₦airaland Forum

See - I don't know much about many of the terms you're using. And comparing Ethiopea to the US isn't right - Ethiopeans have had centuries of interaction with other races, not just the "white" european race. I stand by this - if there had been no jim crow in the US, then the african american would have intermarried more, and almost disappeared.

See this DNA is not a definite statement. Before civilisation, natural selection was quite harsh and complete. If a tribe, say the Ijesha people, migrated to sweden, within a short time - 2 or three generations, most of the african features would have been wiped out, with the features essential for survival in that area (nasal passage, skin colour) becoming very quickly dominant. This would be faster if you factored in a measure of inter-tribal marriages with the viking people native to that part of the world. If this tribe lived in the area for another 2-300 years, scientists who arrived there would see that tribe, compare their slim physiques (diet) and straight noses (weather) to the neighbouring tribes and conclude that they shared the same ancestors/origins. DNA of course is another matter.

I can say one thing for sure - apart from the bushman /hottentots of southern africa, most of the bantu (or african ) tribes migrated into where they now reside within the last 2000-3000 years. Intermarriage with the bushmen could quickly alter your DNA findings.

I am curious however about two peoples - the Aborigenes of Australia - I know they were separated from the most of humanity for several centuries. Also the far eastern people.

But note that despite the introduction of these genes when referencing the African American population in America, has not profoundly changed the phenotypically make up of the populous.

This disproves the statment people make concerning east Africans who they claim are a mixed people when given other examples one can see that the introduction of foreign genes in an area that possseses Dominant gene traits can be said to constitute a mixed people.


The only example of a true mixed "race' of people can be found in the "coloreds" of south Africa who are the most genotypically diverse when refencing mixed people.

USA is a peculiar case, racist jim crow laws forbade inter-racial relationships. This is not a good example.

First of all, I want to appreciate your last post  - I feel you made an effort not to make me feel "attacked", and I appreciate that

My opinion about the bible is from my observation of the scripture. Isaiah wrote about the "lamb of God". A lot of our christian scientists, if they had been born when Jesus came, would have INSISTED that God was going to send a lamb, not a man, to be our saviour.  I can go on - sometimes God locks his wisdom in scripture, and expects his more diligent, his wiser followers to unlock it.

You keep knocking man's wisdom, yet the bible says that the wisest man that ever lived was Solomon, and he got his wisdom from ,   yep, God. There were also those two mixed race jews - the one who worked on the tabernacle with Moses, and the other one who worked on the temple with Solomon, they were supposed to be the wisest artisans of their time. Yet they were only part jew. Does this mean Solomon and Moses were foolish?

Nobody is doubting the omnipotence of God, if I gave you that impression, I'm sorry. God is omnipotent. But let us imagine for one moment, the book of Genesis being written. I'd like you to picture God explaining minor genetic detail to Moses, and Moses in turn writing in any kind of detail the gene code of mankind.  And I insist - the cold/flu virus has mutated - re-arranged it's protein structure several times. That my friend is a new organism. The sickle cell is a re-arrangement of existing proteins, just as human dna is a re-arrangement of monkey DNA. So saying that nothing new has been added is not quite,  true. I believe that God gave "life-forms" the ability to mutate and to evolve if needed.

Regarding you attacking the concept of race - I actually was referring to the link you sent. To be honest, I personally don't believe in the concept of race, I only believe in one race - the human race.

Molecule - man evolution - a different story entirely. Beyond my "acceptance" of the theory of evolution. I'm open to it, I don't deny it, but I don't insist on it's existence.

This battle you speak of, if we break it down, is simply between one set of people's understanding of the way God's work vs another people's belief. If God is indeed the root of all wisdom, then all wisdom MUST obey the word of God, otherwise it is folly. But here's the thing - sometimes it takes a great deal of wisdom simply to understand the wisdom of God.

