₦airaland Forum

rhektor:
Stop being sarcastic, blind faith? Have you seen Mars before? But you believe it? And you accused of of blind faith. My God has been verified by me and millions in the past and he is real have you purge yourself of all you think you know about nature? You just accept hook line and sinker all they fed you with. If there are any group of people having a blind faith it should be you atheists. what have atheistsm done to the world? If you can answer that question, then we can review atheistsm together. Remain bless brother

Ok I haven't seen mars the same way you might not have been to Chile or Mongolia. Have you been in those countries before, your logic is like saying those countries don't exist because you haven't set foot in it.

I haven't seen mars but one thing is for sure, I can see it by using a telescope and confirming it, I can also travel to a reputable institute and use their telescope. At least there is a way to confirm its existence.

Please how do you confirm the existence of Jesus , can you see him, can you spend any amount of money to confirm him, how did you accept him is it not by blind faith. Christians claim to have the power of god I am sure you can look around and see that xtians are not any different morally, financially, emotionally from other folks but you still go on believing by blind faith.

Nobody verified your god in the past, when Christianity started, the biggest dispute was concerning the divinity of Christ. Read about the Gnostics, marxionites, Mennonites, ebionites and other early Christian sects. Christians couldn't agree on that basic fact until the Roman empire stepped in after Constantine intervened and silenced every other sect of Christianity. Millions didn't confirm him, Millions were forced into it by the destruction of their pagan temples and burning of any one that didn't worship the Christian god. Saying people confirmed your god is like saying that Abacha, idiamin, gaddafi were confirmed as the best possible leaders for their country that's why ruled for long, but we know that's not true because they ruled by force, fear and intimidation. Thats the same way Christianity grew and survived.

And if I am to go by your logic that millions confirmed your gods existence then I can also say that billions have confirmed the Hindu gods[Brahman] existence and even billions have confirmed Allah's existence. Ask yourself which god is now the real one. And please if you're to debunk brahman and Allah with logic, please apply that same logic to Yahweh.


As for saying that we swallow everything hook line and
sinker. That's just laughable. No scientist releases any theory or finding without presenting evidence for confirmation. And even without evidence, the logic can still be traced to make sense. But am sure your pastor gives you revelation without any confirmation save for blind faith.

LiberaDeus:
Ok I haven't seen mars the same way you might not have been to Chile or Mongolia. Have you been in those countries before, your logic is like saying those countries don't exist because you haven't set foot in it.

I haven't seen mars but one thing is for sure, I can see it by using a telescope and confirming it, I can also travel to a reputable institute and use their telescope. At least there is a way to confirm its existence.

Please how do you confirm the existence of Jesus , can you see him, can you spend any amount of money to confirm him, how did you accept him is it not by blind faith. Christians claim to have the power of god I am sure you can look around and see that xtians are not any different morally, financially, emotionally from other folks but you still go on believing by blind faith.

Nobody verified your god in the past, when Christianity started, the biggest dispute was concerning the divinity of Christ. Read about the Gnostics, marxionites, Mennonites, ebionites and other early Christian sects. Christians couldn't agree on that basic fact until the Roman empire stepped in after Constantine intervened and silenced every other sect of Christianity. Millions didn't confirm him, Millions were forced into it by the destruction of their pagan temples and burning of any one that didn't worship the Christian god. Saying people confirmed your god is like saying that Abacha, idiamin, gaddafi were confirmed as the best possible leaders for their country that's why ruled for long, but we know that's not true because they ruled by force, fear and intimidation. Thats the same way Christianity grew and survived.

And if I am to go by your logic that millions confirmed your gods existence then I can also say that billions have confirmed the Hindu gods[Brahman] existence and even billions have confirmed Allah's existence. Ask yourself which god is now the real one. And please if you're to debunk brahman and Allah with logic, please apply that same logic to Yahweh.


As for saying that we swallow everything hook line and
sinker. That's just laughable. No scientist releases any theory or final ding without presenting evidence for confirmation. And even without evidence, the logic can still be traced to make sense. But am sure your pastor gives you revelation without any confirmation save for blind faith.

