₦airaland Forum

We sell at 190 per litre mention me if intrested

alexis:
No, what I am saying is you need the manual, you need to know the vendor and core details of the phone. The phone can't tell you anything about itself. The vendor can. For example: the vendor can tell you when it was made; can tell you if a new firmware was upgraded and what features it support; can tell you if it has APIs and how you know every single working and detail of the phone.

When I bought my phone, a manual came with it, have been using this phone for years now and I haven't read the manual. The vendor tell you about upgrades, gives support e.t.c . But are you saying if you see a phone on the ground you won't be able to make sense of the phone unless you have spoken to the phone's vendor or read it manual?

alexis:
My contention is on biological change in DNA of an organism from one kind to another - I think it's not true and there have been no instances to say otherwise. Richard Dawkins said evolution is the explanation for the existence and the variation for all of life - THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE. I am not the only one that share such views

If you say richard dawkins was wrong, what then is the is the cause of the existence of the variation of all life

alexis:
The existence of life is not explained by biological evolution. Nor does it explain the existense of the mutating replicator on which it depends. The language of life, the genetic code of life has scarely changed at all. So the question is raised - how did it develop; how did it evolve from a simple organism as you claim to a complex one. You have admitted that science has no answer to the origin of life - not a problem.
[\quote]
Life evolve from a simple organism to a complex one through the variation in the reproduction of organisms over a period of billions of years which essentially is evolution

[quote author=alexis post=27315176]Now, let's get down to the simple origin of life - the cell. The cell is an information processor, what we have in the biological mirco-molecules is something that Physics and Chemistry don't know and don't claim to know in the sense that, you have got a signalling system, you have got a code, you have got a translator of the code. Now, in every other area where we see anything like this - the inference up to intelligent design is INSTANT and IMMEDIATE.

It seems to be without going further into it that if you look at the cell as an information processor machine, it then can be simulated by a turing machine which is a kind of an abstract computer and if you know anything about computers, you know this - JUNK IN - JUNK OUT. This is born out of the sophistication of what the cell is and what it does. Now, Chemistry and Physics do not have the capacity to produce these things. You can't produce it by evolution because evolution can't get going until you have a mutating replicator.



Let me take the case of humans and the Chimps to give you some details. Evolutionists believe that the similarity in the DNA sequence of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans is proof that they all share a common ancestor, you sited 96% similarity - I won't debate that as there is some truth in it.

The use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn't sound like much until you realize that it represents about 35 million differences! But that is only the beginning. There are 40–45 million bases present in humans that are missing from chimps and about the same number present in chimps that are absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added to or lost from the original sequence.

This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million total separate mutation events that would separate the two species in the evolutionary view. To put this number into perspective, a typical 8½ x 11-inch page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such pages full of text to equal 40 million letters! So the difference between humans and chimpanzees includes about 35 million DNA bases that are different, about 45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp, and about 45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human. Go look up Haldane’s dilemma

There are many other differences between chimpanzee and human genomes that are not quantifiable as percentages:

At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called telomeres. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23,000 base pairs of DNA at their telomeres. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10,000 long

There are many others we can discuss. My point is simple - The similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is really in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario. Emphasis on percent DNA similarity misses the point because it ignores both the magnitude of the actual differences as well as the significance of the role that single amino acid changes can play.

Read this link

www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/haldanes-nondil.html

alexis:
I am not arguing against mutations - it's a form of adaption and I agree on this. So, there is no controversy here.

That isn't mutation, its pure evolution... At this point am not sure you know what evolution means

alexis:
Listen, you haven't shown any proof. All I asked was evidence pointing that we came from a fish. Evidence would be empirical data i.e. each changes showing the lineage from a fish to a human. You can't generalize and say we came from fishes because we share 98% gene with a monkey. But there are millions of things that make us different. It's like saying the fish has blood, humans have blood so we are of the same KIND - that is so unscientific

You say an evidence is empirical if each changes shows our lineage from a fish to am human yet the site I gave you said; we share
"96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in
common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with
mice, and so on"
And yet you say the site gives no empirical data; it either you are an hypocrite or you don't know what empirical means.

alexis:
I am not debating that and I agree with you on that. The issue is the evolution you are talking about produces a different KIND of animal. A German Shepard dog can mate with an Alaskan Husky and produce another specie of DOG but it's still a DOG - however, the dog doesn't change into another animal - it's still a DOG. That is not the claim evolution is making; evolution is saying that every living organism came from a simple life form and it doesn't provide any empirical evidence that can be tested, repeated or observed.

