Monday, September 8, 2008

AN ARGUMENTATIVE ANALYSIS OF ATHEISM

We live in a universe where a free market of ideas exists. Reality as we know is crude and until now has no exact definition considering the infinite broadness not of its etymology and relative meaning but of its ABSOLUTE definition. The fact that the universe alone is up until now an unfathomable frontier of human interest solidifies the fact that reality has no absolute definition as the universe is an integral part of reality. The subtlety of defining reality at its most absolute definition is a very clear empirical evidence that the human mind alone is INCAPABLE of understanding some irreducibly complex part of reality which in the given example is the universe. The reason for this empirical evidence directly stems from the fact that human beings have LIMITED perception constrained by the inherent limitation of his physical senses. Every human being has a tendency to understand reality using direct physical evidence or a deductively analyzed pattern of reconstruction by safe assumptions. Human beings really are not what they think they are, THEY REALLY JUST KNOW REALITY ONLY UP TO THE EXTENT OF WHAT HIS PHYSICAL FACULTIES CAN PERCEIVE AND I AM WILLING TO DEBATE WITH ANYONE WHO WILL REFUTE MY CLAIM!

Recently I’ve had a chance to debate with a certain atheist whose name is Mr. Tony O’Neill, a man that is more of an ego-tripper than a thinking and intelligent person typical of all atheists and at this point I just want to share with you what we debated about:
_______________________________________________
By: Tony O'Neill on November 15, 2007 at 3:48 pm



Sam Jordison will kick gods ass.
GOD IS DEAD!
__________________________________



By: quiel on November 17, 2007 at 1:15 pm



I am just INSTANTLY IRRITATED by a post of a certain atheist named Tony O’Neill which said and i quote, “Sam Jordison will kick gods ass.
GOD IS DEAD!”
IF GOD IS DEAD, SO ARE YOU!! IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!
_________________________________________



By: jackie on November 18, 2007 at 3:50 am



To TONY O’NEIL:
Well, at least Sam Jordison is just a greedy but i think you are worse than him saying that God is Dead,,, I pray to God that He will let you feel that He is A God of living…YOU MUST FEAR GOD!!! THE REASON WHY YOU EXISTS AND YOU STILL HAVE YOUR BREATH IS THAT SAME GOD YOU ARE BLASPHEMING…But you are also one of the evidence of God’s love and mercy because though you are idiot, fool and evil He still have a long suffering for you. He still give you food to eat, still rises a sun on you, give air for you to breathe..You know what maybe that’s the reason of his greatness because if I were Him that moment you have think that in your empty and useless brain I have taken your life for you that you will know That God is Alive…but again that why He told us that His thinking is not our thinking..THAT’S why He Is Our God! WILL YOU PLEASE USE YOUR USELESS BRAIN BEFORE YOU WRITE OR SAY ANYTHING AGAINST OUR GOD!!! FOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL……..MORE SHAME ON YOU!!!!! TONY O’NEIL.. IIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDIIIIIIOOOOOOTTTTT…………………………………



___________________________________________________________

By: jackie on November 18, 2007 at 3:53 am



DAMN YOU TONY O’NEIL!!!!!!!!….NEVER DO OR SAY THAT AGAIN!!!!!! DO YOUR DECAYING MIND UNDERSTAND THAT!
______________________________________________________



By: pathfinder on November 19, 2007 at 1:51 am



to tony Oneill,
according to the “Atheists”,God does not “EXIST”.
now how can Sam “kick” something that according to your belief,don’t “EXIST”???…
it’s like seeing a “CRAZED MAN” punching and kicking something that according to him,was NON EXISTENT?!!!…
how can Sam “kill” something (that according to your belief),DID NOT EXIST?!!!…
How can YOU,or Sam,or your fellow “Atheist” kick or kill something that you don’t even have the “slightest idea” what looks like?!!!…
well “ONE THING’S” clear…
when you see someone “CURSING”,”PUNCHING”,”KICKING” and trying to “KILL” something “NON EXISTENT”…
it’s an “ATHEIST”.
LoL!!!…peace.



