₦airaland Forum

skydancer:
They cannot do anything about it because the blind do not believe they are blind and will never agree to anything you say, because to them it is a lie.

It all depends on what you say. Not everyone is blind, even though we all try to touch the 'elephant' from various angles.

Lol, were you actually trying to log out or log in?
The error message you might've been getting may actually be for the latter.
_{But it was quite a good joke to appear in this section. ;}D

This is serious!

Missy B:
Anything more than 6 Years or less than 1 year is a NO for me.

I'm taking lessons, ladies. So, could you elaborate so that some of us who are strolling down your street can smart up?

KunleOshob:
@viaro
I would be back to address your utterances later i don't really have much time to do that now.

Like I said:

viaro:
I may not be available for a while, although I am until this evening. If my schedule don't get in my way, I shall find time to post you some testimonies about some Christians who have obeyed the Holy Spirit to tithe. If you don't see the post this evening, then I shall do so when I return.

Do have a wonderful weekend.

wirinet:
Why i accuse you of being dishonest is because you keep shifting the goal post. You keep vacillating between arguments and subjects.

You may accuse me, but accusations are not saying anything for you. And no, not even your latest accusation about my goal shifting holds any substance - I have been consistent all through, regardless your accusations.

First the subject matter was not whether theists postulate that there must be a creator for the creator.

Well, I don't read any THEIST supposing a creator for THE Creator. That has been my consistent position. Did you read anywhere that a theist (at least in this thread) must have stated that a creator created the Creator?

The argument is Theist claims that everything in the universe must have been created by a creator, and the next logical question would be "how did the creator come into existence?"

As far back as post #35 I started discussing this question and have held the same consistent position. Indeed, if we are looking at the creation of the Universe, that would logically follow from the distinction between what is created and the One who created them. But even when I could grant your premise, you would not fail to recognize that I do not consider the Creator to be a creation - hence why your question of "how did the creator come into existence" does not arise. if it does arise, please proffer some answer - theists did not make that supposition, and therefore should not answer the roll-call for you.

The theist want us to accept that an uncreated being created the universe while the Atheist believe that an uncreated universe is still in the process of formation and in the process creating new forms and objects.

I could let you hold your own personal belief for yourself - I have no problem with that atheistic belief. I'm not going to stir your nest by asking you questions directly (lest I quicken your ire); but if the universe was "uncreated", I guess we would have to rewrite reference books that peg an age of the universe (anywhere between 4 billion to 6 billion YA). As far back as one can fathom for the age of the universe, it would not be sound for me to hold the view that the universe is "uncreated".

Also the subject matter was never whether three or four Gods created the creator, no body brought up that argument. The subject matter was where there were 3 or 4 gods at the beginning creating the universe together or only one doing the creating while the others watched.

You're such a bore I should cry for you. The subject matter where I began to address this subject was from post # 35, and I began purposely by repeating the question: Re: 'Who created the Creator'? I did that on purpose so that anyone who wanted to comment on my views were welcome to do so as freely as they wanted to, bearing in mind that I had a particular question I was seeking to address. Following that, in post #38 Krayola quip: "ok. Why just one creator? Why not 3 or 4?" Go back and take a look and understand I did not bring up the issue - and the question was not about anything in my post speaking of several creators standing by and watching as you surmised. It's a pity you can act this inconsistent and yet be so accusative against me shifting the posts.

Nobody said one God created the other Gods. (although that can me found in other mythologies). Because the Christian Bible clearly states the presence of other gods during creation.

I did not claim that what you're mis-firing at in that bold. I answered from post #35 directly to the question which I reposted: "Re: 'Who created the Creator'?" I had gone to the OP who had stated: "l would like to know who created the creator". If you missed all that and then launch an accusation from your zone, how does that help you come round your own mishaps?

Two questions, and I appreciate them.

Krayola:
ok. Why does the universe necessarily need a creator?

I assume the necessity of your question is what wirinet has highlighted already: "It is in response to arguments that the universe must have a creator that the atheists asks, who created the creator." Maybe not, but that is my assumption.

However, I have tried to seperate between two things:

(a) the creation of the Universe

(b) a supposition that a creator created THE Creator.

Earlier, you said that you "don't consider the universe to be a creation, but a creative entity." In the same vein, I don't consider the Creator to be a creation; and thus we are looking at two different things entirely.

Having said that, I also don't consider the universe originated by itself; hence my pointing back to creation as the work of THE Creator.

And please describe the nature of this creator and how u arrived at such.

I could do so in another thread for that purpose. Suffice to say that in consonance with the present discussion, I don't hold the Creator to be of such a nature as classes Him with creation. The reason I say so is because some who ask the question of a creator creating the Creator are basing their arguments on the presumption that blurs between the creation and the Creator.

Nice clips.

Thanks OLAADEGBU. I would have appreciated your own views directly in response to the issues I raised. The links are appreciated, so don't get me wrong on that. However, even when one visits those links, they seem to be saying the same things that warranted my comments for us to look a bit more closely on the rigid statements that many people hold without first having thought them through after carefully examining what Scripture says.

That aside, I'm sure I'm not the first to call your attention to some of these issues. I shall now look at some of your remarks:

OLAADEGBU:

When we argue like this, perhaps it has never occured to us as Christians to examine our own argumements. Science being based on 'observation and verification' does not mean that anyone 'observed' creation 'in the beginning' either. There does not seem to be any basis for us to argue like this, because we cannot just sit back and talk about 'observation' to 'verify' anything if asked about 'the beginning'.

Perhaps it never occurred to you that God was an eyewitness to the work of His Creation and that He has left us a witness both in creation and in His Word.

I am very well acquainted with God being a witness to His own work - but that is not the point in my comments in what you quoted. In as much as I did not question God being present to witness His own creation, what are you trying to say? Meanwhile, the point in mine still stands: you cannot be talking about "science" if you mention "observation and verification" when you have produced no such scientific verification for observable inferences that occured "in the beginning" - where you there to personally observe things for yourself? that is the question. A tacit yes or no would do nicely. And if you were not there to "obverse" creation personally, how do you begin to cross the boundaries of science the way you prescribed?

"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first 'missing link' to snap under scrutiny.  In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England's Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man's ape-like ancestor.  It took decades to reveal the hoax." -- U.S.  News & World Report, February 14, 2000.

"Darwin admitted that millions of 'missing links,' transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species.  Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single [i]missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."[/i]  Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God

"The gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead.  No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so.  It is simply a fact.  Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict." -- David Berlinsky

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." -- Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977

"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." -- G.K. Chesterton.

What do these have to do with my observation that fossils posed difficulties for Darwinism? Reposting those quotes does not run contrary to my observation though - do they?

However, I had hoped to see lines where you would address concerns such as what I stated earlier:
"But fossil alone does not falsify or validate anything - for instance, fossils do not tell us anything about 'creation' other than point back in history to their 'existence'."
I could extend this to say that fossils does not validate anything about your observation of creation from the beginning in as much as you were not present to carry out the observation yourself. Yes, God was there - I heard that already: but were YOU there? If not, where is your science and observation to verification? I'd like to see this brought out scientifically, not conjecturally.

wirinet:
You are being very dishonest,

That's a nice way to start off a discussion, ain't it?
But let me assure you: I'm not being dishonest at all. What your problem is can be easily solved: you're simply too busy pointing fingers at others and looking elsewhere.

you try to tie in certain dogma to atheists and then base most of your arguments on your preconceived assertions.

