Chrisbenogor:

I don't like exchanging words thats for women to do, if we dey see face to face that na different story.

so u mean say women na talk talk abi take ya time diaaa oooo

chill jare,u know say i dey respect ur post well well ,cos u no dey too like fight like mazaje(where dat one dey sef,maybe hes busy arranging one babe for finland)

but at d same time 4play na my paddy oooo,anybody wey curse 4play curse me,so make una free am

ehrrrm, just paddies? hmm?

B.T.W, where's David. . . .I don miss am die o. . . .

amebo,wat is u doing here

Per Bastage few hours ago:

The question "Have genes influenced religion" is a red herring? You pathetic creep. It is the statement and the question that I have been stating since you joined this thread with your idiocy. And now it's irrelevant?

Bastage few hours later:

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Stalin. Not once have I suggested his actions were undertaken because of his genes. I stated that religion was an influence on him through society. You were the one that bought up the subject of genes

What is the relevance of the influence of religion on genes, same di*khead, different responses.

You responded to the question of genes because I brought it up but I brought it up in relation to Stalin et al. Yet, your response has nothing whatsoever to do with Stalin. Then who were you responding to, your imbecilic self?

Same mooncalf, same lying scum, same Bastage, yet, different responses.

@Chrisbenogor

Please, whatever expertise you have in your life, whether inbreeding or simply trying to survive while remaining an slowpoke, you are a disgrace to your progenitors.

bia 4play ozugo


@ebony

wait let me go call david for u

Lol 4play aunty busybein say e don do, hehehehe see I knew you had decent folks.
@busybein
You know say I no mean women like you na
Na either woman wahala dey worry this guy or the guy no get money, tell me he is not like this in person.
I will rest my case.
@4play
Oya go and play.

@Chris

Is it not because of the prevalence of domestic sexual abuse that you ended up an slowpoke?

Chrisbenogor:

Lol 4play aunty busybein say e don do, hehehehe see I knew you had decent folks.
@busybein
You know say I no mean women like you na
Na either woman wahala dey worry this guy or the guy no get money, tell me he is not like this in person.
I will rest my case.
.

he is not,d guy has a sweet heart if u get to meet him,trust me on this,oya let it go omo dada

4play

''Chrisbenogor'' . . . . . the name echoes that area where they take blunt and filthy instruments to women's clitorises. Probably a case of vaginal infection damaging Chris's brain before he hit mother earth. Can't say I blame the slowpoke.

Rotflmao

Busybein says you are a schweet heart oh lol. I am sure she meant woman wrapper hehehehe oya ozugbo ozugbo go and play.

Chrisbenogor:

Busybein says you are a schweet heart oh lol. I am sure she meant woman wrapper hehehehe oya ozugbo ozugbo go and play.

i meant sweetheart chris,4play is a sweetheart

poor Chris, the guy no get mouth again?

If it were another meek little "christian" he could kick around with false "questions" and a fraudulent sense of intelligence he'd be barking up the tree by now.

You responded to the question of genes because I brought it up but I brought it up in relation to Stalin et al. Yet, your response has nothing whatsoever to do with Stalin.

I had made it abundantly clear to DavidDylan what I thought the influence of religion had on Stalin and not once in the exchanges I made during the subject did I mention genes. Not once in the subsequent thread did I ever mention Stalin and genes. The only person who ever mentioned them was you.

You made these two laughable statements. I ignored the first and produced evidence of religious influence on income and education.

Only a cretin will claim that religion constitutes the ''vast majority'' of a human being's life influence. There is little room for any other cause; genes, income, education.

So like a whiny bitch you posted this:

The craven dolt has dodged his earlier claim; that everything is a product of religion, presumably, even our genetic make up.

Your words. No mention of Stalin and the word "presumably". You don't say "Stalin's genetic make-up" you say "ours" - to anyone with half a clue that's referring to the human race and not an individual. And it was the human race I referred to in my argument regarding genes having an influence on religion.


It's so easy to see that I never tried to tie Stalin in with genes.

