₦airaland Forum

Guess who's back, the OLA is back.

And he still has those pictures. It's amazing.

After reading the actual story and not the headline, how do we know when this happened? What makes people jump to the conclusion that it was during this administration?

Are these things Christians have to believe but don't believe or are they things Christians don't have to believe?

SeverusSnape:
Buhari is as confused as an ambushed rat. He doesn't know what he's doing.

Let his body language do the magic instead.

Toothless mongrel who can't do anything!

Why are you so bitter when the extent of corruption under Jonathan is exposed? One would have expected ordinary people to be rejoice.

FreeGlobe:
This president is super clueless. Instead of finding how to fulfill his campaign promises to the northerners and yorubas that voted him, he is busy chasing shadows

Won't stamping out corruption and recovering looted funds be one way of fulfilling his campaign promises to Nigerians? Or do you think only Northerners and Yorubas are the Nigerians who voted him in?

cytellProperty:
Mumu-ish boy like you.

This is why you're a proper fool. It appears that you have nothing sensible to say. Or you've said all your tiny brain is capable of.

cytellProperty:
What is " have you studies anything at all" Olodo!!!

You're a fool. So the best criticism of my response you have is a typo? I guess a genius like yourself has never made any grammatical or typographical errors? Well looking through your posts shows otherwise.

cytellProperty:
How does incompetency link with the building of power plants over the years? Maybe you think its 5 Months that is used to build a power plant that you are ascribing the glory to Buhari. Go and study more and get informed, so you will not continue to mis-inform.

Take a look at your first sentence here. Do you think that is a sensible sentence construction? In your second sentence, why is the "M" in months capitalized? And in your last sentence, what is "mis-inform"? You miserable fool why is there a hyphen there?

You see anyone can ignore actual points and instead focus on trivial issues the fact is that people do this when they have no points to make. Talk to me when you have actual points to make.

cytellProperty:
How does incompetency link with the building of power plants over the years? Maybe you think its 5 Months that is used to build a power plant that you are ascribing the glory to Buhari. Go and study more and get informed, so you will not continue to mis-inform.

It is gross incompetence not to have completed a single power plant. Coal and gas fired plants take less than five years to build. 2 or three of each could have been began and completed simultaneously at multiple sites during his administration instead we have people looting more than 6 billion dollars under his watch. That is incompetent leadership. It isn't like he was building nuclear plants.

I have studied and I'm informed have you studies anything at all?

UyiIredia:
Those aren't legs, they are hind parts whose functions are unknown.

.

That's what it says. If one believes different lifeforms such as plants, apes, fishes, birds etc gradually diversified from a common ancestor and still diversify, then without a doubt one does believe there is no limit to how a species varies.



And how do you know I didn't read my sources. This is an excuse. A bad one.



Back to my question, is there good design in living things ?



Except that's not my conclusion. My conclusion was that the chemical processes in the brain isn't sufficient to account for consciousness.



Did the failed theologian have background knowledge before theorizing about the origins of species ? You see how stupid you are.



And which experiment shows species originate from a common ancestor ? Where in your favorite article was experiment used to support the infrence to xommon descent ?

I'll respond to you here and that will be my final contribution to this post.

Your very first sentence here made me conclude that you're either just too ignorant or dishonest to have this discussion with me. You're denying evidence right before your eyes of hind limbs in whales and other cetacea. You declare that known parts are unknown. That to me is like someone looking at the picture of the globe taken from space showing the African continent and saying that the structure before them is unknown. Such a level of dishonesty or ignorance I can't abide.

So, take the time to educate yourself by taking one of the free online courses on evolution. Or just stop being dishonest. Pick the one that applies best to you.

Good luck to you.

cytellProperty:
Mumu, you think increased power generation happens overnight, the result we are seeing is a product of Jonathan's efforts.

Five years of Jonathan's work manifest three months after his presidency? I say there's something incompetent about his leadership abilities.

LordMecuzy:
Eyinnaya Abaribe These APC Senators and their Propaganda against Jonthan's men self..

Is Introvert and LadyF asleep?

I find people like you amazing. You consider it highlighting the waste during the Jonathan administration mere propaganda? Yet you wonder why Nigeria isn't making any progress with mindsets like yours.

Tofax:
.
If it comes to IBB and ObJ Liver go fail am . When will PMB confront this two former Looters ,IBB & OBJ?

After Jonathan.

niyi20:
Let d sleeping dog be and work on the betterment of our country

Prosecuting these criminals works makes the country much better. These dogs aren't sleeping, they're using the ill gotten wealth to disrupt the country and keep people poor.

