₦airaland Forum

A photo of a teenage boy who prayed for a sleeping homeless man on the street has gone viral.

A Baltimore police officer, Eric Gaines, shared the photo on Facebook when he noticed the boy praying on the pavement. In a caption, Gained wrote: "I watched as this young kid was walking pass, stopped and walked over to this sleeping homeless man; touched him and began praying over him... This was an amazing sight! I pray this kid becomes a leader amongst his peers, and continues on this path!! Not all Baltimore youth are lost!! I HAD to post this!!"

"He walked over to him and just knelt down and put his hands down on his foot," Gaines told the Baltimore Sun, describing the event.

"I thought it was an amazing sight. I had to take a picture of it. It was extremely powerful."

The boy had been waiting for the bus, and if it hadn't been for his friends holding it up, he would have missed it because he stopped to pray. Despite the post going viral, his identity remains unknown. 

"He didn't do it for any accolades or any praise... I didn't get a chance to say anything. I wanted to say something to him," Gaines said. "But it was just as if he did what he had to do and left."

A photo of a teenage boy who prayed for a sleeping homeless man on the street has gone viral.

A Baltimore police officer, Eric Gaines, shared the photo on Facebook when he noticed the boy praying on the pavement. In a caption, Gained wrote: "I watched as this young kid was walking pass, stopped and walked over to this sleeping homeless man; touched him and began praying over him... This was an amazing sight! I pray this kid becomes a leader amongst his peers, and continues on this path!! Not all Baltimore youth are lost!! I HAD to post this!!"

"He walked over to him and just knelt down and put his hands down on his foot," Gaines told the Baltimore Sun, describing the event.

"I thought it was an amazing sight. I had to take a picture of it. It was extremely powerful."


The boy had been waiting for the bus, and if it hadn't been for his friends holding it up, he would have missed it because he stopped to pray. Despite the post going viral, his identity remains unknown. 

"He didn't do it for any accolades or any praise... I didn't get a chance to say anything. I wanted to say something to him," Gaines said. "But it was just as if he did what he had to do and left."

bxcode:
At times I don't really understand you guys, you know all these things and yet argue, read the first post from the beginning. The bone of contention here is not about having a relationship with the creator because that will automatically imply that you believe that the creator exists, but against believers claiming to have relationship with him. You are indicting your stance on being an atheist(which I sincerely doubt you are). Disproving God's existence and trying to find out if he actually speaks to those who believe in him are two different issues altogether.

They need to digress to remain valid. Thats their tactic. They've been badly hit by this topic and so they need to change its focus.

onetrack:
This is only relevant to people who have faith. I have no faith. And, no, I am not a god. If you make an extraordinary claim then I want extraordinary evidence.

Whether or not people all over the world find comfort in religion is not important to me, because to me religion is no different than any other empty claim (like all religions).

Its obvious you just can't bear the reality of a Creator.

Safe bro.

KingEbukasBlog:
I have presented mine on the front page ... y'all denied it . So provide yours and shame us

Oh sorry .. again ... there is no evidence that precludes the existence of the creator

If there was proof of God's non-existence, it would be on the lips of every atheist.

johnydon22:
Hahahaha as always mistakes a claim to be an evidence

Maybe i can also point to a tree and maintain that it is proof that a tree fairy exists thats my evidence..

A claim can never be an evidence..

We are still waiting for your evidence to back your assumptions (maybe a picture or something ) Or since you are having a personal relationship with the creator of the universe maybe you could provide us reasonable Intel ?

Common you can do better, stop asking the ones doubting your claims to provide proof against your claim rather provide your proof for it.

We all know scientifically there is never an equation where a creator is fixed, maybe in sunday school but not in science class.

Prove it and earn a noble prize

So try again?

Whats this about claim and evidence.

If you just looking for words to use, use reasonably.

He gave an evidence of robotic creations requiring a creator. You said it does not count and have refused to back up your claims.

Why not back up your claims.

johnydon22:
Here it lands.

