OLAADEGBU:

Christians believe in the biblical account that Eve was the mother of all living human beings about 6,000 years ago and not a female hominid some millions or billions of years somewhere in Africa.
http://www.creationworldview.org/sample.asp

That's precisely the point. Genesis said God made man, and there was a single female, Eve, from whom we all descended.Thousands of years later, science says we are ALL descended from a single female living in Africa sometime ago. What are the chances of that? Dates and paleontolical language apart, this is as close to confirming creation and the existence of Eve as science has gotten so far. I thought it very intriguing.

That's precisely the point. Genesis said God made man, and there was a single female, Eve, from whom we all descended.Thousands of years later, science says we are ALL descended from a single female living in Africa sometime ago. What are the chances of that? Dates and paleontolical language apart, this is as close to confirming creation and the existence of Eve as science has gotten so far. I thought it very intriguing

Hi Mad_Max. Science did not say that all humans (human body) decended from a single female in Africa. What science says is that using mitochondrial DNA, the present human population can be traced to the mitochodrial DNA of a woman that is a surviving member of a population cluster that once lived in sub-sahara Africa about 150000-200000 years ago. It does not imply that humanity decended from a single woman. The idea that present humans decended from a single man and woman is scientific nonsense. In addition mitochondrial DNA only traces matrineall lineage. It does not account for patrineal lineage or even a sceanario of the  of your fathers mother. Y-DNA have been used to trace patrineal lineage and it is dated much younger than the mitochondrial DNA. Thus scienctific evidence clearly contradicts the literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. Stay blessed.

Mr Nwankwo,I did not say

m_nwankwo:


Hi Mad_Max. Science did not say that all humans (human body) decended from a single female in Africa. What science says is that using mitochondrial DNA, the present human population can be traced to the mitochodrial DNA of a woman that is a surviving member of a population cluster that once lived in sub-sahara Africa about 150000-200000 years ago. It does not imply that humanity decended from a single woman. The idea that present humans decended from a single man and woman is scientific nonsense. In addition mitochondrial DNA only traces matrineall lineage. It does not account for patrineal lineage or even a sceanario of the of your fathers mother. Y-DNA have been used to trace patrineal lineage and it is dated much younger than the mitochondrial DNA. Thus scienctific evidence clearly contradicts the literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. Stay blessed.

What does it imply then?And why cant the present human population be traced to more than one woman in antiquity,if she was merely one member of a population cluster?If there were several women, surely the present human population ought to be traced back to several mDNAs? Why only one?
I'm not saying science is looking to prove or disprove Genesis. Science does what science does; look for answers. I was looking at that particular find from a creationist perspective.

m_nwankwo:


Hi Mad_Max. Science did not say that all humans (human body) decended from a single female in Africa. What science says is that using mitochondrial DNA, the present human population can be traced to the mitochodrial DNA of a woman that is a surviving member of a population cluster that once lived in sub-sahara Africa about 150000-200000 years ago. It does not imply that humanity decended from a single woman. The idea that present humans decended from a single man and woman is scientific nonsense. In addition mitochondrial DNA only traces matrineall lineage. It does not account for patrineal lineage or even a sceanario of the  of your fathers mother. Y-DNA have been used to trace patrineal lineage and it is dated much younger than the mitochondrial DNA. Thus scienctific evidence clearly contradicts the literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. Stay blessed.

1.

2. Wonderful exercise in practicising tutorials of the university of the blindingly obvious,

3. its sad that something so obvious to even the untrained eye is still being dismissed with the slight of hand,

4.

The idea that present humans decended from a single man and woman is scientific nonsense

, by which you mean that you have a scientific evidence to show why it is scientific nonsense.

5. Scientific laboratory results might be repeatable and testable, yet human interpretation and worldview is known to be capable of lying.


6.

It does not account for patrineal lineage or even a sceanario of the  of your fathers mother.

yes dooh!!!   ,  yes that's because it was not testing for patrineal lineage as far as the mitochondrial DNA was concerned.


Anyway sha let's try to separate the fact from the fiction:



Fact:mitochrondrial DNA was tested in the laboratory,
Fact: test results show that there was a common original female ancestor,
Fact: test results showed only a single common original female ancestor,
Fact: test results did not show multiple number of common original ancestor,
Fact: test results did not show the existence of any ancient population cluster,
Fact: test results do not come with location label,
Fact: test results do not come with population label,
Fact: test results do not come with date or time or age label,




Fiction: The assumption of the age 150000-200000 years for the original common female ancestor.
Fiction: The assumption of the existence of any population cluster that the original female ancestor might have belonged to.
Fiction: The assumption of the existence of the location of the original common female ancestor being in sub-sahara Africa.



Please let's leave fiction for sci-fiction novel writers, let science deal with the testable and repeatable facts,

thank you.

@Mad_Max

Mad_Max:

Mr Nwankwo,I did not say
What does it imply then?And why cant the present human population be traced to more than one woman in antiquity,if she was merely one member of a population cluster?If there were several women, surely the present human population ought to be traced back to several mDNAs? Why only one?
I'm not saying science is looking to prove or disprove Genesis. Science does what science does; look for answers. I was looking at that particular find from a creationist perspective.

