₦airaland Forum

I believe you.

Hmmm. You're either Mr. Yo Ad (to protect your/his identity) or you're a protege of his. I was referred to your/webpage seems like ages ago. Cheers

Lol, KAG. You're certainly a man of few words. I'm afraid I do not like quoting.

Well selection presupposes extinction, no?

What I meant about it getting more bizarre is that we make the mistake of treating evolution as an arithmetic progression whereas to me, it's more like a geometric progression. What I mean is we get more suited to evolving as we get more complex. We have more tools to create more tools for survival. Working backwards, such feats as the development of a nervous system would seem more bizarre than say humans developing faculties to see IR and UV light. I'll come back to this later.

The odds I speak of, though I may be out of my depth, are too high. It is estimated that there are about a thousand billion billion or so planets. And this is supposed to be conservative and I agree. In fact, I do not really dispute the emergence of life as much as I dispute the sustenance of it. Lemme just ask something else, hypothetically, instead of making too many key strokes. Do you believe there is space station somewhere in the universe just existing because the odds are mathematically viable? I don't know what the most basic and uncomplicated living organism is on earth but I'm pretty sure it will be some sort of plankton. Do you realise how complex even that is? How many atoms make up the cell?

I'm glad you said that I jumped whole swarthes of evolution to make a point. That only shows I'm oversimplifying things which sort of makes my point. Anyways, most of all I say is uneducated speculation and I'm still studying the whole thing. But I don't think I can be convinced of life just spontaneously desiring anything let alone simply being. Think of the multitude of organisms just going thru life consuming fuel, making waste continuously just so that they can do it all over again tomorrow. Perhaps, evolution is God

Aww. How quaint.

Edge of Darkness. It wasn't bad at all. I dunno why I didn't watch it earlier. Predictable etc etc but enjoyable

I think the animation thing was a bad idea. Abort?

Oh, of course your post was in response to something M_Nwankwo posted. Unfortunately, he is far too subjective for me and I'm certain our views will be different. I have no personal experiences on any religious phenomena. All I know is what is in front of me and tangible. Not only will sophisticated Christians play down the relevance of the OT, they'll more or less only endorse the gospel of John which tells them what they wanna hear - LOVE LOVE AND MORE LOVE

I think it's Hoo not hoot. I hated the film sef

I'm sorry I do not understand you at all

Ok, but I'm not sure what your surmise has to do with anything. Perhaps you meant to post it in another thread?

God almighty. Everyone wants to become popular through ridiculous means. Burn Qurans, marry 13 year olds or publish an article that ridicules science. I didn't bother to follow the link. I'm at a loss what to say but I'll just say this: discounting the supposed miraculous event by explaining it away and still claiming the Israelites escaped thus is a cyclical contradiction. In other words: an unlikely (impossible in my opinion) just so happens so that Israelites may escape from the Egyptians. Abi are they just demonstrating HOW God did it? The whole thing is a stupid publicity stunt

I don't think there's anything philosophically wrong with his logic, scientifically maybe, but definitely not philosophically.

Most extinctions, cuz I have a feeling that's what you're alluding to, occur as a result of one species adapting so well at the expense of another or simply because the other species failed to properly adapt to some other new stimuli. But their success or failure is not the point. The point is why do they try at all. If the dynamics that sparked life were so random, it ought to equally randomly fall apart. I believe in evolution in the sense that species hone their skills and shed unnecessary attributes to better cope in a habitat. Mind you, evolution, natural selection etc are the best explanations we have for everything but they're not exhaustive or conclusive. It gets more bizarre as we go back in time and life gets more primitive.

Here's another thing I'm thinking. So that I can be lucid I'll use an illustration. Imagine having to complete a jigsaw puzzle as big as a football field and the rules are that you have to pick the pieces from a box and place on the board correctly and in precisely ONE order from beginning to end and any mistake you make will cause you to start again AND you do not have the ability to learn from your mistakes so theoretically it is possible to make the same mistake again and again forever. This is a similar and I'm sure a vastly understated task with the unlikely event of life being brewed from the primordial soup that is always been proposed. This is where I find people like Dawkins, Hawkings and co. to believe in a 'truth' that is stranger than fiction. The odds are too long and mathematically non-additive. I even forgot to add the time factor for as the primordial soup is cooking variations in conditions suitable for life will occur. Imagine! These are just the odds for probably the first amino-acids occuring and it'll probably 'die' before another.