A complex entity is eternal, didn't need to be designed neither did it develop from simpler values but was just eternal ever complex but didn't need a designer.

Here murders the argument of Complexity needs design... You have simply murdered your own argument.

Am sure we have seen how nonsensical that argument remains.

The universe had a beginning the question remains what was the cause?

This is weak! Very weak!

You are simply making repititions to make your post lengthy.
I already answered you earlier. The Creator cant fit into your brains or rather, you cant fit your Creator into your brains.

Why is this?
The answer is simple.
YOU BRAINS WERE CREATED!!!

The bolded proves that my argument is valid and thats why you suggested that a Creator requires another creator.

But now that ive shown you that this Creator has always been (eternal), you've seen that its a dead end and then you've reverted your arguments to a cause so that we can start from there.

The bolded proves my argument is valid and thats why you've changed your question from "who is the creator of the creator" to " what is the cause of creation"

johnydon22:
Now in your own lingual terms the word "God" is used to quantify what began the universe.

Was it Dark energy as string theory shows but heck you call it a God .. lol.
..

I would entertain the thoughts of blind energy creating the universe. But just one thing, As Isaac Newton thought, Blind unplanned force couodnt have created all this.

johnydon22:
When the word "God" becomes a lingual expression to represent what ever caused the universe then that is your own representation.

when it becomes a complex humanoid that loves the smell of burning flesh but in turn does not need a designer then you are not only lying but swimming in abject delusion.

The thing is, this God who created the universe could do anything, i mean anything that would leave you in awe.
A young kid was telling me about God while defecating and a thought flashed accross my mind. "God's not here, this sh*t is smelly. But the fact is He created it.
So yeah i agree he loves the smell of his creations (burning bush and smelly animals inclusive)

johnydon22:
We have all seen where all your argument lands "if the universe has a beginning then God was the acting force behind it" am pretty sure we call the point of universal causality a singularity.

It has been seen that all your argument here centers on employing the word "God" as a placeholder for scientific ignorance... "You don't know what caused the universe then god did it"

Who are this "we", Can you quit being petty
Cause and effect is true (i agree with it). And its also a human created theory.
So cause and effect does not apply to eternal beings or things (energy). Plus we cant create theories for God.

What is this talk about scientific ignorance? Need i name world changing scientists that firmly believed in the Existence of a Creator before "disbelief in God" was included in the definition of science?

johnydon22:
Lol even Ptolemy invoked the design of Zeus when faced with the motion of celestial objects.

The invocation of a deity remains an ever diminishing factor with advancement of scientific discovery.

Serious scientists cant come to grips with an uncreated blind universe and so anyone could invoke anything.

Diminishing factor? What is this:
Please mention how the invocation of a deity impedes science and after that tell me how a disbelief in God helps to propel science.

johnydon22:
You can never explain the universe (complex entity) with an even more complex entity and plead for it to be exempted from design.

If complexity must require a designer then this super complex entity must require one. If not just like you have shown above then your argument has been murdered by you by showing something actually can be super complex without being designed.

whether you hide your assumption behind the curtain of "eternal" your argument remains "complexity must require design" so your designer is complex and must also require a designer.

Repititions? Why To make your reply lengthy?
I've addressed all this.
If your Designer is complex and eternal, then you cant possibly ask for who created what has always been in existence.
Thats is what eternity is all about.

johnydon22:
am sure scientifically energy is an eternal value but in a very simple state and not a complex one... So you see even with the universe having a beginning "a complex humanoid talking to himself still does not enter into the equation"

It by far makes more sense that a simpler value like "Dark energy" through stages of quantum fluctuations developed by the interactions of these simpler values within and these interactions became even more complex as more values interact from the result of previous reactions.

That has always being the way of natural process.
..

So according to you, we were created by naturally "blind" processes, later you will say you dont know. You need to make up your mind.

