Ontarget:

I am not an atheist but I don't subscribe to a lot of religious teachings.

i agree with u

DoctorAlien:
Who are scientists? People who can't lie? Evolution looks more like a cooked-up fairytale than a science theory.

The scientific community has a good track record of telling the truth. The same cannot be said of religious institutions or their scriptures. Every time in history that religion has been in conflict with science, science has been proven to be right, and religious people have been forced to re-interpret their scriptures to accommodate the truth of science. Religious authorities persecuted Galileo because he said the earth moves round the sun, which is contrary to a direct interpretation of the bible. Now they accept it. They thought that lightning was a sign of God's wrath, but now they accept the scientific explanation. Many Christian denominations e.g. the Catholic church have accepted evolution too. Now it's your turn!

This "debate" between Richard Dawkins and an Anglican bishop ended up being a tutorial on evolution for the intelligent bishop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bow4nnh1Wv0

It may interest you to know that scientists are seriously divided over evolution. So, who are you those you call "scientists"?

Scientists who promote creationism aren't considered real scientists because their theory isn't based on reality. These people have decided that the earth was created by God because the bible says so, and so they try to distort the evidence to support their predetermined conclusion.

Seun,

The scientific community has a good track record of telling the truth.

Really? The same scientific community that said Natural Selection drives evolution, only to be proved wrong? Evolution itself is a scam. Ask any scientist to comprehensively prove evolution to you and watch him begin to stammer.

Scientists who question evolution aren't considered real because their theory isn't based on reality.

Really? Hahaha Please who determines real and unreal scientists? You? Don't be ridiculous. Is the theory of evolution based on reality? Prove it.

Seun,

For the records, I'm not a catholic and I don't believe the catholic church is a Christian organization: it's a pagan one actually. I'm not an Anglican, either.

I'm a Bible-believing Christian. Don't bring the activities of the catholic church into this. Even the Bible knows the earth is spherical, but the Catholic church chose to teach otherwise.

Seun,

Charles Darwin, the founder of your religion, Evolution, confessed that "the belief (note the emphasis on belief) in natural selection (evolution) must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. ... When we descend to details,we can prove that no one species has changed ... nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."

Seun, please educate yourself here, and stop telling me "scientists said..."
www.nairaland.com/3340702/how-evolution-flunked-science-test

DoctorAlien:
"The same intelligent scientists whose theories are responsible for all the comforts we enjoy in the modern world, have told us..." -Argumentum ad verecundiam. This is a fallacy.

Actually, scientists have come to agree that Natural Selection cannot be the driving force behind evolution. This is because the driving force behind Natural Selection has to be mutation, and all known (albeit very rare) cases of mutation have proved fatal and destructive to the mutant individual. Thus, mutation brings extermination instead of development in species.

Maybe y'all atheists need to read more and think with your head and for yourselves, and stop committing the fallacy of appeal to authority/accomplishment.

Your understanding of Mutation is still elementary, and any attempt to educate you would be a total waste of time but i would say somethings:

First, i cannot speak for all atheists but i am certain unlike you that never questions your belief, i question mine everytime and use my head to deduce what really is true or not

Evolution and the Bible, which makes more sense, I say Evolution and i would tell you from the top of my head.

Why does evolution say Pisces evolved to amphibians and amphibians evolved to reptiles and birds , and reptiles evolved to mammals, and if you look at the real world, it makes sense?

Pisces live in the water and lay eggs
Amphibians live in water and land and lay eggs
Reptiles live on land and lay eggs
Birds in the sky and on trees and lay eggs
Mammals on land and give birth to live young ones

Why does the similarities of the body plan of these animals match up with what Evolution says?

Why does the DNA of closely related animals are far more identical than other animals?

Why is it that the DNA that resembles mostly the human DNA is not a hyena, or a bat or a chicken but a chimpanzee, the same animal that i asked my mom as a child why it resembles us so well!


Only a close-minded person would see the evidence of Evolution all around us and deny it because of preconceived ideologies.

donffd,

Now let's be honest: which makes more sense to you? That a frog suddenly turned into a snake or that an intelligent Creator designed both creatures? GOD created, and I would tell you from the top of my head.

Don't tell me fishes turned into amphibians and amphibians turned into reptiles and all that, and then conclude by telling me "it makes sense." It makes absolutely no sense.

In trying to prove evolution, scientists have come up with many "most-similars" to humans. When it comes to DNA, banana is the most similar to man. When it comes to another criterion, another thing becomes the most similar to man. Aren't they confused?

"Scientists" have to keep publishing new lies, you know, so that faith in their senseless religion called "Evolution" won't die.

You can as well educate yourself on that link I gave to your colleague, Seun.

