God first

bqlekan:
wow! Evolution? Abiogenesis? Nah! That Has Been refuted by Louis Pasteur. Life can't be formed from non living matter.. even Darwin admitted to this fact.. look it up pls.


Going to evolution of man, how did we evolve.. ? Can we debate on this?

Sure I'm for an open rational debate anytime. Life can't be form from a non-living matter? Then what are those larva species I see on my butter whenever its due dates elapses?

According to Darwin, evolution results from the following:

1) Offspring inherit their parents' traits, but there is also variation (offspring aren't a pure 50/50 mix, and new traits show up sometimes).

2) More offspring are born than will survive.

3) The environment acts on individuals, so that ones with beneficial traits have a higher chance of survival, while ones with detrimental traits have a lower chance of survival.

4) Individuals with a higher chance of survival have a higher chance of reproducing.

5) At least some of the offspring of the survivors will inherit the traits that had helped them to survive.

Repeat the process enough times, and with enough individuals, and the entire population will gradually evolve over many generations. It will do so in response to it's current environment, and with no thought or planning. By "evolve" I mean that certain traits will become more or less common, some new ones will show up, and some old ones will disappear. Evolution doesn't always require transitioning into a new species or becoming more complex.

I should point out, though, that Darwin's work is 150 years out of date. He was right about a lot of stuff, but some of the finer points were off, and he was missing pieces of the puzzle. Since his time, scientists have discovered genetics, which explain how traits are passed on from parents to offspring, and also where the first variation (first human) may have evolves from. His work provided an amazing foundation for the modern theory of evolution, but it's no longer "Darwin's Theory" (unless you're speaking historically and talking about his original work).

In contrast, religion hasn't provided any experimental basis on how human came about beyond written representations in holy books. So, what should I believe, a plausible evidence based experiments or books written by some primitive men?

Speechless3:
So how are you guys coping with her

Dear ma
we are coping.with your mom.fairly well. like a dog will cope with a bitch.
yours faithfully

blackjack21:


Dear ma

we are coping.with our mom.fairly well.
like a dog will cope with a bitch.

yours faithfully

Very well. I think that's the best she can get.

refiner:

I don quote u....still waiting for d fire tho.....

Lol, U dis girl, u like fight pass food, never running away, u no dey gree sha

ronald4lif:


Sure I'm for an open rational debate anytime. Life can't be form from a non-living matter? Then what are those larva species I see on my butter whenever its due dates elapses?

According to Darwin, evolution results from the following:

1) Offspring inherit their parents' traits, but there is also variation (offspring aren't a pure 50/50 mix, and new traits show up sometimes).

2) More offspring are born than will survive.

3) The environment acts on individuals, so that ones with beneficial traits have a higher chance of survival, while ones with detrimental traits have a lower chance of survival.

4) Individuals with a higher chance of survival have a higher chance of reproducing.

5) At least some of the offspring of the survivors will inherit the traits that had helped them to survive.

Repeat the process enough times, and with enough individuals, and the entire population will gradually evolve over many generations. It will do so in response to it's current environment, and with no thought or planning. By "evolve" I mean that certain traits will become more or less common, some new ones will show up, and some old ones will disappear. Evolution doesn't always require transitioning into a new species or becoming more complex.

I should point out, though, that Darwin's work is 150 years out of date. He was right about a lot of stuff, but some of the finer points were off, and he was missing pieces of the puzzle. Since his time, scientists have discovered genetics, which explain how traits are passed on from parents to offspring, and also where the first variation (first human) may have evolves from. His work provided an amazing foundation for the modern theory of evolution, but it's no longer "Darwin's Theory" (unless you're speaking historically and talking about his original work).

In contrast, religion hasn't provided any experimental basis on how human came about beyond written representations in holy books. So, what should I believe, a plausible evidence based experiments or books written by some primitive men?

Wow! I love this. God willing tomorrow, we can have this debate. Tired after a hard day work. when will it be convenient for you tomorrow?

Ronald4lif just curious oo

How do you think the universe came into existence

ronald4lif:


Sure I'm for an open rational debate anytime. Life can't be form from a non-living matter? Then what are those larva species I see on my butter whenever its due dates elapses?

According to Darwin, evolution results from the following:

1) Offspring inherit their parents' traits, but there is also variation (offspring aren't a pure 50/50 mix, and new traits show up sometimes).

2) More offspring are born than will survive.

3) The environment acts on individuals, so that ones with beneficial traits have a higher chance of survival, while ones with detrimental traits have a lower chance of survival.

4) Individuals with a higher chance of survival have a higher chance of reproducing.

5) At least some of the offspring of the survivors will inherit the traits that had helped them to survive.

