₦airaland Forum

For the simple reason that I don't find your roundabout argument challenging enough in consonance with your blurring the lines. I could easily eulogise myself that my questions are often not answered by rationalists - but that is simply being euphoric on cheap glory.

The basic question here is this: if you hold arguments built around the TOE which have not been able to answer a basic question about its violation of the law of thermodynamics, would that not be brainwashing? Has TOE proven that there is no God, as polarized Darwinists often conclude?? At the end of the day, when it is pointed out to them that the TOE is just a theory that does not "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God, the same darwinists become reactive and retreat with the so-called "strawman argument". This brainwashing has gone on for much too long, and that is why darwinian theorists are feeling as if anyone is putting them on spot for their own postulations.

@shawn123,

shawn123:
@ pligrim
well thanks, and for the records am not making points, just asking about stuffs i do not know. i would be completely honest with you. John and Mathew were with Jesus right, and Luke wasnt right. so we are on theseame level now. what about Paul? i think it would be easy if you gave me names of all the gospel writers and separate those that were alive during the time of Jesus, and those that came after Jesus was crusifed and gloried,

I'll gladly do so some time later. Perhaps it would have been helpful to let us know where you're going. All the same, thanks and enjoy.

@huxley,

huxley:
Ok, let me make it even simpler for you guys. Suppose you take you kids to the museum and saw a display of Tiktaalic. And they were to ask you;

1) Where were dinosaurs when tiktaalik walked the earth?

2) Where were humans when dinosaurs walked the earth?

What you you tell them?

Predicatably, you're saying nothing new and taking us back to the same round about argument. This is why I said:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=170878.msg2808801#msg2808801 date=1221564604]Well, if there is anything new. . we'll try and reason with them, brainwashing or not.[/quote]

huxley:
Forget about the issue about theory and facts. Just answer the questions as directly and honestly as possible.

I choose to be quiet about the distinction between theory and fact when you can stop blurring the lines for people who don't know the difference.

olabowale:
I asked for Mark 12 verse 29! At lease write it out. Then write Mark 12 Verse 37.

You have always quoted it and never written it out. Can you do so, please and see how you tried to force-fit your own ideas where they do not exist?

olabowale:
You can then use it to nullify 29!

The Quran can nullify, abrogate and cancel itself. The Bible doesn't do so.

olabowale:
I want to read your renedring irrelevant the "words" of God!

I have never done so and will not start to do so just because of you.

olabowale:
t least part of it by another part! Thats what you call the bible, word of god, aint it?

It is. Are you done being restless yet?

Dear simmy, you and others have stated it simply much, much earlier. I only tried to break it down into more disgestible forms for easy understanding. Well, if there is anything new. . we'll try and reason with them, brainwashing or not.

Shalom.

My dear, you can pick up a copy of the Bible and find the answers. Your questions have been answered so many times that I don't find it challenging to keep recycling the same thing over and over again. (see the threads that A_K_O highlighted).

Anyhow, let me run through a few of yours:

shawn123:
John was with Jesus right? if i get your point. how about mathew, luke, etc.

They were all with Jesus as well, except Luke.

shawn123:
but then what does glorified mean,

John 7:39 - "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified"

*glorified: pointing to His ascension and the glory that attended Him therefrom.

shawn123:
and how long after Jesus was crusified was he glorifed?

Acts 1:3 -- "To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God"

olabowale:
@pilgrim.1 (f): « #11 on: Yesterday at 05:22:47 PM »
Oo ni nkon she tele ni! Ojo ro lo nlo! I wonder what I said that got you bent out of shape this much? You dislike hearing the truth. Its obvious.

I hear, sir. Amin. It's true I dislike hearing the version of Islamic 'truth' that is best known for denying everything. Thank you and enjoy.

shawn123,

I didn't get your questions wrong, although I might've used words that scared you! Relax, bros.

shawn123:
what i mean is. there are dissiples that were with Jesus in his time and some came after Jesus was crusified right?

That is the same thing I pointed out to you in asking: "did you read anywhere that John came after Jesus had been glorified". . . that is, did John come after Jesus was crucified (or after the Resurrection, or after He was glorified)?

shawn123:
for example we have mark, John,luke etc
what i need is a column like this
dissiples that lived with Jesus and dissiples that wrote gospels after Jesus (after jesus was crucified)
, ,
, ,
, ,

all am asking is just names of these people thats all, am not battling or arguing anything ?

