₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
Leave the Bible, Qur'an, Allah and muslims out of this, don't divert the thread just answer the questions posed by the poster and if you have nothing to contribute it will be wise to observe from the sidelines you might learn a thing or two that way.

You should be used to this by now. . . , atheists always diverting the topic to very irrelevant familiar grounds.

huxley2:
Supposing you lived in Germany in the 1930s and were hiding some Jews.  And you were approached by some hostile Nazi officers looking for Jews to send to the gas chambers.  The nazi officers asked you - "Do you know where any Jews are hiding?"

What you be your response?


Said Nazi officers and now in power.  Would you obey and disobey their authorities?  Or supposing God asked you to kill your child, would you obey?


If you are married, did you ever feel sexaully attracted to your partner?

Have you never wanted something that you did not initially own?  Have you ever wanted for a car, a house, a partner, a piece of jewellery, some tasty dinner, etc, etc?  If you have ever wanted these things, then you have wanted things that most have been owned by someone else, right?

put yourself in all of these scenarios. . . .what would u do?

It is a very condemnable act. And in my opinion, It is probably the only evidence u need to know a "church" NOT of God.

moderator should delete this. . . . . .i have pasted it in the religion board. , . .this is an error.

For the sake of objectivity, clarity and intellectual emphasis, I asked myself: Why exactly am I not an atheist?

Here are the reason's I came up with . . .

1. An Atheist cannot substantiate his belief/disbelief:

An theist wonders why a religious belief should be based on faith, salvation and hope alone? A christian's claim of an experience/encounters with the Holy spirit, breakthroughs and miracles are not acceptable for verifiable and scientific reasons. , . . , , anyway this thread is not about christian beliefs.

The atheist reckons that all beliefs should be explicable scientifically, intellectually and logically. According to the atheist the christians cannot do this. But I find it difficult to reconcile an atheist's beliefs to proof or evidence.

So let us put the atheist belief under the same microscope:
what is the scientific, intellectual or logical evidence for the non-existence of GOD?
what is the intellectual, rational or logical basis for the non-existence of GOD?

The atheist yells: "The burden of proof is on the theist". . . .absolute RUBBISH. Any one who propagates an idea or belief/disbelief has the burden of proof. If u believe God does not exist, . . . . .simply prove it.

Over and over again as evidenced on this forum, atheists have refused to bring up this "evidence" of theirs that establishes the non-existence of GOD. It is as such safe to state that atheism is based on FAITH. faith and hope that GOD does not exist. because whatever assertion u cannot prove is a belief based on assumptions fuelled by . . . .

Atheism is as "guilty" as the religion it antagonises because it relies on FAITH.


2. Atheism Connotes Ignorance:

To discuss/debate a subject you need a basic understanding of that subject. To debate evolution, mathematics or politics, one must at least have an understanding of the subjects involved. It is from this understanding that beliefs and ideologies are created.

Take for instance I have a complete understanding of the ontological and implicit nature of obatala, orunmila and ifa (yoruba local gods) which explains my disbelief in these minute gods. I do not subscribe to their potency, relevance or reverence. In other words a belief/lack of belief/ideology is a product of comprehensive understanding.

An atheist believes in the nihilance/non-existence of GOD. So can the atheist demonstrate an understanding of the subject involved in this belief/disbelief.

Who is Jehovah God? What is His ontology? (ur ontological definition must meet the meta-physical requirements of the atheist community, otherwise it is unacceptable to nairaland christians)

3. The inconsistencies of the atheist's Evolution:

Evolution is used to lend credence to atheism, to buttress the belief that there is no GOD. Evolution is the platform that attempts to rubbish the creation story as recorded in Genesis. Evolution mixes LIES with facts. I will not emphasise on these "facts" (but let me state here that changes in the earth (and man) from the "primordial" man (to this age) can NEVER be used to propagate the evolution LIE)

Perhaps if evolution/evolutionists/atheists can answer these pertinent questions. . . . .then I might believe afterall.

the commonest law of biogenesis says life begets life. Biology buttresses this.
Yet evolution claims that the first substance of life were formed from non-living substances reffered to as "spontaneous generation". is this not a contradiction?

