Hello , please I need the evolutionists which are obviously atheistic and vice versa to answer these 30 questions for me . Please , I need no mediocre atheist to argue over these questions . Please answer with facts and dont "answer" a question with a question . Thank You

1.What caused the universe to exist ?

2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?

3.Why do evolutionists deny the existence of a designer ?

4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?

5.Where did the genetic code come from?

6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?

7.How do we account for the origin of over 100 distinct
language families , languages?

8.Why do other planets not support life just like earth?

9. Evolution is a gradual process that takes millions of years , since plants and animals evolved at different rates , how did the under-evolved macro complex organisms survive ?

10. Why is religion termed as "slavery" by the atheists ?

11.How is free will possible in a material universe?

12.How do we account for conscience and consciousness?

13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?

14. Evolution they say takes time , off course millions of years , how did cells reproduce , at what time did the female primates tend to develop reproductive organs that enabled reproduction ? How sure are we that the newly produce cells survived

15.Why are animals not as intelligent as humans since we all came from a common ancestor? why cant they communicate with languages like humans do

16.Why is sex pleasurable or why did nature make sex pleasurable since its main purpose is reproduction?

17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in
the supernatural and how do we know the supernatural does not exist?

19.If the bible is untrue and full of myths , how come it could forsee the future , events and places are same and as old as bible explained ?

20.Why do atheists say miracles are fake , when medical evidence has verified unexplained cure ?

21 Natural selection allows for organisms to develop certain features to enable them survive in their environment , why haven't Eskimos developed thick skin or become very hairy yet over the yeeeaaarrrrssss?

22. Melanin absorbs sunlight , that accounts for our black colour . There are is high amount of sunlight and hot temperatures in certain regions .Why are there dark-skinned Eskimos?

23 Since planes are artificial and aid movement which accounts for man's survival in his environment, should we expect man to grow wings in millions of years to come ?If false , who made you lord of evolution ?

24 Explain how fossils are actually evidences of evolution? Do you know some fossils dont even fit in any family tree?

25.Which came first , the chicken or the egg , male or female , butterfly or flower , gases or star dust?

26 .How did the gravitational pull come about and why is it non-existent in other planets .

27. Why is every account of near death experience involving hell or heaven regarded as hallucination ?

28 Explain how dead matter brought forth life. What came about the dead matter ?

29 Do atheists believe man has the soul , spirit and body in one ? If false , state with facts that deny such

30. Do you know that earth was not created but restored in Genesis chap1 : 2 -30 but in the very beginning 1:1 and Adam was never the first man on earth? There is a great gap between vs 1 and vs 2 in Gen 1

"men and nations" , animals existed before Adam but were destroyed in the first flood ,Lucifer's flood

"... and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters " ... what waters ? from the first flood !

Proof : Isa 14 :12-14 , 2 Peter 3: 5-7 , Jeremiah 4 : 23-26 , Ezekiel 28 : 11-17 , Job 38 : 4-30

βξγδσγ βφσηξκπθρ ψσφητφνκ hope u are satisfied

oga o,u guys don turn atheists to scientist.morover,dey dnt claim to av ansers to everytin,..na ur God b mr no all.

iamodenigbo1:
βξγδσγ βφσηξκπθρ ψσφητφνκ hope u are satisfied

lol ... am still waiting for answers ...

Maquiptarepzy:
oga o,u guys don turn atheists to scientist.morover,dey dnt claim to av ansers to everytin,..na ur God b mr no all.

lol ... they pose as intelligent species , ridiculing religion. ..

most of them claim evolution brought about the development of the simplest form of life denying the fact that the simplest form of life is indeed complex

still waiting for answers

Tags : davien , logicboy , nobody , seun

Today is Christmas and i have been resting all day, so i have some time to play around. We are living on the information age so most of these questions you asked can be answered from the internet. As they say Google is your friend.

It will be impossible for anyone to answer all your questions comprehensively. Each question is a discipline on its own that requires volumes to explain adequately. I will just give a brief summery of my own personal views.

So here goes;

KingEbukasBlog:
Hello , please I need the evolutionists which are obviously atheistic and vice versa to answer these 30 questions for me . Please , I need no mediocre atheist to argue over these questions . Please answer with facts and dont "answer" a question with a question . Thank You

This is the classic misunderstanding of theists concerning evolution and atheism. Not all atheists believe in evolution. In fact i guess that there are more atheists that do not accept or understand evolution than those that do. Even the father of Evolution - Charles Darwin cannot be said to be an atheist. My role atheist model - Tai Solarin does not even know the meaning of the word evolution. There had been hundreds if not thousands of atheist ever before the theory of Evolution was propagated. There were atheists in ancient greece, even the bible made mention of people who say there is no God.

1.What caused the universe to exist ?

If you are talking about the material universe, i would tell you that NO BODY KNOWS. Lots of ancient stone age men made different speculations according to the knowledge of their time. Some speculated it was created from an egg, some speculated that a very powerful man created their universe by just saying some magic word, others still speculated that the universe was birthed from a woman.