Scientists like quote the sheer number of planets in the universe and the sheer amount of time that has elapsed since the big bang as probable evidence that anything could've happened since then. I actually agree with this somewhat but that's scientifically weak logic even though it appeals to one's romantic side. In this sort of thing, I find atheistic romantism almost the same with a theist in defending God. Anyways, if I had the facility, I'd attempt to calculate the probability of life spontaneously occuring AND sustained within the time range of the birth of the universe and the amount of planets in the universes we have that have conditions suitable for life namely: a star or sun close enough and far enough, water, etc. I can bet my left foot that the odds will be exhausted. It is common saying that there are more water molecules in a cup of water than there are cups of water on earth. In order words, atoms are damned small things.

Another thing, almost certainly, the first forms of life would exist in the water and they'll be able to get their energy through inorganic means. Why would they evolve to start feeding on scarce resources (a carnivorous lifestlye) and not keep feeding on whatever it is they were feeding on before. It's like human beings abandoning unlimited sea water as fuel and opting for the limited fossil fuel.

There are a lot of other reasons why I believe in what I believe (which is too little) and disbelieve in stuff I disbelieve (which is a lot)

I think I've voted right? Let's see how we'll break this freaking deadlock(s).

Obinna and JK, do you watch Samurai X (Rurouni Kenshin)? It's still my favourite. I like Dragonaut too and it's not because of those big kegs, I swear.

Perhaps it is legal to kill enemies of Allah and not the proponents. Abdul, there's an Islamic section, you dig?

Naruto has a full feature film but I've not seen it. I've seen 5 Bleach films though. One Pokemon. Etc. Men, to review Naruto will take like 7 pages. JK, do you dig anime or it's only Naruto?

Madukaele, explanation? Are you kidding? Lay off the bad stuff. They're mixing other stuff in your dope

What's honorable about the egg head? I'll check his page. Sure to be full of verbose verbiage

I vote Finding Nemo

Trying to deny the relevance of the old testament to Christianity borders on the ridiculous. Let's allow for all the wishful thinking that discredits Paul's authenticity as an apostle and also his students and friends who appear to be among the bible writers. That leaves us with only Matthew's and John's and only a few gospels. In these gospels, they repeatedly refer to the old testament books as confirmation of Jesus as the legitimate fulfiller of the prophecies of the old testament. Jesus himself was well grounded in Jewish practices and only disrespected Sabbath which is not relevant to my argument. He quoted verses from the old testament. Did he forget to tell his disciples to 'scratch that' in a manner of speaking? The point is Yahweh, Moses, Joshua, Solomon and the lot of the characters of the old testament. Did they do all that was said they did? Did Yahweh endorse all their actions? Is Yahweh the same God as Jesus' father? If not, doesn't that make all the old testament characters idol worshippers and confused? And the gospel writers, doesn't that make them some disciples indeed if they believed in these idolators as God's representatives? Some sophisticated Christians have a knack for re-interpreting bible verses into things that the writers themselves have no ideas about. Allegories they say. What is the use of an allegory that is not apparent? All of Jesus' parables are easily discernable. Can God be said to be so vagarious as to go from a terribly jealous God to a sissy who's in love with us all? Sometimes I've heard the OT referred to as specifically for the Jews. Do these Jews have dirt on God that accounts for this special treatment or what? Why are they 'chosen' and 'chosen' for what? I really don't know all if any of the answers but truth is truth and falsehood is falsehood. They do not belong in the same place

The Patrick guy is a joke. He can not be taken seriously. Abeg remove Toy Story from the shortlist lest it gets raped.

The Patrick guy is a joke. He can not be taken seriously. Abeg remove Toy Story from the shortlist lest it gets raped.

Hmmm. Cloudy etc etc is actually a jolly good watch. I just noticed that it seems I watch almost all animations as they come out. That's why it seemed as if the few you've missed are preposterous. My bad. But still. . . .

JeSoul, no you won't. You'll probably end up giving the fat boy milk and cookies. We need to start you on a stiff regiment of animation o! You're missing out on some divine stuff.

I have to say it was scary reading your first post. You use too many big adjectives that have too many meanings. Keep it simple and people will understand you better. Now go fetch Viaro. I want to club him over the head, I mean, pick his brain.

Lol. I'm afraid you only think me eminently something something because you are in sync with me. It has nothing to do with Vescucci really. It's just the same way people who simply read different stuff seem far out. I'll go check out your thread then.

BTW, if you don't mind me saying, you oughta spice up your sex life. Try new things.

Hey, v3. You on a vow of two or three words?

I actually loved-hated Shark Tale. Loved the mafia theme, hated Will Smith. Finding Nemo is a classic. My brother even loves it more than I. We musta seen it three dozen times cuz of him. I didn't like Up that much either. Loved the score sha. The kid was sooo annoying. . . . and I'm a bleeding heart. Toy Story. (Nervous laugh) is not in good company. Me and JK no reach. Where's that Spikyn when you need him? Final Fantasy is in a class of its own. It's a different ball game altogether. I think I like that but I hate to be a killjoy so I vote for the doggone Up.