If blind processes could make a human as extremely complex as you are, then time and chance can also make the less complex robots in KingEbukasBlog pictures.
lol.

johnydon22:
So now you have killed your "Complexity requires design" argument

You wish i did.

johnydon22:
Try again..

This reply is weak man!, Very weak!!. Come up with something better if you can.

KingEbukasBlog:
Excellent piece bro . I cant fathom why they are being disingenuous - knowing clearly what an eternal supreme being is but are just contravening the concept . Pathetic dishonesty

You cannot ask why an eternal being needs to be designed because he is complex . ETERNAL ETERNAL ETERNAL . It is illogical to ask what created Him and how he got his powers or complex nature . Because He is eternal ! ! ! Those features or attributes have been , is , will always be with Him .

Thanks Bro. These are the key words in the term ETERNITY: have been , is , will always be.

You cant possibly ask what or who created a Being who (has always been , is and will always be).

Its not even a question.

Weah96:
You don't listen too well. Nobody is making an exception for the universe and humans!!!! OK, I agree. Our very complexity implies a designer. Complex things imply design. That's how it is. That's all we know.

Nahh!!!, naahh!!! Johnydon22 has a different opinion

Weah96:
Computer software tracks the rhythm of the heartbeat, we design the computer, something designed us...

Brother, i think its Johnydon22 that needs this lecture.

Weah96:
Who then designed the something? Complexity connotes design. Who designed the something if we are to go STRICTLY by complexity?

Lets quickly do this.

Get a pencil and a plane sheet of paper.

Draw a man.

In your own image of course

Now, your drawing is your creation.

Would you compare your (creator) ability with that of the man (creation) you drew?

Newsflash: You are as weak and limited as that man (creation) you drew. No matter how hard you try, no matter how many questions you ask.

Weah96:
I agree that a designer could limit or put a cap on the intellect, but why is it revealing this information to you and forcing me to read what you type? Clearly your brain was designed differently, that's how you can hear it speak and I can't. If you insist on typing without providing a demonstration of this magic/miracle, then I will assume that you are hearing nothing though.

You have a point. Like you i saw religion as fake. In short, i just wanted to live my life and do my thing. But the difference is that i always knew that we are not here by ourselves and so i kept an open mind.

Once again, i pray and hope you find what you seek, but till then dont assume and insist that those who have been privileged to witness evidences are liars or idiots.

Weah96:
Thomas is a literary example of someone like me. Someone who doesn't believe that dead people can give speeches. In the story, he presented his doubts to the witnesses who were "asserting" that there was a dead man giving speeches to them. You know how the story went.

Read well and think my friend. Thomas was not the only one who doubted the resurrection of Jesus but was the probably the only one recorded in the Bible to have had a physical contact with the resurrected, as proof of Jesus' resurrection.

Now how about those like Thomas back in the days, who requested to touch the hands of Jesus. Some didn't even see Jesus till he ascended back into heaven. I'm sure some people in neighboring cities also doubted the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

My point is: We all have our different paths. You may not be able to physically touch the pierced hands of Jesus like Thomas did for the same reason you may not be as rich as Aliko dangote. You cant possibly demand for the same exact experience that someone had in the past and then conclude that if you do not have this experience, then a Creator does not exist.

Weah96:
I don't believe that the progenitor of the universe speaks to human beings. Like the incredulous Thomas, I have yet to experience it. I don't have to prove why this thing DOESN'T talk to you guys either just like Thomas didn't have to prove that the dead man was NOT revisiting his mates.

I must have the Thomas experience. Why are you pretending that people in the Bible were simply believing the spoken or written word? They were witnesses to magic tricks, that's why they believed.

The bolded is like saying "I must be as rich as Aliko Dangote". Though not impossible, but you may need to come to terms with the fact that it might be an unrealistic goal.

Several people have had evidences ranging from physical encounters, dreams, creation, the human mind and spirit, the moral law, beauty, religion, experience, history, the church, the bible, Jesus e.t.c. That you are yet to experience it does not mean it is false or that those who have experienced it are liars.

