Fash20:


99% of life on earth has gone extinct. Human and other living thing are just 1%.

Imagine that

That is really serious, and we claim that this planet belongs to us. What could become of the fate of lives on this planet if it turns furious against us? I think this is how this planet survives, it destroys itself so as to give birth to a new one. Even check the ecosystem itself and how lives survive on earth, you will have to kill something in order to keep surviving I.e eating your foods.

Ti/m/Cook:


It's not the same people who laid cables for transmission that said the earth is flat. There are different arms of science. Ben Carson, who's a good and well known doctor probably has no idea what goes on in space. That's cause that's not his field. He deals in medicine and surgery. Someone who's a mechanical engineer, civil engineer etc. can be good in their field and have no idea what goes on in space. Radio frequency, transmission is mainly done by telecommunications engineers, and has nothing to do with space science, astronomy etc. I minored in it, so I know.

I'm an atheist, and the big bang theory and theory of evolution are absolute bullshit. You don't need to believe in God to see through the bias. I've meet some other atheist/agnostics who share the same view both online (on Quora, Tumblr) and offline.

That you think the theories are true doesn't make you smarter than any other persons, whether religious or irreligious. IQ TEST DON'T MEAN MUCH IN THE REAL WORLD. Just the same way you can't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, or judge humans but how well they perform in the classroom. You also can use IQ test as a valid measure of intelligence.

Sorry I quoted this comment, just wanted Tamaratonye5 to understand how atheists who understand science and logic cannot accept evolutionism as logical and absolute and can see through the obvious bias in MSM.
I would also like to ask if you believe in ID, sir?

ne/xt/step:


3. The BigBang and Evolution are theories (as you rightly state). They are the current best rationalizations of how things came to be. Time has shown that theories are proven right, wrong, or refined, so who knows. Dismissing them because they don't seem plausible... well come up with something better and logical, that makes sense. That's the challenge.

One theory that "doesn't make sense" is time dilation based on speed: in summary go fast enough and your clock will tick faster speed (relative to a different person standing still). Clocks on GPS satellites are designed to tick 38 microseconds slower per day than on Earth to account for this. Practice, based on theory.

Sir, do you believe in ID?
I believe in the Bible through an unconventional means than logic but its sad that most who believe in the Bible don't even really know what it says. The bible doesn't promote the concept of young earth. It only dates man's existence on earth to about 6000 years ago. But the bible makes it clear that there were lifeforms on earth before man. That could have been the dinosaur age or whatever. Anyways, can't take that to the lab and by no means am I presenting it under the scientific method but just clearing the air on the bible because of how many here misrepresent it and make it look like scientific findings counter biblical claims.

Tamaratonye5, read up some more rational exchange from fellow atheists who understand scientific tenets. Observe what I said to you about theories in the above statements.

Not saying the research is totally correct but hear this -

If they had told ur greatgrand parents some 1000yrs ago that a time would come when

1)
a device called phone would be made to ease communications between nations.

2)
A giant metal called airplane would be fabricated to fly between nations

3)
a magic box called television would be made to enble u see people living in another country

... just to mention a few of a plethora of unbelievable sci/tech inventions

- the same way u all react on this thread would be a childs play to how ur uneducated greatgrand parents would have reacted.

Not saying the discovery is totally right/correct.
All I'm saying is Sci/Tech deserves the benefit of our doubt.

chukemmang:


Funny human being. Have you ever heard of fossils? Read up.

For your consolation, it is dragons that never existed.

alaye I don't have strength....OK dey existed

Ungrateful mofos! When they're supposed to appreciate and support science, they'll be saying rubbish. Science that has helped, still helping and will still help their lives in future.

lf na to believe say one talking snake deceive human being inside one perfect garden now, them no go waste time

Meanwhile, no better thing wey their religion dey add to humanity, apart from gulping their hard earned money/resources and dashing them potor potor to fill their brains with

updatedws:
Not saying the research is totally correct but hear this -

If they had told ur greatgrand parents some 1000yrs ago that a time would come when

1)
a device called phone would be made to ease communications between nations.

2)
A giant metal called airplane would be fabricated to fly between nations

3)
a magic box called television would be made to enble u see people living in another country

... just to mention a few of a plethora of unbelievable sci/tech inventions

- the same way u all react on this thread would be a childs play to how ur uneducated greatgrand parents would have reacted.

Not saying the discovery is totally right/correct.
All I'm saying is Sci/Tech deserves the benefit of our doubt.

