₦airaland Forum

Derailer at it again......

soberdrunk:
I listened to president Nana Akufo Addo speak for over one hour, he spoke impeccable English and displayed a high level of intelligence and i must say Ghanaians are very lucky to have him as a president.......

You mean the British accent, he was educated in England for his O level and A level examination, likewise he was an oxford university drop out. so that should be expected of him. he also speaks french fluently. but when it comes to charisma and good communication skills, i will give it to their erstwhile president. JOHN MAHAMA... Ghanaians are complaining now about his poor governance.

Seun:
Muna5: this is what happens when you raise your children to have superstitious beliefs. Why not raise them as atheists?

NO, you should instead encourage your child to have a spirit of inquiry, openness, charity. and ethics/morality (secular humanist values all of them)it way better than atheism who discredit the logical position of religion. muna5, dreams are supposed to be an expression of your will or how you exert your will to change reality... do you in anyway nurse a negative thought about your mom due to some issues you are aware of? if yes, study how real could be the reality of this expression with your common sense and intuition, if it seems real , consider confronting your mom on the issues in your best manner. at times, the issue can be settled by opening up to you.... but i will advice you to rationalized your thought positively, good thought birth inner joy and outer happiness....


in my own opinion, hardly can your mom hurt you......she is the only person who can really love you more than herself... .. thread carefully dear..

budaatum:
I was pulling up my skirt. I did not want anyone to see!

ensure you wear undies so that the punana will not be exposed when your skirt is finally lifted... it is good to reply you back in your terminology, you understand it better

Emmanystone:
Hahahahahahahahahahaa. This is why i like having convos with clever people. They know how to be slimy.

I didn't ask you to test the potency of YHWH because i know he won't answer you immediately. You'd have to run your course on earth. He is waiting for you when you breath your last. He will let you run your course on earth, then you'll lay dead, when that happens, lolzzzz

Here is what gives you the audacity to defy YHWH and gets ignored by Him for now.

Ecclesiastes:8:11-12
Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him:

So, don't worry, keep on. Death will come for you someday, then you'd know.

But, Obatala and Ogun do not have Judgement days, it is, if you do now, you see now. So, i ask you again, what did you do to defy these gods that you went away with no stink?


@bolded. Do you mean Obatala and Ogun were gods in those days whose potencies worked against those who defied them to act as a deterent, but now works no more?

Really? What gave them the potency to work in those days? I guess you didn't know when you used this stone to smash your testicles.

Okay, these days, People defy Obatala and Ogun and nothing happens, Fine, what kind of ancient Taboos are people defying these days? Can you mention one?

And, What particular Taboos have you personally committed and go unscarred?

I really need to bring Vaxx in here. @Vaxx, this claims this brother is making here, are they true? Is it true that anyone can defy Obatala and go unscarred?

first of all, obatala, ogun or any other energies are not GODS. they are orisha. when you put it into yoruba syllable , it goes like this ori- ti- a- sha...meaning ,the head we specifically selected ...we do not worship orisha rather we honor and acknowledge them ,our cuilture
are characterized by a deep sense of the interdependence of all life. every life form and element of Nature has an inner soul force – including rivers, rocks, clouds, metals, flowers, thunder, and the wind. These natural energies that comprise the Universe are symbolically represented by Orisa . Each Orisa has its own specific function. Humans are in constant communication with Orisa energy, whether we’re aware of it or not. for instance, te-ki- ina- lo- Ji(press and let fire wake it) known as technology in English are simply a combination of iron, steel,metal and human ability to convert fire to electricity, coal to gas and so some other interesting things we do with fire.. so you can not defile this natural energy and go Scot free, the ogun and shango, are the symbolic representation of technology,(i.e. the inner soul in them)cars ,phones, electricity even cutlass or any other product of technology comes with their taboo, check the manual instructions, if you defile them, they will work against you... it work till today, as it work in the past no one defile the orisha and go Scot free.

Obatala is the symbolic representation of purity and cleanliness , No one defiles purity and cleanliness without facing the consequence.

