₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
Sorry for the delay my brother, work isn't giving me much NL time



Yes, means this universe is almost certainly not the first to have existed or the last to



Our existence is no more than a mere blink in the cosmic duration, so we almkst certainly will be long gone from the cosmic field before these events happen.

I will invite you and HCpaul to my thread 'Songs of the worlds' Come and enjoy the orchestra.

HCpaul:
What an ignoramus homo sapient, a vacuous and ignominious hoity-toity. Inane and injudicious claim calibrated with a deadpan and ludicrous assertion.

I will advice you to go and study the philosophy of science and come back to decelerate your irregular and expressionless assertions.

According to science, a belief in a supernatural being is a personal issue and not a scientific approach.
I saw one of Winners01 post arraying enormous names of Christian scientists.

So you people think that your God is happy with Galileo Galilei who is an astronomer? And you are surkm that the guy is a real Christian? Confused Christians...

if you are not ignorant of the Book you are carrying, you will realize that the day you start looking up to the sky and putting the cosmic into imagination, you have just create for yourself barricades that will eternally disqualify you from been a Christian.
Science itself is an atheist while scientific theories are formulated atheism based.
A real pastor will always pray that some limitations should emerge in science.
One of my brother who is a seminarian wasn't happy when I told him that NASA will soon be launching people to Mars in some years to come as well as citing in his head the curiosity mars rover used for the exploration of living organisms on mars.
My brother face changed and he was unhappy for a moment. Knowing their chances of progress, my brother said "If they succeed, it is God; If they didn't, it is still God."
As a science student, I was able to identify the misconception of proposition and how a condition cannot be true and false at the same time, then I realized what religion has done to Africa. They are not just happy for scientific achievements while their pastors will keep preaching the limitations of science on the alter just to deceive the multitudes.

If not for scientific fields like philosophy and its subset (theology), did you think that religion like (Christianity) will still stand?

That a person have not declaim himself as an atheist doesn't imply that he is a Christian, and that a person make quotations on religions doesn't disqualify him for been an atheist.
Winners01 is a typical example of such person who keep making this silly mistake.

Sometimes, I do make quotes that seems to favour religionists but that doesn't qualify me as a Christian.

No scientists will spend 30 minutes in praying not to talk of hours, spending hours in reading the Bible (a single book) everyday till they eventually depart from the land of the living, Paying tithes and offerings when they have scientific projects to spend their money on, joining a service unit (drama, choir, instrumentalist, ushers) when they know within themselves that they just don't have the time, and to crown it all, going to church everyday (endlessly) just to consume their time spent on knowledge exploration.

How can people be spending their hours in church everyday and be expecting changes in the country??
Praying for blessing and expecting to be richer than Bill??
Just don't get it.

Those folks ain't Christian at all but an untitled freethinkers who are still incarcerated by the philosophy of religion and not its delusion.

Science can only be approached as an atheist.

We don't see a rainbow and start praising God like that my brother without knowing and not ready to know the conditions attached to such occurence.
We instead discovers the whys and the hows behind it.

I love Gate sha when he utterly declared that he often goes to church since he has a lot to do on a Sunday morning and he's busy on his allocation on time resources.
Yet, the guy have never declare himself as an atheist but is he a Christian based on the above statement?

Sincere answer please.

blueAgent:
Shame on You. i used your own Argument to disprove your Evolution.Clown

Dawdy:
Evolutionists, please answer this question.

Teempakguy:
I'm not one to trifle with in matters of logic and argument. I suggest you pick on some person your own size. The fact that you still think irreducible complexity has logical viability gives you away as low hanging fruit.

Go and sleep.

blueAgent:
You cannot defend or express your Believe. you are pathetic.

Teempakguy:
it is not "believe", it's "belief"
And it is not a belief. It is a fact.

Your religious delusions do little to change reality.

adegeye38:
Mind you EVOLUTION is not a FACT, its a THEORY filled with lots of LOOPHOLES, that even modern day scientists are beginning to doubt.
Dude it takes a lot more faith to believe totally without one iota of doubt in EVOLUTION than RELIGION.

