₦airaland Forum

damocool:
Not surprised getting this from you though...

UyiIredia:
True. That's why I stopped answering him. I let him rot in his ignorance.

Fadman4real:
Who do you think created the life and gave it the ability to grow or whats the genome created in the lab done by natural forces. The world is extremely complex and to think that such a complex creation was done by luck and without an external force is follishness of the highest order.

It took scientists a cummulative of billions of hours to create a genome and then we are to use that as an evidence that life was created by nothing and just a random movement of electrons and protons. Check out how complex the DNA structure is, Antony Flew a prominent atheist converted after reading about the DNA and how complex the structure is. We are still far from discovering the full complexity of the DNA and would probably take us anoother billions of hours of researchers time to discover it. Yet you would still choose to believe a lie that all this was created by a random body.

That is why the book of Romans says that "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." - Rom 1:20

Joeblis:
you can't blame God for the hardship we are facing, God provided everything we'll need to prosper and blossom as a nation but everything has been thrown to shambles.

Serenity008:
Romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

You ain't dictate for him. He consult no one

frank317:
Useless and wicked God. So becasue she had sex ur God is going to make her burn forever. Why did he block her hole with flesh so that she wouldn't have sex. Rubbish

Joshthefirst:
LoL.

I strongly suggest you run along back to your fairly land in the clouds and revise your homework so that you won't run back there with your cloudy tail between your legs when someone takes you up as usual. Mtchew.

asalimpo:
I dont need to tell "fallen" man that. They're atheist professors who turned to christ.
What convinced them? the Cold logical facts of course.
They're atheists scientists who did the math and weight the logic and it didnt add up and by that ditched
your evo poo for the obviously plausible truth - Life is the result of intelligent design -

the secular governments of today are clearly light years ahead of that and if you can't see that then you must be truly blind and ignorant
The secular governments of today, had their starts from judeo-christian principles.
It is what formed their philosophies.
The founding fathers of America, Great Britain were all christians.
The humanitarian laws of the world that have made it a more tolerant place were all shaped by judeo-christian principles.
All thanks to the spread of christianity.
Yes, they were lots of errors , but overall the world has gained by having the gospel.
All those nations that were without the gospel, wallowed in darkness and inhumanity.
Infact, look at nations that dont have strong christian presence and you'll see this.
Degradation of women, contempt for human life, evil dictatorial ruling systems, social structures that entrench slavery (e.g caste systems in india , pakistan etc), large scale poverty.

Also, what makes homosexuality wrong? You realize that all homosexuality involves, is two human beings of the same sex being engaged in romantic relations. I want to know how that harms anyone. And "the bible says it's wrong" does not count for anything.


if your parents were homosxuals would you born to say this poo!
why dont you use your head as a hammer , since that's what it was designed for.
This is what perversion does, it blinds you to the truth so much that you can't distinguish good from evil.

Homosxuality is wrong bcause it is a misuse of the human body and goes against the pattern God created for expression of human sxuality.
God want's man and woman joined together in body not man and man.
Homo is a perversion.

By the same argument:
What makes zoophilia wrong?
What makes pedophilia wrong?
What makes corprophilia wrong?

The bible says it's wrong- the bible is the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD and it doesnt get out of date.
What should be the right standard-science?! Think again.

What you believe in affects how you view right and wrong-
You believe in evolution/atheism and you standard of morality becomes perverse.
Why should murder,cheating,lying be wrong?
When according to evo/no-theo , you are simply struggling to survive. It's a survival of the fittest
in a meaningless chaotic world.

Madam, sit tight, God's judgement is coming on the world. Then we shall know who was right or wrong.

plaetton:
That's the problem with these guys.
They seek to define everything only on their own preconceived terms, including your own words.

Serenity008:
One thing u must know is, there is no neutral person in this world.

If they ain't praying to God, they are praying to something else

iamexcelblog:
My dear, I don't know the advice I will give you now and I will be tagged a carnal man. There was a time I was like you and had serious moral crises. I saw every woman as evil especially those that dress lustfully. I had no internal peace.

But at a time, I came to understand the very fact that at the end of it all, we are all humans..... There are those who have serious sexual urge more than the others. My brother, its only natural to seek "company" when such arises inasmuch as you are not committing a crime like rape... Sex is only natural because man is an animal. I have met a girl whose sexual urge is triple more than the normal girl. The average African or hypocritical Nigerian will call her a demon but am sure that its just natural....

But let me remind you, there is nothing like end times and there will never be.... All you people prophesying end times are limited in knowledge and have no clue whatsoever on how the universe works....

By the way if I may ask you, where the early men wearing clothes? You people are yet to come to terms with the fact that society is evolving with time. You should be grateful that you are seeing people even wearing clothes in your time. Take a time traveling machine a travel back to a million years ago on earth. You will be surprised on how naked people were going around and it was very normal. You may see how people were having sex daily like the animals they were and it was very normal. A million years later, has there been an end time on earth? Or you think it is every body that believes in the Bible? The grand deception? Lest I forget, the world has been for billions of years.... Scientifically proven!

