₦airaland Forum

ibuildstuff:
So what ur own theory if evolution is fallacy. According to u it doesn't make sense that a complex being should evolve from a single cell. But do u know that a zygote is a single cell?


U don't even have right to disprove evolution wen u believe that a god just existed suddenly and talk everything into actualization.

U have not even prove ur god exist, u just believe with faith (believing without evidence) and here u are talking trash about evolution u know nothing about.

I mean if u study evolution and science deep enough, it totally made more sense than the Bible creation story.

I really don't know why I am not allowed to answer to my mentions again. I hope this response stays.

You could easily read on types of fallacy and specifically understand what FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION means before replying. This should not help you not to misrepresent my point.
And as described with Bapel, the obstacle for a less complex organism to 'change' (I don't mean change in itself, but I am trying everything possible to avoid a certain word in case it is the reason I'm being disallowed. it is really frustrating) to a complex one is the information contained in their genome. This is what codes for structures, giving instruction for replication, programmed 'death', etc.

No one talked about existence of God in this discussion. That's another fallacy. Emotion about belief should not be the issue, rather, facts.

I smile, if I really study them? This is what one get in a faceless forum

hakeem4:
but tell me why you think evolution is wrong ?

The problem starts with what is evolution, clearly defining it.
Text book will give us the definition of change in allele frequency over time, leading to biodiversity. But that was not what Darwin proposed. He used evolution as a "scientific" alternative to special creation, that is; all life forms come from a single life form with mutation and natural selection as the mechanism that brings diversity (which must included increasing complexity, the thorniest challenge to Darwinian evolution)
The problem now is that the mechanisms which evolutionists trumpet as FACTS, mutation, adaptation, natural selection, genetic drift etc are real FACTS but relating these facts to Darwinian evolution subtly that over millions of years, a complex organism like man will arrive from a simpler organism such as a microbe is a fallacy of equivocation.

Darwin was not aware of the complexities of the 'simplest' cell, the knowledge of genetics and information, the irredicible complexities of biochemical path ways of organisms etc. But his theory then seem to fit the then observation of how species are formed through those mechanisms I stated earlier.
Now, the theory has become the main paradigm and any dissident is labeled stupid, evidence Denise, etc and no alternative (non materialistic) is welcomed even with the failed predictions about fossils, such as order of complexities, missing transitional fossils, constant reinterpretation of anomalies so as to keep faith with the theory, etc. Despite challenges of it failing to account for mechanisms that lead to increase in complexities (developing limbs for example), origin of the so called first cell, origin of information, why different gender, etc.

hakeem4:
People who do not accept the fact of evolution are either ignorant or plainly stupid

Not surprised
I correctly predicted your fallacy of question begging epithet.
So much for who really fits your description

JoeEeL:
Snakes eat rats, rodents etc. -- thereby keeping pest population down.

They are an extremely important lever in the eco-cycle.

The toxins in their venoms are also used to create some of the medicines used to combat strokes and Parkinson's disease.

This is why scientists always try to do their best to preserve life -- or at least, fight against extinction. They are very aware that in most cases, nature can be used to solve nature's problems.

Unlike the average black man that just kills and eat, and fails to think of tomorrow.

Great response
Interaction and balancing of the ecosystem is a great feat of design which is even found in the 'simplest' form - the cell

hakeem4:
Wow! See one of the beauty of evolution by natural selection.




How does all these rubbish you wrote up here prove the existence of any god?

Evolution by natural selection? And you are slating him for calling them God's creation?
What's the difference between you and him who attributed same discovery to different cause?

You may come with the elephant hurling "evolution is a PROVEN fact and only dumb folks deny it"

[quote author=kingxsamz post=96615477][/quote]Smile

What's your counter argument?

kingxsamz:
No white man is coming to take you to his imaginary kingdom /paradise bro. You should focus more on your future and your children's future.

