₦airaland Forum

Reyginus: Okay. I understand now. Why am I having the feeling the story was made up. Not even al jazeera, nor Press Tv(an enemy) carried it.

Give them time. Big media houses would want to verify from multiple sources including the authorities planning the arrest. The problem is that its difficult to confirm that there are plans to issue a warrant until it actually happens. Plus its still possible the the church's powerful friends will still manage to stifle the process before it reaches fruition.

In any case, we already know that priests have been r@ping children, that the church has been covering it up for decades, and that pope Benedict was directly involved. There is more than enough evidence to jail him and many of the other church leaders. If any other organization did what they did, they would be rounded up just like any other group of criminals. And remember that we are talking about children being abused. Why is it so far fetched to believe that the authorities are finally waking up to their responsibility?

Benedict is the first pope in 598 years to resign. Plenty of others before him have gotten old and sick, yet they didn't resign. This is the best explanation available.

Richfella: I think this is absolute bulllshit because it DOESN'T add up. The article said church property will be confiscated and his successor prosecuted. His resignation then changes nothing.

Its easier to arrest and prosecute Benedict because before he became pope, he was the head of the organisation directly responsible for dealing with child r@pe cases. To get the next pope, they'll have to start building another case against him from scratch. Plus the church can choose a pope that has few or no direct links to the cover-ups. Changing the pope is the best move the church can make right now. It doesn't solve the problem completely, but it buys them plenty of time, and reduces the likely damage to the church.

In my humble opinion, e go hard to arrest pope o. E go hard.

All you need is a pair of handcuffs and a small jail cell. What's hard about that?

Aside from being the head of the Vatican, Benedict/Ratzinger has long been involved in the covering up of ped0phile scandals. As a cardinal, he was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the catholic organisation that deals with such cases. In 1985, he wrote a letter asking that the "good of the universal church" be considered before sacking an American priest who had molested two boys.

A few years ago, some British activists, including Richard Dawkins, tried to get the guy arrested on his last visit to the UK. The authorities failed to do their duty then, unfortunately. Thank goodness justice is finally prevailing.

Reyginus: Evil Brain, I don't quite get number 2. Do you mind explaining?

The ITCCS managed to convince an unnamed European country to issue an arrest warrant against the pope. The country gave the Vatican the heads up on the Feb 4 that they were planning to issue an arrest warrant on Feb 15th. Once an EU country issues an arrest warrant, all other EU members are legally obligated to arrest the subject once he enters their territory. That means that Benedict/Ratzinger would be unable to travel around Europe and carry out his duty as pope without risking arrest. It also means any EU country that hosts him will be forced to either arrest him, or break EU law.

The pope then decided or was forced to resign in order to avoid this. Resigning allows him to stay in Vatican city permanently where he is safe from prosecution.

Capisce?

It seems that the mainstream press is deliberately turning a blind eye to this story. The news has been out for at least a few days and CNN, FOX and co are systematically ignoring it.

I guess Catholics in positions of power are still doing their best to protect mother church. Which is exactly what got them into this mess in the first place.

Apparently the European Union is finally willing to take action against the Vatican and its leadership on charges of criminal conspiracy for its systematic cover-ups of child molestation by its members and its protection of ped0phile priests.

The catholic church has long behaved like a criminal organisation. Its leaders have a culture of r@ping and abusing children. The church leadership then covers these abuses up by pressuring victims and their families, by attempting to discredit those who come forward, by moving the priests around to avoid prosecution, and offering cash settlements when cornered in court.

Regardless of anything else they do or did in the past, the catholic church is now essentially an international child molestation ring. They are an organised crime syndicate just like the Italian Mafia, except that the Mafia don’t r@pe children.

Prosecutors have long turned a blind eye to their crimes likely because of the church's influence in government and law enforcement, but it seem that their luck has finally run out.

