₦airaland Forum

NPComplete:
I don't understand what? This nonsense u wrote here?



Nobody ever claimed dogs evolved from cats so why will u be expecting to see a dog-cat? Or a monkey-bat for that matter? Let me not even start on the ant with human head u are expecting to see. That is just ridiculous even for someone as insular as u. This shows u don't understand the thrust of evolutionists to even be able to counter it effectively. I bet u haven't taken ur time to understand what proponents of evolution believe before spouting ignorance here.
Nobody claims evolution happens within a short time especially in higher animals so why do u expect them to show u proofs of such large changes over a short time in zoos. They can attempt to show u proofs of little changes on d microscopic level though.
Like bacteria evolving to become drug-resistant. Change in insect color as they adapt more to the changes in their environment.

Dude I hate arguing with less intelligent people whose faculties aren't competent enough to understand points I raise. U are proving to be one of those people.
I am not fully decided on evolution yet because I still believe that if evolution is true, it has to be theistic evolution. But that doesn't mean I don't try to read on evolution and understand it. U should too if u are actually willing to understand something u don't believe in instead of countering it blindly. Cheers

You are not honest, does that strike you?

Vick4rill:
cloudgoddess you just embarrassed your self with that post up there. i went throught the link and i can confidently said that what he wrote here is far different from that link.bt lets assume he copied the flaw research frm that link why dont u,refute the claims and prove him wrong?? as far am concern you still have not given us the reasons for the outcome of the first cell.. i dont even know the different between u guys nw and the religious people. any sane person,that read this thread frm the begining will know that this guy has a point.,. it seems like u guys can nt counter him and u nw resort to claims that he copied it.. let me ask u ,were u there when charles darwin was establishing the evolutional theory??. what then is the fate of prospective atheist that is reading this thread, how will they view u guys.??

You know what. I sincerely love this thread.
If the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to other theories hat are built on this assumptions?
The theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.

Please, read briefly the structure and function of a "simple cell" and see whether what you'll find out will be proof of chance or evidence of a brilliant design.

Some reasonable/respected scientist say that even a simple cell is far too complex to have arise by chance on earth.

Cc:
Cloudgoddess
Seun and others.

jayriginal:
Ok stop here.

This thread is sickening. We've had a biologist with a self professed PhD deny evolution. He offered some pretty inane arguments but at least he seemed to know a bit more than you guys.

I've never seen such a thread were ignorance has been so celebrated. You say you want to believe but you've been informed on this thread that evolution is not a belief.

As someone posited earlier, it is intellectually downgrading for anyone to reply your queries.

You and the OP are the ones who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.

Nobody who can spell the word evolution asks why there aren't ants with human heads or why there are still apes today. Before you critique something understand it first.

Lol.. No wonder your mentors who propounded it has no answer to the foundation of their belief which is "how did life begin?
The more scientists look deeper, the more they see the evidence of a designer.
They can't even picture an evidence that the prokaryotic cell evolved.

Even the outer part of the prokaryotic gives evidence of it being designed.. The inside, that's even a mystery to them.
If evolution couldn't answer why we are here? What's the basis that we evolved from that cell? What?

mhisbliss:
i have the belief that 70% of guys who approach you will want to get down with you even if they don't admit it deep inside thier mind thats thier end game, so why pretend? Its obvious we all know what you want already and someone will try to hide it, i dont see that genuineness in you i have fun and take a hike, if i see the person who is the real one my instincts will tell me, it just happens and you wont have to struggle to know he's the right person

The bolded, though. Unitysheart, falls withing the 30%.
It's sickening how a guy will tell his friends that he's never had sex with the lady he's dating and you'll see responses like, are you impotent? Mad?
It's just sad that all that society calls for is sex, sex, sex.

amodu:
Well, you may doubt it sir but what faces one backs the other.

Can't agree more.
But, that doesn't rule out the fact that things should be done rightly.

lanicky:
Yes.. I loved him as a friend

Queen! Trust me, it's a rare thing today.. Many peeps wouldn't look beyond sex..

unitysheart:
Of course. Love can be unconditional. I love a particular babe till date, though I couldn't date her. I knew her far back when I was serving in bethel and loved her since then. Having sex with her has ne'er crossed my mind.

That's applaudable, bro. So you once served at bethel?

mhisbliss:
yap many times

Hmm! I believe you.
And that's the best. But, what has been the guiding principle?
To be honest, you have really fought off some war.

amodu:
That's just it. What is the essence of the union

It is the bedrock

I doubt that, bro.

charijee:
[color=#CD1076]Yeah, very possible for me

I can love someone of the opposite sex without feeling sexually attracted, and this could go on for years. When I decide to love, sex hardly ever comes to mind [/color]

Waoh! That's rare, belive me. But. Uncle jeffy must be so fortunate to have you!!

ronald4lif:
Romantic relationship. Thought that's what you meant?

Plain love.. I meant.

halfricanadian:
my hommie

How u be na

I dey cool.. like Cutehector's egunshi soup..
How has been the day?
Come come..
Don't you think it's possible to love without Sex in mind.

naijaboiy:
[color=#1980BC]Well I wasn't speaking on bible context.[/color]

That's fine. Rock on.

