₦airaland Forum

Thorrn:
@AEMMYJAH, WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS BELOW?

I have 5 questions earlier which you refused to answer
You think writing long stories to avoid a simple question makes you intelligent shey?

Whether na Allah or Krishna. Does it dispute the existence of the Creator...
I might say my phone brand is Samsung, someone say infinix, someone says Tecno... Does these arguments mean my phone evolved by itself?

Thorrn:
Na you I suppose dey ask o, because evidently there are two contradicting schools of thought relating to the Earth's true geometry and both of them claim that their views are supported by the Bible .

If a Biology teacher says that cell is not the basic unit of life without any evidence

Biology textbook says that cell is the basic unit of life
That is contradictory... Does the man's statement invalidate the definition of the cell as we read in Biology textbook?
😉

Thorrn:
The answer to this question is literally right there in the screenshot I posted, staring you in your stupid face . Is your brain paining you? Read it again, dumbo.



You tried to conflate the two though, as if they were the same. Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. They are not entirely the same, and I've demonstrated this to you already.



You shamelessly plagiarized a post from a JW website without giving proper credit to the source. You infused it into your post to Jaephoenix as if they were your words and it got removed by the spambot . I saw my mention in that post before it got taken down.

Usually when posts are taken down like that, the poster usually gets banned. I apologize for my hasty assumption.

However, I find it funny how you're latching onto this trivial mistake as if it has any bearing on the main topic. Desperation wan wound you .

😂
Abiogenesis is a scientific fact
Yes or No

Remember that I dropped mine too
Answer a simple yes or No question

Thorrn:
Good and evil can be explained via evolution, yes. In fact this article from the Scientific American does a very good job at explaining this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origins-of-human-morality/




First, this retarded_ question does not actually disprove the fact that purpose is subjective, so the point you tried to make here is about as sharp as a busted rubber ball. In fact, it only reinforces my argument. Your stupidity here is that not only do you believe that "purpose" is external and/or objective, you also believe that it is fixed IE not subject to change.

Your question has more to do with the source of human morality. Technically, it has absolutely nothing do with purpose in life. That's a different topic entirely.

Secondly, if anybody seriously believes being a serial killer is what gives him a sense of identity, the best I can do to appeal to his sense of logic and empathy is to convince him of the adverse effects of his actions. The utilitarian philosophy captures this idea perfectly: actions that maximize happiness and enhance peace and harmony in the society are inherently beneficial to the greater good of mankind. You've heard this idea commonly as follows: "treat others how you want to be treated. In the event that s/he refuses to acknowledge my advice, I will simply treat that person as a psychopath who is immune to rationality and empathy, even if s/he is my own child.



And Biblical morality is very reliable, huh? With all its verses which glorify slavery, genocide, patriarchy, violence and supersessionism?



You've been the one wailing since the thread started, spouting unsupported nonsense to cover your lack of ideas, but that's not going to stop me from debunking any rubbish you post on this thread.

Does evolution define morality?
Why should I treat others the way I'd like to be treated when there's a survival for the fittest?

Again, you keep diverting

If your child, I mean your very own child - son or daughter wants to find a purpose as a serial killer, a stripper or a terrorist... You said we should all find our purpose
Will that make you happy. Yes or No?

Dtruthspeaker:
Your argument is very untidy, wild and scattered going off points into every direction like our pack of bangers. And I would not be pursuing them

And techinically your point is that because people are fair and unassuming (simple) you think them stupid.

Your error which I have always told you is that people know Truths from a lie. I see that you are affected by the general stupidity of your generation (forgive me for saying so) so you are not able to appreciate that most people even though they are silent and may even look like they agree to a presentation, they do have a protected and reserved mind because they have the ability of knowing if a presentation is True or not.

And the general attitude is that these things are not that important.

And they know one thing that your generation does not seem to know which is "Time and Nature are friends of Truth and a destroyer of lies" exactly how evolution only lives in the lips of liars. It is not supported by time not by nature and since the first liar gave birth to it, it has been struggling to live despite all the adverising they have it.

That's what normal people know.



Clearly, by their fruits, the Europeans where not following Christ but it is known as our parents and rulers (govts) have taught us, "people do not always practice what they preach". We all know that but we did see that their preach was right and good, so it is up to you to follow the preaching or go by the common way.

As we say here, "nobody dey force you" and this is where atheists are different for for them it is by force. It is a become an atheist or be ready to be abused and insulted to death by them which is proof that they are evil exactly like scammers and fraudsters.

Your points are useless
About the insult part, please ask people in religion section, who is the most insolent person? I mean ask Muslims, atheists and your fellow christians who is the most toxic? Its YOU!

Dtruthspeaker:
You have always been known to lie badatom and it is known that you are a devil therefore you must support your devil brother. And everyone sees the fact that it was your devil brother who stupidly and childishly lied where I just let the posts and threads to speak for themselves.

