₦airaland Forum

jjbest123:
LORDDICE I'm not within the country now, but i will help you by getting my farm record report on production from my farm manager, i will sum it up, then divide it, to get the report for fifty birds,you can then use it and do your calculations. Thank You.

thanks a lot

@Hollawayn05
I'll chat you on WhatsApp

@jjbest123

can you still provide the cost analysis for the 20 broilers please?


A friend and I are sharing the carton
(I'm a starter)

GOOD DAY EVERYONE IN THE HOUSE
I HAVE SOME CASH I Wouldn't LIKE TO Just SQUANDER(at least not all of it)

So i decided to run a broiler farm...

HOW MUCH WILL 20 BROILERS COST?

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR THE BROILERS TO GROW MARKETABLE SIZE?

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST TO FEED 20 TILL WHEN THEY READY FOR SALE?

FINALLY HOW MUCH WILL ONE BE SOLD?

THEN SUBTRACT THE COST OF RUNNING THE BUSINESS TO THE SALE OF THE GROWN 20 BROILERS

professionals in the house, over to you.

WHAT IS THE PROFIT ?

inMyOpeenion:
That's juxtaposition-al error. it's just "How old is Sanchez" and not the other way round!

thanks, I just argued with a friend, he insisted that its right...
but is it right in any context?

good morning FAM...
is the sentence "Sanchez is how old?" correct?

FP

.

ozornet:
This is a picture of our Extruder under construction

how can I secure a soyabeans harvesting machine? and how much does it cost here in Nigeria?

Na my 10 digit password sure pass ##21#*556# oops had to change it cos I just shared it with u guys






Cc: javanian , kodewrita ..... Are your passwords strong enough?

Oya help us move dis to fp so my gf will see d news

Finally on frontpage since january! Sha na Glo 3.5G make am possible...



Next na to hit FTC

@Vivalavida99

Abegi! I want to learn dat chinese (d mandarin) even d ancient chinese will do... Do you have any resources dat may b of help to me?

osedvgirl:
hahahahahaha, i refused to be a side Chic



but when he was drilling her, he no be bae, men! men!! men!!!

u got a big bum tho

Kalashnikov102:
Ifa hear..Guyin yana zubowa da koko..

Comfirm arewa boi! Yaro mai hankali

Qwik

BolaLFC:
like top 4 season in-season out? Nice achievement

if e easy
let ur team try and do same. havent missed top 4 for 18yrs n0w. #coyg, cc: mukina2

wtf! S0me0ne sh0uld give dis dude a c0ld b0ttle of 0rigin

inplay:
guy u funny o, what do u mean by airplane, etisalat =jet.

mhen....fory area glo na thunderbolt

Dracula son of d dragon. godogodo son of d devil

donnffd:
Lol, so you think scientists are in a form of cult and carrying out a conspiracy against us, they forged the bones of dinosaurs and old creatures of the past?......dude you are deluded, can't argue with ignorance, I can't believe someone who calls himself a scientist doesn't believe dinosaurs once existed!!! Hilarious

if i read evolution well, life originated in Africa... and all d dinosaurs died in Europe eh?

PastorAIO:
LordDice, your posts are too long. I'm not a darwinist but I can't read your posts in spite of how interested I am in your arguments. If you cannot make your point in one sentence then try to do it within two sentences. Or patapata if you must be longwinded, then try to be entertaining with it.

are you a christain....?
I
entertaining? how?

PastorAIO:
LordDice, your posts are too long. I'm not a darwinist but I can't read your posts in spite of how interested I am in your arguments. If you cannot make your point in one sentence then try to do it within two sentences. Or patapata if you must be longwinded, then try to be entertaining with it.

are you a christain....?

donnffd:
I have said it before and will say it again, your posts are too long and needs to be summarized, i cant read all that, have meaningful things to do,but i did stumble upon where you said evolution doesnt explain fine-tuned universe bla bla bla...Are you sure you are a scientist, Evolution is the study of the diversity of life on earth, it makes no claim to how life started or the universe for that matter, those are completely different fields...Now fine, you have destroyed evolution, whats your alternative? Animals just appeared on the earth? 6000 years ago?,is that it? and let me ask you this, do you believe that dinosaurs existed

NO.
talking about Darwinism, does it also give room for dinosaurs

imih u din miss fp o

Skymiyke:
Dis d definition of cold at my side!

pheeew! finally, I am beginning to meet j.town pipz on nl

I am a scientist. but most importantly, I'm a Christian. more facts can be presented if any Darwinian has a raised eyebrow

(h) The final reason for dismissing Darwinian evolution on both scientific and philosophical grounds is that its advocates simply miss the main point in the debate between atheists and theists. They are not only confronted by the extreme improbability that life in all its complexity ‘evolved’ by random and purposeless naturalistic processes; they face an even greater challenge: to explain why it is more probable that life in all its forms emerged on our planet by accident, rather than as the deliberately designed product of an intelligent Creator. Once the issue is seen in this light, the absurdity of denying God’s existence becomes fully apparent. To quote one great British scientist from the past, Lord Kelvin, who made important discoveries in thermodynamics and died in 1907: “Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us … the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” (Proceedings of the Victoria Institute , No.124, p.267).

