₦airaland Forum

I believe the message is a scam for 2 reasons. 1, if indeed Nysc wasn't ready (logistically), why would they still send call up letters to pcm. They would have just delayed cul printing, cos we were not even expecting it to come out as early as it did basedonNysc DG comment as regards lack of funds. 2.nothing like postponement on their site yet. We just have text msgs as proof of postponement, and anyone can always write any title as sender while sending such bulk msgs. The annoying thing is that the nysc has refused to make an official statement whether this message is really from them or not. Abi they can't hear of the messages circulating ni?

Was going through the dictionary and I saw this...

Taeewo:
5 copies is okay and u cant use up to 10 passports..….I used just 3 passports during my time....

thanks. Really appreciate

TONYMAGA:
Anybody travelling from onitsha to plateau??drop ur contact let's plan ahead

pls, about how many photocopies and passports did you use in your camp reg.?

Pls, as regards camp registration and its requirements, how many photocopies and passports are actually required? What is the safe range to carry to camp, cos many people have given outrageous numbers of photocopies to make. Pls help with more clarity

johnydon22:
"Supernatural" is a vague term. You are a natural being, if you can ever perceive anything within this confines of nature then that thing must be another distinct manifestation of nature.

If you term something to be above nature and call it supernatural then you as a natural being will never perceive such vibrations, so there is no way for you to know if there is such a thing.

But if you claim to know there is then you either prove it or it is bogus... (My stance)

your understanding or definiton of the Supernatural is not exactly what it is. Supernatural doesn't always have to mean something that can't be perceived with the senses. Supernatural rightly refers to processes, creatures or events that can't be explained by natural laws and seeming to involve powers that are not Limited by known natural laws. So you actually see the process or evidence in front of you, but no Universal law or logic can rightly explain the occurrence.

Beauty is the product of the observer, and this complexity argument always brings about infinite regress.

Its hard to find that people can't recognise beauty. I believe they just live in denial to suit their claims. Lets agree beauty is subjective, but Complexity!?!? No! Complexity can always be clear definited for every situation and system. Complexity is rightly defined as several different simple processes or structures, working together and interrelating and their independent activities collectively and consequently lead to achieving a common target or goal. The level of Complexity is determined by 2 factors. 1 is the level of difficulty of the feat actually achieved (for e.g catching a mouse with a mouse trap or flying into space with a rocket). Second is the number of these simple parts that play an active role in Making sure that the common goal of the whole system is achieved. A system is either Complex or simple. It is not subjective to observation or individual. Based on this definition, there are clearly numerous Complex processes in nature and no debate is required in this fact.

-Here you are pointing at complex and beautiful natural manifestations to maybe suggest a designer.

-Now you are missing something, isn't this designer also complex? fully functional and intelligent? isn't it beautifully precise even more so than the nature you are pointing at.

So if nature needs to be designed then you'd also agree that this designer also must need to be designed, isn't?

and then the designer behind the designer must also require design and then we are in an infinite regress.

the term supreme refers to "the greatest possible". If it has been established to you the possibility of the existense of a Supernatural realm where we know very little about based on our five sense, then its not so impossible that their are heirachies of power, position or influence of which one is supreme, having no other above him.

With the much about nature we know, it is that nature evolves it never stays the same and this natural development of self makes nature a complex system of random interaction filled with trials and errors.

Its true nature is constantly changing, but if you give an impression of nature "randomly" Making progress or increasing in Complexity when you previously established natural changes or processes have no aim, then you should rethink on the Complexity of life in itself and ask if such Complexities can exist randomly.
Based on your scientific knowledge, Maybe you should imagine what it was like several billions of years ago. Imagine yourself looking upon the hostility to life from space and think about the thousands of factors that you would have to put in place for life and habitability to exist. Do you really think all those factors were made available by random "trial and error"?. Trial and error is even a wrong term to use, since nature didn't have any aim or plan in mind, it wasn't trying to build or destroy anything, it was just taking random Steps as it was pushed aimlessly. If the process was indeed random, think of the several millions of wrong possible Steps away from life it could have taken. There are possibilities of million of hazardous changes it could have gone through that would make life on it totally impossible infinitely. But here we are today, teeming with millions of life on earth.

99.6% of this universe will kill you instantly, how is that so beautiful?

Exactly my point. The fact you are alive is a miracle as you can now see that 99.6% of the constituents and laws of the Universe are saying "no" to the idea of you existing. They have been screaming "No!" ever since the begining of time, through when life was said to be forming and evolving. But you are here today reading this.

First instance, you as a natural entity was at a particular time in you development a tiny measly single cell then a zygote divides into more cells and keeps dividing into more cells and gets more complex.

You are an example of how nature derives complexity, from the simplest form it builds its way to complexity slowly and consistently even as you are now you are still developing and becoming more complex.

Every possible thing an adult human can ever be or look like was already programmed in its DNA even as a zygote. Its not like some random forward changes occur that makes the infant grow into an adult which is the idea you are trying to portray. The process was confined to go that direction by the already programmed information it inherrited. It has been established that life always arises from former life, and this is what we can observe ongoing in nature. to think that the first life started from a random unsupervised chemical reaction in nature is what I would love to see explained and re-enacted. If the process happened a billion years ago, why did it stop? Why can't we readily observe it happening now, or was it a one time historical event that can never be repeated again? We should be able to relate to these scientific speculations if they are true. But what I can readily observe in my environment is that organic matter doesn't build in Complexity, Rather it degrades and decays with time.