Thus, the mere fact thst you are complaining about it, clearly shows how I cleanly shredded him to pieces that he could not answer, that he had to jump into another atheists case with me, in order to stop him from continuing falling into the same hole he fell into which he could not recover from. which is why he said all his off points rubbish there and when he saw that he still could not answer, he then stupidly and childishly lied that he won.

And now here you are, complaining about it. gbuhahahahahahaahaha. Loser

It is a Law. THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH

So everyone here can see that you did not tell him that he was childish to have made the claim and even more stupid that it was a lie. So a maggot's excreta is more valuable than your words. badatom.

Lol 😆

Image123:
you're obviously not ready for an answer. Ask your parents to teach you how to talk and ask respectfully. Your teachers won't.

Lol. Dude copped out. Adios

Aemmyjah:
Your ancestor is in the zoo
Other atheist say it is fish

Even the Bible says that do not reply one according to his foolishness, let him celebrate thinking he has sense

You're worse. Your ancestor is used to build houses

kkins25:
But, you do small biology for class?

He says he's a biologist. Dude has no idea about high school biology

SIRTee15:
What's the problem with the highlighted?
What if I told u someone wrote about the strange circumstances of that night- strange things that happened the night Jesus was crucified. The only person that wrote about it.

Aha!
You're not denying it. Awesome.
So such event where a horde of people got resurrected and yet it wasn't recorded in history?

jaephoenix:
You're worse. Your ancestor is used to build houses

Yours live in water

SIRTee15:
My friend, there are more male than female population... fake dokita.
The audacity to even mention statistics to his wrong claim is utmost ridiculous.
Only God knows what he reads, almost all public health students including medical students know there are more male than female.

https://countrymeters.info/en/World

Lol. Censuses are politically motivated.
Answer these questions
1. There are wars and strifes everywhere and these are fought by men, who also die.
2.Most diseases are male predilated. Like hypertension etc. Even some cancers.
3. Most men engage in dangerous lifestyles than women like smoking, alcoholism etc
4. The default sex in-uteru is female. Males have slightly lower chances of survival.
5. During censuses especially in Muslim dominated countries, women in harems aren't counted.
With all these factors, its a no brainer that there are more women in the world

SIRTee15:
Another one with dubious claims. Now let's see if he can defend his claims.

U claim the Europeans gave us the bible, tell me a single European among the authors of the books in the bible.
Mention one white man who wrote one of the books in the bible just one.
Let's see how u will expose your ignorance.

Interestingly an African man was among the bible authors. But according to this one, it was the white man who gave Africans the bible.

At the council of Nicea where the core doctrine of Christianity was established, there were 318 bishops in attendance from all over the Christian churches as far as India, persia and Arabia.
Now how many of these bishops were from the western region- mainland Europe. How many were from Africa?
How many white men were present when the core doctrine of Christianity was established.

Or better still how many English man were present at the council of nicea since they were the ones who whipped Christianity into our blood.

Finally, mention one single bible character who was white. Just one positive character who has blond hair and blue eyes in the bible.
Mention one and I will show u multiple bible characters from Africa including Moses wife who was a cushite from present day Sudan.

1. I don't understand this one? Was it the black man that handed us the Babble? U well so? Were the missionaries black?
2. So what the bishops came from Africa? There were also white men there. Greeks, Europeans etc. And they were chaired by Constantine I who is a white man.
3. You said the Babble characters are black. No p. That means you're saying your babble lied cos it described Jesus/Yahweh/angels as having flowing blond hair. Which African has flowing hair?
Lol 😆

Aemmyjah:
In a book ke?
The vegetation exists for a reason
Rains have a purpose
The magnetic shield has a purpose
The moon has a purpose
Soil has a purpose
Will the most intelligent creature on earth not have a purpose? Or just exists by chance having no meaning?

What is the purpose of life?
Watch the video to find the answer

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&lank=pub-ebtv_9_VIDEO

Lol. Stick your video in your ass. So I have to watch a video to know my 'purpose'? What if I'm illiterate and have no access to Internet?

kkins25:
So, what is your scientific approach for debunking the scientific theory of Evolutio?

