₦airaland Forum

I BELIEVE THAT THE YORUBA CONCEPT OF GOD BEATS THE XTIANS/MUSLIM CONCEPT.

AS A SCIENTIST, I ALSO THINK THAT THE YORUBA ACCOUNT OF CREATION MAKES SENSE THAN THE BIBLE'S ACCOUNT.

The religious are really offended by this.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]At this point, I don't know whether to laugh at you or to cry for you. SMH[/quote]The feeling is mutual

Reyginus: Lololol. What/who is a tout to begin with?

I said lout not tout, gay. There is a difference!

brainpulse: You wrote something is proven beyond resaonable doubt and you cant explain it OMG.

Have you being to a project defence at all? Do you assume that your lecturers knows it or you prove to them that you understand, know and believe in your presentations BEYOND RESAONABLE DOUBT?

Certainly this man should not be taken serious. Out of here

Actually, lecturers would not ask such dumb question as this. They do not lack numeracy like you do.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]yawn...[/quote]

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]I think it applies more to you in this case.[/quote]Then you are fibbing, brainpulse used the word first and you also implied it first.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Merely posting an equation does not prove that you understand it. Explaining it does.

You have failed to explain it. . . .and no, calling other people ignorant does not count as an explanation.[/quote]If you lack the education to understand that equation, you will not understand its meaning too. Its not rocket science, its hard science.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Lololol.......everyone has the ability to call another person ignorant. Unfortunately, that ability does not bestow the name-caller with knowledge.[/quote]Perhaps you should tell that to brainpulse and yourself first.

brainpulse: You make me laugh at your ignorance, you created a topic to prove something beyond reasonable doubt and you dont understand and can't explain it neither. In maths If you cant explain it then dont prove it because it becomes rubbish.

Who is ignorant here? Me who posted an equation or you who dont understand it? Read a little quantum physics. That would do for beginners.

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]wait does it have something to do with plancks constant? isnt that physics[/quote]Yea, its quantum physics.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Lol, at this point it is now painfully obvious that you are terribly ignorant of what you set out to talk about.[/quote]Oh, it is quite obvious that you lack the sagacity to understand quantum physics. It is understandable though. Not all who uses computer can cope with anything quantum.

brainpulse: You are a bad student of mathemetics, what you have just done there is rubbish you copied and pasted. First you define what those alphabets means then their functions and concepts. And where were they derived from?

This bad maths and how do those formular relates to evolution.

What are you exactly angry at, that the formula proved the source of energy or that you dont understand the equation, hence, you asking me to spoon feed you.
If you lack knowledge about the constants used to derive energy, that is your problem. Read beginners quantum physics, you should catch up in some years.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Good, so it is settled that you claim that evolution is based on maths and observation is really rubbish. Anyway, it was funny watching you throw in a big formula that you didn't understand yourself with the hope that I would get bamboozled and therefore back down.

Now we come to the meat of your argument which really is that "there is no God behind it". You have proposed energy as an alternative. However, energy does not stand in causal relationship to anything and therefore cannot be a first cause.[/quote]I laugh at your lack of understanding, myopic as you are, you think evolution is quite what exactly? Do you not know that ancient greek philosophers used simple maths in disproving the bible. Math has been used since times past to calculate sedimentation rates, calculus, sets and other algorithm has always been the back bone of evolution. I understand this is quite new to you, so you need time to catchup.

I understand that you really lack experience of cosmology. Have you studied Mars before? Its so chaotic in it and new events occurs always. Change is the ultimate cause. Energy is eternal, remains in its simplest state, as preferred even by matter, until there is a difference in composition.
Just as supernova caused by change, that is explosion of a star caused by accumulation of larger element causes the evolution of new stars and planets and asteroids etc, so does change in composition of energy around a point- called cosmic egg caused an explosion, an expansion called the universe, the debris of this explosion was the raw material from which solar systems formed. No god needed.

HumbledbYGrace: are there any? if we come from monkeys y r they still producing other monkeys now?

we didnt come from monkeys, we are all modern animals.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Lol, I am still not seeing how "energy is eternal" explains evolution.

Also I am very interested in that your math formula, I will really love you to explain the formula to me in detail so that I can use it and work evolution too.[/quote]Ok, the ultimate fact about evolution is that THERE IS NO GOD BEHIND IT. And since everything has a cause and AT LEAST, SOMETHING MUST BE ETERNAL. the formula proved energy, instead of God as eternal and the first cause.

