₦airaland Forum

Chrisbenogor:
Hey boy take it easy on the insults, don't you have a civil tongue in your head? Stop the name calling it gives no credibility to your argument.

1. what does ignorance mean?
2. what does troll mean?
3. Which of the two words is insulting?

you did not have to respond, considering that u had nothing reasonable to say. . . pls get lost.

LadyT:
You need to blow yourself and as many innocent people up first. Especially those stinky women.

*rolls eyes*

well thats not a bad choice for abuzola. . . .since he eventually gets 72 unstinking virgins to shag forever

I cant stop laughing

where is krayola?

Abuzola:
Christians fought and invaded territories to make christianity dominate in Europe and via slavery, you can go do your research on 'christianity in middle ages or dark ages'

but muslims are going to shag 72 virgins till eternity. . . right?

is that what mohammed is doing at the moment?

I am a He oooo

am I invited to "abe igi oronbo?"

Krayola:
@ Noetic Are u still going to explain why you believe Genesis over Science? U haven't said anything about Genesis yet. . .

1. what do u understand by science?

2. I believe Genesis over evolution. . . . .not science.

3. I was only waiting to be sure that ur atheistic ignorant trolls had cooled their nerves.

Phemour:
i dnt like her/her behavior in Religion

people force me to react. . . . I hope u are not pissed?

Abuzola:
Lady T, is not rubbish, pls stop defaming my waiting women in paradise

I can imagine that ur d.ick gets hard whenever u think of paradise  

allah and mohammed must be having a real good time  

LadyT:
Oh yes Abuzola's sex paradise with virgins that dont menstrate, they dont stink, they look more beautiful with each passing day, with rivers that flow with wine.  

The most amazing thing about these women are that they are barren so no condom needs to be used and they have the amazing hymens that are regenerated daily. I got all this from Abuzola.

Rubbish and ingredients

is this abuzola wants to die for?

she loffs going to "abe igi oronbo"

ewa agoyin

Abuzola:
You are invited to Islam all the christians, the safest path to paradise on the Doom's day

but I thought allah promised all muslims hell? so why do u want xtians to also partake in hell?

so many grls on his wall. . . . .he is an unrepentant womaniser

looks cool and charming. . .

opa eyin

alubosa

ogun eku and pakute

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=297632.msg4219671#msg4219671 date=1248113669]No i can't.
The hypocrisy and contradictions of the bible are there in black and white irrespective of which prophet is reading it. Besides the word "false prophet" in the bible often conotes worshippers or preists of other gods who are most often slaughtered by gods prophets like moses and elijah. . . .[/quote]is this not a dogmatic, prejudice, bias, uninformed, illiterate and unfortunate postulation?

u sound like a very bitter person with an angst against a pastor? what did oyedepo do to u?

wirinet:
Noetic, I sometimes avoid entering a debate with you because you responses are stereotyped, but i decided to enter this one because you are asking specific questions and giving "cogent" reason why you disagree with evolution. Although i disagree with your conclusions of " if evolution cannot explain the existence of life on earth then Genesis must be true". I am sorry i had never seen anyone reason that way. They are lots of things i do not understand and i leave it that way " I Do Not Understand". I might seek explanations but until i find one i understand and agree with.

I believe your assertions here are not true.

1. I clearly stated that my conclusion is based on extensive analyses. . . .some of which resulted in certain questions evolutionists cannot answer. . .I have listed the questions.

2. why does the "I dont understand" logic apply to ur position on creationism?

All the questions you raised were raised and answered adequately by scientists, the problem you have with evolution does not fall within the purview of evolution itself,  It falls within either biogenesis, biochemistry or molecular biology. Evolution in the strict sense deals with the diversification and differentiation of organisms on the earth surface, as a result of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
So your puzzle of how the first life appeared on earth is more directed at Molecular Biologist than evolutionist.

ur assertions are false again.

Evolution attempts to explain the variety of life with special emphasis on the source and origin of life. This is buttressed by biogenesis and biology.
Dishonesty is not allowed in debates.

Also i do not know your background or your ability to understand science, because i had deduced ( maybe wrongly) from past debates that you do not have adequate scientific background, so i thought you copy davidylans line of arguments since he claims to be a biologist.

what has any of this got to do with the topic? please be focused.

