₦airaland Forum

It's going to be a crazy draft this year bro, so many good players from college this year. Texan have the first round pic this year, you you know how comes second ?

Bro those are just amazing pics. The one that got my jaws to drop was Ethiopia. Do you remember in the 80's when the had that feed the children thing, you would think Ethiopia is just this barren land.

Dude vince young don't need no College, I just hope he get's into a good NFL team in the drafts a couple of months from now. I would love to see Vince remain in Texas.

dblock:
Yeah also check this site just found it I'm sure you will like it

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=286603

and-- http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=6361101#post6361101

Thanks so much for shearing, if only the Americans can see this. Would you even believe the had buildings in Ethiopia, so amazing shame on American media.

nferyn:
It's quite obvious your lecturer did not know the first thing about the Theory of Evolution. A pathologist is not, unless I understand it wrongly, a biologist. Could you explain the context in which he made that statement,, because it is a clear sign of his ignorance on the subject matter.
Anyway, this is the classical mix up of the colloquial meaning of the word theory and the scientific meaning of the word theory.
The famous biologist Stephen J. Gould explained this issue as:
On top of that, by using the words of creation and how life arose, your lecturer makes it abundantly clear that he has no [/b]understanding of the Theory of Evolution, as that theory:
[list]
[li]does not deal with life's origins[/li]
[li]has nothing to do with creation[/li]
[/list]
I wonder how much experience the man has in the scientific field? If he does have a research background, it will most definitely [b]not [/b]be in biology.

There are mountains of evidence in favor of the Scientific Theory of Evolution and not a shred of evidence in favor of creationism (just look at this for a mere glimpse of the evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Layi, you are as much a free thinker as your religion allows. You dare not step outside the boundaries of your religious dogma. Once more, proof is for mathematics and logic and has no place in real natural science. You can only study the evidence and there is [b]plenty [/b]for evolution and [b]none whatsoever for creationism.
I'm happy you dare to call a cat a cat. Intelligent Design is indeed nothing more than Creationism [/i]in disguise. You show your lack of understanding about evolution by refering to chance as the main driver of evolution. Chance only plays a role in the random mutations that form the basis on which the evolutionary processes can work. Natural selection and sexual selection, which drive evolutionary change in organisms, are anything but chance processes.
Well in view of the source of your material, I wouldn't have expected anything else. Did you ever read any material by even one relevant scientist (I mean a working research biologist)?
Why do you keep on hammering that [i]chance [/i]bit? Where does that obsession with [i]chance [/i]come from? Evolution is not driven by chance or random processes. Natural selection is very directive, as only those organisms that are succesful in a specific environment can reproduce and spread their genes.
Read this as an antidote for your misconception of chance in evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

As for your example of the evolution of the human eye, here's the evidence for it's evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm#Overview
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html#EYES
This last link gives a very simple description of how eyes can evolve,which I will repeat here (also see attached image for te references):Very conservative simulations by the biologists [i]Nilsson and Pelger, showed that it takes only about 400.000 generations to develop a camera-lens eye such the human eye (see http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml for a full explanation). It is so astoundingly fast that it would be nearly impossible to detect in the fossil record. It is thus of no surprise that the eye has evolved at least 40 times completely independently in different species.

It is a falsehood that Darwin had second thoughts about the validity of his theory, on the contrary. The Lady Hope story you're referring to has been proven to be a fabrication. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html) Darwin used to be an avid theist and it took him quite long to muster the courage to go against the prevailing stream and publish his work On The Origin of Species and only after his Theory was scientifically well established did he dare to publish Descent of Man. So strong was the oposition to the idea that humans are also mere animals.
Neither should it. It simply does not deal with the origins of the universe. Would you go and ask your auto-mechanic for help when it comes to performing a complex surgery? I am quite positive though that he is far more qualified than you to work on your car.
1. because evolution happens over wide timespans (geological time), it does not mean evolution has not been observed. Species with very short generational timespans (such as fruit flies or bacteria) are used to study evolution in action. What creationists call macro-evolution (the development of seperate species) has been observed on countless occasions.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