Hi. Accept my apology for late reply to your post. I do not put on the computer on weekends . There seems to be two concerns in your post. One is obvious and that has to do with the out of Africa theory for the origin of modern humans(human body). The other is not stated in your post but it is my perception that you have a concern with the compatibility or incompatibility of creationism, intelligent design and biological evolution. To avoid unnecessary genetics in my answers, I cite simplified inputs from wikepedia. I hope it will help but if you need an extensive scientific papers on these issues and discussions, just say so and I will oblige.

With respect to the out of Africa model and the mitochondrial Eve, find below the folllowing articles from wikepedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

The compatibility or incompatibility of creationism, intellegence design and biological evolution is best explored (my opinion) by Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins is the ex-head of the Human Genome Project and one of the best medical genecists of our time. I refer you to a video of the lecture he gave at the University of California in 2008 and his latest book on the issue.

Here is the link to the video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

The lecture is 2 Hours plus

Here is his latest book. You can get it from Amazon

Dr. Francis S. Collins (2007). The language of God: A scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Stay blessed.

Oh that's quite all right. I've been more than a little busy myself.
I'll take a look. Many thanks

Mad_Max:

Oh that's quite all right. I've been more than a little busy myself.
I'll take a look. Many thanks

Dr. Francis Collins is both an evolutionist and a self proclaimed evangelist, just as you have some so called christians here on NL who compromise and undercut the authority of the Word of God as the final authority.  I make no apology that the Word of God is the infallible, inerrant Word of the Creator God, and that all people are sinners in need of salvation.

Check the weblinks below to see the book review of "The Language of God" by Francis Collins:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1030collins.asp

Read the papers on The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence in the link below by downloading  the PDF format:

http://www.icr.org/article/mitochondrial-eve-consensus-sequence/

Read about the differences between the Biblical creationist scientists that are Christians and the christians that interprete the Bible according to the opinions of men in the weblink below.

"AiG (and I say every genuine Christian) stands firmly on the authority of Scripture. From our study of the Bible, we are persuaded that Creation occurred in six normal-length days about 6000 years ago, and that God destroyed the earth with a global Flood about 1600 years later. Many Christians who profess to believe that the Bible is God’s Word do not accept the straightforward interpretation of Genesis and accept millions of years (and sometimes evolution also). They often admit that their interpretation of Scripture is controlled by the findings of “science,” which, in reality, are the naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of scientific data.

Some young-earth creationists are persuaded by Bible-based arguments that there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. They therefore believe the creation is up to 10,000–12,000 years old. While AiG does not agree with this view, we do not break fellowship with such creationists but stand shoulder to shoulder with them in opposing the evolutionary idea of millions of years."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/creation-compromises

Loving Science, Loving God
by Kurt Wise and Gregg Allison

Starting with the facts of God’s Word and world, we fashion models to know God and see His truth.

Christians generally agree that evangelizing unbelievers, serving other believers, and worshipping God are worthwhile activities.  But what about the sciences—especially those with little to no practical use to humanity?  Is there value in puzzling over hollow trunks of fossil trees or craters on distant planets?  We believe so.  In fact, we believe science is an essential activity of the church.

Check the link below to find out the why and the how of doing science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/loving-science

Newton's Approach to Science: Honouring Scripture
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.

Read about Isaac Newton's approach to Science, by honouring the Scriptures.  Download and read the PDF document and see how one of the greatest scientist, if not the greatest scientist that ever lived, did science by using the information in the Scriptures to guide him.

http://www.icr.org/article/newton-scripture/

OLAADEGBU:

Read about the differences between the Biblical creationist scientists that are Christians and the christians that interprete the Bible according to the opinions of men in the weblink below.

"AiG (and I say every genuine Christian) stands firmly on the authority of Scripture. From our study of the Bible, we are persuaded that Creation occurred in six normal-length days about 6000 years ago, and that God destroyed the earth with a global Flood about 1600 years later. Many Christians who profess to believe that the Bible is God’s Word do not accept the straightforward interpretation of Genesis and accept millions of years (and sometimes evolution also). They often admit that their interpretation of Scripture is controlled by the findings of “science,” which, in reality, are the naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of scientific data.

Some young-earth creationists are persuaded by Bible-based arguments that there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. They therefore believe the creation is up to 10,000–12,000 years old. While AiG does not agree with this view, we do not break fellowship with such creationists but stand shoulder to shoulder with them in opposing the evolutionary idea of millions of years."http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/creation-compromises

Answers in Genesis furnish unsupported claims. Science isn't evil, and many of them have benefitted by the advances of science and technology, one obvious benefit being the website they post articles on. Science tries to solve puzzles, and that's to their credit. The fact remains that no one knows what happened at the beginning.  And the Bible itself has a historical context. The Bible is a collection of ancient scrolls, and a few were not included. Though when you read the unincluded, written by Gnostics, their author's intended mischief becomes clear. The earth was created in six literal days?And it's thousands of years old? It's statements like that that dilute the power of the Gospel to thinking people. How can they take anyone with that absurd stance seriously? Human beings have cracked the human genome. I don't think dating the earth, even if they're estimates, should be too hard.Paleontologists date fossils and artifacts. Though they change dates according to technology, the changes are in millions and not thousands of years. You cannot make the hominid skulls they discovered go away by waving a bible, not can the fossils of Metozoid animals vanish. If not for carbon dating, scientists wouldn't have been able to deternime the age of books like The Book of Judas, which seriously undermine the gospel, and reveal that it was written long after the death of Judas,the purported author, and so he didn't write it. In fact, the Vatican hid it for centuries out of fear, and it was only recently that they could be certain it was false, though it had long been discredited.

