₦airaland Forum

mikeapollo:
Antthing can happen in the extreme case if it becomes abdolutely necessary.
If your enemy wants to wipe you off the surface of the earth what do you do to him too,?

Don't you get it?
The Palestinians don't want the Jews to exist on the land where the whole of Israel is located at the moment. They believe the whole land belongs to them and have aligned themselves with a country like Iran that has declared openly that Israel must be destroyed and wiped off the surface of the earth. They meant it and have showed it time and time again. That is why they chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free".
So Israel must therefore be ready to take any, every and all necessary steps or action to forestal that and ensure its existence.

I was not addressing you and that is not the answer to the question. Of course at all events you would not ask yourself if Israel wants Palestine or Palestinians to exist at all.

Unbiased1:
The Palestinians have never wanted Israel to exist, and it's high time Israel took the right step of completely wiping out the threat to their existence. You can't make it a national and lifelong policy to end my existence and think I would sit down and watch you live to accomplish it.

I have to also ask - in this - do you mean wipe out the threat in the sense of wiping out Hamas, or perhaps creating a situation where the threat somehow ends diplomatically or some other sense in terms of the threat

OR -

Do you mean exterminate all Palestinians.

Hi Unbiased1. Pleased to read from you. At a glance, you are thankfully much better informed than the dross I have had to contend with all day on this matter. I can also sense that you are articulate and set out your views in a logical sequence. I am delighted to meet you.

I will take my time probably during the night to revert in detail.

However before I do so, I want to assure myself of something, so that it doesnt simply turn out to be a waste of time. So let me ask a few questions designed to see if you are open minded on the matter or one of those whose mind will not change regardless of what is presented.

1. Do you believe that the Jews are God's chosen people and the "Holy Land" is theirs by right of Divine appointment and covenant?

2. Do you believe that Palestinians have a right to sovereignty of their own?

3. Do you believe that there have been wrongs on both sides?

These will assist in locating your open mindedness on a spectrum and determining the usefulness of proceeding.

Many thanks.

LordReed:
The local presentation of this universe had a beginning

You have to work with what we have. To assume into the equation a larger-verse than that is not only unnecessary but will frankly fall into my hands and work towards my argument that there must be space into which this universe is expanding.

we don't know what was before that presentation started

Of course no one knows and I have never pretended to. However logical inferences needn't be proscribed - as I said to thehomer, while we dont know what dark matter consists of, we have since inferred the existence of dark matter.

or if it even makes sense to ask the question.

This is a huge cop out common among scientists trying force a strict materialist orthodoxy down our throats. It makes sense to ask the question because the initial expansion was an event and an event can only occur in a timeline.

To now jump from that to therefore there is an eternal, self existent and uncreated thing that created the universe is such a leap it requires a faster than light speed jump to make

I am not jumping. I do not jump. Its a step by step process of reasoning and it takes patience, intellectual honesty and the willingness to admit it when one runs into indecipherable log-jams - which I have often and still do run into.

We all must be humble in this matter.

thehomer:
Another way of putting it is that the universe is expanding. No need to talk about it expanding into anything or nothing.

Please task yourself on the rationality of this. Because now you are saying that a thing expands without expanding into either anything or nothing. If this is not the same kind of voodoo we accuse religious people of, what else is?

How can a thing expand neither into anything or nothing?

You know that is an absurd statement.

An expansion of anykind presupposes space available for such an expansion.

This only stands to reason.

Frankly this question has always led to the most absurd answers even from the most acclaimed scientists, such as Lawrence Krauss.

This space it is expanding into, what are its properties? Does it contain atoms, quarks, men?

It is not possible to know its properties, but it is certain that no expansion can occur without space to expand into.
This is the same way in which we can infer the existence of dark matter without knowing what it consists of.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. There are more bacteria in your gut than the entire earth. Why would more complicated mean less successful?

Let us leave this question for when we come to the evolution of sexual reproduction, as it is part of it.

In this directed evolution? What is the aim of this idea of evolution? Unicellular organisms?

From all that we can observe, consciousness will appear to be the aim.

Have you read up on the current knowledge of the topic?

Yes - not unless there are very new and recent developments.

How did you arrive at this figure?

