AgentOfAllah's Posts
Nairaland Forum › AgentOfAllah's Profile › AgentOfAllah's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 (of 46 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: If Man Evolved From Monkeys Why Do Monkeys Still Exist? by AgentOfAllah: 3:09am On Feb 14, 2016 |
ifenes:Yes, knowledge is endless, but there's a distinction between what is known and what is speculated. You'll do well to know the difference Mr. Upgraded. It's not enough to regurgitate platitudes when confronted with facts. You are a student,I am a teacher.And I'll remain a student for life because there's still much to be learned. That said, if you're truly a teacher, I'm genuinely concerned about what you teach your students, which is why I'm pleased not to be one of them! 1 Like |
| Science/Technology › Re: He-goats Try To Rape Another Goat (video) by AgentOfAllah: 9:38pm On Feb 13, 2016 |
I'm not sure what I should find funny about the video: The bit where the goats are acting on natural instinct or the animal cruelty bit... 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: If Man Evolved From Monkeys Why Do Monkeys Still Exist? by AgentOfAllah: 3:54pm On Feb 13, 2016 |
ifenes:Religion is a spectacular testament to the fact that humans have always reasoned beyond science. I was presumptuous to think you were making a scientific argument. My bad! When I said upgrade I meant an ability to invent artificial means to survive in a severely harsh environment,the ability to use the internet and look into the stars and wonder how they got there. Also the ability to wonder and ask how they got on the planet.Humans aren't the only creatures with the ability to use artificial inventions to survive harsh environments. How do you think birds nest? By defecating? No doubt, humans are the most sophisticated tool makers. This is not the same as being the only creatures capable of making tools! I am not sure why you think humans are the only creatures who wonder how they or the stars got where they are. Surely, you've successfully communicated with other creatures for you to make such a sweeping claim?? There is a huge gap also between thinking humans. Those who hold onto what they were taught and those who find out more meaning to what is yet to be taught.It is one thing to ponder and come up with postulations about why things may be the way they are. It is another to subject your postulations to scientific scrutiny and pass them off as facts. So feel free to attribute whatever meanings you wish to attribute to existing facts, but don't conflate your opinions with science. Science deals with facts, not the meanings behind them. Monkeys will eventually go extinct due to their inability to think like humans unless an upgrade happens to them tooLol, I find the presumptuous arrogance with which you make such grand statements rather amusing. I think I know why you're overestimating the reach of human ingenuity: It's been a while (by human standard) since earth experienced a cataclysmic event that resulted in mass extinctions, and this is where your false sense of security derives. Maybe we've been able to build tools which give us slight advantages over our primate cousins from average magnitude earthquakes, short-lived famines/floods and a few other natural disaster, but these disasters are numerically and potently an inconsequential part of the motley assortment of other natural forces conspiring to wipe living things out of existence. It only takes a 7 km diameter comet to collide with earth to prove that the human intelligence which you give too much credit isn't that much of an advantage over monkeys. Presently though, there is simply no evidence in support of your claim that monkeys are likely to go into extinction if they don't develop human-like brains. This is just an opinion. Humans and many species of monkeys are marked as LEAST CONCERN species by the IUCN, a body I'm willing to wager knows far more about extinction trends than you and I. In fact, many creatures presently thrive better than humans without any brains at all. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: If Man Evolved From Monkeys Why Do Monkeys Still Exist? by AgentOfAllah: 10:25am On Feb 13, 2016 |
ifenes:You've made many misleading statements which betray your poor grasp of the subject. I'll address them so as not to confuse people. Homo-eructs act on instincts(e.g monkeys,baboons etc),while homo-sapiens are generally known as "the thinking man" or "modern man" whose genetic structure got upgraded to be inquisitive.What do you mean by the emboldened? Homo erectus were proficient manufacturers of sophisticated tools. This means they had the ability to think and abstractify possible applications of the tools they made. Of course we are far more sophisticated thinkers, but it's ignorant to claim they acted solely on instincts. Even more fatal is your assumption that other primates aren't capable of thought. That's very presumptuous, arrogant and certainly ignorant. You simply have no evidence to justify such an assertion. In fact, if