₦airaland Forum

Uche2nna:
I am relaxed, trust me.
I just wanted to know if there is something Bawo knows that I dont.

This is so tempting, I can hardly miss the party. Will come back and see how the dance has progressed. Laterz. . .  and enjoy all.

Uche2nna:
Nope .

But I dont see how this answers my question unless if U are telling me that Principled Science = Scientific methods

Aint principles and methods different in most context?

Relax now, haba! You and 'us' know they are not the same, although many people make the mistake of making them same.

@bawolomo,

Let me underscore this simple issue for you:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=274447.msg3903129#msg3903129 date=1242929969]Okay, this confirms the point that you are actually missing it all. Go back and calmly read through - there have been concerns that indeed irregularities occur - whether out of pressure, or the politics that keep researchers mute.[/quote]That essentially has been the main concern hiterto - and here are a few quotes from other contributors to the same point:

1. mine: [quote author=pilgrim.1]However, it seems we're all concerned about one thing: the problem of a lack of 'scientific integrity' (if there's anything like that)[/quote]2. Uche2nna's reply:

Uche2nna: Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that standards are being compromised. I might be wrong but there are some articles that U read and U begin to wonder how in the hell did this get published
. .
That really makes one wonder about scientific integrity  

3. davidylan observes:

davidylan: Uche are you surprised? What about papers where you repeat the EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT and get totally different results? Papers where figures are glaringly patched together especially western blots?
That is 21st century "science" for you. I think the pressures of grants and publications has pushed integrity aside.

4. m_nwankwo agrees:

Even in top class journals like Science and Nature, look at the number of retractions. I have had my manuscripts rejected by these top journals simply because my finding will pose a serious scientific problem to multibillion vaccine industry. I  also have reviewed manuscripts and recommended them for publication based on scientific merit and yet the editor rejects the recommendation because the paper dig holes in what he has established over 30 years of research. So therir is politics, bias etc in peer review but in the end these papers published for reasons other than scientific merit will soon or later get discredited.

5. Uche2nna again:

Uche2nna: I think that both sides of the coin (which is rejecting a new idea and publishing false claims) are equally dangerous. Either one can set off and maintain the other. Keep on publishing false claims and future scientists will keep on citing those false claims and basing future experiments on those claims. In the end, we would just be building a house on a pack of cards.

I could quote a few more - but that essentially is the main gist here, not beliefs of anyone. You didn't pay attention close enough to have drawn the wrong inference. But it's your call anyways.

bawomolo:
everyone has a bias. You and I included.

Which is not the point being discussed here, no? Or, should I take that as a detour for your missing the point?

bawomolo:
Those wide berths are usually disproved after. An example is the South Korean fraud who claimed to have cloned dogs. There is a difference between hype (who doesn't hype their ideas like donald trump) and scientific integrity.

Nope, that one we know already. You need to go back and re-read what the main gist hitherto has been. You are still far from grasping the issue here.

bawomolo:
No i'm not missing the point. i don't see any irregularities.

Okay, this confirms the point that you are actually missing it all. Go back and calmly read through - there have been concerns that indeed irregularities occur - whether out of pressure, or the politics that keep researchers mute.

bawomolo:
Principled science only arises when these "irregularities" are debated and then the scientific community agrees on what is right.

Should I take that as your admission that indeed irregularities do occur? Compare that with your earlier statement that you don't see any irregularities.

bawomolo:
The quantum theory guys were considered idiots about 50 years ago. We all study quantum mechanics in physics classes today.

And. . .? Your point exactly is what - how does that tessellate with what has been discussed so far?

bawomolo:
If you think you are right, then go ahead regardless of how irregular you may sound. keep in mind, What's principled science today may not be principled science tomorrow.

This again is skewed. Go re-read what is being discussed.

bawomolo:
I'm done

Aye.

bawomolo:
FALSE, there is a thing called standard deviation.  You can't fool anyone with the "best result" if the deviation from the other results are too high.  You have to explain why their is a huge difference with the other.  whether it be calibration issues or an outside phenomena.