To those who may not know about the two great people,Tagore and Eisenstein, they are both recipient of the most recognized award (Noble laureate)Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist who developed the general theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics and Tagore on the other hand was a Bengali polymath who reshaped his region's literature and music.

SakuraSimiola:
DO YOU THINK CHRISTIANITY HAD CRUSHED OUR NATIVE CULTURES?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3oBeKCrysw

Your question has two answer yes and no... let me start with NO , using myself as an example, There is no way you can separate me from my upbringing, culture, environment, parentage, neighborhood, peers, the compound in which I grow up, and from the things I grow up cherishing. it will take you till eternity to do so. if you study Yoruba society very well, you will realized the truthfulness of this statement. In our society Christianity and traditional religion has missed up... visit all these indigenous Yoruba churches, you will perceived an aroma of Yoruba tradition religion in them.. people still follow their traditions and culture. . Christianity has come to stay in our society ,no doubt, but crushing our culture is nearly impossible... ile-ife as an example will not replace the royal practices with church practices.... osun oshogbo festival is actively promoting our existing culture,it has even been recognize at the UNESCO and so many more......

yes,to some extent, The advent of fundamentalist christian is so dangerous to our society, particularly the ones who says they are seeing visions to bring down our local shrines and call everything we do satanic.... despite being accommodating to them, the still see us as devil incarnate, this fundamentalist are gradually having strong influence on some of our youth, who actually have not taken their time to study their own culture but blindly subscribe to this teachings.... but i think their influence can be put into check.....

Seun:
Sometimes we use the language of certainty because we are 99.9% sure. It's tedious to insert the word 'probably' into every sentence. If a child asks you whether superman is real, the perfect answer is "probably not", but his existence is so unlikely that it's easier to just say "no".

You mean atheist are certainly sure that GOD existence is so unlikely, which mean atheist have a compelling evidence to disprove GOD evidence. since GOD is used to describe all source of creations both unknown and known,it will also mean atheist have to know a great deal more about the universe than we believer knows now to be sure that no God exists and to be certain of the nonexistence of God which is actually not true....... The word certainty to me is so ambiguous...i think a clever mind should be open to LOGICAL probability. so, the existence of GOD to believer is not a certainty statement but an article of faith which make it more superior to certainty of the strict atheist, what is the logic in what you are certain about but cannot demonstrate......

This is a quote from Albert Eisenstein

''The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly''.

rekinomtla:
The answer is simply no. A real atheist is someone who believes there is no God and believes the implications of that belief. Most atheists will easily tell you they believe there is no God (although their are many idiots who insist they have no belief) but few will admit to believing the implications of Atheism, simply because it makes them look insane. So what is a real atheist? Someone who believes:

- there is no God
- that morality is purely an arbitrary human invention,
- that humans and other animals are an arbitrary creation of the blind random forces of the universe.
-that the universe itself came from nothing then arrange itself in an ordered system thanks to the same blind forces.
-that beastialty, homosexuality, adultery, murder and rape is morally wrong if you society says so, if not too bad.
-that every human being in the history of time was either lying or was deluded when they claim to had interacted with a divine being or had a NDE.
- that everything you achieve or do in life is worthless and meaningless given that one day we will be extinct.
- that libertarian freewill in is a delusion.
- that the universe just happens to have millions of mathematical laws which we just happen to be able to understand.
-etc

i am beginning to read ideas on some few atheist who do not actually accept that the universe came from nothing but rather postulate under unverifiable truth that the universe is eternal which i think is an article of faith just like the concept of theist that the universe has a beginning, neither can both be proved by logical argument or scientific means alone.

Gggg102:
evolution teaches that there is no purpose to existence other than existence.

No, this is not true, evolution is strictly scientific position and not philosophical position.... the purpose of existence is a philosophical stand.evolution is not equivalent to atheism, so thinking it replaces God or otherwise rules out God’s involvement in the development of life is simply naturalism position and also not necessarily scientific....

And it continue


EINSTEIN: If nobody would be in the house the table would exist all the same — but this is already illegitimate from your point of view — because we cannot explain what it means that the table is there, independently of us.
Our natural point of view in regard to the existence of truth apart from humanity cannot be explained or proved, but it is a belief which nobody can lack — no primitive beings even. We attribute to Truth a super-human objectivity; it is indispensable for us, this reality which is independent of our existence and our experience and our mind — though we cannot say what it means.