you've read about many of the experiments done on rhesus monkeys and other primates, you'll find consistently, that they are also capable of abstract thoughts. Also, the word "upgrade" is nothing short of smug, as it suggests an inherent hierarchical superiority of humans because of their inquisitiveness. First, the notion that only humans are inquisitive is wrong. In fact, cats, dogs, mice, birds, pretty much all animals with some complex form of neural network have varying degrees of inquisitiveness. This trait has helped humans survive, no doubt, but humans are by no means the most successful living organisms. Many bacteria species are more efficient and successful than we are...and they don't even have brains! It is possible for monkeys of today to become more intelligent. The clues are there in our movie(planet of the ape). Domesticating them can also enhance and give a gradual upgrade to monkeys. The body structure can also be enhanced by cross breeding them with a bit advanced and similar humanoid.Planet of the apes is purely fictional, and contains no clue as to how modern monkeys can become more intelligent. But yes, domestication and generations of artificial selective breeding can be used to enhance particular traits like intelligence, such as has been the case with dogs, like you mentioned below: We can apply the same with domesticated dogs. In our society,man dogs have been trained to lead the blind and deaf,and they often carry out this task perfectly. The reason we still have monkeys today is because evolution is very slow they are a reminder of what we could have been like without an upgrade.This statement is preposterous in more ways than one. First, the reason we still have monkeys today is not because evolution is slow, that is an absurd excuse which can be used justify any combination of biological probabilities, including the most bizarre ones. For example, the reason we don't have bird-man today is because evolution is slow, or the reason we don't have talking potatoes is because evolution is slow. I could go on and on, but as you have seen, such a statement is pointless because it is unfalsifiable, thus no different than the dogmatic deductions of religionists! The reason we still have monkeys today is because they are evolutionarily equipped to thrive in their present environment. The moment that changes, they'll extinct, leaving only the monkeys with advantageous mutations to survive in a different form. Same applies to humans. And no! Monkeys aren't a reminder of what we could have been like without your phony "upgrade", any more than we are a reminder to them of what they could have been like if nature suffered upon them, the misfortune of your so-called upgrade. |
| Politics › Re: Ben-Bruce Mocked Buhari With The Age Of His Ministers(Photos) by AgentOfAllah: 8:23pm On Feb 12, 2016 |
This guy is no more than a rabble-rouser. He was one of the senators who participated in the screening exercise. If age was such an issue for him, why did he not raise it during the screening? I mean, I watched the whole exercise, and he was as silent as a graveyard, even ocassionally giving the "Elderly ministers" obsequious hi-fives like a sycophant. Also, he was born in 1956, that makes him 60 years. So if he truly wishes to champion youth governance, I wonder why he didn't opt to support a young person to represent Bayelsa east as opposed to running for the seat himself. As you can see, he's also a hypocrite, in addition to being a demagogue. This guy should stop grandstanding in the public square and go back to make a difference in the chamber...you know, that place where he was actually elected to make an impact in. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: If God Knew Satan Will Rebel And Adam And Eve Will Sin, Why Did He Create Them? by AgentOfAllah: 8:01am On Feb 10, 2016 |
OLAADEGBU:You don't have a point man. Any parent who knows with 100% certainty that their unborn kid will become a homicidal lunatic or a serial killer but still goes ahead to conceive the kid is either homicidal themselves or an irresponsible parent. God knew all that Adamu, Efe and Saraki would do before it created them. In god's universe, There was certainly no chance these characters would defy the knowledge of an omniscient being, so it stands to reason that god is nothing but a sadistic, maleficent bully who created us to watch us suffer. The alternative is that god is an irresponsible delinquent. Either ways, I don't see how such a being deserves to be worshipped. Humans should not subject the biblical god character to praise and adulation. Doing so is to be a sycophant suffering from Stockholm syndrome. We must all revile and detest such a character if it were real. |
| Politics › Re: (PIC) Why Is My President Sitting In The Wrong Chair ? by AgentOfAllah: 9:44am On Feb 09, 2016 |
stansaintly:https://i65.tinypic.com/oad84i.jpg 1 Like |
| Politics › Re: (PIC) Why Is My President Sitting In The Wrong Chair ? by AgentOfAllah: 6:22am On Feb 09, 2016 |