Have you ever use the telescope before? No. Your problem is that you seem to fuse atheistsm and science together, Mr man they are not the same. There are theist scientists in fact most of the scientists are theists. Atheism is an illusion. How can you accept that one big bang created all things and then discredit the creationist theory? Oh now I'm getting a bit of your trouble, so it's all about Christianity? You shouldn't have called l yourself an atheist rather come out plain and call yourself anti-christian then we'll be able to profer a solution to this problem.
You can give us your views on this too
https://www.nairaland.com/3452546/scientists-quotes-god#50853645

These are the views of those who are a thousand times wiser than you are, you are free to debunk it all.
GOD bless you brother

rhektor:
Have you ever use the telescope before? No. Your problem is that you seem to fuse atheistsm and science together, Mr man they are not the same. There are theist scientists in fact most of the scientists are theists. Atheism is an illusion. How can you accept that one big bang created all things and then discredit the creationist theory? Oh now I'm getting a bit of your trouble, so it's all about Christianity? You shouldn't have called l yourself an atheist rather come out plain and call yourself anti-christian then we'll be able to profer a solution to this problem.
You can give us your views on this too
https://www.nairaland.com/3452546/scientists-quotes-god#50853645

These are the views of those who are a thousand times wiser than you are, you are free to debunk it all.
GOD bless you brother

I haven't used telescope before so does it mean that it doesn't work. Have you ever travelled to Chile or Uzebkistan before, does it mean that they don't exist. The reason why you believe that some obscure countries exist is the same reason why I won't doubt that the function of telescopes have been well documented.

Atheism and science are not the same thing . But one of the greatest proofs that support the atheistic world view is scientific proof. Evolutionary biology debunks Christianity and religion, modern astronomy debunks your religious beliefs, modern geology debunks it, even modern morality and ethics debunks the barbaric practices of your OT god and most importantly your bible debunks itself in several places by predicting so many failed events.
Medieval scientists were mostly Christians because they couldn't object or go against the norm cause it could cost them their life.

Your statement that most scientists believe in God is the most biased and false statement I have heard in a while. I will give you links to show that most reputable scientists in the USA and Europe disbelieve in god. The smarter a man gets the more ridiculous religion appears to him.
http://news.rice.edu/2014/09/24/indian-scientists-significantly-more-religious-than-uk-scientists/

I don't need to post it all for you. Please Google the percentage of scientific atheists and see that its quite normal to disbelieve in your god.

Why will you call me antichristian, I am also antimuslim, anti jewish, anti religion.

I don't believe in your useless myths and fables. But am sure you see every one that rejects Christianity as devilish and satanic. Its the normal xtian response. You can villify all non believers in so many ways but you will never consider the fact that many of the doctrines and stories in your bible are unrealistic, not historical, immoral and down right impossible.

LiberaDeus:
I haven't used telescope before so does it mean that it doesn't work. Have you ever travelled to Chile or Uzebkistan before, does it mean that they don't exist. The reason why you believe that some obscure countries exist is the same reason why I won't doubt that the function of telescopes have been well documented.

Atheism and science are not the same thing . But one of the greatest proofs that support the atheistic world view is scientific proof. Evolutionary biology debunks Christianity and religion, modern astronomy debunks your religious beliefs, modern geology debunks it, even modern morality and ethics debunks the barbaric practices of your OT god and most importantly your bible debunks itself in several places by predicting so many failed events.
Medieval scientists were mostly Christians because they couldn't object or go against the norm cause it could cost them their life.

Your statement that most scientists believe in God is the most biased and false statement I have heard in a while. I will give you links to show that most reputable scientists in the USA and Europe disbelieve in god. The smarter a man gets the more ridiculous religion appears to him.
http://news.rice.edu/2014/09/24/indian-scientists-significantly-more-religious-than-uk-scientists/

I don't need to post it all for you. Please Google the percentage of scientific atheists and see that its quite normal to disbelieve in your god.

Why will you call me antichristian, I am also antimuslim, anti jewish, anti religion.

I don't believe in your useless myths and fables. But am sure you see every one that rejects Christianity as devilish and satanic. Its the normal xtian response. You can villify all non believers in so many ways but you will never consider the fact that many of the doctrines and stories in your bible are unrealistic, not historical, immoral and down right impossible.

You did not read that link right? Or are you trying to avoid it?
You present yourself as an atheist however you mentioned Christian and Bible more times than you mentioned science. It's alright I have told you before that you should come out plain because I can see a pain I you whenever you mention Christian or Bible. Just try get over it, God bless you sir

LiberaDeus:
I haven't used telescope before so does it mean that it doesn't work. Have you ever travelled to Chile or Uzebkistan before, does it mean that they don't exist. The reason why you believe that some obscure countries exist is the same reason why I won't doubt that the function of telescopes have been well documented.

