₦airaland Forum

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=119070.msg2045219#msg2045219 date=1205245600]It is not correct to say that it is natural to commit sin. Sin is unatural, it is a negation of what God wills and whatever is against the will of God is unatural. We are not hardwired to sin. On the contrarly, we are inherently good. We sin because we choose to do so. There is nothing like chance or luck too. On the surface, some events or happenings may seem like luck, but they only seem to be so because most human beings have lost the abiltity to see the motives and thoughts of himself and that of his fellow human beings. Gods laws are perfect and it will never permit a person to experience what he or she has not sown. The harvest will not be different from the seed. Most often people have forgotten the seed they sowed, or decieved themselves into believing that the sowed a different kind of seed than the one they actually sowed. If you sowed thorn, you will end up reaping an avalanche of thorns even if you have forgotten that you sowed thorns or made you self and others believe that you sowed sweet seeds like tomatoes, mangoes etc. In addition, the only road to forgiveness is repentance. The only proof that one has abandoned his sinful ways and has recieved Gods forgiveness is to sin no more. If we continually sin and then ask for forgiveness, sin again and ask forgiveness, we are not only deceiveing ourselfs but we are mocking the grace of God.[/quote]When you sin and ask God for forgiveness, and sin again and ask God yet again for forgiveness, might God know that you are going to sin again, and again and again; and ask for forgiveness again and again and again? If he knows, can one ask God for everlasting forgiveness once that would cover them for all their subsequent sins?

I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, but if it is prudent to make a change of doctrine on a live and death issue, why not make that change. What is even more sad is the fact that it is very likely that within out generation, there will be a total reversal on their position with condoms. The Catholic is known for these drips and draps way of addressing important matters. They are very concerned about saving face rather than saving lifes (or souls).

On the matter of statistics, I am prepared to yield to better figures if anyone has them. I also agree that any correlation may also be coincidental. But the anecdoctal evidence amongst infectivity in Kenya, Philipines, Venezuela etc suggest that a great deal of these infection might have been prevented in the locals had better information about contraception and if condoms very not prohibited to them.  In these countries, with a high catholic ethic, typically women have 5 - 8 children inspite of the financial means of the family. Check out the maps below and match up the religions with incidence of Aids;

Can creationism explain the varying physical features of the human race?


There is very strong correlation between the local environments of people and the physical features they display; For instance, ligher skin tones are more prevalent in the higher latitudes while darker skins are predominantly in the hotter warmer climes. Other genetic conditions such as sickle-cell are common in the warmer climates where there is likely to be problems of malaria parasites. How did these local adaptations arise if we are all descended from Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, located somewhere in the Middle East?

I have had comments from creationists on this forum claiming that however long an African might live in, say, Alaska, or Siberia, they would also continue to be darker skined.  Absolutely correct -  for the single individual Africa.  But evolution does not work at the individual level. It works at the gene level and requires the passage of time and any form of selective pressure. So over the typical human lifetime, no noticeable change would be observed in the dark-skinned person living in Alaska. But over many generations, and with the necessary conditions for evolutions changes would be likely to occur.

What is even more disturbing is the very split reasoning displayed by claiming that an African's features are never likely to come under natural selective pressures.  If that was the case, how would they account for the diverse variation in features, under creationism, given that Adam & Eve would have been lighter skinned people living in the Middle East?  Could a Chinese, Australian Aborigine, Icelander, American Indian, Nigerian, Zulu, Pakistani, Japanese and Korean all have come from Adam and Eve's offsprings?

The first case of HIV/AIDS were scientifically diagnosed in the USA and Haiti in the early 80s, many parts of Africa were free from any recorded cases of the disease. However, in little less than two decades, Africa now registers some of the highest rates of infections and the highest per capita citizen living with the condition. The sad fact is that the majority of these infections have occurred at a time when preventative measures have been well known. One such preventative measure is the use of condoms.

However, for most of this time, the Vatican has led a campaign to discourage the use of condoms even in highly infectious area. It even went as far as banning the use of condoms by married couples where one of them is infected. It therefore come as no surprise that some of the countries with the highest rates of infection are populated by Catholics, who compliantly following the directives from the top in one respect but not in another.

Could this crisis have been averted with more humane and decent policies from the top? Certainly. The Vatican is now on the verge of making a reversal to its doctrine about the use of condoms amongst married couple. So much for papal infallibility.