______________________________________________________
By: warpath1975 on November 19, 2007 at 6:32 am



to tony oneill,
How can an “atheist” kick something that to them,was “non existent”?
it’s like seeing a “dog” barking at something “non existent”.
all you hear was loud,annoying,nonsense noise…



_____________________________________________________
By: Tony O'Neill on November 20, 2007 at 8:17 pm



Dear Pathfinder (and indeed jackie)
when i say GOD IS DEAD i do not literally mean that he is dead, i mean that the IDEA of god is dead, as god is just a construct, a series of rationalisations and lies to hide our own fears or own dissapoinment that we are infact just another animal, just another bunch of DNA floating on a rock which revolves around a dying star.
in saying god is dead, i have infact MURDERED god, because if god is an idea, to debunk the idea is to kill the idea. the duty of the poet is to come before christ and murder love. or as another poet said, “in the begninng there was the word and the word was VOID” do you see what im saying?



_______________________________________________________
By: quiel on December 3, 2007 at 2:49 am
I AM PERSONALLY CHALLENGING YOU TONY O’NEILL ON A FORMAL DISCUSSION OR DEBATE IN THIS BLOG RIGHT HERE AND NOW!!! I WILL PROVE THAT GOD, BOTH HIS BEING AND IDEA EXISTS AND YOU WILL PROVE OTHERWISE! BE A MAN AND STAND FOR YOUR CONVICTIONS AND PRINCIPLES! PROVE THAT YOU ARE REALLY NOT AN IDIOT AND I WILL PROVE ON WORLD WIDE WEB THAT YOU ARE REALLY A BIG KNOW-NOTHING IDIOT! DEBATE WITH ME!!!



___________________________________________________________
By: Tony O'Neill on December 7, 2007 at 8:32 pm



hey quiel
well, one of my other posts mysteriously didnt appear on this site ( a reference to people calling sam jordison ‘money grabbing’ when we all know that the church is the biggest money grabbing racket there is) which leads me to believe that i would never get a free reign to speak on here.
however, my goodness, if you think that you can somehow prove the existence of god (which nobody has been able to do up to this point in history) then, wow, be my guest. i’m quivering with anticipation.
pinklady“If you believe that the idea of the existence of God is dead by saying that GOD IS DEAD, then how can Sam Jordison kick God’s ass like what you’ve said? If we are to follow your argument that he doesn’t exist, therefore, he also doesn’t have ass.”
well, yes, it was a joke. of course god doesnt have an ass.
all of this shouting and yelling. funny isn’t it? if you were all a bit more secure in your belief in this whole fairy tale, it probably wouldn’t bother you so much when people say things like this. oh well.



___________________________________________________________________
By: EYES on December 10, 2007 at 11:46 am



TO: Richard Webster, Tony O’Neill & Ben Myers
bros. can you show us a little synopsis about sam jordison books regarding GOD inexistent. (why and what his point)
maybe this can spark a showdown between bro. quiel and tony o’neill.
For the meantime let’s start by the following argument.
TOPIC: DNA
For tony o’neill what can you say if bro. quiel will said the following argument;
— The printed circuit board (PCB) or schematic diagram and parts of a first television is too bulky, not efficient and black and white only. Through time it evolve the PCB was redesign and the new parts is introduced and it is colored already.
but if the PCB of a television has a designer then how much more the map(schematic diagram) of human structure and traits which called DNA which is more complex than a television.
can we say it, by accident only.
if we use that argument, can we produce a TV by accident or we have to work on it?
if we have to work on it then who work on us?
start………..



__________________________________________________________________
By: quiel on December 10, 2007 at 7:25 am



To Tony O’Neill,


I am just so glad that you have already accepted my challenge for you to engage in a formal debate with me because you said and I quote you;” however, my goodness, if you think that you can somehow prove the existence of god (which nobody has been able to do up to this point in history) then, wow, be my guest. I’M QUIVERING WITH ANTICIPATION.”


LET US NOW QUICKLY QUENCH YOUR ANTICIPATION AND SHOW HOW YOUR IGNORANT HISTORY WILL PROVE YOUR IDIOCY.