Inspite of the standard deviation, the same point is being made: not everything that is published in peer-review or other science journals can pass as 'science' - and these things happen so many times.

bawomolo:
Editors can easily point such anomaly.  It's funny how people bash scientific journals when findings don't go their way.

On the contrary, people are concerned about these wide berths that deviate from scientific integrity. The people doing the bashing actually include celebrated names within the scientific community that feel new research will send them packing.

bawomolo:
The proponents of Quantum Theory weren't punks.

heck even the guy who proposed string theory was initially rejected but his perseverance have paid results.

No one is stopping scientists against evolution from coming out.  They would eventually be accepted if they are right.

You're terribly missing the point. No one has described scientists as punks or whatever. The concern rather is that there are so many irregularities within the scientific community today that are at variance with principled science.

bawomolo:
And what should be considered science. the finding that confirm your beliefs or the one that challenges it?

i can sniff bias from the posts here.

The bias is coming from you, not from mine or others who have been making these observations. No one has argued beliefs here hietherto - if you paid attention.

Uche2nna:
That has been a huge talking point in the field right now but no-one wants to take out the time and money to actually examine what the hell is going on in mice before moving foward. Everybody is just in a haste to move foward

Methinks it's rather because no one wants to be made a scapegoat by being ostracised and rejected in the scientific community for 'daring' to be brave.

dgreatrock:
1st,
i think this should be in the religion thread.

2ndly
i dont think it is a must to pray closing your eyes. your situation should determine your prayer attitude.

3rdly
it is better for me to close my eyes when praying because it helps me concentrate on the prayer thus, removing distractions

That's all. Well done.


@angelking,

You don't have to feel guilty, although it's great you asked to bear out your mind. Here are a few pointers that may be of help - read with discernment and see that the heart is more important than whether we close our eyes or not:

[list][li]John 17:1 - These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: [/li]
.
.

[li]Luke 18:13 - And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner[/li][/list]

Hope this helps somewhat?

Blessings.

@Uche2nna,

Lol, read my lips: 'the first commandment in science: thou shalt not hype to compromise the integrity of science'. Source? Em. . . em. . . em.  

You get my quip? Good. Now that I have your attention, let's review what you published:  

Uche2nna:
Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that standards are being compromised.

What meanest thou by you're beginning to think. . .? Of course, we all know this has been happening for eons!

Uche2nna:
I might be wrong but there are some articles that U read and U begin to wonder how in the hell did this get published If as a student, I can pick out some huge issues with some articles, then there is no way the reviewers wouldnt pick up on that  

You're not wrong, and our colleagues (pardon the unscientific pun) are of the same observation:

davidylan:
Uche are you surprised? What about papers where you repeat the EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT and get totally different results? Papers where figures are glaringly patched together especially western blots?

That is 21st century "science" for you. I think the pressures of grants and publications has pushed integrity aside.

So, there you are!

On the other hand, though, this our 'dilly-dally' must not be stretched too far as to ignore that the practice of science with integrity still holds in many quarters. However, we need to always bear in mind that not everything that survives escapes rigorous scrutiny and appears in so-called 'peer-review journals/publications' can stand as 'science'. As they say: let the buyer beware.

KunleOshob:
[quote author=initiate link=topic=242199.msg3900556#msg3900556 date=1242905399]Scripture records several ceremonial obligations, such as the law of animal sacrifices, which are no longer binding upon the New Testament church (Heb. 9:8–10). These were types that were fulfilled by Christ at his first advent. However, tithing was instituted for a specific purpose and not as a type. The Apostle Paul presented no argument against tithes as he did repeatedly against the ceremonial issues of the law (ex. meats, holy days, new moon feasts, Sabbath days, circumcision, etc.). Jesus himself even commended people for tithing (Matt. 23:23). There are many scriptures in the New Testament showing where the ceremonial law of God was fulfilled and no longer applicable to the church, but there is no scripture stating that tithing in no longer necessary.

T

The above quoted is a very poor lie as there is scriptural evidence that Apostle Paul condenmed tithing and described it as a weak and useless commandemnt in hebrews 7

Hebrews 7:5-19:[/quote]The apostle did not condemn tithes in Hebrews 7. We've dealt with that chapter in another thread to show that it was not tithes that the apostle described in Hebrews 7:18 as 'weak and useless'.

