DaughterOfAllah's Posts
Nairaland Forum › DaughterOfAllah's Profile › DaughterOfAllah's Posts
1 2 (of 2 pages)
 Family › Re: Leave My Lovely Husband Alone – Woman Defends Her Husband After He Beat Her by DaughterOfAllah: 3:04pm On Jan 26, 2025 |
"Yes, I hear Stockholm Syndrome is very nice this time of year." Michael De Santa, GTA V |
| Politics › Re: Simon Ekpa Of Nairaland Is Actually The Real Simon Ekpa. by DaughterOfAllah: 2:29pm On Jan 26, 2025 |
Ridiculousness. |
| Romance › Re: Nigerian women brings more to the table than Nigerian men by DaughterOfAllah: 8:17pm On Jan 25, 2025 |
The Bible is so inconsistent, you can find passages both in support, and against feminist ideologies. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jehovah Allah: Lagos Temple Where Worshippers Sing Hymns, Recite Quran by DaughterOfAllah: 8:05pm On Jan 25, 2025 |
😂 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Sharia Law Is A Pre-islamic Arab Culture And Tradition by DaughterOfAllah: 6:23pm On Jan 21, 2025 |
advanceDNA:Which one is "you Muslims", again? Oga, I've already told you that I'm irreligious and don't subscribe to any faith. My only purpose in this topic is to illuminate the glaring contradictions and dogmatic contortions that underpin all your arguments so far. I've already declared my position on this topic, so trying to pigeonhole me will just be an exercise in futility for you. You're all too happy to decry Islam as a pale imitation of Christianity, forgetting that Christianity itself is a direct offshoot of Judaism. So tell me, advanceDNA, by your own twisted logic, does this invalidate Christianity? Think carefully before you answer this because you might just end up scoring another own goal and drawing the curtains on your very own argument with your next rejoinder. u appear to be clinging to straws in a bid to defend what u claim u are no longer part of.....this is classic Muslim behavior...if u ask a Muslim why they kill innocent non-muslim, blowing up plane, using suicide bombers on planes and other places in the name of Allah in 2025, he will look for where Israelites went to war to justify it...Abeg focus on the egregious missteps you've made in your argument, and stop desperately trying to foist and saddle unrelated and unfounded characteristics on to me. The quaint habit of Muslims dredging up historical Christian conflicts to justify their own violence is not my kettle of fish, as it bears no equivalence to my critique of your double standards. You're shooting blanks here, my dear. u claim christians text are copies...please if u have any pre christians text where there are accounts of of the gospel of Jesus, his miracles, message, disciples, their acts, and even the old testament, which includes the message of the creation , the chronicles of kings, and prophets' prophesy pointing to Jesus's coming, events to come in the future, etc please show it hereWell, Christ is a central figure in Christianity so obviously there would be texts prior to Christianity detailing the life and times of Jesus Christ. But please consider, the concept of gods resurrecting - a concept that has been explored countless times, long before Jesus even existed. Consider the stories of Osiris in ancient Egyptian mythology or Dionysus in Greek mythology. Christianity didn't introduce that concept, did it? Even the ethical teachings that Christians attribute solely to Jesus, such as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others, what you want done to you"  , was ripped off directly from Confucius teachings and rephrased. The New Testament itself contains numerous references to the Old Testament, often reinterpreting or recontextualizing Jewish scriptures to fit the narrative of Jesus as the Messiah, so the practice of reinterpreting older texts is not unique to Islam as much as you want to insist it is, because Christianity has been doing the exact same thing ever since its inception.Early Christianity also borrowed directly from Greco-Roman culture, retrofitting the beliefs to suit their own doctrine. Read: Plato, one of the most influential philosophers of ancient Greece, left a lasting impact on early Christian theology, particularly in his ideas about the nature of reality and the soul. Plato’s theory of the Forms, which posited the existence of an eternal, unchanging realm of perfect ideals, provided a framework for Christian metaphysical concepts, such as the nature of God and the distinction between the material and spiritual worlds. In Plato’s thought, the material world is a shadow or imperfect copy of the true, eternal reality of the Forms. This dualistic view of reality resonated with early Christian thinkers, who similarly distinguished between the material world, which was seen as temporary and flawed, and the spiritual realm, which was eternal and perfect. The Christian concept of heaven as an eternal, transcendent realm can be traced back to Platonic ideas of a higher reality beyond the physical world. Plato’s views on the soul also found their way into Christian theology. In Platonic thought, the soul is immortal and preexists before birth, temporarily inhabiting the body before returning to the realm of the Forms after death. While Christianity rejected the idea of the soul’s preexistence, it embraced the notion of the soul’s immortality. The belief in the resurrection of the dead and the eternal life of the soul became central tenets of Christian doctrine, echoing Plato’s emphasis on the soul’s eternal nature. https://www.greecehighdefinition.com/blog/2024/9/6/the-influence-of-greek-philosophy-on-early-christianity-how-ancient-thinkers-shaped-christian-thought And that's not all, the link above goes on to enumerate how Aristotle and the Stoics also influenced Christians' morality and ethics, and even their perception of their God. .. ..... The Quran, on the other hand has most the account of scriptures and conveniently left out text they don't want to contradic the Quran..i mean...its the same pple abraham, moses, joseph, Jesus ....but u now added of Haddit and the unholy life of the prophet, claiming its God instruction...I want to assume that you truly are ignorant of these things, and that you're not just being a hypocrite who wilfully denies inconvenient truths that don't help his bizarre narrative. You keep tripping over yourself with these point blank pronouncements that only serve to reflect your lack of self awareness. Christianity, just like Islam, has its own sordid history of scriptural cherry-picking and theological gymnastics, aimed at fashioning a single narrative and avoiding self-contradiction. Or have you never heard of the Gnostic gospels? Have you never heard of the Nag Hammadi texts? For crying out loud, early Christians like Marcion and Valentinus, had their own unique interpretations of scripture, which mostly sought to elevate the spiritual over the material, and they tried to solidify their views by selectively borrowing from older texts, discarding those that didn't align with their mystical views. The old Christian church, while in its formative years, served as a hotbed of all manners of competing ideologies with varying scriptural interpretations. The canonical Bible as we know it today was not solidified until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, and even then, disputes over orthodoxy persisted! my observation is greater than few and it's not an attack......I have been seeing this pattern i mentioned in muslims, both in person and great number online since i was child but want to invalidate it with few...don't all muslims constantly go into the bible to say Jesus is not God..thats just one example.....but yet its few Muslims as u tried to lazily exolain my point away...The conclusions you've drawn from your so-called "observations" will never be tenable, no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself because you're making blatant assumptions based on incomplete, cherry picked data. If you really wanted to drive your point further and establish it as gospel, you cannot hinge your claims on your anecdotal experience. That's rank intellectual dishonesty coupled with laziness! Any individual taking into consideration the behavior of some Muslims, and seriously extrapolating those behaviors to mean that it is indicative of all all Muslims, is committing a laughable non-sequitur only lends credence to his juvenile logical posturings. immunize?? I am responding to your counter opinions...so how am I trying to immunize myself.??Oga let's not play dumb. What you wrote there, coupled with the tone in which you delivered it, is clear to see and read. The disclaimer you promptly submitted was an obvious move to shield yourself from accusations of Islamophobia, while still having the liberty to make sweeping generalizations about Muslims and what they do. Just like racists who would try to preface their arguments by saying, "I'm not racist, but...", before going on to deliver a racist take so harsh and abrasive, it hurts the eyes to read. So yes, in the same vein, you were trying to eat your cake and have it too. Please, we don't need to flip the script with this rhetorical jujitsu you just conjured, because you'll only end up landing on your face. u dont get it... Reference is a good thing, the new testament draws reference from the old but doesn't call it false...Aside from the fact that you're seemingly desperate to slap the Muslim label on me by any means necessary, in spite of my protests to the contrary, I don't see anything particularly useful to respond to in this paragraph. I will however, note that it's a tad convenient for you to say that referencing preceding texts is acceptable, but only if the validity of those texts are reinforced, as opposed to being challenged. Of course, it will afford you and your brothers the luxury to sidestep the glaring issue of the New Testament's frequent contradictions, in addition to revisions of the Old Testament's narratives and commandments. LOL. Smells like cognitive dissonance, with wilful self-deceit in tandem. I mean it's funny.... Muslims will claim Jesus in not God, Paul is liar, John, mark, Luke are false..then u guys will look for text in the same bible where John, mark and Paul spoke and use it to back up the Quran.... its absurd....Is it wilful dishonesty, or can you really not see how you're ripping into your own position, with these statements that, no offense intended, lack self awareness? okay... what's the central gospel of islam?? The way Christians have theirs, please ma, go ahead and preach islam to me without trying to pull another religion down or claim your prophet is the last so that he can't be contested..No wahala. The Quran's core theme revolves around the concept of Tawhid (the oneness of God), demonstrating Allah's transcendence and uniqueness, eschewing the polytheistic worldview and condemning it for obvious reasons. Do you see anything condemning Christianity in that brief summation, hmmm? If I'm being honest, it's very sad that I have to point out such obvious banalities to you because you're either ignorant, or you pretend to be. What's even more sad is that you elevate yourself in this discussion with a false sense of superiority, trying to dictate the terms of engagement, and you've somehow