₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO:
I think you give those guys like Descarte too much credit. Or possibly, you give yourself too little credit. Dem no get two heads. Na only one brain like me and you them get. And also you kowtow too much to certain authorities, I suspect. How else would science have advanced if we were too submissive to authorities. Even if your contribution is not more than tuppence it can still go a long way. Nobody else in the world Now, in the past or ever to come, will have the perspectives that you have, and who knows, perhaps your particular perspective is just what is needed to make a breakthrough on the issue.

Personally, I don't give a damn about the failures of the failed regardless of their reputations.

This is a bizarre accusation. Where have I implied that I give them credit. In fact, did not my post suggest that many of their theories have ended up in graveyards? How the hell could you have twisted that to mean I was giving them credit. What bizarre reasoning.

All I was implying is that a more productive was of working follows the following guidelines:

1) If possible, try and avoid the mistakes of the past
2) Do not re-invent the wheel where possible and harness the work of others where appropriate
3) Then anew build from that solid platform

This does NOT mean that there is no room for pure, bluesky innovative thinking. Of course, there is. Just think about it. Paradigm shifts are few and far between, but there still happen. But the majority of scientific innovations have been based on well established theories.

tpia:
well, their executors will also have to die sooner or later even if they run to kafanchan. Death will meet them there.

Very perceptive of you. That would balance it out, wouldn't? One set of people dying for a fraudulent cause and another set dying maybe naturally, as we all shall die. GREAT!

Ovamboland:
There nothing new or revolutionary about the story, it's been around for some time now, just that i can't quote the source
I am suprised the story sounds new to Huxley and Okija-juju , however i want to believe Bindex could have heard the story before now.

For now , without any concrete proof of the story i'll take it  like the story of the football match between Nigeria and India ending in 99 goals for India to Nigeria's 1 (almost every adult in Lagos i spoke to heard and believe in the story we all know never happened)

Did I say this was news to me?   I think I did not.   I simply asked some questions, which I think any right thinking person would want to ask, unless of course, their mind has been addled by the poison of christianity.

I first heard this about 4 years ago, from my older brother who was trying to make a defense for his vile religion.   When I asked the same questions as I asked above, I obviously heard no answers.  With plenty of egg on his face, I think he has stopped circulating this story now.

aus123:
Blessed are those who re crucified 4 Righteousness sake; for their is Kindom of God.

May their gentle souls rest in peace,

IS this the best you could do? Are you resigned that they are gonna be killed? Could you not wish for better or is being killed for Jesus's sake a better fate? If it is, why aren't you queuing to receive the same fate as these gullible christians?

I-fy:
Folks,

Please pray for the 22 Christian Missionary families that will be executed in Afghanistan today. Spread fast to as many that will pray.

God bless you.

Would be nice if you could say what people could pray for.  

1)   Should people pray for their freedom
2)   Or so that when they get kill, the should go to heaven?

etc, etc.

What should they be prayed for?

Some questions to consider:

1) Were these children found just by pure chance or were the burying party disenterring a buried corpse only to find them. If it is the latter, is it standard practice in Egypt to bury over the corpses of others?

2) What happen to the mother? Did Jesus leave her to go back to death? Would the children have had a better live had Jesus not let the mother to go back to death? How many resurrections did this mother enjoy?

3) Is Jesus still bleeding to this day? Is it real blood and how much of it has he got?

4) How come Jesus has not used his healing powers to cure his wounds?

Did you find the CT thread? It has been to to the General Discussion section.

Check out the consistency of your beliefs here . Other interesting and fun can be found at here .

Enjoy!

May kelly:
You are foolish. complete foolish indeed. you lack understanding. i wonder how you interact wit people?

Can you deal with Jesus's views on adultery as presented here, rather that attacking me? Deal with the facts, otherwise shut up. But I know you are mentally challenged enough to have the mettle to deal with the fact of your rotten bible and Jesus.

It has been to to the General Discussion section.

Pastor AIO:
There is no scholarship that does not depend a great deal on invention and imagination. What else are theories? So yes I would just be making it up, but of course my inventions will be limited by rigor, hence the solidity of my arguments.

