₦airaland Forum

butterflyl1on:
Oh so you have the very much elusive fossil records that the whole scientific world has been looking for?

So you have custody of the missing links? Fossil ancestory?

Guy gerraarrahia. You are full of hot poo.

The Lack of Transitional Fossils

There are relatively few fossils forms that, because they are intermediate in certain respects, can be characterized as “transitional” from one type or species to another type or species. By the time Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859, much fossil collecting had already been done, and few intermediate forms had been found. Darwin acknowledged that, according to his theory, we should find many transitional forms in the fossil record and that, in fact, we do not.

The following are the very words of Charles Darwin in his satanic book The Origin of Species

". . . the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory."

cstr1000:
I think the issue is with their ostentatious lifestyle.
I honestly can't see why a man of God needs Private Jets when the Bible says store up treasures in Heaven instead of on the earth.
The same Bible where Apostle Paul who is more anointed and did more work for God than all Nigerian pastors put together was as poor and single-minded as a Monk.

Even Rehinhard Bonnke has no PJ and he would probably have a valid excuse for having one.

I respect Men of God like Kumuyi, olukoya and co that are heavenly minded enough not to take care about Private Jets or expensive public lifestyles.



The Light of the Cross is not a Lime-light for any preacher-- Rheinhard Bonnke.

You won't believe it if I tell you Pastor Kumuyi does not have a single property in his name. The house he lives in is inside the church premises. He was almost forced before he allowed his two sons to be trained abroad. This man uses the same wrist watch for many years and lives a frugal life. This is Christianity. Unfortunately, the fake pastors - who are many and take up headlines all the time - have corrupted the minds of many people and made them hate everything Christianity. They also give atheists and the likes things to chew.

Evablizin:


Wow nice post with good points.

Some churches and ministers are working with the money raised through tithes and offerings without making noise,God will bless them.

The truth is it's not logic in the school of heaven to broadcast giving. If you study the Bible very well, you'll notice that when you give to men you're not supposed to broadcast it (Let not your right hand know what the left does).

Many churches give quietly, which is what Bible commanded. Nobody would have known Christ and His disciples gave to the poor if it was not briefly mentioned in the Bible.

We are in the last days when people question everything. What has been acceptable for centuries is suddenly sounding wrong. It also difficult to blame those questioning tithing when you see the way some so-called men of God live lavishly. They live the kind of live Christ never lived, buying planes, living in expensive houses, buying exotic cars and clothes. All these are contrary to the spirit of christianity.

kahal29:
And they still say Buhari is not working... From $28 billion handed over to him in 2015 to $38 billion in November 2017. However the same reserve fell from $53 billion in 2008 to $43 billion in 2012 and then to $28.5 billion in may 2015 with nothing tangible to show for the depletion of the reserves. The worst is that even when oil prices were above 100 dollars our reserves instead of going up was still going down.

Thank you jare for your sensible comment. God bless you for thinking rationally.

Kaosimaryjoe2017:
please someone should Answer me pls

Written: If you have a sound knowledge of subject area, that's all you need. Some also ask that you write lesson note. Search previous pages of this thread to learn how to do that.

Oral: Confidence and good English. Talk like a winner, and one you will be.

Good luck.

butterflyl1on:
For a cell to exist and thrive it must have by some massive stroke of luck evolved all its parts regardless of how small AT THE SAME TIME.

it must have known how to know what to eat, drink, multiply, protect, and excrete its waste.

How is a cell able to identify all these things without error and perfectly handle their processes?

For example for a cell to get rid of waste it does this by bringing the waste close to the cell membrane and then closing the cell membrane around the waste, isolating it from the rest of the cell.

This it is able to do without an analysis, process and action mechanism. If the most basic foundation of life shows intelligence in its core then how would more sophisticated life forms let size show any less? If a simple cell as small as it is still super complex in its workings then what more can we say?

In the end it all boils down to one thing: What I want to believe.

If I want to believe 1 + 1 = 7, for example, no amount of argument will work on me to believe otherwise.
It's remarkable how quickly atheists clog threads like this, spreading their distorted views about everything good.

No marvel then since the owner of Nairaland is an atheist also. I remember preaching to him several times to believe in God while we were at OAU.


Someone said:

"Atheists are some of the most religious and faithful people ever. It takes an incredible amount of faith to be an atheist. Sun, moon, stars, oceans, the Earth, animals, babies, male, female, the human heart, emotions, our conscience, love, intelligence, the human mind, bone structure, the human reproductive system, biblical prophecies coming true all before our eyes, eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and more and still there are some people who deny God’s existence... If Atheists believe there is no God, why are they always so obsessed with Him? Why are they worried about Christians? Why do they view things about Christianity just to mock? Why are there atheist conventions? Why have atheist churches?"

The blessed Book says:

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind [God allowed their hearts to be bereft of true knowledge, emphasis mine], to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents." (Romans 1: 28-30).

