₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: Logicboy's assistant dundee, didn't you know that that's a dodge that's been beaten to death?

On what basis do you assume that God is not speaking to you? Would you recognize His voice if He spoke?

Dolt

Your god needs me, I dont need him. So if anyone is talking, if anyone should shout, he should be the one shouting on top of his numb voice. If god is talking to me, let him speak the language I understand in a very audible manner.

Am forced to ask, who is the worst dunce between you and your god?

Are u looking for a wife? Are you advertising yourself? Why drop your BB pin?

Love your writeup though, love, conversation and sex affection, 3 truly important in all relationship.

[size=15pt]HE WHO MADE THE EYES, SHALL HE NOT SEE, HE WHO MADE THE EARS SHALL HE NOT EAR. "HOLY" BIBLE.
MY EMPHASIS, HE WHO MADE THE MOUTH, SHALL HE NOT SPEAK.

IF YOUR GOD EXIST, LET HIM SPEAK LOUDLY, IF NOT, ALL YOU HIS PROPONENTS SHOULD SHUT UP. YOU ARE NOT REALLY MAKING SENSE

YOUR GOD IS NOT MUTE, HE IS NOT SICK TOO, I PRESUME.

IF YOUR GOD DOES NOT/CANNOT SPEAK TO ATHEISTS, ALL ATHEISTS ASSUME HE IS DEAD[/size]

Your God plead for our worship, so he must speak to us and show himself to us. I hope you understand that fact before you start spitting silly analogies of not seeing the other person at the end of a chat. Which doesnt even still speak for your God, because even though i can't see the person, i receive updates always. [size=15pt]YOUR GOD IS TOO NUMB AND MUTE, STOP SPEAKING FOR HIM, LET HIM SPEAK IF HE DEARS[/size]

striktlymi: Good morning ooman,

Wow! Hope you slept well??...Seems someone dreamt from dusk till dawn. I believe this your post should have been captioned 'ooman's vision 5050'...Lol!!!

You dont know how much i want that to be true. Imagine a world without religion, the perfect place, the peaceful world, the only place where egalitarianism can be possible.

striktlymi: Atheism might be your future and the future of your kid (oh that poor kid) but to think it is the future of the world is nothing short of a dream laddy...I am of the opinion that being an Atheist is a personal thing and really I do not think that there will come a time where everyone on Earth would embrace Atheism.

Actually, i meant a successful future, not necessarily where "everyone" are atheists but a future where the majority are atheists and religion seem so risible. It is the place where children do not die in their numbers daily, it is the place where adults find work and peace, it is the place where there are no divorce between married couples but where loves rains forever in marriages, it is the place where everyone is happy. I do not mean a Utopia, but at least a better world. Imagine the future without religion, where all your kind are dead, then you are imagining a place so peaceful and serene, where there are no Africans or Europeans, where all we have is just humans with one way of life: Atheism. Atheism is the only way to such a future, such a future is my hope, hopefully in 5050.

striktlymi: Religion does not promise a perfect future on Earth...religion's promise of perfection only comes in the after life and c'mon ooman do you honestly believe that Atheism can lead anyone to a 'perfect future'?...wake up from your dream man!..there is no such thing as a 'perfect future' on Earth.

we all define perfection differently. If the future is at least half of what i wrote above, then i am satisfied. I understand religion promises a place in Paradise, but do not forget that Revelation states that New Jerusalem will drop down to EARTH. Such future is totally absurd, it is impossible, but isnt that the silliness of religion, to believe in impossibilities. A perfect understanding of nature, which i will bring about, will lead us all into a perfect future, whether you are there or not.

striktlymi: Precisely! The above is so on point. It's about time some Theists get this into their heads. If one wants to hold the silly view that his existence is a mistake of nature then so be it...everyone has the right to be silly.

Yes i understand, if everyone wants to think that a rich skydaddy purposely made billions and billions of galaxies just for them to live IN JUST ONE OF THEM, after which everyone dies and fears the very thing this rich skydaddy purpose made, which was suppose to support their survival, but which hinders it, things like quakes and rays, they are welcome

striktlymi: Yeepee!!! ooman is going on holiday...