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

Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consensus or common denominator to whom life can be traced to between these three?

Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are the last traces of life.
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? what was the catalyst of this first chemical reaction? what were the components of this catalyst?

with regards to the pioneer formation of the RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?


I await these answers with deep breadth . . , What if there are NO answers to these questions, does that make evolution and subsequently atheism false? YES, . . .a definite YES



4. Atheism Denotes Ignorance and jejune postulations:

What are the norms of debating? Simply pick holes in the argument of the opposing view and offer acceptable alternatives. I have asked several atheists the basis for stating that there is no GOD, the answer has been unanimous. . . .NONE.

An atheist claims that God did not create the earth and its components, . .who did? how? when? where?

It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to state that "i know 24264927*9629462429 is not 5, even though I dont know the answer".
For u to know that 24264927*9629462429 is not 5, it means u have a knowledge of mathematics. . . . . use that knowledge to work out the real answer.

It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to state that "I cannot prove the non-existence of God but can only pick holes in biblical assertions of the bible GOD"
For you to establish the "inconsistencies" of the bible, u must be able to offer concrete and intellectually acceptable alternatives. otherwise u are ranting.

The inability of the atheist community on nairaland/world to answer these basic pertinent questions is the basis of being regarded as "beclouded" critics.Critics who condemn (not on any intellectual or scientific basis) and yet have no alternative. This is despicable IGNORANCE that should not be transmitted to the next generation.


5. Whats There to loose?

An atheist claims there is no God, as such no eternity. When I die as a christian and then find out that there is indeed no GOD. , .what do i loose?. . . . .Absolutely NOTHING.

Whats there to loose if I DIE an atheist. . . .and then find out that there is a JEHOVAH GOD?
bear in mind that repentance is impossible in the grave. I will become a partaker in the torments of HELL which the bible describes in sordid details.

Atheism is a loose-loose situation , . . .


6. Any plus for atheism?

I have no SINGLE reason, not even half a reason to be an atheist.
This is what noetic-nairaland had to say about atheism.
noetic: atheism is an irrational state of mind, where the subject of one's disbelief cannot be substantiated.

This is butressed by the fact that atheistic belief/disbelief has:

No scientific evidence.
No intellectual driven reason.
No logical and coherent explanation.
No sensible alternative to the christian GOD postulations. and several more. . . . I have no reason to be an atheist.

For the sake of objectivity, clarity and intellectual emphasis, I asked myself: Why exactly am I not an atheist?

Here are the reason's I came up with . . .

1. An Atheist cannot substantiate his belief/disbelief:

An theist wonders why a religious belief should be based on faith, salvation and hope alone? A christian's claim of an experience/encounters with the Holy spirit, breakthroughs and miracles are not acceptable for verifiable and scientific reasons. ,  . . ,  , anyway this thread is not about christian beliefs.

The atheist reckons that all beliefs should be explicable scientifically, intellectually and logically. According to the atheist the christians cannot do this. But I find it difficult to reconcile an atheist's beliefs to proof or evidence.

So let us put the atheist belief under the same microscope:
what is the scientific, intellectual or logical evidence for the non-existence of GOD?
what is the intellectual, rational or logical basis for the non-existence of GOD?

The atheist yells: "The burden of proof is on the theist". . . .absolute RUBBISH. Any one who propagates an idea or belief/disbelief has the  burden of proof. If u believe God does not exist,  . . . . .simply prove it.

Over and over again as evidenced on this forum, atheists have refused to bring up this "evidence" of theirs that establishes the non-existence of GOD. It is as such safe to state that atheism is based on FAITH. faith and hope that GOD does not exist. because whatever assertion u cannot prove is a belief based on assumptions fuelled by . . . .

Atheism is as "guilty" as the religion it antagonises because it relies on FAITH.


2. Atheism Connotes Ignorance:

To discuss/debate a subject you need a basic understanding of that subject. To debate evolution, mathematics or politics, one must at least have an understanding of the subjects involved. It is from this understanding that beliefs and ideologies are created.