The onus is not on anyone of us to be honest. We all are like the story of blind men touching an elephant. Those who touch the body insist the elephant is like a wall. Those who touch the tusks insist he is sharp and weaponlike. Those who touch the legs insist he is tree-like. They are all correct. They are all wrong.

Again - I no longer believe that the entire person of God, and all his actions are contained in the bible. I believe the bible are a set of guidelines that enable us to access God, they are not a set of rules God MUST follow, as you seem to believe

Oga, again you dance around the main question, claiming "theologians" can engage atheists. Seriously dude.

Again and again I have tried to be polite with you, yet you resort to rather petty name calling. As from this moment, I will therefore belittle and insult you in my replies, since that is the accepted means of argument between us.

Your documentary doesn't address any of the issues that I presented, but attempts to explain the existence of God. I have not questioned God's existence, so this is not relevant.

I asked a question about race, you have been unable to answer it, choosing instead to attack the concept of race. So I shall leave the word race out. A man from Nigeria has a much higher resistance to malaria than a man from Germany. This shows to me that the man from Nigeria, and his body, have "evolved" to handle malaria, while the german, not being exposed daily to malaria, has not. This to me is proof of evolution, which I regard as a continuing engine of creation. You insist that creation ended on the 6th day, please explain these recent changes Sir.

To state it in terms simple enough even for you to understand, we both agree to the presence and influence of a creator, our disagreement is in his methods. You accused me of "compromising the truth". Now I accuse you of being BLIND to the obvious which is happening around you daily.

It's really quite simple, though I understand that it may be too difficult for people like you who simply refuse or in your case, are unable, to think. I'm almost sure you're not going to be able to respond directly to this post.

I do not think I know everything, my current conclusions are a result of a fair bit of thinking and meditation, and a working relationship with my maker. But neither do I consider everything said by christians to be the gospel truth, nor do I consider any scientific discovery by non-christians to be false. If evolution exists as I believe it does, and as it's obvious it does, then God must have created it.

The only way you can argue against the existence of evolution is to prove to me that evolution doesn't exist, and creation - okay that's too broad, let's choose just one part of creation: mankind - hasn't evolved one bit since the day of creation.

Anyhow, I don't think "creation" was one event that took place at some point in time. I think creation is still going on. . . Our universe, our evolution, our existence, is all part of the process of "creation". Nothing is stagnant. . .everything changes. EVERYTHING. My 1.75 cents. Kinda broke

I rest my case

Sends Krayola £5.

I thought you knew what you were talking about only for you to come up with this mumbo jumbo. No wonder krayola2 was laughing at what you call evolution. If you still insist that you are a smart evolutionist then start by answering the questions at the beginning of the thread, don't bother whether they are my original questions or not as the authors or their initials are clear enough for everyone to see.

Again the pathetic and impolite response. People like you make me ask God, from the bottom of my heart how on earth you and I are both christians. Dude, what does it cost you to make simple and polite conversation? "Mumbo Jumbo". Who even uses such language in 2009 anyway?

I'm not going to answer those lengthy questions in page one - it'll be quite silly of me to try and equal someone else's (definitely not yours of course) well thought out argument in one casual post.

Give me YOUR own questions. Questions from your head, not from a book. Not from a novel that someone took years of research to prepare, and I'll answer.

And while you're thinking this up, see if you can answer the question I asked earlier - If there is absolutely no evolution, where did the black man, the white man, the yellow man and the red man come from? Is there perhaps a verse in the bible that tells you "God made man. Then he saw that man was not diverse enough, and so he called his angels and said "verily, we needeth some colour. Let us now make black men, pink men, yellow men with slanted eyes, and a few others. Since we don't work through evolution, let us go down, and add a gene to the black man's body that will enable him to fight malaria better than others. "

I re-iterate my earlier argument - MAN has evolved and changed over the last few hundred years, our bodies have adapted to an ever-changing environment. If all creation was ended, where did the diseases come from? The new mutation of cells and microorganisms? (Read about the flu - you can only get a variety of flu (or common cold) once. If you get another cold, it's a different strain. The cold virus is KNOWN to change (or should I say evolve?) constantly.)

