KingEbukasBlog:


You asked for their contributions to intellectualism . I gave you a few important ones and your response is this ? Just admit that what you thought was true is not verisimilitudinous in any way or form .

In the near future when CU would rub shoulders with the world's best , you'd still ask what Oyedepo has contributed to intellectualism.

Ahh!
I sometimes forget that you are such a child.

KingEbukasBlog:


Cry ? Was that even an emotional response ? I think my response was tenable . Somethings can serve different purposes - because we haven't discovered it yet does not mean it has no purpose; you can also designate purpose to anything . Example : The door was designed to close the entrance of a room. Let's say there was heavy rain and everywhere was flooded , the door can be used as a boat to paddle your way to safety .

My argument is that not everyone has the view that everything has an inherent purpose . While some believe that some things have inherent purposes and there are other things which don't .

Do you believe that the solar system was designed? If yes then what were the dud planets designed for? What about the asteroid belt?

Sinceyou claim to communicate with the creator and designer of these things you can ask him to tell you and then you tell us. It's that simple isn't it?

dalaman:


Apple computers come with a designers manual that uses the ideas of the designers to explain the computers design and function elaborately.

Where is the universe design manual? Does the designer of the universe want people to know about the designer and it's design?

What is the purpose of the existence of Jupiter? You've not given any answer. I don't have time for any spohism. It's either you state the answer of you know it, or say that you don't know it.

Not the Anthropocentric fallacy again . I thought we agreed that God does not resemble humans in mind or in form . Why should God operate as if he were a human , providing you with design manuals and proof of ownership of design ?

DeepSight:


You have not understood what I wrote. I did not say the universe would notice the existence of this solar system or its disappearance.

I said that in order to build an Earth, you require a Universe. In other words, an Earth cannot be built in nothingness. It requires an environment. This is in answer to your question about the purpose of Jupiter.

This answer is not satisfying at all. Jipiter needs an environment is all you've said. You've not stated it's purpose of existence.

So why do you dispute that man was created?

Created by whom or what? The evolutionist have clearly stated that man was created by the forces of nature gradually and incrementally over time. Some theist have claimed that man was created whole in this present state by their various Gods. I don't have a position on the creation of man. I don't know how human beings came about. I just want an objective evidence that can convince me one way or the other.

plaetton:

Ahh!
I sometimes forget that you are such a child.

Ok then . Show me why you think my response was puerile .

dalaman:


Apple computers come with a designers manual that uses the ideas of the designers to explain the computers design and function elaborately.

In the same way, your manual is in-built into you.

Where is the universe design manual? Does the designer of the universe want people to know about the designer and it's design?

Yes and the Creator is screaming itself hoarse every second everywhere. You are the deaf one.

What is the purpose of the existence of Jupiter? You've not given any answer. I don't have time for any spohism. It's either you state the answer of you know it, or say that you don't know it.

Don't tell me you are this dafft. Your house could not be built on thin air, could it? In the same way the Earth could not exist other than within a System. PERIOD.

plaetton:

Ahh!
I sometimes forget that you are such a child.

This is stuppid.

DeepSight:


This is stuppid.

Shut up Depardo.
We all know who is the OLODO here.

Dalaman.

Imagine yourself as a Cosmological Engineer trying to create a habitable planet. You would have to create a Solar System and every step along the way will be vital to the process. Even if some results are later vestigial.

Read this:
t’s generally accepted that the Asteroid Belt is a vestige of our early Solar System. Though we still don’t know exactly how our planetary system evolved, it’s believed that a collapsing nebula created the Sun and then each planet -both rocky and gaseous – developed out of accreting particles orbiting in discs similar to today’s Asteroid Belt. However, the millions of particles between Mars and Jupiter were unable to form a planet in this way because they were perturbed by the mighty influence of Jupiter’s gravity. So instead they have remained as a disc of orbiting material to this day.

Read more http://someinterestingfacts.net/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-asteroid-belt/

http://someinterestingfacts.net/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-asteroid-belt/

KingEbukasBlog:


Not the Anthropocentric fallacy again . I thought we agreed that God does not resemble humans in mind or in form . Why should God operate as if he were a human , providing you with design manuals and proof of ownership of design ?

You agreed with who that God does not resemble humans in mind and form.

Do you believe that humans are created in the image of God as the bible says or have you thrown that belief away?