Now, I might or might not care to investigate what forebears and other experts in the field have said about my subject. The reasons why would include (off the top of my head):
1. To make sure that I'm not covering ground already covered by others and thus drawing accusations of plagiarism.

2. To place my work in some sort of context of the contemporary ideas.

3. Just out of curiousity. For instance I'm reading Giordano Bruno's Cause, Principle, and Unity at the moment. I think it is full of rubbish but I'm very much interested in medieval thought and appreciate it as an historical artifact from that era.

4. A good reason to not bother with what others have said is if my theories are a complete departure from the conventional wisdom and I know that my premises are stronger. Why bother with the shoulder of Giants when I have a better view from atop the Burj Dubai.

Huxley, if my negligence of past authorities leads me to talk rubbish then I am very sure an erudite fellow like you will call me up on it. I don't have to read absolutely every book in the world before I start to form opinions of my own. And therein lies the wonderful benefits of society and communication, that without having read all that you've read I can still benefit from the distilled wisdom of your erudition by having a chat with you. Imagine that we could only ever learn from our own personal studies. We'd probably still be in the stone age.

Large agree with you again here but with some caveats. A good number of the technologies, theories and sciences modern civilization enjoys today were made by people who basically dreamt them up out of new cloth, or arrived upon them by serendipity. There is still PLENTY of room for such discoveries, especially in areas that have hit a stalement, or yet undiscovered areas of human intellectual endeavours.

It turns out that what you were so keen to discuss is one such area as there is still a great deal unknown about what constitutes the mind, consciousness, emotions, etc, etc. This is burgeoning field of research, called neuroscience, aimed at understanding the functioning of the mind. And I admire you courage in wanting to explore discussion in this area.

However, is is daunting to see that vast amounts of theories from the likes of Descartes to more contemporary thinking, that inadequately fail to fully capture the nature of the mind. Pick up any good books on the Philosophy of the Mind/Consciousness to appreciate the graveyard of inadequate theories.

If I was starting out to pontificate about the theories of the mind, how would I know if I was not heading down one of these graveyards?

Pastor AIO:
If I was desperately in need of a cure or therapy and there were no conventional doctors, what would I do? Well there are many factors I would consider in the search for an alternative cure.

What is the record of the alternative cure?

What independent reports have I heard about it?

How much does it cost me?

If it will cost me nothing then there is no harm in trying it even just as an experiment.

Does the Cost outweigh the likelihood of success?

Then again if I am really desperate and faced with a fatality then maybe it might be worth throwing everything at it, including my every possession.

If on the other hand i had children that I wanted to leave something to then I might just decide to cut my losses, die gracefully, and leave my fortune intact for my loved ones.

There are much too many factors that would influence my decision so I couldn't tell you what I would do based on the information you've given me.

Many thank Pastor, I could not have said it better. But am I sure that with more deliberation on your part (an possibly my part) you could come up with even better strategies for approaching this problem of seeking a cure/therapy for said hypothetical illness.

Question is - why don't you just dive in head first and accept the first treatment presented to you? What is the driving force behind you need to evaluate this and the various alternatives.

Do you think everyone, face with the same or similar situation would be good at sifting out the bad options from the good options?

By carefully evaluating evidence, claims and propositions you are doing critical thinking. You have just shown me that you would exercise you CT faculties in deciding what therapy (in any) to seek for an illness. With this in mind, let's go back to your earlier question - the scientific principle behind CT. What is the scientific principle (if there is one) driving you to evaluate and carefully consider the options you have got?

Could it possibly be that his research led to him discovering this list of contradiction in some unattributed source (maybe books, internet, journal, etc, etc). My understand of his use of the word research in this context was that he did not necessarily discover all this contradiction by directly reading the bible, but he discovered sources where these contradictions are already documented.

The vast majority of research undertaken by history is done in this way, discoverying material that was previously unknown to oneself and to a wider group of people.

davidylan, still waiting!

Bastage:
@ Huxley.

From your link.

