₦airaland Forum

KanwuliaJara:
I agree!
Christianity is the BASEST of them all!
So full of LIES!!!

Scientists never found man to have one less rib than woman. So, how did "GOD" create Eve?

Correction: A man missing a rib DOES NOT make it a genetic property to be passed to offspring.
Example, if a man had an accident and lost one leg. Does this mean that all his children and grand children will have one leg?

Blakjewelry:
Why I mentioned the simplest of organism is because they carry out almost all the aforementioned characteristics in similar manner except dying.

^^^How, simple organisms die or am I missing something.

I purposely started this thread outside the religious section so as to remove the bias of theist vs atheists. Finally, I see why this thread almost took a religious tone though in the Science section.

The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific pheonomenon. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=1631

PS: The aim of this thread is not to debunk Atheism, its just to question Evolution afterall, there are Atheists who do not agree with Evolution

Teempakguy:
You mean abiogenesis is flawed. Not evolution.

Thanks for bringing up Abiogenesis. Which led me to Protocell.
I learnt a lot from Abiogenesis and it has taken me to more material I didn't look at before now.
My question is similar to questioning the formation of a Protocell and its functions. Which is a LOGICAL question.

A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and how they could differ in reproductive output, thus enabling the accumulation of novel biological emergences over time, i.e. biological evolution.
Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell

As you can all see (davien and menesheh), my question was a not ignorant or based on religious preferences. It is a genuine question being asked within the scientific community. Evolution ASSUMES the existence of the Protocell (Abiogenesis), yet doesn't tell us how it came about.

timbros:
LOL...

But thats Honda's trademark.

Nope, thats poorly maintained and noise warning ignored Honda's or any other car like a golf, toyota or even non Honda SUV's. Its caused by bad roads.

Such a car will be nice as your 7th or 8th car in your collection after you have 6 or 7 cars already.

Itulah:
Your only problem is the "Starter Moto" on top of the Kick Starter.
Have a re-wirer bring the Kick Starter down and have the "Brush" in the Moto change.
#3,000 will do this job with workmanship inclusive.
Do not go about tampering with other component be warn!!!


*Note: If you are in doubt, get a single cable, power ON the ignition, locate the "Kick Starter Moto" behind the Radiator close to the cooling fan, put one end of the cable on the positive on the "Starter Moto" and touch the positive+ of your battery head with the other end of the cable. Your vehicle should crank and start.

Totally agree. Once had a kick started replaced and had this problem. Turn key like 2 or 3 times before it starts. The initial turns made no sound at all (I first tought it was timing belt). I went back for another change and has been fine since.

menesheh:
Am actually biased by attacking from the angle of your belief. I personally know you as an anti-evolutionist and there is this constructive manner in questioning things which is devoid of total condemnation as is the case from your previous posts in religion section.

You see, problems arises when Atheists pin evolution against Theists (creationist) to disprove the later.
This is what you are trying to do. Like I said, this is NOT the religious section.
However, logically you cannot debunk a so called false claim (existence of God) with another false claim (Evolution). That line of argument is flawed in itself but like I have said, that is not the purpose of this thread.

menesheh:
i made mention of your lack of the knowledge of philosophy of science. Science never maintain the idea of logical absolute and perfections in every of its theoretical researchers and conclusions especially on evolution. But as more evidence continue coming in, it will then be use to perfect such scientific fact the more.
A flaw out of many facts can't account for

I'm a glad you agree evolution theory is a work in progress not a FACT. This is the best answer on this thread so far. Now we can wait for more research and keep asking questions. Afterall, research is a form of "question asking".
One of the basic assumptions of evolution (Spontaneous generation) is now an OBSOLETE theory. Shouldn't that ring a bell?

davien:
ofcourse it was seeded dumb.as.s,how do you start an experiment without seeding with start materials?...