2. transitional fossils for all major taxa have been found. This in itself is already quite impressive, as the remains of past species only fossilise under very favorable conditions, so only a very tiny number of specimens of the great variety of past lifeforms could ever fossilise and could thus be found. Obviously, this could only be a problem for the Theory of Evolution, if the fossil record were the only line of evidence in it's favor, which isn't the case.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html
This once more shows your lack of understanding of what the Theory of Evolution really is. Sexual reproduction provides many benefits, such as a more rapid adaptation rate and quicker evolution of resistance against parasites. The most important benefit though is that it is a mechanism that weeds out non-beneficial mutations quicker within a population. For complex, multi-cellular organisms, these benefits far outweigh the advantage of fast reproduction.
Multi cellular lifeforms have just colonised another niche of nature that bacteria, viruses and protozoa do not occupy and for that reason, they are not in direct competition with these lifeforms. Sexual reproduction has proven to be the most beneficial survival mechanism for multi-cellular organisms.
Very easily. How exactly does the existence of human infants disprove evolution, as the human form and characteristics have proven to be quite successful. We have colonised the entire planet. The main driver for our success as a species is our big brain and our ability to craft and use tools. Such a brain needs a lot of development and consumes a lot of energy. Even at birth, the human brain is huge compared to other species. It still needs to develop considerably to perform the functions humans need for survival. That's why the human infant needs long care and nourishment by it's parents (I won't bore you here with the details as to why we are not born with a fully developed brain, but if you would insist, I can explain the mechanism of the underlying evolutionary trade-offs in another post)

Once more, our success as a species is sufficient evidence for the positive evolutionary outcome of human specificity. We eat [/b]all those species that are capable of survival within a matter of days [b]for lunch and we have developed technology to fend of fierce predators without much effort. What more do you need as evidence for our evolutionary success?
Only a Creationist would say that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We are successful, yes, but so are the insects and bacteria, and even more so, as they have a higher bio-mass than ourselves.
Anyway, can you explain how exactly human reproduction flies in the face of everything that evolution holds true? It seems to me that it only flies in the face of the validity of your strawman of evolution.
So? See above.
Evolution works on the level of the replicators, not on the level of the individual or group. Investment of time and energy in their offspring increases the chance of survival of the constituant genes of a specimen more than fending for one's own survival. You should read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
Another one of those creationist mock-ups? You can do better than that, layi.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html

It's is quite obvious that creationists just love to use quotes, either by famous biologist or by others that could give their ideas credibility. These quotations are either invented, attributed to other people than the ones that made them, a mock up of several quotes by different people, or completely out of context quotations.
This quotation scores high on that index. It passes 3 out of the 4 criteria for good ^(tm) creationist quotations.
Since when has science been challenged to do that? This is news to me.

wow........this is one long post, you must have alot on your mind bro.

I hated those boys from LALA land (Hollywood) Did you see all the freaking celebrities that where routing for USC. Even snoop dog is a USC fan the guy never graduated high school. I bet he can't even spell college.

That's just what all you Longhorn HATERS said before the USC game, and Vince showed them. dude don't mess with Texas.

Bring it on buckeye, my older brother goes to school at UT Texas, so I'll be at the game to see the buckeye go back to their farmlands with their tails between their legs.

Can't wait for that match up too. As a UT (longhore) fan, it's kind of hard to call with VINCE in the NFL.

alheri:
she said younger man, not boy.

Honey I don't know what generation you life in, you'll be surprised to know what 14 year old can do these days

Ladies, Ladies Ladies, why are you dogging on this CAT (love-vendor). He obviously thinks his some kind of player.


@lotekun, did you really sleep with your cousin? dude if you that desperate, find you a dope head or hooker I'm sure you can find some in your area.

Greatpeter:
There is nothing bad about it. Age is just a number.

smartsoft:
Word Man.. Word.. Please help me tell the folks out there...

True that. but what if this chick is like in her mid 30's and the cat is like 14, would that still be ok?

Makeda:
Well I have dated both black guys and white guys. Sure white guys will buy you things to be romantic, but black men have more passion inside. I mean out of the various races I have dated, none of them have loved me like black men have loved me. White men just lack passion in my opinion, and when they kiss you it is even weak. Black men are strong and they love hard with deep passion. Nothing can compare to the love of a black man, and yes there are still some good ones out there, But these are just my experiences, everyone is different.

You got my vote sister, ONCE YOU GO BLACK.

Just Imagine that girl, all the help we gave her and this is how she pays us back.* hiss*

I'll be back later ok slim.

You alright slim. We still tight right ?

Now I'm lost again. I never said I was looking for a GF, I have a girl friend and we planing on getting married when this semester of school is over.

I love you slim, if you don't mind sis can you please use the spell check it would help me a lot to understand you better. I really want to help you, but I don't seem to make out what you saying babe.

Come on slim I'm not getting any younger here. I promise we'll be good okay sis.

I hear you. Come on slim let your sweet voice be heard., don't be shy chillin and I don't bite okay dearling.

I feel you too chillin

Now I'm so lost. What is so fantastic, what am I missing here.

I don't mean to be rude slim but I don't understand what in the world you saying.

Hey slim, how many guys are you in love with? I just saw your other post about the American guy. DO I smell a rat here ?