Aemmyjah:



1. Hold on to your beliefs that everything in the universe came by chaos since that is what makes sense to you.


2. Where did the apes came from?
If they are your ancestors? Why is your intelligence far higher than them
Why don't they speak like you do since they have everything that man has to enable them speak

3. Fact or fiction?

1. This would be the last time I would answer this particular question about universe coming from chaos. I repeat I DON'T KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE CAME ABOUT AND I NEVER SAID IT CAME VIA CHAOS. Next time you ask me again(like you keep on asking about evolution) you would meet silence. I'm not responsible for your poor comprehension skills and would definitely not suffer for it.
If you must table your own creationism story, then do so with verifiable evidence not stories from a book that has been found out to be unreliable.
2. The evolution of apes from unicellulars is hazy, and poorly understood. The difference in intelligence lies in the 1% DNA difference. Different protein coded on different positions gave rise to this difference. Some apes have the intelligence of stone age humans and can actually use tools, recognize themselves etc
3. About evolution of hippos, you can do the research yourself. But its funny that you accept some scientific research and eschew some. Why cherrypick?

Aemmyjah:



1. Hold on to your beliefs that everything in the universe came by chaos since that is what makes sense to you.

Is chaos not part of the universe?
And where did chaos come from?

Aemmyjah:


1. Search internet, you go see am na

2. Where's the history? where's the anatomy? Olodo


3. Facts that you'll later say you don't know

1. Exactly the same ploy you have been using to dodge providing evidence. I won't even bother asking you to provide proof for anything again. I realize christianity (and religion as a whole) is indifferent to fact finding or truth. All it wants is perpetuating ignorance

2. I have dropped evidence of evolution twice in arguments with you, but I'll make it a third time and drop it again. Maybe this time, it'll sink into your skull (and I'll be third time lucky).
Evolution has historical, paleontological, genetic, anatomical etc evidence. I won't go through all the song and dance here. Maybe I'll do a research, compile and open a thread one of these days if I'm chanced. Just tell me yes, and I'll do it.
Embryologically, a human fetus grows a tail in-utero which regresses as it grows ,but sometimes it remains vestigeal at birth. Why do you think so? Did your designer make it on purpose? No. Its just the DNA expressing our ancestral or primitive genes.
These are the links you can read further. Im open to questions
https://www.palomar.edu/anthro/evolve/evolve_3.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

3. Which facts have I said I don't know about?

jaephoenix:


1. Exactly the same ploy you have been using to dodge providing evidence. I won't even bother asking you to provide proof for anything again. I realize christianity (and religion as a whole) is indifferent to fact finding or truth. All it wants is perpetuating ignorance

2. I have dropped evidence of evolution twice in arguments with you, but I'll make it a third time and drop it again. Maybe this time, it'll sink into your skull (and I'll be third time lucky).
Evolution has historical, paleontological, genetic, anatomical etc evidence. I won't go through all the song and dance here. Maybe I'll do a research, compile and open a thread one of these days if I'm chanced. Just tell me yes, and I'll do it.
Embryologically, a human fetus grows a tail in-utero which regresses as it grows ,but sometimes it remains vestigeal at birth. Why do you think so? Did your designer make it on purpose? No. Its just the DNA expressing our ancestral or primitive genes.
These are the links you can read further. Im open to questions
https://www.palomar.edu/anthro/evolve/evolve_3.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

3. Which facts have I said I don't know about?

Try to see the individual as the teaching tool who provokes you to spread knowledge.

For while it may seem you need to tie to a desk the individual you responded to, please know that many others are reading what you write and are learning and evolving.

P.s. The 'poor' below are the learners, and not those others who came for miracles and wonders and spectacles.

Aemmyjah:



You did not drop any evidence

Neither did you. The only difference is, you have the burden of proof, so you're the one mandated to provide evidence given the nature of your argument. Not me. I have only rendered your "evidence" impotent, and now you have no choice but to sit pathetically in the corner and gnash your teeth. Lol

Just stories

Nothing tells more stories than the Holy Babble. Or did you skip the pages including the talking donkeys and snakes? Or the disembodied hand writing on the wall?

