deceitful and dishonest he is. By the way, is the website related to him, or just mere coincidence?

huxley:

Hello Othello,

Good to see online and taking on Davidylan. I glad you have quickly realised just how deceitful and dishonest he is. By the way, is the website related to him, or just mere coincidence?

Wonders shall never end!

huxley:

Some videos about evolution here

What is happening to my postings today?

huxley:

Hello Othello,

Good to see online and taking on Davidylan. I glad you have quickly realised just how deceitful and dishonest he is. By the way, is the website related to him, or just mere coincidence?

Will these fools show us just where i have been decietful and dishonest? Will any of these loudmouths pls address the issue or simply acknowledge that they are nothing but a revolving door of material they plagiarise from the web?

Hey there Huxley, well I don't really know if he is David Dylan JR. However he's marketting a website in every email he sent to me as an attachment (most likely from a company email).

It says (as followed: , see what's new on my blog, http://www.davidylan.com/, 
, Lord, I want to be just like You
'Cause he wants to be just like me
I want to be a holy example
For his innocent eyes to see
Help me be a living Bible, Lord
That my little boy can read
I want to be just like You
'Cause he wants to be like me


I'm not going to debate biology with DavidDylan, our resident Kent Hovind, he's so full of shit. At the end of the day he's (most likely) some punk insurance sales man who has a small grasp on biology but ultimately hasn't gotten much further besides wikipedia and a few laughable sources. His newest attempt is to make the already disproven case that mutations are only harmful, I guess he doesn't know much about how antibiotics work. As a micro-biologist he should already know several bacteria that have evolved abilities that far exceed their cousins to eat nylon yet Nylon is a sythentic material only invented in 1935 the bacteria didn't just poof into existence. They evolved from another species (lenty of evidence for that). However I wouldn't expect an insurance salesman to know such tings. That's just one example of a mutation granting abilities and benefits, he need only google the bacteria to find out I don't want to be here schooling people older than me. If he wants to disprove evolution (if it's possible to "disprove something) all he need do is find a bird with nipples.


Anyway: Silence David, when I want car insurance I'll consult you,fr everything else there's master card.

Ah 0thelo, finally realised you cant really survive in an intellectual debate? Its now back to insults and slander? Well done . . .

0thello:

http://www.davidylan.com/,

David, i'm moving to the states soon. You going to hook me up with Car Insurance?

@ 0thello,

I really respect your knowledge of science and evolution in particular, i pray you were home grown, as i was beginning to get worried at the level of science education in nigeria. Please do not waste your fingers on davidylan he will always throw up unrelated arguments flawed arguments. What is most shocking to me is that someone that claimed to be a molecular biologist is asking "How then did those primordial life forms originate? Did they come from thin air?" amazing, wonderment shall never end. If he says he knows the scientific explanation but does not accept it, i will understand, but to claim not to know is simply amazing.

@ neotic,

I hope you will also not claim to be a scientist, like davidylan because you reason the same way. In science a theory almost always start out as an hypothesis, and i repeat that was in our science curriculum in those days. What is happening to our education, we need divine intervention.

0thello:

Anyway: Silence David, when I want car insurance I'll consult you,fr everything else there's master card.

0thello:

I'm not going to debate biology with him, he's so full of shit.

Really i think its because you really dont know it. You already confessed that much.   Sorry you cant bambozzle me like you do the others here.

0thello:

At the end of the day he's some punk insurance sales man (most likely) who has a small grasp on biology but ultimately hasn't gotten much further besides wikipedia and a few laughable sources.

Enjoy.

0thello:

His newest attempt is to make the already disproven case that mutations are only harmful, Yet as a micro-biologist he should already know several bacteria that have evolved abilities that far exceed their cousins to eat nylon yet Nylon is a sythentic material onlyinvented in 1935.

What a dishonest tool.   I never made such a claim . . . i was discussing the issue of cancer and the fact that ALL cancers are the result of mutations either in proteins or DNA. Which of course you didnt know.

0thello:

However I wouldn't expect an insurance salesman to know such tings. That's just one example of a mutation granting abilities and benefits, he need only google the bacteria to find out I don't want to be here schooling people older than me.

errr this was not the issue. The clueless ones ALWAYS struggle to change the subject.   What has nylon got to do with mutations and human disease?  

