johnydon22:


I think this simplifies it. You already know about evolution, you don't have a question.

Meaning: Thread not for you.

Scroll and move on.

It is still very simple to miss

I tire. I know it all. But I'm on a thread asking what's new on a thread for people who don't know it all.

nwabekeyi:


Please before asking any question, note that when an evolutionist says that human race evolved from apes, it doesn't mean that a chimpanzee in the bush turned to a human overnight, this is a vital area where creationists need lot of enlightenment, I believe we will go through this in the course of our discussion...

@johnydon22 my issue lies with the fact that the whole thread is based on a false premise. Creationists don't think evolution takes place overnight, as I pointed out earlier common ss2 biology dwelt on the works of Charles darwin and evolution theory.

Only people who are illiterate or for one reason or the other simply ignorant of the subject will think it takes place overnight, be they creationists or evolutionist. So replace the word "creationists" with "ignoramus" in the quoted text.

Butterflyleo:


The thread is for him and me and every curious mind based on nwabekeyi who happens to be the OPs words and I quote



My interest and that of spartan117 are on the words in bold. If he indeed has them then he should share them and stop regurgitating what is already common news about evolution known already to even you.

Simply put

spartan117:

@johnydon22 my issue lies with the fact that the whole thread is based on a false premise. Creationists don't think evolution takes place overnight, as I pointed out earlier common ss2 biology dwelt on the works of Charles darwin and evolution theory.

Only people who are illiterate or for one reason or the other simply ignorant of the subject will think it takes place overnight, be they creationists or evolutionist. So replace "creationists" with "ignoramus" in the quoted text.

well, I typed that based on my experience with several creationists?

Now you have a good point, if you think creationists who think evolution did occurred overnight are ignoramus (because that's the concept of creation), what then do you call those creationists who think evolution occurred over aeons?

Would that not be trying to be a creationist and still adopting evolutionary ideas?

nwabekeyi:
well, I typed that based on my experience with several creationists?

Now you have a good point, if you think creationists who think evolution did occurred overnight are ignoramus (because that's the concept of creation), what then do you call those creationists who think evolution occurred over aeons?

Would that not be trying to be a creationist and still adopting evolutionary ideas?

"it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it" Albert Einstein.

nwabekeyi:
well, I typed that based on my experience with several creationists?

Now you have a good point, if you think creationists who think evolution did occurred overnight are ignoramus (because that's the concept of creation), what then do you call those creationists who think evolution occurred over aeons?

Would that not be trying to be a creationist and still adopting evolutionary ideas?

Some atheists who I have also conversed with are ignorant of what evolution is and how it works so I suggest you generalize your ignoramus tag to every ignorant Soul and not make it a creationist thing.

Evolution is common knowledge. The crux of the matter here is not that even. The crux is your UPDATED IDEAS.

What are they? Can we read about them from you?

That's the "education" I personally need as long as it is provable or has been proven.

spartan117:

"it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it" Albert Einstein.

then you shouldn't call anyone an ignoramus over their thoughts, entertain their thoughts too, listen to them..

Calling them ignoramus is totally opposite to this Albert Einstein's quote

nwabekeyi:
then you shouldn't call anyone an ignoramus over their thoughts, entertain their thoughts too, listen to them..

Calling them ignoramus is totally opposite to this Albert Einstein's quote

The word ignoramus is not an insult. It simply means that the person is ignorant of a certain event or anything else.

Just the way that I am ignorant of what you ate last night is thesame way certain creationists and self acclaimed evolutionist are ignorant on certain facts regarding the theory of evolution.

And you mis-understand Einstein's statement, what it means is that I can do research on a certain field of view and know a lot about it without necessarily accepting it, instead of just outright discarding it. We have many atheists on this forum that know a lot about the bible and they keep doing more research without necessarily believing In it. That's what Einstein was talking about, hope you finally get it!!!

spartan117:

The word ignoramus is not an insult. It simply means that the person is ignorant of a certain event or anything else.

Just the way that I am ignorant of what you ate last night is thesame way certain creationists and self acclaimed evolutionist are ignorant on certain facts regarding the theory of evolution.

meaning you are also an ignoramus to their own ideas, so why then did you call them illiterates?