. Did you check the link I gave you at all?

alexis:
You can't explain life if you can't explain it's origin. It's like you trying to run for a US president and don't want to produce your birth certificate to prove you were born in America. Also, read the statement posted from the same website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml

Your illustration is off point... And this is even like saying you can explain how a phone works unless you know its origin

alexis:
So, on one hand evolution claims it doesn't investigate or give empirical data on how life originated but it claims how it knows how life diversified. No matter how hard you twist it; the question is simple - how did we get where we are today? Evolution claims that all species has a common denominator. The question some of us keep asking is how can you trace all living things to the single life organism with evidence.

"Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately
96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in
common with cats ( source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with
mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved
from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common
ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our
genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged"

Source: www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

alexis:
That is why I have asked you, can you tell me one scientific law that is false. Also, read the definition you posted; it said : RESULTS OF REPEATED OBSERVATION. I can repeat and observe the law of gravity; I can repeat and observe the law of bio-genesis; I can repeat and obeserve the laws of thermo-dynamics. No one can repeat or observe any empirical evidence of evolution.

"Bacteria colonies can only
build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is
important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny
few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.
This is because of the random nature of mutations."

Source: same with the one above

alexis:
I have asked you to provide the proof; can you please provide verifying proof that I can repeat and observe?

Check my last post

alexis:
Read your definition you posted above and confirm if evolution can provide empirical evidence of life or even how life branched out. Use any case example for us to investigate

Check the link I gave you above

alexis:
Bros, I believe you have a brain and can deduce objectively. Can you explain how humans came from say a fish.

You said adaptation, I showed you how it is evolution, see what you are asking again.

alexis:
Really, can you site an example that we can observe and repeat?

If you take two different species of the same animal and you allow them mate they would produce another different specie of animal... Evolution has officially taken place in this situation.

alexis:
I think you are being dishonest here - evolution tells us life started billions of years ago and it uses fossils as evidence. So, to claim otherwise is ignorance or dishonesty. Please refer to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

You got what the site is trying to wrong, check what the same site thinks on evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml

alexis:
If it's proof; why hasn't science made evolution a scientific law? The instances you gave didn't have any links to them for us to review them.

You sir don't know what a scientific law means, check this out I copied it om wiki

"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they
do not posit a mechanism or explanation of
phenomena: they are merely distillations of the
results of repeated observation. As such, a law is
limited in applicability to circumstances
resembling those already observed, and may be
found false when extrapolated"

alexis:
That is exactly what faith is - believing in something that hasn't been proven and that is what you are doing.

If you are hell bent on saying what I have is faith, when I have tried showing you I believe based on proof, no p then.

alexis:
Then why isn't it a scientific law? If evolution is 100% accurate and it claims can be proven; why is it just a theory? Why can't scientist say evolution is on the same level with say the law of gravity?

You still don't know what a scientific law is.

alexis:
Adaptation not evolution. Malaria didn't become a virus; it's still malaria but has adapted to chloroquine. Just the same way if I go and live in ice-land, I don't grow fur and become a bear to protect against the cold, I adapt by wearing warmer cloths and I get used to the weather

I will post a line from the link you gave me

"Evolution encompasses a wide
range of phenomena: from the
emergence of major lineages,
to mass extinctions, to the
evolution of antibiotic resistant
bacteria in hospitals today."

alexis:
Yet no one has experimented on evolution that we can review or test by

evolution is part of our daily life, you just don't see it

aaronson:
Then socrates is wiser than him because Socrates was the wisest philosopher that ever lived.

socrates himself would have refuted your statement if he were here

Jesus I think is a philosopher

Smallville10:
1.    If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered, so how do we answer the following questions: Why is there something rather than nothing?  This question was asked by Aristotle and Leibniz alike – albeit with differing answers.  But it is an historic concern.  Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life?  If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found?  Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end?  How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier?  If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong?  If you are content within atheism, what circumstances would serve to make you open to other answers?

