₦airaland Forum

Reyginus: Lololol. Is this what you have to say. Alfamann, you dey see am abi.

what do you want me to say? that is big b.ang is absolute and perfect? ok, it is, let the debate begin.

Reyginus: ooman, are we quarrelling? You know you are my friend. I'm only playing with you.
Time to focus on thread. Let's get serious
First of all, I don't think the big bang theory makes enough scientific sense.
If we are to compare the first law of thermodynamics and the expansion and evolution of our universe from a singularity, energy is created which can never be. Except we are to define the expansion of the singularity as a transformation of energy. That itself will contradict 'singularity', as that will assume a plurarity, defeating the already established.

big bang isn't complete yet and its more like a religious theory. it was postulated by a xtian who thought that god created the universe by a b.ang sort of reaction.

there are many theories of the universe, as I have said, I subscribe to cyclic cosmology after Einstein. so if you have problems with the b.ang, take it up with it proponents.

Reyginus: Lolol. Why will anyone even try to, when the statement is not directed to them. As alexleo puts it: 'only a madman replies a post not directed to him'.
I understand how far you've come.

guy, you just be ignored. you are a mud among gold.

Pastor Olu T: The message of the cross is foolishness to them that perish, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

you ever think that it might be illogical and that it why it is foolishness to the rationally minded.

greatgenius: none of those "atrocities" were done by God.. all those acts were done by people-low level intelligent beings- and attributing it to God.. people did and still do all kinds of "evil" things in the name of God-doesn't mean God actually asked them to..

then you haven't read the op or the bible.

greatgenius: PRAYER ALWAYS WORKS- no one ever prayed and didn't get what they prayed for...what you asked is what you get.

not understanding how something works due to ignorance doesn't make it useless...

faith without work is dead according to the bible, but work without faith is absolute success from experience, so what exactly is the use of prayer if without work its a failure.

prayer is for the weak, those who need a false sense of comfort and security.

manmustwac: Yep! Prayer is closing your eyes putting both hands together and talking to yourself wishing and hoping that a situation can be changed

The hands that help are far better than the lips that pray

Robert G Ingersoll

agreed.

wiegraf: So, are you saying it's completely wrong? That's false
Are you saying it's incomplete? That's nothing new
Are you saying the details need work? Again, nothing new.

And note, until a TOE is found, quite a few physical theories will remain incomplete in one form or the other. Like this one and general relativity, they don't exactly explain everything, nor are they meant to

As for your quibbles,
80 million years is not that much when we're talking 14 billion years. Noteworthy, but not that much
Do you expect them to ignore the obvious effects of dark energy? It's called 'dark' energy precisely because no one knows what it is for sure. All that is known for sure is it exists. Accounting for it might even require a TOE
What's wrong with expansion? Are you implying it's not taking place despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not knowing the exact size of the universe is indeed an issue, among other things, but claiming it's completely wrong because of these issues would be wrong as well. Especially after it's making predictions that have been verified, like cosmic background radiation. This isn't, say, string theory, which hasn't made any testable predictions.

Iirc, you have no problems with multi-verse theories, which have absolutely no physical backup mind you, but you have a problem with this? That's your prerogative of course, ie, having issues with the BB and potentially supporting other theories, but claiming it makes no sense is incorrect.

nice answers so far, best replies to this thread.

Reyginus: Lol. If you don't understand that statement, I wonder what else will come to your understanding.
A second fail. There were no typos in your statement. What you have up there is properly spelt, signifying thd evidence of a uncoordinated thinking. No insult intended. Just being truthful.

shouldn't you be worried that no one has been able to paraphrase the rubbish you posted?

striktlymi: Good evening ooman,



Well ooman, the above are not arguments but sentiments. I would have been happier if you had brought out some super arguments to refute mine and prove that I have been 'nacking my teeth' since the thread began. C'mon ooman feed me with logic...I am hungryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....



You still claim I rejected FACTS!!! ooman please point out where I rejected FACTS and I will do your laundry for a month.



Well ooman, with respect to those verses, I believe I have already explained those earlier in one of my post. I quite agree that to the uninitiated it looks more like God determines one's future when you read some passages in sacred scriptures but to the initiated this is not the case. Refer to my earlier comments on the Pharaoh and Judas ish.



Please post them at your own discretion...there is really nothing to hide



Sentiments man, sentiments!



You do need to explain your approach to this 'mutually exclusive' thingy. My approach basically is that God's omnipotence and man's freewill are mutually exclusive to the extent that God's omniscient has nothing to do with the freewill of man i.e. one does not determine the other.

In other words, God's omniscience does not impair the freewill of man and man's freewill does not render the omniscience of God invalid. There is no point of intersection.

I will be back with my binoculars too for this.

Reyginus: Lol. What do you mean by this? 'what you wrote made is absolutely inexplicable'

even with that typo, its still understandable than what you wrote without typos.

Reyginus: Lol. Are you asking me to dumb down?

what you wrote made is absolutely inexplicable except where you abused me.

alfaman2: I think he called you a quack scientist.

am not moved by that. it doesn't matter what recommendations a fool gives.

what am struggling to understand is his previous sentence before that.

