Pidgin2:



The link you posted doesn't have much to do with the topic. The fire incident in London was caused by someone's mistake and the government had been warned about the building previously. The bride to be and her siblings made the brave choice of remaining with their parents

Moreover we cannot wipe off the activities of evil beings beyond the African continent, they exist in other regions too.

The link was one example of a tragic event almost coinciding with a marriage. The Op, and one of the following posts, seemed to suggest Africans - for the most part - were beleaguered by marriages coinciding with death of a loved one. I was assuring you that the rest of the world has its fair share of certainty.

So, are you now arguing that it's evil beings that cause death or tragic events around the time of marriages? Or does it only apply to the situations in which you want to them to apply?

Also, should we ignore the fact that the vast majority of weddings and marriages don't coincide with personal tragedy?

While your theory about favorable or unfavorable circumstances may hold water amongst atheists, in reality entities are behind those favorable or unfavorable circumstances that occur(this is my view as a religious). I've already given examples of individuals who announced their joyous news and suddenly things turned sour

It's not a theory, it's an explanation. You've only given an incredibly small amount of anecdotal examples. I suspect that if you thought about it, you could think of many people for whom the wedding, and the announcement thereof, went without a hitch. If you added that to your sample size, how would you explain their relative successes? Would you resort to the spiritual? Did they somehow miss out on bedevilment?

Is there any possibility that you can accept that bad, sad things can happen to people without any hidden malicious"spiritual" element?

analice107:

Yeah, i embellished the story so that i can make money from you. See how rich this has made me?

Embellishing a story often has little to do with making money. It should be standard practice to scrutinise all narratives containing that many improbable elements. More so when the narrator is both simultaneously distanced yet intimate with the details contained in the story told. So, how did you find out all the details in the story you told? Or do you need more peoples?

analice107:

A friend of mine (She's late now) died becos she defied her mother and got married. These things seems strange, but they happen.

When we were kids, My friend's mother was one of those women you'd want to call "Strong". She had kids with three men, but she raised all of them by herself. She raised them like the rich would. sent them to good schools. Her kids were different from others.

She did all kinds of business to see her Children through school. Only one of her 9 Children is not a graduate. She did very well training her kids and they are doing very well, ONLY, the females who are the majority, don't marry.

She has just three sons, one is late too.

The first to marry was the fourth daughter. Her husband died mysteriously. No one suspected mama of course. But she confessed later to be responsible. To save her daughter from the wrath of her coven members, she killed her husband and left her with two little girls, who she helped care for.

The third daughter (The woman's first four children were all ladies) had become really born again in S.U. She knew what was going on by revelations, she met a Christian man, married and cut off completely from home. She was called all manner of names, she didn't care. she stayed away.
*snip*

How did you find out all the details contained in your story? I mean, from the way it's narrated, it appears you're not a direct member of the family, yet your story seems to contain...intimate knowledge of the family, their words and their doings. Almost, with all due respect, like it's embellished.

Pidgin2:
A mature spinster recently got married, this was a pleasant surprise to most of us who mean well for her but while she was still preparing for her marriage, a few days to her wedding ceremony, her father died and afterwards her mother is seriously sick. This reminded me of another lady who lost her mother while preparing for her marriage

I have heard similar stories before and it happens mainly in Africa than in the West, is this just a coincidence or is there something supernatural attached to this, like is it possible that the woman was delayed by her father or something, to me it's weird

It's called enumeration of favourable - or unfavourable, in this instance - circumstances. That something shocking should happen so closely to a time of joy causes you to ignore the many other "uninteresting" occasions.

In any case, yes it also happens in the West. One anecdote, the sister of a friend lost her father-in-law the day before the wedding. The father of the groom decided to hang up some nice decorations for the wedding the next day, he fell and died. Not that it should matter, but they are all White British. None of them have ever been to Africa.

Another instance, a Southern Asian woman and her family are believed to have been tragically killed in the horrific tower fire that happened in London. The woman was due to be married in weeks, too (see here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/22/bride-to-be-due-marry-next-month-perished-grenfell-tower-refusing/).

If you trawled the internet you'd see many examples of people all over the world dying just before, during, or soon after a joyous occasion. Africa doesn't have a monopoly on statistical occurence of tragic events.

ScienceWatch:
This is another FAILED propaganda attempt at destroying every TRULY ANOINTED PASTOR. The deceptive editing here is a sloppy attempt to fabricate LIES that can destroy the SCOAN CHURCH.

Well to all the psychos out their, YOU LOOSE !
The mighty SCOAN CHURCH is unstoppable.

The Jewish SPIRITUAL leadership has been studying EMMANUEL TV for only three years and now they want The humble prophet TB JOSHUA to bring JESUS back to the "HOLY LAND."

REJOICE SCOAN ISRAEL !

Just ot be clear, are you saying the video in which he mentions France a few times is edited? If so, what, by your estimation, was added?

ScienceWatch:
Wow ! You are certainly not easy to deceive. What an enlightened response to a fabricated problem. Yes indeed, spiritual things and prophecy can not be understood by the dull and the ignorant as is clearly seen here.

English is not TB JOSHUA'S native language anyway. But he is very powerful in that he speaks complicated issues simply and there in LIES the truth.

So called educated people would prefer a good TALKER over a mighty DOER of the WORD.

Nevertheless, the mighty SCOAN CHURCH is unstoppable. Even the FAILED undercover agent Bronchitis Oaroloye and his handlers, the Pentecostal PFN & CFAN could dent the ancient armour of a TRULY HUMBLE man, TB JOSHUA.

REJOICE SCOAN ISRAEL !

It's been mentioned earlier, but I don't see how you'd need English to be your first language to mistake France for Belgium, and then have any mention of France seeemingly removed from the video recording.

blank:


Next time, when giving out your iv, tell them that they should not invite anyone else as 1 card admits one. And that there will be bouncers.

It's Nigeria, you can't excape it.

Yeah, I've got all that. The invitation card states invitation only.Trouble is it's mostly relatives that are doing the invitation of univited randoms. Unfortunately, because it'd upset my family my partner and I have agreed to not use the bouncers to prevent entry. I have used it as a threat, though. I suspect the situation would have been worse if not for that threat.

This is just to let off some steam. Why do Nigerians do this? Not to stereotype, but you know none of the other nationalities I've invited have done it. I wanted was a small wedding, but somehow it's ballooned. Relatives inviting their colleagues and friends of that friend to what's meant to be a small wedding! It really is poor etiquette. Seriously, it's bad manners. These things take planning, and the thought that there'd be a whole host of people I've never met - nor will ever meet again - coming to this day is galling.

When it comes to someone else's wedding:

- It is not tradition to have an open door policy. It is a choice! A choice that I haven't made. Please don't insist that it's tradition. I can't emphasise that enough. I like to plan and not spend money catering for people about whom I care little.

- There's nothing wrong with responding to an invite. Seriously, it won't hurt you to confirm you're coming. Just showing up on the day without prior confirmation is bad manners and ruins my plans! It borders on stupidity or mental laziness. Not sure which it, but it's a negative.

- Seriously, an invitation that's meant for one person (or sometimes two) is not a blank cheque. Don't think that means you ought to invite all your friends and relatives. They weren't invited by the host, so don't do it. Just don't!


I could go on, but you get the point. I'm frustruated and wishing I had just eloped. Rant over... for now.

KingEbukasBlog:
Of what use is criticizing people who acknowledge the existence of God when there are atheists who worship ancestral spirits , practice witchcraft , astral project , practice voodoo , and have other superstitious beliefs like reincarnation ? Please give me a reasonable answer , please .

In case you don't understand why I asked this question , this thread would be of great help : https://www.nairaland.com/3500235/must-read-god-without-religion

benzics:
Atheism means disbelief in gods, and not necessarily disbelief in the supernatural.. You don't see someone who believes in ancestral spirits telling you that you'll rot in hell, or even indoctrinating people to share in his beliefs, or do you?

What he said. Atheism, like theism, is a broad term. It only captures, generally, one aspect of belief/disbelief: disbelief in the existence of deities. That's it. So, it doesn't preclude holding religious sentiment, belief in the supernatural, and reincarnation. While, personally, I don't believe any of those things are real, I've met atheists who hold those beliefs. Daoists, UU's, etc.

So it's possibly more understandable, look at of theism. That you believe in one absurd triple god in one, doesn't prevent Hindus from holding an equally absurd belief in a poly-deities-in-kind-of-one religion. The descriptor can only tell you so much about the beliefs individuals hold.

About £17k. *Sigh*. I didn't want it to cost more than 10k, but thanks to my mum, it's become a more expensive affair - complete with many guests that I've never met and will most likely never meet after the event. Which reminds me, must start a thread about this weird thing about Nigerians insisting that it's tradition to invite every single person you know to an event. It's ridiculous and must be stopped. Also, don't show up to wedding that's RSVP without corresponding. It's a hassle and just plain rude.

Most likely a banana based question.

[URL=http://imagetwist.com/a4kgeq6agbsz/ray-banana.jpg][IMG]http://img25.imagetwist.com/th/12468/a4kgeq6agbsz.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

NASA says:

The Answer
According to the laws of physics, there are only two possible explanations for having the Sun stand still in the sky for a day: (1) the Earth would essentially have to stop spinning on its axis...for which there is no evidence. -or- (2) the Sun would have to start moving about in the solar system in a very specific way so that it appeared to us on our spinning Earth to be standing still. There is no evidence of this occurring either.
We, too, have heard an "urban legend" about scientists at NASA GSFC finding the "missing day" in computer calculations of the motions of the planets. The legend has been around for longer than NASA itself, but turned into a NASA "event" sometime in the 60's. The story goes that some scientists were doing orbital mechanics calculations to determine the positions of the planets in the future, for use in determining the trajectories of future satellite missions. They realized they were off by a day. A biblical scholar in the lot remembered the passage from Joshua and all was set right. But these events, in fact, never occurred. It is easy to understand why:

[b]The "GSFC finds missing day" urban legend doesn't make sense for the following reason. If we want to know where the planets will be in the future, we use accurate knowledge of their initial positions and orbital speeds (which would be where they are located now), and solve for their positions for some time in the future. We solve a very well determined set of equations that describe their motions. The major dynamical component of any planet's orbital motion is determined by solving an equation (force is equal to the mass times the acceleration) which is the perhaps the most fundamental in classical physics. The validity and predictive power of this equation are well documented and can be seen every day: a recent example is the lunar eclipse that was visible to much of the world last Sunday. This calculation would not cover any time before the present, so some missing day many centuries ago, if it had occurred, could not be uncovered with this method.
In general, trying to prove events that are said to have occurred in the Bible, using scientific principles, doesn't work. Most scientists draw a clear distinction between things that are taken on faith, and those that are testable and therefore falsifiable. Science deals with the latter, and religion with the former.[/b]

Sauce: http://web.archive.org/web/20150403191853/http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/ask_astro/earth.html

LFJ once again.

Ha ha ha! No, just no!

Detailed Analysis
According to this story, which has circulated in various forms for decades, scientists at NASA have performed calculations that prove old Bible stories that claim God once made the sun stand still for a day and, on another occasion, made the sun go backwards. The message claims that the space scientists at NASA's Green Belt, Maryland facility were at first puzzled by computer calculations that showed that a day was missing in time until a Christian team member pointed out that the Bible story of God making the sun stand still explained the apparent anomaly. And, suggests the message, a 40 minute shortfall in the "missing day" calculations was resolved perfectly by factoring in the story of God making the sun go backwards. The message asks recipients to send on this "amazing and interesting" proof of God's awesome power to as many people as possible.

But, the story is utter nonsense. The event described never took place. NASA scientists have not discovered a missing day in time. Nor has any other credible scientific organization. There are no anomalies in the scientific data that give any credence whatsoever to the Biblical stories of the sun standing still or going backwards.

The story has circulated in various forms for decades. In fact, the story actually predates the founding of NASA and was apparently first told by a Presbyterian minister named Harry Rimmer in his 1936 book, "The Harmony of Science and Scripture". In his book, Rimmer relates an encounter between a Christian professor and a skeptical astronomer that closely mirrors the later NASA version included above. But Rimmer never produced any evidence or documentation to prove that the encounter was anything more than a fictional anecdote.

And, although he always claimed the story was true, Harold Hill, the man who first told the NASA version of the story, quite clearly adapted it from earlier variants. In his book "The Truth Never Stands in The Way of a Good Story" American folklorist Jan Brunvand notes:
NASA's Public Affairs Office at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, has issued a terse press release in response to questions about Harold Hill and the missing day. The release states that the center "has no knowledge of the use of its computers supposed by Mr. Harold Hill and attributed to our scientists. Goddard does not apply its computers to the task of projecting thousands of years into the future or past, as this would be irrelevant to the operational lifetime of satellites, which rarely exceeds a dozen years. The release concludes by saying that Hill "worked briefly at Goddard early in the 1960s as a plant engineer, a position which would not place him in direct contact with our computer facilities or teams engaged in orbital computations"

Rest here: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/nasa-missing-day.shtml

AYOBAMEE911:
Questions Goes Thus . Pick any question and advance a mental trip to the very nucleus of the question. Facts and Figures cited should have conformable source. Thanks! I appreciate your presence (view)

Hi, not a highly intelligent atheist, but I'll give a brief response to some. If I have time, I can expand on any you'd like. There are questions for you, too.

1.What caused the universe to exist?
2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
3.Why is the universe rational?

In my opinion, the best explanation we have for the universe is an expansion from a singularity. This thread is a good start: https://www.nairaland.com/3079359/physics-seun-understanding-scientific-theories

To the second and third, what makes you think the universe is fine tuned or rational? We humans, because of our need to understand our world and universe have large, have attempted to rationalise the universe. We also tend to view it from an anthropomorphice point of view. That doesn't necessarily mean the universe, with its quantum fluctuations, blackholes, dark matter, etc, is rational and fine tuned. If you have evidence for either or both, please present them.

6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains
evolve?

Can you give examples of "irreducibly complex enzyme chains"? What makes them irreducible?

7.How do we account for the origin of 116
distinct language families?

Migration and splinttering of populations. The evolution of language is witnessed all the time. The changes in langauges like Greek, Latin to the current forms that exist, in modern Greek and the romance languages show how the process occurs.

11.How is free will possible in a material
universe?

What, in your opinion, is free will? By my estimation, free doesn't exist. Free agency does.

12.How do we account for conscience?

Internalisation of the externalisd morals strongly promoted/practised by the society and tribe to which one subscribes.

13.On what basis can we make moral
judgements?

On the basis that it contravenes our strongly held ethical norms. Muslim extremists judge those who don't follow thier brand of Islam. Many, on the other hand, judge their actions and beliefs as negative actions. That's because all we believe and espouse means we despise wanton murder - or, if you speak to some fundamentalists, execution.

ElCount:

What is there to talk about again? All living organisms according to your theory share a common ancestry and here you are with evidence which I can use to show that dogs, birds etc are not related to humans and apes in the form of ERVs and yet you still see it as an evidence for evolution.

Um, no. Showing common ancestry in humans and modern apes indicates that evolution must have occurred to cause the different hominid species. It's not evidence that other animals aren't related to primates. That's like saying because we've shown the genetic similarities between yourself and your cousin, then it proves you are not the species as White Europeans and East Asians. It would be a specious argument at best, moronic at worst.

In any case, just becuase you somehow missed it in my previous post: Shared ERVs in mammals: https://elifesciences.org/content/5/e12704

Its an impasse to me and there's nothing to talk about again.

ElCount: "Mind you I'm not in anyway questioning the process of ERVs and if it works for the hominids cause it does".

Yeah, we're done here.

ElCount:

Hehe! I see what you did there! Taking advantage of the disconnect between Abiogenesis and the Evolution theory to slip in the ERVs as evidence because that's the only way it can stand.

Don't be daft, there was no slipping in: ERVs, in the genetic context point to shared ancestry. It's foolish to think they have anything to do with the origin of life. You are trying really hard to avoid the evidence, but it's not going away.

Believe you me I didn't see that coming, but the thing is my knowledge of evolution says that all organisms are related and have a common ancestor, I could get a lot of links on that here is also one of Charly Darwins' quote from his book origin of species
"...its a truly wonderful fact...That all animals and all plants throughout all TIME and SPACE should be related to each other..."
In otherwards they should have a common ancestor. Perhaps there's been an upgrade who knows will check it out in my spare time.

Yes living organisms share common ancestry. In the same vein, humans and modern apes share recent common ancestry. There's strong evidence for that shared ancestry between humans and modern apes. Shared ERVs is one such genetic evidence. Feel free to discuss that evidence... although you've been doing your best to discuss anything but that.

Anyway I believe we have reached an impasse on the ERVs if and when I decide to talk about abiogenesis I will open a thread as you said.

We haven't reached an impasse on ERVs; we've reached an impasse on your inability to grasp simple concepts (e.g. what ERVs show, and that evolution and abiogenesis are different things). I won't hold my breath on anything else.

ElCount:

That was a slip of the fingers you knew what I meant. Let me rephrase

Unchanged response in general.

"We were talking about the theory of evolution - or, at least, trying to talk about it. The theory of evoultion doesn't deal with how life came into existence. You've been told that not only by me, but by Cloudgoddess and CoolUsername."

How did life or rather all life forms originate or come into existence?

ElCount:

Secondly, you keep reiterating that Abiogenesis has evidence please what is this evidence?

KAG:

Start a new thread and tag me.

ElCount:

I'm not evading, not even close. I just don't engage in an argument for the sake of it. However I may come back to that termite-microbe love story later, I'm just interested in the ERVs now.

Still on the Ape-Human-ERV, one can confidently say that the Apes are intermediary species between the ape ancestors (whoever they are) and humans right?

I'm not starting up any thread to talk about abiogenesis I believe it has no evidence and its not even worth debating about

So much for that. Offer remains, if you want to discuss abiogenesis ("How did life or rather all life forms originate or come into existence?", then start a new thread and tag me. However, this time I can't guarantee I'll be able to respond much, if at all - more work coming on to my plate.

...back to the theory of evolution, then.

ElCount:

KAG post=45349264:


Where ancestor is not a singular organism, but a population. So, you're good on shared ERVs?

Are we still talking about thesame evolution theory? If I may ask according to your evolution theory how did life come into existence?

We were talking about the theory of evolution - or, at least, trying to talk about it. The theory of evoultion doesn't deal with how life came into existence. You've been told that not only by me, but by Cloudgoddess and CoolUsername.

ElCount:

Are you saying that Evolution theory does not state that all of life forms have a common ancestor?

Where ancestor is not a singular organism, but a population. So, you're good on shared ERVs?

jayriginal:
Wow.

KAG you're back?

Where have you been?

Welcome back.

Hey jayriginal. I've been crazy busy with work and relationships. I've managed to find some downtime, so passing through now. I hope you're well, yourself.

ElCount:

You are missing the point. Ancestry is a continuous thing you can't just stop at the hominids and say ERV has served as a proof of evolution.

Except you can show shared ancestry by showing the shared genetic markers that could only have come fom common ancestry. An analogy (not to be taken literally): to show you and a cousin are related, one needn't know the entire history of humankind. The shared DNA indicates a shared recent ancestry - and, at least, a shared grandparent. Further, the intricate details of the shared grandparent can remain unknown, and we'd still be able to ascertain your relationship with your cousin.

Evolution theory itself says that all living organisms have one ancestor which is the autotroph that came out of the prebiotic soup by accident, so when you talk about shared ancestry it shouldn't be limited to just the hominids.

Nah, that's not what the theory of evolution states. Evolution is "change in allelle frequencies of a population of organisms. When talking about shared ancestry, it isn't just limited to human ancestry. However, in this instance we're talking about a set of commonalities found in the genes of primates. Commonalities that point to shared ancestry in primates. It's strong evidence for evolution. The red herring of "oh, but let's talk about everything else" hasn't changed that.

Mind you I'm not in anyway questioning the process of ERVs and if it works for the hominids cause it does.

That's a refreshing admission.

The fact that when you compare the hominids with the canines with regards to the ERVs and get a different outcome implies that it can't be a proof of evolution. Its very much straight forward because in the long run they will have a shared ancestry.

Don't know how else to explain it to you, if you can't see this then...

That doesn't make any sense. It's comparing failed viral infections in the germline cells of hominids. Why would you think we'd find the same shared failed viral infections in canines?

In any case, being the great google scholar that I am, I'll provide a link (https://elifesciences.org/content/5/e12704) for more on shared ERVs in mammals.

Got any more objections. Seriously, you should take more time understanding the subject against which you want to argue.

ElCount:

Its a fair question. Anyway my point is you are missing the bigger picture which is that "the ERV is an evidence of evolution"
Because .e are talking about proof of common ancestry with the ERVs, if you expand the chart to accommodate the Hominidae parent and grand parent the test is gonna fail.

The hell are you on about? This is not that difficult to understand. What do you mean "accommodate the Hominidae parent and grand parent"? What test? This isn't about how far we can take the ancestors of primates - it is a red herring, at best. It is about showing the evidence for shared ancestry. That's what the markers in the respective genes indicate. If we can find shared genetic markers in humans and modern apes, then the parsimonous explanation is given by the theory of evolution.

For the ERVs to truly be an evidence of evolution it should be valid when you expand the chart, it should not be true for only a part of the whole.

You're not making sense. One needn't go past what the evidence is showing: that, at a genetic level, humans share something significant with other apes. The best explanation for the incidence of those shared genetic markers is a shared common ancestry.

I hope you get it now, though I'm certain you are going to maintain that I still don't understand how it works

You definitely don't understand any of this. Please do read the brief summary I gave. If need be, read other sources. It's not that difficult to understand the rudiments of what the evidence is showing.

Muafrika2:


I guess you need to be informed:

Fetal tissue has been used in biomedical research since the 1930s, for the development of the first polio vaccine

Cells from fetal tissue are still in use today in vaccine manufacturing, as well as for stem cell and transplantation research

The U.S. Health and Human Services guidelines dictate how researchers can obtain and use fetal tissue

(CNN)Fetal tissue has been used since the 1930s for vaccine development, and more recently to help advance stem cell research and treatments for degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease. Researchers typically take tissue samples from a fetus that has been aborted ....
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/17/health/fetal-tissue-explainer/



Use of aborted babies for warming hospitals


Sarah Knapton, science correspondent
24 MARCH 2014 • 7:00AM
The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-uk-hospitals/

Fair enough. I take back the accusation.

Dawdy:
Let's ask atheists, could this circuit be just coincidence without the architect of it?

What the human circulatory system? Or the model in the picture?

Bump

Muafrika2:


The US abortion thing is even stranger. The aborted babies are use for experiments/ research and even burnt for heating hospitals during cold days.

The "objective morality" of lying for Jesus. It never gets old.

OLAADEGBU:


The Scriptures reveal that God does not only have absolute morality but is also the ultimate Judge. Every human being will die because He proclaimed the death sentence on the entire human race. It is His Word that says "the soul that sins shall die." Statistics say 10 out of 10 die, and our death is proof that in His eyes the best of us are wicked criminals, justly deserving capital punishment so what's the difference in those dying young or old? All have sinned and have come short of God's Law.

We're all going to die anyway, so the wholesale murder of children is okay - if you truly believe your god has asked for it. That's the "objective morality" to which you subscribe? I don't believe children are deserving of being murdered, nor that it can be justified by your appeal to your god. So much for "objective morality" anchored in your religious book.

But God is rich in mercy, willing to forgive, and He proved His great love for us by suffering on the cross and defeating death. If you want to live see www.needGod.com

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

Planned Parenthood in America committed over 63 million abortions in 40 years, where all these due to rare medical condition you gave as an excuse?

I don't live in America. I don't know the reasons for the abortions. I don't know whether any babies were aborted. Address your question to Planned Parenthood of America. If you want My view, you can scroll back and see what I've written.

All human life is valuable and that is if you even consider the unborn babies to be human.

You clearly don't believe all human life is valuable. They lives of children cease to be valuable once you believe their wholesale execution has been ordered by your god.

In cases of crisis pregnancy, the approach should be to try to save a life or two, as opposed to forcing death on one or both of them.

That's my point! Forcing the mother to die is abhorent. The choice is never easy for the mother, but sometimes it's the only recourse.

Your subjective moral guide has led to the death of millions of unborn and in some cases born children (partial birth abortion). You will all have to face the ultimate Judge on Judgment Day.

Or, most likely not. Perhaps your god commanded their deaths but just didn't inform you? Or maybe your "objective morality" is not so objective after all. In any case, my subjective moral guide hasn't led me to murder any children, nor to try to justify the killing of scores of children. I'll stick with it over your supposed "objective morality".

OLAADEGBU:


You better repent accordingly as the picture above depicts.

Nah, I'm good.

OLAADEGBU:


The depiction below shows why it is necessary to appeal to God for objective morals.

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." I'll pass on appealing to your god for "objective morals"

OLAADEGBU:


Execution is different from murder. Execution is done lawfully while murder is the unlawful killing of a human life that you did not create. You can only take a life that you created. God has the right to take what He has given. When the law of the land is execution you cannot say that it is an unlawful killing. If God executes a judgment He has set who are you to appeal against it?

Justification of the wholesale killing of children is only okay when you truly believe your god has mandated it. Got it. Again, it's little surprise I don't subscribe to your "objective morality". I don't forsee supporting the murder...I mean "execution" (like that makes it any better, really) of loads of children. By the way, when the law of the land is the execution of children during a battle for land, I can most certainly say it's unlawful killing. That's the point.

You do not have the right to murder an unborn baby for whatever reason the best one can do medically is to try to save them both. Only God has the right to take life that He has given.

Apparently you do if you believe your god has asked you to do the killing, though, right? Or is it that aborting babies is wrong, but killing children after they're born, well that's okay, because Hebrew god? What an interesting premise.

It's a nonsensical red herring to believe it's better for a mother and unborn baby to die, rather than induce a pregnancy that will assuredly kill both. It's painful for the mother to have it happen to her, but sometimes it's all that can be done. However, it doesn't change the fact you're trying to justify the wholesale murder of children on the one hand, while trying to argue poorly for "ojective morality". We clearly follow different moral guides. I'll get back on my "high moral throne".

OLAADEGBU:


What is wrong is wrong. Would you for any reason permit a thief to get away with your wallet if you can? I believe all cultures and societies consider stealing to be an objective immoral conduct, no?

"Great, good God! It is stolen! That man who was here last night has stolen it."
...
In the meantime, Monseigneur Bienvenu had advanced as quickly as his great age permitted.

"Ah! here you are!" he exclaimed, looking at Jean Valjean. "I am glad to see you. Well, but how is this? I gave you the candlesticks too, which are of silver like the rest, and for which you can certainly get two hundred francs. Why did you not carry them away with your forks and spoons?"

Jean Valjean opened his eyes wide, and stared at the venerable Bishop with an expression which no human tongue can render any account of.
...
"Now," said the Bishop, "go in peace. By the way, when you return, my friend, it is not necessary to pass through the garden. You can always enter and depart through the street door. It is never fastened with anything but a latch, either by day or by night."

The Bishop drew near to him, and said in a low voice:--

"Do not forget, never forget, that you have promised to use this money in becoming an honest man."

Jean Valjean, who had no recollection of ever having promised anything, remained speechless. The Bishop had emphasized the words when he uttered them. He resumed with solemnity:--

"Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil, but to good. It is your soul that I buy from you; I withdraw it from black thoughts and the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God."

Les Miserables (http://www.online-literature.com/victor_hugo/les_miserables/26/)

OLAADEGBU:

KAG post=45189440:


I guess we have different ideas of morality, then. I consider the execution of children to be immoral, and can never find any reason to justify their wholesale execution. But that's just me. Perhaps it's why I don't appeal to your god for "moral objectivity".

The old KAG is sitting pretty on her high moral throne. Do you consider the killing of unborn babies (abortion) moral?

Interesting that you consider the disavowing of wholesale execution of children to be "sitting on a high moral throne". Not sure what it says of your supposed "moral objectivity". You should also be worried about your equivocation of your god delighting in the execution of children, with the killing of unborn babies. Yet you tried to justify it? Strange, no? In any case, no I don't agree with the killing of unborn babies. If a baby is to be aborted, I support it if it's on medical grounds - where the mother and the baby's life will both be lost. Over to you.

ElCount:

Yeah, without wasting anybody's time and making the thread unnecessarily long, here's the question perhaps you already knew where I was going all along but I will ask it anyway. Moving further up the ancestry

[1] Does the Hominoidae direct ancestor have this ERV genetic pattern?

I had no idea where you're going with any of this. I still don't. In any case, that's not quite right. I'm trying to make sense of what you're trying to ask. See below.

[2] If it has why isn't this pattern shared among its offspring why was it peculiar to just the Hominoidae?

I really don't know what you're trying to ask.

I'm almost certain you haven't understood shared ERVs and how they apply to evolution. I'll give a brief summary. Animals - including humans - often get viral attacks (nice graphic illustration: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/viral-attack-page-2). In many instances, after the virus has inserted itself in the cell, for varying reasons, the infection fails. Due to the failed viral insertion, the attacked cell retains the viral information. If, and only if, said cell is a germline cell, then that cell possibly gets passed on to an offspring, etc. Bear in mind that the odds of two species just randomly sharing just one ERV in the same location is pretty slim (not impossible, because of hotspots).

The same principle applies to old (retro) virus inserrtions and the ancestors of humans and modern apes. Further, shared retroviruses show that the incidence of the locations of the various shared endogenous retroviruses in the different hominid species complement the model had before the genetic evidence was available. So, all hominidea species have some shared ERVs in the same locations. Then, the species in homininae have shared ERVs that ponginae don't, and so on...

Hope that helps.

P.S. Real life may mean I won't be able to respond as soon as I want to do. So, you know...