₦airaland Forum

Krayola2:
@ chrisbenogor . . haha  I wasn't counting on it. If anything it showed me that being patient with people is harder than I thought. I had to pretty much force my self not to go loco.   I was just hoping it would allow us to actually exchange views on stuff. All the debates seem the same. Its just the same cycle everyday and it gets boring after while. Its almost like we have the same exact conversations every day.

1: Prove this
2: u cant even prove this and u want me to prove that
1: I showed u evidence
2: Is that proof u this idiot?
1: who u callin idiot? ur daddy is an idiot
2: no, ur daddy u this bastard
3: stop insulting each other
1: this lost foolish idiotic atheist started it
2: no!! it was this deluded christian buffoon talking crap about his desert daddy and peasant carpenter
1: die bitch!!
2: Death to the infidel!!

Yeah.  .please start the thread. . .not sure how long it will last though. . .

This is ridiculous.

you offered no analyses from ur brain. . .all u did was to copy and paste. . . . .without any reason as to why u subscribe to what u copied and pasted.
You failed to answer any of my questions. . . .am I supposed to engage u based on the stuffs u copied?

what sort of . . . .

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=296345.msg4228136#msg4228136 date=1248239495]I take it you've never heared of LIGERS (lion and tiger offspring) or a horse and zebra mating to produce an offspring or wolf-dog. . .[/quote]how does this dis-prove creationism?

Don't you think the lying moses saw the workings of nature on how like produces like, night and day, animal, human and plant multiplication, crawling serpents, prescence of ocean and sees e.t.c- He then decided to use all these to tell a story that fit these outcomes. Its quite typical of different creation accounts from different religions, i've never seen a creation story that says dogs produce cats or the like because EVERY BOFFON can write a creation story that accurately mirrors realities and nature as we see it everyday.

this is a mere theory and assumption from an idle mind.

javalove:
At what age do girls of nowadays attain puberty?

At what age did girls attained puberty 1400 years ago?

Please If u can provide simple answers to these questions, dont bother replying

. . . . .there is no difference between the puberty age of now and 1400 years ago.
that was why aisha's father was not comfortable with this bad deed of mohammed.


Aisha was a small and innocent girl. . , robbed of her childhood by a "prophet" of allah. I feel her pains.  

javalove:
Will it seem barbaric to u if a 9yr old who has reached puberty engages in fornication as she wills

or the 9yr old who has reached the age of puberty be married . . .?

Do the math and be sincere with urself

stop embarrassing urself and conceal ur ignorance.

1. mohammed got engaged to a 6 year old girl. . . . 6 year olds never attain puberty

2. 9 year olds also never attain puberty. . . .they are still children. . .thats what makes mohammed a paedophile.

[quote author=*Shentz* link=topic=16333.msg4229932#msg4229932 date=1248262712]Where is my computer thug[/quote] naughty computer yob. . .wat have u been up to?

ajokeakin:
Last 2 weeks i lost 150,000 naira that was made for my business,when i now told my pastor,he asked me if i am a tither,and i answered in the negative,he now said thats why i lost the money. that if i dont start tithing,that is how i will be missing money. And he also said i will go to Hell if i dont pay my tithe.I now sat in my closet and thought over it,i discovered that there is no place in the bible that is said one will encounter such problems if he fails to tithe,so i decided to share it on this forum for a proper explanation.

1. you did not loose the money cos of tithe. you alone know how and why u lost the money, . .

2. non-tithers have no place in hell. just take care of the widows, orphans and needy around u according to ur strength.

3. sorry for ur loss. . . . , may abundance replace ur loss.

are they not terrorists?

cool and lofly

javalove:
These things called xtians have successfully derailed the thread. . .

when facts are presented to them about how babaric their bible is, they turn to the quran and hadith

whether u like it or not, Islam still finds its way into the hearts of men. . . Islam still spreads. . .many still find the truth

and they usually end up shagging 72 virgins in paradise, . right?

shariaman:
davidylair
well i think the answer is simply
let us ask the bible itself, the word of their god


where it is stated that "women's vagina taste like wine, Song of Songs 7/1-4, 8-9,

how did god know that women's private parts taste like wine?
i leave the answer to u


here is the full jist of the sex loving vivivlical god


Song of Songs 8:1-3 "If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me. I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house-- she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink [i.e., her vagina's semen!], the nectar of my pomegranates. His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me."