Weah96:
If there is no magic, I won't believe you. The fact that this thing speaks is a very BIG MAGIC. You must show me small.

Anything or even You could be the magic that you seek, but if you refuse to see yourself as magic. Then i pray you find what you seek.

Till then, dont go around preaching to people that "magic" does not exist or that those who have witnessed magic are !diots.

johnydon22:
You see? You are now trying to shift the goal post to the measurability of this supposed creator.

I didnt, you started it. Im only helping you out. You were trying to measure the total power/extent of this Creator by implying that He must have a creator.

johnydon22:
For all we know this supposed creator is just an assumptive concept used as a placeholder for scientific ignorance.

Speak for yourself dude. Who are the "we". Were the greatest scientists in the world also scientifically ignorant?

johnydon22:
Your line of arguement maintains "Complexity connotes design" so therefore anything complex must have been designed with no exception.

Exactly!!!. Except you wanna agree that the robots on the picture KingEbukasBlog posted could have come about by chance or time.

johnydon22:
If we employ this cut and run case as you are trying to clutch on here then we can conclude your head is too small to probe the universe so you can never deduct the mechanisms of nature.

You might have a point, infact there are several other mechanisms in nature that we are yet to discover, that is whay science is not as close-minded as atheism.

johnydon22:
the point remains if complexity connotes design then this designer must be super complex in order to design the universe and the same way you assumed up a designer to explain the complexity of the universe then assume up another designer to explain the complexity of the creator.

The Designer of the universe is super-complex to have designed such a vast universe. The problem is i didnt assume it up. Logic did.
And if i'm right, then your chances of probing the "source" of this Designer is not even close to Zero.

johnydon22:
what ever is complex must be designed is not only flawed but wronger than any wrong can get.

KingEbukasBlog closed the thread already. Man emulates nature but fails to admit that nature was designed.
Do we have the slighest chance that those robots were unplanned and coincidental?

johnydon22:
It is scientifically a proven fact that the universe did not pop out as a complex entity but rather went through stages of development from which simple values keep on interacting to form complex chains of values.

Yeah, which is exactly my word against yours. Science says the universe had a begining, strongly suggesting that time began at this "begining". Whoever was acting before time is not bound to time, and is therefore eternal(no beginning or end). Which takes you back to the concept of an Eternal Being. And if this Being is eternal, your best bet is that He could not have been created by another.

johnydon22:
You can also assume that sand dunes of a desert are the works of some invisible artist..

Complexity is never a mark of design but pays homage to distinct simpler values.

Sand dunes are part of nature and are the results of a created universe.
Why did you choose a less complex occurence like the sand dune, why not the scorpion. Should we assume that the scorpion was created by chance, time or processes.

Complexity has design written all over it.

johnydon22:
Old stars are far more simpler in composition than new stars and so it keeps developing and keep getting ever more complex.

So if you maintain "complexity connotes design" then that includes your complex creator, It must require a designer and an infinite regress continues.

Stars are part of nature and are the results of a created universe.

You just refuted your infinite regress claim earlier by saying that the universe had a begining.
If God was acting before time began i.e (Eternal - no beginning or end ), Then the "duration" of His existence does not not fit into your brain or that of any human.
Hence, the question "Who created an Eternal God" is self-refuting.

johnydon22:
It will be laughable if you try to exempt this creator from your argument by pleading it has no designer.

No one is pleading anything.
Its simple Logic. If really you were created, then you cant even begin to fathom the depth of a Creator with your created mind.
Try harder, but you have your limits.

You haven't probed your existence successfully, yet you wanna probe your Creator's existence.
Thats biting more than you can chew or of course 'laughable'.

johnydon22:
If this creator has no designer then you no longer have an argument because you just showed something complex exists without being designed.... if something as super complex as "the creator" requires no designer then you have simply murdered your "complexity connotes design" argument

Eternal!!!. Thats single word ends it all.
The Creator is indeed complex. But i'm more concerned with wether you have the physical ability to probe the existence of an [b]Eternal[b] (No beginning or end) Being Who created you.