Hmmm, insults are used when logic fails. Even the guys that did the experiment said that SEEDING it was a flaw.
I would have expected you to bring up something like VIRUSES which can be dead or alive depending on environment.

davien:
BONUS : later that year by december,
In December 2014, researchers at the Academy of Sciences in Prague fired a high-powered laser (simulating a meteorite impact) at samples of formamide, a liquid that would have been plentiful on the early earth. They found that all four RNA bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil), three of which are also in DNA, had been formed in the reaction...

Well, so as not to elongate this thread unneccesarily or act like "market women" by trading insults.
DNA and RNA are not living matter (based on defined characteristic in the OP). So I dont see how this answers the ORIGINAL question.
So the question remains, in evolving from non-living to living, which of the characteristics of living things came first?

It may be true because of the way NL is structured. There is an Islamic section. There is NO Christian section.
So everyone comes to the religious section (buddhist, hindus, mulslims, atheist et al) but mostly muslims go to the islam section.
If there was a Christian section, there may be less percieved bias.

sonOfLucifer:
There was no sacrifice. The story of Jesus is a huge scam. Free your mind. Only slaves have a price.

Sure, slaves of sin and the devil.

ndidibabe:
Good morning all. There is another thread on this forum that discusses what happens to Babies when they die. I met a JW friend and decided to open a discussion with him on this topic. He said I have to reflect back to the days of Noah. In his words, God did not spare babies whose Parents disobeyed him by not entering into the ark. Let's discuss...

Adolf Hitler killed 7 million people during WWII. If you had the chance of going back in time to kill Hitler as a baby, would you?

menesheh:
The title of your post shows that you are ignorant of the philosophy of science. The proceeding premises and body of your post dispicts more deeper ignorant you are about evolution by natural selection. Furthermore, you still claimed to know pretty damn well about evolution to the extent of calling it a flaw.

Google def
flawed: blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way.

menesheh:
Am hopeful that any intelligent people don't debunk ideas he lacks deeper understanding of. Skepticism and seeking to know more comes first, before arriving to a conclusion, are features of an intelligent personal.

The problem that is bogging you from reaching out to scientific immense explanation and maximum certainty of the fact of evolution is your already presuppositions about god did it concept .

http://www.talkorigins.org/ may help you to answer your doubts.

You are making the same assumption you accuse me of. You assume that since I question evolution, that means I claim God did it (this is NOT Religious section).
That science research (newscientist.com) involving RNA/DNA is an example of SCIENCE QUESTIONING EVOLUTION. Does that mean that those scientist claim that God did it? I would like to donate to and see more outcome(s) of research in that area of RNA/DNA synthesis. Not all of Science agrees with Evolution.

I looked at the site you posted. They are making the same assumption Evolution makes. They jumped to comparing higher species ignoring origins of life.

You should know that there are:
1) Atheists who believe in Evolution
2) Atheists who DO NOT believe in Evolution
3) Theists (Christains) who believe in Evolution. Infact they claim God used evolution to create the Earth.
4) Theists (Christians) who DO NOT believe in Evolution.

Stop assuming that because you are in catergory 1 above everyone else MUST BE in category 4. There are Christians who believe in science. You call me ignorant yet cannot answer the question. You end up make baseless assumptions like the one I clarified for you above.

PS: Its not always Religion vs Science, it can also be Religion + Science.

davien:
And God said,
Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind;
and it was so.

Genesis 1:24

Is the earth living or non-living?

This thread is in the science section (not religion) for a reason. I want contributions to be purely scientific. This is not Science vs Religion as you have assumed, its Science vs Science.

davien:
In December 2014, researchers at the Academy of Sciences in Prague fired a high-powered laser (simulating a meteorite impact) at samples of formamide, a liquid that would have been plentiful on the early earth. They found that all four RNA bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil), three of which are also in DNA, had been formed in the reaction
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/origin.php

Nice contribution.
I looked at the site and the reference material. Clearly the writer from http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org told only half the story. It pays to see the original material.