The one question that is left unanswered is WHAT exactly does Scripture describe as "weak and useless"? The reason why anti-tithers have never had an honest answer to that question is because they have substituted 'tithes' for the Law that Paul discussed in that chapter; and when they got stuck, it probably occured to them that they've argued completely off-course in the ambit of that chapter.

How many honest theologians think that Hebrews 7:18 ('a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof') was referring to "tithes"? Not one that we know of. The remarkable thing is that even honest anti-tithers who do a bit of theology have never described that verse as describing 'tithes' to be weak and useless. Why? Simple: they will not find any other verse in the entire Bible that describes tithes as such. I also quoted just a few honest Bible scholars who have commented on Hebrews 7:18 - none of them regard that verse as pointing to 'tithes':

[list]

[1] Verse eighteen specifically states that “there is a setting aside of
a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness.”

The former commandment is a reference to the Mosaic Law^[54]

The reference to weakness refers to the inability of the Law of Moses
to empower the saint to fulfill the requirement.
~~ Essential Christianity, on Hebrews 7:11-22.

[/list]

[list]

[2] "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before".
The reference here is to the entire system of the Mosaic institutions.
That system is here spoken of as "the commandment going before".

. . . The commandment going before was that which regulated the
worship of God and obedience to Him prior to the Christian dispensation;
but this had now been cancelled and a new law of worship given.
~~ A. W. Pink, Commentary on Hebrews 7:17-19

[/list]

[list]

[3] Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament,
Hebrews 7 >>
|
"Verse 18
For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of
its weakness and unprofitableness.

This turns attention to the very nature of the Levitical system
of which that priesthood was the support and center. It was not of caprice that God
annulled the old covenant, for it deserved to be annulled because of its weakness
and unprofitableness. God had never considered the Levitical system to be complete,
final or efficacious in itself; but "it was added because of transgression, until the seed
should come to whom the promise hath been made" Gal. 3:19). The law expired, therefore,
by limitation, when Jesus was revealed as that "seed" so long anticipated. The weakness
and unprofitableness of that foregoing commandment refers to
the whole system of Moses;
and Macknight explained the weakness of it thus, . . . ."

[/list]

[list]

[4] John MacArthur (himself an anti-tither),
'Jesus the Superior Priest, Hebrews 7:11-19' >>
|
"For there is verily an annulling of the commandment going before for the weakness
and unprofitableness of it." God set aside the old standard. Now watch.
Now put a parenthesis at the beginning of verse 19. "(For the law made nothing perfect),
but the bringing in of a better hope by which we draw near unto God." Or you'd use and.
Lemme read it this way. "For there is verily an annulling of the commandment going before
for the weakness and unprofitableness of it. (For the law made nothing perfect), and
the bringing in of a better hope, cross out did, by which we draw near unto God." You see?
God says, "I am setting aside the old one, and I'm bringing in a new one; and in
the new covenant, you have what? Access to God.

Now, the word disannulling, afaytises, has to do with the doing away of something that
is established. It is used, for example of annulling a treaty, of annulling a promise, a law, a
regulation, of erasing a man's name from something. It has to do with removing what is
established. The whole paraphernalia of the sacrificial system, the whole
ceremonial system is wiped out. It is annulled. It is done away with. God wipes it
out; and He wiped it out for good in 70 AD when He destroyed the temple. The old system
could reveal sin. It could cover sin. It could give a relative measure of drawing near to God,
but not full perfection. It brought nothing to conclusion. The priesthood of Jesus Christ made
all that Israel looked forward to a reality. Access to God.

[/list]

So many other Bible scholars know that Hebrews 7:18 was referring to the Levitical law and its system, and not an argument against tithes - even anti-tithers know this for a fact, more so because they cannot find any verse in the Bible describing tithes to be weak and useless. It remains, therefore, for those using that verse to attack tithes to please show us from Scripture HOW exactly it is weak and useless - no excuses will do the magic for them; and if they cannot show this, it is because they are bending the verse to argue what it does not argue.

