₦airaland Forum

Can't elite individuals in Maiduguri feed themselves?

malvisguy212:
Christianity is the only religion that
seriously challenges their atheism visit the atheists sites , christian topics is the most discuss the reason is just to removed the fear of death .

Christianity isn't the only religion available. The reason why Christianity is discussed is because most English speaking areas were heavily influenced by Christianity.

malvisguy212:
to all my atheists friends. If you fear
death, yet believe that God does not
exist, then you are being irrational. Then again, maybe you uncertain whether death is the end of your existence.

The fact that you're afraid of death doesn't mean others are. If you as a Christian fear death, yet believe that God exists, then you're being irrational since if you die, you'll be going to a better place. Although that is why certain religious groups are more than willing to kill and die for their beliefs.

davidylan:
I think the real tragedy is your complete inability to have a constructive discussion without resorting to the tired hyperbole and insults. I note you've been silent on how your ideas on dna does not square with the second law of thermodynamics. For someone who touts science, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it. If you know any scientist, dead or alive, who has created dna from scratch then kindly educate us here. As they say, your style is the last refuge of the ignorant.

Whether or not DNA has been created from scratch has no bearing on whether or not it is a natural process. After all, no one has created Neptune or sunlight from scratch. We still don't then say your God did it.

I think the real tragedy is your attempt not to have a constructive discussion instead you're attempting to hide your God from examination. That simply won't work.

davidylan:
Again the God red herring... i'm not interested in God or whatever you think He is. I ask the questions i asked based primarily on experience working on DNA and knowing full well that despite all we have tried in the lab, it is virtually impossible to recreate DNA. I have spliced it, transfected it to other cells, mutated it... all to fantastic results... but i have never been able to figure out how to create it from scratch. Based on your numerous claims, i assumed you knew... hence my questions.

Do you really think your God is a red herring? Be careful of what you say even in jest. Well I am interested in your God and what you think he is. Please ask away. I know enough not to accept a claim that your God was behind it.

davidylan:
Well then exactly what are you saying? You seem to be typing without actually saying anything of substance. How exactly did the DNA appear from random chaos?

What I'm saying is that DNA did not appear from random chaos. I've said lots of things of substance and would be willing to continue if you were trying to have an honest discussion.

davidylan:
The tiring red herring again... what has God to do with a discussion on the science?

This is a discussion on arguments for God's existence. It looks like you have nothing to contribute with regards to arguments for your God's existence. Let me know when you have arguments.

davidylan:
As i have said 200 times now... perhaps you're finding it hard to see it. I have no interest in talking about God... i prefer to leave Him to those who worship Him. As a scientist, i am more interested in understanding what evidence you may have as to how complete random chaos created the DNA and what evolutionary pressures caused this to happen. You seem to be having trouble focusing on that or anything that does not involve God at all... i wonder why.

Well I have a lot of interest in talking about God. If you have no views here or no longer worship him, simply say so. It looks like you're not interested in having a discussion but would like an interrogation. You'll rather try to hide your questionable God due to his impotence. Since we won't be having a discussion, the evidence I have can be sought out on the internet. Just enter the necessary key words.

Happy reading.

davidylan:
I assume that you know the answer to that question since you're claiming that science already knows the answer hence no other alternative is valid. To ask me to go find the answer for you is quite silly. Having worked with DNA for upwards of 5-7 years, i am more convinced that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Sure you've worked with DNA for upwards of 5 - 7 years and you've worked out that your God did it. If you're a researcher, then carry out research and let us know your results. That is what actual researchers do. Whether you've worked with DNA for 7 years or 70 years doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're talking about.

davidylan:
Creating is actually a scientific discussion... afterall a baby is CREATED by the fertilization of an egg by sperm no? To limit design from the scientific discussion is also to argue in ignorance... the intricate nature of the cell is clear evidence that it is not simply a mishmash of random cellular bodies jumbled together by accident.

