₦airaland Forum

[quote author=The.Big.Urban]Please, send me you address. You need counselling.[/quote]Lol. I do indeed, but I am afraid not from you.

[quote author=The.Big.Urban]DeepSight has fallen deeper




his reasoning becomes more and more comatose[/quote]When I eventually reach the rock of all truth, my words will sound even more St.upid to you.

You will be burned in the searing fires of a thousand lifetimes to recognise even a tenth of what I have recognised.

Best prepare yourself. The journey is quite long. And you apparently are not even close to the starting line.

kayce911: Imagine after all thes life struggles;going to school;working round the clock to make ends meet, u finally die and realise you have been asleep but awake now.......what would ur reaction be ?

For the truly initiated, there is no doubt that life is indeed a collective dream.

It is also true that death is the waking point.

The collective dream does have a purpose and that is the building of self conscious beings who will, in the after - reality, have god like capabilities.

Nevertheless, the initiator of this particular process, what most people imagine is God, is kinda psyco. Very perverted. One has to hope to graduate to being a better god than the god that created this dream. When it's time, please create a better dream.

@Jayriginal

Every passing moment.

Well, you have successfully tempted me. Later.

thehomer: In your ignorant rambling, you've forgotten that poor people are allowed to have children.

Because they naturally can. If however they sought to adopt a child, the social officers would inquire after their means of livelihood. But your h.omo.se.xual would-be parents naturally could not - - -> unless so empowered by the laws that you seek to advocate. And of course, your position is that if you were an adoption officer, refusing to give a child to a g.ay couple will amount to trampling on their rights, but would not amount to trampling on the rights of the child to a natural home with a natural parental setting.

I forget, of course, that according to you, husband and husband is a perfectly natural parental setting. You do not know, or will pretend not to know, the fact that men and women bring different parental attributes to holistic parenting. You would of course pretend not to know the importance of the mother figure as distinct from the father figure, in a child's psychology

What is sad is your PATHETIC indifference to the rights of infants, simply on account of your desperation for the rights of the ho.mose.xual to impose his perversion even on the innocent and those without a choice: like infants.

You should do a survey of people over 18, and ask them if they had a choice at birth, to be born to and raised by Dad and Dad or Dad and Mum, what choice they would have made. If the survey returns overwhelmingly in favor of the latter, then you should know that you are doing some injustice to infants and their futures - at a point and time when they could not speak or choose for themselves. What nature has NOT chosen to make possible - 2 men having a child, you impose on them. But no matter. It's all subjective. The rights of the men must be protected, but not the natural rights of the child, abi?

This, the right of infants, is the sole reason for my unmitigated disgust at you.

Aww another sign that you have no serious arguments just you foolishly thinking that as a lawyer, your emotional outbursts help you make a serious argument.

I am not going to take up a proper academic discussion with you or the reprehensibly disgusting pervert wiegraf on this matter: just leave it. I have expressed my disgust and will do nothing more: live with it - after all, my opinion cannot conceivably be important to you, can it?

And o, when will you be tired of "lawyer this, lawyer that"? Grow up already. I have not ever anywhere stated that I am correct on an issue or that I am making a logical point simply because of my professional calling.

wiegraf: Bros, how can morality not exist yet remain subjective?

That is the direct implication: in the case of morality - rendering subjective is rendering it non existent - but of course we both know discussing or debating this point is a complete waste of anyone's time. So enjoy. TGIF.

^^^ You try. But I have told you not to waste your time. You are speaking to folk whose filth is as incomprehensible as eternity. Again, let me emphasize that I speak only for the rights of the unspoken for infant who is up for adoption. These horrifying recidivist maggots will conjure any argument to abuse such children. You have already seen one of the most perverse souls on earth up there, wiegraf, suggest that it must be traumatic for a h.omose.xual child to grow up in a home where heterose.xual affection is expressed between the parents. Don't waste your time buddy. I could very well have bothered myself with academic arguments on this issue.... but I know the discussants and their dispositions too well. That is why I am content to spit on them and move on. Because I know very well by experience that not even the greatest schorlarship or most reasoned points will dissuade them. One of them even contended in a previous thread that he will not discipline his child for stealing because all morality is subjective. Seriously. Very seriously. Now tell me what lenghts such a person will not go to justify the absurd. Arguing anything on morality with such a person rather makes us the f.ools.