I will start our debate because I initiated it and at this point I just want to lay down point by point the conceptual impertinence of atheism which I believe is a VERY GRAVE insult to fine human intellect. Atheism principally is BOXED and STRICTLY CONFINED to the following conceptually superficial and highly faulty principles and I enumerate;


1. STRICT MATERIALISM


2. EVOLUTION


These two principal concepts are so VITALLY IMPORTANT to atheists that without these concepts, atheism would not even exist for atheists because atheists have a VERY TWISTED and PERVERTED concept regarding what they consider to categorically exist. Let us now critically analyze these concepts to determine its logical UNsoundness.


Strict materialism is a form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the ONLY substance. However, ATHEISTS DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT CAUSES MATTER TO EXIST. They will just offer THEORIES full of mathematical improbabilities and will impulsively claim them as SCIENTIFIC FACTS when in fact, THEY ARE PRACTICALLY PURE GUESSWORKS THAT CAN NEVER HOLD LOGICAL WATER. One very good example is the BIG BANG THEORY which states that the universe came from a very big primordial explosion. HOWEVER, ATHEISTS DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT CAUSES SUCH EXPLOSION! ATHEISTS WILL NOT EVEN DARE TO ANSWER WHY IS THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR MATTER TO EXIST! Now Mr. Tony O’Neill, would you now offer an answer to these basic BUT VALID logical questions? I really doubt it very much if you will even budge.


Now that I have brought up the issue about MATTER let us attempt to answer WHAT REALLY CAUSES MATTER TO EXIST?


For a very long time now scientists claim the atom is the smallest particle of matter BUT RECENT SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES PROVED THEM ALL WRONG along the way. One very good example is the discovery of the NEUTRINO, elementary particles that travel close to the speed of light, lack an electric charge, are able to pass through ordinary matter almost undisturbed and are thus EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO DETECT. NEUTRINOS HAVE A MINUSCULE, BUT NON-ZERO, MASS TOO SMALL TO BE MEASURED AS OF 2007. They are usually denoted by the Greek letter ν (nu). Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay or nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms. There are three types, or “flavors”, of neutrinos: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos; each type also has an ANTIMATTER partner, called an antineutrino. Electron neutrinos are generated whenever protons change into neutrons, while electron antineutrinos are generated whenever neutrons change into protons. These are the two forms of beta decay. Interactions involving neutrinos are generally mediated by the weak nuclear force. Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the sun, and more than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second.


SO BASICALLY THE MATTER THAT ATHEISTS USE AS A SOLE BASIS FOR EXISTENCE IS UP UNTIL NOW AN UNRESOLVED SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM. WHAT REALLY IS THE SMALLEST PARTICLE OF MATTER MR. TONY O’NEILL? DO YOU KNOW? WHY DO MATTER EXIST ACCORDING TO ATHEISTS?


After I have solidly proven the conceptual faultiness of the principle of strict materialism, let us now critically analyze the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.


According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe — just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life. However, SCIENTISTS DON’T REALLY KNOW HOW LIFE CAME TO BE. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS STILL UNKNOWN. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is NOT CONSISTENT with scientific observation. The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, THE PROBABILITIES OF A CELL OR A PROTEIN MOLECULE COMING INTO EXISTENCE WERE NIL. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. THE RESULT WAS ZERO POSSIBILITY! Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a FANTASTIC number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection. Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:


1. Scales had to have mutated into hair.


2. Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.


3. Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.


ALL OF THESE WERE NEVER DOCUMENTED THROUGH FOSSIL EVIDENCES


It has NEVER been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these HIGHLY IMPROBABLE things to happen. Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:


1. The Fossil Record - the fossil record has been AGAINST the darwinian theory from the very beginning. It’s true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is NOT SEEN in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same. If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then THE FOSSIL RECORD CONTRADICTS EVOLUTION. Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a “research issue”. There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form when apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record. John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are “a festering mass of unsupported assertions.” In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups REMAIN COMPLETELY HIDDEN. The blank spots on evolutionary “tree” charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin’s theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a “grandparent” of the monkey, for example. “Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere,” writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. “They are here today; they have no yesterday.” The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were. So many questions arise in the study of fossils (paleontology) that even many evolutionary paleontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one’s belief in evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be considered scientific. The fossil record is often so sparse that . . . there are numerous cases where groups survived for tens of millions of years WITHOUT LEAVING A SINGLE FOSSIL. A criticism of the evolutionary idea was, and is, the lack of the hypothesized intermediates between one species and another. If land animals truly came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that “innumerable transitional forms must have existed.” The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.