Here are the facts:
Creation exists. But to say that creation is independent of evolution is folly.
Evolution exists. But to say that evolution is independent of creation is folly.


PS: I actually thought Krayola was lauging WITH me AT you, but obviously I was mistaken.

Death and Thrash are fantastic (don't mind that metalcore gyal Bluespice).

I love the heavy stuff - cradle of filth, Behemoth, Dark Tranquillity, Nightrage, Amon Amarth, etc.

There are too many ways to fit it. Too many.

Stop quoting other people - I know for sure that you don't write like that. Produce independent thought.

Dust of the ground? Straight evolution there.

Woman from man? Fish -> amphibians -> etc

You do know frogs and some lesser lizards still change sex several times within their life cycles, don't you?

Seriously, O Christian, why do you constantly choose to limit God, to box him into a book?? A book of a few thousand pages, defining the entire creation of the world?

Are you really serious?

William Provine's quote sums up all the modern evolutionary biology:

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear . . . There are no gods, no purpose, no goal-directed forces of any kind." William Provine(Professor, Cornell University), Origins Research, Vol.16:1/2(1994),p.9, quoted in Technical Journal, vol.10:1(1996),p.22.

There you see what the proponents of the modern evolutionary biology says about God. Except you say that you are now wiser than God because of your secular thinking that you now want to reinterpreted the Word of God to conform to what you have been taught in schools or the media.

Really? That's all you got from my entire post? Nothing about the fact that Paul (who you quoted earlier) CHANGED the message that was held in classical judaism? How am I now "wiser than God?"?

Man, you're just trying to get under my skin for not agreeing with you. Goodness, I even agreed to disagree with you, but you have refused to even consider any good points I have made.

I consider all wisdom to be from God. Wisdom can be perverted, no doubt, but ALL is from God. You on the other hand consider all wisdom to have ended the moment the last book was added to the bible by John the elder. So feel free to consider me wiser than YOUR God.

I on the other hand consider you quite ridiculous, to both God and man, just like the pharisees, unwilling to open your eyes and see.

I will restate - Humanity has changed since biblical times. Since the day of Noah, the african has changed, has developed sickle cell in order to fight malaria, apart from other biological changes. I am six inches taller than my father, who was taller also than his own father. I could go on.

I consider God the ultimate creator, and evolution a mere tool in his hands. You deny the existence of evolution. However, your denial thereof doesn't make it a lie. Acceptance of science is not exclusive to acceptance of the gospel, except to the feeble minds of some who follow blindly after doctrine, refusing to compare to the bible, and most of all, refusing to think.

I wish you well Sir.

You Sir, are pure genius.

Really? Did this same Paul stick to the message of Moses?

If you had been born when Jesus Christ came, do you think you would have been able to accept his message? Or would you have stuck to the "good ol' message" of Judaism and dismissed the message of Jesus as "liberal Christianity"?

I'm sorry - I do not accept your interpretation of the word. And there is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes anyone a "lover of pleasures more than lovers of God".

Note the play of word in that verse - there's NOTHING wrong with being a lover of pleasures, as long a it doesn't disturb your love of God. But people like you never see that.

I believe in literal Christianity. I am open to using the common sense that I consider God given, when analysing the bible. You on the other hand choose to "bury your talents". Fairplay to you.

There is room for us all in the kingdom.

There is no proof that marriage without tasting is better, no proof at all.

Marriage does not mean love - if marriage meant love, then there will be no divorces

And seriously, comparing marriage to having and discarding kids is not a good example - You get married to an adult, not a child.

Nobody is comparing a human being to palm wine, but marriage is NOT a human being, it is an object. It is a relationship.

Nope, I disagree. Your statement is what happens when christians decide to forsake thinking and intution. God gives wisdom, use it.

