₦airaland Forum

Someone is suffering from severe delusion of Grandeur. You should go to the psychiatrist to check that you're not schizophrenic lad.

I'm not even joking.

Maquiptarepzy:
What if juju wer real,will dat prove d existenc of a suprem being?...and if it doesnt,were do u tink dos powers come from?...pls assume dey wer real..wer do u tink d powers should come and will dat convince u about d existenc of some supernatural powers?

Op, we'll do a quick thought experiment, then I'll leave you to answer your question yourself.

First, let's define "supreme being": A supreme being is a being that has power over all things.

Now our thought experiment is as follows:

Supposing there is a metre rule which is firmly suspended on a rod at its exact centre and is fixed to the ground. This metre rule is 20m long. Let's call this rule R₁. Of course, R₁ is very useful for all distance measurements between 0 and 20m. Obviously, we expect R₁ to start showing its limitations as soon as we attempt to measure a distance greater than 20m, say 45m

For this our new found appetite for measuring >20m distances, may we assume the existence of another metre rule, R₂. R₂ is 200m long, and it is suspended on a similar rod as R₁, also at its exact centre, just above R₁. Of course, we are now able to measure distances between 0 and 200m, so our problem is solved. Hence, R₂ gives us a linear degree of freedom which is 10 times greater than that of R₁, albeit still limited.

Now, let's pause and look at things from R₁'s frame of reference. R₁ is looking up, and since it's a firmly fixed metre rule, it can only see and measure things in one dimension. What does R₁ see? R₁ sees R₂, ever so long without edges. Now, we know that R₂, though more "resourceful" than R₁, is as a matter of course, limited.

Now, you tell me, is it possible for R₁ to know the difference between a 200m long R₂ and an infinitely long R₂? Remember, it is firmly fixed. I'm sure you can now see where this is going. Given R₁'s limitation, it will not be able to tell the difference. For R₁ to tell the difference, it will either have to be as long as R₂ or longer. Now, under what circumstances will R₁ ever be justified in assuming that R₂ is infinitely long just because it cannot measure R₂?

Now back to our starting point: Supposing humans are limited, and we all agree humans are, under what circumstances will a human be able to say "oh, since juju exists and it surpasses my powers, a supreme being must therefore exist"? So let me throw your question back at you: What if juju were real, will that prove the existence of a supreme being?
I hope you're better equipped to answer your question yourself.

wirinet:
Not being an evolutionist does not qualify you into a creationist. There are various mix of the two and some people choose non of the above. they do not care to know how and why the universe exist, they only know that they exist, and that is enough for them.

cosmological argument can be divided into four main typrs;
1. Creationism
2. Intelligent Design
3. Theistic Evolution
4. Atheistic Evolution
5. Those that do not care.

So please quit thinking of evolutionists and creationists as a black and white issue. There are various shades in between.

I am an Evolutionist to the core. I believe everything evolves (changes), nothing can remain the same till eternity.

Your friend wishes to win an argument by creating false dichotomies and then arguing against his/her contrivances. You're too kind to indulge their absurdities.

KingEbukasBlog:
Hello , please I need the evolutionists which are obviously atheistic and vice versa to answer these 30 questions for me . Please , I need no mediocre atheist to argue over these questions . Please answer with facts and dont "answer" a question with a question . Thank You

1.What caused the universe to exist ?

2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?

3.Why do evolutionists deny the existence of a designer ?

4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?

5.Where did the genetic code come from?

6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?

7.How do we account for the origin of over 100 distinct
language families , languages?

8.Why do other planets not support life just like earth?

9. Evolution is a gradual process that takes millions of years , since plants and animals evolved at different rates , how did the under-evolved macro complex organisms survive ?

10. Why is religion termed as "slavery" by the atheists ?

11.How is free will possible in a material universe?

12.How do we account for conscience and consciousness?

13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?

14. Evolution they say takes time , off course millions of years , how did cells reproduce , at what time did the female primates tend to develop reproductive organs that enabled reproduction ? How sure are we that the newly produce cells survived

15.Why are animals not as intelligent as humans since we all came from a common ancestor? why cant they communicate with languages like humans do

16.Why is sex pleasurable or why did nature make sex pleasurable since its main purpose is reproduction?

17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in
the supernatural and how do we know the supernatural does not exist?

19.If the bible is untrue and full of myths , how come it could forsee the future , events and places are same and as old as bible explained ?