KunleOshob:
I would also like you to clap for your self as i have observed that you are quite adept at quoting the bible out of context. But let me ask you one simple question, how does the bible define tithes?? Please quote scripture to back your claim.

You can't be slyly putting down others if you've been doing the very same thing you condemn. You seem to be the only anti-tither we know who forces Hebrews 7:18 to say what it does not teach, even though many anti-tithers know better.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=274447.msg3902268#msg3902268 date=1242921706]Ida is not the missing link. The idea of a missing link is a misnomer. It is unfortunate that one of the authors is talking about it as a missing link, but they fact that he did not include his thoughts in the paper suggest that even him is convinced that the claim of missing link based on the evidence he has cannot pass the rigor of a peer review. Had he included what he is saying on television and newspapers, the article would have been rejected. I do not know what his motivation is but it is not good for science when investigators leave the test tubes and pipettes and take to microphones and television camera.[/quote]Good points.

However, we just cannot say at this point what exactly Ida is or is not - so, it may not be actually making a 'scientific' observation to state it in quite a conclusive tone as that "Ida is NOT the missing link". Since no conclusions have been drawn as yet as to what exactly Ida is, we may not need at present to be hasty to say what it is NOT. This, I think, is yet again one of the concerns borne out in debosky's replies (again I may be wrong).

1.

Uche2nna:
That to me is the impact of this "Ida" publication. Just purely for classification; you cant make more out of it than that. Unfortunately, the way and manner this article has been hyped  would make this finding remembered more for its failure to provide a missing link than for its description of a new taxonomic class; which is what the paper was all about in the first place.

Gbam!


2.

Uche2nna:
@ Debosky

I understand ur point,,,,, and honestly I really found that curious. U hardly see statements like that in research publications where in one sentence U tell us U think something is possible and then in the next line U tell us then that u are not advocating that    To me thats bad scientific writing.

Gbam again!  You actually have a gift in stating my persuasions aptly with a punch!

That said, some of us understand debosky's point - he certainly is not pushing his own ideas to the fore, nor is he extrapolating what the paper did not argue for. He's cautious and genial enough to call our attention to what the paper does state, leaving it open for other observers to draw their own inferences from there. At least, this is how I sense his point, though I may be wrong afterall.

However, it seems we're all concerned about one thing: the problem of a lack of 'scientific integrity' (if there's anything like that) that the paper evinces. Like you, Uche2nna, stated: 'thats bad scientific writing', and so it is.

KunleOshob:
I am tired of you trying to quote my above stated statement out of context, i have consistently told you that my problem is NOt with giving to the church[ call it tithes, offerings or whatever] my problem is with the deception that supposed men of God preach it as compulsary 10% of our income and the twisting of the word of God to support a fraud against his children, this i consider a very grievious sin and all those who have been preaching this evil seriously need to repent.

I'm not worried at all about what tires you, as it appears you've been inconsistent about this issue from the onset. If it is certainly "perfectly okay" for CHRISTIANS to TITHE (10% or ANY percentage of their income to the CHURCH), what then has been the quarrel you have about other people preaching that very same thing? Your problem is to make tithe-preachers into fraudsters and you have this idea that your own parlance is not as skewed as theirs - which is why I keep asking that same question. If you cannot point out what you see as "perfectly okay" from Scripture, just where did you get that idea from, and yet condemn that same thing in others who preach tithe in Churches? The same things you have been mentioning is what they have been mentioning - "income". . "tithes". . ."any percentage". . . "to the church". . . "out of their own desire", etc. So, just what is your cark if these fellows are preaching the same thing as you make "perfectly okay"? If it is a "grievious evil" on their part for saying the same things as you affirm, you also need to join them in the repentance that you recommend. Don't you think so?

KunleOshob:
I cannot be wrong as all my submissions are 100% based on undiluted scripture unlike tithe preachers who have to twist the bible and meaning of scriptural tithes to justify their greed.

Okay, I leave you to your pride. That's not a virtue, though.

KunleOshob:
So if you don't agree with me you are inadvently saying the bible is wrong and your greedy pastors are right.

I didn't say any such thing. Where you're wrong, you're dead wrong, regardless any pastor who preaches vice.