She wished if he was her brother so that she wouldn't have to take him home in secret. Now if he was truly her husband, then what would prompt her to wish that he was her brother? Were husbands back then not allowed to live with their wives? If so, how did they then consummate and have children and raise generations and societies? Were they allowed to live with each others for a while?

Let us look at Song of Solomon 8:10 "Dear brothers, I'm a walled-in virgin still, but my breasts are full— And when my lover sees me, he knows he'll soon be satisfied."

She is a virgin with full swelling breasts. When her lover meets her, he will be satisfied from those swelling breasts! Obviously, she is referring to licking, sucking and other pornographic things that I can't mention here. Believe me this verse is not talking about them worshiping GOD Almighty together when they meet!! It is clearly and indisputably referring to graphic sex that involves her swelling breasts and other things such as intercourse.


Let us look at Song of Songs 4:5 "Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies."

Let us look at Song of Songs 1:13 "My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts."

Praising the bed that they had sex on: Let us look at Song of Songs 1:16 "How handsome you are, my lover! Oh, how charming! And our bed is verdant"

Let us look at Song of Songs 1:2-4 "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth-- for your love is more delightful than wine. Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the maidens love you! Take me away with you--let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. We rejoice and delight in you; we will praise your love (i.e., semen) more than wine. How right they are to adore you!" I don't think this would be appropriate for a kid under 18 to read. Also, I don't think it is appropriate to have such open sexuality in a divine book anyway.

His right arm sexually feeling her body: Let us look at Song of Songs 2:6 "His left arm is under my head, and his right arm embraces me."

Let us look at Song of Songs 3:4 "Scarcely had I passed them when I found the one my heart loves. I held him and would not let him go till I had brought him to my mother's house, to the room of the one who conceived me." So in other words, she was not married to him, and when she found him, she took him back to her bed room to have illegal sex with him? If she were married to him, she wouldn't take him to her "mother's house". She would take him to their house.
Showing off her breasts and vagina to him:

Sleeping with his sister:
Let us look at Song of Songs 5:4 "I slept but my heart was awake. Listen! My lover is knocking: 'Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my flawless one. My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night.' I have taken off my robe (i.e., she showed his breasts and vagina to him. Underwears and bras didn't exist back then!) must I put it on again? I have washed my feet, must I soil them again? My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him."
What a disgusting way for someone to talk so pervertly about his sister and/or about her brother like that!!

Let us look at Song of Songs 5:8
"O daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you-- if you find my lover, what will you tell him? Tell him I am faint with love." Teaching women to be sexually too open.

His sister's vagina tastes like "wine":

"How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns , twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi.

praise the living,
,
I said 'I will climb the palm tree(wow); I will take hold of its fruit.' May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine. (The NIV Bible, Song of Songs 7:1-4, 8-9)"

Aremugangan:
@shariaman, the first time i read this to a lady from a bible, believe me, she triped. This biblical verse is a good prayer point and a nice specification for a young single xtian chap than all the "textmania" books they hawk on the road. The Bible is an all in all teaching the all in all. How will a person read this without having a feelin of committing. What is the message in the abov verses? Can a pastor preach with this. Please, keep on enquiring why Prophet Muhammed (SAW) married Aisha at a tender age.

Abuzola:
Subhanallah, i never knew the bible contains this lewdness

songs of solomon was written by king solomon. . . . .why are these slaves of allah so uneducated and uninformed?

steve49ja:
Akpuruka

meaning?

internet yob, where have u been?

one woman's food is another woman's poison

@ wirinet

Noetic, I sometimes avoid entering a debate with you because you responses are stereotyped, but i decided to enter this one because you are asking specific questions and giving "cogent" reason why you disagree with evolution. Although i disagree with your conclusions of " if evolution cannot explain the existence of life on earth then Genesis must be true". I am sorry i had never seen anyone reason that way. They are lots of things i do not understand and i leave it that way " I Do Not Understand". I might seek explanations but until i find one i understand and agree with.

All the questions you raised were raised and answered adequately by scientists, the problem you have with evolution does not fall within the purview of evolution itself, It falls within either biogenesis, biochemistry or molecular biology. Evolution in the strict sense deals with the diversification and differentiation of organisms on the earth surface, as a result of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
So your puzzle of how the first life appeared on earth is more directed at Molecular Biologist than evolutionist.