When you understand how Someone or Something has no beginning or end, then you will understand eternity cant be created.

johnydon22:
But if "anything complex must be designed" then this complex creator must require a designer and so forth..

There is no way for it to work...

Eternity man, Eternity. If the Universe has a beginning as science teaches. Then God was was acting before time as the Bible teaches.

It simple logic.

KingEbukasBlog:
I wanted to see and witness the thrill of the magical transformation of apes to man , dinosaurs to birds , but I was told to order biology textboooks . I wanted a 3-D documentary tho



Ifenes claims the anunnaki roamed the earth in the early times . I asked him for proof and I was directed to a search engine



Do you realise that the same process - seeking knowledge in books - was what I was directed to do . I asked the atheists to do same with the bible and I'm being ridiculed

Why are you guys a bunch of clowns

Genius!!!

johnydon22:
And for this creator to be able to do this it must also be even more complex than all of creation.

Yet you are still exempting this extremely complex creator from having another creator which in turn must require another creator and so it goes.

Complexity in no way connotes design because if the complexity of the universe makes you invoke a creator then surely that creator must be very complex in order to be intelligent enough to do that.

so how can that creator who is even more complex not have a creator to design it? Of course going by your argument "Complexity connotes design" this complex creator must also require an extra complex creator who in turn requires another and so it goes we are in an infinite regress of assumptive creators.

Leaving the concept of an Eternal Being out of this for a minute (I know its hard for the human mind to grasp), I want you to realize something.

Whether you have the ability to probe the existence of your Creator depends solely on how your Creator created you. Somehow in your (created) mind, you think you possess the ability to root out the "source" of your Creator. Its amazing how you limit and liken a Creator to his creations.

Complexity connotes design, and that is all we have ever observed even in our planet. The only difference is, you agree with all other observed occurrences but give an exception to man and the universe.

You didn't create yourself and for that you need to recognize you limits, for if you didn't have any limits, this discussion of a Creators existence would have been settled a long time ago.

I should sound like the atheist Richard Dawkins and then say: "What matters is whether God's existence is probe-able".

Your limits is why you haven't successfully probed your existence. How on earth do you think you could probe your Creator's existence.

onetrack:
Einstein, by the way, was more into Spinoza's vision of a god, in other words the universe as god itself.

I made no otherwise claim, You might need to re-read what i wrote on Einstein.

onetrack:
And even if there was a creator, there is know way to know if this creator is even aware of us (maybe we are a by-product of some experiment and we are in the rubbish bin), or if this creator is dead. Maybe he died during the big bang.

Its obvious you just can't bear the reality of a Creator. You made yourself one hell of a god dude.

onetrack:
I remain agnostic with regard to knowledge of any god (though my lack of belief classifies me as atheist), but adamant that religion is man-made.

Religion may be man-made and ill love to agree with you. But its dishonest when you make this same claim about God.
The fact that religious belief of some sort is found in every culture implies that its hard-wired into us, psychologically or socially or both. It's true many people (especially in Europe) seem to get on fine without it, but even in Europe and other parts of the world, there are millions of believers who find their faith gives shape and meaning to their lives.

It's possible to explain religion in terms of its social usefulness (it helps bind communities together) or as a means of social control (priests act as reinforcers of government power) or as a way of making hard lives more bearable (it is "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions", as Karl Marx put it). And none of those things are wrong.

But the christian claim is that Christianity has developed to be what it is because it corresponds to something real, because we are responding to something which has been given to us ('revealed'), in Christian terms. Our belief that God, in some mysterious but profound way, 'looks like' Jesus comes from our sense that He is too far beyond us for us to be able to imagine him in any other way than as a human being.