Exactly!
I don't know why they hate something (sci/tech) that has done so much good for them... it's so annoying

kingxsamz:


The way they conclude?
What do you know asides what's in the bible?

atheist spoted

planetx:
Earth is six thousand years old and humans have been on it even less, let this oyinbo be lying to you. Use your brain if humans have been living on this earth for millions of years how come all the technological achievements have been over the last 100 years.

If we ask you for evidence the earth is 6000 years old now you will open that your useless book.

BabaIbo:


You're ignorant.

Not all scientists believe in evolution.

Carbon dating has errors, there have been cases where it was carried out on substances which their year of formation are known and it dated it to another year.
Most of you shouting carbon dating ate ignoramus in that field but you are on this forum ranting.

Mr conceited ignoramus. Carbon dating is not the only tool available. And for dinosaur fossils it's not useful. There are many different far more accurate tools used. Stop screaming carbon dating due to your overwhelming ignorance.

EMILO2STAY:
shut your trap. You sound lame and naive.
Wild speculation and theories are not science.

Did theories and guess work or the erroneous carbon dating which had been proven to be very unreliable make you phones and gadgets?

People like you on this forum just swallow anything the white man pushes down your throat with pride.

Which of those scientist ever withnessed the 80million years they are selling to you? Yet you believe the earth is millions of years old without any evidence but because science created phones and gadgets. See yah ignorant mouth yapping rubbish.

You are ignorant seek knowledge

When Albert Einstein was laying down his theory of relativity. There were Nazi scientists who were making the same arguments you are making about the theory. We know who is right now. You are the ignorant close minded one here.

Thank you sir

BotherMleeper:


There are millions of random youth here, and majority exhibit the symptoms i talked about.

That's a statistically valid reflection of the intellect of this demography.

nextstep:


I didn't mention evolution, though I accept it as a valid theory - certainly more valid than the stories of one religion's book - accepted by the same scientists who believe in Christ. On face value the Old Testament's story of creation is no more or less valid than the Egyptians' or the Yoruba's.

What I did say is that scientists have shown evidence that the Earth is round, is much older than religious texts would have you believe, and it was once populated by dinosaurs. What I also said is anybody refuting these claims should come forth with their own scientific evidence that the Earth is flat, very young, and didn't have dinosaurs.

Stop shifting goal post, your argument was that scientist don't believe in Christ i.e all of them believe in Evolution theory, which is wrong. EOD.

planetx:
The idea that crude oil, coal etc came from dead dinosaurs is another laughable oyinbo lies from the pit of hell. Why can't you people use your brain, trillions of barrels of oil have been extracted from this planet and trillions more are still in the ground. Ask yourself how many dinosaurs will have to die to form trillions of barrels of crude oil. I was listening to a black psychologist on radio the other day and he said white people God is money while black people God is white people because we believe everything they say no matter how absurd it sounds and he is right.

Damn, this guy is dumb!!! The worst kind of morons are the religious ones.

TimCook:


Bruh, stop shouting carbon dating all around. If you could read it up and understand, what makes you think others can't read up the same thing or do you consider yourself smarter than the average person?? Everything you argued about was what you read up, not like you made any research yourself. You calling a person ignorant and telling them to go read on it is like saying go read up the same sources I read so you can change your views to mine . Anyone who took science courses and took some biology courses should have come across stuffs like this.

I can't argue with you over an aspect in my field, you're just a wannabe scientist.
You are just shouting "anyone that took science courses bla bla bla ".

You know little about it yet you claim to know more about someone who can tutor you on that same theory/topic.

If you are truly knowledgeable on this field, you should have paid attention to the method used and base your argument around it, instead of bringing up unnecessary points or topics just to drift away from the real topic.
Don't expect any further reply from me.

BabaIbo:


I can't argue with you over an aspect in my field, you're just a wannabe scientist.
You are just shouting "anyone that took science courses bla bla bla ".

You know little about it yet you claim to know more about someone who can tutor you on that same theory/topic.
Don't expect any further reply from me.

Do you know his own field? Lol you can tell how empty someone is by the way he boasts. Which field are you in. How many methods have you used personally or invented yourself before? Lmao. Yet you were about screaming carbon dating like it's the tool used for studying dinosaurs. Ignorant boastful empty people on Nairaland.

Buliwyf:


Mr conceited ignoramus. Carbon dating is not the only tool available. And for dinosaur fossils it's not useful. There are many different far more accurate tools used. Stop screaming carbon dating due to your overwhelming ignorance.