The writer (David H. Bailey) quoted [Barras2014] which leads to https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells (the original material). You will see that the experiment was "SEEDED".

There is one big problem, however. “For origins of life, it is important to understand where the source molecules come from,” Powner says. No one has yet shown that such substances could form spontaneously in the early oceans. - newscientist.com

I am a STRONG believer in science. Sadly, science makes certain assumptions like in evolution theory which science students take a FACT.

deathwing:
What exactly is the rationale behind owning an automobile?

Should I own a car because I am an adult who should have a dependable means of transportation, or should my wealth/bank balance determine my car ownership? The issue here isn't a cost of maintenance, because there is a car for every segment.

What do you guys think? I am tired of the bus life, even though I reside in a well connected part of the city. I almost never go out if not to work. Despite this, I feel like having a car to call upon at any point of the day or night MIGHT be a good idea, regardless of the cost.

In fact, I feel like having a car and being able to reach places in short notice may change the way I relate with other people, because at this point...I do not engage in any form of socialising

It's just a feeling tho. Or maybe I'm psyching myself into getting one before I'm 'spiritually ready'

From your lifestyle, you may not need one yet. Dont get it twisted, car ownership does have its cost (maintenance, fuelling, mishaps) so if not NECCESSARY, leave till when it is else you may end up having a car and still take the bus. Some see car ownership as a status symbol, same way some see phones as luxuries. I DONT. Do whatever works for YOU and just YOU.

Damn I miss manual driving. That's how I learnt driving. My car has Auto and Semi Auto (searched hard for it cos I could NOT bring myself to get a full auto). I ALWAYS drive in Semi Auto, fells like manual without the clutch.

Next car I get is going to be full manual. Shifting gears is like telling the car what to do.
I love shifting down and reving to gain speed when overtaking. Then some guy asks from the back seat, "I though this car was Automatic?". Now thats driving.

Blakjewelry:
Op you might be looking at it from the wrong angle. Take a look at the most simplest of organism you will find your answer.

Just attempting to think outside the box.
How did the simplest of organisms come about? What did life evolve from or where did evolutiion begin?

There are several assumptions in Evolution theory: one is that Life arose from nonliving matter (i.e., spontaneous generation occurred).

MizJanet:

According to your book called bible , mary is a woman , so a sensible person knows brought forth in this context means " born or Produce her firstborn .

From your post ABOVE, Mary is a woman so she can "born or Produce". Is God also a woman that you should use the same argument for Him as you have done in your post BELOW? So who is confused?

MizJanet:
@underline , confuse man lets apply the same sense in prov 8:24 , good .

Prov 8:24 " I (jesus)was born " ; " I (jesus)was PRODUCED " .

This is very interesting .

Ah, you keep making me laugh! Listen to yourself.
You are making the same error again. You have left using (BROUGHT FORTH always = CREATED) its now (BROUGHT FORTH always = PRODUCE/BORN).
You CANNOT use the same context in ALL situations! You are the first person I know that does this.
This is no longer a Religious thread, but an English one. I have always questioned your English comprehension, now it is clear.
Well, thanks for making my day. Had a really good laugh. Cheers

Adisa explained further that in a suit filed in Court 3 Sagamu HCS/105/14

From my knowledge of legal matters, if in court, public opinions don't really matter. If true or false, let justice take its course.

OP, if this is true, you think you are helping the case but you are not. If this case is lost, you can be taken to court for posting this in public by RCCG.

MizJanet:

According to your book called bible , mary is a woman , so a sensible person knows brought forth in this context means " born or Produce her firstborn .

[s]So, you mean your god is also a woman to brought forth/born mountains (psalm 90:2) and born his companion god the son named jesus (prv 8:24) ?[/s]

Ah, so you know the answer. So why the fuss? Refering to the BOLDED above:
So why cant same SENSE be applied to Prov 8:24? Also using John 3:16 like someone posted as a guide to a clearer picture.