KunleOshob:
There is no half truth in what i posted i quoted Jesus whilst you quoted paul.

Excuse me, are you reading ANOTHER Bible? Or do you have TWO different Lords?  What do you understand by "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:14)? Is that a different 'Lord' from the Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels? I don't see how your excuse underscores anything here for you though.

KunleOshob:
There is no were in the gospels that Jesus preached on giving to the church.

Compare these scriptures:

         ~ the labourer is worthy of his hire [Luke 10:7] - the Lord Jesus

         ~ And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. [1 Tim. 5:18] - apostle Paul

In their application, does that pertain to the ministers in Church or poor people on the streets?

Oh, and if you want to know if actually the Lord "ordained" giving in Church, what does 2 Cor. 13:3 mean by Christ speaking in the apostle?

KunleOshob:
The only time he spoke about it was when commenting on the widows mite and peter asked him about payment of temple tax [matthew 17:24-27]

Oh, I see - you admit that He actually spoke about giving in church ("the only time he spoke about it"? Then just what is your protestation about, Kunle? Are you not confusing issues for yourself? It's either He did not speak about it; or He actually spoke about it - they are not the same things.

KunleOshob:
whilst paul was purpotedly quoting from old testament laws concerning the temple.

Ah, finally. . . you're coming home. So, Paul quoted from Old Testament Laws - for the CHRISTAIN?? I no fit laugh finish!!   How many times did I make that point so plain that even a child could not miss it?!? Now you of all people are now acknowledging the point that Christians actually resort to the OT LAW?? Hahahaha!! Well done, my brother! You go soon get another revelation, soon eh?

KunleOshob:
He could even have been quoting jesus and that is not a propblem as i have always maintained that it is okay for christians to support the church

Lol, look at the above of what you have "always maintained". . . and compare it to your assertion that Christ did NOT teach us to give in church. I'm not making any inference, just asking you to be clear, that's all.

KunleOshob:
but church leaders should also endeavour to follow pauls example in 2 thessalonians 3:6-10, in this way there would be more money for the church to spend on their main mandate which is to help and assist the poor and needy and the church would be actually impacting on the society.

There are MANY pastors who are already doing that same thing. So many, many of them.

KunleOshob:
UFOs exist, there is more than enough documented evidence spanning several years that prove this, the only controversy is who the actual occupants of the flying objects are, whether they are alien craft or secret military aircraft.

The material I've perused seem to lead to compelling evidence that you're right. Remember when you pointed me to some websites to check out? I've gone through them, and my search took me to many places. I haven't abandoned the 'orphic' thread, but m-e-n. . . so many things to carefully look through. Currently I'm on this page ('official' website of Alien Intrusion - if it doesn't open the first time, refresh the page and you'll get there). Haven't digested their articles yet. . .  but let's see as time goes on.



Edit:
NB - wanted to add these:

1. Ministry of Defence releases further UFO files (MoD website)

2. MoD releases secret files on UFOs (BBC website)

3. Files released on UFO sightings (from BBC News)

4. UFOs exist, says Japan official

KunleOshob:
The onus would then be on those who have twisted the real meaning of biblical tithes to show how any of the several scriptures i quoted is wrong or how my understanding of the scriptures is wrong.

This has been done several times.

KunleOshob:
[I also hope they would not give me that crap that i need the holy spirit to interprete the scriptures to me] as this is the usual line they use when they want to twist the scriptures.

Hmm, I hope you certainly don't mean what you said above. Advising that one needs the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture is not 'crap'.

KunleOshob:
Exactly we have to be very careful in drawing conclusions, as there is no direct biblical evidence to support the way tithes is preached and practised today we should just not conclude that since a pastor said it it must be right or it is the will of God.

That is why we have been waiting for you to show us from Scripture the same tithes you clearly declared to be "perfectly okay". You've always been focusing on what others are teaching: now we want you to show us what YOU are declaring to be "perfectly okay".

KunleOshob:
we should actually study the scriptures ourselves like the berean christians did to be sure we are not being deceived.

We hear. That's why your attention has been called several times to do the same.

