₦airaland Forum

LightandDarkness:
They are certainly not countless.97% of scientists support evolution http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/ so creationists are in the vast minority. Do not be fooled, there is nothing scientific about creationism. Honestly anyone who actually understands evolution or at least some of the evidence supporting it-morphological, biochemical, genetic etc wouldn't come out in a room full of scientists and shout evolutionary theory is false, your best argument is that evolution was driven and designed by god. Anything else is just a joke.

Science is now majority vs minority......

If you are in the minority, you are not scientific.
Wow.

If so people like Pasteur, Tesla, etc who were at most times minorities in their argument lines wont be called scientists...
They wont have been honoured.

Please we will also use that argument to deafeat atheism.
Over 90℅ of people feel there is sufficient reason and evidence for God.
So atheists are not reasonable.
Agree?

LightandDarkness:
They are certainly not countless.97% of scientists support evolution http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/ so creationists are in the vast minority. Do not be fooled, there is nothing scientific about creationism. Honestly anyone who actually understands evolution or at least some of the evidence supporting it-morphological, biochemical, genetic etc wouldn't come out in a room full of scientists and shout evolutionary theory is false, your best argument is that evolution was driven and designed by god. Anything else is just a joke.

In your dreams.

This is the exact thing i meant when i said Atheists don't read or do research.
This your site is just propangander.

click here to see real statistics.
www.icr.org/who-we-are

LightandDarkness:
They are certainly not countless.97% of scientists support evolution http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/ so creationists are in the vast minority. Do not be fooled, there is nothing scientific about creationism. Honestly anyone who actually understands evolution or at least some of the evidence supporting it-morphological, biochemical, genetic etc wouldn't come out in a room full of scientists and shout evolutionary theory is false, your best argument is that evolution was driven and designed by god. Anything else is just a joke.

I laugh at you.
What is scientific about a cell appearing from nothing and transforming itself into humans?
Has it been proven ?

Halfpenny:
A Christian who believes life started 2000 years ago is accusing atheists of being bad at maths!!! I am laughing out loud

Thank you for the joke but please don't kill me with laughter

The funny is you Atheist will laugh at the creation story without offering us a valid alternative or prove of Evolution or any other scam you dudes are into.

Halfpenny:
A Christian who believes life started 2000 years ago is accusing atheists of being bad at maths!!! I am laughing out loud

Thank you for the joke but please don't kill me with laughter

The funny thing is that you Atheist will laugh at the creation story without offering us a valid alternative or prove of Evolution or any other scam you dudes are into.

adepeter26:
I rebuke you in jesus name.
On my way to meet jesus. You can't stop my light from shining. Jesus, here I come. Accept me to your kingdom.
Write my name on yà hard-drive of life

Kikikikikikiki.... The door is closed. You're one of the dumb virgin.

blueAgent:
In your dreams.

This is the exact thing i meant when i said Atheists don't read or do research.
This your site is just propangander.

click here to see real statistics.
www.icr.org/who-we-are

Institute for Creation Research, that is true propaganda. Pew Research Center is unbiased and unaffiliated. ICR is biased, it's like asking the owner of Barcelona which club is the best-would he say Real Madrid?.

Furthermore look at journals they publish their "creation research" in, if it was actual, true science how come they can't get their creation research published in nature or other high impact journals. The staff members of this institution have exposed themselves by publishing their "mainstream" research in secular journals and not in their "Bible based publication", they know people like you aren't interested in the pure science they publish in those journals but in the pseudoscience you want to believe. You claim atheists don't read but when was the last time you read a journal article, just come here and be arguing up and down.

felixomor:
Science is now majority vs minority......

If you are in the minority, you are not scientific.
Wow.

If so people like Pasteur, Tesla, etc who were at most times minorities in their argument lines wont be called scientists...
They wont have been honoured.

Please we will also use that argument to deafeat atheism.
Over 90℅ of people feel there is sufficient reason and evidence for God.
So atheists are not reasonable.
Agree?