I gave you a links to synonyms of brought forth which you ignored: You will see the word "beget". It can also be "produce from within" or "proceed from" (as in John 3:16). Was that so hard? Rather than forcing it to always be CREATE to score cheap points.

Now using this knowledge of context, I am sure you can answer your own question and let the thread rest. Cheers

PS: Jesus is the WORD of GOD. Words are always with a man (or God), you cannot seperate the 2.

MizJanet:
NumberOne2 : "psalm 90:2 means creating of mountains " prv 8:24 means "Creating of the word "

You said it all .

Yeah, so going by your conclusion, Mary also CREATED her son.
And knew her not till she had brought forth (CREATED) her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. - Matthew 1:25

Look, you logic was dishonest. Just stop posting any further so the thread can leave the front page. Its embarrassing enough as it is.

CANTICLES:
I gave you the greek and hebrew root words to dig out the truth . By now you should know Scripture wasnt wriiten in english . Therefore you need a good knowledge of those hebrew and greek root words .


Peace.

Oh now the scriptures are NOT in English? However, we have brains to understand CONTEXT irrespective of language.
My first post here criticize the OP English but it was taken as an insult. Look at it now. It is clear!
If the OP was honest, this thread wouldn't be this long as sufficent answers have been given.
So why must the OP insist that (BROUGHT FORTH = CREATED).

** MODIFIED **
So the simple question remains as before after 48 hours (IN ANY LANGUAGE AVAILABLE)...

NumberOne2:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. - Matthew 1:25
Lets see how smart you are. If brought forth means created like you say, explain it as used above.

Ahh, this is fun.

lanrexlan:
'Jesus' was reported to have said by two gospel writers Luke and Matthew that Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.. I haven't found a christian that would be bold enough to receive a hot slap and turn the other cheek to me.

Hmmm, so you mean that Jesus said: Turn the other cheek literarily to collect another slap?
Can it also mean:
1) Do not revenge
2) Accept it as such
3) Forgive

Google Def:
turn the other cheek: refrain from retaliating when one has been attacked or insulted.
https://www.google.com/search?q=meaning+of+turn+the+other+cheek&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Hope that helps you.

PS: Google is not a Christian site. You may want to consider using it when reading the bible

CANTICLES:
Calm down ... My response to johnw74 regarding the hebrew word in those two verses reveal the truth .



Explain to me what you meant by create ?



Hey ! Am not defending her , but truth need to be told ... She never go beyond the context of psalm 90:2 and proverb 8:24 that simply means create .



what does the hebrew word chuwl have in common with greek tikto that appear in Matt 1:25 ? They both means " brought forth/Produce"

Please, leave Greek or Hebrew. She quoted English text and my bible is in English.
Her conversation with that girl was in English and all answers given so far are in English.
A simple understanding of context would have spared us all this mess.
So if your bible is in Greek or Hebrew, you can also help answer the question in such a language.

** MODIFIED **
So the simple question remains (IN GREEK, HEBREW, YORUBA, IGBO or HAUSA)...

NumberOne2:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. - Matthew 1:25
Lets see how smart you are. If brought forth means created like you say, explain it as used above.

CANTICLES:
Am not an atheist like the op ... But she has won you already coz its clear that the brought forth in proverb 8:24 is the same brought forth used in reference to the creation of earth and the world in psalm 90:2 . Funny enough, uv also said literally it means creation .

Ah, still laughing (LOL, ROTF, LWKMD, etc)!
There is nothing to win or loose here. Atheist or not, we all understand English.
I want to OP to see the futility in FORCING brought forth to ALWAYS be create just to cause confusion.

If you read my post I explained what I meant by create.
But MizJanet has insisted (and even summarize it from my post and everyone elses) that it MUST always be CREATE (irrespective of context).

So the simple question remains...