The formula is based on quantum physics, you want want me to precis quantum physics for you here? Pls, that will be cumbersome. google quantum physics pls!!!

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]My friend you are just rambling upon a tangent that is irrelevant to what we are discussing here.

Let me remind you of what you said:




All I have asked you to do is to back up your claims by providing this mathematics formula and showing exactly how it is used to describe and predict evolution.[/quote]YOUR REPLY SHOWED YOUR FAILURE TO INTERPRET THE FORMULAS I POSTED. THIS IS WHY I SAID WE SHOULDNT GO TOO MUCH INTO MATHEMATICS. Maths proved that energy had no source, disproving a source for an eternal energy.

Energy is eternal and everything came from it, hope you will understand that simple logic

here it is again

ooman: planck's theory and einstein's equations proves that energy is a radiation which cannot be terminated. their theory implies that energy radiates from no source and therefore destroys the concept of a creator.

Energy does not and cannot have consciousness, all those who claim energy has consciousness are in a state of great delusion.

a completely isolated universe, like ours, cannot be observed, the concept of a detached observer(God) of classical physics is a myth. - Keith Gibbs, Particle Physicist.

Nice write up. At first, i thought it was a Nigerian who wrote this, only to see the source at the rear of the article.
I must commend Dr. Andrew Corbett though for this.

Ndipe: In December 2004 it was announced that long time British Professor and Philosopher, Anthony Flew, regarded by many as "the world's most acclaimed atheist", had renounced his atheism in favour of theism,

This dramatic conversion has been likened by AstroPhysicist and now one of the world's leading Cosmologists, Dr Hugh Ross, as having the same impact on the academic world as an announcement that Billy Graham had renounced Christianity would have on the Church!

One of the reasons cited by Prof. Flew was "the evidence." He admitted that for a long time the growing problem of Evolution's inability to explain how life began, or for that matter, how anything began, led him to the inevitable conclusion that it was an inadequate answer in the face of the evidence. Then when the DNA Genome code was unraveled the evidence for Design became "undeniable". These two pieces of evidence (1. the existence of life demanding a Life-Source, and 2. the scientific evidence of an extremely complex code in the make-up of that life- DNA) were enough for Prof. Flew to renounce atheism.

I am glad that the author recognized Prof. Flew as a Philosopher. He was an atheist who had no sense of what nature implies about design and random repetition. He was an atheist based on philosophy of faith - his own philosophy, which was self wrecked, which is why he became a theist again. He offered two premises for debate, and his only answer was that evolutionists have not been able to answer. People must recognize that evolution is all about observation
which leads to hypothesis, when confirmed becomes a theory. What we dont have answers for now (that is, the evolution of life), will be answered in times to come. It must be stated that we now know so much than we once knew, and we will still know so much than we now know.

Ndipe: CAN WE PROVE GOD?
Some people feel that acceptance of God is entirely a matter of faith. But the Scriptures actually claim that it is the truth which is the basis for this faith (Rom. 10:17). Truth is only truth if it is objective truth, that is, it is true for everyone regardless of time or circumstances. Thus, God is either true (and there can be objective proofs to support this), or He is not true and only subjective 'truth' can be offered for 'proof'.

there are no IRREFUTABLE objective truth or proof for God

Ndipe: Some ancient Philosophers have argued that the fact mankind can imagine there being a God is a proof that there must be one. While this argument does have some merit, it mainly has limitations. Taken to its natural application this means that if anything can be imagined it must exist. Based on the nightmares I had as a three and four year old boy- I really hope this theory isn't true or I'm not going to sleep well tonight!

This is the silliness of religion being reproved by another religious
The bold is a disappointment, coming from a doctor. But that is what religion is about, denial of truth

Ndipe: On the other hand, 'beliefs' and 'truth' are sometimes not entirely related. Tertullian once bragged that the main reason he so readily accepted Christianity was that it was fundamentally absurd. Perhaps he was alluding to 1Corinthians 1-2 which talks about human wisdom and divine wisdom being incompatible. Some people are so committed to their beliefs that despite the evidence of truth they refuse to change their beliefs. In this way we observe that what some atheists claim is their scientific basis for unbelief is nothing more than belief in opinions rather than evidence. Thus despite the mass of evidence to the contrary, many atheists refuse to accept that origin of life is best explained by appears to be obvious (a Designer/Creator).