For more coverage: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february122013/pope-resigns.php
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/8314813/Retired-pope-immune-from-abuse-probes

From The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State:

The historically unprecedented resignation of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope this week was compelled by an upcoming action by a European government to issue an arrest warrant against Ratzinger and a public lien against Vatican property and assets by Easter.

The ITCCS Central Office in Brussels is compelled by Pope Benedict's sudden abdication to disclose the following details:

1. On Friday, February 1, 2013, on the basis of evidence supplied by our affiliated Common Law Court of Justice (itccs.org), our Office concluded an agreement with representatives of a European nation and its courts to secure an arrest warrant against Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict, for crimes against humanity and ordering a criminal conspiracy.

2. This arrest warrant was to be delivered to the office of the "Holy See" in Rome on Friday, February 15, 2013. It allowed the nation in question to detain Ratzinger as a suspect in a crime if he entered its sovereign territory.

3. A diplomatic note was issued by the said nation's government to the Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, on Monday, February 4, 2013, informing Bertone of the impending arrest warrant and inviting his office to comply. No reply to this note was received from Cardinal Bertone or his office; but six days later, Pope Benedict resigned.

4. The agreement between our Tribunal and the said nation included a second provision to issue a commercial lien through that nation's courts against the property and wealth of the Roman Catholic church commencing on Easter Sunday, March 31, 2013. This lien was to be accompanied by a public and global "Easter Reclamation Campaign" whereby Catholic church property was to be occupied and claimed by citizens as public assets forfeited under international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

5. It is the decision of our Tribunal and the said nation's government to proceed with the arrest of Joseph Ratzinger upon his vacating the office of the Roman Pontiff on a charge of crimes against humanity and criminal conspiracy.

6. It is our further decision to proceed as well with the indictment and arrest of Joseph Ratzinger's successor as Pope on the same charges; and to enforce the commercial lien and "Easter Reclamation Campaign" against the Roman Catholic church, as planned.

In closing, our Tribunal acknowledges that Pope Benedict's complicity in criminal activities of the Vatican Bank (IOR) was compelling his eventual dismissal by the highest officials of the Vatican. But according to our sources, Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone forced Joseph Ratzinger's resignation immediately, and in direct response to the diplomatic note concerning the arrest warrant that was issued to him by the said nation's government on February 4, 2013.

We call upon all citizens and governments to assist our efforts to legally and directly disestablish the Vatican, Inc. and arrest its chief officers and clergy who are complicit in crimes against humanity and the ongoing criminal conspiracy to aid and protect child torture and trafficking.

Further bulletins on the events of the Easter Reclamation Campaign will be issued by our Office this week.

Issued 13 February, 2013
12:00 am GMT
by the Brussels Central Office

http://itccs.org/2013/02/13/pope-benedict-resigned-to-avoid-arrest-seizure-of-church-wealth-by-easter/

If you people had voted for Buhari, Maina would be in a container en-route Nnamdi Azikiwe airport by now.

You people had better not start blaming Jonathan again o! After all it's not like its the job of the executive to arrest and prosecute criminals. It's not like GEJ's government just sat down and did nothing while ignoring clear evidence that Mania had stolen money. It's not like Jonathan has assembled a government whose default behavior is to ignore corruption and protect thieves.

You people should stop abusing our president joor!

It's Buhari's fault.

I just lost all respect for this guy. Anybody can fall ill, but to disappear from work for 5 months without bothering to give the people you work for any explanation is totally irresponsible. The money he's been using to get the best treatment abroad belongs to the people of Enugu state most of whom would have no hope of decent treatment even for much less serious illneses no thanks to people like Chime.

How hard would it have been to release a statement explaining what was happening 5 months ago? "People of Enugu, I have cancer. Please pray for me" or "People of Enugu, I have to travel abroad to treat a serious illness. I'll be back as soon as I can". If you're going to be absent from work, you have to inform your employers, end of story. There is no excuse for what he did.

And just look at the kind of callous statements he's been making since he came out of hiding, disgraceful! In a sane society, this guy would be removed from office for abandoning his duty. In a sane society, he could never hope to win an election ever again. But I'm willing to bet that some people will soon start promoting him as a potential "Ibo president".