Hardly so. The atheism vs theism argument is basically one of philosophy and personal view. Science is based on testable and reproducible evidence, what is the evidence for creationism that is based on unbiased fact rather than opinion. If you are going to argue creationism through scientific inquiry you should be ready to prove it. Let me help you, a scientific study on the effects of intercessory prayer https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002-8703(05)00649-6

LightandDarkness:
Hardly so. The atheism vs theism argument is basically one of philosophy and personal view. Science is based on testable and reproducible evidence, what is the evidence for creationism that is based on unbiased fact rather than opinion. If you are going to argue creationism through scientific inquiry you should be ready to prove it. Let me help you, a scientific study on the effects of intercessory prayer https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002-8703(05)00649-6

Wrong
Atheism vs theism is not just one of personal view.
The fact that One is wrong and the other isnt makes its application transcend life and topics such as morality etc. Its not just philosophy.

And I can also dubiously use your formula to say evidence in science is due to personal perception.
All it takes is dishonesty.
Show me one reproducible evidence of evolution just As I can reproduce other laws of science.
Lets subject it to test & try to reproduce it.

I doubt if you can.

Anyway, my point is you dont reduce science to majority vs minority.
Its not democracy.

Science can say it will rain tomorrow and come to tell us tomorrow that they were wrong.
So.....no need to say further.

LightandDarkness:
Institute for Creation Research, that is true propaganda. Pew Research Center is unbiased and unaffiliated. ICR is biased, it's like asking the owner of Barcelona which club is the best-would he say Real Madrid?.

Furthermore look at journals they publish their "creation research" in, if it was actual, true science how come they can't get their creation research published in nature or other high impact journals. The staff members of this institution have exposed themselves by publishing their "mainstream" research in secular journals and not in their "Bible based publication", they know people like you aren't interested in the pure science they publish in those journals but in the pseudoscience you want to believe. You claim atheists don't read but when was the last time you read a journal article, just come here and be arguing up and down.

Am an Engineer i practice and live Science everyday i have never seen any article posted by ICR that violates Science laws.

felixomor:
Wrong
Atheism vs theism is not just one of personal view.
The fact that One is wrong and the other isnt makes its application transcend life and topics such as morality etc. Its not just philosophy.

And I can also dubiously use your formula to say evidence in science is due to personal perception.
All it takes is dishonesty.
Show me one reproducible evidence of evolution just As I can reproduce other laws of science.
Lets subject it to test & try to reproduce it.

I doubt if you can.

Anyway, my point is you dont reduce science to majority vs minority.
Its not democracy.

Science can say it will rain tomorrow and come to tell us tomorrow that they were wrong.
So.....no need to say further.

Well if it's not one of personal view and philosophy tell me which one is right and which one is wrong, you would say Christianity/theism and yet it's not about personal view. Evidence in science is hardly about personal perception, an observable fact is an observable fact. I can show testable proof supporting evolution.

Evolution posits that all life on earth originate from a last universal common ancestor. Species that share a more recent common ancestor will have similar morphologic, biological and genetic traits. A simple, testable, undisputable piece of evidence supporting this is the fact that humans share at least 90% of their DNA with other primates and the farther a human or any other organism is from the next comparable organism in terms of Species, Genus, Family, Order etc the less the genetic similarities. I would say this is pretty straightforward..

blueAgent:
Am an Engineer i practice and live Science everyday i have never seen any article posted by ICR that is violates Science laws.

You are an engineer. Not a biochemist, a geneticists, an astrophysicist, a biologists or any type of life scientist. Based on credentials, i don't see how being an engineer is relevant to a discussion about evolution.

LightandDarkness:
Well if it's not one of personal view and philosophy tell me which one is right and which one is wrong, you would say Christianity/theism and yet it's not about personal view. Evidence in science is hardly about personal perception, an observable fact is an observable fact. I can show testable proof supporting evolution.

Evolution posits that all life on earth originate from a last universal common ancestor. Species that share a more recent common ancestor will have similar morphologic, biological and genetic traits. A simple, testable, undisputable piece of evidence supporting this is the fact that humans share at least 90% of their DNA with other primates and the farther a human or any other organism is from the next comparable organism in terms of Species, Genus, Family, Order etc the less the genetic similarities. I would say this is pretty straightforward..