The origin of life is BEST EXPLAINED [size=15pt]SUPERFICIALLY [/size] as a result of design, intensive scrutiny suggested otherwise - Chemical evolution is the only reasonable possibility.

Ndipe: We have to applaud Prof. Flew for having the courage to consider and then accept the evidence.

"Proof" though is measured and determined according to the type of claim. The type of proof needed to substantiate a claim involving chemistry is different to the type of proof needed to substantiate a claim made about history. Proof in physiology is different to the type of proof needed for psychology. Proof in philosophy is different to the proof required for philology. Proof required for biology is different to the type of proof required for theology. To demand that "hard" science (physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy) proof tests be the only acceptable means for testing a "soft" science (psychology, history, philosophy, literature) claim is unreasonable. Thus, imposing natural proof tests on supernatural claims is an unreasonable measure and totally inadequate. But where supernatural claims are made which have natural implications, such as "an invisible God created all that we see" (Romans 1:20) "proof" takes on the garb of "supporting evidence" when looking at the natural evidence to support this supernatural claim.

You are suggesting that we cannot have a natural proof for something supernatural yet you want us to believe that the natural is a proof of the supernatural. This is really unbelievable aporetic.

Ndipe: THE EVIDENCE
There have been a rash of very articulate and passionate atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, who have attacked theism (the belief in God) by attacking Religious Fundamentalism (the poor behaviour of those claiming to believe in God and their abuse of Religious rules to oppress people). The type of God these Religious Fundamentalists promote is not the God I am arguing for. But to some it is going to sound like it.

CS Lewis artfully makes the point in the "Magician's Nephew" that there can be several people confronted with the evidence for God yet they can interpret that evidence quite differently. Lewis describes Uncle Andrew's direct encounter with Aslan where he vehemently denied what he was seeing and hearing as making himself look stupid. And Lewis, the former atheist himself, continues, "Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. Uncle Andrew did." When it comes to proof for God, the evidence is cumulative and therefore acceptable proof.

This evidence, or proofs, for the existence of God invites those atheists to consider it- especially for those who claim that there is none. At the very least it should be reasonably concluded that atheism (the absolute claim that there is no God after considering all possible knowledge) is a highly irrational position.

The following is reasonable evidence for accepting that there is indeed a Personal Omnipotent God as described in the Christian Bible-


PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD,
1.

cause
Everything has a cause,

It is illogical to suggest that something had no cause. This is where the theory of evolution becomes inadequate. It can not explain how anything began, let alone life. When we consider the evidence (that there are things which exist) it logically demands that either something or someone caused it. We can then rule out "something" as the solution since we would be returning to the original problem (what made the something?). This demands that there must be someone who has always existed (eternal) and is in themselves therefore uncreated. We don't have to understand this in order for it to be so.

At this point some say we should not even try to understand these things because our minds just get in the way. But I suspect the opposite is the case. That is, it is perfectly legitimate to ponder these things and rather than our minds being too bigger an obstacle, our minds are actually too inadequate to comprehend them. Therefore, faith and thinking are not incompatible, its just that we have realise that they both require discipline and exercise.

Well, it is true EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE. BUT IF EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSED, WHAT CAUSED GOD? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? / ? / ? ? ? ?
As an atheist, here is my answer: CHANGE is the ultimate cause. Changes in energy, which has been proven eternal, caused everything we now see.

Ndipe: 2.

design
There is evidence for design,
The unraveling of the Human Genome Code was announced to the world as the discovery of the language of the Creator by then President, Bill Clinton. What scientists discovered was an extremely sophisticated genetic language necessary for even the simplest life forms to exist. To believe that this level of apparent design happened either randomly or by chance is a mathematical equation of probability with more zeros than I care to type (plus I don't know what the word is for numbers which are thousands of trillions!).



The universe displays an amazingly complex level of interdependency which logically leads to the conclusion that it was designed that way. There are just too many coincidences of such "just rightness" for it too be a random haphazard coincidence. The earth is "just the right" distance from the Sun; it contains "just the right" mixture of chemicals and gases to sustain life; humans have "just the right" ability to breath these gases; the human body has "just the right" synergy of internal organs in order to function, and so on.

Its important to note that the Bible does not give a date for the commencement of creation of the universe, or the date for the creation of mankind. The universe may well be 10,000,000,000 years old, and mankind's origins may well be as recent as 50,000 - 30,000 years ago. These numbers are in no way counter to the Biblical record, and extremely compatible with the evidence.