Nigeria is like a battered housewife. We keep going back to our abusers, we keep defending them. And as long as we continue, we'll keep getting pounded.

Imagine what the world would be like today if they hadn't listened to the serpent. No death, no disease, no suffering. Men and women walking around nekkid and unashamed. Endless $ex and fruitful multiplication without difficult pregnancies or painful labours. What a wonderful world that would be.

I'm sure there can't be any downsides to having people live forever. What could go wrong? This youtube video explores the possibilities.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_a6RjR_AHY

Tolexander: one wouldn't blame them if one was following the 1996 problem the children had with the meningitis immunity drug(trovan) produced by the PFIZER DRUG COMPANY in USA, which was tested in Kano during the outbreak of meningitis. The drug caused death and various disease on the children.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/6/1860.2.full
All the same the action taken i.e killing by the people in Kano is very barbaric.

Help me understand what you are saying. So because some oyimbos came and did something horrible in 1996, that justifies the killing of our innocent fellow Nigerians who are working hard to prevent a disease that cripples children and destroys their lives?

I hope you are never put in any position of authority.

Joagbaje: What's the big deal over prayer for dead person to have become news? And why do They have to Apologise for trying to help out. They should rather be commended for their audacity of faith . At least they tried.

Maybe they were trying to bring about the zombie apocalypse spoke of in the new testament?

But seriously though, I wonder how you figure that they were trying to help when all they did was make noise in the middle of the night? Praying for someone is not helping because prayer doesnt work. All they succeeded in doing was to ruin the funeral for all the other relatives.

omiobo: Holy kiss or unholy kiss? I know you are talking about unholy kiss. Don't go there,it is a sin.

More detail please. Exactly what type of kiss is holy? Is kissing on the cheek ok? What about on the neck, or other places? Which body parts are out of bounds? Is all kissing on the mouth unholy, or just open mouthed kisses? How much tongue is acceptable before God?

We should really try and thrash out this issue because a lot of people are at risk of going astray.

Yes, Jim Caviezel was struck by lightning while filming the movie. And no, it's not a sign of any supernatural whateverthefúck. It happened when they were filming the sermon on the mount scene and he was standing over a on a hill overlooking a crowd. Anybody who goes and stands on the highest point around while in the middle of a lightning storm is liable to get struck. That's just how lightning works.

Nobody's prayers are getting answered. The religious people are just deceiving themselves. Pray all you want, but nobody's listening.

@OP

Just shut up and give the pastor all your money. Pastors are always right, and their voice is the voice of God! If the woman of God says that helping your elderly parents is sowing to the flesh, then you should just accept it and stop wasting your blessing on the people who raised you and fed you and sacrificed for you and made you who you are today.

After all if your parents would just give all of their own money to the pastor, then the thousand fold reward that they'll reap would be more than enough to take care of their financial needs.

When I grow old, I wouldn't want my kids to spend any money on me or help me in any way. All the money must go to the pastor.

Its called sleep paralysis and its perfectly normal.

When you are asleep, you brain normally paralyzes all your muscles. This is so that when you dream, you don't start acting action film and punch or kick your wife/girlfriend sleeping beside you. This paralysis (called muscle hypotonia) is usually turned off as you wake up. Sometimes however, you might wake up while the paralysis is still on, making you feel that you can't move or that something is pressing you into the bed. It usually lasts just a few seconds and stops immediately you're stimulated, e.g. if someone touches you or if you hear a sound.

Because this experience can be scary for those who don't know what it is, the greedy, corrupt pastors have taken advantage of it to scare people and make them seek protection against the "evil spirits that are responsible".

But there are no evil spirits, it is perfectly normal, and it happens to everybody. So don't worry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

advocate666: @ Evil Brain.

What you are saying makes some sense but there are some incoherent parts. For example, you keep insisting on the significance of the length of eurasia which spans two continents to make 7000km while at the same time ignoring the fact that the Sahel region in one continent spans a massive 5400km.