Take for instance I have a complete understanding of the ontological and implicit nature of obatala, orunmila and ifa (yoruba local gods) which explains my disbelief in these minute gods. I do not subscribe to their potency, relevance or reverence. In other words a belief/lack of belief/ideology is a product of comprehensive understanding.

An atheist believes in the nihilance/non-existence of GOD. So can the atheist demonstrate an understanding of the subject involved in this belief/disbelief.

Who is Jehovah God? What is His ontology? (ur ontological definition must meet the meta-physical requirements of the atheist community, otherwise it is unacceptable to nairaland christians)

3.  The inconsistencies of the atheist's Evolution:

Evolution is used to lend credence to atheism, to buttress the belief that there is no GOD. Evolution is the platform that attempts to rubbish the creation story as recorded in Genesis. Evolution mixes LIES with facts. I will not emphasise on these "facts" (but let me state here that changes in the earth (and man) from the "primordial" man (to this age) can NEVER be used to propagate the evolution LIE)

Perhaps if evolution/evolutionists/atheists can answer these pertinent questions. . . . .then I might believe afterall.

the commonest law of biogenesis says life begets life. Biology buttresses this.
Yet evolution claims that the first substance of life were formed from non-living substances reffered to as "spontaneous generation". is this not a contradiction?

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

Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consensus or common denominator to whom life can be traced to between these three?

Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are the last traces of life.
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? what was the catalyst of this first chemical reaction? what were the components of this catalyst?

with regards to the pioneer formation of the RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?


I await these answers with deep breadth . . ,  What if there are NO answers to these questions, does that make evolution and subsequently atheism false? YES,  . . .a definite YES



4. Atheism Denotes Ignorance and jejune postulations:

What are the norms of debating? Simply pick holes in the argument of the opposing view and offer acceptable alternatives. I have asked several atheists the basis for stating that there is no GOD, the answer has been unanimous. . . .NONE.

An atheist claims that God did not create the earth and its components,  . .who did? how? when? where?

It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to state that "i know 24264927*9629462429 is not 5, even though I dont know the answer".
For u to know that 24264927*9629462429 is not 5, it means u have a knowledge of mathematics. . . . . use that knowledge to work out the real answer.

It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to state that "I cannot prove the non-existence of God but can only pick holes in biblical assertions of the bible GOD"
For you to establish the "inconsistencies" of the bible, u must be able to offer concrete and intellectually acceptable alternatives. otherwise u are ranting.

The inability of the atheist community on nairaland/world to answer these basic pertinent questions is the basis of being regarded as "beclouded" critics.Critics who condemn (not on any intellectual or scientific basis) and yet have no alternative. This is despicable IGNORANCE that should not be transmitted to the next generation.


5. Whats There to loose?

An atheist claims there is no God, as such no eternity. When I die as a christian and then find out that there is indeed no GOD. ,  .what do i loose?. . . . .Absolutely NOTHING.

Whats there to loose if I DIE an atheist. . . .and then find out that there is a JEHOVAH GOD?
bear in mind that repentance is impossible in the grave. I will become a partaker in the torments of HELL which the bible describes in sordid details.

Atheism is a loose-loose situation ,  . . .


6.  Any plus for atheism?

I have no SINGLE reason, not even half a reason to be an atheist.
This is what noetic-nairaland had to say about atheism.
noetic: atheism is an irrational state of mind, where the subject of one's disbelief cannot be substantiated.

This is butressed by the fact that atheistic belief/disbelief has:

No scientific evidence.
No intellectual driven reason.
No logical and coherent explanation.
No sensible alternative to the christian GOD postulations. and several more. . . . I have no reason to be an atheist.

OLAADEGBU:
_{Quote from: C-NOETIC on May 28, 2009, 10:58 PM}
There are at least 3 types of methods at proving facts or truths namely; scientifically, mathematically or experientially.  Both postulations have presuppositions, that is, starting points.  This is what you assume or believe to be true from the onset.