1) I never mentioned genes and Stalin before you entered the thread.
2) I only mentioned genes when you started burbling about them.
3) I still never mentioned genes and Stalin.
4) David even stated that the reason I gave for Stalins actions (rightly or wrongly) was that he trained to be a priest.

Try again. First you lied that I was talking about a Muslim gene. Now you've lied by saying that I was talking about genes and Stalin.
You may as well give it up. You're not very good at this debating thing.

Bastage:

I had made it abundantly clear to DavidDylan what I thought the influence of religion had on Stalin and not once in the exchanges I made during the subject did I mention genes.

yeah, he once started seminary training at 14 and got kicked out at 19. That was all that was needed to create another loony despot.

Bravo for Bastage's critical thinking. Why didnt we all realise this since?

I had made it abundantly clear to DavidDylan what I thought the influence of religion had on Stalin and not once in the exchanges I made during the subject did I mention genes. Not once in the subsequent thread did I ever mention Stalin and genes. The only person who ever mentioned them was you.

Precisely slowpoke, that is not in dispute. To the extent that you addressed the gene question, that is because I brought it up, for no other reason were you addressing it.

Remind me again why I brought it up, it's right there on page 4 you lying tit, to ascertain the life influences of Stalin et al. If you were not such a mendacious tit,you won't be trying to deny that.

The question of genes was not brought up randomly out of the blue,it was brought up within the frame of the debate. Now you are embarking on idiotic distinction between ''Stalin'' and ''our''. Is Stalin not a human being? Doesn't he have a genetic make up? So what is this degenerate liar trying to prove, that the question excludes Stalin or what, what a lying scoundrel.

Your words. No mention of Stalin and the word "presumably". You don't say "Stalin's genetic make-up" you say "ours" - to anyone with half a clue that's referring to the human race and not an individual. And it was the human race I referred to in my argument regarding genes having an influence on religion.

Stalin, becomes an android(departing the human race) and miraculously ejected as the point of the argument, and is replaced with the nebulous ''our''. Any person with half a clue will realise one thing, the debate stems from the causative factor of human behaviour with Stalin as focal point. The very post you quoted, post 113, was all about Stalin, yet, you proclaim that the statement itself had nothing to do with Stalin

You are responding, not to voices in your head, but to queries I made. Queries clearly made because of your statement that ''every'' thing is down to religion, a statment you made while debating the Stalin/Mao issue, the focal point of our debate. At some point, you claim every thing is as a result of religion, later, this lying dingbat claims that ''every'' no longer includes Stalin and was a response made in a vacumn and unrelated to certain individual. This will be the first time on planet earth the word ''every'' had exceptions, but ordinary grammar is not going to be an obtsacle to this lying slowpoke's tissue of lies.

The idea that your responses to my questions did not have anything to with my questions expose you as a deceitful nincompoop. Your claim is that my question had nothing to do with Stalin. What an slowpoke, Stalin is what we were debating. Why he was who he was and what were the causative factors. To claim otherwise makes you a craven bastard.

@david
Which one be your own?

Chrisbenogor:

@david
Which one be your own?

just remarking that i find it strange that you know how to pick your battles. You can flex muscles with the gentler monicas.

just remarking that i find it strange that you know how to pick your battles. You can flex muscles with the gentler monicas.

Bia nna ogini ?
Where did you see me and 4play discussing anything sensibly except that free will on the God come down thread, unlike bastage I realised he was more about insulting a person than actually debating.
So I started baiting him and he has fallen for as many times as a street dog will fall for a bone.
Its funny though that his loutish posts seem to catch your attention, I can sense that you enjoy it as much as I do. The difference I think is maybe you see another einsten in front of his screen even with all the ejectamenta he has spewed on the thread.
I see an apprehensive, callow and doltish creep who seriously has to have his ass whopped.

The question of genes was not brought up randomly out of the blue,it was brought up within the frame of the debate. Now you are embarking on idiotic distinction between ''Stalin'' and ''our''. Is Stalin not a human being? Doesn't he have a genetic make up?

LMAO. Genes were bought in to muddy the waters you sad sack of shit. Just like all the other crap you introduce to a topic which isn't going your way.

