Stats: 3,187,838 members, 7,933,138 topics. Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2024 at 07:56 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) (14059 Views)
The Origin of Na.kedness / "What Is The Origin Of The Catholic Church?" / The Pagan Origin Of The Word "AMEN" (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (16) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 1:49am On Aug 25, 2011 |
davidylan: The sad irony is that the reason the videos I posted exist, is because scientifically illiterates like yourself keep repeating the same ridicules questions and objections ad nauseam. For example If indeed evolution is true, where are the intermediate life forms? How come complex organisms that look exactly like their modern day counterparts appear suddenly in the fossil record? I guess i dont know anything anyway so why bother. It was addressed in the video but I will answer it since you need to be spoon fed an answers to a question that has been answered to death . Fossilization does not occur to every single creature that walks the earth. It would be silly to expect that for every successive generation there would exist a fossil. However, of the fossils we do have(which are still many) they still point to evolution(morphology). I have no idea what you are talking about in your second question. You will need to present an example of what you mean. Dumb. That's a valid question . . . why is evolution a controversy today if it was widely accepted fact with empirical proof? No one spends all day arguing about the validity of gravity no? Well around 2500 years ago in late antiquity, a religion telling people the first human being was fashioned from dirt began. This religion spread and changed(evolved you might say) over time, adapting new variations on the story until finally Christianity,Islam, Judaism and others were left. Naturally people do not like to face the fact that their most cherished beliefs are wrong. People of these particular faiths are no exception by any stretch of the imagination. Thus you wind up with controversy. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by BABE3: 1:50am On Aug 25, 2011 |
davidylan: Hmm--Interesting. They still clash. Science and God are like two masters; Sceince being the Caeser. Science doesn't believe in miracles: Our faith does. I took a cell-Biology class in spring, and I remember my professor giving an almost 'apologetic speech' on how him lecturing about evolution will make christians in the class feel "uncomfortable". The two concepts are very not alike. I've not studied evolution extensively ( I only know the basics) to refute your second sentence. Yes, I agree. Science is indeed still a Juvenile (Knowledge-wise). |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 2:00am On Aug 25, 2011 |
Idehn: Probably because there are no serious answers to these alleged "ridiculous" questions no? How did RNA or L-amino acids appear from primeval soup? I doubt that is a ridiculous question considering there can be no life without them. Feel free to point to more empty videos spewing confused speculation. Idehn: Which makes very little sense if you took more than 3 seconds to think about it rather than gobbling up every word you heard. I thought that was what science was about? Questioning the validity of everything you hear no? While it is true that fossilization does not occur to EVERY creature that walks the earth, isnt it curious that fossilization failed to occur for ANY intermediate life form? We have dinosaur fossils that are well preserved, we have shrimp fossils dating to over 40 billion years ago . . . but NOT ONE SINGLE intermediate life form? Yeah come up with a better excuse. Idehn: huh? the cambrian fossil problemm dude. You people spend too much time hyping up your own genius that you forget you do need to learn. Idehn: So i.e. only religious people have a problem with evolution? What a false and clearly silly thing to say. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by EvilBrain1(m): 2:12am On Aug 25, 2011 |
davidylan: Rubbish. There are plenty of intermediate lifeforms in the fossil records. The evolution of man is extremely well documented in fossils. As is the evolution of modern birds, elephants horses, sharks, crocodillians and countless other species. For instance, there are several known species of bird-like dinosaurs (and dinosaur-like birds) with wings, feathers and teeth. Have you ever seen a chicken with teeth? Your information seems to be at least 50 years out of date. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/feathered-dino-leaves-status-of-archaeopteryx-up-in-the-air.ars why is evolution a controversy today if it was widely accepted fact with empirical proof? No one spends all day arguing about the validity of gravity no? Because a bunch of reetarded american evangelicals decided to cook up a fake controversy. Just like the global warming issue, the evolution "debate" is completely manufactured. The people responsible were a bunch of right wing christian-fundamentalist nutcases in the 1980s who were shocked that kids were being taught something that contradicted their religion in school. The sad fact is that whenever an inconvenient truth threatens a powerful group's faith or business interests, it is now possible to bury that truth in an avalanche of lies, half-truths and misinformation. Years of screaming from pulpits and a relentless media campaign has driven the truth form