^^^ Lol. Enjoy your sleep. I can't be bothered with the nonsense up there, none of which is news to me. Fart away, hideous sickening man-ars.e-hole-craving perv.

^^^ Leave it. FYI, he holds that all morality is subjective. His cohort, the atheist wiegraf, argues with substantial support from other atheists that even mass murder is not instrinsically evil or wrong. With that, think twice before wasting your energy arguing on something as little as ho.mose.xuality.

Some sickening fallacies and assumptions up there. ... as though those without a sufficient means of livelihood are allowed to adopt ...thats on the s.illy point on poverty....and also assumptions that a normal couple could be abusive and a h.omose.xual one loving. Who assumes this kind of nonsense. Who can tell? Lol, as though thats even the discussion.

Anyway, I have no stomach to engage such filth as you on a proper discussion on this matter. Let me just go away because if I dont I may just commit suicide from disgust at myself for even belonging to the same species as you and your ilk.

Of course I feel more embarrased at your posts. Enjoy.

thehomer: I see. You really had no argument or thoughts to contribute just demonstrating your outrage by ranting. As a lawyer, you should have learned how to present an argument and evidence supporting your case rather than just shouting and raging.

I'm still here whenever you choose to try to think and contribute to the discussion.

What possible response could I have for the repugnance of that which you espouse?

Tell me, what? I can only inform you that my shock and distaste for your stance has to do with only one issue and one issue only- the rights of orphaned and un-spoken-for children and infants who are subjects for adoption. I see no point in arguing that solitary point with you. . . Since you hold that no morality whatsoever should exist and that all morality is strictly subjective (and yes, this is the implication of your arguments on moral subjectivity).

You are despicably more concerned about the right of a h.omose.xual couple to pervert all notion of home and family than you are about the rights of the unspoken for infant who will have no say in being thrust into such an upbringing in circumstances markedly unnatural and perverse of a normal mother - father home with the unspeakable psycological and social damage attendant thereto, not to speak of damage to se.xual psycology. People as morally bankrupt and hypocritical as you will condemn heterose.xual parents for something like exposing their na.kedness to their yound children, and argue feverishly that same young children suffer no damage from seeing Daddy and Daddy kissing around the house during their impressionable years.

What do you want me to say to you? I have zilch against g.ay rights... I fully support the notion that they must be treated fairly and are free to engage their de.viant lusts. In fact, for me they are free to live together, have thwir relationahips and all. I draw the line at marriage only because of its legal implications on the matter of adoption. And anybody, like you, and the hideous pervert and moral slime wiegraf, who cannot fathom the grave evil done to an infant by entrenching him, choiceless, into such a forced perverse upbringing, is and remains the most despicable low and filthy.

@ Folykaze... that is brilliant! Really really interesting and thought provoking. Super. However I will be back tomorrow with some thoughts I have on your comments once I am before my laptop. Cheers.

FOLYKAZE: You right.

But lets get it straight this way.....naturalistic pantheism is the same thing as spiritual atheism.

Really? Do you care to explain this? Because I am not sure I can see that that is the case.

FOLYKAZE: Here.....

The society defines what morals and bind laws....my society, culture and tradition do not support homosexuality.

I don't have gays nor stand against their right but I don't just vote for it.

Thank you for your contribution.

But correct me if I am wrong: strictly speaking you are more of a pantheist than an atheist.

No?

Raise your hand please.

^^^ I'll pass. Enjoy yourself.

wiegraf: ^^^^

This time you aren't even going to sugarcoat your $hit?

What was that nonsense eediocy of natural orders again?

Some of the most asinine $hit on parade here.....

O, talking about asinine, I'm not the one pleading for asinine s.ex here, or marriages built on asinine se.xual practices.

^^^ People not impacted by their actions? Are you out of your mind? Kids they adopt would not be 'impacted by their actions??'

Good grief.

^^^ You are filthy, perverse, wretched, disgusting, without any ethics or morals whatsoever, and the lowest minded scoundrel in existence if you would subject innocent children to such a raising.

