₦airaland Forum

vooks:
Son, go back to school. Lucy has long been discredited. Google can't add your intelligence

I don't mind the ad hominem... .just don't say "It's long been discredited" and expect me to accept that at face value....tell me if it was a scientific consensus...

Misogynist2014:
Keith was an evolutionist. After reading that link, what are the flaws you found? I think you have phobia for religious sites.

I clicked the link.....And already the flaw I found was you taking his quote as proof against evolution when in 1955 the only evidence for evolution were anatomical and/or behavioural studies plus sone incomplete fossils....Genetics was still unknown at the time so he made a false statement that genetics later on gave more light on....

Another thing was that he died 24 years before the fossil of the "missing link" for bipedal movement was discovered...."lucy" or australopithecus afarensis...


It's more like someone claiming we couldn't achieve human flight in anyway before the wright brothers came along and changed that idea...

davidylan:
lol the same way you've weaved on bobbed on threads where you've been called out for your glaring lack of the science you profess? Its on threads like this that you can have the balls to make noise. Very few here understand enough to see through the glaring holes in your illogic. You post the bare minimum to sound like you understand science but run from serious threads on the religion section. Shame.

I didn't know I had become so popular...
And why not expose my glaring holes davidylan or its the usual where you jump into a thread pointing fingers then jump out...

lol...flintstone believers'

Misogynist2014:
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.'' .....Sir Arthur Keith
http://creation.mobi/created-or-evolved

So you quoted someone from a creationist site to disprove evolution...

Creationists that sign statements of faith to deny everything and anything secular

How's about I give you proof that 9/11 was staged from a conspiracy theorist?

Provide objective evidence please...

SNCOQ3:
This is evident that you actually missed the point.

Let me help you:
Descarte's satirical analysis makes a mockery of a nonsense question— If you'd accept 0x0 = 1, there'l be no logical justification to reject 1x1 = 0.

lol!
That deduction still follows mathematical guidelines....the only thing different is that 0 could be defined as 1 and vice versa...

You could say 1 x 1 x 1 = 0
And 0 x 0 x 0 = 1....

You're imposing a false analogy....nobody has accepted that "god" could make such a thing(except for you),...because "god" unlike mathematical terms carries baggage with it's definition...
If you really wanted to represent that question in a mathematically similar way...it would go like this...

Infinity / > infinity (infinity divided by greater than infinity)

Which begs the question of what would be greater than infinity because the axiom of infinity has no defined range....therefore nothing could be concluded about the question because the axiom is useless in getting any meaningful information...

So one could also say that since the axiom of "god/gods" cannot be defined within a meaningful range to estimate things like their capabilities then they are useless terms that have no quantifiable basis....

That was it, but you missed the question and the point!

SNCOQ3:
You miss the point as usual.

And you missed the question as usual...
Can "god" create a stone it couldn't lift?...

And you said if it could create such a contradictory thing and it can also somehow lift it contradictorily negating the stone being created immovable even by itself.....
so then "god" didn't make such a stone then if it could be moved...

FrancisTony:

I thought you claimed to be agnostic

vooks:
If hypocrisy is chosing 'in the beginning God...' over 'in the beginning Nothing...' I accept the tag Arch-hypocrite

Hypocrisy is taking God's dirt and hallucinating it developing into you over billions of years.
You are the most insecure atheist I have ever met. You somewhat imagine that antitheism (anti-Christianity) will win you some converts and you will be in company?

Son, you need Jesus not half-baked atheism and evolution you half understand, and which you never hesitate to spam NL with, parading your ignorance for all and sundry

Again,if all you can make as a counter case against evolution are comments like the bolded that are founded on willfull dishonesty to retain a ludicrous Flintstones world' then you're nothing but a charlatan....no two ways about it...

vooks:
Negro,
Explain how nothing became dirt, how much nothing has become dirt in the last 12billion years and so forth before explaining how dirt became unicellular organisms. After you have accounted for existence of dirt, come and school me on evilution.

'In the beginning God' vs 'In the beginning Nothing...'
What makes sense? Or do you harbor fantasies of an eternal universe?

What does evolution have to do with nothing and dirt?... This is why people fail jamb

And again ironically....It's creationism that deals with creation ex nihilo(from nothing) and nothing creation becoming dust and dust to man...