people's minds. And America, the country that gave us Paris Hilton, Sarah Palin and George W. Bush is the centre of this anti-intellectual movement. Special interests have managed to completely discredit the scientific community, and have managed to put fairytales in school textbooks. They have convinced their people that being ignorant is somehow a virtue. Now a large percentage of the American people think that climate change is a conspiracy by evil scientists, and evolution is a conspiracy by evil scientists, and Obama is a communist, fascist, secret-muslim dictator. Nowadays even intelligent politicians like John McCain have to pretend to be stuupid and support the teaching of rubbish like intelligent design just to get votes. The worst thing is how they are now exporting their special brand of stuupidity to the rest of the world. Evolution has been a settled issue in most of the world for over a century. It is the second best supported theory in all of science after gravitation. Now in formerly sane places like Europe seeds of doubt have been sown. The most annoying thing is that nobody has been able counter the simple logic at the heart of Darwin's theory. The creationists are winning simply because they are making more noise. They are slowly pulling the world back into the dark ages. Making the world a dumber place. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 2:29am On Aug 25, 2011 |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 2:30am On Aug 25, 2011 |
Evil Brain: Dont make a fool of yourself, there is none. I challenge you to provide one single proof please. Have you heard of the cambrian explosion? Perhaps you have these intermediate life forms under your daddy's bed, nature would love to publish your evidence. Evil Brain: Again not true. Evil Brain: You're mixing up tow completely different issues. you seem to not know what you are talking about. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by kandiikane(m): 2:47am On Aug 25, 2011 |
The ignorant calling others ignorant. . . You say you are a scientist but you have absolutely no idea about the basics of evolution. .Maybe you should have listened in class when you were in high school. . You talk of micro evolution but still refer to evolution as if it only occurs on a larger scale. Plus, you called yourself a scientist but still don't see that HIV or virus resistance is due to it EVOLVING. Someone who did their science homework know that evolution is different from extinction that been said do not misquote what I wrote. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 2:54am On Aug 25, 2011 |
kandiikane: Dumb. I clearly make a distinction between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution or as it is correctly known - mutation, does occur and is well documented. However it has ZERO to do with macro evolution. Infact this is what you defined as macro evolution just two pages back - Whole point of evolution=EVOLVING. . one specie evolved more superior to others. . Now lets not try to be evasive, ignorant and deceitful all at the same time - we both know that the Darwin theory is about MACRO EVOLUTION, that is the debate today not mutation. Everyone knows HIV evolves but everyone and his dog knows that it requires the CCR5 gene to enter CD4+ t-helper cells . . . which is why a certain group of non-carriers for this coat protein are able to stay immune from the virus. So what has the HIV virus ability to mutate got to do with macro evolution? When is this virus going to develop a distinctly different phenotype which is the goal of macro evolution? Is your viral mutation the same as man evolving from a protobiont? kandiikane: Ok, i couldnt be sure from the mumbo jumbo you wrote. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 3:48am On Aug 25, 2011 |
davidylan: As the gentlemen explained earlier it was probably from prebiotic materials that could easily have existed on ancient earth(from the data we have). The link below, is by a researcher who used said chemicals to synthesize RNA without the use of enzymes or inorganic catalyst. http://www.jbc.org/content/284/48/33206 Of course more study is required to determine(if possible), the exact conditions(temperatures/chemical compounds present/climate etc. . .) of primordial Earth, the paper(and some of the others it cites) is proof of concept that informational molecules like RNA, can self assemble from simpler molecules. You may also be interested in the systhesis of said prebiotic elements. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/459171a.html Unfortunately, I cannot extend access to the article for you, so will need obtain the full article yourself. Which makes very little sense if you took more than 3 seconds to think about it rather than gobbling up every word you heard. I thought that was what science was about? Questioning the validity of everything you hear no? Again the video answered this ignorant objection. There is no exact or clean transition between species. Evey successive generation is in fact an intermediary form between species(as the offspring is a variation of the parent). After all Evolutionary changes take place over successive generations. If one of those generations is not fossilized, then technically their goes an intermediary. What normally occurs, is that clusters of newly discovered intermediaries are unearthed. They are typically found spaced apart by several generations apart and labeled as species of their