Modern man using current knowledge speculate that the universe might have started from an infinitely small and dense energy which exploded (began to expand), some 12 billion years ago.

So everybody speculates according to the understanding and knowledge of the time.

2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?

I do not understand what you mean by fine tuning, but if you are talking about the fundamental constants of physics, i would say that the universe had been evolving for 12 billion years, so you would expect it to fine tune its basic properties, else it won't still be here.

3.Why do evolutionists deny the existence of a designer ?

Please refer to the explanation above. Not all atheist are evolutionists. Some atheists deny the existence of a designer because to them no proof had ever been provided by the creationists to support the existence of such designer. The is not one shread of evidence to show what the designer looks like, if it is male, female or a cow, and how it goes about creating.

Have to pause here. Have to attend to visitors.

wirinet:
Today is Christmas and i have been resting all day, so i have some time to play around. We are living on the information age so most of these questions you asked can be answered from the internet. As they say Google is your friend.

It will be impossible for anyone to answer all your questions comprehensively. Each question is a discipline on its own that requires volumes to explain adequately. I will just give a brief summery of my own personal views.

So here goes;

This is the classic misunderstanding of theists concerning evolution and atheism. Not all atheists believe in evolution. In fact i guess that there are more atheists that do not accept or understand evolution than those that do. Even the father of Evolution - Charles Darwin cannot be said to be an atheist. My role atheist model - Tai Solarin does not even know the meaning of the word evolution. There had been hundreds if not thousands of atheist ever before the theory of Evolution was propagated. There were atheists in ancient greece, even the bible made mention of people who say there is no God.

If you are talking about the material universe, i would tell you that NO BODY KNOWS. Lots of ancient stone age men made different speculations according to the knowledge of their time. Some speculated it was created from an egg, some speculated that a very powerful man created their universe by just saying some magic word, others still speculated that the universe was birthed from a woman.

Modern man using current knowledge speculate that the universe might have started from an infinitely small and dense energy which exploded (began to expand), some 12 billion years ago.

So everybody speculates according to the understanding and knowledge of the time.


I do not understand what you mean by fine tuning, but if you are talking about the fundamental constants of physics, i would say that the universe had been evolving for 12 billion years, so you would expect it to fine tune its basic properties, else it won't still be here.

Please refer to the explanation above. Not all atheist are evolutionists. Some atheists deny the existence of a designer because to them no proof had ever been provided by the creationists to support the existence of such designer. The is not one shread of evidence what the designer looks like, if it is male, female or a cow, and it goes about creating.

Have to pause here. Have to attend to visitors.

1.lol ... dense form of energy , gases , gravitational force was involved , star dust , etc ... meaning evolutionists have different stories for the big bang. Maybe this one is yours .Hmmm. By the way theres no big bang since black holes that were thought to have aided dont actually exist . One of my post of old contains it and the link

2.I hope you know if these constants were different , the earth would have been different in some way , unstable . Why is it perfectly constant ? By chance is definitely a ridiculous answer

3.Thank you for mentioning the bible , because JESUS SAID IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN ME , AT LEAST NA BELIEVE THE WORKS THAT I DO ... no be am ? He knows quite alright that people would question HIS existence , so he said , believe in the works I do . What works ? Miracles , divine healing , divine intervention in human affairs etc . You , me , how too complex brains are , the beauty of the earth etc ...

still waiting bro ...

I am back.

4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?

It will be impossible to explain details to a non science minded person, but here is a brief summery of what scientists think.
The young earth's atmosphere was saturated with basic gases like CO2, NH3, N2 CH4 H2O etc. High energy electrical storms acting on these gases made the simple gasses to combine into more complex compounds - Amino acids, the amino acids combined further through a process called polymerization to form Nucleic acids and proteins. All these fell to the ground to form an organic ocean or organic soup. Further polymerization of this of this organic soup led to the first RNA and DNA molecules. And since these molecules are self replicating, the process of life began. Please consult google to get details.

5.Where did the genetic code come from?

I honestly do not understand the above question. What genetic code?

6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?

Sorry, i cant help here, you will need to consult a molecular biologist.

7.How do we account for the origin of over 100 distinct
language families , languages?

Because different isolated human groups evolve different modes of communication - both visually and auditory. It applies to all complex animals.

8.Why do other planets not support life just like earth?

Because the other planets are too cold or too hot to support conditions for life, which includes availabilty of liquid water, essential gasses and enough protection from harmful high energy radiation from the sun.

9. Evolution is a gradual process that takes millions of years , since plants and animals evolved at different rates , how did the under-evolved macro complex organisms survive ?

There is nothing like under evolved macro complex orgaism. If an organism cannot evolve to adapt to its surroundings, it dies out and goes extints. That is why over 90% of all species that have ever existed on earth have gone extinct.

Will take another break!

