₦airaland Forum

4everGod:
Oh so man and fish share a common ancestor that existed long ago? Riiiight!

And they say Christians are insane. Smh

So bro if man and fish share a common ancestor have you met this ancestor? And if man and fish shared this elusive ancestor was this evolutionary change programmed to cease at a certain point?

I ask this because I see no further change in fishes or man today especially since we initially kept evolving till date so where is your proof of this common ancestor? Is it the virus? Or is it something more chaotic?

Nobody has met the common ancestor but careful and objective inference has given us evidence of our shared ancestor. For example human embryos till this day grow gill slits, in fish these would eventually develop into gills but in humans, they are quickly reabsorbed. That's one that I can say off the bat. You can read up if you're interested.

And no. Evolution doesn't stop. It continues to occur almost imperceptibly over the course of several generations. For example, millennia ago, man couldn't digest cow's milk but a genetic mutation made out possible. You should read that up of you're interested. In fact, not everyone has the ability to digest milk.

KingEbukaNaija:
More putative ancestors used as evidence .

It just also happens that these ancestors fit nicely into the fossil record with every individual in it's correct rock stratum.

Also, you just happened to completely not see the embryology I used as evidence here.

KingEbukaNaija:
Oh ... sorry a fish-like creature . Right ?

Human embryos develop gill slits which are then quickly reabsorbed before birth. In fish, these gill slits develop into gills.

Reading about tetrapods would help you put things into perspective. There are fish today which have lungs for breathing. Fossil record shows that gills predate lungs. Tetrapods made the transition from water to land.

There are several but I know better than to waste my time trying to reason with you.

4evergod2:
So if Sheep practice homosexuality are Sheep humans and are humans animals? Do we share the same consciousness as animals? Or did we supposedly evolve from sheep?

Assuming we did not and we all have the same common ancestor we evolved from such as a fish or an Ape why do we not share the very same consciousness with our common ancestor?

Make una just dey mumu una self.

Ok I'm going to take this step by step.
First, humans should be allowed to practice homosexuality because it is simply an orientation in humans that has no objective disadvantage to the modern society. Freedom of association allows people to mingle provided that it is not for a cause that denies others their rights. I only corrected the poster's false notion that exclusive homosexuality was found only in humans. No, we don't share the same consciousness as sheep and we didn't evolve from them. We only share a common ancestor.

Second, we do not share the same consciousness with our ancestors for the same reason why your own consciousness is not exactly the same as either of your parents. You're separate individuals. Coupled with the gradual evolution of the brain we are able process fast more than our ancestors were.

I hope you see your errors in case of next time. I'm sure you don't want to come across as a person who makes a living by mixing concrete.

KingEbukaNaija:
@CoolUsername

You have proof man evolved from fish ?

I've said time and time again, no modern species evolves to another one. Man didn't evolve from fish. Maybe you, though.

Rather, man and fish share a common ancestor that lived a very long time ago.

1stCitizen:
You are still digressing with statements that are in no way aligned to your arguments. In a law court you could easily find yourself in hot soup as you wriggle around in circles whereas the case against you remains the same. Just saying.

Lets agree that the old testament was plagiarized from the Torah.....no one really cares anyway. I still ask.....was the Torah written by the white-man? Or the Vedic Taskrit or Pali Canon? These are religious books. Aren't they? You do not seem to get where I am headed for. You just fell right into the trap and shot yourself on the foot like the other guy. You are attacking the Christian religion which is typical of atheists as they are mostly disgruntled ex Christians who are against the christian God but are the most superstitious humans you can find(Shown by research). They forget that as an Atheist you should not believe in any religious practice or superstition and should not be afraid of Fetish satanic materials or practices as they are "fairy tales"

That is why many conclude that Atheists are hypocrites. I can go further to say that True Atheism does not exist today. Yes! it does not. the only thing that exists are disgruntled ex-Christians that hate ONLY the Christian God.

You're the one who is digressing here. You called atheism a white man's ideology, true or false? I said that you were wrong, and that it was Christianity that brought to is by the whites, true or false?

Your the one who brought up the Torah in all this. And now you're parroting false notions against atheists. I didn't attack Christianity, you attacked atheists with this thread and I have no problem with that. I only came to point out your false statement about atheism and you've refused to acknowledge that you were wrong.

So don't try to remove attention from your blatant error.

shadeyinka:
Agreed homosexuality has been found in some mammalian species BUT not as a preference or exclusive way of life.

Are kleptomaniacs born?

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C7189272953]It has been found as an exclusive way of life in sheep.[/url]

4evergod2:
Atheists fail to realise that all Science does is prove that there is a higher power at play here. I say this because if scientists will make use of a multi million dollar science equipment and still end up further consulting fellow scientists before and still taking 20 or more years to explain why an ant excretes certain chemicals when agitated or how they are able to differentiate between sugar and salt particles then does this not show you that evolution is a joke?