Not surprising anyway. Since you and your reprobate perverted ante diluvian bovine recidivists do declare against the existence of morality.

You are frankly the lowest dirtiest most repulsive human being I could ever conceive.

Swine. Piece of sh1t.

okeyxyz: Original!!!! insight LWTMB. Fallacy upon fallacy.... Plaetton don catch you for im trap.

There's nothing insightful about these atheist campaigners. These are simply recitations and slogans they latch onto from their heroes(ala richard dawkins, christopher Hitchens, etc). You know they are not insightful but rather playing to agendas. They pretend to be defenders of liberty but actually their real motive is the dismantling of traditional institutions and redefining values to suit their depraved lusts. Truly, they seem to be everything "anti-family". These people will support anything, no matter how depraved and immoral, as long as it is in opposition to a christian standpoint. Sometime ago, I watched richard dawkins confidently assert that it is better to be continuously se.xually abused as a child than to be raised in a religious home, and shockingly atheists in the audience were gleefully applauding him. These people will attack perfect logic/morals as long as such attack opposes christianity also. A few days ago, I made a perfectly scientifically sound argument, accepted in the scientific community that whatever caused the big-bang that created the universe, then such entity must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial, precisely how the bible describes God as being unobservable\untestable by physical means. This is a sound and accepted opinion in the scientific community, but alas, the atheist @mazaje was spewing fire and brimstone, claiming that this is a lie and that there is no such opinion in the scientific community. Obviously, either he does not understand the big-bang theory or he is deliberately attacking science because it seems to agree with a christian doctrine . Again, Christopher Hitchens was asked a hypothetical question, say: "What if God truly exists for a fact and you know he exists, would you follow him??" and his answer was a blatant "No!!!". Really?? No?? You see how these people will oppose any sound reason as long as they also oppose christianity in doing so.., He would deliberately fight truth and fact just to spite christianity. And these are the people that @plaetton worships SMH

Bros, to know their true natures and intents, just challenge with any true logic but present it under the banner of christianity and you'd see how shockingly they rabidly attack this sound reason. Why?? because it comes from a christian!!. How dare it come from a christain!! SMH...






How can this person assume to opine what christianity(I speak as a christian) should and should not do when he has demonstrated that he knows absolutely nothing of the christian doctrine. He simply takes secular values(which are good and commendable values themselves, and which christianity extols too, but ultimately they are not the main thrust of doctrine, but an addition to doctrine) and sets them up as what christian doctrine should be. He seeks to force christians to believe in certain ideas and force them to behave in certain ways, yet he turns around to say "There must be freedom of and from religion...". If he truly believes in such freedoms, then why does he seek to dictate what christians should be allowed to believe and practice?? Why does he take issue with doctrines that have nothing to do with him?? He claims falsely that christianity preaches hate of homose.xuals, whereas there is no such mandate/command in christian doctrine. Christianity is actually the true secular philosophy in that it states a mandate for believing christians to follow, and absolute nowhere does it command the same disciplines for non-christians. So it is either plaetton is genuinely ignorant of these truths or he is deliberately dishonest is spreading false allegations. He hides behind the cloak of abuses and crimes by people who identify as christian, yet he refuses to acknowledge the fact that non of these abuses/crimes is dictated by christian doctrine. It's just people doing bad things in disregard to doctrinal commands.

I actually agree with you: there is nothing whatsoever insightful about atheism: it is rank st.upidity, in my honest opinion.

However, when I describe Plaetton as having original insight: I still mean that - for he has an uncommon mind which delves into deep things such as the energies of the universe, the wellspring of consciousness: and even the possibility of extra terrestrial life. Indeed he even has a very unique take on the real identity of Yahweh as an ET being and the real origins of human civilization. He actually has been so lost in arguments on the existence of God that he has never had the time to really elucidate his very very interesting ideas in that regard.

What is shocking, is that such a mind as his could conclude in favor of atheism. Anyway stranger things have been known to happen.

okeyxyz: ^^^^ This is typical symptom of people who are unable to face proper debate, they resort to humor-shots rather than point-shots. .

OH MY!!! This is so so so so so so TRUE!

plaetton: Sure thing Dipardo.

But how am I strange, in the context of my last post?

Please delete your quote which contains my email address. I will expect to hear from you.

