₦airaland Forum

Yet again, just another copy and paste that comes from a source which knows absolutely nothing about fossilisation.

1. How could a small reptile evolve into a large dinosaur?

That's a ridiculous question. Creatures evolve into larger creatures all the time. We don't even need fossil evidence for this. We can look to mankind. Go back just a couple hundred years and you will see that people were much smaller than they are now. Over here in the UK, there are many old palaces. Go visit Hampton Court. See how small the beds are. See how small the ceilings are. See how small the doorways are. Or do you think god made those 200 years ago as well?

2. Shouldn’t there be thousands (millions) of intermediate fossils in the cambrian explosion?

Quite simply, there are intermediate fossils from the Cambrian Age. To go for quantity is totally misleading. It wouldn't matter if there were only one found - that would be enough. But the fact is that there are many examples of Cambrian intermediate fossils.

3. Why don’t we see intermediate dinosaur forms in museums?

Complete crap. Firstly there isn't even a definition of an "intermediate dinosaur form". Secondly, if it's what they're claiming it to be, there are intermediate forms. Try looking at the Allosaurs for a start!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allosaurus


Stop just copying ands pasting from Creationist sites!!! They have no credibility!!!!

The question again is, why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence?

There's plenty of evidence. You just don't want to see it.

Looking again at your copy and paste up there:

95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
- 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
- 95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
- The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)

- A. Snelling, Where are all the human fossils?

That's written as if it's some great conspiracy, but in fact, there's a concrete reason why most fossils are marine organisms and it has to do with the way fossils are formed. They require a layer of sediment to cover them and preserve them. This is uncommon on land but obviously very common in the ocean. It's no secret, just plain scientific fact.
There's also another explanation that illuminates the theory of Evolution and explains why there are so few vertebrate fossils compared to invertebrates. It's plain simple. Vertebrates are newcomers to Planet Earth on the Evolutionary Scale. Ocean dwellers have been around for billions of years. You'd therefore expect the 95% more shellfish and corals.
Plain, inescapable logic.


Yet again you've just copied and pasted crap without even understanding the subject.
Read up on how fossils are formed and you can examine for yourself why there are so few vertibrate specimens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils

This is ridiculous.
You haven't answered a single question put forward to you and all you're doing is copying and pasting the illogical crap of other morons.

How about:

a) Addressing the questions.
b) Giving the copying and pasting a rest.

LOL. Real satellite is sitting in a hut by Sagbama expressway. They sent up a trash can on top of the rocket and now they gon claim the insurance!!!!!

You're getting Taoists and Buddhists mixed up. Even taking into account the birth certificate theory won't give the Buddhists anywhere near that number.

There are nowhere near 1.6 billion Buddhists in the world. And Christianity is the most popular religion.

In 2000, the percentages were:

Christian - 33%
Muslim - 19.6%
Hindu - 13.4%
Non-Religious - 12.7%
Chinese Taoist - 6.4%
Buddhist - 5.9%

OLAADEGBU.

LOL. Arthur Keith's words are gospel now are they?
This is the same Arthur Keith who used the Piltdown Man hoax to push forward his ideas of evolution.

And this was a student of Darwin who had a massive interest in the Nazis and the Jews, yet all the creationists can do is take one sentence from his massive body of works and twist it out of context?
Even more extraordinary, how could they even be considered pertinent when those words were written long before the Second World War and long before Hitler even put any of his policy into practice!!!!

Please. Go back to the drawing board and try again.

Sure, the internet contains a lot of information. But try to pick some that isn't either false or totally misleading.
If you're going to tap into the "knowledge of experts" try checking that they are actually experts and that their knowledge hasn't been twisted by other groups to represent a different meaning - just as Hitler did with Nietzsche.
Just quoting from creationist web-sites (as you have done with the misinterpretation of Keith) gives you no credibility at all.

That is the holistic story on how it contributed to his philosophy.

