₦airaland Forum

We find oxygen, nitrogen and the other elements that make up the air suitable because we adapted to it over a vast expanse of time. Oxygen wasn't created when the universe and the planets were made: it came about much later, on earth. The smallest stirring of life on earth in the beginning used carbon and emitted oxygen as waste.It began to constitute a large part of the air. Other few tiny life forms found it poisonous and died. Others adapted and evolved to use oxygen. Others continued metabolizing carbon and emitting oxygen. So oxygen and nitrogen-breathing living things evolved.

People, predominantly in North America, report alien abductions. The thing is, the elements on this planet are suitable for life on this planet only, because it's had billions of years to adapt. Alien life forms will find our air extremely poisonous. If we visited another planet, any planet, we would not be able to breathe the air, or expose our flesh to it.

But people are reporting aliens, mostly in America. Sure, there are hoaxers and those who mistake everything they see for a UFO, from weather balloons to military aircraft to silos. A group of university pranksters once flew a balloon high over a park where there were hundreds of people. They were delighted when those people flooded the media with reports of UFO sightings. There's the crop circle hoax, where two artists made crop circles and diagrams in farms in England for decades. Copycats started immitating them all over Europe, and a whole alien culture developed from that, with people saying no human being could make diagrams like that. Interestingly enough, the 'aliens' failed to make a single crop circle on farms in Africa and other places with little access to European television. The two guys finally confessed but people had believed those crop circles were alien for so long, they refused to accept they'd been fooled at first. Movies had been made about alien crop circles, for crying out loud. Like 'Signs', featuring Mel Gibson.

Aliens cannot live here. This planet is for life unique to this planet. But it's hard to dismiss these stories, since it's been going on, in various formats, since time immemorial, as 'gods' and other strange things. What do you make of the alien abduction stories?

Your alter ego is perfectly obvious. You know who you're fooling? Only yourself. 
You make me appreciate the other people on the religion section more. They're honest. You know my favourite part of your initial post? Where you're patting yourself on the back, in 'disguise'.  How low and contemptible you are.

Lol, Image, no wonder wetin? Why can't people ever get it through their thick, annointing-oiled heads that others can have different religious views from theirs, and it would still be all right? The world is big enough na. Not everyone whose views you don't like is a heretical demon.

Una two don craze finish. But what's new or surprising here na? And he too is building a multi-billion naira church. Of course he is. There are 'big boys' and 'bigger boys'.

jenwitemi, rora witi e now. Are you a Gnostic? They believe the OT God of the Jews is actually Satan, and all the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions based on it is serving the 'prince of darkness.' You sound just like one of them lol.

You've lost your way and think you're in one of your 'Pay tithe or God will curse you' national association meetings. Ask for directions next time.

You haven't given up on any of them, though they fight you. Honestly, your dedication is impressive and humbling.

@oladeegbu
Yes dear. Mmmm-pwah!

Posted a teasing response before, but modified it as I don't really get what you're asking. 

Gayin, I'm going to make you skip like deer in spring, and post pictures of Hollywood's gay couples here. Aren't I good to you?

I heard of Jolie in SALT with Chiweltel. 2012 unexplainable runaway success was a real career boost. I didn't hear of Cleopatra though. Jolie's not that dumb. 'Alexander' flopping, even with all the star power, would've taught her something.

Aren't they? The real professionals made better movies in the past, just like they made better ads. I'd drop everything to go watch the 'thermocool', 'super visco',etc adverts, and get my as.ss whupped cos I'd forgotten I was sent on some errand hours ago. It wasn't this bad when Nollywood officially started in the 90s with those Glamour Girls and Flesh and Blood movies, when Liz Benson, Zack Orji and Joke Silva reigned supreme. We don't have a single actor with anything like international talent and appeal. Olu Jacobs had a one-minute role where he played an immigration officer in the great movie, Ashanti, and became an 'international actor' to some Nigerians. The thing is two hours long, an Englishman's African wife was kidnapped by slave traders and he's running all over the world tracking the traders to get his wife back, you apear for less than a minute in a role a monkey could carry off, and that became 'international acting'. Chiwetel Ejiofor has more talent in his nails than Mr Jacobs' entire repertoire. He'll go far. But the danged creature says he's British, so one can't even use him to do yanga.

Awwww. Look at him 'preaching'. How quaint and adorable.

Kiss my as.ss, Oladeegbu. Oops. I said 'as.ss'. That's it. You have no choice but to consign me to hell now.
God didn't brainwash you. Better look elsewhere for the source of that problem.
Menstrual pad? You had to go there.
Stay happy.