Eurasia is one continent, not two. The use of the Ural mountains to divide it is completely arbitrary and exists only for political reasons. Asia, on its own is far bigger than Africa is not to talk of when you include Europe.

In any case, even if we don't agree on the significance of the width of Africa, we both agree that the Eurasian man evolved from hunter/gatherer to farmer/cultivator. This evolutionary process has effects. New diets resulted in genetically different offsprings. You may see these genetic differences as minor but when extrapolated and compared to our genetic differences with chimps, they become huge. This does not mean that the African is inferior. It just means that we are different in many aspects.

Wrong. most of the evolutionary changes brought about by diet occured before the Neolithic revolution. Contrary to what you seem to think, the development of agriculture didn't improve the diet of individual humans. Hunter-gatherers eat an extremely varied diet including meat, starch, fruits and nuts. Farmers on the other hand eat mainly whatever type of starch they happen to be growing.

Another factor you didn't take into consideration is climate change and how the climate of most of these regions have changed in the past 10000 years. One the consequences of not considering other factors is that in the case of Eurasia vs Sahel, with your analysis, one might expect both regions of the world to be similar today. But we know that they are anything but. Why did eurasia keep developping and Sahel almost stopped?

The last glaciation ended around the time if the Neolithic revolution. Since then, the world had been gradually getting warmer, but.the change hasn't been as drastic as you make it sound except in the Sahara, where desertification has completely altered the landscape.
Now, speaking of the sahel, that region was one of Africa's more developed areas in the last 2 millennia with a string of cities from coast to coast and several large kingdoms. Its notable though that those kingdoms only existed because they had horses and camels which had by that time adapted to the climate and allowed people to travel widely and establish centralized control over a wide area. The Sahel's development most likely stalled due to the gradual desertification of the region. But that's just my guess, dont quote me.

We disagree about what about european development because you insist th8at having time to do other things brought about development and I insist that the necessity for -,, :6
brought about development.

If the constant struggle for survival was what brought about development, Nigerians would have been building settlements on the moon by now. You're dead wrong.

Your theory about animal domestication is just false, I don't know where to begin. Many animals could be domesticated if you put your mind to it. In the 1950s, a russian, Dmitri K. Belyaev, even managed to domesticate foxes. It was just another necessary development for the eurasian to tame horses for transportation.

It's not my theory, it's Jared Diamond's and it's rock-solid. You're right that it is possible to tame all sorts animals, but that doesn't mean all animals are suitable for domestication. Some animals are not worth the effort either because they are not useful, or because of dangerous or intractable behavior. Foxes are nowhere near as dangerous as lions, crocodiles, rhinos elephants and the other African megafauna. Even giraffes will disembowel you if you mess with them. And just because you think you've tamed them doesn't mean they won't go on a rampage one day and kill people. African animals are dangerous. let's not argue about things that are obvious.

The African man's genetic development depends on his environment. He didn't need to travel far in order to survive. He didn't need to store food for long periods of time. etc. His genes adapted accordingly.

Again, Eurasian's DNA is not that different from that of Africans. This is not something that is open to debate. Plenty of research has been done on the topic, and the resulting papers are widely available. You are wrong.

@OP

Your mistake was leaving your brain on when you went to church. If you just remember to turn it off as you enter, you'll never have this kind of confusion.

advocate666: I really don't understand you here. You said that size was irrelevant but then went ahead and stressed upon the diagonal size of Eurasia. It is either it is not important and we forget about size or it is important and we compare. Look at those maps again. There are enough width in both continents to effectuate the changes you assert. I assert again, that Africa has more variety in climate than eurasia. But I don't think we could agree on this so let it be.