Nature is always developing and this development makes it a MUST that it should be complex, if nature never evolves then the universe would have remained just a singularity..

Since Nature evolves then nature must, should and expectedly is Complex, shouldn't be a surprise

I have addressed this already, you are giving an impression of a random but uphill movement by nature which is not Exactly true. Complex is a very big term for something as mindless as nature to arrange. Think Of the Complexity of the eye and why it works so well. Light passes through the cornea to get to the inner eye. If the cornea wasn't translucent, seeing wouldn't be possible. Nature had a million options of the material to use in Making the cornea, yet it chose a translucent substance, perfect for the job. The fluid locked within the eye ball (in the aqueous and virteous cavity) has the exact viscosity and refractive index to cause light waves to refract (I.e bend) as it enter the eyes and hit relevant structures that would amplify sight (such as the lens and the retina). Nature had the choice of any other fluid at all, but it chose this particular fluid with the right refractive index that would make seeing this good. Nature also had a wide range of choices in determining the length of the eye ball space which would consequently alter the volumes of this fluid and also its refractive index which could potentially mess or make light target. But nature seemed to understand the basics of physics and placed exactly what was needed, right fluid, right volumes, right refractive index, et.c. This is the right example of a Complex system. Simple structures acting together, with different jobs, yet all achieving the same aim of ensuring sight. All these structures are arranged linearly to ensure light travels through the eye, and these structures even bend the light rays, making sure the light hits the intended targets.I don't have time to expound on the lens zooming capabilities or the retina, but the point im trying to make is if you just stop for a moment and think of the numerous possible wrong WAYS nature would have strayed (if it indeed proceeds undirected) you would find out such levels of luck is totally ridiculous. A perfectly working telescope can be built from a gas explosion if such levels of luck existed

Siena:
[color=Blue]Is this a steel, or aluminium alloy wheel?[/color]

Im not sure. Does the nature of the wheel determine the method of fix?

sanyahkod:
@ Op have you tried injecting engine oil to the hub? This should work.

I tried getting break fluid to the hub. I'm not sure how much penetrated through tho. I'll try using a tool to effective get enough oil there. Thanks

let them scrap NYSC if the govt can't fund it. Its not a must. In my opinion its a waste of time and theyve done a very good job in waiting our time since February based on one excuse or the other.

sanyahkod:
Never experienced such but I always hear my mechanic talk about LaCasera for stubborn cases especially with nuts/bolts

LaCasera?! i've not heard of that. However the problem is not with the nuts, but likely fusion of the rim to the wheel

GAZZUZZ:

You are being gentle with it, bang it from the inside, it will come out. If that fails, bolt it up but very loose and drive it a few meters (don't spoil your tyre) it will move.

I drove for about a minute and half, but like u said, I was sacred of permanently damaging the tire. Probably I would try hitting it from the inside next time. Thanks for the info

I woke up this morning to a flat right back tire. I didn't think much of it cos I had a functional spare which I brought out and set to replace. However, after lifting the car on a jack and removing the nuts, the flat tire refused to leave the wheel. I've tried everything I know, from hitting the rim with a hammer and driving a bit on the stuck flat tire, but the tire just seems impossible to remove. Has anyone had a similar experience or have any other ideas on how to handle this situation?

cloudgoddess:
In what ways? I'm genuinely curious.

It's one thing to not be convinced because you're determined to stick to your pre-existing beliefs regardless of what you're exposed to (doxastic closure). That's not uncommon.

But if you genuinely find the arguments put forward illogical & not making sense to you, then that's genuinely surprising. To me most if not all of the theistic arguments put forward on this thread so far, including the OP, have proven unsubstantiated, & seem to have been thoroughly deflated by the opposition.

you don't have to think for anyone. Let individuals weigh issues and raise their own conclusions

This thread's topic is exactly the reason why most find the idea of an African atheist ridiculous and funny. Those white guys have little reason to be theist actually. They hugely depend on science to provide their every need and anything the doctor or scientist cannot answer or solve can never be answered or solved. We Africans however know how it goes down here traditionally, and the black magic we do can not be explained by the white man's science and it shows no respect for universal laws. So, unlike the whites, an African who has seen certain things that makes your Nelkon Physics textbook seen like a lie, how do you even still hold on to atheism? To believe that all that there is to life is what you can perceive with your eyes and what can be logically explained depicts a lack of experience or a low level of wisdom.

cloudgoddess:

No. The gene duplication in itself isn't the beneficial trait. It serves as raw material upon which beneficial traits can later emerge due to further mutation.

Regardless of the further mutation that would occur, there still needs to be an addition of new information to the 2nd dormant duplicated gene pair to confer a better function. The only advantage that exists for that gene duplicate organism is it would not have a lethal phenotypic expression if there is a lethal mutation gene change in the dormant pair. It doesn't still answer how the new information would come in.

That actually isn't the idea of gene duplication, as I explained above. And if this analogy was applied to the process of mutation creating new functions, it still wouldn't work because the individual base pairs that code for a gene do not have any determined function on their own like a Nokia phone or an iPhone 6. They are building blocks that can create different phenotypic outcomes based on how they happen to be combined. Codons (a set of three base pairs) code for different amino acids, which then interact to form new proteins, which are expressed outwardly as specific traits or alterations of pre-existing ones.

