₦airaland Forum

ElCount:
For any theory to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable, can't say that about your evolution theory.

Dude, you claim to be educated on this subject, yet you make such ignorant assertions. Evolution is extremely falsifiable, for example, if a single rabbit fossil is found in precambrian rock, evolution would be disproved. But there have been ZERO occurrences of this, not statistically less but zero.

ElCount:
There's nothing scientific about the birds evolving from reptiles, nothing scientific about a plant cell becoming an animal cell just because you said it will happen in millions of years.

You've seen the archaeopteryx fossil right? 'Cause if you have, you won't say this, and if you haven't, then you don't know enough about this subject to argue for or against it.

ElCount:
Please the fact that similar processes occur in different animals doesn't mean that one animal is the ancestor of the other. there are saloon cars that run on diesel engine just like trailers and luxury buses that doesn't tell us that trailers, luxury buses evolved from saloon cars or that they evolved from lister generators, that argument doesn't follow when will you guys understand this?

Botched analogy, you're only arguing your own flawed understanding of this subject. Living organisms are comprised of self-replicating proteins that are capable of mutation.

The Italian wall lizard, when introduced to new environment was observed to make an evolutionary shift from insectivorous
to herbivorous in less than 40 years.

ElCount:
Evolutionists keep searching for evidences that they tend to obfuscate their ideas in yet more theories that need more evidence. Abiogenesis has no evidence whatsoever but you can believe it that's up to you but just try not to pass it off as science.

There is evidence for abiogenesis, but it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis and is distinct from the theory of evolution.

ElCount:
Well if scientist can't recreate a simple cell in a lab then its proof that life didn't originate by accident and if eventually they do it will be proof that life needs an intelligent designer to have existed and yet again that it didn't come by accident. So yes they are in a dilemma which I could really care less about.

If life had a designer, then that designer must be at least as complex as living organisms, this raises the important question as to who designed the designer? If the designer doesn't require a designer then why would you say that life requires one?

The fact that it hasn't been found out yet is not a valid reason to give up and abandon all research.

ElCount:
Evolution theory does not have a gap it has gapssss and shouldn't be called a theory in the first place its all speculations.

Once again, this is an opinion borne from your flawed understanding. If you seriously think so, then identify those gaps and formulate a hypothesis that doesn't have gaps.

ElCount:
I asked the OP several questions and she has avoided all of them one of which was the termite and the microbe in its gut that helps it digest wood which evolved first owing to the fact that both can't survive without the other? perhaps you could help her out because I believe they ve always existed side by side since inception

This is the main reason I answered this post. You're arguing for irreducible complexity, and claiming that one cannot survive without the other. But every symbiotic relationship can be explained simply, the bacterium benefited the termite by allowing it to digest wood while the termite would provide food for it, the infected individuals eventually took over the others by natural selection and they both became interdependent. In this scenario how exactly is this relationship irreducibly complex?

Oluwaseytiano:
Witchcraft doesn't exist. Although I wish the ones in Harry Potter exist, in fact I'd gladly accept to be one, waving my wand saying Experiamus!

Hermione Granger is mine. Stay away from her.

urahara:
U get thy facts from a story book .


.... Smh

Furthermore, I'll like to understand how a lake of burning sulphur can possibly interact with an 'immaterial' soul. Christians always tell us that the supernatural isn't affected by the laws of physics, how then can it interact with the physical?

Fighting witchcraft is a dominant part of the Christian belief in this part of the world. Why do you think this is so? What is your take on this?

CC: opeaceo, Oxytocin

KingEbukaNaija:
Atheists do the same to me . Do you know how many times I had to explain that God is not subject to his laws before I opened a thread for it or even explain the eternal nature of God . Do you know how many times I have discuseed about Noah's story before I did same with you .

Continue with the evasion . We all know those ancestors never existed but hey the lies have to be told right . That's why they are putative - assumed to exist or have existed , they aint real .

Oh, please! I decimated your shitty ark argument. All you could say was "the ark was huge!"
Unfortunately, you couldn't address the speciation problem or how kangaroos made it from the Middle East to Australia.

Don't make me puke.

KingEbukaNaija:
Evolutionists have told too many lies to buttress their dumb theory that they dont remember which lie is for which . Have you read an evolutionist reasons for emotions , consciousness and cognition ?

They make bold claims - evolution-of-the-gap - because they feel that such thing did happen .