Atheism and science are not the same thing . But one of the greatest proofs that support the atheistic world view is scientific proof. Evolutionary biology debunks Christianity and religion, modern astronomy debunks your religious beliefs, modern geology debunks it, even modern morality and ethics debunks the barbaric practices of your OT god and most importantly your bible debunks itself in several places by predicting so many failed events.
Medieval scientists were mostly Christians because they couldn't object or go against the norm cause it could cost them their life.

Your statement that most scientists believe in God is the most biased and false statement I have heard in a while. I will give you links to show that most reputable scientists in the USA and Europe disbelieve in god. The smarter a man gets the more ridiculous religion appears to him.
http://news.rice.edu/2014/09/24/indian-scientists-significantly-more-religious-than-uk-scientists/

I don't need to post it all for you. Please Google the percentage of scientific atheists and see that its quite normal to disbelieve in your god.

Why will you call me antichristian, I am also antimuslim, anti jewish, anti religion.

I don't believe in your useless myths and fables. But am sure you see every one that rejects Christianity as devilish and satanic. Its the normal xtian response. You can villify all non believers in so many ways but you will never consider the fact that many of the doctrines and stories in your bible are unrealistic, not historical, immoral and down right impossible.

You did not read that link right? Or are you trying to avoid it?
You present yourself as an atheist however you mentioned Christian and Bible more times than you mentioned science. It's alright I have told you before that you should come out plain because I can see a pain I you whenever you mention Christian or Bible. Just try get over it, God bless you sir
http://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/

rhektor:
You did not read that link right? Or are you trying to avoid it?
You present yourself as an atheist however you mentioned Christian and Bible more times than you mentioned science. It's alright I have told you before that you should come out plain because I can see a pain I you whenever you mention Christian or Bible. Just try get over it, God bless you sir

Oh I read the link. The aim of the link was to show you religious disposition in a scientifically advanced country like the UK. The article compared religious beliefs amongst Indian scientists and UK scientists. You were meant to deduce the point from the link. You can check Google for other sites.

Is atheism not a lack of belief in god. I was a christian, that was my belief system and now becoming an agnostic atheist means I am free from the mental cage of religion. I mentioned the bible so many times because when the bible is read with an open mind it can be the most potent force for atheism.

I don't think there is a pain, I just think its disgust over the horrendous myths that are passed as facts in religious circles and the fact that I believed them for a long time.

My man am sure you think you are on the right path to an eternity of bliss and we are the lost ones. The only advice I will give you is to follow the facts and use critical thinking and you will find out that the so called path you are on is actually a mental prison that has profited the leaders of religious institutions for millennia.
When you discover this fact the you will know real joy and freedom not the joy you have to delude yourself into believing that you have by blind faith.

LiberaDeus:
Oh I read the link. The aim of the link was to show you religious disposition in a scientifically advanced country like the UK. The article compared religious beliefs amongst Indian scientists and UK scientists. You were meant to deduce the point from the link. You can check Google for other sites.

Is atheism not a lack of belief in god. I was a christian, that was my belief system and now becoming an agnostic atheist means I am free from the mental cage of religion. I mentioned the bible so many times because when the bible is read with an open mind it can be the most potent force for atheism.

I don't think there is a pain, I just think its disgust over the horrendous myths that are passed as facts in religious circles and the fact that I believed them for a long time.

My man am sure you think you are on the right path to an eternity of bliss and we are the lost ones. The only advice I will give you is to follow the facts and use critical thinking and you will find out that the so called path you are on is actually a mental prison that has profited the leaders of religious institutions for millennia.
When you discover this fact the you will know real joy and freedom not the joy you have to delude yourself into believing that you have by blind faith.

Did you read my own link? No because you believe it is of no value, not relevant, sunk? I laughed but atheists like you would be quick to posit that we theists don't study to know beyond what our religious books teaches however you as an atheist would rather want me to read your link which I did and it confirmed earlier statement that most scientists are religious which you debunked but your link still prove me right you read my link and give your opinion..
O
Maybe you think you are smarter than those religious scientists
http://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/


https://www.nairaland.com/3452546/scientists-quotes-god#50853645

rhektor:
Did you read my own link? No because you believe it is of no value, not relevant, sunk? I laughed but atheists like you would be quick to posit that we theists don't study to know beyond what our religious books teaches however you as an atheist would rather want me to read your link which I did and it confirmed earlier statement that most scientists are religious which you debunked but your link still prove me right you read my link and give your opinion..
O
Maybe you think you are smarter than those religious scientists
http://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/


https://www.nairaland.com/3452546/scientists-quotes-god#50853645

I read your links and they come from a Christian apologist site and also started by a Christian on NL.
Look at the name of th first site, godevidence.com. do you think they would be objective?