But anyway, it's irrelevant. The total and utter irrevocable fact is that I have never once, before, during or after you started really hitting the smoke-screen button, tied Stalin in with any genetic argument. As stated, I already mentioned that religion had a different way of gaining influence over Stalin. If you can prove otherwise, I'll gladly bow down and worship the great 4-Skin. Otherwise, stop boring the shit out of me with more of your fairy-tales and lies. Yet again you make a baseless claim that confounds logic - where in this thread have I mentioned Stalin and genes in the same sentence? Don't you think that if I was arguing for that cause I might just slip in a tiny little reference to them somewhere in my dozens of posts? Wouldn't it be logical for me to mention the subject of the topic now and again? Or to at least try and include Stalin in some proof? But nope. I've done none of that? Why? Well as any cretin (apart from you) can see, I have never advocated the idea that genes affected Stalin's policies. It was the baseless claim that you laid upon me with your usual smokecreening, illogical, blustering, bullshit posts that I have already quoted above.

At some point, you claim every thing is as a result of religion, later, this lying dingbat claims that ''every'' no longer includes Stalin and was a response made in a vacumn and unrelated to certain individual.

Oh it includes Stalin alright, my undereducated buffon of a friend. But as I stated many times, Stalin was influenced by religion in other ways. So the claim I made (or supposedly made as you haven't got it quite right) is totally valid. See, dickhead, what you have to do is follow things on a logical basis. You're not doing very well with that at the moment though. May I suggest you stick to the political forums? You're only getting a continual ass-kicking on the religious topics and I'm getting tired of laughing from bitchslapping you so repeatedly.

DavidDylan. You think that training to be a priest doesn't make a difference to your outlook on Christianity? Wait!!! I was going to say you're even dumber than I thought. But no - you seriously cannot be any dumber than I thought. It's simply not possible.

LMAO. Genes were bought in to muddy the waters you sad sack of shit. Just like all the other crap you introduce to a topic which isn't going your way.

Genes was brought in to muddy the debate? What a di*khead! Here is Bastage previously:

The question "Have genes influenced religion" is a red herring? You pathetic creep. It is the statement and the question that I have been stating since you joined this thread with your idiocy. And now it's irrelevant?

Make up your mind, douche bag. Is genes muddying the debate or not?

But anyway, it's irrelevant.

Is it now irrelevant? Or presumably the distinction is that genes is relevant only in so far as we are talking of humans, Stalin not being human but a cyborg in a human body.

The total and utter irrevocable fact is that I have never once, before, during or after you started really hitting the smoke-screen button, tied Stalin in with any genetic argument.

Let's see. You respond to a post about Stalin but your response has nothing to with the post you are responding to? Are you a product of a long lineage of dolts? Your ''proof'' that your response has nothing to do with the target of the response is that you never used the term ''Stalin''.

Let's see how this works:
Statement: I think there are other factors besides religion responsible for Stalin's behaviour,  because everything can't be attributed to religion, even our genetic make up.
Bastage:That's not true, I got some copy and paste to show otherwise. . . .  .[days later], hey! Any suggestion that my response has anything to do with the subject matter is clearly false.

What an slowpoke.

As stated, I already mentioned that religion had a different way of gaining influence over Stalin.

Of course, an inglorious retreat from the obtuse line that Stalin would have been produced by religion and Mao was a creation of Buddhism. Exit hyperbolic certainty, enter inane vagueness.

If you can prove otherwise, I'll gladly bow down and worship the great 4-Skin. Otherwise, stop boring the shit out of me with more of your fairy-tales and lies. Yet again you make a baseless claim that confounds logic - where in this thread have I mentioned Stalin and genes in the same sentence? Don't you think that if I was arguing for that cause I might just slip in a tiny little reference to them somewhere in my dozens of posts? Wouldn't it be logical for me to mention the subject of the topic now and again?

Stalin subject of the topic? Who would have thought the lying scum would admit this, but his dozens of response has nothing to do with the subject of the topic, even if his response is a response to a post about Stalin.