You are strange to have as much original insight as you do and yet be atheist. You are strange to say that a religion ought not attack ho.mose.xuality given that religions say that God created all men. It is true: male and female God made them: with specs, to boot.

Deleted

Panshow: Even though I've never comment on any of the atheist thread, I must tell you that I've been following the post of;
-Plaetton
-Logicboy
-AmanFromMars
-Rationalmind
-Others I may not remember to mention.
And all I can say is that, you guys are amazing. I've learned a lot from you guys and still learning.
Things of religion are the things I've been asking my self right from when I was a kid.
I've asked a lot of questions about religion and God, yet no one was able to give me any convincing answer.
The worst of it all, Just like what Plaetton mentioned in one of his post, is the idea that Christ died for our sins. well, I am yet to understand how that concerns me.
Well, I don't want to draw any conclusion now before my Christian fellows begin to descend on me. For now, let me say, I hope to learn more from you guys.
Thanks.

Fair enough, but word of advise: be careful to keep a balanced and inquiring perspective with every idea that confronts you: apply same to religions, and apply same to sciences, and apply same to atheistic notions as well. For otherwise you may liberate yourself from religious dogmatism and find yourself locked in another form of absurd dogmatism. Believe in yourself, you have the faculties you need to figure out your existence and its meaning and purpose. Do not let any one else do your thinking for you. Most of all remember that the failures of religion have nothing to do with the question of whether a God exists and whether such a God has a purpose and meaning for your life. Finally remember that even if you think or conclude that such a God does not exist, you can still look within yourself and bestir your mind and conscience for simple answers to your issues and objectives in this life.

I wish you blessings and grace always.

geeez: But how can Asari say OBJ impoverished the ND?

He increased derivation to 13% and has remained so ever since

[/b]

This kind of ignorance actually hurts physically.

13 % derivation was enshrined the the 1999 Constitution which conveyed Obasanjo to power. He was not the author of that Constitution.

Lol, Evolutionists are really in a huge mess on this issue. . . . .

The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction
One way for an organism to reproduce is to simply produce an identical copy of itself. Organisms that do this are able to multiply relatively quickly and easily.

Sexual reproduction, however, is much more complicated. Not only must an organism produce sperm or eggs, it must also find a member of the opposite sex, satisfy the potential partner's selection criteria, and then mate with it successfully. After all that, the organism only transmits half of its genetic makeup to the new offspring.

After the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution, scientists began to ask ... if sexual reproduction is so complex and biologically expensive, then why is it so much more common than asexual reproduction?

Sexual reproduction would never have begun to evolve, and would never have continued to evolve to become as sophisticated as it is today in many plants and animals, unless it offered a significant evolutionary advantage.

As to what this advantage might be, however, is still the subject of continuing debate in the scientific community. Theories about the evolution of sex have proven to be very difficult to test experimentally, and so the answer is still very much open to speculation.


Genetic recombination

The most popular theory among respectable evolutionists is that sexual reproduction allows ‘genetic recombination’. In other words ...

• beneficial mutations from separate ancestries can be combined
• beneficial mutations can be separated from harmful mutations
• unsuccessful genetic traits can easily disappear from an existing population
Without sexual reproduction, natural selection acts upon the entire genetic makeup of an organism, but with sexual reproduction, natural selection acts upon individual genetic traits.

With sexual reproduction, less than one in four offspring will receive the best genetic traits from both parents. However, natural selection seems to be very effective at eliminating the least successful variations, especially in the harsh conditions of the wild, where only a fraction of all newly conceived offspring survive until breeding age.


Increasing the rate of evolution

Evolution generally favors organisms that evolve faster, because they can adapt more rapidly to changing conditions and compete more successfully against other variations.

The speed at which organisms evolve depends on the rate at which they mutate. However, almost all mutations are harmful. Only very rarely will a mutant be more successful at surviving and breeding than its parent.

With asexual reproduction, each ancestry is likely to accumulate many more harmful mutations than beneficial ones. And so for asexual organisms, natural selection will generally favor those with the lowest mutation rate.

However, with sexual reproduction, beneficial mutations can be separated from harmful ones, and so the reproductive systems of sexually reproducing organisms can evolve to maintain a consistently high rate of mutation.