Discussing science with Aemmyjah, DTruthSpeaker? Whoa! You must have the patience of 10 men

[quote author=Aemmyjah post=127609788]Watch the video
Is that process a result of mindless chance or intelligent design
Let us know if you are an original doctor or fake?
Another atheist without good sense called snowflakes- a wonder of blind chance

How breastfeeding works
Credit: design_cells pic.twitter.com/HQIUy9YpOX

— Aether (@aether_coin) December 24, 2023

I have answered this question before. Not doing it again

jaephoenix:
1. I don't understand this one? Was it the black man that handed us the Babble? U well so? Were the missionaries black?
2. So what the bishops came from Africa? There were also white men there. Greeks, Europeans etc. And they were chaired by Constantine I who is a white man.
3. You said the Babble characters are black. No p. That means you're saying your babble lied cos it described Jesus/Yahweh/angels as having flowing blond hair. Which African has flowing hair?
Lol 😆

1. I asked for the name of white men who wrote the bible. That's my question.
I'm not interested in who handed over the bible to us. I'm interested in those who wrote the content of the bible. Were they white men? That's my question.
Samuel ajayi crowther brought the bible to the shores of Yorubaland. The English were formerly pagan b4 someone also forced the bible down their throat.

2. Bishops from Ethiopia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Carthage were present.
Now tell me the name of the western bishops who were present. FYI only 6 bishops from Western churches were present in the council of nicea ouf of 381 in attendance.
Constantine isn't a bishop, he wasnt involved in the establishment of doctrine of nicea. He's irrelevant to topic of discussion

3. I know comprehension is a big issue for u so I will be gentle with u as with a kindergarten.
I said show me any blond hair and blue eye character in the bible, just one. Show me a white character written about in the bible.
The point is there is no single white man in the bible. None. Instead we have known black characters written about in the bible.
Another example is queen of sheba from Ethiopia. There are more if u want.

Finally, u wrote bible claimed Yahweh, jesus and angles had flowing hair. Show me the passage that described them as having flowing hair.
because the book of ezekiel described the angels and definitely not with flowing hair.

jaephoenix:
Lol. Censuses are politically motivated.
Answer these questions
1. There are wars and strifes everywhere and these are fought by men, who also die.
2.Most diseases are male predilated. Like hypertension etc. Even some cancers.
3. Most men engage in dangerous lifestyles than women like smoking, alcoholism etc
4. The default sex in-uteru is female. Males have slightly lower chances of survival.
5. During censuses especially in Muslim dominated countries, women in harems aren't counted.
With all these factors, its a no brainer that there are more women in the world

This guy is funny. He will reject metaphysics and philosophy as a prove of God's existence but wants me to accept his wack opinion on gender population based on 'trust me bro'.
If it's someone that's proven himself here as intelligent we may consider his opinion. But someone who cannot define destiny is forming opinion.
Abeg pack one side and let intelligent people respond.

jaephoenix:
Aha!
You're not denying it. Awesome.
So such event where a horde of people got resurrected and yet it wasn't recorded in history?

How many people wrote about the destruction of the city of Pompeii.
Pompeii was a big city, very wealthy and popular. Then in AD 79 it vanished.
Now tell me what happened to it, how many people at that time wrote about it's destruction.

jaephoenix:
Lol. Stick your video in your ass. So I have to watch a video to know my 'purpose'? What if I'm illiterate and have no access to Internet?

The video is just a form of disseminating electronically
It can be explained orally, written or whatever way
😉

jaephoenix:
Your points are useless
About the insult part, please ask people in religion section, who is the most insolent person? I mean ask Muslims, atheists and your fellow christians who is the most toxic? Its YOU!

Rubbish! Everyone knows you atheists are liars and the most toxic and obnoxious people on earth always creating useless and stupid unending arguments.

. Quora even got you.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.quora.com/Why-are-atheists-on-the-Internet-so-toxic&ved=2ahUKEwiOnaP5k7aDAxXBV0EAHV5gCL4QFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0n1dsgV5x3fVg9vThVtahU

Thorrn:
So in the absence of any actual proofs for your claim, you default to consoling yourself with an imagined victory, trying to cover up for your obvious failures and inadequacies in this discussion...

In the absence of your valid rebuttal you lost for if I have not given any proof you won't have had the burden of rebutting nor you struggling to find a valid rebuttal

That's how I won fair, square and round because IT IS THE LAW, THERE IS NO VALIE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH!

Thorrn:
Notice the two highlighted parts of this paragraph. As you can see, this passage from which you quoted the SECOND highlighted remark, was focused on the meaning of your claim: nothing [in this world] created itself. Do you see anything to do with the definition of the world here? Are you that dyslexic that you can't see that you just goofed ? Simply put, you're jumbling up unrelated issues in the most unsophisticated attempt at sophistry I've ever witnessed .

All these are just noises from a broken silencer The point is that you lied that I did not give clarification whereas, you got my clarification.

And since you got it, which you have even judt confessed to below, l have been waiting for you since to say something VALID against my point to which you have given none only noise making and deviation from post. Point cliosed.

Thorrn:
You've already clarified what you mean by the "world" in your claim. And I've accepted your definition. However, you keep insisting that I've derailed whenever I point out the fact that your argument about nothing creating itself suggests the existence of a first cause, and that is why I still need you to clarify: You've said that nothing [in this world] created itself. What are you trying to suggest here if not the fact that everything has a creator?