If evolution was a crude process then how come it suddenly became more intelligent and complex than science imagines and takes science decades to explain just one thing?

NATURE IS A SCHOOL AND SCIENTISTS ARE ITS STUDENTS AND NOT ITS TEACHERS!

THE HAND BEHIND NATURE CAN ONLY BE GOD. Take it or leave it.

Cc cloudgoddess, seun

Maybe because it is a systematic, objective and hence, the most credible and successful method for understanding the world around us. Religion on the other hand, is just a bunch of guys drawing up conclusions from whatever they feel is right.

UyiIredia:
If this is gonna be your answer then I can only shake my head in pity. Didn't you just read the OP. I said consciousness can't evolve since it's not physical. Evolution applies only to physical things.

So what? You say that consciousness isn't physical so we should just accept that?

We don't have a full understanding of consciousness but we know that out is 'stored' in the cerebral cortex so what evidence do you have that it isn't physical? Why do fill the gaps that scientific ignorance leaves with God? It shows how shaky the theory of your belief is.

1stCitizen:
The Torah was compiled by who? Romans too?

You made a lot of statements that do no justice to your line of argument. However there something very interesting about it as one can see why African Atheists are very superstitious.

While the Old Testament was plagiarised from the Torah, it was carefully streamlined and edited by the very same Roman people. The finished product you see today was dictated by these men.

1stCitizen:
Other religions too like Christianity were moved from another culture before it got to Rome the white mans enclave.

So your assertion is also dead wrong.I have added the part you deleted to quote me.

Considering the fact that Christianity's main canon' the Bible was compiled by the Romans before it found its was to Africa -alongside slavery which it doesn't condemn.

Atheism has existed in several different sects. It has no doctrine, so I can say with some degree of confidence that not 100% of the Africans that have ever existed before the coming of the white man would have believed in the gods.

1stCitizen:
Believing in Atheist ideas handed down by your supreme white masters does not make you special.

I'm going to stop you there. That assertion is dead wrong. Atheism has been observed in a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C4377445222]variety of cultures[/url] throughout history.

KingEbukasBlog:
This has nothing to do with evidence . You thought God came from nothing , and I corrected you .

No evidence? I thought so.

KingEbukasBlog:
Energy , consciousness , morality , intelligence - all these are possible because God exists . This should help you understand -> https://www.nairaland.com/2973792/atheism-dead-logic-god-everything

Your definition of God is not well defined.

KingEbukasBlog:
God is eternal . He has always existed

Where's your evidence?

On the other hand it is possible to say that energy is in fact eternal since it cannot be created or destroyed as far as we know.

4everGod1:
If you want to go through the list of all the gods and test them all out then be my guest. But since your angst is against Jehovah Elshadai the father of my Lord Jesus Christ then you would be wise to focus solely on Him.

My gist is not about what the Bible says about God's experiences. What I want is your personal experience.

I compared the Bible's claims to what we see in reality and was disappointed. I don't have a sob story.

4everGod1:
You see what you choose to. All the while you have been claiming that God does not exist and giving all manner of reasons your intellect has not revealed to you the easiest and best way to disprove Gods existence is by meeting God on Hos own turf?

When I say meeting Him on His turf I mean being born again genuinely and then watching out to see if he would or would not show up for you.

Whatever your assumptions of Gods existence or lack of are does not change who God is or erase him. But do you know that I have seen people who genuinely were tired of the life they were living and asked God to reveal himself to them and God did and blew them away and today they are believers?

I have a former alcoholic who put God to the test. An urhobo man. Mr Mairo Daferede. He said in his drunken state that if God loves him that God should take away the desire for alcohol and the very next bottle of ogogoro he took after he woke up tasted like pee. He tasted 4 bottles and all tasted like pee and he suddenly lost interest in ogogoro.

Today he is sober and has never touched hot drink again. He attends Church of God mission Festac branch

Been there; done that...

I have a counter question for you. Which of the gods out there should I meet on his turf? Why should I choose over the others?

The God depicted in the Bible was all over the place conversing with men and performing unambiguous signs and wonders. What happened to all that?

Kondomatic:
What do they know about miracle?
The best they can do is say it did not happen because it isn't logical or ask her to provide tangible evidence or may be find a new word for it and update the dictionary.
That's all.

It's as simple as that. Anyone can make a claim. Evidence makes it a fact.

If I see an amputee's limb grow back on live TV after prayer, then that would be awesome evidence. Isn't it suspicious that one of the only unambiguous evidence of a miracle is the one that we don't see?