KingEbukasBlog:


1.lol ... dense form of energy ,[s] gases , gravitational force was involved , star dust , etc[/s] ... meaning evolutionists have different stories for the big bang. Maybe this one is yours .Hmmm. By the way theres no big bang since black holes that were thought to have aided dont actually exist . One of my post of old contains it and the link

2.I hope you know if these constants were different , the earth would have been different in some way , unstable . Why is it perfectly constant ? By chance is definitely a ridiculous answer

3.Thank you for mentioning the bible , because JESUS SAID IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN ME , AT LEAST NA BELIEVE THE WORKS THAT I DO ... no be am ? He knows quite alright that people would question HIS existence , so he said , believe in the works I do . What works ? Miracles , divine healing , divine intervention in human affairs etc . You , me , how too complex brains are , the beauty of the earth etc ...

still waiting bro ...

There was nothing like gases, gravitation force, star dust, etc before the big bang, they were consequences of the big bang. All there was was energy.

And how many times do I have to drum it into your ears - Only a few Atheist understands and accept the Big Bang and even science in General. Atheism has nothing to do with science. It seems i am talking to a radio, who only talks but not listen.

Black holes dont exist . That is the first time i am hearing that. Do you even have an idea of what a black hole is? I might just stop wasting my energy trying to educate you. I though you are actually trying to learn some science, but you want to turn this into Jesus vs Science fighting match, then i must pass.

wirinet:
I am back.

It will be impossible to explain details to a non science minded person, but here is a brief summery of what scientists think.
The young earth's atmosphere was saturated with basic gases like CO2, NH3, N2 CH4 H2O etc. High energy electrical storms acting on these gases made the simple gasses to combine into more complex compounds - Amino acids, the amino acids combined further through a process called polymerization to form Nucleic acids and proteins. All these fell to the ground to form an organic ocean or organic soup. Further polymerization of this of this organic soup led to the first RNA and DNA molecules. And since these molecules are self replicating, the process of life began. Please consult google to get details.

I honestly do not understand the above question. What genetic code?

Sorry, i cant help here, you will need to consult a molecular biologist.

Because different isolated human groups evolve different modes of communication - both visually and auditory. It applies to all complex animals.

Because the other planets are too cold or too hot to support conditions for life, which includes availabilty of liquid water, essential gasses and enough protection from harmful high energy radiation from the sun.

There is nothing like under evolved macro complex orgaism. If an organism cannot evolve to adapt to its surroundings, it dies out and goes extints. That is wy over 90% of all species that have ever existed on earth has gone extinct.

Will take another break!

4. DNA's are too complex and you know too big to just begin or originate just like that . It contains your biological information from previous ancestors for crying out loud bro .

"Complex answer. Amino acids form from the "soup" of a world that can support life..... they form from a combination of the right chemicals, at the right temperature and are by themselves, the building blocks of complex proteins (what we are made of). "

You know bro perhaps you might read up on the Miller-
Urey experiments. There are two kinds of amino acids - right hand, and left hand. Right hand amino acids are conducive to and support life. Left hand amino acids
are detrimental to life, and will not create or sustain it. Every amino acid in the human body is a right hand amino acid. If there were even one left hand amino acid
in the body, life could not have come about. In Miller's experiment, he supplied an electrical charge to a chemical compound the same way evolutionists claim it happened in the beginning when there was supposedly this "soup" you mentioned

The result was a chemical compound that did indeed produce amino acids - a mixture of right and left handed
amino acids from which it was impossible for life to form because of the left hand amino acids. Miller was never able to produce life, and his experiments proved it impossible to get life from non-living chemical compounds.

Continue bro

wirinet:

There was nothing like gases, gravitation force, star dust, etc before the big bang, they were consequences of the big bang. All there was was energy.

And how many times do I have to drum it into your ears - Only a few Atheist understands and accept the Big Bang and even science in General. Atheism has nothing to do with science. It seems i am talking to a radio, who only talks but not listen.

Black holes dont exist . That is the first time i am hearing that. Do you even have an idea of what a black hole is? I might just stop wasting my energy trying to educate you. I though you are actually trying to learn some science, but you want to turn this into Jesus vs Science fighting match, then i must pass.