developed a blind spot to the bizarre contradictions and inconsistencies in your own theological framework. Nawa! criticism or pointing out flaws is allowed.....but going into another persons text and calling it lies is what I mean by pulling down....I mean , show me any other religion in the world religion that pastes a banner in front of their place of worship that Allah is not God or mohammed is not a prophet....thats like blasphemy in islam ...yet u muslims do thatToor. No be today una start to dey fight mumu fight. As a detached observer by virtue of my non-belief, I don't lose any sleep over this. Squabbles between you guys is not really my business. Christians and Muslims to me are just ignorant circus acts, pointing out their respective defects, but clueless to the fact that they have way more in common than they wish to believe, further underscoring the irony of their own hypocrisy. I ddnt use that analogy as an attack because I notice that's all u think......it came from the premise of my earlier observation that you muslims always try to invalidate christians to give your religion credibility.....just Imagine ur islamic brothers and scholars distorting another religion's text by claiming Jesus' promise of sending the holy Spirit to his disciplines is false and that holy Spirit is Mohammed....if u can ponder on this well u will understand why I used that analogy....Haba na! But DNA, you said that Muslims are always trying to invalidate Christians to give their own religion credibility, abi isn't that what you said? So why are you trying to convince yourself (not me) that this isn't precisely the same thing you're doing by asserting Islam has "no message and no gospel"? Abeg, where is your mirror? again u are clinging to straws with no evidence just becos u desperately want to provide an equal counter criticismLOL. Really, DNA? You really believe the Bible is authentic, huh? Tsk. You see, evidence is the currency of the intellectually honest, and judging from our correspondence, I dare say I'm operating on a higher budget than you. Unlike you, everything I've said is facts that can easily be verified with a 5 second Google search. quote me when u can provide evidence of pre-bible text that shows there was already a jesus, the old testament prophets, their prophecies, the creation story, and the coming of Jesus and his prophecies of things to come, then i will apologize that i said u are just clinging to straws...until then...u are just clinging to strawsThese aren't exactly secrets, my dear. I've touched on a couple of instances already in previous posts but let me double down just a little, without getting too exhaustive, and taking up space. 1> Ever heard of the Babylonian Enuma Elish? Not only does it predate the biblical account of creation by several centuries, but it bears striking similarities to it to the point that many allege plagiarism by the Bible. 2> There's also the flood myth, originally found in various forms across ancient Mesopotamian and Greek traditions. 3> The issue of prophecies is a bit more interesting. To that end, I'd recommend that you peruse the works of scholars and historians like Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus Flavius - all of whom wrote, quite extensively, about Jesus, but without referencing any supernatural or prophetic elements. As a matter of fact, those prophecies are unfounded post-hoc rationalizations and interpolations, cleverly woven into the narrative by redactors in later Christian climes. I do not wish to outdo myself and risk getting banned by the spambots, so I'll just end it here, for now. I believe I've satisfied the bare minimum requested here. i will ask u for evidence of this claim in the bible but i know you don't have it...It doesn't have to state them explicitly in the Bible. All the evidence I alluded to in that paragraph doesn't reside in the Bible itself, but in the historical records of early Christianity. The fact that you're unfamiliar with the records does nothing to taint their validity, even 1 bit. Early Christian communities used various pagan symbols like the Ichthys, the Staurogram, the Chi-Rho etc, some as art, and some as clandestine signals in times of persecution, but I'm not going to hold my breath, expecting you to actually engage with these historical sources, as I suspect that you seem to be far more comfortable in your echo chamber of biblical literalism, where the only "evidence" required is a selective reading of scripture. no it's not curious... who cares about what any random person chose to celebrate on the particular day or period and another person is celebrating something else in the same period.You have to care oo, my dear, because those pre-existing festivals I mentioned, which happen to involve common Christmas traditions we know today like gift-giving and feasting, cast an encompassing shadow of doubt over your claims to uniqueness pertaining to the celebration of Jesus' birth. But it's weird that u are using the same Box idol worshippers use and kiss the black stone in the Kaaba like pre-islam idol worshipper did, throw stone Satan like they did, and match round the Kaaba counter clockwise like the idol worshipper pre-islam did....and what's more weird is ur prophet passed these practices down to u as followers as God's instruction of worshipping God...and it's weird that you keep arguing off point instead of actually addressing my actual points. Please face my actual arguments and stop fighting ghosts. Your penchant for fabricating fiction about what I believe or practice is a very transparent tactic you've chosen to resort to, which I have to say, is really a damning testament to your hapless navigation of this discussion, where you're clearly wading in waters far beyond your depth. Address your concerns here to an actual Muslim. I'm only here to remove the large bark of Iroko in your eye, even as you remove the speck in others! yes i can ignore it because all ur claims have no evidence in any part of Christian worship both from Jesus, the prophets of old testament or the disciples of jesus ...Actually you can't ignore them, DNA, because guess what? History and culture are the very fabric that gives context to your cherished scriptures. In religious apologetics, this is a well known, and generally accepted sentiment. You don't ignore culture and history, as though they were optional extras. So while you persist in cherry-picking scriptures to suit the narratives you wish to promote, while ignoring the complex, messy, and often contradictory historical record, please remember that you're not actually arguing for your faith, but for a fragile, subjective, fundamentalist fantasy. u summary is wrong and U miss my point and highlight by a few light-years......See..the truth is...i wouldn't have noticed what's in your Quran or religion...like I don't notice Buddha, or Krishna or Sango or obatala's religious text.... But your religion is the only one thats a clear direct copy and still desperately trying to tag the same faith and texts it copied as false and u do it to give credibility to ur own religion and prophet.....whats more, u go as far as killing other innocent pple in the name of God in modern times and attempt to impose ur religion as national law like ur prophet did years ago in medina......Are you going to take the time to read your response in this particular paragraph again, and see how you're further solidifying my point about moral victories, or do I have to do everything around here? LOL. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: There Will Be Only Male And Female In The US - Donald Trump by DaughterOfAllah: 6:18am On Jan 21, 2025 |
Who cares how many executive orders Trump signs? Most of them will be fleeting, fanciful footnotes, nullified by the courts. Some people never learn. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Sharia Law Is A Pre-islamic Arab Culture And Tradition by DaughterOfAllah: 1:54am On Jan 21, 2025 |
advanceDNA:Fair criticisms overall. Two things to note though: 1> You argument commits a genetic fallacy, positing that because a practice has historical roots in a particular culture, it therefore invalidates it. That's a short-sighted and lazy way to address the topic. Humans are pretty much creatures of ritual and symbolism and our cultural practices over time have evolved and adapted, and are now mostly imbued with new meaning. 2> What puzzles me with your entire position is the fact that you don't seem to see how these exact same charges you've levelled against Islam could be similarly applied to Christianity. Your own scripture, the Bible, is replete with countless examples of borrowing, adaptation, and syncretism from pre-existing mythologies and cultures! Surely, you do not suppose that the ancient Israelites invented monotheism in a vacuum? The early Christian church was deeply influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, Mithraic mythology, and the cult of Sol Invictus, among other pagan traditions. The Hebrew Bible draws plenty of influence from Zoroastrianism and Egyptian mythology to name but a few. These are facts very well documented by religious scholars and biblical historians, and I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone were to dismiss Christianity as a "poor copy" of ancient Greek or Egyptian mysticism. And that's why the followers of islam always try to invalidate christians and Jewish text in order to give validity to their religion...Attacking Islam may not have been your aim, according to you, but take a minute to notice how you've already proceeded to peddle a gross generalization about Muslims because of a few choice encounters, while prefacing your statement with a token disclaimer to immunize yourself from criticism. The problem with painting an entire group with a broad brush is that it's way more easier to fall victim to confirmation bias, where you mouth off statements that are not entirely informed and masquerade it as objective commentary. More importantly, this is yet another example of you accusing Muslims of the same thing Christians are guilty of! Why should the fact that Muslims try to invalidate other religious texts be a big deal to you, especially given the long and storied history of Christian apologists doing precisely the exact same to Islam? .if u look well.......islam has no message, no gospel....ask a Muslim to preach the message of Quran and the highlights of his words will be pulling down Jews & Christians...telling you jesus is not God.......Lol.....its like a politician tackling opposition party to sell his party....As someone who spent practically her entire life as a Muslim raised up north, growing up in a very religious household, I can state with conviction that this statement is false! Again, I don't know what kind of Muslims you've come in contact with but your claim is simply not true. Islam has a clear message and/or gospel, in line with the Quran's central theme of monotheism, as well as the prophetic tradition. So I find this assertion to be very dubious. I've already addressed your concerns about Muslims' trying to "pull you guys down" by pointing out the fact that you guys criticize Islam too, and just as fervently. One thing in your response that made me chuckle though