You are plain stupid, everything you typed there is trash.

You said carbon dating is not the only method but according to the post, that was the method used for this particular research. This research deals with fossils and carbon deposit.
If you want to discuss, choose a good premise to argue on and don't just jump on any.

There are different ways of determining the age of things according to study.

Most dating that deals with carbon are classified under carbon dating.

Relative dating and absolute dating are the two main ways...
The first one use comparison while the other use decay of the isotopes etc.

Radiometric dating deals with rock, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating deals with carbon/isotopes.

There are different methods but each is used with respect to the age understudy.
slowpoke, so you think every method can be use for any study without paying attention to the age under study.

I don't know why I am arguing with you over this, from your reply, you don't know anything with regards to this issue.

Arguing with you is a total waste of time.
Don't expect any further reply from me... Buliwyf

BabaIbo:


You are plain stupid, everything you typed there is trash.
There are different ways of determining the age of things according to study.

Relative dating and absolute dating are the two main ways...
The first one use comparison while the other use decay of the isotopes etc.

Radiometric dating deals with rock, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating deals with carbon/isotopes.

I don't know why I am arguing with you over this, from your reply, you don't know anything with regards to this issue.

Don't expect any further reply from me.

This guy is empty. He just regurgitated something someone else has posted. You didn't even deny my position. Carbon dating is not the only way to date objects. And for objects that old it isn't very useful. It can only be accurate to an extent. That's why they have other tools to improve the accuracy. Keep convulsing.

Radiometric dating deals with rock. Where are fossils usually found? Is it not in rock formations of where animals were buried at the moment of their death? And the layers of rock formed ontop of them? You are just a dumb person incapable of any rudimentary logical thinking and you call yourself a real scientist lol. Which paper have you published? Where are your works? Empty barrel.

I have exposed your ignorance. Next time educate yourself before jumping into conversations and claiming to be a boss. Now scurry back into your hole.

BabaIbo:


Stop shifting goal post, your argument was that scientist don't believe in Christ i.e all of them believe in Evolution theory, which is wrong. EOD.

Apparently you also have a comprehension problem. I have not seen anyone here argue that scientists don't believe in Christ or that they are all evolutionists. As a matter of fact, there are theistic evolutionists.

You are either just deliberately trying to misunderstand his argument or you are learning disabled.

Buliwyf:


Apparently you also have a comprehension problem. I have not seen anyone here argue that scientists don't believe in Christ or that they are all evolutionists. You are either just deliberately trying to misunderstand his argument or you are learning disabled.

I know you are looking for a way to get me to reply you after I decided to ignore your further reply on the other quote.

Please, go back to his first reply, the one I quoted earlier and stop jumping on people's reply without prior knowledge.
Before you enter a discussion, make sure you know the genesis of the discussion in order not to look stu.pid the way you're looking now.

EOD.

BabaIbo:


I know you are looking for a way to get me to reply you after I decided to ignore your further reply on the other quote.

Please, go back to his first reply, the one I quoted earlier and stop jumping on people's reply without prior knowledge.
Before you enter a discussion, make sure you know the genesis of the discussion in order not to look stu.pid the way you're looking now.

EOD.

I actually checked it before I wrote that. Your comprehension skills leave much to be desired. Or is that not what you quoted initially? I deliberately took a screenshot of your quote in case he has modified his own post. Look at your life outside.

dazzlingd:
All these illiterates that have access to internet above commenting who has been counting the years.

You all don't deserve a 21st century existence.
Stop watching nollywood and read up on science, watch videos to understand the universe u live in..
It may not be your faults u grew up in a very religious and backward part of the world, but u are doing yourself intellectual harm by not trying to free yourselves from ignorance.

Continue asking;
How do scientist know that the earth is not flat?
How do they know the sex of a child before it is born
How did they shoot satellites into the space, why are the satellites not falling?
How did they land on the moon?
How did they know the speed of light
How did they know the diameter of the earth
How did they make telephones?
How did they know there is oil beneath
How did they estmate the ages of rock

You guys should grow up, a 12 year old child in germany or china will be disappointed seeing your ignorant way of questioning things

I have a relatively stable knowledge about science in general. I have read a lot about various galaxies, planets (beyond the traditional ones), carbon dating etc.

However, I still find some scientific claims logically hard to absorb. I need an expert in the field of radio dating to answer some questions for me.