I realize its useless. You guys have been so indoctrinated from babyhood that it takes personal conviction to really see nature in its naturalness and understand that there is no God in it.

striktlymi: I am so glad that I am not your kid! I can just imagine how you would force your views and philosophies on this child...even when the child decides to to forfeit his fathers dreams and pursue his own, our dear ooman would may be disinherit the child...oh men, to think that this is the same ill some Atheists want some Theists to do away with.

Yes, you are not my kid, but your kids are/will be under my influence.
I HAVE NO INTENTION ON FORCING ANYTHING ON ANYONE. Remember i said that

ooman: However, we must be careful we do not take away people's right to be silly and worship whatever they want to worship. Everyone's right remains to be wise or foolish.

that includes my own children/child

striktlymi: Don't flatter yourself!...Atheism has done everything great and good??...ooman can you tell me how a refusal to believe in any deity translates into doing everything great and good in this world?

Disbelieving that a God cares for you makes you take responsibility for everything and makes you a hard worker, that is how atheism has done everything great and good for our world.

striktlymi: I hope you are not trying to say that science equals Atheism?? In the event that you do not know, science is practiced by all and sundry even though not everyone is in love with it.

Yes, i meant science equals atheism and vice versa. Atheism is the way of life of every life forms in nature. Only among gullible humans would you find people worshiping each other and their own very imaginations. It is totally disappointing. Religion is a total disappointment and i will do everything in my power to eradicate it off our world. Gently, peacefully, here a little, there a little, generation by generation Atheism will prevail and God, Jesus, Mohammad will be sent out of our world and everyone will be atheist. That is the future, the hope of mankind, the only perfect place.

striktlymi: FALLACY!!!

striktlymi: Another fallacy!

Because of the veracity of those facts, you couldnt write anything on them but relived yourself of the burden by writing the above.

striktlymi: I thought Atheists own science...why take a firm stand? You are now foncusing us o!

Because the religious are now INFECTING science and you have already destroyed government and since you will not allow us to make great reforms, we have to do it by "force without enforcement" of any law

striktlymi: If science belongs to Atheists how then can the religious do damage to it? Guy, the above is just a misrepresentation of the truth.

You have the gut to write the above when i presume, you are aware of the great evil that Catholics, those of you who worship the Goddess called Mary, did to science and technology in times past. Have you forgotten how you(Catholics) killed Galileo and many other scientist while claiming they are witches and wizards. Because i dont mention it often does not mean i dont know about it. Be careful what you say, you are all dastardly villains. Your God being the ultimate dictator and tyrant, he committed/commanded multiple genocides, dont forget that.

striktlymi: Thank you and wake up from your dream man!

I hope you wake up from your fairy tale dream fast enough and embrace atheism.

the president is great

Reyginus: Seriously? That as well, is a credit to you. Convinctions come carrying content, no?
If you don't mind, let's use post Post 92 as a re-starting point.

why dont you start it

Religion is a total disappointment

Atheism is the future of our world. The perfect future we all look up to cannot be achieved with people being religious. However, we must be careful we do not take away people's right to be stupid and worship whatever they want to worship. Everyone's right remains to be wise or foolish.
The 21 century atheist must spend less time discussing fairytale pseudoscience called creationism with the religious, We must now spend our time on making sure that
children are thought real science, free-thoght, reason and everything that will make them believe in reality than have imaginary friends. Children are the future, our focus must be on them.

We are the hope of the world. Atheism has done everything great and good for this world. Science experienced many discoveries immediately people started disbelieving in fairy tales.
The fact is that when the religious have gone to their God(s) in prayer for answers without progress,they come back to us to provide them with answers to their various question, which we do with pleasure. We provide them with medicine in the hospitals, yet, after they are whole, they do not thank the doctors and scientist who made the drugs, instead thank their imaginary friend called God who had nothing to do with their healing.

Without the atheists on earth, it would fall into shambolic. The universe itself is helpless without atheism. We must therefore take our place and have a firm stand in all areas of government and science. The religious have done enough damage to science, technology, economy and the world in general.
Its our time to take over

Reyginus: Hmmm. Why are you getting emotional about the whole thing.

emotional is not the word, you are being obstinate

davidylan: hmmm actually assumed "knowledge" of what the primordial soup must have contained is central to the theory of abiogenesis. Infact that "knowledge" was central to the Miller-Urey experiment (which you trumpet here) until much of it was shot down based on NASA data.

