₦airaland Forum

butterflyl1on:
Why would the very first thing to pop into your head be fear when all I did was make a statement with you as a reference based on view point. I never meant to put fear in you or even an imagined one as that was not part of my words.

Ironically I am not awed by the universe as you allude but rather "settled" by it.

You can keep farting. Your fart must be very fanciful to you. The hurricane cares not.

The very first thing that came to my head was fear because, in the book of Proverbs, it was said that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

Why are you antagonizing the Bible which said we should always fear God because he is a consuming fire? When you mentioned the one who created the universe, should I not be scared?

I hope my farting is making you wiser, if not then I can't help you.

dalaman:
What are the biblical prohecies that are coming true before our very eyes today?

Who are the eye witness that accounted for anything about Jesus? Who are they and what evidence did they leave to show that anything they said about him is true, factual and verifiable?

Who among the people that wrote the Jesus stories was an eye witness?

You are very funny bro, your signature is much more funny.

God did not create the 2 trillion galaxies o, he only created the heavens and the earth. He did not create Mars, Jupiter, Uranus etc not to talk more of the remaining universes. He only created the heaven, his imaginary home, and the earth. Simple

And that is just as simple as it gets for simpletons like Butterflyl01

AgentOfAllah:
It's mostly ignorance my brother. If robots made such a claim, we can forgive them. At least, they are silicon based. Hydrocarbon mugus sef dey form clay..lol

Lol, these people don't know that they are hydrocarbons o. They are clay, let them remain as clay.

Clay who started to talk and move around because god breathed into them. I never knew god breathes.

You see, bro, there are some "ignorant knowledge" we need to start learning from these folks. Lmao

butterflyl1on:


We're you forced to be related?

You are making it sound like you are doing anyone any favours. Lmao

The fun part is that as you see specks of dust from your perspective is how the universe views you or even less. How much more He who made it.

I tell people like you that their rants and ravings are like a fart in a hurricane.... Infinitesimal.

Oh, he who made it is a giant scary motherfucker who lives in the sky.

Help me, help me, I'm scared.

He who made it is a spaghetti monster. So what?

I know what marvels you and what confuses you about the universe. I have said it, a dumb person would buy the God of the gap story.

But if you want to understand it, read science and not the pseudoscience your ally has been posting all this while. Meanwhile you can keep revelling in ignorance if that's what you want.

butterflyl1on:
You must have the missing fossil records for those as well right?

Just like you have a selfie of your god. Are you surprised?

AgentOfAllah:
Dunno about others, but I think I'd rather share ancestors with chimps than with kpotokpoto.

Lol, I'm with you bro.

I don't know how people can believe that they are clay, only dumbness can do that to a man.

butterflyl1on:
Wow so you can magically elevate someone else's dumbness but not yours? Amazing

Your magic must be "pseudo magic".

It can only be done by bringing out yours. I won't deny the fact that by exposing your dumbness makes me smarter because no matter what I will not stoop so low to your level.

But there is nothing magical about it. To start with, I am not related to one particular spirit that can wave hands and make things appear and disappear, neither do I believe in him.

hermosa7:
The Lack of Transitional Fossils

There are relatively few fossils forms that, because they are intermediate in certain respects, can be characterized as “transitional” from one type or species to another type or species. By the time Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859, much fossil collecting had already been done, and few intermediate forms had been found. Darwin acknowledged that, according to his theory, we should find many transitional forms in the fossil record and that, in fact, we do not.

The following are the very words of Charles Darwin in his satanic book The Origin of Species

". . . the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory."

Did Charles Darwin make this statement yesterday? Oh, don't tell me how many years back and don't tell me the number of fossil records that have been found after Darwin died. I am enjoying this


Seriously, creationists on this thread are nincompoops, in this order of decreasing dunderheadedness. Hermosa7-> Butterflyl10n-> DoctorAlien

butterflyl1on:
Oh so you have the very much elusive fossil records that the whole scientific world has been looking for?

So you have custody of the missing links? Fossil ancestory?

Guy gerraarrahia. You are full of hot poo.

I have explained your inability to decipher words in my immediate previous post.

Who made you a simpleton? That's not an insult though, it's a question.

butterflyl1on:
You are all over the place. Get yourself organised and stop swaying like a drunk ninja.

We are talking exclusively science and you are trying too hard to switch this to Church and denomination talk?