NumberOne2:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. - Matthew 1:25
Lets see how smart you are. If brought forth means created like you say, explain it as used above.

You can help answer it also. Thanks

Image123:
Preaching does not make you an evangelist. God gave SOME evangelists, not all. Get the point, we are all called to WITNESS and share the good news or gospel, but we are not all called into the five offices in the church; evangelists, teachers, apostles, prophets and pastors.

Not to cause any controversy. It is not a church title as most of us think it is. Besides, it doesn't matter. Paul or Peter or James had no titles aside from being called Apostles which isnt a title either.

Google def:
Evangelist: a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith, especially by public preaching.

You are given the title by what you do e.g an engineer is called such cos of his work. You are not an engineer before you learn engineering.
So if I preach, I am a preacher. If I teach, I am a teacher. If I preach in public, I am an evangelist and so on. I dont have to be confered such by the Church leadership. It is a gift from God not a title to be earned.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; - Ephesians 4:11

johnydon22:
That is exactly the point. . .You can't prove it, and an unproven concept remains a claim and cannot be disproved because there is nothing to disprove.

You can't prove or disprove the existence of a yellow white dark green diamond flying rabbit
My Goodness... am wowed honestly..
AV is a TV mode not a blank channel

this is what a blank channel looks like [img]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKQaf78dmBpvacfuSNzIk-ELx5D-jeL3JN0N6Gu-WPlMjK3yvNZpY-MZ0[/img]

Nawa oo. . AV mode a channel? there is nothing one will not hear..
i represented buddhism(a religion) with the blank channel notion
And a theist that is not religiously affiliated as a t.v mode.. (AV)..it was plain and simple..

Hmmm, thats a blank channel? Its been a while I saw that. My TV shows a blue screen and I watch stuff on my AV channel, its not blank.

Anyway, to recap:
Atheism = Off
Theism = On (Irreligious Theist = AV, Religious Theist = Displaying channels, Religious Atheist (like buddhist et al) = Blank)

This is interesting that you put the religious Atheists like (Buddhist) under the "blank Theism" just ensure that Atheism is ONE. Kinda biased toward Atheism don't you think?

Concerning the rabbit analogy:
I totally agree. We cannot say it does or does not exist till we have exhausted all possibilities. However, we must not ridicle those who say it exists as from your ascertion, you dont know any better either.

Like I have maintained from the start, when next someone tells you about the golden rabbit (figuratively), just walk away or say thanks. Just like I would do if told about Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. To begin to ridicle this perceived impossibility (when you are not 100% sure yourself) is a flawed argument in itself.

For the Apple example as the bible (God's word), like the saying The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Cheers
O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. - Psalms:34:8

johnydon22:
I can rightly say you are just using a blank t.v. . . A television has a default home screen, in many old televisions its called the AV screen..You don't even know t.v's have default home screens...
#Pheeeeeeeew. . .

Correction: I am NOT trying to prove God cos I have said I cant; same as the ability to proove that God does NOT exist.

Bros, AV is a blank channel. I thought the Buddhist were blank. How many blanks are on this TV?

MizJanet:
Explain psam 90:2 and prov 8:24

NumberOne2 : " this is literarily creating mountains and creating words"

*well said* creating word and the word is jesus , thanks for admiting the christian god, jesus is created .

Ha ha. I had a good laugh. Cross out my question? You know why you cant answer my question?
Cos it will kill your question on this thread. If brought forth only means CREATE, then we will say:

And knew her not till she had brought forth (CREATED) her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. - Matthew 1:25

But the above cannot be true. Can you honestly see your error?
Atleast I have attempted to answer you once. When you answer this once, I will answer you again. Its a dialogue right not a monologue? Thanks

So the question remains...