Of course we do not know the actual composition of the primordial soup... which is why it makes me laugh when fools like you keep using it as evidence for man's creation.

well idi.ots like you made abiogenesis synonymous with chemical evolution in the first place. The fact that spontaneous chemical reaction, the stanley experiment produced molecules normally contained and produced by living systems is a perfect trail to knowing that chemical evolution is the only possibility of life's existence, which will not be proven till guys like NASA find the real early earth condition, that is if gold diggers and evil genius like you let free-thought science progress.

why dont you prove how SiO2 was miraculously changed into a living cell, dont be a gas bag in doing that though

davidylan: Funny, considering you would rather whine here redemanding already provided answers (on multiple threads here) since you are more bent on ferreting for loop holes than finding real answers. Perhaps you should also consider directing your questions to theologians who may be better able to explain them to you. who knows, you pointing out those "flaws" you all seem to find may cause them to revise the bible to your liking no?

There in a nutshell is how atheist hypocrisy works... they cant answer any questions... they hide their ignorance of the "science" they promote by asking you to "go and read". why arent they "reading" the bible rather than whining here?

you never provide any answers, all you do is mock provided answers. I understand you have no answers at all because you are too ashamed to state what Genesis says, but that is no problem, i can deal with that.

davidylan: but you swallow the idea that your cells came from primordial soup... much of which came from dust anyway?

We do not know so much about the primordial soup as you admitted in some of your previous posts, so dont you think it is aporetic and totally preposterous for you to claim you know so much about the chemistry of the early earth, to know which is "dust" and which is not? Besides, does it make sense to you that life can come from dust. does living systems contain silicon at all. sometimes you are a totally disappointment.

Reyginus: Lol. Okay I see. Trying to back out when the arguement has not yet commenced is not advisable. Don't you notice we are boring this audience? Let's try make the stage a bit planer.
I would like to know the relationship between the question wiegraf asked and what you're saying?
Since you hold that by asking the question, one must have already accepted it to be true, hence, irrational. Do you hold wiegraf a dunce? I'm just curious.

You must be ignored! you must be schizophrenic or at least a dolt

Mutaino7: saying the Bible is better than the Quran will only spark resentment and more controvesy, so i wouldn't want that. *pathetic fallacy* you know its good to revise some of your past literature in english note cos they surely help alot. And please know where to use the literary terms correctly.

If you know the meaning of the term, you would know it perfectly applies to your previous post, Saying a non existent God is a scientist? pls!

alfaman2: what if god exists? what then?

then am f4cked

Mutaino7: Ogbeni am well aware. I only pasted this stuff because of what a lecturer said. Like i earlier stated some people are unaware that God is the best scientist.

Pathetic fallacy

Life on earth would be better if there were no Gods in it. The human race would be more advanced if there were no xtians and muslims. God poisoned everything. The time will come when the xtians will realize that they are a poison to everything they set their hands on, perhaps then, they will forget about the source of evil and poison called God.

So, I was going over my old story books when I found my bible where I left it. I opened to read some spine chilling stories in book of Revelation when I got mesmerized by 1cor. 5v5. It tells of a man sleeping with his mum whom Paul commanded to be left in satan's hand so his body will be destroyed while his soul get saved when your lord returns.

What does this story teach us- that it is ok we do all abominable things as long as the devil will destroy our body and christ will later save our soul?
perhaps this is why Africa is full of corruption, because it seeds from the so called holy book.

Reyginus: ooman, is not yet time to click the tantrum pad.
I'm interested in the above.
This is laughable. Really. I cannot be suggesting, neither do I think it is so. That actually is the implication of what you're saying. You've lost track of your point. Let me remind you. The premise we are contending is, whether the totality of a thing goes extinct because it was involved in a material product. While I held it is impossible , you posited otherwise.
And with this latest input from you, I don't know who is arguing for or against.
Please what are you arguing for?

i dont argue, i engage in reasonable debate, when it gets unreasonable like this is getting, i back out.

I am debating the idea that man came from dust, never if the dust were used up or not. I told you that if i should debate why dust is still here, then that means i already accept that man truly was made from dust. But how could i accept such a risible idea.

What i debate is that it is a total impossibility that a cell can come from dust SiO2, if you know what that means!

Deep Sight: @ Ooman.

Thank you for your attempt (it is to be noted in your favour as against those who neither can nor will address anything substantive). Regrettably, nothing you have written addresses the very simple question I have asked in the OP - namely - about Intermediate Fossils. What you have done is simply to rehash basic evolutionary principles for us, which we do not need.

