Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,375 members, 7,954,518 topics. Date: Friday, 20 September 2024 at 08:56 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Bobbyaf's Profile / Bobbyaf's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 37 pages)
Religion / Re: The Beginning Of The Universe-The Big Bang Theory by Bobbyaf(m): 7:11am On Oct 01, 2009 |
Can anyone with common sense, much less claiming to possess scientific knowledge, expect an orderly universe to have come out of an explosion? What is the probability that a hurricane can pass through a junk yard, and produce a brand new Boeing 747? |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 7:02am On Oct 01, 2009 |
Those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel is true. So, why didn't Paul make mention of so important a matter of not tithing, or tithing, as much as he addressed circumcision? You cannot impose Paul's approach to missionary work on Christians generally. Paul spoke on issues based on context. He spoke out against circumcision, yet he circumcised Timothy. |
Religion / Re: Did God Foresee The Fall Of Mankind ? by Bobbyaf(m): 6:51am On Oct 01, 2009 |
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. I am sorry its far bigger than that. Its not a question of God's ability, or inability, unwillingness, or willingness. If your only concern is where evil came from, then I am ready to start explaining. Is that your starting question? |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 6:44am On Oct 01, 2009 |
Mmmmh, people would always perish from lack of knowledge, I wonder why anyone would want to be living under a curse when grace is available. I am not under a curse! Besides, you missed the point about the various laws that existed under the Mosaic system that are still being practised by modern civilization, and which serve a useful purpose. For example if mankind were still obedient to the dietary laws laid down by God through Moses, then the health crises we now face would be non-existent. So a lot of church leaders are going to have to account to God for their false teachings about the Mosaic system, by not being honest with their congregations about what to maintain, and what to ignore. Then we will see who will be cursed in the long run. |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 6:35am On Oct 01, 2009 |
2Th 3:6-10 Paul no doubt addressed missionary work. He speaks of personal experiences in terms of how he approached such work, and being the type of strong-willed person he was should we be surprised of such remarks? That was the typical Paul. In other sections of the Pauline writings he says, " those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel" In this day and age if there isn't a plan of systematic giving to support God's church, and its ministry it will fail. |
Religion / Re: Did God Foresee The Fall Of Mankind ? by Bobbyaf(m): 6:09am On Oct 01, 2009 |
The fall of man was all part of God's purpose. Everything that is happening or has been happening and will happen is all according to his purpose. How you view it is based on how you view the whole picture. That is true, but they are more eager to find out if God is to blame for not preventing the outcome, or finding out why would such a God after having known still allowed it anyway. That is what is causing the confusion. They are not prepared to see the bigger plan, or purpose that would have manifested for all God's creation, despite sin and its awful results. |
Religion / Re: Did God Foresee The Fall Of Mankind ? by Bobbyaf(m): 5:59am On Oct 01, 2009 |
If god is all knowing then why didn't he foresee the fall of mankind in the garden of eden ? If he foresaw the fall of mankind but did nothing about it then doesn't that mean he is a cruel sadistic god instead of a loving one ? I wish your question was based on a sincere desire to know the truth, but alas I am disappointed. First of all God by virtue of being God had to have known beforehand that Adam and Eve would have fallen. However, God having a foreknowledge of that outcome had nothing to do with their choice. All of God's intelligent creatures that were made after His image, and likeness were made as free moral agents. They were made to understand the consequences that would follow if and when they chose to move from God's plan. For you to fully grasp the true understanding of why God allowed certain things to have happened, without having to intervene, is to first understand the nature and character of God. Unfortunately, you don't, and I am not even sure if you're willing to find out, but just in case you are willing I'd be more than prepared to supply you with an explanation. For every question of aspersion that is brought up against God, there is an explanation. |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 5:40am On Oct 01, 2009 |
