₦airaland Forum

IMAliyu:
You want me to be more specific?

Everything considered as life possess either DNA or RNA (genes). The nucleotides that code for everything about an organism, it's natural life span, reproduction, behavior and physical characteristics. This is what I mean by fundamental component.
Is this clear enough for you?

My use of the word "believe" should not be your concern here.
So, could you stop with the diversion?


Same would be said of you.

No, I'm calling out your ignorance on the topic.


The evolution of life. I don't know what "evolution of the world" means.
Once again why I said you're ignorant on the topic. Were the things I mentioned (speciation, mutation and selection) not the drivers of evolution according to the theory?
See definition of evolution
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift. source: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Evolution+of+life


Is that so?
Why haven't you answered my first question of do you consider paternity tests to be reliable?

Mr lawyer, I know you're good with words and at being slippery, you keep going on about solid proof and truth, but you conveniently ignored my other enquiry "So you admit there is no way to prove creation?"

capnies:
WHO FORMULATED THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE? IS LIKE SAYING WEIGHT IS MEASURED IN Kgs EVEN THOUGH YOU WRRE THE ONE THAT FORMULATED THE Kg IN THE FIRST PLACE. THERE IS NO SINGLE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION IF THERE IS I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVIDE ONE

IMAliyu:
Another problem with the creation hypothesis I always encounter, is that it's Judeo-Christian centered.
Every culture and religion has there own differing creation story, featuring different origins & deities. So which ones are we going to pick or discard, because literalist creationists can't surely think everyone in the world is going to go along with the Bible version.

Evolution, makes sense if you understand the concept of natural and artificial selection, something that is observable, and some rudimentary understanding of genetics, where if genes can be used for paternity tests and ancestry tests and are considered reliable. Then if genetics telling us we share a lot of commonality with all other life on the planet, and this could also mean a possible common ancestry, then I don't have a reason to argue.

capnies:
PLEASE CAN YOU SINCERELY GIVE ME ONE JUST ONE OF THE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION

IMAliyu:
Considering I'm more inclined to accept more rigorous proven theories, I'd have a bias towards evolution.

But on creation, it really depends on what we're talking about here.
One form of creationist theory is the universe is infact created by ?, but everything in it formed through natural or guided processes. This version of creation doesn't contradict evolution or evidence all that much.

The other version is a more religious, literal one, it's of how man and other organisms, in their current form were created separately by a Being. Or of how women were created from the rib of a man. This is the version that is at odds with evolution.

vaxx:
Evolution is a lie because I am broadcasting to an anonymous who have no qualification in biology and so can say anything you like about it without having to know anything about it. keep it up. you guys never like to learn anything that exposed your believe.

falcon01:
Non of em makes sense

vaxx:
Evolution make more logical and scientific sense than creation . creationism ideology is a lazy approach, moonlight tales by archaic men who are looking for cheap evidence.

jmoore:
Perfect excuse, because none of these assumption scientists will be alive in the next million years to see that their assumptions were wrong.

ReneJay:
So Adam left Eden to the arctic to name the polar bear? So he dived undersea to name the clown fish shey?

Well, the religion account of creation is the 2g account. The scientific/evolution account is the 5g account.

jmoore:
Assumption not fact.

Why haven't you evolved into another creature since? The evolution decided to stop abi?

Dtruthspeaker:
Tampering with nature does not count as evolution exactly as changing barley to bread or mixing milk and Milo is not evolution.

jmoore:
Assumption not fact.

Why haven't you evolved into another creature since? The evolution decided to stop abi?

CodeTemplar:
Creation makes all the sense because if you have matter(earth and planets) with no space to put it or time to create it then there is a challenge. Time, space and matter had to have come into existence simultaneously. . . and we know in the beginning(the very beginning) God created the earth.

Monogamy:
Both actually make sense..

There must be creation before evolution.. Things can't just evolve without been created.

And considering how our observable universe is working, they are simply created..

What brought water to earth? Asteroids... That's a rock.. Purposely created

Evolution is just like adaptability . Things evolve after they might have had a change experience/nature/weather.. Bears hibernating is a very good example of evolution

bedfordng:
Pycharm best for pure python programming but for stuffs like Django and flask not good since you have to work with both html, CSS and javascripts languages especially if you love working with auto-complete intelisense syntax from the ide on Django, flask,CSS, html, JavaScript. Pycharm doesn't go well with them

Chuukwudi:
We’re still in ANI (Artificial Narrow Intelligence” where a machine is trained to do one specific job and that job alone. We’ve not gotten to AGI(Artificial General Intelligence) where machine begins to equate man.
ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) may never happen.

Pauldollars:
The creation can never surpass its creator.