₦airaland Forum

Utter Stewpidity.

Sisi_Kill: If he wants to do a good job passing the message on something this important. . .he needs to be CLEAR and not rely on people to "Catch his drift"

I'm sure the message was pretty clear...

Bring Drugs into Malaysia at your own Risk...

Ahhh...

Now I understand why all the girls kept asking if I was from Malaysia when I went back to Nigeria this Christmas...

And I thought I looked Asian...lol

My ex taught me to leave initiating the threeeesome to the girl...

She also taught me to use a condom and check any b1tch for Stis before havin unprotected sex...

She also introduced Me to the pleasures of dogging...

She was a freak nasty ho, my ex was...

RIP T

I'll hv a good wankkk to ur memory tonight...

mantraa: mantraa: Chedarking.
Take a look at this video. It explains the scientific methods used to work out the age of the earth.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4

I hope this helps you understand.

Did you read where I wrote this?

Chedarking:


I am NOT questioning the scientific method, not at all...


@Chedarking.
The video shows that the figure was obtained using the scientific process.

This is the question you asked that it answers for you.

This video shows nothing.

It does NOT PROVE anything...

mantraa: Chedarking.
Take a look at this video. It explains the scientific methods used to work out the age of the earth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4

I hope this helps you understand.

Did you read where I wrote this?

Chedarking: I am NOT questioning the scientific method, not at all...

iwanchop: Information just teaching my desk says contrary to the general belief of most Nairalanders that the goat were used for Suya ,their remains have been deposited at the General Hospital Oshogbo mortuary.
However,the owner of one of d goats,who is a Muslim has pleaded with the management of the hospital to fasttrack the release of his dead goat so that it would quickly be buried according to Islamic rite.
Burial arrangements for two of the goats have been released
.Check Sun Newspaper of 15th Jan 2013.

LMAO

plaetton: If you wish to make a point pls go ahead and do so.

There is a reason why you go to the doctor when you are sick, and take take drugs to relieve your pain. There is a reason why you are typing on your pc and have confidence that I am seeing it. After all, you did not build that computer yourself, nor did you perform any experiment to test its workability, nor any of the thousands of scientific ideas that led to its development and manufacture.



So stop kidding around make whatever point you wish to make.

Plaetton...

I'm not kidding around...only trying to engage in discourse

The statement in bold signifies exactly why I asked you the question you've been dodging all day...

I have first hand experience and proof that medicine works, and that my pc works...

You DONT(By your admission) have first hand experience or proof that the world is 4.7 billion years old...all you have is knowledge gleaned from literature and stuff...

My question again is...if you have not personally proven that the world is 4.7 billion years old, what is your conviction that the scientists that announced this followed the scientific process?

I am NOT questioning the scientific method, not at all...

Were you present at the experiments?

Were you there at there at ratification stage?

Unless you were present during the entire process of ratification, can you say for sure that the scientific method was carried out?

Is there going to be an autopsy for the deceased?

We must get justice for our fallen member...

Signed

Moo-sa Egufe

for

The Nigerian Association of Goats and Cows
(NAGCO)

Still no answer from plaetton...

Let me start off the sentence for you....

Despite the fact that I have neither carried out an experiment nor been present at experiment, I, Plaetton, know that the scientists that dated the earth did not lie or exaggerate their claims because........

Fill in the gap.

plaetton: There is nothing like false theory in science. There are theories that are later proven to be inaccurate. By its very definition, a theory cannot be cassified as false, since it is only a theory. It is only when you assert with authority that something is absolute truth,like much of religious beliefs, that the question of falsehood can be used.

Pardon my ignorance sir.

That the earth is 4.7 billion years was arrived at by experimentation using the best known dating method.

...But you are not answering my question...

You have already admitted that you haven't carried out any experiments on the subject.

how are you so sure that the earth is 4.9 billion years old?

How are you sure it is not a made up figure?

What is your personal conviction that these guys are not lying?

plaetton: I will not condenscend to that level with you.
There is something called the scientific method, have you heard of it?

My favourite saying is this, " The pre-eminence of any system , or process, can be measured by the quality of its output".

The scientific method has proven itself over the past 300 yrs or so.
Every thing that you enjoy today is testimony of the pre-eminence of the scientific method.
Need I say more?

Plaetton...

I beg your indulgence...

I am fully aware of the scientific method...

I just ask...How do you know that the scientific method was followed in this case?

Afterall, many so called scientific theories have been proven to be false...

How do you know that this is not the case here?

plaetton: No, I have not done that particular experiment. I have no need to. i have absolute confidence in the Scientific Method.

If you haven't conducted the experiment yourself, how do you know that the proponents of this theory ARE NOT ALL LYING?

Mind, I'm not saying that the esteemed astrophysicists and their papers are false...