My link didn't confirm your view point. The link showed that at least 45% of British scientists don't believe in god. I earlier told you that technologically advanced countries like UK and USA have a high percentage of scientists that disbelieve in your myths. But am sure in the link what you cherrypicked was the part that talked about Indian scientists believing in god. So my link didn't confirm your fact. In UK and USA most normal people identify with a religion but the higher you go on the scientific and philosophical ladder the less the number of believers. Doesn't that show you a pattern.

Guy the only thing I can tell you is to research the percentage of atheistic scientists. I don't think you can honestly do a small research on that topic and still not find out that there is a wide discrepancy between religious belief and scientific discipline. The deeper they go the farther they run from religion.

LiberaDeus:
I read your links and they come from a Christian apologist site and also started by a Christian on NL.
Look at the name of th first site, godevidence.com. do you think they would be objective?

My link didn't confirm your view point. The link showed that at least 45% of British scientists don't believe in god. I earlier told you that technologically advanced countries like UK and USA have a high percentage of scientists that disbelieve in your myths. But am sure in the link what you cherrypicked was the part that talked about Indian scientists believing in god. So my link didn't confirm your fact. In UK and USA most normal people identify with a religion but the higher you go on the scientific and philosophical ladder the less the number of believers. Doesn't that show you a pattern.

Guy the only thing I can tell you is to research the percentage of atheistic scientists. I don't think you can honestly do a small research on that topic and still not find out that there is a wide discrepancy between religious belief and scientific discipline. The deeper they go the farther they run from religion.

Concluding without verification, is that what atheistsm has taught you? If this is Atheism then I'd rather join boko haram than be an atheist

rhektor:
Concluding without verification, is that what atheistsm has taught you? If this is Atheism then I'd rather join boko haram than be an atheist

You haven't tried to verify yourself. Google pew research center and see their poll on religious belief amongst scientists .

Don't you think as a Christian that you are not very different from boko haram.

Let me list the similarities between Christianity and boko haram

1. Boko haram members believe in prophet Isa and Christians also believe Jesus existed.

2. They pray to a deity that they believe chose Abraham as his chosen servant 5000 years ago. Christians also believe in that deity.

3. Boko haram members believe in pleasure in the afterlife and also believe that pleasure in afterlife is greater once you are martyred. You as a Christian also believe on a pleasurable after life and am sure you believe your crown of glory will be greater if you are martyred.

4. Boko haram members pray at least 5 times a day. And am sure you also pray on numerous occasions.

5. Boko haram members believe in Adam and eve being the first human beings. You also believe that. They also believe in the first temptation in the garden of eden which you do.

6. Boko haram members fast regularly. I believe you also fast too.

7. Boko haram members believe in heaven and hell. You also believe that too.

8. They believe in zakat while you believe in tithing.

I can go on and on to show you similarities between extreme fundamentalist sunni wahhabism and evangelical xtianity. I won't lie and say that you are as violent as them or you are a suicide bomber. But come to think of it, the credulity you have to believe that a dead Jewish man will come back with a flying horse in the sky with millions of angels coming with swords to judge humanity is not very different from the credulity required to believe that when you die fighting for god you will get 72 virgins .

Its not very different my friend. So you can see that my view points are very far from that of an Islamic extremist while yours is related. Comparing me to an extremist is like comparing a bird to a cow. But as a cow is to a bull so is a Christian to a Muslim.

LiberaDeus:
You haven't tried to verify yourself. Google pew research center and see their poll on religious belief amongst scientists .

Don't you think as a Christian that you are not very different from boko haram.

Let me list the similarities between Christianity and boko haram

1. Boko haram members believe in prophet Isa and Christians also believe Jesus existed.

2. They pray to a deity that they believe chose Abraham as his chosen servant 5000 years ago. Christians also believe in that deity.

3. Boko haram members believe in pleasure in the afterlife and also believe that pleasure in afterlife is greater once you are martyred. You as a Christian also believe on a pleasurable after life and am sure you believe your crown of glory will be greater if you are martyred.