0thello:

Anyway: Silence David, when I want car insurance I'll consult you,fr everything else there's master card.

No problem.  

0thello:

Hey there Huxley, well I don't really know if he is David Dylan JR. However he's marketting a website in every email he sent to me as an attachment (most likely from a company email).

It says (as followed: , see what's new on my blog, http://www.davidylan.com/,  
, Lord, I want to be just like You
'Cause he wants to be just like me
I want to be a holy example
For his innocent eyes to see
Help me be a living Bible, Lord
That my little boy can read
I want to be just like You
'Cause he wants to be like me


I'm not going to debate biology with him, he's so full of shit. At the end of the day he's some punk insurance sales man (most likely) who has a small grasp on biology but ultimately hasn't gotten much further besides wikipedia and a few laughable sources.



 

Now, we know just how dishonest and deceitful he is.   To see more evidence of his deceit, see the this thread in which we debated The Theory of Evolution (TTE).  I ask many questions, such as:

1)  On the subject of avatism, I asked whether it was conceivable that humans could develop feathers since he was arguing that human tails were simply deformations.  He said NO.   When I asked Why, he evaded and provided no response, although he seemed to be very sure that humans could never develop feathers as simple deformations in the same way the human tails are deformations.

2)  I also asked him what conclusion he could draw from the fact that he shares most DNA material with his siblings  than he does with me.  He also evaded as is his wont.

In fact, that thread is very instructive as to his methods, and these are poeple who claim to have the high moral ground!

wirinet:

@ 0thello,

I really respect your knowledge of science and evolution in particular,

In 0thelo's own words - [size=14pt]I'm not a Biologists [/size]

Yeah . . . i also "respect" a dude who doesnt understand the meaning of "single cell", doesnt know that cancers are caused by mutations and tells us to go check kiddie books for proof of evolution.

wirinet . . . i dont know what you "admire" here but it certainly isnt 0thelo's knowledge of science. there's none here!  

wirinet:

i pray you were home grown, as i was beginning to get worried at the level of science education in nigeria. Please do not waste your fingers on davidylan he will always throw up unrelated arguments flawed arguments. What is most shocking to me is that someone that claimed to be a molecular biologist is asking "How then did those primordial life forms originate? Did they come from thin air?" amazing, wonderment shall never end. If he says he knows the scientific explanation but does not accept it, i will understand, but to claim not to know is simply amazing.

wirinet . . . what is the scientific explanation to how the unicellular organism first appeared on the earth? Pls provide the answer. Thank you.

And pls stick to the topic.

learn about evolution here http://www.youtube.com/user/EvoBiologist

huxley:

Now, we know just how dishonest and deceitful he is.   To see more evidence of his deceit, see the this thread in which we debated The Theory of Evolution (TTE).  I ask many questions, such as:

1)  On the subject of avatism, I asked whether it was conceivable that humans could develop feathers since he was arguing that human tails were simply deformations.  He said NO.   When I asked Why, he evaded and provided no response, although he seemed to be very sure that humans could never develop feathers as simple deformations in the same way the human tails are deformations.

What you dishonest fool also failed to tell him was that:

a. you FAILED woefully to tell us where the evidence for your diagram of the horse evolution came from and why some horses still exist at less than 2ft, about the same height as the alleged horse ancestor.

b. that you LIED when you blatantly copied a radiogram from talkorigins.com claiming it was evidence of a tail when in truth the authors of the scientific paper from which the radiogram was taken said there was NO physical evidence for a tail and actually NEVER at any point called the protuberance a tail.

c. that atavism/vestigial organs was a theory based solely on how little was known about the functions of body organs when it was first proposed but has since lost its traction within the scientific community. That i also asked WHY the thymus which used to be called a vestigial organ in the late 19th century is no longer called so.

Yeah and you call others dishonest?

huxley:

2)  I also asked him what conclusion he could draw from the fact that he shares most DNA material with his siblings  than he does with me.  He also evaded as is his wont.

What you fool also failed to make CLEAR is that NONE of you proponents of the gods of science has EVER at any point convincingly told us WHY it is that you have distinct phenotypic differences with a gorilla when you share 99% of your DNA with it.

huxley:

In fact, that thread is very instructive as to his methods, and these are poeple who claim to have the high moral ground!

Infact the thread is a monument to how little many of you actually know compared to what you plagiarise from websites.

