₦airaland Forum

abouzaid:
your teacher only guessed that you would pass.he can't say for sure whether you would study and pass or not.he can't even seat for sure that younger score would be 71% or 63% but God is supposed to know all these in advance therefore there's no need for the test.

sure, you are right... Let assume I identify the most poor performing student in a class and the whole class are even aware is the most dullard student in the class... Will this enough to guranty the student failure if the school set an exams... No... Why?... The student may become more serious and commited and therefore reverse the problem...

God is aware of each other capacity y...but he has giving the chance to make it better if we will....

adepeter2027:
And when you fail the test, hell is the reward

i do not believe in the concept of hell - fire... I believed in karma. Which is the same with Newton law.. For every action there is a reaction.... A student who failed will likely repeat a class or be withdraw from the school

Martinez19:
How can god know the future and still be testing you? What sort of rubbish is this? What is the purpose of him testing when he knows the result? Must he test? This is not compatible with reason at all. It's psychopathic.


#africawakeup

let assume , you are the best student in your class and the teacher is fully aware of your progress.... Will that stop the teacher from testing you both in exams and periodical test... Am sure your best answer will be no.....

mind you being the best student do not guaranty pass mark in the exams if you do not study enough....


God can test us if even is aware of our capacity.... It is our duty to proove to him that will are not backsliding .....

DeSepiero:
I've got no qualms with you calling an uncaused cause god, if at all there was one. The problem would be your description of it.

I was cosidering the possibility, however, that the origin of our species is distinct from an/the original cause of life.
This would consequently assume that there is intelligent life out there in outter space, more advanced than us. Afterall, the age of the universe is enough to have allowed evolution of several entities.

well it is my opinion of explaining whom is God... There is no any better explanation to explain the best explanation.... Even in science and philosophy...you can't explain better than the best explanations because if you do so... It will render the purpose of science useless....


The topic is addressing the origin of our species not life's... Wherever the intelligence life may dwell even if there is one they must certainly have a source and the source will have source.... Just on the long chain...
And that is why i called the caused of the source uncaused... Becuse no any other better explanation again..

DeSepiero:
could it be that extra-terrestial aliens visited earth and strategically manipulated the genomes of these ancestors to be similar to theirs for a purpose?

probably yes or no... Who knows... Let assume it is yes.... The next question will be who are this extra terrestrial ancestors which will also give birth to infinite regression explanation...

This is what I believe and that is why I hold the believe of God.... There must be a cause and that cause by defination is uncaused which is Whom I take as God...

butterflyl1on:
The same science you said It's evolutionary theory is unreasonable and irrational? Yet this same science based evolution is seen as God by you? You are confusing bro.

I really like you your new style of handling debate now... No insult.... Hope you can continue.... It shows you have a balance mind

segunojo866:
please post it

https://www.nairaland.com/4014537/yoruba-story-creation-fact-fiction

Try to read it....

segunojo866:
honestly i didn't read your post. As an atheist i don't believe in evolution theory. It's so unreasonable and irrational. The bible story of creation is completely absurd and lack critical thinking. Nobody knows the truth about creation

as for me am in between.... Scientifically I support science and logically I support creationist ..... Not the Bible version anyway.... The yoruba concept....I created a thread on it... I will post it for you if you like...

dalaman:
I've deabated muslims and christians here for years. I was a former christian myself. If Christianity made logical sense to me, I will still be one.

We can start with your paganism. I don't know anything about it so you can tell me it's major claims so that we can examine them.

lol to avoid deralling.... You can create a topic on it and mention me......or may be I myself will call you in my next topic...

hopefulLandlord:
Science is based on facts and on theories based on facts.

Religion is based on belief in spite of facts; usually religion is based on a "holy book" which pretends to be a book describing "events" that actually "happened". No wonder religious people detest science, although they now pretend to "support" science (as a general -- and, for them, meaningless -- proposition).

Christians are also fearful re: Evolution for solid theological reasons:

Evolution demolishes the idea of an "Adam and Eve," who are depicted as being created by "God" in the last part of Biblical Creation in the Book of Genesis. They are unrelated to any life form that came before them, per the Bible.