I think the reasoning is simple. Provide incontrovertible evidence that such an entity exists for me to believe.

Our knowledge about the universe places its age at about 14.6 billion years. We can estimate what it would have looked like up to about 10^-43 seconds after the event. And everything from there can be explained through natural processes.

There is no evidence that a conscious being created the universe and disappeared so soon after. Also, the possibility is questionable. I ask how such a complex being could have come from nothing (we are yet to see evidence of consciousness in the absence of matter), when theists day out is impossible for a simple point of energy to come from nothing.

If this creative being is not conscious then why call it God?

Do you have solid evidence of the mark appearing? I'm not calling you a liar but an extraordinary claim such as yours should require extraordinary evidence.

If anyone is looking for the meaning of 'psychological projection' they should check this thread out.

OLAADEGBU:
The duplication and rearrangement you refer to is only an experience in mutation which is a loss of regulatory information that allowed them to access an existing ability more easily. This experience again provided further understanding of mechanisms that bacteria use to adapt to varying environmental conditions. God designed bacteria to be "master adaptors" to survive and thrive in a Post Fall, Post-Flood world which can also be to our detriment when bacteria causes diseases as e-Coli does.

Funny that you'll call that a loss of information.

If you duplicate the statement I just made above and rearrange the letters, would that be a net loss?
The E.coli mutation clearly showed that life has the ability to create generic information.

It is completely absurd that you continue to deny the information that is available to anybody with an internet connection.

I'm done here.

OLAADEGBU:
The apparent birth of the new is only the rewiring of the old. The E.coli only demonstrated how to make the most of what it already had. It did not acquire a new genetic information as the duplication of an existing gene is nothing new. Mutations that land near on switches do not provide new raw material that moves bacteria in an upward evolutionary direction.

It was caused by the duplication and rearrangement of a particular genes sequence.

SidL:
The answer is neither AND both, simultaneously.

Ever heard of hermaphrodites? Presumably both Male and Female and yet, hermaphrodites are neither male nor female.

There is always a third option. That third option is that Atheism and Theism are both halves of the same coin of uncertainty about truths of existence born out arrogance and the need to be more correct than the other.

So like, Schroedinger's god?

OLAADEGBU:
The ability for humans to digest milk from birth does not "add" any new ability, all they do is to cause a malfunction in the automatic shutdown of lactose digestion in children. The mathematical shifting of gene frequencies within a gene pool cannot produce macroevolution according to your evolutionary concept.

It is not a mathematical shift. There's no trade-off. It is a new trait, analogous to additive mutation observed in E.coli bacteria.

otemanuduno:
Rain falls ontop your head, shouldn't commonsense tell you that the water is coming from somewhere? Just like when shit comes out of your yansh, won't you know by experience that shit is inside the body? Mtchew!!

This comment is unbelievably obtuse.

Rain comes from condensation of water vapour in the lower atmosphere. It's incredibly sad that you think it comes from the sky.

OLAADEGBU:
Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially because they lose information, they do not gain information. The changes caused by mutations are different from the evolutionary concept. The laws of Genetics are conservative and not creative.

False!
The ability for humans to digest milk was caused by an additive mutation which synthesized lactase.

OLAADEGBU:
Your so called upper limit is a dead end. Read the article in the suggested link to see why mutations can not be the mechanism for macroevolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/270/285

So where do they meet this dead end? You creationists like to skirt this question. How much change would we need to see to say 'This isn't microevlution but macroevlution'.
Unless you can come up with that, your point is undisprovable, and hence unscientific.

CltrAltDelicious:
Seven bottles of orijin for Johnydon22

Nigerian Breweries PLC!

OLAADEGBU:
"Microevolution" will never produce macroevolution - it is a fantasy in the evolutionists' mind.

Answer the question.

Joysmith2:
you are not normal

His words hit too close to home, right?

hopeforcharles:
Buddhism was never atheistic, rather it believes in many gods Brahma been the cheif-est, [color=#990000][/color]Well... No... He didn't... Monotheism (only one God) was a foreign concept to the Buddha, his world was filled with many gods. The creator god Brahma being the most important one.
Now about ur theism issh, that natural predisposition is the living consciousness of man that reminds him there is an intelligent creator somewhere his efforts in finding the creator made him indulge in many wrong moves to find the creator and purpose of his life that continues until the Jewish God came to show men the way to him.

Brahma exists in Hinduism, genius.

Unfortunately, OP's assertion is obviously steeped in bias and poorly researched as there are many atheistic philosophies that have existed from time (see: buddhism, jainism, carvaka etc).

Also, the so-called 'natural predisposition to theism' has yielded several conflicting theories of god, polytheism, human sacrifice, etc. How then does this prove that a god exists?