Advocates of Mr A's postulation can only prove its presupposition by personal experiences.  That is, by faith in God's Word and by the experiences of salvation when they receive Jesus into their lives and put on Jesus Christ as one would put his trust on a parachute if and when one is about to take a jump from an airplane.  You cannot expect to use this method (experience) to prove a chemical equation or vice versa.  You cannot prove to me empirically, how you kissed your wife (if you are married, and married to the opposite sex), if you proceed to explain the microbes that exchanged your mouths then the point would have been defeated because that would not explain the experiences you are trying to import.  As they say the taste of the pudding is in the eating (I hope I got that right).

Advocates Mr. A can now use empirical methods to show the evidences of the existence of the Creator God, and this has been done in many ways on this forum.  The use of the design argument, ontological, information as well as scientific arguments have been used as evidence that there have to be a Creator God. 

The ball is now in the court of the advocates of Mr B who are absolutely sure that there is no God to give us the evidences they have instead of beating about the bush.

I could not have said this better.

The main issue has always been atheist's refusal to defend their beliefs. None of them has attempted to answer the questions raised.

moneygurl:
The FIRS has not proven what Lagos state is doing is illegal. They could take them to court but have not. Please point out were in the constitution it states ways a state govt. must go about  in collecting their revenue?


Nobody said it was a crime for DPA to mention that was their idea. But they have not been able to prove it. All what Fashola has been doing about the whole mega city has been drummed up since Tinubu was in power. You can accuse their candidate for plagiarism, too.

They are allowed to point out they can do better, but they are pointing out their candidate two years after the election and 2 years to the next.

The media has been reporting it, not opposing party been quoted in the papers? Pls post links or articles if you can find it.

are u serious at all?

moneygurl:
How can FIRS say it is illegal?  no Wonder  they are a useless and under performing department, they might want to know that outsourcing in the 21st century is a good thing.

The question is not whether it is good or not, . . , . . is it LEGAL?

yaradua's rigging to power is GOOD from pdp's perspective, but is that legal?. . , .is rigging an acceptable norm in a developed democracy?
An act might be good but does that make it acceptable or legal?

How can DPA prove that all the things Fashola is doing is plagiarism? From the look of things a lot of the plan was carried over form Tinubu. And during the campaign in 2007, Fashola laid out his plan during the campaign so how is that stealing someone else's idea?

And for DPA, that is a very childish claim on their part and you claim political disagreement on issue, lol. It seems they are trying to say this is our idea but he is not implementing it properly, then that is not disagreeing on issues.

There is no crime in what they have said. All they are saying is given the chance, they would do better. This is what opposition in democracy is all about.
What has the PDP in lagos said to fashola in the last two years?. , . . .NOTHING
What has the AC as a whole said to Yaradua in the last two years?. . . . , NOTHING. . . .

They have no issues to antagonise them for. . . .all they talk about is marginalisation, go-slow, zoning and federal character. For the first time a party is addressing concrete issues and simply saying "we can do better". . . . .whats the crime in that?

It is not Commission, it called payment for service (outsourcing). Till today no opposing political party- DPA, PDP has been able to prove the company is in a way related to Tinubu.  They might be right but still there has been no prove.

This has been reported in media circles over the past year. . . . neither tinubu nor fashola ever denied this.

babs787:
Sir,can we have the fundamental flaws?

dont u know them?

moneygurl:
Quality opposititon ? The article did not point out what was wrong with paying that amount within a two year period to the company (let us assume their number is right)? Is this not what you call outsoursing?

My main issue with the article is that they spent 50% of the article talking about their own candidate. In the U.S you do not see the Republicans mentioning the name of McCain when they oppose the Democrats. And you did not see it with Democrats mentioning (whomever  the Democrats candidate was), against a policy of Bush they disagreed with.

This is what you call campaigning for a candidate (not party) in the name of accountability

You easily forget that the subject here is nigerian politics. . . where the "issues" have always been zoning, fedral character and compensation.

For the first time in the history of modern nigeria, a political disagreement is based on issues. DPA is accusing fashola of plagiarising their candidates program, which took him 10 years to develop.

