₦airaland Forum

Joshthefirst: cause/kôz/
Noun:
A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition
Verb:
Make (something) happen


I believe you see enough to realize that a change of state had to be caused. Non-consciousness cannot give rise to consciousness, even in the smallest degree.

A change of state had to be preceded. e.g what causes a block of ice to melt when left on a table? You'll notice that your answer doesn't require some sort of person doing anything.

Ihedinobi: Ok, guys, we've muddied things up a lot so far. It was partly my fault because I couldn't keep up with the discussion as much as I should but I couldn't help that because of other stuff that cost me tremendous mental energy.

I'm going to roll the discussion back now so that we understand what we're discussing.

Piers asked a loaded question. A loaded question is a question that assumes things that are still debatable. To such questions, direct answers are not possible. Demanding a direct answer to such a question is either an unintelligent move or else it is a dishonest one.

Piers asked if a heterosexual man should have more rights than a homosexual man. This question appears to assume that marriage is a right especially considering the context of the discussion. The answer would be "yes" from the Christian's point of view if this were true. But such an answer would be considered inhuman and bigoted and intolerant without the necessary qualifications, because, for all a homosexual's wrong sexxual orientation (from a Christian point of view), a Christian does not consider himself more human than a homosexual.

The answer would be "no" if marriage is not a right. But if you give that answer without noting that you do not consider marriage a right, you would appear to be condoning homosexual marriages and thus shooting yourself in the foot. This was why the Christian discussant answered "no" and qualified his answer with a question that exposed the underlying assumptions in the question.

My position is that Piers was showing his dishonesty or poor intellectual appreciation of the problems in his question when he called the Christian silly. How was the man silly?

The man's answer can be reconstructed thus, "granted that marriage is a right, all humans should possess it including heterosexuals, homosexuals, sibling lovers - homosexual and heterosexual, and every other human being regardless their sexual orientation."

That answer is not directly an argument against homosexuality as some here have treated it as being. It is simply an exposure of the problems in Piers's question. Piers's question raises a bunch of others, namely

1. Is marriage a right? If it is, how is it one?

2. Where do we draw the line for this right? How do we determine who has it and who doesn't?

Those are the most immediate. I suggest that we restart the discussion from answering them. Again, I reiterate that the man's question was not a straw man. A straw man is a false construction of another person's argument in order to attack it instead of the person's actual argument. The Christian discussant did not misconstrue Piers's argument, he attempted to show that the question that he was asked was a loaded one. His question was not a red herring either. A red herring is a deliberate effort to derail attention from the particular issue being discussed. The discussant's answer was focused on the issue: gay rights. It attempted to show that there was a question yet about what they are.

Your attempt at a clarification does nothing to help because you're misusing the term "loaded question". It isn't a loaded question to ask if heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals because that would be the implication of only allowing heterosexuals to express their sexual preference by marriage.

If you think it is a loaded question, then what is the assumption that you think is debatable? i.e you need to state the assumption, and explain why that assumption isn't acceptable.

Deep Sight: . . . .

I had thought, that people would not argue against the idea that the universe had a cause: but may argue what the cause is. However, I was mistaken. Some atheists actually contest even the idea that the universe had a cause. On this board, notably thehomer and jayriginal have done so. This is why the sum of all arguments must commence with baby steps.

Very very. . .

Baby, baby. . .

Careful now. The problem is that by "cause", you generally mean that someone maybe spoke the universe into existence or imagined it into existence. Would say a change of state from something to the universe that didn't need some mind directing things count as a cause to you?

Image123: might be a waste, i was born in sin. Why not focus on your discussion?

I thought we were composing a song or something. I'm focused on the discussion. Would you like to talk about why God did the things listed in my OP?

Image123: Would you believe me?

Would you die for me?

Image123: ?? ??

Did I stutter?

Joshthefirst: . . . .

An evil man, immoral, godless, will be punished all the same, but if his child refuses to be evil, God will exalt and bless him. Shame on thehomer for his poor perception and bias.

Please read the whole of exekiel chapter 18 to strengthen your knowledge and correct yourself before talking nonsense.

What have I done again?

Image123: God is not a man, duh. You are, re-read the verse more attentively this time.

