Niflheim:
How can a human being, who studied biology in secondary school, claim that he never knew that frogs and toads are related? Is that not worse than madness?!!!...................................... http://vertebrates.voices.wooster.edu/sample-page/

4kings:
Really!!

is a square circle or imaginary complex numbers "nothing" ??


How can there be no TIME before creating "Something with Time"?

Let me illustrate; 3 2 1 " Big bang". Is "prior time" being eliminated here?


@bolded, please explain

Seun:
This is like saying that we could not have evolved from mammals because the DNA of rats, which are mammals like us, is somehow different.

4everGod:



in a nutshell you have absolutely nothing to say. Thanks and goodbye.

Teempakguy:
my point flew over your head. the OP is not the only post in this thread. it is not a must for me to counter that.

randomperson:

The sun was created on the fourth day, but light was created on the first day... So if the sun is the source of light, where did the light of the first day come from and how come there was day and night on the first day?

4everGod:


Then kindly stop derailing the thread by posting what is unrelated to it. I guess that part of Nairaland rules flew over your head as well.

dEastActivist:

Your question is not making sense to me...
The sun was created on fourth day?
Damn! You can't start your lay the foundation of your argument on unfounded speculation it makes your argument to be heavily flawed and useless.

Restructure your argument please... and I now you are desperate to prove a point..but you gat to relax.

Damn!

4kings:

First of all what happened to RaphieMontella, is he also a polydeist.

Click this: https://www.nairaland.com/3511938/demystifying-evolution-exposing-it-fraud/7#51868084

4everGod:


My stand on Uranium Lead Dating is thus;

A swimming race illustrates the simple principles involved in quantifying time. This swimmer is competing in a 1,500 metre race and we have a precise, calibrated wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer physically contacts the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1,500 metre race?

You cannot ken how long the swimmer took unless you kenned the time on the wristwatch when the race commenced. Without the commencement time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Again i reiterate IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

Authentically, kenning the commencement time is still not enough. During the race you have to optically canvass the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you ken that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to ascertain he physically contacts the edge at the terminus of each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you require at least two, sometimes three judges to quantify the time of the race to the standard needed to enter the record books

This illustrates the whole quandary with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend an abundance of time impressing you with the details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they omit discussion of the rudimental imperfection in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock utilizing radioactive dating because you were not present to quantify the radioactive elements when the rock composed

and you did not monitor the way those elements transmuted over its entire geological history.

In other words, the fatal quandary with all radioactive dates is that they are all predicated on posits about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the postulations you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up a postulated geological history for rock depending on the numbers that emanate from the geochronology lab

KingEbukasBlog:

Read herring

randomperson:

All these Christians that don't read their bible... Maybe if u dedicated your time to understanding you religion rather then trying to disprove evolution u will see the utter crap contained therein.... U don't know the sun was created on the fourth day?

Lennycool:

I never said we were the same, I said similarity proved we were not created specially.

DoctorAlien:


Then go and sit down. Most of you when exposed begin to appeal to ignorance. That was how the other was stating emphatically that every human is as a result of reproduction. When asked about the first human, he began to appeal to ignorance.

Prove that man was not created by GOD as the Bible says or you hold your peace

Niflheim:
Number 3:.................................. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3436204/

Seun:

False. But for some reason every little thing I say about evolution bothers creationists deeply and they must complain.

Though it mustn't come from you. I solemnly do complain not minding that I was once an evolutionist until my arguments was proved flawed.
Am now a creationist and more evolutionist like me from past and future would do same.

Evolutionists or creationist are not permanent name tags but what you choose to believe which is subtle to changes. So I see no reason why one should be proud of one. Is just like someone boasting with APC or being PDP when you know those things are prone to change.
#HastyGeneralization

DeepSight:


How did I express it?
I spoke about philosophic logic. Perhaps the word "philosophic" conjures images of some fantasist staring into space and imagining things?

The law of cause and effect is at the fulcrum of logic and philosophic thoughts in this matter. So are several other laws. I thus have no idea how you can attempt to escape the obvious with this weak appeal to the words "as you have expressed it". In what way did I use the word logic other than to suggest its self evident meaning?

Your man, on the other hand, stated explicitly that science has nothing to do with logic. That is the most asinine comment I have ever read on this forum or probably ever heard in my life. But it does not surprise me: atheists on this forum have been so rabid in the past that they have even argued extensively and vociferously against the law of cause and effect! In so doing they have gone so far as to claim that quantum physics destroys the law of cause and effect, and also shows that things may pop into existence out of nothing. I laboriously showed that that they were very wrong on the science of the matter, nevertheless they carried on. I say this just to let you know that when people become rabid about any topic, they will deny even the most glaringly obvious facts, and controvert even the simplest truths, no matter how id.iotic it may make them appear.