What in blazes has that got to do with this discussion and my question?

Well, I can see your ignorance bro, show it no further.

You are ignorant of science and you are ignorant of religion, to my utmost expectation you are also ignorant of human differences.

However, since it has been established that you are really dumb, I will not stress it much anymore.

It's true that your questions are not related to my response, pardon me, I just thought I should give you a second chance to prove me wrong.

I should have known you wouldn't be able to decipher the points I was trying to make about human differences in everything by using the very thing you think you are living for, god.

However, since simpletons always require simple answers, I was trying to point out to you that the disagreements in science on evolution is due to the fact that human differences and ways of understanding is different.
Which can be seen in every practice and ideology.

For example, if God is one then why are you Christians divided about him? Have I elevated your dumbness a little?

Please, I am not humoring you, I am making you smarter.

butterflyl1on:
The fact is that despite knowing you are dumber than expected I chose to apply a herculean effort to bridle my tongue and stop myself from calling you so.

However you wish to force feed me with your assumption of me being dumb simply because I oppose your position. I wonder when opposition now translates to being dumb. I guess your head definitely isn't screwed on right. And indeed it wasnt when you said I was as dumb as my god. I would let that slide though because I despise rolling in the mud with you especially since I noticed you love it down there.

So back on track. Where are the facts about the origin of life without the use of words like PROBABLY, ASSUME, COULD HAVE BEEN, PERHAPS, I THINK, ETC. All words of assumption.

Plus where are the facts about the fossil records backed up by the MISSING LINKS and the ANCESTORS of these so called fossils as fact.

Humour me further

You may try hard as you can to repudiate the fact that you are dumb, it doesn't elevate the level of your dumbness a bit. And if you see it as an insult, you can report the case to any Sars you know, or better still tell your god, he may fight for you

Science, of course, would not lie, nor reach a conclusion as a study which insists on 100% accuracy. Hence the use of words which represent likelihood and not an assumption as you have understood it, of course dumbly once again.

Since you a researcher, why don't you do your own research on fossil records, or you asked so I may bring them to your house?

butterflyl1on:
Science does not exist alone. Science is made up of scientists. Without scientists there would be no science and last time I checked, these scientists who make up science as it were are still more or less divided about evolution.

A lot of them have even called evolution a night time fairy tale. Do your research.

It seems you have been doing a lot of research lately. Science does not exist alone, and Pseudoscience exists alone? What nonsense.
Where do you leave DoctorAlien who is a renowned Pseudoscientist?

Science is a study, and there are disagreements between scientists, this is largely because so many scientists are also believers in the fairy tale god, and they don't want to let go. However, lap proceedings distinguish what is true and what is false. Nobody wants to share ancestors with Chimpanzees, so we have to establish the truth.

Speaking of disagreement, I guess you can explain the large number of sects of up to 44 thousand in Christianity alone, talk more of more than 5 thousand different religions. Don't you all believe in God?

If you want to use the disagreement of scientists on evolution as a point, then you better start explaining the disagreement of theists of God and religion, don't tell me you are lost.

And wait, didn't the Pope say recently that you people should start believing the big bang and evolution?

The only mistake he made was when he use believing instead of knowing.

butterflyl1on:
You are being unneccesarily insultive and volatile all of a sudden. All I did was ask a simple question which I expected you to have a ready made answer for since you seem to have one ready for everything.

Obviously this particular question I asked can never produce an answer from you since its a mystery which as we know evolutionists try to use a lot of assumptions and stories to fill in the blanks.

My question was strictly about nature and her evolutionary tendencies which you subscribe to and not about a nature Vs God comparison.

Keep your head on your shoulder and stop wringing your hair.

Why are you seeing the truth as insults? I don't know how to insult people, I only told you the truth about yourself, deal with it, bro.
In fact, I gave you the perfect answer since you're the one rooting for perfection. Evolutionists do not preach perfection, you creationists do, that's why I answered by the ridiculous perfection you believe in.
There is no mystery to me when it comes to Evolution and abiogenesis, you are the one who is confused about the whole thing and you have decided to fill the gaps with God, I don't blame you, seriously, it's what a dumb person would do.

I guess you have made a wrong use of the "assumption," science is based on empirical facts and tested theories, on the other hand, some dumb people assumed there is a god without evidence and theories. The fossil records alone disproves creation, what would a dumb person think?

