₦airaland Forum

Lol. Trust the battered atheist to throw tantrums and insults without making a bit of point. Wiegraph, you obviously know nothing about the theory you tried defending.

Energy is required if matter is to be formed. I bet you never knew that.
Evolution asserts the organic springs from the inorganic, but does nothing to explain the origin of the inorganic. For your info, many scientists believe in pre-existing energy as the source of the universe.
You seriously need to get updated.

[quote author=Atheist:-D]I have read the website. Good site. Just doesnt stand up to much scientific scrutiny.

There is too much data and evidence in support of evolution. However there are some issues that should be (or might be) addressed over time.[/quote]Its more of logical reasoning.
About the bolded, I'd say the same about evolution.
It had been long accepted before they started to look for evidence. It was long since accepted as a scientific theory before they even attempted to start looking for proof.

Its only normal that a biased mind would attempt to explain reality in a way that suits his convictions. This applies both to theists and atheists alike.

But the Piltdown man fraud stands out.

wiegraf: Quit your silly nonsense. The issue here is who makes the claim. Don't mask rebuttals as assertions. You ask me to disprove god, you show the god first you imb.ecile. If after listening to your nonsense I tell you it is nonsense, well, deal with it. The fact is it is nonsense.

So now, considering my claim that something can come from nothing, unproven as it is, do you think it's nonsense or not? Or from the beginning, prove to me that something cannot come from nothing.

Does not your power of reasoning tell you that an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence? Absence of evidence of God's existence is not an evidence of God's inexistence.

If you say 'there is no God, you are not only refuting a claim that there is God, you are making a fresh claim independent of the former. This claim needs proof. So quit throwing tantrums over the op's post.

You want proof regarding the bolded, here it is. Science itself proves me right.
(1) The law of conservation of energy: Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The idea of something coming from nothing (a vacuum, or space devoid of matter) has no place in science...or common sense.
(2) Vacuums do not occur in nature. Nature abhors it. It can only be artificially created.

You still need more scientific proof?

Smarter evolutionists have long embraced the idea of 'pre-existing energy' as the source of the universe, you are here supporting the 'something from nothing' trash. Even science has left you behind.

[quote author=Atheist:-D]The apes alive today are our evolutionary cousins. We share the same evolutionary ancestor. We did not evolve from the apes around today (if I got your question right) and hence this common evolutionary ancestor is no more.[/quote]you gave me a link earlier. My turn to repay the favour. Here's a link to very powerful argument against evolution. Unlike the wikipedia link with more scientific names than useful info, this one is something you can actually reason on:
click here for 'Evolution disproved'.

I am not posting this to win any argument, but to help you, so do not feel obliged to reply. Just read it with your thinking cap on and an open mind. Its quite lengthy.
Cheers.

wiegraf: Erm, bros. He's bitc.hing about people telling him there is no god. Now, don't be an eediot and tell me what led to their assertions?

ok, you agree atheists made an assertion? Good progress bro!
Regardless of the reason for your assertion, it is never a fact without proof.
The op simply said no one should say there definitely is no God.

Atheists have asked theists for proof severally. Is it wrong to turn the tide on you guys once in a while and watch you guys fumble?

wiegraf: Heh heh, no. You seem confused, you don't seem to know who's doing the asserting here. God is not the default mode, or have met him before, yes or no? Do you have evidence of the encounter, yes or no? Before I stood up and said there is no dog, someone must have asserted there was a dog, yes? Or I dreamed up the concept myself then rebuked it? Curious, yes?

You folk are the ones doing the claiming here, not us. For instance, taking your own words, the bolded, why does the op say no one should say there's no god? Because there is a god? He proved this when?

*face palm* mehn, logical reasoning and atheists... Are you guys sworn enemies?

When you say: "There is no God", you are asserting or making a claim. It is different from saying "I have not seen proof that there is God, so I do not believe".

The op's post is quite clear and there is nothing wrong with it. I wonder why you guys find it hard to grasp aomething as simple as that.

ooman: At last you are thinking. Now we have reached an impasse. I think energy is eternal, you think God is eternal. If energy come from God, then energy is conscious because God is conscious . But in nature, we can't confirm the consciousness of energy. Nature disproves God.

lol. You and your goons just asserted that something can come out of nothing. Now after much education you finally agree energy always existed.

