₦airaland Forum

jidxin:
.

Speculations my friend speculations science is all about speculations nd guess work now tell me how would u know if d child feels pains or not do they ve any recounted or accounted evidence from d zygote it's just like saying if euthenasia is really psinless or not ....im concluding on d fact dat life is life no matter wat stage it is....a child zygote or wateva has d rite to live under d natural sch of tot

Uh, can we really say that these are just speculations? Connections between the pain receptors and the cortex form at around the 23rd week of gestation.

Weah96:
I wasn't talking about a postpartum baby, but a fetus formed in situ sometime after a rape has occurred. The mother should have the right to terminate the life of the creature regardless of the potential outcome of a court trial.

So you're basically agreeing with me that abortion should be legalized?

Don't you think this thread is a teeny-tiny little bit racist?

LoJ:
Hey Whazz up bro? How u doing? Thank you for your post. It is edifying.

Why, thank you. I just wanted to put some things into perspective regarding this matter.

Weah96:
There are too many humans, period. And the only thing we're doing is fukkin. I say we begin to eliminate humans, reduce the number back to 5 or 6 billion. At the current rate of fukkin, drinking water becomes a SERIOUS problem in 30 years.

Now to the topic, rape babies should not be tolerated, unless the mother wants to keep the creature. In other words, the decision is up to the person carrying the fetus.

You're on to something there, overpopulation IS a problem. But your presentation was a tad too insensitive.

A 'rape baby' is still a baby, you need to understand that. And I agree with you the victim shouldn't need to keep the child.

But our world will never be ideal, because as humans we are limited.
For instance, a rape is reported, the alleged perp hasn't the right to a fair hearing, isn't it? The case makes it to court like 2 months into the pregnancy, this case can drag for a year or so. Let's assume that the victim doesn't want to keep the baby.

Now the baby has been born, and the perp is guilty, what next? Nothing can be done. If the perp is innocent, then the child is probably stuck with a mother who never wanted him/her, and consider that the mum is scummy enough to lie about being raped.

That's one of the reasons I think abortions should be legalized.

LoJ:
I'm pleased with what you wrote. How deep are those words. I do not 100% agree, but in order not to reduce the beauty, I quoted all. One more Proof that morality and religion are not synonymous.

Cheers

Not to be that guy who always looks at things scientifically, but anatomically speaking, foetus doesn't have the brain functions to feel any pain before 5 months of pregnancy. That is also the time the foetus develops cognitive abilities similar to newborn baby. In other words, that is around the time that if the baby is born prematurely, s/he can still be saved and still have all faculties develop properly.

So my view is, if for any reason an abortion is required, let it be before 5 months of pregnancy so that the process can be painless for the foetus.

asadike:
I am with TB Joshua on dis. If u were raped, see your doc and take precautionary measures immediately

This is definitely not a viable options for the have-nots, those living in rural areas, and adolescent victims.

andy48:
Hi Gaybo, "you clearly said you are not gay" doesn't mean you are telling the truth. Studies has shown that Criminals like you don't ever admit they are criminals until they are cut red handed. Insecurities over men like you faking their fellow men? Nahhh You are obviously confused. People like you will defend sleeping with their blood sisters because it now happen in the western world. You have been defending the gay act and insulting your father land for not accepting gays because the USA now accept it. I also lectured you on why we are not obligated to imitate the western world on everything and you became angry. If you continue with steady anal sex you will need Diapals like the Pics I sent you above and you can't go to the hospital to complain because na the nurse go stab you by herself. Can't imagine a Grown up man like you will take off his boxers for a fellow man to Fck him. Tufiakwa. If you can't change then remain in your closet because if you are caught men go beat you die oh. I warn you again Gaybo.

2/10. Your trolling needs improvement.

And your grammar is even worse

Why doesn't OP ever deliver?
.

.

.

.

.

.
.
.
.
.

[comment removed by moderator]


OP, please deliver.