Looks like you wish to play with words without actually saying anything. No one says "the cell is simply a mishmash of random cellular bodies jumbled together by accident". These sorts of misrepresentations after you've been corrected makes me wonder.

By the way, what is your answer about DNA and your God?

davidylan:
Not sure why you're desperate to avoid discussing the science. Like I said, not once have I brought up God here. I'm not interested in creationism or God, as a scientist I am simply trying to understand the basis for your conclusions on dna and how it could have appeared out of thin air. Surely that should not be so hard as to have you literally struggling to avoid the topic.

You keep claiming this should be an exchange, well I agree... An exchange of scientific ideas... I'm interested.

I'm happy to discuss the science. And I've answered several of your questions already. Do you have any point of view at all? If you wish to deny your God, simply say so. The topic is about arguments for the existence of some God. You're either supporting the arguments for the existence of your God or you're against those arguments. If you're in support of those arguments, then try to present or defend them in some way.

I've told you that DNA didn't appear out of thin air and as I've shown you several times on this thread and in our past encounters, I'm more than happy to let you know my own views. All I ask is that you also let me know your views. Saying you've not brought up God is no defense since you actually have a position in this discussion.

So, I'm happy to continue once you've answered these questions.

From what and why did your God evolve?

davidylan:
1. The physical molecules that DNa is derived from came from where? Can you tell us explicitly, and without the dishonest waffling, how those molecules form dna and what the evolutionary drivers of this process was?

2. Most mutations in dna are only "neutral" primarily because there are precise and intricate repair mechanisms in place to correct dna errors as they occur. Who designed these repair mechanisms? Are you saying order can actually be derived from random chaos?

3. You have not answered my questions... In fact I find myself asking them here again because all I get back from you is the same vacuous equivocation.

4. I said nothing about God. I have attributed nothing to him. I a, simply interested in the scientific validity of your claims that dna is simply a product of random, causeless evolution.

I'm interested in your ideas about your God. When you're ready to talk about that, I'll be more than willing to answer your questions but, this has to be an exchange not an interrogation.

So, from what and why did your God evolve? Answer that so the conversation can continue.

plaetton:
I am waiting for him to say that his god is the uncaused cause.

Won't be too long. If he ever returns.

davidylan:
I'm not sure I understand your point. DNS is a natural molecule that evolved from what exactly?

DNA is derived from other molecules.

davidylan:
To compare DNS to the Grand Canyon is quite dishonest. The Grand Canyon is a physical entity, DNS is the very basis of life and is so intricately designed, it cannot be seen with the naked eye and yet the smallest error can result in devastating disease or even no life at all.

DNA is also a physical molecule. The Grand Canyon is also intricate. Whether or not it is visible with the naked eye isn't what makes something important. The sun can be seen with the naked eye and and certain small deviations can also result in catastrophic events. Don't forget that most mutations in DNA are neutral.

davidylan:
So care to euchre us on why DNS evolved?

I see no reason why I have to impose a human reason on a natural process.

davidylan:
You keep asking me about God yet cannot prove your own point of view.

Whether or not I can prove my point doesn't absolve you from actually defending your own claims. I answered your questions. Please answer mine. Here they are again.

From what and why did your God evolve?

UyiIredia:
You were the one who denied the statement, no one misunderstood it. The only fool here too full of himself is you. Go and learn about codes, your ignorance about the concept is appalling.

You stupid boy. I know enough about codes to be able make appropriate distinctions. You misunderstood what you were trying to present. Your ignorant rambling is a side effect of that foolishness. Take the time to learn some biology. It will do you some good.

davidylan:
Well from what and why did DNA evolve? Essentially your position is that chaos is the basis for the evolution of DNA...

DNA is a natural molecule. It arose from other molecules. No my position is that DNA is a product of natural events. Why? Well for a reson similar to why the grand canyon was formed. I see no reason why I have to impose a human purpose on a natural process.

From what and why did your God evolve? Essentially, your position is that chaos is the basis for the evolution of your God.