Everything is wrong with paying a company commission based on government's revenue. . . .its simply called corruption. The inland revenue of the lagos state government is legally empowered to receive such income. . . . . . how do u think it is done in other states?

mikeansy:
opposing for the sake of opposing?

he paid 36billion into alpha beta . . . .why is it wrong to pay the money might be nice to explain

I don't care about Fashola . . . .Lagos is still Lagos, not New York yet.

There is no legal or constitutional basis for using a firm to receive governments revenue. This has been clarified by the federal government.

who owns alpha betta?. . , . is it not tinubu?. . . , .do u know who tinubu is?

bindex:
Noetic copied and pasted the work of dawn whose arguments were trashed on talk origin so what are you saying? At least me an mazaje cited our sources where is noetic's source?

I would appreciate it if I am not the subject of ur LIES.

There are free software's online that help u track contents to see where they have been copied from, . . . . .until u can prove I copied from anywhere. . . . pls do me the favour refraining from lying.  and why do u and mazaje have a problem with stating facts from ur head without resorting to copy-paste?

I asked in very simple terms, if u guys wanted to debate the probability of noah's flood happening or the scientific evidences I claimed.

Mazaje said u guys prefered the scientific evidences. . . , . now u both have a problem answering the posers raised, , . .very "intelligent"

If u have any problems with noah's flood. . . . open a new thread. . , ,

davidylan:
What a fool. where is the substantiation of the horse evolution? Where are the fossils of all the intermediates?

I await the answers in deep breadth.

where is huxley?

bindex:
Here are some of the refutation from talkorigins.org. Since you are interested in a "honest" and "healthy" debate lets debate them.

[
Here is the refutaion from talk origin.org

Are u serious at all? The highlighted part makes a bold claim without stating facts to buttress this claim.

1. What is the proof that this fossils were not transported by the flood?

2. whats the proof that the fossils grew in their present location?

3. If they did not grow in their current location (2 above), how did they get to their present location?

mikeansy:
politics in Nigeria is really going nuclear

I think what the spinners are doing with this news is to create a 'perception of wrong doing' without actually saying he has done any wrong so that they wont bother to provide evidence

What this does is to convict the politician in the court of public opinnion without proving a genuine case of wrong doing

I think spin doctors have graduated to a new level

I disagree.
I think this is quality opposition. Disagreeing with a person simply based on issues.

I will still vote fashola, but well done DPA.

davidylan:
Dear Lord . . . rather than tackle the matter all we have is a pointless argument on crediting source?  Unbelievable.

That is what wikipedia said and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker like the brainless idiots you are. Wikipedia didnt even bother to quote a source for its claim.

N.A. Rupke . . . a Dutch geologist from the university of Princeton coined the term. So its not a "Standard geological term" simply because he used it to explain creationism? and evolution is a "Standard term" because it was coined to explain the antithesis of creationism?

this is incredibly stupid . . . i dont even know where to begin.

1. Mazaje asked noetic to defend a claim.

2. Noetic did this in one long post.

3. Mazaje responds by simply copying and pasting an entire diatribe from talkorigins WITH NO ATTEMPT TO EITHER QUERY NOETIC'S CLAIMS OR ADVOCATE HIS OWN POSITION.

4. bindex comes up and says it is noetic's responsibility to go and deconstruct mazaje's copy-paste job.

Wonders shall never end. 

I couldnt have said that better.

davidylan:
i'm still looking, anyone who sees it pls tell us. I'm as confused as you . . . since even Bindex claims to have "seen it".