was your analogy about political parties. I daresay it's a perfect instance of pot meet kettle, which curiously you're partaking in, using a flawed argument to try and discredit Islam. sadly the quran presented itself as an oversimplified copied text off existing books, everyone looking well can see it except Muslims themselves..The Quran is not original or unique, I concur. But so is the Bible. I hope you are beginning to appreciate how your criticisms against Islam backfire in more ways than you think? i am not aware!!!.... There are no such instructions in the bible to believers, both in the old and new testament ..unlike the quran where they are directly presented as islamic religious practice from Allah...Whether such instructions were codified into your holy scriptures is ultimately irrelevant. The fact remains that early Christians did indeed use such symbols, which caused charges of idolatry to be laid at their door by their detractors. Especially with the cross, which while not being universally accepted, even among early Christians, became a ubiquitous symbol of Christianity. I haven't even touched on the holidays! (Christmas & Easter). Isn't it curious to you how the "birth of Jesus" coincides with the ancient Roman festival of Saturnalia and the Germanic festival of Yule? And then the early church, in all its infinite wisdom, and in an attempt to convert the heathen masses, decided to co-opt these existing pagan celebrations, incorporating their traditions and symbols into what you guys now call Christmas. Easter bunnies and Easter eggs both have their roots in pre-Christian, pagan fertility rituals. like i said earlier...weda candles or use of cross, or wateva...I am not aware...You can't just conveniently ignore all the historical and cultural contexts of Christian practices over time and just cling to a literal interpretation of a book that, curiously enough, defies any attempt at literal interpretation, LOL. I believe so far that I can surmise your entire position as an attempt to try and assert some form of moral victory over Islam by ascribing the pagan epithet to Islam, and in the same breath, forgetting that your own religion has its pagan roots as well. Far be it from me, as a non-believer, to prescribe how believers should behave, but don't you think true faith should be found not in condemning other people's beliefs, but in getting to understand yours better? 1 Like |
| Politics › Re: Why Kemi Badenoch’s Remarks Won’t Affect Nigeria – Daniel Bwala by DaughterOfAllah: 12:16am On Jan 21, 2025*. Modified: 1:59am On Jan 21, 2025 |
Rossikk:Your request for me to shut up is duly noted, and promptly ignored. I will abandon the argument if and when I please. ''CORRUPTION BLAH BLAH...''...the sound of intellectual bankruptcy. HOW COME CORRUPTION DID NOT PREVENT THE GOVT BUILDING THE SCHOOLS THAT EDUCATED YOU AND YOUR FADA.Poverty mentality has truly got you in a headlock, my dear, sweating and defeated. Just listen to yourself! You mean the schools where students are more likely to learn how to cheat than how to think critically and come up with practical solutions to real world problems? Hmmm? You mean the schools where lecturers are more interested in lining their pockets with bribes from the students than actually encouraging said students to discover their gifts, and imparting knowledge in them, hmmm? You mean those schools from which low grade, low rent, low effort graduates are churned out with certificates that are more decorative than indicative of their actual competence? Are those the schools you're referring to? SMH. My pity for you cannot be quantified! You're clueless, naive, blind as a bat, and can't see the forest for the trees, to understand that when a system is more focused on perpetuating itself than on providing good and quality education, it churns out painfully mediocre graduates that are about as useful as a chocolate teapot, and are handicapped and/or ill-equipped to survive in the rarefied atmosphere of the global market. OR THE ROADS AND BRIDGES YOU PLY?Of course you will celebrate cherry picked instances of infrastructure development when the overwhelming majority of our federal roads are death traps, in testament to the government's ineptitude and non-chalance. When last did you pass the Kogi road at Okene going to Abuja, my dear? Funds meant for infrastructure development are embezzled, year in, year out. Are you going to play dumb, or are you really that clueless with the current state of affairs? The same corruption that has left our major roads remain in a deplorable state is the exact same corruption that allows Boko Haram insurgents, herdsmen and militants to procure arms and wreak havoc on innocent civilians plying these dangerous roads. But of course you have no idea because you choose not to open your eyes and use your head, leaving common sense to linger and hover outside your brain like a tantalizing mirage. OR THE HOSPITAL YOU WERE BORN IN? (ASSUMING YOU'RE EVEN A NIGERIAN)Of course, those hospitals where the elevators only work on Tuesdays, and where the doctors are always on strike, and where the medical supplies are minimal or out of stock, and where you get referred to 13 other hospitals before you can come across proper attention and treatment to your ailment. 🤡 OR THE DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT ALLOWS YOU TYPE YOUR FILTH?Do I really need to go into detail here on the abysmal telecommunication services in Nigeria with the constant grid shutdowns and power outages? Most Nigerians are well acquainted with these challenges, except this sad bum right here. LOL. OR YOU THINK ALL THOSE THINGS DROPPED FROM THE SKY?Given how clueless you are on how much of a stranglehold corruption has on nearly every sector of the economy, I'm starting to think you are the one who just dropped from the sky, like a clueless buffoon out of his element, plunging head first, straight into Tinubu's cold, dry anus. WHY DIDN'T CORRUPTION PREVENT ALL THE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT GOING ON IN THE COUNTRY, FROM REFINERIES ROARING BACK TO LIFE TO RAILWAY NETWORKS EXPANDING LEFT, RIGHT AND CENTRE?Your logic is just embarrassing, with all due respect, and I mean this with the most sincere of hearts. Intelligent people don't reason like this! You might think you're posing poignant questions to prove your point, but realistically the only thing you're revealing is the unflattering truth of how naive and gullible you are, and that's why these nefarious politicians use the heads of people like you to play "kalo kalo". The fact that Nigeria has managed to muster some semblance of development despite being mired in corruption is just proof of the resilience of the Nigerian people as a whole. Nigerians are just naturally strong willed and resourceful and that's how we've managed to keep our heads above the waters. We would go much further in every of our endeavors if it weren't for the insidious tendrils of corruption slowing us down. So, do yourself a favor and stop deceiving yourself that corruption is somehow compatible with development. Such preposterous logic only betrays you as an unintelligent individual who knows no better! IMBECI.LES. JUST TAKE YOU ROTTEN MINDS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY,.Tsk, tsk, tsk. Look at you. Infamous keyboard warrior, armed with an arsenal of ALL CAPS and ad hominem attacks. It's a wonder how you don't exhaust yourself from all your toxic insults and rants. The image that comes to my mind is of your keyboard, soaking wet with the fervent expectorations of your impassioned typing. SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS doesn't make your arguments or statements any more convincing, it only accentuates your delinquency and rétard. WE DON'T NEED YOUR NASTY TYPE, YOU AND KEMI BADLUCK THE WHITE MAN'S SLAVE.True "nastiness" is the shameless and blatant support from those who willfully enable corrupt systems, perpetuating inequality and injustice, with trashy arguments no less! So keep on deflecting and demonizing those who dare to speak truth to power, if you think it will stop the bitter truth from haunting your waking hours. Now, should I return to this thread and discover your next response to be absent of convincing counterpoints from your end and full of capital letters and bitter insults, I'll simply take it that your argument has been sufficiently discombobulated, and that you're left with no other resources than to lash out in animalistic pain and torment. Which will it be? Let's wait and see. 😂😂 |
| Education › Re: You WON'T BELIEVE Which Country Is the MOST RELIGIOUS on Earth! by DaughterOfAllah: 10:40pm On Jan 20, 2025*. Modified: 12:24am On Jan 21, 2025 |
Nigeria in the top 5 most religious. LOL. A fat whole of good it has done for them! Please, don't make me laugh. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Your Flesh Is The Biblical Hell. Or An Aspect Of It by DaughterOfAllah: 10:36pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
diamond68:Proves nothing. Don't waste my time please. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Your Flesh Is The Biblical Hell. Or An Aspect Of It by DaughterOfAllah: 10:32pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
diamond68:...and this is a lie by the way. Don't pretend to claim knowledge on things you know deep down that you don't. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Your Flesh Is The Biblical Hell. Or An Aspect Of It by DaughterOfAllah: 10:30pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
diamond68:Oga I'm not Muslim. Leave me alone. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Your Flesh Is The Biblical Hell. Or An Aspect Of It by DaughterOfAllah: 10:26pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
diamond68:Yeah, whatever. |
| Celebrities › Re: Diddy Accused Of Masterminding Tupac Shakur's Murder" by DaughterOfAllah: 10:21pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
No be today. |
| Phones › Re: NCC Approves Tariff Raise For Glo, MTN, Others by DaughterOfAllah: 10:18pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
LOL. I will never understand how Nigeria is so enamored with affliction, where hardship is the unwelcome houseguest who has refused to leave. Thank goodness I fled that calamitous quagmire long time ago, and gratitude to the heavens will remain my constant companion. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Your Flesh Is The Biblical Hell. Or An Aspect Of It by DaughterOfAllah: 10:01pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
diamond68:My brother, no vex but at this moment I'm not sure I have the patience to be taking spiritual somersaults into the abyss of absurdity. I'll sit this one out, thank you very much. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Sharia Law Is A Pre-islamic Arab Culture And Tradition by DaughterOfAllah: 9:14pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