This is the least convincing evidence.
The fact that humans share 50 percent of their DNA with bananas for example, doesn't mean they are 50 percent bananas
We even share similar DNA with tobacco.
Besides DNA can also be used as evidence for a Common Creator of all living things.
There is no code without an author.
I hope you also know that its just the nitrogenous part of DNA that we share in common?
And that nitrogenous part is just actually less than 10 % of the entire DNA itself.
So "90%" is screamed by those pushing the agenda.
Its actually 90% of less than 10% (the nitrogenous portion) of DNA that we share.

The DNA if analysed is far more complex than Windows, Facebook and Macintosh softwares put together.
Yet none of those could "evolve" without the likes of Bill Gates and Zuckerberg etc

Secondly there is nothing reproducible about this evidence you just gave, just as I can reproduce the laws of thermodynamic, gravity, reproduction etc
You are as good as the child who says a car automatically evolved from an aeroplane because they both have similar engines.
It is a false deduction and its a perception.

felixomor:
This is the least convincing evidence.
The fact that humans share 50 percent of their DNA with bananas for example, doesn't mean they are 50 percent bananas
We even share similar DNA with tobacco.
Besides DNA can also be used as evidence for a Common Creator of all living things.
There is no code without an author.
I hope you also know that its just the nitrogenous part of DNA that we share in common?
And that nitrogenous part is just actually less than 10 % of the entire DNA itself.
So "90%" is screamed by those pushing the agenda.
Its actually 90% of less than 10% (the nitrogenous portion) of DNA that we share.

The DNA if analysed is far more complex than Windows, Facebook and Macintosh softwares put together.
Yet none of those could "evolve" without the likes of Bill Gates and Zuckerberg etc

Secondly there is nothing reproducible about this evidence you just gave, just as I can reproduce the laws of thermodynamic, gravity, reproduction etc
You are as good as the child who says a car automatically evolved from an aeroplane because they both have similar engines.
It is a false deduction and its a perception.

Obviously does not mean we are 50% bananas. I share 99.9% of my DNA with you it does not mean I am 99.9% you, it simply means we are 99.9% genetically similar which again does not do much to challenge my point.

"There is no code without an author" we are discussing an object that occurs in nature not a computer code, no reason it cannot/did not arise naturally.

"I hope you also know that its just the nitrogenous part of DNA that we share in common?
And that nitrogenous part is just actually less than 10 % of the entire DNA itself.
So "90%" is screamed by those pushing the agenda.
Its actually 90% of less than 10% (the nitrogenous portion) of DNA that we share."

What exactly do you mean by this? The "Nitrogenous portion"? Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine, Uracil all contain Nitrogen. So what you're discussing exactly is beyond me. These numbers are from whole genome sequencing not intron or exome sequencing. You must explain what you mean by the nitrogenous portion because this is not the first time you have stated something like this.

"Secondly there is nothing reproducible about this evidence you just gave, just as I can reproduce the laws of thermodynamic, gravity, reproduction etc
You are as good as the child who says a car automatically evolved from an aeroplane because they both have similar engines.
It is a false deduction and its a perception"

But it's certainly testable and you would get consistent results in line with the theory. You cannot reproduce the laws you just stated, you can however test and observe effects predicted by those laws and theories. How exactly would you reproduce gravity?. Again stop comparing obviously designed objects to natural phenomena. You are basically saying because all the things you mentioned were designed and created everything else must be too- diamonds, mountains, snowflakes etc

Mathematical errors from "Atheists"?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words!!! There is a "foolish fool" in the picture below who thinks that 2+2 can give 5(provided he sees it in the bible)!!!..............................................He certainly doesn't look like an atheist to me!!!

LightandDarkness:
Obviously does not mean we are 50% bananas. I share 99.9% of my DNA with you it does not mean I am 99.9% you, it simply means we are 99.9% genetically similar which again does not do much to challenge my point.

"There is no code without an author" we are discussing an object that occurs in nature not a computer code, no reason it cannot/did not arise naturally.

"I hope you also know that its just the nitrogenous part of DNA that we share in common?
And that nitrogenous part is just actually less than 10 % of the entire DNA itself.
So "90%" is screamed by those pushing the agenda.
Its actually 90% of less than 10% (the nitrogenous portion) of DNA that we share."