4. Boko haram members pray at least 5 times a day. And am sure you also pray on numerous occasions.

5. Boko haram members believe in Adam and eve being the first human beings. You also believe that. They also believe in the first temptation in the garden of eden which you do.

6. Boko haram members fast regularly. I believe you also fast too.

7. Boko haram members believe in heaven and hell. You also believe that too.

8. They believe in zakat while you believe in tithing.

I can go on and on to show you similarities between extreme fundamentalist sunni wahhabism and evangelical xtianity. I won't lie and say that you are as violent as them or you are a suicide bomber. But come to think of it, the credulity you have to believe that a dead Jewish man will come back with a flying horse in the sky with millions of angels coming with swords to judge humanity is not very different from the credulity required to believe that when you die fighting for god you will get 72 virgins .

Its not very different my friend. So you can see that my view points are very far from that of an Islamic extremist while yours is related. Comparing me to an extremist is like comparing a bird to a cow. But as a cow is to a bull so is a Christian to a Muslim.

Digression! That's all I see here. You posted a link which I clicked even though it was not a christian link however it turn out to confirm my statement about religious scientists. I posted a link you failed to open it because you are afraid of Christians. So what's your point?

rhektor:
Digression! That's all I see here. You posted a link which I clicked even though it was not a christian link however it turn out to confirm my statement about religious scientists. I posted a link you failed to open it because you are afraid of Christians. So what's your point?

Please how did my link confirm your view point. Over 70 percent of British citizens believe in a god while on the same UK amongst scientists not up to 50percent believe doesn't it show you something. Why should I repeat myself again and again.

In the USA, over 90 percent believe in a god amongst normal people but in the same USA amongst scientists not up to 50 percent of scientists believe in that god. Can't you see the pattern.
I just gave you one link from a neutral site, I expected you to pick the facts from the site but you gave me a link to an apologist site that spews the same arguments over and over again.

What's the fuss about scientists, you were the one that said I didn't know more than scientists that believed in god. You claimed that most scientists believe in god and I have shown you that the claim is false. I am not going to give you links here and there, you can go and Google it yourself and see the percentage of atheist scientists but you don't want to check it out yourself.

You drove to argument to the point of showing that scientists are religious and I cornered you there, you now wanted to pass a snide remark about atheism and boko haram but I also caught you there and showed you that belief wise you are much closer to Abu Shekau than I can ever be.

Am still waiting for you to prove to me that scientists in advanced countries are more religious than non religious. I know you can't do it cos you can't prove a lie .

And you said I am afraid of Christians, I have read uncountable Christian websites like answeringenesis etc and I find them to be ridiculous and based on emotional appeal and scientific distortions. Such sites are for those that really want to believe and need encouragement in their blindness called faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJ-nvNoTSg

Well CoolUsername has answered most of this
But get something clear OP ring species alone is 100% proof of speciation. Small changes would accumulate into big changes
Ring species happens when a species has split into several populations, some of which cannot interbreed, but some of which can breed with two or more populations that cannot breed with each other.
Ring species constitute strong evidence that evolution does indeed happen, it was PREDICTED by evolution and is extremely strongly supportive of the theory
That first point is just off
The second point is off too because it has been explained!!
morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change
Plus the lungfish that is also a living fossil is able to breathe with their lungs and can live out of water for fairly long periods. This shows creationists are wrong when they argue that a fish could not survive without gills while its lungs were evolving. Fish did not lose their gills till their lungs were fully evolved. Some lungfish are more adapted to water and others to land
This already throws the number 3 point out the window
How would you say beneficial mutations are rarer. Are you assuming mutation is only advantageous to the species??. This is wrong mutations will always exist in a species but environmental changes would make the species with the already existing mutation more likely to survive. DNA supports evolution more than refutes it
Why?
The structures and functions of all living organisms are encoded in the same basic nucleic molecules, DNA and RNA. Similarities in amino acid sequences between various organisms also show common descent, and the fossil record also shows cases in which one plant or animal type evolved into different types over time
Common design isn't right cuz when we look at the DNA sequences in those shared by the shark and the camel, also two different "Kinds", we see different DNA sequences, as would be expected in the case of convergent evolution, but completely inconsistent with what pattern one would expect from a common designer. If common design were the case, we should either see identical DNA sequences in all proteins or difference sequences for each "Kind", not a pattern that shows common ancestry where evolution needs it and convergence where it would otherwise falsify common ancestry.
Plus evolution is not a random process
Stop.mixing natural selection with genetic drift
I don't really have time to start explaining every point. I just hope I've been able to maybe some things clear to you cuz learning never ends
CoolUsername has refuted most of this anyway soo my work here is done

CoolUsername:
1. Funny, I remember a time when the argument was that speciation is impossible. Now the goal posts have shifted (fallacy alert!). Anyway, there's no reason to believe in such a frivolous claim because speciation is not known to have any limit given enough time in reproductive isolation.