babaijesha1:OP didn't pay attention in his high school physics lessons So he doesn't know that parallax distortions occur when observing things at an angle greater than 0 Pay attention in your physics class Don't be like OP. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Do Atheists Really Exist? by AgentOfAllah: 8:08am On Feb 08, 2016 |
CoolUsername:Also, if all atheists were believers, there has to be intermediate beliefs like half-atheist, half-believer. So OP should show evidence of intermediate beliefs.  1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Do Atheists Really Exist? by AgentOfAllah: 7:07am On Feb 08, 2016 |
Statement 1: Atheists do not exist. Statement 2: God does not believe in the existence of a more powerful god, ergo, god is an atheist. Concluding statement: Therefore, god does not exist. (Quod Erat Demonstrandum) 7 Likes 1 Share |
| Computers › Re: Seun And Team: Nairaland Vs Microsoft Edge by AgentOfAllah(op): 4:03pm On Feb 07, 2016 |
Seun:I'm not on any of the Nigerian networks, and I've tried the randomly generated code login option too, to no avail. Although, I do receive an email notification telling me that I'm logged in. Except I really am not! |
| Computers › Re: Seun And Team: Nairaland Vs Microsoft Edge by AgentOfAllah(op): 1:22pm On Feb 07, 2016 |
Seun:I assure you it's not working on the Microsoft Edge of my Surface pro 3, and Surface pro 3 is adorned with the complete entrails of a high end computer, so I cannot dismiss this as just "a phone thing". I've sent a complaint to Microsoft too, as it might be a problem from their side, and still awaiting a response. However, I'm bringing this issue to your attention as well, just in case it's a compatibility issue with Nairaland's website. |
| Computers › Seun And Team: Nairaland Vs Microsoft Edge by AgentOfAllah(op): 1:06pm On Feb 07, 2016 |
Hi there fine people, I have been facing difficulties signing into Nairaland using Microsoft Edge browser since I purchased my Lumia 950 XL and Surface Pro 3. It works fine on Chrome and Internet explorer, just not on MS Edge for some reason. Occasionally, when I enter my user credentials, it signs me in, but the moment I click on a different page, I am automatically logged out of Nairaland, so I can't really make use of the full functionalities of Nairaland as a result. Is it just me, or is anybody else experiencing this issue. Also, can it be rectified by Seun and his team of developers? 1 Like |
| Politics › Re: Nigeria Delisted From Corrupt Countries Index by AgentOfAllah: 1:41pm On Feb 04, 2016 |
robosky02:Who are these ignorant morons? Countries don't get delisted from the corruption index. It's a ranking system where countries can move up and down the list, not a corrupt countries' list. If a country is not found on the list, it will most likely be as a result of missing/insufficient data, not because the country is not corrupt! Nigeria is certainly still one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and it stands at an unflattering position of 136/168, that is, the bottom 20%. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: If Man Evolved From Monkeys Why Do Monkeys Still Exist? by AgentOfAllah: 12:36pm On Feb 04, 2016 |
1) Man evolved from a common ancestor as today's monkey, so monkeys today aren't our progenitors, they are our cousins 2) That species B evolved from species A does not imply the end of species A. It could just mean species A's transition into B was an evolutionarily expedient course in a given environment. Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0 Does your question justice. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 8:53pm On Feb 03, 2016 |
Kay17:I wonder! One asked what the origin of life is according the BBT, I replied that science has no answer for that. Next thing, he deduces that therefore, I believe it originated magically. Then created an elaborate argument to debunk his own imaginings, and tells me believing in god was less wacky than my magical proposition. All that while, my answer was simply "I don't know"! No mention of magic anywhere...lol! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 8:47pm On Feb 03, 2016 |
suckmywilly:Sorry, I missed the point you were trying to make? God could have been subject to the laws of physics if He is corporeal. God invisibility does not mean non existentEM waves are incorporeal, and are still subject to physical laws...again, what's your point? Your god's imperceptibility means there's no reason to assume its existence anymore than there is a reason to assume the existence of invisible pink unicorns. To answer your question on how to observe the existence of God without infusing pseudo science at first is herculean, albeit God in his wisdom leaves print of himself in creation.What are these so-called prints? And how do they support the existence of the christian god? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 4:55pm On Feb 03, 2016*. Modified: 1:23pm On Feb 04, 2016 |