What exactly do you mean by this? The "Nitrogenous portion"? Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine, Uracil all contain Nitrogen. So what you're discussing exactly is beyond me. These numbers are from whole genome sequencing not intron or exome sequencing. You must explain what you mean by the nitrogenous portion because this is not the first time you have stated something like this.

"Secondly there is nothing reproducible about this evidence you just gave, just as I can reproduce the laws of thermodynamic, gravity, reproduction etc
You are as good as the child who says a car automatically evolved from an aeroplane because they both have similar engines.
It is a false deduction and its a perception"

But it's certainly testable and you would get consistent results in line with the theory. You cannot reproduce the laws you just stated, you can however test and observe effects predicted by those laws and theories. How exactly would you reproduce gravity?. Again stop comparing obviously designed objects to natural phenomena. You are basically saying because all the things you mentioned were designed and created everything else must be too- diamonds, mountains, snowflakes etc

Wait,
Are you aware DNA encrypts genetic code?
Why are you surprised I am talking about codes and comparing it with codes?

And the structure of dna also seems alien to you.
DNA isnt just made up of the nitrogenous part.
It has phosphate and sugar parts do

Those other parts make up the bulk of it. [>90%]
So using the term "sharing" relates to only the nitrogenous part. Which is less than 10% of the DNA itself.

Thirdly you raised a point saying we share 90% of DNA with primates thats why we are alike.
If I am not mistaking....

So also, we ought to be 50% bananas and tobacco, going by that logic.
But we are not. Thats why that logic wont work.

By the way, there is no way and no condition that can make the genetic code of a lower life like bacteria to become the genetic code of a baboon. By itself.

It is impossible and that is why you cant reproduce evolution like we would reproduce other laws of science.
Its dead on arrival.

felixomor:
Wait,
Are you aware DNA encrypts genetic code?
Why are you surprised I am talking about codes and comparing it with codes?

And the structure of dna also seems alien to you.
DNA isnt just made up of the nitrogenous part.
It has phosphate and sugar parts do

Those other parts make up the bulk of it. [>90%]

So using the term "sharing" relates to only the nitrogenous part. Which is less than 10% of the DNA itself.

Thirdly you raised a point saying we share 90% of DNA with primates thats why we are alike.
If I am not mistaking....

So also, we ought to be 50% bananas and tobacco, going by that logic.
But we are not. Thats why that logic wont work.

By the way, there is no way and no condition that can make the genetic code of a lower life like bacteria to become the genetic code of a baboon. By itself.

It is impossible and that is why you cant reproduce evolution like we would reproduce other laws of science.
Its dead on arrival.

I think you are the one that is showing a very poor understanding of DNA. DNA contains genetic information yes, it doesn't mean it is directly comparable to a computer code or means that they should have similar origins.

I am very aware of the structure of DNA and your statement still makes no sense. Are you saying nitrogen atoms make up 10% of DNA? How did you get this number? Are you saying those percentages are determined using the nitrogen atoms in DNA nucleobases? Because that isn't how DNA sequencing works. Any angle I approach this from your statement simply does not make sense. The whole genome of a chimpanzee was sequenced and compared with the whole genome of a human, simple. You must explain exactly what you mean by that statement and it's context in genome sequencing, we have to combat this your pseudoscience today.

If it means we are 50% genetically bananas then yes. It seems you do not understand how large a 50% genetic difference is. If everyone on earth shares 99.9% of their DNA and yet manage to be so diverse, it is entirely possible that a 50% difference can create that much phenotypic difference. So what exactly your point is here, unknown to me. Plus I'm very skeptical of this Number, what source is that from.

"By the way, there is no way and no condition that can make the genetic code of a lower life like bacteria to become the genetic code of a baboon. By itself.' But of course this is not specifically what evolution states. Plus the fact that it is a process that took billions of years, it is no surprise the exact environment and conditions are difficult to replicate. However the predictions of the theory of evolution have so far held true and, again, are readily observable and testable.

Niflheim:
Mathematical errors from "Atheists"?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words!!! There is a "foolish fool" in the picture below who thinks that 2+2 can give 5(provided he sees it in the bible)!!!..............................................He certainly doesn't look like an atheist to me!!!

