₦airaland Forum

Kalatium:
The origin of science begins with the origin of man, It's jst that the ancients don't have knowledge as modern science.

You are right. That's what I'd have expected him to say. It's harmful to misinform in the process driving home a point.

akintom:
Just the same way the composition of acts of God and that of terrorists are the same.

You are talking out of point. Stay on the subject.

Kalatium:
I am not talking about evolution I'm talking about abiogenesis.

I knew.

Lennycool:
Its funny how every tom, dick and harry think they can just write DEBUNKED next to a scientifically established theory that has been studied for decades and claim they are right. If it's debunked as you say, you should submit your findings to the scientific community, and also provide an alternative to it.
Believing in the bible as a source of scientific truth will get humans no where.

How long something has been believed is not proof that it is fact. The bible has existed for millennia but you don't believe it, do you? You know there are scientific "facts" that were later proved wrong.

KingEbukasBlog:
I think most times he does not even know what the thread is about , he just jumps in and starts his quotidian rancorous harangue against God and religion. I hope he is okay .

You're just blinking in the thick darkness. You might suffer a ruptured cornea.

WORLDPEACE:
How long something has been believed is not proof that it is fact. The bible has existed for millennia but you don't believe it, do you? You know there are scientific "facts" that were later proved wrong.

I agree with you

KingEbukasBlog:
I think most times he does not even know what the thread is about , he just jumps in and starts his quotidian rancorous harangue against God and religion. I hope he is okay .

I wonder o

Seun:
It is true that scientists have not figured out how life could come from nonliving matter. This doesn't invalidate evolution. [b]Enlightened religious people believe that God set the process in motion by creating the first life form and left the rest to evolution, [/b]which is a much better view.

Since when has what people believe got anything to do with whether it is fact. Enlightened people once believed the earth was flat that if you traveled too far you would fall off the earth. Now we know better.

Kalatium:
I agree with you

Now that you have "Scientifically" debunked this theory, what theory do you now present as its replacement?

I wonder why scientists and people of this generation underestimate the ancients, years ago they argue that it wasn't long humans learn how to write. Archaeology proves that writing existed around 4000BC by the sumerians. Because something is ancient and looks doubtful doesn't mean it can't be true. The biblical stories may be right

WORLDPEACE:
How long something has been believed is not proof that it is fact. The bible has existed for millennia but you don't believe it, do you? You know there are scientific "facts" that were later proved wrong.

Exactly !

Like I told Seun sometime , scientific theories get debunked . I used the atom and metal to explain . Atoms were once seen as indivisible - people questioned this and now we can see that atoms are divisible .

"Its impossible for a metal to fly" people once thought centuries ago , a few questioned this , now its proven to be false - airplanes , helicopters etc

"Evolution is a fact " - but nowadays people questioning this are given disparaging names

WORLDPEACE:
Since when has what people believe got anything to do with whether it is fact. Enlightened people once believed the earth was flat that if you traveled too far you would fall off the earth. Now we know better.

In addition, because the scientific consensus accepts a theory does not it a fact. It can be fallacious to follow the crowd.

KingEbukasBlog:
Exactly !

Like I told Seun sometime , scientific theories get debunked . I used the atom and metal to explain . Atoms were once seen as indivisible - people questioned this and now we can see that atoms are divisible .

"Its impossible for a metal to fly" people once thought centuries ago , a few questioned this , now its proven to be false - airplanes , helicopters etc

"Evolution is a fact " - but nowadays people questioning this are given disparaging names

I totally agree with you. Scientists can be guilty of GROUPTHINK - a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Seun:
It is true that scientists have not figured out how life could come from nonliving matter. This doesn't invalidate evolution. Enlightened religious people believe that God set the process in motion by creating the first life form and left the rest to evolution, which is a much better view.

You are referring to Theistic Evolution. I kind of find it hard to believe

akintom:
You're just blinking in the thick darkness. You might suffer a ruptured cornea.

Woah ! Shiit man , dope line

See ? You should be in a studio spitting these lines not a forum arguing ingorantly

Kalatium:
You are referring to Theistic Evolution. I kind of find it hard to believe

Theistic evolution seems plausible since a supernatural agent supposedly orchestrates the whole process - this makes more sense than attributing life's complexity and design to serendipity .