Suggestion is not a Truth that is why you have not pleaded any thing worth been giving any clarification. And that is why you lost

Thorrn:
I have asked you (repeatedly) to present your proof that God exists. I have not asked you what the topic is. I already know what it is, thank you very much. Furthermore, in view of the watery responses you've been giving thus far, I'm inclined to assume that you may have a very poor understanding of what constitutes "proof" of a claim. You cannot present a vague sentence and pretend that it will suffice as proof of your God. You have to properly demonstrate the connection if you really want to convince me that you're not just making things up.




A variant of this idea has been pointed out to you already, but I'm going to say it again, in case you missed it or still don't understand. Read this very slowly: in any philosophical discussion, a claim can either be explicit or implicit in nature. You offered the claim that nothing [in this world] created itself as a response to my query to prove your god's existence. Given the context of my request, it is safe to assume that your belief that nothing created itself means that everything [in this world] has a creator, according to you. Since you wilfully declined to make any further clarifications, I simply inferred that you were suggesting that there is a source from which everything that exists [in this world] was created. In which case, you would simply be rehashing the cosmological argument for gods, also known as The First Cause argument. For example, let's say we worked in the same office and you asked me if I had eaten that morning before coming to work. Then I simply just reply saying, "I eat every morning before coming to work". The likely inference you'd make from my response is that I had eaten that morning before coming to work. So far, I can't decipher anything new or original about your argument. Top tier atheist debaters don't even rate the argument these days and can rebut it without having to expend much brain juice.

It's funny though that you keep insisting this is not your argument. What this leads me to conclude is that (a) you have a very shoddy understanding of the depth of the argument you're trying to push forward here, in which case I would suggest you go back and properly study the cosmological arguments for God's existence to see how they mirror the argument you think you're trying to make. However, I'm also tempted to think towards option (b) though, which says you're a dishonest troll that rejects any important critiques of his claims because he doesn't want to cede any ground and admit that his knowledge or understanding of the subject is shaky. As far as I can tell, you are currently presenting the cosmological argument (first cause), and until you can provide further clarifications for the statement "nothing [in this world] created itself", I will continue to treat it as such.



Lacking any specific context, your answer is technically is a non-sequitur to my question -- which literally means that you didn't actually answer it. So maybe explain your "answer" properly, and then we'll understand how it makes any sense as a response to the question of proving God's existence. As it stands, your "answer" (if it can be called that) reads more like a nonsensical string of words that have nothing to do with the actual subject of discourse.



Who is the "we" in this blathering rejoinder? You and your braindead cheerleader, Aemmyjah? Personally, I would be more skeptical towards the credibility of my own argument if the only person who could validate it was someone with a sleeping brain .



This paragraph is just another demonstration of your tendency for wilful avoidance of flaws in your arguments by playing semantics. I have noticed that it seems to be your preferred forum style -- to slither and dodge pertinent questions using irrational sophistry and frivolous appeals to semantics. But that's besides the point. What I find even more hilarious here is the fact that your pathetic attempt to redefine "certain deities" into "all deities" is an exercise in pointlessness since it accomplishes absolutely nothing. The question still remains. If you cannot know every deity that exists out there in the world, on what basis can you dismiss their existence, or their involvement in the creation of the world?



Pffft. The only person departing from the topic is the one who's running scared of answering straightforward questions based of the implications of his argument. You really didn't think this through, did you ?



1) No such fallacy exists. You literally just made that up.

2) Its funny you think that I'm "demanding the impossible", and it says a lot about the indefensible position you have assumed in this thread. You know deep down that your Jewish deity has no distinct evidence that sets him apart from every other deity in recorded history and that is why you think my simple request is "demanding the impossible".



If you really think there's nothing vague about predicting an unstable economy or about predicting marriage and/or divorce rates, then it's either you haven't got a single clue or you're just lying to yourself.

Here let me show you. I, Thorrn, am predicting now that rain will fall more than 3 times in the year 2048. If you're still alive by then and this prophecy comes to pass, you'll send me your address for me to come over and then you'll lie down flat on your face and suck on my toes as your lord and commander. You'll also wire any sum of cash I need to my account .

If you refuse to acknowledge this bet, then please tell me the difference between my prediction and that of one illiterate goat herder from ages ago.

Can you see the problem yet?



This "prophecy" in particular will derail this thread if I choose to unpack it in its entirety. Long story short, it lacks any merit because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy IE it required the conscious or deliberate awareness and action of the people concerned to bring it to fruition. For example, if I prophesy that I will buy a car before 2026 and I do, am I therefore a divine entity? etc.

Anyways, if you wish to proceed further with this Israel prophecy debate, I would suggest we open another thread for it and I will talk more on the Israel prophecy. For this thread, I'm more interested in your claim that nothing in this world created itself is proof of God's existence.



