₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
The gopher wood the bible refers to is unknown so we can't even determine the properties of the wood. As for the climate, the bible claims it had never rained instead mist was how the world got precipitation. That doesn't eliminate the weathering such exposed wood must undergo even in a treated state. If you want wood to last in such exposed conditions you don't treat it once and then it will be fine forever or else the ark would have been found, if indeed it was real.

Exactly, there are number of unknowns, some degree of uncertainty based on our limited grasp of the event and the detail provided. However, you can't simply dismiss the possibility because it doesn't fit into your limited understanding or match your expectations. We know things lived longer, grew bigger and the earth is in fact suffering the effects of corruption.

LordReed:
Right sized indeed. How many kinds of animals entered the ark?

2 of every "kind". I am unable to give exact numbers.

LordReed:
So Noah had other people help him build the boat but they decided that they didn't want to take a ride in it? Did they think they did a crappy job? LoL.

Funny that, it's kind of like now, the ark of our salvation has been prepared in Christ Jesus - many decline to board


TV

Please describe or otherwise evidence the natural process whereby organisms acquire "new" genetic information that enables them to become/turn into different life-forms. Not different expressions of pre-existing traits.

And please, not mutations which simply do not generate the capacity/information required for such wholesale changes, and has never been shown to do so. And, are if anything deleterious, not additive. New coherent information cannot be acquired in a random and unguided way.

If it's not semantics, it's scientese

LordReed:
There is no need for a "creative force", it is chemical molecules undergoing natural processes.

Please describe how this natural process works - what is the mechanism whereby it creates new coherent genetic content that leads to totally new morphological expressions

LordReed:
So none, got it.



What denial? Dawkins said it so much like software, does that translate to it being code?

Maybe you need a refresher on what it is:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (/diˈɒksɪraɪboʊnjuːkliːɪk, -kleɪ-/ (About this soundlisten);[1] DNA) is a molecule composed of two chains that coil around each other to form a double helix carrying genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms and many viruses. DNA and ribonucleic acid (RNA) are nucleic acids; alongside proteins, lipids and complex carbohydrates (polysaccharides), nucleic acids are one of the four major types of macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life.

The two DNA strands are also known as polynucleotides as they are composed of simpler monomeric units called nucleotides.[2][3] Each nucleotide is composed of one of four nitrogen-containing nucleobases (cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] or thymine [T]), a sugar called deoxyribose, and a phosphate group. The nucleotides are joined to one another in a chain by covalent bonds between the sugar of one nucleotide and the phosphate of the next, resulting in an alternating sugar-phosphate backbone. The nitrogenous bases of the two separate polynucleotide strands are bound together, according to base pairing rules (A with T and C with G), with hydrogen bonds to make double-stranded DNA. The complementary nitrogenous bases are divided into two groups, pyrimidines and purines. In DNA, the pyrimidines are thymine and cytosine; the purines are adenine and guanine.

Both strands of double-stranded DNA store the same biological information. This information is replicated as and when the two strands separate. A large part of DNA (more than 98% for humans) is non-coding, meaning that these sections do not serve as patterns for protein sequences. The two strands of DNA run in opposite directions to each other and are thus antiparallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of nucleobases (informally, bases). It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes genetic information. RNA strands are created using DNA strands as a template in a process called transcription. Under the genetic code, these RNA strands specify the sequence of amino acids within proteins in a process called translation.

Within eukaryotic cells, DNA is organized into long structures called chromosomes. Before typical cell division, these chromosomes are duplicated in the process of DNA replication, providing a complete set of chromosomes for each daughter cell. Eukaryotic organisms (animals, plants, fungi and protists) store most of their DNA inside the cell nucleus as nuclear DNA, and some in the mitochondria as mitochondrial DNA or in chloroplasts as chloroplast DNA.[4] In contrast, prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) store their DNA only in the cytoplasm, in circular chromosomes. Within eukaryotic chromosomes, chromatin proteins, such as histones, compact and organize DNA. These compacting structures guide the interactions between DNA and other proteins, helping control which parts of the DNA are transcribed.

TV

LordReed:
Where is the scientific study that brought this conclusion?

The NL commissioned longitudinal study of procreation across and between the nations 1960 - 2018

LordReed:
DNA is not a code, it is only described as such to simplify the explanation of its operation. DNA is a sequence of proteins which by their nature are capable of being altered in structure and sequence hence leading to new expressions in the organism. Mutation is how we describe the methods by which these alterations take place. There is no need for a "creative force", it is chemical molecules undergoing natural processes.

The denial is stroooooooong!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhuxg3WRfg


TV

^{...the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand...repent ye and believe the Gospel}

LordReed:
In a boat made of wood that has been exposed to the elements for 120 years. Have they ever seen wood that has been exposed to the elements for 10years? Wood becomes brittle under those conditions, then you build a boat out of it and then load it with thousands of animals? What a farce.

Do you know what the climate was at that point in time? Do you know what types of wood existed back then or their quality ? The bible records it was made of gopher wood and covered in pitch.

LordReed:
I doubt such a person had the capacity with only 3 other helpers to build such a thing. Even the so called tower of Babel involved all of humanity and yet 4 people supposedly built a boat capable of containing a pair of all the animals in the world? My objection is not his expertise, it is the scale.

Presumably the scale has been "right-sized" somewhat given that it has been explained that it was "kinds" and not necessarily every "species" of creature. Plus it was built over an extensive period. Further, and I stand to be corrected, nowhere does it say that labour was limited to Noah and his family does it?


