₦airaland Forum

alimat 2:
Christians in this forum  why dont you sort out the disparities in your xtian world before jumping into the affairs of   the  Muslims.
        Jehovah Witnesses ======= Noting like Trinity
       Other xtians ========= Its a liar

       Catholics ============Worship images
       Other xtians ======== They are not xtians

      Celestial church ======== Spiritual welfare
      Other xtians ======== They are  ritualist

      T.B Joshua  ===========Miracles
      Other xtians ======== Not a xtian
        E.T.C

Christians which way forward?

if ur conscience does not convict u about the evil of islam, who can?

keep chasing shadows.

Becomrrich:
It is not a joke. Let look at the issue. who own the land. Is it nigeria or benin republic. who is the real own of the land from lagos to bayelsa state.

We have to know our history. Is nigeria the owner of benin republic. dont forget there was war and invasion. So what if we return the land back just like that of bakassi.   

Do you want to know who own the land. from lagos to bayelsa if it is nigeria or benin republic. neotic all this you see where part of an empire which is now a country. was it in nigeria or benin. I am asking you. you forget Benin  use to be dahomey . remember dahomey empire.

So who own this part benin republic of nigeria.

how am i supposed to know??

u are the genius

huxley:
Forget about Genesis and try and answer simply questions rather deploying evasive tactics.

I am happy u said this, can u please forever [b]shut up [/b]then on the alledged "holes" of the bible u always google up.

How could you possibly criticise something that you do not understand? What are your scientific criticism for evolution? To be able to criticise it you need to at least demonstrate an understanding of what is the target of your criticism. Just checking - have you ever been to any establishment to learning - like a school, college, university? Did you pay attention to lessons while there? Or are you a product of one of the myriads of bible colleges in Nigeria?

WHAOOOO. . . . . . . this is the height of delusion.

Have my questions about evolution being misinformed? if they have. . . . . .please make clarifications.
u cant even answer them, yet u ascribe infinite knowledge to urself about evolution. I m convinced u r confused.

what does my qualification has to do with ur apparent lack of understanding?
bible colege?? So now u see ur folly and lack of understanding. If u have intelligent issues please raise them. otherwise. . . . . back off.

Badriyyah:
Ummmm, I have a problem here. Why are you using the Bible as evidence?

On the contrary the bible is not used as an evidence.
I have simply put forward certain basic contradictory concepts of the evolution madness, and the self proffesed evolution genius cannot answer them. . . , , . . . .showing his folly.

By presenting the Genesis 1 and 2 account of the creation, I choose to present to him and others, my beliefs on creationism. So while I raise posers on the fallacy of evolution, anyone can do the same on creationism. But of course he wouldnt, cos in the words of a man . . . . . his wisdom or lack of it is known.

While the evolutionists find it impossible educate us on the origin and pioneer elements that evoluted life,
I will proceed to highlight the second part of the creation story.

Moral lesson: Never postulate what u dont understand (evolutionist as in evolution). google and wikipedia can be very unreliable when
analytical and intellectually driven debates happens.

The second part of the creation story.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [e] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [f] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

huxley:
What is this thing called EVOLUTION that you are so opposed to and criticizing, but you seem not to know what you are criticising? Don't you think it makes sense that you should first of all learn the claims of evolution before venturing to criticise it? How can you criticise something that you don't understand.

Your strategy is commonly called "Shooting the strawman". It means you carricature or misrepresent a view so that you can more easily shoot it down.


Are your opposition to evolution the result of scientific skepticism or from religious principles. If they are scientific, can you present the scientific data/evidence that renders evolution untenable?

Once again I ask the following questions:

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?

is this ur way of saying thank you for correcting ur rubbish and unintelligent posers about Genesis account of creationism?.

by asking simple cogent questions, we will collectively come to the overall conclusion of the untenability of the evolution lie.
And once again i ask u, how does me answering ur posers elucidate on either the theory of evolution or the creation belief.
I refuse to be distracted.