Setting up strawman or misrepresenting someone else' position is not a smart thing to do.
No informed person believes that Jesus is a white man.
Your second sentence is an important advise all could heed

Oharina:
What is this one saying? I'm telling u something that happened more than 2000years ago, u are mentioning hitler. Sorry. I don't need to argue low frequencies like u.

What is this one saying?
Since you fail to comprehend what I said, what I meant was that your claim is an old lie that has been repeated over and over again which now has appearance of truth.
Like I warned, debating that claim will not be wise except you will not argue intellectually and resort to ad hominem as you've started already

I'm telling u something that happened more than 2000years ago, u are mentioning hitler
Like I said above, it is your poor comprehension that made you think I am talking about Hitler.

Sorry. I don't need to argue low frequencies like u.
I only hope you know what is called 'low frequency' for calling HUMAN low frequency. Let me be generous, let me assume it was your auto correct that messed you up.

Oharina:
Oga white men created jesus in the year 325AD. For the purpose of controling the world, and it worked perfectly on africans... I dnt want to go in details, because i knw u too is lost and may not be able to understand and ready to liberate urself from the shakles of christianity. Islam and Christianity are scam onto africans.

Repeat a lie often and it'll get the appearance of truth .
The above is a paraphrase of one of Hitler's men.
Your "Jesus creation" conspiracy theory definitely fits that quote. I debated one guy on similar topic for days and it ended up with him dishing out misinformation without evidence to save face.
That claim is fallacious and defending it will not be an easy thing (I'm being euphemistic)

vickydankal:
This is world is full of mysteries. I believe for those of us Christians, That Adam was not the first man in the garden. The earth is hiding a lot of secrets, maybe in the future there will be a technology to go back in time and possibly the future.

I would love that you are not intimidated by the "scientific consensus" agreement called "fact".
The media and academia is ruled by atheism mostly, so they feed the masses only what they want them to know. The academia made it worse with their censorship and persecution on anything that is against humanism, no matter the evidence. It's one of the reason most Christian scientists are compromising subtly so as to do what they enjoy doing - Science. Others are bold enough to face anything thrown their way and challenge the fraud that is being shielded with science. They organize themselves into groups which include:
Creation Research Society - icr.org
Creation Ministries International - creation.com
Tekton apologetic - tektonics.org
And so on
These are organizations with Ph.D scientists with some of them as head of research centeres in the past (though persecuted and tenures ended) and so on.
When you read some of their articles and research works, you should understand that it is not about what's scientific, rather, anything to exclude God is welcome

leofab:
the phone he posted with is an inorganic being with life... same way man can’t create Organic beings is same way nature can’t create inorganic beings...

Isn't it funny that folks think that science has replaced the creator so that it creates anything as it wish.
The guy you quoted definitely knows little or nothing about the enourmous complexity of the 'simplest' cell for him to talk about creating man like toys. Since the Miller-Urey experiment, most of them have recognized the problem that abiogenesis is impossible. Worse, the 'manual' or 'software' that cells use for continuous functionality is beyond human capability. The problems continues (though I make it look simple)
Most are actually ill informed and just project outrageous opinions as fact or as scientific predictions.

simplesearch:
@Originalsly you've done your best to enlighten and educate him out of his self imposed ignorance. Most times when people who express atheistic views are unchallenged they gallivant around threads, but once challenged with facts they simply turn down every opportunity for further conversation, that's their regular trademark.

And that's the sad part because one discuss with them, thinking they are really after evidence. But when they can't hold on to their false position, they run away, only to repeat the same worn out argument that have being refuted again and again another time

Farki:
1. Christians didn't because they didn't exist at the time however Mary and Joseph did because they were Levantine Jews. It seems Christians don't follow anthropology either.



2. Luke 1:35
And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God". Man you really need to be spoon-fed don't you?

They can choose to believe whatever, out of fear, ignorance, sense of belonging or hubris but it doesn't mean they are correct or their beliefs are logical. If you are trying to insinuate that atheists who criticise Christianity are doing so out of a lack of knowledge then you're only deceiving yourself.