advanceDNA:Before I proceed with my remarks, let me just clarify that I'm an ex-muslim, and therefore no longer a believer, for reasons not similar to what you've enumerated here. Your statements are accurate to an extent, but I can't help but feel as though you're using them to suggest, tacitly, that Islam is therefore illegitimate solely because of this. Do correct me if I've erred in my assessment. Now, you're correct that Islam emerged in a context where idolatry and polytheistic practices were prevalent and so some pre-Islamic practices were incorporated or reinterpreted within Islam, but it would be a drastic oversimplification to therefore conclude that many Islamic laws are driven by pre-Islamic pagan practices, especially given the fact that fundamentally, Islamic jurisprudence has always been heavily based on teachings from the Quran and Hadith, with the interpretations thereof submitted by Islamic scholars over centuries. And I don't know if you're a Christian (you might be atheist), but just in case you are indeed, a Christian, I hope you are aware of the fact that the early adherents of your faith were pilloried by Romans and Jews alike, who hurled accusations of idolatry with reckless abandon, particularly because of Christians' use of symbols like the cross and other imagery like the saints icon. There's also the use of sacramentals, such as holy water, candles, and incense, the use of rosary beads or the Stations of the Cross, which have all been criticized by some as being too close to pagan rituals. So yeah, if you're truly Christian, you really shouldn't be throwing pebbles when you live in a glass house. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Your Flesh Is The Biblical Hell. Or An Aspect Of It by DaughterOfAllah: 8:42pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
diamond68:Sounds like Gnostic doctrine. The Gnostics believe God is actually the devil and that he trapped humans in the flesh. The real God is the Father of Light. |
| Crime › Re: Fake Brad Pitt Who Duped French Woman Of €700,000 Tracked To Nigeria by DaughterOfAllah: 8:28pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
Title of the thread got me in stitches. 😂😂 |
| Politics › Re: Why Kemi Badenoch’s Remarks Won’t Affect Nigeria – Daniel Bwala by DaughterOfAllah: 8:01pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
SmartyPants:Goodbye? LOL. Isn't it too soon, hmmm, my dear? Of course you and I already knew you had nothing credible or worthwhile to submit on this topic, so I wonder why you tried responding with those terse, puerile jibes that reek of desperation, when you could've just spared us the noise in the first place. At any rate, don't forget to take your trite bon mots with you as you leave. Ciao! |
| Politics › Re: Why Kemi Badenoch’s Remarks Won’t Affect Nigeria – Daniel Bwala by DaughterOfAllah: 7:49pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
Rossikk:LOL. Oga calm down. In all your shouting, you still failed to address the main point. Not that I'm expecting you to do so anyway. We are well acquainted with the way you guys downplay the problems of the country with irrelevant red herrings. Nothing new to see here. Oh, and by the way, celebrating Nigeria's access to BRICS capital is ultimately pointless if the capital will be squandered in the quagmire of corruption and inefficiency that has plagued Nigeria yesterday, today, and judging from the mentality of the average Nigerian nowadays, seemingly forever. |
| Politics › Re: Why Kemi Badenoch’s Remarks Won’t Affect Nigeria – Daniel Bwala by DaughterOfAllah: 7:29pm On Jan 20, 2025*. Modified: 8:13pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
SmartyPants:Poor fellow. I can almost hear the creaking of cerebral gears as you strain to concoct a rejoinder that would adequately mask the crushing inadequacy of your arguments. If you knew you couldn't offer a sensible retort to address my actual point, you should have remained silent instead of suffering me with your infantile petulance! |
| Forum Games › Re: What Would You Choose? by DaughterOfAllah: 7:15pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
Make your choices.After 10 years. LOL. Anyways 1> Pick the way I die. 2> Have a university named after me. 3> Have free Wi-Fi wherever I go. 4> Fulfill my biggest wish. 5> Have my own private island. 6> Be able to travel at light speed. 7> Have $100,000 in real money. 8> Be best friends forever with my favorite celebrity. 9> Have my dream car. 10> Be a ninja. 11> Continue on with my life. 12> Live in Harry Potter's world. 13> Have the ability to see the future. |
| Politics › Re: Why Kemi Badenoch’s Remarks Won’t Affect Nigeria – Daniel Bwala by DaughterOfAllah: 6:48pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
SmartyPants:I'm sorry, but this assertion of yours, apart from being trite and unfounded is unnecessarily reductionist. Irrespective of her intentions, which you guys seem more concerned about than the substance of her statements, everything she said has real-world implications! Investors, policymakers, and international observers aren't concerned with Kemi's internalized racism or her political machinations. That's not their cup of tea. They're concerned with the picture she has painted of Nigeria's abysmal government. So instead of opting for your facile "that's just politics cop-out, glibly dismissing the fact that there's an overweight elephant standing in the middle of the room, it would do you and basically all of us a lot more good to actually address what she said, examine the facts and deciding if they're baseless or backed by the evidence. What is not helpful is this spurious ad hominems you guys keep hurling about. Apart from indicating intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty, it begs to wonder if some of you are just too invested in your own partisan narratives to acknowledge the obvious. 2 Likes |
| Politics › Re: Why Kemi Badenoch’s Remarks Won’t Affect Nigeria – Daniel Bwala by DaughterOfAllah: 6:21pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
If this Bwala chap actually believes the nonsense that is coming out of his mouth, then he is even dumber than he looks. He's also laughably naive because Kemi's opinions carry significant weight, as leader of the UK conservative party, so if I were him, I wouldn't be so optimistic to assert what foreign investors should and/or would be thinking about Kemi's comments. In reality, investors often make decisions based on perception, and Kemi's remarks about Nigeria's governance paint a very vivid picture, and it's miles from flattering. Are we really going to sit here and pretend as if her statements (which is in consonance with similar comments made recently by people like Davido, Peter Obi) may have little to no effect on Nigeria's international relations and investment prospects later down the line? He whines about Kemi's comments being an attempt to appeal or curry favor with her party's base. Should we take this criticism for granted, how has it negated the substance of her remarks? He even started drawing comparisons between her and Rishi Sunak. It's amusing, I'll admit, but not surprising. It's the quintessential Nigerian politician's playbook: deflect, divert, and distract with absurd red herrings and ad hominems for good measure, all while hoping the audience doesn't notice the vacuity of their argument. There's a popular saying that "you can't fix what you will not face." Abeg, for how long are we going to keep running from the truth? We're practically masquerading as a nation in harmony, in a befuddling case of mass denial, trying to pull the wool over our own eyes. What's this inexplicable urge we keep having, to sweep the dirt under the rug? Who do us for this country? Why do we behave like this? And there are hapless idiots on this thread supporting the arguments of this charlatan. Nigerians truly deserve their government. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Trump Dances To 'YMCA' With Village People At Pre-inaugural Victory Rally(photos by DaughterOfAllah: 12:51pm On Jan 20, 2025 |
How delightful! It's seldom that one is lucky enough to have front-row seats to a train wreck. Although, in Drumpf's case, it's more of a brain wreck. 1 Like |
| Romance › Re: Why Does Europe And America Give Women So Much Power And Privileges? by DaughterOfAllah: 11:48am On Jan 20, 2025 |
Bookhub:Cristina Serra, who not only, raises the kids and manages Pep's household, but supports the economy of the household with her own career, do you assert that her labor, even as an indefatigable linchpin, is of no value? Hmmm? Do you? My brother, you don't have to keep groaning about your own misapprehensions over the notion of split wealth. Pay close attention: Marriage, inherently, is an economic union where contributions and benefits are realized by both parties, and the law acknowledges this. As for bringing up Europe's population decline, you wouldn't be resorting to such simplistic scapegoating if you were aware of the axiom "correlation doesn't necessitate causation". Look at you, all too happy to cherry pick divorce laws as if it's the sole factor, forgetting about low fertility rates, aging populations etc. This is the kind of shallow argument that arises from the desperate need to sell a singular narrative. |
| Romance › Re: Why Does Europe And America Give Women So Much Power And Privileges? by DaughterOfAllah: 10:35am On Jan 20, 2025 |
Bookhub:I'm sorry but your Guardiola analogy limps on a single leg. Marriage represents a partnership where both parties contribute - sometimes with money, other times through domestic labor or career sacrifices. It isn't a one-man show. The law, in its infinite wisdom, merely acknowledges these varied inputs. The idea that women get "half the man's wealth" overlooks how marriage creates shared assets. It's simple math. These assets belong to both spouses because they built them together, brick by brick. So your dire predictions about white extinction due to fair divorce laws is an Olympic dive into the absurd, leaping from "men must keep all assets" straight to "racial doom". Seriously, quit the jokes, if you're trying to be funny, that is. Modern societies with greater gender equality actually show higher birth rates than those stuck in old patterns. The real threat to marriage isn't equality - it is inequality. The future belongs to partnerships based on mutual respect plus shared responsibility. Your gloomy forecast about the next 200 years reads more like your own personal fear than an objective social analysis, and so I don't take you seriously. At the end of the day, you just sound like someone who dropped his ice cream cone but is blaming the whole dairy industry for it. 1 Like |
| Science/Technology › Re: A Must Read For Creationists by DaughterOfAllah(op): 11:36am On Sep 08, 2021 |