THE UNBELIEVER’S RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN

In the past, those who chose not to believe in God denied the existence of any purposeful design in the Universe, and busied themselves in attempting to prove that point. That is why, for example, Richard Dawkins wrote The Blind Watch-maker—to argue that there is no design apparent in the Universe. Were such design found to exist, the conclusion would be both inescapable and undeniable—there must have been a designer.

It is not an easy task, however, to explain away what the average person can see so readily as compelling evidence of design. There are simply too many striking examples of design in nature, which is teeming with creatures, and features, that can be explained only by acknowledging an intelligent designer. From the macrocosm to the microcosm, inherent design is clearly evident. In their more lucid moments, even unbelievers are struck by it. Evolutionist Douglas Futuyma, for example, ruefully admitted: “We look at the design of organisms, then, for evidence of the Creator’s intelligence, and what do we see? A multitude of exquisite adaptations to be sure; the bones of a swallow beautifully adapted for flight; the eyes of a cat magnificently shaped for seeing in the twilight” (1983, p. 198).
Does this mean, then, that unbelievers like Dr. Futuyma have admitted defeat, and now are willing to accept the existence of God? Hardly. Rather than admit the existence of the Creator, they have developed a two-pronged approach to dealing with the theist’s argument from design. First, they have developed an argument which suggests that apparent design is just that—apparent, not actual. In other words, features that appear to have been designed can, in actuality, be explained on the basis of adaptation, random chance operating over eons of time, etc.
Second, they have developed an argument intended to draw attention away from apparent design in nature, and to call attention to alleged examples of “non-design” or poor design—which they feel should not be present if an intelligent Designer created the magnificent Universe in which we live. This line of reasoning basically suggests that if design in the Universe proves the existence of God, then “non-design” (or poor design) just as emphatically disproves the existence of that same God. In logical form, the argument may be stated as follows.


1. If the Universe evinces traits of non-design, there is no Designer.
2. The Universe does evince non-design.
3. Thus, the Universe had no Designer.

In recent years, this argument has grown in popularity. In his book, Science on Trial, Futuyma devoted almost an entire chapter to examples of non-design in nature. Other scientists have joined in the fracas as well, not the least of whom was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote extensively about alleged examples of non-design in nature.
As a result of all the attention being given to the matter of design versus non-design, a new phrase has been coined to express the unbeliever’s position—the argument from sub-optimality. This idea suggests that if all design were considered perfect, everything would be optimal; however, since there are items in nature that (allegedly) are imperfect, there is suboptimality in nature. [NOTE: The argument also is known as the argument from dysteleology.] It is my contention that the argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, in arguing the case for design, creationists are not obligated to show obvious design in every single feature of the Universe. It is necessary to produce only a reasonable number of sufficient evidences in order to establish design. For the evolutionist to produce an example of something which, to him, evinces either non-design, or poor design, does not somehow magically negate all the other evidences of obvious design!
Second, it is possible that an object possesses purposeful design, but that it is not recognized by the observer. Consider the following two cases. Percival Davis, in the book he coauthored with Wayne Frair, A Case for Creation, provided the following illustration.

My daughter was playing with her pet rat one day
when a question occurred to her. “Daddy,” she said,
“why does a rat have scales on its tail?”
“You know perfectly well,” I replied. “The reptiles that were ancestral to rats and all other mammals had scales on their tails as well as on the rest of their bodies. Because there was no particular disadvantage to having them, they persisted in rats to this day.”
“Quit putting me on, Daddy. I know you don’t be
lieve that!” You cannot win, it seems. But it is true that one is hard put to discern the reason for the manifold adaptations that organisms possess. What I should have said to my daughter (and eventually did say) was that God had put the scales there for reasons He knew to be perfectly good ones but which may take us a lot of research to discover, since He has not told us what they are. Still, the fact was that I could not explain the presence of those scales... (Frair and Davis, 1983, pp. 3031).
Dr. Davis has raised two very important points with this simple story. First, we may not know presently why an organism is designed the way it is. To us, the design is either not yet recognizable, or not yet well understood. Second, with further research, the heretofore unrecognizable design eventually may be discovered. In fact, in the case which follows, that is exactly what happened.
In his book, The Panda’s Thumb, Dr. Gould (who was one of suboptimality’s most vocal supporters) presented what he believed to be perhaps the finest known example of non-design to be found in nature thus far—the panda’s thumb. After providing an exhaustive explanation of how the panda has 5 other digits on each “hand,” which function quite well in the panda’s everyday life, Dr. Gould then provided an equally exhaustive explanation of the panda’s “thumb.” It is, he said, “a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable” appendage that “wins no prize in an engineer’s derby.” His whole essay was intended to portray this as good evidence of suboptimality—i.e., non-design in nature. In fact, lest the reader miss his point, Gould said that “odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread, but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce” (1980, pp. 20-21).
Interestingly, while Dr. Gould was writing about the non-design that he felt was so evident, research (the same kind of research Dr. Davis suggested was needed to elucidate the purpose of design in certain structures) was ongoing in regard to the panda’s thumb. What did that research show? The panda’s thumb now has been found to exhibit design for very special functions, as the following information attests.
First, the San Diego Zoo’s Giant Panda Zoobook states: “In fact, the giant panda is one of the few large animals that can grab things as tightly as a human can” (n.d., p. 6). Second, in 1985 Schaller and co-authors released The Giant Pandas of Wolong, in which they wrote: “The panda can handle bamboo stems with great precision by holding them as if with forceps in the hairless groove connecting the pad of the first digit and pseudothumb” (p. 4).