References

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

Why Did the Catholic Authorities Embrace the Theory of Evolution?  Were they right in embracing the theory of evolution or are they just paying lip service to the actuality and jumping on the bandwagon to appear to be intellectually sophisticated?

If Catholics think Pope John Paul II was wrong in publicly accepting evolution, should this not shake their believe in papal infallibility?  The Apostle creed (I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church) requires Catholics to believe in the church; so do they have to just go along with the authority of the church in spite of personal reservation about evolution?

References

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

[quote author=Lord_Reed link=topic=118745.msg2040793#msg2040793 date=1205147311]I will not agree that evangelism is evil because u Reverand evangelise so do we all. However when religion is used to manipulate or deceive people into doing tins they shouldn't then it becomes dangerous.[/quote]I think a great deal of the 20th/21st century evangelism in various parts of the world has become big business rather than "saving souls". I think a lot of European missionaries were really concerned about "saving souls", as misguided as that may have been (as they did not know better).

However, today, the big evangelical crusades and ministries arereally concerned about lining their pockets. The smaller guys starting out in the towns and villages of Africa have not got the muscles to pull the crowds and audience as the big established ministries. So they resort to 419 means to exploit the naive and simple people. What a shame!

Does anyone not know what Cognitive Dissonance is?

imhotep:
If evolution is NOT a religion, it should NOT be on the 'Religion' board of this forum.


----------------------------------------------------
BTW, Ken Ham says if evolution is true, there would be millions of fossils representing transitional forms of animals, not just tiktaalik.

Although tiktaalik predicted many decades ago, it was not discovered until quite recently. Who is to say there are NOT millions of these transitional fossils lying undiscovered out there in the rocks.

BTW, every living thing is a transitional species. You and I are transitional between the past and the future. It is quite possible that in a million years from now, humans may not "look" the same as they do today.

Well, you may have answers but I am not competent to assess their quality and reliability. Scientists work in communities. I belong to a community of scientists who might well be able to cast a more competent light on it than me (or you).

If you have no answers, the questions simply would be added.

21) How did humans become so intelligent?
22) Where are the boundaries of the universe?
23) What exists beyond those boundaries?
24) To what extend can sub-atomic particles be further divided?

The fact is that these are not basic questions. These are not questions about which anyone knows the answer. If you got answer to them, send them to me. Then I shall add them to the list of questions. I did not intend to put unanswerable questions to the list, but if you have solid acceptable answers, send them to me and I shall have them check by my tutor. Once that is authenticated I shall include them.

DEAL?

The theory of evolution posits that modern humans and apes share a common ancestor. Big difference. Don't even discuss evolution if you cannot understand this very simple fact.

imhotep:
There is a famous philosophical saying - no one gives what he/she/it does not have

In latin ---> nemo that quod non habet.

------------------------------
Now, how is it that randomly wandering monkeys, chimpanzees and apes were able to evolve into sound mathematicians, engineers, social scientists, politicians, mystics, artists, musicians, entertainers, administrators, theologians, philosophers, etc.

The list is endless.

That is why you are laughed at because only the ignorant creationist claim that we evolved from monkeys, apes and chimps. No scientist ever says that.

imhotep:
And fossils increase the faith of evolutionists?

Scientist don't need faith where the facts are clear and obvious. What fossils do is increase the confidence that their theory is correct.

BTW, why are you trying to associate scientist with "faith"? Is that a compliment or a criticism?

imhotep:
Should we pray the god of evolution to increase our faith?

What strikes fear in the hearts of anti-evolutionist? Fossils.

Imhotep

I said BASIC question. The sort of questions a high-school graduate majoring in science would be expected to answer. The questions you just added are way, way beyond basic. I would reserve those for some other forum.

Thankx

Does anyone not know what tiktaalik is? Very interesting.

Imhotep,

What you looked at these other analogies?

3) You drive your car to the petrol filling station to top up on fuel and your 10 year old child asks you, "Daddy, where does petroleum fuel come from?" Can you formulate a hypothesis to investigate the process of the formation of petroleum fuels?

4) You take you propective wife to a jewery store to put an engagement ring on her finger. Your partner is not very knowledgeable about sciences but she adores diamond. You also adore her; so will not begrudge her ignorance of these esoteric matters of sciences. Upon arrival home, she is delighted with the diamond, but asks you how these stones are formed. Can you formulate a hypothesis to investigate the formation of diamonds naturally? Do you think these natural processes could be artificially mimiced in the labs today?