UyiIredia:
You are very, very foolish. I answered each and everyone of your questions and objections. You are the one ignorant of biology, genetics in particular. I quoted a statement from Wikipedia showing that codons represent amino acids and you denied it. I didn't run. I ended the discussion since you were adamant in denying basic genetics.

You stupid fool go to sleep. Your ignorance is well documented. You quoted a statement you didn't understand and based on that made a profoundly stupid argument. The depth of stupidity you presented is what made me tell you several times to first try to learn something about biology before you try to make arguments based on it or against it. As a dummkopf you really really need to educate yourself before you even try to bring up biology.

davidylan:
Of course... but i'll wait for you to provide evidence for DNA appearing out of complete chaos.

DNA is not supposed to appear out of complete chaos. Looks like you'll be waiting for quite a while.

plaetton:
Thats what I always tell them.
You should know your subject first, before You argue for or against it.

He repeatedly uses faith to argue biology, then half-baked biology to argue for faith.
What a folly.

They tend to approach biology with the belief that their fairy tales first must be true. The belief that ignorance is a virtue is very prevalent and when the errors are being pointed out, they just huff and run.

davidylan:
The problem is that you have not provided actual evidence that the codons you mention just occurred out of thin air.

They're not supposed to occur out of thin air. Do you have evidence for your God?

UyiIredia:
I'll simply end things here. You are simply too ignorant, stubborn, deceptive and evasive.

Please just run along with your ignorant self. I answered your questions but you ran from many of mine. This is what happens when you try to make an argument based on your own ignorance. Learn some biology if you want to make an argument using biology.

UyiIredia:
Translation of codes by humans and by computers involve the interaction of molecules. This doesn't change the codes represent something else. The same applies to the genetic code.

What else do they represent?

UyiIredia:
That is by design. A system where multiple amino acids can be made from a codon is much more prone to error that one where multiple codons refer to the same amino acid. Again, you are being evasive my last post showed there's no preferential bonding between codons and amino acids, you failed to refute that.

I'm telling you that you are wrong. That statement is false. A certain sequence of codons is translated into an amino acid. That is a chemical reaction thus the codon sequences aren't arbitrarily translated into any random amino acid.

UyiIredia:
Sequences of nucleobases (ie codons) in the DNA represent a start/stop action or various amino acids.

What action and object does your chromosome 1 represent?

UyiIredia:
You don't have to see God to be sure it's there. Order in the universe, life and consciousness suggests there is a God.

I have to detect him somehow. I disagree that they suggest there is a God.

UyiIredia:
Actually, I have. Life isn't eternal. It was either created by a God or evolved by natural processes. If you can't defend your position that life originated naturally then my case is made more tenable.

That is a classic argument from ignorance. Whether or not I'm able to defend my position doesn't make yours true. You have to show that your position is actually true. Firstly, life is a natural process and it is what happens to natural biological organisms. Secondly, how can you show that life was created by a God?

UyiIredia:
The conceptual can't be explained in terms of the physical and your statement here simply strengthens that argument. The conclusion that it is a dilemma for materialism and that it shows there must be a God are appropriate.

So a God is needed to explain economic theory? Are you serious?

UyiIredia:
Objects attract. Attraction describes an action by objects. It isn't an effect of its own.

I recall explaining that distinction to you and here you seem unable to understand or appreciate the fact that gravity is a natural phenomenon. I can be pedantic if I want but that isn't needed here. You think gravity is "tacked on" to the behaviour of objects. You don't seem to realize that it is the term we've given to the phenomenon observed.

When you have an actual explanation rather than simply asserting God, let me know.

UyiIredia:
And they are translated since they represent amino acids. You are being foolish.

This is another example of your stupidity. They aren't "translated" because they represent amino acids, they are "translated" because that is how the physical molecules interact.

UyiIredia:
They don't. This is evidenced by the fact that two or more codons can represent the same amino acid. This point is buttressed by the fact that DNA codons have to translated into RNA codons which differ by the use of uracil instead of guanine. You are the ignorant one here.