I can assure you that all your five questions are one and the same, namely how was it that simple inorganic compounds could form a living organic compound. As i said it will be time consuming and difficult to explain every detail to you in just one or a few pages. It might take a text book for you to begin to understand the chemical process involved, but i assure you the answer had been adequately dealt with.

please produce those answers here to educate my ignorance. . .  , I am sure other creationists are reading too . . .they would love to see answers to these questions.

To answer your question, you first have to define what you mean by LIFE. Because when we say LIFE people have varied definitions of its meanings. Some can define life and afterlife and beforelife. I had provided my own definition in one of the debates. So lets have your definition of life, then we can go into how life can start from non-life.

what has this got to do with the topic of the thread?

i claim to be an evolutionist but you have provided me with many evolutionary terms i am unfamilair with, like spontaneous generation and last universal ancestor please explain what they are, after all we are here to learn.

Another IGNORAMUS claiming to be an evolutionist. google and wikipedia might be useful in helping u understand those terms.

@ Krayola

I am not a she. . . I am a HE. . . .  

Krayola2:
Statement A. affirms what "I"   accepts as truth

Statement B. does not affirm what "I" (Krayola, moi, me) accepts as truth, or that "I" even thinks that the claim is plausible.  It just states that "I" does not affirm that the claim is false.

u are simply playing with words, . . .  .I will let this pass. make up ur mind before u make pronouncements.

I will analyse genesis accounts in a bit. . . lemme respond to wirinet.

ibkaye:
This whole world is too, too plannned to just be a coincidence.

words of wisdom from a kissable pair of lips

the event that establishes that u are u. . . . . .the process of the sperm carrying u to have fertilised the egg and produced life as u.

Krayola2:
be⋅lieve  [bi-leev]  Show IPA verb, -lieved, -liev⋅ing.
Use believe in a Sentence
–verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:

de⋅ny  [di-nahy]  Show IPA
Use deny in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), -nied, -ny⋅ing.
1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.

I have not denied the possibility of a cause to the existence of the universe. But I do not have confidence in it because I have not been convinced. neither by creationism, nor by the big bang theory. Even though I think the big bang is the more plausible explanation, I don't think it is right on the money, but i feel it does explain more about the universe, if not it's exact origin, than Genesis.

But this isn't about what you believe/practice (ur faith/religion). I respect ur beliefs and I'm not asking you to justify them. I just didn't want u putting words in my mouth.

Please go on to explain why u think Geneseis is more plausible that science. 

u did not tell me the difference between both statements. whats the simple difference between statement A and B?

olabowale:
Since no one ever did anything because of Christianity, I wonder what is the essence of the question? And by the way, Bill Gates, does not believe in God and he is Jewish! Where is the need for claiming the Atheist for Christianity, except swelling up the ranks? BIll Gates does not believe in the existence of Yahweh, Jehovah, Eloi/Eohim. How then you are attaching him to son god, ghost god and father god?

u keep missing the point.

why is it so difficult to admit that islam has done no good to Nigeria?

Krayola2:
What I said was that I do not deny the possibility of a cause to existence of the universe. Please don't twist my words. Thank you.

whats the difference between statements A and B?

A. I believe that there is a cause to the existence of the universe.

B. I do not deny the possibility of a cause to existence of the universe

mazaje:
Miracles "abound" in churches no wonder the strongest advocates of miracles like oyahkilome and oyedepo send their family members to get medical treatment abroad when they fell sick. . . . . miracle "abound" in churches yet nigerians christians are still dying of preventable diseases like flies.

Miracle "abound" in churches yet the immediate family members of the people that perform the miracles( pastor Kumuyi) can not be miraculously cured, Kumuyi's wife died of cancer at the young age of 50 ien the deeper lif camp ground where many went to "receive miracless". Miracles abound in churches indeed.

As for his tall claims of his god "appearing" to him in his dreams all I can say is that at least he is honest enough to say that it is only a dream unlike the other fools that write books and sell about how they went to heaven and saw a golden bible sitting on a golden table(in wonder which version or translation of the bible they saw in "heaven". Deluded fools. . . . . .

you have not said anything that denies the effects of miracles. . . have u?

mazaje:
What are the "truth" you speak about? What are the biblical notions that are "true"?

I am not amazed at ur gullibility any more. . . . . .this was my statement:

the truth about biblical notions.

