Chukkynwob's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Chukkynwob's Profile › Chukkynwob's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (of 13 pages)
ooman: That is because the God you worship is energy i work with in my lab.Do you see energy? do you touch energy? you can't touch electric energy, you see the effects, you can't hold potential energy you feel the potential, you can not hold kinetic energy..... Prof.OOman no one has seen energy it quoting wikipedia' "In physics, energy is an indirectly observed quantity which comes in many forms, such as kinetic energy, potential energy, radiant energy, and many others; which are listed in this summary article. This is a major topic in science and technology and this article gives an overview of its major aspects, and provides links to the many specific articles about energy in its different forms and contexts. The question "what is energy?" is difficult to answer in a simple, intuitive way, although energy can be rigorously defined in theoretical physics. In the words of Richard Feynman, "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount.".[1]" |
ooman: The above is funny, do you really have to hurt my feeling to get satisfied?Do you know that the big bang theory in itself shoots holes into your arguments? Energy can not be created nor destroyed and the world came about from energy. Does it sound remotely like 'let there be light'? |
ooman: If you need detailed explanation then sorry, i have to go beyond 5 lines for how the earth evolved to be in its place, its not child's story that can be summarized, its science.Which lab? Methodology of the experiment? has it been published? has it been accepted? Did the bacteria emerge from nothing? or a new strand from an already existing strand? a lot of question are going on in my head about this new breakthrough. oomen you must realize you are talking with educated people,if you are still working on your theories perfect them,if you are done send me a pdf or a blog link...so I can educate myself more. Besides I posted some major faults of the existing evolutionary theory and you didn't even attempt to clarify me on the points I raised on the theory. |
davidylan: Said it better than i could ever say it. Thanks. Over to you prof. ooman.I find it insulting when ooman assumes other people lack the intellectual capacity to understand genetics, heck i could decide to get a degree in genetics for the fun of it. ![]() Davidllan by the way I really like how you argue, you argue with the hope of learning or refuting unsound claims of scientific breakthrough where it is obvious there is dearth of one |
ooman: I just gave some evidence and you rejected my views how many time will i tell you that.Sodium reacts with Chlorine to give NaCl2 that is hard scientific evidence,if this is new evidence that is not yet universally accepted link us to publications that have been approved by a scientific body with authority in the field of genetics or relevant fields. Lets say I believe you and become an atheist, dont you think going about with "Ooman said this and that on nairaland..." will make me look ridiculously stupid? |
Logicboy03: Quoting someone that supports you doesnt mazke you right or smart.Can you at least try and keep it civilized? I thought as an atheist with a superior level of thinking, you'll maintain a level of decorum. |
ooman: At this point i have to show you, i just wrote some theories above and you gave a sharp rejection. davidylan: It really doesnt take more than 5 mins to write this. You've been here on this thread over 24 hrs... suddenly you have "no time" to provide evidence to your claims? What is the "evolution" you see at work everyday? Where is this evidence?Please I will also appreciate if can quote published journals that have been accepted as evidence in your field and please stop being condescending I can handle advanced biology. |
davidylan: I wonder why ooman is ignoring the elephant in the room - his inability to provide the geneticist evidence that convincingly proves God doesnt exist and how the earth appeared.Its really sad because I was willing to drop the bible for this IMAGINED new concrete proof,its my God till you can tell me how that first cell that you guys claimed that turned from unicellular to multicellular then to plants and animals came to be. Before you discuss a progression you must first define how the reference point came to be. |
ooman: I have not said "i want to enforce sharia law" on anybody, or that "homosexuality should be illegal" because it is a sin to your god. all these are religious person's view.Problems for atheistic evolutionists Good arguments against evolution Evolutionists who reject God and miracles have some huge problems to explain. Problem No. 1 How did the universe come about? There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear. Atheistic evolutionists often try to duck this problem — which is impossible for them to answer satisfactorily — by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But assuming the existence of an intricately working universe with some sort of life-forms already in it is not a minor assumption, and puts more faith in an unknown, counter-intuitive process than Christians put in God. The problem is that if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything. For more information on the origin of the universe, see Models of the origin of the universe, by Dr. John Rankin. Problem No. 2 How could living creatures come from non-life? Again, there is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers. Life invariably comes from something that is already alive. Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no support for this, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part! Dr. Kenneth Poppe says in his book Exposing Evolution's Weakest Link, “There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.” Imagine all life on earth disappeared. There are no trees, plants or animals. All we have is rocks, dust, and lifeless matter. So how does the earth get populated with living things? That's the atheist evolutionist's unanswerable dilemma, and shows the massive faith they have to hold in preposterous answers. For more information on abiogenesis (the theory that contends organisms originated from non-living material), see the CreationWiki article, Abiogenesis. See also Origin of Life questions and answers, by Answers in Genesis. Problem No. 3 How could new genetic information arise? There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it. To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains. But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were supposedly not present in the ancestral species? The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection. But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information. Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths decrease and dark moths proliferate, but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to turn into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them. Nor could they evolve from something that was totally different from a moth. For more information on macroevolution, see the CreationWiki articles Macroevolution and Macroevolution has never been observed. See also Speciation Questions and Answers by Answers in Genesis. Problem No. 4 Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures. Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere. But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches. Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape or ape-like creature evolved into a human. For more information on ape fossils making monkeys out of humans, see the article Humans are not descended from apes. Alternative view We believe that the evidence is stronger for those who believe the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”. Please address the grey areas raced in this article scientifically please.... |
davidylan: oops now you've gone and exposed his hypocrisy!i misunderstood your post |
ooman: Science has disproved the existence of God times and again which is why atheism prevails right now.please educate yourself ooman,in case you think I am an illiterate that lacks the ability to grasp science, I am an engineer. There is no scientific evidence that God does not exist and neither is there evidence that he exists In science a phenomenon is probable until proven it doesn't exist,so as i can't convince you scientifically that he exists neither can you that he doesn't exist. So please just be an atheist rather than a religion hater, N:B I have atheist friends and I respect their choices. Because now you are doing the exact same thing you accuse religions of doing...INTOLERANCE |
Maximus85: Now we might find it hard to win.I posted a comment before and showed my folly by attacking TB Joshua's prophecy but some posters pointed out my stupidity,by telling me that this report lacks credibility. So until it comes from emmanueltv or TB Joshua holds a conference, its not even debatable-REASON? IT LACKS CREDIBILTY |
Atheism can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, so just stick to your school of thought and stop blaming the world's problems on Christianity. |
This racism at its worst,so because according to you obadiah777: LIKE WHO CARES. WHITE PEOPLE DROP BOMBS ON BABIES IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN AND OTHER THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES ALL THE TIME . F-U-CK THAT BABY. AT LEAST IT LIVED TO SEE ANOTHER DAY. IF THAT WAS A HISPANIC OR BLACK BABY THERE WILL NOT BE ALL THIS FURORE. FORK THIS TWISTED HYPOCRITICAL WORLDIts alright for her to slap an innocent baby?.... something is wrong with your perception! |
Problems for atheistic evolutionists Good arguments against evolution Evolutionists who reject God and miracles have some huge problems to explain. Problem No. 1 How did the universe come about? There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear. Atheistic evolutionists often try to duck this problem — which is impossible for them to answer satisfactorily — by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But assuming the existence of an intricately working universe with some sort of life-forms already in it is not a minor assumption, and puts more faith in an unknown, counter-intuitive process than Christians put in God. The problem is that if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything. For more information on the origin of the universe, see Models of the origin of the universe, by Dr. John Rankin. Problem No. 2 How could living creatures come from non-life? Again, there is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers. Life invariably comes from something that is already alive. Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no support for this, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part! Dr. Kenneth Poppe says in his book Exposing Evolution's Weakest Link, “There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.” Imagine all life on earth disappeared. There are no trees, plants or animals. All we have is rocks, dust, and lifeless matter. So how does the earth get populated with living things? That's the atheist evolutionist's unanswerable dilemma, and shows the massive faith they have to hold in preposterous answers. For more information on abiogenesis (the theory that contends organisms originated from non-living material), see the CreationWiki article, Abiogenesis. See also Origin of Life questions and answers, by Answers in Genesis. Problem No. 3 How could new genetic information arise? There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it. To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains. But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were supposedly not present in the ancestral species? The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection. But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information. Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths decrease and dark moths proliferate, but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to turn into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them. Nor could they evolve from something that was totally different from a moth. For more information on macroevolution, see the CreationWiki articles Macroevolution and Macroevolution has never been observed. See also Speciation Questions and Answers by Answers in Genesis. Problem No. 4 Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures. Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere. But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches. Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape or ape-like creature evolved into a human. For more information on ape fossils making monkeys out of humans, see the article Humans are not descended from apes. Alternative view We believe that the evidence is stronger for those who believe the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”. |