1Co 11:1 Its serious stuff alright, but Paul's personal opinion, which he gave in other situations, must not be made into a requirement. Must we forbid marriage as the Catholic priests have and use Paul's advice as a standard, or should we see it as just a recommendation? I hope not! The point I am making Ttalks is that not everything that is placed under the Mosaic system automatically makes it bad, or legalistic. There were all types of laws that served different purposes back then that if were applied today would make much practical sense. There were financial laws, agricultural laws, quarantine and hygiene laws, personal Laws etc. Hence the tithing just happens to be one of those principles that is worth continuing. There is nothing in the NT that says it is a sin to tithe. |
Religion / Re: No Other Earthly Power Is More Powerful: by Bobbyaf(m): 6:02pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
bobby!! bobby!!bobby! Sound nervous Chukky! How do you explain the Jesuit oath, and how do you reconcile that oath with the good of which you speak of the Jesuit order? Can good people make such satanic agreements? |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 5:58pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
t is either that u are amazingly stupid or astonishly uneducated He fended for himself because that was how he chose to do it. Its that simple. He gave no command for pastors to fend for themselves. As usual you use one irrelevant topic to strengthen your opinion. Learn to make the distinction between an opinion and fact. |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 5:55pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
@bobby Paul didn't say that at all. Don't add to the bible. Please show me in the NT where tithing was abolished. If you show me a just one line I will accept it. |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 5:45pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
@bobby I did! |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 5:43pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
my man stop blabbing ,the mere fact at the apostles never practised tithing show that it is not relevent,The apostles commented on marriage and other parts of the mosaic law that were incorporated into the new covenant. You have no proof that the apostles didn't tithe. That you will never accomplish. There is no where in the epistles of the apostles that they commanded tithing or anything in the bible to show they practised it.Rather church collections were voluntary and even at that were used in taking care of the poor. Don't confuse free will offerings with tithing. If Abraham and Jacob who were righteous men practised a principle of tithing to God's Son at the time called Melchisedec, then why not continue to tithe seeing that Melchisedec still lives. Paul for instance earned his living from building tenths and not from tithe ,in his epistle to the thesalonians he boasted ,that he had never received anythin wihout payin for it,he said he was setting an example for us to follow. Paul said a lot of stuff. It doesn't mean that all preachers did what he thought he had to do. Wasn't Paul who also said that "those who preach the gospel must live by the gospel"? What better way than to have an organised way of supporting the gospel ministry. Tithing is the best systematic manner of giving. There is no better plan so far. why on earth don't toay's pastors want to follow his example ? Go ask them! Tithing was never practised for thr fist 500 years of christianity until it's introduction at the council of macon in 580 CE You have no proof. Recall that the true worshipers were being suppressed by the Roman church. You seem to have forgotten what your organization did to suppress truth. A lot of people are not aware that the truths of history went in obscurity. Revelation 12 describes that God's true church the woman was lead into the wilderness for 1260 years, which means that she was in hiding, while the false church prevailed. Incidentally how come you are not the least concerned about all that property that is bequeathed to the RCC, and how rotten rich it has become off the sweat and blood of its members. Notice how richly clad the priests are? Notice how the instruments of communion are all gold laden? How come you're so dead silent on such atrocities? |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 5:18pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
@bobby Show us where tithing was mentioned? Besides, tithing was never a law of ceremony. |
Religion / Re: How The Bible Teaches Us To Recognize False Prophets by Bobbyaf(m): 5:15pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
Why am i writing this thread and exposing the antics of false prophets? Because the bible makes it clear we should hence they continue to destroy lives of other people. So let me ask you this. Are you yourself free from false teaching in your organization? Is everything being taught in your organization meeting the requirements of truth? Have you checked that out thoroughly? |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 5:07pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
