₦airaland Forum

Video link at:

http://www.channel4.com/services/videoplayer/popup.jsp?name=dispatches_witch_children

http://www.channel4.com/services/videoplayer/popup.jsp?name=dispatches_witch_children

horny4u:
Hi I don’t think Seun has seen the video of this madness, I trust that if he has, this Post will be at the front of the home page to enlighten people about what is happening in Nigeria, what the hell are we Africans doing to ourselves,
Lets not forget that the only people that can help Africa are Africans themselves, we can not stand alone as an individual and think its none of our business because it is we are all suffering the downpour and consequences of this action, this is a shame and I am so confident that the people forum NAIRALAND can do its bit to help bring this problem to the fore and inform the Nigeria people that this is real and to help these poor children as well as shame those responsible for this despicable act


Seun
I have put this video here for you and everyone else to see, please put this out so more people can see and help please. Thank you


http://www.channel4.com/services/videoplayer/popup.jsp?name=dispatches_witch_children




http://www.channel4.com/services/videoplayer/popup.jsp?name=dispatches_witch_children


N.B- Please can the board responsible for censoring movies check all Helen Ukpabio movies and ban where found to be encouraging the act of witch hunting especially where it concerns defenseless children this is so archaic

I agree with your sentiments but the situation is really desperate and if history is any think to go by, the prospect are not good. Africans have a very poor tract record of solving their own problems and I don't see this one being any different.

Hooooorah, Christians, you have achieved the impossible. Dragging us back into the dark ages.

DavidDylan:
what of Cameroun?

Cameroon is already there too, or not too far behind.

I suggested many months ago that Christian fundamentalism is dragging Africa into the Dark Ages, and by what is happen in some parts of Nigeria, there are already in the Dark Ages.

Hoorah, The Christian for bringing the Dark Ages back into the 21st, 450 years after it had been consigned into history.

Check this out https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-194038.0.html

I suggested many months ago that Christian fundamentalism is dragging Africa into the Dark Ages, and by what is happen in some parts of Nigeria, there are already in the Dark Ages.

Hoorah, The Christian for bringing the Dark Ages back into the 21st, 450 years after it had been consigned into history.

All the sweat, tears, blood and suffering of those poor little children should be put on the hands of these servants of god and god.

I told you guys with my very first post on NL that religion is the bane of any society and this is the evidence for you all to see. Need I say more?

Nigeria is hell.

if you are in the UK, go watch this now.

OLAADEGBU:
No, I don't. The Geologic column does not exist in nature. There is not one location on earth where you can take a spot and shovel, starting at the surface, dig straight down and find the rock layers in the "perfect evolutionary order" which the evolutionists claim to be in. The so called column only exists in the textbooks and in the minds of those who chose to believe it. The Geologic Time Column is nothing more than evolutionary speculation and arbitrary opinion. No where in the world is it to be found!

Why are you so evasive? I asked a question about the age of the pre-cambrian and the types of animals that predominated in this period. You simply avoided the question and started talking about geologic column. What sort of behaviour is this?


Answer the question I asked above first, then you can consider this one below;


Supposing you go to your backyard and started digging a hole about 20 metres deep. How many different types of soils are you likely to encounter?

If the hole where 1000 metres deep, how many different types of soil are you likely to encounter.


Now supposing 1 year after you dug the hole, there was a massive earthquake (send by your god in which 100000 people died) which caused substance earth movement causing one section of your backyard to drop by 10 metres. Do you think it might still be possible to arrive at the original configuration of the soil before the earthquake?

Those so-called educated adults who get fleeced in this way by this clerical conman deserve it abundantly for being so gullible. I only feel sorry for the infants and not-so-educated who have not got the means to know better.

It is the "educated" gullible Christians who give fraudsters like Pastor Chris legitimacy and the rest of the community looks up to the choices they have made and emulate them.