And please, don't let the word dumb annoy you, that is what you seem like right now, it's just the truth and not an insult.

butterflyl1on:
A biochemist with a degree in pseudo science aka science fiction.

Do you have problems with the use of English or understanding it?

Science supports evolution, pseudoscience doesn't. Think about the rest.

butterflyl1on:
That guy watches too many science fiction movies.

Science fiction is better than the passion of christ movie, the religion fiction.

butterflyl1on:
That guy watches too many science fiction movies.

Science fiction is better than the passion of christ, the religion fiction.

butterflyl1on:
And by chance there came along THE PERFECT catalyst to complete the process right?

By the way how many times did this unguided process of nature keep trying out different catalysts under PERFECT polymerization conditions until it found the right one?

Humour me.

You must be a bet9ja fanatic.

Why are you surprised? Didn't your so-called intelligent designer come by chance and started waving his hands saying let there be this and let there be that? Excuse you.

It took the unguided nature as many times as it took your imaginary intelligent designer to make so many mistakes. Or this universe seems perfect to you? You are twice as dumb as god.

DoctorAlien:
Polymerization reactions, especially the one that forms peptide bonds are reversible. Polymerization could occur in the presence of water, but only when the concentrations of the monomers are high. If the concentration of water is high (e.g. the primordial soup in the ocean claimed by evolutionists), the law of mass action demands that the reaction proceed in the reverse direction, and the polymer formed would be broken down into monomers again.

The polymerization reaction of amino acids is not reversible in the presence of WATER. The reversibility of polymerized amino acids, which is also called denaturation takes place in the presence of acid, heat, and enzymes. Water does not reverse polymerization, I repeat. You cannot turn science upside down, you just can't. You should know that. These are processes that have been demonstrated millions of times in the laboratory.
You cannot disprove them on Nairaland.
The conservation of mass or law of mass action does not apply here. The law only applies when you are talking about the mass a compound and the individual mass of the constituents, and the law of mass action proposes that the rate of a chemical reaction is directly proportional to the product of the activities or concentrations of the reactants. However, WATER is not a reactant in the polymerization of AMINO ACIDS, it is a product and hence can be added to more water in the solution. Or are you saying water cannot be added to water? Are you saying protein(the product of polymerization of amino acids) will become amino acids when in water?

My brother, don't let your brain run riot because you want to disprove evolution, it cannot be disproved by pseudoscience. I can meet up with you and then we will carry out polymerization of amino acids, if you don't mind.

DoctorAlien:
[s][/s]

C R A P !

Was I discussing with my leg before?

Have you not always quoted Wikipedia? As far as the argument is not faulty, it doesn't matter who it is coming from.

I must note that you're a typical Nairaland atheist. Their cop out mechanism is to begin to accuse other people of multiple identities.

You can note whatever you want to note, it doesn't change anything.

Yes, you have been copying irrelevant articles from the internet and pasting it into this argument.

Quoting Wikipedia and copying Wikipedia are two different things. I only quote Wikipedia to buttress my points and not copy-paste the whole article.

I have carried out polymerization in the presence of water, the reaction proceeded in the forward reaction but slowly, hence the need for a catalyst( an enzyme in a living system).

On the other hand, you don't know neither have you carried out polymerization reactions before in your life, so you're just copying false claims and pasting here.

DoctorAlien:
The story that all life arose from a single cell in the ocean is not pseudoscience, right?

Oh! You have now resorted to claiming that I am Hermosa7?

Do you now want to discuss using your mind without quoting other people's long articles?

That you are Hermosa7 is not a claim, it's the fact but that's not my problem.

And the claim that all life arose from a single cell is not pseudoscience, all you need do is learn science because you don't know it.

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2]

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[5] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[6] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[6][7]

Read More https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

This is what DoctorAlien and Hermosa7, which are both the same person has resorted to. Please knowledge seekers, be wise.

classicB:
Lols
You didn't have to insult me. You sound pained tho and you didn't answer my question

Madam, walahi it's painful I don't know how to insult people. I answered your question, it's teleonomy. I will not explain it to you, please read it up.

Theists Logic, please people read slowly


- The big bang cannot just come from nothing, but God comes from nothing. Don't question it, just accept it.

- Other species cannot become a new species but God a spirit can become physical. You just have to believe it. Yet we can't see him.

- Evolution, despite the resemblance we have with other species can't be true at all, but God can wave his hands and then the universe will appear from nothing without building anything. Once again, you cannot just question it.