Christians didn't because they didn't exist at the time however Mary and Joseph did because they were Levantine Jews. It seems Christians don't follow anthropology either.
Just as predicted.
I only asked you to show me where it is in the Bible because that is the authority that Christians know and there beliefs are gotten from there, but you can’t and talking about Christians existing that time or not. We are talking about what Christians believe – that is the crux of my argument

2. Luke 1:35
And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God".
Thank you for quoting the scriptures this time as some may ignorantly believe your impression of “God impregnating Mary” straw man that you set up. A clear and contextual understanding of the passage is that Mary will become supernaturally pregnant as she asked earlier that how can she get pregnant when she has not ‘known any man’.

Man you really need to be spoon-fed don't you?
You need not to misrepresent your opponents position so as not to be running here and there when exposed

They can choose to believe whatever, out of fear, ignorance, sense of belonging or hubris but it doesn't mean they are correct or their beliefs are logical.
As usual, you just make some claims now and if you are asked to prove them, you may be running here and there.
You are the one who feels that Christians who become atheists are right and Atheists who become Christians may be wrong. If you can prove your claims, then it may have some weights else, its just your fanciful wish

If you are trying to insinuate that atheists who criticise Christianity are doing so out of a lack of knowledge then you're only deceiving yourself.
You are free to think for me provided you don't make it sound like it is a fact, that's where I may drag you out to prove your claim

He who has knowledge spares his words, And a man of understanding is of a calm spirit. Prov 17:27

Farki:
1.The Jewish tradition was for young girls to be married between the ages of 12 and 14. Jesus was a Levantine Jew, you really should be getting the point by now.


2. If Mary wasn't IMPREGNATED by God himself through supernatural means, as is fundamental to Christian belief, how was Jesus born? Did he arrive through the mail and the nativity was all just a story?

The point is that atheists are very familiar with the religious beliefs they criticise and the absurdity of it all.

1. Of course, you'll quote Jewish tradition which was why I asked you to show me in the Bible as Christians don't follow Jewish tradition.

2. I asked you a question and you are already showing your true color already by applying diversionary tactic. Any way bolded is what Christians believe and not how you put it as if God acts like ancient Greek gods who come to impregnate ladies.

Just as I said, if you are correct, how come former atheists now become followers of Christ? That is why i said you don't have a point there

OyinO:
Bad news to religious beliefs and followers because the earth is only 6,000 years old in their records.

Very funny.
Do you even know how that age came about? I doubt you know, else you won't say it is bad news to religious followers

dukeprince50:
it could make the world habitable and help in management of future catastrophe

So sorry to bother you, but this does not answer a question of "HOW?"

Farki:
Is that or is that not what Christians believe? Or is it because I'm putting it in blunt terms you want to cry about it?

Remember that most atheists were believers at some point but eventually we all have to wake up.

Few questions for ya. Where did you get the following "blunt terms" in the Bible?
1. That Mary was a teenager
2. That she was IMPREGNATED by God himself

Remember that most atheists were believers at some point but eventually we all have to wake up.
Same can be said of many Atheist who eventually wake up and became followers of Christ. So, What's your point again? (waiting for your answers to above first as I know what Farki can do when it comes to hand waiving and side stepping challenges)

LastProphet:
Is poor education epidemic in Nigeria, most have never ever heard or been in a conversation where carbon dating is mentioned. Their only source of educative content is the hopeless public schools, nollywood script written by another public school product and the church pastor on Sundays who dabbles into every subject he knows nothing about. Don't blame them they were told the world started with Adam and Eve, hahahahaha

And here is one who complains about poor education, yet talking about carbon dating when millions of years is involved. It is a shame

blackgold2018:
through carbon-dating. This is me trying to be christian.
I wound have insulted you for not going to school.