@ Kunleoshob @bobbyaf Why must you view it that way? I don't view it that way, and neither does God. Its a matter of principle. God has called unto Him those who are willing to make a sacrifice. You dare not view the principle of tithing as a Mosaic law when you know that it preceded Moses. Must anyone argue that because the Hebrew people observed marriage that it is Mosaic? Moses forbad adultury through the law, yet Christians still observe such a law. Don't you? This is the kind of confusion that people display who have no proper understanding of God's will. You all downplay God's law as if its some contagious disease or something, yet you all live out those lawful requirements, at least some aspects of it in your daily life. If you're going to base your argument on what Christ taught, then you must accept that He practised the requirements of the law, and taught it. In fact it was commonly believed by the leaders in His time that He wanted to destroy the law, but Christ simply said that He came to fulfill it, or execute it. He came to show its true meaning and purpose. Hence those relevant parts of the law are still binding, and by relevant I mean those practical aspects, and that is why Christ nor His apostles never taught about an abolishing of tithing. They didn't have to. |
Religion / Re: No Other Earthly Power Is More Powerful: by Bobbyaf(m): 4:45pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
Each time I read that oath I am led to really wonder if those people aren't possessed. If God has sent His Son to grant us freedom, who are they to stop those who desire freedom in Jesus Christ? And you know what alarms me, is that mainstream Christianity is playing into the hands of catholicism. Mainstream Christianity is not reading the moves of the Catholic church for religious unity correctly. From ever since the Council of Trent, which was started to counter the reformation, the Jesuit order's one goal and mission was to destroy any attempt to neutralize papal power. In 1798 when Napolean abolished papal power, albeit temporarily, plans were afoot to regain power by the insiders, but in a not so obvious manner. Hence the Jesuit order was strengthened since its inception in the 1500s, to once again continue its role as that body that would seek to function as the Pope's militia. Are we really looking at a church, or are we looking at an organization posing as a church with ulterior motives to control the globe, and who will do anything to maintain global control now that they are on the rise again? Christians wake up! |
Religion / No Other Earthly Power Is More Powerful: by Bobbyaf(m): 4:15pm On Sep 30, 2009 |
“Then the Bible that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing threatens us with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it.” — Hector Macpherson, The Jesuits in History, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997, appendix. Protestants be on the look out. If you're a firm believer in sacred scriptures as being the only rule of faith and practise, then open your eyes to the stark reality that is about to pounce on you like a Puma in all its wrath. Here is an organization, the Jesuit order, that is bent on destroying anything that shows up the true color of the Roman catholic organization, and its plan to control the world using religion as a guise. Listen to this quote as put out by the Jesuit order: I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver, but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope… I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and the wombs of their women and crush their infants heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus."" — Edwin A. Sherman, The Engineer Corps of Hell; or Rome’s Sapper’s and Miners, Private Subscription, 1883, pp. 118-124. To think that a person would concur with such an abominable oath defies reason. One could not even imagine a more despicable oath. The word heretic in the above quote refers to anyone who disagrees with the pope. Recall in previous threads that Papal Rome in accordance with bible prophecy must have global control, until it is destroyed by the very earthly kingdoms it seeks to control. If ever there was a time for Christians to open their eyes and see whats coming its now. The lawn mower is coming singing hymns. |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 8:26pm On Sep 23, 2009 |
already know that you are a big fool so I won't bothger replying you Cat got your tongue, huh! Chukwudi go deal with the many diabolic issues facing the catholic church members. I am sure you're aware that the catholic church is famous for influencing its members to will property to the church. I wonder who gets all those monies? I wonder what they do with all those monies they get from indulgencies? How come you're not concerned about such spiritual slavery that exists in the Catholic church? And don't you know that calling people who believe in God fools is far more dangerous than not returning a tithe that is holy unto the Lord? Your sin is even greater because you fail to listen to the voice of Jesus who warns you against such. Yet you have the audacity to talk on religious matters. |