PS: I have educated ur concerns on the Genesis account of creation, why dont u do the same on the origin and evolution of life.
by doing that we might make progress here.

wirinet:
I decided to respond to this thread again because i felt that you cannot squeeze water from a stone no matter how long and hard you try, that is referring to davidylan and co. You can explain evolution to them a thousand times and they would still say you have not answered a single question there are raising.

But i am responding now because of the above statement by huxley whom i respect very much, and a few others. Scientist have very good and sound postulations about the origin of live on earth and the process being repeated on other planets. It had been dealt with extensively by my mentor - Carl Sagan. But for those who do not know here is my explanation.

Before I explain the naturalistic origin of life as generally accepted by scientists, we have to agree on the definition of life. So What Is Life?

I think the problem we have is that different people has a different definition of life. We have spiritual life, biological life, physical life, and so on. The one we are interested in is biological or organic life. I have no definition or understanding of spiritual life.

To me Life is a self contained system of molecules that is capable of duplicating itself from generation to generation. Put in another way it is organic molecules with the potential of forming self reproducing systems. The basic unit of life is The DNA. If you agree with me on the definition of life, we can then move on to its origin, if not then our thought pattern will never cross.

Nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, as they are responsible for life's primary function - replication and growth. Nucleic acids and protein are polymers. Polymerization involves the loss of water. In constructing a nuceic acid, the phosphorous group losses -OH, allowing the phosphate group to link with ribose sugar. The ribose sugar and a base link when the ribose loses an -OH and the base loses one -H. The loss of these two water molecules leads to the formation of a nucleotide. A nucleotide links to the next nucleotide when it loses one -H and the other one loses one -OH. To make nucleic acids out of the original dehydration(loss of water ) is necessary.dehydration is also necessary to polymerize amino acids into proteins. Polymerization of carbohydrates also requires dehydration.

The original components (phospate group, ribose deoxyribose sugars, bases, amino acids, glocose, etc) are readily formed by by action of electrical charges meaning lightening and ultraviolet radiation in the primitive atmosphere of the earth (see Miller's experiment). These compounds are readily dissolved in rainwater and brought down to the primitive ocean. There these compounds are protected from destruction from the same agents (electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation) that created them. As the ocean accumulated these compounds, it slowly became a dilute "primordial soup" The dehydration process needed for polymerization most likely took place on the beaches and in tidal pools of the ancient ocean.

Experiments have shown that RNA is autocatalytic, which means that an RNA stand once formed by accidental dehydration can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short stands of RNA were probably the first self duplicating systems to come into being on the young earth.

In those viruses that use RNA as genetic material, the RNA strand is protected by a sheath of specific proteins. the association of RNA with proteins may have led to protein synthesis, and eventually to Primordial Life.

Mr Davidylan and co might argue that life could not have evolved on earth because the earth was too young. According to them 4.6 billion years is too short a time to make all the various type of proteins and nucleic acids needed to make even the simplest bacteria. But they forget the extreme power of natural environmental selection. Evolution was also operating at the molecular level: compounds that were not stable would not survive, leaving only the most stable compounds. It happens that nucleic acids are very stable compounds.

Let me give you an example how natural selection works. Imagine you want the entire King James Bible types by a wild monkey. What are the chances that such a monkey, typing at random will come up with the bible neatly typed without any error. The king James bible is said to contain about 6 million letter. The chances of success is almost nil. But if i introduce a control (the environment) what deletes any wrong letter the monkey would type, the probability would certainly be 1. And typing at one letter per second and assuming an average of 13 errors per letter, the monkey would produce the English Bible in 13 X 6,000,000 seconds, which equals 2 yrs and 6 months. That is how evolution by natural selection works.

i hope you people understand the origin of life and Evolution better now as i am exhausted.

Rubbish.