God uses deceit and is bound by his words. Except when Image123 doesn't like the implications. You read the verses you want to quote more attentively.

davidylan: The argument that homosexuals should not have rights to marry was one that was extremely difficult to swallow for a long time UNTIL i realized what the real problem truly was - many christians (especially those in the west) are finding it difficult to divorce their faith from politics. When faith starts to drive our views on public policy, we are bound to get into trouble.

Now, is homosexuality a sin? According to my bible, it is and labeling me a bigot because of that stance isnt really helpful neither am i really concerned. We all have to agree to disagree that i have a right to form an opinion based on my faith.

Should homosexuals be denied the rights that are available to heterosexual couples? No. The same reasons we advance today where the same ones used to keep blacks in the US as second class citizens... they also formed the crux of arguments against allowing the government to recognize interracial couples.

Homosexuals have rights to marry, adopt kids and carry on their own idea of a family. As long as they are not forcing it down our throats, so be it.

What? davidylan in support of homosexuals having the right to marry? Wonders shall never end. Or has someone hijacked this account again?

Ihedinobi: Lol. Thehomer, your dishonesty is showing. He clearly said "preference for heterosexuality".

You should have read what he said. I'll quote it below and I hope you'll accept your own dishonesty or your failure of reading.

okeyxyz: Bros, you are cunning, but not cunning enough and I'm not falling for your ploys. First you declare that you don't want to debate, then you challenge me make my arguments in support of a preference for [size=14pt]heterosexuality which you clearly oppose[/size]. Why would I want to do that when you'd already declared that you are not willing to engage?? You are just afraid that you cannot defend your support for a homosexual culture, so you are looking for flaws in my own position rather than building your own case.

Try again

Ihedinobi: And who here has equated supporting homosexuality with supporting those acts?

You equate them when you think one has to justify them when justifying homosexuality. If you don't think they have to be justified in order to justify homosexuality, then don't bring them into the argument.

Ihedinobi: Why turn it around? You have said that the man who posed the question was silly. It is up to you now to answer why incesst, bestiality and paedophilia should not be acceptable along with homosexuality and heterosexuality. We have already granted that heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal rights.

It is silly because it is irrelevant. What is under consideration is homosexual and heterosexual marriage. Allowing heterosexual marriage doesn't mean you have to allow incest, bestiality and what not so the same reason for allowing heterosexual marriage is just fine for allowing homosexual marriage.

Ihedinobi: Oh yes, in fact, he did wonder that too. The relevance of that question is in the answer. Who has rights to marry and what gives them that right? Why can two gay men or lesbians marry and siblings who love each other not marry? Or should the latter also have the right to marry?

How does allowing heterosexual marriage help this argument? After all, a brother and sister getting married is a heterosexual union. Why can't they marry since you're allowing heterosexual marriages?

Joshthefirst: natural order is marriage leading to consummation leading to children. Our very natural physiology bear witness that homosexuality is extremely unnatural. Go ahead and wed them yourself if you have the power to do so.

The Church of Christ in Nigeria will not support this perversion

So a marriage that doesn't lead to consummation or one that doesn't lead to children is unnatural? I guess we now have to perform fertility tests on anyone who wishes to get married and stop any woman from getting married after menopause. You go ahead and stop them yourself if you have the power to do so.

Ihedinobi: Homosexuality is hardly victimless. If it is perpetrated infinitely, the human species as a whole will go extinct. The species is the victim here.

Well, that means driving cars is hardly victimless because if perpetrated infinitely, the human species as a whole will go extinct. Therefore the species is the victim here.

Ihedinobi: I like okeyxyz's answer for bestiality. Animals can't charge you to court for plotting to kill them for or clothing or fun, but it is acceptable to kill them anyway. Why should their inability to complain make it unacceptable to use them for sexxual pleasure as well?

What does this have to do with homosexuality? How does heterosexuality help an argument for or against bestiality?

Ihedinobi: If you agree that incesst can be acceptable, you also agree that Piers was wrong to call the Christian discussant silly when he asked about the rights of siblings to marry each other.