because one call himself or herself an atheist/agnostic doesn't mean he/she has all the answers, the fact is we are all just as confused as you are

malvisguy212:
you are not a christian,not once in your life,never,you just attend church to sleep,you hate to here someone condamming you of the thing you love to do most which is evil.you want to be free,
"if i do wrong,i dont want to feel gulty,i hate to here someone condamming what i love to do"

either you like it or not,spend all your time trying to debunk the existence of God,one thing for sure THERE'S GOD AND AND I HAVE HAD AN ENCOUNTER WITH HIM,YOU MUST FACE JUGDMENT.

so its evil to reason or it evil to be free... Seriously? F*uck you

nobilis:
It is amazing how religious people who claim to have found answers to life's big questions just repose the answers to those questions in a Deity and then they mystify that Deity and tell themselves that trying to understand that Deity is useless as he is a mysterious personality who shouldn't be understood but just believed.

OP, you're trying to understand life's big questions. Now before I answer you, let me ask you some big questions about God. When you answer them, I can then answer your questions.

1. How did God come to be? How did he come about? Did He come from nothingness or did he "evolve/mutate"(for lack of a better word) from something? If you say he evolved from something else, it means he isn't the Beginning like the bible said. If you say he came from nothingness, how could that have been possible since nothingness means absence of anything. It will just be like saying that light came from darkness. But we all know that it is wrong to think that way. Light cannot come from darkness. But darkness can be derived from light in the sense that darkness comes when light is removed. (White light can be broken into different colours by a glass prism. But unifying all those colours doesn't give white light again, it rather gives blackness/darkness). But light doesn't come when darkness is removed.

2. You were asking about understanding good and evil. If God is essentially good and everything that he created is good (because since he is essentially good, there will be no room for evil in him), where then did evil come from? There are two options. It's either evil came from God himself or it came from a source outside God. But since you have already said that God created the universe (universe here means all of God's creation) and watches over it, it means that the universe is at one with God. There is no way the universe can exist outside God since God himself is the life of the universe. Christians will have us believe that all of existence depends on God. Meaning that outside God, nothing exists. Since we've established that fact, it means that if u say God is not the source of evil, it also means that evil could not have arisen from any part of the universe because the universe is in God. So if you say evil didn't come from God, it means it came from nothingness and how could that have been since nothingness is the absence of any existence.

I think I will go with the flying spaghetti monster on this issue

Dan1cole:
Well, may God have mercy on you, and forgive you for saying that! And believe me when I say if you keep worshipping your imaginary pink unicorn thing, you'll die young and untimely in a harsh way! Am not wishing you death in any way, but am just advising you to have a change of heart. God loves you more than you can ever imagine!
Goto church, get born again and stick to God. Peace Out!

you talk about death like its a big deal, who won't die... I bet it would please you to see him die

DarkFive:
GBAM!3 GBOOSA for the pipo wey sabi!

U dnt need Google for this one. It's common sense, @Op should seek clarity about the BlackBerry plans Terms and conditions before brandishing coy's corporate image on the internet

didn't you read the part where I said I checked their website

BodyKiss:
The presence of stone means its existence. Guess that'll help you figure the difference.

that didn't help

timawoku:
nope dude! Difference is am living, and you are existing!(If dats ur definition of reetard,fine by me)

what is the diff btw living and existing

Dan1cole:
So, yu believe that there will be an endtime. Which means you believe the Bible. Stop being childish and go get saved in Christ.

oh yeah the pink invisible unicorn will come and eat every infidel including you christians... Am reall sorry for you

Ajibam:
He didn't evolve like you and your descendants that evolved from monkeys

he probably evolved from PIGS

timawoku:
I puzzle when I read about people who call themselves atheist, tell stories about how there is no God and how religion is but a gimmick to hypnotize the masses into being controlled by a few, now here are the reasons why you can't be an atheist:

*hope: who gave you the right to hope? Hope is supposed to be meant for people who believes in a supernatural turn of events, if you hope, your sub consciousness believes in a superior effect (check le chateliers principle, in this case, you have denied yourself of belief of an external effect).
*burials: you should not attend burial ceremonies, afterall, the dead has gone into oblivion and you should move on immediately, no need to celebrate a dead person.
*last respect: why should you pay respect to someone that has gone into oblivion?
*goodluck: you should not believe in any luck as you believe in a system generated by incidences.
*ghost: if you believe in ghosts, you are wrong
*if you live and/ work in some countries like USA, you are wrong (in God they trust,remember?) You should go to an isolated village or forest and be with mother nature (then again, you shouldn't even believe in nature)
*uncertainty: this is an unknown risk, you should be sure of anything now that you have termed yourself a 'mini' god
*happiness: you should not be entitled to this also, largely because happiness is a state of mind beyond any scientific reasoning and fact, you should exist like an amoeba, devoid of emotion.
*love: what reasons do you have to love? It is not scientific and as you don't believe in metaphysical, you should not love, love is unseeable
*socialize: why should you socialize? This creates a feeling of 'belonging' which is not reasonable as socializing makes you join groups which you somewhat understand and have reassurances about (with time) thereby believing in them, then again, who are you to believe in anyone? You are an atheist remember?

