No.... it's never suppose to be thinkable in the first place

@alwaysstranger Nice videos bro, that's kind of you, I hope we could still be friends.. We can agree to disagree, We could still respect each-other, withing and outside an argument... hope that's okay with you

@alwaysstranger .. I believe you really do know what "Fact" means... cos you really being emotional and subjective.. else please, rationally point us how factual the QURAN is violent??

Bigotry is so appealing to majority of people with intellectual deficiency , it's almost so plain and noticeable but somehow people seems so deluded and paint everyone with same brush. In a nut shell, just as majority of the reasoning will say NO to Hitler atrocities to defend Christianity, the same "NO people" will actually portray ISLAM by the action of few misleading unrepresentative of the religion. so evident most people are purely disingenuous.

@alwaysstranger , but all religion are attributed to people who practice and holds the ideology

@alwaysstranger let's be fair and rational on something.. let's say an ideology and it explicitly promotes violence, wars, rape, killing, robbery, drugs and much more one could add, and this is its core and essence for whole of humanity.. .. believe you me it's irrational to take that as a moral standard, and totally supportable to discourage such and i don't think any of such exit, but yeah we could find people with self centered agenda and the best way is to use little element of an ideology to go out full scale and all fingers is pointed to the ideology.. so lets kinda like set some things straight, we are rational thinkers at this very best modern age, and I kinda like hold not to take religion as the culprit.

@alwaysstranger yeah, i agree and in support to stop bad ideology, such as the Narcissism , fascism, racism and other anti-humanity "ism" movement .. they are terrible to the end , be it even in the disguise of a particular religious name, but taking "ALL" religion with the same umbrella of being "BAD IDEOLOGIES" is really not a fair deductive approach.

@alwaysstranger .. i get that point, some context of the bible with regards to scientific evidence are really really unparalleled. I agree to that. some biblical claims are bogus and lacks true validity, I really don't want to dive into the proving of the biblical text, but I will relax it to say, human corruption affected the total validity of their scriptures. I love science , it's objective it's deductive but not all it's claims are true or credible to deductive reasoning, an example with "Human Evolution" ..

@alwaysstranger hahahha.. Richard Dawkins.. the exceptional great mind of these times.. a great guy, but common, evolution and holocaust is not in anyway same level of deductive approach when it comes to logically accessing the situation

@alwaysstranger Regarding the Quran claims, it's mind blowing , i could fill this page with Youtube links showing some scientific fact that was available in the Quran 1400 years ago and science is just founding it out now with not to far years ago... I don't want to come in to science to Quran interrelations, but for the discussion, Quran is so much of the zenith when it comes to science around us

@alwaysstranger : yeah, you don't need to care much when the videos r irrelevant nd strolling out of the crux of what's been questioned. go fill up intellectually bro, there is a major gap and it's quite obvious.. it's of no significance to continue on such disparity

@alwaysstranger you've got a major intellectual gap and just relying on the surface part of Evolution postulates, but when faced to its micro-level, you tend to be shutoff and bring irrelevancies for sake of argument..
Whatever dude, Human evolution is still nonsensical and that doesn't makes someone unscientific .

@alwaysstranger ,
We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either.

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances.The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

i spoke about chance : Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (non-adaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

i hate to continue, but serious there's a kind of intellectual gap as seen from your supposedly sitcoms with regards to discussing Human evolution. because there are some important criteria that supports evolution , but taking these criteria to a micro-level, it fails to uphold its consistency to the claim its trying to support

@alwaysstranger , You're really pro in beating around the bush.. Go read more on Human evolution, its obvious all what you have are some observatory sitcoms for evolution while ignoring fundamental of what its actually postulating. .

@alwaysstranger
am really not in the mood of some whatever sitcom you've piled up with flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory.

just discuss briefly to me what is indeed the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity, cos in it lies several unanswerable question.

How did life originate? evolution or by Intelligent designer
How did the DNA code originate?
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
How did multi-cellular life originate?
How did sex originate?
How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years ?

Except you want tell me it all happened because of probability , chance, randomness without any Intelligent designer..

hopefully , you don't give me another evolution sitcoms

@alwaysstranger .. and you really support some drunk made gibberish that you descended from the apes or your distance ancestors are apes .... biggest laughable joke by drunk darwin. you could try talking about other evolutionary theories but dude, Human evoution is purely nonsensical.

By the way i will be glad to hear you out, just for fairness in my criticism, so please, i will kindly ask, how is Human evolution theory logical, rational and makes one "scientific"?

@alwaysstranger .. just pointing out the inconsistency of some scientific fact.. i taught you knew that along,, so much for your arrogance

@alwaysstranger . rubbish.. keeping on eating own words "ohhhhh. Really. Send me 1 link or article where they say that the sun revolves" you're full of shit

@alwaysstranger

https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=4dntrK4vrtEC&pg=PR5&lpg=PR5&dq=Academic+papers+on+"the+rotation+of+the+sun"&source=bl&ots=Td0QPq9plK&sig=dlH9BLuYLUX_amMF-6uzgPR2zfM&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Academic papers on "the rotation of the sun"&f=false

https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=ORZSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA100&dq=Academic+papers+on+"the+revolution+of+the+sun"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilzpHusfDVAhUJPFAKHXwUDNAQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Academic papers on "the revolution of the sun"&f=false

https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=8fZRAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA263&dq=Academic+papers+on+"the+revolution+of+the+sun"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilzpHusfDVAhUJPFAKHXwUDNAQ6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=Academic papers on "the revolution of the sun"&f=false

@alwaysstranger
links saying the sun rotates and revolves

https://www.space.com/58-the-sun-formation-facts-and-characteristics.html

http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/milky-way-rotation

https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Sun_layers/differential_rotation.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Big-Questions/Does-the-sun-revolve-on-an-axis-or-is-it-stationary-in-the-middleof-the-solar-system/2005/06/10/1118347582434.html

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-sun-revolve-or-rotate