Also i do not know your background or your ability to understand science, because i had deduced ( maybe wrongly) from past debates that you do not have adequate scientific background, so i thought you copy davidylans line of arguments since he claims to be a biologist.

I can assure you that all your five questions are one and the same, namely how was it that simple inorganic compounds could form a living organic compound. As i said it will be time consuming and difficult to explain every detail to you in just one or a few pages. It might take a text book for you to begin to understand the chemical process involved, but i assure you the answer had been adequately dealt with.

To answer your question, you first have to define what you mean by LIFE. Because when we say LIFE people have varied definitions of its meanings. Some can define life and afterlife and beforelife. I had provided my own definition in one of the debates. So lets have your definition of life, then we can go into how life can start from non-life.
i claim to be an evolutionist but you have provided me with many evolutionary terms i am unfamilair with, like spontaneous generation and last universal ancestor please explain what they are, after all we are here to learn.

1. I disagree with ur notion that I am stereotyped. especially if u refer to my position on several atheistic postulations, this is largely due to the incessant irrational outbursts and opinions advocated by several atheists on this forum. I am not in any form stereotyped with regards to intellectually driven debates. . .I remain very open minded and objective.

2. My basis of believing in genesis is not on the notion that "if evolution is false genesis must be true". On the contrary I do believe that the genesis account of creationism passes the test of scientific, intellectual and logical analyses. I do not subscribe to evolution for numerous reasons. . . .some of which are the basis of the questions I asked in my previous posts about evolution. The least u can do is to answer my questions or produce links where these answers had been earlier given.

3. With regards to spotaneous generation and the last universal ancestor. . .u might want to examine this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Krayola2:
haha. . . i doubt it would matter what the length was. I expect, maybe wrongly, to receive the same cold response 

It'll be as long as it takes. I'm goin out 2 get drunk  good night, amigo!

1. Regardless of the length, I eagerly await ur analyses of evolution.

2. I have no reason to give cold responses.

Krayola2:
I think I stated that I was copying it from a book. I even wrote the name of the book. Why is that necessarily a bad thing?

you could have easily summarised it all in brief points and offer personal analyses as to why u believe the contents of that book.
That would have been intellectually honest IMO. . . .  .

while I and every other person have read that post. . .I have no idea as to why exactly u subscribe to the contents of that theory.

The theories are really variations of one theory. The differences do not affect my understanding of Genesis because the theories agree about the order in which the traditions came about, and that Genesis 1 was written about some centuries after Genesis 2

what is ur understanding of the Genesis story?

please endeavour to explain why u subscribe to evolution in a very simple, short and precise post.

Krayola2:
Finally I just want to say a lil sumn on behalf of biblical scholars. Please, please, Christians, they are your best friends. That they are demonized is one of the most unfortunate things IMO.

Pastors make a lot of money, these people don't, yet they dedicate their lives to the Bible. With the amount of knowledge they have of the Bible imagine how much they would be making if they were on the pulpit of one of these so called churches we have today, or doing tele-evangelism. That they choose the noble option should be testament to their character. These people, for the most part, are committed Christians that dedicate their lives to their faith. They are not motivated by money, and if they were bad or evil people they would be doing other things, trust me. The amount of work the do is stupendous, and there is a wealth of wisdom and knowledge that they  have helped to unearth. I would advice anyone whose pastor tries to demonize them to stand up and walk out, and never go back. Just my humble opinion.

Thanks for sittin thru this   

none of this has place on this thread. . . please stop digressing.

Krayola2:
“According to the rabbis, the expositions and elaborations of the Written Law were revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai; subsequently they were passed from generation to generation, and through this process additional legislation was incorported (Oral torah). Thus traditional Judaism affirms that God's revelation was two-fold and binding for all time.

In the modern period however, it has become increasingly difficult to sustain the traditional concept of divine revelation in the light of scholarly investigation and discovery. As early as the 9th century, Hiwi Al- Balkhi offered 200 objections to the doctrine of the divine origin of the Bible. In response Saadiah Gaon composed a refutation of Hiwi's views. In jewish circles Hiwi was regarded as a heretic. Later the 12th century scholar Abrahan Ibn Ezra expressed the opinion that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Pentateuch. For example, in his commentary to Deut. 1:2 he is troubled by Deut 1:1: 'These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan'. In Moses' day the Israelites had yet entered the promised land; thus the term 'beyond the Jordan' would not have been used to designate the side of the Jordan on which they were encamped.