Foolishness makes sense to your kind
So rest

Of course, the collective foolishness of Christianity makes so much sense when you investigate its' origins. Did you think that was an insult there? LMAO. Stay pained, child.

Aemmyjah:



Assumptions and stories as usual

You say nobody knows but your assumption is what you teach as fact abd those that give credit to a Designer are not intelligent. Olodo pro max

Lol. You're the one here "teaching assumptions as facts". All I've done is question your assumptions - which you are clearly upset with.

Someone get this poor clown a mirror.

Aemmyjah:



I dropped 4 points
You did not drop anything
Keep blowing hot

Your 4 points were dead on arrival. Sorry I ruined your day.

Dtruthspeaker:


You missed his first evidence which is a fact that outside the bible

"1) The existence of an orderly universe containing life points to a Creator."

Unfortunately for you, this quoted portion is a complete mischaracterization of the logical sequence of OP's original argument. Here, consider this preceding paragraph in the Aemmyjah's opening post:

Does God Exist?
The Bible’s answer
Yes, the Bible provides compelling evidence that God exists. It encourages us to build faith in God, not by blindly believing religious assertions, but by using our “power of reason” and “mental perception.” (Romans 12:1; 1 John 5:​20, footnote) Consider the following lines of reasoning based on the Bible:

It is very obvious from the foregoing passage that when Aemmyjah set out on his quest to establish the existence of his God, he was basing his arguments on the holy texts of his religion - the Bible. He confidently affirms that the Bible has the answer to the question of God's existence, so your claim that he was alluding to "facts outside the Bible" is entirely misleading because it would suggest that the Bible had no bearing on his initial arguments. However, in the context of this discussion, he was clearly using the Bible as a framework for his position.

So narrowing your argument down to biblical evidence distracted you from the argument which is "Existence of God" as you said.

There's no distractions, sorry. I went straight for the jugular of his post. The term "biblical evidence" can only be valid within the subtext of Christianity, not without. If you wish to prove that the Christian God undeniably exists, beyond the echoes within the walls of your church pews, you'll need to present evidence that can be verified (1) independently (2) empirically and (3) objectively. Your Bible doesn't meet any of the aforementioned criteria.

Moving on to the claims of an orderly, designed universe, I've also pointed out it's flaws numerous times already. Since I have enough time to spare, I'll indulge you once more. Aemmyjah is suggesting that the supposed "order" in the universe is proof that his God exists. So basically, he's merely rehashing the Teleological Argument (argument by design). For the sake of viewers who studied Logic in school, I'll attempt to steelman this argument using logical syllogism:

P1> The Universe has order, purpose and regularity.
P2> The presence of the aforementioned values show evidence of design.
P3> Such design implies a designer.
C> Therefore, this designer must be God.

Right from the start, we can already see the problems with P1 and P2. The vacuum of space, as commonly described by astrophysicists is anything but orderly or regular, at least going by the general understanding of those terms. Quasars and black hole collisions don't seem to have any inherent purpose. Baryonic matter which constitutes life, makes up less than 5 percent of all there is, and most of that is stellar clouds of materials. We're left with stars, and then far down the line is the leftovers that allow for planets and things like organisms. A paltry insignificant percentage.

More importantly, the preceding examples presume that we can even recognize design in the first place! The reason we think we can recognize design is because we have witnessed the design of cars, wristwatches, phones and so on. But nobody witnessed the inception of the universe, so assertions about what caused it to be can NOT be made with certainty. There is a difference between the perception of design and intentional design. Aemmyjah's arguments rise to little more than "look at that; it looks designed!". He is either relying on the assumption that something couldn't possibly happen by chance, due to incredibly long odds (which is an argument from incredulity fallacy) or stating there is no known explanation for the order we see other than purposeful design (which is an argument from ignorance fallacy). In light of these facts, P3 is completely invalidated as well.