Religion / Re: Jehovah's Witnesses: the only true religion? by Bobbyaf(m): 4:46am On Sep 23, 2009 |
@ Dwonder Fantastic post i must say, You need to go back to grammar school then. Are you saying that Jesus is the Almighty God or he his equal to God or What? I didn't have to say it, the bible has already said so, but you're so not accustomed to seeing the truth that I am not surprised when it stares you in the face you are not able to see it. Let me introduce you to this passage. "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" Phil. 2:6 If you're in the form of God it means you're God. If you find it no robbery to be equal with God then you're equal with God. Its very simple. Just like you wrote earlier you just can't quote a portion of the bible to support your views while you leave out other portions. the bible is a whole book with many parts collaborating the other, many parts can't be understood until the global theme of the bible is considered. That also applies to your approach as well. In fact JWs are more likely to be guilty of that because in the past they have changed so many of their teachings, over 200 to be exact when they discovered the glaring truths afterwards. So many books went out of print because of the many doctrinal errors. I sincerely do not intend to change your views on this forum, I dare not. however I will try to point out a couple of things. And all those versions except yours say that Jesus is worshiped by angels, and that the father referred to Jesus as God. Your version attempts to give a different impression of worship by using obeisance instead of worship. There is one God being a title that befits both the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. All three are One, yet are separate persons working with a united purpose. As for the Almighty status of Jesus there can be no question. John in Revelation 1 indicates that aspect in this passage: Revelation 1:8 says , "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." The expression "which is, which was, which is to come" is one that has been used to describe Jesus Christ who was once alive, and died, and who rose again to live for ever. |
Religion / Re: Trinity Explained by Bobbyaf(m): 11:19pm On Sep 22, 2009 |
@skydancer. What are you saying? I'd really like to know myself what he's trying to explain. |
Religion / Re: Trinity Explained by Bobbyaf(m): 9:07pm On Sep 22, 2009 |
I read your posts, and unfortunately I know that you are an intellifgent man, but you suddenly jump to conclusion, without a methodical step by step process that is understandable, in human language and thoughts to get us from point A to point Z of the Trinity course, because you know that it does not make any sense! You may have read my posts, but its either you do not understand, or you refuse to see the point I have made. Let me repeat: 1. Was Christ God before He became a man? The answer is yes because God the Father called His Son God. (see Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." 2. Angels could not have been allowed to worship Jesus if He were not God. Note in particular that this command was applicable while Jesus became human[b]Hebrews 1:6[/b] says "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." 3. When Thomas the doubter finally believed he fell at the feet of Jesus and proclaimed "My Lord and my God" If Jesus suspected that Thomas went astray, or went too far in his approach, did Jesus reminded him that He Jesus should not have been worshiped since He was a man? I could go on. |
Religion / Re: How Did Life Really Start? by Bobbyaf(m): 8:44pm On Sep 22, 2009 |
@ tudor What side effects are you talking about? Every synthetic drug carries side effects. Does insulin have any side effects for diabetics? Even using natural proteins inappropriately is bound to cause toxicology. Insulin carries terrible side effects, and allow me to mention a few. It increases dangerous levels of cholesterol and triglycerides that damage the heart and blood vessels. Some others include severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); changes in vision; chills; dizziness; drowsiness; fainting; headache; increased heartbeat; increased hunger; loss of consciousness; nervousness; seizures; sweating; tremor; weakness. I could go on. Incidentally I once managed a medical lab in a hospital, and I know of the dangers of administering insulin in patients. I used to see what happens to certain patients suffering form the side effects of such a drug. Quote Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating. That is why science moves from hypothesis to verification then conclusion. We're getting there. Ascribing it to some heavenly magician isn't the way to go. You're getting there you say? Trust me the matter under discussion about how life started is way too critical for those who inadvisedly use tricks and deception and brand it as science. The theory of the TOE is still a theory, and has been tweaked and tweaked for so many years now, that one wonders what to think of those who keep tweaking. As a matter of fact honest scientists are coming out of the closet and are discrediting the whole theory. |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 8:24pm On Sep 22, 2009 |