own(if changes are significant enough). We are fortunate however, that the fossil record for human ancestry is as full as it is(thank the climate of the Rift Valley). For example the growth of the human cranium is clearly observable in the fossil record. The change to upright walking is clearly observable from the fossil record. Please watch the video to at least obtain a basic understanding of evolution/paleontology. It will take more than 3 seconds, but I think you can at least manage that. I should have known you were going bring up the Cambrian Explosion. The issue is about the rate at which major evolutionary changes took place. In the Precambrian era as you should be aware, most organism were simple unicellular organism. It is during a period of 80 million years that complex multi-cellular organism like those that exist today began to form. In short debate is between scientist who believe major evolutionary changes occur under a slow gradual process and between those who believe it can take place abruptly through relatively few generations. The answer is still up in the air due to lack of evidence. It is not a debate on whether or not evolution occurs at all(at least not among scientist). So i.e. only religious people have a problem with evolution? What a false and clearly silly thing to say.Did I say only religious people oppose evolution? No. However, the main source of opposition to evolution are from those who espouse supernatural origins of life/man. This much is clear. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by kandiikane(m): 4:14am On Aug 25, 2011 |
Whole point of evolution=EVOLVING. . one specie evolved more superior to others. I am going to explain: I wrote whole point of evolution= evolving and also one specie evolved more suprior referring to the question sexkills asked"why do humans have logic or use logic and chimps or apes don't" ![]() insects developing immunity to pesticides is not the same as "evolution".This is a quote you made but you are wrong because the insects/pests evolve a stronger immunity to the pesticides. . Insects/pest gain immunity aka resistance because of artificial selection included in pesticides. Which causes insects/pests with high tolerance to survive and breed outnumbering those that can be controlled by the pesticides. For this reason, more pesticides are made to control these new breeds(not just because of different companies making pesticides) of pests which then again evolve a stronger immunity to these new pesticides and it goes on and on. It all relates back to natural selection because if these insects/pest do not follow the rules of evolution/not adapt they will die out. I will give you an example; Neanderthals are sometimes referred to as a separate specie of the human race but they did not survive with different theories to why i.e climate change, selection, being hunted but the homo sapiens did survive because they did adapt. . This type of evolving still happens today and because it happens at a very tiny scale it is impossible to witness macro evolution. . I have said before I am not an expert in evolution, there are major holes that need to be filled but that is the whole point of science trying to find out and explain with reason for us all to understand. A hundred years ago these gaps where bigger but as years go by it gets filled up bit by bit. These are all theories although with huge gaps but are quite reasonable to answer questions someone might have, Many creationists do believe in biological evolution(believe it's is b/e is the work of a master mind) but just not macro evolution which will dispute the existence of a mastermind. . |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 4:35am On Aug 25, 2011 |
Idehn: Lets not go too far dude, i know you copied this off some other website. First of all the corresponding author on this paper is none other than - Ernesto Di Mauro, Ph.D who publishes in the journal of cosmology! ![]() ![]() ![]() For a paper that propounds a theory that should have revolutionized medicine as we know it (the ability to generate RNA spontaneously), that JBC paper happens to have been cited THREE (3) times in the 2 yrs its been published! Even i have garnered 12 citations in that time frame and i havent propounded any earth shaking theory just yet. Abeg be serious! ![]() ![]() Idehn: you could have easily downloaded a pdf copy and posted it here. Its clear you have not read this paper yourself. Juyst copy-pasting from other websites. Such a shame. The RNA theory is itself invalid . . . cytosine has never and cannot be synthesized. The ribose sugar backbone for RNA is very unstable and has a short half life (about 70 minutes), how then did it exist in a stable form in water? How did the early life forms enrich one particular isomer of ribose considering both ribose isomers interfere with self-replication? Since ribose is a reducing sugar, it cannot co-exist with amino acids in primordial soup (amino acids react very quickly with sugars) . . . for ribose to exist long enough to self replicate as part of RNA, it must mean amino acids NEVER existed in primordial soup at any time. Which is it dudes? I blame right whingers. ![]() Idehn: first of all read up on "investigator interference" . . . it is a valid tool employed by desperate pro-evolutionists like those in your videos ostensibly to hoodwink the gullible like you who think because they reference papers they have never read . . . they are