You still don't get it. I guess its my fault for not explaining more. I thought you'd read the whole Jared Diamond talk I linked to. Let me try again:

Human beings don't invent new things very often. What we are very good at is copying and adopting innovations from other people. Most people have no idea how computers and cellphones work, but it doesnt stop them from using them. When Columbus first landed in America, the natives had never seen horses, guns or even metal tools before, But within a hundred years they were firing rifles at the oyimbos from horseback.

About 10,000 years ago, somewhere around Iraq; a group of hunter/gatherers started cultivating wild wheat. They discovered that they could obtain far more food than when they were hunting and gathering. The new farms meant they had to stay in one place and build permanent settlements and store the excess. The surplus food meant their population exploded dramatically. They developed a more complex society with division of labour and professional farmers, soldiers, hunters, builders, etc. This meant they could outcompete and overrun their neighbours and take over their land to farm more wheat. It meant the establishment of the first cities, It also meant for the first time in human history, a significant percentage of people were freed from the daily search for food and were able to apply their minds to other things such such as making better farming tools, houses and weapons. Of course the smart neigbours copied them and started farming wheat themselves and agriculture spread quickly, thus beginning the neolithic revolution, the most significant development in human history.

Now the thing about wild wheat is that it doesn't grow just anywhere. It requires a particular temperature, a specific rainfall pattern and seasonal day-length variation in order to thrive. Luckily Eurasia's long axis goes east-west meaning as long as you don't go too far north or south, you can grow wheat across the whole 7000 km of the continent. Therefore the farming of wheat, rice, millet and all the other plants that were domesticated around this time could spread quickly, unhindered by climate.

Now around the same time in Africa's Sahel region, some black guys started growing sorghum. The same thing happened: population explosion, cities, complex societies, trading, etc. Similarly, sorghum farming spread quickly from its original site. The problem is that couldn't spread north because of the Sahara, and it couldn't spread far south because there the climate changes drastically as you move south. It did spread east and west but that's just a narrow strip of the continent. This means all the Africans who who lived outside the sorghum belt couldn't benefit from the changes agriculture brought and had to wait for thousands of years of selective breeding to adapt sorghum as well as all the imported Eurasian plants to their climate. Not that many plants can produce enough food to be worth farming so its not like they could just start growing the grass in their backyard.

The same applies to animals, though to a slightly lesser degree. Horses where domesticated somewhere in eastern Europe, and in a few hundred years they had spread throughout Europe and Asia. The same couldn't happen in Africa because they weren't adapted to the hot weather. And unfortunately almost all the commonly domesticated animals originate in Eurasia. African animals almost all too dangerous or stubborn to be domesticated. If when the Europeans came to Africa they had met us riding rhinos and keeping lions as pets, they would have had a much harder time colonizing us. Sadly, rhinos aren't as stup!d, docile and pliable as wild horses. If you whip a rhino's ynash, it will turn around and kill you. The same goes for most other native African animals. Other than the guinea fowl, Africans never succeeded in domesticating any of their local fauna and this was another disadvantage since they had to wait millennia for imported animals to gradually adapt to the weather. Even today, sheep, cattle, horses and other animals don't thrive as much in sub-saharan Africa compared to Europe and Asia. Our people till the ground manually instead of using oxen. We don't ride horses in the tropical areas. Its not because we don't know how, but because the environment makes using animals impractical, they either don't survive or are too uneconomical to keep.

The reason Africa's development lagged behind Europe and Asia's is that the spread of agricultural technology, and thus development was much slower than in Eurasia. Because of geography, climate and the variety of plants and animals available for domestication.

Get it?

You said a bunch of other stuff in your post that I also wanted to address, but I don't really have the time so I'll just leave it.

@advocate666

You're missing the point. Your pictures are irrelevant because the I was comparing the diversity of climates not the size of the continents. In any case, I hope you're not suggesting that Africa is bigger than Eurasia (hint: its not!).

advocate666: Africa is huge. Not only do we have the north/south axis of diversity, we also have the east west continuity in the sahara and immediate tropical sub-sahara. There is reality as shown by the maps above, and there is perspectives as shown by school atlas.