Do you believe in the bible at all? Read the bible, it has God behaving like a human being all over its pages. Have you now graduated to the level of apologist like William Craig who believes that almost everything inside the bible is an allegory. Adam and Eve, allegory. Noah's flood allegory, conquest of Canaan allegory, revelations allegory. The only thing he believes is historical is the resurrection of Jesus. After a while that will also be an allegory.

plaetton:

Shut up Depardo.
We all know who is the OLODO here.

Such as the man who asserts that religious establishments in Nigeria have no contribution to Intellectual Development? You even specifically mentioned two men who have established universities and many schools and you stated that they have no contribution to intellectual development. Are you mad?

And then someone points out the existence of a University to you and for that, you call him a child?

You are a weak, cowardly, infantile m.oron, suffering from erectile dysfunction, period.

dalaman:


You agreed with who that God does not resemble humans in mind and form.

Don you believe that humans are create in the image of God as the bible says or have you thrown that belief away?

Do you believe in the bible at all? Read the bible, it has God behaving like a human being all over its pages. Have you now graduated to the level of apologist like William Craig who believe that almost everything inside the bible is an allegory. Noah's flood allegory, conquest of Canaan allegory, revelations allegory. The only thing he believes is historical is the resurrection of Jesus. After a while that will also be an allegory.

Again , its called anthropomorphism . We are created in the image of God since God is a person . Being a person =! Being a human being . That's where the issues of personal identity , personhood and all that come in .

I can't believe we are having this discussion again . New arguments sir please

dalaman:


This answer is not satisfying at all. Jipiter needs an environment is all you've said. You've not stated it's purpose of existence.

In creating a car, I first create a factory.
Does that now make sense to you? ? ? ? ?

Created by whom or what?

The Great Mind that upholds the worlds.

You have already admitted that your brain has hallmarks of design. That gives you your answer. Work out for yourself the nature of a being that could create such a thing.

DeepSight:


Such as the man who asserts that religious establishments in Nigeria have no contribution to Intellectual Development? You even specifically mentioned two men who have established universities and many schools and you stated that they have no contribution to intellectual development. Are you mad?

And then someone points out the existence of a University to you and for that, you call him a child?

You are a weak, cowardly, infantile m.oron, suffering from erectile dysfunction, period.

Which two men established universities ?

Are you referring to these social parasites that sap resources from the poor, and then use same to build for profit universities for the children of the elite ?
Are you referring to these Tapeworms , these self- confessed witch hunters and purveyors of magical thinking, fear and blackmail as having contributed to intellectual development ?

How many free or subsidized daycare center or primary schools have any of these parasites ever established, even for the exclusive benefit of their local parish members?

These men promote and sell fear and then great profit from same. That is the antithesis of intellectual development.


You are really olodo, Depardo
Pls stop insulting our collective intelligence.

plaetton:

Which two men established universities ?

Are you referring to these social parasites that sap resources from the poor, and then use same to build for profit universities for the children of the elite ?
Are you referring to these Tapeworms , these self- confessed witch hunters and purveyors of magical thinking, fear and blackmail as having contributed to intellectual development ?

How many free or subsidized daycare center or primary schools have any of these parasites ever established, even for the exclusive benefit of their local parish members?

These men promote and sell fear and then great profit from same. That is the antithesis of intellectual development.

You are so funny. I don't disagree with a word you wrote right here - and I am sure you know that. I don't think anyone can possibly detest Oyedepo in particular more than I do. I am sure you know this as well.

I am also aware that the universities they have established are for profit and highly exploitative institutions.

This takes nothing away from the fact that these are contributions to intellectual development. Be objective.

Do you think greed has not been a driver of intellectual development in other climes? Don't be a re.tard.

You must really olodo, Depardo
Pls stop insulting our collective intelligence.

You are the one insulting your own unintelligence.

DeepSight:


Do you think greed has not been a driver of intellectual development in other climes? Don't be a re.tard.

I think this reminds me of the numerous disputes between Thomas Edison and Nikolas Tesla caused by Edison's greed . But it didn't undermine the fact that their inventions improved our knowledge of electricity .

I thought sir plaetton was a thinker and an avid reader of books ? Why is he allowing sentiments cloud his judgement ?

KingEbukasBlog:


I think this reminds me of the numerous disputes between Thomas Edison and Nikolas Tesla caused by Edison's greed . But it didn't undermine the fact that their inventions improved our knowledge of electricity .

Gbam! I couldn't put it better!

I thought sir plaetton was a thinker and an avid reader of books ? Why is he allowing sentiments cloud his judgement ?