From the current best estimates of mainstream science - the same which assess the age of the universe at about 14 billion years.
(PS: Its over four billion years old)

JuanDeDios:
Maybe. But in 2025, it's really hard to hide gold palaces (like Putin) or houses in France (like some African leaders), even in layers of shell companies. Western politicians tend to be under the PRESS spotlight, and Trump, who seems an outlier, may get his comeuppance yet. There's always the risk of being caught and what you stand to lose. Even in France, a very tolerant society where Sarkozy would have got away with it if he was found to have a chain of mistresses, bribery is too much.

Are there examples of Western leaders even rumoured to be neck-deep in lining their pockets and stashing funds in Swiss accounts? Not talking of county-level politicians in Spain and elsewhere (many of who are in jail anyway), but national-level players?

All I can say is that today, one does not need any gold palaces or villas in France. What can be hidden in cryptocurrency alone speaks enough.
Talking about examples, if I had those examples ready with evidence, that would defeat the point, dont you think?
Nevertheless the sort of back-hand/ scratch my back and i scratch yours - deals which often pop up with Trump, the Bidens, the Clintons and the self same Sarkozy - speak alot.

In the issue of "Liberation Day" and Tarriffs, Trump was openly boasting in the Oval Office about how many of his friends made billions of dollars in a few days. That speaks very loudly. I do note however, that you already mentioned he may be an outlier.

@ Thehomer -

Reproduced from questions I laid out years ago on the evolution of sexual reproduction.

------


1. Why were the first unicellular organisms (which supposedly arose spontaenously from some pre biotic soup - [proposition not within ToE]) self replicating organisms at all?

2. If they were not self-replicating organisms, what factor led them to evolve the faculties of self replication at all.

3. If they were not self-replicating in nature, after first coming into existence, then they would have died, and the existence of any other such would depend on fresh flukes supposedly in some pre biotic soups.

4. Why is life self replicating at all? What accounts for this?

5. Further down the evolutionary path (and with great astonishing bounds and leaps of faith, I might add), why did se.xual organisms evolve?

6. In the case of se.xual organisms, which sex evolved first - male or female. Or did they evolve simultaenously, and how and why so? What evolutionary impetus drove this process, what caused this to happen at all. Or did females evolve from males only or males from females only or both from sexually neutral organisms?

7. Is it possible for a sexually neutral organism to evolve into two different and complimentary sexes?

8. Taken that separate sexes emerge, what evolutionary impetus drives and informs the aggregation of reproductive se.men in one sex while simultaneously driving the formation of a se.xual reproductive system complete with a womb in the other sex?

9. Further on, what evolutionary impetus would be responsible for the development of the pe.nis and testicles for the male, and simultaneously form the (admittedly eminently fit for purpose) va.gina and womb for the female?

10. What evolutionary process would cause the bodies to evolve such DNA transfer mechanisms as to be able to create the full copy of a complete creature through a se.xual process? What evolutionary impetus leads to this? What evolutionary explanation would there be for the coming to existence of umbilical cords?

11. What evolutionary pressure at the same time as all this also led to the formation of mammary glands (br.easts) for the female only, suitable for the nutrition of new born babies?

12. Where it is explained that men and women have all the foregoing se.xual differences on account of differences in hormones, what evolutionary explanation is there for the difference in hormones in the first place? And with this last question bear in mind that if they were not male and female already, there would be no separate male and female needs to drive such evolution of separate and different hormonal systems ab initio!

A careful dwelling on each of these questions from the standpoint of the holistic supposed process of evolution - and in line with the principles of evolution as taught, is that which you guys need to do: and therewith see with immediate clarity that which I contend, namely that these are phenomena completely outside the purview of any evolutionary principles whatsoever, which is why they do not have any possible evolutionary explanation.

thehomer:
The theory was not supposed to address this question.

Again the theory wasn't to address this question.

Regardless, the point remains that the theory should therefore not be taken by anyone as an explanation of existential questions of origin as far as the universe is concerned.

This is a malformed question based on the failure of your imagination. You confuse the nature of the entire universe itself to the nature of a part of the universe. A balloon being inflated will expand into surrounding air. The universe itself will simply expand.

This is an absurdity. A thing cannot expand into nothingness and nothingness cannot even exist.

Do you think the universe itself is expanding into already existent space?

Yes. It could not reasonably be otherwise.