They are simply interested in just disagreeing for no concrete reason.
Didnt u wonder why they have no scientific, intellectual or logical basis for the non-existence of GOD?. . . . . .they are as guilty as the religions they accuse of using faith.

what EXACTLY did mazaje refute amongst my many assertions?

davidylan:
you actually expected him to intelligently pick thru your arguments? All you're going to get is a long long tome from another website. Dont waste your time.

they are so stupid they even copy and paste personal correspondence - The following is a more detailed post on polystrate fossil trees I presented previously in talk.origins:

In article <1994May22.133828.562@alc-ohio.alc.com> malone@alc-ohio.alc.com (Bruce Malone) writes:

Its surprising, I was honestly expecting a healthy debate, . , . . ,  .
To say I am disappointed is an understatement, . , , to think they keep claiming to be more intelligent and "scientific".

mazaje:
I am a geologist and I know for SURE that you do not know what you are taking about here, when next you visit creationist websites and steal their work make sure that you give some acknowledgements. Stop plagiarizing other peoples work without acknowledging them.

by the way "polystrate fossils" is not even a STANDARD GEOLOGICAL TERM so get your facts right before copying and pasting what you have absolute no knowledge of and stop lying for jesus all the time. creationists don't understand mountains basically, they find fossils in the tops of mountains and think that that is proof of noah's flood. now why they're in the mountain tops instead of on the mountain tops is something they rarely answer at all.

whats the meaning of all this?. . . . . . .u have made no point here. . . . .what are holes in my assertions?

I started by asking if u knew what polystrate fossils are. . . . . because I knew u would turn this all on its head.

where is huxley?

I am assuming u have a basic understanding of polystrate fossils,  . . . .

Polystrate fossils.

These are best explained as fossil trees that lie upright or prostrate above the surface of the ground. They are buried within a strata in either prostrate, oblique or upright positions. A collection of these upright trees are called a fossil forest.

Some of these fossil plants are found in Nova scotia strats in sydney as well as the united states and europe and other parts of the world. There are several evidences that suggest that these fossils were not planted in their current location but were transported there by massive water. . . . . NOAH'S FLOOD. Do u at least now have an idea of what a polystate fossil is now?

These evidences include that buttresses this fact include :

1. Quite unlike primordial geologist assumptions that these fossils were planted because of their long root, on closer observation, these assumption is found to be false based on the composition of these fossils,   . . . .I will lay more emphasis in other evidences.
There are massive sheet-like, sedimentary, flat lying deposits all over the world, which could NOT have been planted.

2. The top of the fossils on closer inspection is as preserved as the base of the fossils when unearthed from their burial spot. These other facts are deducible
a. The roots are truncated:
b. The roots are two feet long
c: The top is broken of, it is assumed that the top might be 10-15 feet high.

The truncated root implies that these trees were uprooted.     . . ,  . . . .mazaje, from where?
The broken off top suggests that it was taller and did break off along a transporting process. . . . . . . .mazaje, how did it break off?

An appreciative understanding of this is deducible from the fact that many of these rootless fossils are buried individually. . . . This lay credence to the fact that these trees did not grow there but were deposited there.

3. Fossils are formed when a plant or animal dies and is buried immediately. They are not formed in lakes, seas or the ocean. The present location of these fossils supports the notion of a massive flood that happened ages ago.

I cant paste images. . . . I could go on and on. . .  . .but please go do some reading. . . . .



Extensive Strata Or Pancake Layering:

Evolutionists believe that pancaked layer strata all over the world are either river deposits, delta deposits or deposits made over millions of years.

As u now know, Evolutionists are almost always WRONG,  . . . The facts that there are no evidences of erosion between the layers. And the size of these layers, which could as big as a city could not have been formed by rivers or delta's.

These layers also consist of marine fossils deposited by a ocean currents whose magnitude and effect could only have been caused by NOAH'S FLOOD.



be right back. . .

mazaje:
so you now admit  that life evolves eh? where in the bible does it ever make the assertion that life evolves? did the goat herders that wrote the bible ever know that life evolves? they would have written about if they knew wouldn't they?

are u this gullible? didnt u see the "evolve" in quote. . . . . u should have asked me what I meant by "evolve".

what is your own bible explanation for the origin of life? god breathe into  man that was made of dust and he began to live or that god directed the plants to come out of the ground and they did?(infact your god does not seem to know when exactly he created plants according to the 2 different creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2) how does that explain anything? right now we don't know for sure, there are other explanations for the origin of life(abiogenesis) which i believe is not very clear for now. how has your god did it ever explain anything. the old testament god was fond of using lighting to kill his enemies but once men knew what caused lighting and how it can be stopped from destroying all buildings and other things your god suddenly stopped using it.

what is ur alternative? How did life begin? what are the pioneer organisms? what are the components of the first chemical reactions that kick started life/evolution?

i am studying all these assertions[b] for now so i don't know[/b]. what kick started life? of course i know you will tell me that yahweh did without even trying to defend how he said he did it in the bible.