How did we gain consciousness - evolution

How did we gain emotions - evolution

How did we acquire morality - evolution

Why are men physically stronger than women - evolution

They'll start telling cave man stories no one ever penned down or witnessed as rational evidence for their claims . CoolUsername I'm still waiting for proofs for the putative ancestors of whales and penguins . I think I should add camels to the list

Nah, I'm done with you.

Even if I answer, you'll just ask all over again in another thread. Revaluate yourself before mentioning me because schooling someone over the exact same point over and over gets old fast.

KingEbukasBlog:
Hey bro . Aint we going to evolve wings yet . Can't nature see that there are exiguous amounts of airports compared to the population of man .

-_____-

Mind officially blown.

realmindz:
1. Look at the design of a watch, it's purpose is to tell time but every part of the watch was intelligently chosen to serve it's very purpose, the springs, rotor, hands, case etc...Each very part carefully chosen, even the material science behind the watch is so brilliant. This definitely did not come by accident but by intelligent beings "humans". same goes to more complex designs such as cars, aircrafts, washing machines, computers, etc everything were created for purposes from the simplest of its various parts performing various functions brought together to achieve a machine to perform it's specific purpose.

The watch analogy is flawed. This is because machines are not made from self-replicating material that is capable of mutation; thus, making them incapable of undergoing evolution.
Airplanes don't go through competition, or predation and therefore have no reason or means to adapt. How then can we use machines as a parallel to living organisms?

realmindz:
Now let's consider the tiny creatures like an ant can therefore be said to be carefully design with its various internal organs, external features, abdomen, head, legs etc all well designed and fitted to perform different functions, now a more complex being like humans, with digestive system, reproductive system, respiratory etc . Dear aethist could this have been an accident or coincidence...?

The short answer is yes. This is because, within a population, there would be competition. So, a beneficial trait caused by mutation has the tendency to snowball through natural selection. Furthermore, since irreducible complexity is a myth, (Lenski's experiment shows bacteria gaining a beneficial trait after two successive mutations) then the refinement of the complex processes of living organisms can be achieved through natural selection.

realmindz:
Man thus live on earth, provided with water, oxygen, land to live on, food to feed, sunlight etc. even the gravitational pull on man is just exactly the sufficient force required. could all these have been mere coincidence or an accident?

Man just happened to evolve in a world that contains water and land. Man is by no means the end product of evolution, but rather a single frame in the motion picture that is the Universe.

We are by no means perfect, or more advanced than other creatures: the cheetah is faster than us, a one-on-one fight between a human and a chimp would leave the human in a pile of blood, pain, and defeat.

Also, we can see that the world isn't exactly fine-tuned to human life. Over two-thirds of our planet is covered in water. Useless saltwater. Radiation from the sun causes skin cancer in caucasians. We lack the early warning system that a lot of animals seem to have when natural disasters are coming. Our sight is restricted to seven colours alone while some animals can see infrared or ultraviolet light. The list goes on and on..

analice107:
LOlzzz. I need you to show from the scriptures where you read that children are going to hellfire? Oga, kids are not accountable for anything. Their spirits simply returns to God. So, pls come up with another cheap blackmail.

So it's ok to burn them on earth as long as they don't burn in hell, right?

orunto27:
Confession of a witch

-__________-

Just get your [url=biblehub.com/judges/1-19.htm]iron chariot[/url] ready and you'll be cool.

JMAN05:
who said fiery death

Sodom was destroyed with Sodom and brimstone.

JMAN05:
The life of little ones matter to Him. but the account implies that if ever such ones exist, they were not judged righteous also, either because of there conduct or there unseen heart condition. Only Jah can judge better.

It is also possible that if those assumed little ones died cos of there parents influence, they would be resurrected as unrighteous ones to prove there case as it were. Jah is a just God.

How exactly can an infant be judged as unrighteous and worthy of a fiery death?

lepasharon:
Lool..yall need sarcasm detectors

It's a good idea to put '/s' after a sarcastic comment. It can be difficult to detect sarcasm in written text.

IAmTobore:
And fact that you choose atheism is disgusting!

You're no longer trying to make a point. Could it be that you've lost this argument?

DeepSight:
You mean a beacon of stupidity and thoughtlessness.

You're taking life too seriously, slack your tie a little bit , undo your top button, it won't kill you.