Certain dogmas - as what? Me? Where? I do hope you have your wires in place? WHERE did I postulate that a creator must have created THE Creator? Did I tie that on the neck of any atheist? I have several times noted that such a proposition does not fall within the purview of theism - and I stood out for why that could not be. If you hold that the contraption is by necessity your worry, then deal with it. Since it is not mine, why should I answer your roll-call?

i am not even in the mood to respond, but i will all the same.

Another way os saying that is: you have nothing intelligent to put forward. All the same, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

First Atheists do not believe there could be a creator for the creator, they do not even believe in a creator. Please check the meaning of Atheism. It is in response to arguments that the universe must have a creator that the atheists asks, who created the creator.

I know what atheism is - don't start to even pretend you have a clue. Also, it is good to note the highlight in yours. By extension, THEISTS do not hold a claim of "a creator for THE Creator". That is why the question about "who created the creator" does not arise in the first place since THEISTS did not make that claim. For an atheist to adduce that a creator must have created the Creator is to assume what is not in the domain of theism (at least, I speak for myself). If a theist had postulated that a creator created THE Creator, then the atheist would be spot on to ask: "who created the Creator" - and then the theirst should address that question. Since it is not the claim of a theist, what is the grounds for the atheist profeering a question that he himself does not even know how to think through?

About there being three or four creators, you are also dishonest there.

Again, that is not my claim - so enjoy your hideous duplcity. What have I said about there being 3 or 4 ceators - did I say that is what exists? Was that my claim as a theist? You did not carefully weigh issues before venturing into your mud-slinging drama. Could you not have discussed issues more reasonably instead?

The Christian religion is still in confusion where there was one creator in the beginning or there were multiple (most Christians say there were three - The Father, the son and the holy spirit.) They say one God (Father) thought of the creation and used the word (son) and the holy spirit manifested the creations.  So the 3 or 4 Gods hypothesis is a theist one and not postulated by atheists.

I did not hold a "3 or 4"-creator having created THE Creator hypothesis. The Trinity does not superimpose your dramatic twist up there, because even as you described it, there's nothing to show that one creator had created the other, which then led to the third creator bbeing created by the other two. Rather, what you described is simply pointing to the creation - not the Creator. The 3 or 4 hypothesis that you desperately are trying to resolve for your drama does not even begin to scratch the surface for you.

tayotoyin:
Malachi is in d Old Testament which is noted for all the Old time laws,which the coming of Jesus has redeemed us from.

I like the way you reason: Jesus redeemed us from "Old time laws". Good.

Now apply that to marriage: a woman is BOUND BY THE LAW as long as her husband lives (Romans 7:1-2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39) - what "Law" are Christian women still "bound by" according to those passages? Again, why are women asked to zip up shut up in Church - "they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Cor. 14:34).

No, I'm not starting a war (God forbid). What I try to look out for is the talk that Jesus redeemed us from "Old time laws", therefore that should include every single aspect of that same "Old time laws". Why do Christians not use the same arguments for Christian women who are STILL BOUND BY THE LAW in their marriages? On what grounds do you make that exception?

It's easy to rush to Galatians as firstaid to condemn what it does not condemn. But when we do so, let's not pretend to cut corners by condeming the Law and at the same time ignoring Christian marriages founded and governed by the same "Old time laws". My 2centimeters!

wirinet:
See linguistic gymnastics, you theists are something else.

When the Atheist say the universe came out of nothing, the theists would say "you are senseless, how can the universe as complex as it is with all the complex life forms comes out of nothing. It is evident that everything was created by a highly intelligent and infinitely complex creator".

Then the atheist asks please tell me how this creator came to be? who created this creator? and the theist answers, "you are very stupid for asking that question, how can an infinitely complex and and powerful creator be created. Can't you understand that he or it have always existed and not in need of any creator? How can a creator have a creator? In fact all atheists are stupid and foolish".

The atheist scratches his head  

I don't make claims as highlighted in yours. But if the atheist believes that a creator must have created THE Creator, would it not be genial for the same atheist to tell us how that is so?

Krayola:
I don't consider the universe to be a creation, but a creative entity. The size, scope, and nature of the universe humble me so much that I do not pretend to have a clue about how and why it came to be, possibly billions of years ago.

Okay, that's your view.

Feel free to question my beliefs. . .but quit asking me to deal with the flaws in your claims. They're yours to defend,  and not mine.

You may feel your beliefs are questioned; but I didn't ask you to deal with any perceived flaws in other people's beliefs either. What I hold have been put forward; after which I asked questions of my own. If you feel it's too much for others to ask questions, would that be any different from you asking me questions initially?

I was just pointing out that there could be other possibilities, that you are pretty deep in dogma, and u actually believe you are making sense.

Good for you if there are other possibilities - that's not my idea, and I stated why it is not mine, since you asked "why not 3 or 4". You hold your own dogma and whinge about what other people are saying - that's hardly sensible.

You claim the universe is a creation, good for you. I can't disprove that.

No worries.

You claim it has a creator, good for you. I can't disprove that.

No worries there.

You claim this creator does not need a creator, good for you. I can't disprove that.

I made no "claim" of a "need" as such, but discussed my view that it is not in the domain of the theist to fathom such an idea. It is not theists who postulate the "possibilities" of 3 or 4 creators; and since that is not their postulation, it could not be their claim either.

But you then suggested that people who question your claims are most likely doing so out of mischief and a lack of intelligence. . .

No, and thrice no. I did not quip as such that people who question my claim are mischievous - because as a theist I did not claim that "a creator created THE Creator" - that is not my claim, so please bear with yourself and no misread people.

It is not the questioning of one's views or beliefs that is an issue. I simple said this:
"Since an atheist believes there could be a 'creator' who creator THE Creator, he needs to show others who that 'creator' could be - both by necessity and validation. Failing to do so only presents the enquirer as both mischievous and unintelligent."
If someone asks a question, they are welcome to do. But asking questions and pretending it is a "valid" one without validating its necessity and yet not addressing the question himself is simply mischievous. Theists not did postulate the "creator created THE Creator" - that is not what you can push to the doorstep of a theist. Since an atheist assumes that is possible - he and he alone should tell others what he holds as a belief.

That is why i responded to your post. And I think it is pretty clear from our posts which of us is up to mischief.

Since you haven't made any sense, I won't take you up on that - mischief aside.

The creator you believe in can have whatever nature you feel he should.

I see - which is why you can then formulate a 3 or 4 creator hypothesis, yes? Please.

I can't explain what goes on in your head.

Lol, be my guest and hazard a guess - you might be surprised to peep into my head and see what I think of you in return.

But if u want to pass it off as the way thing are, then u are the one that has to explain to us.

I have explained why your "possibilities" of 3 or 4 creators are not my worries - I don't answer roll-calls for your problems. Now if you want to pass your own drama as the way things are, tough luck: I just wish you the genuis to calmly do so without grumbling about what other people think for not holding unto your own worries of a 3 or 4 creator hypothesis.

When a teacher is teaching a student a totally foreign concept, who asks the questions, and who does the explaining?