TAGORE: Science has proved that the table as a solid object is an appearance and therefore that which the human mind perceives as a table would not exist if that mind were naught. At the same time it must be admitted that the fact, that the ultimate physical reality is nothing but a multitude of separate revolving centres of electric force, also belongs to the human mind.
In the apprehension of Truth there is an eternal conflict between the universal human mind and the same mind confined in the individual. The perpetual process of reconciliation is being carried on in our science, philosophy, in our ethics. In any case, if there be any Truth absolutely unrelated to humanity then for us it is absolutely non-existing.
It is not difficult to imagine a mind to which the sequence of things happens not in space but only in time like the sequence of notes in music. For such a mind such conception of reality is akin to the musical reality in which Pythagorean geometry can have no meaning. There is the reality of paper, infinitely different from the reality of literature. For the kind of mind possessed by the moth which eats that paper literature is absolutely non-existent, yet for Man’s mind literature has a greater value of Truth than the paper itself. In a similar manner if there be some Truth which has no sensuous or rational relation to the human mind, it will ever remain as nothing so long as we remain human beings.

EINSTEIN: Then I am more religious than you are!

TAGORE: My religion is in the reconciliation of the Super-personal Man, the universal human spirit, in my own individual being.

continue ....

EINSTEIN: I agree with regard to this conception of Beauty, but not with regard to Truth.

TAGORE: Why not? Truth is realized through man.

EINSTEIN: I cannot prove that my conception is right, but that is my religion.

TAGORE: Beauty is in the ideal of perfect harmony which is in the Universal Being; Truth the perfect comprehension of the Universal Mind. We individuals approach it through our own mistakes and blunders, through our accumulated experiences, through our illumined consciousness — how, otherwise, can we know Truth?

EINSTEIN: I cannot prove scientifically that Truth must be conceived as a Truth that is valid independent of humanity; but I believe it firmly. I believe, for instance, that the Pythagorean theorem in geometry states something that is approximately true, independent of the existence of man. Anyway, if there is a reality independent of man, there is also a Truth relative to this reality; and in the same way the negation of the first engenders a negation of the existence of the latter.

TAGORE: Truth, which is one with the Universal Being, must essentially be human, otherwise whatever we individuals realize as true can never be called truth – at least the Truth which is described as scientific and which only can be reached through the process of logic, in other words, by an organ of thoughts which is human. According to Indian Philosophy there is Brahman, the absolute Truth, which cannot be conceived by the isolation of the individual mind or described by words but can only be realized by completely merging the individual in its infinity. But such a Truth cannot belong to Science. The nature of Truth which we are discussing is an appearance – that is to say, what appears to be true to the human mind and therefore is human, and may be called maya or illusion.

EINSTEIN: So according to your conception, which may be the Indian conception, it is not the illusion of the individual, but of humanity as a whole.

TAGORE: The species also belongs to a unity, to humanity. Therefore the entire human mind realizes Truth; the Indian or the European mind meet in a common realization.

EINSTEIN: The word species is used in German for all human beings, as a matter of fact, even the apes and the frogs would belong to it.

TAGORE: In science we go through the discipline of eliminating the personal limitations of our individual minds and thus reach that comprehension of Truth which is in the mind of the Universal Man.

EINSTEIN: The problem begins whether Truth is independent of our consciousness.

TAGORE: What we call truth lies in the rational harmony between the subjective and objective aspects of reality, both of which belong to the super-personal man.

EINSTEIN: Even in our everyday life we feel compelled to ascribe a reality independent of man to the objects we use. We do this to connect the experiences of our senses in a reasonable way. For instance, if nobody is in this house, yet that table remains where it is.

TAGORE: Yes, it remains outside the individual mind, but not the universal mind. The table which I perceive is perceptible by the same kind of consciousness which I possess.

it goes thus.....

EINSTEIN: Do you believe in the Divine as isolated from the world?