Again you're reading up stuff and trying to make an argument based on what you don't understand. Different codon sequences can be translated into an amino acid but multiple amino acids can't be interpreted from the same codon. That is because of the actual chemical interaction. Seriously, go back to school or take an online course rather than just saying rubbish.

UyiIredia:
The actual molecules in the DNA are symbolic. They represent certain actions and objects.

You are very very confused. A DNA molecule, a physical structure is symbolic of an action and a different object? Please what action and object does your chromosome 1 represent?

UyiIredia:
. . . it all comes down to one's assumptions on the matter. One may or may not presume that God created the universe.

If you're going to presume God did it, where is this God and why the presumption?

UyiIredia:
By definition, living things are a part of nature. This does not mean that they were made by natural processes that predated them. You completely evaded my point which challenged the ability of abiotic natural processes to have made and evolved living things.

You can challenge all you want but you've not actually presented evidence of a God and that he actually did anything at all. This is why I say you're making an argument from ignorance. You don't know how something happened therefore God did it. Even though we've not seen this God of yours.

UyiIredia:
Given, laws of chemistry that is all the brain should generate, energy, along with chemical products. Consciousness is an extra that can't be explained in terms of the former.

Economic theory can't be explained in terms of quarks so what is your point?

UyiIredia:
No, gravity is not some thing or essence that attracts physical objects. The term gravity describes the attraction between objects, it isn't cause of that attraction.

And you don't think that attraction has an effect on physical objects?

UyiIredia:
The statement I quoted makes it clear that codons represent amino acids. It is foolish to deny this.

What is foolish is that you're trying to argue a point that you do not understand. Codons are "translated" into various things including "STOP TRANSLATION".

UyiIredia:
This would be true if the codons showed preferential bonding to their respective amino acids, they don't.

They actually do. This is why I say you're too ignorant to be trying to make this argument.

UyiIredia:
Yes, there are differences but the genetic code and human language are fundamentally similar in their use of symbols which may represent objects, actions and concepts.

Humans made the symbols for the genetic code table. The genetic code table represents actual molecules. It is humans generating the symbols not the molecules that are represented.

UyiIredia:
I think God is needed to explain the order in the universe. I don't think order is uncaused. I won't expect a godless universe to be consistent in its orderliness, I won't expect it to display regularity as seen in the planetary motions of our solar system, in fact, without God I don't see how the universe could exist since out of nothing, nothing comes.

Well I simply don't share your assumptions. If out of nothing, nothing comes, yet we have something, then that means something has always existed. Again, no God needed. There's an aspect of the universe that is also chaotic so . . . .

UyiIredia:
No, I'm working from what we do know. Natural factors and activities such as storms, minerals, soil, oceans, sunlight etc are highly constrained in what they can effect. They certainly can't effect objects that require finesse eg sculptures and furniture. And it is impossible, in principle, for them to result in systems which require a precise arrangement of specific materials to work eg bicycles, phones, fans etc. since natural processes lack the foresight and finesse required to effect them. The same certainly applies to living things.

Living things are also natural objects. After all, living things are also highly constrained in what they can affect. Is that a long winded way of saying that human artifacts aren't created by e.g the weather? You merely listed things that humans use or think are important. who says pulsars and the sun aren't important?

UyiIredia:
On the contrary, I don't argue from what I don't know but from what I do know. Chemical reactions are constrained to effect chemical products and release energy. A chemical reaction (in brains) effecting an awareness of self, thoughts and one's environments runs contrary to this principle and this is why consciousness been a scientific mystery. It still is never mind advances in neuroscience which typically presume explaining the mind-body connection resolves the mystery of the mind.

Runs contrary to what principle? Who says the brain doesn't generate energy from chemical processes? You're saying that consciousness is a scientific mystery and that you therefore have the answer. That is an argument from ignorance.

UyiIredia:
The same can be said of natural forces like gravity which are tacked on to the behaviour of objects. This doesn't make them less of an explanation to you. If you think my arguments are irrelevant you have either misunderstood them or are simply blinded by your bias.