20.Why do atheists say miracles are fake , when medical evidence has verified unexplained cure ?

21 Natural selection allows for organisms to develop certain features to enable them survive in their environment , why haven't Eskimos developed thick skin or become very hairy yet over the yeeeaaarrrrssss?

22. Melanin absorbs sunlight , that accounts for our black colour . There are is high amount of sunlight and hot temperatures in certain regions .Why are there dark-skinned Eskimos?

23 Since planes are artificial and aid movement which accounts for man's survival in his environment, should we expect man to grow wings in millions of years to come ?If false , who made you lord of evolution ?

24 Explain how fossils are actually evidences of evolution? Do you know some fossils dont even fit in any family tree?

25.Which came first , the chicken or the egg , male or female , butterfly or flower , gases or star dust?

26 .How did the gravitational pull come about and why is it non-existent in other planets .

27. Why is every account of near death experience involving hell or heaven regarded as hallucination ?

28 Explain how dead matter brought forth life. What came about the dead matter ?

29 Do atheists believe man has the soul , spirit and body in one ? If false , state with facts that deny such

30. Do you know that earth was not created but restored in Genesis chap1 : 2 -30 but in the very beginning 1:1 and Adam was never the first man on earth? There is a great gap between vs 1 and vs 2 in Gen 1

"men and nations" , animals existed before Adam but were destroyed in the first flood ,Lucifer's flood

"... and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters " ... what waters ? from the first flood !

Proof : Isa 14 :12-14 , 2 Peter 3: 5-7 , Jeremiah 4 : 23-26 , Ezekiel 28 : 11-17 , Job 38 : 4-30

Op, ever heard of "Gish gallop"? It's a form of shotgun argument where you inundate your opposite with too many questions than you care to have answers for, in the process paralysing them because in the end, your position is not coherent enough to be addressed cogently.

If you really want to have a serious discussion, please choose a relevant subject that we can focus on, and then we'll move to the next one after we're done. It's neither reasonable nor worth the effort trying to address 30 different questions, some of which can be collapsed into one. Please organise yourself better, thanks.

LordReed:
You are the blank one. He says it was infrasonic weapon from the plane, do you know how infrasonic weapons work? They cause vibrations so tell me how much vibration did the building experience before it fell? I am sure you are one of those fear mongers who thinks every passing lizard is a demon. If an infrasonic weapon was used no human being would have been in the building because they would have run out. So you and your fake weapons expert should go and cook up another interesting story.

Scorn their ignorance, don't indulge it. No such thing as infrasonic weapon.

Jesusloveyou:
has tbj stole from u before,or u mistake him for ur corrupt president.u can do ur own research.d guy were not hire by tbj,he make his own sacrifice,came all d way from kaduna,d guy really love this country,u can also come up with any possible cause.we most know d truth.

That guy was talking nonsense. Nothing he said is grounded in science. A little background in wave theory/quantum physics can fix that nonsense claim.

ClintonNzedimma:
then the radiation that causes an implosion is what?
Am not that good at physics, am a web programmer.

What implosion are you taking about? Be clearer please.

mu2sa2:
This witness has given his expert opinion. He testified that, having eliminated all other options, his conclusion is that the only possible cause of the collapse of the building COULD be infrasonic explosives. That's how an expert reasons. All the posters trying to rubbish his findings are dunderheads. If the witness were a foreigner the same people would be praising his "expertise"! Ha, whither Nigeria!

His "findings", if they could be called that, are rubbish! Betray his lack of background in physics. He's a fake and should not be embellished with the title 'expert' he knows absolutely nothing!

PhockPhockMan:
When asked what would be seen as the evidence in the aftermath of an infrasonic attack on a building, the witness said there would be no material evidence because the radiation neither generated heat nor resulted in burning or charring.


He said, “The bomb expert who is looking for chemical residue will not see anything like a by-product and of course there is no charring because all that the radiation does is to cause a vibration of the atoms from their position resulting in the emission of electrons.”

This fellow, if real, is a charlatan and a voodoo scientist. Nobody should listen to someone who displays such fundamental lack of understanding in physics. It is not possible for infrasonic energy at such frequencies to cause electrons to emit. That's nonsense! Such frequencies are practically invisible to electrons. They literally pass through because the wavelength at such frequency is so long it cannot have any practical effect on matter. In fact, infrasonic energy, if at all it could be used for demolition, wouldn't need to be anywhere near the target because almost nothing can absorb such low frequency over extremely long distances, which is what makes them useful in monitoring earthquakes. If infrasound could disintegrate matter, the whole earth would have been space debris by now, because earth is replete with natural phenomena causing infrasound all the time. As we all know, energy is directly proportional to frequency, so how can such low energy cause a building to collapse? To knock electrons off, we need energies well into the Megahertz, not meagre-hertz.