How does heterosexuality help an argument for or against incest?

okeyxyz: I said you oppose a preference for heterosexuality. Perhaps you don't see properly

Looks like you don't know how to read your own words. You said:

okeyxyz: Bros, you are cunning, but not cunning enough and I'm not falling for your ploys. First you declare that you don't want to debate, then you challenge me make my arguments in support of a preference for heterosexuality which you clearly oppose. Why would I want to do that when you'd already declared that you are not willing to engage?? You are just afraid that you cannot defend your support for a homosexual culture, so you are looking for flaws in my own position rather than building your own case.

Try again

okeyxyz: I only oppose homosexuality in the context of christian doctrine(of course for christians only), not a secular/legal opposition. My involvement in this thread is in pointing out the hypocrisy of the proponents of homosexuality. They love to argue that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, yet these same people want to suppress bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, in.cest, etc, not regarding that they are se.xual orientations just as naturally valid as they claim homosexuality to be. At least I am honest enough to categorize them together as se.xual phenomena/orientations. How about you??

Do you want to support bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia while supporting heterosexuality? If you do, please say so. If you don't support it, what makes you think that supporting homosexuality should mean a support of those acts?

okeyxyz: Speaking of consent, why is it that when you guys copy western cultures and arguments you don't challenge their hypocrisy?? The same people who use consent as an reason to promote homosexuality, yet they condemn and criminalize polygamy even though it's perfectly consensual.

You do realize that Christianity is also a foreign religion and it also condemns polygamy. Why don't you challenge your hypocrisy?

Personally, I'm not interested in condemning polygamy as long as the complex issues are clarified. Secondly, some of the Western cultures that you're attacking do recognize polygamy so you need another tack.

Ishilove: Yeah, gay people have the same rights as straight people EXCEPT the right to marry. That right will not be accepted here in Nigeria because it is a abominable perversion of the natural order of things.

What is the "natural order"? Is it in the "natural order" for humans to live in space? Or underwater?

okeyxyz: Bros, you are cunning, but not cunning enough and I'm not falling for your ploys. First you declare that you don't want to debate, then you challenge me make my arguments in support of a preference for heterosexuality which you clearly oppose. Why would I want to do that when you'd already declared that you are not willing to engage?? You are just afraid that you cannot defend your support for a homosexual culture, so you are looking for flaws in my own position rather than building your own case.

Try again

You must be seeing things. I clearly oppose heterosexuality?

It looks to me like you're the one who is unable to defend their opinions that opposing homosexuality infringes on people's rights. If you're going to compare homosexuality to incest or anything else, you'll have to be willing to do the same for heterosexuality. That is my point.

I can defend my support for the homosexual orientation in various ways starting from the fact that adults have their rights to the fact that it is between consenting adults.

okeyxyz: So Homose.xuality, inc.est, bestiality, ped.ophilia, nec.rophilia are perfectly natural and acceptable se.xual behavior then?? Just like heterose.xuality? That's the argument I wanted you to make instead of giving homose.xuality special treatment. So, go ahead and make the case.

That is not an argument I'm interested in making.
Why do you give heterosexuality special treatment?

Tupacx: The above quote was my response to 'atheist and demon' related discussion yesterday.
But, what happened last night totally surprised me...it happened thus,
God appeared to me in my dreams. pls don't ask me to describe His looks, not even the prophets of old have seen Him physically. I could feel His presence and Him talking...He went ahead to show me some signs which I couldn't remember after waking up, but there's something I didn't forget; after showing me all the signs, He asked "do you still doubt my existence?" I woke up with these words in my head.

Well do you still doubt this God's existence? Why can't we ask you to describe his looks? It was your dream and if you can describe it, it would be nice to hear. If the God you describe has an elephant head or something, we'll know who you think exists.

okeyxyz: Please do explain to us. Why is homose.xuality an acceptable se.xuality and inc.est, bestiality and pedophilia is not. How is homos.exuality such a natural se.xual behaviour and the rest are not?? Do you mean to make the case that bestiality, inc.est, pedophilia are well within the control of the people experiencing these se.xual orientations and that it is a behavior they choose for themselves rather than a biology they find themselves to be made-up of??

Why is heterosexuality acceptable but incest, bestiality and paedophilia aren't acceptable?