You don't think gravity has an effect on physical objects? I'm sorry but this ridiculousness needs to end somewhere.

MrAnony1:
My mistake, I got the definitions wrong. . . .But then, in that case, what you are really saying is that hunger is actually the feeling of the contractions hence hunger would be how stomach contractions are described and not the other way round.

Wrong again. Hunger is the perception that you want to eat. You can feel hungry without the hunger pangs.

MrAnony1:
It's a bit like saying that one of the properties of pain are electric impulses running from the nerve endings to the brain and back. You cannot describe a full physical event as the property of a thing. At best it is an effect NOT a property. Physical properties are things like length, temperature, weight e.t.c.

Actually, one of the components of pain is the transmission of those signals carried by the nerves. Different nerves give different perceptions of pain. Hunger pangs have properties of length since contractions involve a change in length.

MrAnony1:
Once again, you are confusing an effect with a property. Sexual attraction can cause an erection. An erection is not a property of sexual attraction rather it is an effect. There is a causal relationship. Secondly impotent men can feel sexual attraction without erections.

An effect can also be a property.

MrAnony1:
Yes I was wrong with how I used the definitions but you still haven't told us a physical property of hunger.

Hunger pangs.

MrAnony1:
Hunger is non-material and therefore, it has no physical properties.

I asked whether or not it has a physical nature. Should I take this as you saying that hunger has no physical nature?

MrAnony1:
That reply is unrelated to what I said.
I said that you are a specified complex arrangement of components such that you can perform specific functions and this is because specified information carried by your dna instructs the development and functioning of all the components that combine to form you.

You're saying that I exist and I'm made up of certain physical structures. This isn't new. Tell me something new. The fact that you used many words doesn't impress me.

MrAnony1:
Information is the specific and organized arrangement of data for the purpose of instruction and creating meaning.

Information has to be for instruction and creating meaning. Got it.

MrAnony1:
Good, so you admit that only mind can create information.

No. Computers can also generate information but I won't say they currently have minds.

MrAnony1:
Can you list some physical properties of minds that you know of?

I didn't say minds were physical but that they have a physical basis.

MrAnony1:
By specified, I mean that the information carried by your dna is not random rather it relays very specific instructions so as to form your physical body precisely the way it is. If this information were to be changed in any way by rearranging the molecules, the resultant person would have a different body form.

This is actually incorrect. Lots of the arrangements of DNA won't have an effect on the body form. Lots of mutations are neutral. There is a lot of randomness when it comes to the arrangement of DNA. Certain parts are more conserved than others. Secondly, the information you're referring to is the human abstraction of the physical molecule.

MrAnony1:
No sir, information defines your form and function as any alteration in the information contained in your dna will result in a totally different you.

And this is where your confusion is clear. Take a look at the definition you presented as information. You said it is the arrangement of data for instruction and creating meaning. These are all abstractions. DNA is a physical molecule that humans have been able to represent in an abstract manner.

MrAnony1:
The fact that information defines you and information can only be created mindfully shows that you are indeed mindfully created.

Wrong again. Information doesn't define me. Information is secondary to the physical structures of the DNA and the environment. The information about me comes after my actual presence. This is why I said you have your relationship backwards.

MrAnony1:
I have already told you what God is: The ultimate creator of all things that exist.

That wasn't what I asked. Is God a mind floating around without a body? If you think he is, please can you show me a mind without a body?

MrAnony1:
You keep evading my question. What would a good reason for believing in God look like? How do you know that such a reason doesn't exist if you don't have any idea of what such a reason ought to look like?

This is a different question. You're asking me for a good reason to believe in your God. Well one good reason to believe in him would be if he were to reveal himself to me just as my friends have revealed themselves to me.

MrAnony1:
I never claimed that the comparison leads to God. My point was that both human language and the genetic code fall into the category of information. So how is this your question supposed to be relevant to the point I was making?