Living fossils and recorded history show that species do remain the same over time. I just prescribed a limit to speciation at the genus level. To claim it is frivolous is foolish.

CoolUsername:
2. Living fossils remain unchanged have remained due to lack of environmental pressure, this is a known phenomenon known as evolutionary stasis. The coelacanth is a good example of a living fossil, studies show that its deep-sea habitat had remained unchanged, coupled with lack of predation, there simply hasn't been much natural selection taking place.

A poor excuse as environmental pressure isn't required for evolution.

CoolUsername:
3. Evolution doesn't work on a singular organ and leave others high and dry, it is a very gradual process that affects the entire organism (to an extent). Of course, we do have cases of animals that were driven to extinction by exaggerated body parts. One example is the Irish Elk which was driven to extinction by it's ridiculously sized antlers.

And I just stated why it can't be gradual, a change in one organ requires a complementary change in others. Yet you inanely insist it's gradual.

CoolUsername:
4. Evolution is based on a non-random process known as natural selection. With natural selection, traits that are beneficial to an organism in a given location within a given generation are likely to be passed on to the next. This is why sudden changes to the environment can lead to mass extinctions. I repeat, evolution is non-random.

This is you being ignorant about evolution. Evolution is also based on random mutations. Your statement here has nothing to do with the point I raised.

CoolUsername:
5. See no. 4. I'll add that most deleterious mutations would be gone after several generations of selection.

Again nothing to do with the point I raised.

CoolUsername:
6. Humans are 98% similar to chimps in terms of DNA and about 70% similar to slugs. Lions, tigers and cats all display 95% of similarity with one another. DNA is used in paternity tests to show familial relations. As a general rule, DNA similarity shows closeness in familial relationships. Fossil evidence proves that not species have existed from the beginning of time, it also shows that many species that have gone extinct. Perfectly fitting into the evolutionary theory for some reason.

This does nothing to show how there's justification for the assumption that similarity proves common descent.

CoolUsername:
7. Redundant. See no. 4.

You keep displaying poor reasoning. 4 has nothing to do with the point raised. Deal with it.

CoolUsername:
8. Fossil evidence proves that not species have existed from the beginning of time, it also shows that many species that have gone extinct. Perfectly fitting into the evolutionary theory for some reason.

Doesn't address the the point.

CoolUsername:
9. Vestigial organs are proof against Intelligent Design. For example the human ear contains muscles that are generally too weak to move it (although there are some exceptions). In other mammalian species that morphologically resemble the common ancestor, these muscles are used to move the ears toward sound.
Furthermore, vestigiality only denotes loss of some or all function and not necessarily all. The human appendix for example, still retains some function as a store house for beneficial gut flora but was once a caecum for breaking down lvegetables, this correlates with the nutritional information that can be gleamed from the dental information of a skeleton which showed that we once ate a lot of plant material.

Does not address my point that vestigiality assumes evolution.

CoolUsername:
10. Similarly, every incredibly complex structure evolved from simple parts, organisms are a bunch of anatomical systems working in tandem, anatomical systems are a bunch of organs working together, organs are related tissue structures working in tandem, tissue is made up of cells working in tandem, a cell is genetic material co-ordinating chemical reactions, genetic material is nucleic acid with a certain configuration. Nucleic acids are formed from complex organic compounds. Organic compounds are formed from Carbon, Hydrogen along with other inorganic elements. Elements come from a certain number of electrons orbiting a neutron and a proton. These structures are condensed energy. What then is so complex about concerned energy particles orbiting and colliding in a given manner?

Screw, it! I'm not editing this.

Again non-sequitur. Disappointing.

LiberaDeus:
Please how did my link confirm your view point. Over 70 percent of British citizens believe in a god while on the same UK amongst scientists not up to 50percent believe doesn't it show you something. Why should I repeat myself again and again.

