₦airaland Forum

vedaxcool: @ bolded lol

at remainder, your problem lies in the fact that you do not admit your own wrong, for instance, Mac has banned me for like an hour before, even though I considered it harsh, but I acknowledge my own fault in the equation. Secondly you will also have to acknowledge, historical data, the fact that you have done stuff like these before, is what is still haunting you, past behaviour makes future behaviour like these intolerable, and if reporting is synonymous with seeking justice, then you should have sought justice by reporting people derailing ur thread at least u did so before!

You cant see the harshness of Maclatunji if you're not a muslim. One should be very afraid of the guy. He indirectly stated that he would disown a member of his family if the member was a female that married an atheist. The guy is mad with power.

frosbel: And where did you get that fraudulent graph from ?

I also did not see the term Christian used here .


Russia and Israel are also atheist countries, you hypocrite ! and they make for some of the worst places to live in when it comes to peace.


Denmark :

Another study by Eurobarometer Poll 2005,[1] 31% of Danish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god", whereas 49% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 19% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force". Though Christmas is considered to be Denmark's most celebrated holiday, this is mostly due to cultural, rather than religious, reasons.


New Zeland is 53.6% Christian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_New_Zealand


Canada is 77.1% Christian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada


Ireland is 90% Christian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland


Luxembourg :

44% of Luxembourgish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God".
28% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
22% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".

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


Solvenia is 53% Christian



Mate I could go on and on, but aint got the time.

Now you see how to make a monkey of yourself , by posting what you do not know anything about.

lol

This is good.



1) Russia is an ex communist country with a lot of oligarchs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs . Many of its ex-communist elite reamian in riches. Communism is a strate religion. North Korea and China are communist- not peaceful.


2)I would like to inform you that Isreal remains a cradle of religion to the three popular religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The preferential treatment of Jews in terms of migration and citizenship is also an issue. Isreal is a Jewish state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state

[size=14pt]
Denmark :
19% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force". 19% atheist according to Wikipedia.

Denmark is one of the least religious countries in the world (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?pagewanted=all). 19% atheists not even counting the agnostics. Less than 10% of the population go to church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark#Overview
Frosbel Debunked[/size]



[size=14pt]New Zeland
25% no religion
15% church attendance.

Frosbel Debunked[/size]


[size=14pt]
Luxembourg :
22% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".

Frosbel debunked[/size]


[size=14pt]
Canada;
16.2 irreligious (atheists,agnostics and humanists) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Canada
Weekly church attendance 11% to 25%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada)


Frosbel debunked![/size]


If you notice, all the countries mentioned above have decreasing influence on religion, have a secular government and have a significant amount of atheists.




Seriously, If you had common sense, you would have checked the deatils. The devil is in the details. Relgious countries have higher church attendance and less percentage of atheists.


USA;
40% church attendance
9-10% atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#USA


Nigeria
89% church attendance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance
<1% atheists.

[size=18pt]Davidylan, come clean. Are you still denying that there are human transitional fossils? Is the Royal Society; Biological Sciences a fraud?[/size]

[size=14pt]Another science Journal on transitional fossils[/size]

www.nairaland.com/attachments/689321_Australopithecus_png_2_png46b327f702ce4cd6eb0a064f73bd612a

davidylan: what kind of atheist LIES about them constantly?

Debunked? smh... i'd rather watch paint dry than bother with an ignoramus who cant check to be sure his lengthy copy-paste links are accurate. I only took a cursory look at your lists and it didnt even take more than 2 minutes to spot the idiocy of ur listing A. ramidus and Cynodictis. Your legitimacy is in shreds. I give you one thing though... you hide your poor knowledge with plenty of noise-making, dogmatic adherence to useless claims that are only found on unserious websites (i wonder why your lists NEVER come from genuine peer-reviewed science articles rather than yahoo answers) and pretentious bluster.

lol....lmao....Where did I lie? A. ramidus is still listed as a transitional fossil even though the debate rages on. Both sides are divided on it.


[size=14pt]As for the Cynodictis, you can only hang on one mistake and repeat it so many times. Keep repeating it.[/size] I notice that you are running away from your use of "missing links" and false claims about macro evolution and transitional fossils



So what about scientific journals on the australopithecus? Are you going to deny that?

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/22/8467.short


[size=14pt]Davidylan, you're a fraud.....A biologist who denies the existence of human transitional fossils[/size]

Logicbwoy: I see....you're running away?

Why cant you restate your false claim that there is no observation of speciation?

What kind of biologist uses the outdated term "missing link"?