chill bro

Read full report from UK Dailymail [ http://
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/
Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-
claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html ]
When a huge star many times the mass of the sun
comes to the end of its life it collapses in on itself and
forms a singularity - creating a black hole where
gravity is so strong that not even light itself can
escape.
At least, that’s what we thought.A scientist has
sensationally said that it is impossible for black holes
to exist - and she even has mathematical proof to back
up her claims.If true, her research could force
physicists to scrap their theories of how the universe
began.
The research was conducted by Professor Laura
Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Scientists.
Before the black hole can form, she said, the dying star
swells and explodes.The singularity as predicted never
forms, and neither does the event horizon - the
boundary of the black hole where not even light can
escape.Professor Mersini-Houghton said :
"I’m still not over the shock .We’ve been studying this
problem for a more than 50 years and this solution
gives us a lot to think about."
Experimental evidence may one day provide physical
proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the
universe. She claims that as a star dies, it releases a
type of radiation known as Hawking radiation -
predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.However in
this process, Professor Mersini-Houghton believes the
star also sheds mass, so much so that it no longer has
the density to become a black hole.
But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics
are conclusive. What’s more, the research could
apparently even call into question the veracity of the
Big Bang theory. Most physicists think the universe
originated from a singularity that began expanding with
the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.
If it is impossible for singularities to exist, however, as
partially predicted by Professor Mersini-Houghton, then
that theory would also be brought into question.
One of the reasons black holes are so bizarre is that
they pit two fundamental theories of the universe
against each other.
Namely, Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the
formation of black holes. But a fundamental law of
quantum theory states that no information from the
universe can ever disappear.
Efforts to combine these two theories proved
problematic, and has become known as the black hole
information paradox - how can matter permanently
disappear in a black hole as predicted?
Professor Mersini-Houghton’s new theory does manage
to mathematically combine the two fundamental
theories, but with unwanted effects for people expecting
black holes to exist.
‘Physicists have been trying to merge these two
theories - Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum
mechanics - for decades, but this scenario brings these
two theories together, into harmony,’ said Professor
Mersini-Houghton.
‘And that’s a big deal.’

KingEbukasBlog:


chill bro

Read full report from UK Dailymail [ http://
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/
Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-
claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html ]
When a huge star many times the mass of the sun
comes to the end of its life it collapses in on itself and
forms a singularity - creating a black hole where
gravity is so strong that not even light itself can
escape.
At least, that’s what we thought.A scientist has
sensationally said that it is impossible for black holes
to exist - and she even has mathematical proof to back
up her claims.If true, her research could force
physicists to scrap their theories of how the universe
began.
The[b] research [/b] was conducted by Professor Laura
Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Scientists.
Before the black hole can form, she said, the dying star
swells and explodes.The singularity as predicted never
forms, and neither does the event horizon - the
boundary of the black hole where not even light can
escape.Professor Mersini-Houghton said :
"I’m still not over the shock .We’ve been studying this
problem for a more than 50 years and this solution
gives us a lot to think about."
[b] Experimental evidence may one day provide physical
proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the
universe. [/b]She claims that as a star dies, it releases a
type of radiation known as Hawking radiation -
predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.However in
this process, Professor Mersini-Houghton believes the
star also sheds mass, so much so that it no longer has
the density to become a black hole.
But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics
are conclusive. What’s more, the research could
apparently even call into question the veracity of the
Big Bang theory. Most physicists think the universe
originated from a singularity that began expanding with
the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.
If it is impossible for singularities to exist, however, as
partially predicted by Professor Mersini-Houghton, then
that theory would also be brought into question.
One of the reasons black holes are so bizarre is that
they pit two fundamental theories of the universe
against each other.
Namely, Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the
formation of black holes. But a fundamental law of
quantum theory states that no information from the
universe can ever disappear.
Efforts to combine these two theories proved
problematic, and has become known as the black hole
information paradox - how can matter permanently
disappear in a black hole as predicted?
Professor Mersini-Houghton’s new theory does manage
to mathematically combine the two fundamental
theories, but with unwanted effects for people expecting
black holes to exist.
‘Physicists have been trying to merge these two
theories - Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum
mechanics - for decades, but this scenario brings these
two theories together, into harmony,’ said Professor
Mersini-Houghton.
‘And that’s a big deal.’

That is the beauty of science, no dogma. Anyone with enough evidence can challenge established theories, but they remain in the realm of speculation (not even hypothesis) until the desenting scientist can provide adequate data.

Not lets look the claims of this professor logically;
The theory of black holes had been in existence for decades, it existence was even speculated mathematically before any physical evidence. Many physicists have collected Nobel prices due to their work on Black Holes. Black holes form the basis of theoretical physics. So anyone that can proof the non existence of black holes would be the most popular scientist since Einstein.

The paper aptly said sensationally, so the paper was just being sensational. Where is the publication containing the Mathematical proof? At least before a claim can be made it must be reviewed by peers to test the validity of the claims. Furthermore the result of her research that can proof black holes do not exist would excite physicists.

Why is the prof still saying experimental evidence may one day provide physical
proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the
universe, i though she said she had already done research which proves that black holes do not exist.

Now this is a confusing statement

She claims that as a star dies, it releases a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation - predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.However in this process, Professor Mersini-Houghton believes the star also sheds mass, so much so that it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

The above statement shows she does not disagree with the process neccessary for the formation of a black hole, she is only stating that the process cannot be met because a collapsing star would shed so much mass that its remaining mass would not be able to colapse into a black hole. So she is acknowledging the possibility of a black hole. Meanwhile, there are over 100 billion galaxies out there each containing 100 billion stars each, so how is she sure that at least one would not retain enough mass on collapsing to become a black hole.