Let me make this one easy for you:

*the idea of a 3 or 4 creator is foreign to theists;

therefore, since it is not theists that are making that claim of yours, let's now ask:
(a) who asks questions?
(b) who answers to questions asked for that foreign concept?

Here again: since your postulations are not mine, I cannot answer roll-call for you. if as a "teacher" of your own postulations you have not been able to share with me, I don't have any worries thereto - that is not grounds for you to make assertions about what's going on in other people's heads. Your claim is NOT MINE - you can keep yours and we can applaud it.

@KunleOshob,

I may not be available for a while, although I am until this evening. If my schedule don't get in my way, I shall find time to post you some testimonies about some Christians who have obeyed the Holy Spirit to tithe. If you don't see the post this evening, then I shall do so when I return.

Do have a wonderful weekend.

Okay then.

^{(I seriously look forward to discussing with you - I'm beginning to like your style so far, even though initially I as cautious. Maybe I was mistaking you for someone else - who knows.)}

But thanks again.

KunleOshob:
I would take an exception to this particular attack for now and hope it does not grow into more provocative attacks.

Exception noted.

KunleOshob:
@Viaro
Before i start this debate with you, could you let me know your basis for tithing?

The question is: are you capable of holding a debate. That is not a personal attack; but my concern is that I honestly don't like the way you have handled debates with others on this subject in your previous posts. If something does not favour an anti-tithing position, it should not go down the path of name-calling and all sorts. I have read this worrying trend in some of your own posts, and that is something I do not want to entertain. If we (you and I) are not capable of controlling our emotions on disagreeable fringes, I would rather not enter into a debate that leaves us lifeless, loveless, and lawless.

Do you believe it is a christian requirement?

No.

If so on what scriptural basis do you draw your assumptions?

Since I do not hold it as a "requirement", I would pass over that question.

How did the bible even direct the jew to give their[not pay] tithes?

Good to se you distinguish "give" from "pay". I guess you already know how the Jews gave their tithes. Good places to check are Numbers 18 and ancillary references.

Is there any where in the bible were christians were asked to tithe?

No; and there is no single verse in the Bible where christians are damned for giving tithes either.

Is the law still in operation?

It depends on what you mean by "in operation". If you follow my reasoning that the principles of the Law are instrinsic to the Christian life and testimony, I would sound a serious yes.

if not why single ourt one aspect of the law to implement?

Excuse me? Did I single out one aspect? No, not me - nada, zilch. Let me show you what I think: there are other aspects of the Law that are besides the tithes that Christians follow. We cannot deny that. An instance: if the Law plays absolutely no role in the Christian life today, why does the NT says that a woman is BOUND BY THE LAW as long as her husband lives? (Romans 7:1-2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39) - what "Law" are Christian women still "bound by" according to those passages? Again, why are women asked to zip up shut up in Church - "they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Cor. 14:34).

My point again: I'm not the one who has singled out "one aspect of the law" to implement. That question has often been recycled every single time this topic is being discussed, and that was why I noted that nothing is new to me in this field. if anti-tithers assume the question supposes we Christians are singling out ONE aspect from the law, I guess it is because they have not carefully examined issues for themselves.

Tha apotles where charged to spread the gosple and establish christianity how come none of them ever taught tithes as a christian requirement especially poslte paul who was a jewish pharisees and by extention a former tither?

First, how would you argue that Paul was by extension a "former tither"? Second, the apostles did not hold this subject as a matter of what is "required" - required for what? When people use this language of "required", it simply leaves me wondering if they know what they are saying. Where is the "required" coming into the picture? Yet thirdly, you cannot maintain that the apostles did not teach tithes - they did; the difference is that they did not teach it as a requirement!

Please note that apostle Paul preached mostly to gentiles who were not aware of the Jewish tradition of tithes, so it only makes sense he would have mentioned it in at least one of the several books he wrote to admonish the young christians he converted.

Please also note that while he was preaching to gentiles, he did not condemn tithes a single time - and the same apostle knew that most of the Gentiles he preached to were familiar with Jewish customs. Since he knew that some of those Gentiles understood Jewish customs, he used the OT texts to preach many things to them, being careful that he did not condemn tithes a single time. Besides, the same apostle knew that tithes did not originate from Jewish customs and no one can be arguing that the issue should always revolve around the Law.

Or are we saying that our mordern day pastors know God's will more than the apostles that worked directly with christ.

Please, I would rather you focus on a discussion on Scripture, not ancient and modern pastors. I am not in the business of pointing fingers at anyone. As regards knowing God's will, anti-tithers clearly do not know it any better than their tithing brethren.

Please answer this few questions first {if you can} and lets see how this heretic practise can be justified using undiluted scripture.

Good one - i've answered; and it doesn't surprise me that you're quick to call for guns about it being "heretical". More to come. if you're going to hold a discussion, we can be civil about it; if not please let me know you can't handle it civilly and i shall remove myself accordingly.

Also read deuteronomy 14:22-29 so as to know how the bible recommends that tithing should be implemented. That is apart from the fact that tithing was out lawed for christians and described as a weak, useless and unprofitable law in the book of hebrew 7:5-19

No sound theologian can argue that tithing was "outlawed" on the basis of Hebrews 7:5-19. That same passage presents two figures of preisthoods and two figures of tithes. Abraham's tithes were not "outlawed"; nor can his tithes be mirrored against Deuteronomy. It was not the tithes that were weak, useless, etc - if you hold that idea, you would have to tell us why they were weak and compare it with other passages! When you're done with that, I will ask you where you have thrown the voice of the Holy Spirit who has categorically spoken to Christians to tithe in various times and places.

huxley:
OK - I like statement. Suppose I were to make the following hypothesis:

The genome of the whale animal would show genes for the development of mammalian hindlimbs. These genes are most of the time suppressed but occasionally they are expressed.

Do you think this is a testable hypothesis?

Yes, I would be inclined to say that is a testable hypothesis.

Hi guys,

I was about leaving NL - came in briefly, wanted out (one Tudor guy was such a good spot). Anyhow, let me address these few then I'm off to a pending holiday (can't miss the Carribean for NL - nada, zilch.)

Pastor AIO:
I didn't fully understand this post but I'll address the parts that I think I understand.

Gravity is a fact. Apples fall to the ground due to gravity.

Theories of Gravity are an attempt to explain How it occurs.

Evolution of Forms is a fact observed around us.

Theories of Evolution are attempts to explain how the process occurs.

I follow you; and I knew all that before. The one thing that caught my attention in your previous reply to my post (possibly #37) was pointing back to KunleOshob's view. In summary, I don't think he expressed a good grasp of what theories and laws are in science. If I recall clearly, he had intoned that huxley should "know the difference btw laws and theories in science" (post #10). But the way he handled "law" and "theory" does not help, especially because Evolution cannot be said to be "merely a theory". I'm sure it's not only me who's concerned about these descriptives of saying that a theory is a "MERE" one simply because in his view evolution has not been "proven" and that it why it is classified as a theory[postulation] and not a law. Do theories get classified that way? I don't know if that is what operates now.