John was with Jesus Christ in his day - read Mark 3:17. The Gospels were written after Jesus was glorified, just as the Quran were written and compiled into one codex after Muhammad had passed away. So, what is your point, really?

Good, just wanted you to cut to the chase.

Now. .

huxley:
You guys are saying the teaching of TTE is brainwashing, so I am asking you questions about the facts of evolution to see whether you are justified in making that claim. To justifiably make such claim, it would be expected that you know what evolution is.

Perhaps we have to keep reminding you until it sinks in. There are arguments that have been built around the Darwinian theory of evolution - the theory does not translate into a fact, it remains just a theory - and it has both been modified sveral times as it faced criticisms and neither have its proponents found an answer for the basic question as to how the theory violates another known scientific law. Why are Darwinists evading that question? Me thinks for the simple reason that they have translated Darwin's theory into arguments that it does not state.

Another point: nobody has been arguing against "change in living organism". Rather, those who are too polarized that they cannot see the real issues are to beset to consider the simple fact that evolution theory remains a theory attempting to explain evolution. A fact does not seek to explain a itself - that is why people make up theories to seek to explain those commonly held facts.

Third point: many Darwinian theorists are much too polarized to make sane statements. This is why people assume that after over 150 years, the TOE is a fact. That is simply wrong and is actually braisnwashing - it remains a theory as distinct from evolution in its basic understanding. Second, it is not true to assume that the TOE has not violated a single principle - it has, and I gave an example.

Now, at this point, one may ask a simple question: if you are not one of those mixing up issues, why did you start this thread when you know so far you have been blurring the lines and mixing up issues? Who is actually doing the "brainwashing" if you keep mixing up the terms being examined here? What was your rational in trumping up this idea of "brainwashing" and pitting your theorists against Christianity?

huxley:
For instance, can you make a claim that the teaching of gravity is brainwashing without an understanding of what the theory of gravity is? Was that not obvious?

Who here has argued so gullibly, huxley? You haven't demonstrated a good grasp of evolution yourself, and that is what moved others to point that very fact out to you. So many people often try to force the idea of a theory into a fact, and that is hardly doing science. The TOE is a theory; it violates the established law of thermodynamics - the Darwinian godfathers do not like to be queried about that, but they have their own agenda to keep up this brainwashing of blurring the lines.

If Christians are beginning to speak out and challenge this very attitude of polarized darwinists, it all the more should make us understand that Darwinists themselves cannot point accusing fingers at others for the same things that they are guilty of.

Now, dear huxley, who is doing the brainwashing again?

Who were those that came up after Jesus and how does that affect John? I don't find the interest to be drawn into long-winding arguments. Just like to keep focused on one thing before moving to the next.

Now, did you read anywhere that John came after Jesus had been glorified?

@shawn123,

I'm not sounding like you're attacking or anything like that. The questions you asked may perhaps be expressed by this verse:

John 21:24 - "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true."

Have you carefully studied the Bible to find why John was not one who knew Jesus Christ in his day?

huxley:
1) Where were dinosaurs when tiktaalik walked the earth?

2) Where were humans when dinosaurs walked the earth?

In connection with the brainwashing. . . your point is?

@manmustwac,

manmustwac:
Pilgrim.1 Well if thats how you see it then according to my theory mankind evolved from the ape who evolved from the monkey, which evolved from the fish.

Oh my goodness!  Okay, I hear. Oya, huxley, over to you O! Let's combine and challenge the 150 years old TOE! Boy, we're on to something revolutionary here!

manmustwac:
Just like you, you evolved from a sperm, then a foetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a child, then a teenager then a woman, then an adult this takes place over a duration of about 25 years.

25 years is slow. My evolution to that point took no more than 20 years! Haa!!

hehe . . okay, I feel you, bro.

manmustwac:
Its the same thing with evolution just that it took about 25 to maybe 250 million years

>sigh< Enjoy.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:
Correction: me and then all the muslims on nairaland are strangers to simple facts presented by you!

Thank you for the "correction" - it still doesn't falsify the fact.

olabowale:
Now who is not telling the truth. Please present you "lord," in arabic language. I want to read it! You can't. I know! Its only in English. As usual, just like the Bible. In every language, except the original of revelation!

I see why the translation of the Quran into any other language is a meaningless enterprise.

olabowale:
And i went to our like, I did not see anything; not in arabic.