Finally, the physical evidence of black holes is overwelming, thousands of telescopes have shown huge masses of gases being sucked up by black holes. How did your prof explain away the physical evidence.

I hope the Prof is not some Jehova Witness scientist.

Just google photographic evidence of Black holes to further educate yourself.

Not all atheists are scientists
Not all scientists are atheists

wirinet:


That is the beauty of science, no dogma. Anyone with enough evidence can challenge established theories, but they remain in the realm of speculation (not even hypothesis) until the desenting scientist can provide adequate data.

Not lets look the claims of this professor logically;
The theory of black holes had been in existence for decades, it existence was even speculated mathematically before any physical evidence. Many physicists have collected Nobel prices due to their work on Black Holes. Black holes form the basis of theoretical physics. So anyone that can proof the non existence of black holes would be the most popular scientist since Einstein.

The paper aptly said sensationally, so the paper was just being sensational. Where is the publication containing the Mathematical proof? At least before a claim can be made it must be reviewed by peers to test the validity of the claims. Furthermore the result of her research that can proof black holes do not exist would excite physicists.

Why is the prof still saying experimental evidence may one day provide physical
proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the
universe, i though she said she had already done research which proves that black holes do not exist.

Now this is a confusing statement

The above statement shows she does not disagree with the process neccessary for the formation of a black hole, she is only stating that the process cannot be met because a collapsing star would shed so much mass that its remaining mass would not be able to colapse into a black hole. So she is acknowledging the possibility of a black hole. Meanwhile, there are over 100 billion galaxies out there each containing 100 billion stars each, so how is she sure that at least one would not retain enough mass on collapsing to become a black hole.

Finally, the physical evidence of black holes is overwelming, thousands of telescopes have shown huge masses of gases being sucked up by black holes. How did your prof explain away the physical evidence.

I hope the Prof is not some Jehova Witness scientist.

Just google photographic evidence of Black holes to further educate yourself.

All I see are artistic representations/illustrations ... these remain theories ... also google black holes dont exist ... 2014 articles please

So have I debunked your amino acids life thingy claim? Read above incase you missed it ...You can pls continue bro

KingEbukasBlog:
Hello , please I need the evolutionists which are obviously atheistic and vice versa to answer these 30 questions for me . Please , I need no mediocre atheist to argue over these questions . Please answer with facts and dont "answer" a question with a question . Thank You

1.What caused the universe to exist ?

2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?

3.Why do evolutionists deny the existence of a designer ?

4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?

5.Where did the genetic code come from?

6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?

7.How do we account for the origin of over 100 distinct
language families , languages?

8.Why do other planets not support life just like earth?

9. Evolution is a gradual process that takes millions of years , since plants and animals evolved at different rates , how did the under-evolved macro complex organisms survive ?

10. Why is religion termed as "slavery" by the atheists ?

11.How is free will possible in a material universe?

12.How do we account for conscience and consciousness?

13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?

14. Evolution they say takes time , off course millions of years , how did cells reproduce , at what time did the female primates tend to develop reproductive organs that enabled reproduction ? How sure are we that the newly produce cells survived

15.Why are animals not as intelligent as humans since we all came from a common ancestor? why cant they communicate with languages like humans do

16.Why is sex pleasurable or why did nature make sex pleasurable since its main purpose is reproduction?

17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in
the supernatural and how do we know the supernatural does not exist?

19.If the bible is untrue and full of myths , how come it could forsee the future , events and places are same and as old as bible explained ?

20.Why do atheists say miracles are fake , when medical evidence has verified unexplained cure ?

21 Natural selection allows for organisms to develop certain features to enable them survive in their environment , why haven't Eskimos developed thick skin or become very hairy yet over the yeeeaaarrrrssss?

22. Melanin absorbs sunlight , that accounts for our black colour . There are is high amount of sunlight and hot temperatures in certain regions .Why are there dark-skinned Eskimos?

23 Since planes are artificial and aid movement which accounts for man's survival in his environment, should we expect man to grow wings in millions of years to come ?If false , who made you lord of evolution ?

24 Explain how fossils are actually evidences of evolution? Do you know some fossils dont even fit in any family tree?

25.Which came first , the chicken or the egg , male or female , butterfly or flower , gases or star dust?

26 .How did the gravitational pull come about and why is it non-existent in other planets .

27. Why is every account of near death experience involving hell or heaven regarded as hallucination ?

28 Explain how dead matter brought forth life. What came about the dead matter ?

29 Do atheists believe man has the soul , spirit and body in one ? If false , state with facts that deny such

30. Do you know that earth was not created but restored in Genesis chap1 : 2 -30 but in the very beginning 1:1 and Adam was never the first man on earth? There is a great gap between vs 1 and vs 2 in Gen 1

"men and nations" , animals existed before Adam but were destroyed in the first flood ,Lucifer's flood

"... and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters " ... what waters ? from the first flood !