So if you count yourself educated and wise and you feel let-down and exploited by Pastor Chris, you deserve it handsomely.

OLAADEGBU:
@Huxley, I hope this explains why your bunny rabbit has gone missing.

Fossil Records
Era Period Time (million) years
Cenozoic Quarternary 1.8 - present
Teritary 6.5 – 1.8
Mesozoic Cretaceous 14.5 – 6.5
Jurassic 208 – 14.5
Triassic 245 - 208
Paleozoic Permian 290 - 245
Carboniferous 363 - 290
Devonian 410 - 363
Silurian 440 - 410
Ordovician 505 - 440
The foundation Cambrian 544 - 505
Precambrian 650 - 544

The first issue to consider of what we find in the fossil record are:

- 95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
- 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
- 95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
- The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)

- A. Snelling, Where are all the human fossils? Creation 14(1):28-33, December, 1991; J. Morris, The Young Earth, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2002, 71.

You can now see why your bunny rabbit has gone missing.

This is what Ariel Roth wrote about the Cambrian Explosion
Ariel Roth (Ph.D. Zoology), Origins, 1998, pg. 184.
“The Cambrian explosion is not just a case of all the major animal phyla appearing at about the same place in the geologic column. It is also a situation if not ancestors to suggest how they might have evolved.”

See what Ernst Mayr (Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, hailed as the Darwin of the 20th century), What Evolution Is, 2001, pg. 14.
“Given the fact of Evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the palaeontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.”

Based on the evolution model, the entire foundation for Darwinian evolution (the fossil record) is missing.

The question again is, why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence?
I already have a faith. Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith.

Now that we have an understanding of the foundation of evolution… Why is evolution without a foundation? Because there is no natural process that can cause life to originate

Therefore, it is not only rational but equally reasonable to believe that God, not unknown events created all life after its kind.

So you accept the pre-cambrian is the period 650 - 544 MYA? What sort of animals does one predominantly find in this period? Can you produce some references?

OLAADEGBU:
A Creationist's Challenge To Evolutionists
Author: Robert Congelliere

In Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that "evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science" and "we can call evolution a 'fact'". This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. I would like to remind evolutionists that, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?

Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?

I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:

(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup ", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?

(6) How did life develop from non-life?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

( What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?

Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.

Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up."?

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here?

To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.

Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.

(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?

Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )

(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?

If you believe in evolution:

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.

Students: Make a copy of this CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS and ask your teacher or professor to give you answers to these questions. If they cannot, you have a right to be skeptical that what they are teaching you about evolution is true. Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a "fact".

Robert H. Congelliere

What the hell is this? Are you really interested in a discussion? We ask questions but we get no answers. You simply cut&paste like a zombie. Go answer some of the questions you have been asked and come back.

By the way, what is your understanding of biological evolution as defined by natural selection? I mean the definition used in mainstream biology, not the Ken Ham or Hovind definition.

OLAADEGBU

Thanks for being gracious enough to accept my apologies. And I would like to engage you in this very interesting of subjects as you have got some valid and interesting to ask. Allow me to observe that your style is rather scatter-gun and I would like to bring some focus into the discussion. I did ask you a number of question so that we might establish some baseline or premise from where to discuss. I am still awaiting the answers to those question.

Shall I assume that you are incapable of answering them?

For those with access to UK television, story is airing tonight on Channel 4 at 9pm.

OLAADEGBU:
I must say that I am not surprised at the vile that you express in your language, since that is the tactics of the evolutionists who is amoral and have no reason to be polite in their conversations(since they don't respect or honour God or their parents) and would always resort to Ad Hominems and ridicule to divert attention from the argument.

I expected you to address the topic or link suggested but since you refused I will quote from James and Jerry from the book: What if Jesus had never been born? Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1994.
"About 130 million (not including the hundreds of millions killed by abortion) were slaughtered this century in the name of atheism, whereas all those killed in 'the name of Christ' in all of recorded history was at most around 17 million."

To read more on the blood-stained 'century of evolution' visit the link below and you may be shocked.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/blood.asp

How come you never answer any of my questions? I have asked questions upon questions but I never get any answers. Do you call that a dialogue? If you want to dialogue you must be prepared to respond to questions rather than rush off to some website and cut and paste without even reading the stuff.

For instance, I asked the following?

1) How come there are no rabbit (or elephant, or horses, or lions) fossils in the pre-cambrian?

2) On Darwin's thoughts about other races, I asked - Were these Darwin's thoughts before or after he came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection. Mark you, before he came up with the theory he was a Christian and like most Christians of their time he was partial to his own "race".

While you are considering the above, also think about the following;

3) What are stromatolites?

4) How is petroleum formed?

5) What happened to dinosaurs?

6) What is the speed of light?

7) Do you use a mobile phone?

Have you ever been to a museum?

Pardon me if I was a rather brash with you, but the etiquettes of civilized dialogues required that we discuss as honestly as possible. If you are not prepared to even consider my side of the discussion, then you are behaving dishonestly and evasively. So redeem yourself now and dialogue like a civilised person.

DavidDylan:
You just went round and round defining mutations and struggling desperately to link it to evolution.

Mutation is well known . . . evolution is up in the air. We claim to have evolved from single cells . . . HOW? If ordinary flu viruses and bacteria can't do anymore than simply make selective changes in their genome to vaccines and antibiotics then how can you honestly defend the THEORY of evolution?

If you rule out evolution, then you must have a way of explaining the lack of complex multicellular life in the pre-cambrian. I like to put it like this - "Why are there no rabbit fossils (or fossils of dogs, goats, horses, humans) in the pre-cambrians?"

Are you familiar with HOX's gene's? Check it out; Some pointers below:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/a_brief_overview_of_hox_genes/

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

OLAADEGBU:
This is what the theory of evolution did to our fellow African man, Ota Benga, who was put on display in the zoo. This is the story of the effects of evolution on human relations and an example of evolutionarily inferior race. This incident clearly reveals the racism of evolutionary theory and the extent to which the theory gripped the hearts and minds of scientists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/otabenga.asp

Man, you are so stupid and idiotic it beggers belief that you live in this century. When did man's brutality to his fellow man begin? Was it only after 1859? Have you forgotten the savagery dished out by the christians as they conquered the world centuries before the theory of evolution?

You are a disgrace to human intelligence.

Hello Pilgrim, Thanks for ya response and I see with most of them except for the below;

pilgrim.1:
The only question I would ask here is this: are you not the same person who once argued to make the theory of evolution a FACT?!? You see, huxley, what I often observe people do is confuse or blur the lines of these discussions. If something is to be held as "tentative", there is no coming back to present that same tentative postulation as a FACT! Presenting it as such would only make people further ask if you're stating such a theory as an "absolute truth" (remember here that the "absolutely true" is defined in Wikitionary as one of the elements of "dogma"? It would only mean that while you decry "religious dogma", you nevertheless are quite at home to present another type of "dogma" - and this is where you certainly do not have a moral ground to assume a superior station to point accusative fingers at anyone.

You may have forgotten the essence of the discussion we had about this subject. If you can track down the thread I would be much grateful. Nonetheless this is how I made the distinction:

Facts ----> The observed changes in lifeforms
TTE -----> A conceptual framework that explains those observed facts of change of lifeforms.

Facts exists quite independently of theories. As we speak (or write) there are an infinity of facts about the world, some observed but trillions unobserved. Some of the observed ones have been explain using a human-developed theoretical framework.