Do these kinds of statements seem to describe the panda’s thumb as a “jury-rigged” device? Does being able to grasp something tightly, with great precision, using a pseudothumb that can be compared to surgical forceps seem to convey non-design? Such statements should serve to remind us that an object may indeed possess purposeful design, but that design may not be evident immediately to the observer. Dr. Gould could not see (for whatever reasons) the design in the panda’s thumb. Nevertheless, such design is present.
There are other flaws with the suboptimality argument as well. One of the most serious is this: those who claim that something is “suboptimal” must, by definition, set themselves up as the sole judge of what is, and what is not, “optimal.” In other words, those who would claim non-de-sign in nature must know two things: (1) they must know with certainty that the item under discussion evinces positively no design; and (2) they must know with certainty what the absolute standard is in the first place (i.e., “the optimal”) in order to claim that something has become “suboptimal.”

These points have not escaped evolutionary scientists. For example, S.R. Scadding of Guelph University in Canada has commented that the suboptimality “argument is a theological rather than a scientific argument, since it is based on the supposed nature of the Creator” (1981, p. 174, emp. added). That is to say, the unbeliever sets himself up as the Creator, presupposes to know the mind of the Creator, and then presumes to say what the Creator did, or did not, do. Observe how one evolutionist does just that:
The case for evolution then has two sides; positive evidence—that evolution has occurred; and negative evidence—that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful Creator would have created (Futuyma, 1983, p. 198, emp. added).
Notice the phrase, “that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful Creator would have created.” The atheist, agnostic, or skeptic looks at the creation, sees that it does not fit what he would do if he were the Creator, and then suggests on that basis that a Creator does not exist. Such thinking makes for an extremely weak argument. As Frair and Davis have remarked: “It could be considered arrogant to assume knowledge of a design feature’s purpose in an organism, even if it had a purpose” (1983, p. 31).
There is yet another flaw in this suboptimality argument, which, like the one just discussed, has to do with theology, not science. First, the unbeliever sets himself up as the Creator, and proceeds to note that since things weren’t done as he would do them, there must not be a Creator. Second, however, when the real Creator tries to explain why things are as they are, the unbeliever refuses to listen. I would like to offer the following in support of this point.
It is at least possible that an object once clearly reflected purposeful design, but as a result of a process of degeneration, the design has been clouded or erased. Suppose a gardener, digging in a pile of rubbish, discovers an ancient book. Its cover is weathered, its pages are mostly stuck together, the type has faded, etc. It is, for all practical purposes, completely illegible. Does the current condition of the book mean that it never had a message—that it never evinced design? Of course not. Though the book is in a degenerative condition, and the message has faded with time, there is no denying that the book, at one point, was quite communicative.
The unbeliever surveys the Earth and finds examples of what he believes are evidences of “suboptimality.” Yet in many cases he may be witnessing simply degeneration instead. In fact, that is exactly what the Creator has stated. When man sinned, and evil was introduced to this planet, a state of progressive degeneration commenced. The whole creation suffered as a result of man’s sin (Romans 8:20-22). The Hebrew writer, quoting the psalmist, observed that “the earth, like a garment, is wearing out (Hebrews 1:10-11).
This important point also should be noted: the fact that the product of an orderly mechanism is flawed does not necessarily reflect upon either the initial design or the designer. For example, if a machine that manufactures tin cans begins to turn out irregular cans, does this somehow prove the machine had no designer? Must one postulate that the machine’s inventor intended for mutilated cans to be produced, or that the machine was imperfectly designed? Surely we can conceive that the failure could be on the part of those who failed to follow the correct procedures for maintaining the machine, or who abused it in some fashion.

When man rebelled against his Maker, the Lord allowed, as a consequence of that disobedience, degenerative processes to begin, which eventually result in death (Romans 5:12). But the fact that we have eye problems, heart failure, diseases, etc., does not negate the impact as a whole that the human body is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). We will not assume, therefore, that because an unbeliever’s reasoning ability is flawed, this proves his brain was not designed. The design argument remains unscathed.
Unbelievers, of course, ignore all this. After all, they have already set themselves up as the Creator, and have determined that none of this is the way they would do it. When the real Creator speaks, they are too busy playing the Creator to hear Him. Futuyma has written:
The creationists admit that species can undergo limited adaptive changes by the mechanism of mutation plus natural selection. But surely an omniscient and omnipotent Creator could devise a more foolproof method than random mutation to enable his creatures to adapt. Yet mutations do occur, and we have experimental demonstration that they are not oriented in the direction of better adaptedness. How could a wise Creator, in fact, allow mutations to happen at all, since they are so often degenerative instead of uplifting? According to the creationists, there is “a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature” that we must suppose includes mutation. But why should the Creator have established such a principle? Didn’t He like the perfection of His original creation (1983, p. 200)?
Dr. Futuyma acknowledged that creationists have tried to get him to see that there is “a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature.” Then he asked: “But why should the Creator have established such a principle? Didn’t He like the perfection of His original creation?” This is why we say that

the problem is rooted in theology, not science. Futuyma questions why the Creator enacted this “principle of degeneration,” then makes it clear that he has no intention whatsoever of accepting the answer provided by the very Creator he questions. If Dr. Futuyma had studied what the Creator did say, he would have the answer to his question. Yes, the Creator liked His original creation, so much so He pronounced it “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