thus smart and "unignorant" (pun intended). Your "explanation" fails to explain the cambrian explosion dude. Evolution indeed takes place over successive generations but there are fossil records in cambrian rocks that are billions of years old. For example, it doesnt look like trilobites changed much since the cambrian fossils? why? Sorry for the "ignorant"questions oh though fountain of knowledge. Idehn: odd. The human fossil record is miraculously"full" and yet that for organisms more populous than ours is not? In geological time, man's period on earth is far more inconsequential than other organisms. How come we have no complete fossil records for much more established organisms? Idehn: That's quite daft. First of all ask yourself why the "rate" suddenly accelerated in one period then completely slows down after. It doesnt seem you have an analytical mind at all, you seem to have your mind made up for you by dunces on youtube. For billions of years pre-cambrian period, evolution occured at an extremely slow rate . . . all of a sudden it revs up just long enough to fossilize complex multi-cellular organisms then slows down almost to a halt after? What happened? Do you understand at all the difference between unicellular organisms like bacteria and a simple multicellular organism like a trilobite or dinosaurs? So it took billions of years for unicellular organisms to "evolve" from a primordial soup but just 80 m years to jump from amoeba to a cow? ![]() Man mi pls use your brain. Idehn: please dont confuse micro evolution with macro evolution. There is no debate about mutation. We are not completely nuts. the main source of opposition to evolution doesnt come primarily from "religionists . . . it actually spans a large number of non-religious scientists. There are even atheists here who dont believe evolution and some have posted on this thread. Please spare us the daft conjectures. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 4:41am On Aug 25, 2011 |
kandiikane: what is the point here? ![]() kandiikane: First of all i wont be drawn into the nonsense you have up here. I have one question for you . . . how did your theory of natural selection develop the first RNA or amino acid precursors? ![]() kandiikane: Everything they cant explain they call it gaps YET they say science is all about "facts". How about acknowledging that your own firm belief in "gap theories" is all an exercise in "faith"? ![]() |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by harakiri(m): 4:51am On Aug 25, 2011 |
Some people who should know better come here talking rubbish. If they fall ill and are near death, it's science they look up to. Everything about their daily lives revolves around science and yet, they give kudos to faith. How unfortunate. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 4:59am On Aug 25, 2011 |
harakiri: This doesnt make sense. there is science and there is metaphysics. As a scientist myself who actually works with RNA at the bench (compared to the dunces here bleating about molecules they've probably only seen in biology textbooks), i do believe empirically verified science is logical and a bedrock of human existence. Like i said to Babe earlier on, science and faith can co-exist quite nicely. The portion of science i disagree with is that which exists, NOT as a quest for acquisition of knowledge, but as a litany of poorly defined "theories" full of holes and developed solely as an affront to the very existence of God. I'm particularly still intrigued that some actually believe you can create RNA spontaneously in water. Lets just perform a simple experiment - extracted RNA degrades extremely fast at room temperature (RIN numbers go down a magnitude of at least 1 after leaving RNA on the bench in mildly cold ice for 1-3 hrs) . . . since the presence of heat is itself a pre-requisite for the formation of amino acids in primordial soup . . . how was RNA able to remain stable long enough to form the thousands of lengthy chains that make up gene transcripts? Yeah just watch a youtube video and swallow the nonsense they tell you. It might be instructive to get in the lab yourself and handle these materials first before bleating. there's a reason we try to keep RNA at -80 deg c all the freaking time. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by harakiri(m): 5:23am On Aug 25, 2011 |
I believe this thread is directed at Atheists but somehow, it's turned into a science fair. In that regard, I can boldly say science has done more good for mankind than religion ever has (if there's any good in religion by the way). Science has unraveled mysteries,puzzles and saved lives ( I can't say the same about religion). Science is always undergoing change via research/findings/discoveries while religion remains in the stone age. The so called "gaps" DAVIDYLAN mentioned are the yet to be unraveled mysteries and somehow he thinks he can score a cheap point with whereas his bible is filled with with so many holes, you'd think it's a relic from the second world war! His bible's god claims "heavenly" hosts reside in the sky but science from proved this wrong by going beyond the sky into space. His bible in it's "infinite" wisdom presents no cure for diseases except through miracles and prayer and I wonder if that's what he counts on when he falls ill. The bible depicts the earth as being four cornered but today, we all know better due to science. His bible is filled with so many lies that no sane