Saying that a fossil or remains of animal survived in the soil for over 100 million years sounds illogical. In a million years (which man has no real data of), a mountain could become a plain. And an ocean could become a desert. To now say a bone survived for 80m years in the soil under microbial and chemical influence needs re-examination.

Like I said, I need to discuss with experts in this field. I need to know the "true" accuracy of carbon dating and it's flaws. To create 3D model of anything in this age and time is not hard. But there so many questions that still needs to be answered. Hence there is a limit to how you could blame anyone who doesn't blv this.

pacespot:


That is really serious, and we claim that this planet belongs to us. What could become of the fate of lives on this planet if it turns furious against us? I think this is how this planet survives, it destroys itself so as to give birth to a new one. Even check the ecosystem itself and how lives survive on earth, you will have to kill something in order to keep surviving I.e eating your foods.

Spot on bro.

Religion teaches us that the planet was created for our sake but sience has always pointed to the fact that the nation might wrong.

For insance, Dinosaurs roamed the planet for over 150 million years before they went extinct but modern human has only been around for less than 300 thousand years.

Question is can we control the planet for hundreds of millions of years or we will go the way of the dinosaurs even sooner than the dinosaurs?.

Powersurge:


I have a relatively stable knowledge about science in general. I have read a lot about various galaxies, planets (beyond the traditional ones), carbon dating etc.

However, I still find some scientific claims logically hard to absorb. I need an expert in the field of radio dating to answer some questions for me.

Saying that a fossil or remains of animal survived in the soil for over 100 million years sounds illogical. In a million years (which man has no real data of), a mountain could become a plain. And an ocean could become a desert. To now say a bone survived for 80m years in the soil under microbial and chemical influence needs re-examination.

Like I said, I need to discuss with experts in this field. I need to know the "true" accuracy of carbon dating and it's flaws. To create 3D model of anything in this age and time is not hard. But there so many questions that still needs to be answered. Hence there is a limit to how you could blame anyone who doesn't blv this.

I am by no means an expert in the field. I am just an enthusiastic observer. But what you have to know is that fossils are not bones. They are usually just imprints of bones and skins and other animal matter. A bone may not survive after a while but maybe it was coated with mud and that mud later solidified into a rock and after years and different chemical reactions you can still clearly see the imprints of the bone. Now, that rock can be used to date the animal that was once there.

A much more recent example of that method is the inhabitants of Pompei. When Vesuvius erupted it killed many of them and they are long gone now. But moulds were made out of the shapes their body left to get an idea of how they died.

Bones are also a combination of collagen and calcium carbonate. Any of those substances can react with minerals in the environment to form something entirely different like a petrified bone or even another different mineral. That's what chemical reactions do. Some utterly destroy stuff and some strengthen stuff. It depends entirely on the circumstances.

Lastly, 3D models are guess-works at best. They can never be entirely accurate. For instance, fatty tissue usually do not survive preservation as fossils. So it's entirely possible that dinosaurs were more fat than we currently give them credit for. Another example are things like trunks. If you see the skull of an elephant, without having seen an elephant before it will be impossible to recreate the length of its trunk or if it had a trunk at all. You could just assume it had one giant orifice in front of its face for breathing or seeing. Some people have suggested that's were the myth of the Cyclops comes from.

That said, the scientific tools available to us are still the best explanation of our planet and they beat whatever ridiculous myth any religion provides. At least they are demonstrable. Let any religion even demonstrate one ridiculous claim it makes and show us it's usefulness.

BotherMleeper:
Nothing exposes the real rot and dire predicament of Nigeria than the quality of its youth.

Such wilful ignorance, sheer stupidity, utter foolery, is unparalleled.

Just read up some of the anti-science and pro-mythology statements above, by people who'd claim to be educated and the supposed leaders of tomorrow.

If these idiots are the leaders of tomorrow then kill me right now.

I have almost 50GB of science videos on my external hard drive that explains a myriad of things all the way from evolution to other stuffs like Butterfly effect and so on. The level of ignorance and stupidity of some Nairalanders which I've discovered since this Covid 19 period has been alarming. Sometimes, it's best to just leave them alone. It beats my imagination how someone would sit in the corner of his room and start disputing scientific facts some people spent all their lives discovering. And the sad thing is, they are never ready to learn how scientists really discovered these things.

Cti28:

Carbon dating has limitations. It becomes inconsistent from 10000 years and above (verification needed). Carbon14 dating involves comparison and it is subject to errors.