Kalatium:
I wonder why scientists and people of this generation underestimate the ancients, years ago they argue that it wasn't long humans learn how to write. Archaeology proves that writing existed around 4000BC by the sumerians. Because something is ancient and looks doubtful doesn't mean it can't be true. The biblical stories may be right

Evolution is even an ancient idea

KingEbukasBlog:
Lest I forget , I want to let you know that evolution isn't a modern scientific idea , very archaic in fact . The idea of Evolution started with the Mayan culture around 600 BC . Then came the Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) who first came up with the idea that life came from water and there was the Greek philosopher Empedocles (493–435 BC) who is described as the father of evolutionary naturalism . Even the Hindus believed in evolution but in a more spiritual sense .

KingEbukasBlog:
Theistic evolution seems plausible since a supernatural agent supposedly orchestrates the whole process - this makes more sense than attributing life's complexity and design to serendipity .

But that's not the way I see it

Kalatium:
But that's not the way I see it

How do you see it ?

WORLDPEACE:
I totally agree with you. Scientists can be guilty of GROUPTHINK - a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

You and KingEbukasBlog are simply alien to scientific ethics, culture, discipline and Academy.

In-group/out-group phenomenon doesn't apply in scientific society. It's simply a psychological representation, of the fractionalization basis of religion ideologies.

This science:

* Science is not shielded from criticism

* science doesn't frown at or get irritated when it's challenged

* when scientific fact is falsified, the fact is replaced with the newest fact

* science encourages critical thinking, rational enquiry

* science is built on empirical evidence etc

All of the above doesn't apply to religion/God idea.

KingEbukasBlog:
Woah ! Shiit man , dope line

See ? You should be in a studio spitting these lines not a forum arguing ingorantly

I don't see myself involved in argument with your type.

I am just shocking your perforated cognitive encasement.

[quote author=akintom post=51018465][/quote]* Science is not shielded from criticism------But scientists can shield it

* science doesn't frown at or get irritated when it's challenged Scientists can get irritated when their theories are challenged

* when scientific fact is falsified, the fact is replaced with the newest fact Not if a scientist or group of scientists have reasons want to keep it that way

* science encourages critical thinking, rational enquiry Have you or someone you know challenged your professor in class before? What was the outcome?


I am not talking to you about God.

WORLDPEACE:
* Science is not shielded from criticism------But scientists can shield it

* science doesn't frown at or get irritated when it's challenged Scientists can get irritated when their theories are challenged

* when scientific fact is falsified, the fact is replaced with the newest fact Not if a scientist or group of scientists have reasons want to keep it that way

* science encourages critical thinking, rational enquiry Have you or someone you know challenged your professor in class before? What was the outcome?


I am not talking to you about God.

You're obviously threading on the path of those conspiracy theories nonsense.

Do you really know anything about academy of science or scientific journals and works.

Kalatium:
I didn't challenge theories of gravity, plate tectonics, Germ theory etc because they are well established. But as for abiogenesis, it is not well supported. Many hypothesis are deduced to explain it like biogeochemistry, pangenesis etc but still this theories lack evidence.

I am looking forward to summiting my findings to scientific community.

And does evolution also lack evidence?
Because you claim to have debunked that too.
I hope you do submit your findings

WORLDPEACE:
How long something has been believed is not proof that it is fact. The bible has existed for millennia but you don't believe it, do you? You know there are scientific "facts" that were later proved wrong.

Why would I believe a book that has talking snakes and donkeys. A book that is neither scientifically nor historically accurate.

KingEbukasBlog:
Theistic evolution seems plausible since a supernatural agent supposedly orchestrates the whole process - this makes more sense than attributing life's complexity and design to serendipity .

Does it make sense to say man came from dust and females from his ribs?
That complex animals just spontaneously appeared from nothing. The theistic creation is a joke.

Lennycool:
Does it make sense to say man came from dust and females from his ribs?
That complex animals just spontaneously appeared from nothing. The theistic creation is a joke.

Does it make sense to say life came from non life

Lennycool:
Why would I believe a book that has talking snakes and donkeys. A book that is neither scientifically nor historically accurate.

So you agree now that how long people have believed something is not enough for it to be considered fact.

akintom:
You're obviously threading on the path of those conspiracy theories nonsense.

Do you really know anything about academy of science or scientific journals and works.

You don't need to conspire to groupthink. Sometimes supressing your own views to be acceptable in the group can lead to groupthink. The mere conclusion that because someone is an authority in the group and smarter than the rest can lead to groupthink. It is in all facet of life.

WORLDPEACE:
So you agree now that how long people have believed something is not enough for it to be considered fact.

Of course it isn't. I didn't say believed I said studied. Evolution as well as abiogenesis have been studied extensively and each has evidence to substantiate the claim. If something better comes up it will be abandoned.

Seun:
I knew.

Then why refer to evolution when am talking about abiogenesis