Whether the earth is millions or thousands of years old is irrelevant, though. What concerns me is people who hide behind science to deny the existence of God. Evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology furnish them their reasons. It's mostly conjecture, but those reasons can be compelling. I don't think science is incompatible with God. It's only agenda is to know and discover more. Some of their theories are falsified later by scientists, but they consider that progress. They're merely wandering in the endless darkness of the unknown, and trying to claim the darkness inch by painful inch. In the end, it will lead to God. In fact, science has convinced many a scientist about the existence of God. Science is not the source of faith, but it can not be disregarded.

Mad_Max:

Answers in Genesis furnish unsupported claims. Science isn't evil, and many of them have benefitted by the advances of science and technology, one obvious benefit being the website they post articles on. Science tries to solve puzzles, and that's to their credit. The fact remains that no one knows what happened at the beginning.

Thanks for removing the mask and revealing your real presupposition.  I don't know how you arrived at the idea that creationists believe that science is evil, if you have read my posts and links in the past by now you would have an idea what biblical creation scientists's stance on science.  I guess it must have been a preconceived notion or idea that you hold about creationists.  It has been biblical creationists like Bacon, Kepler, Newton etc that set the scientific method ball rolling before you guys latched onto it and now claim it as being an evolutionist idea.  For your information, this is not an argument of Religion versus Science but the Authority of the Word of God versus the authority of the word of men. 

Evolution theory does not equate science.  Evolution theory is an ideology that does not require the existence of God.  It is a what is commonly called false science since it cannot be proved neither does it stand up to any scientific scrutiny.  It is proven to be irrational, unreasonable, unscientific and illogical.  It is just a way of seeking to find an explanation of the evidence available to us that explains away the existence of God.  Evolution is based on a reasoning process that rejects God while creation starts from the authority of God's Word.  Your presuppositions are like a pair of spectacles that you wear to look at the world around you to interprete the evidence. It is not true to say that there are different evidences for creation and evolution, everyone has the same evidence it is just interpreted in different ways. 

If you really want to know what creationist think about science read my post #174 and #175 and also check the link below:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

Mad_Max:

And the Bible itself has a historical context. The Bible is a collection of ancient scrolls, and a few were not included. Though when you read the unincluded, written by Gnostics, their author's intended mischief becomes clear. The earth was created in six literal days?And it's thousands of years old? It's statements like that that dilute the power of the Gospel to thinking people. How can they take anyone with that absurd stance seriously? Human beings have cracked the human genome. I don't think dating the earth, even if they're estimates, should be too hard.Paleontologists date fossils and artifacts. Though they change dates according to technology, the changes are in millions and not thousands of years. You cannot make the hominid skulls they discovered go away by waving a bible, not can the fossils of Metozoid animals vanish. If not for carbon dating, scientists wouldn't have been able to deternime the age of books like The Book of Judas, which seriously undermine the gospel, and reveal that it was written long after the death of Judas,the purported author, and so he didn't write it. In fact, the Vatican hid it for centuries out of fear, and it was only recently that they could be certain it was false, though it had long been discredited.

Whether the earth is millions or thousands of years old is irrelevant, though. What concerns me is people who hide behind science to deny the existence of God. Evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology furnish them their reasons. It's mostly conjecture, but those reasons can be compelling. I don't think science is incompatible with God. It's only agenda is to know and discover more. Some of their theories are falsified later by scientists, but they consider that progress. They're merely wandering in the endless darkness of the unknown, and trying to claim the darkness inch by painful inch. In the end, it will lead to God. In fact, science has convinced many a scientist about the existence of God. Science is not the source of faith, but it can not be disregarded.

The perspectives of biblical creation is the belief  of the true history of the universe as revealed to us from God’s eyewitness perspective in the Bible.  The history is summarized as the 7 C’s of history, and they are:

[list]
[li]Creation of the universe[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Corruption of the universe as a result of man’s sin,[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]The judgment of mankind in the Catastrophe of Noah’s Flood,[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Confusion of languages at Babel,[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Christ coming to earth to live a righteous life and then to pay for our sins on the cross,[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]The future Consummation when God creates the New Heaven and the New Earth.[/li]
[/list]

This history serves as a foundation for interpreting evidence in the biblical creationists worldview.

Many of the fossils of human ancestors consists of little more than fragments of bone, some of which have been exposed as frauds.  Most creationists consider Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, and some other fossil group as representatives of extinct people groups, not evolutionary ends.  Interpretation of fossils from an evolutionary perspective is not compatible with the teachings of the Bible.  The fact that chimpanzees and humans have similar  DNA does not make them evolutionary relatives.  Humans did not evolve in a series of random accidents from an apelike ancestor, they were created in the image of God.  The Bible makes a clear distinction between man and the animals.  Man is given the ability to fellowship with God and given dominion over the animals.  Evolutionary ideas about the rise of man from apes has fuelled racist attitudes and set the stage for atrocities as the Holocaust.  Humans were specially created by God and are not simply highly evolved primates as you may imply.