Good. Ask your mullah and let me know if they deny this as well. Then I will post you issue which will likely make you demonize them again.

olabowale:
Please provide your proof in Arabic. Every muslim calls Jesus master, in the same manner that Muhammad is called master!

Okay, this is getting interesting. "Every" muslim calls Jesus master? True? Can you show me some documents thereto, please? I have something interesting here to point out when you do. No arguments or evasion, just please post me some references and that will do.

olabowale:
Neither is lord, god or son of anything, except their parents! You took the wrong islam and its clear that you this not practice moderation. No wonder you left islam.

I left Islam when I discovered we were being lied to. I constantly asked myself why I hated Christians and Jews while still a muslimah. I had no reason to hate them. I found the answer in Christ to love them, and that was why I left and not returning. Is that a nightmare for you, sir?

@shawn123,

shawn123:
@pligrim
Muhammad never said he was God, mind you am not critisizing just correcting.

I'm grateful for the "correction". But then, did I state that Muhammad claimed to be God? I only asked if Muhammad could have made any of those statements in those verses for himself in the way that Jesus Christ did.

shawn123:
Do you mind if i ask who this John is?

I wonder that you have no clue. Muslims have often tried to quote from John 14 and 16 to "prove" Muhammad. They saw it didn't work, and that is why they started denying and repudiating the Gospels. Your brother quoted Mark 12 earlier without asking who is mark. Muslim scholars have quoted John, Matthew, even Luke, Isaiah (even though he does not appear in Islamic theology), as well as Moses, Jeremiah, Malachi. . . all to prove something for Muhammad. When it didn't work, they turned against the same Bible they quoted. What's the name of the game being played here, if I may ask?

olabowale:
I say the above to illustrate that Pilgrim.1, is playing fast and loose with information, which she is providing in English. If she ever have the strenth to provide it in Arabic, which I read, and many Muslims on Nairaland even read better than me, we will find out it is not lord "Rabb," but master "Sayidina," that was used! But she wants us to believe otherwise so that she can better foster he webmasters, masterful deceit!

I am not the one playing fast and loose ith words. I never modified anything I quoted and also referred you to the link. You can blame the Muslims who posted the word "Lord" for Muhammad on those documents, and there are so many Muslims in the UK who speak English and also refer to Muhammad as Lord. Please be fair enough to yourself and go to those links and see that I did not translate anything, but simply quoted them as they were used by Muslims themselves.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:
Reindeer: Pilgrim.1 is using "seyidina," which means master (used for all prophets, companions of all messengers and people who possess good or significant knowledge), as lord. This is wrong and deceitful.

I'm not the one calling Muhammad "Lord" or "master" - so the deceit isn't mine. I no longer confess Muhammad as "master" even though I admit that I was doing so while still a muslimah.

If you can calmly listen to a testimony that got me thinking, here it is: My heart began to be stirred the day I heard a Christian friend singing about "Jesus my wonderful Master". Immediately, in my usual muslim restlessness, I verbally attacked him and asked him to show me where Jesus is ever called "master"! He simply continued singing gently, and when he was done, he turned round and gave me a Gideon's New Testament . . . which I threw on the dusty ground and stamped on it! Smiling, he thanked God for the opportunity to sow a "seed" (which I did not understand); but then opened to the text:

[list][li]John 13:13  -  "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am."[/li][/list]

Without saying anything further, he started singing again and walked away.

From that very day, I started asking myself a lot of questions:

    - why have we muslims been lying against Christians?
    - why have we been saying the same thing about Muhammad and yet get angry against Christians?
    - why have we as muslims always denied clear statements which are evident in Muslim documents?
    - why are we as muslims too embarrased to admit the simple truth instead of hating Jews and Christians?

So many other questions loomed in my heart until I discovered my dad who used to pray while we were asleeep. . . he had not told anyone of us that he had left islam, and that day I hated him when I heard him saying: ". . .thank you, Lord Jesus Christ, even though I don't know how to preach, I trust You to save my family."

That morning, I had a plan brewing in my heart - I was going to tell on him! I knew he would be killed if they knew he had left Islam (because of where we were living at the time). But something happened which I have not shared publicly, and will reserve even now. All I can say is that it was a miracle of a change of heart. If my religion (Islam) was the "best" as I used to think, why was I hating my own dad for being a Christian? Besides, I used to think that the sudden good changes were because he had become more devoted to allah. . . until the shocker that it was rather Christ that changed him.

