₦airaland Forum

Weah96:
And the eyewitness is usually not the person providing the account.

Exactly, and we know what happens to the details of all stories after a number of retellings.

plaetton:
Correction.

We do not have freewill, or as free a will as you think.

We are encumbered by many many extraneous impulses, instinctive drives, biologically and psychologically driven needs and drives.

Our brain tricks us to accept our biologically and psychologically driven impulses as have been originated from wills.

Most , in fact, the majority of our acts do not originate from our Will.

I came here to say this. Increase my adrenaline: I go into fight-or-flight, increase my dopamine: I will see whatever activity I'm currently doing to the end, increase my endorphin levels and I'm more likely to repeat an action.

'Freewill' is probably just an illusion.

GooseBaba:
You can't be serious.... You asked about the guy op gave account on. And you want me to give you specific details on the exact device he used.

A general explanation is not the same as specifics.

In the end, it still stands that there is no objective evidence for the supernatural and that there is no explanation as to how it works. It only seems to exist in eyewitness accounts (which are known to be unreliable) that don't have enough evidence to be proven or disproven.

GooseBaba:
You're asking about intricate details of a particular device that I do not know how it was made and it's coded functions...

The answer lies with your personal visit to an herbalist.

If you didn't have details then why were you trying to explain how it works?

OLAADEGBU:
As if you know the difference between macro and micro evolution.

Micro evolution is an obscure term that has been popularized by creationists. It is where they shoehorn all experimental evidence of evolution. There are no defined upper limits for it.

Macro evolution is an unobtainable phenomenon to creationists since they'll just call undeniable evidence of evolution micro evolution.

In reality, evolution is evolution is evolution.

johnydon22:
hahahahahahaha chai... Episode 6 coming soon

Can't wait to see what happens next to our righteous slave owner!!

GooseBaba:
I think maybe because we are using the word charm. It's creating some mysticism.

This is simply science it has nothing to do with spirit world. You can toughen your skin with different substance. Just like you can smooth, darken or lighten your skin with different substance. Same thing done differently through ingesting certain herbs and traditional injection.

But if you're asking about the intricate details involved in gun or knife charm. I don't know. I certainly do not pocess such knowledge.

If he toughened his skin, then why did machetes work on him?

GooseBaba:
And when police officers in western countries get shot with their bullet proof vest on and they die from their injuries.. Errmm that makes it a myth too.

There's nothing like perfection. One is only seeking protection but knows that the inevitable may occur at anytime...

How do the charms work, then? Bullets exert far more force than blades so why would the charms fail to stop blades? Guns are also a recent invention so are these charms that seem to be tailor-made to specifically stop bullets also recent?

What I see here is that OP probably saw a man who was wearing a bulletproof vest that could stop bullets but couldn't stop blades (which is exactly how kevlar vests work.)

GSKing:
These people won't leave us to be in control of our own lives.

#BornThisWay

This country sucks. We're like 100 years behind, if you're different you get hated. I'm not gay but I honestly don't give a sh.it what anyone does if it doesn't hurt anyone. Unfortunately, enlightenment reaches us last in this region. Just stay safe in the meantime, there are people supporting your cause out there.

darkenedrebel:
noted!!

What? No apology? Show some etiquette.

horlumiday:
In other for atheists to ease up his fear , he had to determine if Christianity
is false or not , that is why they attack christians soo much even dough islam
has cause more chaos.
So to my atheists friends If you fear death, yet believe that God does not
exist, then you are being irrational.. Just let go of your pride....

Just answer the friggin' question!

goingape:
why do you find it offensive when someone called you an APE but yet still proving we originated from APE


your spirit is fighting that demonic theory.

gladly tell the world that your family have a genetic trace of APEs belonging to the gorilla species

Man did not evolve from ape. One modern specie doesn't evolve into another. They share a common ancestor. Please next time endeavour to enlighten yourself before speaking on a public forum.

I'll make a joke about the Holocaust. If he doesn't laugh, then I'll say:
"You should have been there to see it, dude!"

johnydon22:
Current girl friend is an atheist, A popular one here on Nairaland at that... I'm a lucky bastard

For my kids i intend to raise them free, they won't be atheists or theists, rather maintain that default stance we all have from birth which is Pure agnosticism.