rasputinn: Pure hogwash intended to pooh-pooh the repair work done by an opposition governmentHave you confirmed or rebated this accusation before bashing it as propaganda? if you have an idea the number of human lives that go through that bridge everyday,you first thought should be let us invite an independent contractor of unbiased repute to reassess the bridge. In engineering its safety first before politics. |
k |
Ola3tag: . I.B.E.C.I.L.E. in ur dream abi...Get ur fact right it was nigeria cameroon 3-4 penalty...ghana ko nagha ni...[size=25pt]can't you correct without being derogatory ?[/size] |
Abbeyme: Haaaa, If they hire Messi, na beating e go be for Eagles o. But If the hire C Ronaldo, chances are that he can score an own-goal. LWRMS (Laugh Wan Remove My Subsidy)HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa [size=20pt]@ LWRMS (Laugh Wan Remove My Subsidy)[/size] |
February 8, 2013 9:32 pm Please Note: Your comment is awaiting moderation. I am a devout christian, personally I don’t have an opinion /judgement whether T.B Joshua is wrong or right. Many christian followers have this cult mentality of putting up a man on a godlike pedestal, I even read where TB Joshua faithfuls said questioning him on this blog is blasphemous.All these protestant churches sprung from the revolution and rejection of roman catholic doctrine which believes that the pope is infallible,but now many generations later these scripture is now being invoked by protestant religious leaders/followers to protect themselves from scrutiny.Rev. King’s followers used to defend him this way till he was proven in a competent court of law,that he is a criminal. Some till this day still defend him. If people did not ask questions of him will he have been investigated? My loyalty lies with no man but God and the bible,because scientist have not been able to disprove how books written centuries apart by different authors could be so synchronous with each other -that my friends is the infallibility of the word of GOD, not that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the pope, John Haggea ,my pastor or your pastor but God’s. If my pastor brings forth any doctrine that is not biblical,I leave there at the church at the end of service. TB Joshua, Benny Hinn, Adeboye, Archbishop Of Canterbury, Pope, Cardinals, TD Jakes, all are human and a lot of people look up to them therefore are required to maintain a certain decorum, and YES should be scrutinized if need be because the church was never structured to give sole power to one man. Sites like this blog are needed to remind the ”men of cloth” that someone is watching. America is a relatively decent country politically because no arm of government has absolute power,there are checks and balances,that is how it should be in the church. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY In conclusion,I have never been to the synagogue nor plan to go there anytime soon therefore i hold no opinion to the left nor to the right of TB Joshua but I believe we should ask more questions of our leaders,be it in politics or religion. Don’t be a blind and foolish follower statistically THE ODDS ARE NOT AGAINST NIGERIA,why didnt he prophecy last year that we will win or even when we were drawing our group matches? This is simply cheap publicity |
[size=19pt]BLAME IT ON PRESIDENT JONATHAN[/size] |
onitshaigbo: I'm tired of those Ghanaians who always think they're better than us, even though we are the Giant of Africa. Countries like Ghana prevent Africa from being more united. Nkrumah was a greater leader but they exiled him, may God destroy Ghana.Okay point of correction,Ghana is far better than Nigeria in so many ways,heck schooling in Ghana now is for the elites,the rich and aristocrats.Their unemployment ratio is low,they have steady power supply,better social amenities and structures. We have been on twitter insulting Ghanaians but we better get off our high horses and face reality. An average Ghanaian is as black as kiwi polish but has a better standard of living than an average Nigerian |
dogmasters: anyway this liter is gone...we have champion bloodlines currentlucan you give me the name of the champions so I can check on pedigree database? |
dogmasters: anyway this liter is gone...we have champion bloodlines currentlucan you give me the name of hte champions so I can check on pedigree database? |
manosteel: This our Coach self mumu, he thought He had made a change, he removed Moses and brought in Musa, what is the difference! Na the same player still dey field now. How Nigerians talk self....go and watch baseball or something |
hassan ali661: look man no offence but im havin g a hard time believing that ur rotties r 100% its a rotty but not a pure breed..how i know this is cuz i hav a rotty which i bought from munich and there is 1000000 difference betwwen mine and the photos down herePlease can i see pictures pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeee ![]() |
Chasing Women is a game of numbers,women like and dislike guys for silly,physical reasons,e.g a girl might detest fair guys,and then you are fair. In that case you lost the battle before you even got a chance to fight.When a woman aint into you she aint, so instead of wasting time with a few women.Spread your tentacles, chyke 10 per day at least 2 or 3 will like you... you'll never run dry my friend if you follow this rule. Enjoy it, play it like a game and never take rejections personal NB:There are about 3 billion women in the world,and You Only Live Once ![]() |

?[/size]