This assessment is ridiculously naive. Clearly you have never studied the claims of other religions for you to arrive at this preposterous conclusion. There are many prophecies made in Quran and Hadith by Muhammad that muslims claim to becoming true. For instance, Surah Rome, line 2-4, where Allah pronounces that Romans were defeated but soon within 3-9 years Romans will rise and defeat the Persians. And it did happen. The Romans defeated the Persians. Also there's a hadith where Muhammad said that the arab land will return to being green again, and apparently there are videos circulating the internet, showing that after heavy rain the arab land is slowly becoming green.

Buddhism also has its own fair share of "accurate" prophecies, according to your standard. You should check out the Sixteen Dreams of King Pasenadi Kosol where lots of interesting prophecies were made about the state of our present society including increase in sexual perversion, youths being more disrespectful towards their elders, cheating and nepotism, and even the rise of the feminist movement and men gradually becoming "simps". These prophecies seem almost even more impressive than the ones you profess. To this end, I wonder on what basis you can choose to dismiss Buddhism as lesser or inferior to Christianity.

Then there's the great prophet Nostradamus who predicted the Great Fire of London, the French Revolution as well as the rise and fall of both Hitler and Napoleon. He made all these prophecies as far back as the 16th Century.

I'm curious to know your response to these prophecies. According to your shoddy standards for validating the truth of a prophecy, all of the aforementioned examples (which are just a tiny few among many) should suffice as proof for their credibility. However I'm willing to wager that you can't attack these prophecies without committing the fallacy of special pleading. But go ahead and let me have a laugh watching you try.



Of course, because you're yet to present anything worthwhile for me to "have".



Oh yeah? Let's examine these allegations.



FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: ...occurs when the premise that the parts of a whole are of a certain nature is improperly used to infer that the whole itself must also be of this nature (example: a story made up of good paragraphs is thus said to be a good story)

I already had my suspicions, but it appears that you have indeed spuriously misapplied the fallacy of composition here. Let's backtrack and follow the logic of our conversation.

(1) You claimed that nothing [in this world] created itself.

(2) I noted that you qualified your claim with the adjectival phrase "...in this world", and so I demanded you to define what you meant by the "world" in your claim IE what it consists of.

(3) Your response to my demand above was the following, and I quote you verbatim: this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants. So clearly, you were talking of the physical earth which houses all the known living organisms in the universe.

...which brings us back to where we are presently. Assuming the earth is a subset of the solar system which exists in our known universe, my premise here, in light of your definition, would be that God created the earth. You have not provided any explanation as to the source of other objects that exist in the solar system? Where did the Moon come from? What of the other planets? In fact let's take it all the way to our entire galaxy sef. Who created the Milky Way? Who created the Black Hole? These questions are totally justified because YOU yourself have limited the scope of your God's involvement in creation to the earth alone. So accusing me of committing a fallacy of composition is terribly nonsensical because I did not make any positive inference or extrapolation in this subject. It might have been a fallacy of composition if I had said,

(1) God created the earth.

(2) So therefore, God created the universe.

If you know anything at all about the principles of logic, you'd know that the syllogism above isn't just a fallacy of composition, but is also a non-sequitur.

Furthermore, the example you attempt to use as an illustration of your point is completely unintelligible, I can't even make any sense from it. What was the ship defined to mean in this farcical analogy of yours? I think I get the idea behind the analogy but your wording if it is just so laughable.

You also mentioned "begging the question". I don't see how your analogy illustrates that fallacy at all. Maybe you can explain this allegation better for me to make more sense of it? So far I haven't made any positive claims. The burden of proof is on you here and your knees seem to buckling under the pressure. Lol.



Look, I can literally make sense out of every single nonsense in this world if I'm determined to give that thing some sort of meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm correct or that the facts of reality agree with me. The human mind is an interesting phenomenon. You should go read up on Confirmation Bias and Belief Perseverance. You are completely entrenched in the notion that your belief is flawless so your brain will never accept the fact that there is a possibility that you're wrong. I repeat, the Bible is a steaming pile of bullshit contradictions, confabulations and outright lies. Any objective reader who reads books to arrive at truth and important facts that are independent of subjective beliefs or desires can testify to this. And I don't care if the Bible has one or two valuable nuggets for good and righteous living because countless other religious tomes espouse the exact same virtues, yet I don't see you subscribing to Buddhism or converting to Islam, or worshipping Vishnu because of that.

The Bible is a vague text that any idiot can pick up and find something that caters to his own personal and selfish idiosyncrasies. That is why you have different doctrines even within Christianity. Or did you forget that Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, 7th Day Adventists etc. worship the same God. You people quarrel among yourselves over tithes, the Trinity, divorce, abortion and homosexual relationships with each side using the Bible to justify his/her points. You people can't ever seem to get your stories straight when it comes to Biblical teachings and facts -- like armed robbers giving different alibis after they've been caught and exposed .