What does Okogie have against probes and exposure of corruption? He speaks as if it isn't one of the things that has made the country as terrible as it is. One of the first steps in correcting these issues is identifying the problem. And to identify the problem, we have to know what happened in the past.

Secondly, does Okogie think that it isn't possible to carry out these probes without also working to fix things?

KingEbukasBlog:
there is no link .. The bible is my "link" . You 've been asking me so many questions but waved mine aside -that's the problem . Honestly , I''ll love to answer you only if you'd address mine

The Bible contains incorrect information so why should I take it seriously?

KingEbukasBlog:
lemme reiterate : "Lets be pragmatic "

Okay. Why do you believe in reincarnation?

KingEbukasBlog:
And you raised issues of people "arising naturally" whereas unproven by you

What sort of proof are you looking for?

KingEbukasBlog:
same as yours

My view isn't based on larger numbers.

KingEbukasBlog:
umm ... will non-living things become living in 200 -800 million years then evolve into new animals ?

I don't know.

UyiIredia:
You'll have to provide evidence. I don't think whales have actual leg bones.

You've not been reading. Here's a link for you.

UyiIredia:
Species vary within limits while your theory requires that there's no limit to how they can vary, which is why bacteria could evolve over time to become mammals.

That isn't what the theory of evolution says.

UyiIredia:
Aren't you lazy by not reading even one of the links ?

No it is prudence. If you can't even read your own sources, why should I? I asked you to provide quotes and you can't even do that?

UyiIredia:
The definition of design I posted doesn't contradict evolution. Though, it's a pity evolutionists must deny the fact of design in living things and the obvious and right inference to an intelligent agent.

It is a pity that creationists deny the evidence of evolution and assert a God.

UyiIredia:
What my point is ?

"If consciousness is neither one of them (ie chemical compounds or energy) it's clear that
the chemical processes in the brain aren't sufficient to
account for consciousness, since as anyone knows
chemical reactions usually limited to producing chemical
compounds and a release/use of energy."

There. That's my point.

Consciousness is neither a chemical compound nor energy therefore the brain can't be the source of consciousness?

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise so that argument is invalid.

UyiIredia:
You keep making inane claims of fallacy with poor reasoning. I didn't use the fact that Darwin was a failed theologian to dismiss his theory, I used the fact that a failed theologian's theory was deemed acceptable to show that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT have to be a scientist to assess, accept or dismiss scientific claims.

You're on a roll of making no sense. What does the fact that Darwin decided not to become a clergyman have to do with anything? You need certain background knowledge to even start assessing scientific claims and you're sorely lacking in them.

UyiIredia:
As I said earlier I've read the evidence presented for evolution and saw that it is based on poor reasoning, typically a given fact about lifeforms is pointed out (eg similarities in genes) and it is simply asserted that this supports common descent.

It is experimentally shown that it supports common descent. This is just more of your ignorance revealing itself.

UyiIredia:
I'm the one asking you that. This argument started from my claim that natural factors cannot make biochemicals, you pointed out naturally-occurring amino acids and I noted there were two types while life uses just one type. You are yet to account for how natural factors used ju
st that type.

I told you the answer but you rejected it. So, please say what the mechanism is.

UyiIredia:
Feel free to go back to your earlier statement or leave things at that.

No, I want to know what you're referring to. Or have you become confused again?

UyiIredia:
Not bad, though river banks aren't enclosed the way pipes and blood vessels are.

They don't have to be to serve the function. All it shows is that you've successfully made no sense.

UyiIredia:
And where did I ever say my argument was true because you didn't show it's false. I consistently said you can't say it's false without reason.

Each time you asked me to prove you wrong.

UyiIredia:
Look above.

Simply read.

KingEbukasBlog:
I'm not afraid in any way . I asked you questions and you regarded mine as "vague and pointless " but sought for me to reply yours? You answer mine , I answer yours

Because they were vague and pointless. Yes you raised issues about your God creating people.

KingEbukasBlog:
It isnt established ? There are 6 .5 billion people who believe in the supernatural and why should the opinion of <500 million count ?

Because number of people who hold a view doesn't make it correct. Especially when those views are in conflict.

KingEbukasBlog:
So you believe in evolution , complex life coming from one simple cell(common ancestor) , life coming from in organic matter and the big bang ? Can you explain the initial conditions of the big bang ? So inanimate objects now in 200-800 million years will be living and then evolve into new animals ? Why haven't other inorganic matter that were in existence millions of years ago brought forth life ? Denial of the existence of God (supernatural ) indeed is outright hypocrisy

What is your most pressing question?