Conceivably, if I repeatedly post in the sports threads in response to someone who is debating the subject of Ronaldo, I can insist that my response has nothing to do with Ronaldo because I didn't use the term ''Ronaldo''. What an slowpoke.

Or to at least try and include Stalin in some proof? But nope. I've done none of that? Why? Well as any cretin (apart from you) can see, I have never advocated the idea that genes affected Stalin's policies. It was the baseless claim that you laid upon me with your usual smokecreening, illogical, blustering, bullshit posts that I have already quoted above.

Let's see, then what is the purpose of this slowpoke's response and how does it shed light on the debate? If this oaf's defence is that his response is unrelated to my query, that is one heck of a claim. For the first time on NL, someone has admited that the responses he gives to questions have nothing to do with the questions, a first-grade cretin indeed.

Never advocated the idea that genes might affect Stalin's policies? Of course, in this lying bastard's planet, the idea that genes might affect a human being's behaviour is unheard of. Oh, I forgot, according to the craven Bastage, Stalin isn't a human being so any reference to human beings excludes Stalin. 

Oh it includes Stalin alright, my undereducated buffon of a friend. But as I stated many times, Stalin was influenced by religion in other ways. So the claim I made (or supposedly made as you haven't got it quite right) is totally valid.

If there were any doubts that this wretch was the product of a dysfunctional background, this should dispel it. The slowpoke states that everything is a result of religion but that the use of the word ''every'' excludes Stalin's genetic make up. Stalin was influenced by religion in other ways claims the glib idiot,surely, every will mean that Stalin was influenced by religion in every way. The word ''every'' entertains no exceptions, except in this slowpoke's universe. Of course, this mooncalf struggled with the word ''pursuit'' earlier, so it might be a question of being grammatically challenged. More likely, it is the outcome of being a lying scum who can't state a straight story.

May I suggest you stick to the political forums? You're only getting a continual ass-kicking on the religious topics and I'm getting tired of laughing from bitchslapping you so repeatedly.

The way this craven oaf has been performing the mother of all climbdowns any time I challenge him on NL, you would think he is a mountaineer.

Oaf Bastage: Buddhism created Mao
Craven Bastage: Religion had some influence

Oaf Bastage: No historical mentions of Jesus outside scripture
Craven Bastage: No contempereanous historical mentions of Jesus

Oaf: Everything is as a result of religion
Craven: In some cases, religion is an influence

Make up your mind, knobhead. Stick to one story.   

@Chris

Any chance you have taken up my advice and sought to find out why you have excrement for a brain? Is it child sexual abuse or some veneral disease?

LOL.

You are one boring mofo.
Are you as anally retentive and retarded in real life or do you save it just for this forum?

Make up your mind, douche bag. Is genes muddying the debate or not?

Yes, you dumb cock-knocker. You bought it to the debate thinking you were being smart.
It's just a shame for you that I made you my bitch.

Is it now irrelevant? Or presumably the distinction is that genes is relevant only in so far as we are talking of humans, Stalin not being human but a cyborg in a human body.

It's always been irrelevant as in regards to Stalin. Like I said, show me one sentence where I advocate genes had an effect on Stalin's policies and you win. But you can't can you? I mean, come on. That's such a great offer, surely it must be simpler to prove that with all my posts in this thread.

But you can't can you?
You're just piss and wind.

Yes, you dumb cock-knocker. You bought it to the debate thinking you were being smart.It's just a shame for you that I made you my bitch.

A bonafide cretin. . . a few days ago you averred the subject of genes to be paramount. So paramount, that like some infantile jerk, you kept repeating it non-stop. Fast forward days later, dingbat states that it has no relevance whatsoever.

It's always been irrelevant as in regards to Stalin. Like I said, show me one sentence where I advocate genes had an effect on Stalin's policies and you win.

Look at this jerk trying to play his infantile games. Let's see, show me where I have stated that you have stated that genes have an effect on Stalin's policies . . . you see where literal evidence leads us? It's a fools game and this brain-dead mutt would know that.