I'm just asking...how do you know they're not?

plaetton: That is what is scientifically accepted. Meaning the tests and experiments have been carried out, peer reviewed, duplicated, and then accepted as genuine. Now if in the future, someone, perhaps you, come out with a better dating method and new age for the earth, it would go through the same scientific process before it is accepted. Science has the beauty of upgrading itself .

Agreed.

But perhaps you did not understand my question.

Have YOU personally done any tests that have been peer reviewed, duplicated, and accepted as genuine?

Or did you make your assertion on the back of what other researchers have pronounced genuine?

Plaetteon I must admit, your argument is quite rational...

...however one of your statements caught my eye.

plaetton: Scientific dating, fossil and geological evidence evidence point the fact that the earth is 4.7 billion yrs old.

Do you know this from personally carried out experiments and lab work?

Or is this statement born of study of other peoples work - literature, web resources, e.t.c.... ?

Can I just ask any atheist here to explain the irrationality of religion in ONE sentence...

Not a long essay, just sum up your opinion on religion.

Thank you.

Logicboy03: Reetarded question.

Try again. Rephrase

Ok.

I will humour you.

What do you think was the basic premise of that article

Logicboy03: [b]many religions [/b]have all-knowing or all present or all powerful gods. The omni- definitions are one of the most popular definitions of god held by an absolute majority of theists. Christians, Muslims, Jews and cetain pagans etc.

MANY religions...

Not ALL religions...

You can not make a general statement about ALL religions based on your experience with ONE religion...

LOGIC 101

Dude...You need to go back to that village school you attended and get a refund...

Logicboy03: You do realise that we convert some seawater into drinking water therough an expensive process? Also, drinking water is a huge problem facing many people accross the globe?

Again I ask YOU...are you suffering from lack of drinking water? Are you running a water distillery in your backyard?

Billions of people have access to fresh water...and humans can convert saline water when we need it....How does this DISPROVE intelligent design?

Dumbo...

Trying to deny that theists generally hold god as the creator of the big bang.

More lies from the atheist with no proof.

Please PROVE this statement!

Lol.....atheism has faith in what? You are quite the dumbazz!

If you can show me research that YOU have personally done, and not stories or hearsay that have shaped your views of the big bang, I take this statement back...

What is your proof that all the scientists harping on and on about are not lying?

Where are your lab notes?

Where are your experiments?

This idiot believes in what the scientist tell him without seeing proof...and thinks he has NO Faith...

LMAO

Logicboy03: lol......I know that I butthurt you and you are looking for revenge.


You will fail

LMAO

LMAO

ROTFLMAO

Logicboy03: When you are ready to acknowledge that the article was saying that natural selection didnt cause the height, get back to me.

LMAO

Are you saying the article confirms evolution didn't cause increase in height?

Is that what you are saying now?

mantraa: Take look at this short video about evolution very well explained by a 15 year old girl.

Onision:Evolution is racist!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrAQpUAfgW8

If she can understand it, so can you. She has also provided some good links that explain it in more depth.

Hopefully you will understand why the simple question "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Is the same as asking "if all humans evolved from Africa, why are there still Africans?" Or if all dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves.

Watch the video then let us know what you think

A lot of the stuff she said was personal opinion...

Lots of "I thinks" and "I guess" stated in an obnoxious manner....

But there was logic in there still...

plaetton: @Chedarking:
Considering that you and Frosbel have post these scientific articles to boost your own side of the argument, it would seem that you both agree that the human species as a whole is capable of undergoing changes, whether taller or shorter. Right?

If you agree so, why would you both consider evolution , a gradual change from one species to another, as improbable?

Have you not considered that perhaps god designed living organisms to evolve towards perfection, in the same way that religious doctrine is said to be specially designed by god to evolve our souls towards perfection?

On the contrary, I'm a firm believer in evolution.

In Sheffield where I spent my early teenage years, I've witnessed many interracial relationships - and the offspring of these relationships forming more interracial relationships.

The world will consist of only one ethnicity in the future if we live that long...I know that for sure..

I only posted to register my disbelief at the utter stupidity displayed by one of the most intellectually-bankrupt confusionists ever to inflict himself on the good people of this forum...

Logicboy03: lol....I know you are dull but, how you couldnt see that evolutionary change is the hieght?

Logicboy03: And this quote means that evolution has nothing to do with height or what?

Sincerely, I have seen more intelligent orangutans at the Zoo.

Let me break it down for you into bite-sized chunks so your head doesn't explode from the sensory overload.