It was not God’s fault that the principle of degeneration became a reality. It was man’s fault because the first man wanted, like so many today, to be his own God. Is there a “principle of degeneration” at work? Indeed there is. Might it cause some organisms or structures to have their original message (i.e., design) diminished, or to lose it altogether? Indeed it might. But does that mean that there never was any design? Or, does it reflect poorly on the Designer, proving somehow that He does not exist? In the eyes of the unbeliever, the only possible answer to these questions is a resounding “yes.” As Scadding has noted:

Haeckel makes clear why this line of argument was of such importance to early evolutionary biologists....
It seemed difficult to explain functionless structures on the basis of special creation without imputing some lack of skill in design to the Creator (1981, p. 174). So, God gets the blame for man’s mistakes. And, the unbeliever gets another argument for his arsenal. Here, in a nutshell, is that argument, as stated by British evolutionist Jeremy Cherfas:

In fact, as Darwin recognized, a perfect Creator could manufacture perfect adaptations. Everything would fit because everything was designed to fit. It is in the imperfect adaptations that natural selection is revealed, because it is those imperfections that show us that structure has a history. If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence of history, and therefore nothing to favor evolution by natural selection over creation (1984, p. 29).

Henry Morris, speaking specifically about the comments made
by Cherfas, offered an interesting observation:
This is an amazing admission. The main evidence
against creation and for evolution is that natural se
lection doesn’t work! If there were no “imperfect”
structures in nature, the evidence would all favor cre
ation. No wonder evolution has to be imposed by au
thority and bombast, rather than reason, if this is its
only real evidence! (1985, p. 177).

Yet this is exactly what Gould has suggested: “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution...” (1980, p. 20, emp. added).
The theist, however, is not willing to usurp the Creator’s prerogative and, like the unbeliever, tell Him what He can (and cannot) do, or what is (and what is not) acceptable. As Frair and Davis have suggested:

Yet the creationist lacks the option (open to the evolutionist) of assuming purposelessness. Human curiosity being what it is, the creationist will be motivated to inquire concerning the purpose of the universe and all its features. The purpose for most things will not be found. What we do find may, nonetheless, be sufficient justification for the endeavour (1983, pp. 31-32, emp. in orig.).
It is clear that unbelievers are grasping at straws when the argument from suboptimality is the best they can offer. In reality, of course, all of this is nothing new. Darwin, in his Origin of Species, addressed essentially the same argument in 1859. Modern unbelievers—desperate to find something they can use as evidence against design in the Universe (and thus against the Designer)—have resurrected it from the relic heaps of history, dusted it off, given it a different name, and attempted to imbue it with respectability while foisting it upon the public as a legitimate response to the argument from design. Once again they have had to set themselves up as the Creator in order to try to convince people that no Creator exists. And, once again, they have failed. One does not get a poem without a poet, or a law without a lawgiver. One does not get a painting without a painter, or a musical score without a composer. And just as surely, one does not get purposeful design without a designer. The design inherent within the Universe—from the macrocosm to the microcosm—is quite evident, and is sufficient to draw the conclusion demanded by the evidence, in keeping with the Law of Rationality, that God does exist.

butterflyl1on:
Fact!!!

I would have loved to join the fray but you and doctoralien have done quite well.

Anyone else who wishes to keep deceiving himself about evolution and the origin of life with all the attached fairy tales and suppositions it comes with can continue. From the largest to the most minute biological specimen, all of them show intelligence behind their functionality and existence especially those organisms which have no means of self analysis and problem solving as we do with mental capacity but they "by some inner working" know how to navigate and solve their own problems at their level.

Kudos.

Spot on!

For those who do not know the IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY of the cell refers to the fact that if the smallest part of the cell were to be absent, it could not exist. Every part of the cell - every single one of them - had to be present at once for the cell to exist. There's no way the cell could have evolved into what it is today.

http://endtimeupgrade.org/4a/

DoctorAlien:
Probability calculations for the origin of life

Many attempts have been made to calculate the probability of the formation of life from chemicals, but all of them involve making simplifying assumptions that make the origin of life even possible (i.e. probability > 0).

Mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle stated in various ways the extreme improbability of life forming, or even getting a single functional biopolymer such as a protein. Hoyle said, “Now imagine 10⁵⁰ blind persons [ed: standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon.”37

Indeed, we can calculate the probability of getting just one small protein of 150 amino acids in length, assuming that only the correct amino acids are present, and assuming that they will join together in the right manner (polymerize). The number of possible arrangements of 150 amino acids, given 20 different ones, is (20)¹⁵⁰. Or the probability of getting it right with one try is about 1 in 10¹⁹⁵. Lest someone protest that not every amino acid has to be in the exact order, this is only a small protein, and only one of several hundred proteins needed, many of which are much larger, and the DNA sequence has to arise as well, seriously compounding the problem. Indeed there are proteins that will not function at all with even a small alteration to their sequence.38

At that time Hoyle argued that life must therefore have come from outer space. Later he realized that even given the universe as a laboratory, life would not form anywhere by the unguided (non-intelligent) processes of physics and chemistry:

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”39
Does a figure of 1 in 10^40,000 make the origin of life somewhere in the universe impossible without purposeful intelligence? Can we say that?

The total number of events (or ‘elementary logical operations’) that could have occurred in the universe since the supposed big bang (13.7 billion years) has been calculated at no more than 10¹²⁰ by MIT researcher Seth Lloyd.40 This sets an upper limit on the number of experiments that are theoretically possible. This limit means that an event with a probability of 1 in 10^40,000 would never happen. Not even our one small protein of 150 amino acids would form.

However, biophysicist Harold Morowitz41 came up with a much lower probability of 1 in 10^{10,000,000,000}. This was the chance of a minimalist bacterium being assembled from a broth of all the basic building blocks (e.g. theoretically obtained by heating a brew of living bacteria to kill them and break them down to their basic constituents).

As an atheist, Morowitz argued that therefore life was not a result of chance and posited that there must be some property of available energy that drives the formation of entities that can use it (aka ‘life’). This sounds much like the idea of Gaia, which attributes pantheistic mystical properties to the universe.

More recently the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel proposed something similar to account for the origin of life and mind.42

Anything but believe in a supernatural Creator, it would appear.

The different probabilities calculated arise from the difficulty of calculating such probabilities and the differing assumptions that are made. If we make calculations using assumptions that are most favourable to abiogenesis and the result is still ridiculously improbable, then it is a more powerful argument than using more realistic assumptions that result in an even more improbable result for the materialist (because the materialist can try to argue against some of the assumptions with the latter approach).

However, all calculations of the probability of the chemical origin of life make unrealistic assumptions in favour of it happening, otherwise the probability would be zero. For example, Morowitz’s broth of all the ingredients of a living cell cannot exist because the chemical components will react with each other in ways that will render them unavailable for forming the complex polymers of a living cell, as explained above.

High profile information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC Berkeley) realized this problem:

“The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.”43
Note that in his calculations, Yockey generously granted that the raw materials were available in a primeval soup. But in the previous chapter of his book, Yockey showed that a primeval soup could never have existed, so belief in it is an act of ‘faith’. He later concluded, “the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions.”44

Thank you so much DoctorAlien for all these explanations. I've watched a lot of documentaries about the cell, and all agree and conclude on the irreducible complexity of the cell. It's so unbelievably complex that the argument for design is compelling. The DNA is another astounding work of the Designer. Actually, a lot of sincere scientists have come to believe there is a Designer after studying the complexity of the DNA molecule.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

Steven Hawking Admits Intelligent Design is "Highly Probable": http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/

Akin1212:
How do I explain morality? Just what are you asking here? Because I don't really understand what you want.

Do you want me to tell you what morality is? Or you want me to give a justification for it?

Evil and good are two relative terms. But evil and good are judged by the consequences of the action commited. How will you feel if the action you are about to carry out is done to you?

For example, If my laptop is stolen, will I be happy? Hell no, in light of this, stealing another person's laptop is bad.

Again, if I am hungry and I need food, and then you came and give me food. I will be happy. Therefore, giving hungry people food is good to me.

Tell me, do you need a god before you know these things? Hell no.

And of course, if this your god created evil like he declared publicly in the book of Isaiah, then your god is evil. No arguments because he said he was the one who created it.

The question you would ask your god is this, why create evil if he doesn't want it? Is that not a sign of confusion?




How do you know what happens to me and other atheists? How many atheists have you investigated to ascertain these facts? Are you just assuming this illusion to be facts? Did god tell you?

I know atheists who died without giving a fig about your god. How many gods can someone even give a fig about? There are about 5000 valid gods to those who worship them.

I never wished a god does not exist to judge me, I became an atheist when I withdrew from fairy tales. How hard is that for you?

Does it make sense to you that a god who said incest is a sin created just two people to sleep with themselves and their children to multiply 7 billion people?

Does it make sense to you that your loving god made the heart of Pharaoh hard, even though Pharaoh did not know it was god that was doing it to him, and this same god killed him? Does it? Just tell me how grown you are. It's just like a good person giving people poison, that's the greatest contradiction ever.

What is sin in the first place? Eating a pair of fruits? LMAO

You are so ignorant. I find your ignorance so amusing. I have deliberately continued in this argument with you, not for your sakes, but for the sake of deceived souls who may stumble upon this post somehow. Now that I have achieved that I go my way. At the end of life, you'll know whether there is a God or not. Don't say you weren't warned. Bye, friend.