I have developed a basic science questionaire to assess the scientific knowledge of some of my evolution critics on this forum. This is not by any means exhausive and is only intended to assist the true seeker-after knowledge to gauge themselve against mainstream scientific benchmarks. Feel free to add you own questions or suggest any improvements.


1-) What is the speed of light? How long does it take the light from the sun to reach the earth?
2-) What is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in the scientific sense?
3-) What is the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity?
4-) What are stromatolites?
5-) How old is the earth?
6-) What is the end-permian extinction and what proportion of life went extinct during this event?
7-) How long ago were dinosaurs wiped out?
8-) What are asteroid impact of the earth?
9-) Can you give a rough estimate of the number of stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way?
10-) Do you know what chromosomes and DNA are. Can you name any "genetic disease"?
11-) On the whole, do you think science and technology provides solutions to human problems?
12-) Have you ever visted a museum?
13-) What are fossils?
14-) What is the geological column?
15-) What is the theory of plate tectonic?
16-) How is petroleum fuel formed and how long is the process?
17-) What do you classify as natural and supernatural events?
18-) In the event of a medical emergency would you rather rush to a scientific medical institution or a supernaturalist?
19-) What are Neandarthal?
20-) What is a supernova?

There is a metaphoric twist to the Adam and Eve story from the Old Testament, but it is not what you might think. All humans have a common ancestory, not from the Middle East, but from Africa. Over many thousands of years, we have migrated from Africa to populated the globe. The diversity you see today is the result of adaptation to local environment, but genetically we are all AFRICAN. Watch the following videos to learn more;



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybji0axp6s0&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M25Ez4HW104&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA3aINMIWMw&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m2-RwYXkWg&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0QDrODnN6g&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMzaQhqHYnM&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZ7zaT5hvU&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV3Ws7pyJUI&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNlvzhfQex0&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KzroCQVDoI&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl-bnnES42U&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT6XsVnuz6o&feature=related

Or get the books

The Great Human Diaspora
The Journey of Man; A genetic Odyssey.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=118627.msg2041997#msg2041997 date=1205162958]@tpaine
Since you appear to use scientific literature to buttress your points on evolution. I have a few questions for you

1. You claimed that their is overwhelming evidence to show that man evolved from pre-existing humanoid ancestors. Please site scientific articles (not books) in peer refreed journals so that your claim can be checked out.

2. Does comparison of DNA between species show relatedness or evolution?

Thank you[/quote]How else can one support a scientific claim? With faeces? But serious, the evidences has moved from peered reviewed journals to popular books now.

I am not a biologist but I have a training in science and engineering with a very advanced interest in all things scientific. So I regular buy and read science books for the general public.

Yes, DNA studies show that all living things are indeed related.

Do me a favour. Do some research yourself. I am sure you have got the ability, or would you like to be spoon-fed?

olabowale:
@Tpaine: I have stated my own viewpoint; Evolution as you think it is not a possibilty. The Homosepen and Neandertal species are close in resemblance to human, but they are not humans. It is not impossible that God who is capable of creating created all types of varied upright standing beings, which in various degrees almost look like human. Yet they are not. Remember that they are almost, and not human.

My viewpoint is very diferent from yours. Just because that you will argue yours with a limited arrays of academic resources, you will never be able to come to absolute conclusion from it. Thank God that I have a good size of outside my community experience. I am thinking globally, but I am not thinking stupidly!From within and outside my community, my mind is able to accept throughout my experiences that creation is the only possibility. I do not have to present to be accepted.
Your statement that everyone from Africa is unacceptable to me. And I am a good african. But I always want to be on the side of the truth. Unless Makka is considered part of Africa, it is then acceptable that humans first inhabited africa. That human wsa Adam and his wife. He did not live in Nigeria or South Africa! A proof of my statement is the Ka'aba itself. They were the original builder. The foundation is known to all who researched it. Do your own research.

Your statement that humans (Adam and his progenies), came as their own advancement from neandertal is unacceptable. You do not have a concrete evidence. And just because is said and pushed as truth with any evidence to its truth does not stand as truth. It must be unacceptable and rejected. I for one and all who think like me reject it. We do not deal in blind faith!