It is relevant because you're trying to make arguments for your God's existence. Lots of things fall into the category of information if you're going to be using things as distinct as language and the genetic code.

MrAnony1:
Yes they too fall into the category of information. Seems you know what information is after all.

I know what it is. It is a very broad concept.

MrAnony1:
How so? Please define what you think information is and explain how granite, the earth and microprocessors fit.

Wikipedia: Things that are or can be known about a given topic; communicable knowledge of something. [from 14th c.]

Granite gives you information about the temperatures that were once in the environment where it was originally located, the earth gives you information about its contents, microprocessors give you information about its speed, designs and what not.

MrAnony1:
Nonsense, do you also lack comprehension? I actually did point out in my answer that one is material and the other isn't. You are the one here who has been talking about non-material things yet you pretend not to know the distinction between information which is non-material and matter. So please what did you mean by the phrase "non-material"?

Looks like you actually lack comprehension and as usual, you're failing to be evasive. Please if you have answered this question, simply provide a link to your answer. Here's the question again. Would you say that hunger is material or immaterial? Would you say it has a physical or non-physical nature? I'll tell you what I meant by the word non-material when you've answered my question.

MrAnony1:
I have already told you how they are both comparable. Human language and genetic codes are both information. And no, objects such as the earth, granite and microprocessors do not fall under the category of information rather they fall under the category of matter.

What is the comparison you're making that leads to your God? After all, the Pythagorean theorem and Newton's law of universal gravitation are also information.

MrAnony1:
How am I the one confused when you are the one who can't tell that objects like granite are matter and not non-material information?

Granite actually can be considered as both matter and information so can the other things I listed. Whether or not it is non-material is to me a minor issue.

MrAnony1:
Seeing as you were the same guy who earlier argued about hunger being non-material. What do you think "non-material" means?

And the poor evasions begin. I asked you a direct question. You can answer and then ask me your question. Please give your answer then ask your question. After all, my question would help reveal your confusion.

MrAnony1:
The fact that there exists complex specified information carried by dna that instructs the development and functioning of thehomer (who is a complex specific arrangement of components such that they can perform specific functions)

The fact that I exist means that I exist. This isn't new.

MrAnony1:
1. Information is by definition specific and organized for a purpose.

What is the actual definition you're using?

MrAnony1:
2. Information is the creation of minds. Nothing that lacks a mind can create information

Okay.

MrAnony1:
3. Minds are non-material and therefore have no physical properties.

Minds develop within a physical substrate and they're affected by the physical realm so this premise is questionable.

MrAnony1:
4. The functioning and organization of nature and thehomer are complex and specified.

What do you mean by "specified"?

MrAnony1:
5. Therefore since information exists in nature and defines the functioning of thehomer as well as other aspects of nature, we have evidence that ultimately you were mindfully created. i.e. God created you.

You mean that information is an abstraction generated by minds based on what they observe in nature. Information does not "define" my functioning or other aspects of nature, the relationship is the other way round. Nature is what determines the information we generate.

What is this evidence that I was mindfully created? Is it simply the fact that I exist? I can tell you that I exist but this minfully created business is questionable.

What exactly is God and how does God creep in? Is God simply a mind that is floating around without a body?

MrAnony1:
Again, what would a good reason look like?

A good reason for not believing in your God is like the good reason we have for not believing in faeries. i.e the reasons for believing in faeries are as good as the reasons for believing in your God.

MrAnony1:
Lol no, hunger pangs are not a physical property of hunger in the strict sense of the word because they do not describe hunger in any objectively/independently measurable way. Rather they are synonymous. i.e. both hunger and hunger pangs are defined as discomfort/pain in the abdomen caused by a lack of food.

Strict sense of which word? Who says hunger pangs aren't measurable? You should have tried to look this up. In fact there's a Wikipedia article on it. You should have looked it up. Hunger is the subjective sensation. Hunger pangs are the physical contractions felt in the stomach.