No. That's the crap version of the story that you've borrowed from here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/australia/newsletters/0501lead.asp

And it's still confusing Social Darwinism with Darwinism!!!

Just so there's no more misunderstanding I'll actually give you the definitions. Then you have no excuse for posting the misconception that they are one and the same again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

Now you can move on.

*sigh*

In his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche posits the Übermensch (often translated as "overman" or "superman" as a goal that humanity can set for itself. While humanity must perish, it can either be overcome in the direction of something higher (the Übermensch) or it can sink to the level of the last man. While there is no suggestion that humanity is meant to become a race of Übermenschen, Hitler assumed so and it became part of his philosophy and then his politics.

Hitler assumed the Ubermensch theory to be a form of Social Darwinism. It wasn't. It was addressed to the individual. Not an idea for the creation of a "Master Race".

Got it?

saw the man tb joshua on tv today and he sponsored a guy's masters postgraduate programme to the university of leeds and paid almost 20,000 pounds for tution,accomodation excluding feeding ticket e.t.c

£20,000!!!?? You can take a bachelor's degree and take the following masters degree and include the feeding ticket and everything else for that kind of money at Leeds Uni. Hell, you could probably get the doctorate as well!!!
That just don't smell right.

As a student union leader he is well placed if Maurice Iwu is his father.
Student union leader's in the UK are normally clueless idiots.

Maurice Iwu will probably look like a genius in comparison with the son.

Here we go again with the evolutionists tactics to divert the issue at hand.

Stop telling lies.

You were the one who bought up Adolf Hitler thinking that he'd prove your point. You're the one who was trying to divert the issue by showing how Evolutionists think on the same level as Hitler.

Now you've been shown to be ignorant of the subject and totally wrong, you're blaming everyone else.

Get real.

OLAADEGBU.
Why should I prove a blatant mistake such as yours wrong? How can you argue about Nietzsche or Social Darwinism if you've never even heard of them?

"The Moon is made of cheese." Prove me wrong. Would you bother pulling up links and trying to prove me wrong or would you just say, go and look for yourself. It's not my fault if you've never heard of Nietzsche. It's not my fault that you've never heard of the difference between Social Darwinism and Darwinism. It's not my fault that you're arguing from a position of extreme weakness not knowing the facts.
Telling you to Google is actually to your benefit. You might learn that you don't know what you're talking about.

For example:

Catholic who are theist evolutionists, they are not biblical creationist as you might have heard from their pope.

You obviously aren't aware that the Catholic Church's move towards theistic evolution is a very recent phenomenon. There was no such stance in Hitler's day. In fact, they didn't even make a statement of Neutrality until the 1950s. So the Church's stance on evolution is totally irrelevant where Hitler is concerned.

Why don't you go and look up Nietzsche for yourself? You've got Google haven't you?

And it doesn't matter what Hitler stated about the church. The church is only a representative of Christianity. He was a Christian and he called upon the Christian god time and time again in his speeches.

Funny how you guys like to use him in an argument but then run a mile when it bites you in the ass.

By the way. The author of the link you gave doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He's mixed up "Social Darwinism" with "Darwinism". They're two completely different subjects. Just because they've got "Darwinism" in their titles does not make them the same. It's like comparing French with English and saying they're the same thing just because they're languages.
Try Googling "Darwinism" and "Social Darwinism" whilst you're looking up Nietzsche and stop parroting from a crap link that any nursery school student can see is written by an idiot.

^^ He's just had apple for breakfast and realised for the first time, he's not wearing clothes.

The manifesto calls for affirmative action policies like those the United States used years ago to encourage greater minority representation in the workplace and in universities.

So the French want to bring in "positive discrimination"? They must be mad. It's been practiced in both the UK and the US for many years with disastrous consequences and about the only result of it was to breed more racism.