Without Adam and Eve . . . you have no disobedience based on
them eating the fruit from the wrong tree.

Without this disobedience -- called "Original Sin" -- you have NO reason for "God" to later send a "Redeemer" for the human race (each of whose members somehow "inherited" that "Original Sin" LOL) . . . and that Redeemer = Jesus. Without Jesus, you have no basis for Christianity. . . . hence, the panic that Christians feel re: Evolution and their goal to discredit it and –
instead – to pretend that a folk tale version of “Creationism accurately
describes what actually “happened”.

They're not arguing against evolution cuz its false; if the Bible endorsed evolution, they'll be its biggest proponents, they're arguing against it cuz it renders a big part of their folklore virtually useless

not all religion is base on books......unstructured religion like pagan. Do not follow any particular standard.... The whole idea is DO It YOUR SElf...... To me a pagan is a free thinker.... He does not follow any rules or standard , he only follow the principle rules of nature....

dalaman:
Which major claims of christianity or Islam can be subjected to critical thinking and found to make sense?

if you dare it... I will invite a Muslim to defend their claim likewise i will call butterflylion or any other to also defend the Christianity faith... You will see they will hold on to some logical reasons you yourrself will find it difficult to debunk....... I asure you i can defend my paganism faith logically....

butterflyl1on:
True! Evolution is a lot of myth mixed in with some real stuff. The entire process is not experimentally provable so a lot of what is being pushed as evolutionary facts are simply scientists force feeding us with their opinion which in itself is riddled with a lot of assumptions.

If you tell me that I evolved from a single cell organism then let me observe in a controlled environment the entire process of this evolutionary process from single celled organism to the humans we are today.

These observations cannot be made using already evolved fossils which as far as we know could be at their perfect stage of evolution as well. So if we cannot observe the process to the conclusion how then can we accept the millions of years evolutionary gap used to explain the time frame it took for evolution to occur?

We need to observe this even once. But of course no single scientist can achieve this but they can tell stories of how it could have been possible and then back this up with bacteria which in itself could also be in its perfect state.

If you have no money and you tell me you somehow left Nigeria and found yourself in Japan then I as a fellow struggling guy should be able to ask you how you made it possible and for you to show me and what you show me must be realistic and replicable. However there is no experimentally replicable process that can adequately show we arrived here from first being single celled organisms.

Absolutely none!

i love it when people argue using logic and science.. You just did that....

AgentOfAllah:
Science generally doesn't adopt superfluous propositions, as such, does not need to agree with the concept of god. God is a stop-gap hypothesis, not a credible scientific discovery!

New evidence cannot change this observation. It has been incontrovertibly shown to be so.



This is not an explanation, it's a claim!

No, having a common ancestor is not the same as having a common designer. In fact, there are many designers in nature. They include temperature, pressure, resource availability, humidity and so on. These factors can design identical twins with the same parents so that they look nothing alike.

they are two basic method of truth verification... Science and logical reasoning... Religion rely heavily on logic rather than science....


Therefore you can't also throw religious evidence of truth away...

The method of truth verification in religion is not compatible with science but it does not violate logic and reasoning... Must of the claims of religion can be subjected to critical thinking and hence make sense logically...

If the religious folks can argue logically that there is God base on the complexity in the design ....I think it is reasonable and cannot be totally throw into the garbage even If it violate science... For example it is proven scientifically that whale sings but no one can explain what it sings about...which can be debated logically..........my friend once logically prove it to me that water took its colour from the sky..... No scientific evidence that support it.... But by mere observation it can be true...



With your last paragraph.... If I can understand you.... Sea water and salty water can both contain an electric fish even though they are different in nature.... You can explain better......

Originakalokalo:
Science and Evolution do not believe in Spiritual.


We believe in the Spiritual. More than 80% of the world.

Yet we believe every explanation of science.

There are new theories of science everyday.

Yet, we believe firmly in "theories" that can be proven wrong anytime.

A new part of the eye was just discovered recently.


As small as the eyes.

Ask yourself why you believe what you believe.