I find your reply unbelievable. You presented 2 premises for debate, i attended to one here and the other in another post, yet you still wrote this.

Deep Sight: And DNA itself evinces no special design?

Deep Sight: This is all too funny. Your analogy is comparable to saying that defects in already highly developed systems, and the changes that such defects bring, therefore show that the highly developed system in the first place required no design.

The evolution of DNA is quite another arm of evolution on its own. In order to fully understand evolution, you have to take the theory step by step, you cannot pack it together like creation. The existence of DNA does not evince design but repetitive patterns of constant composition of matter. The evolution of DNA itself isnt fully understood yet, chemical evolution is the only possibility conceived by brilliant minds. Feeble minds conceive creation.

Deep Sight: Your understanding of DNA sir, is suspect. What is DNA, is not control itself already?

your question here is not fully understood.

Deep Sight: None of this addresses anything. In fact, from your surmise, you should be able to show us millions and even billions of examples of intermediate fossils, arising from macro evolution, no?

Every past animals, fossilized or not, every organ extant and extinct are a proofs of micro and macro evolution

Deep Sight: Now let me address your "Premises". Many thanks for them.

Watch your step son. Who has said anything here about perfection or omnipotence? Please dont wax religious on me. As such, this excuse fails. I do not advance any such thing to you as perfection or omnipotence in this matter. In fact, if you were keen, careful and thorough enough, you would realize that I do not even advance God to you in this equation. God, in my view, stands far too transcendent even for the matter of physical evolution to concern God. Please do not assume that every reference to intelligent input is a reference to God. Thank you.

If all reference of intelligence is not in reference to a kind of God, then to whom do you reference? to you self? or to some aliens?

Deep Sight: Survival of the fittest is no doubt true, but to say that there is no sign of intelligence in nature is more than stretching things. In fact, it might suggest that there is no intelligence in everything we are thinking and writing right now, no? For we are within nature, no? Careful buddy.

Natural reactions and man's intelligence cannot be the yard stick in determining whether an intelligence is present in nature or not. Man's intelligence beats the "intelligence" found in nature in all ways. Man corrects nature's mistakes. Look into man's creations, then look with deep-sight into nature, you will notice an ideal deviation, suggesting that nature does not have an intelligent but chaotic beginning. More on that, if you request with civility.

Deep Sight: I hope I have understood you kind sir, and many thanks for your time and responses.

I am, however, constrained to repeat the question in my OP. For this primary school class sir, you are yet to show me a single intemrediate fossil between the major branches of creatures - given that in theory, they evolved one from another, with millions going extinct along the way. Where are they, kind sir?

let me ask you again, shall we focus on fossils or on the randomness of nature?

below is another illustration

Mutaino7: Thats why i find it useless arguing a biblical facts with an islamic scholar. Age wise the bible aint in the same league with the quran. Quote me wrong the quran itself was passed down orally after the death of muhamed. Not for once did mohamed came in contact with any of Jesus followers but he did came in contact with some travellers 4rm jerusalem who told him the edited and rumoured part of the scriptures and about Jesus.

the koran is no better than the bible and vice versa

Mutaino7: Guy the bible is said to be a manual for all humans and its the most complete book in the universe. So it touches every aspect of human lives.

sorry but the muslims disagree with that. They said the bible is incomplete and in-congruent.

Reyginus: Okay. I will make you happy. I read a textbook(from my memory library) as you instructed and here is what I got.
First, a half-life is the time spent for half of the total number of atoms in a given sample of an element to decay.
Sincerely, I don't see how it answer the question nor weaken it.
The underlying words in the definition were: period, half, sample, atoms, total with the central message being that 'a portion of an element decays'. I'm trying hard to understand how a sample of anything equals the totality of the same thing. My man, with every further input you make, you make the terrain difficult for yourself.

or maybe you have lost tract of the main point here. here is your unbelievable question

Reyginus: I wish you understand the consequences of the above. Let me follow this angle a bit. Even when the nature of the reactants are considered it doesn't bring the reactants to extinction.
In the fission reaction of uranium-238, two products are formed with the release of energy. Thorium-234 and alpha particles, surely. Certainly, and by implication, what you're trying to say is that radioactive uranium-238 no longer exists because a sample of it was involved in the nuclear reaction that produced thorium, alpha p, and the emission of energy. In other words, uranium as we know it, has been used up in our universe. Even if it is a nuclear chain reaction, the set-up will only affect those uranium atoms involved. My question (following this path) now is, how can a local nuclear reaction erase all uranium atoms from our cosmos?

let me ask you again, are you suggesting that you think that all uranium atoms have been erased for real?