Later in the sixteenth century, scholars pointed out that the Five books of Moses appear to be composed of different sources. Subsequently Jean Astruc, a catholic physician, was disturbed by the evidence of the composite nature of the Pentateuch. As a consequence, he put forward the theory that Moses used ancient documents as the sources for the Five books of Moses. This theory was advanced by Astruc in his 'Conjectures sur les momoires orginaux dont il paroit que Moyse se servit pour composer le livre de la Genese`  which was published in the middle of the eighteenth century. In advancing his theory Astruc noted that portions of Genesis uses the name 'Elohim' while other portions use YHWH. This led Astruc to conclude that one of the documents used by Moses was the elohist, the document described the origins of the world where God is referred to as 'Elohin'.

Other theories based on Astruc's hypotheses suggested that various fragments of documents could be detected in the Torah. Eventually 2 main documents were detected: One names Elohin, and the other using YHWH, reffered to as J. In 1805 another scholar, De Wette, published a dissertation entitled Discourse on Deuteronomy in which he argued that this book was a work compiled shortly before it was found in the days of Josiah. Thus there were three documents in the Torah: E,J and D. E was viewed as the main document, with J and D as additions. Each of these documents was regarded as having been compiled at different times.

In the middle of the nineteenth century sustained investigation by two German scholars, Karl Heinrich Graf and Julius Wellhausen, concluded that the Five books of Moses are composed of four main documents which once existed separately but were later combined by a series of editors and redactors. The first document, 'J', dating from the ninth century BCE, attributes the most anthropomorphic character to God, referred to by the 4 Hebrew letters YHWH. The second source E, stemming from the 8th century BCE is less anthropomorphic and uses the name Elohim. In the 7th Century BCE, the D source was written, concentrating on religious purity and priesthood. Finally the P source from the 5th century BCE, which has a more transcendent view of God, emphasizes importance of the sacrificial cult.
By utilizing this frame work, Graf and Willhausen maintained that it is possible to account for the manifold problems and dicrepancies in biblical texts. The following characteristics are found within the sources

1)J
Anthropormorphisms and a simple style. Here the divine name is J. There is an occasional mention of angels. There is also an interest in the south of Palestine
2)E
This source is less anthropormophic and focuses on angels, and dreams. The divine name Elohim is used. There is a special interest in the North of Palestine
3)D
Here there is an interest in purity of religion, and the role of the priests.
4)P
The P source is primarily concerned with the sacrificial system, and adopts a transcedental view of God. Only Kohanin are allowed to offer sacrifices in the Temple. Tithes are to be given to priests and Levites.


The Graf-Wallhauses hypothesis was subsequently modified by other scholars. Some preferred not to speak of separate sources but of circles of tradition. On this view, J,E,D and P represent oral traditions rather than different documents. Further, these scholars stress that the separate traditions themselves contain early material; thus it is a mistake to think they originated in their entirety at particular periods. Other scholars reject the view of seperate sources altogether; they argued that oral traditions were modified through-out the history of ancient Israel and only eventually were compiled into a single narrative. Yet despite these different variations of the theory, there is general recognition among Biblical scholars- including Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist and Humanist Jews- that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses. Rather, it is seen as a collection of traditions originating at different times in the ancient Israel.

In addition to the findings of Biblical scholarship, textual studies of ancient manuscripts highlight the improbability of the traditional Jewish view of Scripture. According to Jewish heritage, the Hebrew text of the Five Books of Moses used in synagogues today (the Masoteric text) is the same as that given to Moses. Yet it is widely accepted among scholars that the script of contemporary Torah scrolls is not the same as that which was current in ancient Israel from the time of the Monarchy to 6th   century BCE. It was only later, probably under Aramaic influence, that the square script was adopted as the standard for Hebrew writing. Furthermore, the fact that the ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into languges such as Syriac and Greek contain various variant readings from the Masoteric text suggests that the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch now in use is not entirely free from error. 