Akin1212:
This only scares children. Tell you what? I was also scared of the gory details of hell I was told when I was growing up. But now I am a man.

And that is the main problem I have with you theists. You have refused to grow up.

One day, the people who think(who use the brain more) will evolve and leave you people(those who don't think) behind. In fact, it is happening.

Theists irritate me based on the facts that they rejoice that their god has created hell for some human beings. Is that the only way your god can profer a solution?

How about starting from the beginning? like killing satan and returning everything back to normal?

How about making satan disappear and drawing all men to him?

Oh, I forgot, he can't, but why? Because he doesn't exist.

If there is a god with a dogma, then that god is not everything.

If there is a god that does not know how to solve matters without killing and hurting, then that god is evil.

You can rejoice in your illusions of heaven and hell all you want, it doesn't change anything, albeit create a real heaven.

Your god is nonexistent, deal with it with grace and remorse. Do you need more proofs than the ones we have shown and told you?

Ypu don't even know if this your god is an hermaphrodite, do you?

Your indoctrination level is legendarily witless.

What more can I say? There's no heaven, there's no hell. There's no God, there's no Satan. Can't you see?

No hell, no heaven, no judgement, abi? How do you explain morality? Where does the knowledge of good and evil come from? Why does a man have a conscience? Why do we feel good when we do the right thing and bad when we do otherwise?

Let me tell you what is true about you and other atheists: "When evil persons have gone in a life of sin, and find that they have reason to fear the just judgment of God, they begin at first to wish there were no God to punish them. Then little by little they persuade themselves that there is no God, and look for arguments to back their opinion." (John Bunyan).

So, what's your answer to the obvious problem of YOUR SIN?

Here's a link to a similar post I did months ago on Nairaland.

https://www.nairaland.com/1854629/lost-soul-speaks-hell

Yeah. My moniker was smurfy in those days.

Akin1212:
On the premises that Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that Levo and dextro rotatory amino acids can be synthesized, that the Nucleotide bases and the deoxy ribonucleic acids can be synthesized at certain natural conditions, and that the process of Abiogenesis itself is a natural process that took billions of years of complete and not a single even as you and the author above may think.

The volcanic eruption is a consequence abiogenesis itself, the energy used for Abiogenesis was not shared. Before Abiogenesis, there was no life, so there was sufficient energy for the natural process to proceed, unlike today where a lot of processes make use and transmit energy among themselves.

The author's confusion, which subsequently is your own confusion is that you think abiogenesis was a single event, it was not a single event bro. It was not.

Here's another one:

A Lost Soul Speaks


John Bunyan the famous baptist preacher before his conversion attempted suicide and was given a vision of hell of which he recounts of a soul there speaking of hell: "Our miseries in this infernal dungeon are of two sorts; what we have lost, and what we undergo. And these I will name under their several heads. First then for what we have lost. Here we have likewise lost the company of saints and angels, and in their place have nothing but tormenting devils. Here we have lost heaven too. The seat of blessedness. There is a deep gulf betwixt us and heaven, so that we are shut out from thence forever. Those everlasting gates that let the blessed into happiness are now for ever shut against us here. To make our wretchedness far yet more wretched, we have lost the hope of ever being in a better state, which renders our condition truly hopeless. The most miserable man upon earth still has hope. And therefore, it is a common proverb there that were it not for hope, the heart would break. Well may our hearts break then since we are both without hope and help. This is what we have lost; which, but to think on, is enough to fear and rend and gnaw upon our miserable souls forever. Yet, oh, that his were all! But we have sense of pain as well as loss. And having showed you what we have lost, I am trying to show you what we undergo. And first, we undergo variety of torments: we are tormented here a thousand, nay, ten thousand different ways. They that are most afflicted upon earth have seldom any more than one malady at a time. But should they have the plague, the gout, the stone, and fever at a time, how miserable would they think themselves? Yet all those are but like the biting of a flea to those intolerable, pungent pains that we endure. Here we have all the loathed variety of hell to grapple with. Here is a fire that is unquenchable to burn us with; a lake of burning brimstone ever choking us; eternal chain to tie us; here is utter darkness to affright us, and a worm of conscience that gnaws upon us everlastingly. And any one of these is worse to bear than all the torments mankind ever felt on earth."

"But as our torments here are various, so are they universal, too, afflicting each part of the body, tormenting the powers of the soul, which renders what we suffer most unsufferable. In those illnesses you men are seized with on earth, though some parts are afflicted, other parts are free. Although your body may be out of order, your head may yet be well; and though your head be ill, your vitals may be free; or though your vitals be affected, your arms and legs may still be clear. But here it is otherwise: each member of the soul and body is at once tormented. The eye is here tormented with the sight of the devil's who do appear in all the horrid shapes and black appearances that sin can give them. The ear is continually tormented with the loud yellings and continual outcries of the damned. The nostrils smothered with sulphurous flames; the tongue with burning blisters; and the whole body rolled in flames of liquid fire. And all the powers and faculties of our souls are here tormented. The imagination, with the thoughts of the present pain; the memory lost with reflecting on what a heaven we have lost, and of those opportunities we had of being saved. Our minds are here tormented with considering how vainly we have spent our precious time, and how we have abused it. Our understanding is tormented in the thoughts of our past pleasures, present pains, and future sorrows, which are to last for ever. And our consciences are tormented with a continual gnawing worm."

