₦airaland Forum

davidylan: when are you going to answer the science questions?

background radiation and expansion of the universe proves a starting point from energy, according to creationists

davidylan: when are you going to answer the science questions?

when you answer yours

sparko1: And you know this how?

einstein wasnt a xtian, he never believed in a personal God, so drop your myths.

davidylan: well perhaps you can start by telling us EXACTLY how the earth was created, how life evolved, how the galaxies were formed from expanding space and why exactly life exists on only one planet. Please provide a FACTUAL DESCRIPTION of the scientific evidence that disproves that God could have created the earth. As usual atheists NEVER answer any questions... they hide, deflect then ask the same tired questions that they have repeated on 200 threads.

IS this the first time answers were provided to you yet wasnt brave enough to drop your dogmas. so shut up about it

davidylan: simple question - how did science disprove the existence of God. It doesnt need a 20-line diatribe on my upbringing to answer it.

simple question. HOW DID SCIENCE PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR GOD THAN IT DOES THE EXISTENCE OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI?

chukkynwob: which is which?

In the context of origin of life,chemical evolution is the same as abiogenesis or simply put 'spontaneous generation'

in the context of the history of both words, they are different and i still prefer they be used differently, what is it you dont understand about that?

I wasnt wrong saying you do not fit anymore than a tv repairer.

davidylan: but you are yet to provide this "logics" and "proofs" to support what you believe sparked our very existence. Why is that so difficult?

read the book, then learn

FXKing2012: God is a Spirit so He's not subject to our physical laws. In this physical world something cannot come from nothing, get that into your thin head.

And if you believe in evolution, how come only apes evolved? Why didnt other animals evolve? Why are we the only intelligent being in the universe? Why is the earth perfectly aligned in space such that just the right amount of energy reaches us from the sun and planet jupiter shields us from most of the meteors from outer space such that planet earth is the only planet capable of supporting any form of life? If you believe in the big ba.ng theory or some form of energy shift in space as the origin of everything, where did the energy come from and what/who triggered the shift in energy because in this physical world something can never come from nothing?

If you've got no answers to these or if you think the whole thing is just one big coincidence then you are so so lost - you are just a lost cause dude.

because god is spirit then he is not subject to scrutiny? you must be joking.

chukkynwob: I might start taking you seriously if you can give me a logical difference between Chemical Evolution and Abiogenesis.

abiogenesis was used to refer to the presence of bacteria that causes decay on meat, it was believed that the bacteria came from the meat in the past. Pasturization proved that wrong. however, the term remained in use because of creationists couldnt make a difference between evolution from inorganic matter from evolution from organic matter during the process of chemical evolution.

seyibrown: 1. why ALL monkeys DID NOT EVOLVE into MEN
2. why the left-over monkeys have not evolved into men or something else in the last thousands of years
3. why those ape-descendants have not evolve into 'Homo wingus' or similar

secondary school level genetics will explain that better

chukkynwob: what is the difference because I did my research(just in case something new came up) and they are still one and the same so what is the difference

abiogenesis was disproved by pasteurization. do your researches

seyibrown: Yes! I answered his question to the best of my ability! Have you got a better answer? Please, do share! Don't be stingy!

if this is your best of ability, then you lack the IQ to understand the smallest about evolution.

davidylan: fallacy of appeal to authority. A common mistake atheists make.

dont be silly, that is right. if you have anything against it, then speak

Enigma: ^^^ Look at your friend's image with the ballooons. One says 'as you blow the balloon, the galaxies move further apart'.

Meanwhile two gigantic elephants in the room:

1. someone is blowing the balloon; the balloon is not blowing itself and the galaxies are not moving further apart on their own

2. look at the size of the person blowing --- compared to the balloon he is blowing.

Those who will get this will get it.

and davidylan also supported this.

You are both dunces no doubt.

Just because you say Jesus is the lion of judah doesnt make him a lion.

that is an analogy by creationists.

You are disproving yourselves.

davidylan: ok here was her question -



Care to provide a logical answer?

care to provide logical answer to why your God exist?

davidylan: did you understand the meaning of the term "empirical" or did it just fly over your head?

Before the galaxies started to "expand", how did they appear in the first place?

DONT JUST ASK QUESTIONS, GIVE LOGICAL REASONABLE ANSWERS.

[size=15pt]READ A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING BY KRAUSS AND THEN WE CAN TALK.[/size]

chukkynwob: Ooman you have the right to not believe in God but saying science disproved God is simply ludicrous!!!!