Evolution exists. The bible says Adam was the first man. It could mean that he was the first to become "self aware". It could mean hundreds of things. Creation - was that really the creation of the world? Was seven days absolute 24 hour sessions, or was it just the manner by which things were revealed to Moses? "Let us make man in our own image" - was it the body of God that man is an image of, or is it man's soul/spirit that is an image of God? Does God walk about on two legs and piss?

The mere differences in race is an obvious sign that humanity has changed, so even taking Adam as the first man, unless he had a severe chromosome disorder whereby each child he gave birth to had totally different bone structure where then did the races come from? Something MUST have happened.

Evolution is not total. Neither is the book of genesis. Can you imagine Moses having to write about, say, Oshodi isale during business hours? Do you expect that he would be able to describe motor cars and molues and clothes?

And stop dissing "man". This same "man" was created in God's image. This same "man" is a microcosm of God. This same "man" is using wisdom FROM God to affect his lifestyle daily. The fact that it's not in scripture doesn't mean it's totally wrong.

Think about these things.

Be aware - evolution and creation aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I also strongly believe that a lot of scripture is more figurative than absolute.

Do I have to spell it out? It means that the woman is treated as just a fornication partner.
Hence the usual pattern in such relationships is use, abuse and dump when the novelty has worn off

Oga, are you really in the UK? Use abuse and dump? Doesn't the woman have a say in the matter? I find this statement unbelievably chauvinistic and unenlightened. You really, really need to open your eyes.

Sex requires two people to consent. Why is it the woman that is "used" and not the man?

bleh! they are awesome

heh. They are poo and you know it. Their lead singer loses his voice all the time. Paid £20 to watch them here in the UK, they sang for all of 15 minutes. What a joke.

Once again, the chance to analyse Tensor's exquisite brand of wisdom

1)It is an experimental non-legal co-residential union. This union is not recognised by the courts.

False. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage.

2)The union does not require or imply a lifetime commitment to stay together

Umm, Neither does marriage.

3)There is no responsiblity for financial support of the co-partner and most do not pool financial resources(joint accounts) In other words the relationship is like "going dutch"

Same as marriage.

4)There should be no expectation that the partners would socialise together.

I have absolutely no idea what this statement means,

5)Clearly the man would expect the woman to commit fornication with him, but there should be no expectation that the relationship would be mutually exclusive.

Wrong again. By default, relationships indicate some sort of commitment. Men sometimes cheat. Women sometimes cheat. Marriage doesn't prevent this.

Fornication - this is not a crime - it's a christian sin. How does this apply to men and women who aren't christians? Or who choose to engage in fornication (just like many christians choose to engage in theft, lying, stealing, etc).

@George_d - you will find out in life that it's the same wisdom that you use in buying palm wine, that will serve you well in choosing your life partner (married or otherwise), or making important business decisions, though the parameters are very likely to be considerably different, unless of course you're getting married to a palm-wine tapper.

There are many successful and happy marriages from people who co-habited before marriage.

There are also as many broken marriages from people who didn't co-habit before marriage.

Everyone is so keen to point out the "living in sin" angle, but here's the fact - not living together doesn't make you sin free. (Yes this is directed at you Tensor777). I find it quite ironic how a lot of you scripture spouting "brethren" have no qualms about stealing stationery from work or "dubbing" over a CD. Cohabitation is NOT sin.

But let's see the facts that you stated

Cohabitaion is much less likely than marriage to lead to stable long-term commitment.

Spurious statement with no evidence. See above.

Both parties are much more likely to be unfaithful in a cohabitation set-up. This of couse brings up paternity and health problems.

Do you know that Nigerians cohabit less and cheat more than europeans? How then do you justify this statement?

Cohabiting couples accumulate less cash than married couples on average.

Are you serious? Let me break it down to you.
A guy earning £30k PA can barely get a mortgage. A woman earning £25k can barely get a mortgage (in the london area). A couple earning 55k PA WILL get a mortgate. And if the relationship breaks down in say 5 years, they can sell off their house and split the built up equity for buying individual houses for themselves.