You claimed on page 6 that I stated there is no connection between genes and religion, and where was the proof? That I stated that religion has no effect on society, proof? Lies upon lies, one would think you are the product of a mendacious existence. Once caught pants down in his latest lie, he moves on to another red herring.

This douche bag sounds like one of those culturally marooned folks with their self-regarding pseudo-intellectualism. Every challenge precipitates a climb down from their previously inane position - every thing is as a result of religion indeed, what a cretinous mutt.

4Play you're still arguing with that clueless scion of a shoe?

i just want to say something briefly: I have read Dawkins, Hitchens, some of Dan Dennet and none of Sam Harris but have watched their video the four horsemen (they are the four most prominent Atheist world over) and I read a lot on evolution, and i consider myself an open minded christian, I was agnostic before that. Now in the light that we evolved, we must ask ourselves whether morality has a basis at all: all that atheists and agnostics say is that if we have a society with no religion of any sort such a society will be good for all of us, I am certainly sure that is a lie, people will always be good or evil, But we must first ask ourselves what role does good or evil have when all we are here to do is to ensure our genes survive. I have heard that we should not see God as a source of morals, but instead see morality as being shaped by human solidarity, now that is even a worse joke, I should be moral because of all of you, you all must be mad: I see it this way there is nothing wrong in stealing since the thief is more fit than the victim, and rape is just the male desire to ensure that his genes are spread wide and that he has more offspring than the rest of us, the truth is that if we remove religion, then there is nothing to hang unto other than another imaginary concept called human solidarity.

And as for the concept of evolution: you have to be kidding me, because it seems that the creatures wished their changes into being and then it happened overtime, i hope my oldest ancestor wished he could fly so in a billion years time my descendants will. Evolution and religion require a lot of faith, and if i might end it here the modern trend that secularism is taking is nothing short of the bigotry they accuse people of faith of.

Derison:

i just want to say something briefly: I have read Dawkins, Hitchens, some of Dan Dennet and none of Sam Harris but have watched their video the four horsemen (they are the four most prominent Atheist world over) and I read a lot on evolution, and i consider myself an open minded christian, I was agnostic before that. Now in the light that we evolved, we must ask ourselves whether morality has a basis at all: all that atheists and agnostics say is that if we have a society with no religion of any sort such a society will be good for all of us, I am certainly sure that is a lie, people will always be good or evil, But we must first ask ourselves what role does good or evil have when all we are here to do is to ensure our genes survive. I have heard that we should not see God as a source of morals, but instead see morality as being shaped by human solidarity, now that is even a worse joke, I should be moral because of all of you, you all must be mad: I see it this way there is nothing wrong in stealing since the thief is more fit than the victim, and rape is just the male desire to ensure that his genes are spread wide and that he has more offspring than the rest of us, the truth is that if we remove religion, then there is nothing to hang unto other than another imaginary concept called human solidarity.

And as for the concept of evolution: you have to be kidding me, because it seems that the creatures wished their changes into being and then it happened overtime, i hope my oldest ancestor wished he could fly so in a billion years time my descendants will. Evolution and religion require a lot of faith, and if i might end it here the modern trend that secularism is taking is nothing short of the bigotry they accuse people of faith of.

I must commend you for having read those authors. You sound like a reasonable theist. But my question to you is the following:

What are your scientific arguments against The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? If you have got no intelligible arguments against it, you cannot say accepting TTE is a faith position.