Proof : Isa 14 :12-14 , 2 Peter 3: 5-7 , Jeremiah 4 : 23-26 , Ezekiel 28 : 11-17 , Job 38 : 4-30

Op, ever heard of "Gish gallop"? It's a form of shotgun argument where you inundate your opposite with too many questions than you care to have answers for, in the process paralysing them because in the end, your position is not coherent enough to be addressed cogently.

If you really want to have a serious discussion, please choose a relevant subject that we can focus on, and then we'll move to the next one after we're done. It's neither reasonable nor worth the effort trying to address 30 different questions, some of which can be collapsed into one. Please organise yourself better, thanks.

KingEbukasBlog:


All I see are artistic representations/illustrations ... these remain theories ... also google black holes dont exist ... 2014 articles please

So have I debunked your amino acids life thingy claim? Read above incase you missed it ...You can pls continue bro

This is my problem with you theists, especially the christian variety. To argue subjects you know absolutely nothing about. You look for one crack pot amongs thousands of reputable scientists and then use that to dispute well established and verifiable observations and theories.

Where did you see artistic representations in the photos you look at let me try and provide some links myself;
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/photos/10-incredible-images-of-black-holes/universal-mystery

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/photos/black-holes-gallery/#/black-hole-wind_840_600x450.jpg
If an illustration is an artist's impression, it will be appropriately label, and if it is photo, credit will be given to the photographer.

I did google black holes dont exist and all links are from news papers quoting the same source word for word from your professor. If you are a bit honest you will read the comments of other professionals who quickly dismissed her methods and crazy mathematical theory.

When you are disputing something as glaring and evidential as black holes, how can we even to discus amino acids to life thingy, that is still mainly speculations and experimental. It will be a waste of both our times.

wirinet:


This is my problem with you theists, especially the christian variety. To argue subjects you know absolutely nothing about. You look for one crack pot amongs thousands of reputable scientists and then use that to dispute well established and verifiable observations and theories.

Where did you see artistic representations in the photos you look at let me try and provide some links myself;
<a href="http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/photos/10-incredible-images-of-black-holes/universal-mystery" >Real Photos of Black Holes</a>
<a href="http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/photos/black-holes-gallery/#/black-hole-wind_840_600x450.jpg">Another article containing photos of Black Holes</a>
If an illustration is an artist's impression, it will be appropriately label, and if it is photo, credit will be given to the photographer.

I did google black holes dont exist and all links are from news papers quoting the same source word for word from your professor. If you are a bit honest will read the comments of other professionals who quickly dismissed ther methods and crazy mathematical theory.

When you are disputing something as glaring and evidential as black holes, how can we even to discus amino acids to life thingy, that is still mainly speculations and experimental. It will be a waste of both our times.

.

Lol Ok then please continue ...

One problem with these religious guys is that they are quick to question the origin of the universe. They find it hard to believe that the universe was not created. They believe everything must have a creator and a designer but they they failed to explain the origin of the creator.
If find the op can explain the origin of God I will take time to answer all your questions

Blakjewelry:
One problem with these religious guys is that they are quick to question the origin of the universe. They find it hard to believe that the universe was not created. They believe everything must have a creator and a designer but they they failed to explain the origin of the creator.
If find the op can explain the origin of God I will take time to answer all your questions

I asked the questions ,its my thread ...I needed answers not questions ... But I promise if you can answer all the questions to my satisfaction then i'l ansa yours and hey by the way there are close to 5.5billion religious people on earth ...maybe incase

Blakjewelry:
One problem with these religious guys is that they are quick to question the origin of the universe. They find it hard to believe that the universe was not created. They believe everything must have a creator and a designer but they they failed to explain the origin of the creator.
If find the op can explain the origin of God I will take time to answer all your questions

.
Your fossils according to you are evidences of evolution . Even though you didn't witness the big bang , you provide theories and stories to show the gradual development of life . You state "facts" and equations that "approve" of your theory because your belief or having basis of the big bang is simply because you couldn't accept the fact of a superior being or a creator .you find it illogical
.
Honestly,the real people that practice dark arts and Mysticism would find your theories and facts ridiculous because they know the real deal . Just like the way you tell a cripple who started walking that is fake . Its ridiculous ! Its been happening for years .

Your fossils are real off course but dont associate them with evolution , thats the simple problem. They are pre-adamic creatures , its in the bible.Animals,"men" and even vegetation existed before Adam

KingEbukasBlog:



I asked the questions ,its my thread ...I needed answers not questions ... But I promise if you can answer all the questions to my satisfaction then i'l ansa yours and hey by the way there are close to 5.5billion religious people on earth ...maybe incase

Broda I know your tactics, there is no answer anyone is going to give that will satisfy you. My mentor use to say never argue with anyone even if you can win the argument, because in the end you will win the arguments at the same time just made an enemy. But the part were you say you will answer my question, mehn you are Christian check your heart very well and see if you ain't lying

KingEbukasBlog:

.
Your fossils according to you are evidences of evolution . Even though you didn't witness the big bang , you provide theories and stories to show the gradual development of life . You state "facts" and equations that "approve" of your theory because your belief or having basis of the big bang is simply because you couldn't accept the fact of a superior being or a creator .you find it illogical
.
Honestly,the real people that practice dark arts and Mysticism would find your theories and facts ridiculous because they know the real deal . Just like the way you tell a cripple who started walking that is fake . Its ridiculous ! Its been happening for years .