More quotes from Charles Darwin, the founder of your religion:

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

Ontarget:
Some atheists became atheists because they read the Bible and spotted some loop holes in it. Most times they cite those biblical passages and mock christians with it. The Bible certainly contains things that doesn't add up, especially the account of creation.

If you buy a mathematics text book for your kid and you see that on the first page it says "1+1=11", would that not be sufficient for you to start disputing the source of the book especially when the writer claims to have a masters degree?

Besides, there are lots of other loophole like for instance, there is no proof of Jesus' existence and also the Israelites were never slaves under Egypt as depicted in the bible. Also, most of the stories are plagiarized.

But that shouldn't be the ultimate reason which decides the existence or inexistence of a supreme being.

Actually, the inconsistencies are very good points for refuting the claims of Jehovah. Remember also that atheists speak against ALL religons.

When an atheist is challenged using the Bible he scores points, but when he is challenged using the physics and metaphysics of things in existence he struggles to prove their is no God.

As a matter of fact, when you read ALL "holy" books, you will find out they are full of loopholes.

The same way you would view the writings in all other books is the same way other theists, not just atheists view yours.

For instance, muslims will never agree that Jesus is the son of god just like a Buddhist or Hindustan will not agree that Yahweh/Jehovah are the supreme gods. Remember, even among Christians there are lots of disagreements about the translation of certain texts and also religious practices. If Christians cannot come to a concession on the interpretations of the bible,to the extent of having 33,000 different denominations, why should anyone else?

If you are an atheist I would really like to know what makes you think it is possible for a complex and organized system to emerge on its own without guidance

I am not a scientist though, however judging by the evidence presented by history against religion and also the lack of evidence by religion to prove their various gods, it is safe to say none of these gods as proposed by religion is the true god.

Maybe you should read more on history of your religion and other religions to get the point

Another classic from Richard Dawkins, a major prophet of evolution:

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

So much for claiming that they deal with facts and not faith.

Cc: Seun, donffd.

Seun:

The scientific community has a good track record of telling the truth. The same cannot be said of religious institutions or their scriptures. Every time in history that religion has been in conflict with science, science has been proven to be right, and religious people have been forced to re-interpret their scriptures to accommodate the truth of science. Religious authorities persecuted Galileo because he said the earth moves round the sun, which is contrary to a direct interpretation of the bible. Now they accept it. They thought that lightning was a sign of God's wrath, but now they accept the scientific explanation. Many Christian denominations e.g. the Catholic church have accepted evolution too. Now it's your turn!

This "debate" between Richard Dawkins and an Anglican bishop ended up being a tutorial on evolution for the intelligent bishop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bow4nnh1Wv0


Scientists who question evolution aren't considered real scientists because their theory isn't based on reality. These people have decided that the earth was created by God because the bible says so, and then they try to distort the evidence to support their predetermined conclusion.

There is no evidence for evolution . Fossils are not evidences for evolution .

There are scientists who question the Big Bang and have produced several theories , according to your logic they are not real scientists .

Hundreds of years ago , some of the greatest scientists believed the atom was indivisible , some believed it was impossible for a metal to fly. And today the story is different , the story can change in a 100 years . why ? Because they were people who opposed those ideas and worked towards proving it . But according to your logic , they are not real scientists .

If you want to move this atheistic ministry forward, fallacies and ludicrous reasoning won't help your cause bro .

Ontarget:

I really laughed at the part in bold. So you chose to believe that the first simple life emerged from nowhere and formed every other thing while you still refused to believe that a God emerged from nowhere and created everything? What's the difference between the two?

No, I choose to believe that we don't yet know how the first simple life form emerged. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. In the past we didn't know how complex life forms came to be, but now we know that. It's reasonable to expect that we will know more in the future.

What makes you think a God isn't behind the natural selection of species and evolution cos I am still wondering how a farming hoe can blindly evolve to a tractor through "natural selection" without any intelligence guiding the transformation.

We cannot completely rule out the possibility that God, Superman, or Voltron created the first life form, but there's no good evidence for that.

Evolutionist, Steven J. Gould of Harvard University:

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

Seun:

No, I choose to believe that we don't yet know how the first simple life form emerged. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. In the past we didn't know how complex life forms came to be, but now we know that. It's reasonable to expect that we will know more in the future.


We cannot completely rule out the possibility that God, Superman, or Voltron created the first life form, but there's no good evidence for that.

I root for Voltron!

Seun, donffd and other atheists, please click on this link: [url]creation.mobi/evolution-ancient-pagan-idea[/url] to see the connection between evolution and ancient paganism.

Said one evolutionist:

“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

Is this not hypocrisy?