One shouldn't forget that the French attitude to racism is different from that of the UK and the US due primarily to the fact that it's colonies were mainly North African. Whereas, in the main, blacks and whites in the UK and US mix freely, the North Africans tend to separate themselves from the rest of French society. They are much more like the Pakistani minority in the UK - a group which segregates themselves largely by their own choice.

Racism cuts both ways in this scenario and it doesn't matter what initiatives the French government brings in if the North Africans won't participate in society.

Adolf Hitler found in Haeckel’s fraud the basis for his racism and killed millions using the so-called Biogenetic Law as his justification.

Complete and utter rubbish.
Hitler used the philosopher Neitzche's theory of the "ubermensch" for his justification. Even though he clearly didn't understand it.

At least study before just copying and pasting total crap.

By the way, Hitler was a Christian. Hardly appropriate to use him as a defence against an argument condemning the Christian view of creationism.

Every one is missing the point here.

Bush was the president but he wasn't the one making the big decisions and he wasn't the one who screwed everything up. He's just the dumb scapegoat. He'll get the blame whilst the people who did make the mistakes will slip off un-noticed.

The real culprits are the Cheneys, the Roves, the advisors and the big businesses who went out for themselves and left the American people in the mire.

Bush was merely their mouth-piece.

Now Nigerian doctors don't know the difference between death and a coma?

Then He puts forward scientific  statement about creation: "and We bring everything out of water."

And then:

No wonder you might have felt that you are related to fish; thats a poor man thinking. Low mentality. Unlike the creationist.

Only a creationist would have the low mentality not to see the irony above.

olabowale. What is a coccyx?

One cannot separate Joseph from the Egyptian authorities.
He was most probably a Hyksos as was the Pharoah mentioned in connection with him. Joseph was a member of the ruling government and a member of it's people.
The Exodus Hebrews were also Hyskos and were kicked out when the native Egyptians took power. It's therefore no wonder that Joseph gets good press in the Bible.
Incidentally, the Hyksos were followers of the Egyptian god Set or Seth. He was god of the desert and of war and just the sort of thing needed by a nomadic people wandering through the barren Promised Land. It's quite astonishing to find that he later served as the template for the Christian Satan. But then Bible literalists have more problems with the scriptures and logic, rather than focussing on the fact that if they worship Moses' god of the Old Testament, they're actually very likely worshipping the fore-runner of Satan. Hypocritical or what?

One thing of interest to note - the word "pharoah" is mentioned over 50 times in the Bible, yet never is the name of the specific pharoah mentioned, although it could be referring to any one of 20 or so Egyptian rulers of the era and most certainly refers to a few of them.

But, Since you claimed that the bible is the holy book from the lord. I guess it suppose to cover all that has been happening since the creation of the world and what will happen till the end of the world.
As we have it in the Quran.
What will happen thousands years to come is in the quran.

Nope. I don't claim it is the "holy book from the lord". I state the fact that it was written by men. Exactly as the Qu'ran was.
But you will find "Christians" who will agree with your statement and they will point you in the direction of the Book of Revelation. Which for some daft reason they believe is a prophecy that covers the end of the world.

So either way, you're screwed.

This link should explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden

Nobody knows as the Bible doesn't specify, but there are more likely candidates than the apple.

Some people think the fruit was actually a fig - remember Adam and Eve clothed themselves in fig-leaves.
Others think it was a grape, a pomegranate or a tomato.

The poor old apple got the blame because of a mis-interpretation of the Latin word "malum" which was used as an adjective to describe "evil" but as a noun means "apple".

sanoosy. He posted it because it's true.

There is very, very little that is original in Christianity. There were many older religions that had virgin births, wise men, crucifixions, miracles, resurrections and the like, long before Christianity came along.