I dont expect u to know, cos for over 100 years your lying evolution predecessors COULD NOT find an answer.

here is what an an evangelical christian scientist(david young) had to say.

"Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief."

How is this relevant to the debate?

mazaje:
if you can't then i will go ahead and provide scientific and hostorical evidence that disprove the mythical noah's flood that never happened.

you see. . . .This was why I wanted clarification, before I go on.

Do you want me to defend/analyse my initial statement about scientific evidences that suggest noah's flood

OR

Do u want to debate the possibility of Noah's flood happening. I chose to do this cos I am aware of ur diversion and "lying" techniques.

toneyb:
You made an assertion so its up to you to explain it in the simplest of terms, I will advice you to read mazaje's post on evolution.  Its up to you to explain those in simplest of terms and show how they support the noah's flood that is said to have occured word wide. Its not a difficult task at all is it?

I saw ur initial post, I disregarded them for "known" reasons (like I have done to all ur previous posts).

where is mazaje?

@ Mazaje.

That life "evolves" is a proven "fact", the bone of contention is the very "source" of that "evolvement". 

what exactly is the point of substituting the very source of life with a "BIG BANG"? When a research has a defined boundary to state that "point A" can NEVER  be the source of life, and these same researchers CANNOT provide an alternative. then that is bias and very unobjective.


What kick-started evolution? . . . . . . If u can answer this, then at LAST u might make sense.

We have to reason together to answer ur questions, cos it seems like a line has been drawn. I am only interested in . . . . . .

Lets start from the first: what do understand by polystrate fossils? . . . . . . . in a few words.

huxley2:
The fact that humans have not always walked this earth in our present form.

No one has ever denied this. Evolution is not the only "theory" to "unprovably" claim this.

The bible records a flood that wiped all living creatures off the earth. This biblical account is buttressed by several scientific evidences including:

1. polystrate fossils
2. The existence of these fossils
3.  Turbudity currents
4. Extensive Strata and pancake layering
5. Fossil Whales and several others.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that, u CANNOT use changes to the earth to lay credence to the falsehood of the evolution theory.

The fact that there were no mammals in the precambrian.  Show my a mammalian fossil from the precambrian, and I will bow to your superior knowledge and stop posting anti-christian and anti-religion post here on NL.

How does this buttress evolution or deny biblical accounts?  If u can tell me:

1. the pioneer organisms that kick started life
2. The defining simpler chemical reactions that made up the complex chemical reaction, which evolved life as we know it today.
3. The catalysts of this reaction.

I will subsequently bow to ur knowledge and acknowledge the intelligence and rationality in atheistic driven arguments.

huxley2:
There is NO mention of dinosaurs in the bible. PERIOD. [/b]The bible was written by[b] barbaric tribesmen, about 3000 - 4000 years ago, who knew little about the nature of their environment. Dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. If the bible mention dinosaurs, I would not expect it to refer to them as creatures living at the time the books were written, but as fossils. But it does neither.

I believe the OP asked for matured and objective debates.

huxley2:
OH, Yes. It is nothing if not the TRUTH.

what is the truth?

jookco:
That is why in TREM, we do not look at the “bigness” of our challenge, but at “bigness” of our God. Beloved, your Father is so big, so rich and so supportive. He is thee 24/7 to ensure that head or tail you win.
Until I come your way next week, go about your assignment this week full convinced of who you are and see God move on your behalf.

Maranatha!

In His Royal Service,
Dr. Mike Okonkwo
The Presiding Bishop

is this a church advertisement?