What kind of biologist states that there are no transitional fossils?



Davidylan, you have been debunked!

vedaxcool: Man the thread you open reporting Mac up and down the forum is what? communist?

Nah guy, he was answered briefly and this sort of thing happen alot in different topic! calling people crazy because of such is very low brow!

As for you and you teacher, truly if i were a principal and this was a school, i would cane your teacher silly for being highly incompetent!

1) I did not call you crazy. I asked if you were.

2)You know why fellis challeneged Maclatunji for banning Cheers01? Because I told her in that other thread about Mac's tyranny. I told her that no muslim complains when Mac wrongly bans someone. My statement came to pass with the banning of Cheers01. Even LagosShia was supporting MAC (hypocritically, he was begging for support after Mac banned his Shia conspiracy azz).

3) From number 2, I opened that thread to challenge Mac. When I first opened it in the Islam section, it was deleted. That thread was not reporting, it was asking for justice. So, I opened the same thread in the christian section which was more exposing on Maclatunji's tyranny.

4) LagosShia can not teach me anything. I can see through his shilling for Iran. Shia conspiracy nonsense

Davidylan,


Why not answer my questions


Are you now denying the human and dog transitional fossils?


Everyone can see that you're a quack biologist!

davidylan: who said there was?

I dont need to "deny" evidence for transitional fossils, you do a very good job with your easily debunkable nonsensical links. Arguing with you point by point is a wasted exercise.

lol....so you admit that as a scientist, you are touting creationis which is a non-scientific assumption in substitution of the scientific theory of evolution?


Abeg, you have officially debunked yourself.


Fake azz biologist!

davidylan: just why is this ignorant fellow shouting? Glaring errors that prove you dont read your own copy/paste links before rushing here, poorly constructed arguments, ur reliance on atheist websites to respond to simple questions... bro you have no credibility left.

Yeah all you did was "copy in haste"... Abeg comot my side.

I see....you're running away?

Why cant you restate your false claim that there is no observation of speciation?

What kind of biologist uses the outdated term "missing link"?

What kind of biologist states that there are no transitional fossils?



Davidylan, you have been debunked!

frosbel: Oh yes, they are the most peaceful, please provide examples , lol

Have you been ignroing the global peace index and human development index that I have been touting for many months on different threads here?


You are cursed with ignorance. The worst ignorance- religious ignorance

[img]http://1.bp..com/_8sY9bx8acNM/SibxlnDSmjI/AAAAAAAAAZE/kmGm1kwFX3s/s400/Global_peace_index.png[/img]

justaqad: religion is not a curse,most adherents are.

What? And you think that you're not part of the problem?


As a muslim, dont you support the Quran when it stops me (an atheist) rom marrying my muslim girlfriend of 2 years?

A freaking curse. We can look at societies of today that have thrown away religion- they are the most peaceful.

truthislight: Very simple.
It is a known fact that the material that makes up the human body is directly traceable to organic materials that can be found on the ground, earth, soil.
Just as simple as that.

Madness

buzugee: Oga Jo your presence has been missed.

You support Joagbaje that is defending this fraud? The editing of the video was fraudulent and destroyed the credibility of the prophesy!

toba: Not at all. I require only a simple Yes or a No, just that i realised how u foolishly were unable to respond.

You realise that your question is rhetorical in nature? It is an accepted "No".

fellis: @logic and mac,
I hope this constant misunderstanding between the two of you does not get worse.
Please don't take Nairaland too personal, just try to have fun with whatever you came here for.

Sharap there!

Your head is now swelling because of flattery or what?


I am not taking Nairaland too personal. Just tell your guy to stop banning me when I did not break any rules.

toba: when questions are comprehensibly for u guys, the usual approach is to seek escapist route. Not so?

What? You realise that your question is actually foolish?

truthislight: Where is the link?
The last time i check on those assumptions there were forgery here and there that dont even fit. That really begs for explanations.

Actually, that is what desperation causes.

Funny how you and Davidylan actually use the missing link argument out of ignorance.


Why do you use "assumptions"? Do you think evolution is just an assumption?

davidylan: An interesting article describes the atheist mindset when it comes to the evolution debate succinctly...

A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)

Note how the above aptly describes folks like "logicboy, thehomer and co". Kay17 is even worse... he just doesnt know anything at all.

You can quote creationist websites all you want but there is no scientific theory behind creationism.

Evolution is a scientific theory which you have yet to counter with any competing theory so far. Who are you to even talk about people not understanding evolution when you deny the fact that there are transitional fossils- the very evidence for evolution in humans?