You simply described the behaviours of RNA without sheding light of the origin or evolution of life.
U are discusing the self replicationg nature of RNA, while we are asking the pioneer formation of this RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?

the commonest law of biogenesis says life begets life. Biology butresses this. Yet evolution claims that the first
substance of life were formed from non-living substances reffered to as "spontaneous generation". or am i wrong? RUBBISh, . . . . .

Darwin claims that all organisms on earth are descent from a common ancestor or a last universal ancestor.
Whats ur explanation for the mitochondria gene exception? what is the identity and nature of the last common universal ancestor?

I am asking very simple straight forward questions here.
Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consesus or common denominator to whom life might can be traced to between these three? _{as seen in d image below}


Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are
the last traces of life. Me the creationist is asking u the evolutionist, what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life?
and what were the substances that made up this reaction?
what was the structure of the first living things?

i eargerly await ur response.

KAG:
Your line of tots? I don't know your tots. I was, however, able to understand the thoughts you were trying to get across, whic is why I was able to respond adequately to them.

First, you assumed the theory of evolution had been around for 300 years. You were wrong on that. I gave the right time frame in my first response to you.

Second, you implied that a theory could be changed into something higher. You were wrong. etc.

Finally, to answer your question, theories - scientific theories - are what contain facts. Theories don't become facts, they have, instead, as part of their make-up facts and observations.
is that so??  Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh
there is no point debating evolution in relevance to creation, if i have to educate u on the subject u are supposed to be postulating.
Go n do ur home work.

It is so. I'm pretty sure you aren't capable of debating neither evolution nor creationism, so it's moot for you to suggest that you may be able to educate me on the subject. That is not an ad hominem, simply a statement on the capabilities you've displayed so far.
Your supposed knowledge of evolution truly amazes me.
hisses and walks away

Wonderful rebuttal.
depends on how u look at it. abiogenesis in reference to prokaryotes as the first inhabitants of the earth, is a claim buttressed by evolution.
So how do u intend to seperate this claim, which is the underlying basic of  evolution from the debate when evolution is compared to creationism.

No, abiogenesis isn't in reference to prokaryotes as the first inhabitants of the earth, [/b]etc. I don't no where you got that nonsense from, but it's wrong. In fact, what evolution - as in the theory of evolution - deals with is how species may have originated from life. Now, life is currently defined in a very strict way, and it's that criteria that is used to distinguish the study of speciation in biological entities. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily need biological entities. [b]However, if it can be determined how life started on earth, abiogenesis will come into contact with the theory of evolution, but it doesn't happen the other way round (i.e. the theory of evolution enroaching on abiogenesis)  

You're right, there's probably no point pushing on, mostly because you don't understand even the basics of the different theories that deal with separate aspects of human enquiries.

keep chatting shit and refuse to address the basic questions raised.

PS: my reference to 300 years is an exclamation of how long the lie has been going on, it has notin to do with accurate dates.

@ huxley
Again I ask. Are u an evolutionist? for the sake of this thread or is this another meaningless "googled" attack on the bible and creationism.
Cos if u are an avowed evolutionist, I suggest u start from my first poser to evolutionists. Here it is:

[Quote]
Lets start from the very basics.

Regardless of whose version of evolution u listen to or ascribe to, evolution is widely acclaimed to be a theory.
my dictionary defines a theory as an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Well known synonyms of a theory include hypothesis, speculation, assumption, a guess, an idea, an ideology to mention a few.
All of these, I believe should help the lay man with little or no knowledge of biology, evolution or creationism to have a gasp of the major bone of contention of this debate.

from the aforementioned, I can deduce that unless and until a theory is proven, tested and reproduced for clarity and correlation it can only continue to be ascribed to as a theory or a false hypothesis and not a fact not to even talk of the truth. i believe we will substantiate that as time goes on.