Have you listened to their ideas before calling them illiterates? In general, you aren't really following the same Albert Einstein you quoted.

nwabekeyi:
meaning you are also an ignoramus to their own ideas, so why then did you call them illiterates?

Have you listened to their ideas before calling them illiterates? In general, you aren't really following the same Albert Einstein's you quoted.

We're beginning to travel around in circles
I just added to my previous statement, try to read and understand instead of mis-interpreting my statement.

spartan117:

We're beginning to travel around in circles
I just added to my previous statement, try to read and understand instead of mis-interpreting my statement.

my dear, it's all about sharing ideas, you don't call someone an illiterate because he/she has a divergent point of view. You can't know it all sir

Meanwhile, what's your take on evolution?

nwabekeyi:
my dear, it's all about sharing ideas, you don't call someone an illiterate because he/she has a divergent point of view. You can't know it all sir

Meanwhile, what's your take on evolution?

For someone who claims to be logical, it's ironic that you are having this much trouble comprehending a simple statement

Is it true that human beings evolved from fish according to evolution?

spartan117:

For someone who claims to be logical, it's ironic that you are having this much problem comprehending a simple statement

what's your take on evolution?

nwabekeyi:
my dear, it's all about sharing ideas, you don't call someone an illiterate because he/she has a divergent point of view. You can't know it all sir

Meanwhile, what's your take on evolution?

Share your updated ideas ogbeni. The energy you are expending on a fruitless merry go round would have been better channeled towards simply putting down these your new updated ideas mbok.

spartan117:

@johnydon22 my issue lies with the fact that the whole thread is based on a false premise. Creationists don't think evolution takes place overnight, as I pointed out earlier common ss2 biology dwelt on the works of Charles darwin and evolution theory.

Only people who are illiterate or for one reason or the other simply ignorant of the subject will think it takes place overnight, be they creationists or evolutionist. So replace the word "creationists" with "ignoramus" in the quoted text.

Good sentiment but in defense of that premise, I have heard so many "Why have we not evolved?" Or "when will monkeys evolve to humans" to legitimize the intent of that premise.

I understand your argument by the way.

Madara713:
Is it true that human beings evolved from fish according to evolution?

yes sir, very correct

nwabekeyi:
yes sir, very correct

I'm curious to understand this one.. Share with us sir

HappyPagan:

I tire. I know it all. But I'm on a thread asking what's new on a thread for people who don't know it all.

hahahahahaha I wonder if the other one has a job. He takes trolling to be a job. See how the guy is running around quoting everybody

Literally begging "Please notice me"

Las las he will be alright sha

OP.... I am open to the both school of thought, in other word, i am open to rationalization and evidence base fact.

My questions is this?

What if evolution and creationist are both right? do you get me..none of the variation of evolution explain the origin of matter. It explain the complexity but not the material involve. it also explain how the complexity arises from inorganic matte but it fails to explain how inorganic matter got there in the fist place.

you could see the origin is separated from the complexity, which means evolution did not state how matter came into being .

so what if creationism idea of including Intelligent design attribute to a varying degree of the complexity of life to evolution, why the rest to the creator. the creationist role deals with origination of the matter ( which also include causing the big bang, set universal constants etc.) then it
does not need to overlap with the observation of evolution. So what does that mean if that is the case?

nwabekeyi:
what's your take on evolution?

I believe that Charles darwin scratched on the surface of something he doesn't really understand and then to explain it he came up with the evolution theory.

nwabekeyi:
yes sir, very correct

Could u provide a brief explanation of how evolutionists came to this conclusion.

For my second question, I'll like to know whats ur take on biological structuralism. Do u consider it to be a viable/interesting/adequate or inadequate alternative to neo-darwinism?

johnydon22:
.. the guy is running around quoting everybody

shh... don't let him know we see him.

johnydon22:


I'm curious to understand this one.. Share with us sir

the evolutionary connection between fishes and human will not be possible if fishes didn't first evolved to an organism that can survive on land. The critical point of this evolutionary branch was when Amphibian emerged from the waters and started breathing air, this can be seen now because amphibian still breath water.