Mr, Huxley,

I will assume that u do not like religion because it is incoherent and lacks evidence, and for the most part I agree with u, there can only be one true way: that is the question that led me to agnosticism, is there a God, can we know him/her, and of all the religions that abound which is true? Now, evolution makes some guesses that seem logical (but are guesses nonetheless), and for one there is a lack of transitional fossils: and much as we know that we might have evolved (I say this because i suppose that if we did evolve, there might have been an intelligent being behind it: a thought i still don't take too seriously) we are not sure what sprung the process into being. In Dawkins Blind watchmaker, i find faults in his logic because he assumes that evolution is process that is lacking of a designer (I am yet to see a process that displays intent without thought: yes I am aware of Jay Gould's metaphor of spandrels, but spandrels are not as significant as the building) and then again if a process gets better then there must be intelligence behind it, and as I know evolution is a process (that is unintelligent: but at the same time intelligent> what could be more equivocal) that has nothing in mind but succeeds in getting better all the time.  What happened before the big bang remains a question to be answered, and more importantly we must ask the question how did intelligence arise from chemical compunds?  I may be asking questions that project me as confused, but if evolutionists ask for certainty I must ask how certain are u that we evolved, and that there wasnt an intelligent being behind that process, and the fact that we share genetic similarity with certain animals does not prove that we evolved, it proves that we need a certain makeup to survive life, saying that the fact that the only difference between our genetic make up and that of an ape is 1% is proof of evolution is as lame as saying that a counterfeit painting probably came from the same painter.

FYI,  I don't believe in a 6,000 yr old earth,  Genesis doesnt even agree with that.

Derison:

Mr, Huxley,

I will assume that u do not like religion because it is incoherent and lacks evidence, and for the most part I agree with u, there can only be one true way: that is the question that led me to agnosticism, is there a God, can we know him/her, and of all the religions that abound which is true? Now, evolution makes some guesses that seem logical (but are guesses nonetheless), and for one there is a lack of transitional fossils: and much as we know that we might have evolved (I say this because i suppose that if we did evolve, there might have been an intelligent being behind it: a thought i still don't take too seriously) we are not sure what sprung the process into being. In Dawkins Blind watchmaker, i find faults in his logic because he assumes that evolution is process that is lacking of a designer (I am yet to see a process that displays intent without thought: yes I am aware of Jay Gould's metaphor of spandrels, but spandrels are not as significant as the building) and then again if a process gets better then there must be intelligence behind it, and as I know evolution is a process (that is unintelligent: but at the same time intelligent> what could be more equivocal) that has nothing in mind but succeeds in getting better all the time.  What happened before the big bang remains a question to be answered, and more importantly we must ask the question how did intelligence arise from chemical compunds?  I may be asking questions that project me as confused, but if evolutionists ask for certainty I must ask how certain are u that we evolved, and that there wasnt an intelligent being behind that process, and the fact that we share genetic similarity with certain animals does not prove that we evolved, it proves that we need a certain makeup to survive life, saying that the fact that the only difference between our genetic make up and that of an ape is 1% is proof of evolution is as lame as saying that a counterfeit painting probably came from the same painter.

FYI,  I don't believe in a 6,000 yr old earth,  Genesis doesnt even agree with that.

Hello Derison,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate it.

You may seem confused, but that is OK. We are ALL subject to being confused with respect to such difficult questions and given that you want to pack as many points as you can in your post, it may come out as incoherent. That's is OK. Allow me to try to point out some issues.

Firstly, let me summarise the questions you have and se if we agree on what your "problems" are. From your post, your touched on;

1) Evolution, and there being no transitional fossils
2) Even if evolution was true, it must have been driven by an intelligent agent
3) The cause or prime creator of ultimate reality
4) The age of the earth and the inference of age drawn from the bible.

There may have been more, but these are the keep themes I got from your post above. Each one of these can form the subject of a voluminous book in itself, but I would like to suggest we dwell on item 1) "The Theory of Evolution and transitional fossils"

I am sure you know what the scientific definition of evolution is, but it bears repeating again. Evolution simply means change. In fact, in every sense of the word, evolution means change. Thus you can speak of cosmic evolution, biological evolution, the evolution of the Super Eagles team, etc, etc, etc.

But Darwinian evolution ONLY addresses biological evolution or biological changes. Biological evolution has been known to humans for many centuries, even before Darwin. If you check the literature, you will be surprise how far back evolutionary thinking goes back. What was not know until Darwin was a plausible mechanism that explains the observed changes. Enter the concept of "theory".

Basically Darwin proposed a theory that explains adequately the observed facts of evolution - the notion of Natural Selection. There may well be some other force driving biological change, but to this day none has been found and Natural Selection has not been falsified even after 150 years of constant attempt at falsification.