Furthermore, even if we assumed that P1 through to 3 are indeed all correct, how exactly have you established that your God caused it, and he exists? We still have a non-sequitur; the premises are disconnected from the conclusion. At best, this argument would only serve apologetics for a deist (impersonal) god. Why can't I conclude that your argument proves the existence of Brahma or any other creator deities out there besides YHWH?

Your words sink you.
"Budaatum has amply demonstrated this fact to you".

Meaning, you did not do the demonstration but you relied on budaatum as your authority, hence appeal to budaatum as your authority.

Wrong again. You're only demonstrating one of two things: (1) your incapability to understand simple grammatical syntax in English, or (2) your blatant and shameless dishonesty. Again, you should have included the paragraph preceding the one you quotemined out of context:

Thorrn:
Your argument was already debunked by the very premise you based it on. The Bible is the most flawed basis you can use to justify the actual existence of any god(s). It's like using the Iliad or Odyssey to establish the existence of the pantheon of deities in the Greek mythology. Budaatum has amply demonstrated this fact to you.

As you can see from the quote above, I already made the rebuttal before referencing budaatum's comments to back it up. It is not the same as relying on budaatum as the focal point of my argument. If you still can't tell the difference, then it's probably because you lack the intelligence to do so, and that's no fault of mine.

I am sure you don't know it else you wouldn't have raised it up for clearly you abandoned the argument and started angrily attacking his person saying

"because you are thicker than two short wet planks. Your pastors have done a good job locking up your brain cells and throwing away the keys. You cannot fathom simple facts or even common knowledge outside the confines of your religion.

Plus, you've completely lost your mind if you think any of the sad litters of trash you've posted so far constitute "fact". You wouldn't know FACT if it ran you down ten times with a packed molue along your street. I already suspected you were a blundering dimwit

SMH. It always feels like supervising a kindergarten whenever one has a debate with you religious lot. Here, young child, let's take you back to school again:

Wikipedia: Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

An ad hominem would be using your character as justification for the invalidation of your entire position. I haven't done that here. I have provided direct counters to every single point you've both made in this thread. If you feel otherwise, I'm inviting you now to point out a legitimate argument you have made in this topic that I haven't made a valid counter to.

My rather harsh assessments of both you and Aemmyjah do not stem from outright prejudice. Rather, they stem from the nature of your argumentations. I have encountered you in particular in the past under a different sobriquet, so my statements about your character are valid conclusions I've reached following our past encounters. You've quotemined people, taking their statements out of context, made up bare faced lies and wilfully denied basic knowledge just to advance your cause. As for Aemmyjah, my assessment of his character is only reasonable given what I've parsed from his comments so far. He has shown that he lacks the wits or intelligence to get into a proper debate, and he refuses to acknowledge obvious flaws in his position, even after they've been pointed out time and time again.

I'm not saying You are stupid, therefore X is wrong.

I'm saying X is a stupid thing to do/say because of Y, therefore you're most likely stupid.

I'm not prejudging you, I'm judging you.

And here you are ad homineming me.

For the records, there's no such term as "ad homineming". And just so you know, it's statements just like this that make me question your level of education.

Thanks anyway for showing you atheists can't argue that the only thing you guys do is commit fallacies and insult/attack the person rather than the argument.

Like I said, if it helps you swallow your food with peace of mind, you're welcome to hold any opinion. But, I'm sure the more educated readers will be able to figure out who exactly can't hold his/her own in an intellectual discussion or make a single point without resorting to basic logical fallacies.

Aemmyjah:


1. Oh, someone made the human eye or?

2. All these animals, I know them... Show us the evidence we came from the great ape. Why do you assume nonsense a lot? You sabi tell story o? They should award you a prize in science fiction... Can you explain why the intelligence gulf is sooooooooo huge between you and these apes? Besides, where do apes come from? Since they have all the faculties we also have that make us speak, why don't they speak? Even a parrot can still 'speak' though not intelligent