Your fossils are real off course but dont associate them with evolution , thats the simple problem. They are pre-adamic creatures , its in the bible.Animals,"men" and even vegetation existed before Adam

They are pre-adamic
creatures , its in the bible.Animals,"men" and
even vegetation existed before Adam

Bros according to the Bible you shall not add or remove from the Bible. But your last words betrays that. Were did the Bible talk about pre-adamic animals or you mean the dinosaurs came to be in just some few days and die off in like 3 days? I will tell you the truth, the creation story is a modified version of older belief myth that predate the moses era. Go read up ancient Mesopotamia creation story up to the flood or better still read ancient Egyptian creation stories the major difference is while the ancient believe in many gods, the writer of Genesis tries to create a single deity but it still run into the problem of who create the creator

Well, just one question for you.Where did God come from at the very beginning of time ?

Blakjewelry:

Broda I know your tactics, there is no answer anyone is going to give that will satisfy you. My mentor use to say never argue with anyone even if you can win the argument, because in the end you will win the arguments at the same time just made an enemy. But the part were you say you will answer my question, mehn you are Christian check your heart very well and see if you ain't lying

My brother, i have since realized that the OP is not interested in getting opinions of people who accept science and evolution, he is only interested in mocking science, but have understanding whatsover of what he is arguing about. Arguing with him is a waste of bandwidth.

Imagine him arguing fervently that black holes do not exist. Does he even know the implications of that statement? It means Einstein's law of General relativity is wrong. A law that have been validated again and again.
If black holes do not exist (assuming we ignore all the physical evidence), what happens when a huge mass collapes unto itself? What happens to space-time around massive objects?

Although there are many mysteries out there in the cosmos, these mysteries cannot be used to validate any one God. Doing that is known as "God of the Gaps" Any gap in any field of knowledge is quickly filled with their God.

Maquiptarepzy:
oga o,u guys don turn atheists to scientist.morover,dey dnt claim to av ansers to everytin,..na ur God b mr no all.

Mr. Know_it_all indeed.

wirinet:
Today is Christmas and i have been resting all day, so i have some time to play around. We are living on the information age so most of these questions you asked can be answered from the internet. As they say Google is your friend.

It will be impossible for anyone to answer all your questions comprehensively. Each question is a discipline on its own that requires volumes to explain adequately. I will just give a brief summery of my own personal views.

So here goes;

This is the classic misunderstanding of theists concerning evolution and atheism. Not all atheists believe in evolution. In fact i guess that there are more atheists that do not accept or understand evolution than those that do. Even the father of Evolution - Charles Darwin cannot be said to be an atheist. My role atheist model - Tai Solarin does not even know the meaning of the word evolution. There had been hundreds if not thousands of atheist ever before the theory of Evolution was propagated. There were atheists in ancient greece, even the bible made mention of people who say there is no God.

If you are talking about the material universe, i would tell you that NO BODY KNOWS. Lots of ancient stone age men made different speculations according to the knowledge of their time. Some speculated it was created from an egg, some speculated that a very powerful man created their universe by just saying some magic word, others still speculated that the universe was birthed from a woman.

Modern man using current knowledge speculate that the universe might have started from an infinitely small and dense energy which exploded (began to expand), some 12 billion years ago.

So everybody speculates according to the understanding and knowledge of the time.


I do not understand what you mean by fine tuning, but if you are talking about the fundamental constants of physics, i would say that the universe had been evolving for 12 billion years, so you would expect it to fine tune its basic properties, else it won't still be here.

Please refer to the explanation above. Not all atheist are evolutionists. Some atheists deny the existence of a designer because to them no proof had ever been provided by the creationists to support the existence of such designer. The is not one shread of evidence to show what the designer looks like, if it is male, female or a cow, and how it goes about creating.

Have to pause here. Have to attend to visitors.

..it's either you're an evolutionist or a creationist...going by what you typed there,it shows that you're not an evolutionist which automatically portrays you as a creationist..NB:if you're a creationist,then you believe in a supreme being,a creative mind.

lets see how u atheists contradict yourselves by claiming not to be evolutionists

wirinet:

There was nothing like gases, gravitation force, star dust, etc before the big bang, they were consequences of the big bang. All there was was energy.

And how many times do I have to drum it into your ears - Only a few Atheist understands and accept the Big Bang and even science in General. Atheism has nothing to do with science. It seems i am talking to a radio, who only talks but not listen.