2. Living Fossils - Since 1822 thousands of previously unknown animals have been found, many of which are known as “living fossils” - animals that once known only by its fossilized bones and presumed to have been extinct for millions of years and used as “proof” of evolution. But then, TO THE EMBARRASSMENT OF SCIENTISTS, THESE ANIMALS WERE LATER FOUND TO BE ALIVE IN REMOTE PARTS OF THE WORLD. Charles Darwin, himself, coined this term. In the Origin of Species he called lungfish and other species whose form remained unchanged since its inception “anomalous forms” that “may almost be called living fossils.” LIVING FOSSILS ARE LIVING PROOF OF THE ACCURACY WITH WHICH PLANTS AND ANIMALS REPRODUCE THEMSELVES AND THE FACT THAT MANY ARE NOT CHANGING AT ALL. The Okapi was once thought to have been extinct until they were found still living. These animals were once used as evidence that the horse had evolved. The Australian and African lungfish are . . . living fossils. They all look “primitive” and have lobed fins. Obviously lungfish can’t be our ancestors because they have remain unchanged, again for 400 million years. Another animal, the horseshoe crab, would be a great candidate for our ancestor. It looks “primitive” and leaves the ocean to spawn on dry land. However, it, too, is a living fossil, appearing about 425 million years ago in the Silurian period, and remaining unchanged. Similarly, gars, sturgeons, bowfins, and paddlefish all look “primitive” but are living fossils. Yet they are doing nicely in today’s environment. IN 1994. in Wollemi National Park (in the Blue Mountains) the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services found a pine tree once thought to be extinct. They are close relations to plants only found in the so called “Jurassic and Cretaceous” periods. (65-200 million years ago). There are very few of these trees left in an isolated area. The following aquatic animals alive today are also examples of creatures that have not evolved since their fossil ancestors:- lobsters, crayfish and rays (fossils found in Jurassic rock), lampshells, mussels oysters, thumb nail shells (fossils found in Carboniferous rock), sharks (fossilized teeth found in Devonian rock), mackerel, perch, herring, jelly fish, fogs, the nautilus etc. Of the 12,000 fossilized insects the majority are similar to living types of insect found today. The fossils of bees, ants, cicadas, beetles, termites or cockroaches, and other insects are always practically identical with (though often larger than) their SUPPOSED modern descendants. The same applies to the arachnids and myriapods. Other famous living fossils include the tuatara (supposedly extinct since the Cretaceous Period until found still living in New Zealand), the Lepidocaris crustacean (only found as fossils in Devonian rocks), the lingula brachiopod (”extinct” since the Ordovician), and even the trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period). If all of these species have not evolved in 50 million, 100 million or even 200 million years, then WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT THEY (OR ANYTHING) HAVE EVOLVED? Some changes due to speciation have occurred, but NOT THE LARGE SCALE CHANGES THAT EVOLUTION SUPPOSES. The list goes on; example after example of no change from one type of animal to another in the fossil record. Darwin tried to cover over this embarrassment by saying the fossil record is incomplete, but it wasn’t then and it’s not now. What we know about living fossils, then and now, is a representative sample of the fossil record.