A larger population has a higher chance of producing a beneficial mutation, but for asexually reproducing organisms, a considerable amount of time may need to pass before the mutant population grows large enough to have any chance of producing a second beneficial mutation.

Sexual reproduction removes this speed limit by allowing beneficial mutations to spread back into an existing population to be combined with other beneficial mutations, and this greatly magnifies the rate of evolution.

It is likely that without sexual reproduction, it may have taken so long for all of the right mutations to have accumulated in a single ancestry, and the rate of evolution might have been so slow, that life on earth might not have evolved past the bacterial stage.

Every complex asexual organism alive today seems to have descended at some stage in its evolutionary history from an organism that reproduced sexually.


The evolution of sex

Although bacteria simply multiply by dividing into two, they also often exchange genetic material, usually by releasing small fragments called plasmids which can be absorbed by nearby bacteria. In this way, beneficial mutations are shared. This might arguably be considered to be the earliest form of sex.

After the appearance of plants and animals in the oceans around 600 million years ago, the only practical way for these new multi-celled sea-creatures to reproduce was by releasing seeds or eggs, whose cells would then begin dividing, sticking together, and changing each time they divided, until finally forming a new adult.

The only practical time to accept potentially beneficial foreign genetic material was before the seed or egg began growing. Many sea plants and animals today release pollen or sperm into the water to be absorbed by nearby seeds or eggs, which will not begin growing until they have been fertilized.

As plants moved onto the land, their pollen was either carried by the wind or delivered directly to seeds by insects. For almost all land animals and many sea animals, sperm was more effectively delivered by injecting it into an enclosed body cavity containing eggs.

Evolution generally favors any mutation that increases the drive to find sex partners. While simple creatures like insects follow programmed patterns of behavior, more complex animals like mammals have sensitive nerves in their reproductive organs that stimulate powerful pleasure centers in their brains.


Other theories

One of the more popular alternative theories for the evolution of sex is the idea that sexual reproduction generates greater genetic diversity. This would be particularly important in rapidly changing environments, where some variations might be wiped out by new conditions while other variations might be better adapted to survive.

Perhaps the most common form of this theory is the 'Red Queen Hypothesis' which says that greater genetic variation gives sexually reproducing species better resistance to rapidly adapting diseases and parasites. As valid as this hypothesis may be, it gets an undeserved amount of attention, probably because it is one of the few theories for which there might be some valid experimental evidence.

The problem with this theory is that the connection between sexual reproduction and genetic diversity is tenuous, because the diversity of a population would depend on its mutation rate rather than its mode of reproduction. For a given mutation rate, sexual reproduction would actually decrease the diversity of a population by converging towards the most successful genetic traits. The only reason why the diversity of an asexual population would be lower is because evolution would select individuals with the lowest mutation rate in order to reduce the accumulation of harmful mutations.

One of the more outrageous alternative theories is the idea that males are essentially parasites. Sexual reproduction began when some parasitic organism began injecting its genetic material into an unwitting host in order to utilize its reproductive machinery like a virus. Over the course of evolutionary history, the parasites developed a co-evolutionary symbiosis with their hosts because of the shared genetic material and the benefits of sexual reproduction. Males may look similar to their reproductive hosts, but they are still essentially parasites.

There are other theories for the evolution of sex, but most other theories are usually either subtle re-wordings of the established theories or are otherwise too easy to refute.

http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html

It's just pathetic to see the extent to which this cardinal issue has the ToE quite completely lost, and even more pathetic to see how the speculated answers ALL commence with assumptions of a process already in place driving towards replication. . . which is absurd, because such assumptions then cannot explain the existence of the already existing process . . . .

Kay 17: ^^
Because it seems there is a direct competition between ToE and Christian Creationism. Although ToE is of natural metholdogy, I don't think atheists should be burdened with explaining its fine details.

Atheists who dogmatically accept the theory hook, line and sinker and insist that all answers are to be found in it's principles - including answers that have yet to be found there - must indeed be tasked to explain sore points that indicate the reverse.

Also, deepsight is staging an attack on the credibility of ToE on an area that has nothing to do with ToE.