Reyginus: Lol. This is below my intellect, please!
To say that we are modern animals, following your stand, is utterly wrong. Initially, you posited we are all of the animal and primate ape. And the ape is ancient as you intend to mean. Now, this doesn't look good. It is like saying that we've been existing from the past and we began to exist in modern time. What a contradiction. What happened to our favorite word 'specie'?
That's by the way. Your answer is way too weak.

Yea, I find it hard to spend my time with your level, explaining things as to a pri. 1.
What exactly do you not understand, that we are all animals? that we are all modern animals (apes) and that our ancestors (also apes) have gone extinct?
We are some 200, 000 years old, yet we are still here. Does that not suggest that human species is quite "old" (though not in evolutionary terms) but WE are modern, living in this time?

davidylan: the unfortunate problem with that logic is that it is essentially all based on an assumption. In more clarity - the fusion event described in human chromosome 2 tells us NOTHING about whether man and apes shared a common ancestor... that is an assumption. Could it be possible that the fusion event took place in a prior ancestor of man completely independent of the ape ancestry? Here is another example... we know there are unique similarities in the genomes of man and maize... is that evidence of common ancestry as well or is the ape merely another example of deceptive cherry-picking to fit a prior assumption?

sometimes i wonder where you got your science from? The bible.

the chromosome clearly showed telemeres and centromeres of chromosomes found in chimpanzee, our closest living relative, combined in human chromosome, which gave different haploid numbers, hence separating us into different species.
Similarities with other mammals and ultimately bacterial and archea shows that all organisms are families which evolved and diverged from the same ancestral simple cells.

davidylan: Even if we buy the ancestral logic... is there concrete proof that what occurred was not a splitting of a single chromosome to yield the 48 chromosomes in apes?

Sequencing proves that wrong, as you yours said below

davidylan: Many of the genes are the same

davidylan: If we decided to go the other way... is the assumption that the fusion event in chromosome 2 has significant impact on the large scale phenotypic differences between man and apes despite the fact that the genes expressed on those chromosomes are basically analogous to one another?

Lack of a chromosome made us express some genes, change in physiognomy for instance, and not express some, lack of fur, for example.

davidylan: What is even more interesting is that sequence analysis has shown that the genes on human chromosome 2 and the ape analogues are not exactly identical. Many of the genes are the same. What happened? Genetic transposition?

Now you have shown your illiteracy. Do you expect evolution to be static? If you cannot make a reasonable deduction from presented proof, i see no way you can begin to comprehend the smallest about evolution. of all the self correcting mechanisms of the DNA during replication, do you not learn that, at least some mutations, and yes, transposition alter the cause of chromosome with time? Must i tell you that?

obadiah777: I SAID BREAK IT DOWN. OK LET ME TRY A NEW APPROACH. WHAT IS A FLYING ROLL ? WHAT IS THE WOMAN IN THE EPHAH ?

The flying roll is an allegory of laws that is being passed and which everyone is aware of.

The woman sitting in an ephah or basket is the same woman being refered to in Rev 17 v - 6. She is Babylon, the great, mother of all prostitutes and obscenities in the world. The Ephah she was sitting on is the scarlet beast that had seven heads and ten horns with blasphemy written all over it.

Actually, some have translated Rome, the catholic church, new world order as the scarlet beast she was sitting on.

Try to read for your self, Rev 17, you will understand Zechariah.

will catch y'all later

^^^stromatolites refused to show, pls google it

trilobytes

placoderms

here

Deep Sight: Let us make the question as follows - does the fossil record support the ideas advanced by the theory of evolution as to how evolution occurred? If so, lets start with intermediate fossils please.

Night cap now.

Below are some fossils of the first single celled organisms, stromatolites down to the first fishes, placoderms.

The stromatolites are elusive in the picture, i hope you will be able to make sense of it.
also is the fossil of amphibians evolving from fishes, they have both lungs and fins, there were amphibians, from them came dinosaurs and mammals. More pics later.