Anyhow, after some great while, I prayed in my room privately and asked Jesus Christ to change my life. Nothing happened. I was still a hate-monger, filled with pride and (wonder of all wonder. . ) I was ashamed to discover to myself that I was even more violent. I know many readers would be shocked, but wait. I had prayed, but nothing happened. . . because I refused to call Jesus "Lord".

Soon after that, I prayed for someone's healing and asked Lord Jesus to heal him (I had fallen in love). He instantly, before my very eyes, got up and was well. What I intended as a joke became real!

I ran home, fell on my knees and sobbed, asking that Jesus became my Lord. That instant, my hatred dropped. . . and I ran to my dad and forgave him! I suddenly started loving people. . . most of all, I started loving Christians and Jews. So many miracles happened in my life that confirmed that the Bible is true. At the moment I stopped arguing and asked Jesus into my heart as my Lord, that very day I knew what it meant for someone to be born again.

This is a wee bit of my testimony, and that is why I know that talk is cheap. Until one experiences for themselves that the Bible's promise of deliverance and love is true, all arguments will remain as arguments.

Olabowale,

olabowale:
@Davidylan: Don't make me laugh about your Child of God title. The last I check, God is not from Omo Obanta. Thats the name they call Ijebu Ode people. Your father is from Ijebu Ode. Aint he? Evidently he is not God, otherwise mom would have told you that look, david, your Dad, the ijebu Ode man is God and I your mother is the wife of god! Did you ever heard that from mom? If not, your calling yourself child of God, is a fantstic tale of utterly nonsense.

Thank you, I am satisfied that accepting the grace of God in Jesus Christ makes me a child of God. Do you have a heart-attack over that?

olabowale:
And I waited, and waited throughout the weekend, for nothing from you. God son who lies. LOL, Wayo man!

You didn't wait, because I made clear that I would not be feeding your brigand attitude at demonizing your fellow muslim brethren just because theyr are guilty of what you denied.

olabowale:
reindeer:« #88 on: Today at 01:25:12 AM »
The only reason that I called her to the difference between her age and mine, is very simple; she had alluded earlier in one of the threads that she has been there (in Islam) and I am yet to get to "there!" Whatever there means. Thats why I had to remind her that I have muslim all my life, and she is even less 50% of what I have spent yet.

For all your old age, you're the only stranger to simple facts presented earlier about Muslims calling Muhammad "Lord"? What has your old age got to do with that?

olabowale:
And her proof of muslims calling Muhammad lord, may be arabic sayidina, which means master. master is not lord, but Rabb is. Thats why you hear people say Rabbina or Rabbana to Allah alone, and seyidina to all persons in higher religious value. But Sayidina is used for Allah, alone in Salah. And no one else. So if I am praying, for example in prostration if I mention Muhammad name , it will simply Muhammad and not seyidina. But when I say Seyidina, it will be Allah, alone.

I am aware of sayyadina (variously spelt seyidina) as distinct from rabb. I'm not the one referring to Muhammad as "Lord" - muslims are the ones who have been calling him precisely that very thing, and that's why I referred you to websites posted by muslims. The one thing you should have done is go to those websites and show me that it was not "Lord" they used but rather "master". However, when you go to those websites, what is the word they used? What word did Marmaduke Pickthall use for Muhammad in his sermon of 1919? Did the Muslims who read it not know the difference between master and Lord before posting in on the web?

olabowale:
I am not "iffy," in my rwesponse to her. I am calling her on issue, and she has proven nothing but just empty accusations.

Sorry, I never accused you. I asked a question: why are you so restless against Christians for calling Jesus Christ "Lord" if Muslims have been doing that same thing for Muhammad? It was a question that would have solicited a simple answer.

But what did you do other than first deny it, then when facts were presented, you sought out your lawyer friend to double-deny it; and then further evidence being presented, you turned round to demonize your fellow muslim brethren. What's my worry in that? All I know is that if pilgrim.1 is making you manifest such demonizing behaviour, I made up my mind to go it slow with you so that you don't end up doing worse than you have demonstrated already.

olabowale:
When i make a statement about Christianity, everyone is already aware that it is in the Bible already.

Thank you. It is in the Bible already that Jesus Christ is Lord and the son of God - the very thing Muslims from the time of Muhammad have always denied.

olabowale:
Let me know where a document that I consider a lie is from Islamic sources; Seyidina Muhammad can not mean lord Muhammad!