SNCOQ3:
" For why should God not be able to perform the task in question? To be sure, it is a task—the task of lifting a stone which He cannot lift—whose description is self-contradictory. But if God is supposed capable of performing one task whose description is self-contradictory—that of creating the problematic stone in the first place—why should He not be supposed capable of performing another—that of lifting the stone? After all, is there any greater trick in performing two logically impossible tasks than there is in performing one? " — Rene Discarte

Then it wouldn't be a stone it can't lift....

tartar9:
arrrgh! I should haved explained deeper *sighs*,you see just few people to have walked this earth can even think of competing with my level of intelligence ,but sometimes like this its like a curse .have you forgotten that an average body/thing is electrically neutral until it becomes electrically charged and one of the ways of getting it electrically charged is due to friction/rubbing,so the iron in the sp*rm becomes electrically CHARGED! thereby attracting other charges! and he doesn't have to lean on any metal frame,you're talking of a non-contact force here which is even 10^20 times stronger than gravity and given by my equation k(q1q2)/r^2.QED(Question Easily Done) kiss my brain later .
*sweating*
Like seriously dude!did you just take that seriouz

If you're as smart as you claim you'd know that your red blood cells are already carrying charges and people aren't electrocuted till their bodies act as the completion of the circuit(negative to positive,positive to earth)...
And contact forces stand a greater chance to burn people to crisps....haven't You wondered why people who are struck by lightning mostly live to tell the tale?

vooks:
Funny negro,
Attempting to divorce evolution from Origins.....go back to school son

Says the person that thinks evolution involves dirt....

vooks the sad reality is that you're merely a hypocrite...truth be told..You critique MrPresident1,lastmessenger and others on their belief but refuse to examine yours when it's very much as outlandish as theirs...

vooks:
'In the beginning God....' vs 'In the beginning Dirt...'
You got jokes man

Actually it is 'in the beginning Nothing....'


[/s]

Evolution doesn't involve dirt....ironically yours does...."dust creation"...
Funny how you can't make a legitimate response but contradict your own belief....

And it's typical for you to ignore the bulk of my posts, it's a creationist classic....

tartar9:
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION;
sp*rm contains iron,it attracts charges so selfservicing during thunderstorms is extremely dangerous unless you want your d*ck to serve as a lightening conductor be warned! (a word they say is enough for the wise)

I would have loved your explanation but it does not completely suffice....blood contains iron too(it's the main group in a red blood cell).....so in every should be struck by lightning too if it's raining..
I'm very skeptical of this supposed claim because it just reports the act supposedly done and the result without any mechanism investigated to be the culprit...
Did he do it leaning on a metal frame window?...was he completely unclad?...nothing was said..

vooks:
You sure are obsessed with Christianity for an atheist. Are you an atheist or anti-theist?

wouldn't an obsession with christianity be religious fundamentalism?....like creationism...an idolatory obsession with the book of genesis?

vooks:
To buy into evolution, you make more assumptions than when you marry creationism. I see it as a clash of two religions with one pretending to be science

Nobody buys into evolution, it's not an ideology but a convergent study accumulated from a body of facts....
And assumptions aren't a bad thing if you can prove them...can you prove ex nihilo creationism?....

It lets even list the unverifiable assumptions of creationism...

#1 anthropomorphic entities exist...

#2 The first anthropomorphic entity happens to be exclusively male....

#3 This supposed entity happens to just exist without any cause whatsoever.....

#4 The entity is not bound by space and time....

#5 The entity is omnipresent...which is in contradiction to not being bound by space and time...

#6 The entity is omniscient from doing absolutely nothing to attain infinite knowledge...

#7 The entity decided in a begin-less beginning to make human beings...

#8 Prior to the decision the entity made it's home and everything out of non-existing materials...

#9 The entity is omnibenvolent....

#10 The entity decided to make "man" in its image....

#11 The entity creates a woman from a "man's rib"

#12 The entity placed "man" in a garden and gave them dietary habits..

#13 The supposed omniscient entity didn't forsee the disobedience against it's instructions...

#14 The supposed benevolent entity did not forgive but instead gave the woman birthing pains and the man pains of fruitless labour...

#15 The supposed omniscient entity then after years of the failure of its plan got angry and regretted it's plan...