It was not supposed to account for the first life. You state you understand this yet try to force the theory to do more than it is supposed to do. The Continental drift theory which explains the shape of the continents doesn't explain the origin of the earth itself.

As with the BBT mentioned above, its just a note to clarify to those who don't understand - or those who assume that evolution explains life - that it does not.

The theory of evolution does account or the diversity of life. The propagation of more successful organisms will mean the extinction of other organisms. Multi-cellular organisms aren't less successful.

Multi-cellular organisms are evidently not only less successful in terms of number but also require more complicated systems in every respect.

Why do you think there are unicellular and multicellular organisms?

Well in the same way as there is a theory of directed panspermia in terms of how life came to the Earth, I subscribe to what call directed evolution.

Actually sexual reproduction is explained by evolution. Why it happened is also explained by the theory of evolution. Exactly how it happened is lost in the mists of time.

Most emphatically sexual reproduction is NOT explained by evolution. I created a thread years back where I questioned this and will replicate the questions in a next post for ease of reference.

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction

How old do you think the earth is?

Hundreds of millions of years.

thehomer:
What do you think?

Sure seems to be you and that meets me with immense happiness has there has been a dearth of quality discussants on this board for years now.
You were always able to make serious points with great brevity. Master of one-line rebuttals.

I will briefly respond to your post now. Christ. After 12 years!

Nnamdipapa:
That would be fallacious my friend, if you agree that everything in existence must have an origin and, if you believe there is a god somewhere, there is no proof of eternal and self-existence attributes.

You cannot pick and choose your positions in these things.

It is not fallacious in the least.

Lets start slowly.

1. If we agree that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, then the universe must have a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. The universe had a cause.

4. If there is an infinite regress of causes, nothing could possibly exist.

The above premises are the first steps in the proper thought development. I urge you to note particularly the words I have put in bold. They are critical and cardinal.

When we are able to move past these premises, I will suggest two factors or elements which are necessarily self-existent and uncreated.
These will include eternal time and infinite space.

JuanDeDios:
Seems to be an African disease though, with Putin being the major exception in recent times. The Stalins and Hitlers and Musolinis were always more interested in ideology and bloodshed than stashing funds away. Even the Saddam Husseins and Saudi princes mostly keep it within their countries.

It may be natural that because the third world has weak institutions one may see it more here, or more openly here, but don' be decieved, it happens everywhere to varying degrees. The advanced European simply has evolved more sophisticated ways around things. If a US President happens to have $1 Trillion, believe you me, not only will nothing ever be heard of it, but the layers and smokescreens will be enough to confuse Satan himself.

Guestmale:
Where are now Jews of the Bible?.

The truth is they are all over the world, and some in Israel too.

Nnamdipapa:
I agree and I would direct the same philosophical question as to how the so called God came to exist if he ever does.

Have you considered that whatever the root factor of reality is, it must be eternal, self existent and uncreated?

Idaytesj29:
You just lie boldly ehn and small time now you will mention God or Jesus without being godly or Jesus like. I will advise you Stop the lies pls.

It's nauseatingly disgusting.
And the truth and reality will never change no matter how hard you try to lie against the truth.

That statement of his just showed that he is just one of those Nigerians who are obsessed with Israel because he thinks they are God's chosen people (never mind that they reject the Christ that these Nigerians worship.). He hs absolutely no knowledge of history and even of current affairs. He also is not honest. He claims that the Palestinians should be absorbed into Israel (knowing that Israel will NEVER allow this, and he actually said that after saying that the Palestinians should just leave and dissapear to heaven knows where.

Its a waste of time discussing with someone like that.

mikeapollo:
A Jew is a Jew. An Arab is an Arab.
I don't dabble into the job of separating or determining who is a Biblical Jew or not Biblical Jew. It is God who created the Jews and He has not given me that assignment.

Your knowledge of history is parlous. But beyond that, your knowledge of even the Bible is problematic.
You should reflect that both are semitic people and descendants of Abraham, one being descended from Isaac and the other from Ishmael.

@ thehomer - Is it really same you from years back?

I mean, your penultimate post on this thread was 12 years ago!

owobokiri:
Babangida, Obasanjo, Abdulsalami and Tilimgbu all looking at the list while smiling at peoples "foolishness"..