This is purely satire at its finest, they make arguments that would be as convincing as those of mainstream religions if they weren't based on spaghetti, pirates, strippers, and beer volcanoes.

IAmTobore:
You shouldn't be bothered by it since you say GOD doesn't exist.

That's the point.

The fact that you'll support infanticide based on a fictional story is extremely bothersome.

IAmTobore:
This is moronic. Anyway when you sue GOD and GOD finally appears at court, let me know. Since that's what you and your fellow wuss want.

Can't sue something that doesn't exist. But the fact that you'll support that kind of behaviour because of your religion is a cause for concern.

IAmTobore:
Well if he is the one that creates life, then I see nothing wrong if he takes it. Afterall it belongs to him. And point of correction, destruction of Sodom and Gomorah wasn't aimed at the children, so that doesn't makes it infanticide.

Unbelievable! You're just unbelievable!

So that makes it ok to just kill innocent children all willy-nilly? I guess it's ok then for an organ donor to just knife up the he gave organs to, right? Is it also ok for an egg donor to just elope with her child right?

Secondly, your second point is flat-out despicable, so it wasn't infanticide because the kids were just collateral damage, eh? That's just sick and wrong.

The point still remains that the god you're defending here killed a large number of innocent children when he in his infinite wisdom and power could have found a better way to go about it.

IAmTobore:
Did you understand what I wrote? Were the kids the only one there? As an atheist, do you beleive in the story?

I don't believe in the story. But I find it rather disturbing that an adult who believes in it would try to defend infanticide.

So if you believe that your god possesses the traits that I listed, then why couldn't he find a better way to deliver justice without affecting the children?

KingEbukasBlog:
Nwanna , it is either evolution or intelligent design . There are no other possibilities . Welcome to reality

What about 'unintelligent design' (ie: how you came about)?

DeepSight:
Good point. However the sickness of creating a "church" of Flying spaghetti monsters for the purpose of jocularly mocking a church of an alleged human sacrifice for the atonement of sins - and incorporating same, does transcend all levels of sickness.

Eh. No. You don't see these guys strapping bombs to themselves, or covering evidence of child molestation. They're just a fun-loving bunch. They're also a beacon for the maxim of equality in our world today you can't privilege one religion over another.

IAmTobore:
You don't have to insult me or my belief before you make your point.

The Angels never went there to destroy the city. Though that was their primary mission. But they had a change of objective when they met Abraham. And the new objective was "savage the righteous and destroy the wicked". If you look at the story, you will understand that the angels had only made contacts with LOT when things got out of hand. They never savaged anymore persons after LOT. LOT was also lucky to have found the angels, if not he would have gone down too. There might have been righteous people too amoung those that were destroyed with the city. But they couldn't be saved.

The city was destroyed with "lava rain" (a rain of molten magma). I don't see how anyone could have been omitted from the destruction.

Now let me ask you; are you saying GOD should have pardoned the city because of the kids?

I'm thinking that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving god should think of a way to not incinerate kids to death.

VomeSchakleton:
I rather not go to a website which whole name and purpose is to be subjective. Its one thing to cite and it's another thing to interprete.

Then go straight to their objective source and draw your own interpretation.

dorox:
I won't be surprised if the church building does not have a lightning conductor.

But.. But.. What about faith?

urahara:
It only makes that the prescence of delicious sphagetti in the world could not have come by chance .an omnipotent .omnipresent.omnigayhating flying sphagetti monster has to exist

BLASPHEMY!!!

Lord FSM isn't intimidated by homosexuality, His Noodliness accepts all!

VomeSchakleton:
lol! its a subjective and unreliable website, just like its counterpart. answeringchristianity.com

It cited the Sahih al-Bukhari, one of the six major hadiths used in Islamic mythology. Those are some really good sources, if you don't want to read the article, then go it's sources.

VomeShackleton, the argument has become rather wordy and difficult to reply at this time. But I'll still like for you to follow the sources cited in that article that I linked you to. It is what you may call 'a diamond in the rough'.

I haven't seen God but I've seen spaghetti.

johnydon22:
Hahahahahahahaha Don't worry na El Rufai things sure pass Person no go sleep for them again? them no fit praise am when it's dawn abi the praise go spoil?

Abeg who carry El Rufai number

Just dial '666'.

KingEbukasBlog:
To coordinate mental activities ?

At least to process and interprete stimuli.