And what are the chances of these process occurring in nature? The problem is even when such processes occur, there is still a higher chance of creating a lethal trait than a beneficial one. These are just speculations of which the missing gaps were left to extreme and unreasonable levels of luck of producing a good trait. you can look through this also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofunctionalization#Selective_Constraints

Sexually reproducing organisms usually possess multiple versions of alleles for a gene. Alleles are expressed in different ways depending on dominance/recessiveness. If the organism with superior qualities (mutant) mates with an organism without said qualities (wild type), his beneficial mutation can definitely pass along to the next generation and be expressed in his offspring if the allele he posesses for the trait is dominant to the allele his mate possesses.

And if this happens, that in itself wouldn't establish a new species. That would only introduce a new beneficial allele to the gene pool. If said allele continues to be passed down & throughout the population, it may become "fixed", or a permanent trait that all members of the population possess. Both beneficial and neutral alleles can become fixed. Speciation only occurs after enough alleles have been fixed (and removed) from a population over a significant enough number of generations to isolate the species from the ancestral population it came from. This is a very step by step, gradual process. There is no such thing as a single mutant + wildtype mating = new species.

Let's not go too far. We are still talking about gene duplication as regards possible consequent possession of better functions and not just dominant/recessive genes. The whole "improved function story" rests mostly on the shoulders of the inactive duplicate gene pair. The chances of that duplicate gene getting better functions is still where the mystery lies. even when gene duplication occurs, there are 3 possible fates which it can undergo. It can either be lost totally consequently, undergo subfunctionalization, or Neofunctionaliztion. Out of these 3 fates, only neofunctionalization can lead to consequent improved function. These 3 fates (with 2 of them being irrelevant to evolutionary progress) further reduces the possibility of addition of relevant info by gene duplication. Even neofunctionalization process, as i've stated earlier, is not clear cut on how relevant info is added. The chances are made further slim.

These are not "huge issues" for the validity of evolution. They are questions to be further explored as we learn more about evolution. No field of science is complete. The fact that a subject still has questions to cover in no way invalidates what the study has verified thus far.

Yet you would agree that these are very important questions that without reasonable answers could rubbish the whole idea of evolution. I don't even want to get into the details of those 4 "big issues".

Lactose tolerence is one example of a beneficial mutation that arose relatively recently in our evolutionary history & has persisted throughout several generations of non-African humans.
You never asked; there are countless. In addition to the lactose intolerance I mentioned above: the various mutations responsible for antibiotic resistence in hundreds of bacterial species. Fur colors in oldfield mice that allow beach populations to avoid eagle predation. Enhanced viability in drosophila flies. Malaria resistance in people who possess just one HbS allele

What!?! Dis you just say there are countless beneficial germ line mutation? Don't even say that. Most of them are non-beneficial and harmful, )at least in man). Lactose tolerance I may agree (even though I don't yet see how that could be relevant to subsequent speciation). Antibiotic resistance is not a germ line mutation as that is what i'm concerned with for now. Even Antibiotic resistance occurs by loss of a gene involved in the production of a particular structure that is susceptible to a chemical. This particular error occurred prior to exposure to the harmful chemical. i.e the resistant factor was always present in the colony. it just became more conspicuous when other bacteria that didn't have this error in their DNA died off, and those who had this error thrived and rapidly replicated. Note that this beneficial mutation had to do with the loss of a susceptible structure. loss of structure is irrelevant and even counterproductive from an evolutionary point of view. We are talking about addition of functions and structures, not loss.
You also did well to hide the fact that malarial resistance has to do with mutant sickle cell patients. After analyzing the benefits and disadvantages of such a mutation, do you still regard the overall mutation as a benefit? Do sickle cell patients thrive better than others whether they inhabit a malarial prevalent country or not? Kindly add sickle cell mutation back to the long list of lethal germ line mutations we have.

cloudgoddess:
A simpler yet very telling example; several theists I've discussed evolution with on NL have insisted that it's impossible for new genetic information to arise naturally, so they consider that a "missing link" to evolution. But this is hugely false, gene duplication is a type of mutation that results in new genetic material that can later be altered to produce new traits, and it happens frequently enough to result in the various chromosome lengths we see in different organisms. But it's understandable that someone who's learned just the bare basics of evolutionary theory would not know that.

I didn't come to my conclusions based on shallow researches. As regards addition of genetic traits, gene duplication is the major mechanism in multi-cellular organisms in which new genetic material can be added. Now follow me. First off, for such mutation to be relevant to evolution, it must be a germ line mutation. that means a mistake occurs during the replication of sex gametes. A gene known to be responsible for a particular trait duplicates itself by error. Does that really count as addition of new information that could lead to more complex-organism formation? The section of the gene that duplicates by error had a function and this function doesn't change as only one part of the duplicate can participate in the cell's consequent activities. I like to look at this claim of germ line mutation with this analogy; lets look at the gonads of an organism where this germ line mutation occurs as an estate consisting of several perfectly identical buildings. (The perfectly identical buildings are the haploid sex cells). The Estate manager makes sure a Nokia 3310 mobile phone is placed in each building for the purpose of making calls and sending text messages. (Let this This Nokia mobile be the section of a gene wielding a particular function). Now, the idea of gene duplication is that the estate manager by error drops 2 Nokia 3310 mobile phones in a single building, instead of the usual one. Has any new function really been added to that house? The point the evolutionist is trying to make is this: "the presence of 2 Nokia 3310 mobiles in a single house could lead to the presence of the functions of an Iphone 6". we both see how that can't be true.
Furthermore, Gene duplication is known to occur by random error. That means any section at all in the gene can be copied twice. If somehow such a mutant organism lives and possesses superior qualities, for it to establish a new specie it has to mate with an opposite sex that had exactly the same form of mutation i.e exactly the same section of its gene altered as it did. Remember that all of these is by random chance. Why would I believe such a scenario occurred accurately several times in the past?