#16 Then a decision was made to drown everything in a supposed flood to ultimately wipe away "sin"...

#17 The entity told a man it's plan and advised him to build a boat with inferior materials that modern ship constructors would laugh on....

#18 The entity then somehow attracted all the animals which breathe through their nostrils...

#19 Therefore dinosaurs were on the ark...another unproven assumption..

#20 Rain then creates a global Flood that left no trace globally...

#21 The rain covered every mountain which would include mount Everest....

#22 The animals somehow survived the lack of oxygen that would occur at such heights...

#23 The animals didn't eat each other....

#24 somehow all the animals specialized dietary needs were met..

#25 somehow all the plant life recovered after the supposed flood...

#26 somehow insects floated on rafts, and survived without their social hive hierarchy for a year.

#27 The man on the ark was looking for dry land neglecting the lack of maneuvering on the ark...

#28 Man was spintaneously generated from dust...

#29 The dust became alive after being breathed into...

#30 The flood plan failed spectacularly and people continued to "sin"

#31 The entity decided to impregnate a man's virgin wife...

#32 The wife bore a son....

#33 The son grew up claiming to be the savior of the Jews...

#34 The Jews didn't like the son's blasphemy so he was crucified...

#35 The son died and somehow resurrected himself in the days...

#36 The son was actually the supposed anthropomorphic entity making him his own father

#37 The son/father then documented it's tales in a dead language that was compiled from different anonymous sources that contradict each other...

#38 A plan was then made that if you could believe it...And accept it as true then you're safe...

#39 Your safety is from it's own torture house...pay by believing or burn...

#40 It washes its hands from it's own ultimatum claiming you have a choice...

I could go on and on about the assumptions of creationism(young earth) but I'd leave it at that for now...

It's good I'm not the only one pissed at the black supremacy BS he's been offloading here....then again vooks, don't you have a big fat log in your own eye called young earth creationism?

CountDracula:
Trust me, hitler had no religion
He hated jews, jews hated Jesus, my enemy's enemy is my friend... But he was no christian

Jews don't hate "jesus"....It's not just an accepted mythos in Judaism.... Rainess back me up here..

.....

Bonetoy:
This neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. This is just an argument over what an insane person believed or didn't believe.
In any case, the argument can be weather theists or atheists cause more murders.

The answer is simple. Men cause murders, it doesn't matter what their belief is. Many people have been killed "in the name of God" and many people have been killed "in the name of man"
The Crusades: People were manipulated by the corrupt Catholic church to kill in the name of God.
Communism: (An atheistic form of government) Has also lead to the mass killings of people in this world.

When killings continue to happen even without the belief of God, only men can ultimately be blamed for these actions.

Atheists do not try to condone or justify the atrocities and genocides of such individuals, but we'd point out that they were not committed in the name of "atheism" but for political, racial and nationalistic reasons.....is communism not a political regime? :-/

While Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were atheists,the point is that it was not their lack of belief in a god which drove them and motivated them. It was the fanatical and uncompromising political, racial and nationalistic dogmas which animated them,not the product of any religious belief(or lack of belief), but political beliefs taken to excess........

Thus, while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism, but in the name of their own dogmatic variant of Marxism....

Bonetoy:
Notice your first sentence contradicts the end of your last sentence. You quote how it had nothing to do with the takeover of the human population, then you quote that her dna was superior in taking over the world. Yes scientists argue the findings from this study, just like other scientist argue the findings of the fossil studies.

This is genetics not fossilization,and i quoted the passage that selection had nothing to do with mitochondrial eve's mitochondrial dna' due to no interbreeding with other members of the same homonoideae family....how is that a contradiction in any degree?

Consider each letter to be part of the same genera but different species... A(1Bx2)... A(2Cx2)....A(3Dx2)...A(4Fx2)..
Let the string of letters in parenthesis represent mitochondrial dna.

If genera A(all the A's) were to both start out in a population and reach a population(let's call it N) inwhich all members of the last surviving genera retained it's parent mitochondrial dna and gained neither what would be the conclusion?...

The conclusion would be that though they started in the same genera no interbreeding had taken place with other members...and so the surviving mitochondrial dna need not to be selected against..

Bold statement - not being interbred, so her offspring repopulated the world through inbreeding.