You asked for proponents of evolutionary theories before Darwin. Try this for size:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck#Lamarckian_Evolution

No, I didn not ask for "proponents" of evolution before Darwin. I simply asked: "Who was making these observations 'many tens or hundreds of years before Darwin'?" I also noted that: "I know that Darwin catalogues others to push for his own theory - agreeing with some, disagreeing with others." I am quite aware of Lamarck and others (such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon). But thanks for the offer.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=335009.msg4705006#msg4705006 date=1255169773]Err are you forgetting sumtn' . . . You my dear viaro opined his answers were not "satisfactory to me". . .dishonesty is a sin, right?[/quote]And who was the fellow that beat his chest bellowing this hilarious quip: "I clearly stated to me he gave no answers". Sad you need to be reminded of what you admitted to.

Yeah I guess it was. . .
Yea, and I was thoroughly basking in the euphoria of my wonderful priviledge when you barged in and tried to take that away while presenting the priviledge as the sole purview of the bible.

My commiserations - henceforth feel free to enjoy your previlege, it was not threatened.

Be warned, what is good for the goose, is perferct for the gander.

>This fellow is such a joke!<

Is Psalm 14:1 missing from your bible?

No, and I gave you others to help you see further than you did.

I highlighted it in post #13.

I requested that you please do me the fav of quoting me where I made any such pointers. Saying you highlighted it in post #13 is a copout.

Could this be why you're here?

And you?

Excellent.
*sigh*
The thread borders on the bible and outworkings of modernity. Questions like "how have you tried to help modernity by your overheated reactions" are distracting. . . . The point head of this discussion as regards modernity is THE BIBLE and not "my reaction".

Where is that in the knee jerk rules of your fantasy, am still asking. If I highlighted a concern, I also pointed out where in the Forum Rules you actually VIOLATED them. Where in Nairaland Forum Rules is it stated that you can arrogate to yourself the fantasy of making such knee jerk rules for yourself because 'Tudór' felt what he read in mine are "disconcerting questions"? M-e-n, I'm trying not to laugh. . . but this time I counldn't resist letting off the guffaws at your despearations.

If you wanted details on how I help modernity with my actions, the ideal thing to have done is start a new thread to address such.

Okay, I didn't do that. If you want to do so, don't let viaro disturb your privilege once again.

Cmon, admit it and we're cool. You asked a distracting question. . . . It won't kill ya. Nobody holy pass.

Haha. Okay, 'viaro admits his question was "distracting"'. Happy now?
_{(m-e-n, somebody hold me before this hap kills me with laughter!!)}

I have never denied being a rule breaker or did I?

Oh, so you did. Can we shake hands now?
I'm not in a hurry of being banned; but when I get bored of Nairaland I'll wind you up and trouble your privilege - that will send the end of 'viaro' on NL. But patience. . patience.

Just that you who's standing the moral high ground are equally guilty yourself. You aren't supposed to ask derailing questions and you did. Infact what we're doing now is derailing the thread.

Okay, I said so in one of my very early posts on NL that "we" are all guilty - that is, the "we" includes me. Here's a truce: just gee me a shout anytime you're near my coast - we could rub minds together and later watch football! After this, viaro won't derail your "privilege" ever again (if I do, just let me know).

I'm outa NL. [size=15pt]Enjoy[/size].

Pastor AIO:
But the Theories of Gravity are flawed.

I know that's what is being argued by some. The point I tried to make is that subjecting a theory to falsifiability does not mean the same thing as saying that a theory is false "iff" it has not been proven to be a "law".

Bro, i'm weary of such kinds of talk - which was why I used that example. Why? Because in a case as gravity, even though people talk about the "law of gravity", there are still theories of gravity. Are we going to say that gravity is "unproven" because some people think that the theories of gravity are flawed? The fact we have a law of gravity does not mean that gravity is "unproven" because it is a "mere" theory. It is the same thing when people come up with the TOE is a "mere" theory because (yes, "because" the scientific community does not recognize it as a "law". That idea does not fit with current paradigm in science.

huxley:
I did not say anything about Darwinism or Darwin in my question, did I?

No, you did not - I did. I would bet you can't seperate your discussion of evolution from Darwinism; and if you could, it would be wonderful to see and a different angle for your take.

Changes in lifeforms is somethings that had been observed for many tens or hundreds of years before Darwin.

Who was making these observations 'many tens or hundreds of years before Darwin'? I know that Darwin catalogues others to push for his own theory - agreeing with some, disagreeing with others. Yes, I'm aware of that. But "changes in lifeforms" as he theorised is not a linear postulation as simplistic as what many evolutionists argue today. This is why I quipped about the dino-bird inference.

And further, I am not asking you about the HOW this happens.

Okay, I apologise where I might have unwittingly assumed that. In my view, I don't think you had asked me about the HOW.

I am simply asking whether the evidence on the ground shows that lifeform is immutable or mutable.

"Lifeforms" needs to be contextualized - that was my point. If a lifeform (dino) evolved into a another lifeform (bird), how do I defend that view if I was to say that I accepted it? Now, if it could be argued that "other lifeforms" change into "other lifeforms", it would first make me think of HOW that happens (even though you did not suggest the question to me, I had to ask myself that same question first to know what I am talking about). I hope you see my point?

Forget about Darwin, Natural Selection, theory, etc, etc, for now.

Okay, for now.

Let us just deal with the facts on the ground, which are:

a)  Why are the fossils of mammals NEVER found in the pre-cambrian era?  Why is it that about 600 MYA to 800 MYA, there are no evidence of multicellular organisms?   What happened between 600MYA and today that resulted in multicellular organisms with complex bodyplans?

I think I've addressed these issue from two points: philosophy and paleontology. I won't be tedious again on the "iff" (I promise - for now); but I also highlighted that while it was not in my place to sort out any arguments for Darwinists, I wonder why the 'transitional fossils' are not the strong points of such evolutionary theorizing. To argue that they "evolved" would bring us back to specifics - and then take us back to paleontology.

No - you have not addressed the question.

Okay.

I asked - What explains the fact that about 5% of Whales are born with fully developed hindlimbs?

Dear sir, are you not asking me HOW that happens? It is not just stating the fact as it is that you're playing with here; but you're asking me to "explain" - which simply means I should proffer answers for HOW. I'm sorry, that is not my domain.

Where did these limb come from?

I don't know - you tell me, afterall you described them as akin to those of a cow.

Could it be that whales have the genes for making legs, which for 95% of the time are not expressed?

It could be, but I don't know and cannot hazard any guesses. Science does not work by guesses but by testable hypothesis which progress to falsifiable theories. You are well informed on that, I assume - so that is why you should appreciate the fact that if I have to discuss with you in the language of scientists, I should not expose myself to an attitude of dogmatism.

Good morning, TV01. Great to read those questions from you - very sound and well appreciated.

TV01:
Firstly, I qualified the type/state of the Christian.

I bore in mind the qualifiers you made earlier; which was why I focused on just on point - "does not" and "cannot sin".

Secondly, would you be so kind as to state your reading of 1 John 3:5-10.

Briefly, the passage does not suppose that a Christian does not have the ability or capacity to sin. The reality of the fact that Christians are capable of sinning (and some in fact do sin) is borne out twice over in both 1 John 1:9 and James 3:2.

For the passage you recommended, let me keep it short by focusing on verse 9 - "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God". This is prolly where you surmised that a saved Christian "does not" and "cannot sin".