When they grow to the age of reason they can develop their own ideas not feed them my own ideas

I'm so jelly right now!

opeaceo:
and why did Jesus "stop" the stoning of the adulterous woman since the Bible is the unchanging word of God?

that'sthejoke.jpg

opeaceo:
muhehehehehe, am I sleep typing?? You referred to this age, and I said don't confuse it with traditions and you quoted Deuteronomy??

Slaying of non virgins in this age, have you experienced it before?? No associations with unbelievers, have you experienced it??

You're right.

Which makes it weird. Why did those laws from the Bible (the unchanging word of God) stop being important?

Onyi42:
Hard mirror you are really a coward...you said religion thrives on fear and that you've overcomes that still yet you are afraid of letting us know your name..

It's called pragmatism, bro/fembro. You can't deny the amount of hate that is targeted towards atheists in this part of the world (see this thread for example).

Let me ask you something: can you hire an atheist?
Even if your answer is 'yes', you can't speak for everyone, can you?

So I would advise him to not reveal personal information online and say that accusing him of cowardice is wrong.

HardMirror:
Some guys are already frustrated.
"Op is a liar!!!"
"Op is fake!!!"
"Op was never a christian!!!"
"Op is still a christian!!!"
"Op has ran away!!!"
Blah, blah, blah

I have never seen sane people arguing with mad men on the road. And I have never seen people gather to thow stones at a tree without ripe fruits.

Let the ranters keep ranting.
Frustration don catch una.

Seems like your posts have put some people on their collective periods.

I wonder why people fail to simply relax and engage people with differing ideas.

jiggaz:
You no well oo... But wait make i ask... why are you Nigerian version of Atheists not proud of your Atheism in real life? Why don't you guys admit to Atheism in real life, abi una no gather liver? loool.

Nigerian Atheists are just bunch of confused people!! Lmaoo!! You people amuse me so much here on Nairaland!! Americans & Europeans are the real deal, you guys are just wannabes!! Same with OP.

Hardmirror abeg go sleep, you get malaria. Go take Fensic bro..... Deluded people.... loool.

Damn, you're so sensitive!

ElCount:
Really! Like are you for real?
Every animal is a transitional specie? Wow! You are even more ignorant of the theory than you could have imagined.

Here is a statement from Charles Darwins' book the origin of species "...if my theory be true, numberless
intermediate varieties... must assuredly have existed."

The truth is I don't know how best to really reply this your comment because its a truck load of contradictions and obfuscation.

At the bold
what are these series of transitional species that existed between the reptiles and the birds?

You're the guy who thinks, that animals just jump from one specie to another. You need to study exactly how evolution works.

I suggest 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins.

Come back when you know enough to argue.

ElCount:
I believe we can now agree that the archeaopteryx is not an intermediate/transitional specie according to your geologic column between birds and reptiles. Since you are implying that a singular specie can't act as a bridge between two separate species, the question now arises "What are the intermediate species that exist/existed between the reptiles and the birds?"

This is why I keep saying that you're just arguing against your own botched understanding. There's no singular transitional specie but rather a series of transitional species between two distinct species. Every animal is a transitional specie if you look at it. I just explained this.

ElCount:
So what? Did you just ask that question?
So if fossils of birds were found in earlier rock strata than that of your archeaopteryx according to your geologic column it then implies that it can't be a transitional or intermediate specie between reptiles and birds. You are so blinded in your arguments do you even read these things b4 you click the submit button? (I don't subscribe to the geologic column but you can't even see that it doesn't even support your argument)

Do you understand how this thing works at all? Do you think that one singular specie would act as a bridge between two separate species? No, speciation occurs in a gradient. Dude, look you're not paying for tuition.

ElCount:
Who said hypothesis must have at least some evidence backing it? Did you observe macro-evolution? A hypothesis remains a hypothesis, again try reading these things b4 you submit.

No such thing as macro or micro evolution it's just evolution unless you can come up with a defined upper limit for your so-called microevolution.

ElCount:
Again you were speculating on the symbiosis between the termites and the microbes and at thesame time trying to pass it off as scientific truth. This is exactly what the evolution theory is speculations, a dud, it never happened you guys hope it did.
Evolution is a continuous process yet we have to wait billions of years for macro evolution to take place. Don't bother with the micro evolution evidence thingy because I won't reply you on that.

