Iyaomolere4:

wrong 99%

samyfreshsmooth:



wrong

99.99%

Duru009:
98% of ladies luv it big.....

Martinez19:
Actually I left christianity via listening to hopefulLandlord, hahn, HardMirror, you, Johnydon22 and Richard Dawkins. It was a very informative process that pushed me to think. It got to a point, I couldn't deny the fact that religion was bullshit. Not just religion but other world mysticism like witchcraft, voodoo, charms, traditional woowoo etc. were bullshit.

Martinez19:
donffd how are you doing? You were the first atheist I argued with when I came to nairaland as a christian but now I am an atheist. It is good to see you.

Meti99:
I laugh when I read some guys say "what is holding African youth backward is religion"

the problem of Africa is not religion but leadership. Africa don't even practise religion as much as the Chinese do...


stop looking for excuse for your failure. you can start a revolution of a better Africa but stop your ignoramous foolishness

Dayvhid:
Chrisrianity is not a religion sah....issa lifestyle

IAMSASHY:
she remains ur "friend", d only tin u cn do is 2 ask her d payment of all u spent on her, bt if u ask me, I wud say let go,

Fekwa:


There is actually literally evidence of thousands of sightings of bigfoot around the world and all these sightings say the same thing. Also, try reading about the Olma. This was also a hominoid with primate morphology that unlike bigfoot actually lived, bred and interacted with humans.

1. I didn't point out any flaws. I just explained the morphological transformations that occurred in the supposed evolution of humans from homoerectus within a short period of time that going by the current Darwinian paradigm of evolution, is practically impossible.

2. Come on, it's not just the lesser bone structure, it's that and a slew of other transformations. Look, I have read about evolution and I understand that evolutionary changes can occur within species, but this evolutionary changes aren't usually holistic and they always leave intermediate evidences. If the homo erectus evolved just a protruded forehead, I could have just brushed it aside and said wow, amazing stuff. But they didn't just evolve protruded foreheads, the entire morphology of their face underwent a complete transformation, not a transition. And this happened simultaneously as the bone mass and bone density was transforming, the design of their throats were transforming, the skin on their bodies was undergoing a change, their brains also were undergoing a transformation, their arm length, their relative sizes etc all were simultaneously undergoing transformations. This isn't how evolution works. The changes are usually gradual and extremely slow, and occur over a long long period of time and there is proof of intermediate species.

No, you sort of have the facts wrong. We are told that about 2.8 million years ago, the homo habilis evolved from the Australopithecus species and separated from them. About 1.9 million years ago the Homo Erectus then evolved from the Homo Habilis. We are also told that this homo erectus species lived till around 160,000 years ago with their distinctive characteristics and within this time frame, homo sapiens(present day humans) evolved from them. So prior to 160,000 years ago, homo-sapiens never existed. This is evidence by the fact that the earliest fossils of homo sapiens that have been found are dated to about 154,000 -160,000 years old. So we can estimate that the branching away of homo sapiens from homo erectus occurred around 150,000 - 160,000 years ago. The homo erectus still maintained their form even around 160,000 years ago. So your evolution from homo-erectus to homosapiens began to occur around this time. Doesn't this seem off to you? And you have to bear in mind that for millions of years since the Australopithecus species, the morphology of primates have stayed similarly alike relative to the changes that occurred during our "evolution."

Please don't categorize me amongst those who are unschooled on Darwinian evolution. Like I told someone earlier, I have read lots of Richard Dawkins and I have read books on evolutionary biology. I am not an illiterate on the subject, but when I collide with facts I have to submit to facts.

Fekwa:


I actually do have evidence. One of the evidence is that we don't share the same bones with the homo-erectus. Ours are less dense and less thick. And this change in bone nature happened overnight. We also don't have same skulls as they did. Our foreheads are more pushed foreword than theirs and their brow ridges are more pronounced than ours. If we did evolve from them through the normal process of Darwinian evolution there had to have been a line of intermediate species that showed gradual changes that led to ours. But there isn't. Also, the design of our throats seem to have magically transformed, which made space for the enablement of speaking. The homoerectus grew bigger and had a massively fast growth rate compared to ours. In adolescent they were already bigger and stronger than any modern human, but how then did we evolve to be less stronger and smaller within a short period of time. There are lots of other transformational changes that don't fit the Darwinian paradigm. You can't have all this unprecedentled evolutionary transformations occuring simultaneously within such short period of time. But hey, bigfoot and other hominoids share a lot of similarities with these species we supposedly evolved from. Like if you could get a skeleton of the homonerectus and compare it with that of bigfoot, you'd see a lot of similarity. They share their skulls, their bones, their height, their throats, their arm length relative to their bodies etc.

whitebeard:
humans never evolved from anything..!! Of we ever did, then why haven't we evoked again..!! Why arnt monkeys evolving again..! What went wrong..or is there an evolutionary break.

Fekwa:
I think Darwinian evolution is incomplete at best and I think that on the issue of human emergence on earth, creationists and Darwinian evolutionist have it wrong. I believe that at a certain point in history, aliens manipulated the genes of Homo-Erectus and Homo-Neanderthals, did some mixing and hence humans were created. This makes a lot of sense when you compare the skeletons and fossils of Homo-erectus which mainstream science tells us we evolved from and recognize the massive transformational changes that couldn't possibly have occurred through evolution and definitely not during such space of time. It also makes sense when you compare our level of cognitive intelligence and spiritual awareness with that of every other animal. The difference is patently obvious.