Cohabitants have more health problems than married couples. Probably because cohabiting couples are much more likely to tolerate drug and alcohol abuse than married people.

I just don't understand this one. It makes no sense to me at all. I'm 100% intolerant of any form of substance abuse. According to this statement, the moment I move in with my girlfriend, I'll automatically start tolerating substance abuse. Is there some switch that gets triggered the moment I cohabit?

I do agree that people who are more tolerant of that sort of behaviour are more likely to tolerate cohabitation, but this doesn't mean cohabitation leads to drug abuse.

Women in cohabitation set-ups are more likely be physically abused than wives are. This is not surprising really since the inherent insecurity in such relationships is likely to lead to frustration and nagging.

I'm sorry sir, but you have totally fallen off the cliff on this one. This statement beggars beleif

Let us not neglect the effect of cohabitaion on the innocent products of such a relationship. Because of the instabilty of cohabitation set-ups, they are less likely to remain with their biological parents throughout their  childhood. This of course would have negative consequences on their emotional and educational development.

This statement makes the assumption that all children from married families have totally adequate emotional and educational development. It also assumes that all marriages work. If a child is born to co-habiting parents who stay together, the child is better of than a child born into a marriage that breaks apart


Let's be aware of one thing - I don't advocate co-habitation, neither am I against it. I'm totally neutral - I believe cohabitation, just like most things in life has it's advantages and disadvantages. But I also believe that a lot of the arguments being raised against cohabitation on this thread (women who cohabit only make themselves cheap? WTF!!?) have no place in today's world.

hahaha.

A7x is rather rubbish IMO but I'm more into the heavier, more melodic stuff (checkout killswitch engage).

But they are are called a Christian Metalcore band because all the members are (or were) christians, and because their name "Avenged Sevenfold" is from the book of genesis; not because they sing christian music.

My sources aren't on the net. I read. Many african tribes trace their origins outside africa - to the middle east. Not east africa. Mankind may have originated in east africa, but THAT mankind must have moved away from there soon after. DNA age CAN be determined.

And Horus, your theory doesn't even make sense.

@Morpheus:
New york is currently the financial centre of the world, the very centre of the world's economy. There was NEVER. NEVER EVER EVER a time when Jerusalem or Judea got to that position.
At the highest point of jewish civilization (King Solomon), Jerusalem held the position of a Dubai or a Johannesburg in the world. Upcoming, not ultimate. By the time of Jesus, they had been broken by the Assyrians, the Babylonians and Persians, then the Romans. At the time of Jesus, ROME was the capital of the world, not Jerusalem. At the time of Jesus, slaves were both white and black, captured in what is now spain, france, germany, as well as persia and north africa.

One more thing - while there is evidence that man originated around africa (personally I think it's far north of africa, not below the sahara), there is absolutely NO evidence that he was black. Apart from the "bushmen" of south africa, the current negroid mitochondrial DNA is newer than several asian and european DNA.

Atheism:

Early man was not as dark as me and you (or a typical "black" man). They were perhaps darker than europeans but were lighter than you and I are.

You keep generalising. Whites against blacks and all that. Like all whites are against all blacks. This is simply not true. A lot of what you have quoted is straight from black fundamentalist and racist website, it's as spurious as the same theories of denial that the whites used against blacks in the 15th century (blacks could never have done this, etc).

Your reference to Amos in that scripture is less than honest. Are you a christian at all? Is that how you follow the bible? How does that statement infer that Israelites are black? It could very well be saying that he freed israel from egypt just as he freed ethiopea from egypt. I'm sorry, that argument will not hold in any reasonable and thoughtful argument.

Now I'm not saying that the israelites were white, I'm simply saying they are NOT african, they did not originate in africa - they originated somewhere between Syria and Iran.

And I am black.

One more thing - re: Mistaking Paul for an Egyptian - did the bible say this was because of his skin? Is it possible that it was for some other reason, like, idunno, maybe the way he was dressed? This is too much of an assumption.