Back to topic dudes.  

Should have shown him an ostrich,  Nothing more vestigial than a bird with wings that cannot fly. Or you should have shown him an appendix, nothing more vestigial than an dietry organ that is irrelevant to our diet. It hasn't been phased out because natural selection is all but a distant memory in regards to humans.

He's a slowpoke, look at how he tries to back slide his words yet he was the one who put forward the proposition that mutations aren't beneficial and are in fact only harmful. I never once argued against the evidence that all cancers are the result of mutations either in proteins or DNA. I never really spoke on the subject at all. I was too busy wondering what my insurance premium was and seeing if I could get a second opinion from www.insurancexpert.co.uk/.

I dunno though, Daviddylan.com seems like the only place when you want advice on how to fake a claim. With advice like that you could be pulling off Eddie Guerro insurance fraud and not even know it.

What you fool also failed to make CLEAR is that NONE of you proponents of the gods of science has EVER at any point convincingly told us WHY it is that you have distinct phenotypic differences with a gorilla when you share 99% of your DNA with it.

I could tell you, but you wouldn't be convinced. Who's fault is that? At one end of the spectrum you could be considered the most gullible tool in the universe for believing in Christianity with the pitiful evidence (if any) for it & at the other end you reject evidence that runs counter to your asserted beliefs despite the despite the amount of evidence for them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't MAKE it drink after all. Now I wasn't here for whatever you and Huxley have had in the past however your reluctance to accept information is a testament to the futility of actually providing you with information. You don't even acknowledge when someone has provided it, confirmation bias.

So let's just all go our separate ways, you don't have to bark at us because you have a religious claim to up hold and you can carry on giving insurance advic,   I mean training in molecular Biology.

MODS delete posts?

The moderator appears to be very busy tonight - removing many of my postings. Hello Moderator, how very biased you are!

0thello:

Should have shown him an ostrich,  Nothing more vestigial than a bird with wings that cannot fly.

Including chickens, turkeys, penguins and kiwis? So all they have are vestigial wings? Any proof that a winged animal MUST fly? 
The absurd way you reason makes me laugh.

0thello:

Or you should have shown him an appendix, nothing more vestigial than an dietry organ that is irrelevant to our diet.

Even huxley knows not to mention this particular "example". 
Go read up on something called GALT. Check your immunology textbook, you'll find it there . . . must be something you read other than google no?

0thello:

He's a slowpoke, look at how he tries to back slide his words yet he was the one who put forward the proposition that mutations aren't beneficial and are in fact only harmful.

That is dumb, nowhere did i say ALL mutations are harmful. Infact here are my words again - As usual i'll give you examples - cancers are the result of random mutations in genes causing an rapid increase in cellular proliferation as against terminal differentiation.

anything there to suggest the lie you've suddenly started peddling? And you dare call others dishonest?

0thello:

I never once arued that all cancers are the result of mutations either in proteins or DNA. I never really spoke on the subject at all.

Because you dont know what cancers are, you dont know what mutations are, you have no idea the difference between proteins and DNA. Infact here are YOUR OWN words in response to mine i quoted above - Just like your use of cancer as mutation in general (which is so flawed in its reasoning and accuracy

When are you ever going to tell the truth?

0thello:

I was too busy wondering what my insurance premium was and seeing if I could get a second opinion from www.insurancexpert.co.uk/.

I dunno though, Daviddylan.com seems like the only place when you want advice on how to fake a claim. With advice like that you could be pulling off Eddie Guerro insurance fraud and not even know it.

You're still peddling your lies eh? Dont let me disabuse your mind with the truth pls. 

0thello:

Should have shown him an ostrich,  Nothing more vestigial than a bird with wings that cannot fly. Or you should have shown him an appendix, nothing more vestigial than an dietry organ that is irrelevant to our diet. It hasn't been phased out because natural selection is all but a distant memory in regards to humans.

He's a slowpoke, look at how he tries to back slide his words yet he was the one who put forward the proposition that mutations aren't beneficial and are in fact only harmful. I never once argued against the evidence that all cancers are the result of mutations either in proteins or DNA. I never really spoke on the subject at all. I was too busy wondering what my insurance premium was and seeing if I could get a second opinion from www.insurancexpert.co.uk/.