NL member: No. God does these things to test our faith.



The ways of the lord are not the ways of man. We cannot understand him because he is greater than us and reasons in a greater manner than human beings.
Therefore we cannot understand his ways, stop trying to use human reasoning to explain the bible

your god uses death to test our faith? what result does he get after earthquake kills people?

if natural disasters have killed someone you know, you wouldn't have uttered such rubbish.

Reyginus: Lol. You're really serious on this your 'inanimate' campaign. Interestingly, you forget so soon that were you come from animation is achieved in the absence of an existing entity. The quack scientist!

some1 who understand what this thing wrote should help.

Reyginus: Cyclic gini? *The the next thing now he will demand googling* looses the zeal to argue.

with whom would I argue? with someone who doesnt know what inanimate means? pls

where is the video?

Reyginus: Scientheism! Ooman is typical.

what?

NL member: You want proof?
Ok, look around you. See how perfect the world is? The sun and moon are in perfect orbit, if there was even 1cm difference between them then life on earth will be impossible.
That shows that God created the world.

is that why earth quakes, hurricanes, floods etc destroys life?. you know what nature proves? that the devil made the world not god.

^^the guy na real monster. I wonder how people never notice the evils of this good god.

striktlymi: The above is a typical example of sacrificing so many words at the expense of meaning.



The above is spot on!



The above depends on your use of the word must. If by 'must' you mean that an individual's past at some point becomes his future which the omniscient being knew before it occurred then I will agree with you but if on the contrary you mean that our futures have been predetermined, then my good man, you are very wrong!



There is no evasion of the truth here...freewill and omniscient do not conflict in any way. I have looked at it from your view point and seen why it seem to contradict but this really is not the appropriate way to see it.

The argument you guys put forth is that for a being to be omniscient, it has to demonstrate an ability to see a future that from his present time till when the future becomes a past, there should be no way of changing that future by any one, suggesting that the future is fixed at any time (t). Hence a deviation from such a future would ultimately render the omniscience of this being invalid.

In order words, your argument is that omniscience suggests a predetermined future which in effect implies that man's freewill is null and void. This way of looking at omniscient and freewill makes a whole lot of sense but it is incorrect.

For the postulation above to be valid, one would need to demonstrate that omniscience necessarily means that the actions of another is guided by some force to a predetermined end i.e. we need to prove that omniscience means or implies a denial of one's right to make a choice.

As I have enumerated previously, omniscience has nothing to do with making or impeding on the ability of an individual to make his own decisions. It is only saying that the decisions people make is already known before it is made...even changing one's mind is a decision that has already been known by the omniscient one and not that our decisions have been made for us already.



It is lame to say one denies 'obvious facts' without proving it.



Sorry guy, but it seems I understand your position more than you think.



If you say God does not force anyone to choose, then there goes the 'spinal chord' of your entire argument.



Now ooman, work with me here...does the above make much sense? We must make the decision God has designed for us for his omniscient to remain valid, we only have an illusion of freewill and yet you say that God does not force us to choose?

Man is free to make his own choices and the omniscient one is free to know what man's future choices will be. There is no contradiction here...I gave you the example of the 9/11 bombings but it seems you did not ponder on this...

If I saw the future and know for a fact that the bombings will occur, does it mean that I predetermined that event? Or that I influenced the decisions of those bombers? The answers are in the negative...the bombers decided to carry out their dastardly act of their own freewill and I happen to know what they will do not that I made them do it.



Actually, it depends on your context of the use of 'failure'.



You still miss the point. Man is not made to choose what God sees...God knows the choices man will freely make. These are two different things and I wonder why it's so difficult for you to notice the difference. Seeing the future is different from making someone do what I see.

The future is known but the event leading to this knowledge is done freely by the person involved.



Why not embarrass me by showing (proving) how my explanation 'defiles the bedroom' of logic?



I am suggesting your lack of knowledge of Sacred scriptures.



That is meant to show you the difference between God's plans and the freedom we have to choose something else apart from the plan God has for us but it does not mean that he is unaware of the change.



I should be used to this by now...accusations without basis.



...and it is logical to say the above without proof?




I am beginning to think that you apply some theories without knowing what they mean. Are we going to argue about mutual exclusion?



The above has been thrashed a number of times.



Do you even know what freewill is? You are becoming suspicious o For the avoidance of doubt, freewill can mean Voluntary choice or decision which has not been predetermined by anyone. Unless you can show that seeing someone's future is the same as stopping the person from making a decision freely then your arguments translates to nothing.



Thrashed!!!



Need I explain what I agreed to? I think not! It will be a waste of time!




Thrashed!!!




May be this would help your understanding of mutually exclusive: Independence!



Did you even read the above? I know your future actions means you no longer have freewill? What logic!!!



You still fail to show that when someone's future is known, his ability to decide is taken away from him. Question: If God does not force man to decide and man does not decide, who then makes the decision?