human being would believe in today's world but so long as his bible says so, no wahala. He is quick to resent the big bangg theory but he believes he was made from sand! LOL ! He believes a virgin got pregnant without having sex. He believes one man parted the red sea with his bare hands and another man walked on water. He believes one man fed FIVE THOUSAND people with only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. He believes a donkey spoke. He believes the first man had 3 ribs,had one removed and when it was placed in SAND, it turned into two thus creating a woman (una dey see maths!). He believes a man actually "told" the sun to stand still. He believes a man raced into the sky on a chariot (lol). He believes a man survived in the belly of a fish for 3 days without getting chewed,digested,no air,no water,no food and yet, he "lived". He believes a man travelled on foot round the world gathering male and female of EVERY specie to put in an ark (lol). How many I go talk? At least,science provides theories and don't declare them as facts until there is unshakable evidence/proof. Without science, you would be running wild like a caveman eating berries and scanvenging on dead carcasses. Show some respect! |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 5:36am On Aug 25, 2011 |
harakiri: The thread was meant to elicit perspectives on the origin of life . . . not strictly for atheists even though this appears on the title. harakiri: Fair enough. But the argument has never been about science = bad and religion = good. Its been about why too many charlatans have resorted to using pseudo-science as a stick with which to beat religionists. It is one thing to sensibly advance scientific theories, it is another thing to simply poke around atheist websites, cope-paste drivel from there so as to appear smart. harakiri: these are not "so-called gaps", they are ACTUAL gaps that you have no answers to. Secondly, i am not here to "Score cheap points" . . . simply making sure uninformed dunces like you stop using the science of others (that you dont understand anyway) as a cloak for your own disbelief. It is ok to have no religious belief . . . its even more hilarious considering me the so-called religious nut actually gets to work on the molecules you all bleat about because you saw a video on youtube. harakiri: Dumb. I assume you think that man has been to all parts of space right? harakiri: Christianity is about faith . . . i have never and will never dispute that. You are free to take it or leave it. harakiri: That is not in question. I get to test some of those facts and even present my own on a daily basis in an actual research lab unlike you who depend solely on google. I show my respect to science on a daily basis . . . i have made my own contributions that you can peruse through on pubmed. What have you done for science besides shilling like the charlatan you are? |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by harakiri(m): 6:10am On Aug 25, 2011 |
davidylan: Poor Davidylan ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Anyways, back to topic. . . First of all, unless you think other posters have reading problems like yourself. . .the thread is solely directed at ATHEISTS! Second, in spite of your lame attempt to twist what i said out of context, the thread once again addresses atheists and their views regarding "the origin of life" and the poster wants to know why our views differs from that of religious folks. Third, when i say "unraveled mysteries", anyone with common sense knows i mean scientists have no answers at present. I never claimed they had all the answers but i stressed the fact that they are constantly researching but i guess you had to try a fast one didn't you? You just can't help yourself. Fourth, it's not every Atheist that's an evolutionist and a lot of Christians are evolutionists. I keep wondering how shallow your mind really is. Don't you have any depth at all? Another failed shaming attempt by poor Dave! Fifth, i have no problems with you or anyone else having faith in religion. Matter of fact, i don't even care. When i do care is when you try to rub off your delusions on us and make bold claims of them being fact! Now there. . .right there, is where the problem is. Sixth, being the so called "charlatan" you call me, i never for once claimed i was a scientist or researcher. I'm just a simple guy. You on the other hand who works in a lab located in the SECOND BIGGEST CHEMICAL PLANT IN THE UNIVERSE should explain to us how you got transformed from SAND into a human being. Shebi you dey do research abi? |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 6:25am On Aug 25, 2011 |