(g) Even if we ignore the many difficulties facing Darwinian theory and the lack of convincing evidence for macro-evolution, one compelling reason exists for dismissing it completely: the accidental emergence of complex life-forms does not become more probable by being divided up into many little steps. Since the evolutionary process is ‘blind’ because it has no conscious purpose or ‘target’ at which it is aiming, there is no reason why all the little steps required for the development of the human eye, for instance, should occur at the right time and in the right order. To quote one agnostic scientific critic of Darwinism, Richard Milton, writing in his book, The Facts of Life (Corgi Books, 1992, p.180): “The improbability of step number 2 correctly following step number 1, correctly followed by step number 3 and so on for 100 mutations, is as great as leaping to the 100th step in one go…It does not become any easier for an eye to come into being just because the first of the 100 or 1,000 accidents needed has taken place, even if that first step is a very important general innovation such as light-sensitive tissue.” The next random mutation may be a wrong step, “such as providing eyelids before providing the muscles to move them, thus blinding their possessor.” Even if favourable mutations did accumulate within one species, their survival value could be counterbalanced by favourable mutations within some hostile predator, or else nullified by some harmful change in climate or physical environment. Since, in addition, most mutations are harmful, why should it be likely that enough favourable mutations would accumulate by accident to produce a progressive upward trend in organic evolution?

(f) Another powerful objection to Darwinian theory is its inability to offer a convincing solution to the problem of ‘irreducible complexity’ – i.e. the existence of biological organisms and systems comprised of multiple, co- ordinated parts, all of which must co-exist to ensure the proper functioning of that organism or system. As Darwin himself admitted in The Origin of Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Precisely such a demonstration has been made by American biochemist, Dr Michael Behe, in his award-winning best-seller, Darwin’s Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. In this book, he argues that many biochemical structures within living organisms are ‘irreducibly complex’, like, for example, those involved in vision and blood-clotting. Behe shows that even the simplest form of vision requires a dazzling array of chemicals in the right places, as well as a system to transmit and process the information. The blood-clotting mechanism similarly needs many different chemicals to work together in order to prevent us bleeding to death from minor cuts. If a simple mousetrap cannot function if any of its component parts are missing, how could an evolutionary process produce infinitely more complex single-cell organisms? As one Darwinian scientist, Franklin M. Harold, has pointed out in his book, The Way of the Cell, (Oxford University Press, 2001, p.205), a single-cell organism is a biological high- tech factory complete with: “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction…[and] a capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.” Not surprisingly, he reluctantly concludes: “…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (p.329).

(e) In his book, Icons of Evolution, molecular biologist, Dr Jonathan Wells, exposes the weakness of some of the chief arguments and ‘evidence’ habitually trotted out in support of Darwinism in the standard biology textbooks used in colleges and universities. So too does Australian microbiologist, Dr Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist whose detailed, ground-breaking critique of Darwinism, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, has opened up the scientific debate about origins since its publication in 1986. What these, and other authors, reveal in particular, is the embarrassing fact that paleontology (the study of the fossil record) does not support evolutionary theory, let alone the Darwinian claim that macro-evolution has occurred and is therefore a ‘fact’. The first problem Darwinian evolution faces is the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record, a fact which Darwin himself conceded was the gravest and most obvious objection to his theory. As he wrote in The Origin of Species (1859): “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?” The answer, he believed, lay in the incompleteness of the fossil record, a defect he assumed would be rectified by future discoveries. This has proved to be a false hope. Despite the accumulation of at least a quarter of a million fossil species over the past 150 years, the evolutionary ‘gaps’ have not been filled, as many Darwinian scientists themselves acknowledge. To quote Stephen Gould, professor of paleontology, biology, and geology at Harvard: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Natural History, Vol.86, 1977 ). In a similar fashion, Steve Jones, professor of genetics at London University, and like Gould, an evolutionist and atheist, admits: “The evidence for human evolution is, in fact, still extraordinarily weak…There are no more fossils than would cover a decent-sized table and we know almost nothing about what propelled a hairy and rather stupid ape into a bald and mildly intellectual human being.” ( Daily Telegraph, 13/9/95 ). But in any case, even if there were an abundance of apparent ‘transitional’ fossils, why should this be conclusive evidence for macro-evolution? Could not an intelligent Creator have directly created unrelated creatures with certain shared or overlapping characteristics? After all, points out Dr Jonathan Wells, “… we see strange animals around today, like the duck-billed platypus, which nobody considers transitional but which has characteristics of different classes.” The second embarrassing paleontological problem confronting Darwinian theory is what biologists call the ‘Cambrian explosion’ – the sudden and inexplicable appearance early in geological history of fossil remains of most of the major types of animal life alive today as well as various kinds that are now extinct. How can this biological ‘Big Bang’ be reconciled with the idea of macro-evolution? To quote geophysicist and origin-of-life biologist, Dr Stephen Meyer: “The Cambrian explosion represents an incredible quantum leap in biological complexity. Before then, life on Earth was pretty simple – one-celled bacteria, blue- green algae, and later some sponges and primitive worms or mollusks. Then without any ancestors in the fossil record, we have a stunning variety of complex creatures appear in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking…All of this totally contradicts Darwinism, which predicted the slow, gradual development in organisms over time…The big issue is where did the information come from to build all these new proteins, cells, and body plans?”