Is it because it is of science? Of sense? Of realities?


IF You're wrong about what you believe, you are in danger

Air is not seen. Yet it is real.


Thoughts are real, not seen.

Water exists in three different forms. Ice, water,and steam. With different characters.yet it is water.

This is what I believe.

There is only one God.who cannot be seen.

He exists in a bodily form. The son,, to redeem us to himself.

not all scientific theory can be proven wrong.... They are some established fact like theory of gravity , cells theory and more... No any evidence again can invalidate this theory... They are fact....

butterflyl1on:
Hello Vaxx sorry but my main moniker got erroneously banned almost after I said I will update shortly and the ban is to last till the 10th of October. However I have written to the mods with an explanation so hopefully my ban will be lifted. Permit me to address your OP with my alternate handle which is as good as same with butterflylion.

In most arguments for evolution, the proponent assumes that common physical features, such as five fingers on apes and humans, point to a common ancestor in the distant past. Darwin mocked the idea (proposed by Richard Owen) that common structures (homologies) were due to a common creator rather than a common ancestor.

But the common Designer explanation makes much more sense of the findings of modern geneticists, who have discovered just how different the genetic blueprint can be behind many apparent similarities in the anatomical structures that Darwin saw. Genes are inherited, not structures per se. So one would expect the similarities, if they were the result of evolutionary common ancestry, to be produced by a common genetic program (this may or may not be the case for common design). But in many cases, this is clearly not so. Consider the example of the five digits of both frogs and humans. The human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs, the digits grow outward from buds. This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity.

https://yorgum.com/img/fullsize/frog_and_human_digit_development_400x466.gif
Development of human and frog digits

https://drghaly.com/media/12941/html/12941-img003.png
Stylized diagram showing the difference in developmental patterns of frog and human digits.

Image 1. human digits to the left and frog digits to the right
Image 2. embryonic development

Left: In humans, programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the ridge into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes).

Right: In frogs, the digits grow outward from buds as cells divide.

The evolutionary propagandists claim that the DNA code is universal, and proof of a common ancestor. But this is false. There are exceptions, some known since the 1970s, not only in mitochondrial but also nuclear DNA sequencing. An example is Paramecium, where a few of the 64 codons code for different amino acids. Also, some organisms code for one or two extra amino acids beyond the main 20 types.

There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors. There is also the theoretical problem that if we change the code, then the wrong proteins would be made, and the organism would die so once a code is settled on, we’re stuck with it. Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors. But the exceptions thwart evolutionary explanations.

Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.

So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common ancestry (evolution). Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels. And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the ‘molecular clock’ that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution, as non creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64–69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.

The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal or bird.

Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms. For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas, and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved

The only thing that fits the gaps in evolution and common ancestry is a creationist / intelligent design position.

sorry about that... You guys should stop this E war palaver...

We cant throw the whole scientific evidence of evolution away... though it can be argue scientifically like you did.... When you place evolution on a smaller scale may be on beestle or bird it can make sense.... But on large scale like fish or mammals... There will br contradiction....


I am not a scientist so I may not be able to detect the flaws scientifically... Even if i agree for the sake of argument....evolution theory do not solve the issue who is our original ancestors......

On this case I assume evolution theory as a science myth as it is best if the same position can be used against the existence of God...

OLAADEGBU:
Will you deliberately do it?

God forbid.... am only telling you, your analogy may not convince an unbeliever

OLAADEGBU:
Sell that story to Stevie Wonder or David Blunket, they might buy it.

just like how how some rich men decided to live with kidney problem despite alternative..... or do you want me to list those who have done it.....

OLAADEGBU:
If your claim is true why do we then still have blind people today?

cash, cash, cash...... is like you are asking if my claims is true why do we still have people suffering from kidney problem.... when they can easily get kidney transplant.... do you even know what is eyes system? do your self a little research?