Well if you say that the development of sexes and sexxual reproduction has nothing to do with the ToE, then that is a wholesale concession to my point. Thank you.

wiegraf: And where did I say your opinions are useless, or at least completely so? (to me they are, but that's besides the point, see?) I am saying they are definitely NOT as valuable as informed opinions.

Let us be clear and honest. Straight up answers to these will do:

1. Is it not true that the "informed opinions" so far have no tested, proven or confirmed answer to these posers?

2. Is it not true that the "informed opinions" have many different conflicting suggestions as their possible answers to the posers?

3. Is it not true that there is no proof for any of the different suggestions by "informed opinions" so far?

4. Is it not true that all the suggestions made by the "informed opinions" on the posers are entirely speculations?

5. Is this - - - > http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

- - - written by two PHD (Microbiology & Neurobiology) Scientists: supporting my views and my contentions, not also an "informed opinion?"

O, and in answering that: the resume of the writers of that opinion, which supports my contentions wholly:

Brad Harrub is a graduate of Kentucky Wesleyan College, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also earned a Ph.D. in neurobiology and anatomy from the College of Medicine at the University of Tennessee in Memphis. He is a member of the Society for Neuroscience, and was listed in the 2001-2002 edition of Who’s Who Among Scientists and Researchers. He was an invited speaker to the 2003 International Conference on Creationism. He currently serves as the Director of Scientific Information at Apologetics Press, and as associate editor of Reason & Revelation.

Bert Thompson is a graduate of Abilene Christian University, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also is a graduate of Texas A&M University, where he earned both M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in microbiology. Dr. Thompson is a former professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M, where he taught for several years. While at Texas A&M, he served as Coordinator of the Cooperative Education Program in Biomedical Science. Currently, Dr. Thompson is the Executive Director of Apologetics Press and editor of Reason & Revelation.

So is what they wrote an informed opinion or not? Hmmmmm? Or are they disqualified from having "informed opinions" by dint of their religion perhaps? Hmmmmm?

Doesn't mean they can't be challenged, doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but you definitely don't know what you're on about.

I definitely don't know what I am on about - because I am not a scientist? - - -> Even when the work of PHD Scientists and professors supports my contentions? Do they also "not know what they are on about?" Especially in the face of the fact that there is no confirmed or tested answer to the posers even among the scientific elite? And against the fact that only speculations are available even among the scientific elite?

And again, you proved that when you claimed there was no 'impetus' for the development of se.xes even after reading an article you yourself recommended to kay which has several good ones. In fact, from that article, it would seem that given the right conditions, it is not a question of 'will' they develop, it's one of 'when'.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

You're at best a dilettante. Nothing wrong with that, in fact curiosity should always encouraged (so long as it doesn't control your life ie), but you are definitely not as informed as a professional who's spent years dealing with these complexities, let alone a whole community of these folk that have been providing successful solutions for some time now. Division of labor, and they are the pros.

And what do the pros say on this matter? Hmmmmm?

As for the new year, my resolution is to graduate from annoying to full a.rse, so f you. But happy new year.

You can graduate to whatever you please: I certainly will be abandoning worthless brick-battings such as this one in favor of more useful and productive discussions on the improvement and spiritual growth of the inner man (don't worry about that; since we know, that for you, no such thing as an "inner man" exists: infact, it is f.oolishness, no?)

[quote author=wiegraf_folles]@ds, I'll have to keep this short (by my standards), as spambot does not like your quotes (understandably)

Again, you clearly demonstrate you do NOT know what you're on about or are being deliberately obtuse, and now I have to play captain obvious to those with the right type of brain cells. Of course your questions (from ~5 onwards, and btw, you could reduce that to 2-3 questions rather than that treatise on nitpicking, designed to appear as if there's this nice long list of issues with evolution...really..) are related to advantages, as the answer those 'posers' is; because they were advantages.[/quote]How does this answer address Poser 1 & 2 on why living organisms are self-replicating in the first place? Not to bother even moving on to the other posers, this assumption cannot scale even the first two posers alone.

Here, to Plaetton - - - >

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction/2#20539793

Hahahahahahahahahaha! ! ! Lol! What gibberish!

Abeg make I do my morning briefing, I will be back to attend to the perennially f.oolish.