I also believe that the hominoids - the likes of Big foot, the abominable snowman and the Olma are the evolved forms of the homo erectus and Neanderthals and this belief is grounded in a lot of evidence.

UyiIredia:


"Atheism is not a claim that God doesnt exist"

Pure stupidity. This is why I became less active on NL. How do you expect me not to insult a person this dishonest and making poor use of their brain?

Now BTW I know how inadequate Wikipedia can be but here you go

"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence
of belief in the existence of deities .[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. [5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Now I even disagree with this definition in some respects and I am certain Christians and atheists argued on the talk page before concluding it. But the bolded makes it clear a belief there is no god or deities is atheism.

How silly and dishonest to deny this in order to pretend you have nothing to defend.

Saverin:


1. I have read countless threads, posts and articles that make me to think so

2. Nk. The contradictions are mind boggling

Saverin:


I am neither a deist nor an atheist. I have no label. If you must tag me, then maybe "free-thinker" will suffice.

To your question: You don't understand my point. My point is without the invention of microscope, the arguments on microbes will vary. Now any person can pick a microscope and say for sure what it looks like.

I don't know for sure the physical impact God has on the world. My thoughts on the existence of God run wide. Until we invent that "microscope" nobody can say for sure. If you look throughout human history and records, you will see the repetition of a supreme energy and eternal consciousness in all cultures. My position is instead of saying God doesn't exist because there is no definite proof, let's think and investigate

KingEbukasBlog:


We've been on this before and you are unwilling to see how irrational and deficient the definition of atheism is . I'm actually showing this to donnffd like I've done to you before .

As an atheist , you are not saying that the entities like The Universe , Moon , Sun , First Cause that have been deified or seen as God/god don't exist or need to be proven to exist , but you are rejecting the deification of these entities .

The donffdd's talk is the one of a materialist not an atheist . Many mistake materialism for atheism and that's the problem . If you want me to rebut materialism using idealism , I'd be glad to .

KingEbukasBlog:


Let's go with your definition of atheism and see how rational it

"An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of a God and rejects it, its as simple as that."

Let's use this definition with some entities that have been conferred that godhood status or deified or seen as a God . Let's go . Very simple and easy exercise


1."An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the universe and rejects it, its as simple as that."

2. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Sun and rejects it, its as simple as that."

3. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Moon and rejects it, its as simple as that."

4. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the First Cause and rejects it, its as simple as that."


Do you see how irrational your definition is ?

Now let me show how your definition is based on ignorance

Look at no 4 - the First Cause - do you know that there are atheists who admit the existence of the First Cause and that there are theists who reject the existence of the First Cause ?

So now , do you agree with the OP that your atheism is an irrational worldview ?

Saverin:




Yes, they think in a box.

Without microscope nobody would say for sure that microbes exist but we see they impact on our environ. So open minded say microbes exist but we don't know their true nature.

God exist but we don't know for sure it true nature. we are working to develop "God's microscope"

Saverin:
DoctorAlien

Both atheists and theist positions are irrational. The way forward is free thinking

kingvicky:

Implying a static universe would be incongruous and non-sequitur with the second thermodynamic principle which predicts an aggravating and inexorable approach to entropy.

kingvicky:

We face the problem of a beginning when we consider the redshifts in frequencies of light from distant galaxies. The universe must have originated from a primordial infinitely dense point expanding within a trans-cosmic realm, except you want to imply the universe is expanding within itself. The retortion of the infinite regress problem due to God needing a precursor is just meant to wish away the whole idea of a transcendental watchman, but nonetheless it is valid when a theist points out the complexity of the cosmos as being bewildering and of course the animus for assuming a first cause. God being the artisan, need not be constrained by spacetime in which causes must preceed their effects and of cause must assume atemporality to be the precursor to the universe.

This is rather obfuscatory. The evangelicals of this theory have not given a rather clear proof how this relates to our current advancement.

Agreed

faridaije:
I do not like to identify with being an atheist,

but I no longer believe in the religious idea of God

after the person that I loved the most died in this world,

wetin i get for do wit God again? d God wey neva ansa d prayer and cry i bin dey pray and cry since?

As I don looku looku all d bad tins wey dey for dis world, i done know say no God dey at all

Jupxter:



Apes and humans share a common ancestor No. If humans share ancestry with apes, then i'm a fowl. Find out. All animals, if not all, over 80% of animals have genetic coding similar to human, not just apes due to physical traits,up to cock roach, chicken, bats, there's deep genetic similarities between man and all animals, do a deep research and find out, this is because, these animals need to take attributes from man and not the other way around, thus, animals are created in our likeness as we are also made in the likeness of God

asuustrike2009:
Eternity is real.There's life after death.

KardinalZik:
ETERNITY IS REAL!

Heaven is Real!!

Hell is Real!!!

vaxx:
you can continue doubting.... The truth of the message has been deliver with logical and scientific evidence.... What else do you want... The evidence is measurable and that is scientific enough... Or are you doubting science...