I think it's amusing the way you try to presume my reasons for not accepting your childish beliefs. Atheists seem to unnerve you, make you jittery, isn't it? You can't wrap your head around the fact that I'm not encumbered with your religious trifle, so it's easier for you to believe that I just hate God and the Bible, instead of accepting that I genuinely don't see any tangible reason to believe that God exists. If it helps you sleep at night, sure. Keep believing in unfounded fantasies because you're too scared to face the facts of life.



My dear, it's looking more likely that you never had a point in the first place.

Stop it! You're making DTruthSpeaker to think and its making him dizzy

Thorrn:
Oh the divine irony ! I can't believe you just wrote this.

Why don't you practice what you preach, Dundeejah? Hmm? Where are all the answers to my questions that YOU have intentionally ignored for numerous pages now just to throw your infantile tantrums about atheists. In fact I think I'm going to refrain from answering any more of your stupid questions until you do justice to the following questions that I've been asking you for close to a month now. Go on and show me little ol' me how to answer "simple questions" >>>

1. Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

2. Do you mean to tell me that the only thing that motivates you to get up in the morning is your God? Nothing else inspires your energy and dedication? Not even your family?

3. Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

4. How do you measure and/or recognize design? How can you tell the difference between a designed object and one that was not designed?

5. If everything in the universe was designed as you claim, how does it prove the existence of the God of the Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna etc etc? What if Allah is the true creator deity?

6. Abraham Lincoln, one of the foremost presidents of the USA was the titular character in the Vampire Hunter book mentioned above, and he hunted vampires. So I guess going by your logic (that the Bible is true because it contains real people and real places), vampires have been proven to exist?

7. If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

You and I both know say if you make mistakes answer these questions honestly and objectively, in a straight-forward manner, fowl nyansh go open and the stupidity of your position will be 100% evident, even to you. That's why you've been running scared from my arguments like a petty thief because you know deep down that your position lacks any substance .

If you get mind, answer those questions. I will only just continue mocking your foolishness until you do.

This is Aemmyjah, candidate for the dumbest theist alive. These questions aren't for him. He'll literally have a mental breakdown thinking about them, never mind answering them

Thorrn:
Yes. Scientific fact.



...coming from somebody with obvious cognitive limitations -- as has been demonstrated countlessly on this thread, I won't register this remark as anything more than an emotional outburst. Be careful so you don't pop a vein out of frustration .



Testing it for myself will not change the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that the theory of evolution is correct (An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists' Views). That link shows that 98% of all scientists accept evolution and the number rises to 99% when we look at scientists in relevant (biological) fields. There have been several experiments that tested various aspects of evolution. At this point it has been observed repeatedly in the wild and in laboratory conditions.

The real question here is if you can disprove or falsify evolution. And if you want to achieve that, you'll need to do a lot more than just sitting on your ass at home, spouting nonsense from your self-contained apartment. I have no dog in this fight because evolution being true or not does not affect my atheism. Plus, after you're done falsifying evolution and submitting your findings for peer review, you'll still need to go ahead and tender empirical evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design, because evolution being false doesn't automatically make creationism true.

I've hyperlinked the relevant sources for anyone who is interested. I already know you won't read it because not only are you too stupid and thick to understand the methodologies involved, but because you are a coward who keeps running from facts that challenge your infantile beliefs. I'm still indulging you for the sake of viewers who are interested in seeking out the truth. Other than that, I'm already starting to feel like a bully



...and yet you believe in an imaginary being that you have never seen or heard. It has never spoken to you and you don't know what it looks like. You put blind trust in an ancient text riddled with flaws and inconsistencies, and fellow human beings who do not know any better. Remove the log of Iroko in your eye my dear.



Who says all atheists are meant to think the same way or share the same ideologies? The only thing we have in common is lack of belief in gods. Atheists are far more dynamic in their views and philosophies. We're not zombies like the Christians. Lol.



It's brain, not head, if we want to be technical.

And at least my brain feeds me something. Your brain is still on sabbatical .

Please nah. Stop bullying Aemmyjah. These mental contortions are making those cogs in his brain too hot.
You wanna bet? He aint touching those links

Aemmyjah:
Oga
Abi madam
You are just fooling around
You are living in delusion
Let us agree on something first
Whether you describe as Allah, Amadioha, Buddha... Is that an evidence that the was no creator?

