muhsin:

P:S

Any way, read these bold portions from noetic reply:

To what extent?

whats the difference between the inactions of a drunkard and that of the moderators of the islamic forum?

pass

This thread discusses haddiths and you have been posting several of them. . . .can u post any haddith where mohammed spoke about black people?. . , .is this a hard request?

Can u help me post haddiths where "prophet" mohammed spoke about BLACK people?

davidylan:

not only is this unintelligent, it exposes the fact that islam has a major problem that its adherents are prepared to shed blood to hide.

its even more unfortunate when the perpetrators are supposed to be educated.

muhsin:

Haba noetic?

I kinda feel you are literally drunk when you typed these words. Re-read your above reply please.

Thanks

I am not surprised. . . . . ur attitude along with other muslims on this forum suggests that islam has a cult-like arrangement.
Otherwise how come u cannot pinpoint a simple point of disagreement in my post?. . . . .but u dismiss it cos it does not speak well of ur brethren.
objectivity is key. . ,  .please get educated.

meaning? . , , .are u going to indulge me or not?

are u the only atheist on this forum? did u have to respond?

really?

There is a difference between discussing islamic issues and having a thick skin for criticism. One thing is obvious, the moderators of this section do not allow for free speech, dissenting opinion and criticism of allah and mohammed. . . . . .this is very unintelligent.

kudos to abuzola, while I despise ur approach of doing things, I must however commend ur thick skin in understanding that there should be freedom of speech and people should be allowed to express their opinion, no matter how disagreeable it sounds. I was appalled that u were not allowed to express ur opinion on the sultan and many other threads.

Its just unfortunate that a bunch of drunkards administer this sub-forum . . . . .their management skills is as good as those who mismanage Nigeria. who amongst the moderators can boast of a good rapour with non-muslim commentators on this sub-forum. . . there is none. The reason is simple, many ignorantly believe that a disagreement of opinion means enmity of hatred. . . . .far from it.

I dont care how often my posts or threads are deleted. . . No one can can prevent me from expressing myself.

muhsin , .I have a question/request for u?

Jarus:

Down with fever since Wednesday evening, so I was totally off NL yesterday. Just opened NL now and saw the mudslinging that went on among Mukina, Uplawal and Abuzola while I was away. I have deleted their posts. If the mutual dissing continues, I may lock this thread.
Thanks

and why was post deleted? . . . . . . .should I be surprised at ur folly?

huxley:

You can be sure no benighted Christian would dare post the correct scientific theory of biological evolution. You just confirm what this post is all about.

QED.

and what would be the essence of such a post?

pass

nope

huxley:

No - I have never heard of Abiogenesis.  Are you making up things now?

Have u ever heard of BIOGENESIS and ABIOGENESIS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

huxley:

Current scientific thinking puts the first biological elements as these: archaea, eukaryotes, aubacteria. These are the onces that are best known, but obviously there is bound to be earlier that are not currently well known.

But the Theory of Evolution still stand without a knowledge of the first ever living organism because it is not contingent of knowing the first ever organism, ONLY the STRUCTURAL relationship between them.

So for example TTE will predict (might be more correct to say post-dict) any lifeforms earlier that archaea, eukaryotes, aubacteria will be structurally more simple than these. That is all it can say. And such prediction of TTE have never failed.

1. you come across as rather unintelligent. . .I asked for all the elements that were present in the first evolution process? what was their source?
2. And what is the common source of archaea, eukaryotes, aubacteria?. . , . .they could not have sprung up from no where or could they?

huxley:

You lied that the scientific theory of Biological evolution (ie Darwinian Evolution) talks about the origin of life.

1. have u ever heard of Abiogenesis?

2. how does the above relate to Jesus?

I simply meant evolution. . , . . .

what lie have I told?

e4emma:

Christ is known as d prince of peace while mechizedek was known as d king of peace,dosent dis show dat mechizek might b greater dan jesus.and is he d 4th of d trinity.note b4 i can be liken 2 u den u must b greater than i am so also,christ was liken 2 mechizede.y is it dat we dnt hear abt him anymore since we were told dat he dosnt die.where is he,who is he and what is he,and why was he created

I suggest u read Olaadegbu's post again. . ,

another meaningless thread. . . , .

is that easier for u to answer?

huxley:

Does abiogenesis contradict with the theory of gravity? Why?

It is not a hard nut to crack because that is not the nut we are cracking. What do you want to talk about? Abiogenesis or Evolution? I confess, I not very familiar with Abiogenesis, and a lot of the ideas in this pioneering field are still very speculative. So I would rather talk about something about which there is no longer any controversy in the scientific community and for which there is a wealth of public work.

You decide - Evolution or Abiogenesis.