PART 4 (16) The "evolution is a belief" nonsense. At this point, it should be sufficient for me to point to (2), (4) and (6) above, and tell those entertaining this fatuous idea to go and learn something. However, I suspect that the attention span of the typical creationist is such that a reminder is needed at this point. And that reminder is now forthcoming. When scientists provide hard evidence supporting their postulates, in the form of direct empirical tests of the validity of those postulates, "belief" is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. This has happened time and time and time again in evolutionary biology, and once more, if you can't be bothered to read the actual scientific papers in question in order to learn this, then you are in no position to critique a theory that has been subject to more thorough critical scrutiny than you can even imagine is possible. Oh, and as an indication of the size of the task ahead of you, if you think you're hard enough to dismiss the scientific evidence on a case by case basis, you have over a million scientific papers to peruse that have been published in the past 150 years. Be advised that tossing one paper into the bin isn't enough, you have to toss all of them into the bin. Good luck on that one. Just in case this hasn't registered here, the critical thinkers regard belief itself as intellectually invalid. If you have to ask why, then again, you are in need of an education, and badly. As a corollary of the above, I now turn my attention to: (17) "You only believe in evolution because you hate god". Anyone posting this particular piece of drivel, and make no mistake, it IS drivel, is quite frankly beneath deserving of a point of view. Erectors of this sub-amoeboid, cretinous, verminous, pestilential and thoroughly decerebrate cortical faeces are not considered to be worth the small amount of effort required to treat them with utter disdain, let alone the greater effort required to subject them to actual contempt. Aside from the fact that I have dealt with the "belief" bullshit in (16) above, and aside from the fact that I've dealt with the complete failure of supernaturalists to provide any evidence for their pet magic man back in (1) above (yes, you need a proper attention span if you're going to engage in debate here), and as a corollary of this latter point, we'd like to know how one can "hate" an entity whose very existence has only ever been supported by vacuous apologetics instead of genuine evidence, this particular favourite meme of creationists is singularly retarded because it misses the whole point by several thousand light years. Allow me to remind you all once again, first that the critical thinkers do not regard "belief" as intellectually valid full stop, and that the critical thinkers accept the validity of evolution because reality supports it. That is what counts here, because it is what counts in professional scientific circles. You can whinge, moan, bitch and bleat all you like with respect to this moronic canard, but be advised that people who paid attention in classes at school regard this canard as one of the most utterly spastic pieces of apologetics in existence, and given the fulminating level of stupidity that has emanated from apologetics over the years, this makes the above canard rather special. While we're at it, let's deal with one polemical argument that was presented to me recently, and one which is again entirely specious. Namely, the argument that evolutionary theory was erected "to kill off the idea of a creator". Er, no it wasn't. Anyone who follows the actual history of the development of evolutionary theory will know that it was erected to provide an explanation for observed biodiversity, and to provide an explanation for observed dynamic change in populations of living organisms. I know that creationists love to erect specious doctrine-centred arguments such as this (which dovetails with the doctrine-centred thinking and specious apologetics covered in (15) above), but such specious doctrine-centred arguments are, not to put too fine a point on it, blatant lies. Just because creationists can't accept that someone might alight upon a view of the world that doesn't rely upon doctrinal presuppositions doesn't mean that such a view cannot exist. But then, the entire creationist argument consists of asserting that the world conforms to their ignorant wishful thinking, so it's no surprise that they adopt the same view with respect to the development of scientific theories. So, if you erect any of the "you hate god" or other specious polemical pseudo-arguments here, be prepared to endure much mockery for doing so, especially if you do so after being directed here and told to learn from this. (18) The argument via link to crap websites/copy-paste screed/crap YouTube video. By now, those who have been paying attention know what's coming next. So, if you haven't been paying attention, you're in for a shock! Time and time again, we see creationists turning up, posting a one-line post consisting of a link to some worthless apologetics website, thinking that they're going to "stick it to the stoopid atheists". Aside from the fact that this is terminally lazy, and merely demonstrates that the poster couldn't be bothered to present the "arguments" contained in said link using original prose of his or her own devising (which requires one to have actually bothered to read the apologetics in question, which a surprisingly large number of link spammers never do), the fatuousness of this approach should become evident very quickly upon asking the following question. If you are told that you have been diagnosed with a brain tumour, who are you going to ask to remove it? Are you going to ask a professional neurosurgeon, who has trained for years specifically to perform this operation, or are you going to ask a football coach? If that question seems inane to you, then it is meant to seem inane. Specifically for the purpose of bringing into sharp relief the inanity involved in pointing to an apologetics website as a purported source of "scientific" knowledge, as opposed to pointing to the website of, say, an actual university evolutionary biology department, or the website of an actual evolutionary biologist, or the website of a scientific journal that publishes papers in this field. If you think some self-service-break televangelist in a $5,000 suit paid for by gullible rubes is somehow an "expert" in the field, then once again, you really are in need of an education. Which of course brings us back to (2) above. Let's get this straight once and for all. Websites devoted to religious apologetics are worthless as sources of genuine scientific information. If you want real scientific information, you go to a professional scientist, a professional scientific body, or a professional scientific journal. This is why science textbooks are written by actual scientists. Because, in case you hadn't worked this out, these are the people who know, and who are paid to know. I don't care how many people purportedly possessing Ph.Ds are cited by your favourite apologetics website, this is irrelevant, because the mere fact that those people are contributing to that website means that they are not practising real science, they are practising apologetics, which again brings us back to (2) above. Which means that the likes of answersingenesis, ICR, the Discovery Institute and the various other organisations that act as ideological stormtroopers for mythology-based doctrine are worthless from the standpoint of disseminating genuine scientific information, because their primary interest is apologetics. Their primary interest is propagandising for mythology. As a consequence, these websites frequently misrepresent valid science (again, see (2) above). Indeed, several of them peddle outright lies about science (see (3) above, where I provide a handy link to the destruction of one instance of said lies). Consequently, if you come here linking to one of these organisations, the response from the critical thinkers here will be to go into petunias mode (again, see Douglas Adams for the reference). Whilst we're here, I might as well address the related argument by copy-paste screed canard, which fits in here too. Copying and pasting a large wall of text from an apologetics website, dumping it here in the same manner in which an incontinent baby dumps the contents of its nappies on the floor, then running off thinking that you have somehow "refuted" valid science, merely earns you our lasting scorn and derision. Even more so if there is a stark contrast between the literacy level of the copy-paste screed, and that of posts containing your own words. If you are unable to spell words of more than five letters correctly when writing your own posts, and unable to post more than, say, 15 words in such posts, then suddenly unleash a wall of text upon us, the critical thinkers will know what they're dealing with, and the resulting savaging that your posts will receive will not be pretty to watch. Picture the spectacle that would result if you slashed a baby with a Stanley knife, then tossed it into a piranha infested river. That's what will happen to your posts. The same spectacle will result if you post a link to, or embed, a crap YouTube video. If we see John Pendelton, Kent Hovind or any of the other well-known charlatans appearing, or for that matter any of the well-known wannabees, popping up in the video clip, other than for the purpose of having their execrable ignorance, stupidity and wilful dishonesty eviscerated, then your post gets the piranha treatment. (19) The tiresome "design" argument. Let's get this straight here. This is nothing more than the resurrection of the Paley's watchmaker zombie, which stinks even more after 150 years of rotting in the grave than it did when Paley first erected it. Aside from the fact that this argument fails spectacularly because artefacts arising from known manufacturing processes are qualitatively different from the rest of the world, and said artefacts are not self-replicating entities, the entire "design" argument fails for one very important reason. Propagandists for mythology have never presented a proper, rigorous means of testing for "design", and for that matter, don't even understand what is needed in order to provide genuine evidence for "design". The fatuous "it looks designed to me, therefore my magic man did it" argument will, once again, receive the piranha treatment if you make the mistake of deploying it here (see (1) above). Make no mistake, this is nothing more than the typical supernaturalist elevation of ignorance to the level of a metaphysic. The "design" argument consists of nothing more than "I can't imagine how a natural process could have achieved X, therefore no natural process could have achieved X, therefore magic man did it". Learn once and for all that reality is not only under no obligation whatsoever to pander to this sort of ignorance and wishful thinking, all too frequently, it sticks the middle finger to said ignorance and wishful thinking. Now, I'm going to be kind here, and explain what is needed, in order to have genuine evidence for "design". You need ALL of the following four criteria satisfied, namely: (19.1) That there exists a detailed, rigorous, robust methodology for segregating entities into the "designed" and "not designed" classes ("It looks designed, therefore magic man" isn't good enough); (19.2) That the methodology cited in (19.1) above has been tested upon entities of known provenance, and found to be reliable via said direct empirical test; (19.3) That the methodology cited in (19.1) above, and determined to be reliable in (19.2) above, is accompanied by a rigorous demonstration of its applicability to specific classes of entity of interest; (19.4) That the methodology cited in (19.1) above, determined to be reliable in (19.2) above, and determined to be applicable to the requisite class of entities in (19.3) above, yields an unambiguous answer of "designed" for the entities to which it is applied. Unless you have all of the above criteria fulfilled, you have no evidence for "design". Don't even bother trying to claim otherwise until you've spent at least a decade or so devising the rigorous and robust methodology specified as an essential requirement in (19.1) above, because the critical thinkers will know you're lying. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the task at hand, just fulfilling (19.1) above would constitute a major scientific achievement, and by the time you got to (19.4), you would be in Nobel-winning territory. That is, of course, if you fulfilled (19.1) to (19.3) above properly. If you ever made it to (19.4), your name would be indelibly stamped upon history. The idea that some random poster on the Internet is going to achieve this with nothing more than blind acceptance of mythological assertion to guide him is, needless to say, regarded here as a complete non-starter. |