Griffon:You provided three links, one from VOANews, another, a UCL article of work from researchers at UCL and University of Arizona, and the third from researchers at CI Washington. I could not access the first link, probably due to incorrectly spelled URL. Do cross check and let me know. I will summarize the second and third link thus: 1) In the second link, the UCL and U of A researchers propose, using computer simulations, that water may have been on earth from its very inception. 2) In the third link, it is proposed that water came from asteroids, contrary to another popular notion that suggests it came from comets. Now, let's examine both propositions, starting with the latter: Comets/Asteroid theory The first thing to note about the contemplation of comets vs asteroids is that both approach from the same fundamental premise, that is, water came to earth much later, after its birth. This assumption comes from the following line of reasoning: i) From existing evidence, we know that comets, asteroids and other celestial objects that came from a dead star have ice water on them. This much is implied in the links you provided. In fact, there is no doubt about this in the scientific community. ii) We also know that the earth formed from the accretion of these same space debris, first by ionic attraction of tiny mineral rocks, then by gravitational pull, so there should be no doubt that in the early stages of the earth, there was certainly water on it. iii) However, as the earth got bigger and bigger, these rock got hotter and hotter due to gravitational potential energy (GPE) being converted to kinetic energy (KE). The rocks eventually became so hot as to have become magma. iv) The assumption, therefore is that at such high temperatures, any water that came with the rocks would have quickly vapourised. We know this because the vapour point of water in 1 atm pressure is 373 K. So, at the time the earth's pressure was far less than 1 atm, the vapour point would have needed even lower temperatures than 373 K and magma is typically 970 K to 1,500 K. Clearly, this is a valid assumption, and it gives credence to the claim of the groups that believe water is an extraterrestrial immigrant into earth. Nevertheless, the bone of contention is on what extraterrestrial body brought us water. This is where the debate of Comets vs asteroids come in. Incidentally, it is also at this point that the H20: D20 ratio plays an important role. Presently, Asteroids currently carry the day with existing evidence. The important thing to note however, is that there is agreement amongst all serious geophysicists about how the earth formed and whether water pre-existed on the rocks that formed earth (in accordance with points i, ii and iii above) Now, back to the UCL and U of A work. Water from birth theory Here, again, proceeding from the universally accepted premises in points i), ii) and iii), this group is suggesting that it is not necessary to assume all the water on earth vapourised at such high temperatures. In their appropriately titled paper "Where On Earth Has Our Water Come From?", they examine the adhesive energy of water to Mg2SiO4, one of the typical minerals found in young solar objects (YSOs), and discovered that adsorption energy of water to these minerals is greater than its desorption energy up until a temperature of 900 K at very low pressures of water, which would have been the state at accretion. This temperature is well within the acceptable range of temperatures at the time (500 K - 1500 K). If you read their paper, you will find that these guys do not contradict the prevailing theory of asteroids, rather, they complement it, and further suggest that most of earth's water must have formed from inception, but that asteroids/comets may still account for an estimated 15% of our water. If you can, read the work of M. J. Drake and H. Campins published in Asteroids, Comets, Meteors, Proceedings IAU (2005) 229, 381. In conclusion, these things you call contradictions, are not mutually exclusive, thus do not fit that description. Also, there is no ambiguity as to the fact that water came from celestial rocks which formed earth. It is definitely conceivable that all these methods brought water to earth (there is no rule that it just has to be one of them). The only debate, I guess, is what method contributed the most to our water. I think my text is too long now, but I needed to present a sound rebuttal of your "contradiction" claim. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 2:40pm On Feb 03, 2016 |
suckmywilly:So, let me get this straight. You're working on a theory that will provide empirical evidence that the universe emanates from 'God', an undefined variable. How can any theory be self-consistent without clearly defined variables? Maybe look up the meaning of Scientific theory and empirical evidence. Hints: 1) A scientific theory must be falsifiable 2) Empirical evidence is evidence that is verifiable by observation. Clearly, you either don't know what you are talking about. That, or your theory is not grounded in science! but i will tell you who he is.God is the incorporeal, the eternal being by which everything was made and without him there was not anything made that was madeOh, so now you have a definition! Tell me, how do you observe the existence the being you've defined? (energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can be transferred from one point to another)Look up quantum fluctuations...and welcome to the 21st century! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 12:41pm On Feb 03, 2016 |
