₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
Bro, you are not responding to my arguments - you are just making non sequiturs . I'm trying to show you that your claims are false . Are we talking about agnosticism or atheism ? I also mentioned Jainism that have been practiced ab antiquo - before and after the medieval age - and you conveniently skipped it .

You are the one who have no argument and you know it .

If Confucianism and Taoism are agnostic in nature then what makes you assume that all the Han Chinese scientists were theist?

Mentioning that I skipped Jainism makes no sense whatsoever because you also conveniently skipped the Hindus and all of Africa. Their lack of scientific achievement is consistent with their environment. It's self-evident.

You constantly misrepresent facts. Why do you have to be so dishonest?

KingEbukasBlog:
But the achievements made by the religious mind still got to us . Apparently no atheists made any notable achievements during that era .



I'm not making claims , its a known fact .

This should whet your interest , according to Isaac Newton :

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors

This was just 100 years before the so called age of enlightenment and 200 years after the medieval age . This means atheism was well known within that period and this of course irritated Sir Isaac . He said : "It never had many professors " Meaning there were atheists quite alright but they were not many . And atheists are known to be outspoken especially about their researches and findings . So what were their achievements?



Please don't cop out . You called me out , so let's discuss this like real men . I dislike cowardice .

Not to mention the fact even when you mentioned the Han Chinese scientists, you failed to mention that two out of the three major religions practiced around that time (Taoism and Confucianism) were agnostic in principle. You just lumped 'em right in.

You really have no argument here, son. Debating people like you results in dead-ends and abandoned threads.

KingEbukasBlog:
Ffs stop talking trash ! I gave you names of outspoken atheists in the Muslim world as far back as the 9th century . There were also outspoken atheists during the time of the worship of the Greek gods . There were outspoken atheists in parts of Europe that were not affected by the Inquisition . The adherents of Jainism were atheists who practiced Jainism openly . There was also Asia and Africa . Please just admit no atheist made any achievement during that era and before then and stop making daft assumptions .

That's a pretty lame excuse. You know the nickname of the Medieval period? The Dark Ages. Not much was going on during that time (at least compared to periods before and after it). So you dishonestly picked that period to try to shame atheists, while still dishonestly claiming that the few great minds we had then couldn't have been atheists when we don't really have that information about it in the first place.

Maybe you should stick to your memes. I don't have the energy to continue this.

KingEbukasBlog:
Please respond sensibly next time bro , you are better than this .

You aren't really saying anything. You just assumed that every single person in Europe, China, and the Arabs who made any scientific stride was religious. How exactly did you know that? I told you that we probably wouldn't have known who was atheist because they'd most likely have been silent about it.

Instead of addressing or acknowledging that, you're just giving me a long-winded reply that completely misses the point.

You should at least think your shitposting through.

johnydon22:
I do not understand the hypocrisy you all exhibit when your religion is not victim.


supposing this happened to a christian, none of you here will be supporting it or saying the french government will be wrong to support the women, the man will be given names like

-Anti-Christ
-satan
-persecutor

and all nonsense and stuff but here just because the women are muslims makes it ok.

Hypocrites.

It's ironic that jesus argued against hypocrites, his followers ended up being the worst hypocrites on planet earth.

This is murky territory. We can't deny what France and other parts of Europe have suffered at the hands of Islam (terrorism, increase in tape cases, etc) but it is clearly wrong to discriminate against Muslim women. If for example, we say that catering services aren't allowed to discriminate against gay weddings then this act shouldn't go unpunished either.

You don't fight an opposing ideology with closed-mindedness and prejudice.

Unfortunately, religion is just another form of 'us vs them' way of thinking that won't allow people view issues objectively.

KingEbukasBlog:
Lol bro , sorry if you were annoyed by my comment . I apologize


But its true . Adherents of Christianity which you denigrate instigated modern science , nurtured it and you guys came from nowhere to take credit . This thread is an eye -opener !!