AgentOfAllah:
OP, while these are a fantastic questions, ones whose answers are still subject to rigorous explorations and pursuits, the questions themselves have no bearing on the veracity of the theory of evolution. By this, I mean it's not the answers to these questions whence the theory presently draws its strength, so an absence of answers does not falsify the theory. To clearly understand why, you have to study the simple family tree below, and follow my reasoning carefully.
[img]https://metrouk2.files./2014/10/family.png[/img]

Now, OP, let us agree for the sake of argument, that you have a 3rd cousin. Would it be reasonable to formulate the "Vaxx theory of familial evolution", which states that Vaxx and his 3rd cousin have common ancestors in their great-great-grandparents? If you think this is reasonable, then surely, you must know who your great-great grandparents are? You very well may! But what happens when we extend the theory to your 5th cousin and great⁴ grandparents, or your 10th cousin and great⁹ grandparents, hmmm?

So now Vaxx, can you tell me who your great⁹ grandparents were? Any biography about them? their occupation, where they lived? Their skin complexions, whether they had any congenital diseases? Can you answer these questions? Next, can you tell me who gave birth to you great⁹ grandparents?

I am willing to bet you cannot answer these questions with any degree of accuracy. So my next question is, does the fact that you cannot answer these questions belie the Vaxx theory of familial evolution?? Does this mean you do not share a common ancestor with your 10th, 5th, or 11th cousins?
Now, assuming they do not carry the same family name as you, is there another way we can tell that these people are your cousins? Absolutely! It's called DNA profiling.

Now, you tell me Vaxx, if DNA can tell you that you share a common ancestor with your 10th cousins, why do you think it is wrong when it suggests that we share common ancestors with our 1,000th or 10,000th cousins? Or else, why do you think it is necessary to know the biographies of these common ancestors to accept that they really existed?



Vaxx, you are right that no one can definitively answer that particular question of who the common ancestors of the common ancestors were, but make no mistake, it doesn't pose any problems for the theory of evolution.

brilliant approach....I already give kudos to scientist for been able trace who are my ancestors... a complicated problem for me a non scientist...

so far it is the best explanation scientist can give .....applicable to the religious folks ....the best explanation for the designer of the universe is God and nothing. more....... I think science needs to also agree with this concept....because best explanation do not need an explanation due to an infinite regression of explanation which will render the whole purpose of science and philosophical thinking useless...


for example it is an established theory that living organism are made up of cells...no new evidence is likely to change this scientific verified evidence...


God design the universe that is the best explanation.... nothing more....


I also note one thing if science agree we are both from one common ancestor , is it not also suggesting we are from the same common designer....

op... can you get me one of those pens particularly the one crested with 850 weighing diamond stones.... it is urgent....

I don't think this is convincing enough.... A 50 million dollar is enough to go for eyes system and there will even be more left to enjoy..... your eye will be replaced with a deck a sort of artificial retinal that connect to the brain and can allow you to plug in different eye ball at will....

so give me the 50 million , am ready to remove my eyes lols



just wish them goodluck.....do not threaten them with hell , they will be more confused.....

AgentofAllah , johnydon22 , butterflylion and some other scientists in the house.....come and do justice to this topic...... free thinker like me are also invited....

The purpose of this questions is to raised the best explanation to who create God..... best explanation can't be explain.... if scientists deem it fit that the evolution theory is conclusive....
they also need to acknowledged it when religion folks says there is no any further explanation as to who create God..... it is conclusive.....

let's agree for the sake of argument that human share common ancestors with ape

if we agree with this statement, it will mean we are closely related with the apes and that include lesser ape Gibbons and great ape like chimpanzees and gorillas and likewise orangutans... it is reported that they they emerge and diversified during the Miocene epoch ... Miocene epoch was a time of warm global climate than those in the proceeding like Oligocene or the following Pliocene...and science also claim that is the time two major ecosystem appear which is the kip forest and grasslands..

where I need clarification...

who are this common ancestors that is both share by human and apes? any biography about them?

if there is common ancestors as claim by scientist... where do they also evolute from? who is their ancestors?


is science claiming there is no mammals on planet earth before the arrivals of the ecosystem?