TAGORE: Not isolated. The infinite personality of Man comprehends the Universe. There cannot be anything that cannot be subsumed by the human personality, and this proves that the Truth of the Universe is human Truth.
I have taken a scientific fact to explain this — Matter is composed of protons and electrons, with gaps between them; but matter may seem to be solid. Similarly humanity is composed of individuals, yet they have their interconnection of human relationship, which gives living unity to man’s world. The entire universe is linked up with us in a similar manner, it is a human universe. I have pursued this thought through art, literature and the religious consciousness of man.

EINSTEIN: There are two different conceptions about the nature of the universe: (1) The world as a unity dependent on humanity. (2) The world as a reality independent of the human factor.

TAGORE: When our universe is in harmony with Man, the eternal, we know it as Truth, we feel it as beauty.

EINSTEIN: This is the purely human conception of the universe.

TAGORE: There can be no other conception. This world is a human world — the scientific view of it is also that of the scientific man. There is some standard of reason and enjoyment which gives it Truth, the standard of the Eternal Man whose experiences are through our experiences.

EINSTEIN: This is a realization of the human entity.

TAGORE: Yes, one eternal entity. We have to realize it through our emotions and activities. We realized the Supreme Man who has no individual limitations through our limitations. Science is concerned with that which is not confined to individuals; it is the impersonal human world of Truths. Religion realizes these Truths and links them up with our deeper needs; our individual consciousness of Truth gains universal significance. Religion applies values to Truth, and we know this Truth as good through our own harmony with it.

EINSTEIN: Truth, then, or Beauty is not independent of Man?

TAGORE: No.

i came across this interesting dialogue between Albert Einstein the great scientist and the great philosopher Tagore, although it is very old but it is still much relevant today, i shall present the dialogue here for my own personal benefit and also for the interest of the truth seekers....


for more information, go through this links.....http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/04/27/when-einstein-met-tagore/


On July 14, 1930, Albert Einstein welcomed into his home on the outskirts of Berlin the Indian philosopher Rabindranath Tagore. The two proceeded to have one of the most stimulating, intellectually riveting conversations in history, exploring the age-old friction between science and religion.

The following excerpt from one of Einstein and Tagore’s conversations dances between previously examined definitions of science, beauty, consciousness, and philosophy in a masterful meditation on the most fundamental questions of human existence.

UyiIredia:
The problem is not with being in a group, the problem is the religion group believes. Religion says there is a way God has made for man to follow, only men are talking. Let God himself talk in a supernatural way no man could have done and clear the air and doubt.

The major problem I have with religion is that it puts an infinite God in a box. God created everything plus evil and the Devil, yet religion will say God is not evil only good. How can evil exist without God then? Religion will say so-so-and-so is a sin. If you said it's wrong, okay, but how am I sure that's God's mind. I only see the man talking. Mentally ill people can believe they are God or sent of God, I have been like that. So only something undeniably supernatural and even universal will convince me otherwise. Even if something supernatural comes to me my thinking now would be: why did God tell only me to tell others? Why not tell everybody since some may doubt me and have a right to hear from God Himself?

But this is not a logical proposition , religion itself, is a human construct to transcend with GOD therefore it can contain some flawed just like men are flawed. however that dose not make religion illogical or something not worth embracing... you forget the basic value of religion, which is much important to the society development... for example will you cancel the use of car due to common road accidents. what I expect You to do is to concentrate to avoid the accidents. similarly, some students might have copied in the examinations. Try to catch, such students. But, do not remove the system of examination itself.

The system of religion serves majority well, doing lot of good. You forget the vast positive side of the system based on the minor negative side. The concept of religion controls the negative influence in the society. If the concept of religion is removed, lot of people will do lot of shits since already the ways to escape the punishment in courts are already available..... The society will be crushed into pieces in the absence of the fear for sin and abomination. If religion disappears, fear will disappear subsequently.The concept of abomination will drown and destroy the society like Ebola virus. and hence back track human development.

what the pastor , imam or babalawo says does not hold your future, you determine your own destiny, remember you are part of the universe in a never ending symbiotic relationship so a sense of group and belonging is the only way we can keep mother earth.... united we stand , divided will fall.