Evolution claims a whole lot of nonsense, but my analysis will be limited to the major concepts, misinformation and notions of evolution that contradict creationism.
Creationism answers the question about the origin and beginning of life. Evolution does not. Thus my first poser to u is that regardless of how old u claim the earth was, what is the origin of life?
Dont come up with craps like the initial occurrence or appearance of organisms brought about evolution. What was the state of things before these organisms came into existence? or are u ascribing omnipresence to organisms?
Dont also come up with craps being sold around that the biochemistry that make up life resulted from simpler (chemical) reactions that started the evolution process. My poser to u will be that since all chemical reactions are produced from changes occurring from one or more substances, what were the substances that made the simpler chemical reactions? and u also need to educate me on the very first simple chemical reaction that started evolution and kick started life.
Dont also come with the crap about prokaryotes inhabiting the earth for billions of years. What existed before them? and what led to their existence since evolutionists claim that all organisms on earth share the same ancestral gene pool?  Except u want to claim that this is the origin of life??

Any fool can use google and wikipedia to post concorted misinformation and fallacies about the truth of life, contradicting the accounts of the bible as evidenced in the theory of evolution. But no fool can make an intelligent analyses of these "googled" and "wikipediad" falsehood or produce analytical evidence that can stand the test of collective and constructive reasoning.

Thats what this thread is meant to achieve. . . . . Its time for the evolution protagonists to make informed pronouncements on these issues.
If u want the creationist account as to the origin of life . . .  . .just google Genesis 1 and 2.

The ball is now in ur court.[/quote]I will for the sake of ur effort address some of ur posers. . . . . . .but u need to let me know if u are an evolutionist or not, cos i m least interested in ur uninformed and bitter angst against GOD.

huxley:
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.

I dont have the habit of digressing issues. That narrative was uncalled for, that was why i didnt bother to go into full details, but merely made u aware.
unless u raise issues that warrant me explaining it, I dont intend to. U can always go to google as usual.

But for the sake of other viewers, it is pertinent i say this: Genesis 1 and 2 differ and compliment each other mainly in the narrative because of their subjects.
Gen 1 describes the creation from God`s view
and Genesis 2 from Adam and eve`s (human) view. Genesis 1 is largely fulfilled in Genesis 2.

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.

It never mentioned the physical manifestation of light replacing the spiritual light. I only expected u to objectively derive from common sense that since Genesis 1 says
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

(and like i said in my last post addressed to u, Genesis 1 was describing God`s view of creation)
Genesis 2 that u pasted told us none of these things God established in the spirit was manifested until rain fell and Adam toiled the soil.

I believe i have addressed ur concerns about light created in verse 3 by showing u a dictionary acknowledgement of spiritual light orchestrated by God`s spirit. So what are u talking about??

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.

I tink u can do better. Is this an acknowledgement of evolution`s fallacy and inability to tell us the origin of life?

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?

please, keep living in ignorance disguised as knowledge.  
was the bible written for the residents of other planets? _{hisses continuously}

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?

Just like the way the evolution concept was built to keep buttressing a big lie, u keep attempting to redefine concepts.
I have defined light for u as obtained in creationism. I have established here (and as ur quote from Genesis 2 shows)that from the human view of the creation, planting and harvesting did not take place until the physical manifestation of certain objects created in Genesis 1. e.g Rain

Why dont u read genesis 2 and have a glimpse of what i am saying?

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.

I expect better from u, not this, considerin ur antecedents. It is either u are distorting the facts or u simply find it difficult to understand my simply illustrated points. Neither is good for an intellectual debate.

I said that the light created in verse 3 is buttressed by your dictionary definition of light. which is: spiritual illumination or awareness; enlightenment.
I also said:

There was day and night on the first three days from the spirit. its physical manifestation was being awaited.  read Genesis 2: 4-6.

I meant the physical manifestation of some of the things created Genesis 1, was being awaited as is seen in the afore-quoted part of genesis 2, detailing that no plant grew until rain fell. so what are u saying?

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

That the bible does not acknowledge the creation of the planets does not mean they dont exist. The bible is a succinct summary of God`s inspiration to man.
So can I ask, Does evolutionist inability to explain the origin of life imply that we all jumped here from space?