I will call your argument; the argument from senselessness

Dan1cole:
Hey hey hey! Stop it there... I dont need you rubbish and satanic blessings ok! Keep them to yourself. I see you are mentally disturbed and disoriented, worshiping an invisible pink unicorn :/ really?? that's totally rubbish, nonsense and stupid.
Even the name of your invisible wareva sounds nonsense, infact its nonsense and rubbish. Stop being a fool and go get born again.

give you life to the invisible pink unicorn today bros... Am telling you ooo cos in the end time you will se wen

Dan1cole:
What invisible pink wareva...?? Are you ok?

bless you buvda... The invisible pink unicorn is great

Another senseless theist has spoken

asalimpo:
a "myth" tht billions find relevant today. A "myth" tht is changing lives and circumstances in present time. So much for a "myth".
Foolishness,is wasting resources only to find out the waste was avoidable cuz sombody else word on the was ignored.

Columbus set sail around the world, only to discover tht the bible was righr afterall. The earth is round not flat as popular believed then.

SETI project has been running for years , wasting taxpayers money in the end they'll either get decieved or find out the truth the hard way.

Ufo's are phenomenan the scientifc world has been suched into but it has been observed tht the alien creatures in d ufo are antagonostic to d name of Jesus!

While the bible said the earth was circular, did it interfere with the quest of explorers to investigate this?
How exactly, does free will to explore,investigate a matter get
shackled by religion?
Atheists on d other hand are getting aggressively militant and intolerant pushg their agenda like islamist on those who dont believe as the do.

pass me the ganja make man eye high

#chargingmedick

davien:
hmmmm....i for one would love to know if there really is or was a "god"...

this issues are spiritual... Just learn from my sermon... May the invisible pink unicorn bless you

What's with people replicating admission threads... There is already on EKSU admission thread for this year... Let this year run out b4 you create anoda one na

StealthyMe:
Bros....life isnt fair
If we complain and nothing is done about it...thats that.
Cos even if they're penalised,they can settle some ogas at the top and move on..
Best you can do is drop their sim

that's just what am gonna do bro, thanks anyways sha

JEITO:
stop being too uptight and rigid and open yourself to new truths.

Pls quote the place where God cursed man for me.

oh jeito this is a new truth, I was once a christian, you are the rigid person here(show in your inability to leave the comfort of your religion)

JEITO:
The gospel according to pesty I believe

Well, God was training man to be attentive to detail, law and order. But man failed the test of obedience.

Who told you God wanted them to be daft? Assumption I guess! God's intention was to gradually introduce man to knowledge. Just like a parent would bring up his child one step at a time. Remember man was still new in the garden and needed to learn the ropes one step at a time but he decided to leap before he was ready for it.

What God did was damage control, talk of salvaging man before he self distruct. God never cursed man; perhaps you should read that place again, rather he caused the ground so that man would work hard and earn what he deserves(that is another way to learn knowledge)

God is not against knowledge(infact he is the source of everything including knowledge) but like I said earlier, he wanted to introduce man to it gradually as any parent would do(talk of controlled knowledge). And that is the same thing science does: it controls your knowledge; but in science, you only know as much as the materials available to you.

God is against knowledge that was why he cursed man

JEITO:
have you found any?

No

StealthyMe:
Sorry bro...there was a day i had about #300 plus on my line
Na so i sleep..on waking i found my credit less than a hundred

I called once and was told it'll be rectified...Nothing happen ooo
Just bear am ehnn..

why should we keep on bearing injustice from this people na

JEITO:
who says theists don't read about science?
Why do atheists read the Bible? Is it to find the truth in the scriptures or to find evidence to support their disbelieve?

well I tried to find truth...