1. So if we don't understand something, we should fix god inside it, just like the ancient cavemen did? I'm sorry, science doesn't work that way. If it did, we'd still be stuck with the belief rain came from the gods and we'd still be using horses.
The human eye is a complex organ which evolved from sample structures.
2. No, you don't know those animals. If you do, you won't be asking idio@tic questions and making idio@tic posts that I am a science fiction writer.
And I have carefully explained the impact DNA play in human and animal intelligence evolution, but you simply have to ask me the same question again. Im sorry, I can't break down DNA sequencing and its interpretations by evolutionary scientists to you. Its way too tedious and long, and of course, you won't appreciate it. Its either you call me a science fiction writer or another idio@tic name

Aemmyjah:


1. Oh, someone made the human eye or?

Does this someone have eyes?
And did this someone come by "chance"?

Lol, someone

Thorrn:
..It is very obvious from the foregoing passage that when Aemmyjah set out on his quest to establish the existence of his God, he was basing his arguments on the holy texts of his religion - the Bible.

I concede that he appears to have intended basing his argument on the bible but his accompanying extra biblical evidence proves that he did not intend to limit his evidence to the bible alone.

Therefore, he flung it open and thus he can lay on any extra biblical evidence he gave in his post.

Thorrn:

Wrong again. You're only demonstrating one of two things: (1) your incapability to understand simple grammatical syntax in English, or (2) your blatant and shameless dishonesty. Again, you should have included the paragraph preceding the one you quotemined out of context:

I concede!

I missed your demonstration saying
". It's like using the Iliad or Odyssey to establish the existence of the pantheon of deities in the Greek mythology. :

Thorrn:

An ad hominem would be using your character as justification for the invalidation of your entire position. I haven't done that here. I have provided direct counters to every single point you've both made in this thread...

Your argument

"...because you are thicker than two short wet planks. Your pastors have done a good job locking up your brain cells and throwing away the keys. You cannot fathom simple facts or even common knowledge outside the confines of your religion.

Plus, you've completely lost your mind if you think any of the sad litters of trash you've posted so far constitute "fact". You wouldn't know FACT if it ran you down ten times with a packed molue along your street. I already suspected you were a blundering dimwit[/quote]

ad hominem
/ˌad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Nevertheless your definition still captures it.

Wikipedia: Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person

Do these words not attack the character and person of your opponent Aemmyjah?

Thorrn:

..If you feel otherwise, I'm inviting you now to point out a legitimate argument you have made in this topic that I haven't made a valid counter to
I have provided direct counters to every single point you've both made in this thread.

I have not seen your own counter to my position on this thread.

Maynman:

Does this someone have eyes?
And did this someone come by "chance"?

Lol, someone

Can a robot with functioning 'eyes' understand everything about his Maker.
Even in the human world, you can't use what is made to measure or understand the maker but to discern the kind of person he is
The same One made trees means he ha branches and roots shey?

jaephoenix:

1. So if we don't understand something, we should fix god inside it, just like the ancient cavemen did? I'm sorry, science doesn't work that way. If it did, we'd still be stuck with the belief rain came from the gods and we'd still be using horses.
The human eye is a complex organ which evolved from sample structures.
2. No, you don't know those animals. If you do, you won't be asking idio@tic questions and making idio@tic posts that I am a science fiction writer.
And I have carefully explained the impact DNA play in human and animal intelligence evolution, but you simply have to ask me the same question again. Im sorry, I can't break down DNA sequencing and its interpretations by evolutionary scientists to you. Its way too tedious and long, and of course, you won't appreciate it. Its either you call me a science fiction writer or another idio@tic name

1. Science does not even fully understand the formation of rain. It is a product of chance.
Another assumption you call fact is what you say about the human eye. The Great Ape had a simple eye shey? 😂


2. Simple question is this? DNA is a product of an accident. Yes or No?

Aemmyjah:


1. Science does not even fully understand the formation of rain. It is a product of chance.
Another assumption you call fact is what you say about the human eye. The Great Ape had a simple eye shey? 😂


2. Simple question is this? DNA is a product of an accident. Yes or No?

Bro

Thorrn:


Your 4 points were dead on arrival. Sorry I ruined your day.