If you don't believe me, google infrasonic demolition, and you'll see it only exists on the pages of Nigerian newspapers whose investigative skills have sadly been purchased by brown envelopes from the likes of TB. Tb is a criminal who should face justice instead of paying quack scientists to defend his ineptitude. Such things make me livid. If this is the standard of science at the NDA, we're screwed!

paulGrundy:


You are clown! The link you provided never said anything about sign fireman. Screen shots of the link follows shortly. Why are you guys just desperate to see the man fall Abeg free him jare.


#Let me go and rid off the malicious malware in that link from my device.

It's a video. Never heard of Vimeo?

paulGrundy:
If you were sensible, you would have posted the internet link to your wishful thinking. No newspaper reference no link of Cbc news making such allegations. Even Google knows that you are telling lies. Next time if you want to hang a dog by giving it a bad name please do it well.

Here's your LINK

The only wishful thinker here is you!

neduzy:
Last week, Dr. Sign Fireman was appointed as a United Nations Peace Ambassador. It was done in recognition of his fight to end diverse troubles around the world, and his many amazing triumphs and results. It is a life appointment, and goes with many diplomatic packages. We give God all the glory!

Dude this is not the first time you've posted this nonsense and I called you out on your lies the first time. You can keep fooling yourself, but stop trying to deceive other people.

You guys are the frauds that tarnish the country's image. What's the meaning of "end diverse troubles around the world"? Can you quantify these supposed "amazing triumphs"?

This is the criminal you think UN wishes to associate itself with?
http://vimeo.com/31413008

Image123:
Gravity and relativity are not silly theories. They are also demonstrable to almost anybody. Evolution is baseless and without any shred of proof, when i mean evolution, i am majoring on the inanity that man evolved from apes as against being created by God. It is not a better plow. Find another.

Man did not "evolve" from apes. Judging from all existing evidence, including anatomical, genetic, physiological and anthropological, man IS ape, no more a species of, than lions are a species of cats. Study the theorem before you vomit your ill-informed opinion, and stop being blinded by religious zealotry in spite of painfully obvious facts.

neduzy:
This appointment goes with an Id card that grants Dr Fireman access anywhere in the world! a new plate number.. with Excellency on it. a set of green pen for signing documents and etc!!!!

Nonsense. While the UN issues a Laissez-passer (a passport-like travel document) that gives its holders visaless entry to some countries, the UN does not give any nonentity such ID documents, and most countries still require holders to apply for visas. The document is specifically issued to UN staff and staff of other global professional bodies like IAEA, WHO and world bank. It is simply not true that they give these documents to anybody else, not even their peace ambassadors. Also, the UN does not issue number plates. It is the country in which they operate that issues diplomatic plates to official UN vehicles, so there is no way they could give this miscreant a number plate that reads "excellency". Even the UN chief-rep in country cannot drive a vehicle with "Excellency" written on its plate. Your lies are so crass, dim-witted and artless.
Lol @ "a set of green pen". I suggest you do your research before making idiotic claims. Exactly what do you reckon a set of green pens means to UN?

Finally, and as Nora544 has pointed out, the UN is an agnostic agency, meaning religion plays no role whatsoever in its operations, so there is no way it will bring itself to disrepute by making one charlatan Dr. With a fake title its ambassador.

ekeroyal:
Lost And Found My Stolen Phone After 7 Months

I know technology was at work, but at the same time I also feel there was hand of God.

Of course OP, the hand of god was definitely there. We need not worry that god doesn't put its hand in the lives of people dying of cancer, HIV, bacterial infections, starvation and malnutrition. It will rather deep its hand in irrelevant and flimsy things like lost iPhones. I salute yua goddu, and its misplaced priorities. No OP, it was technology that helped, not god.

The point is, even if the fellow wasn't able to unlock it and got frustrated as the days went by, he could have as well decided to also crush it. But he didn't, instead he took the bold step by calling. He was surprised when I told him I didn't inform the Police and I also didn't come with any Police or something.