Damn!

davidylan: Please note the complete lack of evidence for macro evolution is deceptively papered over by overly stretching the principles of micro evolution to fit a preconceived idea.

[size=14pt]Wait? What??


Lack of evidence for speciation? LMAO. This is a scientist arguing against macro evolution. Fail number one. When told speciation is part macro evolution, he denies that there is evidence and observation of speciation. Epic fail!!
[/size]

davidylan: Dumb. There is no point responding to this piece of idiocy but let me leave you with this quote on A. ramidus from wikipedia - The fossils of Ardipithecus have not yet been studied by researchers beyond the original (2009) group of describers, and the paleobiology and relationships of these creatures are the subject of controversy.[16][17] Skeptics claim that many of the allegedly hominin-like features seen in the Ardipithecus material are found elsewhere among living and fossil primates, and that claims about its hominin status and locomotor habits are not adequately supported by the available evidence.

and he has the nerve to call others quacks?

LMAO...so bringing up the debate about A. ramidis changes the fact that humans and apes have common transitional fossils that you were ignorant about? This is shameful. The fact remains that apes and humans have common transitional fossils between them and you were ignorant about them

What if I mentioned other common transitional fossils? A. Afarensis and A. Africanus? Are you now going to claim that they are frauds?


Furthermore, the debate on A. ramidis is not whether it is a real or fake fossil. The debate is on how human it was. This does not change the fact that humans and monkeys have similar tansitional fossils.

You shamefully brought up the debate as if it changes the fact of what we are discussing. There are different transitional fossils, so you fail!

davidylan: Rather than go over the above hubris one by one... let me again leave this ignorant dolt (sorry for that is the fact here not an insult) with this piece from wikipedia - Cynodictis, ("in-between dog" is a member of extinct terrestrial carnivores belonging to the family Amphicyonidae, suborder Caniformia, which inhabited Eurasia from the Late Eocene subepoch to the Early Oligocene subepoch living from 37.2—28.4 Ma, existing for approximately 8.8 million years.[2]
[size=14pt]Cynodictis was one of the oldest amphicyonids, and was not the ancestor of the canids, as it was believed some decades ago.[/size]

Of course you know the Canids here includes the dog genus right? Obviously the individual you copied from had not updated his theories just yet.

The real shameful part is the above is a brazen, brainless copy/paste job from quack websites. Examples of websites containing the above WORD FOR WORD include -

http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/off-topic/121670-evolution-67/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070317194158AAIBNNr

[size=14pt]Lmao. Yes, I copied the listed fossils in haste. No doubt there. However, you were also foolish enough not to check the other transitional fossils


Is the hesperocyon not a a transitional fossil for a dog? Were you not denying that there were transitional fossils for dogs?

The Canidae subfamily Hesperocyoninae probably arose out of Hesperocyon to become the first of the three great dogs groups: Hesperocyoninae (~40-30 Ma), Borophaginae (~36-2 Ma), and the Caninae lineage that led to present-day Canidae, inclusive of modern-day wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals and dogs (Canis familiaris). At least twenty eight known species of Hesperocyoninae evolved out of Hesperocyon, including Ectopocynus (32-19 mya), Osbornodon (32-18 mya), Paraenhydrocyon (20-25 mya), and Mesocyon-Enhydrocyon (31-15 mya).[4][2]



[/size]

davidylan: Just more evidence that the above, rather than being well researched FACTS, are nothing but another silly, widely circulated bunch of nonsense from desperate hacks that first appeared on the notorious talkorigins website. You would think these eediots forever yelling about "facts" would actually provide peer-reviewed scientific articles rather than hoax websites as "evidence".



lol what a disgrace.

This shows how useless you are. You are denying the fact that there are transitional fossils for both Humans and dogs which i clearly showed. You desperately went to bring about the debate on the A. ramidus to say that there are no fossils but wait there are actually other transitional fossils. You are really decptive.


Yes, the site I quoted for the dog fossils had not updated its list but the fact remains that there are dog transitional fossils. You pointing out that one in the list is not correct does not negate the others that have been accepted and studied as fossils. Dumbazz

ijawkid: And u want me to follow evolutionists who are dumb....

Till this moment u haven't answered d posters question..

U have just been circumventing telling me from ur peurile brain why evolution is infallible...

Something u never witnessed..

Abeg go rest.....

All this is to avoid d fact that there is a creator,a starter of d universe and all in it...

Wow.....with a wave of the hand, you call the scienitsts dumb. You are proud to be ignorant.