If gene duplication doesn't bring about new function, evolution becomes impossible. you can read this later on wiki as regards gene duplication and evolutionary change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication#Gene_duplication_as_amplification

Here is also another link (this is not a Christian site this time) that shows that there are indeed huge issues with the evolution theory
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50

I also doubt evolution because I related the scientific claims with certain facts I can see occurring presently in our age. If germ line mutation is the back bone of evolution and speciation (at least in the multicellular level), that means every time or at least most of the time it occurred in the course of evolutionary change, it always had a positive outcome in the progeny. You once said that we are constantly evolving right? And we have germ line mutations occurring in our time and age. But even a single germ line mutation that is beneficial to the offspring is non-existent. In fact, most of the germ line mutations we see today are lethal, yet, you expect me to believe that germ line mutations that occurred in the past were beneficial to the proceeding offspring. Perhaps such a mutation can occur luckily (even though we don't know how that happened), but if its this sort of chance is what you attribute to the formation of about 8million species that walk the earth today and several millions that have gone extinct, then that's just unlikely. Considering the number of species existent, germ line mutation should have had beneficial outcomes on the offspring for more than 8 million times it occurred in the past. Yet you can't show me one positive germ line mutation from those occurring presently.

cloudgoddess:
From much of what I've seen those two categories are often intertwined; as in the rejection of certain scientific concepts seems to often be preceded by lack of understanding of said concepts (the amount of times I've had to explain evolution here on NL to theists who reject it is testament to that). And that lack of understanding probably follows from religion discouraging thorough exploration of those concepts.

For example, when faced with information about the big bang or something, a religious person is very likely to reject it outright due to discomfort & cognitive dissonance exclusively caused by competing religious ideas they hold, whereas a nonreligious, or perhaps very casually religious person, might be more likely to approach the information with curiousity, thus more likely to actually learn about it to the point of understanding.

So it's not like anyone is saying that being religious automatically makes anyone stupid. Religious beliefs just tend to set up psychological structures that prevent people from becoming "intelligent". Perhaps that would explain the correlation.

Its true that many religious folks throw the evolution theory out the window because it conflicts with their religious stories of creation. I'm not one of those tho. I've simply analyzed the evolution story and I'm being sincere when I tell you it just doesn't add up. I once discussed with a Geneticist Professor and asked questions regarding certain vital processes of the theory and she couldn't give an answer to them. She stopped replying my mails. I know several atheists who don't believe the bible version of creation, but they also don't believe in the scientific evolution story as well, because they've weighed it and seen that its not so likely it went down that way. they are always sincere to tell me they don't just know the source of life and creation yet, but believe that someday, science would discover a more reasonable explanation for it. The truth is, a lot of atheists are not sincere to themselves as regards the evolution theory. they are just willing to hold on to anything (no matter how absurd it sounds) that pushes God out of the picture.

[quote author=cloudgoddess post=45595875].

DivaFiva:
I have read the Bible and one thing I can say is logic is not exactly a reliable tool to understand the stories and you often run into contradictions, out of context interpretation and differences in bible versions. Because of these limitations (and the fact that there are other religions that may be true), I have decided that the odds of eternal suffering being worse than living poor in Nigeria and making it to heaven to live to praise God day in day out is quite slim. Neither is the chances of any of these stories being [b]100% accurate [/b]looking great either.

I appreciate your efforts to help me understand.

well, the surefire way we'll all know if the claims of the bible is true or not is when we die. Let's wait it out and see.

cloudgoddess:
Who said the reactions had no direction? Don't conflate "spiritual guidance" with natural patterns - the latter can exist without the former according to everything we've observed in nature thus far. The formation of galaxies, planets, and organisms all follow specific, stepwise processes that obey the laws of physics. There is indeed order involved, there's just no reason to assume that said order requires a mind to operate.


Yeah, yet. Realize that modern biological science has only been around for what, 200 or so years? Compared to the 180,000+ year long existence of human beings. Science is a NEW thing, and in its relatively short time it's been able to do things that would have been unimaginable in our primitive days. Specifically in the realm of biology, we've done things like create functional artificial limbs & organs for people, see the tiny cells that make up human bodies and test for the presence of specific diseases, synthesize chemicals that target specific areas of those cells effectively and reliably. We have even cloned entire organisms by manually transplanting DNA.

Why, then, do you think that human-guided generation of life from simple building blocks could not one day become possible? If you follow the latest biological research you would see that we are getting closer and closer to such capabilities. And even if for whatever reason we never accomplish it, how would that prove Yahweh? All it would prove is that our human minds were incapable (at least, given the time we had; who knows how long our species will survive & keep doing science) of assembling certain things nature is able to assemble through it's natural processes. Stars and galaxies seem to be in that category (things humans understand but can't assemble ourselves) but we don't need to invoke deities to explain how stars form. We already know the process - just because we can't do it ourselves doesn't mean it's supernatural rather than natural.

What you're presenting here is the god of the gaps argument. You're saying that because there are certain things we don't yet understand, or can't yet do, god must be the answer. Unfortunately that argument fails on many fronts, some of which I've outlined already. And most of all, it puts your god idea in the "ever-receeding pocket of scientific ignorance". The more we discover about how our universe works, the more your god & his assumed capabilities shrink.