"Another thing that makes our misery awful is the extremity of our torments. The fire that burns us is so violent that all the water in the sea can never quench it. The pains we suffer here are so extreme that it is impossible they should be known by any one but those that feel them. Another part of our misery is the ceaselessness of our torments. As various, as universal, and as extremely violent as they are, they are continual, too. Nor have we the least rest from them. If there were any relaxation, it might be some allay. But this makes our condition so deplorable that there is no easing of our torments, but what we suffer now we must for ever suffer. The society or company we have here is another element in our misery. Tormenting devils and tormented souls are all our company; and dreadful shrieks and howlings, under the fierceness of our pain, and fearful oaths, is all our conversation. And here the torments of our fellow sufferers are so far from lessening our misery that they increase our pain. The place in which we suffer is another thing that increases our sufferings. It is the abstract of all misery, a prison, a dungeon, a bottomless pit, a lake of fire and brimstone, a furnace of fire that burns to eternity, the blackness of darkness for ever; and lastly, hell itself. And such a wretched place as this must needs increase our wretchedness. The cruelty of our tormentors is another thing that adds to our torments. Our tormentors are devils in whom there is no pity; but being tormented themselves, do yet take pleasure in tormenting us. All those particulars that I have reckoned up are very grievous; but that which makes them much more grievous is that they shall ever be so; and all our most intolerable sufferings shall last to all eternity. 'Depart from Me ye cursed into everlasting fires' is that which is perpetually sounding in my ears. Oh, that I could reverse that fatal sentence! Oh, that there was but a bare possibility of doing it! Thus have I showed you the miserable situation we are in, and shall be in forever."

Akin1212:
This does not even make sense. Use intelligence bro. Stop quoting a manipulated old piece of book of lies that contains absolute and closed ideas.

Watch this and know what happens to atheists at end of life.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgCxU9wxaTE

Akin1212:
Hmmm, this is funny. You are not here for people like me and yet you raised 15 questions you don't have answers to and called evolutionists to answer them.
I am an evolutionist, and I have answered the questions. Your questions tend to boldly address evolutionists as confused people and informed them that there is a supernatural power behind everything. What answers were you expecting? Those that will corroborate your illusions?

I do not have a religion, your assertion about betraying a religion does not hold water. And I was only trying to liberate you and others from your mental slavery by explaining evolution to you, just like you asked people like me to do. It's like crying for help.

I am not bothered about what you believe, inasmuch as it entails believing in a fairy spirit up there. It puts me one step ahead of you.

The noble creation has been undermined by the book(bible) who taught you already in the first place by contradicting itself and not conforming to the created(world). It's not my fault, blame the book. You don't have to invent illuminati to further disgrace your faith. The world is sinful and degenerate, yet you cannot just simply disappear to heaven, or commit suicide so you will leave here for those who will remain.



Many people who are far more knowledgeable than you and those you referred to up there have also found lies in God's supposed creation and don't give a fig about God. There's no point in bringing knowledgeable people here now.

Stephen Hawking is more knowledgeable than the professors in your questions and those in your videos, so what?

I see that the number of fictitious videos you have watched on youtube have deluded you more and more. Keep it up sir.

Of course, Paul the writer of Romans was naive when it comes to the things of the universe and was amazed by the vastness, so he quickly attributed the things he saw to his imaginary frined, just like you are doing. Are you surprised, oh no sorry, I meant I am not surprised.

"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." (2 Peter 2:10)

Akin1212:
The video is nothing close to the truth. Visiting Museums does not prove evolution. Evolution does not need to be proved. It is not something that needs to be proved, you need to humbly observe it with your eyes and mind.

Evolution is a change that takes billions of years. It is not a single event.

Evolution at least is more reasonable than creation. At least we can see micro changes in the human race.

Many years ago we were cavemen and today we have evolved into intelligent beings.

You need to understand evolution comprehensively before you can even see it.

Most people who want to uphold creationism are just trying to put down evolution, they can keep trying.

A spirit created human beings, how ridiculous that sounds?

Do we even know if this spirit can carry sand?

How can a spirit who is not physical even mold clay?

It only takes a reasoning and logical mind to understand evolution and not an indoctrinated mind.

I'm not here for people like you. You betray your RELIGION in one thing: Why would you even bother to explain to me and others there's no God, for that's the summary of your arguments? If I know there's no God and all lives just fade out at death, why should I even bother my head what others belief? Your desire to undermine the noble creation story clearly shows you're being used by the illuminatistic powers that control this sinful degenerate world.

Many people who are far more knowledgeable than you have found truth in God's creation and have since become God's children, having seen the compelling evidence in His creation.