A final aspect of modern studies which bears on the question of Mosaic authorship concerns the influence of the ancient Near East on the Bible. According to Orthodox Judaism, the Five Books of Moses were essentially created out of nothing. But as we have seen (in earlier section of the book. .i aint typin all that shit out, google it  ) there are strong pararrels in the Jewish Bible to laws, stories and myths found throughout the ancient Near East. It is unlikely that this simply  coincidence- the similarities offer compelling evidence that the Pentateuch emerged in a specific social and cultural context. The authors of the Biblical period shared much of the same views as their neighbours and no doubt transformed this framework to fit their own religious ideas. In this light, most Biblical scholars would find it impossible to reconcile the traditional conception of Mosaic authorship of the Five Books of Moses with the discoveries of modern Biblical criticism and scientific discovery.

For Orthodox jews, however, such investigations are irrelevant. Orthodox Judaism  remains committed to the view that the Oral Torah as well as the Written were imparted by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. This act of revelation serves as a basis for the entire legal system as well as the doctrinal beliefs about God. Yet despite such an adherence to tradition, many modern Orthodox Jews  only pay lip service to such a conviction. The gap between traditional belief and contemporary views of the Torah is even greater in the non-orthodox branches of Judaism. Here, among Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist and Humanistic Jews, there is general acceptance of the findings of Biblical scholarship. Such a non-fundamentalistic approach, which takes account of recent scholarly developments in the field of Biblical studies, rules out the traditional belief in the infallibility of scripture and thereby provides a rationale for changing the law and reinterpreting the theology of the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of contemporary knowledge. In the modern period, therefore, there has been a shift from the fundamentalism of the past- nontheless non-orthodox Jews join ranks with the Orthodox in continuing to regard the Jewish Bible as fundamental to the faith. As the liturgy used in all synagogoues proclaims” 'It is a tree of life to those who hold fast to it.'
Dan Cohn- Sherbok. Judaism " History, Belief and Practice.
So, for those different reasons combined, I think it is reasonable for me to trust the JEDP hypotheses as regards to the Genesis accounts of creation in my earlier post. Again, you do not have to agree with this stuff. I just want you to understand why i believe what I do.

This looks like a copy-paste stuff.

In my previous post I listed several conspiracies theories that attempt to discredit the bible. . . . I choose to subscribe to none of them, just like u chose to subscribe to this. The least I would have expected though is an analyses as to why u believe in this particular chronological list of theories and not the others.
is that a difficult task?

Krayola2:
Before I explain my understanding of the JEDP traditions there are a few things I think need to be said.

First, to atheists and those who are dismissive of religion. I think you make a mistake, a huge one. Religion, IMO, should be embraced, and i will explain why i feel this way.

I have read, and, i admit, have sometimes written posts calling people deluded, calling ancient people ignorant and what not. We tend to think that Science is the beginning of human knowledge. I think to do that is blasphemous. If not against God, against the intellectual potential of humans as a species.

Science did not change the intellectual potential of humans, but the focus of human intellectual endeavor. It didn't change our ability to think, but changed the focus of thought. Science was the beginning of asking a whole new set of questions, and seeking a whole new set of anwsers. Science asks questions about how things work, what makes plants grow, what makes people sick, etc. The great thinkers of ancient times were not asking those kinds of questions. They already “knew” the answer. God or/and the gods. But that does not mean they were not asking any questions, it just means that they were asking a whole different set of questions. While science might be a relatively young phenomenon, scholarship is not, thought is not, knowledge is not, and most importantly, wisdom is not.

The great thinkers of ancient times were asking deeper questions. Questions about meaning, about purpose, about our place in the universe. The great achievement of ancient cultures is not in their scientific discoveries, but in their philosophies, their architecture, their culture etc. How can anyone look at the pyramids, or read about Buddhist or Hindu philosophy, the lessons in the Christian and Islamic scriptures, or listen to some of our native proverbs, see the architecture of ancient Ethiopians or the plumbing of ancient Harrapan civilization (for religious/purity reasons) of over 4000 years ago that still dunbfounds modern architects, and conclude that ancient minds are deluded and ignorant. If u are looking for scientific answers, then ancient times probably isn't where to go. But if u want insight into the deeper questions of life, religion is rich with this.