3. The Cambrian “Explosion” - Nearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the “Cambrian Explosion.” Scientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today. Many of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, “… [W]e find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” Two places in the world that have an abundance of early (Cambrian) fossils; the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and the Chengjiang site in China. In Stephen J. Gould’s popular book, Wonderful Life, he points out that the Burgess Shale Cambrian fossils include “a range of disparity in anatomical design never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world’s oceans.” Further, these fossils contain some twenty to thirty kinds of arthropods that cannot be placed in any modern group. The modern arthropods, consisting of almost a million species, can all fit into four major groups. But “one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs.” TODAY THERE ARE ABOUT 38 PHYLA IN EXISTENCE, BUT THE CANADIAN, CHINESE AND OTHER CAMBRIAN SITES REVEAL OVER FIFTY PHYLA. There has been a DECREASE IN DIVERSITY (probably due to global catastrophes). This is the REVERSE of what evolutionary theory predicts. Besides diversity, the Burgess Shale shows exquisite detail, right down to “the last filament of a trilobite’s gill,” or the last meal in a worm’s gut. The Chengjiang site has even greater detail, and is earlier. According to Paul Chien, the chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, said the preservation is such that internal organs, nerves, and even the water ducts of jellyfish are observable. Researchers found striking similarities between the compound eyes of the Cambrian trilobites and those of modern insects. According to Riccardo Levi-Setti, “Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. … The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects.” The conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT PREDICTED BY EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. Until recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. BUT NOT NOW! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian period, especially with the recent discovery of two fossil fish in China. The two new fossils . . . from Chengjiang are the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found. The insects and other land invertebrates are also a very important group, and these practically all seem to be living fossils. These complex animals were present at the beginning of multicellular life and did not appear later as is predicted by evolutionary theory. EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE ABRUPT APPEARANCE OF COMPLEX FORMS OF LIFE EARLY IN THE FOSSIL RECORD OR THESE FOSSILS’ UNEQUALED DIVERSITY. The implication of the Cambrian explosion of diverse, fully functional, and multicellular life is that evolutionary theory is FALSIFIED. Life did not start out simple and evolve into more complex and diverse animals; IT WAS COMPLEX AND DIVERSE RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING. This CONTRADICTION between the fossil data and the predictions of evolutionary theory FALSIFIES the theory. Even George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard high priest of evolution had to admit,


“In spite of the examples, it remains true (as every paleontologist knows) that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”


4. The so called “Missing Links” – The following are some of a few SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVABLE and WELL DOCUMENTED examples:


NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, ONLY PART OF AN ARM WAS RECOVERED. Yet, the scientific community FABRICATED an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that THESE ANCESTORS WERE REGULAR HUMANS WITH BONE DISEASE, PROBABLY RICKETS.


PILTDOWN MAN: For more than 50 years we were led to believe that this ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a FRAUD. This INVENTED creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original “discoverers ” had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution.


NEBRASKA MAN: One ancient tooth was discovered in Nebraska. Eager evolutionists built a whole imaginary society and lifestyle around this single tooth! When they found the rest of the skull some two years later, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE TOOTH BELONGED TO A PIG. For many years, evolutionists described Nebraska Man as a missing link.


JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock.


PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, EXACTLY MATCHING THE RESULT WHEN PEOPLE OF THAT REGION HUNT FOR MONKEY BRAINS. Also, MODERN HUMAN REMAINS WERE FOUND AT THE SAME SITE.


LUCY: Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind’s ancestor. Lucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, THEY WERE FOUND TO MATCH A CHIMPANZEE, RATHER THAN A MAN. Lucy too, is a MOSAIC, with BONES ASSEMBLED FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.


LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a MONKEY!


KENYA SKULL: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than “Lucy.” This means that evolutionary scientists MUST ONCE AGAIN REVISE their theory of man’s origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the newly discovered fossil - which he says is NOTHING MORE THAN THE SKULL OF A CHIMPANZEE - only pokes more holes in the argument for evolution.


ARCHAEOPTERYX: Originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds, it is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx. Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing contends that Archaeopteryx is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a dinosaur. Xing says he has found another fossil, in a private collection in China, that contains the mirror image of the supposed tail of the Archaeoraptor. National Geographic published a note in its March 2000 issue saying that CT scans of the fossil appear to confirm Xing’s observations and “revealed anomalies in the fossil’s reconstruction.”


To sum it up, here is what Dr. Austin Clark, a leading biologist of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington has to day about the subject:


“No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Scientists have sometimes come up with a few things that they have elected as candidates as transitions, but on a later closer examination these have been seen to be misinterpretations. There are no such things as missing links. … Missing links are misinterpretations.”“Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?” — Jonathan Wells (Recipient of Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley. Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.)