Seun,

You said scientists have a good record of saying the truth.(LOL) In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth. Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago. It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years. See the link here: [url]news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6925784.stm[/url]

Perhaps, the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, "Piltdown Man", turned out to be a giant hoax. See the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Chai! LOL I laugh at the way "scientists" deceive these gullible atheists.

Cc: donffd

Evolutionist, Dr. Lyall Watson:

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

Seun:

Many people don't have the time to study evolution in depth. For such people, it makes sense to simply accept it because scientists accept it.

Please read this blog post for some enlightenment: https://rarebible./2009/12/06/false-prophecies-of-jesus/

Thanks lemme check it out

Seun:
The scientific community has a good track record of telling the truth.

Science, itself, isn't about truth. It is about a certain kind of "consistency" and "predictability".

Scientific findings are not "true", they are "currently accepted in the field". Science evolves.

And, in general, scientists are no more honest than anybody else. Because something is "scientifically accepted" does not mean it is true.

The worst recent case of deception in the scientific community is the supposed confirmation of the Higgs Boson.

You will recall that, during the theatrical debacle, designed to justify investment in enhancing the Large Hadron Collider, Stephen Hawking actually pretended that he had lost his bet that the the Higgs Boson did not exsist, and Peter Higgs was awarded the Nobel Prize!!

Watching from the sidelines. This is getting more intresting!!

DoctorAlien:
donffd,

Now let's be honest: which makes more sense to you? That a frog suddenly turned into a snake or that an intelligent Creator designed both creatures? GOD created, and I would tell you from the top of my head.

Don't tell me fishes turned into amphibians and amphibians turned into reptiles and all that, and then conclude by telling me "it makes sense." It makes absolutely no sense.

In trying to prove evolution, scientists have come up with many "most-similars" to humans. When it comes to DNA, banana is the most similar to man. When it comes to another criterion, another thing becomes the most similar to man. Aren't they confused?

"Scientists" have to keep publishing new lies, you know, so that faith in their senseless religion called "Evolution" won't die.

You can as well educate yourself on that link I gave to your colleague, Seun.

Dude, you havent actually read anything about Evolution by Natural selection, because if you have, you would not sprout such things like "a frog suddenly turned into a snake" and the painful part of it is that you dont want to learn about it because you have already made up your mind.

So i guess more grace to your elbows, but i do advice you, when you are in an intellectual gathering, don't say what you just said, because 99% of the people there would just laugh at you.

donnffd:


Dude, you havent actually read anything about Evolution by Natural selection, because if you have, you would not sprout such things like "a frog suddenly turned into a snake" and the painful part of it is that you dont want to learn about it because you have already made up your mind.

So i guess more grace to your elbows, but i do advice you, when you are in an intellectual gathering, don't say what you just said, because 99% of the people there would just laugh at you.

Just like I'm laughing at your credulity?

onetrack:


Any evidence for this? Otherwise it is just an empty claim that anyone can make about any god.

I have derived my premise from the Bible. There is no point in quoting what you see as inconsistent and primitive.

Seun:

No, I choose to believe that we don't yet know how the first simple life form emerged. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. In the past we didn't know how complex life forms came to be, but now we know that. It's reasonable to expect that we will know more in the future.


We cannot completely rule out the possibility that God, Superman, or Voltron created the first life form, but there's no good evidence for that.

Then you are not an atheist. You sound like an Agnostic since you feel it is likely that God exists.

hahn:


If you buy a mathematics text book for your kid and you see that on the first page it says "1+1=11", would that not be sufficient for you to start disputing the source of the book especially when the writer claims to have a masters degree?

Besides, there are lots of other loophole like for instance, there is no proof of Jesus' existence and also the Israelites were never slaves under Egypt as depicted in the bible. Also, most of the stories are plagiarized.



Actually, the inconsistencies are very good points for refuting the claims of Jehovah. Remember also that atheists speak against ALL religons.



As a matter of fact, when you read ALL "holy" books, you will find out they are full of loopholes.

The same way you would view the writings in all other books is the same way other theists, not just atheists view yours.

For instance, muslims will never agree that Jesus is the son of god just like a Buddhist or Hindustan will not agree that Yahweh/Jehovah are the supreme gods. Remember, even among Christians there are lots of disagreements about the translation of certain texts and also religious practices. If Christians cannot come to a concession on the interpretations of the bible,to the extent of having 33,000 different denominations, why should anyone else?



I am not a scientist though, however judging by the evidence presented by history against religion and also the lack of evidence by religion to prove their various gods, it is safe to say none of these gods as proposed by religion is the true god.