Note...Not all religion subscribe to the concept of devil and GOD

UyiIredia:
Deism is the belief in God outside of religion. Feel free to ask.

why do you think it is wrong to be part of a religion group , either structured or unstructured

DoctorAlien:
Has the meaning of the word "observe" changed? How can you observe something that happened when you were not there, and there was no camera to record it for you? Who saw the first unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one? In your analogy, the jury were not there when the crime occurred but remember that if there is no piece of evidence against a suspect which his lawyer cannot successfully dispute, he may never be convicted.

On the 97% similarity between human and chimp DNA, I'm gonna let a combination of articles from two sources speak here:

"The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story.


What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes?

The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18–23).

If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!

We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are ‘read’ by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it—imagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).

Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re–form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al. obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error—averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

Just because DNA sequences are similar does not mean that the same amounts of the proteins are produced. Such differences in protein expression can yield vastly different responses in cells. Roughly 10 percent of genes examined showed significant differences in expression levels between chimpanzees and humans.

Gene families are groups of genes that have similar sequences and also similar functions. Scientists comparing the number of genes in gene families have revealed significant differences between humans and chimpanzees. Humans have 689 genes that chimps lack and chimps have 86 genes that humans lack. Such differences mean that 6 percent of the gene complement is different between humans and chimpanzees, irrespective of the individual DNA base pairs.

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross."

"In conclusion, the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is really in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario.

Creationists expect both similarities and differences, and that is exactly what we find. The fact that many humans, chimps, and other creatures share genes should be no surprise to the Christian. The differences are significant. Many in the evolutionary world like to discuss the similarities while brushing the differences aside. Emphasis on percent DNA similarity misses the point because it ignores both the magnitude of the actual differences as well as the significance of the role that single amino acid changes can play."

http://creation.mobi/human-chimp-dna-similarity
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/what-about-the-similarity-between-human-and-chimp-dna/

lol i am of the opinion that you are debating what you do not know ...have you read Charles Darwin book on the theory of origin of species? if not, kindly study it , you can get it at amazon. it is not like any other boring science books. Charles Darwin himself is a good orator..... how do i begin to address your point self?.... i am lazy to do it..... but i will say limiting yourself to one area of study because it suit your want is dangerous to your level of academic.. it is called bias.... i learn from both creationist website and biological/physics base websites... even after telling you about forensic science and how DNA is capable of tracing your 10th cousins, you still went ahead to bring in these article....... and for the last time bible is not not a science text book... what is observed is the genetic sequence and not exactly when it begins.....

DoctorAlien:
Can you show me the first unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one?

science is not magic, evolution study phenomenon that occur overtime, asking when fist unicellular turned into multi cellular is like asking when did toddler turn to full grown adult. it occur overtime. study shows it......that you do not suddenly grown into a full adult. ...... it is observable. the genetic sequence of multi cellular organism is observable....

DoctorAlien:
Are you sure you're not alone in saying that this "evolutionary science" of yours is falsifiable?

"First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. The offspring of most living organisms, for example, are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands or even millions of years. Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur, evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they are by nature “unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.” Dobzhansky concludes that the “applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted.” Finally, evolutionist Paul Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution “cannot be refuted by any possible observations” and thus is “outside of empirical science.”

Here's the full quote:

"Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." [Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, Sydney University). Nature, Apr 22,1967, p.352.]

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-theory-fact-or-law/

Before you inundate me with the "different ways in which evolution" could be falsified, I have one request to make: show me the very first unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one.

By the way, here is an evolutionist, Paul Ehrlich agreeing that there is something called empirical science(aka operational science), as against historical science.

for now , evolutionary theory is proven to be fact but that those not mean it can not be upset at anytime, the rigorous of scientific principle can be apply to do so.... but unfortunately the theory is getting stronger day by by day.....

the space at which evolutionary process happens does not mean it can not be observed by human. The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. go through this links, i am not given you just a single authority name, but multiple authority on biology research like you did ."Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation"https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/.

if you are arguing because there was no direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. i just told you about about forensic science and DNA testing.Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow or when uni cellular organism turning into multi cellular organism. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution. ask me how?

i have dealt on how unicellular turn to multi cellular, it is process that occur overtime, observation were made to ascertain this evidence. i presented a page for you to read through.... i am hearing those word for the first time(historical and observational science) and my own research shows that it is just a figment of your own imagination not science.... science is both observational and historical.....