I have basically followed your arguments and none is scientific in anyway,you even said that the difference between chemical evolution and abiogenesis is philosophical,when I probed further you gave me the F word.

i find this your attitude in negation to any civil discourse, but nevertheless consistent to modus operandi of MOST atheists on NL.

93% of scientists at the national academy of science in america says science disprove god not just me.

Abiogenesis and organic evolution defers by history.

Creationists use them interchangably to mock evolution before it became the conventional term.
read history of science, not just science

davidylan: rather than ask me to read from another of your white masters... is it too hard to ask that you provide us just some brief excerpts of the empirical evidence you claim exists for your own beliefs?

Do you have problem with reading?

Yes I believe my white masters's science because it offers logics and proofs unlike you who believe your illiterate white masters mysticism without logic or proves but inference and conclusion based on faith

davidylan: you seem to be arguing rather pointlessly. the question was... does an anonymous web-handle prove that the TRUE bearer of the name exists? How would you prove that? Just by making an assumption (by faith) that the owner of the web-handle must needs be the person?

and here i was thinking atheists were the last bastion of logic and reason.

DONT BE INSINCERE, THAT WAS NEVER THE QUESTION. Read the original post by seyibrown

davidylan: but that isnt reasonable at all. How can you believe someone exists simply because their name appears on the web? What if that is an impersonation?

Do you not get the point here, I dont care who is there as long as someone is there, then the personality called seyibrown is active. God is ever lacking

davidylan: did you understand the meaning of the term "empirical" or did it just fly over your head?

Before the galaxies started to "expand", how did they appear in the first place?

DONT JUST ASK QUESTIONS, GIVE LOGICAL REASONABLE ANSWERS.

[size=15pt]READ A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING BY KRAUSS AND THEN WE CAN TALK.[/size]

davidylan: ok but how does someone being there equate to Seyibrown being there in person?

why do you love to complicate matters. Someone is there, updating in her NAME. i dont care if it is seyibrown, as long as SOMEONE is there, i believe that there exist a personality called sayibrown, whether an impostor or not is not my problem.

But whether Jesus, Mohammad, the flying spaghetti, no one cares to give an update of their dogmas.

Enigma: ^^^ When a person raises the flying spaghetti monster in argument, it becomes obvious pretty fast that the person is not to be taken seriously.

yea because the concept destroys your concept of God.

Enigma: ^^^ When a person raises the flying spaghetti monster in argument, it becomes obvious pretty fast that the person is not to be taken seriously.

yea because the concept destroys your concept of God.
COWARDS

davidylan: how you even pass this off as sensible beats me. What if someone is simply impersonating her using a false name?

yea, doesn't it also sound to you that at least SOMEONE is there. dunce

religious concept.

[size=15pt]COWARDS[/size]

davidylan: well, going by your own meme... the atheist BELIEVES in something. So what do you believe created the earth?

hey davidylan, the universe is so vast to be summarized in one comment of nairaland thread. Nobody knows so much about the origin of the universe, but the little we know about it is enough to show that an intelligent being is not behind its origin.

just an analogy

seyibrown: I do not believe that God exists, I KNOW that God exists; what evidence can you find to prove to me that what I KNOW is wrong?

Let me try again: 'I DO NOT BELIEVE that seyibrown is my NL username, I KNOW that seyibrown is my NL username; what evidence can you find to prove to me that what I KNOW is wrong?

The evidence that GOD does not exist DOES NOT EXIST and WILL NEVER BE FOUND!

You know, I love your analogy.

But you have self-destruct yourself. Seyibrown always types and gives updates on nairaland, that is prove that even though seyibrown is not visible to me, she exists. God on the contrary expects me to believe in ancient mysticism without updates.

Let me ask you, how can you be certain that your god exist anymore than the flying spaghetti. Prove to me that the flying spaghetti does not exist and did not create everything we see and I will prove to you that your god does not exist.

davidylan: what are the empirical facts on the big b.ang?

I dont believe in the big ba.ng so much. Ok?

Too much from a man whom we dont know what he believes in

chukkynwob: why do you enjoy insulting people? it beats my imagination.

Now I get to ignore the big elephant back

davidylan: Does the big b.ang make more sense to you?

The big b.ang was postulated by a dumb xtian. Never really believe it. But uses it at times when forced to brink, since most creationist cosmologists believe its the perfect answer.

davidylan: obviously it is your atheist brothers who are confused. They were the ones arguing that atheists dont believe in anything.

Lets not dwell in irrelevancies. So what exactly do atheists believe? Is that belief grounded in empirical FACTS or blind faith?

Atheism has always been grounded on empirical facts and religion on faith, do we have to go over that again?