There is a truism here. The Forbes list only accounts for those whose money can be openly and legitimately accounted for, and if they so wish.
In truth, everywhere in the world, political leaders alone often stash away FAR FAR FAR FAR greater amounts than one can find on any Forbes List.

I will never forget what was found in accounts related to Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. That alone put a lie to any "richest man" list you can find published anywhere.

And he was nothing compared to a Putin for instance - who is probably the richest man in the world.

Nnamdipapa:
Magic is another word for supernatural. So, go back and read again slowly.

Clearly people believe in many absurd fairy-tales - much of which is religious.
But dont you think beyond all of this, there remains the deep and enigmatic philosophical question as to why and how reality, this universe and this world exist in the first place?

tompat86:
This expository fiscal graphology is a macabre danse macabre of our forex palpitations, a kaleidoscopic chronicle of presidential custodianship vis-à-vis our economic umbilicus! From Yar’Adua’s ambivalent commencement at $43.48bn, to Jonathan’s cataclysmic haemorrhaging to $29.59bn, Buhari’s Janus-faced leapfrogging to $45.09bn and subsequent decrescendo to $35.15bn, now telescoping into Tinubu’s modest transmogrification upwards at $41.05bn — it is manifest that Nigeria’s reserves have been a victim of policy somersaults, prebendal predilections, and petro-dollar schizophrenia.

In sum, what we are witnessing is a quagmire of oscillatory fiscal perambulations, a testimony that without economic rectitude, we shall continue to waltz in the labyrinth of financial Sisypheanism!

Patrick Obahiagbon, I greet sir.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

mikeapollo:
That is even a non-starter. Equitable distribution of my land with people that do not want me to exist on earth? So that they can plant bombs and carry out missions against my family and people?

Look, thats why I said the discussion has failed. "My land" . . . . "people that do not want me to exist" . . . . Etc.
As though it is not Israel that has been suffocating and decimating these people for decades and is still killing them like flies till today.

Just forget it, I know you are one of those who believe Israel are God's chosen etc.
I am sure in your heart, you believe the Palestinians should all be wiped out.

Enjoy. There are many of you.
Posterity will judge.

mikeapollo:
Okay, let them go and drive away the Israelis from the water and land and do it themselves. I hope that is what you want or want to hear.
Even some parts of America receive light/water supply from Canada. Nigeria also supplies electricity to Niger Republic.

I said equitable division.

mikeapollo:
.
They don't have the resources or capacity to provide those things and Israel has been doing that for decades and would not poison them.

Oh so its kindness and charity.
And there is no special reason they cant do it themselves.

This discussion has failed and is worthless.

Gabrielshow24:
No be you, the person knows himself 😂—Boomark, the slayer of lies.

Do you agree with the lady's summation in which she basically equates herself with God? Sure you cant and if so, why ask her to "save her breath" as though she is sying something sensible.

mikeapollo:
Israel allowed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to work and live in Israel, provided they would be peaceful. They were stopped due to the series of suicide bombings and attacks on Israelis.
The water, electricity in all the so called West Bank and Gaza is still supplied by Israel.

You dont see the problem with the bold.
Anyway I dont think this conversation is going anywhere.

Gabrielshow24:
Save your breath, it's not useful arguing with them. They are all JW except DeepSight—he sees Jesus as a mere man🤕.

One of them believes God is compositional 😂, even God's eyes can become flesh along with other parts of him but they are not God in anyway 😂, the rest believe God is non-transcendental🤕. Use your energy to do other things, leave them.

Who are you referring to with the bold?

I hope its not me, because you have tried to misrepresent me before.

mikeapollo:
They should do what the other Arab-Israelis did, by accepting to live in peace in Israel and enjoy the rights and privileges as Israelis citizens.

Unfortunately Israel will never accept the one state solution. This is because they are ethnic supremacists who implement an apartheid system.