I didn't pass of my speculation as truth. Instead I just applied a similar principle of the observed lizard transition that I cited above to this (a minuscule amount of the lizard's original diet was plant matter). The evolutionary changed just made them more effiecient in digesting it. Applied to the termites case it is possible that they began to eat more wood when the bacterium made them more efficient at digesting it.

UyiIredia:
http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-found-dinosaur-fossils/

So in the end it was actually the Hugh Miller story. Hugh miller, who is not a chemist posed as one to obtain fossils from a museum that had been contaminated with shellac (a form of preservative). He ran the tests on said bones and got skewed results. For some reason, the Institute for Creation Research (your source), who obviously
have no ulterior motives failed to mention this in the article.

That is why we let professionals do the job.

UyiIredia:
Well simple cases of adaptation do nothing to prove molecules to man evolution.

You mean cell to man as molecules are not living organisms and hence can't be said to undergo evolution due to their lack of genetic material.
But UyiIredia, you should at least define the upper limits of such adaptations rather than retrospectively
shoehorn all experimental evidence of evolution into simple adaptation (although adaptation is only distinct from evolution to creationists, disregarding the fact that they are both driven by mutation and natural selection).

UyiIredia:
Nucleic acids don't self replicate as far as I know. Even if it were true it won't prove abiogenesis. One has to show how environmental factors interplayed to produce the first lifeforms.

And that is why it is a hypothesis. I clearly stated that. Try to understand this time.
PS: Nucleic acids are self-replicating.

UyiIredia:
The First Cause has always existed in a form. I can't say the same of matter and life.

Well, energy can't be created or destroyed as far we know and we know that all matter is just condensed energy
, so it's possible that the first cause is energy. Any other hypothesis would require some form of evidence. It would then require further evidence to prove that this first cause is a conscious being. Good luck with that.

UyiIredia:
SMH. Go to Wikipedia's page on Mutations to see examples of additive and deletove mutations. You haven't said anything to rebut my point. Lenskis experiment involved additive mutations on a gene that allowed the E. coli bacteria use citrate in aerobic environs.

You know the meaning of 'usually' right? I said that mutations are USUALLY/MOSTLY neither additive nor deletive (ie: MAJORITY of them are neither). Stop misquoting me.

The experiment I cited showed that it is possible for a mutation with no observable effect to be built upon by another order to produce a new trait.

UyiIredia:
That's my point. They are still dogs, bananas and elephants never mind the changes.

But dogs share a common ancestor with wolves, foxes and other canines, and elephants with mammoths. In an experiment where foxes in captivity were selectively bred for tameness, after several generations, the foxes started to devolop dog-like traits, such as: drooped ears, spotted fur and standing tails. This gives credence to the fact that they indeed have a common ancestor
.

UyiIredia:
Incmpleteley assembled animals and the likes. Random mutations cannot make an organism perfect from the start yet all so-called transitional are perfectly formed species in their own right.

What the hell? Incompletely assembled animals? How exactly would an incompletely assembled animal live long enough to reproduce and have any chance of fossilizing?

And what's this business about fully-formed species? We don't have the luxury of millions of fossils to show every gradual trend. Also, you're the same person who'll see the great difference between a rotweiler and a chihuahua and yell 'they're still dogs' so why are you even asking this?

What made me irreligious was an unbiased read through of the bible while comparing it to today's reality (eg: God purportedly interferes wildly from about 4,000BC-100AD but suddenly stops that in favour of 'mysterious ways' in the present day). Needless to say, it fell short. Just like all other spiritual religions.

What made me an agnostic atheist was the unlikelihood of a complex and conscious being to exist before space, time, and energy. Conscious design will require the ability to receive stimulus, how can you do so when you aren't affected by the laws that govern the universe? It's like trying to hold a hologram. It almost certainly can't be possible. Furthermore omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence can't be traits of this 'god' when we relate it to the random catastrophes that exist on earth. Why should I worship a fallible entity that can't even properly communicate it's existence in the off-chance that a 'deity' exists?

OLAADEGBU:
And they are still false.

Stopped reading when I saw 'microevolution'.