Bro,

Pelecius:
I felt by now, folks will be able to know the limit of carbon dating. No evolutionary scientist will try to carbon date a dino bone. It will cause so much chaos in their community because the age will shrink the millions of years to just thousands of years. This may shatter the evolutionary story of dino evolution and it must be protected at all cost. (Why? in my opinion, to make folks deny God)

The fossils themselves are not dated, but the rocks in which they are found using other dating techniques (which also have fatal flaws) or they may just use its position in the geologic column according to the evolutionary time line.

Grandmeister:
Where did they come from? Wait I can guess your answer...they came from amoebic organisms that became multi cellular organisms that developed gills and fins....then they developed lungs and limbs and climbed onto the ground..then they turned to monkeys and finally became men? I just saved you the stress.

I love this. Nice one there
Like most scientist call it - just so stories. But folks here will be shouting SCIENCE! SCIENCE!!
Comparing stories like this with real emperical science like Physics, Chemistry, Medicine etc

dukeprince50:
na for research purposes. This discovery could go a long way to make our country habitable

How?

Farki:
Not just 2000 years they believe a teenage girl who was a "virgin" was impregnated by God himself to bear his son so that he could teach a small group of Jews and get killed by the same Jews he was teaching and after 3 days he rose from the dead to hang out with them then went to heaven but resides in a small cut of bread that they eat in his name.

Reading this, I remembered our last exchange and I am not surprised that you are good at setting up a straw man

dfrost:
Carbon dating makes it possible to calculate the age.

I felt by now, folks will be able to know the limit of carbon dating. No evolutionary scientist will try to carbon date a dino bone. It will cause so much chaos in their community because the age will shrink the millions of years to just thousands of years. This may shatter the evolutionary story of dino evolution and it must be protected at all cost. (Why? in my opinion, to make folks deny God)

Image123:
The article says "'We have not yet studied this specimen – it is a scientific frontier.'". It is the ONLY REASONABLE thing to do to doubt the tales. i wonder why you have such great faith in this without any study but choose to disbelieve the more believable Bible.

I know that my Boss will be here
Keep on the good work

OfficialAwol:
Don't mind the fools. They think every Nigerian is a dead brain zombie like the idiots on Nairaland.

At one point he claimed he offered water to protesters and asked them to go home and observe the curfew and protesters were happy to see the army.

The same people are claiming at another point that the army met a hostile crowd of protesters and hoodlums who pelted the army with water and broken bottles.

The question now is, how did you know a "hostile" crowd was happy to see the army?

Second, how were able to offer water to a "hostile" crowd since you met a hostile situation as aggravated by Col. Bello which made you start firing "blank" bullets?

You see the inconsistency in their. They cant even lie properly.

God bless you plenty
My heart leap for joy anytime I see intelligent folks detecting inconsistencies in arguments.

Nice one

Facts mixed with the usual just-so-stories
"It was a skilled hunter..." How would you know that?
"Buriolestes was hunted itself - by 'killing machine' Gnathovorax." Has the remains of this little been found in Gnathovorax?
"Soft organs, such as the brain, don't survive fossilisation." No wonder Dr. Mary Schweitzger was almost crucified when she discovered soft tissues in a T-rex fossil.
"In the view of most experts, birds are 'living dinosaurs'. Their key skeletal features - as well as nesting and brooding behaviours - actually arose first in some dinosaurs." But we are tired of this 'creed'. Lol. There's nothing to support this long held claim.

Anyway, Kudos to the Nobel Lauretes on physiology for this year whose work was on the Hepatitis B virus. One huge step to making life better

alfredilly:
This scientist approach of altering the speed and consequently the orbit of Asteriod might the factor that will eventually put us in trouble. The Earth has been mysteriously preserved from myriad of solar storm for ages. There are several activities of heavenly bodies that are likely to pose danger to the earth existence but we have been shielded from them in a way that baffles scientist. This seem to be due to the strategic position of the earth. Altering the natural path of the heavenly bodies could be the undoing that may become costly

You are right about the earth being shielded in many ways. Many years ago, it was observed how the massive Jupiter served as on of the shield that the earth need, proving once again that the earth is a SPECIAL planet which is preserved till the end of days

I doubt that any one can alter the path (orbit) of any heavenly bodies as you said but the story of POSSIBLE collision is being repeated over an over (so as to give credence that the earth will be destroyed?) to continue the colonization of inhabitable planets such as mars and so on. This is where some branch of science seems to be politicized.

musicwriter:
The above are the only two concerns I'll respond because you actually let out the truth probably unknowingly.

