₦airaland Forum

Rottweiler:
@ KAG
I guess KAG means Keenly Against God. I don't want to join issues with you because I know your type.

I sincerely doubt you know my "type", and it's a tad hard being against any God.

You are spiritually rebellious. All you do is misinterpret what is existing.

Spiritually rebellious? Misinterpret what is existing? Some examples would probably help.

People like you follow Guru Maharaji, Olumba Olumba Olumba (OOO), Eckankar, etc.

Should I know them?

Sects that are like rudderless ships on the high sea.

Like the Christian sect?

Just a few days back, Guru Maharaji, the so-called perfect master confirm to the whole world that he is the chief patron of OGBONI confraternity in Nigeria. A lot of his followers were dumbfounded!

Alritey then? What am I supposed to do with any of that?

My friend, were you born this way or you were unfortunate to have been brainwashed by association. I guess you are the perfect master of your cult

I am not your friend, pretty sure I'm not brainwashed (if I was I wouldn't know anyway - just like you don't know you are ), and I don't have a cult.

Genial:
No one's talking about association here, my good friend. Marriage is not just any kind of 'association'.

Semantics. Feel free to substitute association with marriage, if it makes you feel better.

layi:
Back to th old analogy. Can you see or hear the air around you?

Yes

Ok u can feel it. Fine that simply means there are several ways of perception that goes beyond the 5 senses. God is real and you know it. Look within.

God isn't real and you know it. Look within.

mrmayor:
TO BE NIGERIAN WITHOUT ANY STRONG CONVICTIONS ABOUT RELIGION BE IT CHRISTIANITY,ISLAM EVEN BABALAWO AND WITCHES IS
LIKE BEING WORSE THAN BEING BIN LADEN.

Lacking a belief in the supernatural, and thereby fashioning a moral code based on the natural, that takes the teachings of love into consideration, makes you definitely worse than a guy that has alledgedly masterminded the murder of thousands. Yeah, I can see how you would think that.

Rottweiler:
Those who claim that there is no God are only deceiving themselves. Pure and simple. They mislead others that are young and weak at heart into believing there is no God but they constantly battle with their conscience over the truth. People like the late Tai Solarin. Most of them beg God for forgiveness, if they ever have the opportunity, at their dying moment. Keep on fooling yourselves!

Those who claim there is a God are only deceiving themselves. Pure and simple (just ask "Hear'say". They mislead others that are young and weak at heart into believing there is a God, but they constantly battle with their conscience over the truth. People like the late Henry Morris. Most of them renounce God when they have the opportunity, at their dying moment. Keep on fooling yourself.

By the way, the "no atheist in a foxhole" rubbish, is both insulting and stupid to boot.

Yes . I could also marry someone who believes in a God or Gods. It's mostly fundamentalists on both sides that tend to have problems associating with those of a differing belief (or non-belief).

xkape:
@KAG
people like augustine were more pagan than the pagans

Of course not, he was more Christian than many Christians. Although Augustine did convert from pagan beliefs, he did become a staunch Christian. What's more, his writings have been some of the most scholarly and insightful teachings on the Bible. He would have had to be a rather extraordinary pretender to have pulled the wool over the eyes of Christians.

jagunlabi:
It is not a common thing,either.The creationist myth of the genesis is still considered - even today - by most christians to be an accurate account of history.This is another example of that yawning gap between what the ecclesiasts really know and what ordinary christians know.Why the gap?Why not just inform the rest of christiandom,officially,things like this?
I guess we'll never know.

I would have thought that most Christians believe the Genesis account weren't historical. In my part of the world most of the Christians are theistic evolutionists most of the Catholics and anglicans in the world are theistic evolusionists too, from what I understand.

It may just be a case of the minority (which would be creationism, especially YEC) being so vocal, that they are mistaken for the majority.

jagunlabi:
So much for the bible being the "word of God",then.
If there are christians around the world now who dismiss the biblical creationist tales as superstitions,then the christiandom is really changing.The mainstream,oethodox,literal christianity might be heading back towards the belief system of the early gnostic christians,afterall.
Interesting.

It's not a new thing, if I remember correctly, christians like Augustine believed the Genesis accounts (at least the Eden scenario) were mythical.

ajia23:
@ Nferyn

Here are the examples I gave previously
"In Islam, the prophesies of Muhammed (SAW) were accurately made and came to pass. So are still yet to pass, but they will. Example, when the persians and the romans were in battle of attrition, Muhammed (SAW) said the Romans were going to defeat the persians in seven years and it came to pass. At that time, it would have been inconceivable that it would happen. And he urged the Muslims to celebrate with the Romans because then some of them still believed in monotheism. Another was whe he predicted the fall of constantinople, and it's eventual liberation by Muslim forces. Constantinople is now Istanbul. What could be more accurate? There are so many predictions that actually came to pass. The list is endless."

Could you give us the prophecy in its context.

For more, the Prophet of Islam also predicted that the ratio of girls to boys will approach 50 to 1 as time progressed. Now to show the accuracy of that prediction, at that time in Arabia, men far outnumbered the women, so it wasn't a trend then.
Now Latest UN world population statistics show that it is 11 women to 1 man. We will soon get to the mark.

Preemptively claiming fufillment of an unfufilled prediction? You don't see that too often. Could you provide that prophecy in its context too? Thanks in advance.

goodguy:
No, not at all. What I mean is this: You wouldn't need the prophet to confirm to you that his prophesy has come to pass. You'll figure it out yourself because it will be so obvious by then.

Exactly, it's useless until you can retroactively fit an occurence to suit the prophecy.

For the fact that I'm just hearing of the man for the first time, I don't regard him as 'notable'. Bola Ige was a man whose name wasn't strange at all to anyone in Nigeria - that is the type of 'notable' I mean.

Well, I just heard of both of them for the first time. Something tells me, if Ige hadn't died, the other guy would have been used as the example of the fufilled prophecy.

That depends on who declares the prohesy. A true prophet wouldn't beat about the bush. So. . NO, he wouldn't put anything vaguely. As a matter of fact, prophecies are often declared clearly, but certain facts are often withheld as at the time it is being delivered, for reasons best known to God.

Once again, this is a clear prophecy: {Insert name here}, this is going to happen, on that day, in that year. It will also look like blah, blah. Vague prophecy? See below.

Example: A man was warned not to travel within a specified period of time. He didn't hearken and did otherwise. On his journey back home, he got involved in a ghastly motor accident and died instantly; and found in his pocket was the sheet of paper where the message/warning was written for him. [This is a True life story. The accident occured in December 25, 1998, My dad and sister were involved, and they were the only survivors too ].

Now, note that he was only told not to travel. He wasn't told he was going to have an accident. THAT. . is exactly what I mean.

When was the time period, how long was it, and who found the prophecy in his pocket? In fact why would he have it in his pocket?

It depends on what was going on when I saw it. The condition of things at that moment also count. Therefore, you can't just conclude that I was hallicinating.

Perhaps not. So, what kind of setting are we talking about?

I'm not sure, but I think Pope John Paul the second was a theistic evolutionist.

xkape:
@KAG
Fair Enough
I will look into the links you gave. I wish I could see enough evidence to convince me , but all i have seen thus far wouldnt still stand up in court

Incidentally, it has stood up in court… several times, with the latest being the Dover trial.

goodguy:
Maybe from agnostics as well. But Christians, deists (never even met one) ?? Naah.

I have

Some people you mean?
Well then. You're entitled to it.

Most people, if not all. Indeed.

I said a notable person. I've never even heard of that guy you made reference to up there.
I've never heard of prophecies that come this way. Prophecies are often delivered in a way that will make you figure it out yourself by the time it comes to pass. It'll then be like: "Ohh. . so this is what that man was talking about!". Geddit??

He was notable enough to have been mentioned with the other bloke. So basically they are put so vaguely, that they are virtually useless until something seemingly similar happens, then the event is retroactively shoehorned to fit the "prophecy". Nostradamus would have been so proud.

I saw it at the back of an event program. There were many prophecies written there, some of which *I think* have come to pass. But I can't find the book anymore (since 2001). Another one I faintly remember is the prophecy about the wife of either a governor or president (can't really recall) that will die in the yr 2005. Remember OBJ lost his darling wife last year. The prophecies were many (over 50). . . even prophecies till 2008. I really wish I could still find that book!

Okay.

If I tell you I saw something, and I am very sure I saw that thing, (maybe I was the only one who saw it) and I know I wasn't hallucinating; it will so so impossible to convince me otherwise, no matter how hard you try to scientifically prove anything to me. THAT. . is the case with some people with supernatural beliefs.

If you saw something and others around you didn't, no matter how sure of its reality you are, chances are it still was a delusion. Some people who have had delusions were certain their hallucinations were real, until they were treated.

xkape:
OK I am big enof to modify my position. I asked for an intermidiate for and u gave it to me. Cool.
But the mutant boy with the extra vertebra. What is the point of that?

I commend you for that, although I’d hardly call them intermediates. The girl (I think it’s a girl), was just an easy way of showing an ape with a tail. Vestiges and the human body are fun, aren’t they?

Anyway, few can argue about the plausibility of th ToE in explaining some aspects of life. Also natural selection is an evident force. But it still cannot provide an adequate explanation for all the phenomena we see. Just like Newtonian physics alone cannot explain light or energy or matter for that matter.

Actually it explains the origin and subsequent changes of species rather adequately. It may not have falsifiable theories for questions like, “how did laughter evolve”, but overall it’s got pretty good answers, and may get more with time.

There is still no plausible explanation for the origins of DNA.
As much as i hate to quote people like Behe he did raise a valid point about the irreducable complexity of some structures, like the bacterial flagelum. ToE cannot explain its way around this particular organell

Actually, there are plausible explanations for the origin of DNA. One really good hypothesis: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys7450/phys7450_sp05/downloads/tripletcode.pdf.

Also, Behe’s "irreducible complexity" argument has been beaten to death several times, especially the flagellum; the ToE – especially Ken Miller - has explained how it may have formed:
See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html (read the references for more)

Also, Ken Miller’s (I read it a good while ago, hopefully nothing has changed): http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html

My point exactly. Doesnt that suggest that these organism have stayed the same for eons? Like reproduces like even after a billion generations.

Probably not exactly the same, semantics perhaps, but a fair distinction. In any case, why is the fact they are relatively unchanged a problem?

and this is still unanswered
The issue is, however the food of organisms is derived, the mechanism for converting that food to energy is basically the same and has remained so over eons. Meaning the first life forms must have had an inherent ability to produce there own energy. How did this develop,?

I think my response was I had no idea. I still haven’t got a clue.

That is total bollox. Unfounded, speculative and wouldnt stand up in a decent court.

It really isn’t. Like I said I don’t know how it may have happened, so it’s likely it may fall under abiogenesis, if the first organism with that ability wasn’t “alive”. It may fall under evolution too, I wouldn’t know.

Scientists are more religious about this ToE thing than the creationists themselves.

Actually most scientists aren’t that dogmatic about the ToE, if evolution became falsified tomorrow, most would leave it for a better theory (as long as the new theory adequately explains the old data, and how they could have been wrongly interpreted), Dogma has no place in science.

I remember reading a quote by a nobel laurate that we must keep reminding ourselves that the things we observe are not due to design but chance.( i am sure KAG with his superior powers of research can provide us with the exact quotation).

Er, it’s your claim; you research it and give us the name and quote.

Every explanation but intelligence is considered scientific . Why? Cos it just cannot be scientific to consider that order came from a greater order. Order must come from disorder.

What? It’s most likely because so far, all claims of intelligence have been intentionally placed beyond the realm of science, the intelligent being(s) have so far been unfalsifiable and what’s more, left behind no distinguishing factors. Also, many who argue for the unevidenced intelligence often argue out of incredulity.
What’s this talk of order from disorder?

Here is a completely novel idea, all models of BMWs have the "kidney" grill. Maybe the design feature was kept by by the designer as he refined the model? That would be a thought wouldnt it. Maybe life itself was designed to lead up to something, an ideal life form. That thing being perfected slowly but surely over time by a cognate force?

Maybe, maybe it was panspermia, maybe it’s all a dream. All unfalsifiable, and completely useless. The most parsimonious explanation so far, is common ancestry, and all the evidence points to that.

Another thought, it is easy to infer evolution by showing pictures of monkeys and man. But how do u account for reptile to bird? archeoptera to aves. scale to feathers. cold to warm blooded? What mode of natural selection preserves a scale, fraying and forming the complex aerodynamic structure that is a fearther? Another thought, i am not sure but i think archeopthera were supposed to be the ancestors of modern birds? But i also think they got extinct around the same time as most dinosaurs, which is some time before the first feathered, flighted birds apeared. How do u explain this assuming of course i am correct?

Dinosaurs to birds? Some dinosaurs also had feathers, Sinosauropteryx is one example. Anyway, how might scales have changed to feather? See here: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_feathers

About cold blood to warm, many (most?) dinosaurs were also warm homeothermic See: http://arnica.csustan.edu/jones/Publications/pdf/Ruben%20et%20al%202003%20PBZ.pdf, for more

Archaeopteryx? No “archie” was most likely not the ancestor of modern birds, it’s just a good example of a dinosaur-bird transitional. Also, “archie” wasn’t the only dinosaur-bird transitional, others existed too.

Man, what is with the name calling? Are you really so uncouth and unmannered or are you just pretending?.
Stick to the issues, if i am too stupid to argue with, then stop posting, but by all means stop the cheap insults.

What can I say, I was in a foul mood, and you pissed me off, especially with the last bit. I lash out sometimes Meh!


Anyway, I hope I got everything, if I missed any, please bring it o my attention (I'm a little out of it at the moment).

nferyn:
So you're taking on an arachnid persona on the web, more fit to your environment

Well, that's certainly on way of putting it.

mlks_baby:
@KAG,
Hmmm, you're surprising me these days. I didn't quite take kindly to some of the things you said earlier on this thread (the jokes about making babies); but I've had the good fortune of seeing your objectivity in several other entries. Thanks for your comments in some of the posts, and I trust that we'll all find a balance in our quest for reason.

You didn't like the making babies comment? Why?

mlks_baby:
@KAG,

It may so be, but there's nothing to suggest their religious affiliations, as you rightly said. Just brief exposure to them online does not really establish their religious affiliations.

They are usually vocal about their religious beliefs, and even when not vocal, they do tend to mention or sig what kind of beliefs they have. Also, there's the fact their countries are mostly religious too. Not that I agree with Exu though.

jonpinjeff:
@KAG

YIKES? NO I DONT THINK SO. KABOOM IS MORE LIKE IT.

Well DUDE KABBOM was a nut, so I guess it is more appropriate.

hot-angel:
I never knew there was a gospel according to phillips. Or the gospel of mary madgdalyne in the bible.

men i learn new stuffs everyday. lol,

They are not in the Bible.

Okay that movie was SOMETHING CONFUSING!

We were more than 200 people sitting in the movie theatre.

If you haven't read the book, it can get confusing. Yet another problem with a quite dull movie.

mlks_baby:
And if you're still not satisfied, could you please explain to me why most European youths who don't have any religious claims are the ones we read of in Germany and Russia killing blacks and Asians with racist hatred in broad daylight?

Actually nothing is known of their religious affilations, also many of the Nazi and racist persuasion in those countries are, from what I understand (and from brief exposures to them online), usually either christians, or pagans (not pagan as in non-religious).

As far as I'm aware, Russia is not a non-religious society/country.

donnie:
I first saw those pictures in secondary school.

Like i said, i do not have any problem with the possibility of these creatures to have existed millions of years ago.

But they are not the decendants of Adam. They were not made in the image of God.

They existed in the pre-adamic world along with the other creatures.

But they were all destroyed by God when he destroyed the old world.

Okay, you've completely lost me. What pictures? Which creatures? Not descendants of Adam? Also, when did the carnage happen?

God did not create the earth to be without form and void as we see in genesis chapter 1. It later became without form and void.

Isaiah 45
18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Interesting.

This is what happened to the earth:

Isaiah 24
1Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

It was turned up side down. This explains the fossils of bones, metals etc. which some scientists/evolutionists use to support the wrong conclusions which they trying to sell.

You need to read past verse one, to understand the context. Also, for the record, it doesn't explain the fossils, metals, etc.

My bible does not contradict the possible existence of those creatures at some time.

Which critters?

There is the description of a Dinnassour my the bible:


Job 41

1"Job, can you pull the leviathan out of the sea with a fish hook?
Can you tie down its tongue with a rope?
2Can you put a rope through its nose?
Can you stick a hook through its jaw?
3Will it keep begging you for mercy?
*snipped for brevity*


So, No shaking!

That Job passge you've cited, is most likely allegorical (the poetic imageries are a clue). however, if one even decides to take it mostly literal, animals like hippos and Komod dragons still fit the bill better than dinosaurs.

jonpinjeff:
The Fact that the Bible says Faith in God and His Son Jesus would decline in the last days is indisputable. We can see the fulfilment before our very eyes.

We could argue, that Zeus made that prediction first, and Isis, and Thor, etc.

Most people think its fashionable to declare an atheist inclination these days.

Really? How many atheists do you know? I'm the only atheist in my entire extended family, and in fact, I don't know any atheists IRL.

They think its intellectually sound to deny the Existence of Christ in spite of Historical proofs. Even though many ''Intellectuals'' have agued any historical proof. They have more faith in death than in Life.

Historical proofs for Yeshua ben Yosef, or historical proof for Jesus the God-man?

How can one deny the existence of God inspite of overwhelming evidence of the Supernatural. If U havent experienced the supernatural, please pray for one. It is real. I have seen it. I have Touched it. I have tasted it. Jesus is not a Spirit Being. He is real. You can Touch Him. His resurrection was a Resurrection of Flesh Spirit annd Soul. I have received his touch.

Well, not to be glib, but I did all that, and probably still have the T-shirt lying around here some place, still no cigar.

That the Da Vinci Code is False. Yes Of course!!! What Else. Its False and Full of Several unreconcilablke Bladderdash.

Would that mean it was, I don't know, fiction?

I Recommend A Boycott. Eventhough its impossible. The Prophesies of mass defection of Souls from Light to Darkness must be Validated.

I recommend a good ol' fashioned book and reel burning.

The frenzy and acceptance false doctrines and tales like Da Vinci Code triggers is much the same the as acceptance of the Coming <Mark> would receive .

The Da vinci Code is not the product of a brilliant mind, It is indeed the product of a depraved mind. The Inspiration is from the darkest recesses of hell.

Like you could write a half a book that anyone would want to read.

I

Repeat it is not a sign of Intelligence to come up with satanic rhetorics or to declare that you're atheist. If U doubt the supernatural and , wait even the existence of the devil and the battle going on in the unseen. Dont worry the intersection of the 3rd dimension and the dimension where the devil exists is about to take place then he will be revealed and you can be sure u'd call for help. WITH THE NAME JESUS. THIS IS NOT A PROHESY MIND U. IT IS A FACT TO COME.

WATCH OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yikes!

gidig:
Yes o!Nuru.
The point with te way KAG reason in this discourse is simply this:He dose not accept that there is an intelligence that science cannot explain.

That's probably because all intelligent beings that we've witnessed empirically so far, all exist in the natural.

To suggest there is is to really extract the kinds of responses we have been reading so far.

Huh?

Summary:anything that you cannot explain within the scope of intelligence that acquired through science does not exist!that is the reasoning that fules the 'cockiness' of 'very intelligent people' who wonder if religious people can be intelligent at all.

Please doin't put words in my mouth, or pretend to be summarising my views, especially if you don't actually know or understand my views. Thank you.

nuru:
Will you dispute with him concerning what he saw.

Depends on what he saw.

If you have not experienced supernatural incidences before, that does not mean you deny it exists.

No it doesn't, but it does mean I'll be even more skeptical about those kinds of claims.

In the Quran, God ask you several times to use your intelligence and wisdom. This goes to show that true religion cannot be opposed to true intelligence.

Are you saying there's no truereligion?

The fact is that most of those who parade their religiosity are really not religious while most who parade themselves as intellectuals are really not intelligent.

It may be true for religion, but annoyingly it's not often true for intellectuals. Most proud intellectuals, are more ofen than not annoyingly intelligent.

Apart from that, intelligence is a relative term. For example, a prof of physics could be a dumb of fashion. Lets take it that generally, truly religious people are not less intelligent than those who are not.

I agree.

xkape:
this is exactly the type of BS rhetoric TOE is about. Ok u found bacteria in rock eons ago. and from this u surmised how photosynthesis evolved. where are the intermidiate steps in this evolution?

Zeno’s paradox and poor reading skills, make for bad bedfellows *rolls eyes*.

how did u test the biochemical mechanisms in a 900mil yr old fossil. this is just a smokescreen for the uninformed. what fossils give is is at best a rudimentary outline of sturcture, not biochemical traces that can give any definitive insight into exact mechanisms

Looks like someone forgot their meds today. Living bacteria with traits that are closely similar to the fossilised bacteria were tested.

Note that i am not in anyway arguing that PS1 type synthesis appeared on earth before PS2 but these are all means of production of glucose which still exist up until now. It is no more evolution than the Yomo et al experiment, it is no more evolution than lactose intolerance in some human strains.

Except Yomo et al.’s was an example of one of the processes of evolution, but I’ve stated and pointed that out several times before.

The issue is, however the food of organisms is derived, the mechanism for converting that food to energy is basically the same and has remained so over eons. Meaning the first life forms must have had an inherent ability to produce there own energy. How did this develop,?

I haven’t got a clue .

where are the intermidiates or will u throw up the abiogenesis defence again?

It may very well fall under abiogenesis, especially as it is likely the first population with that ability, were not what we would call “alive”.

And on that point, Darwin himself propounded an explanation for life developing from non-living chemicals so your abiogenesis-is-not-evolution cop-out is a great big strawman

Hoyle postulates on abiogenesis too, I guess that means abiogenesis is part of astrophysics too, (the douche) Walt Brown an engineer talks about evolution, which means evolution is part of mechanical engineering…I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

Maybe you should start by reading for yourself where and what Darwin postulated on an abiogenesis possibility, and how that makes abiogenesis part of evolution. I suspect it’s something along the lines of Pasteur talked about , therefore penicillin is part of

Please KAG do your research and find out exactly what data was gleamed from these rocks and what info was surmised from them. most probably the asumptions were made fron conparison with the existing types of these creatures, which still leads back to one of my points (which u have avoided as usual ), the ubiquity of cellular respiration

Here’s a completely novel idea, which most people usually tend to glean for themselves, “common ancestry”. Descendants of the common ancestors, who most likely had that trait, still have those traits. You do know ubiquitous traits, are actually evidence for common ancestry, yes?

on some of your other issues
Mitochondria.What is it with evolutioniusts and mitochondria? please explain how mitochondria proves evolution in your own words before i give u a rebuttal

I may have missed it, or simply forgotten, but I don’t think I’ve mentioned the mitochondria in relation to evolution. That would probably explain why it’s hard for you to rebut. A tad difficult rebutting something I haven’t mentioned (not that it has stopped you in the past), no?

Nested Heirachies. I remember writing at length concerning this with regard to the Talking Origins article so i don't know why you're bringing this up again since u conveniently ran from that fight by saying u don't defend other poeples arguments. But u don't mind propounding other peoples arguments about ancient prokaryotes do u?

Except you still haven’t given me a reason to respond to your “rebuttal” (also known as long block of inanities) to the TO letter of the month, and except you didn’t address nested hierarchies. Do you actually know what “nested hierarchy” means? Looks like one more thing you have to read up on. Hmm, makes me wonder.

Vestiges aye?
Cool, i am not really sure but i think the cocyx in man is an example of a vestige.

Yes

ok why not go the whole hoge and find me an intermidiate form of a primate with half developed tail, not serving a useful function. because according to toe, natural selection must preseve the genes of these individuals for them to pass on this trait and for their off spring to eventually loose the tail completely
WHat we see in primates is mokeys with fully functional tails (even the ones with small ones like baboons still use them for balance) and apes with no tails at all. Again where is the intermidiate for with a non functional tail. U will not find it alive of fossilised

Do you know what a vestige means, or are you just trying to show beyond any reasonable doubt, what a rambling buffoon you are?

Anyway, for the rest of your rubbish , here are some pretty pictures for you to admire, and hopefully realise where you went wrong.

stumptail macaque (a monkey)
https://i4.tinypic.com/10f12es.jpg

Barbary Macaque (ignore the adorable little angels by the side)
https://i4.tinypic.com/10f16v9.jpg

Is that a baboon?
https://i4.tinypic.com/10f19hd.jpg

…and finally, an ape with a tail.
https://i4.tinypic.com/10f3j43.jpg

https://i4.tinypic.com/10f3jug.jpg

The eternal dillema of evolution is that natural selection is supposed not to pass on any trait that is not beneficial in some way, so a half depleted organ like a primate tail should not be passed on and the completely absent tail would not have arisen

Actually, natural selection is supposed to pass both beneficial and neutral traits. Read up on vestigials too, because although I’d like to tell you, I’ve already lost patience with you.

I have other issues to throw at u but answer thse first

He says, without any hint of ever noticing the irony; the irony is either strong with you, or you are an idiot. I’m leaning towards the latter.

goodguy:
I was expecting you to say that. I've heard that countless times from your fellow atheists.

Never heard it from other christians,agnostics, deists etc.? I'm surprised.

This however, does not deny the fact that the supernatural does exist indeed.

No it doesn't, but they were parsimonious explanations for the "sacrifice to money" claim.

If you're Nigerian, ask yourself why cases of kidnappings become rampant when a higher denomination of the naira is introduced.

I wouldn't know where to begin.

I'm talking of dreams like: You saw someone in your dream. He gave u certain warnings, and the consequences of not following the warnings thereof. Eventually, you wake up, you ignore the warnings thinking "it was a mere dream" and Alas!, you begin to face the consequences. (It may not be a dream like this exactly, but something similar).
That you haven't experienced such should not be an avenue for you to deny it's existence. These things happen for real.

They may, they may not, but I've given a "rational" explanation for why people believe they had/have visionary dreams.

Yes, something close to the latter.

Then they aren't exact prophecies, and are not prophecies in my opinion.

Bola Ige was a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. The prophecy went this way: "In December 2001, a very notable person in Nigeria will be killed by asassins". How clearer could this be?

So he was talking about this guy: Odunayo Olagbaju, member, Osun State House of Assembly, killed in Ile-Ife on December 21, 2001. (from http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/particles/political_killings_in_the_presen.htm), and that's just from a quick google.

This is a much clearer prophecy, "in December 2001, the minister for justice will be assassinated", or, a notable minister with the initials BI will be assassinated on the 23rd of December 2001.

By the way, how was the "prophecy" recorded, who heard it before the assassinations, and any evidence it was said before the assassinations? Also, how many prophecies on verage does the prophet make, and how many of them do come to pass?

And while we're waiting for that time to come (if at all it will), shouldn't there be at least, a simple explanation?

There usually is, people with supernatural beliefs though, are often dissatisfied with them, and require evidence approaching 99% "proof" (even that isn't good enough for some).

[/quote]

[quote]

goodguy:
And even those who openly confess that they were once engaged in such stuffs?

Are most likely lying, deluded, or are/were so superstitious they interpreted any type of good fortune as a direct result of mumbo jumbo.

This is just an assertion. I need a very rational explanation.

It is a rational explanation. Most people have dreamt about buildings on fire at least one point in their lifes, some dream of a building on fire, the world trade center catches fire, ergo they predicted it. That or they only remembered the one dream out of many that coincidentally came to pass; which incidenatlly is what most people do.

I'm old and wise enough to differentiate between what I have experienced in reality and what I've seen in my dreams. Nothing adds up as nothing.

I young and wise enough to know the human urge to believe some kind of prophetic leaning lie in them.

I guess it's even Science itself that conflicts with human intelligence sometimes. :rolls eyes:

Actually, yes it does sometimes. See the belief in a geocentric planetary system, spontaneous generation, and quantum physics, for some examples.

It's a good thing you've admitted to not been sure. Well, I have witnessed and personally experienced fulfilled prophecies.

You mean prophecies like on the 21st of June, George Bush will go into a coma caused by a stroke, or sometime in the future, a womn will meet a man and fall in love? The former is an example of an xact prophecy, and if that came to pass, that would be a prophecy, the latter on the other hand…

Do you know the death of Bola Ige was prophesied by a prophet just some weeks before his death? Well, it wasn't publicised so I don't expect you to know.

Don't know the dude, but wht was the prophecy like, how old was Bola Ige and what health problems did he have, and more importantly, how was that "prophecy" recorded (for lack of a better owrd) before the death?

I once got this sent to me:
If God answers your prayers, he simply tested your faith.
If God does not answer on time, he's testing your patience.
If God does not answer at all, he has better plans for you.

So basically, no better thanmere chance.

Good thing it's your opinion.

Good opinion too (even if I do say so myself), especially the Omni- God thing, and changing its mind.

And my own point is: For those things that do not have rational explanations, how do we explain their occurences?

We fold our arms and invent new Gods to take away our fear of the big bad Universe, or we keep plugging away at it, until eventually we either find an explanation, a plausible explanation, or the future generation does.

gidig:
Against my prediction that you'd attempt to explain certain phenomenon,you have spent quite sometime attnding to every words.You are so detailed.

Bad habit.

The trick you reffred to can you humour me and expalin it?

Different wys of doing it, easiest is to palm the coin, and then pretend to pull it out of the kid's ear. Another is to hide it between the fingers, so the palm looks empty, then with a flourih pretend to pull it out of the kid's ear. That's magic.

Better still how does David Copperfeild allow himself to be tied and locked up in a safe at the top of a building loaded with explosives;blown up and emerges from underneath a cloth with an inscription? Oh! It is just a trick.

It is just a trick, a clever one, but just a trick. I've a feeling it might have something to do with a false bottom, and a dummy, but that's just a feeling. Let me guess, your explanation is probably demonic powers, yes?

Really, please explain that trick using this great natural intelligence you are endowed with.I will only write that for now seeing that you do so much anatomy on my ordinary post!

PS: I am enjoying your response KAG.

Intelligence = over rated.

gidig:
@KAG Wouldn't that be akin to the placebo effect? Which like acts of faith, also results in sometimes "miraculous" occurences
I have only selected this from the lists of your responses to my post and |I do only because they have the same theme(your response that is).you will never attempt to explain it.You can give it a name but you cannot explain.you will not deny it but you cannot explain it.Notice that you could not explain the trick you acknowledged.

What trick? The "quarter out of the ear" trick? I'd explain it, but that might spoil the magic for you, and you might stop believing magicians have special powers. Wouldn't want that now, would we? About placebo effects, not everything about the way they work is known, but then again, I wasn't trying to explain placebo effects, I was merely pointing out how, like acts of faith in a particular deity, they also produce "miraculous" effects.

In fact the very fact that you acknowledged that it was a 'trick' within the very explainable elements of science that we see and experience with our senses-which forms the very basis of the natural intelligence that religion transcends -suggests to me that you know that there are such experiences.

Look up the word trick in the dictionary, I'm not in the mood for word play and semantics.

A religious person can give you an explanation for such things that cannot be explained.At l;east |I know there are explanations in the Bible for such occurrence and it is not the placebo effect.That is psychological! WE are talking about people who were diagnosed with terminal illnesses.

So you do know what the placebo effect is all about. By the way, people with terminal illnesses also have "miraculous" cures without faith, or prayers to a deity, a good example that immediately springs to mind, is Lance Armstrong.

And in your response to death, you(and infact anyone who takes your line of argument) will stumble here.You can't explain it with your natural intelligence. Watch close as this discourse goes that all of you will come to that point where you attribute what you don't know to something very close that your natural intelligence will carry.

What, that death is a certainty? Yeah, that's a tough one to explain.

I will indulge you in another puzzle:If you ever get to hear of an agemo festival in Yoruba land, attend it if you can-if not for anything but for the purpose of this discourse.The Agemo is a round that people generally believe is inhabited by a person.The only problems is the fact it can become flat all of a sudden.How does the intelligence that you boast of explain that?Where did the supposed person inside it go?what happened to his innards? I repeat what natural laws of intelligence were at play?

Considering I have no idea what you're trying to say, On closer inspection, it seems you are asking how magicians make their assistants disappear, or something. Well, who can tell this things, I've heard magicians are all aliens with ray guns that they can use to both dissolve, and re-combine humans.

OK.I imagine your response.It is just, and then you go quiet.

I bet that made sense to you (what you wrote).

The men who practice these things and many other things will laugh at you.Our people have a proverb 'Omo kekere o mo ogun.On pe ni efo"( It is only a child that does not know the power of a charm that calls it vegetable)

Well, my people have a proverb, "Ockham's razor often helps to discard the irrelevant logic of the superstitious, so use it." , okay I just made that up, but my people would probably have proverbs like that.

people,there is more to this life than meets the eye!

Of course.

PS: And when I said that death was uncertain, i meant people really don't know when it will come;not that the act of giving up the ghost is uncertain.And since I remembered that, where do people go when they die?

Some six feet under, others cremation, others left on the street to rot, and others cadavers in the aid of medicine.

Is death merely the absence of oxygen in the lungs?

For a long time, yes.

"It’d be nice to have your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue; presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”; explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation; “Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.”; What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.”; “Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind.”."

]Has anyone seen the new movie ' The Da Vinci Code'. What do you think about it?

In the movie it says Jesus raped Mary Magdalene; which is totally wrong.

[/quote]It does not say that.

[quote]They are just jealous because of the movie "The passion of christ"

Yes, they are. Who wouldn't be jealous of a snuff film cloaked uder the guise of religious teachings, or something.



[quote author=africanboy:
@retro
an agnostic believes God exists but is not relevant.

That's more like a deist.

your statement "if God exists" clearly points you as an atheist, else you might have simply said "God exists"

Now you're just being daft.

goodguy:
Let me repost what someone said earlier:

How do people who indulge in money ritual actually get the money and how scientifically is in connected to the people they kill?

They don't. That's probably why they are usually anecdotal tales.

Moreso;

What scientific or rational explanations do you have for someone who dreams about been warned in a dream, and the consequences of not following the warnings, in reality, actually comes to pass?

People dream several dreams per night, which obviously adds up as weeks and months go by; which means the chances of having an experience in real life, that would correspond to at least one remembered dream, are pretty high.

How rational is it for someone to prophesy and the exact thing that was foretold came to pass?

This maybe downto bad memory, but I don't think I've ever heard any prophecy that was exact. they are usually worded so vaguely, they can be fufilled by almost anyone or circumstance. Other times the "prophecy" is given such a long span of life, that eventually it has no choice but to be fufilled (I suppose that could also fall under vague).

How rational is it for someone to pray and that prayer eventually gets answered? Mere luck? Coincidence? Naah, I don't want to hear that.

How rational is it for someone to pray, and that prayer never getting answered? Prayer, synchronicities, placebo effect, positive thinking… all more or less the same in my opinion, only difference is prayer is believed to be some kind of a magic tool that illogically changes the mind of an Omni- deity (in the case of most Christians).

Note: I only want to know if there's indeed a rational explanation for everything that happens in life.

I don't know if there is a "rational" explanation for everything in life, but that of course wasn't my point. My point was, people tend to look for a rational explanation, because more often than not, there is one.

goodguy:
Nope. That's because YOU think there has to be, when in actual fact, there's none.

A man keels over dead on the street, there's more often than not, a "rational" explanation for why it happened.
An professional athlete suddenly builds bulk in no time, and is running a lot faster than he/she should, there usually is a "rational" explanation for the change.
Lightening splits the sky, and thunder rumbles, there is a "rational" explanation for their occurences.

So,let me reiterate my words, "more often than not, there's a "rational" explanation". My guess is you missed my point, that or I missed your point.

Less getting pissed off at insults (real or imagined) to your deity. If your deity is real enough, one would expect he/she/it, wouldn't need you to fight she/it/he's battles for it/he/she. More of selfelessness too, might not hurt.

mrlawng:
It so amazing how the responses of the so called intelligent people on this post is judgemental, prejudicial and stereotypical. Hmmh, It makes you wonder what their definition of intelligence is? oh i know, "seeing thing their way"

Hmm

Is rationality equal to intelligence. Not in all cases.

Not at all.

I read about a sucessful mexican business man in the Harvard business review. He didnt apply any standard rational business model to his operations, yet he made it to fortune 500. There is the saying in business that there is the rational and irrational school of thought and there is no proof that one works better than the other. (reference HArvard Business review)

Good.

its so amazing how the onl response of the so-called rational people to things they can't explain is: There must be a rational explanation to all this"

That's because if you think about it, there's more often than not, a "rational" explanation.

kimba:
@jagunlabiIf I may ask why the merry go round:
which came first: The Religion or The Intelligence.

Intelligence.

Question: Where do you place Mans Natural born Innate Knowledge of God? before religion? after religion, and before intelligence? or after religion and intelligence?

I'm not completely sure of what you are trying to ask, but man doesn't have an inate knowledge of any God. The knowledge of God(s) stem more often than not, from nuture.

Answer: Man, while he tries to partially deny, totally deny, partially exagerrate, totally exagerrate his Inborn knowledge of God, falls into religion.

Untrue. Everybody is an atheist in the end (glib assertations are so much fun, I thought I'd try one too.)