ElCount:
Hmmm! So we will have to wait for a single rabbit fossil to be found in precambrian rocks before we can agree that evolution theory is a dud, as if to say if it happens you and your ilks will accept it.

Tch, let it be found. And not some fabricated ploy but a real one.

ElCount:
You have jumped in to tell me about archeaopteryx without even realizing that fossil of birds have been found in older rock strata than Archaeopteryx (that is if I am to subscribe to your geologic column) your evolution theory doesn't even support your argument with the archeaopteryx.

So what? This why I say that you don't really understand evolution. Several transitional species only give stronger evidence to show that a transition happened and they help us narrow down the period it occurred. So what exactly are you trying to imply here?

ElCount:
you ve gone ahead to say abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, but you have already told me earlier that there is evidence for abiogenesis, who can argue with such logic. Why do you guys do these things to yourselves?

But every good hypothesis must have at least sme evidence backing it. Also, didn't I say that it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt to become a theory? Are you intentionally misunderstanding me?

ElCount:
For the symbiosis relationship between the termite and the microbe, your argument does not follow, because from your argument there would be a time when the termite existed without the microbe, which means at that point the termite would be unable to digest wood and consequently any consumption of wood would be injurious to the termite or possibly kill it.
Now why would the termite consume something that would kill it? Or are you saying it kept on trying out the wood diet until one day it got lucky and met the microbe that saved the entire termite race?
I don't think the question involves irreducible complexity, its a simple question of which evolved first?

It eats decomposing plant matter, it's not a stretch to say that a little rotten wood won't enter into its diet, especially when food is scarce. It's possible that infected individuals would have fared far better than others during those periods. I'm just speculating though.

Asking which evolved first is a fallacy. If you truly understand evolution, you should know that it's a continuous process that doesn't end.

UyiIredia:
I don't need that when they are many other problems with evolution from its mechanisms to the total absence of actual transitional species. One problem for instance with fossils IS the presence of carbon in dinosaur bones. Some crationsost sevreatly did tests for carbon on dinosaur bones which turned out to yield positive results overturning the idea that dinosaurs are millions of years old. What was it if not fear that stopped the evolutionists from repeating the tests again once they found out what the creationists had done ?

What's your source? I just hope it's not that Hugh Miller thing that has been found out to be a hoax.

UyiIredia:
The archaeopteryx fossil is one of a true bird not a dinosaur-bird transitional. 'Nuff said.

A true bird with obvious reptilian traits. It's area of classification is just a function of the incomplete fossil record. It's bone structure has common features modern day birds alongside that of reptiles. Wherever it's classified does not change reality.
How is this even a point?

UyiIredia:
The analogy holds. You don't need a fanciful theory of universal common descent just because of some similiaritiea between species. What of their differences ? What of their ability to adapt which is what explains your so-called evolutionary shift in Italian wall lizards.

The ability to adapt is one of the driving forces of evolution and that's what causes differences. You basically just refuted your own argument. The lizards have shown just how fast isolated populations can diverge (eg: the change in the lizards' digestive system); also, we've seen speciation occur in fruitflies in the lab. So what exactly are you arguing against?

UyiIredia:
There is NIL evidence for abiogenesis. Even the scientists in the field are adamant that it's far from a settled science.

I said that it's a hypothesis, didn't you see that? By the way, under the right conditions, self replicating nucleic acids can self-assemble from simpler compounds. Synthesis of the protocell hasn't occurred yet.

UyiIredia:
Not if that designer is the First Cause. In that case, it needs no designer, by definition.

If a First Cause could come from nothing, then why not energy, matter, and life?

UyiIredia:
Fact 1) Random mutations, a principal evolutionary mechanism spoils the genome and is incapable of adding functional genetic information.

More like 'myth #1'. Mutations can be additive, deletive, or neither. Mutations are usually neither. Also, successive, additive mutations have been observed in Lenski's experiment.

UyiIredia:
Fact 2) Species through time have been shown since recorded history to be the same for thousands of years. They only reproduce after their likes

Really? Dogs? Bananas? Elephants and their shorter tusks? Are you kidding me?

UyiIredia:
Fact 3) There are no fossils of millions of evolutionary dead ends which should occur if species were cobbled through random mutations.

What comprises an evolutionary dead end? Every extinct animal should theoretically be considered one, right? If not, what exactly are you looking for?

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.