₦airaland Forum

IamMichael:
I think you misunderstand the whole age reversal thing.

Human body does not have the capacity to live forever bro.

chidera39:
How can one get this books ?

onlyfacts:
Evolution is still pseudoscience. The evolutionary tree is make shift at best. The odds life survived prehistoric earth conditions and diversified into different species male and female is also an impossibility, amongst others. What else is pseudoscience if not evolution?

And the illustration you mentioned should be about "maturity" and not evolution.

In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative,[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively.

- Wikipedia

IamMichael:
Lol... Can you remember the hypothetical question i asked you?



Remember i asked you that if you believe that God is the Uncaused First Cause, why do you dismiss the notion that the Universe itself is an Uncaused First Cause of itself?

IamMichael:
I have already shown you what Pseudoscience is, and the definition of Pseudoscience. I don't know why you are still insistent on disproving it with no evidence.



"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation."


I have already explained this to you. So, it's now left for you to continue to hold your opinion, or rebut this facts with better superior provable facts.

CHARLOE:
Calling u a goat is an insult to goats! Mannerless indomie generation, u can't be more than a few yrs older than my 1st child but u feel entitled to throw insult at anybody cos u think nl is faceless. No be ur fault.

shadeyinka:
1. According to Science, the universe has an age of about 13.8billion years. And it is thought to have probably arose from a singleton (which could not have existed in the eternal past because it would make it a constant.)
2. The entropy of the universe is ever increasing. Projecting it backwards, we must have a point when the entropy is smallest minimum. This also imply that the universe has a beginning.
3. Every physical law that we know originated after the big bang and there seem to be no physical law that predates 13.8billion years that we know. This point also to the fact that the universe is not eternal.
4. Time as a quantity is meaningless before the big-bang. In fact, time strictly speaking originated after the big bang.
5. The universe is projected to completely dissipate and dissociate in the future. This will happen because for the universe to have always existed, it must also always remain.
6. Finally, the scriptures say in the Begining, God created the Universe. Before this beginning, there was God!

onlyfacts:
You are only giving me definitions of pseudoscience, I know what the word means and where it applies. I told you countless reasons I don't believe in evolution, scientist know this but still choose to go with it.
Evolution cannot be proven reasonably either retrospectively, presently or mathematically. Yet it is paraded as a "theory". That is pseudoscience and pseudoscience reasoning behind it.

IamMichael:

if you believe that God is the Uncaused First Cause, why do you dismiss the notion that the Universe itself is an Uncaused First Cause of itself?

onlyfacts:
The title of the first link I posted is "Curing Aging and the Science of Immortality"

Obviously a lot of scientist believe otherwise!

IamMichael:
Immortality is not a new concept in biology. Tardigrades and Radiation-Resistant Bacterium are the two best examples of immortal species.

Chasing immortality is not a new concept to humans. One of the reasons why religious beliefs sprouted all over the place.

Also, there are well documented records of People chasing immortality all throughout the history of the human race. It's all côck and bull story for now until there is actual proof.

I think you should really take your time and read about Reverse Ageing without adding any religious sentiment to it.

shadeyinka:
I just gave you FIVE scientifically logical reasons and one scriptural reason for what you ask. It is impossible that the universe is uncaused.

onlyfacts:
Can you point out where I specifically placed religious notions in the link I posted?

If you have a problem with the notion scientists believe the human body has a whole lot more capability than its been used as regards immortality, you should take it up with them and not me.

onlyfacts:
Can you point out where I specifically placed religious notions in the link I posted?

If you have a problem with the notion scientists believe the human body has a whole lot more capability than its been used as regards immortality, you should take it up with them and not me.

onlyfacts:
It's not my fault you didn't follow through with where the conversation started from, but rather you came in at a later stage to comment.

The previous commentator stressed that the "human body design is flawed", referring to how it is "structurally fabricated" as flawed, saying a human designer could have done a better "job" in designer a better body, which isn't true!

So the argument with him is in the "design". Seeing he could not find a flaw in human design he then brought up diseases that may affect the body as a proof of a flaw. I pointed out to him that in a production plant, defective products are not used as gold standard in examining the products rather it is that which is in a good working condition.

Now to the fact that a human body can be affected by diseases, it's an anomaly caused by various factors. Humanistic factors includes: Poor or unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, harmful and damaging habits(excessive smoking, drinking, drug abuse etc). This are self destructive behaviours that go against how the body is supposed to be used and maintained.

Intrinsic factor: Aging is yet another factor that causes our bodies to wear and tear. Scientist believe our bodies have the ability to live forever, all the information needed for the renewal of the cells are stored in the genes, but as we grow older "somethings" snaps in our genes and causes them to stop playing their roles and we slowly but surely start to age. Aging is abnormal based on the abilities of our genes and this has been the reason behind many scientific studies.

God's design of the body is a work of art but he tells us that because of "sin", the human body lost its perfection. Due to that lost perfection of the body aging occurs which causes wear and tear of it.

IamMichael:
Look at the bolded Sentence.



You even made your religion quite obvious!!!

I wonder why you are denying it anyway!

onlyfacts:
I was enjoying our conversation but you are now making false comments and accusations, questioning my integrity as a person....

I specifically said "Can you point out where I specifically placed religious notions in the link I posted?"