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?

Guy, i will not give u the luxury of turning this into one of ur meaningless threads.
How does ur question objectively butresses any arguments u have for evolution? How does my answer to this question dispute the reality of creationism? please lets be objective and focussed here?

Now, can you deal with these, please?

1)   [b]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?

[/b]

u and ur fellow evolutionists have said nothing about the origin of life as postulated by evolutionist, while i have given u creationist version of this. . . . . .which is relevant to the purpose the thread was intended,  ,  . . . . .until u do this I dont tink we are making progress.

ur first question makes sense but is very irrelevant,  . . ,  . . .I dont know how my answer reveals the fallacy and lies of evolution. . . . which is my only purpose of contributing to this thread.

ur second is both meaningless and irrelevant.  last time i checked this thread was meant to debate this

Can evolution stand the test of intellectual objectivity when juxtaposed with creation?. . . . .the ball is in ur court.

For all your meaningless postulations of evolution and indiscreet disregard for God`s word. . . . . . is this all ur knowledge comes to? . . . . . .RUBBISH

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

unlike evolution creationism answers the very basic origin and "evolution" of life.

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 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.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
       in the image of God he created him;
       male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

KAG:
What nonsense are u saying?

It's not nonsense, it was several lines aimed at correcting your misconceptions of the meaning of a scientific theory. Basically, in science, contrary to what you implied, a theory doesn't change into a "higher" form. Therefore, the theory of evolution is "still just a theory" because that's the highest form of enquiry in science.

forgive my "perceived misconceptions". I wrongly assumed u were intelligent enuf to discern my line of tots. _{no insults intended}
  have u ever heard of a scientific fact?

Yes, and the theory of evolution deals with the evolution of life, not the origins of life. They are two different lines of of enquiry.

is that so?? 
there is no point debating evolution in relevance to creation, if i have to educate u on the subject u are supposed to be postulating.
Go n do ur home work.

Possibly some type of class (or even classes) of protobiont preceded prokaryotes.
As for the second question you may need to be clearer to prevent misunderstanding. I'll answer it as best as I interpret it. If you mean to ask where the chemicals that could have played a part in the origin of life originate, then it's likely that some were formed with the formation of the earth, while others [b]may [/b]have been caused or brought by extraterrestrial bodies (by extraterrestrial, I don't mean space monsters, I mean things like rocks that become meteorites, etc).

Your supposed knowledge of evolution truly amazes me.
_{hisses and walks away}

It doesn't. However, we can discuss abiogenesis while discussing evolution. The point is that it's more meaningful to realise that the two are separate fields, and thereby have different sets of data, etc.

depends on how u look at it. abiogenesis in reference to prokaryotes as the first inhabitants of the earth, is a claim buttressed by evolution.
So how do u intend to seperate this claim, which is the underlying basic of  evolution from the debate when evolution is compared to creationism.
me think u are short of ideas. . . . .  .no point pushing on.

wirinet:
Although i consider my self a complete evolutionist (meaning evolution is in every part of our existence), i am constrained to respond comprehensively at you argument.  I am shocked when you say you are a scientist( molecular biologist) and you do not understand what a scientific theory means, as opposed to a scientific hypothesis. I learnt the difference between a theory and an an hypothesis when i just started science classes in form3. So for you to give us a literary definition of a theory is quite strange. A theory is an hypothesis that is verifiable and have been reviewed and accepted by your majority of scientists in that particular field. Said in another way it is the explanation that best correlates and explains  the observation of an experiment or a phenomenon as accepted by other experts in the same field. So for you to say that   the theory of evolution is "still" a theory after 300 years is what i will call nonsense. As long as the theory correlates with evidence, the theory of evolution will remain the theory of evolution for the next 1,000,000 years.

molecular biologist? what are u saying??
The literal definition of a theory was to help a lay man understand the terms that define evolution.

dont get emotional here. Now look at ur contradictory statement, while ur teacher in js3 taught u the difference btw theory and hypothesis, yet in defining theory u call it an hypothesis.
shame on google and wikipedia.