I am aware the problem the questions pose.. it will end in infinite regression of explanation...


but can anybody make attempt ... everyone is invited.....

hopefulLandlord:
You might not notice it but your post actually agrees with the guy, you had to paint alternate scenarios in order to give god importance, you had to appeal to emotions and other vapid and banal things just to cling to the last limp vestiges of an obsolete bronze age superstition

It seems to me that a lot of progressive Christians/theists are 1 good look in the mirror and the question 'why do I believe any of this stuff anyway?' away from leaving Christianity/theism altogether

about your last paragraph, read https://www.nairaland.com/3363695/there-no-atheists-foxholes-how

I will like to treat this topic with you someday.... I found it very interesting...

as a believer, you shouldn't base your conviction base on someone testimony... this is what is being supported in church or may be mosque..... I do not support it ...

your conviction should be held by your inner believe which is faith ,logic and reasons and lastly your feelings...


you also have brain , you shouldn't let someone else think for you.... opinion can be welcome but not enough....

segunojo866:
nobody needs a delusional non existing God

stop hating the being you consider he is not existing..... free your mind from is taught...... he is not existing , why should you be worried?....

they are over 7 billion humans in the world to attend to apart from other living things in land and water..... so your non believing in him is insignificant........ ?

Sibe007:
Found it hard to get your point or answer to the Man's question

You said what one defines as peace will differ from person to person....
So if the man says the German government can give him peace of mind, according to his own definition. What else?

Plus if he tells you his government has not failed him, good healthcare when or if he falls ill, security of lives and properties, secure and bright future for his kids, and other benefits,all provided by his Government, what else should he need your religion for??

it seems you do not get the message I am trying to pass...


I mention peace as a state of mind that has different individual definition...

he may see himself peaceful but the society may consider him living in hell... because what he consider as peace in general sense may be hell to others.... therefore society will say he is not peaceful even if he himself accept he is peaceful......



for the second question... he can't guaranty that German govt will not fail him...govt changes and German is not an exception.... for now he may not have witness failure but what assurance those he have to guaranty the trust throughout his stay in Germany?


as I said....God does not require him, he require God... it is not necessary for him to be religious ... being religious can be optional.... it will not demote or add to to the qualities of God....

Sibe007:
A guy asked a Nigerian Pastor,

"What can your God do that the German Government hasn't done for me"

~ Dan Obaro Ekorhi

firstly..... take note of what German govt can not do for you first.....


German government can not give you peace ... peace is a state of the mind...
what I consider peace may be different from other...

German govt can fail you. your trust in them is not guaranty..... no constant govt... government changes...

now what can God do for you... take note of this statement... God does not require you.... you require him... therefore your failure to acknowledged he can do what German govt can not do for you is baseless.... it is your duty to seek for him in taught ,meditation or self taking to realise how capable he is...

onila:
i thought aborigines are black?

No , they are the real native of Australia

Hati13:
Don't generalize. Not all Black and White ppl are like you said.

I am not generalizing.... I am just stating the obvious difference among us ..... I know so many black females prefer education... but when you look at the ratio ...... they are more white women schooling than the black women...


am seriously advocating for education among black women..... a lot of bullvshit has been written about AFRICA and our people believe it because they are illiterate or semi illiterate.....

I don't discriminate among race....... though I know the truth.... i don't want is rubbishing another race over yours.... white and black women are the same what make differ is education...that is the only truth.....

onila:
he said that's why they stole people from Africa(slavery) to build America
taking advantage of cheap labour in Asia

and he said they have no culture




well i think they are hardworking, see how their countries are fine . .they work hard but they don't do menial jobs like other races

and they have a little bit of culture, feminism
women trying to be equal to men, is an important issue in their community

white women are also faithful, loyal and respectful to their husbands
women

I am sure , your Jamaican friend will be a Rastafarian....
it is part of their culture and doctrine to hate the white skin.... you as a mental stable person shouldn't do so...

white has culture... I mean a culture that can term primitive like ours..... have you heard of aborigines? have you heard about the Greeks... what about their ancient dynasty. that can be traced back to 14 century... England for example has been using the monarchy system for the past 500 years or more....

so many point I can't make here....


white and black are the same human... what make them differ is knowledge.... the former prefer it while the later do not care....