It gives a good rundown of what Isaiah is about but doesn't explain how the mistranslation came to be. For that you might want to Google "Jerome+Lucifer" and "Vulgate+Lucifer".
Incidentally, the quote states that "Morning Star" was a parallel to the Athtar myths. It wasn't. It was in fact another translation of "Heylel" (Morning Star) and in turn it's predecessor "Luce Ferrum" which meant "Light-bringer". And this was an official title held by Babylonian kings. Google those words and you will see how the translations went from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English and how we mistakenly ended up with Lucifer equalling Satan.

Many thankz. I shall pick this up tomorrow.

To be shown so glaringly that one has spent one's life commited to a worldview that is so corrupt of truth but replete with contradictions is really had to bear.   The bible-believing Christians here just cannot take the fact that their worldview that they so cherish is full of such[b] inconsistencies, contradiction, absurdities, barbarism, venality, immorality, human sacrifices and cannibalism[/b], etc, etc.

See how they are reacting - with anger, condescension, contempt, disgust and hatred towards the poster of the thread, who is simply revealing to them what they should have known had they not allowed themselves to be brainwashed, fleeced, and lobotomised by the bible-pushers.

Well Christains, you have nobody but yourselves to blame.   If I had been taken for this sort of a ride, I might feel resentful and angry as well.   These are justifiable sentiments, but I would not simply stay there.  I would react to correct the dissonance rather than bury my head in the sand and ignore the problem, or worse still  condemn the potential liberator.

You Christians have got your heads stuck in the sand, but guess what.   Your stinking bottoms are hanging out there for all to see and they are emitting really foul stench which is destroying our humanity and civilization.

Godless You!

OLAADEGBU:
Paul's Letter To The Evolutionists (and their bedfellows)

[b]"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, 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,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."[/b]

Romans 1:21-32

For godless sake, the depths of your deluions and stupid and imbecility knows no bounds.

Bastage:
Yes!!! Lucifer was a Babylonian king!!! And I've already told you how we find out from the Bible

Let me repeat myself:

Lucifer appears only once in the whole Bible in Isaiah 14:12
Isaiah is a proclamation by God against the enemies of Israel. Babylon and it's king Lucifer being one of them. Don't just look at that verse and think that is all there is. It has to be taken with the preceeding chapter which begins - "The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see." The whole of 13 and 14 are a tirade against Babylon - the nation which forced the Jews into slavery.

When the Bible was translated into Latin by a man named Jerome, he mistakenly thought that Lucifer was Satan. Nobody bothered correcting his mistake and the thing snowballed. Lucifer became to be thought of as Satan just because of that mistake. And as most people never even bother to read the Bible properly, the mistake still exists and we get attitudes like yours - you believe something to be because you are just following the herd in believing in a centuries old error.

Read Isaiah properly. Not just that verse but the chapter before and the chapter afterwards.

interesting, i did not know much about the 'history' of lucifer. this has set me on a path of further research, starting from here http://www.realdevil.info/5-5.htm

Pastor AIO:
Thank you. Can you please tell me what is the scientific basis of the concepts of Critical Thinking?

Think about this. Supposing you or someone close to you were desperately in need of some therapy from a illness for which there are currently no adequate treatment. Supposing in your search for treatment regimes you are told that there is a non-conventional "doctor" offering cures for said illness. What course of action would you take?

Interesting question - I was researching this when I came across this verse:

"And it was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:31-32, NASB)


What sort of jurisprudence is this ignoramus called Jesus advocating here? How could a wife be guilty of adultery by being divorce by her husband? For goodness sake, as this verse goes, she is not the one culpable for the divorce, so how come Jesus is accusing her of adultery?

As if that is not bad enough, a man who may wish to marry the divorce woman is at risk of also committing adultery. This is just sheer non-sense. This Jesus man was really really really stupid.

davidylan:
That is absolute nonsense. NOT ONCE did we even talk about anything religious . . . you brought up these issues to "defend" your own idea (and talkorigins) of evolution not that of science:

Unlike you, I do NOT have MY own idea of evolution.  I defend the idea of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientist who are experts in the field.  Incidentally, that is the same idea talkorigin defends.  It is NOT talkorigin's idea.  It is the idea defended by even Christian scientist like the Leader of the Genome project Francis Collins,  Kenneth Miller,  Francisco Ayala, Dobzanhky, Daniel Fairbanks.  Even the scientific bulwark of the Intelligent Design movement,  Michael Behe, accepts this as the process responsible for the diversity of life on earth.