KunleOshob:
As i have quoted completely from the bible[undiluted] i am quite certain i am not wrong. It is tithe preaching pastors that dilute the scriptures and to justify their collection of tithes and the onus is on them to show us from the scriptures clear directives to christians to tithe[i.e 10% of their income to the church as opposed to the biblical tithes which is 10% of the produce of the land to be consumed by the tither, his family, the less priviledge and the levites]

No, the onus is on you to show us from the Scriptures clear directives to Christians when you said it is "perfectly okay" for them to tithe, going so far as to say that such a Christian "is tithing or giving whatever percentage of his income to the church out of his own desire to contribute to the church". You cannot be opposing in other people the very same thing that you have acknowledged as "perfectly okay".

KunleOshob:
ps: If you suppose i am wrong, then you are inadvently saying the bible is wrong cos all i say is strictly from the bible.

Nope, the Bible would not be wrong, but you will be. You cannot bend the veracity of Scripture to your own idea, so that when you are pointed out as being wrong, you then try to fault the Bible.

KunleOshob:
On the issue of sowing in the Kingdom, how does Jesus teach us to give to God? Sowing in the kingdom from the perspective of christ was giving to the poor and the needy and NOT giving to the church. If you really want to give to God, give to the needy around you and then you would be sowing in the kingdom this is what Jesus christ teaches.

Half truth is a very dangerous thing. Christ taught giving BOTH to the poor and to the Church. To say that Christ's teaching did not involve giving to the Church would mean you either are deliberately ignoring what Scripture teaches or are simply uninformed about what it says on this matter. Refresher: ~ 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, at least there you find an example of what the Lord taught as giving in the Church, something which He "ordained". Also, if giving in Church is not taught for Christians, then where is the funding for the wages/salaries of Godly elders to come from (1 Tim. 5:17-18)?

initiate:
mr kunle,

i have observed that you have done so much indepth study on this topic, but let us look at it from another angle.

supposing you are wrong you would have led so many people astray so please be careful

suppose you are right; even at that, there is eternal benefits in sowing into the kingdom, and the tithe would just be added to the eternal account of the tithers

This is why we need to be very careful in drawing conclusions. Of course, everyone would like to say that what they have asserted is "100% from the Bible. . . undiluted" blah-blah-blah. This is not the case in every instance, and some of those flawed assertions have been examined and retired because they cannot be defended.

huxley2:
Pardon me, I agree my comment was inflammatory.

I understand, although we should all endeavour to foster a healthy and enabling atmosphere for dialogue.

huxley2:
But the comment specifically refers to religions (by which I mean theistic and atheistic religions) - althought it is less effective with atheistic religion because atheistic religion does not promise the kind of existential consolations that the theistic religons do.

Oh, my dear, you're very wrong on this one. It may help us all to actually read up on the fundamental tenets of those atheistic religions and find that they offer their own 'existential consolations'. The only difference is HOW they make such offers - which is why they differ from theistic religions.

debosky:
They are not considering them as the same, but their earlier statement implies that this creature could be the evolutionary LINK BETWEEN the early tarsoids and adapoids AND later anthropoids and further evolutionary changes that could be linked to man.

Bottomline: "but we are not advocating this here".

The problem stems from the previous statement ('could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved'); however, the paper goes as far as to say that the previous statement was not being advocated, no matter what "suggestions" one may interpret from that.

huxley2:
Religion plays the role of a paliative to the fearful, gullible and ignorant and intellectually feeble in the same  way that alcohol does to the drunk.  Take their religion away, and they are lost.

There's no need to be pejorative. The gullible, ignorant and drunk abound among atheists - unless you've forgotten so soon that we've dialogued on the subject of atheists who write about "atheistic religions"  - did you forget that?



Edit:
NB, just some links to help some on the last note I made above about "atheistic religions":

* Are there Any Atheistic Religions? Can an Atheist Be Part of Any Religion?

*Some quote:

Finally, there are Atheistic religions (Greek: without god). These have no creator god as such (although there may be spirits and other exotic entities). Buddhism is an example (the Buddha is a human who has reached enlightenment), Jainism (with its Tirthankas, or teachers), Confucianism, Taoism (these last two are more philosophies than god-driven religions).