As for the OP's question, it is a stupid question. Were you around to see creation in Gensesis?


The Toba that you are agreeing with is claiming that Moses wrote Genesis. Wow, you people are damn ignorant. You s.tupidity irriates me. I am going to watch a documentary to balance the stu.pidity that I have recieved from you guyz

davidylan: that is an assumption on the part of macro evolution as this has NEVER been observed empirically. Please focus on facts and not some atheistic babble.

Atheistic babble? Since when did evolution = atheism? Epic fail

[size=14pt]

Please, there is a difference between a theory and assumption. One uses evidence and logical deductions. I have always maintained that you're a quack scientist- at best, you crammed and crammed to get a degree in science. What kind of biologist doesnt understand the difference between an assumption and a theory?

The changes in organisms are due to many factors; adaptation, mutation, migration and natural selection. Some changes are more significant than others. Some changes are so significant that they result in a new specie.


If speciation (an evolutionary process in which new species arise) has been observed and is part of macro evolution, how can you as a biologist deny macro evolution? You are a damn quack![/size]

davidylan: Nonsense. Humans are quite clearly intellectually higher organisms compared to cockerels. You dont need a bible to tell you this.

Yes, but our brains are just evolutionary material

davidylan: and do you care to show us this "transitional fossils" that only you happen to know about? It would be good to show us actual transitional fossils from BEFORE we split into the human species...

Transitional fossils for apes? Dogs? Fowls? Cockroaches? Pigs? Surely these must exist no?

Ignorance. This shows that you're a quack! Seriously? You dont realise that some of the transitional for apes/monkeys also are the same for humans. A. ramidus for example.

Transitional fossils for dogs;

Dogs:

Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).



Wow, did I just debunk you again?


See what creationism does to you? I can pull facts because facts and science are on my side. You're a biologist struggling to debate a businessman on biology because of you fantasy called creationism. Shameful!

davidylan: Foolishly incoherent statement. where is the evidence for this? This is a widely accepted but false assumption used by atheists to excuse their own sheer ignorance and incompetence at finding anything to prove that macro evolution truly exists. Micro evolution is incredibly slow, most inefficient and most of the time are deleterious to the organism in question. The assumption here would be that over time, man will evolve into a [b]higher being [/b]due to numerous micro evolutionary events? BS.

Another thing you fail to take into consideration is the numerous mechanisms the genome has devised to minimize the impacts or sometimes reverse the effects of micro evolution.

Where is the evidence for what? Both macro and micro evolution rely on the same prinicples just that one is on a larger scale. Surely, a biologist should understand this.

Furthermore, where do you get an assumption of "higher being"? Is higher being a scientific term or just creationist babble?


[size=14pt]So, as a biologist, how do you explain the stages of change in man or other animals shown in the transitional fossils without macro evolution? The move from homo habilis to homo erectus to homo sapien?
[/size]

EPOMA: Just watching live on tele most of the libyan deportees from Libya thanking T B Joshua for drawing the attention of the presidency for them to be brought back to Nigeria and he now followed with cash donation of 100k to each of them.I just hope all the nairalanders that says he is a prophet of doom can see what a prophet of doom can do.I hope all the so call real men of God can follow this

What? Really? Did he spend over 15 million Naira (on at least 150 refugees)?

LagosShia: human actions? what is the other kind of action? divine action? lol.thought you dont believe in a divine being and his divine actions?

Grasping at straws? Did I say that there were other types of actions like divine actions?

What you mean to ask if there are other instances of coincidence- eg coincidence in nature, a tree shaped like a human.

ijawkid: Hw many bananas have u eaten lately...

Idiot!!!

Oyibo people tell u,ur from apes and as d slave u are to them u gulp down the foolish theory...

I'll tell u today that all those scientists are fools,mumus...

They are dust...mere dust..

Monkey like u and ur gods(sÇientists) u follow...

U have become so sensless and cheap so as to agree that humans and apes are from d same descent..

I no just know wetin to call u...

You are a monkey...
Go scratch ur butt

Why are you so damn proud of ignorance? Basic biology will tell you that humans are from the same hominid family with apes!

Why would you accept laptops, germ theory and medicine from scientists but reject evolution? When did the bible become a biology book? The same bible that has a cure for leprosy involving incantations and the blood of a bird [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2014:33-57&version=KJV]Leveticus 14;33-57[/url]






Please watch this video and see the kind of people you are agreeing with;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

davidylan: Atheists are quite funny.