The ''scholarship'' around Jesus was created by the Roman empire, therefore, it already exclude other literature and histories not authorized by Rome. What you call ''scholarship'' is what you've been allowed to see, it includes the argument to support it. So its useless talking to you. But note that so many information has been kept away from you.

Therefore, even as non-Roman source abounds but you indeed cannot use a non-Roman source within what you call ''scholarship'' as doing so would mean heresy as I said previously. But here's is what you need to understand: its not that the non-Roman sources are not valid but its because its not deemed ''scholarly'' within your church scholarship. In other words, as I've maintained and as you even appear to eventually acknowledge; Jesus is Roman, Christianity is Roman. And this's why I tell every christian that they're all still Roman Catholics no matter their church denomination.

I as an African I would no longer waste my time talking to someone bound by Roman scholarship and religion. Its like willingly choosing to be in prison. And for me, this underscores the fact that language, education, religion are the three natural brick walls to insulate a culture from foreign intrusion. Once intruded and language, education, religion replaced, the victims would go on enslaving themselves without realizing what they're doing.

I am out.

The above are the only two concerns I'll respond because you actually let out the truth probably unknowingly.
Of course, you will always run from answering any challenge to prove your claim. You gave me a criteria that you yourself cannot even meet. How is that scholarly. And you seem to get my context of being unscholarly wrong. It is not about what Rome says, it is the fact that you are being inconsistent and make unprovable claims as I have shown several times in our discussion

The ''scholarship'' around Jesus was created by the Roman empire, therefore, it already exclude other literature and histories not authorized by Rome.
This is another reason I said you are being unscholarly. You may not know that you are dealing with someone who consumes tons of material regarding apologetic. So, I know when you make a false claim which is why I usually challenge you to prove your claims. So we beg you to show us how this your statement is true. (I know you won’t show us, this is synonymous to lying)

Like I said, please prove this your claim again. I know you cannot prove it successfully – I don’t know why Nicene is coming to my mind. Lol

What you call ''scholarship'' is what you've been allowed to see, it includes the argument to support it. So its useless talking to you.
Again, committing fallacy of question begging epithet. What do I call scholarship? How do you know what I have been allowed to see? Answer these questions so that we know what you are talking about. ( i trust that you won't)

So its useless talking to you. But note that so many information has been kept away from you.
The list continues. How do you know what have been kept away from me? From our discussion, do you think I sound like someone who is ill informed. I’m believe that most who would read our discussion (objectively) will notice the difference between us as to who seem ill informed, evading challenges to prove his claim, being inconsistent, committing fallacies and so on

Therefore, even as non-Roman source abounds but you indeed cannot use a non-Roman source within what you call ''scholarship'' as doing so would mean heresy as I said previously. But here's is what you need to understand: its not that the non-Roman sources are not valid but its because its not deemed ''scholarly'' within your church scholarship.
This is another example of what I have been talking about. I would start by you giving me non-Roman source about Jesus which should beat the New testament in their strength, which are:
1. Source should be able to boast of being eyewitness or somehow related to eyewitnesses
2. Time of writing should not be more than 40 years from when the event happened
3. Source should have so many manuscripts to ensure that such works were seen by many and no one doubted the report of the work
4. Source should be corroborated with either archaeology or other writings which are not too far from it
5. Source should be able to get other historical events right so as to agree that what it says about Christ is also true.
I challenge you on this. This is a very fair challenge because the New testament obviously pass the above with flying colors. If it didn’t, I’m likely not going to remain a Christ follower by now. I have challenged everything I can but truth will always prevail.
So when you provide other sources (Roman or not) that beat the strengths of the new testament above, then we can restart our discussion. But I know and is certain that you won’t address the challenge.