There is scientific evidence to show that most of southern europe had similar complections to north africans, until the expansion into western europe brought in the "extreme" caucasian genes (blue eyes, blonde hair, etc).

Really? In other words, the world is divided into black and white. Where then do the asians stand?

That is a load of bollocks. White people may have tried at some stage to justify their actions during the slave trade, but to say that there's an outright plot against black people is just a bit too far fetched.

Ham Shem and Japhet didn't split into ethnic groups, even if we were to follow the bible as a guideline (which I personally am not sure it should be), this would assume that the brothers' children didn't marry each other (cousins), and only married within their nuclear families (siblings). Possible, but why ever should they? They all lived together until the tower of babel.

It was AFTER the tower of babel that the dispersions happened. NO LINK. No Connection.

Africa is somewhat behind because of the desertification of the Sahara which isolated most of black africa from the events of the rest of the world. When the romans invaded britain, they were shocked to find out the kind of barbarism that still existed in europe, and that is an island separated from mainland europe by a narrow strip of water.

And where did the bible say that the israelites where like Ethiopeans? Where did this creator say this? What was the context??

I personally believe that a lot of the differences that count as race are recent occurences in the history of mankind - we all used to look the same, but changed due to socio-environmental influences.

Not everything western is a lie.

Birthdays are associated partly with religious practice, don't you know that?

And b'day predates, with thousand years, internet. Further still, the OP is about b'day.

Technology (in yoruba) is associated with Sango and Ogun.

Fasting is also religious practive.

I use these as examples to point out why there is NOTHING wrong with birthdays. If you don't want to celebrate them, then stop. Nobody is forcing you. And mind your own business instead of nosing around and complaining about other people celebrating their own birthdays.

Exactly.

Listen here boy, if your religion says you should fast, that doesn't mean it's not a pagan custom, it was innovated by PAGANS. So your religion is now borrowing it from PAGANS.

See, there are lots of things that are done by "pagans" (wtf is a pagan anyway) which are good, which are useful, and which can be used positively.

The bible says "whatsoever things are good, pure and of a good report, think on these things".

Birthdays are good, so we celebrate them.

Sigh.

Common sense is not common.

I said Marriage is pagan. You said everyone marries.

Using the same logic, everyone celebrates birthdays.

Do you not understand?

During Jesus time there were weddings, and there was sex, just like there were birthdays, what does this have to do with anything?

Internet browsing is not religious practice in any way. Cut it off.

Exactly. Birthdays are not religious either. Cut it off.

Christianity = 200+ years old
Islam = much younger than christianity

marriage = waaaay before the birth of christ.

Simple logic.

Fasting? Budhist writings define and speak about fasting LONG before Saudi Arabia existed.

Druids, Sango worshippers, they all fast.
Did you really think Mohammed invented it?

Funniest reply of the day!

Think before posting, dude.

Really? Strangely you're unable to point out what part of my post is funny.

My life is simple. I don't like stress. If I ask for your number, it's because I believe you'd like me to call. If you game me the slightest doubt that you're interested in me calling you (you know, like make a face, or give your friends one of those cynical faces), then you've shaken this beleif. And even though you game me your number, I'd probably not call.

Fasting is pagan, yet muslims do it.

Marriages are pagan

Sex is pagan.

Again, why are you on the internet?

And Jesus had a reputation (amongst the pharisees) of being someone who went out "partying",

hahah. Thank you my man Chris. The bible knows what it's saying when it tells you "the children of this world are wiser than the children of the kingdom". People refuse to think, refuse to apply the spirit of the scripture.

ALL guys want a woman who is a lady outside, but a freak in bed. But they marry the lady without the freak and spend the rest of their lives frustrated. Or they leave madam (who has neglected her weight, and now appears to share genes with an elephant) and go and start "running things" outside the house.

Or even when they don't want to run things the young delectable girls in town quickly sense an opportunity and move in.
Then you go to church and complain about how "the devil stole your husband"