For at that point, they have themselves become fundamentalist fanatics who will do or say anything to advance the view that God does not exist.

MrMontella:

if you mean as man being completely distinct from animals...
Atavism does disprove that. Ille est;creation as depicted in the bible

Teempakguy:

If you really want to go philosophical, let's do it.

Premise two is false. It is based on a hasty generalization of conservation laws. All conservation laws only apply in this specific universe.

If there exists a multiverse, there definitely will be universes that do not have conservation laws.

I think you misunderstand the concept of Nothing. Take outer space. It is not nothing. it contains a so called dark energy that keeps it from collapsing and in fact expands it. it obeys laws and updates itself at the speed of light. even though it seems to be nothing.

Imagne a single dimension. a single dot. all of this is nothing.

In nothing, there is no time or space, there is no concept of anything. the human mind is quite incapable of imagining nothing because it cannot normally imagine anything with dimensions lesser than two or more than four.

Hence, if you consider the concept of Nothing, you must quickly realize that any concept of "Must" and "cannot" are meaningless because in Nothing, there are no laws, no rules, everything is possible.

Therefore, to observe Nothing and say Something cannot come from nothing is a capital mistake

because Nothing is the exact sort of thing that can produce anything simply because there are NO rules or limitations.

Because One of your premises is faulty, your whole argument is questionable

and an infinite regress immediately arises. in order to solve this, you Invented a concept of self-existent objects.

Any object can and will create itself if there are no laws to prevent it.

4everGod:

Your atheist scientist quoted against evolution man. Prove him wrong.

Seun:
You're wrong. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity and complexity of life based on the evidence. You don't have a better theory.

Sorry to say, but I didn't see sense in what you are making..
There is no correlation at all.
Evolution hasn't answered 1% of how the earth works let alone human...
Quite shameful.
I was brainwashed in my secondary school all thanks to Charles Darwin. I just wish he can comeback to life right now

Niflheim:
I was not even expecting a full grown adult to ask for proof that toads and frogs are related!!! I feel it is just a "National tragedy" that there are still Nigerians who ask such questions:................................. http://animalia.life/frog.html

DoctorAlien:
Lennycool, I know you don't know, but there are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.

Stop embarrassing yourself defending evolution.

4everGod:



Do you even know how stupid you sound right now? if you read the OP you would see where even geneticists denied evolution. Abi you no see am?

Do you know anything about DNA at all? Again you are making hasty generalisations.

Do you know what a slight DNA variation would do to you as a person?

benzics:


I stopped reading when I read this nonsense! Do you know that gravitation is also a theory?? ?
You just claimed evolution has no scientific observations, so much stupid in one post! We humans share similar DNAs with most animals, which comes to the conclusion that we had a similar descendant... I don't even think wasting my time on this bullshit of an "exposé" is worth it .

You claim things without observations and evidence are FALSE... there you go.. Religion and Gods are all false (even though we already know this).. And if you try bringing your double standards here again, then once again "Keep wallowing in your ignorance"

MrMontella:

the geneticist who accept evolution nkooo?
What then happens to their views?
And you accuse someone of logical fallacies?

Seun:

The scientific community is the most skeptical group of people in the world. What is the probability that a bunch of religious apologists on Nairaland have noticed game-changing flaws in the theory of evolution that the scientific community didn't notice during 157 years of intense study? I welcome any honest scrutiny of the theory of evolution, but it is absolutely bonkers to claim that you have "exposed it as a fraud".

4kings:

Abi ooo
But what do you think of radioactive dating methods, are they accurate?

4kings:
Really!!
is a square circle or imaginary complex numbers "nothing" ??

How can there be no TIME before creating "Something with Time"?
Let me illustrate; 3 2 1 " Big bang". Is "prior time" being eliminated here?

@bolded, please explain

Seun:
Are you kidding me? You believe that man is made of soil? Women are made of rib bone? That light was created before the sun? Why do we look like shaved chimpanzees if we were created in the image of God? Was the chimpanzee also created in the image of God? Oh my goodness!

MrMontella:

a copied article and he says ''he exposed it as a fraud''..
And yet the real owners of the article have not won anything!
Not even part or half-recognition!