@gentle me You seem not to understand that not making mention of tithing doesn't mean it never happened. Jesus already clarified about tithing being the lighter portion of the law, in terms of what is required. Where in the NT is there mentioned that change? Don't you think for one moment that if tithing was seen as a legal burden by Paul or any other of the apostles, that such would have been mentioned specifically and dealt with? You of all persons need to raise as concerns in the RCC the many undue decrees that the pope and prelates have introduced to its members, most of which have not yet been kept. Members are not allowed to use contraceptives while having sexual intercourse is just one stupid burden being placed on civilized people, yet you come on this forum talking about something you have the least knowledge about. Why not do the smart thing and tackle your own church issues before hypocritically addressing others. |
Religion / Re: How Did Life Really Start? by Bobbyaf(m): 10:33am On Sep 22, 2009 |
That they've failed so far doesn't mean its impossible. Years ago, production of synthetic enzymes or hormones useable by the body was non-existent today even atheletes use them for doping. Besides aren't enzymes and hormones proteins? But look at the side effects? I am not arguing whether or not synthetic proteins or any form of proteins for that matter, can be made. This is wrong. Natural forces could well have been producing D-isomers then which evolved as time goes on in cells due to environmental conditions. Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating. Which came first in cells, the membrane development or the biomolecules; DNA or proteins? Cannot you see the illogic of the big bang theory, and how it led to the development of the cell structure? A cell does not up and build itself in bits, and then finds itself waiting on further development as time moves on. For a cell to live and maintian itself it has to have all the parts ready for development. DNA, and RNA need to be present for living proteins to be made. You see the chance theory allows for trial and eror, which a cell does nt have as a luxery. According to the postulation , Natural conditions now are quite different from what was obtainable then. For instance life was said to have been formed in the primordial soup. . .you don't find primordial soup in every womans pot these days, do you? I will comment on this later. I am a bit sleepy. Adios Tudor! |
Religion / Re: How Did Life Really Start? by Bobbyaf(m): 10:28am On Sep 22, 2009 |
That they've failed so far doesn't mean its impossible. Years ago, production of synthetic enzymes or hormones useable by the body was non-existent today even atheletes use them for doping. Besides aren't enzymes and hormones proteins? But look at the side effects? I am not arguing whether or not synthetic proteins or any form of proteins for that matter, can be made. This is wrong. Natural forces could well have been producing D-isomers then which evolved as time goes on in cells due to environmental conditions. Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating. Which came first in cells, the membrane development or the biomolecules; DNA or proteins? Cannot you see the illogic of the big bang theory, and how it led to the development of the cell structure? A cell does not up and build itself in bits, and then finds itself waiting on further development as time moves on. For a cell to live and maintian itself it has to have all the parts ready for development. DNA, and RNA need to be present for living proteins to be made. You see the chance theory allows for trial and eror, which a cell does nt have as a luxery. According to the postulation , Natural conditions now are quite different from what was obtainable then. For instance life was said to have been formed in the primordial soup. . .you don't find primordial soup in every womans pot these days, do you? |
Religion / Re: Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental? by Bobbyaf(m): 10:09am On Sep 22, 2009 |