Here's another video for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHicELhlAFo

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

For those who want to know the truth, I'd advice you watch the video below. For over 30 years, Dr. Carl Werner was involved in a personal journey, searching for the truth. He traveled the globe—visiting dig sites and museums, conducting interviews with leading experts, and more—all to answer a simple question: "Can you prove evolution?"



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIqto00mf3w


God bless you.

rekinomtla:
Interesting questions.

Whichever way you look at it, the argument for evolution does not hold water at all. Like one famous scientist recently said: "Evolution had a good run, but now it's time to move on to the 20th century."

The amazing complexity of the human/animal cell is enough to convince anyone that everything in the universe was designed by Someone.

15 Questions for Evolutionists


Question 1: How did life originate?

Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

Question 2: How did the DNA code originate?

The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? The genetic information code points to an intelligent source.

Question 3: How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?

Question 4: Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

Everyone recognizes design in a glass vase, but evolutionists refuse to believe that the flowers in the vase must also have been designed. The problem is not that they do not show design, but that they show too much design.


Question 5: How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3

Question 6: Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

Question 7: How did multi-cellular life originate?

How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

Question 8: How did sex originate?

Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). The horseshoe crab is one of thousands of organisms living today that show little change from their ‘deep time’ fossils. In the supposed ‘200 million’ years that the horseshoe crab has remained unchanged (no evolution), virtually all reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and flowering plants have supposedly evolved.

Question 9: Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.

Question 10: How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

Question 11: How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

Question 12: Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8

Question 13: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

Question 14: Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”


Question 15: Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

Source: https://creation.com/15-questions-for-evolutionists

folabisi07:
I have an aptitude test on Monday in one of the international schools in Ibadan I applied for the post of a Mathematics teacher. What should I expect from the test please?

Anyone with past question?

What do you mean by past question?

Shedrack777:
the only problem with them is: you won't use 60% of the data before expiry due to bad network

I always use up all my own o

Showoff. In these day of technology.

a yam a teachre and I cain explode maiself

cooljude:
It's a coup, sanctioned by western government (it's obvious from their reporting) and it shouldn't be recognised in Africa because it would signal double standard and embolden military personnel to start plotting coup.

Mugabe might be different thing to different persons but this action might further lead to the degradation democracy in Africa. I hope AU takes the right stand on thus issue.

It's not going to lead to anything. Can't you see it's bloodless and the old man asked - literally - for it?

ElDaIllest:
Stop this folly,if you had well functioning brains that selfishness doesn't cloud often and on,you'll conclude that most students hate maths expecially the algebraic expressions and geometry in paticular.I'm a coder well versed in python language so you calling me olodo is funny because you know,anyhow anyhow a little math is involved in writing python codes.

Olodo

ElDaIllest:
J You're not the only one,a greater part of the world population does too honey.

"A greater part." You better speak for yourself.

Olodo

Pojomojo:
I came to Abuja in 2003. A banking job brought me here, three years after, we were told to resign in the bank.
I have never been a person who relies on just one means of earning money. While still in the bank l used to sell corporate wears to my colleagues [center]and even staff of other banks around. l was so prosperous to that extent that whenever salary was paid, l saved more money to add to my salary.
When l left the bank job, l took to the business in full and for two years l lived on it. ln the course of my selling clothes, mercy of God located me. l met a customer who introduced me to his office where l was getting supply contracts, within three months l made the money l never made in ten years of labour altogether.
I bought a plot of land and built a four bedroom flat on it in three weeks.
Meanwhile, while working in the bank, l used to have a dream where I see myself teaching in class and l used to wonder if l was going to leave my bank for teaching.
After losing the banking job and got frustrated in the business of selling corporate wears due to bad debts, I ferverently prayed to God to make another way for me. l got a job with a construction company as an accountant, l declined taking the job because some of my family friends children used to come for lessons in my house when they saw how brilliant my children were.
One of the parents of the children encouraged me to start a school, which l started about nine years ago.
Today I thank God for the decision that I made[/center]

Good one from you. I hope you're taking good care of those teachers of yours. My heart is always with teachers.

shukuokukobambi:
Finally this important road is getting the attention it deserves. With Fashola in charge of works and Osinbajo presiding over it, it's sure this time around

sharpsecret, oya coman cry here again

Very positive comment. I love people like you.

biijei:
This is weird!!!

If the girl in question was born that way, she can't possibly even know the meaning of 'mother' .

Good point. The title isn't the issue here though. She's grown to know only this one person, and now she's dead...

Hello Teachers in Aba!

A school in Aba has open the position for a Physics Teacher. Interested teachers should visit our website to get details of the school and apply.

Thanks

www.xpressteachers.com

DRIFTyKING:
The Government of Lagos, this morning demolished the popular Yaba market in the state.

According to an Instagram user, Nma Kingsley, wwho was at the market to get photos, He wrote;



https://www.lailasblog.com/breaking-lagos-state-government-demolishes-yaba-market/

Nice poem, but remember we are moving forward. Unilag students can visit Mandilas in Lagos if they still wish to cover their nak..dness.