Now let me educate you further on scientific reasoning, a theory is always valid for the conditions of observation, for example people like you will say newton's theory was wrong and that Einstein was right. But newton was never wrong for the condition of his observation. he was studying moving objects and not photons and electrons. If you fire a bullet it will follow newtons laws.

thanks for the education. . . it is however very irrelevant. I just cant figure out what u are talking about.
Go and read the introductory note to the thread and understand that this is not the pasting of evolution postulations but an objective analysis of its theory or facts or truths in retrospect to creation.
until u do that. . . . kindly back off.

KunleOshob:
Well Huxley knows the bible better than most people that call themselves christians( even though he doesn't understand it)

is google the same as knowledge?

prophecy indeed . . . , .

KAG:
Actually, it's after 150 years, not 300 years. Also, the theory of evolution is "still" a theory because science, especially in its modern form, insists on avoiding dogmatism; therefore leaving every proposal open to falsification and further enquiry, i.e a theory. What that means is that a theory never changes to anything else - it will always remain a theory. Unsurprisingly, then, the highest level of enquiry in science is the scientific theory as it contains several lines of evidence and can be potentially falsified.

In line with the above, an hypothesis, on the other hand, can change into a theory, provided it meets the criteria.

What nonsense are u saying?

Finally, like has been pointed out to you, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Theories and hypotheses in\on abiogenesis deal with the origin of life from a scientific perspective. The theory of evolution deals with the origin and  divergence of species.

ur ignorance on this subject amazes me considerin that u are a self proffessed evolutionist.

Have u ever heard about evolution of life?
if u have, what preceded the prokaryotes, since evolutionist claim they existed more than 3 billion years ago?
Or is the basic consesus amongst evolutionist not that all organisms share the same genetic pool implying that prokaryotes  are descent from another organism.so where did they originate from?

evolution claims that life today is composed of a complex chemical reaction that originated from simpler chemical reactions. I am asking u the evolutionist what was the very first simple chemical reaction, that coupled with others resulted in the complex reaction that kick started the evolution process vis a vis life?

And u come here saying evolution does not discuss the origin of life. 

Dont bother to reply unless u have sometin meaningful to say.

@ becomerich

is this a joke?. . . . .

bawomolo:
Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it deals with how primordial forms of life diverged. You can't engage in an argument when you don't even organize the basics of what u are arguing against. jeez

did u really say this??, . . . . . .u dont even know ur onions.

Go and call ur senior evolution advocates disputing creationism.

bawomolo:
A theory that has stood the test of time in courts and academic debates is not a fraud. Denial is a bitch

and why is it still a theory after 300 years?? the biggest lie ever told to mankind.

I refuse to be drawn into this side arguments. . . please address the issues about the origin of life i raised in my previous post

@ topic

Story story. . . , story!!!!!!!!!!

Bastage:
@bawomolo.

A fundamentalist fool will always call someone who disagrees with him an atheist. It matters not if you're a deiist or theist. If you don't believe exactly the same cretinism as they do - you're an atheist in their blind eyes.

ur illustration best describes the fallacy of both atheistic and evolution protagonists. Go over the religion archive in nairaland and see the lots of next to nonsense googled lies being peddled around in the name of intelligence.

tamme:
confused idiot

it makes no sense why its all centered round a woman. why should anyone cheat??

just like that. . . , their season crumbled.
just like that the untouchables were touched. . . smashed. . . .humiliated and devoured.
just like that their dreams faded. . . .the quintriple dream of the red devils or WOman united.

like lucifer did, they fumbled, they yelled exhibiting pride.

who can play better?, . they boasted!!!
who can beat us?. . . . . .they yelled!!!
who is better then fergie?. . . . they asked!!!
we are the untouchables. . . . . they proclaimed!!!!
we will win 5 trophies . . . . . . . , . they screamed!!!!
Giggs is a legend. . . . . . . . . .they roared!!!!
C Ronaldo is the best . . . , . . they chanted!!!