The hypocrisy is with those Muslims who actually use the word "Lord".

@mazaje,

mazaje:
pilgrim. . . what are you saying?. . . . you are just speaking english. . . . .

How body boo? If I no speak 'yingrish English, how u for decode me?

@Olabowale,

olabowale:
@A_K_O: « #135 on: September 12, 2008, 10:43 PM »
In your mind, you might have thrashed it. But the people who continued to ask you the questions believe you have not done any good work, to satisfy their question?

The so-called questioners have constantly demonstrated their hypocrisy to satisfy their denials. Has that changed?

olabowale:
Please tell me and the questioners, here and now; Is Jesus God?

Yes.

olabowale:
Please give evidential supports. From Jesus himself.

John 10:30 - "I and my Father are one."

John 5:23 - "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."

John 8:58 - "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Could Muhammad have ever imagined to say the same things for himself?

olabowale:
And please make sure that you can disect and render all evidential verses to say he is not God, useless. Try Mark 12 Verse 29, for size!

Have you seen Mark 12:37?

olabowale:
I want you to work hard at your presentation.

It's a simple issue - Christians are not ignorant people who recycle empty words as you do; and your Quran clearly applauds the intelligence of Christians.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:
Yes, there are. I will just quote Mark 12 verse 29. In this verse Jesus clearly without any ambiguity that he and his audinece/listeners have the same Lord, God is One (Single) Lord! This clearly tells us that Jesus declared to people; Look am not Lord or god. Infact you and I have the same entity, our Lord and God who is One God and not more than just single One!

Sorry, sir - you did not quote Mark 12:29 - you dribbled round the quote and force-fit your own agenda into that verse. That verse never stated that Jesus said: "I am not God". In verse 37 of that same Mark 12, Jesus pointed out that even David referred to the Messiah (Christ) as "Lord" - you never refer to that verse and have always pretended ass if you believe in Mark 12 at all.

olabowale:
In America we call a person who believed, support or a proponent of an idea, and later changed to be disbeliever, a none supprter or an opposition of that idea, a Flipflpper. In this case you are what the yorubas, in my days called Ropopo! It means that you are just a person who goes with the popular idea. Thats why you now disbelieve in Muhammad. But once, you used to believe in him. But of course, you probably believe that seyidina (master), means rabb (lord)!

I left Islam and am not returning. Is that a problem to you, personally?

@shawn123,

shawn123:
@ Pilgrim
nice response, don't you think we would just have a peacefull and a more happier world if we just answered questions the way you did and moved on .

I agree - and I'm gradually learning to do so.

shawn123:
Funny i like the transaction. You don't believe in what i do and i don't believe in what u do. so its a free world. Nice doing buisness with you. Other Nairalanders please learn from this transaction!!!! lol, lol

Many blessings.

Hi simmy,

How body? I understand where you're coming from and have always admired your simplicity of terms. Could you permit me to build upon your previous reply:

simmy:
I think TOE is crap! and i ll teach creation to my 5year old. Who s right? Whos wrong? Whos brainwashin? who's teaching?

Lol, I know you were winding huxley up. . . because you later gave a clear understanding of what evolution basically is: "Evolution simply means change." However, what our dear friends do not understand is that the arguments that have been built around the basic idea of evolution has confused the issue all the more, because they have been trying to hard to dribble Darwinian theory of evolution as a fact instead of as a theory. The implications for them, therefore, is to use the argument to overshadow the theory itself and hence launch into this unhealthy idea of "brainwashing".

simmy:
Your TOE is a bunch of interesting balderdash. And there are a lot of questiions TOE does not answer but the scientific community in its zealousness to be seen as anti-religious ignores these problems and forces TOE on us as scientific fact. If that isnt brainwashing, what is?

I wonder.

@huxley,

huxley:
Evolution (change of lifeform) is a fact. Period. The Theory of Evolution (TTE) is the explanation of the fact.