I said again that just because these humanoids looked like humans could not directly meant human came from them. God who created all kind of of oranges and even allows by the knowledged He gave to humans to engineer hybrids of citrus fruits, is the One who created all these things. They are similar but not exactly. Finally, you can try to argue that African group if isolated, married one another exclusively may one day produce a a white Arian person, in Siberia is just not a good argument. They can produce albinos or light skin persons, that could have happened in Africa anyway but not whites with all its features!

Yet again you are not getting me. Please, Can you provide any evidence that humans originated from where you suggested?

There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that humans originated from Africa. Please, Please watch the video of one of the leading researchers in the field. The main stuff is about 28minutes into the video.

I DID NOT say homo sapiens evolved from Neandarthal. I was simply suggesting that thankx to evolution, at some point in the past (about 30,000 years ago) there would have existed side-by-side two separate types of humanoids - the homo sapiens and the Neandarthal. Genetic studies have shown that humand and Neandarthal are genetical very different homonides. Why would God have conspired to have similar looking animals (huimans and neandarthal) living side-by-side.

Would you have considered a neandarthal to be human. If you killed one, would it have been classed as murder?

Please, please, educate yourself man.

Watch Spencer Wells tallk about his research
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j0U8dKavsI

olabowale:
@Tpaine: What I tried to do is what you have done in your response: Simple proposition. Unfortunately the a good number of academias took it and run with it. Maybe because the garb of religiousty is too uncomfortable or became mind clouding.

I tried to provide that even though evolution is plausible from the surface, but when you seriously consider the initial foundation, it is just not possible. I have explained that I am never against evolution, which simply mean a change from one stage to another. From simple to complex, for the most part or vice versa.

I felt that I needed to agitate your mind to think as far back as the mind, or conscience can take you. You will find that cow, even though a cattle will not be a sheep or goat, or neither can produce cow. As a creationist, I have no doubt, and not foolishly that God Created everything, distinct from others that are supposed to be diffrerent and separate from it! All humans, regardless of diffrerences came from a common ancestor, primarily Adam. But all primates do not have a common ancestor, other than that they have a common Causer to being what they are. That Causer is the Creator. So from Great Religious perspective, creation points to the many diverse varieties we find today.

My proof is very simple: polar bear will not exist in the desert of Sahara, for long unless its housed in cold place. So the Africans will not able to survive the spring of Alaska Siberia, like the natives, without putting on layers of clothings. In both cases, we will not have the offsprings looking like the natives, if there is no native blood in its body. Regardless of how long a group of Black people live in Siberia, if they do not intermarry, the future generations may be able to deal with cold better than their original parents in Siberia. However, it will not be possible for them to look like Siberian whites. That proves that evolution as you may think it does not happen. Yet I did not even go far back to prior before human ever existed.

With respect, this is all bogus.  How could you say you accept (note, I did not say believe) evolution and yet say such rubbish. Have you not learnt anything in your adulthood apart from the superstitious fables from your community?


Let me help you out.  It have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that humanity started in Africa, using all sorts of genetic studies. 500 thousand years ago there simply were no homo sapiens on the planets. Homo sapiens evolved from pre-existing humanoid ancestors. The evidence for this is overwhelming.  Have you heard about chromosome No. 2, Vitamin C synthesis.

HAve you ever heard of things called Neandarthal? What relationship (or lack thereof ) do they have with humans. Have you heard about the result of the study comparing human DNA to Neandarthal DNA?

I think you are just paying lip service to evolution to appear intellectually sophisticated but deep down you do not know or appreciate what it really is.

How can you assert that if African lived in Alaska, they would never develop lighter skin tones. For goodness sake, we are all African, everybody on the planet is an African. PERIOD.

I am exaperated by such ignorance, especially from someone of whom I thought better.  Please, if you can get hold of the following books

1)  The Great Human Diasporas,
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Human-Diasporas-Diversity-Evolution/dp/0201442310/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205159518&sr=8-1

2) The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Man-Genetic-Odyssey/dp/0812971469/ref=pd_sim_b_title_3


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j0U8dKavsI

Our civilization is at risk if ignorance is left unchecked.