and like it happened in heaven, a lightening struck.
Liverpool looked at them and said. . . .u have fumbled in ur heart . , today u will be humbled.
and verily like liverpool said, four goals came calling and the mighty red devils fell and were cast away from all their title hopes.

mark my words. . . . . .ur season has ended. Fulham has just done it to u. . . .look out for porto
u r going from defeat to defeat. . , . . . up GUNNERS . . . . FA cup and Champions League top contenders.

manmustwac:
So what happens when die if you findout that Allah is the true God? Or Budha? Or Horus? There are 10'000 Gods why don't u worship every single one of them just incase u die and findout u were worshipping the wrong one?

u sound very uninformed. And u throw this around in the name of intelligence.

Just as you have chosen to be anti-christ and pro-satanist someone else has chosen to be for Christ.
live with ur choice and let him do the same.

How do you even know whats going to happen when u die anyway? When u eventually expire you don't have a mind to think or eyes to see nose to smell etc so u don't know.

I m surprised u are bothered about after life. And sounds like u have been to the outer world too.
stop arrogating googled and misinforming notions to urself. Since science has corroborated outer body experiences of non-christians, whats the basis of the illussion that all senses are dead at death?

Since u don't know where u were 10 years before u were born how can u say u know whats going to happen to you when u die?

this is a joke right?

KAG:
What's this? Another Creationist lying for Jesus? Colour me surprised. In any case, like I said in the last thread on the theory of evolution (you remember the one that you, Davidylan, abandoned after the whole ERV debacle. See thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=241487.msg3545649#msg3545649), I will generally refrain from responding to you until:

KAG: Actually, here's your chance to answer a straightforward question that you seemed to have missed the last time:

'what would be your explanation for the "99%" of shared DNA?' Also, so what's your explanation for shared ervs? Simply saying humans share 99%, etc isn't an explanation in itself.


That's true enough. In fact, anyone willing to do a little digging can find the thousands of words pther posters and myself have written to show why and how the theory of evolution remains unfalsified and is the best scientific explanation for the origin of species. Of course what tends to happen is that the Creationists either ignore and lie for Jesus like David~ is currently doing, or they, in spite of dogma, accept the evidence presented.

Lol. Dishonest Christian is dishonest. My posting history says otherwise 

bawomolo:
hmm but Egypt artifacts that have are just as old have easily survived, good luck with the quest  .  science is flexible, scientist are willing to admit Newton wasn't totally correct or Bohr's model isn't true.

So there is no transfer of genes between genomes or divergence among the genomes.  They haven't mutated over time? Hmm many of your peers disagree in their publications.

https://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j82/davidylan/fossilshrimp170myrs-1.jpg

how specious, so their sizes are exactly the same? the internal organs haven't changed. are you trying to say the modern day dragon fly can survive 400 million years ago?

lots of them,I bet they exist in your Uni's biology department.

hmm intelligent design indeed.

congrats. . . . .as typical of any evolution protagonist u have successfully bundled up the debate, in the light of obvious reality.
The bone of contention remains the objectivity of evolution when compared intelligently with creation. . . ,  . . and i believe u havent made any attempt to do this at all.

Lets start from the very basics.

Regardless of whose version of evolution u listen to or ascribe to, evolution is widely acclaimed to be a theory.
my dictionary defines a theory as an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Well known synonyms of a theory include hypothesis, speculation, assumption, a guess, an idea, an ideology to mention a few.
All of these, I believe should help the lay man with little or no knowledge of biology, evolution or creationism to have a gasp of the major bone of contention of this debate.

from the aforementioned, I can deduce that unless and until a theory is proven, tested and reproduced for clarity and correlation it can only continue to be ascribed to as a theory or a false hypothesis and not a fact not to even talk of the truth. i believe we will substantiate that as time goes on.