Plaetton is not really an Atheist. He is a breed of Pantheist who allows his hatred of religion to cloud his Judgment. Sometimes he can produce really dismal attempts at critical thinking. He still needs to return to school.

KingEbukasBlog:

This is one problem with atheists who listen to so much nonsense Richard Dawkins spews . I remember him making this same claim that those great minds who were theists back then would have being atheists if they were born during this time , and Professor of Mathematics and Philosopher of Science John Lennox corrected those misinterpretations of Science in a discussion with him at Oxford University's Museum in 2013 I think . He told Richard that Science studies the mechanism in nature and not the agent of causation of those mechanisms in nature . That studying these mechanisms can lead us to understand that indeed nature was created by a conscious agent

First, I would give you a pass for saying Dawkins spews 'nonsense' because I assume you know close to nothing about Biology. I watched that argument long ago, I was a christian then. Snippets from it now, only show John Lennox making very illogical arguments and being embarrassingly silly. So, because science studies mechanisms and not causes or causal agents, therefore 'God' created it, god caused it and not just God, the christian one with a tiny set of people (jews) as his people It only shows how potent religion is in making very smart and accomplished people believe and defend ridiculous fables.
I assume you are a christian and I don't think you are practising any religion different from what your parents/guardians do/did or what is prevalent around you but I'd implore you to suspend all pre-conceived notions about your faith/beliefs and start with a clean slate. Follow the facts to wherever it may lead. Don't assume anything eg. like god is a man or even that there is god at all, but examine the evidence science presents on how the world works and our physical reality, don't forget to always ask how any information you struggle with was found, then compare the method by which scientific theories are validated then contrast with how 'truth' is being established within your religious belief. Then examine your own religious 'narrative/truth' on how the world started. Fun Fact: There are over 33,000 sects within christianity alone, and if that isn't confusion then I don't know. Don't you think a voice from God would/could unite them? or maybe he's just telling them different truths.

Richard also claimed that evolution is a mechanism that is unguided overseen by blind forces and that a conscious agent is superfluous in overseeing this mechanism . John Lennox told him that his wrist watch works on blind mechanisms(which Richard agreed) but it does not mean the watch was not designed . And of course Richard didn't have a good comeback for that one . He continued dodging John's question on who created the universe . Richard claimed that since God is complex , accepting God as the explanation of a complex universe isn't rational . That a simple explanation has to be considered over a complex explanation . John told him that his book 'God delusion' is a sophisticated book but a complex mind was behind the book . And Richard's response was that because his mind has an explanation , therefore it is rational to accept that his mind is behind the book . Simply put : Dawkins reject God's existence on rational grounds because he feels that God as a complex being (he thinks) has no explanation . Apparently someone does not know that God is an incredibly simple being : temporally , spatially and metaphysically

It seems you watch such things with a fixed mindset, always on the side of theism even before you watch. A good indicator of a sincere person and of a good scientist is the propensity to readily admit gap(s) in knowledge. Dawkins doesn't admit to know everything, he would easily tell you that. In fact, by definition he is not an atheist, according to his classification, because if that were the case he wouldn't be that much different from a religious fundamentalist who thinks 'i don't know neither do I understand, therefore it is god and must always be god' likewise 'I don't see any evidence for god, therefore they isn't and can never be god' both extremes are no good. Rather, those people claiming, preaching and perverting scientific facts with coloration of their notion of god should simply bring evidence (testable, reproducible, verifiable) one to shut us all up or even 'save' us all from damnation. Is that too difficult? Nobody argues about electricity or radio waves, although we cannot see them.

Richard also admitted in that he could be persuaded to see that a creative force or math genius is behind the existence of the universe but not the God that is so meticulous that he is concerned with what people do with the genitals - what he described as 'petty'. Simply , Dawkins don't agree with the idea of a personal God just like Albert Einstein . The thing is , these atheists whom you guys look up to are not claiming certitude over the non existence of God , they just assume that God is superfluous (not needed )and since God is not need like they suppose , therefore He does not exist . The same thing Hawking claimed : God was not needed to create the universe , the universe created itself ( a logical absurdity obviously ).

God was not needed to create the universe and that's where it stops, only you included that the universe created itself, even if it was created then you would conveniently conclude that it is your god that did it or Lennox's. Yaay! how did you arrive at that? the usual the bible says, then who wrote the bible? was there life before the bible? what were their explanations? but if this isn't ridiculous to you then.
Also, you tell me why we need your god then? I don't need god. I, like dawkins, Bertrand Russell, and host of former preachers, missionaries, believers etc were all christians and to be honest, I don't feel any different whatsoever - other than being liberated from the mental prison synonymous with membership of a cult - even so personal experience is very unreliable. So, what is god? or is it who? what has god done for us to undoubtedly, in unison, say 'this is (the work of) god' like we would of electricity. Why even conclude it has to be god in the first place? You better get rid of all the notions you were brought up with and re-learn facts. Is the scientific method a perfect approach to establish facts? No, but I don't see any other method that even comes close.