MrAnony1:
What you did wasn't very clever. It is rather like saying that the physical property of a rock is that it is rocky....or that the physical property of joy is elation.

Your response isn't clever at all. It is nothing like the rock thing joy is more nebulous. We can use something clearer like sexual attraction. One physical property in men would be an erection. One is a subjective non-material component, the other is a material component.

MrAnony1:
Physical properties are by definition properties of matter and since hunger is not matter (according to you) it cannot have physical properties. To say that something is non-material yet has physical properties demonstrates that you are ignorant of the meaning of the terms you are using.

You were wrong there.

Done

Looks to me like you've simply revealed that you've not thought things through and that is why you're confused and have conflated the subjective sensation of hunger with the physical manifestation of hunger pangs.

Since you think you're right, would you say that hunger is material or immaterial? Would you say it has a physical or non-physical nature?

MrAnony1:
Interesting. You seem to be saying that nature is capable of more creating more complex design than human beings? Yet you don't seem to think that nature possesses intelligence. How so?

Well nature isn't the sort of thing that has the property of intelligence attributed to it. Trying to do that is to make a category mistake.

MrAnony1:
No, thehomer. You are wrong. Human language and the genetic code are the same type of thing as they both fall under the category of information. Therefore they are very comparable.

Please explain how they are comparable in this instance and how that leads to your God. Do objects like the earth, granite and microprocessors also fall under the category of information and thus also become comparable?

MrAnony1:
It is either you truly lack the ability to distinguish between information and matter or you are merely pretending to do so.

The above statement is another example of confusion. Assume that I lack this ability that you think is so important. Please can you make the distinction between them?

Esdb3:
Serve him then or who is stopping you.

No one. But I hope you're serving him too since based on what you've said, he's the smarter option.

Esdb3:
How Lucifer achieved the same sex goal.

First, he brought in what we see as civilization and embracing things no matter how shrewd they are.

Hmm let's see. Lucifer gave us civilization.

Esdb3:
Secondly, he gave them names. Woman with woman is wrong there is no other name but he called it 'lesbianlism'. That gave it a sense of existence and categorization.

Gave us words to speak with.

Esdb3:
Thirdly, he made christianity into a religion. No longer a thing people lived by. But just a sect like the lesbian sect.

Gave us Christianity.

Esdb3:
Lastly, he pushed the bible away totally so that humans no longer consulted it as their moral guide. Created atheists that made it look like just a literature you can choose to read. Even made them call God stupid and someone the 'SMARTS' ones shouldn't believe. Went on to be so convincing that some don't believe satan exists.

Revealed to us the fact that the Bible is just a book not worthy of being a moral guide. He even made non-believers while God was asleep.

Esdb3:
And you say Lucifer is dumb?! That guy is a genius but he'll always meet THE Deity a step ahead though it never seems so.



Johnydon22

If he could do all that while God was present, and you confess that he is a genius, why should anyone bother with your God? It appears that Lucifer is smarter and more powerful than your God is.

Ayuba123:
This Fulani Hausa Jihadist neva sieze to amaze me, so he is focussing his searchlight only on past administration while ignoring d biggest thiefs, his kins men dat brought dis country to d level we r today. Babangida, Abdulsalam, Abacha whom he said was not corrupt, Turayi Yaradua n her cartel, Abu Lolo's father, Emirs, Sanusi. etc. dis Hausa Fulani just believe dey own dis country n as such any mal-administration by dier kins men shud not be investigated. m just surprise dat he is not taking intp condideration d loot carried out by Ibb n Abdulsalam in particular dat makes him keep quite today. dey know how to cover dier own. he shud also probe his own admistration

The immediate past administration appears to have been even more corrupt than others. Besides, it would be easier to investigate since it is chronologically closer to the present administration. Simply pointing fingers isn't good enough.

His administration hasn't been in for 3 months and you're asking him to probe it? This shows that you're not serious but are simply ranting. When you can, provide something more concrete than simply naming people.

The funds shouldn't only be returned, the perpetrators should also named and jailed.