Has the theory of Evolution regarding the origin of life and complexity been tested with scientific approach

Proved science tells us that nin life cannot produce life and parents only produce like offsprings tho variation occurs but nothing entirely different is produced... Mating two different kind of organisms won't produce viable offsprings cos the gametes are incompatible... Jaephoenix the fake doctor should atleast know this but both of you lie to yourself just like a transgender person will use science to say that not only women can get pregnant


Keep fooling around

Thorrn , shebi I tell you bro won't touch those links. These arguments, both the logical and scientific aspects, are way over his boundaries. For all we know, Aemmyjah could be a rustic countryside dude with basic primary education and access to internet. How tf do you want him to process all these data?
Now the Dundeejah is wailing that similar organisms dont produce different organisms. Please Dundee, do you know what H. Erectus, H. Habilis are?
Do you know how how we humans got an appendix which is a useless organ, or the tail bone?
I dont expect him to answer. He'll still repeat those his wailings like a broken radio

jaephoenix:
Stop it! You're making DTruthSpeaker to think and its making him dizzy

See fool who cannot even think, speaking!

jaephoenix:
Thorrn , shebi I tell you bro won't touch those links. These arguments, both the logical and scientific aspects, are way over his boundaries. For all we know, Aemmyjah could be a rustic countryside dude with basic primary education and access to internet. How tf do you want him to process all these data?
Now the Dundeejah is wailing that similar organisms dont produce different organisms. Please Dundee, do you know what H. Erectus, H. Habilis are?
Do you know how how we humans got an appendix which is a useless organ, or the tail bone?
I dont expect him to answer. He'll still repeat those his wailings like a broken radio

There ar3 many organs in the past that science said was 'useless' but that has changed upon study
Fake doctor could not answer my simple questions
The complex human body including the brain is a result of blind chance? Yes or No?

Homo erectus and habilis are not known humans or homo. Will you use a skull to determine the size and activities of a whole organism?
Have you heard of Fossil Ida
Whatever the case, there are still disagreements regarding the homos u mentioned

Fake doctor that knows nothing about science and the human body

jaephoenix:
Please nah. Stop bullying Aemmyjah. These mental contortions are making those cogs in his brain too hot.
You wanna bet? He aint touching those links

Science has been undergoing modifications in its theories
Once, it was generally accepted by scientists that earth was flat and resting on something
It was generally accepted that abiogenesis / spontaneous theory was fact which Thorrn is still preaching. Biogenesis is scientifically proven as fact and I accept. She wants me to accept abiogenesis. I'm not stupid as you are. Something that chatgpt describes as an hypothesis is fact?

What is commonly accepted does not make it true

Thorrn:
Oh the divine irony ! I can't believe you just wrote this.

Why don't you practice what you preach, Dundeejah? Hmm? Where are all the answers to my questions that YOU have intentionally ignored for numerous pages now just to throw your infantile tantrums about atheists. In fact I think I'm going to refrain from answering any more of your stupid questions until you do justice to the following questions that I've been asking you for close to a month now. Go on and show me little ol' me how to answer "simple questions" >>>

1. Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

2. Do you mean to tell me that the only thing that motivates you to get up in the morning is your God? Nothing else inspires your energy and dedication? Not even your family?

3. Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

4. How do you measure and/or recognize design? How can you tell the difference between a designed object and one that was not designed?

5. If everything in the universe was designed as you claim, how does it prove the existence of the God of the Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna etc etc? What if Allah is the true creator deity?

6. Abraham Lincoln, one of the foremost presidents of the USA was the titular character in the Vampire Hunter book mentioned above, and he hunted vampires. So I guess going by your logic (that the Bible is true because it contains real people and real places), vampires have been proven to exist?

7. If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

You and I both know say if you make mistakes answer these questions honestly and objectively, in a straight-forward manner, fowl nyansh go open and the stupidity of your position will be 100% evident, even to you. That's why you've been running scared from my arguments like a petty thief because you know deep down that your position lacks any substance .

If you get mind, answer those questions. I will only just continue mocking your foolishness until you do.

1. Science agrees that life and the universe has a beginning. There is no evidence that something can emerge from nothing. No evidence that life can emerge from non-life. Have you and jaephoenix considered the mathematical probability of even the DNA evolving by chance or of life itself? Google is at your service... Mutation they said is also responsible is seen to be more harmful than beneficial. We have seen changes in living forms but it has not resulted in anything new. If jaephoenix knows little science, he should know that gametes must be compatible when 2 species copulate and two different species cannot copulate let alone producing offsprings... Darwin's theories has modified time and again and we now have what is called modern darwinism. Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, not a fact or even theory. If an hypothesis is used evolution regrading the origin of life, hiw then is evolution a fact? If it is by natural selection, artifical selection with the best minds with the resources and conditions should do better but that has failed. Even so, a scientist or group of scientists who create life cannot represent blind, irrational and mindless process... Don't forget that evolution does not even bring about complexity.
The cycles, the inter-relationships, the immune systems, the digestive systems, circulatory system, the human brain... All these and many more show the footprint of intelligent design