The point is : Those great minds understood that there is no conflict between the belief in God and Science so even if they were to be present in this era , there won't be abjuring of beliefs . Atheists are trying to use science to make seem like its so . I mean Thales of Miletus was the first person to attempt explaining natural phenomena without involving the supernatural and understood perfectly that there is a distinction between the two . Its not one for the other like most people suppose ; its that one is the designer and the other is merely the study of the mechanism

You seem to cherish quotes from eminent scientists that appeals to your beliefs, like other religious apologists, but blatantly misinterpret their work with your religious coloration. I assume it is either you do not understand what they did or why and how much of their work has been advanced to what is todya. You talk about Einstein, if you know a fraction of what Einstein knew, you would be ashamed to associate with a personal god, talk more of in this day and age. Even knowing about the universe and the cosmos, would only reveal how ridiculous the christian story is and if even there was a god he chose to become a man from a tiny tribe that looks forward to damn everyone else. Stop focusing on arguments and seek knowledge, learn how things work so these things would not be mysterious to you. Reality itself is a million times more fascinating than all the BS superstition can give.

Plus the deists like Albert Einstein support the existence of God through the study of nature and that's science . Studying how devices like wrist watches , laptops , mobile phones work means there is no designer ? According to atheists , if you study and discover how devices work , you will end up believing they have no designers ? Where is the sense in that ?

Finally, you know nothing about science. So stop concluding for atheists. Atheism has no dogma, each individual becomes one after examining what seems plausible to him/her and religious beliefs has the highest degree of absurdities (Fact). For your knowledge, this is how science works: A study of how laptops or wristwatches work would conclude on how it works and what makes it work. The conclusion has nothing to do with who/what designed it. Nobody makes such absurd conclusion out of nowhere but if there is a book - eg. the Bible - that claims to hold all truth from god is teaching that watch landed and came together as a functioning unit, contrary to what has been observed and experimentally tested then it is only reasonable infer that that book or system based on it holds no truth at all. Therefore, my notion of god based on that book would be discarded as false until a compelling evidence for such god is presented. This is the kind of atheist I am.

On the other hand religion, like I mentioned earlier had held that the sun revolves around the earth but how did they know that? You guessed right, god/bible/or the pope said so. How did they know about god or what is god? the bible/scriptures or pope otherwise you get killed or imprisoned. It has been so until it became re-invented and repackaged to conform to modern humanity but still the gods people worship always look like them or can't you see our nigerian god? Very greedy and loves money.
So, Mr go read Biology and Science textbooks or surf on the internet to first understand what you want to argue against because you know nothing about evolution or 'design' you so emotionally harp on about. Maybe when you start understanding science then you would clearly understand me or Dawkins and the absurdity of religion and its beliefs.

TheEminentLaity: A study of how laptops or wristwatches work would conclude on how it works and what makes it work. The conclusion has nothing to do with who/what designed it.

Please just tell me you were being raped while you wrote this statement and so were out of your senses.

Tell me, please tell me, that it is possible to even consider anything about watches or laptops without considering human beings?

TheEminentLaity:

First, I would give you a pass for saying Dawkins spews 'nonsense' because I assume you know close to nothing about Biology. I watched that argument long ago, I was a christian then. Snippets from it now, only show John Lennox making very illogical arguments and being embarrassingly silly. So, because science studies mechanisms and not causes or causal agents, therefore 'God' created it, god caused it and not just God, the christian one with a tiny set of people (jews) as his people It only shows how potent religion is in making very smart and accomplished people believe and defend ridiculous fables.
I assume you are a christian and I don't think you are practising any religion different from what your parents/guardians do/did or what is prevalent around you but I'd implore you to suspend all pre-conceived notions about your faith/beliefs and start with a clean slate. Follow the facts to wherever it may lead. Don't assume anything eg. like god is a man or even that there is god at all, but examine the evidence science presents on how the world works and our physical reality, don't forget to always ask how any information you struggle with was found, then compare the method by which scientific theories are validated then contrast with how 'truth' is being established within your religious belief. Then examine your own religious 'narrative/truth' on how the world started. Fun Fact: There are over 33,000 sects within christianity alone, and if that isn't confusion then I don't know. Don't you think a voice from God would/could unite them? or maybe he's just telling them different truths.