Apparent designs in nature are no designs at all, they are repetitive patterns. I find it totally unreasonable for someone to believe that a God could create a vast universe for us only for him to mar it by death and diseases and evil that fills the world. They are not compatible.

Ndipe: 3.

morality
There is intrinsic morality which needs a point of reference,

How do we know what "evil" is? How do we know what "good" is? These concepts demand either the existence of a standard to make such evaluations, or an understanding what these concepts mean. Each of us are born with an innate sense of morality. We each fundamentally know what is right and wrong. It is incredible to consider that no matter time, culture, geographic location, or people, the Moral Law has been universally acknowledged.

This tends to confirm that all of creation bears the finger-prints of a Creator who is fundamentally good and right. That is, we each share a knowledge of what is right and wrong not just because we are taught or conditioned to accept these values, but because we are born with them.

Morality is found in all species. A single rule rules, DO NOT HURT A MEMBER OF YOUR SPECIES. ANYTHING YOU DO THAT HURTS A MEMBER OF YOUR SPECIES, THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT SURVIVAL, IS IMMORAL. ON THIS SIMPLE FACT IS OUR LAWS IN COURTS BASED!!

Ndipe: 4.

resurrection
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Skeptics may dispute this historical claim that Jesus Christ rose again from the dead but they do so perilously. This is because there is enough evidence to validate it and it is the point at which all of the history of Christ and Christianity rests. This means that if anything of Christ and Christianity is true then the Physical Resurrection of Christ is also true. The opposite is also true. If Christ did not literally rise from the dead then none of his history or teachings have any credence.

But if the resurrection of Christ can be seen as a reasonable historic fact (based on over 500 eye-witnesses, the preparedness of all of those witnesses to defend their testimonies even at the point of losing their lives, the resultant baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues- still available today) then this is perhaps the most overwhelming piece of proof for the existence of God.

This is unbelievable, coming from a doctor as evidence for design in nature. This is the silliness of religion!!!

Ndipe: 5.
experience
The claims of Christ can be experienced,

Jesus Christ made some seemingly outrageous claims about the benefits of following Him. He offered "rest" for the weary, "nourishment" for the hungry, "water" for the thirsty, "resurrection" for the dead, "direction" for aimless, "liberty" for the oppressed, "protection" for the vulnerable, "healing" for the hurting, and "salvation" for the lost.

I was 15 years of age when I accepted Christ. Never have I ever regretted it. It has been a journey for me that has seen me grow and change. I have felt the Lord guiding me. I can honestly say that I have heard Him speak to me (even though it hasn't been audibly). He has answered my prayers so often that I now almost take it for granted that my prayers will be answered. He has given my life direction and purpose that I otherwise would never have had.

Today He extends to you the invitation to experience for yourself the claims which He has made.


[quote author=Ndipe]The evidence for the existence of God is available. For honest enquirers there are honest answers. For those who acknowledge that there is at least reasonable evidence (even if not all 5 points of evidence are accepted) then they can no longer claim to be "atheist". Like Professor Flew they can bravely embrace the title "theist" (God believer) without adopting any particular religious framework. Once this position can be reached then the next phase of the journey is to answer the question, "Is religion necessary or even helpful in discovering God?"

Totally risible. This too included as "evidence for design". Religion can really make one completely stu.pid

Ndipe: BUT HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE GOD OF CHRISTIANS IS THE CREATOR THAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO?
The scientific method has become synonymous with methodological naturalism. This is the idea that the only way knowledge can be apprehended is if it can be observed. But this is a fairly recent hijacking of what the scientific method means. If we could allow the scientific method to lead to certain to certain deductions, whether they be physical or metaphysical, we may be removing the restrictions which might hold us back from the truth - especially if we employ the scientific method in examining any theories involving metaphysical claims.

Since there is sufficient evidence to show that the universe began and therefore must have had a beginning, we must also include the dimensions of time and space as part of that beginning. Therefore the "Beginning Cause" must have been outside of time and space. This is one of the central claims of the Bible about God: He is eternal and dwells 'above the heavens' (Heb. 7:26) - that is, God is outside of time and space. At this point, we could apply these deductions using the scientific method to dismiss the claims of certain religions which present their "God" as being a part of time and space (pantheism). This includes Buddhism and Hinduism.

Within time and space there is moral-evil, corruption, and decay. Since the Creator is outside of this He must be holy, immutable, and impeccable. This then excludes the concepts of "God" put forward by Islam and Mormonism. But it fits perfectly with the concept of God as portrayed in the Christian Bible.