Typical of science. Always changing its stance.

The bolded is another fallacious statement. Is the kinetic energy we humans possess conscious? So why must energy from a conscious God be conscious too?

Nature births conscious beings too. How does that disprove the existence of a conscious source of life? Huh?

[quote author=Atheist:-D]Just to clarify

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

This should clear things up for you.[/quote]your link is almost useless as an ans to my question.
I asked why the link between man and ape didnt survive when both species on either side did.
The closest I got as an answer from that link was:

"According to the Toba catastrophe theory to which some anthropologists and archeologists subscribe, the supereruption of Lake Toba on Sumatra island in Indonesia roughly 70,000 years ago had global consequences, killing most humans then alive and creating a population bottleneck that affected the genetic inheritance of all humans today."

however that doesnt answer why a creature higher on the evolution ladder than apes failed to survive while the apes did.

ooman: Your sentence kills you. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, God is everlasting, Nothing comes from nothing. God is something, just where does he come from. Who made God and who made he who made God and that continues forever except you put God out of your head

God is everlasting. You cannot possibly grasp it. Sue me.

While you are suing me tell us where the energy that made the universe come from.
Something has always existed. Something has to exist for the universe to come out of it.

wiegraf: Hahahaha, so, you get how the burden of proof works?

So, tell me how the op is exempt from that rule?

The op said no one should say there is no God.
Many atheists do not only doubt the existence of God, they actively assert that God does not exist. That requires proof too. That was the point the op raised.

So how did the op seem exempt huh? Tell me.

ooman: If nothing comes from nothing, where does God come from?

Now you are finally thinking!

God is the source of everything. He has always existed. No?

Now, how did the universe come about? From nothing? Atheists would like to think so. No?

Consider Einstein energy-mass relativity theory. E=mc^2.
A particle of mass 'm' would release energy 'E'. From that equation, a small particle can be converted to release a great amount of energy.

It also means great energy is required to make even a small particle.

Think of the universe. Its enormous. Imagine the amount of energy conversion required to make a single star.
But energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

It can only come from a pre-existing source of energy. In this case, God.

If you or any other atheist have a better explanation, do tell me.

wiegraf: Can you not read you c.lout? I said I don't feel the need to teach you. If you paying I may reconsider though.

Anyhow, you now want me to clarify now yes? You won't accept my claims without any evidence yes? You now miraculously understand the situation when it's you who is being asked to believe something just because?

So for now, prove to me that something cannot come nothing.

The burden of proof lies with he who asserts. You said "in this universe, something can come out of nothing".
So why should I be the one to bring proof?

wiegraf: Erm, bros, all this long story just to show you don't know what evolution is? You're clearly ignorant. It's very common in these parts though, people proud of their ignorance ie. Usually you display the kind of knowledge about these things I would expect a person born blind would display while discussing the mona lisa.

But that's not the issue here for now, and I don't feel the need to school you for free. So, back to my initial question. I should just accept your claims because you say so? If the best you can come up with translates to 'yes', may I just tell you "4k you, you moro.nic and deluded ignoramus" ahead of time? Before you ask me to accept your god, prove it to me. It's the same I would ask of you.

And guess what your ignorance, in this universe something can come from nothing , if indeed you can call it nothing. That's another story though.

Gullibility... Heh heh heh

lol. This long post with little meaningful info. You believe everything science tells you, ryt? See who isnt gullible.

Its either you do not understand evolution yourself and are just blindly believing it, or you are just acting d.umb. The former looks to be the the case tho.

As regards the bolded, please give me an example of one thing that comes from nothing. Then tell me how in your example energy is neither created nor destroyed.

ooman: You know i said i would avoid you but you kept on saying missing link like you know what you are talking about.

I will only ask you a question.

Where are the fossils of the whole world God killed in Noah's flood?

Now that is God's missing link

lol... I like how you try to baffle me with bullshit. Dazzle me with some brilliance man.
Those animals are part the very bones and fossils archaelogists keep discovering.

Isnt it funny that the fossil record shows not gradual evolution but species jumping directly into the fossil records? No evidence of the missing link either, so they had to fake one.