Just like the age of science and rationality has its problems (pollution, nuclear arms, mass hunger and poverty, deforestation etc), the ancient times have theirs. The same way we can look at our current leaders and accuse them of being corrupt and irresponsible is the same way things were in the past. That genocide and things like that are in the scriptures should not reduce their credibility, but increase it. The same scripture that tell us about the Israelites massacreing others tells us bout the Israelites getting massacred. Perhaps there is a lesson in that. Perhaps, buried between the socio-political and theological biases of the writers of ancient scriptures, there are lessons to be learned about the nature of humans and our relationship with each other. Perhaps when the writers of Genesis wrote “ . .and he saw that it was good” and that God appointed man as custodians over the earth, that was an attempt by the ancient minds to articulate human responsibility is ensuring that all of creation thrives. That the oceans and air that we pollute, hungry that we ignore alter this “good” that God saw, and that it is our responsibility to fix it. These are the types of insights that we can get from teachings of all religions. Is there a lot of crazy stuff in there too, yes. But we should not let our “rational/scientific” biases lead us to , in my opinion, wrongly conclude that religions have nothing to offer us. Let us seek to understand what we don't and stop playing “God” because we have science. If in just about 700 years of science we have gone from subsistence farming to the moon, to Mars, to ipods and ferraris, I can't even begin to imagine the amount of wisdom and insight into non-scientific/non-emperical concerns that our ancient acestors had built up and passed down thru generations over millenia. In ancient times knowledge was not discovered in labs, but by great philosophers (or in religious terms, prophets), mostly under the employment of royalty (religion and state were the same thing) sitting in the courtyards or under trees, all day long, discussing and philosophizing about man's deepest concerns. To miss out on this in the name of atheism would be rather unfortunate imo.

None of this has a place in this thread. This is fast becoming boring.

Krayola2:
Ok.   I'm goin to attempt to talk about JEDP and explain why it should not be dismissed. I know there is a lot of cynicism on this forum, but i'm willing to accept any challenge about whatever I post, as long as people actually look at the information I present, research it, and have honest, reasonable questions. This is going to be another long post, because . . .It just is  . But hopefully you read all of it. This stuff isn't simple, and we tend to try to over-simplify things on this forum. If we want to understand stuff we have to do a lot of work, and stop pretending everything is either black or white, right or wrong .  I'm not going to show that it is 100% accurate, because it probably isn't, but I'm going to explain why I use it to support my understanding of the Genesis accounts of creation.

First of all I want you to think of this date –  November 18 1996, and recall everything that you did that day. And then imagine having to prove that what u are thinking of is exactly what u did on that date. I think most of us will agree that u probably can't prove it. Even though u might have some idea of what u did that day, u might even have a diary, but to prove to someone else that ur recollection of everything u did is 100% accurate is impossible.

We also need to realize that theories, or ideas, do not have to be either right or wrong, but that there are degrees of rightness, and degrees of wrongness. For example, can we prove that cigarrettes cause cancer? No. Do we have enough evidence to believe that cigarrettes probably cause cancer? Yes. Should we dismiss all the evidence that shows that cigarettes can cause cancer because it can't be proven? I think not. There used to be very good arguments that smoking does not cause cancer, there still are. The thing is, having a good argument does not make u correct. At the end of the day u have to look at the evidence critically, do the hard work of studying it and understanding it, and then make honest assessments. U study the trend of lung cancer, and see that an overwhelming number of smokers get cancer, and combine that with other scientific knowledge, etc, evaluate everything, and then you can make an informed decision on what to believe.


The thing I noticed with the debates on this forum, is that people want every thing to be proven. That is impossible. The smartest people in the world can't do it, I doubt we are going to do it here. Unless our objective when we sign in to this forum is to come and shout insults at each other all day, we have to get over this “prove this, prove that” mindset. It is a bridge to nowhere. Neither side is 100% right, and neither side is 100% wrong; That I can bet my life on. Some (don't want to generalize so i'm not saying all, but almost all, myself included)  atheists here are wrong about a lot of stuff IMHO, and the religious people are too. We are also both right about a lot of stuff. The task before us is how do we sort thru all our sometimes unfounded presuppositions and biases, and engage in real debate and exchange of ideas; so that when we come to the forum we can actually leave with something; if only just an argument we disagree with, at least it is an argument we have learned.

very long and unnecessary.

Krayola2:
I understand what u re saying. U observe the world around you and the Genesis creation story accounts for what u see, and that works for you. I don't see why any reasonable person in a free society should have a problem with that.