Over time, the need to totally depend on air in response to excessive amount of it will necessitate the formation of lungs and other apparatus needed to breath air. This will also be accompanied by other necessary features to surivice on land, like limbs, better eye sights, feeding pattern based on available food etc

Overtime and based on need to adapt to the nutrition available, light exposure, positioning, need to walk instead of swimming etc amphibians evolved to reptiles, reptiles to birds, birds to primates and so on till we finally for to where we are. You will agree with me that, we still have most amphibians like some salamanders who still look like fishes, most amphibian offsprings and eggs cannot breath air.

And bear it in mind that humans are still evolving, millions of years from now, we will definitely have evolved into something physically different from what we are today, this is will be as a response to our constantly changing environment like global warming, reduced reduced level of various gases etc

nwabekeyi:
the evolutionary connection between fishes and human will not be possible if fishes didn't first evolved to an organism that can survive on land. The critical point of this evolutionary branch was when Amphibian emerged from the waters and started breathing air, this can be seen now because amphibian still breath water.

Over time, the need to totally depend on air in response to excessive amount of it will necessitate the formation of lungs and other apparatus needed to breath air. This will also be accompanied by other necessary features to surivice on land, like limbs, better eye sights, feeding pattern based on available food etc

Overtime and based on need to adapt to the nutrition available, light exposure, positioning, need to walk instead of swimming etc amphibians evolved to reptiles, reptiles to birds, birds to primates and so on till we finally for to where we are. You will agree with me that, we still have most amphibians like some salamanders who still look like fishes, most amphibian offsprings and eggs cannot breath air.

And bear it in mind that humans are still evolving, millions of years from now, we will definitely have evolved into something physically different from what we are today, this is will be as a response to our constantly changing environment like global warming, reduced reduced level of various gases etc

madar713, I hope this answers your first question

Madara713:


Could u provide a brief explanation of how evolutionists came to this conclusion.

For my second question, I'll like to know whats ur take on biological structuralism. Do u consider it to be a viable/interesting/adequate or inadequate alternative to neo-darwinism?

I believe biological structuralism is a vital component of Darwinism

nwabekeyi:

My questions,

1. Did Dinosaurs and Humans ever existed in the same period of time?

2. How did human skin color develop?

3. Is there anything like first human, I would like to know how procreation started.

tintingz:
nwabekeyi:

My questions,

1. Did Dinosaurs and Humans ever existed in the same period of time?

2. How did human skin color develop?

3. Is there anything like first human, I would like to know how procreation started.

1. Humans and dinosaurs never existed in the same era.

2. Every animal has a skin colour, the human skin colour is different from that of others based on difference in the skin pigments secreted, that of human is called "melanin" and even within human race, we have different forms of melanin pigment, this is also due to evolution. The process of melanin secretion is strictly dependent on mutation/translation of several genes storing necessary information for secretion. You can make the question more specific if this didn't answer your question

3. I really do not understand what you mean by procreation, you mean procreation of humans or living things?

And yes, there's always a first of everything, there's a first human, though it may not be in the concept of how creationists see it.

nwabekeyi:
I believe biological structuralism is a vital component of Darwinism

I'm a little confused. Doesn't the two differ in it's interpretation of evolution.

HappyPagan:

shh... don't let him know we see him.

The best way to treat trolls is not give them the attention they crave.



As in eeehn its amazing. This religious board have messed up many people mentally, it becomes life or death and their entire life revolves around seeking for attention.

The dude created alternate monikers to be liking his own posts I once bursted him on one of my threads.

But at the end of the day, I have nothing but pity, it shows how delicate the human mind it, little things such as meeting contradicting ideas or worldviews can crack it and mess it up so bad that it goes on a rampage.

Would like to ask, what are the current observable variation in humans to verify evolutionary claims?

Madara713:


I'm a little confused. Doesn't the two differ in it's interpretation of evolution.

Darwinism is the basis of evolution as far as I'm concerned, structuralism is still a bone of contention, in science, I cannot see doesn't mean its not there but if I would adicss anyone, Darwinism is the best explanation for evolution as evolution is strictly linked to something that can inherited.

Some biological structures can self-assemble anyways