I'm sorry, but both your posts made me laugh. What masks would that be?
I believe God created the world. That makes me a creationist, no?
But I take exception to science being demonised. If a few scientists have an agenda, that's their problem.
On the other hand if I choose to think God[i] didn't [/i] create the world, I have a right to do so, don't you think? It's all right to have people have think differently from you, you know.
Who were the eyewitnesses to God creating the world in the Bible, and wrote the accounts?
The Eden story in Genesis may be symbolic or literal, or it may be both. Who knows?

Answers in Genesis takes a lot for granted, and a few of their arguments are patently unconvincing. Young earth and 6 literal days I find downright absurd. I was not making a case for evolution with fossils and hominids. But those hominids and fossils are there, and I've not heard any Palentologist say they're the remains of extinct groups. How do those who say so substantiate their claim?Give me a link to their articles. I would like to read it, for balance. But since they're interpreting anthopological data, their arguments must be sound.

Of course there are frauds. There are frauds everywhere, in every field of science. But it doesn't negate what is genuine, and they far outweigh the fakes, or diminish the disinterested efforts of scientists. Evolution profers some powerful arguments, and they need forceful arguments in return. Remember evolution has not won over the scientific community. There are scientists who examine the same data, interprete it differently and argue against evolution. But it is gaining ground, and it is being taught in schools, and the I hear the Vatican has endorsed it. Answers in Genesis offers unsubstianted claims. In the face of what evolutionists are countering with, don't you think they should offer more? I much prefer your links to other sites and articles,that give forceful,interesting arguments against evolution. I am, in fact, reading one of them now.

Godless Religion
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (2 Timothy 3:5)

Included in Paul's graphic description of the "perilous" characteristics of the "last days" (not the church age, since the prophesied last days were still future when he wrote of them in his last epistle, 2 Timothy 3:1-3) is this warning concerning the religious leaders of the last days.  They would observe the outward form (church buildings, sacraments, religious services, etc.) of "godliness" (that is, "religion", but would reject its supernatural aspects.  They would desire the trappings of religious professionalism since they would be "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God" (v. 4).

Such specifications aptly describe the modern world of scientism and liberal theology, which pervades practically all religious denominations and overlaps with all kinds of liberal social movements (women's liberation, gay rights, "New Age" pantheism, and others).  Although these are widely diverse in structure and purpose, they all share one vital feature in common: they reject supernatural Christianity, especially literal creationism. Many liberal preachers give nominal allegiance to the teachings of Christ and the Bible, but they invariably deny the mighty power of God in special creation, as well as the great worldwide miracles of the Bible--the Flood, the dispersion, etc.

This prophecy is not given in Scripture simply as a matter of information.  It contains a warning urgently needed by Bible-believing Christians who are under pressure today to compromise with humanistic liberals on this great doctrine of God's creative power.  Many have accepted the evolutionary system of "ages geology," and this is tragic and dangerous.  Instead of compromising with evolutionary naturalists and religious liberals, as many evangelicals today are inclined to do, Paul warns: "From such turn away!" HMM

http://www.icr.org/article/4371/

Dude, have you ever thought that your conclusions are drawn based on a confirmation bias? It seems like (with all due respect) you don't want to REALLY understand evolution because if you did you wouldn't be mixing it up with cosmology, physics and chemistry.

If you want to understand evolution feel free to send me a private message and we can talk about this like gentlemen. Anyway to get to the rudiments its best you start slowly because it's a pretty big pill to swallow if you're shackled with presuppositions like the laughable creationism crap that is "fringe" thinking at best within the scientific community.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=019F146277A3EDFD

Anyway send me a message if you wish, these forums are a bit too loud and crowded for my tastes. Oh and I am an atheist if you got any thing you wish to ask me about my personal brand of lack of belief then feel free to do so.

Much respect brothers and sisters.

Evolution and the Woman
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

In spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence against evolution, "Christian evolutionists" still argue (or, at least, allow) that evolution could be God's method of creation.

Such a fence-straddling position is logically untenable, however, and gravely dangerous spiritually. There are numerous biblical and theological reasons why evolution, under any guise, must be unequivocally repudiated by Bible-believing Christians, and one of the most obvious is the unique biblical account of the formation of the body of the first woman. By no stretch of the imagination or device of spiritualizing exposition can this account be harmonized with the assumed evolution of human beings from some earlier group of hominids.

God "formed man of the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7). Many theistic evolutionists have asserted that this phrase could be applied to the long process of evolution, as imagined by modern paleoanthropologists. This, of course, is fantasy, not exegesis. But whatever argument might be made for this strange interpretation, there is simply no way at all for the record of Eve's subsequent formation out of Adam's side (Genesis 2:21-22) to be so interpreted. All they can do with this passage is ignore it, trying to pass it by with some comment about woman being close to man's heart or something. It is not only clearly spelled out in Genesis, but is confirmed by the apostle Paul, both here and in 1 Timothy 2:13. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself quoted from the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman (Matthew 19:4-6) as literal history. Both man and woman are special creations of God, with no evolutionary connection whatsoever to any kind of animal ancestry. HMM

thought I should throw this into the discussion going on here.
----------------------------------------

The sanctity of nothing
By Damola Awoyokun

IF to Prof Niyi Akinnaso the sanctity of tributes derives from its being closed to debate, then nothing should be sacred under the sun. Not only is discourse and counter-discourse the expression of an open society but the turbulent space between them is the indispensable channel for growth and development. Any idea that discounts the necessity of asking questions is an idea heading for collapse when not actually draconian. Critical consciousness is to civilisation what blood is to the body.