Have you wondered why most Math professors acknowledge the existence of God ?

There is even an argument for the existence of God just based on the applicability of mathematics in our physical world . Here is its syllogistic form :


1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.

2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Mathematics is seen as the language of nature . Since mathematical objects are mind-dependent and nature is written in this language , then its corollary is to affirm the existence of a mind .

^http://bahnsenburner..com/2015/03/craigs-eight-arguments-for-god-part-iv.html?m=1

@ebukasblog,

1.My Hindu friend says that you are correct, but that the god who created this world is Brahma(they say he had 4 mouths)!!!

2.My Chinese friend also agrees with you, but he says that the god that created everything is Pangu(they say his bones changed to rocks, and his hair changed to trees)!!!

3.My friend from Central Africa also agrees with you, but he says that your theory(or is it presupposition) proves that Mbombo exists!!! Mbombo is the one who vomited the world into existence!!!

4.My Native American friend from the Catho tribe, insists that you are also correct!!! But that the world was created by a Raven!!!

@ebukasblog,

All my friends have one thing in common!!! They insist that "jehovah" had nothing to do with the creation of the world!!! Do you believe any of my friends? And if so which of them do you believe?

LightandDarkness:
I think you are the one that is showing a very poor understanding of DNA. DNA contains genetic information yes, it doesn't mean it is directly comparable to a computer code or means that they should have similar origins.

Hian
I said there is no code without an author,
You contested it.
Yet look at you admitting that it is a code.
Please google genetic code and study it.
And its quite obvious DNA is not your field.
If so, quietly admit.
because you are already on skipping ropes.
Trying to subtly replace code with "information"

LightandDarkness:
I am very aware of the structure of DNA and your statement still makes no sense. Are you saying nitrogen atoms make up 10% of DNA? How did you get this number?

- sorry u are not aware.
Anybody who knows the science of DNA clearly knows what I mean by that.
If you are subtly asking me to explain it for you
Do so politely.

LightandDarkness:
Are you saying those percentages are determined using the nitrogen atoms in DNA nucleobases?

- show me where I said so?
Show me where I mentioned "nitrogen atom"

LightandDarkness:
Because that isn't how DNA sequencing works. Any angle I approach this from your statement simply does not make sense.

- nobody is talking about "sequencing"
Stop mixing jargons you dont understand

LightandDarkness:
The whole genome of a chimpanzee was sequenced and compared with the whole genome of a human, simple. You must explain exactly what you mean by that statement and it's context in genome sequencing, we have to combat this your pseudoscience today.

-
Wait what do u think sequencing means?
To manufacture ?
You are still making the false deduction.
Just like The car to aeroplane evolution

That a genome looks like another genome means they evolved from the same ?

What we are saying is Reproduce the evolution.
Simulate the Conditions lets see wether the genome of a bacteria will automatically become the genome of a fish
Just as we will simulate physiologic conditions to reproduce the laws of reproduction in vivo.

Impossicant!

LightandDarkness:
If it means we are 50% genetically bananas then yes. It seems you do not understand how large a 50% genetic difference is. If everyone on earth shares 99.9% of their DNA and yet manage to be so diverse, it is entirely possible that a 50% difference can create that much phenotypic difference. So what exactly your point is here, unknown to me. Plus I'm very skeptical of this Number, what source is that from.

-
Oh so you are now trying to do some gymnastics with the percentage...
How about the 60% we share with Chickens?
So with your logic the 10% difference between that of banana gives rise to the chicken with all the feathers etc...
Wow.....
And please if you really know about dna, you wont be skeptical of the numbers I have given u.

LightandDarkness:
"By the way, there is no way and no condition that can make the genetic code of a lower life like bacteria to become the genetic code of a baboon. By itself.' But of course this is not specifically what evolution states. Plus the fact that it is a process that took billions of years, it is no surprise the exact environment and conditions are difficult to replicate. However the predictions of the theory of evolution have so far held true and, again, are readily observable and testable.

Ayuwa
"Difficult to replicate"
Is the excuse........