1. The Author gives a theoretical example of what should happen following Evolution theory here:

For example, finches that have large, powerful beaks also have an advantage cracking large, tough seeds during periods when small, soft seeds are scarce. As a consequence, large-beaked birds are more likely to eat better, survive longer and reproduce than small-beaked birds. Because beak shape is an inherited trait (one that is substantially influenced by genes), more successful reproduction by large beaked birds means that the genes predisposing finches to large beaks are transmitted to the next generation in relatively larger numbers than those genes encoding small beaks. Thus, the population of finches in the next generation will tend to have larger beaks than finches in their parent's generation.

2. The Author then provides us with a real life human population sample here:

Let's use this basic operating principle of evolution to predict, retrospectively, the direction of change in human height if evolution were the cause of the change. We know from studies conducted in industrial England that children born into lower socioeconomic classes were shorter, on average, than children born into wealthy families. We also know that poorer families had larger numbers of children

3. He then points out that the exact opposite of what evolution would predict happens:

Given those initial conditions, what would evolution predict?

The average population should have become shorter because the shorter individuals in the population were, from an evolutionary fitness perspective, more successful in passing on their genes. [size=28pt]But this did not happen[/size]. Instead, all segments of the population--rich and poor, from small and large families--increased in height. Thus, natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller.

4. The guy now tells you why it doesn't happen pointing out that height actually increases and decreases depending on diet.

5. Finally he tells you that if you like chop, if you like no chop, you no fit ever tall pass certain limit:

the trend toward increasing height has largely leveled off, suggesting that there is an upper limit to height beyond which our genes are not equipped to take us, regardless of environmental improvements.

Phew!!!

Thank me later!


[quote][/quote]

Logicboy03: You people cant read. You just see what you want to see. Just like how people selectively read the bible and say that the bible is against slavery.



The article talks about evolution from a natural selection mechanism (fitness) and says that is not the reason. Majaze and I explain that a change diets/nutirition over time can lead to evolutionary changes.

Read the quote again;

Wow...Are you just being OBTUSE?

Or do you suffer from dyslexia?

What is your point?

You asserted that we are growing taller as evidence for evolution.

Your backing article says otherwise...

You say:

Majaze and I explain that a change diets/nutirition over time can lead to evolutionary changes.

Your article says:

the trend toward increasing height has largely leveled off, suggesting that there is an upper limit to height beyond which our genes are not equipped to take us

DUDE!

What is wrong with you man?

plaetton: He he. Glad that we can agree on something.

Mate,I'm more agnostic than I am Christian...

A lot of the Christian doctrine don't make sense to me...

I hate most of the same things you hate about religion...lol

I just choose to believe in Jesus Christ...

Logicboy03: Even different diets are responsible for Evolution (adaptation to different environment). What the article was saying was that humans were not getting taller by natural selection alone but by different diets.


Remember the article doesnt say diets alone but that diets are the major factors.

You Lie

It's so funny how Atheists do a lot of the very thing they accuse theists of doing - LIE


The article goes to great lengths to prove that DIET not EVOLUTION is the reason we are growing tall:

Are we evolving to greater heights, vertically speaking?

Before answering these questions, we need to remember that evolution requires two things: variation in physical and/or behavioral traits among the individuals in a population; and a way of selecting some of those traits as adaptations, or advantages to reproduction.

For example, finches that have large, powerful beaks also have an advantage cracking large, tough seeds during periods when small, soft seeds are scarce. As a consequence, large-beaked birds are more likely to eat better, survive longer and reproduce than small-beaked birds. Because beak shape is an inherited trait (one that is substantially influenced by genes), more successful reproduction by large beaked birds means that the genes predisposing finches to large beaks are transmitted to the next generation in relatively larger numbers than those genes encoding small beaks. Thus, the population of finches in the next generation will tend to have larger beaks than finches in their parent's generation.

Let's use this basic operating principle of evolution to predict, retrospectively, the direction of change in human height if evolution were the cause of the change. We know from studies conducted in industrial England that children born into lower socioeconomic classes were shorter, on average, than children born into wealthy families. We also know that poorer families had larger numbers of children.

Given those initial conditions, what would evolution predict? [size=28pt]The average population should have become shorter because the shorter individuals in the population were, from an evolutionary fitness perspective, more successful in passing on their genes. But this did not happen. Instead, all segments of the population--rich and poor, from small and large families--increased in height. Thus, natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller.
[/size]

I'm all for intellectual discourse BUT

You make an assertion, ignorantly post a link to back up your claims, and then realize you've shot yourself in the foot....

How can I take you SERIOUSLY?

plaetton: Well considering that since the austerity measures of the Shagari and Buhari regimes of the early 80s, underfeeding has become a permanent part of the life of the average Nigerian.
Can we infer that that is perhaps the reason that there is a dearth of intelligence in the land and for explosion of religious fervour over the decades?
Hhhmmmm!
Something to to consider.

Agreed...

Hunger has forced the Average Nigerian to look to God for respite...

Religious leaders keep preaching that God rewards the most pious...