Take Mithraism for example. It was a religion followed by the Romans just before Christianity came along and it contained the following:

Virgin Birth.
Born in either a stable or a cave.
Visited by wise men bringing Frankincense, gold and myhrr.
Twelve Disciples.
Last Supper
Died on a cross and ressurected.
Followers ate the "flesh" and drank the "blood" of Mithras.
Mithras day was celebrated on the 25th of December and that's now the day that we celebrate Christmas. Even though the Bible tells us that Christ was not born in December.

And that's just one religion and just a small sample of the similarities it contains!!! Christianity also borrowed from a number of other religions as well.

This is total BLASPHEMY

No. It's total fact. Just because it doesn't agree with what you believe in doesn't make it any less true.

Some more similarities:

ATTIS - Phrygia: Born of the virgin Nana on December 25. He was both the Father and the Divine Son. He was a savior crucified on a tree for the salvation of mankind. He was buried but on the third day the priests found the tomb empty -- He had arisen from the dead (on March 25th). He followers were baptized in blood, thereby washing away their sins -- after which they declared themselves "born again." His followers ate a sacred meal of bread, which they believed became the body of the savoir.

BUDDIAH – INDIA: Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25th. He was announced by a star and attended by wise men presenting costly gifts. At birth angles sing heavenly songs. He taught in temple at age 12. Tempted by Mara, the Evil One (Satan), while fasting. He was baptized in water with the Spirit of God present. Buddiah healed the sick and fed 500 from a small basket of cakes and even walked on water. He came to fulfill the law and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness and obliged followers to poverty and to renounce the world. He transfigured on a mount. Died (on a cross, in some traditions), buried but arose again after tomb opened by supernatural powers. Ascended into heaven (Nirvana). Will return in later days to judge the dead. Buddiah was called: "Good Shepherd," "Carpenter," "Alpha and Omega," "Sin Bearer," "Master," "Light of the World," "Redeemer," etc.

DIONYSUS - GREECE: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed many miracles. Turned water into wine. Followers ate sacred meal that became the body of the god. He rose from the dead March 25th. Identified with the ram and lamb's and was called "King of Kings," "Only Begotten Son," "Savior," "Redeemer," "Sin bearer," "Anointed One," the "Alpha and Omega."

HERACLES – GREECE: Born at the winter equinox of a virgin who refrained from sex with her until her god-begotten child was born and was sacrificed at the spring equinox. He too, was called "Savior," "Only begotten," "Prince of Peace," "Son of Righteousness."

KRISHNA - INDIA: Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax to the king. His nativity heralded by a star, Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki in a cave, which at the time of his birth was miraculously illuminated. The cow-herds adored his birth. King Kansa sought the life of the Indian Christ by ordering the massacre of all male children born during the same night at He. Krishna traveled widely, performing miracles -- raising the dead, healing lepers, the deaf and the blind. The crucified Krishna is pictured on the cross with arms extended. Pierced by an arrow while hanging on the cross, Krishna died, but descended into Hell from which He rose again on the third day and ascended into Heaven. (The Gospel of Nicodemus tell of Jesus' descent into Hell.) He will return on the last day to judge the quick and the dead. Krishna is the second person of the Hindu trinity.

OSIRIS – EGYPT: He came to fulfill the law. Called "KRST," the "Anointed One." Born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave / manger, with his birth announced by a star and attended by three wise men. Earthly father named "Seb" (translates to "Joseph." At age 12 he was a child teacher in the Temple and at 30 he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years. Osiris was baptized in the river Iarutana -- the river Jordan -- by "Anup the Baptizer," who was beheaded. (Anup translates to John.) He performed miracles, exorcised demons, raised El-Osiris from the dead. Walked on water and was betrayed by Typhon, crucified between two thieves on the 17th day of the month of Athyr. Buried in a tomb from which he arose on the third day (19th Athyr) and was resurrected. His suffering, death, and resurrection celebrated each year by His disciples on the Vernal Equinox -- Easter. Called "The Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "god's Anointed Son,' the "Son of Man," the "Word made Flesh," the "word of truth." Expected to reign a thousand years.