Africa's long north-south axis is a disadvantage. Plus the variety of climates is nowhere close to Eurasia's.
The east-west distance is far smaller than Eurasia's. Read my original link again, including all the subsequent pages. It seems you don't understand yet.

advocate666: I think you completely misunderstood me here. Maybe the term "lazy" got to you but it was a necessary evolutional lazyness in that it was the optimum thing to do at that time. It is just how evolution is. 99% of european plants shed leaves in autumn. We have fruits all year round. Of course our ancestors were farming but because of lack of extremely harsh climate conditions, didn't need to process and store food. We can plant divers crops in diverse seasons, so why invent a mass storage system? The eurasian had to store food so as not to starve in the winter. He thus had to constantly invent better ways of doing such: farming, transporting and storage. Thus increasing his technological know how.

Like I said before, not enough time has passed for Eurasians to evolve to the degree you're suggesting. Also, your "harsh European climate" theory falls down for 2 reasons.
1. Eurasians left Africa 120,000 to 60,000 years ago but have only been farming for 12,000 years. If the European winter was so bad; what do you think they were eating for the first 50-100,000 years? The truth is that there plenty of food in Europe, even in the winter. They could hunt animals, dig up roots, eat bugs, fish, etc. And those who couldn't find any food simply moved south as the weather changed. No need to store anything, and no evidence that they did before the neolithic revolution. That's what hunting/gathering is all about.
2. Have you ever been to Europe? I don't know where you're getting this harsh weather idea from, but the weather in large parts of it is lovely. There is a wide belt with temperate, beautiful, sunny weather stretching all the way from Portugal to Japan, more than 3 times Africa's widest diameter (which happens to be where inhospitable the Sahara desert is). The winter is southern Spain is like AC weather. Meanwhile, unless you live in South Africa or the north african coast, here you only have a choice between crazy hot weather, and sahara desert.

advocate666: archeology, paleontology, genetic studies and historical records do not tell us where plants and animals originally came from. They tell us where plants and animals have been at a certain point in time.
If you didn't know what the Fulanis were doing how are definite they were not herding livestock?

Wrong. We know in fairly fine detail where most plants and animals originated, where they where first domesticated, and where they've been since then. Like I said, the science behind this is rock solid. Also I know that the Fulani's weren't herding cows 11,000 years ago because there were no cows to herd back then. And there were no Fulani's as we know now them. Take your time to think about how big a number 11,000 is for a while. Ancient Egypt was 4000 years ago. We are talking about 7,000 years before that!

advocate666: This is the typical African man's complex brain reasonning! As long as he destroys those better than himself, he can wallow in the glory of being better than everyone else. You have just mentally destroyed european superiority as racist while glowing in your superiority of other races. Instead of fighting to make ourselves better, we continually lie to ourselves.

I'm not glorying in being better than in anyone. I'm just pointing out that we Africans are in the middle of the pack, not at the back. That's nothing to be ashamed about because in most endeavors, almost everybody has at least one person ahead of them. The same applies here.

advocate666: Evidence gathered so far shows, as you said, that the first humans left africa about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. These populations mixed with other humanoid populations in the world. (the neantherthals are the most common). Their offsprings became genetically superior, because that's how evolution works. (see Obama. ) Please note that a slight insignificant genetic change can have gigantic physical and mental consequences. Consider that all the difference you see between us and chimps are based on only 2% of genetic viariation. And one extra chromosome gives you a special needs baby. So it may not be as superficial as you think.
I am not looking down on my ancestors. I am just being realistic.

You're totally wrong. The latest and best research shows that the differences are just that superficial. Though you can carry out your own genetic studies if you're so sure that the oyimbos are a superior race.

NB: Edited for clarity.

advocate666: I would have to disagree with you on this one. Although Europe has more diverse seasons than Africa, it doesn't have more diverse climate. African climate has everything european climate has (except snow in subsahara) and even more, like extreme dryness, harmattan, etc.

