Evolution Or Creation: Which Do You Believe?

Uyi Iredia:

@ Jenwetemi >>> you have not yt realised your immortal self


My reply to this topic is both >>> however I find it silly AFTER EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE FOR MYSELF that life arose abiogenetically and that we are cousins of the chimpanzees

Uyi Iredia:

I think that neo-Darwinism has to bow before neo-Lamarkism and then merge with ID before the brouhaha over evolution settles

Uyi Iredia:

Darwin was doubtless a brilliant naturalist, bit a poor theoreticist

skapactentalt:

hello, everybody presumably does not know or about me, but I remember you ,
I'm with you and I fancy that now take oneself to be sympathize a real family. So decidedly it all later to lure and ask for what next ,
regards

Idehn:

What evidence have you actually looked at? What is so silly about saying we share a distant ancestor with chimpanzees. Is it not true that we share physical characteristics with chimpanzees such as number of fingers/toes, number of limbs, spinal cord, head and brain location just to name a few? Even the heart of the chimpanzee is left of center in the rib cage. Or is it not true that 98% of the human genome is identical to chimpanzees? Or perhaps fossil record showing many the evolution of hominids does not exist? Please tell us what is so hard to believe.

There is no brouhaha over evolution in the field of science. The brouhaha is just a bunch of armchair theorist outside the realm of science who do not like the painfully obvious conclusions being drawn from the evidence.

You have got to be kidding with this one. You of all people are not in a position to judge his skill as a theoretician. He actually backed up his proposition by sound evidence, while you are constantly asserting wild conjectures without a shred of evidence.

Idehn:

What evidence have you actually looked at? What is so silly about saying we share a distant ancestor with chimpanzees. Is it not true that we share physical characteristics with chimpanzees such as number of fingers/toes, number of limbs, spinal cord, head and brain location just to name a few? Even the heart of the chimpanzee is left of center in the rib cage. Or is it not true that 98% of the human genome is identical to chimpanzees? Or perhaps fossil record showing many the evolution of hominids does not exist? Please tell us what is so hard to believe.

Idehn:

There is no brouhaha over evolution in the field of science. The brouhaha is just a bunch of armchair theorist outside the realm of science who do not like the painfully obvious conclusions being drawn from the evidence.

Idehn:

You have got to be kidding with this one. You of all people are not in a position to judge his skill as a theoretician. He actually backed up his proposition by sound evidence, while you are constantly asserting wild conjectures without a shred of evidence.

Uyi Iredia:

Axiom 1: Will and intellect are one and the same thing
 
Evidence is an exertion of will. I can never give you a shred of evidence for God (as generally understood across all religions) if you constantly set your will otherwise. Any such conversation will just be an exercise in futility. i have looked at the same evidence darwin looked at. i studied biology up to SSIII in Kings' College, Lagos >>> mulled deeply over the two theories of evolution >>> and at the age of 15 came to my conclusion: The basis on which the Lamarckian theory was dismissed was flimsy considering the vastness of the subject of Biology.

Uyi Iredia:

Axiom 2: Cogito ergo sum

I think, therefore I am >>> I am able, more than able to say you are wrong, and more than able (as my earlier statement implied) to say that Darwin's was a poor theory that is simply agreed upon by many. He was able to replicate his theory to as many biologists possible >>> hence the assumption (or presumption if you will) that he was correct

Uyi Iredia:

Axiom 1: Will and intellect are one and the same thing

Evidence is an exertion of will. I can never give you a shred of evidence for God (as generally understood across all religions) if you constantly set your will otherwise. Any such conversation will just be an exercise in futility. i have looked at the same evidence darwin looked at. i studied biology up to SSIII in Kings' College, Lagos >>> mulled deeply over the two theories of evolution >>> and at the age of 15 came to my conclusion: The basis on which the Lamarckian theory was dismissed was flimsy considering the vastness of the subject of Biology.
. . .

Idehn:

First I did not ask you where or when you came to your conclusion. I asked you what evidence you looked at and what was so hard to believe. Second, you need to look at the evidence that we are looking at in the 21th century. The theory of evolution has come very,very, very far since the time of Darwin. Thirdly, I am not opposed to learning the truth and disagree with your premise. If the evidence points to an outcome, no matter how much I do not like it, I must yield. That is I why I feel Spinoza was not entirely correct with that statement. It implies that people will never accept information(intellect) that runs counter to what they desire(will). Intellect and will are different in the same way that what we want is different from what we know. Every now and again what we know conflicts with what we want.

Idehn:

God as understood across religions? There is no consensus on the general nature of God that is even close to coherent, much less agreed by all if any who claim to be religious. You probably cannot give a shred of evidence because you have no coherent definition of what God IS like most people. Or at least that has been my experience with most who claim belief. For example, in your Atheism is a Religion threads, you did not even take the time to clearly define what God or religion was. You just asserted that Atheist disbelieved in God, as if they knew what it was you were talking about. Then, you used a warped definition of religion(which I am still not sure of) and called atheism a religion. Like many other things, you just asserted God without so much as a clear definition of what it was you were even talking about.

Idehn:

You just pulled together two random axiomatic expressions, and used them to come to an arbitrary conclusion. I believe that fallacy is called a non-sequitur. You might well have said that Darwin was wrong because you think Darwin was wrong which of course is just stating the obvious. Furthermore, I believe you are projecting yourself onto me with your interpretation of the first Axiom. It is you who does not want to believe evolution and so you choose to ignore the evidence. You need evidence to counter scientific theories, which you have yet to present.

Idehn:

Evolutionary theory, is supported with a vast network of physical evidence(Genetics,Fossil Record,Medicine,Physiology etc. . .). If you think science works by word of mouth then you are woefully mistaken. The bare minimum requirement for a theorist is to present the evidence that lead to his/her conclusions/premise which Darwin did in his time. The truth is that he did not even have a complete notion of the theory of Evolution(as he of course knew nothing of Genetics). It was only after the discovery of DNA, that a complete Theory of Evolution could be formulated. He mostly spoke of natural selection and speciation which I should hope you agree with. Once again you make an assertion, without properly(or accurately) supporting your premise. It is not enough to assert that Darwin is wrong. Tell me why it is Darwin wrong.

Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy.  But I’m not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself.  All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof.  It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.

So how is this message proof of the existence of God?

This web page you’re reading contains letters, words and sentences.  It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I’m saying.

You can do all kinds of things with this message.  You can read it on your computer screen.  You can print it out on your printer.  You can read it out loud to a friend who’s in the same room as you are.  You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone.  You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document.  You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on some other website.

Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same.  My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language.  The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.

Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).

Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)

Messages are immaterial.  Information is itself a unique kind of entity.  It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.

Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code.  Or mating calls of birds.  Or the Internet.  Or radio or television.  Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings.  Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.

OK, so what does this have to do with God?

It’s very simple.  Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.  A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences.  A mind that expresses both desire and intent.

Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:

“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind.  No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”

HABERMAS: Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic
revelation?

FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On
the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s
comments on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the
possibility that it is revelation.

jagunlabi:
I believe in both.
But not necessarily the creationist version of the bible,which is just one version out of many.The jewish version,to be precise.
God created through evolution.Elegantly linked together,no?

jagunlabi:
I believe in both.
But not necessarily the creationist version of the bible,which is just one version out of many.The jewish version,to be precise.
God created through evolution.Elegantly linked together,no?