And you should note that I am not saying that the New Testament is a Roman source. They were written largely by Jews just as Jesus was a Jew. You are the one who seem to be implying that it is a Roman source which you are yet to prove. So just meet the fair criteria above by bringing a better source than those presented in the New Testament

In other words, as I've maintained and as you even appear to eventually acknowledge; Jesus is Roman, Christianity is Roman.
I never acknowledge that Jesus was Roman nor is Christianity Roman. And you maintaining such position is due to your inconsistencies. How can Jesus be Roman after you claimed that Rome never knew him? This is why I said you are being unscholarly in your approach.
The fact that you are inconsistent in your argument and appears just so desperate to not be wrong is the reason for twisting my responses. You claimed that Rome never knew Jesus and I only need to show that he was known at least by two Roman historians. How you now make a conclusion that Jesus was Roman is what baffles me. If you admit your error with the evidence, you don’t need to make this type of illogical conclusion (non sequitur fallacy)

And this's why I tell every christian that they're all still Roman Catholics no matter their church denomination.
Another claim built on a false premise. Begging the question fallacy. You should read on logic and fallacies, it should help you if you take it serious

I as an African I would no longer waste my time talking to someone bound by Roman scholarship and religion.
Another case of question begging epithet. You are yet to show and prove that I am bound by religion and ‘roman scholarship’. After all, you got my use of unscholarly method wrong, why won’t you be wrong on all that you built on such premise.

Its like willingly choosing to be in prison. And for me, this underscores the fact that language, education, religion are the three natural brick walls to insulate a culture from foreign intrusion. Once intruded and language, education, religion replaced, the victims would go on enslaving themselves without realizing what they're doing.
You my friend, are the one who have locked himself in prison as you can’t agree that you are wrong even in face of evidence. You can’t admit your mistakes and misinformation, but is looking for ways to attack straw man.

Let me tell you something about me that I normally do on NL. When I quote you and such that I am trying to fault your argument, it is because I have seen clearly that you made an obvious blunder which is factual. So it is usually futile in defending it. When someone does that to me and I know that it was due to my carelessness, I will rather admit my errors and learn not to be careless again. This is what happens even on science section where wannabe atheist try to act as ‘science guys’. Anyone I quote most times run away from answering challenges brought to them because I only quote when I can clearly see that they have blundered on a factual event. Like I said, it will be futile defending such blunder. They may only resort to ad hominem (fallacy of attacking someone instead of refuting his arguments) which I would commend you that you avoided. Our discussion was as civil as possible.

You claimed that you were attending a church before but I wouldn’t know what went wrong. The thing is that it is easy for someone to stop loving God (especially if they never have personal encounter before). This is because we want to please our flesh (and as the scripture implied, the flesh is makes us rebellious), which means that we wouldn’t want to be accountable to anyone concerning what we do. This is just a self denial as the epistle to the Romans chapter one explains. It said some verses that

because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of
the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore
God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 1: 21-25

LimeLyte:
very poor journalism.. You see them spreading fake news.. I quickly went to check the governor of niger state. His name is Sabi Bello which is different from the name listed on vanguard and google.. I just don't understand.. Why are they trying to destroy Nigeria by all means.

Funny
He was kidnapped in a state in Niger republic (not Niger state) and the Governor of the state was mentioning who must have helped them with the intel.
The bandits crossed over to Northern Nigeria and the rescue operation happened on Nigerian soil.

Like someone said, their CIA only need to work with locals of both countries to gather intel without anyone knowing that the badass guys are coming for rescue op.

These are top secret ops that must not be jeopardized. MOSSAD comes to mind