That is exactly what atheist accuse theists of using to excuse themselves from demonstrating evidence of God.
Besides, And you were screaming "reproducible" before.


Evolution is back talk, nothing more.
Its purpose was to give false hope to people who deny reality. Ask Darwin

It has no other use in science. None

felixomor:
Hian
I said there is no code without an author,
You contested it.
Yet look at you admitting that it is a code.
Please google genetic code and study it.
And its quite obvious DNA is not your field.
If so, quietlu admit.
because you are already on skipping ropes.



- sorry u are not aware.
Anybody who knows the science of DNA clearly knows what I mean by that.
If you are subtly asking me to explain it for you
Do so politely.




- show me where I said so?
Show me where I mentioned "nitrogen atom"



- nobody is talking about "sequencing"
Stop mixing jargons you dont understand





-
Wait what do u think sequencing means?
To manufacture ?
You are still making the false deduction.
Just like The car to aeroplane evolution

That a genome looks like another genome means they evolved from the same ?

What we are saying is Reproduce the evolution.
Simulate the Conditions lets see wether the genome of a bacteria will automatically become the genome of a fish
Just as we will simulate physiologic conditions to reproduce the laws of reproduction in vivo.

Impossicant!







-
Oh so you are now trying to do some gymnastics with the percentage...
How about the 60% we share with Chickens?
So with your logic the 10% difference between that of banana gives rise to the chicken with all the feathers etc...
Wow.....
And please if you really know about dna, you wont be skeptical of the numbers I have given u.






Ayuwa
"Difficult to replicate"
Is the excuse........

That is exactly what atheist accuse theists of using to excuse themselves from demonstrating evidence of God.
Besides, And you were screaming "reproducible" before.


Evolution is back talk, nothing more.
Its purpose was to give false hope to people who deny reality. Ask Darwin

It has no other use in science. None

I am done with this argument. Anyone theist who studied a biological science in University and is reading this thread, kindly mention me when you want to pick up where I left off.

LightandDarkness:
I am done with this argument. Anyone theist who studied a biological science in University and is reading this thread, kindly mention me when you want to pick up where I left off.

Ok Good.
This is where you left off. You dont have to pick up.
Nobody can reproduce evolution. because it is a lie started by Charles Darwin. Period

felixomor:
Ok Good.
This is where you left off. You dont have to pick up.
Nobody can reproduce evolution. because it is a lie started by Charles Darwin. Period

The issue is you don't understand what you are saying. A simple search for "nitrogenous part of DNA" will show exactly what I mentioned about ATGCU and nitrogen atoms and nothing about 10% nitrogenous or whatever you said. You claim DNA is not my field (like it is a stand alone field and then say we shouldn't talk about sequencing in a discussion about DNA . it's all good.

LightandDarkness:
The issue is you don't understand what you are saying. A simple search for "nitrogenous part of DNA" will show exactly what I mentioned about ATGCU and nitrogen atoms and nothing about 10% nitrogenous or whatever you said. You claim DNA is not my field (like it is a stand alone field and then say we shouldn't talk about sequencing in a discussion about DNA . it's all good.

If you are willing, and polite i will show u.
But if u are not,.
Ciao

TheIlluminatus:
Hahahaha. This fellow simply gathered together all the filth of Christians from all corners of the planet and decided to dump them on atheists. Pathetic attempt at projection.

I know your type. wannable Atheists.

MrMontella:
no wonder it's a complete Bullshit

Thank you sir.

felixomor:
Ok Good.
This is where you left off. You dont have to pick up.
Nobody can reproduce evolution. because it is a lie started by Charles Darwin. Period

Lol... True

LightandDarkness:
I am done with this argument. Anyone theist who studied a biological science in University and is reading this thread, kindly mention me when you want to pick up where I left off.

You are running away as usual.

felixomor:
Ok Good.
This is where you left off. You dont have to pick up.
Nobody can reproduce evolution. because it is a lie started by Charles Darwin. Period

Lol... True

LightandDarkness:
I am done with this argument. Anyone theist who studied a biological science in University and is reading this thread, kindly mention me when you want to pick up where I left off.

You are running away as usual.

blueAgent:
You are running away as usual.

You cannot have a logical argument in the absence of knowledge