No, that's not the point. You already addressed the point in the 'lost phone' message you transmitted to the screen.

"If you find this phone, it is lost. Simply call 080********. A reward awaits you".

The guy made his calculations and figured he stood to gain more by returning the phone than keeping a worthless piece of brick or crushing it. He made a bad investment, and would do anything to recover a part of it at least. By the way, what was the reward?

I could decipher that the young man who called me intended to buy the iPhone but got frustrated when all efforts to unlock it proved abortive. So he decided it meant nothing than to return it to the owner. When I inserted a SIM, I accessed the iCloud server and immediately I entered my credentials, the iPhone was unlocked.

I'm glad your phone worked. Congrats!!

He was surprised when I told him I didn't inform the Police and I also didn't come with any Police or something.

I have mixed feelings about how you handled this part. Maybe given the Nigerian factor, you did the right thing not to report it to the police. The only people I loath more than criminals in Nigeria are the police force. But under normal circumstances, I would have involved the police. People's proclivity to steal other people's phones needs to be crushed.

Meanwhile, my lost hope in Nigeria and Nigerians is gradually coming back. I simply didn't expect getting my iPhone back.

What do you think fellas?

If this event restored your hope in Nigeria, then we need more of such things to happen to more people so that Nigeria sheds it's cloak of hopelessness.

UyiIredia:
logic boy's stüpìdity on display

Uyi, do tell us why you think this question is stupid?

Liekiller:
You understand that, I understand that, but the followers of ID usually don't. They seem to think two birds mating should instantly produce a rat to "prove evolution" LOL. The problem generally seems to be that they would expect evolution to work in a way THEY define beforehand so they could believe it, whereas in reality it describes how observed diversity came about but does not predict what any given plant or animal is "supposed to" evolve into.

You exactly hit the nail on the head with the emboldened.

Liekiller:
very nice post, AgentofAllah.

Thanks

But you know what the issue with this will be again... birds are still the same "kind".

The purpose of my example was to demonstrate that there is no clearly defined line called "Same kind". For example, an eagle is not any less a kind of a parrot than my hypothetical BRB is a kind of BBBRB. I have demonstrated this both mathematically and visually. What we have are models, and the closer we get to the common ancestor, the the less useful these models are.

One of us needs to take the time to dig into the fossil record for the fish-amphibian or the reptile-bird transition, and I hope it will be you LOL.

I understand your point, but this loaded task will be asking for too much, I think. The fossil records abound, and whoever disputes this can search by themselves...just a click away.

Just like the differentiation between micro and macro evolution doesn't make sense the "complexity" issue doesn't make sense either. I am yet waiting for the creationist explanation of what makes a trilobite less "complex" than an ape from a biological point of view.

Exactly!

alexis:
It is in micro evolution where the real scientific evidence for evolution exists - and I have always supported that. As far as progressive, macro evolution is concerned it really doesn't even qualify as a science. Can a concept that requires eons of time be experimentally tested or observed? No. What would it take to disprove it? It is so plastic that it "explains" virtually all possible outcomes. All highly plastic concepts are "supported" by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientific concepts must be falsifiable. Macro evolution is not, therefore it is not science. It is simply storytelling.

Alexis, we started on a wrong footing. I occasionally get frustrated when I feel someone is intentionally trying not to understand my point. Let's push the reset button and start again:

In evolutionary biology, it doesn't make sense to separate Micro and Macro evolution. One leads to the other, and I have used the little free time I found to formulate a proof using mathematical formalisms (this is why I like mathematics. It fits into any science). I have named the proof after you, but I hope you have a little bit of mathematics background. If not, don't worry, I will provide a visually appealing example of the mathematical statements for good measure. See the proof below (I have attached it as an image because Nairaland cannot accept compound formula):
https://s22.postimg.org/urkjfrlk1/Slide1.jpg
https://s27.postimg.org/85l8qkm0z/Slide2.jpg

So to say micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution is to make a mathematically illogical statement, which shifts the burden of proof on you. Hence, you must show that the LIM(t→ ΔT) (m) =/=M according to equation 5. For example, if you were accumulating brown grains of sand in a De rica can, one after the other, eventually you'll have a heap of brown sand. A heap of brown sand looks nothing like a grain of brown sand, yet you know one results in another. Supposing you continue to accumulate into another De rica container, and high winds come and mixed your brown sand with white sand, by the time your next De rica can is filled, you'll have a mixture of white and brown heap of sand, which will look nothing like the brown heap of sand or the initial brown grain. Now consider the following example:

Assuming your name is Alexis Methuselah the Second, and you have been gifted with two superpowers, namely the power of longevity which will make you live for more than 10,000 years, as well as the power to make someone sleep for a long time before waking them up. Now, because you will live for so long, you wished to kill boredom, so you develop a hobby, breeding red-Birdy. Now, while you're busy with your breeding, your naughty son saw your red- Birdy and started startling it, so you sent you naughty son to sleep until your breeding experiment is done. Your breeding experiment, represented by the matrix below, is carried out with especial interest in three different features as follows:

Try A: Mate only the off-springs of red Birdy with the largest bone structures.
Try B: Mate only the off-springs of Red Birdy with the largest bone structures and darkest colours.
Try c: Mate only the off-springs of Red Birdy with the largest bone structures, darkest colours and Biggest beaks.

Find the result below:
https://s30.postimg.org/vfu7w0klt/Slide3.jpg
Red-Birdy Matrix

10,000 years later, you're happy with the outcome of your breeding experiment. You now have three new species of red Birdy: Big-red-Birdy (BRB), Big Black-red-Birdy (BBRB) and Big-Beaked-Black-red-Birdy (BBBRB). So you decide to wake little Alexis up and show him your beautiful birds. Little Alexis will say "Oh daddy, when did you buy these three different kinds of birds". But you know better, so you'll say "Son, I didn't buy them. They are off-springs of a common ancestor 'S' the red-Birdy". Your son says, "No, I don't believe that such a small red-Birdy can produce a BBBRB that looks nothing like it, unless you prove it to me at this instant". You will have no way of proving this to your son in a lab because if you take two little red-Birdies, they will never be able to produce one BBBRB. You'll need exactly the same amount of time and similar conditions to reproduce BBBRB to your son. Alternatively, you show your son that there are DNA signatures of little red-Birdy in BBBRB, and your son is thenafter, satisfied.

Likewise, when you ask for proof of a fish or single cell becoming human, that is not a reasonable request, not only because of the length of time involved in evolution, but also the fact that many of the conditions have since changed, which cannot be replicated. For example, there once was an ice-age, which for sure, caused living organisms to evolve so as to survive the harsh climate. Such evolutionary events cannot be replicated today, without the ice-age conditions. As such, to prove evolution, we depend on DNA signatures that all living organisms share, as well as fossil records. DNA signatures and fossil records are scientifically observable and repeatable. So the question one has to ask is: Why do all living things share these signatures? The answer to that question is that the differences in the DNA of all living things were micro-evolutionary events (mutations) which were acquired over time, which then became macro-evolutionary. Everyday, we observe the micro-evolutionary events take place in the lab and in nature, and we have no reason to assume it just stops there. Since you're the one assuming it stops there, the burden of proof is on you to show that such an assumption is valid.

I hope you understand evolution better now.

^^^ Hahaha...He calls it personal smearing! He smeared himself with his lies. I merely pointed out his cheap tactics and pedantic maneuvers. Abeg go siddon jarre, you're clearly ignorant!!

Peterken05:
So some people still never understand evolution?

i salute you sir, Agentofallah.

You've done a great job here.

Thanks, always at your service to expose the lies of shameless religious extremists

[size=15pt]Here's an ode to Alexis, the expert on all things evolution: Diligently compiled excerpts from Alexis' many woes, lies and fantastical fabrications:[/size]

1) A JELLYFISH IS A FISH, A SEAHORSE IS A HORSE AND A MISNOMER IS A NOMER

He called Jellyfish a fish

alexis:
The Chordata phylum doesn't prove anything Bros, jelly fishes are not vertebrates yet considered fishes.

Horrified by this violent reclassification, I called him out:

AgentOfAllah:
Another reason to ignore you. You think a jellyfish is a fish, when actually, it is a zooplankton. This is the same person trying to debate evolution, and he doesn't even know the basics. I guess you've never heard of the word "misnomer" before. I would be shocked if you don't think seahorses are actual horses.

Realising his biological mastery had failed him, he quickly repented:

alexis:
My mistake. My intent was to state that jellyfishes are not vetebrates as humans yet the claim that we are all came from a single organism doesn't hold water. I admit that I made an error.

Although, still lying about his intention. He had clearly assumed jellyfish is a cordate! Anyway, I forgave him and thought he would go and sin no more. How wrong was I!!! That was to be the least malignant of his many lies!