Repeat the process enough times, and with enough individuals, and the entire population will gradually evolve over many generations. It will do so in response to it's current environment, and with no thought or planning. By "evolve" I mean that certain traits will become more or less common, some new ones will show up, and some old ones will disappear. Evolution doesn't always require transitioning into a new species or becoming more complex.

I should point out, though, that Darwin's work is 150 years out of date. He was right about a lot of stuff, but some of the finer points were off, and he was missing pieces of the puzzle. Since his time, scientists have discovered genetics, which explain how traits are passed on from parents to offspring, and also where the first variation (first human) may have evolves from. His work provided an amazing foundation for the modern theory of evolution, but it's no longer "Darwin's Theory" (unless you're speaking historically and talking about his original work).

In contrast, religion hasn't provided any experimental basis on how human came about beyond written representations in holy books. So, what should I believe, a plausible evidence based experiments or books written by some primitive men?

guy pls permit me to ask u dis, what happens to humans when they die? Don't u think they'll go to meet God?

bqlekan:

Wow! I love this. God willing tomorrow, we can have this debate. Tired after a hard day work. when will it be convenient for you tomorrow?

Haha. Bro, this is a debate that needs critical thinking and impulsive ratiocinations. I'm at work at the moment and didn't even know how I put that up under my present tight engagement. I'd suggest we leave it for weekend, if that's fair to you? At least we can disagree to agree.

YourMain:
Ronald4lif just curious oo

How do you think the universe came into existence

The universe resulted from debris from the big bang. May I refer you to read up nebula hypothesis. I've addressed this many times and would elucidate at a convenience time if you don't mind.

ronald4lif:


The universe resulted from debris from the big bang. May I refer you to read up nebula hypothesis. I've addressed this many times and would elucidate at a convenience time if you don't mind.

No. The earth came from a Big Bang. I mean the whole of it. The whole universe.

But it's ok take your time

blackjack21:


Dear sir,

awon atheist weyrey 10000%.




yours faithfully

Haha. I don't like to identify with atheism though. I'd prefer to be labelled a deist. But still nothing do us.

ronald4lif:


Haha. Bro, this is a debate that needs critical thinking and impulsive ratiocinations. I'm at work at the moment and didn't even know how I put that up under my present tight engagement. I'd suggest we leave it for weekend, if that's fair to you? At least we can disagree to agree.

Lol.. No problem bro.. Time?

ronald4lif:


The universe resulted from debris from the big bang. May I refer you to read up nebula hypothesis. I've addressed this many times and would elucidate at a convenience time if you don't mind.

I've always seen the nebula hypothesis to be a naturalistic conjecture.

It's one theory that can't even explain how the sun, stars and other planets came to be.

To form the sun, or any star, a cloud must be dense enough to collapse and compress the interior so that it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start.

Even if by chance the sun and the planets were formed by a collapsing nebula, why then is the sun not spinning in the same plane as the planets? Why is its axis tilted 7. 167 º away from the ecliptic?

Thisame theory predicts a prograde motion for all planets but we have Venus traveling in an opposite direction (retrograde).

Inconsistency I say

YourMain:


No. The earth came from a Big Bang. I mean the whole of it. The whole universe.

But it's ok take your time

We do not know for certain when the universe began. Scientifical inventions are a continuum process and with time more experimental theories will emerge. Just like humans knew nothing about the Big Bang and other innovations that have come to light over time so does more details about the universe keeps unraveling.

We know when the expansion began (what is described in the Big Bang theory): 13,700 million years ago.

There are many hypothesis about it which have more plausible backings than religion.

I can give at least one natural solution. Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, making it both eternal and uncaused. Now I could simply assert that an eternal magical Genie started it all, this claim is no less magical/supernatural than the Gods humans imagine to exist.

It also doesn't really tell us why there is "something" rather than nothing. While we don't have all the answers, all of the answers we do have so far have been natural, from the beginning of this "state" of the universe to how the planets and stars were formed. We also have natural answers to how and why life is on this planet.

My question to you and other theists is why would you assert a "magical" solution to the "unknown" rather than expecting a "natural" solution even if we don't yet "know"?

bqlekan:

Lol.. No problem bro.. Time?

Let's settle for anytime from 6pm on Saturday. But I'd like to point out that whatever question anyone is putting forward they should take a stance and not just ask.

Like if one is asking for example how did oxygen came about? They should tender how and where energy emerged from before the other person would either agree or disagree citing his reasons.

Not like you asked earlier where did the first human came from without stating what you think. Applies to YourMain as well. Cheers.

ronald4lif:


We do not know for certain when the universe began. Scientifical inventions are a continuum process and with time more experimental theories will emerge. Just like humans new nothing about the Big Bang and other innovations that have come to light over time so does more details about the universe keeps unraveling.

We know when the expansion began (what is described in the Big Bang theory): 13,700 million years ago.

There are many hypothesis about it which have more plausible backings than religion.