I dunno though, Daviddylan.com seems like the only place when you want advice on how to fake a claim. With advice like that you could be pulling off Eddie Guerro insurance fraud and not even know it.

I could tell you, but you wouldn't be convinced. Who's fault is that? At one end of the spectrum you could be considered the most gullible tool in the universe for believing in Christianity with the pitiful evidence (if any) for it & at the other end you reject evidence that runs counter to your asserted beliefs despite the despite the amount of evidence for them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't MAKE it drink after all. Now I wasn't here for whatever you and Huxley have had in the past however your reluctance to accept information is a testament to the futility of actually providing you with information. You don't even acknowledge when someone has provided it, confirmation bias.

So let's just all go our separate ways, you don't have to bark at us because you have a religious claim to up hold and you can carry on giving insurance advic,   I mean training in molecular Biology.

MODS delete posts?

Oh YES, and he has been very buzy tonight.

@Davidylan,
Although i had not ready any biology book for about 25yrs, some how i do not remember cancer being being caused by mutation. Please as a molecular biologist, provide links where it has been conclusively proven that cancer is hereditary.

I thought cancer is caused mainly by external and environmental factors like smoking, unnatural foods, exposure to increased radiation, both natural and man made. That is why rural dwellers are said to have little incidence of cancer.

I had the impression that cancer is triggered when the genes responsible for regulating division starts malfunctioning, thereby resulting in abnormal cell division in that cell and it subsequent all cells from it.

Please educate me further.

wirinet, i can only laugh at your post . . . your ignorance is palpable . . . no unbelievable!

wirinet:

@Davidylan,
Although i had not ready any biology book for about 25yrs

no wonder. That's almost the entire length of my life!!! What have you been reading?

wirinet:

some how i do not remember cancer being being caused by mutation.

Oluwa o!
Ok assignment for you:

1. Read up on tumor suppressors and oncogenes
2. Breast Cancer - BRCA1
3. Most difficult forms of breast cancer - cancer cells expressing mutated HER2 and over-expressing cyclin D1
4. Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (form of colon cancer) - Mutations in the APC gene.

wirinet:

Please as a molecular biologist, provide links where it has been conclusively proven that cancer is hereditary.

You dont need links, you simply need to read!!!

- From the NYtimes - Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer (HNPCC). Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), also known as Lynch syndrome, accounts for 3 - 5% of all colorectal cancers. About 50 - 80% of people who inherit the abnormal gene develop colon cancer by age 45. HNPCC is caused by mutations in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 genes. People with HNPCC are prone to other cancers, including uterine and ovarian cancers, as well as cancers of the small intestine, liver, urinary tract, and central nervous system.

wirinet:

I thought cancer is caused mainly by external and environmental factors like smoking, unnatural foods, exposure to increased radiation, both natural and man made. That is why rural dwellers are said to have little incidence of cancer.

external factors such as smoking, foods, or increased exposure to radiation do not cause brain tumors, breast cancer, colon cancers, testicular cancers, neurofirbromatosis e.t.c. . . . what do you think causes them?

It is however true that some cancers require initiators like you mentioned above.

It is not true that rural dwellersr have a low incidence of cancer, many of them simply go unreported. It is just like saying Nigerians have a lower incidence of cancers than Americans.

wirinet:

I had the impression that cancer is triggered when the genes responsible for regulating division starts malfunctioning, thereby resulting in abnormal cell division in that cell and it subsequent all cells from it.

what causes that gene to start malfunctioning?

wirinet:

Please educate me further.

I just did.

huxley:

The moderator appears to be very busy tonight - removing many of my postings.  Hello Moderator,  how very biased you are!


Look above at my highlighting of your post above.   From that, you will see that the sun and stars were not created until the 4th day.  Now answer these questions:

1)  How could there have been day/night on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd days without the sun?

2)  What is the definition of a day?

3)  Where did the light in the first three "days" come from given there was no sun until the 4th day.

4)   The lesser light (ie, the moon)- Is the moon a source of light by itself?

5)  We know that the planets are held in orbit around the sun by the gravitational attraction of the sun.  If the earth was created before the sun, 4 days before the sun - what was holding the earth and the other planets in their orbits about the sun.

6)  When did god create the other planets?

7)  Are you also in opposition of the Theory of Gravity as you are about The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?