In my article, Soyinka on Adunni Olorisa (The Guardian, February 8, 2009), I never 'dismissed the focus' of Soyinka's Tribute to Susanne Wenger (The Guardian, January 20, 2009) as Akinnaso alleged in his 'The Sanctity of Tributes' (The Guardian, February 18, 2009), I only spent more space elaborating the fundamental before taking on the superficialities. I stated that traditional religion (TR) is nothing but superstition; that it was invented in the primitive age as a means of satisfying human desire to know; that it is based on fate, akoole; that Ifa, its divination scripture though crafted in beautiful prose, is fallacious, as proof, I analysed an emblematic passage from Otura meji; I argued that TR has no place for scientific methods to evaluate its claims which is what superstition is; in short that TR is irrational.

Having built this foundation, I took on the superficialities: the 'qualities' Soyinka praised in Wenger's religion and also his weird mantra which I'd rightly termed an instruction because it asked us to "Go to the orisa, learn from the orisa, and be wise." Go to!

I contended that Christianity and Islam in origin were not different from TR but along the line, they opened up to fruits of thought. Who could dispute the contributions of Islam to astronomy, physics, mathematics? Or does the Christmas we celebrate nowadays with its pageantries and carols anywhere near what is laid out in the Bible? But these religions due to their newfound rigidity to their scriptures and indifference to the latest fruits of thought have become absurd like TR that never rose above ground zero. I moved on to add a fresh angle to the thinking on tolerance and reason: that what Soyinka credits Wenger's religion with is actually a pseudo-tolerance; that TR had never been tolerant as evidenced in its history of burning mosques and churches and disowning children who happens to go to the white man's school and churches; that it looks tolerating because it had taken severe beatings from the foreign religions; that if its numerical strength were to increase significantly it would show its true colours since intolerance is that utopian quest to be the only majority, the only big tree under which nothing grows. Of course, no religion can be tolerant of the other since they are intolerant of reason. They know reason is a natural rebel, with it, every religion will lose its identity, that is, will fall apart. Any successful support of Soyinka's indefensible tribute therefore, would espouse the rebuttal of these arguments. Instead, Akinnaso's Sanctity, in a bid to stand shoulder to shoulder with Soyinka's piece stood on quicksand with it.

Contrary to Akinnaso's charge, I never followed "Eurocentric conventions" or any of those theories or "isms" that disparages freedom of thought which universities and intellectoids over use nowadays in order to look busy. I argued from pure reason, first principles and critical consciousness. What is Eurocentric in saying traditional religion? Even in the language it is called "esin abalaye, esin awon baba wa, esin ibile." Surely, the etymology of these words predates both the European and Arabic colonial incursions. There always had been what is past and what is igbalode. Colonists from the desert and sea did not teach us that.

What Akinnaso did not realise is that Soyinka's piece had already shot itself in the foot and in so doing hinted at a mistake of Wenger and the irrationality of the religion. I explain. Having described Wenger as "a spiritual seeker," "questing stranger," "a being of the universal spirit who found the truths of existence not in Europe, nor Austria, but in a place she had never heard of, Yet she recognised that space at once, intuitively, unquestioning." Why did such a seeker that had invested so much in being curious then stop questioning? The surrender of critical consciousness is sleep of reason that gives birth to not only nonsense but also monstrosities. This I already exemplified in the case of Olunde in Death and the King's Horseman. Why is it that when anyone - Christians and Muslims alike - who wants to destroy the other easily find ample space and means to in TR? Bank managers preventing a rival from rising, market women preventing the other from outselling them, or ritualists who kill others because they want quick money. What is in the religion that makes it tolerant of such evil motives that hunger for quick fulfillment?

If Wenger came from Europe and discovered in TR "truths of existence," Soyinka and Akinnaso owe us elaborations on that otherwise vague clich?. What are those truths of existence that TR uniquely offers? More evasive is that which Soyinka said was "too personal for outsiders to understand." This can, of course be put down as either willful obscurantism or underestimation of our intelligence. Nevertheless, such tactic is common to every religion. And it has proved all through the ages an easy means by which pastors and prophets, sheikhs and imams, rabbis and rabbonis, babalawos and oniseguns keep their people perpetually duped. It is through such claims to superior insights, those you-cannot-understand, you're-not-in-the-spirits that these spiritual elite plead for exemptions from tests set up to safeguard facts from fantasies, knowledge from illusions, intelligence from aberrations. It is from there moral and intellectual irresponsibility find basics and extremisms follow. "Ifa has told me your mother is the one in charge of your poverty, she was born a witch!" Or the examples of a Pastor King or several others who swear from their privileged access or insider's information that the world would soon end.