A Sean Carroll lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncgm9QOzQsA

Enjoy.

ayobase:
bible is not what u just read
like u are reading novel.

yes,u can read the bible and come
up with different types of theory.
but if surely u want to read 4 edification
then,u will need the holy spirit to
guide u through.

to tpaine take note!!!

If the bible is amenable to diverse and varying interpretations, how is one to know the correct interpretation. Is this not the problem that has result in about 30000 denominations in the Christian movement alone.

Why did god not ensure that his message would not be vulnerable to these many diverse and differing and erroneous interpretations?

I call your argument "The Argument of Inadequacy", meaning we are not worthy, or knowledgeable enough to understand his word. Why did he not speak in a simple and unambigous manner?  Would you speak to your child in a manner that would only leave him confused and misguided?

luvus:
ok

what u do as an individual good or bad, its consequence will come back to u.

Is this karma? Science makes no jurisdiction over this area, as far a I know. Why do you think this should have a link with evolution?

Does this have a link with the theory of disease, or gravity or the law of supply and demand? If it does, why don't you question these other well established theories?

4 Play:
@tpaine

Don't be disingenuous.If the theory of evolution has been empirically validated a la the composition of H2O,you won't be hedging by talking of "formulating hypothesis."

The whole debate is about the origin of life,unless you asserting that this has been empirically validated,you are effectively stuck with the formulation of hypothesis.Until then,many other theories about the origin of life retain credibility until one has been conclusively proven.

I think I get your point now, but you are wrong, with respect.

"Every" scientific theory starts life as a hypothesis. The investigator gathers the facts and tries to explain such fact with a hypothesis. Only after the hypothesis has been successfully verified and validated and the investigator and the community of worldwide scientists is that accepted as a theory.

I used "hypothesis" in my analogies not to reduce evolustion to a hypothesis, but to demonstrate how a scientist would go about investigating the questions.

You would be surprise, evolution has been validated at very minute levels; the chromosomal and microbiological level.  Check out the work of the evolutionary scientist Sean Carrol, http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/carroll_bio.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncgm9QOzQsA

BTW, evolution does NOT explain the start of life. It only explains the diversification of life, once life had got started.

You may want to take my elementary test to check out your comprehension of basic science. This is may be instructive.  Here we go;

1-)  What is the speed of light?  How long does it take the light from the sun to reach the earth?
2-)  What is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in the scientific sense?
3-)  Have you ever heard about the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity?
4-)  What are stromatolites?
5-)  How old is the earth?
6-)  What is the end-permian extinction and what proportion of life went extinct?
7-)  How long ago were dinosaurs wiped out?
8-)  Do you know what asteroid impact of the earth are?
9-)  Can you give a rough estimate of the number of stars on our galaxy, the Milky Way?
10-) Do you know what chromosomes and DNA are.  Can you name any "genetic disease"?
11-)  On the whole, do you think science and technology provides solutions to human problems?
12-)  Have you ever visted a museum?
13-)  What are fossils?
14-)  What is the geological column?
15-)  What is the theory of plate tectonic?
16-)  How is petroleum fuel formed and how long is the process?

olabowale:
@Tpaine: I watched 2 or so segments of the video series on You tube. I did not find anything outstanding from it, that goes against the Is"lamic Creationist perspective. I think the evolutionist always try to justify or explain their theory not from the start, but always from after the truly original beginning! But the Creationist, at least from the Is"lamic point of view and I also take it that the Jews and Christians are also in on this, is that there is a Causer that brought the true start or original beginning of things to bear!

The Evolutionist can not in a Trillion years explain how the first thing began to form. If they were to attempt it, they will fall flat in their effort, since they must have to start from sometimes before the beginning of the existence of that thing. Say for example the particle that the big bang theory action took place on. How did it come into existence? What was it that made it come to existence? All of these are many more are what the evolutionists have to go back and research and come up with concrete evidence. And not just suppositions.

From Is"lamic view, all things that mankind will ever know, even when knowledge is so advance and at the highest level in the future, just before the world and mankind extinct, all of these knowledge and advancement will still be enveloped in discoveries of things enveloped by the 1st HEAVEN! All of these knowledge will still lacks something not yet discovered in that envelope. Interestingly, the first heaven is enveloped by the second Heaven. The second heaven is enveloped by the third. Each seccessive higher numbered heaven therefore enveloped the one before it, which enveloped all that the previous heaven enveloped anyway.