Eurasia has hot deserts, cold deserts, temperate, Mediterranean, arctic and tropical climates. Plus, as long as you keep avoid going north or south, you can travel for thousands of kilometers in one direction and still get roughly the same climate, making it easier for agriculture to spread. The long east-west axis is probably the most important advantage Eurasia has.

Africa has semi-desert, the Sahara, tropical, and some small areas with Mediterranean climate. Nowhere as diverse as Eurasia.

Africans didn't much need to develop agriculture because food was readily available all year round in the bushes and forests. This easy availability of resources was more of a curse for us as it made us lazy.

The hunter gatherer lifestyle cannot support a large or urbanized population. Thats why gorillas and chimpanzees dont live in large cities. This stuff about Africans gathering food in the bush like monkeys is rascist bullshît. And our ancestors have been farming for 12,000 years. They were not lazy.

What proof do you have about all domesticated animals originating from eurasia? I don't believe it. What were the fulanis doing before those animals decided to emigrate? Please check your facts. Secondly, Africa has more variety of fruits and plants that eurasia.

We know where plants and animals originally came from from archeology, paleontology, genetic studies and sometimes historical records. The science is pretty solid so I'm not going to waste time arguing about it. Either use Google to educate yourself, or just take my word for it. And FYI, cattle were first domesticated in Mesopotamia about 11,000 years ago. I don't know what the Fulanis were doing before that, but they definitely weren't herding cows.

Africans had everything, stopped evolving and rested on their oars. Europeans had fewer things and had to fight and expand in order to survive. Through their many fightings and wars, they eliminated the weak and foolish amongst themselves and their offsprings evolved to stronger and smarter population.

Wrong. The first modern humans left Africa only 100,000 years ago. We haven't been evolving long enough for that amount of change to happen. Besides, the differences between the races are mostly superficial and much less than the variability within each race. For some reason, you are looking down on your own ancestors and accusing them of being bums. And you're so focused on us lagging behind the Europeans that you haven't even noticed that we're way ahead of the native Americans, Australian aboriginals Polynesians and countless other cultures around the world. You need to stop all the self-hate and learn to appreciate where you came from, even thought it's not perfect.

turnstoner: What is the difference between geography and climate?

Geography and climate dictates the type of plants and animals available.

These argument is saying that prosperity depends only on your geography? This is patently wrong!

Geography: Eurasia's long axis is oriented east-west, while Africa and the Americas axes are north-south. This is a huge deal when it comes to the spread of agriculture, as you would see if you bother to follow my link.

Climate: Eurasia has by far the most diverse climate of any continent on earth. This means a very wide variety of plants and animals have been able to evolve in various different climactic conditions. More biodiversity means more varied plants and animals for domestication. Agriculture is the key to human development as history has shown. We Africans aren't even that far behind, native Americans were still in the stone age in the 15th century and some pacific island dwellers apparently didn't even have fire.

Plants and Animals: Basically all domesticated animals except guinea fowls and llamas originated in Eurasia. These animals didn't spread to Africa for centuries because they had to first adapt to the weather which changes rapidly as you move north or south (as opposed to east or west). This goes double for plants that depend on temperature, rainfall patterns, and seasonal day-length variation to grow.

This means that whenever a new plant or animal was domesticated, say horses in the steppes, its use easily spread over thousands of kilometers in both directions to Britain and China. Meanwhile, even today, horses don't really thrive in sub-saharan Africa.

The end result is that Europeans, Indians and Asians had access to cows, sheep, horses, camels, goats, dogs, pigs, rice, wheat, millet, beans, and peas for millennia before people on other continents. That means they could farm more efficiently (e.g.using oxen) travel more widely, eat better food and develop their societies faster. Thats why they are ahead.

The reasons why different societies develop at different rates have been well studied and don't have jackshît to do with genetics, religion or culture. Jared Diamond broke it down well in his excellent book, Guns Germs and Steel.

The short version is that the differences are due to geography, climate and the types of plants and animals available for domestication.