Have you ever asked yourself why these esteemed men of science (perhaps bar Behe) should care to defend an idea that would be so at odds with their beliefs?



So these are not my idea.  It is the idea owned by the entire scientific community.    Can you show me any scientific dissent from this position?

Scientific evolution is not like the "religious" evolution you defend, whereby each person has their own idea and defends it in the face of contradictory evidence.

I have got about 6 books about scientific evolution from the basic to the really complex that deal with molecular/genetic sides of evolution.  Not a single one of these detracts from the views I was presenting, ie

Evolution  = random mutation +  Natural Selection

It is also recognised that evolution can be driven by genetic drift.   Now, if you want to discuss scientific biological evolution this is the definition we have got to be working with. Otherwise, you are talking about your very own "religious" evolution.

Now, before I used TalkOrigin, I did do some due diligence of the material they present.  For a start, all their article are reference with scholarly books/journals.  Many of the authors of these referenced article have books or journal publications that I own or have read.   Many of them belong to prestigious research and academic institutions and are involved in field research, collecting and classifying and studying fossils samples.    Can this be said for the critics of TTE?

davidylan:
1. Horse evolution tree - We know that is FALSE because it is based on a few fossils that were misrepresented. It also fails to explain why a certain breed of horses retain the same size as their alleged ancestor.

How do we know that this is false?   Did you present the evidence?  Can you show any scholarly publication has claims that the [b]entire [/b]tree for horses is false?   I want evidence.   You are a man that claims to be doing PhD research.   Are you planning on presenting you PhD evidence so flippant a manner?

davidylan:
2. Pygmy Hippos and their river relatives - some humans are pygmies, does that mean they are slowly evolving into subhuman species too?

It could or it could not.   But given that they currently exploit very different niches, they are a prime candidate for the process of natural selection to fashion new creatures out of them in the very long run.

davidylan:
3. Whale pelvis as residual limbs - then why do both female and male whales have different pelvic structures?

Could it be because of the need for childbirth in the female?   Do human males and females have exactly the same pelvic structures?

The question I asked, which you did not answer was why are 1 in 500 whales born with hindlimbs, in some case fully developed as in the article I presented.  Why is an animal that is "designed" by your god to live in water created with the ability to have limbs that would serve no purpose but impede in locomotion in water?

davidylan:
4. Human tails - you posted a picture but it was apparent you didnt even read the scientific paper the photo came from because it says NOTHING about the nonsense talkorigin and yourself parroted.

Did the paper say it was NOT a tail?   Why would humans be born with unfused vertebrae in the coccyx that extend in the form of a tail and have blood supply, nerve, and skin and hair?

Pastor AIO:
ps.  I think that I can criticise any statement that has been put in front of me and I don't have to read tomes of nonsense.  If in the process of making my criticism I show that I don't understand the subtleties of the subject then I'd expect the person that I'm discussing with and who initially proposed the statements to correct me.  

You brought up the whole nonsense of critical thinking in the first place and now you are too hi4lootin' to condescend to discuss and defend your position.  How impressive!

Let us say you were writing a scholarly thesis, would you just sit down and make it all up, however solid your arguments might be?  Would you care to investigate what your forebears or other experts in the field might have said about the subject?   If you did, why would you do that?

davidylan:
Are you really surprised? These dudes have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what they discuss. they think they can just pull the wool over our eyes with high sounding flowery but meaningless language. Press them on specifics and they start huffing and panting. I'm still waiting for Huxley to return to his drivel about evolution. He couldnt defend himself there too and ran away.

I would be glad to resume the discussion once we are agreed on what biological evolution as defined by the vast majority of the scientific community is. I had to give up once I realised you were peddling some "religious" form of evolution. I was busy defending scientific (biological) evolution, whereas you were dishonestly misrepresenting the biological evolution accepted in the scientific community.

If you want to carry on that discussion, go back to the thread and post the definition of evolution as accepted by the scientific community. Even if you do not agree that biological organisms evolve, it is grossly dishonest to refute evolution by misrepresenting it. And you call yourself a Christian.