So in your defense, nature has had more time in practice of life-creation, while man has had less time in practice, so in order to be fair, I should just give man more time? Lol. I have nothing else to say.

DivaFiva:
Earth is not the only habitable planet. It is only the one we have seen. Have you seen the rest of the universe? In comparison, science has only explored less than 5% the size of the multiverse and that include earth. So that is a pretty bogus claim to make seeing that there have been findings of Exoplanets that have the formula for life to thrive.

There is little contradiction between what I said and what you posted above. In my post I said Earth is the only "KNOWN" habitable planet and like you rightly pointed out there are possibilities of there being several other habitable planets in the universe. But if you push it further to think that all it takes to create life is the presence of a habitable planet, then you've allowed the scientists confuse your thinking. the habitable zones only relate to planets being able to hold water in liquid state. it is however not the only factor necessary for this phenomenon to happen as I previously noted, cos if it was, our moon would have liquid water on it. Also note that Water sustains life. It however doesn't create life. Water is a very important factor for life sustenance, but we both know that its one of the several things that makes life possible. A CHZ zone, along with other variables, only makes water likely available. So if you look at it critically, a CHZ zone is still a long shot away from bringing together all the requirements for life as we have on our planet. So much more still has to be put in place.

Like I pointed, humans have only embraced science for so long and yet the strides are insurmountable. From fixing birth limb defects with prosthetics to 3d printing of tissues with blood vessels and everything inbetween. Give humans more credit. To think that you live in a society that heavy leans on doctors, programmers, engineers and you still undercut their achievements is unsettling.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not discrediting scientists or science. Science and technology has made life a lot more comfortable and meaningful. If anything, I would love for us to increase in our discoveries and achievements as humans and I'm sure this would happen in the future ahead. If people are sincere enough, they'll be able to link scientific discoveries with the truth about God and his intellect. But No!, they'll rather attribute magnificent brilliance to luck.

I have read about Albert Einstein and obviously, It doesn't take a prophet to know he was a radical of his time but he was still human regardless. Inevitably, a product of a society. Of course you will say that God does not obey science but in the same breath want to prove that God exists with science.

Its true you don't have to take anybody's word for it. You as well have an intelligent mind and can make conclusions you want after analyzing facts laid before you. These ones understood scientific laws, but they knew that universal laws couldn't explain everything they could see or perceive. and you, if you are African, should be in the better place to know that there are things that could go down right before your eyes that makes rubbish of all you've learned from your physics and chemistry textbooks, signifying existence of supernatural forces not bound to natural laws.

So the ultimate price was being wrongly accused and killed in public. But then you knew you were going to heaven or better yet resurrect in three days. I believe countless number of humans have suffered worse fate with no guarantee of a seat in heaven or an unending reverence on earth as incentive s Jesus had. I'm happy to acknowledge that I do not know but if he was there he is obviously not bothered with what's going on with us, let alone what we do in the dark.

You talked about the Earth being imperfect. that is true. But God let evil run its course till the appointed time when He would destroy all evil and bring back perfection. However, He would judge based on who he is and his standards not by man's standards. Unfortunately for man, God is so Holy that we can never meet his standards. We would always fall short no matter how hard we try. That spells doom for the human race when God finally judges and does away with evil on the last day. What Jesus did was to bring the judgement day to the cross, God judged all men guilty because we really were and He sentenced us to death and hell. Jesus took this punishment on our behalf, so regardless of what happens here on earth, when we die we never have to face judgement for our sins. we are allowed to enjoy eternal life with God even though we don't deserve it. God has already addressed the judgement of the whole human race on Jesus and would never bring our cases back to court cos our cases have been fully dismissed. There is nothing more precious to a man than his life. you could give up everything you own to safe guard your life. But God proved how he loves you by laying down his own life in your place. Many think that sounds absurd, but I know several men that would willingly take the place of their daughter dying of cancer on a hospital bed. That's how sympathetic God was towards us as regards the coming judgement.

I do acknowledge that I do not know enough to say that there is no God(that's ballsy). In all honesty, there most likely is an intelligent being who set the ball rolling but I will say this though that the people who wrote and interpreted these religious books have pulled the greatest scam that keeps scamming on humanity. This intelligent being probably couldn't care less about the nitty gritty laws religions have invented to have control over how people live.
If God really did care about "what's in the heart", then I'm sure a lot of atheists will have no problem making the cut into heaven. But if I am given a choice, I'd rather be somewhere else than stand in line and praise a God that could easily be praised by stones for eternity. To each his own.

Maybe what you should be doing is to really research the authenticity and claims of the bible. Neglect what people have said is in the bible, open it and read it for yourself to actually know what it says.

Iefosa:
Op I want you to clarify this for me.

Is it by accepting Jesus as your personal lord and saviour you attain eternal life? What if you have accepted Jesus and still sin day by day? Will this deprive you of eternity?


If it's by accepting Jesus, what is the essence of water baptism? I have done the former and the latter is bothering me.

Regardless of the sins you committed yesterday, today or tomorrow, all have been forgiven because God has already judged you and all your actions his verdict was that you are guilty. His sentence was death and hell. But he didn't place the sentence on you cos he loves you that much. He rather placed the sentence on himself. Baptism is an act showing that you put your trust in Christ's sacrifice for you. But even though you don't get a chance to be baptized, God knows your heart and what you believe in. Its not the going in water and coming out that gives eternal life. If that is so, everyone who takes a a dip in a bath tub and comes out has eternal life. Its simply your trust in Christ that gives eternal life. You can't loose this eternal life regardles of your sins or not being baptized in water. If one truly believes, Nothing should stop such a person from being baptized tho

oglalasioux:
I agree. Please give me a solid evidence that the biblical creation story is authentic. Don't quote the bible please. Use the analogy you used in your post (you'll find it makes nonsense of the bible).