suckmywilly:Define god? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 7:51am On Feb 03, 2016 |
Griffon:Hang on a minute! Where have I mentioned that magic does? All I've said is that it is SUFFICIENT (ie enough) to say science doesn't have the answer. I am ignorant about the origin of life, and I happily admit my ignorance! All of a sudden, the idea of a creator who seeded the big bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the "magical" explanations of many conventional scientists. It's more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.From the foregoing, it is you, it seems, who is compulsively obsessed with invoking some magical omni-omni creator when the answers aren't readily obvious to you. Just admit your ignorance, there is no shame in not knowing all the answers. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 10:00am On Feb 02, 2016*. Modified: 10:19am On Feb 02, 2016 |
Griffon:The BBT proposes no answer for this question, nor does science as a whole. So it is sufficient to say there is yet no scientific answer. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 9:35am On Feb 02, 2016 |
Griffon:Please highlight these many other theories and contradictions, let's scrutinise them. You accuse the 'God did it" team of lacking explanatory power yet the submissions you and your team have been dropping hugely lacks consistency. So how different are you from us?Are you kidding me? How different am I from you? How about the fact that I'm willing to present a plausible, logically consistent physical explanation that can be tested and falsified? Or the fact that I am not dogmatic about my position, and I will change it when a more compelling proposition comes (and it will!)? Or the fact that I don't invoke imperceptible, unfalsifiable and formless ideas to explain away things which I don't know. Please refrain from making nonsensical comparisons, it'll not help your course. When scientists talk about the origin of water on Earth, they do so from an all-encompassing arrogance that assumes they are correct by default. Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right. The faith of scientism requires no proof, only conjectures. It is assumed correct as a key principle of the religion of scientism.No, they do so from an educated position. The arrogance is in dismissing the plethora of evidence as trivial because they don't conform to your distorted versions of reality. I understand that you wish to attribute the origins of water on earth to some miracle performing entity. The way I see it, it is your proposition that is running into problems here, because you then have to explain why god also put water on many uninhabitable celestial bodies like Pluto, comets in Kuiper belt, Saturn's moon, asteroids...and the list goes on. The only reason you wish to see science as religion is because it makes it easier for you to dismiss the facts it presents, like you do, other religions besides yours. This is not unusual in religion. For example, I assume God created water and I don't need to "prove" it. Its existence is accepted as a matter of faith. This is neither right nor wrong ; it is characteristic of a belief system that science claims to reject yet follows the exact same pattern.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so, while you're free to adopt whatever assumption makes you comfortable, advertising them without subjecting them to the rigors of scientific scrutiny will only pass them off as the desperate fantasies of a wishful thinker. It is true that many scientists are faithful people. It is also true that many scientists try to pass fantasies off as science, but sooner or later, such works are discovered and corrected because the body of science is a humongous agnostic self-sanitiser. Let's move on from here 'cos I have other questions that needs answering.Please highlight the many other theories you were referring to, and especially how they contradict the celestial rocks theory. Take note of the meaning of 'contradiction' while you do that. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 3:15pm On Feb 01, 2016 |