Will you have the mind to believe what you will see should be taken to a billion years back in time?

Free yourself from mental slavery and accept who you are..... Thats if you want internal peace.

damocool:
I believe generations before ours enjoyed healthy sêx life without watching this evil film called porn...

thesicilian:
Learn? Experience?
Those are very lame excuses I must say. Does a child learn how to cry? Does he learn how to crawl? Those are very innate traits that will reveal themselves when the time comes

I doubt if there was anybody on ground to teach Adam and Eve how to have intercourse when they were created in the garden.

I guess when people talk about experience, what they actually mean is 'doing it the way that it is generally accepted by the public' The main ingredient in love making, as the term implies, is love. Once a couple loves and understands each other, and know how to communicate their feelings and desires to each other, what else is there to 'learn' from demonic books and videos?

PastorAIO:
Your depravity is beyond anything that I've seen on nairaland yet.

PastorAIO:
The proof that this moral instinct comes to expression subjectively can be found throughout human history and also in the bible where we see an evolution of morality. In fact I think the bible is the best document to support the subjectivity of morality.

God does not confer morality otherwise atheists would not be moral. However God does buttress whatever moral stance you've already taken and if that moral stance allows rape then God might even encourage you to rape.

Purerealist:
If you have a dictionary there I would inquire you to look up the meaning of coincidence and when you are at it ask yourself why all the other prayers you prayed never come to pass, because according to ur post you only mentioned the prayers that come to pass. If prayers is for real, please ask yourself why does it have a limit? Why is it that some prayers can never be answered? Some prayers like healing an amputee, healing a person without eyes, raising people from the dead, flying to save someone from a burning building, turning back the hands of time, changing your sex and so on. When you realize that all these cannot be solved by prayers but by scientific researches your common sense should tell you prayer is just wishful thinking that sometimes happen as a coincidence. PLEASE educate yourself.

Joshthefirst:
lol. No, your understanding of the very theory you're arguing for, as well as your understanding of cellular genetics is poor. It is obvious you have only ever listened to one side of the story and have never bothered to look at it from another angle, as any true scientist would do.

This is a load of false assumptions based on false assumptions. You sound like an indoctrinated militant. There is no indoctrination in science. What evidence do you have that life arose in harsh environments or that life even arose by itself in a random accident? The probability of the random formation of an enzyme from amino acids on the earth's surface is calculated to be one in 10^20 (essentially zero).


This is a statement borne of ignorance of genetics. Look at processes like oxidative phosphorylation. There are so many complex enzymes and processes that make up important biochemical reactions in complex organisms. These enzymes and processes could not have evolved over time, because natural selection and the given course of said evolution would not favor their development. Non-functional DNA is ready for deletion, the formation of proteins and enzymes that have no use without their various pathways is a waste of cellular resources, and said enzymes being non-functional, would be weeded out and deleted by natural selection.

"The most basic processes upon which all life depends cannot be co-opted from pre-existing systems. For evolution to work, they have to come up from scratch, they have to be carefully balanced and regulated with respect to other processes, and they have to work before they will be kept."

Robert Carter.

There is no feasible link between micro and macro. Micro is adaptive and readily seen in our environment and based on already basic genetic information and processes. Macro is an imaginative story. Radical changes in the genome that you point out cannot and have not been demonstrated. (you could give me one non-circular example to prove your stance, or remain silent and dogmatic)

"An organism had to learn to convert sunlight to sugar. Another had to learn to convert sugars to energy. These amazingly complex processes involve multiple steps and functions that will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system"

-Robert Carter


In the end the very enemy of macroevolution is microevolution.


Yes. species will speciate. They will not gain relevant complexity to substantiate macroevolution though; this has never been shown to be true. All I hear is closeminded dogmatic irrational faith on your part.

Wikipedia:
"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

And here's a list of just some of the organizations that oppose the teaching of ID & creationism as truth, and completely support evolution.
https://www.aclu.org/what-scientific-community-says-about-evolution-and-intelligent-design

"National Academy of Sciences
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history.

The American Chemical Society
Evolution cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation.The inclusion of non-scientific explanations in science curricula misrepresents the nature and processes of science and compromises a central purpose of public educationthe preparation of a scientifically literate workforce.

American Association of University Professors
"The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the natural world. [...] The American Association of University Professors deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution."

American Astronomical Society
Science is not based on faith, nor does it preclude faith. Whatever personal beliefs teachers, students, parents or administrators may hold, the teaching of important scientific concepts, such as the formation and aging of planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe, should not be altered or constrained in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines."

asalimpo:
The so called reputable universities and developed countries you mentioned are researching under a false premise. And none of them is the custodian of truth.
Countries that condone homosexuality, and similar perversions, all because they are "developed"
are those the yard stick for correctness. With all their so called "education" they are clueless and blind as
primitive cave men on many issues. Their science , so called, only fuelling their perversion and delusion.