For me, it portrays the fact of "what is" while not ignoring the experience of "what occurs" - if you get my drift. "What is" would point out that the seed does not urge a Christian to sin as a matter of habit - he cannot live habitually in sin; but in experience we know that "what occurs" rings true that Christians have the capacity to sin when they are not abiding in Christ (see 1 John 3:6 - "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not". Not forgetting that other passages bear out the experience of Christians who sin, the same apostle John earlier stated in 1 John 2:1:

   'My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.
    And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father,
    Jesus Christ the righteous'

That verse probably answers to an anticipated question, viz: so what happens where a Christian actually has commited a sin? It says, "if any man sin" - not that a Christian is not capable of sinning nor actually has no ability to do so.

If the point is that "Christians  should not go on sinning", how and when does a Christian get to that point?

I don't know. What I may offer in response is that it is not getting to a point that is germane, but rather that we should not make it our prospect. We understand this clearly from both 1 John 2:1 ('if any man sin') and Romans 6:1-2 ('Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid').

Is it not contradictory to say do and will sin, but in the same breath say they should not go on sinning?

No, it is not contradictory to read what is stated - and what is stated is not "do and will", it is not urging people to "do". Rather, it is ackowledging the fact of our experiences that it is possible that Christians sin - and that when they sadly find themselves in that situation, they cannot go on habitually living that way. This is why we ought to 'confess our sins' (1 John 1:9); examples may include when a believer is being disciplined by the Lord for living that way (see Hebrews 12:11), as is attested by James 5:15 -

  "the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up;
   and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him"

In all, it is not saying we live in sin as the norm; but if we unwittingly have sinned, we have recourse to our Advocate, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Did the Lords work only make atonement for past sins and any we may commit in future, or is it efficacious in delivering us from the sin nature. Yes, no? How, why?

The Lord's vicarious work on the Cross covers all that you enumerated -

    * sins that are past:
       God set forth His Son as a propitiation for sins that are past - Romans 3:25

    * sins that we unwittingly commit in the present:
       if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father -
       Jesus Christ: He is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:1-2)

    * sins committed unplanned in the future:
       'Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that
        come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.'
        (Heb. 7:25)

    * He also delivered us from sin nature:
       'our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,
        that henceforth we should not serve sin' (Romans 6:6)

    * WHY did He do this?
      (a) 'Who gave himself for our sins,
       that he might deliver us from this present evil world,
       according to the will of God and our Fathe' (Gal. 1:4)
      (b) and that He might 'present you faultless before
      the presence of his glory with exceeding joy' (Jude 1:24)

So, in all, I would concur with you - Yes, He did all those things for us in His vicarious work on the Cross.

What a Christian - and I talk in the discipleship sense - should desire is to be like His Master. Is there atonement for sin and deliverance from the sin nature, or just atonement, even if in  a present continous sense?

Christ's work covers both sins and sin to effect deliverance and atonement.

What is the difference between one who willfully sins - and maybe does not even believe - and one who believes and sins, even if its with regret?

The difference is outlined in 1 John 3:8 and simply delineates between the unregenrate and the saved person. One who sins willfully has not know God - how would he be sinning 'willfully'? On the other hand, the other person - a believer - regrets his sins, and that is what drives him to repentance of such value we find in 2 Cor. 7:9-10.

Bless you.

KunleOshob:
I am here oh, even science does not claim that evolution has been proven and that it why it is classified as a theory[postulation] and not a law.

You're missing the point. Theories do not get "classified" as laws on the basis of one proof or another. When we fail to understand the nature of theories and laws, then some people would begin to question the theory of gravity! Yes indeed, some people are already arguing that same thing - I don't know if this forum behaves like other fora where I've been to, but in some others you get banned for simply posting a link (not the fault of the admin or mods, just the software they use). So, I don't want to risk suffering that experience if I post a link; but you can Google up "Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed". You'll find it on 'the onion dot com'.

Theories and laws are quite mishandled in your response.

huxley:
Let me cut to the chase by asking two questions.  I shall address the rest of the post later:

Thanks - it's a great relief to see the brevity of your reply. Now to answer your two questions:

1)  Do you accept that lifeforms have changed and are charging over time?

No. Let me explain - my answer remains No until you explain what you mean.
To expect me to just "accept" anything said is to commit me to a position that would turn out knotty later on. The reason why I would ask for clarification is simple: the Darwinian arguments often shifts. An example? I've pointed out the idea of an argument of Birds evolving from Dinousaurs - I also stated clearly that such an argument is not mine. If someone then says that "do you accept that lifeforms have changed and are charging over time?", I would then ask them to tell me where and how the 'Bird-evolved-from Dinos' argument would be "accepted".

2)  How would you explain the fact that some whales (about 5%) are born with fully developed hindlimbs, much like a cow's hindlimbs?

I would not 'explain' that as the "change" on a grand scale Darwinism. It would lead to a necessary question: what is the whale 'evolving' to in that form with hindlimbs as cows?

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@Viaro
Since you are new to this forum, you may not be aware that a lot as already been said on tithes on this forum and there have been several heated debates on the subject.

Indeed, my being new to this forum does not mean I'm new to discussions of this sort. If Nairaland never had any discussion on tithes, we can harvest the "heat" in truck loads from other fora where debates continue to rage. Although I've had the privilege of looking through several threads to see what people are saying. Honestly, nothing new to me.

It has also been firmly established that the scriptural basis for tithing today in our churches as it is prctised today is very weak in the very least and at best unscriptural.

I'm not going into this same vacant assertion of yours - that is the same thing I read so many times by anti-tithers who are too busy pointing fingers at others without considering for a moment that many of their arguments are simply UNBIBLICAL. An example? Just prior to yours, I had to comment on the idea that the Levites "had no inheritance". I can well bear with people making these statements because they only recycle them from theologians who should have known better than to make such misleading clap-traps for their gullible crowds. At the end of the day, you will still find the very same anti-tithers dancing between two opinions, viz:
* tithing is unbiblical
* yes, Christians can tithe.
This is the kind of stations you find most anti-tithers hanging out with their luggage and making out so many inconsistences for their willing crowds. No, I'm not laying into you or debosky; but my entry to this discussion is to point out that anti-tithers should learn from other people rather than arrogate to teach what they have no clue about.

Before we start any fresh debate[ as i am always ready and eager to thrash out this issue of tithes] i would encouraged you to read my flagship post on tithes in this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113108.0.html and the subsequent debates thereafter, if you have any issues then we can take it up from there. Happy reading

Kunle, please drop the ego. You don't seem capable of a good debate - and nothing you have argued before is new. Before posting my reply here, I read through your comments and then followed your advice to go read your "flagship post". Already, I saw so many inconsistencies there that I've seen in the arguments of other anti-tithers.

Examples? Look at this quote of yours from that link:

The above passage is self explanatory and it’s states clearly that the practice of tithing has no place under the priestly order of our lord Jesus Christ in fact the passage suggests that the collection of tithes is belittling of the priestly order of our lord Jesus Christ.

Huh? Do you know what the "priestly order" of Christ is? Okay, so you know it is Melchizedek? How come Melchizedek actually received tithes from Abraham if you can say that tithing has "no place" in that order? What is remarkable is that the same Melchizedek received tithes from the Levies! How come you're taking such a view and making such an assertion without having carefully considere issues? Huh?!?