There's something like this thought in the Old Testament, in the prophet Isaiah's great tirade against idol-worship (only, of course, without Jesus). He imagines a craftsman chopping down a tree, cooking his meal and keeping himself warm with part of it and making a god with the rest. "Shall I bow down to a block of wood?" he asks (44:29).

It's tremendous stuff. He senses God is more than any human representation of him can encompass and calls people to a deeper understanding. What he doesn't acknowledge, though, is that the idol-maker, too, has his spiritual urges. He isn't doing religion well, but he's trying, as all people of faith try. And you can either see all religion as just people carving gods out of bits of wood, or you can go with St Augustine, who said: "You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in you."

The former atheist, C.S Lewis summarizes my thoughts: “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”


Personally, I have one conviction. Jesus Christ lived. And like Swami Vivekananda puts it: If Jesus Christ was not perfect, then the religion bearing his name falls to the ground

Bless you.

ref: http://izquotes.com/quote/111533

Weah96:
I ask you to demonstrate the imaginary deity and you point to a banana. SMH. In the Bible, Thomas asked the same question, and nobody offered him any fruit or vegetable to analyze. He witnessed a man die, he doubted that the dead man spirit was popping up in his absence, he expressed his doubt to the human beings making the claim, and the message was passed on to the dead man spirit. The rest you know.

Interesting. You demand the same 'fate' Thomas had. Somehow you think Thomas was the only one who doubted the resurrection of Jesus. Think about that.

Plus Thomas died a long time ago, its amazing you dont demand the same 'fate' Aliko Dangote has. I'm sure you've never seen the kind of money he has. Do you then disbelieve in wealth?

KingEbukasBlog:
2. Man emulates nature but fails to admit nature was indeed designed .

1. RoboScorpion vs Scorpion

2. Robodog vs Dog

3. Artificial neuron vs human neuron

4. Man's arm vs Robot's arm

The former is described as intelligently designed but not the latter Do you see why atheism is irrational and the atheists need to understand the Logic of God and EVERYTHING ?

An atheist will agree with you that these artificially created items were seriously and carefully planned and created.

And none of mans creations even comes close to the real thing, yet atheists will have us believe that somehow, these extremely complex creations don't need a Creator.
Worse is, they pass it off as Logic. and maybe science (as cloudgoddess and other hardcore pseudoscientists do).

timonski:
@op. May God bless you for this analogy.
But I have been thinking... What if the banana was created for anal penetration. I mean the inward curvature gives it a strong grip on the anus giving more pleasure than would a penis. The smooth skin makes it easy to penetrate without causing any discomfort whatever. Also, the banana while green has a 'handle' making it possible to pullout in a situation were the banana slides all the way through.
Surely, Yahweh in His infinite wisdom designed the BANANA........................For Anal Sex.

This guy, I no no which one you dey. A little here, a little there. Are you like the sand that is carried wherever the wind goes?

onetrack:
And, as always, how can you be sure that this creator is the one you worship? Maybe it is Zeus or Sango or Krishna.

I love puma. It would be irrational and dishonest for me to deny the existence of puma because of fuma.
Its something to acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Creator, Its another thing to know Who this Supreme Creator is. Take it one step at a time my friend.

I think it is irrational for any human to believe that the beauty and orderliness we see all around us are unplanned and accidental.

The Bible acknowledges the obvious when it presents us with an explanation of life quite different from that espoused by Professor Dawkins and others. It presents the universe as the handiwork of a Creator.
“Whence arises all the order and beauty we see in the world?” asked Sir Isaac Newton. The question is natural, and it was asked by a believing scientist who recognized the necessity of a cause for every effect. Actions have consequences. An intricately crafted universe points to an intelligent Designer.

Albert Einstein also marveled at the order and harmony he and his fellow scientists observed throughout the universe. He noted that the religious feeling of the scientist “takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection” (The Quotable Einstein).

Cambridge University astronomy professor Martin Rees and science writer John Gribbin, discussing how finely tuned scientists have found the universe to be, noted that “the conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity...Is the Universe tailor-made for man?” (Cosmic Coincidences).