KingEbukasBlog:
Lets be pragmatic

Read these stories : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005489/Meet-son-10-Baptist-parents-baffled-experts-vivid-accurate-accounts-past-life-danced-Broadway-acted-opposite-Mae-West.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943568/Five-year-old-boy-convinced-reincarnated-black-woman-Chicago-called-Pam-died-fire-1993.html

and tell me what you think + read the comments in the articles before you refute the proposition

Daily mail articles aren't verification of reincarnation, they're stories.

KingEbukasBlog:
How about google.com , then in the search box you type " Does God have a body " ... that should do the trick at least you brought up the looking up stuff on google

Please provide a link that agrees with your view.

KingEbukasBlog:
"Can you use a dictionary or google? If you can, why have you asked me that pointless question?"

The answer isn't there. If you think it is, please provide a link to the answer you agree with.

KingEbukasBlog:
so this is deemed as a reasonable question ? Cant you look up this one too ?

Yes it is a reasonable question. No I can't. Do you have an answer?

KingEbukasBlog:
So why have you been asking me questions you too can look up ?

Because I don't know if you would agree with the answers out there since Christianity isn't the only religion.

KingEbukasBlog:
You've been asking me pretty pointless questions

No I haven't.

KingEbukasBlog:
"Can you use a dictionary or google? If you can, why have you asked me that pointless question?"

You said your God has hands that aren't made of flesh and bone. What are they made of? The answer isn't in a dictionary and google won't give me your particular answer since it isn't even established that your God exists.

Why don't you answer the simple question? Are you afraid? Or do you have a link that answers it? If you do, please post it here and highlight the relevant answer.

KingEbukasBlog:
so this is deemed as a reasonable question ? Cant you look up this one too ?

Yes it is a reasonable question. You said your God has a body. Where can I look the answer to this one up? Do you have a link?

KingEbukasBlog:
So why have you been asking me questions you too can look up ?

Which ones did I ask that can be looked up that aren't simply religious opinions? Can you verify reincarnation?

KingEbukasBlog:
You've been asking me pretty pointless questions

Which question was pointless?

UyiIredia:
Actual leg bones like the ones seen on land animals ?

Actual leg bones. What do they support?

UyiIredia:
The inference is a poor one since observation shows species vary within limits. Your inference to universal common ancestry contradicts this observation and so it requires a good supporting argument or fact, otherwise it's baseless.

What is the contradiction?

UyiIredia:
I won't, simply answer my question of whether there's good design in living things.

Living things aren't designed. It is interesting that you're unable to actually provide quotes from your own references. Is this fear, laziness or what?

UyiIredia:
That's your poor position. In any case, I will indulge you, let design mean an arrangement of parts performing a given function.

Living things aren't designed, they evolved.

UyiIredia:
I wrote in English not Chinese. I wonder if you are feigning ignorance because you have no rebuttal here.

I'm not feigning ignorance, I'm asking what your point is. Or is it the case that you don't know how to make a point?

UyiIredia:
And when I inquired as to the reasoning behind the evidence it turns out to be a baseless assumption. Simply put, evolution from a common ancestor inferred from embryological and anatomical similarities and supposedly evidenced by assumed to have little or no function. If a failed theologian's theory became widely accepted as science then I certainly have every basis to assess the theory.

Your reference to Darwin's theory as "a failed theologian's theory" actually commits the genetic fallacy. The fact that Darwin was one of the first people to propose the theory doesn't make the theory wrong. I notice that for some reason, you're afraid of reading the proper article on Wikipedia. Here's a link to start you off. You'll notice that there are more lines of evidence than embryological and anatomical similarities. There are books too if you want.

UyiIredia:
It isn't the mechanism.

Then what is the mechanism?

UyiIredia:
The statement you made before this one, and the one before that; both are baseless.

Which statement are you referring to? Again aren't you the one saying there is a God out there?

UyiIredia:
Thank you. If both hearts and pumping machine have functional similarities there is a basis on which they can be compared, a basis for my inference to design.

You're welcome. On that basis, river banks, blood vessels and pipes have functional similarities thus they're all designed.

UyiIredia:
I didn't see any Wikipedia quote. Kindly repost it.

Here it is again. Don't miss it this time.

Wikipedia: Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"wink, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

UyiIredia:
Just state how it commits the said fallacy or shut up.

I've stated it and shown you on Wikipedia so simply read or Bleep off.

UyiIredia:
See above.

See above.