@huxley2,

huxley2:
People who discuss this sort of thing in scientific term DO NOT use phrases like "missing link". It is rather unfortunate that this phrase has entered into popular parlance, as it conveys little or no information about what it is attempting to say.

The correct terminology is "ancestral form" or "common ancestral form" or less precisely "transitional form".

Ida is thought to be a common ancestral form to the primates/apes. This may mean that present primates/apes are directly descended from Ida (less likely) or that present primates/apes are descended froma close cousin of Ida (more likel).

Thank you, huxley2. I was concerned about the terminologies and implications being argued here. For all that, whatever the terms used, it is obvious that the "suggestions" do not lead to the inference that a ida IS the "ancestral form" (or more commonly, "missing link" being touted. This is why Dr. Hurum's PRO stunt should be of no conseqence to those who understand the language of science - even biological science.

@debosky,

debosky:
@ pilgrim

I make no such assertions. When someone comes up and says it is NOT, making inaccurate regarding what was published, then I would be interested in clearing that up.

The article said that could be the case, but is not the import of their paper - their task was to conduct a detailed examination and description of this specimen to aid further research. From their work, they make postulations and imply possible linkages. It is up to science to either prove or disprove those.

If someone comes and says based on my faith I do not believe this, I have no issues with that.

It's not someone's faith we're all about here. The simplicity of what is being pushed for is what is of interest here: and that, above all else, is people going about making very unscientific statements to confuse and bewitch. Let me highlight something and then come back to point to huxley's comments about this:

debosky:

Even their paper made no such suggestions as the fossil being linked to man. All these have come from the claims made by Hurum himself and those out to use this find to make money as a co-author on the paper implicitly implied.

Again this is inaccurate:

Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, [size=16pt]nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids[/size].

Man is believed to have evolved from anthropoid primates - the article says that this COULD represent a possible evolutionary path. Thus this is in itself a SUGGESTION based on evidence contained in the article.

You need to be clear when reading what is being "suggested" - the paper or even the section does not place the emphasis of the suggestion of ida being the missing link, and that is what is of concern here, and not what the suggestive adjectives might hint from one's interpretation. The inference (whatever may be drawn from the paper) should not stop short at the bold in your quote - one should go on to read the very next statement: "but we are not advocating this here". They do not advocate (or "imply that". .  or "argue in favour" that such is the case - ie, that ida may be the missing link. Going on further, one should be able to catch the meaning of the last statement:

    "nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids"

What does that say, debosky?

In all, there's just no need to make "suggestions" here and there to spin out of the ambit of what the paper argues for. This is the sensationalism that confuses the public.

realpastor:
i personally dont believe in tithe giving because its not biblical

How do you mean "not biblical"? Is tithing NOT in your own Bible? Perhaps you need to calm down and understand what you're saying before clicking on the 'reply' botton.

topeokunol:
if you stop,how would the pastors be feeding?

Pastors do not have to make it a rule to feed from tithes.

No wahala.

@debosky,

How body? I think the issue here is clear and straight to the point:

davidylan:
this is what the paper said - [size=13pt]"[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans], but we are not advocating this here."[/size]

and . . .

davidylan: The problem is NOT the paper, it is the hype that a mere fossil is getting. Is this fossil the "missing link" to man? NO!

Dear debosky, I hope you're not attempting to make a "personal" claim that ida IS the missing link?

uplawal:
@pilgrim1 i dont have to be a christian to speak Godly shogbo,hypocrite,

I hope you're alright? Are you not having some problems with yourself already? Do Muslims ask allah to show himself to them?

@davidylan,

davidylan:
Unfortunately i simply do not agree. God promised that He would send Christ (essentially Himself) as the Messiah . . . to deny Christ is to deny God period.

I get your point, and anticipated that was where you were going all along. We can bear with your concerns, but hey. . . look again at the OP's concerns:

        ~ does god exist?

        ~ I want to believe in god, . .

He has not made a case of denying Christ. His question is one that we are all familiar with: "does God exist?" That is not the same thing as denying Christ. Some who acknowledge Christ do not acknowledge the claims of His identity - such as His being the Son of God, or His deity. These other two claims are not the same thing as denying/doubting the existence of God - to which the OP says: "I want to believe in God".