I need to start a thread explaining the New Covenant because much confusion exists concerning it, and if this is not understood properly many souls will indeed perish. People read the NT to their own spiritual downfall. They fail to read betwen the lines. God once said that He will not alter the word that has proceeded from His mouth. God's covenant is an everlasting one, but He alters the circumstances in which His people find themselves. 1. The first covenant was made with the first family after they sinned. 2. The second was made with Noah before the flood, and after the flood. 3. The third was made with Abraham concerning the Messiah. 4. The fourth was made with Moses and the children of Israel. 5. The fifth one had to do with a renewal of the covenant with Israel and Judah under better conditions. It is this covenant that has been introduced to the gentiles as well, who are grafted into the olive tree. This olive tree is God's true people that comprises both jews and gentiles which we call the church. 6. Paul in the book of Hebrews goes into details about what the better conditions were surrounding the same covenant or agreement. He made it clear that man's efforts and the sacrificial system were no more apart of this renewed covenant. The new focus was now to be placed on God's power to transform His people through what Jesus accomplished on calvary, and by the power of the Holy Spirit to help us maintain that sanctified lifestyle that is pleasing to God. The Mosaic approach in the wilderness failed in the sense that the people were not spiritually mature to truly appreciate what God was willing to do for them as His chosen people. They were still too worldly. They were like children. Hence their continued struggle to please God, and their ultimate captivity for 70 years in Babylon. Well, God raised up the weeping prophet Jeremiah to remind them of the plan to place God's law in their hearts, rather than relying on them to obey. In other words if we allow God to take control of our lives, then all will go well. If we try to do it on our own we will fail, just as how ancient Israel failed due to unbelief. Daniel also reminded them that God would have given them 490 more years after the captivity to prepare for the plan. Daniel laid out the birth of the Messiah, and His crucifixion, and what would happen if they failed to accept the Messiah. He also predicted the downfall of their temple which occured in AD70. He also introduced the covenant and how it would have been confirmed for 1 prophetic week or 7 literal years by Christ first, and followed by His disciples until AD34. That period ended, as well as the confirmation in AD34 when Stephen was stoned by the Jewish leaders, and which marked the end of the Jewish people bearing the divine oracles of God. Now it was a mixture of nations that was predicted by Isaiah to form spiritual Israel. Hence Peter evangelised the Jews and Paul reached out to the gentiles. The common misconception is that God put away or abolished His law, when He Himself said that He didn't come to do that, but to fulfil it. When does fulfilling something abolishes it? If I promise to fulfil my marriage vows, then by their arguments after a while there will be no vows left. After Jesus baptism He said "thus it fulfills all righteousness" Did it mean that He abolished all righteousness because He was baptised? I will continue, |
Religion / Re: How Did Life Really Start? by Bobbyaf(m): 9:24am On Sep 22, 2009 |
Using the bible as a science textbook is a very dangerous thing That depends on how much you are able to correlate both the bible and science. For example. At one stage science once taught that the earth was flat, and the bible said it was round by mentioning the circle of the earth in the book of Isaiah. Where did the bible get the knowledge that the earth was round, and at a time when men didn't know it was? Long before science forwarded the idea that air had weight, the bible said it did. There was also a time when bible critics challenged certain names mentioned in the bible, yet archeology which is a science has confirmed to the critics' embarrassment, that such names did exist in certain geographical regions. |
Religion / Re: How Did Life Really Start? by Bobbyaf(m): 9:12am On Sep 22, 2009 |
You don't understand how DNA proved you the theory of evolution and you claim that you studied natural and life sciences ? Stop lying men Do you believe everything you studied? If you did I didn't. I had to pass my exams on the TOE, but who says I believed it? And if I studied it then who are you to say I don't understand it? Cheap shots won't rescue you. I doubt if your engineering studies enlightened you enough. |
Religion / Re: How Did Life Really Start? by Bobbyaf(m): 9:05am On Sep 22, 2009 |
@ Tudor So you see, proteins don't necessarily need DNA afterall. Don't confuse the proteins. And do not overlook the fact that our cells do not make synthetic proteins. There are synthetic amino-acids that can be isolated in a lab, or what we call D-isomers, but they cannot be used by the body to make real natural proteins that function in the cells. Bear in mind that the attempt so far, as it relates to making synthetic proteins, has not gone beyond that. So in the context of cellular processes which are countless, don't expect synthetic proteins to function as natural proteins would do. Besides, since scientists tend to associate natural forces with how the first cell began, and since natural forces could not have produced D-isomers that can only be separated in a lab, then your reference to synthetic proteins is irrellevant, and void. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 37 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 148 |