Professor Davies expressed it this way: “Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level ‘God’ is a matter of taste and definition...believe that we human beings are built into the scheme of things in a very basic way” (The Mind of God).

No wonder the late renowned British astrophysicist and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle, after examining the different settings that regulate our planet and the rest of the universe, marveled: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology [of the universe], and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature...The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question”
(TheUniverse)

Although Einstein was not a christian, he couldn't fathom an uncaused universe. He put it this way: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God”
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man


How did life begin? Did the earth’s vast array of life evolve from nothing? How does inert, lifeless matter become living tissue? What chemical processes transform nonliving substances into living organisms? Can these processes begin spontaneously, or do they require miraculous intervention? Can life be convincingly attributed to a super natural cause, a Giver of life?

If any human would answer these questions sincerely, they they would see where the evidence truly points irrespective of their adopted worldviews..

okay

Richirich713:
Maybe we should pull one out the atheists bag, she only believes in evolution cuz her science teacher told her to

lol She probably reveres her science teacher and considers Newton a pseudoscientist. lol

ifenes:
Type annunaki on Google and find out. True knowledge is meant for a few.

You've been poisoned my friend.

Teempakguy:
I am not concerned with this phenomena or that observation. I want to know how God created the universe.

-- Albert Einstein.

Einstein recognized that science answers the "How" questions rather than the "why" questions

Teempakguy:
Actually, Christianity isn't the reason for science at all. that assumption is false. CURIOSITY, more likely, is the reason for science.
.

Curious christians . Its my opinion. Francis Bacon, a christian, is credited as the father of the Scientific method, so my opinion may not be wrong afterall.

Teempakguy:
Islam has had it's fair share of powerful scientists too. so has Hinduism, and Atheism, And deism, and Hellenism, Literally every Religion(or lack thereof) in the world has had Powerful Scientists who subscribed to it. and the one thing that binds them all together is their immense curiosity and thirst for knowledge. Not their religious beliefs, or any belief whatsoever.

You must have missed the part in the article where i wrote:

winner01:
This article focuses on some christian scientists alone. Other discoveries and inventions by scholars and scientists from other religious groups are not mentioned here.

.

Well, the article only argues against the contemporary notion that a christian cant be a true scientist.

Teempakguy:
Stating Christianity to be the reason for all scientific research is honestly an insult to scientists from other religions(or lack thereof) and It won't make them Christians or even remotely sympathetic to christian ideals.

My opinion once again. And this thread is not aimed at converting anyone but to inform that christianity is not against knowledge as materialism teaches.

cloudgoddess:
There is no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution in biology. They are both the exact same process, on different time scales.

Observation and experimentation is key in science. And i believe that is the major difference between these two terms. Yes variation is inevitable but Microevolution/Adaptation do not account for macroevolution. The first fully formed theory of evolution was proposed in the early 19th century, the time frame is enough to notice any subtle changes in some species attempting to evolve into another.

cloudgoddess:
Evolutionary processes that occur within 100 years will produce much more subtle changes than those that have had 1 million years to occur.

Do we have examples of groups of controlled organisms (single-celled, shorter life span e.t.c) that have demonstrated visible(no matter how tiny) transformational changes other than adaptation for survival from their ancestral groups?.

cloudgoddess:
There is nothing difficult to understand about this. There is no point where an organism stops evolving because "if it kept going it would become a different 'kind' (which also isn't a real thing in biology, species are divided by taxa which are all interrelated) and that's against the bible". Nature is not bound to the rules of your bible.

Actually there is. The extrapolations from micro-evolution being used to prove macro-evolution makes it difficult to understand. Every single test or observation has clearly resulted in the descendant being clearly of the same type as the ancestor. So to attempt to proclaim an unobserved principle such as the whale descending from a land mammal or birds descending from dinosaurs (as macro-evolution teaches) is out-rightly pseudo-scientific.