You're just picking my words at this point...

We are talking about mitochondrial dna here(not nuclear dna) which is always gained from a female....it can't be interbred with the males....so it's always dominant and is retained within the species...

You admit that I left that part out. This is your own evidence.

"these effects (defects) are mainly due to an increase in the frequency of homozygous genotypes at the expense of heterzygotes, which is caused by inbreeding."

The increase of the frequency is caused by inbreeding. Not the defect.

Are you well learned in English?...Or did you fail to see that the passage reads and interchanges "effects/defects' being increased by the frequency of homozygous genotypes(AA for example) at the expense or sacrifice of heterozygous(AB for example) genotypes exclusively caused by inbreeding... :-/

DProDG:
Is it possible to go a day on NL without seeing a theist lie?

So people that say things eventually die!? Wow!

"Lying for jesus" is what it's called.

Bonetoy:
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm
"Many suggest that Eve must have had some vast superiority because her offspring are thought to have conquered the whole world without any evidence of any interbreeding."

And.....

"Others state that selection had nothing to do with the takeover of the human population. They inject that it was a purely statistical process"

It's referring to mitochondrial eve's mitochondrial dna not being interbred with other groups in the homonoideae family and thus her mitochondria dna was the superior in taking over the world.... exposed dishonesty #1

The name Eve is not used to describe the Biblical Eve, but Mitochondrial Eve.

It's good you've acknowledged that...

A quote from your own link.

Okay...

"The incidence of metabolic disorders, structural abnormalities and inherited disease conditions, caused by harmful recessive genes, increases following inbreeding."

You cherry-picked that passage...below is the entirety..(i'll use another colour for the part you lifted)

"The adverse effects of inbreeding in animals are well known. [color=#0099ff] The incidence of metabolic disorders, structural abnormalities and inherited disease conditions, caused by harmful recessive genes, increases following inbreeding. [/color] Performance in several characters, particularly those concerned with reproduction and survival, declines following the mating of close relatives. This is known as inbreeding depression. These effects are mainly due to an increase in the frequency of homozygous genotypes (AA and aa) at the expense of heterozygotes (Aa), which is caused by inbreeding"

Above is dishonesty #2 exposed...

Caused by harmful recessive genes INCREASES following inbreeding. Inbreeding does not cause the defects. This is what I have been arguing this whole time. Yet you still want to claim it does.

Again the passage continues as;

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570143.html

"These effects are mainly due to an increase in the frequency of homozygous genotypes (AA and aa) at the expense of heterozygotes (Aa), which is caused by inbreeding"
Above(bolded) is the part you left out...
Cherry-pick all you like,anyone free enough to read the full passages would easily see through your farse..

It's obvious that no amount of evidence I present you will be sufficient. So I will leave it at this. You can choose to believe what you want to believe that is your choice.

You have yet to provide any evidence....i've exposed your so called evidence throughout today to be either equivocation fallacies,lies and cherry-picking...
And to believe something isn't a choice,it's a compulsion attained by convincing arguments,evidence and logical deductions of which you clearly know nothing about otherwise you wouldn't say it's a choice....
one can't instantly start believing something he/she isn't convinced about..

But trying to force people to believe what you believe by twisting evidence in your favor is wrong for either side to do.

This is ironic because all day i've been highlighting your twisting of the evidence by cherry-picking,lying and equivocating...

Everything that I have posted only leads up to the conclusion that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

The topic says nothing about "god/gods" because it's scientific/deductive,so concepts that can't be proven/disproven are empty(and amount to nothing) and inseparable from others that can't also be proven/disproven like the flying spaghetti monster,thor,magic,invisible pink unicorn,etc....thus the concept of "god/gods" purely imaginative and non-existent since it cannot be proven/disproven unless the person presenting the claim can offer convincing evidence..

I will force no one to follow my beliefs. I just think that every one should have facts that are not doctored to come to their own conclusions.

I believe i've presented my case over and over again that you're guilty of doctoring passages by cherry-picking,lying,and equivocating...regardless of your admission.

vooks:
Was it necessary for you to butt in to aks silly questions?

Having an engaging topic is one thing, creating one so you could look for somebody you can easily pm is another...

This is basically an unwarranted topic...

Was it necessary to create a topic?...