I laugh!!!



Thrashed!!!



Thrashed!!!



I don vex!!! See as you make me miss Ba's goal!!!

Striky, i am quite disappointed I must tell you. When did you become like this?

No matter how you decide to approach this, for you to be right then you must agree that the omniscience of god is not absolute and that god is not perfect. As long as you continue to claim god is perfect and absolute, then things must happen according to how he saw them.

You did not just reject a simple fact here, you also contradicted many bible verses that says thar God determines future, which literally means predestination and that his plans must come to pass because he is god.

I will post this bible verses only on your request so you dont accuse me of being a theologian as Ihedinobi did.

Dont forget Rev that says you should remove anything from the bible and that if you did, hell is your home and remember Jobs friends that accused him of being a sinmer even though they knew he was righteous all so they could prove god to be just. This is exactly what you are doing.

So on further request, i will show you how you continue to call the bible a liar by claiming that freewill and omniscience are NOT mutually exclusive

Ihedinobi: My friend, the number of times you claim to be scientific is not gonna make you scientific. It's just gonna make you sound something like an iddiot who's trying to avoid difficult questions by pretending to be smart.

So, these primary constructs are evidence that proteins were not designed to fold peculiarly, are they?

Do you realize that the existence of such primary constructs can still be due to a designer who intendes proteins to fold in one way alone and not others? Their existence does not nullify the argument for the existence of an intelligent designer, in fact, it helps.



Keep sayin' it, man. If you shout it maybe a few million more times, you can manage to make it true. My friend, the question was how does mutation prove such a thing? I don't need to hear that it does again.

And, no, the bolded means nothing of the sort, but pseudoscience-drunk who see in just the one color would understand it like that. Well, I'll spell it out for you.

I am convinced that you use highfalutin speech to try and obscure your inability to address arguments that you do not quite grasp. So I would rather you answered without hiding behind obscure scientific jargon. Think you can try that? In fact, I dare you to do that.



Honestly, the above made no sense to me at all. I don't see the relationship between what you said here and the question I asked at all.



Did you mean that a species' genome has to be built from scratch in a lab first before you consider creation and intelligent design proven?



Intelligence! It's grand that you can spell the word at all

your response betray your level of understanding of what you continue to argue. to begin with, what is the primary structure of proteins and how many structures do we have? feel free to google, your responses will betray you later.
proper understanding of protein folding will tell you that it occurs spontaneously without ID'ner's interference. Its misfolding also proves absence of an IDner at each folding.

because mutations that hurts life forms and children occur, an intelligent designer couldn't be present and still allow for T21 and other genetic diseases except this IDner is really evil. You know, if the devil is your god, there is a great evidence for him but there is no single evidence for a good god.

why would i mean in the lab? why take the easy way out? Provide me with a single species in nature, among the recently documented ones for verification, whose genome is known to be built from scratch, then creation will become science.

hope your low intellect can grasp these now.

musKeeto: That religion inhibits curiosity.

If Chrisitanity isn't a religion, he would have ignored that.

yes I said that and he defended it.

^^^are you kidding, we are not ridiculing god, we are exposing your evil god according to his holy book

musKeeto: It's funny though. You claim Christianity is not a religion, yet feel a need to defend ooman's statement here..

what exactly is my statement??

Ymodulus: Can we get any prove of the earth expanding?? as in size?. Mathematical proofs if possible

the earth is NEVER expanding, only the universe. Where did you get the idea of an expanding earth.

Ymodulus: i quickly read more on Einstein Relativity theory. and i think there is one point that should be read and understood carefully.
This statement
"The universe is expanding, and the far parts of it are moving away from us faster than the speed of light."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity


Now compare that statement to the Big bang theory. You might ask if the earth dis-tengrates or tear apart at the speed of light, wouldnt have the earth been broken down by now? you see this is one thing i really don't like with the relativity theory. though i appreciate the fact that it expatiates much on the use calculation for natural science

Einstein's equation is divided into two parts Special Relativity and General Relativity. When talking about Einstein's equation, you must specify which you refer to.

For your question, we dont know the extent of space yet. But believe me, we know that the sun is got 10 billions years more to live before it explodes as in supernova through measureing its amount of H2. That is what cosmologists think will destroy the earth.

The earth is so small to be affected by the expansion of the universe now. Give it time, everything will be affected and death will come to all life.

Discussing this matter is really scary. Lets discuss how to make life sweet for us now that we can live.

pic of universe expansion

^^^the guy is quite funny

euromilion: Chicken and egg which one came first?

the egg. that is a very old question that has been devoured by evolutionary science.

Ymodulus: well reading on the issue of cyclic cosmology. i see it as another indefinite and inconclusive explanation of the origin of the earth.
you see this things in general make me at times want to term myself a agnostic when it comes to the origin of the earth.

except cyclic cosmology does not explain the origin of the earth but that of the cosmos.

Nothing about the origin of the cosmos is fully understood, we must space travel to fully understand anything about our universe

^^^NO REASONABLE PERSON WILL TAKE THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY