₦airaland Forum

vedaxcool: ^

You don't know? Really u must still be suffering the effect of the sucker punch . . . Get well soon

Uyi Iredia: Disease came with the fall. And when will the OP get that ID has no need of explaining diseases because it isn't creationism.

Mobinga: https://img835.imageshack.us/img835/2804/lebronoface.png


And the Monkeys we supposedly evolved from never got diseases? I reckon Natural Selection would have removed the vulnerabilities?
Natural Selection would have generally boosted life span extensively, but we Africans still stand on 50-60? Like the Bible says 120 tops.

Likely counter that Natural Selection would have improved the vector capabilities?

https://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3045/nickiboo.png

LagosShia: 1.) answer my quesion.which is more common 1 out of 13 or 12 out of 13?

2.) if 3% of children born in related marriage are deformed,and 1.5% in unrelated marriage,shouldn't we stop giving birth altogether,so no deformed baby is born?

if you care about humanity,conduct medical tests before marriage regardless if it is a related marriage or unrelated.

LagosShia: this topic has formerly being discussed before logicbwoy was born on nairaland with all his other handles.i was the one who opened the thread and i provided the link to an extensive study on the topic.

https://www.nairaland.com/574141/why-muslims-pray-arabic

LagosShia: i was making a comparison,mumu!

so in london which is more common:muslims or non-muslims?



it is ONLY found in the Quran!

vedaxcool: ^

I understand lagoshia gave u a knock out punch in your own thread, but why did u think here is where u can recuperate? Go to a hospital dude!

LagosShia: i am the one who used the word "norm".even if you used "common",in the case of a ratio of 13 to 1,which is common,12 or 1? you are talking of an occurence of less than 8%

LagosShia: abeg,keep quiet.which truth do you know?

you are denying the obvious and yet you want us to follow your illogic as usual while your eyes are blindfolded.

Pastor AIO: Actually I think everybody on this thread is making the same point. The only problem is that we are so used to fighting each other that we are even using what we agree on to bash each other.

Atheists are organised and getting more organised. This is a fact that we all agree on.

People don't organise themselves around a negative, but rather they do so for a positive objective. I believe we all agree on this.

Atheists are organised with the objective of fighting religious institutions. Both atheists and christians seem to be saying this but can't accept it when it is the other person saying it.

If a christian says atheists.org couldn't exist without Religion or God, the Atheists get vexed and disagree.
Then they'll turn around and say that the reason for atheist.org is because of oppressive religions. Then the christians will disagree.

Its a funny dance.

LagosShia: are you normal at all?

so to you 12 normal people are the exception and the 1 unhealthy case is the norm?

LagosShia: so you are now proving to be a backward person.

why not you go open a thread to discuss how to improve the lives of people in poor countries rather than display your stupidity here to project your bias views against Islam?

Emmy9ite: Fellow nairalanders,i greet y'all.. This is my first topic on this section and i will really need your help here. I want to know the difference between 'spirit' and 'soul'.Do u think there is a difference between the two? When we die,which of them leaves the body,is it the soul or the spirit?
Thanks!

Over to you_

davidylan: huh? and atheism is what?

davidylan: dumb.

1. No such fight existed. Infact the present fight now is atheists insisting that creationism NOT be taught in schools.

Until the late 19th century, creation was taught in nearly all schools in the United States, often from the position that the literal interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. With the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution in the 1860s after being first introduced in 1859, and developments in other fields such as geology and astronomy, public schools began to teach science that was reconciled with Christianity by most people, but considered by a number of early fundamentalists to be directly at odds with the Bible.
In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. By 1925, such legislation was being considered in 15 states, and passed in some states, such as Tennessee. The American Civil Liberties Union offered to defend anyone who wanted to bring a test case against one of these laws. John T. Scopes accepted, and he taught his Tennessee class evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. The textbook in question was Hunter's Civic Biology (1914).
The trial was widely publicized by H. L. Mencken among others, and is commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial.

davidylan: 2. Why remove prayer and bibles from public schools? Isnt that fighting perceived intolerance with more virulent intolerance? Why cant prayer be an option that children of atheists are free to opt out of? Why do my kids have to lose the right to pray in schools simply because a minority are not comfortable with it?
3. I'm sorry but direct this nonsense to the islamic boards. Christians didnt put blasphemy laws in place.

davidylan: If this bloviating weasel had bothered to read the post he was quoting, perhaps he would have seen that was anony's point in the first place!

LagosShia: birth problems caused by related marriage are exceptional regardless how higher the risk is compared to unrelated couples.i am talking here of health risks in children.

The absolute risk to first cousins having a child with a recessive genetic condition is about three in every 100 births, unless they have a family history of an autosomal recessive disorder, in which case the risk may be higher. When we also include the background risk of having a child with any type of congenital or genetic disorder, which applies in every pregnancy, the overall risk to first cousins rises to about six in every 100 births, i.e. double the risk in the general population. The great majority of pregnancies do not result in abnormalities.

LagosShia: those healthy habits are not solutions.someone who has genetic problem can still transfer the problem even if he eats health and exercise.the risk become higher to transfer to offspring if the two have similar genetic problem,regardless if they are related or not.medical tests before marriage can help identify those problems and how high the risk is to determine if the couple can get married and produce healthy children.

Pastor AIO: Me, I cannot stand marmite. There is no taste in the world that I revile more.

However, there is no way in the world that I'm going to get together with other people that do not like Marmite to form a club. It is ridiculous to form a club based on a negative such as what you don't like, or what you don't believe.

However imagine that the government now issued a decree that everybody must eat Marmite for breakfast, and if they don't the penalty is death. In that scenario I can well imagine all marmite haters in the world getting together to form clubs to fight the Pro-marmite People.

If you started having organized meetings, what exactly would you discuss? what code of conduct will bind you together? At best you'll bash religion for the first few meetings then get bored and go home eventually dissolving your organization.

A fellowship of atheists is absolutely useless as it cannot make your lives better in any way - to make your lives better, you have to define what "better" is, then lay out a code of conduct that helps you achieve your "better".

hisblud: can you give me a link to that video

LagosShia: so now you're the one denying science.are you saying that two healthy people who are related cannot produce all their children healthy? well,i have seen that and they produced healthy bouncing babies.testing can help because it goes to show the risks and how compatible medically people are.

as for sickle cell,two people whose genotype is "AS" should not even get married because there is the possibility of them producing a baby that is "SS".so if two related couples want to get married it is best both are "AA" and if they are unrelated one can be "AA" while the other is "AS".

so related or not,testing does help to weigh the risks.you are even now blinding your senses to deny facts of life.

LagosShia: it is insignificant when compared to what unrelated couples are also producing.therefore i advocated that whether related or unrelated,go for medical tests before marriage.in that way,the cases can be drastically reduced for all couples.

LagosShia: Muslims are not Amish people.related people can get married,it is not a must or a cult-like practice like the Amish people do.your analogy is blind and foolish all bent at proving a point that does not exist.

now let me ask you questions:

is it possible for related couples to produce children that are healthy?

is it possible for unrelated couples to produce children that are not healthy?

name one way we can reduce cases of unhealthy children in both.

I am prepared to wager that atheists really have nothing to hold them them together in gatherings similar to churches. They simply have no higher purpose that can bind them together. Atheists cannot exist without religious people to oppose. The best they can do is troll religious forums and not much more.

LagosShia: ^

you are still trying to act ignorant and pretend as if i am talking in another language.

i presented figures given that show the difference is not significant.yet still,my point is there are exceptions.if you can only think what i said in my initial statement,you would have stopped arguing.i clearly stated that it is important to carry out medical tests before marriage regardless whether the couple is related or not.so if it is discovered that the risks are very high,they should not get married.in other words i am simply saying that in the case you find the risk is very high do not carry on with the marriage.science and knowledge is to make life easy.but there is a very significant exception of related couples who are healthy and therefore compatible.

you do not come here to argue against related marriages to suit your bias.in pakistan,you have first cousins who keep getting married for generations.do not use exceptions that can be avoided to make a ruling that what the Quran says is evil or interpret it the way you like.it is not done like that.not even in the report you're arguing on supports that there are exceptions.the report even makes it clear that arguing against related marriage is like arguing against women giving birth above 40 years.

hisblud: I was on youtube yesterday searching for videos on osiris vs Jesus Christ and i stumbled on a video by a muslim woman who is a journalist and was questioning the limitation placed on them by the saudi male. She stated something intriguing such as freedom of expression, freedom to understand and interprete the quran and not be based on rote memorization etc.
Take the time to watch it. Is it that the Saudi women have started expressing their opinion now? Is this woman still alive today for trying to challenge the established authorithy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7OYRknGgEc&feature=related

OLAADEGBU: What about you, are you not a slave? You are either a slave to sin or a slave to God. I am a slave to God, what about you?