As for you, you have a slave mentallity, a white man comes up with a degrading incoherent theory of how
a mistake created life and so on and because he's white and has some credentials, you swallow without thinking!

Besides, many qualified scientists have contested the so called evolution theory - evolution is a shardy belief with the scientific community being marketed as science - objective fact.

UyiIredia:
Google Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger. They both released ID research in peer-reviewed journals. Then again, I should say peer review doesn't make a theory true. Darwin's work wasn't peer reviewed was it.

UyiIredia:
You are the one arguing for a failed theory.

This is not evidence. Microbial fossils are just that, they do not show that organisms evolved from simpler precursors.

There is no known natural process by which one adds genetic information to a species genetic code.

Empty talk bereft of evidence.

Again, empty talk without evidence.

asalimpo:
Look at the post i responded to get my context.

If you dont still get it , this is my point:
the poster said, organisms have been forming out of reactions since 0bc.
in support of the bigi banga.
An inorganic process started organic life.

He used a canned food analogy to buttress his point, and i picked it up from there
to show that even with canned foods, biotic processes , only occured because to
organic matter were interacting. Actually, dynamic organisms - animals (bacteria etc)
were acting on non living organic matter (rice) in this case . Causing the reactions .

Making the argument he was proposing invalid - inorganic reactions jump starting organic life.

ElCount:
the earth's crust is not arranged according to age, go back to your geography, funny you call me ignorant and end up making this statement

UyiIredia:
Your opinion doesn't count as fact and rightly so. Just because intelligent design can't give specifics of design doesn't make it useless and doesn't eliminate the fact that intelligent agency is a mechanism for effecting design. There simply isn't enough data for us to know how design was done. And we are not evolutionists, we don't paint up fanciful imaginary scenarios. Sometimes one must satisfy oneself with the fact that some things may never be known.

UyiIredia:
ID is a well-established fact given the evidence available. In fact it's the best game in town.

ElCount:
please fossil record is a load of crap, finding a bone in the sand tells you nothing more than that animal existed and died, it doesn't tell you any other thing. Recently they now find a skull and complete it themselves to deceive people

ElCount:
just listen to yourself, you opened the bible and that's all the info you could get about God the part that seem to discredit Him, how it happened, why it happened, what truly happened you don't know and you think that's normal. You can say what you want or think what you want but on the last day the devil will be there to point an accusing finger at you and you will realize that you are on your own.
Keep waiting for someone to show you a soul b4 you believe; goodluck with that. But I think that's the point of it being a soul, it can't be seen with the physical eye

Joshthefirst:
Unfortunately your post is a brilliant rebuttal of itself.

According to the evolution theory after long periods of time radical changes to the genome bring about development of more complex species. There is no evidence for this, and your very own statement in the bolded proves this is not true. So you can only mean the adaptive microevolution when you say 'evolution' in the bolded.

Pre-existing genetic information cannot lead to the massive systemic macro-changes defined by Darwinian macro-evolution.

Insects will still be insects after millions of years. Reptiles will not become aves, and reptiles will not become mammals.

asalimpo:
But those organism's didnt come out of nowhere and from nothing.
Besides, putting rice in an aneorobic, sterilized container will see no organism forming,except those that can thrive anaerobically.
isnt that how canned food is marketed .

truthman2012:
Yes, it is the Hausas that are the true muslims, no wonder they don't pray behind a Yoruba leading prayer.

It is the Hausas that are actually following the words of allahh and his sole prophet, Muhammad. One of my wife's friends once lived in Zaria, Kaduna state. She said she had witnessed many Hausa muslims exchanging their wives. Allahh talks about exchange of wives in the quran. But ask a Yoruba muslim, he will say no.

Temporary wives (another name for adultery) as stated in the quran is also commonly practiced among the Hausas. Yet the quran condemns adultery. Which should muslims believe? Confusion.

One thing I have noticed about allahh, quran and muslims is that they are never consistent. Allahh would say something is bad today and say the same thing is good tomorrow. How do you follow that type of spirit? Is that not a clear deception? So, if allahh says no to marriage between father and daughter especially the one born outside wedlock, I wouldn't be surprised if he says yes in another verse of the quran.

Muslims' way of defending islam is using a contradictory verse to defend another contradictory verse. A verse says you can marry your daughter, another verse says no and when you say islam permits marriage with ones daughter and you quote the verse, muslims will jump out and say no, quoting a verse that doesn't support such an act as if both are not from the same quran.

Can you marry a non-muslim? Yes and no. See many of such contradictions here:

www.nairaland.com/2511448/contradictions-quran

This allahh self tire me o !!!