TV

budaatum:
That would be appropriate for those who seek not. For those who do this all things are possible.

So you sought, and the outcome was a thread titled Evolution 101? ...

LordReed:
How do we see this lost rich genome in humans?

From the base pair - Adam & Eve - were expressed all of the ethnic types. And whilst all ethnic types are able to procreate, pairs from any one ethnic type are limited in their expression.

Whilst certain traits become more pronounced and others less so, some are lost over time. Gene deletion attests to this in part and, I believe can be extrapolated backwards to about the time of the base pair

LordReed:
There is nothing called less or more evolved, evolution is not a hierarchical ladder.

Fine. No semantic quibbles. More, less, at least the evolutionary position is that it is different no?

LordReed:
As for the acquisition of new genetic material, what do you mean by that? Do you understand what mutation is?

Changes in morphology demand a change in the code. By what natural mechanism does this take place? Mutation does not possess the creative force required to write new code.

budaatum:
Non-omnipotence grasps what omnipotence is or does by continously questioning omnipotence until one has grasped what omnipotence is or does.
_Ref

This would be more apt - Ref - Non-omnipotence simply does not have the capacity to grasp omnipotence.


Cheers
TV

wirinet:
You are still talking without saying anything. Even if nothing in concise, give us a classification we can define. Give something that can be taught, disputed upon and discussed. We know what biological family and genus means, explain what in between is and how it's criteria for classification.

I have provided a brief overview of "kind" as mentioned in the bible. I don't have anything more comprehensive, although I'm sure there's more out there. It's purpose was to dispel the myth of 125'000 different kinds of animals in the ark.

wirinet:
Cheetahs are cat family (felidae), no doubt about that. They possess all the features and characteristics of cats. Now if you say that according to your "kind" classification, it is dog, explain why.

Does this discussion boil down to how one classifies a cheetah? Perhaps . Again, the point was that no system of classification is perfectly precise or devoid of anomalies.

wirinet:
Some big cats can interbreed, but the problem is their offsprings are usually sterile. They in turn cannot breed. The very definition of species iincludes the ability breed and create fertile offspring . We really need your definition of what makes a kind.

Again, somewhat missing the point. Sometimes they are not sterile. It often depends on the pairing. As mentioned, over time some of the richness of the genome at the original creation has been lost. We see this even in humans.

wirinet:
Evolution fables, and creation (or kind-ution) is fact? The only proof being a sentence "the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind" in a religious book? While, evolution fable produces evidence from generics, paleontology, geology and biology, kind-ution fact only evidence is a quote from the bible.

No branch of science has produced anything that evidences evolution - simply because that is not how we arrived at the richness, complexity and diversity of life today.

And it is still stuck on the point of how life actually began (even though "evolutionists" try and hive that off as a separated discussion). What we have is a "science academy" that is has an a priori commitment to seeing and interpreting everything through an "evolutionary" lens.

And still no response to my simple question

wirinet:
It is ridiculous that a so called omnipotent God, that was supposed to have create the whole universe and all creatures in it with just words in 6 days, would have to go through such stupid strategy of destroying the earth with flood, and saving 8 people with 2 of every animal.

How does non-omnipotence grasp or question what omnipotence is or does?


TV

EmperorHarry:
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."
Wiki

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex : GAY
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual activity between persons of the same sex
: a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

TV01 and openmine thanks for the replies.I think I've gotten just what I needed to know as regards to my question.I'll wait for Shepherd and those verses.

No problem.

The above is a social description - not a scientific or a legal one. No one's identity is based on how they feel "about anything", except that be a socio-cultural identity.

I am an adult male, black if you insist. That is an identity rooted in fact, in reality. Not in action, or feeling. I sometimes identify as a boxer, but that is not ontological nor teleological. Even if one eats only herbs and thus identifies as a vegetarian, it is a social or personal thing.

Nevertheless, such labels can be useful as points of reference - I identify MuttleyLaff as an die-hard homosexualist fanatic or possibly a sponsored homo-activist shill. Do I even need to mention Wiki's liberal bias?


TV

EmperorHarry:
openmine and TV01 can a "homosexual" make heaven in that such a person never had sexual activity with same sex?
We've reached an clarification that being attracted to the same sex or identifying as gay doesn't mean one is an abomination.So do gay people who don't have sexual intimacy with same sex have a place in the church? Should they be allowed to worship in peace without stigma and victimization due to ignorantly prejudiced "sanctimonious" believers?

Viewed froma Christian perspective, this question is still somewhat faulty.

There is nothing like a "homosexual". That a person experiences SSA does not make him or her a homosexual. That is a matter of identification, which I don't deny anyone, but it is not scriptural or rooted in truth.

Everyone who comes to Christ sincerely has a place. And SSA or urges may well persist after one does so. THey key is not believing and insisting that such urges are fine, normal, healthy and non-negotiable (or conversely, approved by God).

So having the SS feelings but the right attitude, should engender the same love and support any other believer is afforded, whatever it is they may be struggling with. In such instances they are brethren and without any sort of qualification.

On he other hand, if they remain obdurate in claiming the essentality of their feelings and labelling themselves as homosexual, I would suggest asking them to leave after clear counselling and the opportunity to repent.

If, and worse still they stridently insisting it is God approved and /or millitantly agitated for it's acceptance, I would see them out quick time. You may consider that stigmatisation or victimisation, but it's scriptural. Of course there are "churches" which are gay-affirming.