So the average Nigerian is willing to give anything including human life to prove his piousness...

Hunger is a bastard...

plaetton: I think its great folly to criticize something simply because you dont understand it.
If have any understanding of the mechanisms and processes of evolution, you would have known that even a change in diet, as you have posted above, can be a catalyst for a gradual and slow changes in an organism or species. And these changes can, over time, lead to new traits would enhance the survivability or the eventual doom of the species.

Don't do that my man...

illogicalboy says we are EVOLVING into bigger specimens here:

Logicboy03: We are getting bigger in body size but with smaller jaws.

here:

Logicboy03: This
Frosbel, you live in the UK, you can go to the museums and look at the armours that the warriors were supposed to wear. Very small, and would fit an average 16 year old.
Examples of microevolution in humans
Funny how people laugh at their own ignorance.

and here:

Logicboy03: Lol....bigger

he then scours google for a link to back up his claim, reads the first 3 lines of a promising article posts this:

Why are we getting taller as a species?

For most people, contemporary buildings do not prompt similar claustrophobic concerns. The reason for this difference, as many people have correctly guessed, is that modern humans are taller than those from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, over the last 150 years the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimeters (about four inches).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller

Not realizing that the same article says this:

natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller.

If evolution doesn't explain height increases, what does? Most geneticists believe that the improvement in childhood nutrition has been the most important factor in allowing humans to increase so dramatically in stature.

and this:

First, the observed increase in height has not been continuous since the dawn of man; it began sometime around the middle of the nineteenth century. In fact, examinations of skeletons show no significant differences in height from the stone age through the early 1800s.
Also, during World Wars I and II, when hunger was a frequent companion of the German civilian population, the heights of the children actually declined. They only recovered during the post-war years.

and THIS:

Second, the trend toward increasing height has largely leveled off, suggesting that there is an upper limit to height beyond which our genes are not equipped to take us, regardless of environmental improvement

These guys are saying it CATEGORICALLY....

EVOLUTION IS NOT MAKING YOU TALLER...

One statement caught my eye though...

Chronic underfeeding during childhood, however, permanently affects stature and other traits, including intelligence.

That explains A LOT...

Logicboy03: Lol....bigger

I have now come to the conclusion that.....


Should I even talk sef?

....natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller.

If evolution doesn't explain height increases, what does? Most geneticists believe that the improvement in childhood nutrition has been the most important factor in allowing humans to increase so dramatically in stature.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller

From your OWN link...

SMH

Logicboy03: @ Cheddarking.

[s]You have nothing but beef and foolish arguments against me. Your blind hatred is consuming you.[/s]

Nay...I do not hate you... I pity you...

Can your kids(Born or Unborn) read your posts on this thread without shame for their obviously deranged father?

Logicboy03: @ Cheddarking.

[s]You have nothing but beef and foolish arguments against me. Your blind hatred is consuming you.[/s]

Nay...I do not hate you... I pity you...

Can your kids(Born or Unborn) read your posts on this thread without shame for their obviously deranged father?

Logicboy03: @ Cheddarking.


1) You cut out the parts of my reply that debunk you only to reply to soundbites.

I cut out NOTHING

Logicboy03: @ Cheddarking.

3) If you are trying to claim that God isnt behing the big bang, then your God is useless to us.

LMAO

Dude even your own BRAIN is useless to you, seeing how little you use it...

Logicboy03: @ Cheddarking.


4) The title of the argument is clear;


I was talking about certain popular definitions of God that most theists subscribe to. You are just sidestepping the argument against an all-powerful and all knowing god.

Theism comprises of a myriad of religions.

You cannot make a bold assertion that "Theism is Irrational" based on a single definition of God handpicked from the myriad definitions available to Theists.

If you had said 'Christianity is irrational', well we would have another argument on hands...

Logicboy03: @ Cheddarking.


4) Only idiots like you are monochromatic in thinking. Who told you that 70% salt water = 30% fresh water?

Freshwater is less than 3% of all water.

LMAO at this idiot.

OK 3%.

Again I ask...have you and your family resorted to drinking seawater recently despite sharing the 3% with BILLIONS of other people?


I admit Religion demands at least a little bit of blind faith, but please dont come on here with your posturing regurgitating half-baked theories gleaned off the www.

Atheism is not the great triumph of logic most Atheists would have us believe...There's as much blind faith and guesswork involved there too...

Does anyone remember ABBEY GEORGE?

That Half-caste Albino wasn't half sh1t for us...

sanb: It’ll depend on your area of speciality after becoming a chartered accountant. You can specialised in a particular area i.e. management accounting, auditor, financial accounting or a finance consultant. These areas I’ve mentioned, can earn you a lot.

Are you coaching LORD JARUS?

The Great Accountant?

Repent from your sins ignorant one...