Evolution claims a whole lot of nonsense, but my analysis will be limited to the major concepts, misinformation and notions of evolution that contradict creationism.
Creationism answers the question about the origin and beginning of life. Evolution does not. Thus my first poser to u is that regardless of how old u claim the earth was, what is the origin of life?
Dont come up with craps like the initial occurrence or appearance of organisms brought about evolution. What was the state of things before these organisms came into existence? or are u ascribing omnipresence to organisms?
Dont also come up with craps being sold around that the biochemistry that make up life resulted from simpler (chemical) reactions that started the evolution process. My poser to u will be that since all chemical reactions are produced from changes occurring from one or more substances, what were the substances that made the simpler chemical reactions? and u also need to educate me on the very first simple chemical reaction that started evolution and kick started life.
Dont also come with the crap about prokaryotes inhabiting the earth for billions of years. What existed before them? and what led to their existence since evolutionists claim that all organisms on earth share the same ancestral gene pool?  Except u want to claim that this is the origin of life??

Any fool can use google and wikipedia to post concorted misinformation and fallacies about the truth of life, contradicting the accounts of the bible as evidenced in the theory of evolution. But no fool can make an intelligent analyses of these "googled" and "wikipediad" falsehood or produce analytical evidence that can stand the test of collective and constructive reasoning.

Thats what this thread is meant to achieve. . . . . Its time for the evolution protagonists to make informed pronouncements on these issues.
If u want the creationist account as to the origin of life . . .  . .just google Genesis 1 and 2.

The ball is now in ur court.

toneyb:
The light talked about in genesis does not refer to the sun in any way.

really?? please tell us more. . . . what was this light refering to?
and since u arent a fan of the bible GOD, i m poised to ask when u became so versed in the bible to connote deeper meanings to the literal textual content of the bible.

Are you tacitly admittiting the folly of the bible writers? Thanks to science and scientist and their "foolish theories" we now know much more about life and the world in general, thanks to their efforts we know that the bible(genesis) was written by people that know little or nothing about how the world works.

please stick to the topic on board, . , . .

I hate the tendency of evolutionists insulting the intelligence of creationists. Lets stick to the topic on hand.
Can evolution stand the test of intellectual objectivity when juxtaposed with creation?. . . . .the ball is in ur court.

[quote author=must_a_far link=topic=249754.msg3614391#msg3614391 date=1237402601]you might as well advocate that we make charles soludo prime minister come 2011[/quote]

Fear in this context is being misinterpreted.

It simply means understanding that there is no justification for sin, small or great. Neither is there grace in sin.
Fear in this context does not imply fearing or revering ur pastor to the level of a demi-god.

The fear of God is paramount to a Godly life.

I cant figure out why this thread is still alive. It probably explains y i hate man u passionately.
The pride, the arrogance, the mouth, the fumbling on and off the pitch and their fans. . . . all very annoying


I will repeat the special poem i wrote for u guys. . , cos i strongly believe that all tins will now begin to work against man u.

just like that. . . , their season crumbled.
just like that the untouchables were touched. . . smashed. . . .humiliated and devoured.
just like that their dreams faded. . . .the quintriple dream of the red devils or WOman united.

like lucifer did, they fumbled, they yelled exhibiting pride.

who can play better?, . they boasted!!!
who can beat us?. . . . . .they yelled!!!
who is better then fergie?. . . . they asked!!!
we are the untouchables. . . . . they proclaimed!!!!
we will win 5 trophies . . . . . . . , . they screamed!!!!

and like it happened in heaven, a lightening struck.
Liverpool looked at them and said. . . .u have fumbled in ur heart . , today u will be humbled.
and verily like liverpool said, four goals came calling and the mighty red devils fell and were cast away from all their title hopes.

mark my words. . . . . .ur season has ended.
u r going from defeat to defeat. . , . . . up GUNNERS . . . . FA cup and Champions League top contenders.