On a personal note, we left a church which affirmed transgenderism in a boy of 5 or 6 years old. Not only was he allowed to dress as a girl and wear make-up and jewellery, the attention seeking little blighter poor child ran riot in Sunday school .


TV

EmperorHarry:
Muttleylaff I have a question.
Does the Bible strictly condemn homosexuality or just sex between homos? Can you refer verses that don't suggest just the sexually related part of homosexuality.Verses that condemn homosexuality as a whole. This is open to all.I just need to clarify something.

From a Christian/Biblical perspective the wording of your query is inherently flawed.

The Bible does not recognise a "homosexual" as type of person. That is a category error. There is nothing like a "heterosexual" either. The bible recognises male and female created sexually dimporphous, evidence by the complimentarity of their sexual/reproductive function/ality.

Categorising people as "homosexual" is wholly a social norm. Widespread, generally accepted, hardly ever questioned, but purely social nonetheless. No scientist or scientific study ever refers to humans/people as homosexual. Likewise no legal code ever recognises a homosexual as a distinct type of person. Homosexual is always qualified by the word "act".

With the correct biblical understanding in place, your question can be more readily addressed. Do some people experience SSA? Absolutely, it does not make them ontologically or functionally different from those who don't.

Is the attraction in itself a sin? It''s certainly a disorder, but only a sin if - excuse the seeming pun - head is given to such lustful feelings. If they are rightly recognised as disordered and not entertained and stood against, it is not sin - just as for opposite sex lust or feelings . SS physical intimacy of a sexual nature is always sin and vis-a-viz my earlier reference to function, "dysfunctional".

The bible is unmistakeably clear that a Christian can be delivered from such feelings and such acts. But it is in my opinion unlikely, if you present yourself to Christ and demand He accept you and your chosen identity. A Christian indeed comes as he or she is, but then submits to The Holy Spirits leading and identifies only as God in Christ Jesus sees him or her.

There is no indication, pattern, type or example affirming SS relationshipns anywhere in the bible. Conversely the scriptures condemning it are clear-cut and unambiguous. How would such a relationship be sanctified, or deemed equal to marriage - if as MuttleyLaff himself states - it is not open to them?

If it was indeed ok, even as MuttleyLaff likes to qualify it "consensual & committed", there would be no distinct prohibition against "gayhomosex" alongside the prohibitions against sexual immorality. Why would there need to be?

As OKCOrmel has repeatedly asked, are those who testify as overcoming in Christ liars?


TV

Excerpt from here - https://www.thedailybeast.com/gay-open-marriages-need-to-come-out-of-the-closet

In a 2013 column for Slate, Hanna Rosin called non-monogamy the gay community’s “dirty little secret,” citing a study from the ’80s, which showed that up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people. That number sounds about right to me, but here’s the thing: It’s not dirty and it’s hardly a secret, at least if you know where to look.

Monogamish couples are a constant presence on apps like Grindr and Scruff, which allow gay men to connect with other men to chat or hook up. Users commonly describe themselves as “dating,” “in an open relationship,” “partnered,” or “married,” while others set up an account with their partner if they’re looking to play together.

I spoke to one couple that hasn’t let marriage get in the way of their Scruff account. Eric, 34, and Martin, 33, walked down the aisle last October after dating for five years. Like many gay couples, they were initially monogamous, although with “infrequent and informal” exceptions. “Think post-bar bathhouse outings,” Eric explained. But after creating a profile together on Scruff a few years ago, the couple agreed on a set of boundaries. “We only sleep with people together, we have to both communicate with the person to some extent before we meet up, and the guy has to very clearly be attracted to both of us,” Eric said.

Like nearly everyone I spoke to, the pair had few gay friends that were in monogamous relationships, and Martin believes it’s because there are fewer rules and expectations around gay relationships. “I think we don’t have heteronormative templates that we have to subscribe to,” Martin said. “There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.”

...urgh!

MuttleyLaff:
I am brazenly walking pass the questions OKcornel presents to me because I dont suffer hypocrites gladly, especially the ones like him, who take pride and delight in their hypocrisy

MuttleyLaff you can lie! Fess up, no answer. OkCornel don land knockout blow


TV

Shepherd00:
@Bolded.
These are the kind of things you say that when pursuit after, you get tight up in robes.

What you are saying here in essence is that, Sodom and Gomorrah were not into homosexual practice until God determined to destroy them? In other words, their actions that night was their first attempt as a protest against God?

If your answer is Yes, then, they knew that God hated homosexuality hence did it to spite Him?

How did they Know about the impending destruction?

Were they like Nineveh warned but remained obstinate?

Who was sent to inform them, because the Bible didn't mention that the people of Sodom were warned.

Be-that-as-it-may, the Sodomites and Gomorrahites went after Strange flesh full force in protest against God warning, does this not tell you that they knew that homosexuality was a grave wickedness and a sin against God?

Thank you! sir

I've not been chanced to reply, but those are exactly the right questions to that inordinate stretching and warping of the biblical narrative. I shook my head so tey. I could scarce believe what I was reading

Some of MuttleyLaffs claims are a cause for real consternation. A clear sign that this is about forcing gayhomosex into the Christian culture at all costs and nothing to do with Christian truth. . Sackcloth and ashes with great lamentation sef .


TV

wirinet:
You are yet to provide a concise classification mythology for your "Kind".

Even the typically employed order-family-genus-species taxonomy is not totally concise. With lots of re-classifications and disputes about what should be placed where. But it's a good point and I'd place it somewhere around or between family and genus.

wirinet:
The first problem with your examples of kind is that inter breeding is impossible between your kind, as a cheetah cannot breed with a lion.