In the USA, over 90 percent believe in a god amongst normal people but in the same USA amongst scientists not up to 50 percent of scientists believe in that god. Can't you see the pattern.
I just gave you one link from a neutral site, I expected you to pick the facts from the site but you gave me a link to an apologist site that spews the same arguments over and over again.

What's the fuss about scientists, you were the one that said I didn't know more than scientists that believed in god. You claimed that most scientists believe in god and I have shown you that the claim is false. I am not going to give you links here and there, you can go and Google it yourself and see the percentage of atheist scientists but you don't want to check it out yourself.

You drove to argument to the point of showing that scientists are religious and I cornered you there, you now wanted to pass a snide remark about atheism and boko haram but I also caught you there and showed you that belief wise you are much closer to Abu Shekau than I can ever be.

Am still waiting for you to prove to me that scientists in advanced countries are more religious than non religious. I know you can't do it cos you can't prove a lie .

And you said I am afraid of Christians, I have read uncountable Christian websites like answeringenesis etc and I find them to be ridiculous and based on emotional appeal and scientific distortions. Such sites are for those that really want to believe and need encouragement in their blindness called faith.

What is neutral about your link? Tell me what is neutral? An experiment carried out by same atheists is neutral, my guy got find something done with your life. Please stop mentioning me, ok? Thank you and God bless you

rhektor:
What is neutral about your link? Tell me what is neutral? An experiment carried out by same atheists is neutral, my guy got find something done with your life. Please stop mentioning me, ok? Thank you and God bless you

Acting like the typical christian, spout some claims then get cornered then finally get annoyed when they realize that their precious belief is seen as a dirty rag amongst the sane.

Am doing something with my life, I don't have time for you its your weak arguments that I am dismantling, I didn't mention you cos I know or care about you but because your logic needs to be stripped bare and exposed for the nonsense it is.

For those willing to learn, please compare this two websites and tell me which is neutral and which has an agenda.
Rice.edu - which is the website for rice university in Houston Texas - a private research university.

Godevidence.com - which is a website created by the religious for the religious and in order to produce evidence of god.

Its as clear as day. Its like asking between arsenalfc.com and goal.com which website will be biased in favor of arsenal.

Simple logic.
Goodbye rhektor, hope to never bump into you again

jonbellion:
Well CoolUsername has answered most of this

He didn't address my point. So he gave 'non-answers'.

jonbellion:
But get something clear OP ring species alone is 100% proof of speciation. Small changes would accumulate into big changes
Ring species happens when a species has split into several populations, some of which cannot interbreed, but some of which can breed with two or more populations that cannot breed with each other.
Ring species constitute strong evidence that evolution does indeed happen, it was PREDICTED by evolution and is extremely strongly supportive of the theory
That first point is just off

Sure ring speciation proves speciation. In fact, it is speciation. What it is not is evidence of evolution particularly as it relates to universal common descent.

jonbellion:
The second point is off too because it has been explained!!
morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change
Plus the lungfish that is also a living fossil is able to breathe with their lungs and can live out of water for fairly long periods. This shows creationists are wrong when they argue that a fish could not survive without gills while its lungs were evolving. Fish did not lose their gills till their lungs were fully evolved. Some lungfish are more adapted to water and others to land

Random mutations generate new features irrespective of the environment. This is a poor excuse.

jonbellion:
This already throws the number 3 point out the window
How would you say beneficial mutations are rarer. Are you assuming mutation is only advantageous to the species??. This is wrong mutations will always exist in a species but environmental changes would make the species with the already existing mutation more likely to survive. DNA supports evolution more than refutes it
Why?

My point is that beneficial mutations are too rare to be a good mechanism for evolution.

jonbellion:
The structures and functions of all living organisms are encoded in the same basic nucleic molecules, DNA and RNA. Similarities in amino acid sequences between various organisms also show common descent, and the fossil record also shows cases in which one plant or animal type evolved into different types over time

What is the basis for the assumption that similarities in DNA sequences is evidence of common descent ?

jonbellion:
Common design isn't right cuz when we look at the DNA sequences in those shared by the shark and the camel, also two different "Kinds", we see different DNA sequences, as would be expected in the case of convergent evolution, but completely inconsistent with what pattern one would expect from a common designer. If common design were the case, we should either see identical DNA sequences in all proteins or difference sequences for each "Kind", not a pattern that shows common ancestry where evolution needs it and convergence where it would otherwise falsify common ancestry.