Now if you are saying the creation story is thrash but a God is responsible for the universe then I agree with you 100%.

But if you bring God down to a personality of a being listening to prayers and answering according to individual acceptance of a particular mode of worship then I'll say try again.

I just wanted to show how absurd abiogenesis or spontaneous appearance of life really is. I've made inquiries from non-biblical sources and scientific evidences, I've read the bible for myself and seen its wisdom and accuracy and I'm convinced the bible is actually God's ideas given to men to write down. This is personal though and you too can make your own research and decide what you want.
Believing in God creating life shows you actually think for yourself and are smart enough not to fall for the wild speculations of the evolutionists.

cloudgoddess:
And we know that natural objects (as in, not manmade like planes are) can arise as a result of natural chemical and physical processes acting on very simple constituent building blocks (ex. stars consist mostly of basic hydrogen & helium despite being so large). The formation of a multicellular organism like a human body, for example, can all be explained chemically.

You might then argue that those processes are being guided or dictated by some creator or intelligence. But it's more plausible that the processes act independently

Lol. Really think about what you just typed. Chemical reactions that occurred spontaneously without any aim, direction or guidiance produced life. Yet, with aim and intent, supervision and intelligence, we can't replicate what nature did spontaneously billions of years ago. And you say "it can be explained scientifically". You are neglecting the facts and believing what you want to believe

oglalasioux:
Splendid research and write up. God exists but not the God of your bible.

To think your reasons are peculiar to earth alone in a universe of 100 billion galaxies tells me something about you. Do you know hundreds of planets with same conditions as earth have been found by the Hubble space telescope? So you think earthman is alone in the Milky Way galaxy with about 100 billion stars?

Do more research, bro. The universe is bigger than your bible.

I'm not theist because I was born in a Christian family. I'm theist because I'm old enough to think for myself and I've weighed knowledge as regards the source of life and all other complexities around and in me. you've really bought into the false ideas of the scientists. I know there are billions of planets that exist. But simply because a planet is habitable doesn't mean it can produce life spontaneously. Earth is habitable, but has any discovery shown life appearing spontaneously from dust or water? No!! Life can only come from former life. Spontaneous formation of life is the greatest lie that the scientists have told us. They can't prove it happens, you don't see it happening around you, yet you believe it by faith. Atheism requires faith. a ridiculously large amount of faith simply based on a scientist's speculation.

cloudgoddess:


During your biology courses did you not notice the many flaws & potential malfunctionings in the human body? The way a single mutation can lead to abnormal enough functioning to cause serious illness (like sickle cell, neurodegenerative diseases, developmental disorders, extra limbs)? The way certain body structures are placed in very infection-prone locations (like the vagina's proximity to the anus)? The fact that over 40% of attempts at reproduction result in spontaneous abortion due to DNA copying errors & the like?

Human bodies, like those of all organisms, are incredible, awe-inspiring, complex, but far from perfect. They're exactly what one would expect from a process of gradual, adaptive biological change, incapable of foresight and prone to error -- not the perfect and finite sculpting project of an omniscient creator.

No one is claiming perfection. we are rather claiming intelligence. Is an airplane perfect? NO.! does it depict intelligence? Hell Yes!!
To claim that the universe, without intelligence, supervision or aim would just go ahead to start creating complex processes, defying every barrier to create living organisms and ensure their survival, is just totally absurd. Imagine taking a look at emptiness in the universe from space and think about all it takes to create not just a habitable existence but living organisms. why would the universe bother about or go through all that trouble to create such? what is its aim? It doesn't have any since its mindless. really think about it.
ask yourself if there are any complex systems building themselves over time around you, without any cause. Just matter complexly forming on its own spontaneously. If any thing, organic matter degrades over time. But some scientists told you that billions of years before you were born, organic matter would usually increase in complexity overtime on its own, and you simply bought the idea.

BLINGZ88:
In no 3, I kinda agree with u that scientist are trying when it comes to explanation but saying that the iphone is just as complex a just earth 4 instance is just plain crazy. Let me just explain something,the very big rock exploded( the big band theory) which is a probability, and all the galaxies went to their rightful places( probability) and then the nine planets formed in our solar system( another probability). Then earth formed ( probabilty) then protons, neutrons and electrons came together to form atom ( probability) then atomed formed molecules ( probability),molcules formed cells( probability) and so on and so fort till we came to be human beings that can walk and talk. Am sure u have an idea of what probability is , Please, just imagine the amount of independent events that had to talk place uniformly for humans to form, them multiply it for all the living organisms on earth. Then u will see that if we came about through evolution and big bang, then I'm must have been a miracle

Lol. thats why many say it takes more faith to be an atheist than it takes to be thesit. Atheists actually have faith, not in God, but in mindless factors like space, time and chance.