mikeapollo:
This is where you all made a terrible mistake:
1. The LAND and PEOPLE of Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria had all been in existence before UN was formed. The other countries had a declaration of ''Statehood'' before Israel. But the Land of Israel had always been there, with the cities intact e.g. Jerusalem. If the other countries (from the time in the Bible and Quran) can become States without a problem, then why should Israel's statehood be different?
2. When the State of Israel was formed, Israel decided to offer full citizenship to all the Arabs who accept to recognize Israel and live peacefully in country. Those who accepted are today living as Arab-Israelis and they enjoy the full rights and privileges of all other Israelis. They are about 3 million in population today. Nobody attacks or harass them.
3. Some Arabs rejected the idea, and claim that the land belongs to them and Israel must be wiped off. They claim that the whole land belongs to them. They include these so called ''Palestinians'' who chant ''from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free''.
4. If you go by the length and originality of stay, the Jews have lived in the land longer than the Arabs, and they have superior claim to originality. The history of the land is contained in both the Quran and Bible! Nobody can resolve the crisis meaningfully without reference to the 2 books but people are shying away from facing the truth.
5. What is ''West Bank''? It is a term tat was coined recently in 1950s to describe the ''west bank area by the River Jordan''. It is never the original name of the area. The names of the towns in the area are Judea and Samaria, Hebron, Jericho, Beersheba, Bethlehem, etc. These are all Jewish names, which show that they belong to Israel. But there is a global propaganda to avoid using the original Jewish names, but call the place ''West Bank''. You ask yourself: why are they using English name for a place where the local language is not English? Why are they not using the local Jewish names of the towns/cities? This should tell you it is deliberate act to take away the land from the Jews by distorting history and erasing everything that link the Jews to the land.
6. The so called ''West Bank'' is the heart land of Israel where most of the Biblical monuments and tombs of the prophets and kings e.g. Sarah, Rebecca, Jacob, Joseph, etc are located. How can any reasonable, honest human being claim that these places belong to Arabs or Palestinians?
7. How would you expect Israel to support the creation of a state whose people have vowed to wipe off Israel ''from the river to the sea''? There were 2 attempts at creating a Palestinian state in the past and both were rejected by the Palestinians, because they don't see Israel as legitimate to co-exit with, but they want Israel to leave their land, ''from the river to the sea''! But right now, with Hamas, there is no way Israel would even allow a Palestinian state to be created near them.

I cant stress myself to respond point by point if your conclusion remains that the Palestinians should "leave and go away." I repeat: Go where?

Toneyo:
I like your fairness in this war between Israel and Palestine, but remember Palestinians rejected two party states twice, correct me if I’m wrong.

But they want the whole of the lands and their (Hamas) goal is to destroy Israel.

For peace to reign, release the hostages, accept two party states. Let them start from there.

There is peace in South Africa, because the Black South Africans and White South Africans chose peace. And they live in same country.

Problem is, Israel will never accept a one state solution because they are ethnic supremacists, racists and tribalists who want a strictly Jewish State.

Kukutente23:
When will you guys ever tell Hamas to take responsibility for their terrorism behaviour
You guys are always making excuses for them!

Let me start slowly with you on this one. Knowing that this matter borders on religious faith for you though, I don't expect much.

Lets start here:

Are you aware that the UK (via Magareth Thatcher) labelled Nelson Mandela a Terrorist. Are you aware that the USA kept Mandela on its terrorist watchlist till 2008?

Here is the first question: Do you agree that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist?

Arrowhead71:
Who your global hatred help ? See what Russia is doing to Ukraine and yet some countries joined to form bricks with Putin, including your country, besides china , Iran and North Korea is supplying Putin weapons and soldiers to continue destroying Ukraine
So you see you are on your own with your whatever hatred
Funny non of you is antagonizing those countries supporting Russia madness

There are reasons for that. Many in the world right resent Western Hegemony.

Kukutente23:
You mean you support holding people hostage and arming of terrorists

You probably dont know that Netanyahu funded and armed Hamas for a while.

mikeapollo:
The Jews are now back, The Arab settlers should just leave and go. Claiming to be owners or part-owners of the land is the cause of the problem.

This is very very very wrong thinking. They are indeed owners and part owners. Another thing you assume is that the Jews of today are the same as the Israelites of old. They are not. They are a specie of European, for the most part.

I repeat: how long have white people been in America? Dont you think the Native Americans should also declare: we are back and drive them away? And yet, Arabs have been in that land since the Crusades!

Let me ask you. Hypothetcally, if a group of black Americans were to arrive in your village and tell you their ancestors owned it 400 years ago, what would you think? Okay, lets say they seize it by force, what would you think? Okay lets say you are trying to be equitable with them and they say, no, leave and go away. Go where?

When you say so insensitively - they should just go - go where? How do you say to people that have lived somewhere for one thousand years - just go? I mean go where?