Some acknowledge it
I did not drop it for anyone's Acknowledgement
Atleast, it is part of my convictions. I can drop 10 points
What of you? You dropped nothing but nonsense that makes sense to your feeble thinking
Who are you to judge me?


Besides, people like you that don't accept the existence of the Creator, it leaves you without reliable guidance and shows your life is meaningless and hopeless and purposeless . If your life is by accident, your existence has no purpose

Aemmyjah:


Can a robot with functioning 'eyes' understand everything about his Maker.

A robot is assembled by different makers.

Thorrn:


Lol. You're the one here "teaching assumptions as facts". All I've done is question your assumptions - which you are clearly upset with.

Someone get this poor clown a mirror.

I did not call anything facts
I asked a question and presented points to give answer to any conclusions
Why not do same


Someone should remind Thorrn that his philosophy leaves him with a meaningless and purposeless life
I am not upset
You attacked me
You judged me
Someone said you did not present points
I highlighted my points and explained them


Lemme ask you, your beliefs as an atheist leaves your life without meaning and purpose? Yes or No

jaephoenix:


1. Exactly the same ploy you have been using to dodge providing evidence. I won't even bother asking you to provide proof for anything again. I realize christianity (and religion as a whole) is indifferent to fact finding or truth. All it wants is perpetuating ignorance

2. I have dropped evidence of evolution twice in arguments with you, but I'll make it a third time and drop it again. Maybe this time, it'll sink into your skull (and I'll be third time lucky).
Evolution has historical, paleontological, genetic, anatomical etc evidence. I won't go through all the song and dance here. Maybe I'll do a research, compile and open a thread one of these days if I'm chanced. Just tell me yes, and I'll do it.
Embryologically, a human fetus grows a tail in-utero which regresses as it grows ,but sometimes it remains vestigeal at birth. Why do you think so? Did your designer make it on purpose? No. Its just the DNA expressing our ancestral or primitive genes.
These are the links you can read further. Im open to questions
https://www.palomar.edu/anthro/evolve/evolve_3.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

3. Which facts have I said I don't know about?

Has evolution undergone fact-finding

Maynman:

Is chaos not part of the universe?
And where did chaos come from?

Chaos produced order, life, organization, complexity, intelligence, consciousness and existence?
Critical minded thinker indeed

jaephoenix:


1. This would be the last time I would answer this particular question about universe coming from chaos. I repeat I DON'T KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE CAME ABOUT AND I NEVER SAID IT CAME VIA CHAOS. Next time you ask me again(like you keep on asking about evolution) you would meet silence. I'm not responsible for your poor comprehension skills and would definitely not suffer for it.
If you must table your own creationism story, then do so with verifiable evidence not stories from a book that has been found out to be unreliable.
2. The evolution of apes from unicellulars is hazy, and poorly understood. The difference in intelligence lies in the 1% DNA difference. Different protein coded on different positions gave rise to this difference. Some apes have the intelligence of stone age humans and can actually use tools, recognize themselves etc
3. About evolution of hippos, you can do the research yourself. But its funny that you accept some scientific research and eschew some. Why cherrypick?

1. Teach same to Maynman as it seems you atheists are not even united in your beliefs

2 Evolution of multicellulars from unicellular? Issok

3. It's just as ridiculous as saying language evolved from grunts of animals. I'm not brainwashed to accept what is not proven fact

jaephoenix:

If there is something science does not understand, it may postulate or theorize about the subject, eventually arriving at a conclusion(or law) . Sometimes it doesn't arrive at a conclusion, like the origin of DNA. Sticking your god into this inconclusive argument or knowledge gap is anti-science. If science does that, then the whole essence of itself is defeated. Science came about to know natural phenomena. And knowing it means studying it. If it can't know it, it gives theories and waits.
Big Bang is one of such theories . Some scientists debate it. Some accept. But if there is unassailable evidence, then they all accept it.
And I never said DNA came by accident. Thank you.
By the way, I suggest you improve your comprehension skills. You are very poor at it. Not trying to diss you or anything. Its to make our debates a bit less tedious for me