It's a pity many Nigerians would cling to any claim as true....it's no wonder many stay and die dormant clinging to claims from con-men to bask in their situation...

Bonetoy:
Read your statement here, she isn't the first woman, she is the first female...

First female it of which mitochondrial dna descended from outside others....you can't escape using tautology, you've been caught....but instead to admit it you still want to prolong your lie...

Not once did I ever state that mitochondrial eve was biblical eve. If you even read my post you would notice that I removed the Holy Bible from that evidence all together.

You tried to use science to back up the notion that there was a "First mother" by saying this below...

Bonetoy:
" scientific (not biblical) evidence that all humans descended from one common mother"
So weather you believe in evolution or creationism we all come from one mother.

Whether you admit it or not the statement you made "whether you believe in evolution or creationism,we all come from one mother" has given you away of trying to equivocate the two.....
When science implies mitochondrial dna ancestry you believe it's the same as spontaneous acts of creation(creationism)....

And again, I didn't say that inbreeding didn't lead to birth defects or sterilization, I said it doesn't cause them. But obviously you didn't read my post thoroughly.

Let me break it down for you....when you try to hide behind tautology like "cause" and "lead to" you're saying an action is either direct(it caused it) or indirect(it lead to it)...
Now inbreeding closely does "cause"(directly) birth defects and sterilization, if you bothered to read the article I gave below...

"These effects are mainly due to an increase in the frequency of homozygous genotypes (AA and aa) at the expense of heterozygotes (Aa), which is caused by inbreeding."

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570143.html

You try to discredit my posts through insults and derogatory remarks. Where is your credibility?

My credibility is that I clearly demonstrated your dishonesty, and even now I've exposed more of it....Your basically a liar or at an best ignorant person..

Bonetoy:
First of you failed to acknowledge mitochondrial eve, scientific (not biblical) evidence that all humans descended from one common mother. So weather you believe in evolution or creationism we all come from one mother.

Inbreeding does not cause birth defects or sterilization. It gives certain traits more opportunity to appear. So as new generations are born a negative trait will surface. Some defects are minor and don't interfere with the survival of the race, while others are more serious and can decrease the chances of survival.

Now again science (not the Holy Bible) explains how the species continues to survive. Natural selection weeds out those genetic defects that hinder human survival. The defects stay in the gene pool but when ever it does pop out those humans would most likely die. If they do manage to survive their chances of reproducing are very low. So, survival of the fittest.

As societies advanced, and medicine evolved we began to save the lives of those people who would have died. This is why those traits begin to become more and more common. So the idea that you cannot populate the world through incest is incorrect.

OMG! I'm speechless..

Mitochondrial eve isn't the "First woman"....she's the first female whom our mitochondria dna descended from.... Lol


Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.
Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

And telling me inbreeding doesn't lead to birth defects and sterilization when anyone can demonstrably go look for peer reviewed papers documenting just that is lying.....no two ways about it.

The adverse effects of inbreeding in animals are well known. The incidence of metabolic disorders, structural abnormalities and inherited disease conditions, caused by harmful recessive genes, increases following inbreeding. Performance in several characters, particularly those concerned with reproduction and survival, declines following the mating of close relatives.

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570143.html


I bet you just read an article titled "First woman" in a paper...

I'm not amazed anymore by the amount of lies Christians put forward to believe what they want to believe, from equivocation fallacies(mitochondrial eve = biblical eve) to lying(inbreeding doesn't lead to sterilization and birth defects)....Lol

All this speaks volumes for the credibility of your position...

Akin1212:
if you are referring to me then i think you dont understand the write up. i didnt say anything about a god, i'm talking about the supernatural being we all or some of us refer to as GOD

re-read your write-up again, how can you prove that a "god" exists?

There are many arguments to prove and disprove the ....existence of God

harakiri:
Abi? Isn't it funny that stories like these keep going round yet no hard evidence. Same goes for the so called "odieshi" which both armed forces and criminals believe in yet the users of the african bullet proof keep falling like logs under a hail of bullets (with their charms still on their bodies if i might add).

That was how one was arguing with me over a single claim of what a bike-man told him...

He said what reason would a bike-man have for telling him he saw a girl change into a snake?

I don't know how people can be so gullible...

You said there are many arguments to prove that a "god" exists, can you list one akin1212?