Ihedinobi: Yesterday, Piers Morgan on CNN aired an earlier discussion he had with two Christians and a third guy that I think was gay and spoke for gay Christians. Piers asked one of the discussants in that recording whether he thought he as a straight man should have more rights than a homosexual man. This discussant whose name I forget now did not try to answer it directly, but Piers wasn't too pleased with that and demanded a direct answer. He then gave a direct answer: No. But he followed his answer with a question of his own. He asked Piers if he thought that two gay brothers should have the right to marry. Piers responded that he was being silly.

I personally thought that Piers was being either funny or dense when he gave that response. I mean, what makes one case silly and not the other, right?

It is indeed a silly question. The Christian feels that a straight man shouldn't have more rights than a gay man so what is the relevance of asking whether two gay brothers should have the right to marry?

Do we wonder whether a brother and sister can get married while a man and a woman can get married?

Image123: Proverbs 20:17 Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.

NIV: 1 Kings 22:
23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”

Looks like a bread of deceit is sweet to God too. I guess afterwards, his mouth shall be filled with gravel.

Reyginus: Lol. Let me join you in this game. Here is the question again.

Is 'why did God command genocide?' and 'what is God's intent for commanding genocide?' the same thing?


Lolol. As usual, we are back to 'running from the argument'. But I won't dumb too low as you would like me to.

Lol. Please do the honorable thing and reply accordingly.
I know your aim now is to engage me in childish exchange of words to help you escape from the pit you've seen from afar. If not, be a man and stop acting like logicboy.

Repetition.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Still acting like logicboy. Irrelevant.

Lol.

Do you really know what it means to be a truth seeker?

Since you think the whole discussion is irrelevant, I see no point in continuing this with you.

I started by pointing out several evil actions your God did. You decided that it was too much for you to handle so you split them up. I presented you with three passages and you were only able to address one of them. Ignoring more than 90% of my argument. I then proceeded to press you on whether the actions were moral or not. You couldn't answer. Instead, you began introducing irrelevancies like asking me whether I believed the Bible and bringing up irrelevant analogies.

I then went on to ask you direct questions about the morality of the actions and you're whining about intent. If you felt intent was so important, you could have discovered the intent for yourself and used that to answer the question rather than asking me since I don't care about the intent for the actions I listed.

Basically, these were the three questions that destroyed your attempts

[size=16pt]
1. Is it moral to command a genocide?
2. Is it right to punish a child for the crimes of the parents?
3. Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

If you think there could be good intentions behind these things, you state the good intentions and answer the question. So far, you've presented irrelevant analogies, asked me irrelevant questions and finally tried to dismiss the arguments by crying.

Your attempts have all failed so I'm done with you here. I wonder if anyone else will be willing to take up the challenge.

I knew you would be unable to defend your God as you did. You failed at it while pretending to be an atheist and you've failed even worse as a Christian. Do yourself a favour and learn how to have a discussion about your God without fear.

Good luck to you. You'll need it.

FOLYKAZE: Thehomer, we are not progressing and I cant continue on this discussion without a good ground. Man gotta do some things than going in circle.

I've progressed you're merely stuck in your rut.

FOLYKAZE: - Racial Intelligence and Evolution is an insult to niggas. Dr James separate, Charles Darwin have his evolutionary racial say. Lot and lot many evolutionist got this racial say.....you were going in circle on a single shot without providing a renounce against racial discrimination. Do I have to jump from mt everest before you do?

As usual, your confusion and ignorance doesn't help you. Racial discrimination is not the theory of evolution. Until you realize this basic fact, your confusion will remain.

FOLYKAZE: - I have shown you Black African inventions. I dont know how stethoscope is an improvement. I dont know how typewritter is not an invention. You only want to deny what belongs to your race. We know colonial mentality effect. I have given you evidence of mathematics in ancient African and there Astrological findings.....Africans knew this thousand of years before modern space travel got into place. Yet you want to deny it.

Black Africans didn't invent the typewriter or the stethoscope. Look it up. Wikipedia is your friend. All I see here is ignorance coupled with a feeling of insecurity that you're trying to shore up with bluster but it won't work.

FOLYKAZE: - na evolution we dey go on circle on since. You called us Ape but cant give reason than nonsensical links. I dont know when content becomes a link..... Give us factual evidence and not link...you are refering me to a museum where only a single teeth was found and other frame were constructed. Is that what you called factual evidence?