The reply just before yours is an attested example of what I have often tried to call your (and the general reader's) attention to - the fact that many people confuse a "theory" for a "fact". The confusion is even made worse when people who speak of a theory are quite often interpreting it as a fact - and that is why the general public often misconstrue a theory for a fact. To this end, one cannot be speaking of a theory as an excuse for castigating the Christian worldview, as is the underlying current of this thread.

huxley:
Other example which might be useful in understanding the distinction are;

[table][tr][td]Facts[/td][td]Theory that Explains the Facts[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Some Germs cause disease[/td][td]Germ Theory of Diseases[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects attract each other[/td][td]The theory of Gravity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]The Universe is expanding[/td][td]The Big Bang Theory[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Substances are made of atoms[/td][td]Atomic Theory[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lifeforms change of time[/td][td]The Theory of Evolution[/td][/tr][/table]

Is eventually is is found that TTE does not adequately explain the facts, then it will be overturned or modified, and replaced by a better theory. That is how science works. After more that 150 years of testing and verification, not a single violation of TTE has been found. Of course, that does not mean that all the mechanism that drive evolution are known or understood.

Most major theories have been amended and constantly face new challenges. The assertion that the TTE has not faced a single violation in its explanatory terms for over 150 years is an assumption, not a fact. The fact is that proponents of the Darwinian theory of evolution have not come up with a verifiable model for explaining the violation of a basic scientific law - the law of theormodynamics - even after over 150 years of being questioned thereto. You cannot be postulating this ideology of using a theory to slake over the idea of a fact.

Another example in the ones you outlined earlier: Germ Theory of Disease. The name most often associated with is Robert Koch, because he was the first scientist to devise a series of proofs used to verify the germ theory of disease (Wikipedia). However, Koch was criticised for the clinical inaccuracy of his third postulate - which he later recanted, even though he had used that postulate to previously establish his theory! This is only one example that should humble us enough to understand the difference between a theory and a fact. A theory is always susceptible to amendments and modifications and does not translate into a fact.

huxley:
Humans split from their common ancestors with apes about 4 million years ago. Since the split, the human line has seen many humanoid lifeforms from homo erectus, homo habilis, homo afluensis, . . . to Homo Sapiens. So if humans have gone through this line of evolution in the past, it is very likely that Homo Sapiens are currently and slowly undergoing evolution today.

Let's remember that guess work is not a scientific method; so my simple question is this: Who has observed and clinically established this slow human "evolution today"?

shawn123:
FOR me i would believe you if you gave me something in Jesus's own word saying i am God thats all,

Is there anything in Jesus' own word saying: "I am not God"?

shawn123:
So don't blame me if i don't believe in Johns words.

Don't blame me for not believing in Muhammad's words.

Lol. . . @shawn123, I'm not quite sure if Darwin said such a thing.



@justcool,

justcool:
I completely agree with all that you stated in the above post. My personal experience has taught me that most of the enthusiasts who try to use science to disprove the existence of God only have pseudo knowledge. No scientist who is knowledgeable will ever tell you that science has disproved the existence of God; neither will any knowledgeable believer tell you that the bible has disproved scientific theories. It is only enthusiasts and people with pseudo knowledge who go about trying to use science(which they don't understand) to disprove the existence of God. It is like comparing apples and oranges. One(creationsism) deals the purpose, while the other(science) deals with the mechanism. One deals with the spiritual, the other deals with the physical.

First thing one learns in science is that science deals with matter, i.e. physical matter. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything that lies beyond matter, i.e the spiritritual and etc. It is simply beyond the realm of science. If one chooses not to believe in God, he should be honest enough to admit that this is his personal choice, and not a choice backed with a scientific evidence. Atheism is not science, neither is the belief in God(theism). Both are beyond the realm of science.

The theory of evolution does not deal with God or the spiritual. It simply deals with how the species evolved over time. The theory cannot tell you that there is no God, neither can it tell you that there is a God. The question remains:

1) why did we evolve?
2) did we evolve by chance or was our evolution guided?
3) who started the process, i.e who set in place the laws of nature which guided evolution?
4) does evolution contradict the idea of intelligent design?
5) could we have been created through evolution?

However one chooses to answer the above questions is his/her personal answer. Because science cannot provide such answers. The fact remains that, if rightly understood, evolution does not contradict creationism.  Atheists should stop trying to use science to prove their point.

Infact, you have stated it in a better way than I attempted. Thank you.

@manmustwac,

manmustwac:
There is evidence to prove that evolution is a fact

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. We have tried to clarify these issues earlier between a "theory" and a "fact". The theory seeks to explain what is held as fact, and they are not to be confused as being the same. This is clearly one of those reasons why I have constantly called huxley's attention to this problem where many people confuse these issues and make the evolution theory to read what it is not stating.

manmustwac:
eg human have been in existance millions of years before God sent Jesus to save our souls

Nobody said that Jesus Christ was the first man, so this argument is a mute point.

manmustwac:
The human race stopped evolving millions of years ago ok.