2. No. I majored in Biology but I shifted focus from Zoology to Environmental Biology cos of climate change and from 2024,I'm focusing on ecosystem restoration and conservation. I also enjoy music, sports and many more. I'm not an extremist. All these stuffs are things to expect under the religious section of Nairaland 😉

3. What do you think 🤔? Do you believe life emerge from nothing

4. That's deep. Can you mention anything that has no design... What is designed has a purpose right? Chaos cannot bring about design. For instance, if you go to a forest where no one has ever visited (and truly no one visited) and you see a toothpick or matchstick. You know someone dropped it there. But who and how and when and from where? You don't know but that does not mean what you saw evolved from the trees. Glass is made from sand particles. If you go to an island where no one has even touched and you see a glass bottle, what will be your conclusion? In the universe, especially in space, there are things that are even more precise than what we have on earth such as the 'traffic' of planetary bodies... Don't forget that many of our designs on earth were inspired from what we observe in the original world. Who deserves the credit?

5. Hmm. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. It is scientifically and historically accurate. It foretells the future including millenia in advance and they have been fulfilled and we are see many fulfilled today. The Koran itself gives credence to the Bible and confirms the historicity of some of the people and events mentioned in the Bible. The Bible is unique as it has been the best seller for centuries. The most widely distributed and translated book by far. We'd expect that from a book of God to mankind. 🤷‍♂️... Oh, the Bible also mentions the name of the God of creation. ☺

6. Abraham Lincoln claims to have hunted a vampire? Besides, what has hunting a vampire as mentioned in a book got to do with the existence of the CREATOR

7. Wrong question. Everyone does not have a creator as if there are many creators like there are many parents. Science agrees that the universe has a beginning and is indefinite or infinite and logic tells us that the universe cannot be the cause of its own existence. Did the universe emerge from nothing? No... Is it from someone eternal or something eternal? Answer for yourself


I may not have all the answers to your questions or force anything on you. Even in science, we don't know 1% of the material universe and there are things or phenomena they say is mysterious but that does not falsify everything about them. Our wealth of knowledge is expanding

Aemmyjah:
Science has been undergoing modifications in its theories

Pffft. Why do you care about science? Your religion has all the answers to life's questions na. Abi no be so?

Once, it was generally accepted by scientists that earth was flat and resting on something

False. The idea of a flat earth originated from ancient era of the Greeks and Egyptians. In those times, people interpreted their observations of a similar flat ground as proof that world was flat based on their limited perspectives. The idea was common for centuries but was gradually dispelled with scientific discoveries and explorations demonstrating the Earth's spherical nature.

It was generally accepted that abiogenesis / spontaneous theory was fact

1, Abiogenesis has never been accepted as fact. It is a scientific hypothesis, albeit a very plausible one, which is why it has never been outrightly disproven. If it has, present your evidence. I'm interested to see it.

2, Abiogenesis is not the same as Spontaneous Generation theory. This is common knowledge in the scientific community. What Louis Pasteur sought to disprove with his swan-neck experiment was Spontaneous Generation, and not Abiogenesis. No amount of desperation on your part will ever make the two similar. Oya fall down and cry 😂.

which Thorrn is still preaching.

Clearly, you don't even know what it means to "preach"

Biogenesis is scientifically proven as fact and I accept.

Congratulations. Here, have a cookie 🍪.

She wants me to accept abiogenesis.

Sorry to derail your agenda, but I never cared about Abiogenesis and never will. I also couldn't care less what you choose to believe. I explicitly said earlier that even if the Big Bang, Evolution etc. and all other scientific theories -- that you Christians cry about because it washes you puerile beliefs in the mud -- were ultimately proven wrong, I'll still be an atheist. You know why? BECAUSE ATHEISM IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH BELIEF / LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS.

I'm not stupid as you are.

No, you're not as stupid. You're infinitely more stupid.

Something that chatgpt describes as an hypothesis is fact?

I remember telling you that Abiogenesis has NOT been disproven. That's not the same as calling it a fact. That you'd make this bogus conflation not only accentuates your retardation, but also calls into question your knowledge of scientific methodology.

And since you love ChatGPT so much, let's hear his opinion shall we?

ChatGPT, Since abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis, does it mean it has been disproven?

Answer: Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis that seeks to explain how life could have arisen from non-living matter. It's important to note that being a hypothesis doesn't mean it has been proven or disproven definitively. The scientific community continues to explore and investigate the origins of life through various fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, and astrobiology.

While there is evidence supporting aspects of abiogenesis, it remains a complex and challenging area of study. The origin of life is a topic that scientists actively research, and our understanding may evolve as more evidence is gathered. As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, abiogenesis is considered a plausible explanation for the origin of life, but the specific mechanisms are not fully elucidated. Always check for the latest scientific developments for the most up-to-date information.

So your claim that abiogenesis has been disproven is a straight up lie woven out of an unholy romance between ignorance and stupidity.

QED.