- Our God is not a magician, but we he likes making things appear and disappear. He can create light without the sun.

- Our God is not a wicked God, neither is he evil, but he doesn't have a problem killing innocent firstborns in Egypt. Although, he knew very well that some firstborns would have been little children and old folks.

- Oh well, what do you know? Our God is just and he judges rightly, although he is unable to ascertain the difference between a criminal and an innocent, he can punish children for the sins their parents committed. Just accept it.

- our God doesn't make mistakes, although he once used water to erase many of the mistakes he made. Please, once again, don't question

- Our God can kill whenever he likes, but he does not want to kill Satan. But don't question it because he can kill you.

- And all these are above science, although science is responsible for what we are enjoying now. And if you read the book of Isaiah and revelations, you will be able to tell the future. You can even create the next technology by praying and reading the Bible only, the Bible is full of knowledge.

classicB:
Going by this i suppose you're one of those people that have an ardent believe in a big bang. The reason why you and people like you believe so is because the white man said so how funny! And you must have a high IQ. I don't owe you an explanation to why I can't wrap my head around big bang or evolution at least not yet.

You see, hanty, the problem is that you are always looking for what to believe. Speaking of believing, I suppose it was the white missionaries who brought the idea of a monotheistic god and Jesus, it's in history

On the other hand, I did not believe in big bang theory, I know it is a possible way of explaining how we got here by the knowledge I have in sciences. I am a biochemist, a scientist and not a believer. You see the difference between you and me?

classicB:
So a random big bang just occurred out of nowhere, and in million years we have the various living and non living things, then along the line evolution came and started changing the living things heritable characteristics
If you don't understand my post lemme clarify you.

Is this the way you see it? No wonder you are looking to believing in evolution and the big bang. I am not surprised people like you believe that a spirit just exists out of nowhere, then he started waving his spiritual hands and saying let there be this, let there be that, and out of nowhere, everything came to be, without building blocks or anything.

Kudos to you hanty, you have no rights of speaking about evolution and the big bang if that is your explanation of how we came to be.

You know what's funny? You actually believed the ridiculous story that a god just existed out of nowhere and started waving hands, but it is very hard for you to believe a more theoretical and practical theory as big bang and evolution

classicB:
Which animal evolved into fish? Then did this fish started evolving into various other fishes we have now? Or is it safe to say the species of fish we have today existed singularly and started evolving into more complex fish of same specie? This question applies to all living things. Like the local dog evolved into the various ones we see today? or they existed singularly as various types bfr undergoing evolution. And no I didn't say water evolved, I only said water bodies I.e animals and plants living in water. My question applies to plants too. Pardon my low IQ tho

This is a ridiculous question, you obviously think evolution is saying that every animal evolved into one another. Let me ask you a very important question, who taught you or explain the theory of evolution to you? The person has done a very bad job.

Every species has a common ancestor which were formed by teleonomy from other ancestors/specie. Read about evolution sister and stop showing ignorance online. I don't mind your low IQ though, it doesn't mean you're useless completely.

A cell can exist with certain organelles at a particular time, but when it evolves new organelles are added to sustain life in the new condition

And this is the basis for evolution and natural selection. Don't believe this ingoramuses copying and pasting PSEUDOSCIENCE articles from the internet.

Comparative genomics explained it all. That is what accounts for the 2% difference between Human DNA and Chimpanzees DNA.

Read and enjoy

Comparative genomics is a field of biological research in which the genomic features of different organisms are compared.[2][3] The genomic features may include the DNA sequence, genes, gene order, regulatory sequences, and other genomic structural landmarks.[3] In this branch of genomics, whole or large parts of genomes resulting from genome projects are compared to study basic biological similarities and differences as well as evolutionary relationships between organisms.[2][4][5] The major principle of comparative genomics is that common features of two organisms will often be encoded within the DNA that is evolutionarily conserved between them.[6] Therefore, comparative genomic approaches start with making some form of alignment of genome sequences and looking for orthologous sequences (sequences that share a common ancestry) in the aligned genomes and checking to what extent those sequences are conserved. Based on these, genome and molecular evolution are inferred and this may in turn be put in the context of, for example, phenotypic evolution or population genetics.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_genomics

hermosa7:
For those who do not know the IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY of the cell refers to the fact that if the smallest part of the cell were to be absent, it could not exist. Every part of the cell - every single one of them - had to be present at once for the cell to exist. There's no way the cell could have evolved into what it is today.

http://endtimeupgrade.org/4a/

Stop misleading people, I repeat. Creationism is only good for fools. For those who don't want to remain fools, please read. The scientific community has rejected Hermosa7 and DoctorAlien. Read and follow the link, please.