| Science/Technology › Re: A Must Read For Creationists by DaughterOfAllah(op): 10:26am On Sep 08, 2021 |
PART 3 (10) Specious and asinine creationist "probability" calculations. I've already dealt at length with this in this thread. Don't bother posting copy-paste bullshit from Stephen Meyer or other creationist blowhards from the Discovery Institute or AiG with respect to this, because what they have disseminated is bullshit. So-called "probability" calculations erected by creationists are based upon assumptions that are either (1) never stated so as to avoid having their validity subject to critical scrutiny, or (2) when those assumptions are stated, they are found to be based upon well known fallacies. The link above addresses two of those fallacies in some detail, namely the serial trials fallacy and the "one true sequence" fallacy. If you post bullshit about "probability" supposedly "refuting" evolution or abiogenesis, virtually all of which arises from the same tired, previously debunked sources, then you will simply be setting yourself up as a target for well deserved ridicule. (11) The tiresome conflation of evolutionary theory with abiogenesis (with Big Bang side salad). A favourite one, this, among the creationists who come here. Which always results in the critical thinkers going into petunias mode (read Douglas Adams in order to understand that reference). Since so many creationists are woefully ill-educated in this area, I shall now correct that deficit in their learning. Evolutionary theory is a theory arising from biology, and its remit consists of explaining the observed diversity of the biosphere once living organisms exist. The origin of life is a separate question, and one which is covered by the theory of naturalistic abiogenesis, which is a theory arising from a different scientific discipline, namely organic chemistry. Learn this distinction before posting, otherwise you will simply be regarded as ignorant and ill-educated. While we're at it, evolutionary theory does not consider questions about the origin of Planet Earth itself, nor does it consider questions about the origin of the universe. The first of these questions is covered by planetary accretion theory, the second by cosmology, both of which arise from physics. As a consequence of learning this, if you subsequently erect the tiresome conflation of evolutionary theory with the Big Bang or the origin of the Earth, be prepared to be laughed at. As a corollary of the above, it is time to deal with: (12) The Pasteur canard. We have had several people erecting this canard here, and it usually takes the form of the erection of the statement "life does not come from non-life", usually with a badly cited reference to the work of Louis Pasteur. This particular piece of duplicitous apologetics, apart from being duplicitous, is also fatuous. The reason being that Louis Pasteur erected his "Law of Biogenesis" specifically for the purpose of refuting the mediaeval notion of spontaneous generation, a ridiculous notion which claimed that fully formed multicellular eukaryote organisms arose directly from dust or some similar inanimate medium. First, the modern theory of abiogenesis did not exist when Pasteur erected this law; second, the modern theory of abiogenesis does not postulate the sort of nonsense that abounded in mediaeval times (and which, incidentally, was accepted by supernaturalists in that era); and third, as a methodologically rigorous empiricist, Pasteur would wholeheartedly accept the large quantity of evidence provided by modern abiogenesis researchers if he were still alive. (13) The asinine preoccupation with "monkeys". This is a particularly tiresome creationist fetish, and again, merely points to the scientific ignorance of those who erect it. I point everyone to (4) above, and in this particular instance, remind those wishing to post here that what science actually postulates with respect to human ancestry is that we share a common ancestor with other great apes. Indeed, Linnaeus decided that we were sufficiently closely related to chimpanzees, on the basis of comparative anatomy alone, to warrant placing humans and chimpanzees in the same taxonomic Genus, and he decided this back in 1747, no less than sixty-two years before Darwin was born. You can read the original letter Linnaeus wrote to fellow taxonomist Johann Georg Gmelin, dated 27th February 1747, lamenting the fact that he was being forced to alter his science to fit religious presuppositions by bishops, here in the original Latin. So if you wish to indulge your monkey fetish, go to the zoo and do it there, and allow us the light relief of hearing about your coming to the attention of law enforcement when you do. (14) The "no transitional forms" canard. In order to deal with this one, I have the following to ask. Namely: (1) Have you ever studied comparative anatomy in detail, at a proper, accredited academic institution? (2) Do you understand rigorously what is meant by "species"? (3) Do you understand even the basics of inheritance and population genetics? (4) Do you understand the basics of the workings of meiosis? If you cannot answer "yes" to all four of the above, then you are in no position to erect this canard. And, canard it is, as anyone with a proper understanding of the dynamic nature of species will readily understand, a topic I have posted at length on in the past. Indeed, you only have to ask yourself the following question, "Am I identical to either of my parents?" in order to alight quickly upon why this canard IS a canard. Your own family photo album supplies you with the answer here. You are a "transitional form" between your parents and your offspring, should you have any offspring. (15) The "evolutionist" canard (with "Darwinist" side salad). Now, if there is one guaranteed way for a creationist to establish that he or she is here for no other reason than to propagandise for a doctrine, it's the deployment of that most viscerally hated of words in the lexicon, namely, evolutionist. I have posted about this so often here, that I was surprised to find that I'd missed it out of the original list, but I had more pressing concerns to attend to when compiling the list originally. However, having been reminded of it, now is the time to nail this one to the ground with a stake through its heart once and for all. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Why do I say this? Simple. Because the word has become thoroughly debased through creationist abuse thereof, and in my view, deserves to be struck from the language forever. For those who need the requisite education, there exist evolutionary biologists, namely the scientific professionals who devote decades of their lives to understanding the biosphere and conducting research into appropriate biological phenomena, and those outside that specialist professional remit who accept the reality-based, evidence-based case that they present in their peer reviewed scientific papers for their postulates. The word "evolutionist" is a discoursive elision, erected by creationists for a very specific and utterly mendacious purpose, namely to suggest that valid evolutionary science is a "doctrine", and that those who accept its postulates do so merely as a priori "assumptions" (see (3) above). This is manifestly false, as anyone who has actually read the peer reviewed scientific literature is eminently well placed to understand. The idea that there exists some sort of "symmetry" between valid, evidence-based, reality-based science (evolutionary biology) and assertion-laden, mythology-based doctrine (creationism) is FALSE. Evolutionary biology, like every other branch of science, tests assertions and presuppositions to destruction, which is why creationism was tossed into the bin 150 years ago (see (2) above). When creationists can provide methodologically rigorous empirical tests of their assertions, the critical thinkers will sit up and take notice. Furthermore, with respect to this canard, does the acceptance of the scientifically educated individuals on this board, of the current scientific paradigm for gravity make them "gravitationists"? Does their acceptance of the evidence supporting the germ theory of disease make them "microbists"? Does their acceptance of the validity of Maxwell's Equations make them "electromagnetists"? Does their acceptance of of the validity of the work of Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac and a dozen others in the relevant field make them "quantumists"? Does their acceptance of the validity of the astrophysical model for star formation and the processes that take place inside stars make them "stellarists"? If you are unable to see the absurdity inherent in this, then you are in no position to tell people here that professional scientists have got it wrong, whilst ignorant Bronze Age nomads writing mythology 3,000 years ago got it right. While we're at it, let's deal with the duplicitous side salad known as "Darwinist". The critical thinkers here know why this particular discoursive elision is erected, and the reason is related to the above. Basically, "Darwinist" is erected for the specific purpose of suggesting that the only reason people accept evolution is because they bow uncritically to Darwin as an authority figure. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, droolingly encephalitic drivel of a particularly suppurating order. Let's provide a much needed education once and for all here. Darwin is regarded as historically important because he founded the scientific discipline of evolutionary biology, and in the process, converted biology from a cataloguing exercise into a proper empirical science. The reason Darwin is considered important is not because he is regarded uncritically as an "authority figure" - the critical thinkers leave this sort of starry-eyed gazing to followers of the likes of William Lane Craig. Darwin is regarded as important because he was the first person to pay serious attention to reality with respect to the biosphere, with respect to the business of determining mechanisms for its development, and the first to engage in diligent intellectual labour for the purpose of establishing that reality supported his postulates with respect to the biosphere. In other words, instead of sitting around accepting uncritically mythological blind assertion, he got off his arse, rolled up his sleeves, did the hard work, put in the long hours performing the research and gathering the real world data, and then spending long hours determining what would falsify his ideas and determining in a rigorous manner that no such falsification existed. For those who are unaware of this, the requisite labour swallowed up twenty years of his life, which is par for the course for a scientist introducing a new paradigm to the world. THAT is why he is regarded as important, because he expended colossal amounts of labour ensuring that REALITY supported his ideas. That's the ONLY reason ANY scientist acquires a reputation for being a towering contributor to the field, because said scientist toils unceasingly for many years, in some cases whole decades, ensuring that his ideas are supported by reality in a methodologically rigorous fashion. Additionally, just in case this idea hasn't crossed the mind of any creationist posting here, evolutionary biology has moved on in the 150 years since Darwin, and whilst his historical role is rightly recognised, the critical thinkers have also recognised that more recent developments have taken place that would leave Darwin's eyes out on stalks if he were around to see them. The contributors to the field after Darwin are numerous, and include individuals who contributed to the development of other branches of science making advances in evolutionary theory possible. Individuals such as Ronald Fisher, who developed the mathematical tools required to make sense of vast swathes of biological data (heard of analysis of variance? Fisher invented it), or Theodosius Dobzhansky, who combined theoretical imagination with empirical rigour, and who, amongst other developments, provided science with a documented instance of speciation in the laboratory. Other seminal contributors included Müller (who trashed Behe's nonsense six decades before Behe was born), E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Motoo Kimura, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, J. B. S. Haldane, Richard Lewontin, Sewall Wright, Jerry Coyne, Carl Woese, Kenneth Miller, and they're just the ones I can list off the top of my head. Pick up any half-decent collection of scientific papers from the past 100 years, and dozens more names can be added to that list. So, anyone who wants to be regarded as an extremely low-grade chew toy here only has to erect the "evolutionist" or "Darwinist" canard, and they will guarantee this end result. |
| Science/Technology › Re: A Must Read For Creationists by DaughterOfAllah(op): 9:12am On Sep 08, 2021 |
PART 2 (5) Learn the distinction between proof and evidential support. This is something that supernaturalists never tire of failing to understand, so once and for all, I shall present the distinction here. Proof is a formal procedure in pure mathematics, and only applicable to that discipline. Proof consists of applying, in an error-free manner, well-defined rules of inference to the axioms of a given mathematical system in order to produce theorems, and thence recursively to those theorems to produce more theorems. Evidential support consists of providing empirical demonstrations that a given set of postulates is in accord with observational reality. This is the process that is used in the physical sciences in order to build scientific theories. Postulates that are NOT in accord with observational reality are, as stated in (2) above, discarded. As in (4) above, if you cannot exercise the basic level of intellectual effort required to learn this simple distinction, or worse still, erect fatuous nonsense about "proving" a scientific theory (especially if "prove" is mis-spelt with two 'o's), then expect your posts to be treated as a free fire zone for scathing and withering derision. (6) Scientific theories are NOT "guesses". This is a favourite (and wholly duplicitous) canard beloved of creationists, and relies upon the fact that in everyday usage, English words are loaded with a multiplicity of meanings. This is not the case in science, where terms used are precisely defined. The precise definition apposite here is the definition of theory. In science, a theory is an integrated explanation for a class of real world observational phenomena of interest, that has been subjected to direct empirical test with respect to its correspondence with observational reality, and which has been found, via such testing, to be in accord with observational reality. It is precisely because scientific theories have been subject to direct empirical test, and have passed said empirical test, that they ARE theories, and consequently enjoy a high status in the world of scientific discourse. As a consequence of the above, anyone who erects the "it's only a theory" canard with respect to evolution will be regarded with well deserved scorn and derision. (7) The operation of natural processes, and the intellectual labour required to learn about those processes, are two separate entities. That I have to address this explicitly, and deal with this particular canard, after it had been repeatedly erected by one particular creationist here, after he had been repeatedly schooled upon this, really does make one wonder if some of the people purporting to be in a position to critique valid scientific theories, have ever attended a real science class in their lives, let alone paid attention therein. Let's knock this particular nonsense on the head once and for all. Just because scientists perform experiments, for the express purpose of determining how a particular natural process operates, and the details of whatever quantitative laws that process obeys, does not in any way, shape or form, support "intelligence" at work within those processes. The only "intelligence" in operation here is that of the scientists trying to learn about the natural process under investigation. In order to demonstrate the fatuousness of the converse view, consider gravity. This is a regularly observed real world phenomenon, and, as real world phenomena go, is about as mindless as one can imagine. The idea that "intelligence" is at work when something falls off a cliff is asinine to put it mildly. Now, in order to deduce the quantitative relationships at work when gravity acts upon objects, scientists can perform various experiments, to determine, for example, the speed of impact with which objects strike the ground when dropped from tall structures of varying heights. That they have to do this in order to deduce these quantitative details, and derive the requisite laws operating within the world of gravitational phenomena, does NOT in any way support the idea that "intelligence" is operating within that natural phenomenon itself. Indeed, applied mathematicians can postulate the existence of all manner of alternative forces, obeying different quantitative laws, and determine what would be observed if ever instances of those forces were observed in the real world, but again, this does not support for one moment the idea that those forces are innately "intelligent". So those who try to erect this nonsense with respect to experiments in evolutionary biology, or abiogenesis, will again invite much ridicule and laughter. For those who really want ramming home how absurd this canard is, the online satirical magazine The Onion has published this hilarious piece on "intelligent falling". Anyone who reads this without laughing, and regards the content as a serious exposition of scientific thinking, is in dire need of an education. As a corollary of the above, I am also required, courtesy of the same creationist who was unable to distinguish between the two, to address this: (  Real world observational phenomena, and the theories erected to explain them, are two different entities.Again, the mere fact that I have to state this explicitly testifies to the scientific ignorance of many of the individuals who come here, purporting to be in a position to tell us that the world's most educated scientists have all got it wrong, and that 3,000 year old mythology has somehow got it right (or 1,400 year old mythology, depending upon your particular religious ideological background). With respect to evolution, populations of real living organisms have been observed evolving in real time. This is what is meant when the critical thinkers here state that evolution is an observed fact. Real populations of real living organisms have been observed changing over time, and have been documented doing so in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The theory of evolution consists of the postulates erected, and the testable mechanisms arising from those postulates, to explain those observed phenomena. Learn this distinction, or once again, prepare to face much contempt from the critical thinkers here. This brings me on neatly to: (9) The infamous "chance" and "random" canards (now with "nothing" side salad). Few things are more calculated to result in the critical thinkers here regarding a poster as a zero-IQ tosspot with blancmange for brains, than the erection of the "chance" canard. Usually taking the form of "scientists think life arose by chance", or variants thereof such as "you believe life was an accident". This is, not to put too fine a point upon it, bullshit. What scientists actually postulate, and they postulate this with respect to every observable phenomenon in the universe, is that well defined and testable mechanisms are responsible. Mechanisms that are amenable to empirical test and understanding, and in many cases, amenable to the development of a quantitative theory. Two such quantitative theories, namely general relativity and quantum electrodynamics, are in accord with observational reality to fifteen decimal places. As an aside, when someone can point to an instance of mythology producing something this useful, the critical thinkers will sit up and take notice, and not before. Likewise, erecting statements such as "random mutation can't produce X", where X is some complex feature of multicellular eukaryote organisms, will also invite much scorn, derision and contempt. First of all, drop the specious apologetic bullshit that "random" means "without rhyme or reason", because it doesn't. In rigorous scientific parlance, "random", with respect to mutations, means "we have insufficient information about the actual process that took place at the requisite time". This is because scientists have known for decades, once again, that mutations arise from well defined natural processes, and indeed, any decent textbook on the subject should list several of these, given that the Wikipedia page on mutations covers the topic in considerable depth. Go here, scroll down to the text "Induced mutations on the molecular level can be caused by:", and read on from that point. When you have done this, and you have learned that scientists have classified a number of well defined chemical reactions leading to mutations, you will be in a position to understand why the critical thinkers here regard the creationist use of "random" to mean "duh, it just happened" with particularly withering disdain. When scientists speak of "random" mutations, what they really mean is "one of these processes took place, but we don't have the detailed observational data to determine which of these processes took place, when it took place, and at what point it took place, in this particular instance. Though of course, anyone with a decent background in research genetics can back-track to an ancestral state for the gene in question. Indeed, as several scientific papers in the literature testify eloquently, resurrecting ancient genes is now a routine part of genetics research. Then, of course, we have that other brand of nonsense that creationists love to erect, which also fits into this section, namely the fatuous "you believe nothing created the universe" canard, and assorted corollary examples of palsied asininity based upon the same cretinous notion. Which is amply addressed by the above, namely that scientists postulate that well defined and testable natural mechanisms, operating upon the appropriate entities, were responsible for real world observational phenomena. In what fantasy parallel universe does "well defined and testable natural mechanisms, operating upon the appropriate entities" equal "nothing"? If you think that those two are synonyms, then again, you are in serious need of education, and you are in no position to lecture those of us who bothered to acquire one. |