Scientists in that link believe the human body can live forever. That's their thoughts.

I being religious also believe that but those scientists aren't and still believe that.

So in that link I posted were did I make a religious notion?

LordReed:
Calling you a piece of shit is and insult to shit, you pile of fexcrement. Who gives a flying Bleep how old you are, you insecure dumbass.

CHARLOE:
E pain am!
Indeed, you're a Foolish FOOL! Even d Bible, with all its errors, was right about u afterall. This is my last reply to an slowpoke like u who can't engage in a discourse politely. Quote me to confirm you're a bastard!

IamMichael:

if you believe that God is the Uncaused First Cause, why do you dismiss the notion that the Universe itself is an Uncaused First Cause of itself?

LordReed:
Run away you insecure pile of shit, being flushed away is all you are good for.

IamMichael:
And in the first comment you quoted asking me the above question for the first time, did you see where i linked your religious notion to the link you provided?

Cuz, i would love to know where you got the notion from which necessitated the question in the first place.

IamMichael:
Lol.
The reasons you gave are very far awaaaaaaaay from logical, not to talk of scientific.
I mean, your own reply is even slapping you in the face.

Why don't you understand this simple fact that the same exact statement @bolded "It is impossible that the universe is uncaused" can also be said of the alleged God you are referring to Viz "It is impossible for God to be Uncaused" ?

CHARLOE:
Bastard!

shadeyinka:
Be my guest then and give me at least five scientific reasons: and mind you, no one has described God the creator as a THING.

"It comes across as extremely arrogant that Christians talk about their fictional god as if he is the only true god, or as if they see him as a being who is superior to other equally fictional gods who do have proper names, such as Zeus or Thor or Melkor, or when referring to gods that in an English-speaking (or Danish-speaking context) appear to have proper individual-specific names such as Allah (which is really just Arabic for "god" and which if rendered in English translation by a devout Moslem would undoubtedly be spelled with a capital "G", and perhaps Jehova, even when they do in fact not (but even this mere appearance makes it much less offensive, as it seems much less arrogant, the insinuation that other gods are less worthy, or perhaps even that other gods have no value at all, even though they are no more fictitious than the god of the Christians)."

onlyfacts:
you didn't apologize for the error you just did.
I'm not here to argue but to reason. My comments that you quoted has no link attached to it. Then I was only expressing my view points.

I later posted the view points of other people with links in my later posts, who are scientists to also show you they also share similar views even though they are not religious.

My stance is already clear now.

IamMichael:
Your stance on what ?

onlyfacts:
You have decided I'm not befitting of an apology. All you need to know about my stance it's in our conversation.

Enjoy your evening

IamMichael:
Oga, Yahweh is a local god, just like Amadioha, Zeus, Ogun and Sango.

The usage of the capital "G" is new usage.



So, when you want to mention a god's name, be specific and mention the name of your religious god.
There is no capital letter observation in the pronunciation of the word "god!".

When i see you use the word "God" in capital letters, I continue to laugh. Don't your god have a name? Why are you afraid of his name to be specific in discussions?

Na wa o. People self!

shadeyinka:
So this is your almighty scientific and logical proof!?
SMH!

IamMichael:

Lol... this one is looking for scientific proof when i already destroyed your argument from the beginning. I already told you how this discuss will go, and you never disappointed; repeating everything you repeated in my thread, even went as far as trying to use a Physcist he thought favoured his theoretical theology this time.
The funny thing is that you don't even realize that you are not making sense. Maybe you should learn to use more simpler words because it seems you don't understand the big words you are using.

It's not as if you know what scientific proof is anyway, if not you will not be juxtaposing biblical theology as scientific. I mean, Yahweh already said the world he created is 6000yrs old, and you are referencing billions of years in your replies, something that is at odd with your alleged holy book.


A smart person would have realised why i showed you the usage of the word with capital 'G'. There is nothing scientific about it, just simple logic.
Use the name of your god in your discussion. His name is Yahweh. When you keep using God this God that, i don't know who you are talking about. All religious adherents use the word God (with capital'G') for their religious deity in writing. Is that so hard for you to understand?

But i guess you avoid using his name Yahweh because it makes it local, and doesn't fit your big imagination of him, so you resort to a universal appeal by using 'God'.


I hope that is an easier explanation for you, because you were the one saying nobody has called God the creator a THING!
When you say God the creator or God, i don't know who you are talking about. I don't pronounce god with a capital G, and neither do you. Writing god with capital letter G is meaningless. Which means that you are asking a baseless question with no spine whatsoever because you have not asked anything.

shadeyinka:
The immaturity in you is now fully unleashed as you can't find a credible response to simple questions. You are a waste of my time if you can't even converse intelligently. This is your scientific justification for the impossibility of the existence of God!! SMH!!!
When you have grown enough or your demons allow you, give a call.

IamMichael:
Straw grabbing and insult's. Typical case of people who have nothing to say.

It's not my fault your posts are senseless.
You should learn to argue intelligently and reasonably...only children start insults over simple online discuss! Obviously, you have shown you are one, very childish.


I repeat, your posts are senseless. You are the only person on Nairaland i have conversed with who conjures up illogical conclusions from illogical statements and illogical unproved facts but still expects a logical and scientific answer.

I think you are mentally disturbed honestly, and i wonder if at all you read what you post.