People can easily applaud such quips simply because they don't carefully consider Biblical teachings. When one thinks they've got it in a nutshell and are asking for a debate, that's a sure sign they are heading for a straight defeat even before they begin.

But here is the one thing that far outweighs all other 'clever' arguments: listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit. Since you maintain that "the collection of tithes is belittling of the priestly order of our lord Jesus Christ", then what would you do if someone told you that the Holy Spirit urged them to tithe - and they obeyed? Where would your arguments lead?

We need to be careful how we ask for something that we can't handle.

Krayola,

Thank you for taking up my observations.

Krayola:
ok. Why just one creator? Why not 3 or 4?

Honestly, I may have answers for why 1 and not more than one. Let me start from that one. Existence and origin of creation is traced back to a Creator. My premise is that the Creator is not postulated as a "creation" - but to suppose that there should be a creator for THE Creator is to make the Creator a creation of the said 'creator'. This is the way I see the "WHY" in your question.

Now, please tell me WHY not 3 or 4 (or any other indices above 1).

your argument that the Universe needs a creator has the exact same flaw.

That's okay, although I don't know if that second point was addressing the question of the Universe needs a creator. I zeroed in on just one issue: "Who created the Creator"; and not who created the Universe. So, it might help me address your worries about your perceived flaws if you can see what I commented on and not what I have not.

Some theists claim the universe was created by one God and do not accept any other possibilities. They claim this God was not created but can't explain why. . .

Well, I happen to be one of such theists who hold that conviction - and just above, I've given one possible reason as to why that is plausible for me. At the risk of repeating, I do not hold other "possibilities" such as a creator who created THE Creator since the question of the topic is "who created THE Creator". Indeed, Krayola. . as one of such theists, I cannot explain why; but I've also intimtaed that one of my reasons is that the Creator is not postulated as a 'creation' of another creator. If the hypothesis is adduced for a creator having created THE Creator, then it makes THE Creator a "creation" by necessity - which is not what theists hold. That is one concise answer to your second observation.

However, in the same vein, I also noted earlier that:
   'Since an atheist believes there could be a 'creator' who creator THE Creator,
    he needs to show others who that 'creator' could be - both by necessity and validation.'
It is not enough to quip about a creator for THE Creator - where's the indices for that postulation that makes it a necessary hypothesis; and as a cnsequence, upon what indices do we validate the hypothesis? If you can proffer it, that will be good: and then we can take it on to its logical deductions - which is that we have to admit THE Creator in the Equation. There's just no shying away from that logical consequence. The moment you try to validate the question of a creator for THE Creator, you would have to first validate by necessity that THE Creator exists before going on to any other 'creator'.

The "unintelligent" ones ask the hard questions, and the "intelligent" ones just hide behind dogma.

Well, that may be true in some arenas. In retrospect, it seems rather that in this case, the "unintelligent" one asked the question (not a hard one), but "intelligent" minds are examining its worth. Trace it back to Dawkins (as far as I can tell), he has not answered the question himself - because he knows the "unintelligent" ones who applaud him would only parrot the question while he himself does not even address it.

Do u really think u are "deep"?

I have not claimed to be "deep". Are you? The one thing I asked was this: "how do you determine "a creator" (any creator) by scientific postulations? Just how?" If that was deep, I can well bear with you - but that does not in itself sound quizzically "deep" for you, does it?

Who created the creator is a valid question, and u have no answer to it but to cling to your dogma of " he doesn't need one", or "we don't claim he needs one so u have to explain why u say he does".

You have not validated your question, you're only parroting the same thing and saying zilch. Your complaining is not an answer; at least, I offered reason enough (if you're honest) to think the question through. Here again in this reply, I gave another possible reason, in so much that no theist I know of has ever postulated that THE Creator was created by 'a creator'. To suppose the validity of that question would require you to first acknowedge the existence of THE Creator before going on to 'a creator' that must have created THE Creator. Since I haven't made any claims for the abstract craetor who must have created THE Creator, you could do us the favour of going past your dogma to validate your assumptions of 3 or 4 creators. If you cannot do so, perhaps you point back to your own highlight that some people ask question and other unintelligent minds just parrot them vacantly.

An ocean is deep. . . . so is a prostitutes vagina. It's all about vantage point, and it seems u live in the red light district.

How does that square with this topic?

The basis for the question is that your claim is bogus.

Lol, that's okay. Claiming someone else's question as bogus does not score anything to your credit in respect of validating your summizings of the possibilities of 3 or 4 creators.

Theists have claimed that a God exists and that he created the universe. . . . because [size=15pt]nothing[/size] comes from [size=15pt]nothing[/size]. Except, of course, creator. How convenient.

And what does the atheist claim? I won't suggest any conveniences for you (although your suggestion of 3 or 4 creators is still pending).

U juss dey blow grammar for nothin. not 1 sense dey your post.

Ah, I just imagined you prolly would've put on your thinking cap - but no.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=335009.msg4704320#msg4704320 date=1255155235]Err and what gives you the divine right to opine as to whether am satisfied or not? I clearly stated to me he gave no answers but then you clearly feel you can force your opinions down my throat and make decisions for everyone. . .shows the kind of personality you are. What next?. . . .opine that I accept jesus?[/quote]You're too busy chasing your tails. He gave answers, but you had to admit in your own terms that: "to me he gave no answers" - and you have the nerve of a schmuck to ask vacantly about his answers not satisfying you?!? No, I didn't force anything down your throat, sorry you're feeling so out of wind to dream that up.

Anyone who sees fit to tear into me for not providing answers is wholelly free to do so. You don't see me complaining do you?. . . .whats it to you anyway?

You're perfectly within your own rights to zip up and say nothing if you're completely lost as to the question(s) of the thread. What's that to anyone anyway? I'm not tearing into you and clearly stated consequently that I'm not here to trade gutters with you. But if you can't resist branding others with caustic lingo, does it make you feel any better?

Emm, sorry, the thread has gone past the "what" basis it rather asks ."If the Bible were to be the SOLE basis of the outworkings of the modern world". Did you miss that or this is just another instance of thee forcing your OWN topic on the thread. . . Either way, its quite depressing.

I'm sorry that viaro put you into such misery - my apologies. I asked a question, not try to force my own topic upon an existing one. Unless you missed it, I've discussed my answers as early as post #9 in consonance with the topic - and then asked if anyone could proffer any SINGULAR basis as the SOLE outworkings of the modern world. If that was truly depressing for you, I apologise.

Who cares if the bible calls elephants fools, my main concern is what it labels "those who deny the existence of god"

Who cares about your elephants being fools if that's what you now assume. The point is that being referred to as fools does not address only those who "deny the existence of God" - it could also refer to others who qualify accordingly as outlined earlier. But thanks for the highlighted part in yours, I could file that away for future reference about the inference of atheism being the 'DENIAL of the existence of God' (not the 'lack of belief in' as many revisionists now argue).

Anyway all that grammer you typed above shows the bible can call anyone it sees fit fool but common men like me aren't afforded that privilege. . .what a laugh!

The Bible does not call anyone it sees fit fools - that's why the outline to show you that such an idea misses the point. If you qualify as one among those, that may be your own problem in just the same way as viaro might so qualify. However, it's truly hilarious that you arrogated yourself the privilege of calling Christians 'deluded' and yet whinge that as a common man you aren't afforded "that privilege". That was truly a winning act - kudos (I just forgot to laugh though).