Griffon:What do you mean by "analysis have been supported by little samples"? Have you learned anything about absorption spectra of matter? Okay, let's start from the scratch. It makes probabilistic sense that water should be one of the universe's most abundant compound, judging by the abundance of its constituent elements. Let this be our hypothesis. The question then is, how do we test this hypothesis? This can be done simply by measuring the wavelength spectrum of the star-light passing through/nearby the atmosphere of any planet/comet. Due to their extremely high densities, stars are considered to be black bodies, which makes them perfect emitters of energy. In other words, stars emit light (electromagnetic waves) at all wavelengths, from ultra-gamma rays to ULFs. This means when you measure the EM spectrum of a star, you'll see all wavelengths. This property is very useful because all matter, including you, absorbs light at very well defined wavelengths. This is a direct consequence of their elemental composition. As such, when you measure the light of a star passing through the atmosphere of a celestial body like a planet, there will be some missing wavelengths because these have been absorbed by the matter around that planet. Each element, molecule, compound has a signature absorption spectra. The missing light from the star is compared to the database of absorption spectra which we have on record. From this, we can tell what elements are abundant in the atmosphere of that celestial body. This is how we are able to test the hypothesis that water is a universally abundant molecule, and consistently, this hypothesis has proven true. Another method, the favoured one for objects closer to home, like within our solar system, is to use powerful spacecrafts. For example, the abundance of water in Titan, Saturn's moon, was discovered by NASA's Cassini which was launched in 1997 and is presently orbiting Saturn. Also, the Hubble space telescope discovered water on Europa, Jupiter's moon. Another space craft, phoenix, recently collected samples of water on Mars. Clearly, water is not unique to earth, and its presence in other celestial bodies strongly suggests its universal abundance. It also suggests that water got to these places in the same manner. Come to think of it the formation of hydrogen and oxygen molecules and the subsequent formation of water are two different things. That's because even when hydrogen and oxygen molecules mix, they still need a spark of energy to form water. The process is a violent one, and that certainly can't be a safe way to create water on Earth.Water was not created on earth! Water on earth most likely came to be after the death of the star that birthed earth and our solar system. That process was a very violent one with enough energy to fuse abundant oxygen and hydrogen into their various allotropes and compounds, including water. Water was hidden within and outside the massive rocks that eventually amassed to form the earth. Most rocks contain ionic minerals like salt. In vacuum (like space), these ions start to form weak bonds, attracting each other closer and closer (this experiment was demonstrated by NASA using salt. Look it up on youtube). When the amassing rocks become big enough, gravity takes over, and continues to attract nearby rocks. This process continues until some kind of steady state is reached, where all nearby rocks have been pulled down. Thus, a planet is formed. If you can imagine the amount of rocks that were needed to form earth, then it is definitely conceivable that earth's water came from within these rocks. On the other hand, if the claim that comets is the source of the earth’s ocean water, then they too must contain just the right ratio of heavy to regular water, but that seems not to be the case.When you make reference to scientific disputes, be sure to understand what you're remarking on. There is no doubt that water came from terrestrial rocks that formed the earth. The dispute exists in the type rocks. Yes, the higher ratio of D20 in the (only two) Comets from Kuiper's belt suggest water might not have come from comets in that ring. However, there were other asteroids that didn't come from Kuiper's belt that have been tested, and they have similar D20:H20 ratio as earth's water. Nwanne is it safe to say the "God did it" team are leading by one nil?Here lies the problem! Now, supposing it is granted that we don't know the source of water on earth, I fail to understand how this automatically translates to "God did it". This is just a lazy invocation of god-of-the-gaps explanation. It is boring and lacks explanatory power! 3 Likes 2 Shares |
| Food › Re: The Chicken Burger I Bought At Onitsha Restaurant (Pictures) by AgentOfAllah: 12:16pm On Feb 01, 2016 |
himkers:You didn't specify the age of the chicken though. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 10:27am On Feb 01, 2016 |
daretodiffer:So you reject something that is based on facts because you are afraid of the implications? So what if humans evolved? Does that take anything away from what we are now? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 10:23am On Feb 01, 2016 |