Oladeegbu, you read another Christian's post and deduced he was 'wicked' and God would not 'accept his sacrifice'? Never mind his language and,er, over-zealousness, how do you know someone is 'unregenerated'? What is 'regenerated'? Tell us quickly so we can all go and buy our own from where you shopped for yours.

And who are you to have an opinion about it one way or the other, when you're not God or his Deputy, and can't see into the self-deception in your own heart, much less see into other people's souls? So you have your own ideas of what a 'regenerated' person must be like, and to which all must conform? Lol. It is you smug, self-righteous, brain-washed, holier-than-thou, legalistic dolts with your plastic religiosity and 'holy' posturings that give Christianity a bad name.

If you see evil being done, you say or do something. Christ is our example, and you see he condoned nothing bad or hypocritical or fraudulent that he saw. When he said don't judge, he meant don't judge others for the same human weaknesses you yourself have: before removing the speck in their eyes, remove the log in yours. He did NOT say condone lies, fraud, deception or any kind of evil. It is even more imperative to talk when these things are done in his name.

What's the plot, aliens taking over pirating DVDs and the second-hand goods market? They can't make good, subtle movies about everyday life and people,they're going into science fiction because one of them saw Avatar . Why did people like Jimi Odumosu leave film-making? The guy made a Nigerian horror film that scared the pants off Nigerians and made me lose sleep as a kid in the 80s: Evil Encounter. They made Fiery Force way back then. The more time passes, the worse they get. Nollywood, you're a disgrace.

Lol, homer.You seem unable to criticize something bad if atheists are doing it, and must offer a knee-jerk defence. You know Science is religiously NEUTRAL. They are about empirical ideas. It's the investigation of natural phenomena, extracting facts and what works from it. There is NO evidence in science for scientists to use to 'support' and promote atheism or any other unproven belief in the name of science. Disproving or promoting atheistic and other religious belief is the domain of academic Religion, Theology, Philosophy, Journalism, Art, Literature, etc and there are many atheists in these fields: yes, including Theology and Religion. Scientists promoting atheism and presenting scientific facts  in the light of personal belief, is NOT and has never been the domain of science and scientists. 

You know personal belief has no business in the interpretation and presentation of scientific facts by scientists, and you were saying a few pages back that religion should be kept out of science. I see now you meant Christians should keep their beliefs out of science, but "some atheist scientists feel it supports their view and they use it".  It's 'human nature', you know, since science/evolution equals atheism and it's their right. Very telling.

thehomer:
I meant simply presenting scientific facts does not work. e.g presenting the facts that cellphones do not cause cancer has not worked, presenting the facts that cannabis use is not as dangerous as using either tobacco or alcohol has not worked, I could go on.

Yes, you could, homer. But it would be about a problem that no longer exists in science: How to present scientific facts and ideas effectively. Scientists have long studied what works in the presentation of ideas to the public and what doesn't. Dry recitations of facts, formulas, percentages, homilies, moralizing, scare tactics, technical language, etc, don't work. Other things- wit, humour, a 'fireside chat' approach, a story format, arresting visuals, lively sentences,etc- works. People who already have a deep interest in the subject may appreciate those things, but don't even need it. Science knows how to get its ideas across, and has been doing so very nicely for a millenia.

And if you're implying the public isn't interested in scientific facts, you're incredibly wrong. A glance at the non-fiction bestseller lists over the past several decades might be instructive. The public is ravenous for scientific facts and ideas, and have been so for ages. Newton's books were bestsellers, in spite of their difficult material. Darwin's On the Origin of the Species sold out. The trend continues to this day. If science couldn't present its facts effectively it would have closed shop long ago.

Presenting the facts does work. Science has been doing nothing else. What's the alternative you're proposing, lol,: presenting non-facts?
I don't know what would communicate 'it has worked' to you in telling people phones don't cause cancer, or cannabis isn't as dangerous as alcohol: if everyone bought extra phones, or if we all got together to get high? Would presenting the facts have worked then? Presenting scientific ideas and discoveries is one thing, telling people how to live their lives is another. Don't confuse the two.

Hey, Seeker.

TV01:
To all and regards evolution at large, I am yet to be convinced that any variation amongst humans is anything more than adaptation based on what is contained within the human genome and I guess what I'd describe as phenotypical differences? I also fail to grasp how this variation - whether termed evoutionary or not, could give rise to a whole new species, or even if it did, why (a) the species being evolved from would necessarily have to disappear (to the extent that they are not easily traceable by fossils or some other evidence, or even co-exist and perhaps inter-breed) and how (b) these changes would somehow uniformly transmit amongst a whole population.