Teempakguy:
it is not "believe", it's "belief"
And it is not a belief. It is a fact.

Your religious delusions do little to change reality.

Teempakguy:
what loop holes?

I'm very interested, please enumerate these loopholes.

adegeye38:
1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).

2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.

3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.

4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring
.
5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.
"A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)

6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest" actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.

7. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.

8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.

9. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.

10. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group
11. Created kind are only observe.d going into extinction, never coming into existence.

12. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.

And so much more.
.
DARWIN himself doubted his own theory,

Some were subject to his open expression.
Published in 2013 Dr. Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" poses serious scientific concerns regarding the Neo-Darwinian theory.
Conversely, so much seemed to fit the theory and nature seemed to exhibit an order that evolution theory could piece together.
but not entirely reasoned to a final conclusion. Still, there were seeming improbability, gaps in the data, and issues left unexplained. Lingering doubts troubled Darwin, so much so, that he edited his Origin of Species from one edition to the next.
Doubts and unresolved issues remained—and with good reason—because evolution was theory and not an established fact. Even today, proof is elusive and perhaps ultimately unobtainable.

we are thought in school not to question theories like this, but to accept it without questions, no matter what, but if you take time to research, your mind will be opened to new possibilities.

adegeye38:
1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).

2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.

3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.

4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring
.
5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.
"A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)

6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest" actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.

7. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.

8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.

9. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.

10. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group
11. Created kind are only observe.d going into extinction, never coming into existence.

12. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.

And so much more.

DARWIN himself doubted his own theory,
Some were subject to his open expression.
Published in 2013 Dr. Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" poses serious scientific concerns regarding the Neo-Darwinian theory.
Conversely, so much seemed to fit the theory and nature seemed to exhibit an order that evolution theory could piece together.
but not entirely reasoned to a final conclusion.
there were seeming improbability, gaps in the data, and issues left unexplained. Lingering doubts troubled Darwin, so much so, that he edited his Origin of Species from one edition to the next.
Doubts and unresolved issues remained—and with good reason—because evolution was theory and not an established fact. Even today, proof is elusive and perhaps ultimately unobtainable.

we are thought in school not to question theories like this, but to accept it without questions, no matter what, but if you take time to research, your mind will be opened to new possibilities.

adegeye38:
No, they have not, because proof (even is there is ) is highly unobtainable, and thats y it will always remain a theory,so its very logical to doubt, and if you choose to have "faith" in Darwin's theory, that means you are indeed a man of faith and "religion".
you should put your faith in the right places, in "Christ" and not in a man's theory and mind you Christianity is not a religion, its a way of life, its freedom in "Christ", the benefits are immerse and its FREE......

davien:
So chromosome #2 is what?

adegeye38:
The theory of evolution says we evolved from non-human apes such as the Australopithecines. One of the major evidences used to prop up this idea is our chromosome number 2

The Argument

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees (supposed to be our closest relative) have 24. If humans and chimps evolved from a common ape ancestor that had 24 pairs, we should find that one of our pairs has fused together to form one. And that is what we have. Often this is seen to be the smoking gun proving we evolved, but just like many others, this evidence has FATAL FLAWS in reasoning.

The chromosome 2 argument for evolution goes both ways. If we had 24 chromosomes, it would be claimed as evidence for evolution from apes. If we had 23 with a fused pair (which we do), it is claimed as evidence that we evolved from apes. A case of heads I win, tails you lose.

But why should this prove evolution anyway? Many creationists also accept that chromosome 2 fused. We believe that two of our chromosomes fused into one during the population bottleneck near the time of the Great Flood or perhaps even during the time just after the Fall.

Alternatively, the chromosome could have been designed just the way it is.

Conclusion
If our fused chromosome were to be the ‘nail in the coffin’ proving evolution from apes, then we should expect that no other theory can adequately explain this feature. Of course, the creationary fusion theory explains it in much the same way as the evolutionary one (without the millions of years or the idea that it fused from non-human ape chromosomes). SIMPLE!.

davien:
@bolded read before mindlessly lifting something off the net.