The conclusion of Akinnaso's piece is intriguing. He quoted from UNESCO: "The sacred grove, which is now seen as a symbol of identity for all Yoruba people, is probably the last in Yoruba culture. It testifies to the once widespread practice of establishing sacred groves outside all settlements." Disappointed by its elegiac tone, he recourse to another: "What is even more important for present purposes is the invocation of Susan Wenger's contribution." He cited UNESCO's hailing Wenger for developing "new sacred artists" (whatever 'sacred' means in the arts world) and "her absorption into Yoruba community have proved to be a fertile exchange of ideas that revived the sacred Osun Grove." This means before Wenger voyaged in, the grove was fortunately dead or dying. And what is this revived grove for? It is the abode of the goddess of fertility. That is the place Akinnaso said: "Anyone who goes there and is not the wiser for it needs self-examination." Whereas the truth is: anyone who still thinks fertility is administered by a piece of carved wood simply because it has conical breasts and split vuvla urgently needs self-examination. Wisdom, I have argued, cannot be in a "sacred" grove but it is acquired through immersion in the best that has been thought and said.

As the centuries-old masterpieces of religious arts in Florence or Isfahan do not rescue Christianity and Islam from being superstitions so does Wenger's 50-year decoration of Osun River or the army of 'sacred' artists she inspired make TR sensible. Its method of operation is never sufficiently determinate to make possible, specific inferences and empirical data. Hence, its value can never be relevant to any paradigm of social and mental progress.


Awoyokun lives in London.
-----------
[url=http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article04/indexn3_html?pdate=050309&ptitle=The%20sanctity%20of%20nothing&cpdate=050309]The Guardian[/url]

@huxley and other evolutionary morons,
Am not suprised at all the rantings here, you re only confirminng what the Scripture said the fool hath said in his heart there is no God, no matter how laughable that might sound, ofcourse the fool must have a reason for coming to that conclusion, that is why the likes of huxley, wirinet, bindex, nwankwo and other retarded brains will rather sticks to their vanity theories of evolution and other trash to make us think they re intelligent, not minding the fact that there is different between Truth and fact or better still theories. Theory is not truth and truth is not theory. In the their unintelligible mindset, they thought human existence can be explained simply by subjecting it to the purview of science and evolution, not minding the fact that humans interfaced between physical and the spirit.

They forgot that being a free moral agent, humans have capacity to choose what they want and the intelligence to adduce reasons for there choices, that is why the Bible said it is only a fool that can deny the exisitence of God when evrything that can be seen witnessed to the existence of God. These retarded brains forgot that inductive and deductive reasonings are two sides of the same coin, and science is not entirely free from human biases, it is just a matter of finding empirical evidence to confirm your intuitive judgment and assumptions. There is different between the Bible and the theory of Form, its only a fool that doesn't know the difference.

It amazed me that these intellectually retarded Africans think they can make any difference to the Christian Faith, Am glad to announce to you that many great and reputable thinkers have attempted to challenge the precision, efficacy and integrity of the word of God and failed woefully, even before your great grandfather was born. Backslider in the heart is full of his own ways.

SegzyJoe:

@huxley and other evolutionary morons,
Am not suprised at all the rantings here, you re only confirminng what the Scripture said the fool hath said in his heart there is no God, no matter how laughable that might sound, ofcourse the fool must have a reason for coming to that conclusion, that is why the likes of huxley, wirinet, bindex, nwankwo and other retarded brains will rather sticks to their vanity theories of evolution and other trash to make us think they re intelligent, not minding the fact that there is different between Truth and fact or better still theories. Theory is not truth and truth is not theory. In the their unintelligible mindset, they thought human existence can be explained simply by subjecting it to the purview of science and evolution, not minding the fact that humans interfaced between physical and the spirit.

They forgot that being a free moral agent, humans have capacity to choose what they want and the intelligence to adduce reasons for there choices, that is why the Bible said it is only a fool that can deny the exisitence of God when evrything that can be seen witnessed to the existence of God. These retarded brains forgot that inductive and deductive reasonings are two sides of the same coin, and science is not entirely free from human biases, it is just a matter of finding empirical evidence to confirm your intuitive judgment and assumptions. There is different between the Bible and the theory of Form, its only a fool that doesn't know the difference.

It amazed me that these intellectually retarded Africans think they can make any difference to the Christian Faith, Am glad to announce to you that many great and reputable thinkers have attempted to challenge the precision, efficacy and integrity of the word of God and failed woefully, even before your great grandfather was born. Backslider in the heart is full of his own ways.

I am not sure you have read my posts. I believe in God and have a plethora of experiences in that connection. I have only said that biological evolution is true and not incompatible with the existence of God. It is ok if you disagree with my views but it is unnecessary to give names to people whose views are contrarily to yours. I am not the best molecular biologist but I am a very good one. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

I am not sure you have read my posts. I believe in God and have a plethora of experiences in that connection. I have only said that biological evolution is true and not incompatible with the existence of God. It is ok if you disagree with my views but it is unnecessary to give names to people whose views are contrarily to yours. I am not the best molecular biologist but I am a very good one. Stay blessed.

Hello, good contribution, but I wish you could have gone a little bit further in explaining to him just how it is that acceptance of evolution does not neccesarily entail disbelief in god. Can you also provide some of the more stronger evidence for evolution, particularly from molecular biology?

You have always sounded reasonable to me and with you background in the sciences, I think you would want to play a much greater role in educating people about things like evolution. There is no greater duty the enlightened own society than to remove the veils of darkness from our fellow man.

Mad_Max:

I'm sorry, but both your posts made me laugh. What masks would that be?
I believe God created the world. That makes me a creationist, no?
But I take exception to science being demonised. If a few scientists have an agenda, that's their problem.
On the other hand if I choose to think God[i] didn't [/i] create the world, I have a right to do so, don't you think? It's all right to have people have think differently from you, you know.
Who were the eyewitnesses to God creating the world in the Bible, and wrote the accounts?
The Eden story in Genesis may be symbolic or literal, or it may be both. Who knows?