Appreciate any thoughts regards my position and concerns. God bless.TV

Hi TV, and welcome.

The 'intermediate species' argument would entail a long explanation that would include explaining everything about evolution itself again. There are no strict intermediate species, because there isn't a biological continuum, the end of which a species is consciously moving towards. We're not at 1, and aiming for 3, with evolution as the vehicle. Adaptation takes place mostly to ensure the species survives a new, previously
unanticipated change in its biological fortunes. If Dinosaurs hadn't vanished I suspect we'd still be here, but we'll have a body that has factored in the threat of dinosaurs, and adapted to it. Maybe we'd have great speed, or flight, or toxins that brough them down, or be as big or bigger than they are.

Adaptation isn't a continuous thing, but happens in fits and starts, when it has to. With us, it was a bit like making a baby, only we weren't
growing but adapting. You see a foetus at one day, ten days, ten weeks, five months, nine months. What's the difference between the baby at say,two weeks, and the baby at two weeks plus one day? And the difference between that and when you add an extra day, and another extra day, and so on?You barely notice any, do you? But there's a very startling difference, after a long process, between the baby at nine months and the baby at two weeks isn't there, even though you couldn't see the day to day differences? If the changes had been taking place outside the womb, as adaptation, you would have called the nine month old baby a different species from the two week old foetus, and wondered where all the
'intermediate species' were. The question isn't 'Where are the intermediate species'. The question is: If you were shown the 'intermediate species', would YOU recognize it?

@toba
This isn't an Evolution Vs 'the Unknown Writer of Genesis is Literarily Correct' thread. Everyone here pretty much accept evolution as our biological origin, and everything said sprang from that. And many of the posters believe in God.

@justcool
I wasn't aware you'd stated something several times, or that there's an argument over 'genes'. I thought you stated tanning is an adaptation, as if we're just now adapting to the sun as a species, and that's what we've been tugging at. I was saying we all get dark when we're in the sun, as it automatically produces melanin and Vit D on skin, but no new adaptation is taking place. I think an adaptation has to take place FIRST in a species, before you can point to it and call it an adaptation and specify what it is adapting to. I don't think our species temporarily getting a little darker when we go outside now, qualifies, unless there is something down the line you anticipate permanently happening to our skin. What you're calling ' 'temporary adaptation' is acclamatization, and in evolutionary parlance, they're not the same things. Not unless your 'temporary adaptation' is shared by a group and passed down to their offsprings, and then it's no longer temporary, is it? You've been using the everyday meaning of 'adapting' to something, but adaptation in evolution is a little more complicated than the ordinary, everyday usage of the word.

I wasn't talking about 'waste' in nature. Been through that with Deep Sight and if the mutual admiration is anything to go by, know your minds work the same way. What I was asking is pretty straightforward, I think.  There's a 'law of creation'? Maybe, but don't go beyond your facts too much. The Grail Message isn't a science text any more than the bible is, and while you're free to accept anything in it on faith, the rest of us aren't obliged to do so and admit it as scientific evidence.

Justcool, did you read those online extracts you posted there? That's how you got, "Tanning is an adaptation"? And why are you posting online extracts as 'proof' when you wouldn't let Mantraa do the same?

And you're talking football? Ew. I'm female. For that crime alone, Argentina will whup your asses 20-0.

Lol. I wasn't aware there was an argument. Even if I were so inclined, your absolutely certain "Tanning is an adaptation" will make even the most intrepid arguer wilt. It doesn't matter like you said. But I did ask for your speculations as to why nature seems to be in a state of war and it's dog eat dog, when you're sure the process is designed and guided. Why should killing each other to survive be an optimal state of affairs for any designer of evolution? Haven't you wondered about this?

Maybe tanning is a variant of adaptation. Melanin is produced as a reaction to the sun, I think. We Africans got our black and brown skins from a similar process eons ago. But europeans have been in that environment for a millenia, and it's fairly obvious they're already adapted to it, untanned skins and all. Just like other races are already adapted to theirs. The sun isn't a new environmental threat. We've all adapted to the different 'sun strengths' in our locales. Well, not us. Our ancestors did, and passed it down to us through their genes. If I go out into the sun in say, hot Kenya, and I react to the sun and get a little darker, it doesn't mean I'm just now adapting to that environment. Africans are already adapted. You do notice tanning fades once you get out of the sun. Or do you perhaps see Europeans turning into a black and brown race later down the line, as tanning is an adaptation to their environment?