DivaFiva:
Let me state that I'm not an atheist, yet.
I'm just not convinced that there is a God neither am I well versed to authoritatively proclaim that there is no God.
So here are my rebuttals to your points. @odijeks

1. God reveals Himself through nature
Nature is beautiful to say the least but do not state it is all perfect in it's design. You make God out to be all powerful and all good at the same time hence his creations are perfect and flawless but that is far from reality. There are numerous destructive aspects of your said "intelligent design" from earthquakes, to asteroids hits, drought, flood. Human being are not without our own "flaws" from conjoined babies to people missing parts or having to deal with extra unwelcomed "parts" like being born with a female reproductive organ and a penis at the same time! Some are not visible to the eyes but there are people with cognitive or neurological disorder. The diseases (including religious beliefs) that plague God's images are endless. In conclusion, If there is a God he is either all powerful but one hell of a tyrant.

2. Our Planet Earth
[img]http:///1T6UNQ1[/img]
Earth is not the only planet known to have conditions favorable to life. Exoplanets, planets outside our Solar System, have been found in the Goldilocks Zones of other stars in our galaxy. Actually there's something called the "habitable zone". It's a zone that every star has, and in it, provided water on the object (let's call it X object for the sake of comfort), the conditions (temperature from the star radiation, etc.) will be just perfect for life on X to start. Earth is only the proven because we are yet to explore.
I believe that we cannot be the only planet in the Universe that has life, because there is a billion billion galaxy in the Universe, each containing a hundred million billion stars with hundred million billion habitable zones and a gazillion objects in the habitable zone; who are we to say that none of them contain water AND life? Far from what we think, we are not the centre of the universe. The universe is not there to serve us.

3. Complexity of living organisms
Living organisms are complex but so is iphone, workings of some mathematical problems, or even the production process of a pencil. Point is, anything you don't understand is considered complex. Scientists have worked for centuries to undercover these said mysteries from how rain is formed to the actual shape of the earth to explain the biological workings of living things even microbes and we've only been a scientific society for so long.
For a society that relies on doctors, technicians, weather meteorologists, programmers; we give "God" way too much credit.. kinda like when we praise Buhari,who literally sleeps in the comfort of his bed or private jet( as the case may be), for the defeat of Boko Haram. Meanwhile, there are foot soldiers risk their lives and their efforts are barely recognised.

4. Theist Scientists
The poster proclaimed God "the best scientist"...technically, it depends on which God you are referring to. If I point out scientific flaws in the bible o ye religious fanatics would say it was a miracle and dismiss it as God bending the rule. I'll use the fact that the number of years the bible proclaims man has been in existence has been proven to be non scientific. The bible recorded that the "sun stood still" but that is not very scientific, is it? The scientists you called out are products of their religious society regardless of how radical their ideas were at the time. So yes, we are often moved to call God when we meet something do not understand and in most cases, these scientist did not mention an intelligent being in the aspects of physical world they had explanation for; they did so when they had "road blocks". If your God is responsible for what is yet to be explained by science then we better get ready to see God be unraveled by future scientists.

5. God exists because he impresses this fact in the heart of men
Basically, you said God puts knowledge in the hearts of men so he is indirectly responsible for scientific findings. Well, from what I remember in sunday school, the reason Adam and Eve were banished from Eden was because they ate of the "evil tree" of KNOWLEDGE. If anything, according to the Bible, God didn't want us to know shit.We were to multiply the earth and we choose to be good or bad the die only to retreat to praise him continuously for eternity. A God-centered plan, don't you think? A good God ought to be selfless, I would think.

I know we Nigerians are as religious are they come and many of you would have a "how dare you" look whilst reading my post but for a second, be logical. You really can't win with arguing God with a stauch fanatic. Religion is not even a reliable source of morality, yet we depend on it to make our laws.
I'm not saying religion is irrelevant because it helps us deal with hard times, something Nigerians are way too conversant with; hence religion. But to explain the physical world? Oh please.

1. first off, I never said nature is perfect. I said it is beautiful and depicts an intelligent design. An airplane or a space shuttle is not perfect. yet, it shows an intelligent design. I can't see a plane in the sky and attribute it to a work of nature. "an intelligent being created that device that defies the law of gravity" is exactly what I would think. If there was ever a point in the universe when there was nothing, and somehow through randomness or mere luck something began to exist, why should nature be mindful to create beautiful details? It could as well, and in fact would make much more sense to be perverted, warped and ugly since the formation processes were not directed by any individual, just mindless forces.

2. I've debated this topic of life with several learned foreign atheist. They refuse to believe that God created the universe, but the really smart ones are always sincere to tell me that they don't yet know the source of life. They say this because they've looked at the evolution and abiogenesis theory and know it doesn't make any sense. They don't try bringing it up because they know its flawed. Really study the claims of scientists on abiogenesis and evolution and you'll see what they mean. if you think just having a planet within a habitable zone is all it takes for life to be created then you've not really asked enough questions. Our moon, I believe should be in the habitable zone. why doesn't it have significant water existent? its simply because other factors like the planet's size, distance from the sun and its magnetic field has to be entirely accurate for it to hold water. The habitable zone of our solar system has an estimated range of 104,700,000km. Noting that in the formation of stars and planets, no planet chooses where it would be placed. our Earth had a free choice to randomly exist in any distance from 0-280,000,000,000km from the sun. Yet its the only planet that fitted itself within that range of the habitable zone. even within that habitable zone, altering the distance of the earth to the sun would prove utterly fatal to life. I'm sure you'll still choose to believe that earthlings were just lucky. Most times we ask the wrong questions and view things through the wrong lens. the right question should be "why is there something rather than nothing?" there being nothing is what makes sense. If there was ever a point in time when absolutely nothing existed, it would make much sense for absolutely nothing to exist now. But we can see a lot of things existing now, and not just simple jargon littered around, but highly complex systems.