I can give at least one natural solution. Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, making it both eternal and uncaused. Now I could simply assert that an eternal magical Genie started it all, this claim is no less magical/supernatural than the Gods humans imagine to exist.

It also doesn't really tell us why there is "something" rather than nothing. While we don't have all the answers, all of the answers we do have so far have been natural, from the beginning of this "state" of the universe to how the planets and stars were formed. We also have natural answers to how and why life is on this planet.

My question to you and other theists is why would you assert a "magical" solution to the "unknown" rather than expecting a "natural" solution even if we don't yet "know"?

The first rule of science is Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It's literally the first rule of any branch of science. Something can't come from nothing.

I was just curious as to what your theory was. Being a deist you still believe in a higher power. Just that he/she/it doesn't intervene with the universe. I was wondering if you thought the higher being was the creator of the universe and if you didn't what would be your theory ?

ronald4lif:


Let's settle for anytime from 6pm on Saturday. But I'd like to point out that whatever question anyone is putting forward they should take a stance and not just ask.

Like if one is asking for example how did oxygen came about? They should tender how and where energy emerged from before the other person would either agree or disagree citing his reasons.

Not like you asked earlier where did the first human came from without stating what you think. Applies to YourMain as well. Cheers.

Lol I'm not debating I'm just curious lol

misspicy:
Eleyi ti gba werey mesin




quote me and catch fire

How so?

Bawi lo se gba werey mesin?

You people just like to chat trash

ronald4lif:


We do not know for certain when the universe began. Scientifical inventions are a continuum process and with time more experimental theories will emerge. Just like humans new nothing about the Big Bang and other innovations that have come to light over time so does more details about the universe keeps unraveling.

We know when the expansion began (what is described in the Big Bang theory): 13,700 million years ago.

There are many hypothesis about it which have more plausible backings than religion.

I can give at least one natural solution. Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, making it both eternal and uncaused. Now I could simply assert that an eternal magical Genie started it all, this claim is no less magical/supernatural than the Gods humans imagine to exist.

It also doesn't really tell us why there is "something" rather than nothing. While we don't have all the answers, all of the answers we do have so far have been natural, from the beginning of this "state" of the universe to how the planets and stars were formed. We also have natural answers to how and why life is on this planet.

My question to you and other theists is why would you assert a "magical" solution to the "unknown" rather than expecting a "natural" solution even if we don't yet "know"?

As perfectly cromulent as you have been driving your point, those in bold fatally failed to embiggen your web of opinions. I'm sorry I still do strongly feel you do need to go back to your house of thoughts and well up facts not imaginations answering the three BIG mystery questions of ''how, what and why it all started"- You will never have an Idea. Moreover anyway, I'm not confused God is not Magic, He is the human term to actually try to express The Who that is "behind it and us all.

Speechless3:
Hypocr

Look in the mirror

ronald4lif:


Haha. I don't like to identify with atheism though. I'd prefer to be labelled a deist. But still nothing do us.

so you believe in God then.

Tell me about your version of God.

blackjack21:


so you believe in God then.

Tell me about your version of God.

Deism doesn't means the believe of a God. It's just a belief that subscribes to God's existence based on concrete evidence and are more or less like agnostics who are in the neutral.

Though a version of deism believes that there could be (not definite) a supernatural being who has abandoned his creation. And this set of deists are also swayed by evidence that stretches beyond sectarianism and organised religion. I'm the former.

YourMain:


The first rule of science is Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It's literally the first rule of any branch of science. Something can't come from nothing.

I was just curious as to what your theory was. Being a deist you still believe in a higher power. Just that he/she/it doesn't intervene with the universe. I was wondering if you thought the higher being was the creator of the universe and if you didn't what would be your theory ?

It's actually been a while since I've deliberated on the matter aspect connected to the creation of universe. But the Universe, is believed, to have originally been a single condensed point, that contained all matter and material in all of existence. From that point on, the Big Bang. Now where all that matter came from, I do not know. I cannot explain where the matter came from, though what I do know, is that there is more evidence behind the 'Big Bang', than there is God.

I sense that question isn't dissimilar to the popular polemic citation by theists that matter didn't come from nothing, right? If that's the case, in same paradigm of wanting to know where matter may have emerged from since nothing comes from nothing, where does your God come from? How did he came about?

Griffon:


I've always seen the nebula hypothesis to be a naturalistic conjecture.

It's one theory that can't even explain how the sun, stars and other planets came to be.

To form the sun, or any star, a cloud must be dense enough to collapse and compress the interior so that it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start.

Even if by chance the sun and the planets were formed by a collapsing nebula, why then is the sun not spinning in the same plane as the planets? Why is its axis tilted 7. 167 º away from the ecliptic?

Thisame theory predicts a prograde motion for all planets but we have Venus traveling in an opposite direction (retrograde).