Christianity was the prevailing religion at that time in Europe. Nobody would have come out as an atheist during those oppressive times. This is an intellectually dishonest question.

You suck at defending your points so you resort to trolling and memes.

Considering the fact that Google owns Android and YouTube, we'll be more screwed than the housing of an electronic gadget.

thesicilian:
Why I hate arguments: Everyone comes to the table with their own opinions, get in a heated debate, and leaves with the same opinions they came in with.

Depends on who you're arguing with, though.

KingEbukasBlog:
I can't define a barrier because its an assumption , just like yours .

I think this article addresses some issues I have with evolution

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

Include evolution of sexes and sexual reproduction .

This article is quite erroneous. I'm not going to debunk each claim it made one at a time. But I can tell you some of the poor knowledge the author has shown in broad strikes.

Speciation has taken place in the lab. Lack of interbreeding would eventually lead to closely related but distinct species. As we can see closely related animals in the same family but different species can interbreed (although with difficulty). Even speciation is in degrees.

Furthermore, comparing humans with animals is disingenuous in many ways. Humans wear clothes, and build fires. We have large brains and the ability to shape our own selection.

Tropical mammals grow fur because they still need to conserve heat at night. In fact, all terrestrial animals under the size of a rhino (besides humans) have a coat of fur or hair. Tropical animals have other methods of keeping cool, such as sweating, panting, vasodilatation, etc.

Finally, sexual reproduction provides the advantage of creating quick variation in species. This would be helpful in times where there is a pressure to adapt, such as changing environments, etc.

I know that these explanations won't change your mind or make you want to double-check your conviction that evolution is false and you'll probably go back to posting memes later today. But I did it anyway.

KingEbukasBlog:
I never said it stops at a point - I'm a progressive creationist by the way . But the claim micro evolution caused microbes to become man over aeons is ludicrous .

If you can't define a barrier then your entire argument falls apart. You are no stranger to conversations like this, I've told you about sympatric speciation taking place among fruitflies.

If speciation can take place, along with the ridiculous variation we see
occur within short periods of time between animals of the same species, with such little change to the genome then we can see that given enough time. Single-celled organism to man isn't so far-fetched.

An2elect2:
Someone said God is eternal. You asked how that can be proved. I said, we must possess eternal brains or spirits (to prove that something eternal is truly eternal)
Eternal to prove eternal= Logical reasoning…

Your next question is out of line

I was expecting you to ask if "eternal to prove eternal" is logical

I'm asking how you know that we have eternal spirits.

An2elect2:
1, Logic
2, I have an eternal Spirit

What kind of logic makes you believe in eternal spirits?

KingEbukasBlog:
I stated it right there , observation .

That is not satisfactory. What makes you believe that microevolution stops at a point? What barriers can't it cross?

KingEbukasBlog:
And how does serve as an evidence for macro-evolution ? Like I said , I won't accept it because its not observed .

General scientific consensus does not see the difference between micro- and macroevolution, neither do I.

That is why I'm asking you to define this difference.

An2elect2:
We need eternal brains. Or eternal spirits

How do you know this?

KingEbukaNaija:
God is eternal

How do you prove that?

I see it this way. Even if we aren't real, we are real enough for whatever virtual reality we exist in. Our self-awareness shows is to prove this ourselves. Solipsism comes into to play here as we can only prove this for own bodies.

oaroloye:
SHALOM!

You probably do not know this, but "BACA" is Japanese for "IDIOT."

The name of the show is Baccano! Double c. This translates to ruckus in English. That's because the show is a stew of seemingly unrelated plots that come together at the end.

[removed by mod]

KingEbukasBlog:
And how does serve as an evidence for macro-evolution ? Like I said , I won't accept it because its not observed .

Define the end point of microevolution.

KingEbukasBlog:
Exactly ! There is where the belief strongly lies - that if micro evolution occurs so many times , microbes can become conscious intelligent man over eons .

Its not observed so its more like a rational belief .