The sun has been here for billions of years and humans have already adapted. Unless there's a change to our environment that natural selection 'perceives' as a threat to our survival, there are not likely to be new adaptations. If flowers covered the world permanently, it would be a nuisance but not a threat. If water permanently covered the world and it's all one big ocean with green plants growing on the sea floor's higher levels, it might be interesting to check back and see what we look like after eons have passed.

There's self-preservation too, because subtle threat and blackmail is involved to ensure compliance with 'tithes' and 'seeds' and 'pledges' and 'freewill offerings'. They tell you if you pay these things 'God' will bless you, and things will go well for you. Don't pay, and bad things will happen to you, then you'll have only yourself to blame.  There's something even more subtle and dangerous at work. Kunleoshob pointed it out: the perversion of the law of sowing and reaping, and of giving. When you give to others from your heart in any currency: money, love, kindness/compassion, free physical labour, help,etc- you become more and more like the One you serve, and there are rewards for that in spiritual currency. But these pastors have twisted it around so you give, not to those in need, but to THEM AND THEIR CHURCHES.   They call this 'Giving to the Lord'

But Christ says it is actually giving to the poor and needy that translates to giving to Him: Matthew 25:34-40

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

'Brothers/ Brethren/ Strangers' are not 'only members of my church', but simply OTHER PEOPLE irrespective of religion or tribe or race, because that is how God sees us. He did not come down to create any church or group.

Christ told us to give to the poor and help others in need.But people give to these pastors instead and are led to believe they have done their duty to God. Horrible.

Kunleoshob mentioned someone on the religious forum agonizing over whether to pay the tithe or give the money to a sick friend. Good God.

These pastors collect huge amounts of monies in tithes and seeds and pledges and instead of using it for the poor and needy, building soup kitchens for the hungry, or orphanages, or footing the hospital bills of some kid dying in the hospital, or spomsoring widows, they start building MONUMENTS TO THEIR EGO FOR THE WORLD TO REMEMBER THEM BY. If they're not building the world's biggest auditoriums they're building elitist universities for children of the rich. They live like kings and wealthy sultans with the sweat and labour of their church members, some of whom can barely afford to feed their kids, much less send them to costly universities their money helped to build. These poor folks struggle to pay tithe and 'seeds' so God may bless them.

Some of these Pators make BILLIONS from these scams, spending it on fancy cars, fancy homes, fancy buildings. .You will find them siphoning billions from their members annually, and yet NOT HAVE  A SINGLE CHARITY EARNESTLY DEDICATEDTO HELPING THE POOR.  But this was all Christ was pre-occupied with. Thousands followed Him, and He took NOTHING from them. No, He worked as a carpenter to support Himself. He GAVE to them instead. But these ones who say they come in His name have no interest in the poor, they're here to live like kings on other people's labours and get 'visions' to build things that will bring glory to their own names, not His.

Your humility is disarming, Buzzzzzzz. Darwin isn't here, and neither is the Evolution Oracle, so anything anyone says is just their opinion and nothing more.

What's the point you're making, Justcool? Adaptation is not evolution, and so. . .?? What's your line of thought?
And why do you believe evolution necessarily means a change of species? If humans adapted to external changes over a period of time, that somehow translates them into a new, non-human species or something? We'll just get embroiled in semantics again over the word 'species', because you might be referring to some of the staggering physical changes to a species over time that gives it a different appearance and new gadgetry from its ancestors. But this doesn't apply to all species. Bacteria still look the same, because for millions of years there's been few threats to their survival they needed to adapt to.

We share 90% of, is it our genetic make-up?, with our simian ape friends in the forest, but we aren't tagged the same 'species'. There seems to be a staggering biological similarity and inter-relatedness among living things on the planet. A common ancestor may give rise to diverse biological offsprings that look dissimilar down the line from responses to different factors, from different adaptations, much like we look nothing like the Chinese, and they look nothing like occidentals. Diifferences among some animals may be even more startling than that, though they share the same ancestry. The tags we give to animals ('species'/class/kingdom/human/ animal/ mammal/,etc) have more to do with the human necessity to put things in boxes and categories than any real biological differences among many of these 'species'.

I don't get your case, justcool. What's the point you're making? Adaptation is near-inseparable from evolution, and the question of their being the 'same thing' isn't one that should even have risen. It's like asking if a 'car' and the 'wheels of a car' are the same thing, since two words don't mean the same thing in auto-mechanics.