It seems you watch such things with a fixed mindset, always on the side of theism even before you watch. A good indicator of a sincere person and of a good scientist is the propensity to readily admit gap(s) in knowledge. Dawkins doesn't admit to know everything, he would easily tell you that. In fact, by definition he is not an atheist, according to his classification, because if that were the case he wouldn't be that much different from a religious fundamentalist who thinks 'i don't know neither do I understand, therefore it is god and must always be god' likewise 'I don't see any evidence for god, therefore they isn't and can never be god' both extremes are no good. Rather, those people claiming, preaching and perverting scientific facts with coloration of their notion of god should simply bring evidence (testable, reproducible, verifiable) one to shut us all up or even 'save' us all from damnation. Is that too difficult? Nobody argues about electricity or radio waves, although we cannot see them.


God was not needed to create the universe and that's where it stops, only you included that the universe created itself, even if it was created then you would conveniently conclude that it is your god that did it or Lennox's. Yaay! how did you arrive at that? the usual the bible says, then who wrote the bible? was there life before the bible? what were their explanations? but if this isn't ridiculous to you then.
Also, you tell me why we need your god then? I don't need god. I, like dawkins, Bertrand Russell, and host of former preachers, missionaries, believers etc were all christians and to be honest, I don't feel any different whatsoever - other than being liberated from the mental prison synonymous with membership of a cult - even so personal experience is very unreliable. So, what is god? or is it who? what has god done for us to undoubtedly, in unison, say 'this is (the work of) god' like we would of electricity. Why even conclude it has to be god in the first place? You better get rid of all the notions you were brought up with and re-learn facts. Is the scientific method a perfect approach to establish facts? No, but I don't see any other method that even comes close.


You seem to cherish quotes from eminent scientists that appeals to your beliefs, like other religious apologists, but blatantly misinterpret their work with your religious coloration. I assume it is either you do not understand what they did or why and how much of their work has been advanced to what is todya. You talk about Einstein, if you know a fraction of what Einstein knew, you would be ashamed to associate with a personal god, talk more of in this day and age. Even knowing about the universe and the cosmos, would only reveal how ridiculous the christian story is and if even there was a god he chose to become a man from a tiny tribe that looks forward to damn everyone else. Stop focusing on arguments and seek knowledge, learn how things work so these things would not be mysterious to you. Reality itself is a million times more fascinating than all the BS superstition can give.

Finally, you know nothing about science. So stop concluding for atheists. Atheism has no dogma, each individual becomes one after examining what seems plausible to him/her and religious beliefs has the highest degree of absurdities (Fact). For your knowledge, this is how science works: A study of how laptops or wristwatches work would conclude on how it works and what makes it work. The conclusion has nothing to do with who/what designed it. Nobody makes such absurd conclusion out of nowhere but if there is a book - eg. the Bible - that claims to hold all truth from god is teaching that watch landed and came together as a functioning unit, contrary to what has been observed and experimentally tested then it is only reasonable infer that that book or system based on it holds no truth at all. Therefore, my notion of god based on that book would be discarded as false until a compelling evidence for such god is presented. This is the kind of atheist I am.

On the other hand religion, like I mentioned earlier had held that the sun revolves around the earth but how did they know that? You guessed right, god/bible/or the pope said so. How did they know about god or what is god? the bible/scriptures or pope otherwise you get killed or imprisoned. It has been so until it became re-invented and repackaged to conform to modern humanity but still the gods people worship always look like them or can't you see our nigerian god? Very greedy and loves money.
So, Mr go read Biology and Science textbooks or surf on the internet to first understand what you want to argue against because you know nothing about evolution or 'design' you so emotionally harp on about. Maybe when you start understanding science then you would clearly understand me or Dawkins and the absurdity of religion and its beliefs.

That one thread that miraculously solves everything

https://www.nairaland.com/3500235/must-read-god-without-religion

Sorry TheEminentLaity , peruse the thread then come up with something worthy other than polemics . My post was long because I told a story to make a point . Yours ? Personal attacks , rants , more rants , then ignorant bullsheet

KingEbukasBlog:


That one thread that miraculously solves everything

https://www.nairaland.com/3500235/must-read-god-without-religion

This thread hawker is back again Hawking his threads.