I tire abeg..... Cheers

You and every other human who is alive are apes. Follow the links and you'll see reasons. I can't come to your house or wherever you are and inject the reasons into your brain. You don't want to visit museums, you don't want to read, how exactly are the facts supposed to get into your head?

Good luck to you.

Reyginus: If you like twist the argument to any angle you want it I will still not indulge in your distraction. So far you've failed to show me how a question of reason is asking of the intent.

Or how they are speaking of the same thing. Until you are ready to tell me how, you have no right to declare yourself a victor. Even at that, I still see it and the question of whipping as childish.

From irrelevance to irrelevance. I asked you a direct question and once more, you run. Here's the question again.

[size=14pt]Is it moral to command a genocide?[/size]

Try not to run from it again.

Reyginus: Lol. See the hypocrisy all over the place. Initially I was ruthlessly not permitted to answer the question anyhow I like, but now that the answer expected has been shown to be irrational I am called upon to answer it anyhow I like, beginning with a yes or no.

I wish I was on the opposite side of this argument, that our sides are switched so that I can show you how to argue. If it happens that the positions are switched and I find myself at this point of the argument. What I will do is to honorably accept that my expectations do not tally with the question and go ahead to let the right moment come.

Stop crying and wishing that you didn't find yourself in this argument. You begged for this thread and I obliged you and opened it up. Now you're begging to run away? Stick to the matter at hand.

Reyginus: Na so! You also failed to see that a punishment in this case is better understood as the effect of any wrong action.

Every action must produce an effect. It is inevitable. You do not expect a maize cereal when you plant a yam tuber. So don't blame God when a person reaps the seed of evil.

Yet another pointless analogy. Another attempt to run from a direct question. Here's the question again.

[size=14pt]Is it right to punish a child for the actions of its parents?[/size]

The question is simple and straightforward so I don't understand why you've gotten confused again.

Reyginus: Lololol. What a very poor response.

If I happen to be your lecturer and you produce such answer in response to the above question, not only will I award you an F9, I will also substract a unit from your CGPA.

Aww. Now you're wishing you were my lecturer so you can produce more bad analogies? If you were my lecturer, you'd be fired for gross incompetence and general ignorance after your second lecture.

Reyginus: Lol. Promising words but none was given meaning.

My statement is flawed not because of anything but because it is flawed. Interesting! I must be very dumb to accept any statement like that. My analogy strays not because of anything but because it strays. Lol. The god of logic in your camp is so dead, I think he must be in the cemetry.

Hey you said it nor me. I told you the problem with your analogy here but as expected, you've forgotten all about it. Soon you'll declare it yourself to be irrelevant. Dead like your Jesus?

Reyginus: Lol. If I shift, stumble, stands up, fails, and tries to run again you should capture me, stagnate me, hold me and correct me, clear me with your boot.

There is no better way of doing this rather than convincing the words. Like the quote before this, I shift because I shift, I stumble because I stumble, I stand up because I stand up, I fail because I fail, I tries to run again because I try to run again.

How lower can logic descend? What has happened to its wing? Has a son of God or a super-primate dismantled the very means that makes it super-natural?

I've corrected you with my whip and my boot but you're quite recalcitrant.

Reyginus: I warned you but you didn't listen.

After reading it I am still not able to point out his intent for committing genocide. Please I need help, bro. I'm serious. I also tried to see how his acts were to affect his great-grand-children. I need help here too. I'm serious.

If you were serious, then you would have found the answer you were looking for. As I said, if you don't know, say you don't know. Just bear in mind the implication of whatever your answer is.

Reyginus: C'mon! Dude, what's the repetition for? We are still questioning the conditions of the question. Once we are agreed on these conditions then you can repeat the question once more.

The repetition is to emphasize that so far, you've not answered that direct question. Instead, you've introduced irrelevant side issues that you're having problems with and you wish to drag me in with you. I'm not interested in your irrelevant issues. If you are, address them yourself and use whatever you discover to answer the simple question I put to you. Here's the question again.

[size=24pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

Reyginus: Fail! fail! fail! Old trick! Maybe this is the thread's official mantra.Try something new. I'm tired of eating beef.

You begged me for questions, I supplied them and you're crying about them. Just dry your tears and try answering them.

Reyginus: Lololol. No room for unnecessary tangents too. Okay. You are whipping me very hard, reduce the number of cords.