Follow the link for more detail.

[url] www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p2.html [/url]

@OP

Anybody can post any bullshiat story on the internet. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Proof or GTFO.

OLAADEGBU: What I said is that they are human beings, you are the one saying Adam was a Neanderthal. Back to the topic at hand. Here are some compelling evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nsZ6-t3pHY

You're right that neanderthals were human. Any member of the genus Homo is considered to be human. However, you're sorely mistaken if you think there were the same as modern Homo sapiens (i.e. you and me). Not only did they look very different physically (they were ugly as hell), we have sequenced their DNA and we know that it is quite different from ours.

While the amount of genetic diversity within each of the human races is usually much more than thee differences between them; when you compare H. sapiens DNA against Neanderthal DNA, you can clearly see that they are a distinct species, or subspecies.

Let me dumb the last paragraph down a bit so you can understand: If we sequence your DNA and compare it to that of a random Chinaman and another Nigerian, it is quite possible that yours will be more similar to the Chinaman's than to your fellow countryman's. (This is particularly true about Yoruba's, who've been found to have extremely high levels of genetic diversity). On the other hand, no human being on earth is genetically more similar to neanderthals than Nigerians. The closest are the Europeans (due to some ancient cross-breeding), but even they are n quite far away.

TL;DR Neanderthals are not the same as modern humans. The evidence is concrete. You need to update yourself on the latest research and stop reading creationist bullcrap.

Pastor Adeboye, who is General Overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), described same sex marriage as anathema to God's will and instruction, saying the will of God for human beings is to be fruitful, replenish and multiply on earth, and anything contrary to that is devilish.

Renowned cleric and Juju priest, Evil Brain described solid-state transistors as anathema to Orunmila's will and instruction, saying the will of Orunmila is to use only mechanical or gas-discharge computers; and everything contrary to that is the work of Esu. He then called on the federal government to ban all computers, flat-screen televisions, mobile phones, and remote controls containing such transistors calling them "an evil western invention". "We must repent and go back to good old vacuum tubes" he said while addressing journalists.

He said, "How can a man who marries a fellow man produce a child? And how can a woman who marries a woman produce a child? If this evil is allowed to stay, there will not be new born babies again in the world.

"As the older generation dies, would there be new generation to succeed? Even plants and animals have new generation to succeed them."

The Evil Brain also condemned marriages involving post-menopausal women explaining that since such marriages can't result in childbirth, they are evil and should be banned. He also called for criminalizing the use of condoms and contraceptives since the only reason people have sex is to "produce another generation".

He also urged the people to walk in the light of God and forsake acts that are traceable to darkness, saying "darkness is bad, it is evil. It produces poverty, hatred, sorrow, bareness and loneliness.

Evil Brain urged Nigerians to follow the will of Orunmila and forsake all acts contrary to it, saying disobeying Orunmila produces poverty, hatred, sorrow, barrenness, and loneliness. President Goodluck Jonathan is a prominent member of Evil Brain's Juju shrine and is believed to be preparing to forward a bill to the senate.

When did Adeboye join the Christian Taliban? Why do religious people always insist on imposing their religious laws on everybody. Do you think everybody follows your religion? Hell even most Christians wouldn't want to live in a country that's governed by biblical law; not everybody likes stoning disobedient children and executing r@pe victims. How is Adeboye any better than the last set of fanatics who were trying to impose sharia law on Nigerians a few years ago?

Why can't religious people just face their own lives and keep their minds out of other people's bedrooms? If Adeboye and other Christians want to live under religious law, they can just move to Iran. Same-sex marriage is illegal there, I hear.

I wonder why he thinks his religious beliefs should have any bearing on the lives of millions of Nigerians who either don't share them or don't want to live in a country governed by self-righteous, self-appointed "clerics" enforcing irrational iron-age beliefs while the rest of the world moves on without us.

Luckily, our constitution states clearly that Nigeria is a secular country so we don't have to give a cr@p what the bible (or koran) says.