I would dignify your insolence with a response. A study on how watches and laptops work would conclude on the mechanisms in which these units operate. What causes the the clock to tick and what and whatsoever objectives the study wants to cover. It may talk about design in relationship with function of component parts and the unit as a whole, not the designer. If this was the only thing you picked from my previous comment then it is a free world continue in your ignorance, only confirms the theme of this post in the first place. What is the basis for your designer postulation? I assume you are a christian who knows next to nothing about christian theology or history neither do you know about modern physics biology or the sciences but here you are asking if it is even possible? Is it possible for humans to land on the moon? Why don't you ask your god, who created the earth in 6 days but can't do anything since then. Better go read a book and don't quote me unless you have something intelligent to talk about.

DeepSight:


Please just tell me you were being raped while you wrote this statement and so were out of your senses.

Tell me, please tell me, that it is possible to even consider anything about watches or laptops without considering human beings?

KingEbukasBlog:
Sorry TheEminentLaity , peruse the thread then come up with something worthy other than polemics . My post was long because I told a story to make a point . Yours ? Personal attacks , rants , more rants , then ignorant bullsheet

The man says studying how laptops and watches work will have nothing to do with those who made them! The man is amazing! A true Genius!

dalaman:


This thread hawker is back again Hawking his threads.

The guy is new and his arguments are old . He needed to be shown the light . Pastors , bible , pope , Nigerian god , 33,000 sects in Christianity , so much nonsense I can't deal with it . Maybe the thread would help him see things from an irreligious perspective like the deists and that atheists can still be in non-theistic religions .

This thread has gotten derailed.........as expected

TheEminentLaity:
I would dignify your insolence with a response.

First and foremost good sir, you are a capital f.ool.

A study on how watches and laptops work would conclude on the mechanisms in which these units operate. What causes the the clock to tick and what and whatsoever objectives the study wants to cover. It may talk about design in relationship with function of component parts and the unit as a whole, not the designer.

How dare you even use the word "function?" A function relates to a purpose - a task that is done for something. The functions of these devices cannot be spoken of at all without considering the users of the devices and what they use the devices for. In fact it is impossible to even utter either word absent a consideration of humans. Your comment showed a lack of thought. Its one of the most stuppid comments I have ever read in my life.

What is the basis for your designer postulation?

Hallmarks of design evident in living things. Particularly humans.

I assume you are a christian

And this assumption shows what a shallow mind you are. I am not religious at all.

who knows next to nothing about christian theology or history neither do you know about modern physics biology or the sciences

I can bet I can school you on both subjects. Wanna bet?

but here you are asking if it is even possible? Is it possible for humans to land on the moon? Why don't you ask your god, who created the earth in 6 days but can't do anything since then. Better go read a book and don't quote me unless you have something intelligent to talk about.

My god? Six days? You are insane.

@op,

It is african christians that are making more people believe this myth, by eating grass like goats and drinking petrol like "genetically modified Volvo"!!!!!!

DeepSight:

The man says studying how laptops and watches work will have nothing to do with those who made them! The man is amazing! A true Genius!

You haven't seen true intelligence yet . Brace yourself sir . More astonishing responses are yet to come

Trudax:


Ancient Egyptians weren't your typical black African community like the ones you'd have found in ancient Benin or Ghana kingdom. They were a mixed population, comprising of a phenotypically diverse group of people. Some looking like your present day Berbers, some bearing similarities to present day Egyptians, some resembling present day Ethiopians and some bearing features similar to you and I. So it was a mixed culture and its success shouldn't be a attributed to any particular race.

You seem to have discovered a new history of the ancient Egypt right? So the Nubians are same as Arab or what are you trying to bring in here? The fact that you always feel inferior to Caucasian does not mean all blacks are or should be. Get some sense man

Niflheim:
@op,

It is african christians that are making more people believe this myth, by eating grass like goats and drinking petrol like "genetically modified Volvo"!!!!!!

And atheists stop them from believing in that "myth" by killing them , in their millions .

TheEminentLaity:
I would dignify your insolence with a response. A study on how watches and laptops work would conclude on the mechanisms in which these units operate. What causes the the clock to tick and what and whatsoever objectives the study wants to cover. It may talk about design in relationship with function of component parts and the unit as a whole, not the designer.

Why do you hate yourself ? Can't you see the bullet in your foot ? If the study of how watches and laptops work only focuses on the mechanisms in which their units operate and does not address the designer , then science does not preclude the existence of God , the creator of the universe . I mean does studying how devices operate rule out the existence of humans or mean that humans are now superfluous ?