You still have not answered my question. Evolution holds that an evolved organism is better equipped to survive than the parent organism.
So why is it the apes (parent) and humans survived but the ape men didnt?
Why did the link go missing?

ooman: I'd rather believe in the devil than in your God.

you obviously do... Deep down. You just do not want to admit it. At least its more reasonable than the evolution crap. I have seen people do magic... Things science cannot explain.
Spirits exist man. Either you believe it or tell me why the missing link went missing.

ooman: Get thee away from me, Satan. I was only trying to keep an open mind to a wise gentle soul.

Lol. I just made an atheist believe in Satan. Do you know he is spirit too?

ooman: What is darkness except lack of light. What is evil except lack of God, or at least lack of a good God

Make up your mind man. Are you atheist or agnostic? You seem confused.

While we wait for an atheist/evolutionist to tell us what happened to the missing link, here is an example of how unreliable human knowledge can be:

Spontaneous Generation
For thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.

How it was Proven Wrong:
It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.

Does spontaneous generation sound alot like evolution or is it just me?
Both hold that something springs out of nothing. That says alot.

Anyone found out what happened to the missing link yet?

[quote author=Ileke-IdI]Look in the mirror.


Jk. but I just couldnt pass on that opportunity [/quote]hahahaha... Nah... ooman says I am the missing link between cockroach and nothing

Pls, any real evolutionist out there? Please answer this:

what da hell happened to the missing link between man and ape?

ooman: When you say nature, do you mean their behavior or their chemical make up? because we only study bacteria to understand the chemical nature of cells. Obviously you dont know that. I am done talking to you. Stop seeking my attention, you are not worth it. I'd rather give it to a cockroach, its worth it a thousand times than you.

yeah , I bet the cockroach is your grandpa in the evolution chain

ooman: JESUS..... oh, did i just say jesus? that must be a mistake. So you dont know that you are made of cells.?? You are the dullest dullard.

hmmm... You not only suck at logic, but a basic understanding of the english language.
I said 'using a unicellular organism to define the nature of every other living organism'.
A bacteria is unicellular. When you say: "the bacteria, we are studying cannot do this, therefore no living thing can" like you did quite illogically with the toughest bacteria, it shows illogical you can be.
That is what I mean by what I wrote. Damn! Its high time atheists disowned you. You are disgracing them here.

ooman: Sorry man but evolution is beyond your ken, it is for the wise

lmao. I'd take it you no longer have any meaningful contribution then.
I'd look for a a worthy proponent of evolution then.
Cheers.

ooman: Judging from what you wrote, i know you dropped out in JSS3.

coming from the same person who uses a unicellular organism to define the nature of every other creature, that is funny
I did with evolution exactly what she did with the bible. Choke on it

or better still, lets examine evolution together.

ooman: Oh pls, am not running, am only avoiding a fool according to solomons advice in proverbs. "You are wasting your time teaching wisdom to fools, because they will return to their follies"

lol, right! Wise choice.
He who has no money to buy meat claims he is vegetarian.

Face it, you would never be able to defend evolution. Not now, not ever.

[quote author=Ileke-IdI]I have to say, as a kid, I got played.

Imagine, 2 fish and five stones fed thousands. One man turned grape to wine. Chaii, even sleeping Lazarus who was in a serious coma woke up.

What baffles me is how Jesus could turn stone to bread, but we had to wait another thousands of years to invent sliced bread.[/quote]lol. Miracles are never understood.

Would you rather belive this:
"Billions of years ago, no life existed on earth, just gases and other elements (we dnt know how those things got there sha, but who cares). Then one day, the conditions were just right and there was a spark of life, from nothing. An amino acid was formed unaided. That was how life started. Gradually, unicellular organisms were formed.

To survive in their environment, these organisms had to evolve until it got to ape, then evolved to apemen and finally homo sapien. At that, evolution decided to stop (we dnt kno why for thousands of human existence no one has evolved into a higher life form than human).

However, the link between ape and man disappeared while the lower lifeform apes survived. Heck, it was supposed to be better equipped for survival than apes. We don't know why sha, but we know what we are saying is the truth."

That ma'am is the stuff of fairytales.
If you think science has never fooled anyone, google 'Piltdown man'. There is more where that came from.

ooman: I 'd rather examine evolution with a primary 1 student than with you.

lol. Dnt be scared, I dnt bite. Thinking with your head doesnt hurt either, try it.

If you back out, I'd take it as a surrendering. If evolution had surrendered at ape stage, would humans have resulted?