Answers in Genesis takes a lot for granted, and a few of their arguments are patently unconvincing. Young earth and 6 literal days I find downright absurd. I was not making a case for evolution with fossils and hominids. But those hominids and fossils are there, and I've not heard any Palentologist say they're the remains of extinct groups. How do those who say so substantiate their claim?Give me a link to their articles. I would like to read it, for balance. But since they're interpreting anthopological data, their arguments must be sound.

Of course there are frauds. There are frauds everywhere, in every field of science. But it doesn't negate what is genuine, and they far outweigh the fakes, or diminish the disinterested efforts of scientists. Evolution profers some powerful arguments, and they need forceful arguments in return. Remember evolution has not won over the scientific community. There are scientists who examine the same data, interprete it differently and argue against evolution. But it is gaining ground, and it is being taught in schools, and the I hear the Vatican has endorsed it. Answers in Genesis offers unsubstianted claims. In the face of what evolutionists are countering with, don't you think they should offer more? I much prefer your links to other sites and articles,that give forceful,interesting arguments against evolution. I am, in fact, reading one of them now.

I can understand your allegiance to the Vatican authority, whatever the pope says is the final authority. Put that bias aside and objectively watch the videoclips that I have posted below, and see how evolution that is taught in schools and propagated by its apostles are nothing but a little bit of evidence coated with fairytales. I want you to watch what it has discovered about the Mitochondrial Eve and compare it against the lies that the evolutionists and their bedfellows has been spreading. The first two clips shows how accurate the Bible account is when compared to the theory of evolution.

Evidence of how Biblical creation hit the bulls eye

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33vCvxYOzYU&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3c4NXPiZ4&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31t1C8K1r24[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuYp7GAE9xQ&NR=1[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yve4wI4oGdY&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_FGtNxd6s&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

huxley:

Hello, good contribution, but I wish you could have gone a little bit further in explaining to him just how it is that acceptance of evolution does not neccesarily entail disbelief in god. Can you also provide some of the more stronger evidence for evolution, particularly from molecular biology?

You have always sounded reasonable to me and with you background in the sciences, I think you would want to play a much greater role in educating people about things like evolution. There is no greater duty the enlightened own society than to remove the veils of darkness from our fellow man.

Hi Huxley. Of course I can provide very strong evidence from genetics and molecular biology in support of the theory of biological evolution. The reason why I have restrained myself from doing so is that the discussion shifts from science to debate between creationism and atheism, and then to personal attacks and insults.

As you know I believe in God and I believe that biological evolution and indeed all the natural or supernatural laws are expressions of the will of God. I give discussants my views when they ask and if they do not ask or ask just for the sake of argument, I keep quiet. I believe that when people are ready for spiritual and intellectual progress, they will seek for it and they will find the illumination. If however they are not yet ready, even the greatest scientific discovery or spiritual occurence will not make an impression. You can see evidence of  this intellectual poverty and spiritual inertia in several discussions on this forum. People simply reinstate their predetermined position, no matter the evidence presented to them. Stay blessed

@M_Nwankwo
I know you know evolution has two definitionsquote)
1. The doctrine that ALL forms of life originated by descent,with gradual or abrupt modifications, from preexisting life forms which themselves trace backward in a continuing series to the most rudimentary organismes.Leap: Man evolved from primordial ooze.

2.The series of changes by which a given type of organism has acquired the physiological and structural characteristics differentiating it from other types. Phylogeny.

You'll find a few people concentrate on the second definition and pretend the first does not exist. The second, which measures biological change in organisms over time, is a SOLID theory. It has absolutely nothing to do with one's faith, any more than the theory of relativity or that plants manufacture chlorophyl or that the earth revolves on its axis. It's the first definition that's the problem,no?

When are we finishing that discussion of ours?

OLAADEGBU:

I can understand your allegiance to the Vatican authority, whatever the pope says is the final authority.

Though I was born and raised in the danged thing, I'm not Catholic. I detest the Vatican and can't stand organised religion.

This is an interview of the journey of a former evolutionist to being a scientific biblical creationist.  This is what I call a testimony to the glory of God.

From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony
by Gary Parker, Ed.D.

"Did your conversion to Christianity then make you a creationist?"

No, at least not at first. Like so many before and since, I simply combined my new-found Christian religion with the "facts" of science and became a theistic evolutionist and then a progressive creationist. I thought the Bible told me who created, and that evolution told me how.

But then I began to find scientific problems with the evolutionary part, and theological problems with the theistic part. I still have a good many friends who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation, but I finally had to give it up.

"What theological problems did you find with theistic evolution?"

Perhaps the key point centered around the phrase, "very good." At the end of each creation period (except the second) God said that His creation was good. At the end of the sixth period He said that all His works of creation were very good.

Now all the theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists I know, including myself at one time, try to fit "geologic time" and the fossil record into the creation periods. But regardless of how old they are, the fossils show the same things that we have on earth today -- famine, disease, disaster, extinction, floods, earthquakes, etc. So if fossils represent stages in God's creative activity, why should Christians oppose disease and famine or help preserve an endangered species? If the fossils were formed during the creation week, then all these things would be very good.