2) TWO KINDS, ONE LIAR

He claimed all animals don't have the same ancestry, and that the inability of different kinds to produce off-springs when they mate is proof of this claim:

alexis:
A human can mate with a chimp but it will never produce an off-spring because we ARE NOT OF THE SAME KIND.

I said okay, explain the existence of hybrid species like Lion+Tiger=Liger. His response?

alexis:
Of everything listed there - are they different animals? Is a Liger not a CAT; are they of different KINDS? The African Elephant and the Asian elephant - are the off-springs and products not an elephant? You are supporting my argument Bros and in the process making yourself look very very stupi.d.

I said hmmm...let's add a cheetah to the equation then, why is it that Lion+Cheetah=/=Litah or Cheetah+Tiger=/=Cheegar?

AgentOfAllah:
Good, now tell me why a cheetah can't crossbreed with a lion or a tiger, or why domestic cats can't crossbreed with big cats. Following your argument, they are all cats after all, not different "KIND"

I got no coherent explanation, just this:

alexis:
Dude, they can't naturally cross-breed just the same way a tiger can't naturally cross-breed with a lion. It has to be done in a lab. A Saint Bernard can't naturally cross-breed with a Cheewawa but they are DOGs - the level of your stupi.dity astonishes me

Pretending my question had anything to do with natural crossbreeding, or, perhaps, suffering from a case of selective cognitive disorder.

3)AND DARWIN SAID: "LET THERE BE LIFE!" OR DID HE? OR DIDN'T HE? POSSIBLY, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT

He relentlessly fabricated lies against Darwin, asserting that Darwin said life emerged from non-life:

alexis:
He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)

1. Life came from non-life: I will leave this bone for you to crack later

After persistently pressing him to provide verbatim evidence of Darwin making such a profound remark, he provided this:

alexis:
“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond...

To scrutinise his perverse logic, I asked a simple question:

AgentOfAllah:
Supposing I say "if (and oh! What a big if) meatballs lived in the sky, we can conceive of meatballs raining". Does that mean I have said: "there are meatballs in the sky that rain"?

I got no response, just tactless maneuvers.

4) THE EVOLUTION THEORY OF ALEXIS' WORDS

He claimed evolution was all about the abiogenesis of matter into diverse lifeforms:

alexis:
This is what Darwinism is all about - all different KINDs of species originated from one single specie which originated from a non-life. Now, you are here twisting your words and saying otherwise.

. Diligently, I called him out on his misleading characterisation of the theory as follows:

AgentOfAllah:
But for all his conjectures and hopes, one thing is irrefutably true about Darwin. He saw a clear distinction between the question of origin of species and that of the origin of life. To him, these were fundamentally different questions, and he believed his theory of evolution answered only the former, not the latter.

And then in his typical mendacious manner, his words transmogrified!!!

alexis:
I never denied that, I said in addition to the evolution of life and species he supported, he also referred to the possibility of life from non-life.

More artless maneuverings!!! This is how a few words can cause the meaning of a statement to evolve. Obviously, Darwin never knew the origin of life, nor did he claim or pretend to know. In fact, he frequently clarified that his work had nothing to do with the origin of life, and even wrote against a scientist in his lifetime, who argued that he should have included the origin of life in his work.

5) ALEXIS THE ONE-TRICK-PONY

So is there anything alexis is persistently good at? no doubt there is!

alexis:
Stupi.dity at it's highest.

Your stupi.dity transcends any kind of help

alexis:
the level of your stupi.dity astonishes me

alexis:
You are so daft. Stupi.dity at it highest.

alexis:
Cha - stupi.dity at it's pinnacle

alexis:
Cha - stupi.dity on a whole new level.

alexis:
Idio.ts like you decide to put your reasoning in the trash-bag when it comes to matters of science.

so far, you have been successful at showing your public stupid.ity than your scientific claims.

Your stupi.di.ty is beginning to offend me

Stop insisting on being stup.id man.

Cha - mumuness no good oh.

Ladies and gentlemen, the temperaments of a thoroughgoing Christ-like person who is also an expert in all things evolution.