Yes it does any attempt to deny this pure dishonesty.

Repeat: "My religion does not consider you a fool. . unless you actually try to convince me so". Err, I can't deny the part you failed to highlight - it's called a 'conditional'.

Yes you did.

Repeat: "Did I opine that huxley denied me anything?"
Now if you argue that I did opine, could you do me the fav of quoting me where I made any such pointers to his having DENIED me what-and-what? Thank you in advance.

And what business of yours is that?

Not my biz, just that you're trying too hard to make an impression - vacantly.

You're welcome.

Feel better now?

This is embarrassing. You in all self-righteousness registered ostensibly to champion law and order have got no knowledge of forum rules?

Could I take it that you had serious difficulties grasping comprehension of simple statements during your tutelage? I'm very aware of Forum Rules. Since you're whinging endlessly about viaro's having asked "disconcerting questions" as against the Forum Rules, I requested (not demanded) that you please show me where in the Rules your knee jerk fantasy could be highlighted. There's no need blaring and flashing those wiggy emoti-eyes in amazement - since my question and remarks were still on the topic of modernity and ONLY YOU found it in your own sententiousness to call it "disconcerted questions", please kindly point out for me where in the Rules your fantasy could have found anchor.

Seriously now. While I don't enjoy teasing you on your own miseries, here's another observation that is germane. You who adumbrate to lecture others on the 'rules' must have missed the fact that you haven't observed them at all. Did the Rules suddenly vanish on the specific one on "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR PUBLIC FIGHTS"? I urge you to quickly read through what it says again and let's shake hands afterwards (if you're man enough to let up on these twaddles). When you've read through, ask yourself how that squares with the way you tried to slice another discussant and still come back snivelling when you're smarted for it? You may lecture me all you want on the knee jerk "rules" that don't exist in your books, but henceforth I'll just iggy your shrieks on that non-starter.

Correct me if am wrong but on the registration page there's a little box you tick indicating your willingness to abide by forum rules with a link below to the said rules, it not?

You're dead right! Absolutely correct - it exists in all the other fora where I've been and not only on Nairaland. The thing is that many people will blindly tick/check the box just to have access past that point - but once on the Forum, fistful dramas begin to play out in their zeal. Tudór, you may set me straight about having gone "purely against the rules" - but need anyone remind you in bold that your insulting other discussants is a gross violation of this Forum Rules especially on "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR PUBLIC FIGHTS"?

I'm not making excuses on my own part, which is why I request you to show me the "disconcerting questions" part of the rules regardless of the fact that I stayed on topic about the out workings of the modern world, discussed my answers about the part the Bible plays (post #9). . before I fell foul of having troubled you alone with those "disconcerted questions". The one thing is that I may have failed that aspect of your super-sized rules, but you're amazingly larger than size when it comes to your own admitting that you have VIOLATED the Forum Rules yourself.

Dude, christians on this forum are known for their hallmark hypocrisy and double standards. . . I must say after knowing you for a few posts, you're off to a flying start!

M-a-n, thanks - and no thanks. If we (you and I) stood side-by-side, I'm sorry that I may not even come close to your sanctimonious tartuffery in less than 24 hrs of our interraction. No contest, I submit the grand trophy to you.

Thank you.

This one thing I appreciate is the various views we can express. .  iron sharpeneth iron, so the saying goes.

But here is something I may not share with you, TV01:

A truly/fully saved Christian does not sin. Cannot Sin.

Now, that's problematic for me. I don't think that 1 John 1:8-10 holds that a Christian 'does not' or 'cannot' sin. If that were so, why then does it say in verse 9 that "if we confess our sins"? Who are the "we" in that verse? And if the "we" points to those who are saved, does that not immediately show that Christians do sin and can indeed sin?

Another verse that points out the fact is James 3:2 - "For in many things we offend all." Same point: who are the "we" in that statement?

The point is not that we should go on sinning - Romans 6:1-2 expressly forbid that idea.

However, in our experiences, we find indeed that some may sin in one way or another. although as Christians it is not the experience we should desire. Does this help at all to put things in context?

matrim:
this uplawal chick sounds a lot like abuzola

Hmmm.

__________________

manmustwac:
@posters
u guys have a habit of going off topic there is only one post related to the topic on this page. Maybe i should just lock this topic (again) and create a religious chatroom where u guys can continue with your off topic talk.

'Derailers' enjoy this kind of response. I've seen it happen a lot. If you lock this one, another will be derailed. Perhaps something other than locking threads should come into play. I thought posters could be cautioned? Maybe not, but there.

@huxley,

To make things a bit tidy, it would simply have done a good turn if you disagreed with something and point it out. Essentially, your long riposte agrees with some of my points while seemingly arguing against your premises. Let me lay them out for you:

huxley:
I made a statement.  What assumption  did I make.  What assumption is there in this statement?

Your statement was an assumption - and I clearly showe HOW that is so. Now, if you did not agree your were assuming things far too much, you should have saved your comments and use it for other answers, rather than come back and agree with "Of course, many theories do not yet answer ALL questions. . " The assumption in your initial statement is that you assumed "A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far". That is where the assumption was - and how then do you come back agreeing when you tried to argue it was not an assumption?

True, you made a statement. But that statement WAS and IS an assumption - because even you could acknowledge that MANY theories do not yet answer ALL questions, blah blah. "A theory" is what you quipped about - which in your view HAS PASSED ALL currently verificational tests (whatever that means to you). But then you can see that you are the same person who came back noting the serious problem in your own assumption. Ha.

Of course, many theories do not yet answer ALL questions conceivable that one might throw at it.  It is classed as a "valid" or acceptable theory if it keeps answering more and more and more of such questions.

There. I thought you quipped earlier that a theory is one that HAS PASSED ALL tests?

Anyways,

Take for instance the Theory of Cosmic Expansion, commonly called the Big Bang.  This explains the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc, etc.  But does it explain everything about the universe?  NO.

Thanks for the example - that again is why I saw huge problems with your initial assumption about what a theory is.

Is it likely that BB will be overturned by an even better theory soon.  Hell, YES - and this will happen within our lifetimes.  And for any new theory to be valid, it will have to have more explanatory capability than the BB - it will have to better explain the expansion, CMB, the uniformity of the cosmos, etc, etc, in addition to provide other explanation not covered by the BB.

Again, that was essentially why I took time to draw from Thomas Kuhn about ad hoc additions to scientific theories. Take the claims of the BB, not that your foreseeable 'YES' would completely discredit the BB as "false" - because as you rightly observed, any such theory would have to possess such explanatory powers as to sweep everything associated with the BB into oblivion. That would indeed be remarkable - and to happen in our lifetime. I shy away from making far too assuming postulations as such; but m-e-n, you had better know what you're talking about.

Yes, indeed.  You do not seem to understand what TOE contends.  Simply put, it is COMMON descent with modification.

I quite understand what TOE is, thank you. Your explanation simply makes me wonder whether or not you know what you are trying to convey. If you did, you would have seen that the "iff" as a 'biconditional logical connective' is precisely the reason why Darwinism remains limp in the face of paleontology, regardless what Darwinists have tried to argue to the contrary.