Evolution only study a process that occur overtime and not when it happens within a time

i have never read it anywhere where notable scientist claims that they are two type of science..... in as much i believe your link had some references, i will like you to quote a scientist authority that classify science as your op claim... The problem i have with the op distinction is that all science is empirical, and all science is historical. What happened thousands, millions and billions of years ago is observational, and we have the evidence and technology to observe, hypothesize, and test this type of science. unless you and the op is rejecting the use of technology.

DoctorAlien:
You don't get it, do you?

I have not asked you to describe for me how a unicellular could turn into a multicellular one. You could come up with a very detailed description of how a unicellular organism could turn into a multicellular one, but that is not a proof that a unicellular organism turned into a multicellular one billions of years ago, since no one was there to observe it. Just like my coming up with a very detailed description of how my great grandfather could have drowned in my village stream does not mean that my great grandfather really drowned in my village stream(supposing that there is no one today who can tell anything about anything that happened during my grandfather's era)

That said, no one has ever even observed any unicellular organism turn into a multicellular one, nor do scientists even have a single convincing description of how that could have happened. Even the Wikipedia page you provided listed the myriad of mechanisms all proposed to explain how unicellular organisms could turn into multicellular ones, and of course with the various problems that face them.

Yes i do get you , science in general do not need to adopt superfluous proposition....natural event that happens today, yesterday, tomorrow or even in the next twenty minute is historical , observable and testable. if not the purpose of forensic science will be useless as no jury will be able to convict a criminal as the jury was not there personally to witness the crime.... and effort made to study the past natural event to prevent the damage effect of earthquake or volcanoes too on human will be useless.... relying on eye witness account only is very ridiculous ,illogical and it contradict science....

Do you need an eye witness account for DNA test? if DNA can tell you that you share a common ancestor with your 10th cousins, why do you think it is wrong when it suggests that we share common ancestors with our 1,000th or 10,000th cousins? Or else, why do you think it is necessary to know the biographies of these common ancestors to accept that they really existed? the description of how unicellular turn to multi cellular is not so compelling for now but the findings is yet to be totally falsified.

Science is capable of falsifying its own theory, you can see how the theory was able to state the problem of each hypothesis.... that is the beauty of science. ability to falsify itself.

DoctorAlien:
Vaxx, what is this scientific principle you're talking about?

observational method.....alias empirical approach

DoctorAlien:
Adam and Joshua's long day, as recorded in the Bible, cannot be observed today. And so is molecules-to-man evolution. Nobody saw any unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one billions of years ago.

I've created a topic on this before:
https://www.nairaland.com/4113600/there-really-war-science

False, an intelligence hypothesis had been made on how unicellular organism turned into multi cellular organism .... visit this page..... it explained better than i can do..... sooner or later, a theory will be established on it . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism#Hypotheses_for_origin..... Am not asking you about Adam or Joshua as historical figure, i am asking you, can you simply justify the claim made about them according to the bible scientifically? Joshua asking yhwh to stop the world for a day. and if probably you can justify Adam scientifically as the first man on earth? since you are treating bible as an observation evidence.

i will vist the link you posted

DoctorAlien:
All the evidences for Biblical models are based on observational principles too. Bible-believing scientists observe what evolutionists observe too.



The fossils were studied and findings recorded. But the interpretations given to these findings are different, because starting assumptions are different. Perhaps to help you: have you observed how ready evolutionists are to interpret any new finding in such a way as to make it fit into the evolutionary model? Have you asked yourself why evolutionists may be ready to drop Natural Selection as the driving force of evolution and look for another mechanism, but are not ready to abandon evolution?



Relatedness of organisms can serve as evidence for a common Creator as much as it can serve as evidence for a common ancestor. Nay, I say that it serves better as an evidence for a common Creator than as an evidence for a common ancestor.