Aaah!! The tyranny of the ignorant mind is relentless. I'll leave the readers to determine who the disingenuous and incoherent babbler is.

alexis:
Dude, they can't naturally cross-breed just the same way a tiger can't naturally cross-breed with a lion. It has to be done in a lab. A Saint Bernard can't naturally cross-breed with a Cheewawa but they are DOGs - the level of your stupi.dity astonishes me

My question wasn't that of nature, but of possibility. It is possible to crossbreed a lion and a tiger, wether naturally or unnaturally, with an offspring, and you said this is possible because they are of the same kind (I.e., cats). I asked you why cheetahs can't crossbreed with lions and tigers in the same way lions and tigers crossbreed. After all, cheetahs are also cats.

It is obvious that tigers, cheetahs and lions are different kinds of cats like humans, chimps and gorillas are different types apes. The theory of evolution can give you a coherent reason why such curious crossbreeding phenomenon sometimes happens. The explanation is thus: These animals share the same ancestry. Some are much further divided on the evolutionary clad than others. So, even though lions, cheetahs, tigers and domestic cats are all cats, some are much closer to the common ancestor than others, so they produce offsprings (albeit sterile, but occasionally fertile too), while those that are distant are completely cross-cladistically sterile. This would explain why humans cannot crossbreed with other apes for example, but this does not make our claim to a common ancestry any less legitimate than the claim a cheetah has to being a cat, in spite of the fact that it cannot crossbreed with lions and tigers.

The very existence of hybrid species is evidence in itself of evolution. Otherwise, you'll have to give a better scientific explanation than "because they are cats" as to why tigers and lions, which are so obviously different from each other, can crossbreed; because not all cats crossbreed.

Mind you, all domestic dog species can crossbreed. The problem between a Chihuahua and a saint Bernard is not that of genetic impossibility, it is of a physical nature. Obviously, a female Chihuahua will not cope under the circumstances, but vice versa, it will most definitely work.

EMILO2STAY:
mr silly evolutionist do i need a Dna test to prove that a mango fruit came from a mango tree?

No you don't.

the fact that living things only produce according to their kinds with similar characteristics is more than enough proof even a two year old child knows it.

Then explain hybrid species... I'm waiting

we share similar genes with cows , dogs, cats, banana and potatos but are yet to withness any produce something different from what they are.

Explain hybrid species.

Mr Mumu indoctrinated evolutionist If u think u are so learned in evolution why dont u provide me with a fossil of a potato evolving into fish.

Because

1) I don't think such a species ever existed...nor does any other evolutionist that I know of.

2) Even if it did, fossils are extremely difficult to come by. You don't just pluck fossils from the metaphorical tree of universal common ancestry, you know?

Silly people like u think giving millions of year a dog running around building materials with a hammer tied to its tail will build a mansion.

I don't know that such a person you described up there exists. There exists no evidence that dogs can live up to a million years, or that nature would require such a dog to build a mansion for that matter. Nevertheless, if such a dog really did exist, that would live for up to a million years with a hammer tied to its tail. My prediction is that its tail muscles will become so strong, like that of kangaroo to compensate for the added weight, or it will lose its tail because it has become an evolutionary burden.

Misogynist2014:
If you read the genesis account well, you will see for certain that there was water and land and that means the earth existed before the 6 days of creation.

Yes, Yahweh also created the earth before the sun according to genesis. How can the earth exist without a sun to orbit?

If evolution were actually true, it won't still remain a theory.

Yes, likewise, if the theory of electromagnetism were true, it wouldn't still remain a theory. It remains a theory, hence everything from your internet, to your mobile phones, to your eyes and your microwave oven is a big lie!!!

As per the case of Adam and his eve, its a detailed historical record, which can answer any question except the evolution hoax.

Hahaha you're cute!

Let me ask you a question: does nothing exist?

Define nothing?

alexis:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/polar_essay1.jsp[/url]

Read what the National Science Foundation quoted Darwin as saying in a letter written in 1871 to botanist Joseph Hooker, Darwin envisioned:

Good...what took you so long?

Now, you have provided the following excerpt from a letter Darwin wrote to Hooker:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”

As evidence for your statement thus:

He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)

For your claim, you cited two links as sources, both of which I accept. They are NCBI and NSF.

Now, it is true that the excerpt is from a letter Darwin wrote to Hooker (the full version of which can be found from pages 22-24 of the NCBI link), but it is not true that this in any way suggests Darwin said life came from non-life.

From the excerpt, the line of interest is the following: "But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond...". Did you notice the bolded phrase? You know what it means?