I await your responses to these questions with bated breath, or are you gonna evade them?  I guess I know what you might do.

ur intelligence or lack of it amazes me, considerin ur legendary posts about religion on nairaland. cos even my illiterate great-grand mother understands that genesis 1 account of creation is best understood when juxtaposed with genesis 2.  y? cos the narrative subjects of both chapters best illustrates the explicit meanings intended.


I will save the narrative for another time and jump quickly to answer ur questions.

1).  Genesis 1 describes God`s view of the creation. To fully understand this one has to look at the nature of God. Two biblical verses illustrate this one is John 4:24 : God is spirit and they that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth. and they second that illustrates that God has made all things right in his own time (cant lay my hands on that verse at d moment).
There was day and night on the first three days from the spirit. its physical manifestation was being awaited.  read Genesis 2: 4-6.

2). A day is a day. 24 hours.

3). Limiting the concept of the light to the sun is very uninformative. Last time I checked the dictionary, one of its definition of the light was:   spiritual illumination or awareness; enlightenment.
It is simply an acknowledgement of a spiritual realm where light (not subject to physical analysis)exists.

4). God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day

God made two lights. The moon ruled by night and the sun by day. Science says the sun gives the moon its light. This is no contradiction as long as the moon still rules by night. Is there anyting i was supposed to deduce from ur question? cos it sounds meaningless. At least i was xpectin more totful questions.

5). Rubbish. The bible gives no account of the creation the other planets. I will reserve my opinion on that.

6).  Check answer 5.

7). please be objective. what has the law of gravity got to do with the lack of objectivity of the evolution argument when juxtaposed with creation?

I would officially like to know where u stand on the evolution debate. Cos if this is just another one of those meaningless atheistic one sided narratives u do on nairaland, please count me out.

Otherwise, if u are an evolutionist who knows ur onions, please count me in. And u can start by addressing the posers i raised to bawomolo and KAG in one of my earlier posts about the origin of life.

welcome on board.

noetic:

ur intelligence or lack of it amazes me, considerin ur legendary posts about religion on nairaland. cos even my illiterate great-grand mother understands that genesis 1 account of creation is best understood when juxtaposed with genesis 2.  y? cos the narrative subjects of both chapters best illustrates the explicit meanings intended.


I will save the narrative for another time and jump quickly to answer ur questions.

1).  Genesis 1 describes God`s view of the creation. To fully understand this one has to look at the nature of God. Two biblical verses illustrate this one is John 4:24 : God is spirit and they that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth. and they second that illustrates that God has made all things right in his own time (cant lay my hands on that verse at d moment).
There was day and night on the first three days from the spirit. its physical manifestation was being awaited.  read Genesis 2: 4-6.

2). A day is a day. 24 hours.

3). Limiting the concept of the light to the sun is very uninformative. Last time I checked the dictionary, one of its definition of the light was:   spiritual illumination or awareness; enlightenment.
It is simply an acknowledgement of a spiritual realm where light (not subject to physical analysis)exists.

4). God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day

God made two lights. The moon ruled by night and the sun by day. Science says the sun gives the moon its light. This is no contradiction as long as the moon still rules by night. Is there anyting i was supposed to deduce from ur question? cos it sounds meaningless. At least i was xpectin more totful questions.

5). Rubbish. The bible gives no account of the creation the other planets. I will reserve my opinion on that.

6).  Check answer 5.

7). please be objective. what has the law of gravity got to do with the lack of objectivity of the evolution argument when juxtaposed with creation?

I would officially like to know where u stand on the evolution debate. Cos if this is just another one of those meaningless atheistic one sided narratives u do on nairaland, please count me out.

Otherwise, if u are an evolutionist who knows ur onions, please count me in. And u can start by addressing the posers i raised to bawomolo and KAG in one of my earlier posts about the origin of life.

welcome on board.

I shall address your-what-passes-for-responses later. But for now, can you answer these questions?

1) What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused the biological scientific community? I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts.

2) What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community? If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it?

How then did those primordial life forms originate? Did they come from thin air?

who knows? i'm no expert on Abiogenesis.  

noetic - What creationism theory should i subcribe to, the Yoruba one where some chicken splashing sand over water, the Judeo-christian one or the hindu one etc.  The problem with Creationism is that there are so many versions that claim to be truth.  Christian creationism ranges from biblical literalism young-earth creationism to old-earth creationism to progressive creationism to continuous creation to theistic evolutionism. Why should Christian creationists be taken seriously when there is no unified stance on the Genesis allegory?