@bolded. Could you please back your statement with science. And also give an example of any scientifically observed "different kind" (different from the ancestral kind). We can leave the Bible out of this for a minute.

cloudgoddess:
Mutation, genetic inheritence, and selection do not work that way, and either you know it doesn't and are trolling, or you are genuinely lacking in some vital part of your science education.

Two quick questions:
One, Asides sickle-cell anemia, please mention any other truly useful mutations that have ever been scientifically observed.
Two, Has any form of "beneficial" mutation which adds genetic information to a genome been observed?.

cloudgoddess:
In the case of the latter, I can direct you to several biology textbooks so that you can study this topic in further detail. If you don't want to study, and are instead interested in continuing to spread lies and mislead your fellow Nigerians, then stop mentioning me and simply continue your dishonest and/or delusional postings. You can continue on your disturbing quest for deception as the world of actual science continues on without confused ideas like yours having any impact on their research (thank goodness).

Dont bother. Once bitten, twice shy dear , Give the topics here and lets discuss.

What is dishonest and delusional about this thread?

what is the "quest for deception"?

The scientists mentioned on this thread: were they pseudoscientists?, were their ideas confused,? Did they spread lies,?

Does the world of "actual science" include only those who have removed the word "observation" from their definition of science?

How has the theory of evolution helped in the actual progress of science?.

Any attempt to answer those questions is welcome.

KingEbukasBlog:
Brilliant response

Thanks bro.!!

Richirich713:
It's no coincidence that the greatest scientist to ever live was a Christian who strongly believed in the bible.

When atheists die and go to the next life, they can give newton a call and tell him he was unscientific, stup1d and irrational for believing in God.

But Newton probably just going to repeat what he already said about atheists in the 17th century "....................................."And then he's probably going to laugh at them again like he did hundreds of years ago.

Who knows, Newton might be laughing at atheists right now, he probably been laughing at them since the 17th century.


#Atheism-is-senseless

cloudgoddess would disagree with you by calling Newton a pseudoscientist. Even though no 'real' scientist has ever observed a set of species changing into another (removing a key word - observation - from the defination of science), she has faith that evolution must be true. She'll solidify her points by citing several instances of adaptation (micro-evolution) - a simple characteristic of a living organism and then pass that off as macro-evolution.

I want to agree with Alvin Toffler who said "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn"

Nazacent:
You are entitled to ask these questions when you ve got a backup Job somewhere else

lol

intresting

ifenes:
Buy books,or make Google your friend.

You have nothing to fear if you read.Except you fear your belief might be affected.

My picture? I am too ugly

Yeah, another atheist myth. Christians dont read.

Well, I'm yet to find a worldview that will match the one described in the Bible.
"Even the style of the Scriptures is more than human" - Sir Richard Steele

I guess thats why it stands up to 21st century criticism.

Tell me more about the annunaki, i want to be high on something this morning.
Maybe then i can show my picture.

virginboy1:
Where were you 1000 years ago?

Good question!!!. I was waiting to be called into being by the creator.
I have always existed and have been called into being now.
That is why I am a human. Be-ing.

"Before I formed you in the belly I knew you..." - God

virginboy1:
I hope you won't consider this stale also.

Actually i do, the normal line is "You did not exist 1000 years ago, you will cease to exist after you die"

Really, i find this view myopic, A view that proclaims that we are here and thats it. A view that proclaims that humanity is just an unplanned accident.
Can you then logically explain the point of living in a world full of suffering?.

virginboy1:
"Coming from a baby puzzled Christian"

http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets
Thank me later.

ifenes:
Picture? Let me see if you are no granpa

I used to have my picture here na, but not anymore. Except maybe i'm high on something strange, like your stories .

Lets see your picture first, i'd love to know where these stories come out from.

KingEbukasBlog:
Roftl .. bro this ape tweeted "lmao " - He couldn't even wait to magically transform into a human first .

It might prefer its current state Ape magic Really having a good laugh tonight