This is not a problem that does not arise in the OFGS system. Interbreeding cannot and should not be the only or even the main criteria. But again, point taken. Cheetahs are listed as Felids in this OFGS classification. Some believe they are more like dogs? There will always be anomalies.

Tigers, Leopards, Lions and the other big cats can all interbreed, and with some of the smaller cats. Some kinds may have been more genetically rich/diverse or better able to adapt, leading to more types within it.

There could be "competition" even within the kinds over time. Lot's of factors could have led to a kind being restricted or expansive in the types within it.

There is a lot we can't say for sure and lot's of time has passed. It's possible that the 2 of each kind were not even what today would be called the same species and, there were probably fewer types within each kind but with greater genetic richness/diversity, which diminishes over time.

wirinet:
Now how does your cat "kind" differ from the ape "kind"?

Hopefully it's clearer now.

hakeem4:
okay. Keep believing in your myths.

And you are free to stick to your fables of evolution.

Meanwhile, any takers for the bolded?

For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans requires the acquisition of new genetic material.
Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?


TV

MuttleyLaff:
Now forget the attempted gang rape of those angel, tell me was Sodom and Gomorrah not already planned to be destroyed by God or not, hmm?

The attempted gang rape would have just been another instance in a long line of such sexually immoral sin/s. Evidenced by Jude;

Jude 1:7 - as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


TV

wirinet:
So what happened to plants. Plants do drown also if submerged in water for prolonged periods.
If all the plants die, what did the animals and Noah's family eat when the left the ark?

I suppose not all would die. And there would be seeds. The waters receded gradually after the flood which would have given others time to sprout again. On-board food stores would have sufficed for a time.

I am being "deluged" with questions, yet to hear back on the single one I asked?


Cheers
TV

wirinet:
So how many kinds of birds and how many kinds of animals are there according to your classification of kinds? Are Ostrich, dove, sparrow, chicken, Turkey the same kind or different kinds of birds? What of Dogs, are wolves, foxes and jackals the same kind or different kinds? What of hyenas?

Also tell me is Bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas are same or different kinds with humans. You guys need to publish your classification of kinds, so others can understand.

Dogs are a good example, as are cats. All dogs including wolves, jackals, coyotes etc. would have been a kind. What is commonly termed speciation today is the loss over time of information the original near-perfect pair would have had in localised populations, as certain features are de-emphasised or emphasised, various traits become more pronounced or recessive.

Humans are uniquely created in the image of God. And in some ways are a good example. Adam and Eve would have hade a perfect genome, containing traits we see in what are termed the "races" today (although through the descendants of Noah).

Over time, some traits would become more or less pronounced as populations diverge and localise. It evidences genetic information being lost or becoming recessive, as opposed to the acquisition of new information that proponents of evolution are yet to evidence.

wirinet:
What of camels llamas and giraffes are they the same kind with horses? Then there are bison, African buffalo, water buffalo, antelopes, wildebeest, impala, gazelles, sheep, goats, muskoxen, and domestic cattle are they all the same kind?
As I said provide a well written journal of your classification according to kinds.

I hope the above speaks to this.

wirinet:
That is written above is absolutely nonsense. It looks like something a schizophrenic would write. Anyway, you guys already say, that a holy spirit is required to understand such rubbish.
it marries with what we can glean from the historical record. It takes greater faith to believe evolution.


Now interprete these tautologies;
God formed the world "in and out of the waters - Does this mean the earth is formed inside water and out of water?

There is still water above and below the earth - What is meant by above and below the earth? Does that include space?

windows of heaven were opened and the waters of the deep released - windows where?

Look up, why is the sky blue? - We all know why the sky is blue and sometimes orange and even red.

There is no space - not in the way it is typically presented in movies. There is water above and below the earth. Above the firmament of heaven and in the "deep".

wirinet:
Nonsense.

Graciás


I am being "deluged" with questions, yet no-one has answered the single one I raised?


TV

hakeem4:
really? Do you know the amount of what it would require to fill the earth to the topmost part ( Mount Everest) ? I know you know this story is a myth but you’re just trying to be dishonest here.

I have absolutely no idea how much water it would take to flood the earth such that the highest point at that time - or any time - would be covered.

The earth would have been vastly different at that time. Climate, topography the works. Don't forget according to the biblical account rain wasn't even a thing. The Earth was like a perfectly configured biosphere.

Myth? In as much as myth is often taken to read fable, no I don't. I believe that it is absolute truth. The earth was covered until all that had breath died. And it was a global flood.


I am being "deluged" with questions, any takers for the one I raised?

Cheers
TV

OkCornel:
You think by mentioning alBHAGDADI countless times on this thread to derail it into another tithe debate for you to escape from my questions will help you?

Dude, I see through your moves!

We all do!


TV

wirinet:
You are only talking about animals, what of plants species and even fungi. There are close to 400,000 plant species in the world. How did Noah preserve the plants?

Flesh only bro'.

Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.

hakeem4:
species is a group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
Asian elephant and African elephants are different species. While donkey and horse are of the same species.

Kind is an ambiguous term.

But even if he took few animals the size of his ship is too small that it would fail. While the amount of water required to fill the earth to the highest point is not possible.

Except if the flood took place in only Noah’s country

Elephants belong to the same kind. Horses, Donkeys, Zebras etc. are also a kind. The elephant kind would have given rise to African, Asian, Woolly mammoth and any other type of elephant kind that came into being. The animals needn't be mature or even post pubescent.