Perhaps the simplest test for discovering the identity of the Creator-God is to employ the scientific method to Psalm 34:8 and Matthew 7:7.

Dr. Andrew Corbett


http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/5-proofs.html

Here is the dumbest thing the religious do, using the bible to prove the bible. Who can prove that the Flying Spaghetti did not create the universe, if the universe was "created".

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]And how exactly does the above equation explain evolution?[/quote]did you read the link i posted? from the link i said:

ooman: planck's theory and einstein's equations proves that energy is a radiation which cannot be terminated. their theory implies that energy radiates from no source and therefore destroys the concept of a creator.

Energy does not and cannot have consciousness, all those who claim energy has consciousness are in a state of great delusion.

a completely isolated universe, like ours, cannot be observed, the concept of a detached observer(God) of classical physics is a myth. - Keith Gibbs, Particle Physicist.

here
https://www.nairaland.com/1207187/what-facts-energy-say-god

below is the "mathematical nature" of energy. if you understand it, of course, which is why it is better we continue to speak in plain language

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]You still haven't explained the nature of this maths used in studying nature. Telling us how ignorant we are still doesn't count as an explanation my friend.[/quote]Mathematics has helped proved the nature of energy, which made up everything, i made on thread on that. You were all lacking to give replies so it is not my fault i cant do it again, i will look for the link and post it now.

[size=15pt]FOR ALL THE DUMB CHRISTIANS ASKING TO SEE OXYGEN, HERE YOU GO[/size]

ijawkid: You dey see the oxygen wey dey enter ya nostrils now??.....snap am picture make I see......

liquified oxygen can be seen, it is blue in color.

davidylan: this is quite funny...

evolution is based on math? What happened to biological evidence? You mean evolution is really based on assumptions cloaked as "math"?

Evolution is based on observation? Observations of what? You mean evolution is based on assumptions and extrapolations based on what WE THINK might have happened based on the limited evidence we have?

You are really .......... no words to describe you without insulting you personally. Dunce should mildly do it.

When we talk of EVOLUTION, you do realize we are not just talking about life but about every other thing in cosmology, Astrology and other areas of science right? That is your maths right there

@bold: are you saying mathematical theories and formulas are all assumptions?

The theory of evolution was not thought out by a man in his bed room dreaming as the bible was written. It was well modernized by a man who STUDIED and OBSERVED nature for 5 years, Darwin, and another who did the same for even a greater amount of time, Wallace. Now you see that people disbelieve in creation not just because they want to, but because observation of nature speaks again any God at all, and ultimately, against intelligent design.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Mockery is never a good way to argue. He made a valid contention there. All you had to do was show him how it isn't guess work. Why not start doing that instead of insulting his person. There is nothing wrong with ignorance but there is everything wrong with mockery rather than education.[/quote]no one is insulting anybody, i only made inquiries. if anybody is insulting someone, its you, derailing the thread

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]This was unecessary because he never said anything about creation and it does not in anyway aid in explaining evolution. It is only an attack at something he didn't present and a poorly veiled ad hominen attack to bully him and make him appear stupid and therefore be more inclined to accept your answer.


Please kindly expand on this mathematics and observation you are talking about.[/quote]secondary school maths should teach you algorithms used in studying nature. Most of you people didnt listen in secondary school down through college, this is why you remain worshipers and gullible.

oiseworld: If you had been a recent evidence of evolution, then that would be a prove beyond doubt.

mitochondria

davidylan: you do know that simulations are mere speculation and not fact right?

models suggested by evolutionists. we are talking about past events here so it has to be on models, you do know that right?

[quote author=inspiredbyGOD:.]Err, simulation? simulations are also based on assumptions, they are not based on fact. Basically, evolution is still a theory because it can't be backed up with evidence.[/quote]did you read me at all, i said

ooman: oh you are dreaming. simulations are done daily on theories. You really need to learn before saying things

models suggested by evolutionists on past events. Evolution is based on MATHS AND OBSERVATION

Reyginus: ooman, truth be told, you have nothing.

to louts like you? YES I HAVE NOTHING FOR YOU.

davidylan: Is an eagle really more intelligent than a chicken? Are you serious?
Or are you confusing "intelligence" with the ability to fly and size?

Are you kidding. Do you even study nature at all?

Why dont you learn about the behavior of eagles and chickens, watch a little documentary, then perhaps, you will be able to discuss intelligence in nature with me.