Laveda:
Not at all

The thought of going intímate comes when I feel something strong for that person, I can't imagine love without it..


Well, everyone's different.

Laveda, what if you ain't in a relationship with someone, and you love the person..?
Let me use the term "simply nothing but love".

halfricanadian:
yes my bf before before wen we started

Bt now

You?!
Where have you been all these days?
I enquired from Cutehector, he denied ever hiding you.

naijaboiy:
[color=#1980BC]Oga did you see me bring the bible into what I said?[/color]

No bro... relax. I did understand you.
I was only saying, bro.
Remember, I said "that's"

naijaboiy:
[color=#1980BC]Point of correction,
[b]having the intention to have sex with someone you find attractive is not improper. It's simply what you feel towards that person.

Now to your question. It is possible to be in love with someone and not necessarily find sex as the next best thing. It's not like you won't be sexually attracted to her but other things will matter more to you than just grab, smash and bang!

To me, that's one of the ingredients of true love. Having just plain sexual attractions towards a person is merely lust and nothing else.[/color][/b]

That should be outside the Bible, though. 'cause the Bible condemns pre marital Sex.

ronald4lif:
If I were impotent yes. But fortunately I'm not.

Before loving someone there must exist a physical and sensual attraction. If there's none, love doesn't come into effect.

Talking outside dating or a romantic relationship.

The title says it all.
Have you ever loved someone deeply and you never had the thought of having Sex with the person?


Thanks, as you drop your valid opinions.
Cutehector, Marv650, unitysheart, mhisbliss, halfricanadian, charijee, lanicky.

Seun:
Yep. The first 'living' creature is believed to be a simple self-replicating molecule, which slowly evolved into the first primitive bacteria.

All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from non living matter- Fact!

cloudgoddess:
The sequence of events you're presenting here is incorrect, and the bolded statements are false.

The earliest life forms didn't need oxygen or ozone to arise. They were anaerobic, like many archaebacteria, bacteria, and even some eukaryotic single-celled organisms (like yeast) still are today. And since they lived in the ocean, UV protection was not required.

Cyanobacteria were one of these early life forms, and they slowly generated the oxygen in the atmosphere via photosynthesis (a process which requires only CO2 and water). Protective mechanisms to avoid oxidation began to evolve in these microbes as the atmosphere's oxygen content increased, and the microbial species that lacked said mechanisms died out (natural selection in action).

The ozone layer that formed after sufficient oxygen had been added to the atmosphere made it possible for land life to evolve. Prior to that all life was in the ocean.

EDIT:
After writing out my response I realized you copied and pasted your entire argument from the Institute of Creation Research http://www.icr.org/article/few-reasons-evolutionary-origin-life-impossible/
Really?

And you formed evolution? where's the root? From your own source?

Lilbrown007:
multiply:-
Verb:
- have young (animals) or reproduce (organisms)
- have offspring or produce more individuals of a given animal or plant
Adverb:
- in several ways; in a multiple manner

Do those who died multiple too?

Lilbrown007:
I Said Multiply Not Multiplication Get Ur Brain Straight!!

Must you insult..

I had better walk off the thread. You owns it.
Maybe you should get a grasp of what Multiply means.
Then you'll see if, really, humans are Multiplying.

Lilbrown007:
And What Do U Think Made Me Agnostic?? Is It Not That Same Bible??

No! Be honest! Have you ever read the Bible from the start to the finish.
It's what you've heard people say about the Bible that affected your view..

Lilbrown007:
No It Doesn't Bring About Multiplying Cause U Don't Exist So Its Just Ur Mum And Ur Dad The Number (2) is Still Constant

Alright.. Then. Maybe you should get these statistics.
The figure of those alive.
The figure of those who had died.
Do the math and see for yourself.
Maybe you'll call that a multiplication.

Lilbrown007:
Mtcheww Am Open Minded but Remember The Bible Is The Claim Not The Fact

If you diligently seek, the Bible provides answers to life's big questions. Don't be fooled by what religious leaders teaches, they are doing that 'cause of their bellies.

Lilbrown007:
No Because Ur Parent Didn't Give Birth To You

Look at the one who profess to be honest, just a simple question I asked.
So you thought because my parents gave birth to me bring about multiplication? Get things right, ma.
Do the math joor.

Lilbrown007:
And What Are The Answer??

It will be unreasonable for me to show you the bible's viewpoints, and you had already locked your heart about the Bible.
It'll just be a waste of time.

Lilbrown007:
We Are Here To Reproduce And Eat And Multiply

Are we really Multiplying?
Still push my second question aside first, let's handle this.

Lilbrown007

What if the Bible gives an answer will you trust it?

hopefulLandlord:
Because he doesn't exist

Why are we here?
Where did the first cell Evolutionist assumed we evolved from came from?

nepapole:
Pishurr of u crying or ahdonblivu. I wish her quick recovery.

I decided to honour you with a mention.. rock on.