Inconsistency I say

Yes, that's why it's a hypothesis and like every other hypothetical theories they are laced with some inconsistencies. But however inconsistent they are or seem it's worthy to note that they are practicalities and more evidential than the religious theory of how the universe came into existence.

My understanding of the nebula hypothesis is that the way most stars and solar systems form is that there's a mass of dust, gas, and debris in a section of space such as a nebula.

And due to a hubbub such as an asteroid passing through the dust cloud it'll cause some of the dust to start to clump together. With gravity being a purely attractive force that's directly proportional to the mass of an object, the small clump of dust will exert a slight gravitational pull on the surrounding environment.

More dust, gases, and small pieces of debris will be attracted to the small clump of matter which will increase in size over time. The larger it gets the stronger it's gravitational field will be, it'll start to attract hydrogen and deuterium which are very plentiful in space and it'll continue to get bigger. As it increases in size the gravity compresses the object more and more.

This in turn leads to it generating heat, it will start to spin as it attracts matter due to the matter striking it at different angles and matter passing by it and being pulled into its orbit.

Eventually enough heat and pressure are generated by the object that it will create a massive thermonuclear explosion and become a star. It'll have primarily hyrdogen as it's fuel source and it's core will start turning into helium as the by-product of hydrogen fusion.

The resulting explosion of the star being born will blow away all of the dust and rocks except those that have managed to collide together and become planets or moons.

So, yes your laid down theory is a plausible antithesis view but this is just a bit more detailed as to how a nebula can give birth to a star and the circumstances as to how it happens.

ronald4lif:


It's actually been a while since I've deliberated on the matter aspect connected to the creation of universe. But the Universe, is believed, to have originally been a single condensed point, that contained all matter and material in all of existence. From that point on, the Big Bang. Now where all that matter came from, I do not know. I cannot explain where the matter came from, though what I do know, is that there is more evidence behind the 'Big Bang', than there is God.

I sense that question isn't dissimilar to the popular polemic citation by theists that matter didn't come from nothing, right? If that's the case, in same paradigm of wanting to know where matter may have emerged from since nothing comes from nothing, where does your God come from? How did he came about?

Lol. Well you're correct. Theists believe God came from nothing cause theists believe God is timeless. God was always there.

The universe isn't timeless because it's not infinite. If it was infinite you could say it's timeless. There are new planets and new stars and new galaxies everyday. New " big bangs" are happening all the time. This means there was a time where there was none. Ehm. I don't know how to explain this well. Let's say every 1000 years there's a new star/galaxy/planet. And the universe is billions of years old. This means a specific amount of time gives a specific amount of planet/galaxies/stars. So when time = 0. There were no stars or galaxies or planets.

Theists believe that God is infinite and timeless. So he was always there. Because he's infinite when time = 0 he was there. According to their beliefs.

3rdlegxxx:

Lol, U dis girl, u like fight pass food, never running away, u no dey gree sha

hehhehhe...still waiting for misspicy fire ooo...

misspicy:
Eleyi ti gba werey mesin




quote me and catch fire

I Don ready 10 drums of water. Oya bring on the fire.

refiner:

hehhehhe...still waiting for misspicy fire ooo...

wait, what are you? why are you mentioning my Moniker everywhere?

ronald4lif:


Deism doesn't means the believe of a God. It's just a belief that subscribes to God's existence based on concrete evidence and are more or less like agnostics who are in the neutral.

Though a version of deism believes that there could be (not definite) a supernatural being who has abandoned his creation. And this set of deists are also swayed by evidence that stretches beyond sectarianism and organised religion. I'm the former.

oh thanks.
this belief sounds romantic.

I can see that you have already dismissed the notion where there be God what loves you so much, but hi. gonna burn you to rend if you don't belive he came to die for your unfounded sins.
though that's understandable.

But why are you arguing with them that believe there be a concious God when you're not very sure whether this wonders in us and around us has a creator or not.

Blackberrybabes:
En route London today, I saw something that thrilled me and it gave me assurance personally that there exists a God and He is being worshiped by his creations.

A Nigerian Muslim woman that we boarded together, took her time to pray to God at exactly the appropriate time to do so. She asked if she could get a spot and once granted the permission to do as her religion has instructed, she went on her kneels and performed the rites.

That is just to tell you that there is no place that you can not worship your God and that God is everywhere, even in the skies.

More Pictures:

http://www.blackberrybabes.com/2016/01/nigerian-muslim-woman-spotted-praying.html

lalasticlala

The only thing about this post is not the woman praying but the OP saying 'even in the skies' everyone knows God is in Heaven which is suppose to be in the skies unless he changed location, anyways i really don't hype around the topic, a woman prays to God on a flight, is that it? but if she prays to God on the streets, you guys won't talk about it, shallow topic, boring all the through, next pls

watch out for bombs