daretodiffer:You say you know what evolution means, yet you say you don't agree that extreme conditions can transform one animal into another. This statement betrays a fundamental lack of understanding. Extreme conditions do not transform one animal into another, extreme conditions kill animals. In the strictest sense, mutation is what transforms animals! In every animal, thousands of mutations occur on a regular basis, most of them, useless and ineffectual. They are just random changes! However, on very rare occasions, a beneficial mutation occurs that will help the organism to survive its harsh environment better. Since DNAs are adept at self-replication, all genetic mutations also get replicated along with their parent strand. It is at this point that evolution sets in: Consider a scenario where two antelopes were born, one with a mutation that makes it able to run faster than its sibling. I'm sure you'll agree with me that were both of them to be chased by a lion, the faster one is more likely to survive that harsh ordeal. After survival, the faster antelope consummates with one of the opposite gender and produces offspring. What will you then have? A new generation of faster antelopes because the fast gene of their parent was passed down to them. Evolution has happened! In the example, evolution made antelopes faster, not by suddenly giving them the ability to run faster when chased by lions, but by eliminating the genes of slow antelopes from the gene pool. It's a kind of very harsh naturally induced order. Nature is rigged to kill us, but sometimes, some animals develop abilities to survive the harsh reality of nature. This is, in fact, why 99% of all known animal species are extinct. I can give you another example where mindless nature can cause order. Think sedimentation! Here's an experiment to try out at home: Fetch with your hand, a random quantity of sand and pour it into a bottle filled with water. Shake the bottle thoroughly and then, place it on a steady table. After an hour come back and check the water-sand mixture, and you will find very clear lines of sand particles grouped together according to their sizes. Although these lines may look like they were purposely arranged, it was nothing but gravity and the intrinsic properties of the particles, like their masses that caused them to be ordered in such a beautiful way. This is precisely how evolution works. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 9:48am On Feb 01, 2016 |
bqlekan:No I can't. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Big Bang Or God? by AgentOfAllah: 9:29am On Feb 01, 2016*. Modified: 9:49am On Feb 01, 2016 |
bqlekan:I don't see why you feel the need to conflate evolution and abiogenesis. *life could not have started by chanceWhere is it said that life started by chance? *Evolution failed to provide how life originatedTheory of evolution doe not attempt to answer the question of the origin of life, and it is not clear to me how that makes it wrong. By your reasoning, you should also reject your doctor's prescriptions because the field of medicine fails to provide the origins of the chemicals in the medicine. *Fossil Evidence refutes all evolutionary claimsPlease provide the fossil evidence that refutes evolutionary claims. * evolutional forgeries existed in the past (why forge if evolution is real)Certificate forgeries exist in Nigeria. Why forge if real Nigerian certificates exist? *law of mathematical probability refutes the formation of DNA in the cell by chanceWhat is "law of mathematical probability"? And where is it said that DNA formed by chance? *Mutation could not have caused the evolution of new speciesOn what evidence is this claim based? Mutation is not the driver of evolution, but it is a necessary precursor to evolution. This fact has been known by horse and dog breeders for centuries. *Basic inconsistencies exist in theories of EvolutionWhat are these basic inconsistencies? You are advised to be thorough and sure of your facts regarding this subject before fumbling through it. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Education › Re: "I Wore This To School & My Lecturer Called Me A Tout" - Lady (photo) by AgentOfAllah: 7:19am On Jan 27, 2016 |
queenstlll:If your lecturer shows no appreciation for the brilliance of your cultured self-expression, then (s)he is an idiot, and one of the many insidious threats to the unique African identity. You are just fine the way you are, and I couldn't be gladder that you had the confidence to challenge their idiotic viewpoint, even if just on Nairaland! |
| Science/Technology › Re: Frozen Fish Comes Back To Life After Being Defrosted (Video, Pics) by AgentOfAllah: 10:37am On Jan 24, 2016 |
That's technically not a freezer, by a cryogenic liquid (Perhaps liquid Nitrogen [77K or -196 C]). The fish survived because it was left in the liquid only for a few seconds before thawing. I am guessing, otherwise, it will die if its vitals get frozen. 5 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Chess Now Haram by AgentOfAllah: 9:43pm On Jan 23, 2016 |
wiegraf:Lol...no yawa! Invite me for a bottle next time  |
. Admitting that evolution is probable would mean I have to agree with human evolution. That I do not want to and I don't care
. I don't think so. 
![[img]](http://4.bp..com/-kF7ne5v9pis/VqfeBJ3IY0I/AAAAAAAIIgI/ODNRXUjZBxg/s1600/index.jpg){kind=link}
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 (of 46 pages)