| Science/Technology › A Must Read For Creationists by DaughterOfAllah(op): 8:54am On Sep 08, 2021 |
The contents of this thread are extracted from this Richard Dawkins website. They were posted by forum user called Calilasseia and I found it a very interesting read. As a result, I've taken the liberty of reposting it here. I've also had to split it into multi-parts (from the original 2) so it will fit! Originally posted on this website ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART 1 In order to deal with several of the canards we see resurrected here with tedious regularity at source, I thought it apposite to launch this topic. Where appropriate canards can be dealt with in one spot, so that future propagandists for reality-denial doctrines arising from mythological blind assertion have no excuse for resurrecting them yet again. Consequently, I have a message for all creationists visiting this forum. If you think that you possess some startlingly new "wisdom" that you think is going to overturn valid scientific theories, then I have news for you. You don't. The canards that you and your ilk erect here all too frequently, are well known, well documented, and have been debunked many times before. This post has been erected specifically to provide you with a single point of reference where you can check this, and find out in advance that your canards ARE canards. Now, since I went to the trouble of compiling this post, and exercised much effort in doing so, the least you can do is exercise the mental effort required to read this post in full, and learn in detail why parroting any of the canards contained in this list will lead to you being regarded with at best disdain, at worst contempt. So, before you launch into your posting careers, study the following in detail, and learn that posting previously debunked nonsense without having performed the requisite research beforehand, to determine whether or not said nonsense has been debunked previously, is regarded here as indolent in the extreme. So, here goes with the list of canards to avoid when posting here. (1) Parroting blind assertions does not constitute "evidence". Let's make this explicit, just so that even the most casual of observers of this thread cannot avoid having noticed it. Mythology (and I don't care how precious you consider your "holy books" to be, that is what they contain - mythology) merely erects unsupported blind assertions about the world, and presents those blind assertions as if they constituted "axioms" about the world, to be regarded uncritically as eternally true, and never to be questioned. Well, those who wish to adopt this view will find that they are given short shrift here. Because one of the fundamental rules of proper discourse is that whenever an assertion is erected, no one is obliged to regard it as valid unless proper, critically robust supporting evidence is provided for that assertion. Which means independent corroboration from an outside source, or a direct, methodologically rigorous, repeatable empirical demonstration of the validity of that assertion. Without this, any blind assertions, particularly those erected from mythology or mythology-based doctrines, can be dismissed in the same casual manner in which they are tossed into the thread. Failure to provide proper evidential support for blind assertions will result in a poster being regarded as an inconsequential lightweight. Just because you think that mythological blind assertions constitute "axioms" about the world doesn't mean that everyone else does, and you'll soon discover the hard way how much firepower is directed toward those who come here expecting the rest of the forum to genuflect before said blind assertions uncritically. Plus, in the case of supernaturalist blind assertions, parroting these and expecting everyone else to accept them uncritically as established fact in the same way that you did, constitutes preaching, and is a violation of forum rules. Learn quickly to qualify assertions properly when erecting them, unless you wish to be regarded as tediously sanctimonious, boring, and boorishly ill-educated into the bargain. Oh, and while we're at it, don't bother trying to assert that your favourite invisible magic man is "necessary" for the biosphere or some other observed entity, until you can provide proper, critically robust evidential support for the postulate that your magic man actually exists. Given that 300 years of continuous scientific endeavour has established that the universe is not only comprehensible without needing magic, but is thus comprehensible in precise quantitative terms, you will be well advised to devote some serious time to providing methodologically rigorous support for all assertions concerning magic supernatural entities, because without it, you're bleeped from the start. (2) Science is NOT a branch of apologetics. Science is as far removed from apologetics as it is possible to be. Science exists to subject erected postulates to empirical test with respect to whether or not those postulates are in accord with observational reality. As a consequence, science is in the business of testing assertions and presuppositions to destruction, Those that fail the requisite tests are discarded. Science modifies its theories to fit reality. Apologetics, on the other hand, consists of erecting convoluted semantic fabrications for the purpose of trying to prop up presuppositions and blind assertions, involves no empirical testing, and seeks to force-fit reality to the aforementioned presuppositions and blind assertions. Therefore, treating science as if it constitutes a branch of apologetics is dishonest, and those who engage in this pursuit will be regarded with due scorn and derision. Among the more duplicitous examples of such dishonesty, all too frequently seen here in the past, is quote mining of scientific papers or scientific publications. There are entire websites devoted to the exposure of this particular brand of dishonesty, and anyone making the mistake of erecting quote mines here will have their buttocks handed to them in a sling. (3) The "assumptions" canard (with "interpretation" side salad). This is a frequent favourite with creationists, and usually erected for the purpose of attempting to hand-wave away valid science when it happens not to genuflect before their ideological presuppositions. As I have stated in (2) above, science is in the business of testing assumptions and presuppositions to destruction. As an example of destroying creationist apologetics with respect to this canard, I point interested readers to this post, where I destroyed the lies of the laughably named "Answers in Genesis" with respect to their assertion that 14C dating was based upon "assumptions". I've also trashed this canard in detail with respect to radionuclide dating as a whole, so don't even try to go down that road. Likewise, if you try to erect this canard with respect to other valid scientific theories, you will be regarded as dishonest. Another favourite piece of creationist mendacity is the "interpretation" assertion, which creationist erect for the purpose of suggesting that scientists force-fit data to presuppositions. Apart from the fact that this is manifestly false, it is also defamatory, and a direct slur on the integrity of thousands of honest, hard working scientists, who strive conscientiously and assiduously to ensure that conclusions drawn from real world observational data are robust conclusions to draw. This slur, of course, is yet another example of blatant projection on the part of creationists, who manifestly operate on the basis of presupposition themselves, and appear to be incapable of imagining the very existence of a means of determining substantive knowledge about the world that does not rely upon presupposition. Well, I have news for you. Science does not rely upon "presupposition". Indeed, scientists have expended considerable intellectual effort in the direction of ensuring that the conclusions they arrive at are rigorously supported by the data that they present in their published papers. There exists much discourse in the scientific literature on the subject of avoiding fallacious or weak arguments, including much sterling work by people such as Ronald Fisher, who sought during their careers to bring rigour to the use of statistical inference in the physical and life sciences. Indeed, Fisher was responsible for inventing the technique of analysis of variance, which is one of the prime tools used in empirical science with respect to experimental data, and Fisher expended much effort ensuring that inferences drawn using that technique were proper inferences to draw. Basically, there is only one "interpretation" of the data that matters to scientists, and that is whatever interpretation is supported by reality. Learn this lesson quickly, unless you wish to be regarded as discoursively dishonest on a grand scale. Meanwhile, as a corollary of (2) above, it is time to address: (4) Learn what scientists actually postulate, not what you think they postulate, or have been told that they postulate by duplicitous apologetics websites. This dovetails nicely with (3) above (because creationists always assume they know better what scientists postulate than the scientists themselves), and also dovetails to varying degrees with (6), (9), (10), (11), (12), and (13) below. If creationists really want to critique the theory of evolution, then they had better start learning what that theory actually postulates, as opposed to the farcical strawman caricatures thereof erected by authors of duplicitous apologetics. If you cannot be bothered to exercise this basic level of intellectual effort, then don't be surprised if people treat your attempts to erect 3,000 year old mythology, written by ignorant Bronze Age nomads, as being purportedly "superior" to the work of Nobel Laureates, with the scorn and derision such attempts deserve. |
1 2 (of 2 pages)