However, from your previous reply:

davidylan:
while i understand your point . . . i'd like to REALISTICALLY examine John's issue as it pertains to us today. Would we be as forgiving of John's question today if he had posed it on a nairaland forum? The answer is a big NO!

Its easier to justify John today since all we have of him is a short story stuck somewhere in the gospels . . . John HEARD God's voice at Jordan, he SAW the dove descend on Jesus Christ . . . for him to doubt if truly Christ was the messiah was a tacit admission that perhaps all he had heard and seen that day might have been a fantasy all along.

[size=14pt]Blackspade's puzzle is not even close to John's.[/size] Blackspade never experienced what John saw, blackspade has NEVER seen Christ IN THE FLESH, blackspade was not a first-hand witness to miracles, signs and wonders. Blackspade was not there when Christ preached powerful sermons that changed hearts and convicted souls . . . if John himself could waver in the face of adversity . . . pls i think blackspade's case is not as bad.

This is the same John who must have learnt, on his mother's knees, about the prophecy about him and his cousin Jesus. This is a John who from a child knew what his role was - to be a forerunner of Christ the Messiah . . .

This same John suddenly wasnt sure who the Messiah was again after so long?

Its easy to say that anyone who doubts God was never a christian in the first place . . . perhaps many need to go through those extremely low points in life when you wonder if anyone truly cares whether you exist or not.

Three things here, which even you acknowledge:

(a) blackspade's case is not the same as John the Baptist's

(b) that John the Baptist had doubts about the identity of Jesus

(c) that someone may doubt GOD and not be Christian.


Dear davidylan, all three enquiries are answered already and could be answered in one sentnece again: they are not the same things.

(1) the OP's doubts were about the existence of GOD - not about the existence of Christ;

(2) John the baptist is never spoken of in Scripture as losing faith in GOD;

(3) there are many people (including Jews - and yes, Gentiles) who believe in God even though they are NOT Christians.

Perhaps the difficultly here is that you seem to tie everything to ONLY the identity of Christ ("who Christ was"; and this takes away and detracts from the OP's concerns - "DOES [U]GOD[/U] EXIST?"

I hope we can learn to deal with each enquiry in their own merit to keep it simple.

huxley2:
Isn't having DOUBT already a SIN?

Romans 14: 23,  But the person who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not act in faith; and anything that is not done in faith is sin.

The word 'doubt' is enunciated in various contexts in the Bible. That reference (Romans 14:23) is in context of what one eats, not about the existence of God.

@uplawal,

uplawal:
@blackspade, my dear brother follow your mind and let GOD personally speak to you,why dont you ask him to show himself to you at this time,

This is hardly the language of an informed Muslim/muslimah. No right-thinking Muslim speaks in such concept of asking God (if you meant 'allah') to "SHOW" himself to anyone - no Muslim speaks like that. At best, you borrowed the language from Christians.

uplawal:
all this christians advising you are just trying thier best to lure you back based on what they av been taught by the same bible that is full of contradictions,

You can't claim that your religion is all 'correct' and neatly packaged. To argue otherwise is pompous and uninformed.

uplawal:
and to tell you that the HOLY SPIRIT is not in the church atall as many of our pastors dont look they are truely inspired by it, all they are after is earthly possessions, because i tell you if the presence is there there wont be ill reputations of pastors and the entire church even if everyone has got individualls differences.ALLAH knows best

You have no clue who the Holy Spirit is, uplawal. People have been sharing their ideas peacefully without put-downs, I wonder why you assume that your attitude would bring him closer to any answers to his enquiries?

davidylan:
Who is this? Did allah ever personally speak to mohammad himself? Did he ever show himself to mohammad? comot hia pls . . . all these charlatans borrowing bible-language to paper over idol-worship.

Hehe. . good word.

SeanT21:
@pilgrim

That's true. Doubting in the "existence of God" and Doubting if God is the "messiah" are 2 different things.

Bless you, SeanT21

huxley2:
Absolutely true observation. I should have added that too, to be fair and balance.

No worries, huxley2. How are you anyways?