[b]Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection. Irreducible complexity is central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but it is rejected by the scientific community,[1] which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[2] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[3]

The theological argument from design was presented in creation science with assertions that evolution could not explain complex molecular mechanisms, and in 1993 Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, presented these arguments in a revised version of Of Pandas and People.[4] In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box he called this irreducible complexity and said it made evolution through natural selection of random mutations impossible.[5] This was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research.[4] Evolutionary biologists have published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe can evolve,[6][7] and examples documented through comparative genomics show that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[1][/b]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

classicB:
The evolution of a thing doesn't make much sense to me, too many questions attached to how we all got here but evolution isn't the best answer in my opinion. Like the question the OP asked, it is very valid, how did the water body evolved into various water bodies we have now? The numerous green lives existing today. Which water body first came into being? The first tree, flower, bird? All of these just came about as a result of a random big bang
I'd need more faith to believe in big bang and evolution than to believe in God.

Can you even define evolution? People like you are the ones making the whites label us low IQ humans.

A secondary school student who understands evolution would slap you hard for writing all these nonsense.
Imagine your question, how did water bodies evolve into the water bodies we have now? That's stinks of ignorance.

For learning purpose, read attentively.

Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics over successive generations of a particular population.

Now, we are talking about living things evolving, but because your IQ is low, very low, you think water which is non-living also undergoes evolution.

I hope you are not a teacher? It will be shameful if someone like you teaches.

When you are using faith, you will not develop your mind. You don't need faith where evolution is concerned. You need to read about it it comprehensively and understand it.

hermosa7:
Thank you so much DoctorAlien for all these explanations. I've watched a lot of documentaries about the cell, and all agree and conclude on the irreducible complexity of the cell. It's so unbelievably complex that the argument for design is compelling. The DNA is another astounding work of the Designer. Actually, a lot of sincere scientists have come to believe there is a Designer after studying the complexity of the DNA molecule.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

Steven Hawking Admits Intelligent Design is "Highly Probable": http:///1IGF2dQ

Says a science Novice

Stephen Hawkings made it clear that there is no god. Use any link you want, these are credible sources.

https://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html
https://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

Hier:
Everything a programmer designed or built was a program, but yet he can not do one thing, become a program

why he's designed to be subjective, not objective

Everything a sculptor sculpted was from wood, yet the sculptor can not do one thing, become a wood

why, he's not wired to be a wood

What an imagination

Okay, fine if you want to use the programmer and program analogy. I'm good with that.

1. But, what can you say about this program(the world and everything it contains), is it a good program written by a good programmer?

2. And if the programmer and the sculptor cannot turn to a program and sculpture respectively, are you saying it cannot do EVERYTHING?

3. If it is not wired to do these things, are you saying it has limitations?

OkaiCorne:
My friend!!!!!

Happy birthday bro! I wish you a life full of purpose and fulfillment.

You shall continually make positive impact no matter the situation you face for the rest of your days.

Enjoy yourself to stupor...for today is your day my brother.

Long life and prosperity on all sides

Lol, brother mi. Today is a day of sober reflections. It's a new year and thus a new chapter and new bus stop towards the end.

Aside the part that says enjoy yourself to stupor, I will complete the other tasks.

And I also wish you the same.

promise10:
In creation, the bible says that God created man before woman. And the bible says that God did this for a purpose, which is for the reason of companionship and procreation.

Now I have to ask atheistic evolutionists some questions.

How did female and male sex first occurred?

How did the need for male and female sex occurred?

What is the probability of male sex and female sex occurring by chance and being a perfect fit for procreation? Is that not an intelligent design?

My bible tells me that God created male and female for a purpose, now how did it happen that something occurred by chance and becomes a perfect purposeful fit for procreation?

How did the idea of marriage existed?
Other animals don't get married to each other, how come we get married to each other? How did the need first existed?

Please answer these questions with fact, no abuse!

You did not post this too with facts. So what facts are you looking for?

The people who were born to condemn each actually had one or two things to say to her.