harakiri: Yeah reminded me of that too. harakiri: what a surprise. i thot you didnt even know what the topic was. harakiri: Stup[i]i[/i]d. The thread was meant to elicit the perspectives of atheists, however it did not strictly preclude non-atheists from questioning a few things. Especially as the first few atheists here PREDICTABLY started off on how bad christianity was . . . while avoiding the topic of the thread in total. harakiri: But the thread doesnt explicitly say religious folk should keep off no? Methinks someone is desperately extrapolating here. xkillz who started the thread has made no complaints about our posts. harakiri: which is it stup[i]i[/i]d, idehn tells us scientists have the answers and even provides scientific papers (with no basis in facts anyway) as proof . . . mazaje claims he has no idea what scientists know . . . you say scientists have no answer . . . which is it? What is the problem with the lack of consistency? If it is true that "scientists are still researching" then on what basis do you all hang your hats on a science that has no basis? harakiri: Dumb. I made this exact comment to idehn a while back. Post number 171. harakiri: But you have no problems with atheists making scientific claims as "fact" while you dance around with the "scientists have no answers" excuse no? harakiri: Of which i earlier told you i have no problem with biblical faith. No where do i claim that the genesis account of creation is a scientific fact. Oh and yeah i do work for the second biggest chemical plant on the planet . . . work harder dude. And he calls others shallow? No attempt of course to address the thread. Just more unserious bluster. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by kinguy(m): 7:07am On Aug 25, 2011 |
Atheists day is april fool's day * . . . It is only a fool dat sayz there is no GOD. . . D@s y there are many religions 4 u 2 choose 4rm, so u wouldnt say i didnt find a compatible religion 2 serve u lord on d last day |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by EvilBrain1(m): 7:09am On Aug 25, 2011 |
@davidylan Please stop calling yourself a scientist. You are not a scientist. You don't know how to reason like one, you are shockingly ignorant about many of the things you are arguing about, you lack the humulity a good scientist needs, and you are totally immune to reason. I don't know who you are or what you do for a living, but you sound very much like a lab technician who aspires to greater things but has not bothered to do the work required. I understand that you are skeptical about some aspects of evolution, and there is nothing wrong with that, but you cannot make predetermined conclusions and call yourself a scientist. Its not just by wearing a white coat you know. Also, please drop this "no intermediate forms" argument, its really, really stûpid. Take another look at my previous post and follow the link. Nobel Intent is a site I highly recommend if you want to learn how scientists think. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 8:27am On Aug 25, 2011 |
harakiri:@harakiri, can i get an ANSWER NOW? ![]() |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by IbroSaunks(m): 8:31am On Aug 25, 2011 |
Hey, This thread is soo long, i could spend the whole day reading it, would really distract me from work! But the thing is, i get the atheists, and their claims about not knowing or trying to explain. But by taking such view, you are convincing yourself that there really isnt any answer. Because you can't find the answer to the question, doesn't mean some other peoples own is wrong. You cannot make a conclusion that religion is wack if you haven't carefully analyzed all the religions and the basics of their belief system. If someone finds a question that trully works and makes sense to him, perhaps you just need to listen and view things from the persons perspective before you finally make a decision. I don't know about you, but i think life would really be pointless if we just died and nothing happened after. That might be a sentiment, but search inside and look around, and see if you truly feel that we just become alive, live and die for nothing. Also, i implore you to look around you, see how everything is, the world, nature, just everything. Can you truly look at that and tell yourself that it all came by coincidence, that it just happened on its own? Even a pencil can't conceive itself. I don't want to involve in any arguments cos im like, fasting now and would like to save my energy. I usually have much more to say, but i would stop here for now. Cheers and have a blissful day! |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by harakiri(m): 8:47am On Aug 25, 2011 |
@ibro saunks, We don't have the answers and we don't assume answers by creating myths to decieve generations to come. The "look around you" statement is always used by religious people to justify their beliefs and I wonder why. Generally, it's because that's what they've been taught from childhood and nothing else. If you have CONCRETE proof that explains how "everything around us" came to being, please enlighten us. We don't dwell on illusions or sentiments. We dwell on hard unshakable facts. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by IbroSaunks(m): 8:58am On Aug 25, 2011 |
Harakiri, Lovely! I can see that u r quite intelligent, u lay ur points well! But u say its a myth only because ur seeing things from the outside. It is not everything in life that we have scientific proof for, some miracles happen and scientists don't have any proof. Or when u feel happiness, how can u truly proof ur happy. Can you see the air that blows? How do u know its there? You feel it! Some people feel Gods existence too my brother. I'm sure u think this way cos ur lookin from a vague angle. My advice, try learning about my religion, islam. Pick up a quran, and other books. Lastly, there is proof all around us. When I get back to my system ill send u links. Its all around us but many people r myopic. I'm not sayin u r though. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by harakiri(m): 9:00am On Aug 25, 2011 |