Convergent evolution deals with similar structures in different species. You misunderstand your theory.

jonbellion:
Plus evolution is not a random process
Stop.mixing natural selection with genetic drift

And where did I say evolution is a random process ?

jonbellion:
I don't really have time to start explaining every point. I just hope I've been able to maybe some things clear to you cuz learning never ends
CoolUsername has refuted most of this anyway soo my work here is done

If you think CoolUsername refuted my points then your ability to reason properly must be called into question.

LiberaDeus:
Acting like the typical christian, spout some claims then get cornered then finally get annoyed when they realize that their precious belief is seen as a dirty rag amongst the sane.

Am doing something with my life, I don't have time for you its your weak arguments that I am dismantling, I didn't mention you cos I know or care about you but because your logic needs to be stripped bare and exposed for the nonsense it is.

For those willing to learn, please compare this two websites and tell me which is neutral and which has an agenda.
Rice.edu - which is the website for rice university in Houston Texas - a private research university.

Godevidence.com - which is a website created by the religious for the religious and in order to produce evidence of god.

Its as clear as day. Its like asking between arsenalfc.com and goal.com which website will be biased in favor of arsenal.


Simple logic.
Goodbye rhektor, hope to never bump into you again

What is logical about you concluding without verification? I don't know who lobotomised you. How was I cornered? Like seriously you think I'm one of those you can sell your junk to? Do have a rethink visit that site and debunk everything there if you are not afraid.

rhektor:
What is logical about you concluding without verification? I don't know who lobotomised you. How was I cornered? Like seriously you think I'm one of those you can sell your junk to? Do have a rethink visit that site and debunk everything there if you are not afraid.

Na you no wan let me rest oh. Sell junk, I don't evangelize to anyone unlike you xtian. I have visited it and it's the same ol twisted logic supported by blind faith.

LiberaDeus:
Na you no wan let me rest oh. Sell junk, I don't evangelize to anyone unlike you xtian. I have visited it and it's the same ol twisted logic supported by blind faith.

A liar like you Mtchewwwwwwwww

rhektor:
A liar like you Mtchewwwwwwwww

Of course I read the goddamn website. You think I have a jelly brain that once i read it I will just jump in euphoria and declare that yahweh is god.
The site focused a lot on atheism and morality, communism and mass murder etc.

If you have good points bring them on nairaland lets debate. Bring the points on the website here like I did concerning the religion and science stats. Bring the points on NL, let me tear them shred by shred. You make a claim with no fact then immediately refer me to a Christian website, do you think I have the IQ of a Christian.

I guess the owner of the site does his thinking for himself and you at the same time, later you will claim that atheists follow scientists blindly but ironically we understand scientific theories and we can defend them on NL without copy and paste or referring people to an atheistic site.

Bring your proof here lets debate or forever remain silent.


And as for your claim that I am a liar , I accept but you know who the bigger liar is, your Lord and master Yahshua the fake messiah whose bones have been destroyed by maggots since 33 ad.
Here is one of his famous lies
" verily verily I say unto you, some who are standing here will not taste death before the kingdom of god will come" Luke 21 vs 32.
Please has this kingdom come, are his disciples still alive, now tell me who is the bigger liar?

UyiIredi:
He didn't address my point. So he gave 'non-answers'.



Sure ring speciation proves speciation. In fact, it is speciation. What it is not is evidence of evolution particularly as it relates to universal common descent.



Random mutations generate new features irrespective of the environment. This is a poor excuse.



My point is that beneficial mutations are too rare to be a good mechanism for evolution.



What is the basis for the assumption that similarities in DNA sequences is evidence of common descent ?



Convergent evolution deals with similar structures in different species. You misunderstand your theory.



And where did I say evolution is a random process ?



If you think CoolUsername refuted my points then your ability to reason properly must be called into question.

like I said I would have liked to iron this thing out with you but I don't really have time for back and forth arguments. If I'm less busy I'll look at your points objectively. You should know you are basically shifting the goal post on speciation anyway ring species is like a mid point. It is a gradual thing. And by the way why do you attack both gnostic thiests aged evolutionists upandan. But you said some of your points haven't been answered so that's why I assumed you were good with most. So you mislead me. But anyway
Some animals with extreme genetic similarities breed so easily.as they drift apart it becomes harder until they can't breed atall
Like this set of images below. But the annoying thing is that you guys would always say it's micro. Until the day a species completely changes this theory would remain the most controversial theory in science. And concerning DNA and common descent you should realise that there are branches of biology that focus on that extensively