I believe the subject/object of the truth is not hidden from the statement. . .is it? it does not require common sense. . .does it?

toneyb:
Noetic says that "miracles" abound in churches and that his god appears to him in his dreams( the reason his god only appears to him in his dreams is what i can't really understand)

where did u go to hide ur tails?

Go and answer my questions and stop making a fool of urself.

Krayola2:
I'm not sure I understand what u mean. This is what i said


to which u responded

There are other creation stories outside of the Bible. for example Semerian Epics and The Babylonian creation story. I think the statement I made "is reconcilable with the ontological attributes" of other non biblical stories or theories about the existence of the universe.Why would i definitely be referring to the God of the Bible? I'm just seeking clarification. 

u believe that there is a cause to the existence of the earth. . . . .I believe that reconciles with the ontological xterics of Jehovah God. . . .I do not subscribe to any deity, god or story that lays credence to this ontological attribute. . . .as such, as far as I am concerned you are referring to the bible God.

First let me state that my belief and acceptance of the Genesis account of creation as plausible and more tenable to evolution. . .is not singularly borne out of faith, religious dogma or preconceived notions. It is largely due extensive analysis of the underlying claims of evolution.

I have asked several questions to evolutionists over and over again, this was in an attempt to gasp evolution as plausible and tenable for intellectual reasons. . . .some of my questions have been. . .

1. Since life is believed to beget life. . . as we all know in biology and biogenesis. how is it then possible that the first form of life according to evolution is from non-living organisms otherwise called spontaneous generation?

2. Charles Darwin false claimed that all organisms are from a last universal ancestor. . . . .how about the mitochondria gene exception?

3. We were all taught in school that (evolution) life is traceable to the phylogenetic tree which postulates three domains of life (bacteria, archea and eucaryota). . . .what then is the major common denominator to whom life can be traced to amongst the three domains. . .considering that evolutionists claimed that all organisms are from a last universal ancestor?

4. Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are the last traces of life.
what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life?
and what were the substances that made up this reaction?
what was the structure of the first living things? what was the catalyst of this first chemical reaction? what were the components of this catalyst?

with regards to the pioneer formation of the RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?

I do not expect these questions to be answered, cos evolutionists have no answers to these questions. I have only used this questions to lay a foundation as the the non-plausability of evolution.

I will now proceed to offer analysis of the genesis account of creationism. . .with emphasis on its plausibility and superior argument compared to evolution or any other scientific explanation.

do u think that this event was just a random possibility?

mazaje:
Neotic will you just accept that you only believe what you do based on faith and stop making a fool of yourself?. . . . . . Apart from the bible and all of its unverifiable claims and assertions which you only believe by faith alone what else have you got to show that your beliefs are "true" or better than any body's believes?. . . . .

You only believe the bible based only on faith and faith says that you must believe without evidence and even when the assertions  that are made make no sense at all. . . . . . . . If the bible which you like to present as evidence for your god is incorrect regarding matters that  a person like me can check and verify (such as history, archeology, or science) why should I believe it is correct regarding matters that I can not check and verify such as life after death and how to find everlasting life?

please stop lying and embarrassing urself.

I have never denied that FAITH is an integral component of christianity. but faith is not an excuse for establishing the truth about biblical notions. To discredit the bible on the false premise that we rely on faith is intellectually dishonest.

Krayola2:
@ Noetic

I do not believe that my good/fate is dependent on an unseen order (God, Allah, whateva).

I do not adhere to a religion because my life does not involve any practices that are believed to affect or be related to an unseen order.

Like every other rational and intelligent person, u are entitled to ur opinion and beliefs.
The only difference is that from time to time the rationality and objectivity of ur beliefs would be questioned. It is up to u to come up with plausible answers, when they do arise, . . . .they surely would on this thread.

I'm not an atheist because I do not deny the possibility of a cause to the existence of the universe. If that is what U call "God", then I do not deny the possibility of such to exist.

That is reconcilable with an ontological attribute of God. So definitely u are referring to the God of the bible. whether or not u choose to acknowledge or believe Him is up to u.

Can u please make sense of the Genesis creation story in light of modern science?

If u deny evolution as a plausible explanation for human existence,  a more plausible one than creationism as described in Genesis, why?

thank you   

I believe that this is what this thread is all about. . . .I will do so now.

I aint got any idea. . . .but I know she is lofly