Maybe you should read more on history of your religion and other religions to get the point

If you want to figure out about the existence of God just drop the Bible and take a deep look into the structure of creation. The Bible is never an evidence that God exists. The Bible only used God to create stories. The fact that the stories are fictional doesn't mean the concept of God is not true. Saying that God is inexistent because the Bible is fictional is like saying Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't exist because he featured in a fictional movie.
If you are an atheist because the Bible is fictional then that is the wrong way to be an atheist.

sinequanon:


Science, itself, isn't about truth. It is about a certain kind of "consistency" and "predictability".

Scientific findings are not "true", they are "currently accepted in the field". Science evolves.

And, in general, scientists are no more honest than anybody else. Because something is "scientifically accepted" does not mean it is true.

The worst recent case of deception in the scientific community is the supposed confirmation of the Higgs Boson.

You will recall that, during the theatrical debacle, designed to justify investment in enhancing the Large Hadron Collider, Stephen Hawking actually pretended that he had lost his bet that the the Higgs Boson did not exsist, and Peter Higgs was awarded the Nobel Prize!!

Wow, is an educated person typing this?, this is amazing...

so are you telling me that the discovery of the Higgs boson is fake?

This is the reason why Africans dont do science, they dont innovate, they dont ponder on questions that amazes the mind!. How can someone be typing what you just typed? are you kidding me?.

If Science is not about truth, then what in hell is it about?

Seun:

Bleep you

donnffd:


Wow, is an educated person typing this?, this is amazing...

so are you telling me that the discovery of the Higgs boson is fake?

This is the reason why Africans dont do science, they dont innovate, they dont ponder on questions that amazes the mind!. How can someone be typing what you just typed? are you kidding me?.

Instead of "wowing", produce a scientific paper or quote from a scientist that says that the existence of the Higgs Boson has been proven.

Being "educated" means being able to read carefully and critically.

donnffd:
If Science is not about truth, then what in hell is it about?

Try using your critical faculties instead of your emotion. I have already answered this question in my previous post.

sinequanon:

Instead of "wowing", produce a scientific paper or quote from a scientist that says that the existence of the Higgs Boson has been proven.

Being "educated" means being able to read carefully and critically.



Try using your critical faculties instead of your emotion. I have already answered this question in my previous post.

Ignorance is not a virtue dude.

For thousands of years, man believed that the earth was flat and the sun and moon revolved around it, that reasonable because we see the sun and the moon move in the sky but the earth is always stationary, they also believed diseases, plagues, Natural disasters were done by gods.

Thales of miletus was the first scientist in recorded history because he used observations and deductions to try and explain what happens in the Natural world, he lived 500BC but he had such amazing insight and his methods were agreeable but it wont be a very useful tool for another 2000years until Copernicus resurrected it.

Copernicus lived in a time where gods did everything but he revolutionized the world with experiments and deductions to explain truths previously unknown, like the earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around.

Kepler, Galileo, Huygens, Newton are all extraordinary men who built on this scientific enterprise and showed us more truths about the world that we would have never guessed in a million years.

When Europe discovered that science was the best route to knowledge and truths, they made it prestigious and their culture grew at an alarming rate.

All cultures that accepted the scientific process has grown to tremendous sizes and become far more knowledgeable than people 2500years ago.

Science is not about some people ganging up to deceive the masses, on the contrary, science is built to check itself, you are not regarded serious until you have documented the process and experiments that lead you to your conclusion and it must be repeatable and should explain all facts seen in Nature.

That is the scientific method and it is the best means to truth that we humans have ever invented.

As to the Nobel prize winning discovery, you think they lied about it? Dude, you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorists!, like seriously...

https://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson

Ontarget:

If you want to figure out about the existence of God just drop the Bible and take a deep look into the structure of creation.

Done

Well, nature is indeed a mystery. However, the more we study, the more we understand it. Look at it this way, if I was to say that due to the structure of the earth that aliens are responsible, would you agree? Seems you are leaning towards deism.

The Bible is never an evidence that God exists.

winner01, kingebukasblog, promise10, naijadeyhia(where have you been?), malvisguy22 etc can you believe the nerve of this guy?

The Bible only used God to create stories.

I agree. The bible is only good for smoking weed and as toilet tissue.

The fact that the stories are fictional doesn't mean the concept of God is not true.

There are over 4,000 version of "God". Which one are you talking about?

Saying that God is inexistent because the Bible is fictional is like saying Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't exist because he featured in a fictional movie.

We have seen Arnold. No one has seen "God".

If you are an atheist because the Bible is fictional then that is the wrong way to be an atheist.

I am an atheist because there is no evidence for any of the gods. If "God" knocks on my door and says hi I will believe. Promise