.

treasureboy:
Mere seeing most males with their physiques, body structure, looks, pattern of movement and feminine disposal you would easily see tendencies of gay lifestyle manifestations in them as they grow in life.

Note that they were born with these feminine attributes in them, hence as time goes on they have developed interest for their fellow male intimacy instead of the opposite intimacy.

I just want to clarify that physique and body structure have nothing to do with sexuality.

Some gay men tend to effeminate though. Maybe to let people know that their gay. But not all men who are effeminate are gay.

I've always known that I am straight so I think it should be the same for homosexuals.

KingEbukasBlog:
Its a scientific myth . There has been no Fruit fly evolution even after 600 generations

I can't believe I have to post this again

William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciationin the common fruit fly. They collected apopulation of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats.
They then cultured two strains that chose
opposite habitats. One of the strains emerged
early, immediately flying upward in the dark
attracted to the acetaldehyde. The other strain
emerged late and immediately flew downward,
attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from the
two strains were then placed together in the
maze and allowed to mate at the food site.

They then were collected. A selective penalty was imposed on the female flies that switched habitats. This entailed that none of their gametes would pass on to the next generation. After 25 generations of this mating test, it showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. They repeated the experiment again without creating the penalty against habitat switching and the result was the same; reproductive isolation was produced.

KingEbukasBlog:
Its simple , the vast majority of the 8.7 million species are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

The article needs to be updated , there are actually 8.7 million species of animals/fishes/birds

The article used 'kinds' which better equates to genus or family, rather than species.

Anyway, your explanation still leaves a lot to be desired.
At 8.7 million species, if we subtract the animals that don't need saving (even though we have to ignore what differing salinity does to some of these aquatic animals)

We still have about 8.5 million species remaining. Considering that the ark couldn't have accommodated even 1 million that's some damning evidence right there.

KingEbukasBlog:
Lolz . I was shocked though at the errors ....

Simple ... because speciation was done during the time of creation . Each species seemed to be fixed. There seemed no way in which
one species could give rise to another . You are arguing from the evolution's angle - which says speciation occurs slowly over a long period of time - such has not been observed .

My keyboard's keys are messed up, I was hungry. So it was basically a recipe for disaster.

Speciation HAS been observed in fruit flies, actually, but it took 20 generations.

Anyway, there seems to be some confusion here and I'm don't really get where you're coming from anymore. So let me ask you, how did we move from 50,000 animals representing the genera we have today to 6 million species of animals in 4,000 years?

marcopollo:
Q: How could anyone look at all of
God's beautiful and majestic
creation and still believe that there is no God?
A: *They can't*. Now I know that
some readers may being thinking,
"What about atheists? Atheists do
not believe in God." But actually,
that is backwards. The truth is,
*" God does not believe in atheists."*
He basically says so in Romans
1:19-20:
.
"... that which may be
known of God is manifest in them;
*for God hath shewed it unto them.*
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; *so
that they are without excuse ...."*
.
So we all know that the eternally
powerful God exists, simply by
seeing all of the things that He has
created. This passage continues in
Romans 1:21-22:
.
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ...."
.
Later in this same passage, verse 32 says that *they rebel even though they are "knowing the judgment of God".*
There are many people who refuse to honor the One they know to be God as God. But there really is no such thing as an atheist. There are only people who claim to be.
.
Psalms 19:1-4, "The heavens
declare the glory of God; and the
firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. ...."

Those passages you quoted are talking about misotheists, not atheists.

onetrack:
I assure you that I exist, even though you can only see my writing on this site.

Quoting the Bible does absolutely nothing for me.

You can't prove that we don't exist! /s

If most atheists were once believers, then why do we still have believers? /s

I support LGBT rights so much that I've been accused of being gay a number of times.

But no, I just realize that they're people too. These people deserve their rights. But Africa is always too slow to accept people who break the mold.

And there's the problem, most of us try to be too normal and end up either average or mediocre. We need to learn to be more accepting of differing ideas and orientations that people may have.