When I first believed in evolution, I had sort of a romantic idea about evolution as unending progress. But in the closing paragraphs of the Origin of Species, Darwin explained that evolution, the "production of higher animals," was caused by "the war of nature, from famine and death." Does "the war of nature, from famine and death" sound like the means God would have used to create a world all very good?

In Genesis 3, Romans 8 and many other passages, we learn that such negative features were not part of the world that God created, but entered only after Adam’s sin. By ignoring this point, either intentionally or unintentionally, theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists come into conflict with the whole pattern of Scripture: the great themes of Creation, the Fall, and Redemption -- how God made the world perfect and beautiful; how man's sin brought a curse upon the world; and how Christ came to save us from our sins and to restore all things.

* Dr. Gary E. Parker did his doctoral work in biology and geology. He is the author of five widely used programmed instruction books in biology. Click on the link below to read the full testimony of how this man was transformed from an hardened evolutionists, then theistic evolutionist before he eventually saw the light and became a biblical creationist.

http://www.icr.org/article/95/313/

Mad_Max:

@M_Nwankwo
I know you know evolution has two definitionsquote)
1. The doctrine that ALL forms of life originated by descent,with gradual or abrupt modifications, from preexisting life forms which themselves trace backward in a continuing series to the most rudimentary organismes.Leap: Man evolved from primordial ooze.

2.The series of changes by which a given type of organism has acquired the physiological and structural characteristics differentiating it from other types. Phylogeny.

You'll find a few people concentrate on the second definition and pretend the first does not exist. The second, which measures biological change in organisms over time, is a SOLID theory. It has absolutely nothing to do with one's faith, any more than the theory of relativity or that plants manufacture chlorophyl or that the earth revolves on its axis. It's the first definition that's the problem,no?

When are we finishing that discussion of ours?

Hi Mad_Max.  We have discussed several things and I am not sure which one you are talking about. Can you remind me of the particular discussion so that we can continue. Stay blessed!

Hi sir. I refer to our theological discussions. It wasn't on this thread, though. I told you I would give you a breather, and then resume. I've had to reign in my considerable curiosity about your past life experiences.

Mad_Max:

Hi sir. I refer to our theological discussions. It wasn't on this thread, though. I told you I would give you a breather, and then resume. I've had to reign in my considerable curiosity about your past life experiences.

Hi again Mad_Max. Thanks. I guess the discussion was on Judas Ischariot thread. I hope I am correct. I guess we can continue the discussion on that thread. Just raise your questions on that thread and we discuss. Stay blessed.

SegzyJoe:

@huxley and other evolutionary morons,
Am not suprised at all the rantings here, you re only confirminng what the Scripture said the fool hath said in his heart there is no God, no matter how laughable that might sound, ofcourse the fool must have a reason for coming to that conclusion, that is why the likes of huxley, wirinet, bindex, nwankwo and other retarded brains will rather sticks to their vanity theories of evolution and other trash to make us think they re intelligent, not minding the fact that there is different between Truth and fact or better still theories. Theory is not truth and truth is not theory. In the their unintelligible mindset, they thought human existence can be explained simply by subjecting it to the purview of science and evolution, not minding the fact that humans interfaced between physical and the spirit.

They forgot that being a free moral agent, humans have capacity to choose what they want and the intelligence to adduce reasons for there choices, that is why the Bible said it is only a fool that can deny the exisitence of God when evrything that can be seen witnessed to the existence of God. These retarded brains forgot that inductive and deductive reasonings are two sides of the same coin, and science is not entirely free from human biases, it is just a matter of finding empirical evidence to confirm your intuitive judgment and assumptions. There is different between the Bible and the theory of Form, its only a fool that doesn't know the difference.

It amazed me that these intellectually retarded Africans think they can make any difference to the Christian Faith, Am glad to announce to you that many great and reputable thinkers have attempted to challenge the precision, efficacy and integrity of the word of God and failed woefully, even before your great grandfather was born. Backslider in the heart is full of his own ways.

God bless you my brother, the Bible cannot be more true when it says that the fool says in his heart, there is no God, infact my Yoruba Bible puts it more succintly by saying "A mad man says in his heart, there is no God."  When I say mad I don't mean an angry man as Americans would say but as in "Psycho", "Kolo mental" or "mentalo" if not how can a sane man believe in the theory of goo to you by the way of the zoo  These people are so disrespectful of their parents and ancestors that they now call them "monkeys" or ape-like creatures  They are actually fulfilling bible prophecy that says that they will be "haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful; Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." - Romans 1:30-32  in verses 21-22 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, . . . "

Evolution is an ideology that says that there does not have to be a God for the universe and all that is within it to exist.

OLAADEGBU:


Evolution is an ideology that says that there does not have to be a God for the universe and all that is within it to exist.

I cannot agree less. Fallacy

noetic:

I cannot agree less. Fallacy

May the good Lord bless you abundantly. I must say well done for sticking up for the truth, we certainly need more scientists like you and Davidylan to continue to expose the lie called evolution theory. See the link below and see how real scientists deal with real data to give us tangible facts that disproves evolution theory.

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33vCvxYOzYU&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3c4NXPiZ4&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31t1C8K1r24[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuYp7GAE9xQ&NR=1[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yve4wI4oGdY&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_FGtNxd6s&feature=related[/li]
[/list]