God formed the world "in and out of the waters. There is still water above and below the earth. The windows of heaven were opened and the waters of the deep released. Look up, why is the sky blue?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,


TV

Shepherd00:
So this thread ends here? MuttleyLaff, the only thing I saw you trying to do was to use terms like [b]porneia , arsenokoites , and malakoi/malakos to distract people from the ACT of homosexuality.

If the words were changed, did the act change?

Oh Well! I may just be talking to myself here, as you have disappeared from your own thread.

Has MuttleyLaff used the recent brouhaha to make a clean getaway? . He was after all taking the mother of all NL beatdowns. No where to run, turn or hide, no one willing to ride shotgun - even sellswords .

One of his ruses is to find an interlocuter guilty of some imagined offence and subsequently refuse to answer questions or respond to posers. Perhaps he sees this as his chance. We shall see, or maybe we won't .


TV

kkins25:
Are you saying you agree that dogs are indeed offshoot of wolves? Or are you saying that dog and wolves were created differently. If so, can you provide reputable and irrefutable evidence that a dog was with adam in that fantasy garden called eden? I doubt you can. All you would do is use this your non eductative dodge tatics to avoid my questions.

Wolves and Dogs are of the same kind. The dog/wolf "kind" of creature was created on the 6th day. Before Adam, but on the same day

kkins25:
Can you also explain why we have so many races even though we arise from the same two parents. Why are they blacks, whites, brown skins?.

Because the first pair of "mankind" contained a perfect genome. With the inherent variability we see today. There are no "races", just various expressions of that original genome. Over time emphasis on certain traits becomes increasingly pronounced in localised populations and the original variety becomes increasingly recessive or is simply lost.

I can only speculate as to the colour of our first parents Adam and Eve. I'd wager they were the same colour though .

kkins25:
If eve was allegedly taken off from the ribs of adam they should share the same genetic make with differences just been in chromosome 23. Which is the gene coding for sex.

The question you are better asking your own evolutionary worldview is how would blind forces perfectly construct and time sexually dimorphpous creatures? And why? Given how practically inefficient it is.

kkins25:
Can you explicitly tell us how mr NOAH was able to preserve animals like penguins which live far away from the supposed land of eden believed to ne somewhere in east africa?

God sent them to him. The earth then had different climatic conditions and likely a more unified land mass. The key was in the animals survival after the flood catastrophe. Near perfect genomes would have been robust enough to adapt. Hence hairy elephants. Are you hairy .

kkins25:
Can you tell us how possible it is for a woman virgin to birth a male child? Since jesus was bearing A XY gene make up, who would he look like? His mother? Or his father? Lordreed, loj i think this is where God breaks the law of the universe.

I haven't a clue, but with God all things are possible. God is the lawgiver and He is able to subdue all things according to the word of His power. Jesus looked like His dad of course. You no dey read Bible .

kkins25:
We atheist-ish know better but we want to learn from you since you know better- being a child of god of cause.

No you don't. Study to show thyself approved and avoid things labelled science which in truth are not.

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:


Seeing how readily and swiftly I have obliged you, will you be answering my question any time soon? ".....acquisition of new information"


TV

kkins25:
Tvo1, nd others, i still dey wait. How did the good old wolf transform into a dog. How does a wolf change to a BULL DOG.?

It's spelt T-V-0-1, incorrectly coded data will not produce the right outcome i.e., it is deleterious. Proper use of the code (language), ensures it is communicable, replicable - I saw your post by random chance

Now to your question. Simples, Wolves and Dogs are the same kind. No "transformation" happened, need happen, or can happen. They are merely different expressions of the same gene set. Bulldogs have an emphasis on certain features due to selective breeding by humans.

Did you really ask that question B.Sc Biology? Which of the UIs did you attend Ife? Lag? Nsukka? ABU?

Now to my question if you will. ".....acquisition of new information"

If na UI of Harvard sef

"Is there no one else"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyBzSx92kdA




TV

kkins25:

Lol!!!! The dog kimd and cat kind.. Hahahaahaha..

That's correct. Ogbeni, what causes your laughter . Animal kinds were created with perfect genomes, able to adapt to a variety of conditions and situations.

kkins25:
As to your second paragraph, my brother my brother, we've mentioned countless times that the acquisition of novel nucleotide data happened within the span of millions of years. We know this for fact :

It can't be a fact if it has not been directly observed or, it lacks the evidence to clearly demonstrate it. Your assertion here is at best speculative and not science. Perfectly coded data/information cannot happen randomly, no matter how much time elapses. Fact! There must be an author. Fact

Darwin, bless him, he's my homie, was ignorant of DNA. We now know that it is code/information. If one grasps the laws on information, it is clear that information does not occur by chance - information that is storable, transmissible, decodable (think language bro'), must have an author and never occurs randomly or by chance in nature. Further, there is no known natural process whereby DNA acquires new information. All the evidence points to a loss of information over time, not a gain. Deleteriation, not acquisition.

kkins25:
For instance take lets take a look at EMBRYOLOGY.

Embryology as a proof of evolutionary linkage between organism(mammals) entails that the developing embryo of these group of organism all happen to have very synonymous looking babies. The babies of pigs, man, goat, elephant, sheep, etc at one stage in the development all look alike and almost indifferent. This is no mere coincidence.

So really you're just a regurgitator . Embryology as evidence of evolution has been shown to be fraudulent ages ago. Are you a learner?

kkins25:
If A God created man then he didn't just snappped his finhgers and voila adam was born. No. It hints us that your God must have created you using these animals as model. The most important model being the chimpanzee. Its no coincidence that the chimpanzee and adam share 97% of DNA material. Somehow adam most be related to the chimpanzee.