2). A day is a day. 24 hours.

hmm there must be stop-watches back then.

5). Rubbish. The bible gives no account of the creation the other planets. I will reserve my opinion on that.

why reserve your opinion, Any words of how God created saturn or the milky way galaxy?

huxley:

I shall address your-what-passes-for-responses later. But for now, can you answer these questions?

1) What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused the biological scientific community? I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts.

2) What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community? If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it?

no mate. . . . it doesnt work that way.

i have just answered ur concerns, the baton has shifted to u. until u answer mine . . . . .i will ignore u.

@ OW11

I thought the point of the thread was to bring the flaws in the theory of evolution to the fore and either seek to find alternative solutions or convince us that it is a rubbish theory based upon the flaws you would highlight in the theory. I would like to see a list of potential scientific errors in that theory and other possible scientific points of view that is more plausible route to the Origin of life and the consequent evolution to the many species we find on earth today. If there is none, then we can finally ignore this theory that has raised so much dust and accept the words of the 1st chapter of Genesis as science and move on.

While i do understand ur intelligent concern, I would rather not post my thoughts about the flaws and irrationality of the evolution theory just like that.
I would prefer an engaging debate on the subjects, (which is what this thread is intended to achieve,) through which i intend to present my concerns in an intellectual manner, while antagonising their claims and vice versa. Unfortunately the evolutionists are not taking the initiative.

noetic:

@ OW11

While i do understand ur intelligent concern, I would rather not post my thoughts about the flaws and irrationality of the evolution theory just like that.
I would prefer an engaging debate on the subjects, (which is what this thread is intended to achieve,) through which i intend to present my concerns in an intellectual manner, while antagonising their claims and vice versa. Unfortunately the evolutionists are not taking the initiative.

All you did is bring up bible verses as an argument against Evolution. Is the Islamic Or hindu version of creationism wrong? There's nothing like "irrationality" of the evolution theory. You still haven't shown the so-called flaws.

bawomolo:


noetic - What creationism theory should i subcribe to, the Yoruba one where some chicken splashing sand over water, the Judeo-christian one or the hindu one etc.

 The problem with Creationism is that there are so many versions that claim to be truth.  Christian creationism ranges from biblical literalism young-earth creationism to old-earth creationism to progressive creationism to continuous creation to theistic evolutionism. Why should Christian creationists be taken seriously when there is no unified stance on the Genesis allegory?

please let us be objective here. I have decided to ignore the seemingly obvious irrationality and insanity in the pioneer concept of evolution for the sake of objectivity. I have posted on this thread my creationism beliefs as seen in Genesis 1, which is what i expect u to either address or attack.
or better still u can as well adress the obvious differences between evolution and creationism.

But of course u wouldnt do that.

why reserve your opinion, Any words of how God created saturn or the milky way galaxy?

Considering ur obvious reluctance to address the issues i have raised, it is wise on my part to reserve certain opinions, since u have the habit of digressing discussions to comfortable routine that leave no room for intellectual debate, analysis, argument and reasoning.
otherwise, address my concerns about the origin of life.

bawomolo:


noetic - What creationism theory should i subcribe to, the Yoruba one where some chicken splashing sand over water, the Judeo-christian one or the hindu one etc.

 The problem with Creationism is that there are so many versions that claim to be truth.  Christian creationism ranges from biblical literalism young-earth creationism to old-earth creationism to progressive creationism to continuous creation to theistic evolutionism. Why should Christian creationists be taken seriously when there is no unified stance on the Genesis allegory?

please let us be objective here. I have decided to ignore the seemingly obvious irrationality and insanity in the pioneer concept of evolution for the sake of objectivity. I have posted on this thread my creationism beliefs as seen in Genesis 1, which is what i expect u to either address or attack.
or better still u can as well adress the obvious differences between evolution and creationism.

But of course u wouldnt do that.

why reserve your opinion, Any words of how God created saturn or the milky way galaxy?

Considering ur obvious reluctance to address the issues i have raised, it is wise on my part to reserve certain opinions, since u have the habit of digressing discussions to comfortable routine that leave no room for intellectual debate, analysis, argument and reasoning.
otherwise, address my concerns about the origin of life.

bawomolo:

All you did is bring up bible verses as an argument against Evolution.  Is the Islamic Or hindu version of creationism wrong? There's nothing like "irrationality" of the evolution theory.  You still haven't shown the so-called flaws.