God bless you... Finally somebody that have sense!!!

nextstep:



One theory that "doesn't make sense" is time dilation based on speed: in summary go fast enough and your clock will tick faster speed (relative to a different person standing still). Clocks on GPS satellites are designed to tick 38 microseconds slower per day than on Earth to account for this. Practice, based on theory.

Nobody has all the answers, so my request is for non-experts on a topic to at least give the experts some benefit of the doubt that they know what they're talking about.

Nice one Boss, but should that be "slower"? The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. Your time would have been dilated that it nor takes longer time for a second to count when you compare your time with that of someone standing still.

Buliwyf:


I am by no means an expert in the field. I am just an enthusiastic observer. But what you have to know is that fossils are not bones. They are usually just imprints of bones and skins and other animal matter. A bone may not survive after a while but maybe it was coated with mud and that mud later solidified into a rock and after years and different chemical reactions you can still clearly see the imprints of the bone. Now, that rock can be used to date the animal that was once there.

A much more recent example of that method is the inhabitants of Pompei. When Vesuvius erupted it killed many of them and they are long gone now. But moulds were made out of the shapes their body left to get an idea of how they died.

Bones are also a combination of collagen and calcium carbonate. Any of those substances can react with minerals in the environment to form something entirely different like a petrified bone or even another different mineral. That's what chemical reactions do. Some utterly destroy stuff and some strengthen stuff. It depends entirely on the circumstances.

Lastly, 3D models are guess-works at best. They can never be entirely accurate. For instance, fatty tissue usually do not survive preservation as fossils. So it's entirely possible that dinosaurs were more fat than we currently give them credit for. Another example are things like trunks. If you see the skull of an elephant, without having seen an elephant before it will be impossible to recreate the length of its trunk or if it had a trunk at all. You could just assume it had one giant orifice in front of its face for breathing or seeing. Some people have suggested that's were the myth of the Cyclops comes from.

That said, the scientific tools available to us are still the best explanation of our planet and they beat whatever ridiculous myth any religion provides. At least they are demonstrable. Let any religion even demonstrate one ridiculous claim it makes and show us it's usefulness.

Great insight and explaination

sureteeboy:

I have almost 50GB of science videos on my external hard drive that explains a myriad of things all the way from evolution to other stuffs like Butterfly effect and so on. The level of ignorance and stupidity of some Nairalanders which I've discovered since this Covid 19 period has been alarming. Sometimes, it's best to just leave them alone. It beats my imagination how someone would sit in the corner of his room and start disputing scientific facts some people spent all their lives discovering. And the sad thing is, they are never ready to learn how scientists really discovered these things.

It's like they've a phobia for knowledge, are terrified of science, and find a safe cocoon in their ignorance. Heck they wallow in it.

And they wake up every morning and wonder why the country is busted.

Buliwyf:


I actually checked it before I wrote that. Your comprehension skills leave much to be desired. Or is that not what you quoted initially? I deliberately took a screenshot of your quote in case he has modified his own post. Look at your life outside.

You are an ineffectual buffoon, who is trying so hard to look like a reasonable person.

Go back to the first page and follow dazzlingz reply... That's the genesis of the quote.
Also try to read between the lines.

You can quote me a thousand times but I won't honor your stup.idity with a reply on any quote relating to this thread, EOD.

dazzlingd:


Very funny, science never claimed to be perfect, that's why there are researches daily to update. But it is still the best way to unraveling mysteries, answering questions and solving human problems...
Since the inception of time, nothing else has ever been known to do it better

You get time shaaa,let them continue to dey watch their BBN now

BabaIbo:


You are an ineffectual buffoon, who is trying so hard to look like a reasonable person.

Go back to the first page and follow dazzlingz reply... That's the genesis of the quote.
Also try to read between the lines.

You can quote me a thousand times but I won't honor your stup.idity with a reply on any quote relating to this thread, EOD.

Yet you keep replying because somewhere inside of you you feel the need to explain away your idiocy. All I have done here is to expose the nincompoop you are so everybody can see. What has dazzling D's post got to do with the assertions in the one you quoted and the non sequitur reply you gave to it?

Morons dont know when to stop. The moment you find yourself in a hole the best line of action is to stop digging. You only succeeded in making a fool of yourself all through. Claiming to be a scientist without proof of pedigree. And then displaying the worst form of intellectual incapacity. Your idiocy has been put on display for all to see. Sadly that's the image everyone that has been on this thread will see whenever they see your posts elsewhere on Nairaland. You will just be dismissed as another boastful halfwit. It's not my fault.

Keep crying.