Supposing I say "if (and oh! What a big if) meatballs lived in the sky, we can conceive of meatballs raining". Does that mean I have said: "there are meatballs in the sky that rain"?

Darwin was a naturalist, so, naturally, he did believe that it was probable that life emerged from non-life, but he was always very clear that this was just a conjecture, not science. This sentiment was most eloquently conveyed in a letter he wrote to Julius Viktor Carus. You'll find reference to this letter in pages 34-35 of the NCBI link. In it, he said:

"...As for myself I cannot believe in spontaneous generation and though I expect that at some future time the principle of life will be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me beyond the confines of science"


In another letter he wrote to Wallace in 1872 (NCBI, Pgs. 36-37), he also made clear that this conjecture could well be disproven as it had nothing to do with science when he said:

"...I should like to live to see Archebiosis [living matter from non-living (my addition)] proved true, for it would be a discovery of transcendent importance; or, if false, I should like to see it disproved, and the facts otherwise explained; but I shall not live to see all this"



But for all his conjectures and hopes, one thing is irrefutably true about Darwin. He saw a clear distinction between the question of origin of species and that of the origin of life. To him, these were fundamentally different questions, and he believed his theory of evolution answered only the former, not the latter. You'll find this theme in many of his correspondences. An example of this was a letter he wrote to George Wallich in 1882 (NCBI, Pg 35)

"My dear Sir,

You expressed quite correctly my views where you say that I had intentionally left the question of the Origin of Life uncanvassed as being altogether ultra vires in the present state of our knowledge, & that I dealt only with the manner of succession (origin of species)."



From my response, you can now see that you attributed falsehood to Darwin and curiously, the NCBI link you cited as proof for your claim, exists for the precise reason of debunking claims like yours, which is why I asked you for the exact quote from which you received the information. At the beginning of the NCBI article, it says:

"Indeed, a careful examination and critical reading of his [Darwin's] public and private writings shows that what appear to be contradictory opinions on the problem of the emergence of life are the result of texts read out of context, sometimes maliciously, as shown by some publications of creationist groups and advocates of the so-called intelligent design."

Having been presented with the facts about Darwin's theory, I hope you will now be humble enough to admit you were wrong, and desist from torturing us with your fabrications.

Finally, I like to thank you for the NCBI link you provided. I make no exaggeration when I say that it's the best product of my interaction with you. It proved very resourceful, and I shall bookmark it for later references.

P.S. My reference to page numbers on the NCBI link are only valid for those who access the publication by mobile. Page numbers are otherwise irrelevant.

alexis:
AgentOfAllah
You see the same cocky attitude I am talking about? I gave you an example. Darwin was a Christian; Darwin never said it verbatim in his book but historical records show that he was at one point a Christian. So, you can keep repeating the same rub.bi.sh; it doesn't make any difference

So basically, you don't have any reference for the words you attributed to Darwin. You sir, harped on and on with certainty about how Darwin said life came from non-life, You sir, fabricated lies against Darwin, hoping to win cheap argument points, then balked under a simple request for reference. You have no coherence, credibility and integrity.

[size=14pt]You sir, are a cad, a liar and a villain[/size].

It has become obvious to me that responding to you is more dignity than you deserve. As such, I'll give you the silent treatment henceforth.

alexis:
Sorry Boss - the same cocky attitude you employ when you want to avoid addressing the main questions I posted

You asked me if a conditional law has any exception when the conditions for it to be applicable are met. What's your point exactly?

alexis:
Of everything listed there - are they different animals? Is a Liger not a CAT

Good, now tell me why a cheetah can't crossbreed with a lion or a tiger, or why domestic cats can't crossbreed with big cats. Following your argument, they are all cats after all, not different "KIND"

And this is how the disingenuous and mendacious gets smacked-down by their self-defeating argument.

alexis:
AgentOfAllah



How will it not be dumb to someone who is stu.p.id? You tend to argue more about semantics than to address questions brought before you.

LOL... Pointing out the flaw in your self-referential question has nothing to do with semantics. It's a cognitive failure on your part. Your question simply makes no sense. Stop being arrogant and accept correction when you're wrong.

alexis:
You are so daft. Stupi.dity at it highest. Did I or did I include this as reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

This is not a reference my friend. Provide the exact quote verbatim. I didn't find the statement you attributed to Darwin in the above link. I'll keep quoting you until you admit you were wrong or you provide the reference and the verbatim quote of Darwin:

Alexis: He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)