3. Really? you are relating an Iphone and pencil production company with a complex living organism? an Iphone, we agree, was created by not one, but several engineers putting their ideas together. pencil production is directed by smart humans and programmed machines. Look at the complexity of a single celled bacteria. It can't even be created in the lab by the world's smartest scientist, yet you believe it was put together by mindless forces causing chemical reactions several billion years ago. A process that you believe occurred without any supervision, conduct or aim cannot be recreated by the best supervisors the earth can produce, and you refuse to rethink your idea? my point is, the more complex an item is, the more it stands to reason that intelligence created it. if you remember when you were taught of natural and man-made objects in your elementary school, by instinct, even as a child, you were able to point out without any further assistance, things that were man-made (because you could recognize intelligence and complex functions) and things that were natural objects. Now your knowledge has increased considerably from that time. but you fail to acknowledge intelligence when you see it simply because you don't want to give God the credit.

4. If you've read about Albert Einstein, you'll know he's not the type to be influenced by popular opinion or a "follow the crowd" type of person. he is arguably one of the smartest scientist to ever live. If science totally contradicts God, Einstein should have been an atheist (based on the kind of personality he was known to portray). God is not submissive to modern science. he doesn't have to agree to everything our scientists say, especially when it is as regards to events which he witnessed and carried out personally. Scientists are trying to figure out how it went down. God was present all along even at the beginning of all things. You may also want to search for "the missing day" or "scientific proof that the earth stood still" before you type that its not scientific.
God is not afraid of scientific discoveries. in fact, he wants us to discover more. because the more we know, the more we are meant to acknowledge his existence.

5. Because of God's righteousness and justice, he can't turn a blind eye to evil, hence, there is a day of judgement for every evil act committed. However, God knowing that we can never meet up to his standards (because he is so Holy) decided to take our judgement on himself. Jesus took your Judgement on himself. that is selflessness. He has already paid the price for every evil thing that men did or would ever do so they don't have to ever come into judgement again. All he demands is that you acknowledge you sin and accept his sacrifice for you. its that simple and free. But the atheist's problem isn't ignorance, knowledge or super-intelligence. It's simply pride. He is too proud to accept that he is in slavery to his sinful desires. He doesn't want to believe that he would be held accountable for his wrong actions by a Holy God, so he debunks the idea of this God's existence in order to find that peace he wants regardless of the evident presence of his sins. He is too proud to receive Life that he so desperately needs.

In summary, I always tell the atheist: If I die and was completely wrong about God, I have nothing to loose. For one, I lived a good life here on earth. I know who I was before I met God and know how much better I've become from knowing him (even if he was a lie). In fact, if atheism is true, I would just sleep, enter into nothingness, cease to exist and die like a plant. That means I won't even have a mind or consciousness to tell me that I spent my whole life living a lie. But what if the bible is true and the atheist is wrong, and he dies only to find out he was wrong. He has just committed an error that can't be undone. He wasn't ignorant of the truth. He just pushed it away. It's just not wise to take that chance. You stand nothing to loose by accepting life.

smogup:
.
I'm a Christian and I believe in God but to be sincere your arguments does not hold water. How did you come to the conclusion that God is responsible for nature. Do you have any prove that is not based on any unverified religious book. What if even God was also created by another been to be part of nature.
You can't convince me from the Bible because whether you like it or not, it was written by men.

I highlighted that I want to make people really think from a neutral point of view. there are only 2 ideas of the beauty and intelligence of nature: the first is that it was designed by an intelligent God. the 2nd says its just randomness, time and luck that brought about this beautifully complex nature we see. No one has to force anybody to believe anything. think about both ideas, analyze nature and choose for yourself which makes sense.

if I told you someone created God wouldn't that just still push the question back again cos I would have to explain who created the person that created God. for God to create all things, it means he has to be independent of all things and be created by no one.

the bible was written by men, that is true, but God inspired them to write about him as a testimony to the whole human race. how do I know this? the bible was written by over 40 different authors across time. many of these authors never had the privilege of meeting each other. yet, the similarity of each author's report of God is what points that these men were not writing down there own ideas, and it depicts a common source of the information they put down. No two people think alike in the world think exactly alike, but the accuracy of the bible, written across the ages, written by different people but having the very same idea of God's work and nature tells me that the bible is really God's word.

allycat:
Actually it is normal. There is something called the nasal cycle but it is usually so efficient you don't notice it. It is only when there is some degree of obstruction it becomes noticeable. Would you believe the nose produces about a litre of mucous every day? It is usually swept into the throat and swallowed u noticed to the average person. It is only when there is a problem and the rate of production increases people start noticing something trickling down their throats. God produced the most sophisticated machine and till date science has not been able to replicate 10% of God's glorious works.

thanks for the info. I however wish I never read the bolded #iyama

TheArchangel:
I wonder what will happen when both of them becomes fully functional at once.
You will be perceiving odours like a dog and breathing in an insane amount of air that will make your lungs to explode.

lol. I hope that doesn't happen

Peacetemi:
Walk into the most quiet part of your house, close the doors , then read your post out loud to your ears. Does it sound normal

Lol. for one reason, I highlighted that I don't feel any breathing constraint or difficulty. I breathe as easily as every other individual using two nostrils. I'm just concerned cos there are those who claim they experience the same while others say they use two. I'm trying to find out if there is a normal/abnormal way this works.