SO MUCH LIKE STRICT MATERIALISM, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS ANOTHER NONSCIENTIFIC, HIGHLY ILLOGICAL AND VERY FAULTY CONCEPT. These very concepts are the very core concepts and principles of atheism and we are not even talking yet of the concept of moral accountability and humanity which are very blurred logical concepts for atheists. ARE YOU NOW AWARE MR. TONY O’NEILL OF YOUR BIG IGNORANCE AND IDIOCY?



_____________________________________________________________
By: quiel on December 10, 2007 at 3:41 pm


Now that I have effectively destroyed the core fundamental concepts underlying atheism, let us then now PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXISTING LIVING GOD to the satisfaction of the “anticipation” of Mr. O’Neill.


I don’t know if Mr. O’Neill is aware that in pure and applied mathematics there is such a HIGHLY TESTED mathematical foundational concept called BIJECTION or ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE which means a function f from a set X to a set Y with the property that, for every y in Y, there is exactly one x in X such that f(x) = y. Alternatively, f is bijective if it is a one-to-one correspondence between those sets; i.e., both one-to-one (injective) and onto (surjective). For example, consider the function succ, defined from the set of integers to , that to each integer x associates the integer succ(x) = x + 1. For another example, consider the function sumdif that to each pair (x,y) of real numbers associates the pair sumdif(x,y) = (x + y, x − y). A bijective function is also called a permutation. This is more commonly used when X = Y. It should be noted that one-to-one function means one-to-one correspondence (i.e., bijection) to some authors, but injection to others. The set of all bijections from X to Y is denoted as X Y. BIJECTIVE FUNCTIONS PLAY A FUNDAMENTAL ROLE IN MANY AREAS OF MATHEMATICS, for instance in the definition of isomorphism (and related concepts such as homeomorphism and diffeomorphism), permutation group, projective map, and many others.


LET US THEN NOW APPLY THIS MATHEMATICAL MODEL TO PROVE THAT A LIVING, EXISTING GOD REALLY EXISTS.



To start with, we are dealing with abstract quantities in contrast to absolute quantities like real numbers like 1, -1, and even to the surprise of Mr. O’Neill, 0! Being abstract quantities we need a FIXED SET OF LOGICAL STANDARD to solve the mathematical equation which we will then prove has BIJECTION or ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE with our variables.


WHAT IS NOW THEN OUR MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACT VARIABLES?


For the sake of mathematical argument, let God be Set A which we will call SET GOD and let Crude Reality be Set B which we will call SET CRUDE REALITY.


WHAT WILL NOW BE THE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION GIVEN THE TWO SETS OF ABSTRACT VARIABLES?


Absolute quantities, constants and vectors alike, need some sort of UNIT OF MEASUREMENT for us to VALIDLY recognize the DEGREE OF MAGNITUDE of those given quantities e.g., mass in terms of grams as a constant, acceleration in terms of meter per second as a vector, etc.


God, being an abstract set variable must have some sort of a MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION for us to identify set elements having VALID BIJECTION to Crude Reality which we already recognized here as SET GOD and SET CRUDE REALITY respectively for mathematical purposes.


Let us now HEURISTICALLY consider the BIBLE as our MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION for us to prove a MATHEMATICALLY VALID BIJECTION.



In the Bible, which is our mathematical function, we can read a certain God saying in the book of Genesis chapter 1 verses 20 to 22;


“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And God blessed them, saying, Be FRUITFUL, and MULTIPLY, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl MULTIPLY IN THE EARTH.”


IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE VERSE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY REFERRING TO ORGANIC REPRODUCTION WHICH IS A CLEAR ELEMENT OF SET B OR SET CRUDE REALITY WHICH IS A VERY CLEAR SCIENTIFIC FACT AND NOT JUST A FAULTY HYPOTHETICAL THEORY JUST LIKE EVOLUTION BECAUSE ORGANIC REPRODUCTION CAN BE READILY VERIFIED SCIENTIFICALLY OR EVEN BY JUST APPLYING SIMPLE OBSERVATION, THUS, ORGANIC REPRODUCTION IS AN ELEMENT OF SET CRUDE REALITY.