We've seen bacteria develop new traits, lizards change their diet (including jaw size and developing a rudimentary caecum), we've seen foxes that were selected for friendliness develop dog-like traits (droopy ears, patterned fur, etc). All in less than 50 years.

So, at what point does microevolution stop?

KingEbukasBlog:
If it being observed is part of the evidence then I will accept . No observation , no proof anything otherwise is nugatory . Plus putative ancestors are used to link so many fossils to make the theory work . These putative ancestors keep getting modified till it seems believable . So much falsehood in that crap .

You accept microevolution but not macroevolution? That's like saying you accept centimetres but not kilometres.

What happens when a specie 'microevolves' a million times?

I'll like a Muslim to explain to me how Islam can be called the religion of peace when things like this happen in regions were it dominates.

CC: Vome Shackleton

analice107:
If there's going to he a date, we fix it, not you. Darkness doesn't command light.

And the evil baby-eating atheists are darkness, right? You're like a neo-inquisitor, you know that?

.

I generally make it a point to NOT speak negatively people's beliefs for a joke. Unless we're cool like that.

felixomor:
U still cant read, can you? The theory was called a hoax but no study was done on the fossils to confirm how it was forged.
And many people still argued it was real since then. Just as u are arguing now.
But after this experiment, nobody will argue again. Just like u will do someday also. Yeah

What theory was called hoax? A particular fossil specimen was called a hoax, and that had been known since 1953.

I know you're desperate to discredit this theory but don't skew facts. It's worn in the article. I copied and pasted that excerpt directly from the article that was linked.

I will not answer you anymore if you don't have anything reasonable to say.

4everGod:
Try harder how? Did the OP fabricate the fraud discovery? Wikipedia is your friend.

For goodness' sake, the article says that the fossil was revealed to be a fake way back in '53. New tests have shown what exactly the fossil is and has shed enough light to convict Charles Dawson as the culprit. You read it, right?

It's funny how people try to defend Christianity by saying that at least they aren't worse than fascists, nazis and communists.

It's also funny that you paint these situations to look like these men followed the tenets or commandments that were given to them by a religious book (unlike the Spanish inquisition, for example). We might as well say that Hitler adopted his anti-Semitism from his catholic upbringing, since the new testament clearly demonizes Jews.

Your childish and dishonest attempt to demonize atheism by warping historical data only underscores the evidence-deprived emotion you have towards your religion.

You seem not to realize that communism is only a style of government. A poor one. A despicable one. Likewise, how serial killers are usually psychopaths. These have nothing to do with atheism, or religion. Unless of course, it is in line with the tenets of the religion you follow. There have been religious murderers but that had nothing to do with their religion, for example, Hitler (I drew my conclusion from [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C8538173522]here[/url], you're free to read and draw yours.)

I can go on and on about every single religiously-motivated human sacrifice, war, or murder that had ever taken place but you have Google and I'm not here to one-up this poor spectacle of ignorance on display here. The OP of this post has truly reached new lows today.

felixomor:
It wasnt revealed. It was the theory.

Please read properly. Check the date on the original article, u think BBC will report it now?

The work on the fossils has just been the completed.

Read well.

Excerpt from the article:

The human-like skull fragments and an ape-like jaw, complete with two teeth, shook the scientific world in 1912 but were exposed as a hoax in 1953. New tests show the bones came from two or three humans and one orangutan.

Try harder.

shadeyinka:
That is exactly what i have been saying. It is CODED or PROGRAMMED in the genes (Brains) of every single animal!
Are the Codes physical? No!
Are the Codes Logical Sequences? Yes!

My conclusion: If there is a CODE, there is a PROGRAMMER!

Easy to understand..abi!

But nucleic acids that write the code are just complex self-assembling compounds.

... thus showing us that science is a trustworthy and unbiased disciplined that is concerned with finding the truth.

The fossil was already revealed to be fake more than half a century ago. This is hardly breaking news.