To summarise;

Facts ---> Natural parts of reality
Theory ---> Human-developed explanatory framework of observed facts.

pilgrim.1:
Rubbish! You are sounding so dogmatic as if you have bought into this hubris! So many, many natural scientists are quite often dogmatic and are too secure in their assumptions and presumptions to state theories as FACT! They do not call them "speculation" or "conjectures"! This "happy to confess" harrumph is why other scientists have sadly noted that science itself is not understood for what it truly is - because so many "scientists" are abusing its significance by speaking fom both sides of their mouths! It is really sad to note that people would be going about with the kind of statement in your quote, and that is one reason why many people get so confused by this dogmatic idea whereas we know for a fact that many scientists are too assertively certain of their postulations!

Interesting turn of phrase, Pilgrim. I have taken interest in the following from your quote;

1) Dogma and dogmatism
2) Hubris
3) The charge of dogmatism and hubris levelled at scientists
4) The conflation of theories with facts.


1) Dogma and dogmatism

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. (Source : wikipedia.)

All propositions and theories in science are only held tentatively. Any scientist who says otherwise is really not a good scientist. The philosophy behind science is to avoid dogmatism. The fact that all scientific propositions are held only tentatively does not mean that they are not held with certainty and with conviction.

There are many theories in science that are NOT in dispute today, namely atomic theory, gravitational theory, the theory of evolution, germ theory of disease, etc, etc. All scientist welcome new ways of looking at things and also welcome challenges to establish theories. For science would not have achieved such great successes if it was dogmatic by nature.

Contrarily, religion thrives on dogma

2) Hubris

Rubbish! You are sounding so dogmatic as if you have bought into this hubris!

What does this statement really mean? What can it mean? That is an interesting way to use the word "hubris"

Hubris means - excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.

Is this what you meant?

Rubbish! You are sounding so dogmatic as if you have bought into this excessive pride (or self-confidence; arrogance)!

Does that make any sense at all? I know you are in the habit of using (or misusing and abusing) this word (hubris), charging critiques of religion of displaying hubris. But how can that be? The critiques of religion are the first to admit ignorance of a lot about reality. However, the religionist claim to know not only God but also his mind. Who is displaying greater hubris in this case?

3) The charge of dogmatism and hubris levelled at scientists

So many, many natural [b]scientists are quite often dogmatic

This is quite some charge and you could make your case stronger if you could give examples of scientists acting dogmatically

4) The conflation of theories with facts.

Can you give examples were respected and established scientists have conflated facts and theories? Make your case a bit stronger and than making vacuous accusation of this nature.

OLAADEGBU:
Evils of Evolutionary theory

Darwin thought that natives (of South America) were advanced animals
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/darwin.asp

Evolution of the Hutu-Tutsi slayings: Theistic evolutionism by the RCC
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/slayings.asp

Madonna and evolutionary racism (social darwinism)

Were these Darwin's thoughts before or after he came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection.  Mark you, before he came up with the theory he was a Christian and like most Christians of their time he was partial to his own "race".

DavidDylan:
this is funny.

1. the flu virus DOES NOT EVOLVE . . . it MUTATES. Those terms cannot be used interchangeably and a mutation cannot be said to be similar to evolution.

2. Producing new pesticides to get rid of mosquitoes is simply because insects can and do develop tolerance to certain toxins.

Based on these 2 weak cases you brought up in support of evolution, would you then admit that man is still evolving? For example we know that Down's syndrome is as a result of genetic mutation, we also know that man develops resistance to antibiotics which is the reason you are strongly advised never to stop ur antibiotic regimen midway . . .

All wrong, all wrong, if you pardon me.

The flu virus does evolve as a result of mutations happening at the gene level. Mutations are random changes in the gene structure of organism. Such changes can be beneficial, deleterious or neutral. It is the selective pressures on the organism that may exploit these mutation (if they are expressed phenotypically) to the "benefit" of the organism. Such exploitation of mutational changes is what is called evolution.

So bacteria, virus,, etc develop resistance to antibiotics etc because they exploit the mutational changes in their genes. The fact that they have not grown arms and a brain does not mean they have not evolve. Any form of change occasioned by a mutational change is what is called evolution.