HEURISTICALLY considering the Bible as our mathematical function, ORGANIC REPRODUCTION can now be validly considered as an element of SET GOD by applying CAUSE AND EFFECT scientific principle because by using the Bible as our mathematical function, we can DIRECTLY ASSOCIATE organic reproduction to God, THUS, A VALID MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF A VALID BIJECTION OR ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE.


In conclusion, by us using SET THEORY which is a validly recognized part of mathematical knowledge particularly in ALGEBRA and CALCULUS, WE HAVE NOW A MATHEMATICAL EVIDENCE PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF A LIVING GOD AND WE HAVE ONLY USED A MINUSCULE FRACTION OF OUR MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION WHICH IS THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE ARE MANY STATEMENTS IN THE BIBLE COMING FROM THIS CERTAIN GOD WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY PROVEN TO EXIST BY APPLYING A HIGHLY TESTED MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE!


Mr. Tony O’Neill, WE ARE JUST TALKING HERE ABOUT THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LIVING GOD, WE ARE NOT YET IMMERSING OURSELVES WITH PHILOSOPHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC PROOFS. WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO TACKLE FIRST MR. TONY O’NEILL? ARE YOU NOW REALIZING HOW IMPERTINENT ARE YOUR ARGUMENTS? IM VERY MUCH WILLING TO DEBATE MORE! SHALL WE CONTINUE?



_____________________________________________________________________
(SOURCE: http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/the-truth-about-the-debate-against-sam-jordison/ )



To date, Mr. Tony O’Neill has not been able to give further comments to make a counter argument.


The aforementioned debate above clearly indicates that we human beings cannot really rely on our own LIMITED physical intelligence and is an obvious manifestation of our tendency to make hash generalizations based on what we percieve as real using our limited physical senses. We human beings live in a reality full of inherent uncertainties as a FINITE organism and we must not view reality as absolute as some of us may perceive it to be using FINITE physical measurement methods. To do so would not lead us to a better understanding rather will lead us to GROSS DELUSION and that is very COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.

4 comments:

multipleman said...

Oh sounds your your good in math. but wait kindly read these. maybe you're goona think of it.

www.fromthesunrising.wordpress.com

www.philipgarcia.wordpress.com/
2009/01/10/jehovah-is-not-the-name-of-the-god-of-the-bible/

Im just concern with you. Your intelligent yet use don't use it well.

multipleman said...

Do you know the claims of eli soriano of ang dating daan. He claims that there will be a literal new earth. Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with that. Kindly read my blogs at www.fromthesunrising.wordpress.com. Hope you find enlightenment. Just concern with all people like you...

quiel said...

Hi multipleman and I wish you good health.

You said and I quote;

"Oh sounds your your good in math. but wait kindly read these. maybe you're goona think of it.

www.fromthesunrising.wordpress.com

www.philipgarcia.wordpress.com/
2009/01/10/jehovah-is-not-the-name-of-the-god-of-the-bible/

Im just concern with you. Your intelligent yet use don't use it well."

MAYBE YOU CAN KINDLY EXPLAIN YOUR COMMENT BECAUSE I FIND YOUR COMMENT TOO VAGUE TO BE DECIPHERED CLEARLY. I FIND YOUR COMMENT TOO MISLEADING ACTUALLY BECAUSE YOU SAID I DONT USE THE WORD "DONT" WELL YET YOU HAVEN'T QUOTED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM ANY OF MY BLOG ARTICLE. PLEASE KINDLY MAKE YOUR POINT CLEAR ENOUGH.

quiel said...

Multipleman said and i quote him;

"Do you know the claims of eli soriano of ang dating daan. He claims that there will be a literal new earth."

IS IT NOT WISE MULTIPLEMAN FOR YOU TO HAVE A BASIS OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE? MAYBE YOU CAN GIVE US ANYTHING THAT WILL CONVINCE US BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT BRO. ELI SORIANO REALLY SAID THAT. DONT GIVE US THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT THAT YOU ARE MISLEADING MY READERS.