Yes He did. And more evidence of your "L-Plates". The 97% correlation was for the 15% of the genome that codes for morphology, not the total genome. not to mention that like comparisons can be made with fruit and veg - tell me is man related to shrubs . Choose to be deceived, no wahalla.

kkins25:
We have observed certain features in organisms that suggest that all animal and plant life are related.

Weak, weak, weak. Any scientist worth his salt knows that data or evidence can fit a number of thesis. One could just as readily say that commonality points to a single author/designer or base template.

kkins25:
How does a pig morph into an elephant?
This is a ridiculous question. It is not possible for a lion to turn to tiger. No. Thats something only people who subscribe to the creationist philosophy would do.

No one asked you that. The question was about the mechanism behind the cellular acquisition of new information. Answer now, stop throwing tantrums

kkins25:
Science has never stated that a pig change to an elephant. We most times cannot establish which organism came first and which came after. What science has said is that, similar organisms most have originated from a common ancestor.

Fine. Simply show how the genetic material in the first life-form acquired "new" information that allowed it to change morphology. For fish, for cattle, for birds, for bacteria, for plants, for all living creatures. E caan done, 'cos it didn't happen. As much as you strain to believe. Force of will won't make it so bro'.

kkins25:
We acknowledge that we don't know everything yet. We acknowledge that there are missing links. On the less we are not "brain lazy". We will keep breaking our backs to educate those like yourself. Who simply fill every gap of mystery with God.

. Look at his face. Mutating lifeform. Your leaps of faith are greater than anything creationists have to bridge.

kkins25:
Another viable proof is our discovery of fossils. My goodness, you'd be astonished to the discoveries science has made. We have found fossils that are older than adam. So how an adam be the first man when we have other homo's like Taung 1Taung Childwhom is millions of years old.

Sweet. Put your faith in flawed, assumption-ridden dating methods. You will defend your faith at all costs. Gap ko...breach ni

kkins25:
There are many more discovered fossils with anatomy that are slighty different from what we have now. All you have to do is read. Oga i beg you- read. What we have seen with our koro koro eyes does not tally with the fairytales of the bible. Like muttleylaff has said, stop taking everything in the bible as lIteral. Even the story of job is been argued to be figurative or symbolic.

All fossils determined to be missing links between the ape-like creature or apes and man have been found to be fraudulent. Please research wider.

kkins25:
Aside anatomy and fossil discovery, we have OBSERVED BIOGEOGRAPHICAL influence on the category of organisms we have on the face of the planet. For example, lets take a look at Australia, we have observed that the group of mamals there are marsupial mammals rather than placental as we see in other ecosystem of the world.

Marsupial are so named because they do not hnutire their embryos via the placenta. I dont want to bore you with too much detail so you should do your own investigation when you are ready. I dont want to write lengthy detailed post like muttley and no one would read.

Yes now, as created. What's your point - oh yes, creatures can randomly become other creatures - just give them millions, and billions and trillions and quadrillions of years

kkins25:
Even though, climatic conditions are thesame with other regions with similar environmental conditions. BIOGEOGRAPHICAL distribution of organisms suggests that, [b]organisms can indeed change [/b]into something not entirely but significantly different from it ancestors. We know for sure that Australia was once connected to antartica millions of years ago. We also know that the fauna of Australia most have journeyed across other lands to Australia. However, when Australia became separated and drifted through different climatic conditions these animlas and plants underwent some serious modifications.

Change in size, weight, colouring, the emphasis or de-emphasis of some features, i.e. hairiness. But they remain the same creature.

kkins25:
Another even more prominent, non arguable proof is the damn genetic sequence similarity between all organisms. No need to talk much here.

I've told you before, similarity as an argument can be proof for different positions, it doesn't necessarily certify any one of them.

kkins25:
Now, we have also seen organims that pose as a bridge between one organism to another. For example, salamders look like snakes and lizerds. Duck billed platypus looks like a bird but it is a mammal. It even lays eggs. We previously thouth dolphins were fishes but we were wrong. They are bloody mammals too. Bros if i keep talking, we will not live here
I don dey tire self. Ohh this tablet doesnt allow me display my potentials conveniently. I should boot up my windows. But naaahh..

Bridge ke? The only bridge is new information. Back to my question neophyte. Similarity can just as well be in design. Upgrade your device and your shoddy thinking. Or perhaps evolve it


TV

kkins25:
oh shut the hell up already!! Just tell us if God created a Dog. Did God also create the domestic cat?

God created the dog "kind" and the "cat" kind.

No need to get salty . Are you able to explain or provide evidence of the mechanism whereby DNA is able to acquire and encode new information which leads to wholesale changes in morphology, such that they become completely different kinds of animals?


Cheers
TV

OkCornel:
1) Those who turned away from homosexuality and lesbianism after encountering Jesus... are they liars? Are their testimonies lies?

Excellent question. You are unlikely to get an answer though. At best an indirect response, or a reference to an earlier post .

OkCornel:
2) Also, Jesus explicitly mentioned in Matthew 19 that in the beginning God made them male and female. Where and how did God modify this to approve a male/male and female/female relationship? Where in the scriptures can we get examples of same sex marriage which was approved and blessed by God (that is if there are any examples of same sex marriage)

Another great question. However, this has been asked repeatedly - and ignored unabashedly. Good luck.