This is where the problem start, bible is not a scientific model, applying scientific techniques to justify biblical truth will amount to treating biblical evidence as scientific theory which can be upset or falsify at anytime..... how can you justify that God indeed stop the world for a day as bible indicate, can it be observed? how can you justify that first creation was truly Adam? can it be observed? any fossil of Adam to buttress your point? science and biblical evidence are two separate field that actually do not intertwined. biblical evidence is not dynamic ....it is meant to be so till eternity. how is it science?

Starting assumptions must be base on observational method that do not rely on any existing assumption that go against scientific principle, if the starting assumption is base on biblical assumption ,then it is not science anymore. bible itself is not a benchmark for science so why base the assumption on a wrong tools. natural selection is the major available evidence now, for any hypothesis to be consider , it must meet the theorem of scientific principle. if natural selection will be replaced today, the next mechanism will derived its assumption from basic observational findings which is the bedrock of science....science works with data and not tales or myths .

scientist may argue that common ancestor may not equate common creator ...... look at pig and hippopotamus ..... both are almost identical yet they live in different world, hippopotamus is more closer to whales genetically than pig....


relying on biblical evidence may not be too good for your reason physically, bible is about spiritual development, while science too may also not be enough since it has limitations, it is about physical phenomenon.... why don't you just enjoy yourself and learn...... instead of trying to justify what is opposite of each other. ......spiritual and materialism.....

DoctorAlien:
How I can justify it? The God who is able to create the universe is able to do anything.

But if the question is, "how did it happen?", I suggest you read the different answers already proposed to it by many people. They are there on the Internet.

OK, if that is your style of replying. this a forum where knowledge is encouraged to be shared, if i need internet reply i will not ask you. but thanks anyway. i will never ask such a silly question, how did it happen? were you there when it happens? rather i will ask you to justify the claim.

Treating Charles Darwin theory of natural selection as inaccurate does not mean you are not scientific, but replacing it with ideology that has no scientific principle will make you unscientific. scientific findings can also be used to falsify an established scientific theory, if it is rich enough. And that is the beauty of science... it can be falsify or upset at anytime....

To the guy asking for the names of scientist who reject evolution theory, goggle is your best friend, i will advice you to do your own personal research......

As for me i remain open to knowledge of the subject

DoctorAlien:
The kind of science that gave us phones and modern healthcare is observational science, which involves repeatable experiments. It is different from historical science, which deals with origins, and unrepeatable events such as molecules-to-man evolution.

All scientist evidence are base on observational principle, in evolution theory for instance which you may consider an historical science.Thousands of human fossils were studied, researched were also carried on Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record.

In human genetics evidence were also observed on how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and that indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances of technology in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved. any science without observation is simply pseudoscience .... observational method is the bedrock of scientific findings.

DoctorAlien:
Christians are not trying to discredit science.

www.nairaland.com/4113600/there-really-war-science

In fact, Christians practise science too, and have pioneered, and continue to pioneer researches in different areas of science.

Be properly informed. Don't be deceived by the efforts of evolutionists to paint Bible-believing Christians as anti-science.

how can you justify the claim bible made concerning Joshua, that he ask God to stop the world for a day? am sure you know it is scientifically impossible

JARUSHUB:
James is a brilliant young man, at least going by his contributions in various discussions – from politics, sports to information technology. At 25, he already has three years’ experience – not in any workplace, but experience sitting at home and roaming the streets of Victoria Island, seen as the Wall Street of Nigeria. He graduated four years ago from a top university in South-West Nigeria and he completed his mandatory youth service a year later. Since then, he’s been dropping his CVs off everywhere, from the high-rise buildings of Victoria Island to the “middle-rises” of Ikeja and the bungalow-offices of Lekki. He has applied for countless of advertised and unsolicited vacancies, online and offline, but he has never been called for any job test or interview.

James speaks very fluent English. He is also handsome, to boot. But there has not been any opportunity for James to speak his Queen’s English to the employers. No opportunity to get the recruiters to see how fittingly those suits sit on him and his signature disarming smile cannot help either. The issue here is: Employers look at James’ first degree certificate and see a third class grade. And they have more than enough to choose from, from the pool of applicants with second class upper and first class.