Alan Turing was the man who helped break the Nazi encryption codes which in turn helped to end WWII. He saved at least millions of lives.
But how did he end up, jailed for homosexuality. They pumped him with all sorts of drugs to 'cure' him but the side-effects of the drugs made him slip into depression. The hero ended up committing suicide. Intolerance is such a sick thing.

People would quote the bible and the qu'ran to justify homophobia, but never ask themselves why their gods made them that way. I, for example, my heterosexuality is as ingrained in me as the black on my skin, I like to think it's the same for homosexuals. I don't know what I'll do if I'm forced to hide myself.

andy48:
Bro change now before it's too late. Don't be caught with pampas because men go beat you die oh. Lmao. I warned you.

You may be autistic. Because I clearly stated that I'm not gay but I still believe that homosexuals deserve rights like everyone else.

Also, there is no study that shows anal sex leads to incontinence. Does your ass leak when you take massive shi.ts? You should read more.

I can clearly see that your insecurity is written all over you, and you may be in the closet. So my word to you is, go and choke on your caretaker's cock, slowpoke.

KingEbukasBlog:
I dont get your point . You are arguing for species and Im arguing for genus . Lesser number of the total number of animals if the genus is considered , same for family (much lesser number of animals) .

I WAS arguing for species until you clarified that you meant
genera (genus).

KingEbukasBlog:
Evolve from what . The article does not postulate evolution , you are the one postulating evolution and you are having a mishmash of conflated ideas .

You've argued yourself into a corner. If you truly meant genera then HOW did those animals become the diverse species we have today? If not by evolution the HOW? The bible doesn't say another creation took place, so HOW?

EDIT: Grammar. Note to self: Don't type while hungry.

KingEbukasBlog:
I was not there so I can make only intellectual inferences

1. The young ones of most animals could have been taken in - they are smaller in size . E.g : young one of an elephant vs an adult elephant

We're already past this, by using genera instead of species, then you can reduce the number of animals to an acceptable 50,000.

KingEbukasBlog:
2. Some animals Noah did not take in may have survived the flood . Legends say men eg Tubal Cain survived the flood so animals may have survived too

Although the bible clearly stated that ALL other things died. I'll let this one slide

KingEbukasBlog:
3. kinds refer to genus , and species come under genus in the taxonomic rank . So 50,000 genus means more animal species were taken into the ark

What the article states, is that representatives of each 'kind' or 'genus' were taken. If they meant species then they won't have been able to beat the number down. Reread the article that YOU cited.

So my argument of the rapid diversification still stands.

Consider this, a genus known as the 'even-toed ungulates' we have includes the following animals: the giraffe, antelope, deer, cattle, hippopotamus, llamas, etc.
Now, if two (or seven) representatives were taken in by Noah, you're still telling me that in just 4,000 years the giraffe and hippo would evolve from a common ancestor. It's impossible to believe.

There's also the small matter of continental drift.

KingEbukasBlog:
Where in the article that evolution took place extremely quickly . Are you sure you read the right article ?

The article postulates that Noah put 50,000 land animals into the ark.

Now, scientists know we have about 6 million land animal species. But I used only 1 million in my calculations.

We know that this event took place about 4,000 years ago.

By inference, we can see tha 50,000 species became 1 million in 4,000 years.

My calculations gave me about 237.5 new species each year and 0.65 new species per day.

We have never observed an animal giving birth to a new specie.

Therefore, this scientific model is wrong.

italo:
Everybody can see that these things don't go together. The government is supposed to protect people of all or no creeds in a democracy.

Here, they basically saying that they're too discriminatory to perform that duty, therefore, Christian parents must suffer from it.

Promoting anarchy should not be equated to wanting to bring up your kids legally.

First thing, atheism isn't anarchy.

Second thing, are you even trying to make a point anymore? Should shaking your baby like a rag be legal?

Also, I'm sure you think this little thing of repeating my words is clever. Maybe it was the first time but now all I see is someone with no real argument trying to overcompensate.

We're done here.

KingEbukasBlog:
I dont want to deviate from the bible but some animals may have done a "Turbal-cain " during the flood event .