I'll keep whipping you until you address the questions I've asked and you avoid your attempts at evasions. Don't forget the other parts of my OP that you've not addressed. And the other verses I cited with respect to genocide that have you trembling.

Image123: As is your custom, you've made a baseless statement. Your morality is baseless.

Your morality is based on evil.

FOLYKAZE: Have you study the details and it explanation before asking this illogical question?

Folykaze : there is a boy in the room

thenomer : is the boy having blue eye and white teeth?

Folykaze : dont be stup.id, be well informed before proceeding on questions.


Mr man, get this information yourself. I dont have if it entails life on Mars. The best I know is that they got this information with unclad eye and it accurate as analysed in the book. Why cant you go figure if it is or not?

So you want me to verify your own information for you? You must be confused and deluded. Just put down the formaldehyde you've been drinking and focus.

FOLYKAZE: colonial boy....who think nothing good come out of Africa. We know your job....good seeing you in it.

Ignorant boy who think all good things come from Africa. We know your job. And it is sad to see you deluding yourself in it.

FOLYKAZE: Stop moving away from evolution and Racial intelligence.

I'm simply pointing out facts to you.

FOLYKAZE: You knew this and went ahead saying atheists mock it. You have told us which spiritualism concept atheist mock before rounding up.

Atheists do mock it. I too also mock it. Pick your strain and I'll let you know more on why I mock it.

FOLYKAZE: Yes. That is why they gave it a name.

The ignorance is strong with this one. Naming a geographical feature doesn't magically grant you knowledge of its features.

FOLYKAZE: Where did I say black is superior? Liar.

What fact are you refering to? That your ancestors had monkey brain?

Where did I say you did? Well we share ancestry so if mine had "monkey brain", yours did too.

FOLYKAZE: Come up with something better next time.

Why? Did the good thing I came up with this time stump you?

FOLYKAZE: The contradiction here alone make me sick.

We are not bacterias. We shared same ancentry with bacteria.

But you cant see the difference between an upright man and an Ape in the forest. Good good.

What is this common ancestors between us and bacteria? Give me a name and not running around here with links abeg.

So unless something is named, you don't think it exists? You're one confused person. You need to realize that there's a difference between a name and what the name refers to. Upright men are apes too.

FOLYKAZE: Why are we not having evolved Apes? The civilized ones.

Humans are also evolved apes so we already have them. Seriously. Take the time to read the Wikipedia article on apes. It will help reduce your confusion.

FOLYKAZE: 1. The link is blank from here.

2. Dr james is not a psychologist....he work on genetics. And what he said was grounded on DNA study...not brain as he claimed.

View it on a pc. Well IQ is a psychological study and psychologists are the experts in that field.

FOLYKAZE: How about DNA test?

What about it?

FOLYKAZE: Those that didn't agree should go ahead and prove him wrong with strong rebuttal. Words are cheap.

It has been done. The rebuttals are in the article on IQ on Wikipedia you can read it yourself.

FOLYKAZE: DNA experts which are in the same field with him renouncing James with factual evidence from experiment carried out. Words are cheap.

DNA experts aren't the relevant experts when it comes to talking about IQ.

FOLYKAZE: You saw how I listed the invention contents as asked. You asked for five and I gave five from ancient and modern each. Later added a book as reference......

If I had told you to start reading book or wait till you buy one.....we wont end this.

Give me same measure. You know these things and should be able to speak on it. So refering me to a link without highlighting it content here is ignoramus escapism.

All the things you listed were wrong. Adding a poor book source doesn't make the information more accurate. It is a Wikipedia link like the one you directed me to. Just read it.

FOLYKAZE: Fact because it documented. Not because it have factual evidence. Good good.

The factual evidence is what was documented. That is why you need to read. If you have the time and resources, you can perform the experiments too.

FOLYKAZE: Lol. So you called it old myth? Evolution is darwin proported lies. Where are the physical evidence?

You can read about them or visit them in museums and labs. The choice is yours.

FOLYKAZE: You are confusing yourself with this waves.

Did we evolved from Ape or we shared common ancestors? Answere without any diverting.

We and other apes share a common ancestry. We evolved from that common ancestor which also looked like an ape.