I have reframed the question and excluded all traces of abiogenesis. . , , so why not just answer
what were the pioneer elements of the first diversifying evolvement? were they living organisms? whats their very source?

JeSoul:

This thread is evidence of what happens when zealous fanaticism is coupled with lack of reason, a union thoroughly enslaved to its own false delusions - the resulting marriage becomes pregnant with blind confusion, a fetus incapable of acknowledging, talkless of comprehending anything remotely resembling truth, and then it finally gives birth to Abuzola.

. . . I'm wondering what we crime we committed in the NL religion section to be punished with such a burden. Unless of course he is simply here to provide much needed comic relief in which case it would appear he is infact a blessing in disguise - . . . and I'm inclined towards the latter

this is so harsh. . ,  

huxley:


Who said the following?


Evolution does not need to know the source of the first organism for evolution to be true, BECAUSE evolution does not address the source of life, ONLY the diversification of life once life got started.

what were the pioneer elements of the first diversifying evolvement? were they living organisms? whats their very source?. . . . . .why is this a nut cracker?. . . .are u so dumb?

huxley:

Cuz  you are a BIG FAT CHRISTIAN LIAR (BFCL).   You lie about Evolution.   Evolution makes NO claims about the origins of life.     And until you prove otherwise I shall henceforth call you a BIG FAT CHRISTIAN LIAR. 

Of course, I will withdraw this charge 10000% unreservedly if your provide the evidence that says evolution talks about origins of life.   So until such time you are a BFCL, and I see no reason to not call you a BFCL as I am fully justified.


And I am sure you will forgive me IF I do get to Apologise for mischaracterising as a BFCL.

I cant believe that I have been debating with an Empty Head Illiterate (EHI) . ,  . .

1. I never said evolution talks about the origin of life. . . . .I clearly made a case for BIOGENESIS

2. All I asked from u is to tell me the source of the first organisms that evolved? . . , . .why is this such a tough task? is it cos ur head is blank?

3. If u can answer my question. . . .I will gladly withdraw ur title of a EHI

huxley:

This is really ridiculous - smacks of clutching at straws as the going has gotten tough.

Was any of my arguments founded on whether I am a historian, archeologist, anthropologist, etc, etc.  I have not done any of the research myself, so I have no choice but to refer to other people's work. Is there a problem with that?

You are make arguments regarding the Law of Biogenesis - Did you invent or discover this law.   So if you require me not to use any source for evidence you too should not use anything that you did not write yourself.  Not even the bible.



Please, justify why it is wrong to use published work to support an argument.

what nonsense?

[size=16pt]what EXACTLY in that article established ur insidious claim of a scientific, archaeological and historical methods pointing to a mythical God?. ,  . [/size]

huxley:

My original question was WHY Ex20 commandments are DIFFERENT from EX34 commandments. Can you show how Ex 8 & 9 answers the questions of the discrepancy of the two sets of commandments?

have u been reading my responses on this thread at all?

huxley:

Evolution says NOTHING about the origins of life.   Please, try and contradict me with data, evidence from reputed evolutionary scientists (preferable from journals, books, or other scientific publication).  I shall accept no less.

I await your response,  BUT I KNOW you will NOT do this, else you shoot yourself in the foot.

and what is the purpose of a journal in this context?. . . . . . .how about u tell the source of the first components of evolution? why is this so hard to state? is it cos u are a quack evolutionist?

huxley:

At least you cannot say I did not provide the evidence you asked for.  You can read it there if you want.

1. what EXACTLY happened to ur brain? why did u have to go and google up an article? I thought this debate was all about intelligence and originality? This article DOES NOT in any way answer the question I asked u. . , . I will repeat the question before analysing the article.

[size=16pt]where are these EVIDENCES from anthropology, history and science that suggest that Jehovah is a mythological figure? [/size]

2. while there are archaeologists whose findings you have googled up make ambitious claims, .we cannot dismiss the claims of several other archaeologists who have published materials that have established the same claims u have falsely displayed. . . . .have u ever heard of the The Shrould

3. u probably want to see this thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-323539.0.html

4. where is ur scientific, historical and anthropological methods that support ur innuendos?

huxley:

I don't have to try and make thing fit.  It is for you, as a believer of the bible, to try and concort a harmonious narrative out ot these jumbled up tales.  As far as I am concerned, it cannot be done.  And you have not been able to harmonise Exodus 20 with Exodus 34, which amply proves my point.

all u have is a theory. . .a FALSE one.

To make sense of ur theory u need to assimilate verses 8 and 9 into ur argument. . . otherwise it is pointless.

huxley:

Who said Evolution preaches otherwise? CAn you show any evidence where reputed evolutionists claim that evolution "preaches otherwise"?

what sort of rubbish is this?

according to evolution . . . . . are the minutest traces of life living organisms?