But thanks all the same, while I take time yet again to explain the "iff" in this regard. Taking from various sources, the "iff" is a biconditional logical connective that acts in this way:

An expression used to imply that a statement holds in both directions and only in the described situations. This means that if you have the situation described on either side of the 'if and only if ' then you will have the situation on the other side as well and if you do not have one then you will not have the other. An if and only if statement is also called a biconditional statement.

source.

In logic and related fields such as mathematics and philosophy, if and only if (shortened iff) is a biconditional logical connective between statements. In that it is biconditional, the connective can be likened to the standard material conditional ("if" combined with its reverse ("only if"; hence the name. The result is that the truth of either one of the connected statements requires the truth of the other, i.e., either both statements are true, or both are false. The connective is thus an "if" that works both ways.

source

In most logical systems, one proves a statement of the form "P iff Q" by proving "if P, then Q" and "if Q, then P" (or the inverse of "if P, then Q", i.e. "if not P, then not Q"). Proving this pair of statements sometimes leads to a more natural proof, since there are not obvious conditions in which one would infer a biconditional directly. An alternative is to prove the disjunction "(P and Q) or (not-P and not-Q)", which itself can be inferred directly from either of its disjuncts — that is, because "iff" is truth-functional, "P iff Q" follows if P and Q have both been shown true, or both false.

Application of the "iff" to your own "if" about mammals in the pre-cambrian: Give or take, it is not a static case of "if" mammals are found in that epoch, then evolution falls on its face - that would simply mean that it was not a 'theory' to begin with, because it ignores both sides of that postulation. For it to be valid as a theory, one has to look at BOTH sides of any "if"-statements, not just a dogmatic one-sided "if"="then" this and that. That is why even though Darwinism cannot answer the difficulties posed by Paleontology (or let me say, it has not been able as yet to answer them), it does not therefore discredit evolution as a "theory". Why? Because as a 'scientific theory', you have to look at boths sides of a postulation ('if A then B' on the one hand; but on the other hand, what happens where you have 'if not A then not B'?).

I hope you can grasp the biconditional logical connective here?

This implies simpler and less complex organisms (or bodyplans) precede more complex ones.  TOE will absolutely NOT survive any discovery of more complex bodyforms preceding less complex ones if there has not been some degenerative process in the lineage.

That's the catch-22: "if there has not been some degenerating process". This remind me of my previous reply, that falsifiability helps a paradigm by providing the grounds for some scientists to add 'ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories' (not my argument, but Thomas Kuhn's). How do you determine what is "more complex" from "less complex"?

In every stage of development of living organisms there are complexities at a very advanced stage in their epoch to function as what they are. I'm only making this summizing on the way that some darwinists try to argue evolution - from one form to another (such as 'dinosaurs into birds'). I know that example is controversial; but if at surface value we are to examine their "complexities", which would be said to have more complex bodyplans than the other? Should we apply the "iff" yet again?

Can you show me any reputed paleontologist who does not accept TOE?  Can you explain the paleontological difficulties that exist in TOE?

Please don't twist my arguments. I have maintained that "you're delving into the field of Paleontology - and paleotolotogists have a huge problem for Darwinists to this very moment." That is not saying that Paleontologists as a whole reject Evolution - rather, that they have difficulties which Darwinists find perplexing. Even at that, I also stated this:

   "Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed
    by paleontology. That one challenge alone does not necessarily invalidate evolution as
    a 'theory'"

That Paleontology poses difficulties for Darwinism does not mean therefore that I argued that paleontologists "do not accept" the TOE.

As an example of one of those difficulties, we have often read claims of fossils being an 'evidence' for evolution in terms of its 'transitional' record (aka 'missing link'). To be honest with you, after having tried to objectively examine such claims, a paleontologist remarked that -

Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).

Not that there are no fossils anywhere; but rather that evolution cannot continue to make a claim of 'transitional fossils' as evidence for validating TOE. Palentology does not help Evolution in this regard.

Evolution, defines as change of lifeforms, is a FACT.  TOE by Natural Selection is but one (of possibly many) mechanisms by which this change of lifeforms can be explained.  Genetic drift is another process that drive and explains evolution.  However many driving forces and theories scientist can invent, the FACT remains that lifeforms change.  If you think lifeforms don't change, you will have to explain why it is that no fossils of mammals are ever found in the pre-cambrian,

My explanation is simple, really. I'm not a fan of Darwinism, no matter how the arguments of his "-isms" may go. What I have pointed out in consonance with the topic of this thread (the Aim of Science) is simply that your assumptions of what a theory is just does not hold any substance. That is the point here, huxley. If you hold a contrary view, you should not have come back to accede my point. However, as regards the FACT that a 'theory' is not one necessarily so because it has passed ALL tests (whatever you may mean), I gave the example that Paleontology simply dismisses the 'fossil' claim as evidence for Darwinism. The logically objective examination of the fact was why such evolutionists agree that Paleontology poses some serious problems to Darwnism, which paleontologists as Patterson quips that Gould and the American Museum are hard to contradict on that note. This is simply showing you one thing: that your assumption of what a theory is is an assumption, not carefully thought out.

Now, the absence of mammals in pre-cambrian does not "prove" anything about life-forms 'changing'. If anything, evolutionists know that paleontology shows there is no fossil that can help Darwinism to a fine point. So, if one does not find a fossil (any fossils) specifically of mammals in any gelogical epoch, does the absence "prove" anything? You would be working out of an empty basket to claim your 'change' in sands.

Some theories can survive counter-evidence by modification of the theories.  That happens in science ALL the time. Think of what is generally called Einstein's big mistake, when he modified his equations, re-inserting the gravitational expansive constant.

I know the modifying paradigms of theories in scientific enquiries, huxley. I have noted that already from Thomas Kuhn's observations - so let's sweep this your lectures aside, please. If I did not know that already, you would be making a point. But what point would you be making if I already showed that such things happen with ad hoc hypothesis? The issue is that your assumptions are not sound on the question of what theories actually are.

However, the theory of common descent with modification CANNOT survive the discovery of more complex organism preceding less complex one.

I acknowledge your example: mammals in pre-cambrian.  Now, this talk about "complex" orgnanisms was why I asked about the complexities between dinosaurs and birds - which is more complex and which is less? Note: the "dino-birds" are not my arguments; but I only just drew from that as an example to illustrate the point of complexity. We know that dinosaurs are very complex in bodyplans - so are birds. Some have argued that birds "evolved from" dinos; so does the argument hold that dinos are less complex than birds?

You are wont to make ad hoc statements without providing and supporting references or evidence, such as this:

Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed by paleontology

I am not wont to do that - which is why I have discussed an example at length above. It was such difficulties in Paleontology that was catalyst for Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" to close the gap in that regard.

What is the difficulty posed by paleontology?  Can you show some scientific reference for such difficulties?   While you are at it, can you also show me a scientific theory that ANSWERS all the questions in its field?

As for the paleontology difficulty, see above. As to the second, I don't remember having claimed that any singular theory has answered ALL the questions in its field. You may need some friendly reminders that such an assumption was your own postulation, quoted below:

A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far.

Are you quickly forgetting that was YOUR own assumption? Ha! I cannot answer your roll-call for you, you know - in as much as I did not urge it upon you by any craft.