Since there is heaven heavens, therefore the Seventh Heaven enveloped, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and all that it enveloped. Yet the seven heavens is part of our world or universe! In other words, there is no matter of hypothesis that the evolutionists amay provide, there is a true Causer that existed long time before that. He has always remain in existence and He is God the Almighty Creator!

I remember asking KAG a question in another thread about what was happening to human being prior to the first evolutionist came with his supposition? What possible data did he present and what was he trying to proof? That Adam did not exist or that Adam came from Ape or have the same source as Ape? My additional question is this, which source did they have in common, and how did it come to being? If you go back to thefoundation of that source, and you ask the same question as you go further back, you still have to the first question: How did it come to existence? What happens and what are the facts before it came to existence?

As you and Imhotep go back and forth on a down tree in the forest, it seems that you are laying down a view that the place must have a tree in the first place. It is not so necessary that a forest must have a tree. It could have been water, as a pond that was there. The water may just have dried up, for whatever reason. Furyher it could have been a big rock or boulder that was there. The possibilities are many. So in essence an empty space may or may not have something in it all along. It could have been a phenomina. God is capable to do all things. The Creator is powerful. He created the creationists and evolutionists alike, without a remarkable differences in their physicallity and their ability to accept or reject ideas. It is no wonder you and others can reject creation. Other creationists and I are free to reject your pure concept of evolution without the Original Causer who is constantly directing all affairs, God!

I thought you were more discerning that the above, but alas.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It only explains the diversity of life. This MUST be made clear. Evolition by natural selection only kicks in once life had already started.

There are many hypotheses as to the origin of life; but none of these is evolution.

4 Play:
Unless you have suddenly been struck by a comprehension paralysis,you need nobody to tell you that Jesus never taught do not resist evil or no condemnation of slavery.Nor do you need to be a genius to realise that the rest were not to be given a literal meaning.

For instance,no condemnation of slavery is supposed to be a "teaching." You are effectively saying that failure to mention something is effectively the same as asserting that it shouldn't be mentioned.In any case,the one real assertion,love your neighbor as your self,effectively covers the issue.

Why do you think Jesus would never have taught the "do not resist evil" doctrine? Is it becauseit would have been an evil thing to teach such a doctrine, OR is it because he just did not teach it?

His tacit condoning of slavery is what is called in law, "the law or negligence". For goodness sake, this man was the son of God (or was he also God). He would have lived in an environment where at least 30% of people were slave, yet he is not documented as having said anything about this evil act. Why ? Is it because slavery is condoned in the OT and bearing in mind Matt 5: 17, he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it?

Why was he more concerned about performing miracles when the majority of people lived in bondage, disease and starvation, or iked out a miserable existence as serfs. Why did he not cure or eradicate leprosy but cured one/more isolated instances of the condition.

What lasting change did he leave the world other that sow the seeds of bigotry? Did he not know that what he was doing was going to cause this much chaos and bloodshed in his name? If he did not know, then he was no God.

Can you explain what you mean by karma?

4 Play:
@tpaine

Don't be disingenuous.If the theory of evolution has been empirically validated a la the composition of H2O,you won't be hedging by talking of "formulating hypothesis."

The whole debate is about the origin of life,unless you asserting that this has been empirically validated,you are effectively stuck with the formulation of hypothesis.Until then,many other theories about the origin of life retain credibility until one has been conclusively proven.

is there an omission in this post. it does not make sense to me. you want to check it, then i shall respond.

luvus:
hi

are u still trying to dodge my request? remember am a willful ignoramus and i just want you to discuss evolution in relation to karma as i earlier stated. u see going through the history, the y of evolution is quite borring but if u want to engage me i feel the best way is to apply it with respect to karma or more prceisely to my earlier question.

thanks

I am not trying to avoid your question. Like I said in my first post, evolution has no jurisdiction in your karma stuff whatsoever. Just as evolution says nothing about the astrology, star formation, carpentry and your dinner tonight.

You have made an erroneous link and are asking me to explain this bogus link. How do you expect me to explain it.

Evolution resides in the domain of science; karma is not sicence. as simple as that.

If you really want to learn about evolution pursue the questions I have given you, or else remain in your ignorance. You can still life a fulfilled life in blissful ignorance. But that is not my approach to life. I enjoy life best my learning and investigating the nature of reality objectively.