MuttleyLaff:
TV01, you're smart and educated enough, live in the West, not to shamelessly descend to an all time low of being stereotypic. Are you that far removed, you have never come in contact with any SSA couples in long time standing committed, loyal, kind, loving relationship with no scandals, no drug use, no skeletons, no hanky pankies etcetera erh TV01?

I doubt you go into the world like Jesus commands us, but rather want the world to come to you, that's probably why you have a funny perspective and myopic views of SSA couples. For your information, the mention of Elton John was incidental, I could have mention a few others, like my neighbour that I l've known for over 20 years or friends and colleagues know in dedicated single SSA relationships, some even have kids, but you wouldn't know them, hence why Elton or Ricky had the mentions.

Possible? Yes, ubiquitous, hell no. Like I said, statistically insignificant at best. These people you are testifying about, you do not know what they do in secret. ss couples always make efforts to appear to be just like os couples - but they ain't. Na you mention EJ.

TV

MuttleyLaff:
it is between two consenting adults, that are at peace with each other, at peace with God and in truth, their intentions are good, they arent doing anyone any harm, their hearts are pure, they are faithful, caring and supportive to each other, they are in love with one another until death do them apart.

The above is MuttleyLaffs constant refrain. Essentially an attempt to portray ss couples totally normal and analogous to os couples, but more insidiously, portray faithful and committed relationships as the norm for ss couples. But is this true?

I first joined NL in my research about the tithe. Having come to a different understanding to the one commonly taught in Pentecostal churches, I prayed, read and researched for greater insight.

I found the discussions on NL expansive, and much with much insight. Kudos to all those from back in the day – on either side. I see some are still fighting that battle even now .

But one thing that continually frustrated me, and was ultimately the reason I left the discussion, and even the section, was the refusal to move from the doctrinal to the practical. This post is to clearly evidence the practical outworking which falsifies MuttleyLaffs doctrinal thesis.

Gay relationships on the whole experience more domestic violence and more extreme violence. Gay relationships are often short lived, and partners over a lifetime can reach into the hundreds. Furtive public encounters are a hallmark, exacerbated by the use of the internet and hook-up apps.

Drug use is rampant in homosex encounters especially at more organised orgy type gatherings, another hallmark. Gay identified people have heightened indicators for use across the drug spectrum, from cigarettes, to alcohol to hallucogenics and the traditional hard drugs. Disease indicators are also elevated (search gay bowel syndrome), along with suicide ideation and an on average shorter life-span.

Having the perversion codified into law has hurt everyone. This endemic inability to remain faithful has led to calls for “monogamishness”, as gay mores infect traditional norms.

Even where there are what could be termed “committed” gay relationships, they are typically open to 3rd parties or extra-curricula encounters by the individual parties.

Case in point. Elton John and his partner recently mentioned, went to great lengths to keep details of Furnishes involvement in transatlantic orgies out of the UK press - using gagging orders and legal threats. Even as they continue to portray themselves as a model couple and family .

Homosex hardly comes without attendant pathologies. And these pathologies are default behaviours, not defective as they would be considered in opposite sex relationships.

Into this comes MuttleyLaff, trying to lead astray the faithful, butcher and re-write scripture and claim Gods writ for this dysfunction and depravity. Really?

The couple in MuttleyLaffs purview are statistically insignificant, if they do indeed exist. Hence purview is utterly bogus - from a spiritual, scriptural, biological, medical, legal and social perspective as demonstrated .


TV

EmperorHarry:
I can only refer you to comprehensive links and research articles that portray evolution in it's simple forms.Unlike some folks at quora and reddit who are more knowledgeable(by experience in the field and years of research) and are willing to provide a compendious answer to every question and misconceptions you have about the subject,I am only limited to my subjective research (which has changed my perspective and enlightened me remarkably on the subject) and I don't have the mental strength nor fervor to have a long ass discussion in a bid to shed more light on evolutuon.You can learn more by reading through the answers and convos that can be found on the sites including debate.com and medium etc to subjectively understand evolution so you know where the gaps and holes are and how sceptical you should be about them.
The evolution theory becomes complicated when it is adapted to try to explain philosophical questions in a bid to provide a natural and materialistic explanation for everything.This leaves us with more questions than answers with a underwhelming amount of evidence to back up hypotheses postulated.Evolution independent of this as regards to the observation initially documented by Jean Baptiste Lamarck and modified by Darwin is a very plausible theory that is supported by adaptation.It has been promoted from an hypothesis to a scientific theory after billions of dollars and years of research from different scientists in various fields and there is a consensus that it's as valid as the earth is spherical(This doesn't mean it isn't liable to change and can be demoted to a hypothesis in light of new indisputable evidences).
That's just the fun thing about science independent of personal interests and influence.It doesn't have all the answers and a true scientist wouldn't claim to know it all.As vaxx said,science is a work in progress with more questions than answers.
At this point you must prolly be thinking,all this words and yet no answer to your simple question.I admit I'm not even attempting to provide evidences as regards your question but if you find anybody that does,try to be open-minded.I'm only writing this so as to nudge you to find out more about evolution indepthly for yourself before you disapprove of it cos I've been there before.

This is just my opinion and I would entertain any objections and corrections.

I can't honestly say I consider this any kind of answer. However, I am really impressed by the effort you have gone in your response. My regards.


TV

kkins25:
what brings muttley here now ehnn??

kkins25:
Evolution has not claimed to fully understand the whole process of evolution.

kkins25:
At a microlevel, evolution has been proved beyond doubt.

If by macro-level you refer to adaptation, they yes - all within the limits of the extant genetic information

kkins25:
As a matter of fact the evolution from unicellular organization to multicellular organization has been demonstrated.