But they teach that in schools ?
🤔
Ok na

jaephoenix:

1. Babies are fused from eggs and sperms. No one created them. They are spontaneous processes. Just like mixing oxygen and hydrogen gives rise to water.
2. Childbirth follows the same route. The hormones involved are all in the woman's body and the interplay leads to uterine contractions etc. Sometimes the hormone levels for parturition aren't enough and we have to intervene either by induction or augmentation of labor, assisted delivery via forceps, ventouse, or abdominal delivery. This interventions by we doctors show that the forces of labor aren't divine like you stupidly assume. And no, we don't call childbirth miracles. In fact, my gyne professor back in med school says labor is quite an easy process.
I dont even understand by this gibberish
If you cannot believe that a child born by incubation that all the process is by accident and no one involved, is it the more complex and natural one you will dispute?
I dont believe an in vitro fetus comes by accident. Please show me where I said so.

You're the worst so-called doctor I've interacted with
Are you even sure you're a doctor?
Did I mention forces of labor?
I meant everything from fusion of gametes to childbirth. Who designed those process? You will not answer accident, you will not credit God. You will either say 'I don't know' OR 'I never said it was by accident'

cornelboy:

Bro

You see how foolish this people are
The great ape is what they want to assume had a simple eye and gave us complex eye?
The same great ape gave us higher intelligence

And they say they are wise

Aemmyjah:


Chaos produced order, life, organization, complexity, intelligence, consciousness and existence?
Critical minded thinker indeed

Chaos does not need "order, life, organization, complexity, intelligence, consciousness and existence?"
It came by "chance"?

Maynman:

Chaos does not need "order, life, organization, complexity, intelligence, consciousness and existence?"
It came by "chance"?

Based on the definition, yo keep making a fool of yourself
Why not first educate Jaephoenix
So I'll know I'm engaging two atheists with the same line of thoughts

Till then, I'm done interacting you for the day
I have things to do you know
🤷‍♂️

Aemmyjah:


Based on the definition, yo keep making a fool of yourself

You are a dullard, look at the definition you brought, now answer.
Is chaos not part of the universe?
And where did chaos come from?
Did the MATTER in chaos come by "chance"?

Everyone on here says you lack comprehension and you keep proving it.

Aemmyjah:


Based on the definition, yo keep making a fool of yourself
🤷‍♂️

You didn't see the "primordial matter"?
Look up the definition.
What does genesis 1:2 say?
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu

Watchtower owns you.

Maynman:

You are a dullard, look at the definition you brought, now answer.
Is chaos not part of the universe?
And where did chaos come from?
Did the MATTER in chaos come by "chance"?

Everyone on here says you lack comprehension and you keep proving it.

Teach Jaephoenix and come back to me
If the universe came by chaos (accident) , how's that part of it?
Jaephoenix is an atheist but does not agree
Educate him first cos you're jumping from existence to non existence to chaos
Makes no sense


Keep in mind that you're an evolutionists. Where evolution has failed to explain to you is not what you should throw at me

Convince Jaephoenix

Aemmyjah:


J

You are the dullard here, do you know how many people has taught you, yet you still remain EMPTY.
Even your own definition you brought, you don't understand it.


"You are a dullard, look at the definition you brought, now answer.
Is chaos not part of the universe?
And where did chaos come from?
Did the MATTER in chaos come by "chance"?

Everyone on here says you lack comprehension and you keep proving it."

Maynman:

You didn't see the "primordial matter"?
Look up the definition.
What does genesis 1:2 say?
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu

Watchtower owns you.

Google the meaning of primordial matter na
Meaningless and purposeless existence owns you

Aemmyjah:



Google the meaning of primordial matter na
Meaningless and purposeless existence owns you

I have, if you did you won't be empty.

Slavery to the Jews, watchtower and worthlessness existence owns you

Aemmyjah:



Jaephoenix is an atheist but does not agree

Do you how many theists don't agree Jesus is same with angel Michael as Watchtower taught you?😂