Black holes dont exist . That is the first time i am hearing that. Do you even have an idea of what a black hole is? I might just stop wasting my energy trying to educate you. I though you are actually trying to learn some science, but you want to turn this into Jesus vs Science fighting match, then i must pass.

curiously wondering,what's the source of that energy dat existed before d big bang occurred?,how did the energy come about?....why didn't d universe remain like that?..why did the energy cause d universe to explode(expand) to support life nd everything?...why did the big bang start at d time it started,i mean why not earlier or later?
patiently waiting to learn frm u sire

larrymoore:
Not all atheists are scientists
Not all scientists are atheists

agreed but All theists claim to be very intelligent!

Toyolad:
..it's either you're an evolutionist or a creationist...going by what you typed there,it shows that you're not an evolutionist which automatically portrays you as a creationist..NB:if you're a creationist,then you believe in a supreme being,a creative mind.

lets see how u atheists contradict yourselves by claiming not to be evolutionists

Not being an evolutionist does not qualify you into a creationist. There are various mix of the two and some people choose non of the above. they do not care to know how and why the universe exist, they only know that they exist, and that is enough for them.

cosmological argument can be divided into four main typrs;
1. Creationism
2. Intelligent Design
3. Theistic Evolution
4. Atheistic Evolution
5. Those that do not care.

So please quit thinking of evolutionists and creationists as a black and white issue. There are various shades in between.

I am an Evolutionist to the core. I believe everything evolves (changes), nothing can remain the same till eternity.

wirinet:


Not being an evolutionist does not qualify you into a creationist. There are various mix of the two and some people choose non of the above. they do not care to know how and why the universe exist, they only know that they exist, and that is enough for them.

cosmological argument can be divided into four main typrs;
1. Creationism
2. Intelligent Design
3. Theistic Evolution
4. Atheistic Evolution
5. Those that do not care.

So please quit thinking of evolutionists and creationists as a black and white issue. There are various shades in between.

I am an Evolutionist to the core. I believe everything evolves (changes), nothing can remain the same till eternity.

Your friend wishes to win an argument by creating false dichotomies and then arguing against his/her contrivances. You're too kind to indulge their absurdities.

KingEbukasBlog:
Hello , please I need the evolutionists which are obviously atheistic and vice versa to answer these 30 questions for me . Please , I need no mediocre atheist to argue over these questions . Please answer with facts and dont "answer" a question with a question . Thank You

1.What caused the universe to exist ?

2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?

3.Why do evolutionists deny the existence of a designer ?

4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?

5.Where did the genetic code come from?

6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?

7.How do we account for the origin of over 100 distinct
language families , languages?

8.Why do other planets not support life just like earth?

9. Evolution is a gradual process that takes millions of years , since plants and animals evolved at different rates , how did the under-evolved macro complex organisms survive ?

10. Why is religion termed as "slavery" by the atheists ?

11.How is free will possible in a material universe?

12.How do we account for conscience and consciousness?

13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?

14. Evolution they say takes time , off course millions of years , how did cells reproduce , at what time did the female primates tend to develop reproductive organs that enabled reproduction ? How sure are we that the newly produce cells survived

15.Why are animals not as intelligent as humans since we all came from a common ancestor? why cant they communicate with languages like humans do

16.Why is sex pleasurable or why did nature make sex pleasurable since its main purpose is reproduction?

17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in
the supernatural and how do we know the supernatural does not exist?

19.If the bible is untrue and full of myths , how come it could forsee the future , events and places are same and as old as bible explained ?

20.Why do atheists say miracles are fake , when medical evidence has verified unexplained cure ?

21 Natural selection allows for organisms to develop certain features to enable them survive in their environment , why haven't Eskimos developed thick skin or become very hairy yet over the yeeeaaarrrrssss?

22. Melanin absorbs sunlight , that accounts for our black colour . There are is high amount of sunlight and hot temperatures in certain regions .Why are there dark-skinned Eskimos?

23 Since planes are artificial and aid movement which accounts for man's survival in his environment, should we expect man to grow wings in millions of years to come ?If false , who made you lord of evolution ?

24 Explain how fossils are actually evidences of evolution? Do you know some fossils dont even fit in any family tree?

25.Which came first , the chicken or the egg , male or female , butterfly or flower , gases or star dust?

26 .How did the gravitational pull come about and why is it non-existent in other planets .

27. Why is every account of near death experience involving hell or heaven regarded as hallucination ?

28 Explain how dead matter brought forth life. What came about the dead matter ?

29 Do atheists believe man has the soul , spirit and body in one ? If false , state with facts that deny such

30. Do you know that earth was not created but restored in Genesis chap1 : 2 -30 but in the very beginning 1:1 and Adam was never the first man on earth? There is a great gap between vs 1 and vs 2 in Gen 1

"men and nations" , animals existed before Adam but were destroyed in the first flood ,Lucifer's flood

"... and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters " ... what waters ? from the first flood !

Proof : Isa 14 :12-14 , 2 Peter 3: 5-7 , Jeremiah 4 : 23-26 , Ezekiel 28 : 11-17 , Job 38 : 4-30

Are you really serious ?