@ibro saunks (again), One thing you ought to realise is that most (if not all) Atheists used to be religious at some point in their lives (I used to be an ardent bible studier,prayer warrior and bible class leader myself) so don't assume the people talking don't know anything about religion. Matter of fact, Atheists are well versed in religion than the average religious follower. A lot of us have studied at least ONE religion and come to the conclusion that it's pointless. If anyone feels different, then that's your problem. Atheism is NOT a religion and not seeking to "convert" anyone. We are just people who have no belief in religion (I keep wondering why it's so hard for religious people to grasp that fact). I guess it all boils down to the saying : "People mistrust what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer". Nuff said! |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 9:06am On Aug 25, 2011 |
harakiri:YOU DONT HAVE ANSWERS? YOU NEED UNSHAKABLE FACTS TO PROVE YOUR EXISTENCE?? ELSE YOU WONT BELIEVE YOU EXIST? THIS IS GETTING SERIOUS!!! |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 9:13am On Aug 25, 2011 |
harakiri:NO! It should be: ATHEISTS mistrust what they dont UNDERSTAND & HATE what they cant CONQUER & INSULT PEOPLE who DO! ![]() |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by IbroSaunks(m): 9:15am On Aug 25, 2011 |
Harakiri(again), Ok uv seen christainity, how about my religion? Look at mine, most people don't even go there because its mosty largely misunderstood by the world, ur proofs r coming, look around u and ull see, u cannot conclude on d concept of religion by observing how things r from only one. What I truly think is, and I think this is the thing with atheists, is that u made ur decisions prematurely, mostly the way we do in school when a problem seems too difficult. I cannot emphasize that this is not to insult or relegate u in anyway. But the answer is there, there is no question without an answer. I understand ur view, and I understand it is not a religion, I know that. Lastly, its not about my childhood, I did my own soulsearching too my friend. Cheers. |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 9:17am On Aug 25, 2011 |
I'M GRADUALLY COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ATHEISM & THE WHOLE HOOLA LOOPA SURROUNDING ATHEISM IS ACTUALLY POINTLESS!!! ATHEISM IS LOGICALLY SELF DEFEATING!!! |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by harakiri(m): 9:23am On Aug 25, 2011 |
@ibro saunks, I don't mean to bust your bubble but I've studied a bit of islam (out of curiosity) and it's just a rip off Christianity. Look, every religious sect in the world (including our native form of worship) all have their own myths explaining mysteries (a lot of which has been uncovered by scientists). If the arab slave traders and the berber raiders hadn't invaded the forefathers of your state of origin, you would not know anything about islam. Islam and Christianity crusaders had a similar modus operandi which is : Invade,Conquer,Plunder and take control of their minds by shattering their faith in what they previouslt believed and imposing your own religion on them to "tame" them. Funny enough, it worked else there wouldn't be a religious section on nairaland where Christians are always trying to rub off their delusions on Atheists while the moslems assume they can convert the Atheists to Islam! ROFLMAO! Nuff said! Lol |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by Nobody: 9:24am On Aug 25, 2011 |
sexkillz: LMAO, This is coming from a person who gets his world view from ancient mythology that he was indoctrinated with!!!! There are a lot of mental midgets on this site, but YOU take the cake. The WHOLE cake. ![]() By the way, did you just get your first computer and learn how to manipulate fonts?? You must be in high school or never had any sort of higher learning because all answers to your questions can be found. I also see that you have your own particular ideas about how "god" feels and his future actions which just proves that all you people create god in your own image. That's why god only agrees with the particular things you agree with. About the origin of life, it started in the universe ![]() |
Re: What Is The Origin Of Life? (Atheists) by EvilBrain1(m): 9:24am On Aug 25, 2011 |
IbroSaunks: You are talking as if we don't know anything at all and thats not true. The fact is that there is more evidence supporting evolution than pretty much every other theory. And while the origin of life is still a hotly debated area, we still have plenty of information about what could have happened. There is more than enough evidence already to debunk pretty much all the old creation myths. The difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists are not afraid to admit the gaps in their knowledge. Its only by admitting your flaws that you can ever make progress. On the other hand, creationists and religious people refuse to adapt their beliefs to new information. Instead they try to bend the facts to fit their fixed and unchanging beliefs. Thats why many of them still think the earth is 6000 years old and Adam and Eve were real people despite all we now know about astronomy, geology and genetics. **Edited to fix a formatting fûckup. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (16) (Reply)
When You Are Worried: 7 Ways To Remind Yourself Of God's Faithfulness / Gang Kidnaps 17 American Missionaries In Haiti / 666: Reasons Why You Will Take The Mark Of The Beast!
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 193 |