1. There really is a huge gulf between micro and macro evolution. the reason atheists like to cry about it being an "artificial distinction" is solely because their only "proof" for macro evolution is MICRO evolution! Once you make that separation, all of a sudden their "empirical evidence" claims fall to pieces. They are clearly unable to justify macro evolution without micro evolution.

2. Micro and macro evolution rely on the same principles? Not really... micro evolution is provable in the lab, macro evolution is a speculative assumption that what happens on a micro scale is responsible for the macro evolution of man from primordial soup...[/quote]Creationists like yourself fail to realise that macro evolution is a result of micro evolution over time. The boundary between micro and macro evolution is non-existent.

Is "species" consistently defined in biology? No. So how do you differentiate between micro and macro evolution? How do you know the boundary that can not be crossed from micro into macro evolution?

davidylan: 3. To accept one and reject the other is actually VERY PLAUSIBLE because both are not dependent on each other. Micro evolution is a very independent biological process that does not require macro evolution - a phenomenon that has absolutely no proof.

To accept one and reject the other is very foolish. Macro evolution is micro evolution on a larger scale. Unless you have a more logical theory or explanation for the gradual change in species from transitional stage.

ghostofsparta: You have no right to ban 'Cheers01'. There are other thread appropriate for new muslim-to-be converts that you could have posted the link to, instead of encouraging further talks about 'dawar' in order to further derail an already derailed topic. What you did is nothing less of a despotic moderator.

lmao! Thanks for having my back bro!

ghostofsparta: What is so great about his/her answer? You don't even sound like the logicboy whose analytical approach I usually savour. You don't even seen to know the meaning of a 'skeptic'. How can't you see where 'fellis' argument crumbles on itself. You are there commending him. I think you somehow deserve the banning. You could have won this thread of hours but instead you allowed it to be hijacked like 911, only to plunged back at you by getting banned on your own thread. Let me show you 'a way' of how you ought to have answered Felix The Cat.

Love is blind! My love for fellis blinded me, it weakened me! How could I criticize a muslimah so pure, so pretty...........


Okay, back to serious business. Fellis already accepted that faith and logic are two very different things. That was enough for me. My question was based on logic and a faithful person wouldnt see the problem with omnipotence.

ghostofsparta: Even common men have created certain chemical compounds that can't be destroyed.



If he can, then he is not a God, but if he can't then wouldn't make him better than the scientists who created Doomsday! Doomsday killed his creators and yet they made him.

Yep, that was my argument in a nutshell. As for the indestructible compounds, scientists might find a way to destroy them, so lets be careful.

maclatunji: ^Errrr "brilliant judge" Muslims cannot be prevented from posting in their own section on any thread. This is a Muslim enclave within Nairaland. Logicboy seems to be doing a "great job" of advertising Islam, so much so that people find his thread attractive to post comments on to ask about our religion . He has two, sorry three options:

1. Ignore this section.

2. Get used to and abide by the rules and

3. Continue to have a hard time with me.

He is a very slow learner indeed.

I am not a slow learner. I just dont give up. I'm like Naruto, I grow on people. You might not like me now but you will later on. Why? Because I am a very open/honest person. Whatever I do, I do it for a clear reason. (ask Fellis about Naruto if you dont understand the reference)


Maclatunji, giving me a hard time only works to my advantage. Every time you ban me, you make me more motivated to double up on my actions. Furthermore, are you noticing that it is getting harder and harder for you to ban me without some backlash from others? Remember when your power was unquestioned? Everytime you ban me, I keep finding innovative ways to criticize islam. That is the way of the Hidden leaf ninja.....erm....sorry....too much Naruto reference!

LagosShia: how ironic! what a contradiction of the atheist religion.
did i hear you say atheists dont believe in coincidence? but you believe the universe came into being by chance or coincidence?

Lol...how literal of you. Do you like taking things out of context? Did I not show that I was talking about coincidences in human actions (Seun banning me)?

maclatunji: Laughing My Freaking Self Out (LMFSO). Please tell me whose "love " Seun was fighting for when he banned you.

Oh, you're now responding to me?


See how mentioning fellis makes Maclatunji do wonders?


Everyone can see that my comment there was a joke.


Why do I have the feeling that Seun banned me on your recommendation? My first ban ever was by you for a week. Immediately I came back from banishment, I was banned permanently by Seun. Atheists dont really believe in coincidences.

LagosShia: the age of consent in Nigeria is 13.and you can tell us about the UK,Germany,Japan and first world countries too.

lol.....its 16 to 17 in the UK.....not much different.


This is wrong!