How many millions of years ago? This is the sort of arguments that are bland and bear no substance in reality.

People may make claims about human evolution - and that has become the norm even among some scientists. Sadly, nobody among such theorists is seeking to answer the basis questions as to when man started evolving and when he stopped; from what did he actually evolve precisely; what mechanism was involved in this human evolution; as well as why the idea is floated today that humans have stopped evolving - what is responsible for this sudden end of human evolution.

Of course, not all evolutionary biologists hold this claim about human evolution; but suggesting that humans have stopped evolving is a bland statement that experiences difficulties answering the basic questions following thereto.

@reindeer,

reindeer:
Alhaji olabolwale
please watch your responses to this sister here
you've been trumping the age card so many times but we all know that hasnt got anything to do with the substance of the discourse.
Please lets have your usual researched stuffs, you seem to be getting really 'iffy' on this thread as if she's throwing you off balance.
Answer her ok?
there are lots of us keenly learning from this thread and we hope to see where this goes ok?

I hope he listens.

reindeer:
ms pilgrim
quite interesting reading your posts.I didnt abandon the other thread, be sure i have more questions for you to answer, i always keep an open mind, my questions are borne of my deepest desires to find peace.

have a great week all.

I'll be looking forward to your questions and have enjoyed our discussions. Do have a splendid week.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
How ironic, they didnt choose to be children of i'shmael did they? if god knew that after creating ishmael he will have to desert and condemn his children then why did he create him in the first place?

Try not to get over-reactive. God did not condemn the children of Ishmael. The text referred to in Rom. 9:7 already stated that it was "in Isaac" that the seed would be called - which has already been stated in Genesis 21:12 (- "for in Isaac shall thy seed be called". The calling there relates to God's covenant with that lineage through whom salvation would come to every nation through Jesus Christ.

As to the issue of conscience and freewill, the same epistle of Romans has already addressed it and stated clearly that we are all responsible and accountable for our choices (see Romans 2:15 on the effect of our consciences). To this end, many people who have not taken the time to carefully study the texts become very reactive and ask the question as to the fate of those who lived before Jesus Christ was born. It's a good question, and one that is also addressed in Romans 2:5-16. In that passage, verses 7 and 8 simplifies the divide - there are those who (a) patiently continue to seek good and will be rewarded accordingly; and those who are (b) are contentious and do not obey the truth - a choice to be rebellious.

The issue as to being called is open to all: people who respond to that call by receiving the grace of salvation in Jesus Christ are known as God's children; whereas those who make a choice to reject that offer of grace have chosen to disqualify themselves from becoming God's children. It is clear that God did not make anyone expressly for what is being alleged as in your inference. Rather, as is clearly demonstrated in humanity even today, there are people who deliberately make a choice to be rebellious against God, as much as there are those who are humble enough to receive His offer of grace.

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:
u might want to use your advice.

That's because you didn't quite read me before replying.

bawomolo:
the theory of evolution is not a theory of creation.

I never argued that it was. You might want to be better informed of my views if you took the time to read my inputs about this subject in relevant threads.

bawomolo:
that is not something argued by atheists. you are just babbling here.

There are atheists who have built arguments around the evolution theory to make it read what it does not read. If you were quite aware of this, you would not be babbling either.

bawomolo:
different things, who knows??

Such as. . .?

bawomolo:
correction, those are not limited to atheistic thinking, deist and agnostic thinkers adhere to such philosophies too. your agenda is open for everyone to see.

"All expressions of atheistic thinking" does not make it limited to only atheism. What's biting you?

bawomolo:
not interested in experiences in the spiritual realm and not experiences in the real world. get it right

Sorry, I didn't modify the definitions - quoted as was, the bottom line is that they often are not open to explanatiosn from human experience, whether spiritual or otherwise.

@Africankel,

Africankel:
We are "NOT TO OVERCOME THE DEVIL", (This is the mentality alot of christians), thats why they still engage in "spiritual warfare".

Should we take that reaction as meaning that your idea of the Christian life does not include spiritual warfare?

Africankel:
They quote Eph.6:12, (This portion does not mean we are in a spiritual battle of swords and spares with the devil)

I don't think anyone has said what you're implying, though.

Hi bluespice,

Could I ask a question on this line in yours:

bluespice:
know that i do not believe in religion,
i rather believe in faith why?

What "faith" do you believe in?