And the use of evolution BS - creation of new species - to refute a biblical story is asinine

Uh, not really, what that article is telling us is that animals evolved extremely quickly (mire than a new specie every 2 days!). That is impossible, factoring in gestation periods , your nbasically telling me that animals were giving birth to completely new species in each generation.

It doesn't add up.

KingEbukasBlog:
[size=2pt][/size]


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

This article took care of your questions

Not really, you clearly stated that the ark was big enough to accommodate all the species of land animals we have.

But what this article is saying is that instead of species, the bible meant 'created kinds'.
With the number of animals stated (about 50,000) this classification should equate to something like 'Family' or 'Order'.

Going by this, that means that this model requires evolution of these 'created kinds' to the variety we have today in just 4,000 years.

So, from 50,000 'created kinds' to 1 million (still underestimating here) in 4,000 years should equate to

(1,000,000-50,000)/4,000
= 237.5 new species each year.

237.5/365
= approx. 0.65 new species every single day.

Sorry, dude but we don't discover new species en masse like that (and remember that I'm still underestimating).

So, I can say that this scientific model is hopelessly flawed.

People use the Cambrian Explosion as a case against evolution considering that it happened within a time span of 20 million years. Isn't it disingenuous to say that all these species evolved in 4,000 years?

italo:
From what I read, the application was turned down because of concerns that registration could affect the "peace... [and] good order" in the country.

Doing something that can affect peace and good order in a country is retar.ded in Kenya and all over the world.

So is that really discrimination?

Everybody can see that these things don't go together. The government is supposed to protect minorities in a democracy.

Here, they basically saying that they're too incompetent to perform their duties therefore, atheists must suffer from it.

Beating your kids should not be equated to wanting to exist legally.

KingEbukasBlog:
Though NASA just released a video explaining what they expect extraterrestrial life to look like - microbes - conspiracy theorist have provided evidence that super-intelligent aliens have been spotted and NASA are obscuring the facts .

And what are their evidences : Ex NASA workers made those claims , videos of flying saucers etc .

So obviously the word 'evidence' is being misused these days .

Summary : There is no such thing as natural processes bringing forth the universe and its constituents into being and you are mistaking assumptions as evidences .

I know you that empirical evidence is different from anecdotal evidence and that all scientific theories rely on the former.

KingEbukasBlog:
Yup ... because the ark was big enough

Maths Time!

The Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high!

That's about 41,006 cubic metres or 1,518,750 cubic ft.

After some research, I found that the average land animal is about the size of a sheep.

Av. length of sheep: 1.3m
Let's assume that the av. height is half the length: 0.65m
Let's assume that the av. width is a quarter of the height: 0.1625m
Vol. of average land animal: 1.3 x 0.65 x 0.1625
= 0.12675 cubic metres

I already shot myself in the foot and stated that we have 1 million land animal species (when in actuality, we have about 6 million). But I'll use 1 million.
Now, let's assume that 40% of all land animals are clean (a gross over-estimation, considering that only ruminant mammals with parted hooves are considered clean). God told Noah to take 7 pairs:

Vol. of clean animals: 0.12675 x 400,000 x 7
= 354,900 cubic metres
Now we've already far exceeded the ark's volume.

Vol. of unclean animals: 0.12675 x 600,000 x 2
= 151,200 cubic metres.

Vol. of all the animals: 354,900 + 151,200
= 506,100 cubic metres

Obviously, we can see that this isn't viable. And remember, I grossly underestimated the number of land animal species we have and the number of 'clean' animals we have. I also failed to take into account living space for the animals to survive for 150 days aboard the ark (in my model animals are stacked together and living space completely neglected).

This also doesn't take into account food supplies needed, living space for the humans and stuff like that.

This is just a rough under-estimation and shouldn't be taken as raw fact. I just used this to give a rough picture of magnitudes of the variables involved in the story. Once again, it is grossly under-estimated.