FOLYKAZE: Nope I do not.

Add the informations on this chromosome is same as that of Ape in the forest? Why are they not civilized like us?

Well, now you know. Because they're not humans.

FOLYKAZE: you are rumbling in a circle.

You're wandering in an ellipse.

FOLYKAZE: There are hundreds of inventions by Africans which do you receive patent at a basic time because US law then didn't regard them as human. So many works were adopted by the white masters and credit were given to the wrong person. Telephone is a good example.

You left typewritter and stethoscope and clinged on the improvement on refrigerator and elevator. Black man have been programmed to dismiss things that root out of his land and people. They only see it as junk.

Still making rubbish up. I didn't leave them, I simply saw no need to mention everything you listed. None of the things you mentioned were invented by Africans, they were improved. But then, lots of people have improved lots of things and lots of people have invented lots of things so you wailing adds nothing at all.

FOLYKAZE: The first CS operation was carried out in Africa. You didn't see the invention in Egypt right?

Therefore Africa is the greatest and no one can do any better?

FOLYKAZE: Apparately, they didn't call it Saturn. So get some books and read more detail about it or consult egyptologist. The fact is they detailed the solar system thousand of years before modern science.

You get the books and tell me what they called it and whether it had rings.

FOLYKAZE: The two AA did the dating. Credit of the metallurgical work there were credited to the people not the two AA.

So they weren't Africans? I wonder why.

FOLYKAZE: The Papyrus of Mosow show many calculations of various volumes, areas and surfaces with theories.
The Ancient Egyptians has a working value of pi (π) as 4X(8/9)2= 3.1604, the most accurate of ancient time before Archimedes. The so-called Pythagorean Theorem is an Egyptian mathematical concept. Read this link http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_mathematics.

Meet any Yoruba guy and asked me to mention this figures in yoruba. You would find critical division, multiplication, addition and substration.

45 = (20X3) - 10 - 5
106 = (20X6) - 10 - 4
525 = (200X3) - (20X4) + 5

Ifa have a complex binary coding corpus which is more related to modern computer. Do your research. I have hinted you.

But did this Ifa invent the modern computer? If not, why?

FOLYKAZE: Black man know yourself. Read pls http://m.topix.com/forum/afam/TLBII6Q8QLK4FRNQT

Black man learn how to obtain verifiable information.

FOLYKAZE: Because sorryass like you wont see something good out of Africa. You want already name from your masters....so when we have one, you standardize it with them and always make sure it not superb what they got.

Blaming me for Africa's failures won't help you in any way. You're merely pushing your problems and tears further down the road.

FOLYKAZE: They gave you toothpaste and brush but your ancestors discovered chewing stick which is biochemically better than toothpaste. This is simple medical work. All you got is flaw....chinese are modernizing there world. Enjoy your inferiority and flawly backwardness.

Everybody had some implements they used to clean their teeth. I hope you only use chewing stick and don't visit dentists. Since the Chinese are doing their thing, why are you crying here? Why don't you gather your fellow Africans and start your own space station? Dullard.

FOLYKAZE: I gave you a book. Visit a store and buy one or get it from Amazon.

You have my contents....

You gave me stories and half-truths. If that book simply contains more of that, I'll pass. You go and do the research and publish it in journals then we can talk.

FOLYKAZE: I repeat.....you are nothing but a colonial boy.

How could you give a name to something you dont know?

A typical case of River Niger is Victoria fall in Zimbabwe which move have stand to be changed to Mosi-Oa-Tunya fall. That is what indigenous people called the fall before David Livingstone came there.

http://www.theafricareport.com/Southern-Africa/zimbabwe-to-rename-victoria-falls-in-anti-colonial-name-bid.html?utm_campaign=the-africa-report-editors-picks-of-datemdy&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newslet . The government is making move to reverse all colonial identities because this would give them real human status.

River Nigeria is called Odo Oya and Oral tradition stipulated that People navigated this river and know it Origin. Have you ever heard the briefing on Sango and his four wives? The whole story is there pointing to origin. Go and study your history abeg.

I repeat you're nothing more than a black ignoramus.

Naming something doesn't mean you know a lot about it.

Oral tradition also held that Oduduwa created the earth with a shell, a hen and some sand. You need something better than oral tradition.