So even without Darwin's theory, we are still stuck with the facts of evolution that would need explaining. Facts don't go away because we have not got explanations (theories) for them. They are indifferent to our attempts at explanation. Allow me to ask some questions;



1) If you forget about Darwinian evolution for a minute, how would you explain the fact that these changes in biological lifeforms exist?

2) Why is it that no fossils of horses, or rabbits, or humans, or birds are ever found in pre-cambrian rocks?

3) Why is it that all early lifeforms were only single-cell organism and why don't we find multicell organism in rock made of these single cell organisms?

4) Do you know what stromatolites are?

5) Have you heard of an early fossil fish call tiktaalic, recently uncovered in Northern America?



Try and answer the above questions and hopefully that should help illuminate the issues you are having difficulties with.

Hello Derison,

Did my questions scare you off? I am very sorry if they did for it was hard to tell just how solid your mettle is even though you appear to have taken action to educate yourself.

huxley:

Hello Derison,

Did my questions scare you off?  I am very sorry if they did for it was hard to tell just how solid your mettle is even though you appear to have taken action to educate yourself.

Huxley,

I didnt run away, i went to read on some of the things you said and I will like to correct some of the assumptions that u make

huxley:




1)  Evolution, and there being no transitional fossils
2)  Even if evolution was true, it must have been driven by an intelligent agent
3)  The cause or prime creator of ultimate reality
4)  The age of the earth and the inference of age drawn from the bible.

1)  There are no evident transitional fossils,  Correct
2)  Evolution does not prove the existence or not of a creator (U are getting me wrong there)
3)  Physics does not exactly state what was pre-big bang.
4)  Then the universal constants: the probability of its success is slim and if we were to look at mathematical probability,  it shouldnt have happened, and we shouldnt have been here.
5)  Where does intelligence come from:
6) Evolution remains seems rather speculative to me: e.g. this bird's beak is shaped like this because its ancestors had to adapt to the kind of nut on island x, why didnt they die off of hunger? Just like saying because i want to fly my descendants will grow wings.

Derison:

Just like saying because i want to fly my descendants my grow wings.

LOLz

Derison:

Huxley,

I didnt run away, i went to read on some of the things you said and I will like to correct some of the assumptions that u make

1)  There are no evident transitional fossils,  Correct
2)  Evolution does not prove the existence or not of a creator (U are getting me wrong there)
3)  Physics does not exactly state what was pre-big bang.
4)  Then the universal constants: the probability of its success is slim and if we were to look at mathematical probability,  it shouldnt have happened, and we shouldnt have been here.
5)  Where does intelligence come from:
6) Evolution remains seems rather speculative to me: e.g. this bird's beak is shaped like this because its ancestors had to adapt to the kind of nut on island x, why didnt they die off of hunger? Just like saying because i want to fly my descendants my grow wings.

Hello Derison,

NIce to know you are still about and have responded to my post albeit without even attempting the questions I asked above.  I hope you find the information you are research, cuz I am looking forward to a rather sane and interesting chat with you.  Something relatively rare amongst theists.  

Now, you said I made some incorrect assumptions, which you were going to correct.  What are these assumptions and how did you redress them?


I asked that we focus initially on the theory of evolution and transitional fossil.  In due course we may come to deal with the other subjects, namely Big Bang, existence of creator, intelligent design, etc, etc.  That is how an organised conversation is generally conducted, rather than the scatter-gun approach you appear to favour.   So let us deal with biological evolution first and if we have time address the other issues later.


Can you take a look at these questions please?

1) If you forget about Darwinian evolution for a minute, how would you explain the fact that these changes in biological lifeforms exist?

2) Why is it that no fossils of horses, or rabbits, or humans, or birds are ever found in pre-cambrian rocks?

3) Why is it that all early lifeforms were only single-cell organism and why don't we find multicell organism in rock made of these single cell organisms?

4) Do you know what stromatolites are?

5) Have you heard of an early fossil fish call tiktaalic, recently uncovered in Northern America?



That should build the platform on which to progress subsequent discussions.  

Thanks.