NumberOne2:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. - Matthew 1:25
Lets see how smart you are. If brought forth means created like you say, explain it as used above.

johnydon22:
An apple fruit, that has no apple tree is tantamount to nothing.
Even more so, still following the analogy, you say you are eating an apple fruit yet can't prove there really is an apple fruit simple shows the apple fruit is just in your head.
And then again that is the atheist position. . .You are talking about the sweetness of an apple fruit when you can't show the fruit, when you can't prove there is a fruit. . how can someone taste an apple fruit that can be passed as a mere illusionary projection on the part of you who claims there is an apple fruit, because once you cannot show there is its still is tantamount to NOTHING
still on the matter, tell me to try and unproved and remarkably unprovable concept. . You yourself say it's unprovable, then how come you got to try something that is unprovable. . . Aaaah the hook absurd notion of believing it by faith.

i.e: Maybe you think we were born and raised atheists..lol.. many of us were born and raised theists, we have tried tasting and we saw its just in your head
A television has a default home mode when switched on (unless yours do not have it)
Irreligious theist (am happy you have agreed belief is not synonymous to religion) fall within the confine of the default home screen mode. The t.v is just ON without being on any channel.

Religions are the channels. . . Nickelodeon, African magic.

Atheism simply means the T.V is OFF (belief in a deity is OFF)

What is this? I didn't say God is unprovable!!! I said:
[size=16pt]GOD IS UNPROVABLE BY MAN EXCEPT BY GOD HIMSELF!!![/size] Why cut the sentence half way
THE APPLE FRUIT IS THE BIBLE which we can ALL SEE (it is not an illusion). It is VERY VISIBLE. I have said this before!
I say you have concluded, hence you have started misquoting me.

Please, when a TV is on, it shows something which is usually a channel.
What is default mode? Menu pop-ups? Are those channels?
So your analogy will be false without digital TV. Even at that, a well configure digital TV will show a channel when ON unless it is new? (like a new born baby). Flawed analogy.

Karmanaut:
OP, you seem to misunderstand basic biology; the characteristics of living things are gestalt, and not to be considered in part.

Tell me, when you were in your mother's womb, which did you do first?
Did you learn to breathe or excrete first?
Did you learn to absorb food or move first?

According to your "logic":

If you learnt to breathe first then you couldn't do the others so you would have died.

You went too far in the equation to man. Man is already too complex. Man came from smaller organisms according to evolution. Probably algae to more complex stuff.
Ever wondered why are they not considered in part? The devil is in the details, think about it.
Looking back at the Big bang and if we begin from the basics of matter (protons, neutron and electrons) you will begin to see that one needed to come first before the other and not all at once.

johnydon22:
You see what i mean? the bible (A book) you are still swimming in the same river.

You say there is an apple tree then bring a book as supposedly how to eat the fruit when none of us is seeing any tree.

The bible is primarily the claim of the apple tree (You got your idea of the apple tree from it) still the apple tree is not clear enough for both of us but the apple tree needs a book and you to tell me that there is an apple tree.

If there is an apple tree, it wouldn't need you or any book to show there is because it would be very evident enough there is.

Again you told me the apple tree is unprovable yet tell me again you ate the fruit of an unprovable apple tree. . . that my good friend is self refuting

Don't assume.
I NEVER talked of apple tree (kindly check back). I only mentioned the sweetness of the apple FRUIT and my speech to try it for yourself.
I even talked of eating the apple seeds. I never said apple tree, it was you. You have gone ahead of me to conclude.

I said the sweetness of the apple is unprovable except by tasting the apple yourself!!!
God is not provable by man except by God Himself (I can only tell you. You try and see). If you don't get this my point we will keep going in circles. Dont misquote me.

As for the TV:
A better analogy will be coloured (On colour) display for theist channels and monochrome (Off colour) display for atheist channels.
This will cover the variations in both. 20 monochrome channels and 50 coloured channels. There are irreligious theist which the ON channels dont cater for.

menesheh:
is that how you engage your argument? hit and run?
if you cant argue, why engage it at-all?.

Maybe you missed it. I explained this with the apples above.