This is very dishonest. . . .but again, I will let this pass.

HEY!! U're not supposed to be looking for flaws in what I present. Just ask questions if you don't understand what I mean. Besides i haven't said anything about my understanding of evolution so those arguments u are refuting aren't mine.

But since u raise this, I think it is irrelevant whether cultural anthropology, which is the field from which my understanding of Evolution comes from, is a science or not. (I think it is a social science). I think what matters is that we have actual physical evidence, and we should, in my opinion, follow it to see what it tells us about whateva.

I'll explain my understanding of evolution tomorrow. And then u can pick all the flaws in it. I actually welcome it because it will give me a chance to study the stuff more. Exams are coming up

What do u mean by flaws?

those were simple questions, u could either ignore or answer.

olabowale:
Gbam to the highlighted part
waraqua died
The bible stories ceased and Mohammed changed gear with other "revelations" Liar davidylan does even know how to argue. Read what $Osisi wrote about Prophet Muhammad's discussion (AS) with Waraqah! When he discussed his encounter, Waraqah did not say it was Jibril since Muhammad (AS) heard that Angel say his own name, as Jibril! Waraqah qualified him simply as keeper of Secret!" You guys are fight "dirty" and I will get into the mud with you if I have to! Exept that I have to wear my mud gear!

And you $Osisi, there must be copying first before you can claim that he copied a single verese or chapter from the Bible. Read it again! Go to many chapters. Surah Imram for example about mariam or is it Surah mariam, you will find where Allah says; and you Muhammad was not there about the one who won the lot casted of who wil be the guardian of mary, except that I your Lord told you.

In surah Qasas (the story), Allah says and you Muhammad was not there, except "your lord " told you the story. many verses are like that. You guys want to wrestle, I know a thing or two by it! You cant just say what you want and dont expect to be called out on it!

when will u stop embarrassing islam? 

the folly of this islamic belief has been repeatedly exposed. .  . .just read davidylan and osisi's posts on this thread objectively.
u have tried. . . .even mohammed could not have done better.

Abuzola:
This is blasphemy

blasphemy against who? the moon idol god called allah?

Abuzola:
Noetic,

i hate pretenders

is allah the maker of heaven and earth?

mazaje:
I said these are the evidence for micro evolution that scientist have provided, you are not a scientist. They won't wash by you or scientist? No body needs your opinion when scientific studies are being discussed because you have never and will never contribute anything to the scientific process. . . . . . .

You presented no challenge, stop giving yourself credit you don't deserve at all.

Sorry but the bible does not say ANY of the things written here, these are the opinion of the writer of this article but not what is written in the bible. The bible says that the moon was created to rule over the night, science showed that the gravitational pull from the moon create tides which cleans the seas, the bible says not such thing. . . . . . . .

The bible does not talk about the biblegod creating bacteria, this is very telling because the writer actually prefers science and what it has revealed to humanity than the "word of god". What does the guy mean by the ancestors of camels producing lamas, alpacas, and one-humped and two humped camels. Is he tacitly endorsing evolution? . . . . . . . .

why not open a new thread to educate us on atheism and naturalism? thats was my challenge.

Abuzola:
Submission in God of the heaven and earth. The distinct between occultic and natural is clear

is He allah?

mazaje:
Neotic claims are doomed to fail right from the start. He wants to show "undeniable evidence" for a creation of the world, but thats not what he did.

His whole claim is built on the premise, that what he wants to show is true. . . . . . . Instead of letting the 'evidence' speak for itself, he presuppose his favored outcome "God created the world" is true to show "God created the world."That's not how it works. . . . . . . . . .

I will ask you to begin anew and show us evidence that points directly to your god (the god of the bible) without using the bible in your argument or presupposing "god did it" right from the start.
If there is "undeniable evidence" like you say, then this task should be an easy one for you. . . . . . . . . .

Ever used antibiotics? Ever wondered, why we have to invent more and more antibiotics instead of just using basic Penicillin and Erythromycin?