Feel free to provide evidence for that. Although what we are after is the change of one creature - say megafauna - into another, and the mechanism behind the acquisition of new data to effect that process.

kkins25:
Day by day evolution is making more freaking sense than the BS story of Noahs ark.

I have no problem with you asserting this, it's not the question I asked. Please answer that if you are able.

kkins25:
If evolution is false then answer me this
Capslocked, budaatum, seun, muttleylaff, loj, billy0naire, EmperorHarry, come and bear witness to this.

All creationist in this thread should tell us
IF GOD CREATRD A DOG ALONG WITH OTHER ANIMALS ON THE 5TH DAY OF CREATION..

TVO1, SHEPHERD00, OPENMINE, ANSWER OR BE LABELED AS BLIND BRAINWASHED BUFFONS.

No, it was the 6th .


TV

MuttleyLaff:
Forgive me TV01, God knows my heart, that I am not intending, wasn't and didn't intend to ignore or planned not to respond to those outstanding two posts of yours. I am not like that, not especially to a worthy someone like you. I promise you, I'll restrain and discipline myself from responding to other posts except this niggling budaatum post I am dealing with.

I just got carried away, that at least that OkCornel post was right up the alley of the thread's subject title heading. Pardon my excitement.

Indeed, God only knows the heart of man. I can only see the outworking of yours based on your submissions here .

It's 4 posts actually and, I am not actually asking for responses - have I at any point requested them? This is a public forum. There is no protocol as such and, I always post with the fully understanding that those addressed may choose not to reply. There is no compulsion.

Moreover, I am seeing this as less a discussion and more a slow moving car crash as you increasingly tie yourself in knots trying to justify your position from the bible. You can't ride the beast, just swallow the frog .

MuttleyLaff:
The thread was opened to deconstruct lies and myths surrounding homosexuality and SSA unions .

MuttleyLaff, e caan done! All attempts to squeeze a positive ss theology into scripture is doomed to fail. Attempting it is just foolhardy. And, you are failing woefully.


TV

MuttleyLaff:
1/ First did you notice the OkCornel presentation of the real meanings of the words perpetrated and used to demonise SSA persons TV01, hmm?
2/ Do you agree and accept that they either have to do with homosexuality bordering with prostituting and/or paedophilia, hmm?

Don't attempt a diversionary manoeuvre Muttley. I have a number of posts which you have steadfastly ignored. I have raised a new one, feel free to ignore like the others, but don't attempt a deceitful non-response. Even so, I see OKCornel's submission re meaning and have no contention with it - it does not change the clear reading of scripture. Now to my post/s.

1. Why did God allow LGBTQ+-x/ to suffer these past 6'000 years - or even longer as you don't subscribe to a 6 thousand year old creation?
2. Why did Gods plan for creation include an interminable length of time without children for LGBTQ+-/X?
3. If, as you state marriage is not for ss couples, how are these children sanctified?
4. The bible; holy children as those born to at least one believing parent in a male-female marriage. How far for children parented by ss?


TV

shadeyinka:
That's your interpretation: and you know it doesn't make sense!

That's my interpretation of what you appear to be saying. So I could be wrong. Please help me by explaining how

Mark 10:6:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Translates to
Means that God made them male and female before He even created the heavens and the earth

And not, as it plainly states, at the beginning, i.e. the 6 day creation event


Thanks
TV

First, for the 6’000 years up until literally yesterday, did “Gods plan for creation/humanity” as you have proclaimed it mean
1. that “LGBT+x/- would be persecuted?
2. That LGBTx-+/ would not be able to have children??

Further you are essentially stating the following, even though you’ve tried to make it sound like a question for deniability;

MuttleyLaff:
OkCornel, being homosexual/lesbian, you see, doesnt exclude biblically or prohibit you officially from having kids, or does it? Please advise me, if it does.

One of the reasons God blesses us with children aka the fruit of the womb is as follows;

1 Corinthians 7:14 - For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

MuttleyLaff, how are such children holy or considered the result of procreation? Children that are not the result of man and woman, male and female, husband and wife in a consecrated marital union?

The children being “parented” by Elton John and David Furnish, are not as a result of natural procreation or the offspring of a scripturally based (male and female) marital union.

MuttleyLaff, pray tell are such children holy? The “biological mother” of such children is not a wife to either of the men, nor indeed in situ for the raising of the children – are such children holy MuttleyLaff?

Muttley you said this

MuttleyLaff:
No, I was not and never did claim that the institution of marriage was designed for SS couples. Please dont saying scripture fails to mention, foreshadow or present a positive archetype for relationships of this kind, especially when there is evidence in scripture about it. Just say, you arent aware of it because that is what you've being made and led to believe

You also stated this;

MuttleyLaff:
"Are there cases of same sex relationship that led to procreation"?, you earlier asked me, at which I replied: "Yes, there are, case in point Elton John and partner, and using methods like in vitro fertilization, gestational surrogacy or medically assisted insemination".

Is that procreation Muttleylaff. Are the most worldy figures now iconic for Christians? Are the most depraved now role models for the brethren.
If SS couples cannot enter into marriage - according to your word - how are children holy? How are the children ss couples parent the result of procreation.

MuttleyLaff, this doctrine is twisting you into all kinds of shapes. You must be pretzel like by now . Further, the deeper you commit, the further from the truth you stray. You sound like an unabashed homosexualst and LGBT-+x/ advocate. Full fledged. campaigning for everything exactly as the world does .


TV