KingEbukasBlog:
Then its settled you agree God exists and used evolution as a tool in creation . You are a theistic evolutionist ... good for you bro ... cool stuff

You can't tell me what I believe. I don't believe in your creation myths or stuff like that.
I don't believe in any god by default but think there's a small possibility that a god can exist, therefore I am open to review my beliefs as evidence comes my why. That is why I identify as an agnostic atheist.

italo:
In some (even democratic) countries, atheism is given superior rights to religion.

In Norway, a couple had all their five children taken from them because "they were too Christian."

Go and eradicate that discrimination.

I'm not missing any point. If you thing religious persecution is far smaller, why not eradicate it first, since it's easier to solve.

From what I read, the parents reportedly 'pulled their ears', 'slapped their buttocks', and 'shook the baby like a rag'.

Corporal punishment is illegal in Norway. Shaking a baby is retar.ded as hell in Norway and all over the world.

So, is that really discrimination?

KingEbukasBlog:
Faith is logical and scientific too . Many have blind faith in natural processes and randomness bringing forth complexity from simple forms . So not very scientific ?

Once again, there's good evidence to support such claims.
Aren't we supposed to actually learn something from these debates?

KingEbukasBlog:
I think bringing the fact the Noah's ark - argument have been debated for centuries to your notice killed your intentions . The Noah's ark argument have been if the flood event actually took place not even if Noah's ark could contain the land animals . Don't forget , some species are extinct

So exactly are you implying? Some animals aee extinct, that means there were even MORE extant species then? So how was he able to fit so many?

Or are you saying that there were actually fewer animals in the ark and they *gasp* EVOLVED to become the diverse species we have today, in just 4000 years?

biafranbaby:
Did you?

You didn't see me calling anyone a liar.

italo:
You want us to eradicate discrimination against Atheists...while ignoring persecution of religious people by Atheists?

You're trying to make me laugh, right?

You're missing the point. Religious persecution is a far smaller scale problem than persecution against atheists if you want to be honest.

We all know that North Korea and China are not truly democratic in their ruling. And we know that is where the problem is.

I could go on and list countries that persecute atheists in some form but obviously you're inclined to turn a blind eye towards it.

Can you say to yourself boldly that in general atheism is given equal rights with religion?

italo:
I never defended anything.

Don't be like that Jack bizle iddiot whose mind cannot process the smallest information.

Take a breath.

Listen to some soothing music (I suggest Death With Dignity by Sufjan Stevens).

Now, there's no need to get riled up here, all I'm saying is that if you can see that it's a problem then why don't you tell it like it is?

For example, any time feminists say that we need to make an effort to reduce sexual assault cases against women, some men always say that men can get raped too, so why aren't they talking about that? But they fail to realize that while this is true, it isn't nearly as common as cases where females are victims.

My point is, I'm not saying that there isn't a little bit Christian persecution in a few countries, but can we compare it to the widespread discrimination against atheists. Another thing is, just like my example above, you're only trying to undercut the situation by bringing up a less pertinent problem without regarding the problem at hand. This ends up solving nothing.

KingEbukasBlog:
Oh wise and intelligent one . Don't you think profound scientists and even christians may have debated on this issue amongst themselves OVER THE CENTURIES ? The evidence is all over the internet , you can get enlightened

The 'evidence' is usually along the lines of we KNOW God did it and we should have faith. Not very scientific if I do say so myself.

Besides, you're not defending your position in any way here, yet you blatantly call evolution a lie. Therefore, I can easily dismiss your argument since you cannot bring any evidence to the table.

Nice talking to you again.

italo:
Religion is also being discriminated by Atheists in North Korea and China.

But block-heads like you have never heard of those countries.

Very true, religion faces harsh persecution in North Korea. This country doesn't uphold human rights in any way and religious rights are no exception. We should all realize that people can be good or bad regardless of religion or lack thereof.

China, also puts harsh restrictions on religious activities. All worship is government sanctioned. Also less than ideal.

But at the end of the day, if you are bringing these countries' names up to complain about them, then why are you using them to defend this asinine ruling in Kenya?