The bible verses were intended to warm u up and provoke an intellectual debate devoid of sentiments. ask neccesary questions on those biblical version of creationism like i have been doing on evolution and lets see where it leads us.
If u want the hindu or islamic version or debate on creationism , u know where to go.

noetic:

ur intelligence or lack of it amazes me, considerin ur legendary posts about religion on nairaland. cos even my illiterate great-grand mother understands that genesis 1 account of creation is best understood when juxtaposed with genesis 2.  y? cos the narrative subjects of both chapters best illustrates the explicit meanings intended.


I will save the narrative for another time and jump quickly to answer ur questions.

1).  Genesis 1 describes God`s view of the creation. To fully understand this one has to look at the nature of God. Two biblical verses illustrate this one is John 4:24 : God is spirit and they that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth. and they second that illustrates that God has made all things right in his own time (cant lay my hands on that verse at d moment).
There was day and night on the first three days from the spirit. its physical manifestation was being awaited.  read Genesis 2: 4-6.

You claim that Gen 1 is best understood in conjunction with Gen 2, but you fail to provide any explanation whatsoever as to how to derive the "true" meaning out of these.  I await such as you promise.

This is Genesis 2 4-6 below;

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Where does it say anything about the physical manifestation of LIGHT, replacing the SPIRIT manifestation of LIGHT?   Can you describe the mechanism by which spiritual light is replaced by physical light.  Just as you ask for the full explanation for the scientist's origin for life, I nothing less that a full step-by-step account of how spiritual light is replaced by physical light.

noetic:

2). A day is a day. 24 hours.

NOPE, you are wrong.  A day is define as the period of time it takes for a planet to rotate about its axis.  Thus a day on the earth is 24 hours, but a day on pluto is not 24 hours but about 6.4 earth days.  In facts, some planets have days that are much much longer than their year (the period it takes a planet to revolve around the sun).

So when Genesis talks about days/nights, are these earth day, or are these days on the other planets?

noetic:

3). Limiting the concept of the light to the sun is very uninformative. Last time I checked the dictionary, one of its definition of the light was:   spiritual illumination or awareness; enlightenment.
It is simply an acknowledgement of a spiritual realm where light (not subject to physical analysis)exists.

By light we mean the physical entity constituted of photons or radiation that comes from the stars to illuminate things.  I don't mean it in a metaphorical sense.   If there were "days" before the sun was created, were these "days" meant to be a period of time illuminated by photons?  Where these photons from God or from some distance star?

noetic:

4). God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day

God made two lights. The moon ruled by night and the sun by day. Science says the sun gives the moon its light. This is no contradiction as long as the moon still rules by night. Is there anyting i was supposed to deduce from ur question? cos it sounds meaningless. At least i was xpectin more totful questions.

Well, this question was quite simple, but you are getting more and more mired in your deception.  I thought you said god made the following lights - spiritual light and physical light from the sun.   Now you are adding a third light, the light from the moon into the picture.   Just think about it - the moon is a lump of rock.  The last time I checked it does not emit its own light and has never.

noetic:

5). Rubbish. The bible gives no account of the creation the other planets. I will reserve my opinion on that.

Yes you are right, the bible gives no account of the creation of the planets, consequently they (the planets) do not exist.

noetic:

6).  Check answer 5.

See above;

noetic:

7). please be objective. what has the law of gravity got to do with the lack of objectivity of the evolution argument when juxtaposed with creation?

I simply asked why you accept The Gravitational Theory?  What evidence about this theory do you find the most pursuasive and how are you sure that the scientific community are not deceiving you about Gravity?


Now, can you deal with these, please?

1)   What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused by the biological scientific community?  I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts.

2)  What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community?   If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it?

Ah as usual, since they cant find proof for evolution they resort to the usual - attacking creationism.

If creationism is flawed WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

bawomolo:

All you did is bring up bible verses as an argument against Evolution. Is the Islamic Or hindu version of creationism wrong? There's nothing like "irrationality" of the evolution theory. You still haven't shown the so-called flaws.

Just 2:

1. Where did the first life forms from which evolution derives its ideas come from?

2. Where are the intermediate life forms?