You should also have a look at the Nylon-eating bacteria.
Nylon does not exist in nature and has only been around since 1935. The strain of bacteria discovered in 1975 produce a enzyme capable of digesting nylon. Prior to that they were not able to do that and it has been confirmed that the enzyme is in fact 'new' (meaning the ability to digest nylon evolved from scratch).
Since then the 'evolution' of the ability to digest nylon has been replicated in laboratories with other strains of bacteria. I am not an evolutionist but these are some of the evidence for evolution(micro evolution) and scientist agree to it.

why are scared of taking up my challenge?

horse703:
i applaude you noetic

thanks.

toneyb:
I  you only made a claim and tagged it as "evidence", that is not evidence for your claim, what about your lack of an explanation as to how it relates to your claim.  Your baseless assertions do not in themselves build an argument and you instead have to do more work.

The question is why do you even think this is even an acceptable form of an argument as presented? If you can't show factual evidence that first a deity exists, and the one in which you are referring to, stating that a deity (yours) definitely created the inhabitants of the world is a wide yawn.


Where you there when any god was making that declaration or do you accept it because some men wrote it down and said god told them to write it down? The bible, if this is what you are referring to, is not evidence. If I write what you have written but reffered to another man's religion like say Islam or the native african religion will you accept it?


You know very little about science since quite a lot of animals do produce asexually. Not all animals and/or plants on earth reproduce by opposite sex.

What really has creationism "explained"? How is your god the subject of creationism, because some ancient people wrote about it and ascribe it to their god? Where is your evidence of your god telling them to write what they wrote? Of course every body knows that people are a result of the reproduction process, it's common knowledge even in ancient sheep herder days.


You have provided no evidence as of yet just high assertions and assumptions based on what you believe to be true most likely based on what it states in the bible only because you are a Christian.

Its very obvious and every body knows that humans come about as a process of reproduction, every cultures and religion knows this. You bible writers actually know very little about the reproduction process, they once considered menstruating women as unclean and their god told them it was wrong to even look at menstruating women, if they or their god actually have any knowledge of the reproduction process their god will not tell them to ostracize or look down on menstruating women.


Who is cain and who is abel? cain and abel are ONLY mentioned in the torah and no where else.

I don't know what to make of this, but your opinion is terrible flawed, is this what you call your evidence from creationism? .

Other religious text that predate the torah also talk about people reproducing and it is also visible that people are still reproducing.

Apart from the writing of ancient jews which I believe you do not really understand where is your evidence of any god decreeing anything. Allah also made some decrees in the koran no? How did your god create humans and animals out of nothing? what was the first chemical reaction that took place and how did he use nothing to create something? How exactly did the process take place and what were the reactions involved? since you claim to speak for you god you should be able to provide us with all these. Saying he spoke them into existence is absolute rubbish you need to explain to us in details all the chemical reactions involved and how the entire process materialized.

Your bible actually make no mention of photosynthesis and the writers of the torah know nothing about it. Ancient men all knew that the soil had to be tilled no?

Rain fall that took place when the windows of this very strange thing called the firmament open? What exactly is this thing called the firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below? what exactly is the waters above? Stars are set in the firmament, what exactly is that? Scientist are yet to see the firmament.

You have provided NO evidence only claims.

So farming is now a creationist claim? 

What really are the evidence for creationism? So far you have provided NON at all, claims are not evidence.

Agriculture is now a an evidence for creationism?   . 

Since you speak for your god what is your explanation for the pioneer formation and conceptualization of life, how did the process actually happen, what did your god use and what were the chemical processes involved?

you have said nothing and made no point. 

open a new thread to educate us on atheism.

olabowale:
@Davidylan: Lack of ability to process what is said is a terrible thing. Ibrahim says, I am the first Muslim (In my generation).

Go to Surah Araf (the Height). You will see Musa saying I am the first Mumin (believer; another word for Muslim), to mean in his generation. Afterall, these noble men were prophets, sent to their people.

Can we say based on what Musa said, above in Araf that there were no Muslim, or Muminu before him? Afterall, Ibrahim was long time before him. Ibrahim wa a mumin, a Friend of Allah.

Read things properly.

where EXACTLY in the koran did they add "in my generation"?

where was adam's mosque? why does non of the prophets have a book in allah's koran? why did allah change his mind on anointing oil?

Abuzola:
Don't tell me you lack assimilation, woman, read the post again, Any messenger be it jesus or jeremiah sent to the people will have to be one who submits himself to Allah making him the first muslim and will go and preach to the people to be muslim. Read my post again, woman

did allah also promise jeremiah 72 shag-able virgins?

puff puff