James is one of the thousands of students who were fond of arguing in school that certificates are just papers; that the class of degree does not matter. Isn’t it easier to play safe by proving that one is competitive in the events (academics) leading to the acquisition of that certificate? How will an employer who doesn’t know you from the next person know of your ability if you didn’t do well in your academics? Is it not fair to rely on your past – basically summarised on your certificate – as the record of your worthiness?

If another person bested you in academics, graduating better grades, what will prove to me, the employer that you can do better on the job? How will you convince me that you’re better than that person? Is it economical for the employer to invite the whole world for his job test? There has to be something set so as to prune down the thousands of applications and manage the invited applicants at a cost-effective level? At the entry level, your certificate – which, contrary to popular belief, is not just paper, but a summary of your performance in the higher institution over the last three to six years – is the easiest pointer to your past, the few shortcomings of this approach notwithstanding.

While conceding the fact that certificates do not always correlate with intelligence or smartness, I believe that it does, in most cases, summarises one’s ability to a potential employer. To me, the use of certificates as a basis in shortlisting entry-level candidates for job tests and interviews is still the best approach. The recruitment process will then sieve out the incompetent ones along the way. And if they do manage to beat the recruitment system, they cannot beat the internal performance appraisal system when they finally settle in on the job.

http://www.jarushub.com/certificates-are-just-papers-really/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

This is indeed not so encouraging, are you indirectly telling us we should acquire a degree to become a cooperate slave? i think the purpose of a degree should independently allow us to survive and strive on our own without relying to be enlisted on someone payrolls. The smart create job and employed the intelligent folks . school should trained us how to be smart and not a dependable tools.....even if we must be a member of any working team before we can set up our own objectives. i will still say certificate is not a good tools to pull the list of brilliant minds...the way forward should be what we can do instead of what we have.

A cooperate IT hub will likely employ you base on what you can do instead of the certificate you bring on board. there are already many ways to cut down cost... job specification , job requirement, job vision and mission are all there. A good employee should tailored his need according to these objective.. each jobs has a problem that is expected to be solved by their potential employee , applicants interested in the jobs, should be able to solve the problem of the job...it cost time and resources training a new employees....competency should be the key to employment and not academic certificate. ....

i am tempted to say i will employ a competent clerk instead of a first class degree holder of accountancy without competent skills in my accounting firm. it will safe me the cost of training and also improve productivity of the firm.... Knowledge is not power, ability makes the difference

budaatum:
Buda's Perspective

So, you took your last breath. You don't exist as you did anymore. No more waking up to a beautiful new day, or seeing and talking to those who love you or those you hate. No more posting on social media, no going to work or paying bills or enjoying food or having sex. Unless someone knows you, we wouldn't even know you are dead for how many have you discoursed with on here but do so no more. We know nought of them, whether dead or alive.

Dust, basically, thou art, and dust you will become, food for worms and fertiliser at best, on the day you die, and nothing else.

Hard to take in, I'm absolutely certain. So post a consolation, an alternate reality.

What would happen after you're dead?

what happen to you in the year 1332 ?

why are you guys so obsessed with private/public uni dichotomy . knowledge is not power , ability make the difference.... the competency of an individual is what count not the formal education that you received. anyone will be more than willing to employ bill gate the university drop out before a first class graduate of Harvard,Oxford, Cambridge etc . because of the potential ability. Albert Einstein, the great scientist perform poorly in college and sadly he was a high school dropout, but fortunately for him his ability make him a top notch today in science world not his poor academic grade or the college he attend..

Our education system need a total revamp , we need to move from theoretical system of education to pure practical base with much invested interest on research... the German/japan education system is very impressive model, it is not ratted as high like the USA or UK schools but i can belt you that an International companies will prefer a German graduate to USA/UK graduate not because of knowledge but simply because of the abilities. this is why china is developing very fast. our ability should be well prioritized above knowledge.....so that the difference can be made.

ScienceWatch:
You guys are doing great. There seems to be an innocent misunderstanding of BudaAtums brilliant argument due to poor environmental conditions.

lol , a kind of stomach cracking laugh. Which one is poor environmental condition again?