₦airaland Forum

buda atum:
It was strange to me too Tudor! They claim everything has to have a beginning, but claim God has no beginning. It don't quite add up, I say.

Personally, I read book and realise that once we get to just about 4000 years ago, history is more mythological than factual. Evidence does suggests that the earth is at least 10,000 years old, and some suggest it's 10,000 billion years old. But if we are fuzzy on history of 10,000 years ago, I can't but ask why I have to make up myths for earlier than that!

This was because written language was invented by the Sumerians a little after 4000 BC, in the form of cuneiform scripts meaning wedged shaped scripts to records their myths and stories about their royalty.

The Sumerian script was adapted for the writing of the Akkadian, Elamite, Hittite, Assyrian, and Luwian languages, and inspired the Old Persian and Ugaritic national alphabets. It was from these scripts that other scripts emerged with their myths and stories in varied forms.

here is an interesting piece i found online;

Several parents won a lawsuit against a Pennsylvania school district in 2005 that had added the controversial theory of "intelligent design" to its curriculum. Unlike the theory of evolution which is taught at most schools as a fact-based science, "intelligent design" -- as argued by the plaintiffs -- was nothing more than a philosophy predicated on the Judeo-Christian belief that the logical sequences found in nature are not random happenings or surprising mutations, but deftly managed events created by a greater omniscient and omnipresent intelligence with a specific plan. In short, the work of God. A federal judge thought otherwise.

But therein lies the rub: Which god? When the founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States, they chose to include the separation of church and state. This was to ensure that the state-sanctioned religious persecutions that plagued much of Europe during the 16th century would not despoil the young, yet grand experiment in democracy that was to become this Republic.

Scientific research has come a long way since Charles Darwin first posited the concept of "natural selection." In the intervening years, humanity has learned much about how we became the dominant species on the planet, how the Earth and the solar system were formed and the ever-changing development of the Universe. Over that time, how we understand the theory of evolution has also changed.

Scientists now think that there is an intrinsic logic to our reality, that there are absolutes, laws of nature. Much remains a mystery, and as one question is answered, many others arise. The question that faced Pennsylvania's Dover School District was whether or not the imposition of one creation belief on a multi-ethnic, secular student body is in keeping with the law that prohibits the creation of a state religion. If they allow one belief system to be taught, surely they must also teach others?

Source - http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

In the strictly modern sense, the name plant refers to the biological classification kingdom Plantae, but for the sake of this forum i was using the term plant to connote all photosynthetic organisms, including protists, green algae, and cyanobacteria that have evolutionary significance to modern plants. So i laugh when i make obvious statement and you immediately get jumpy and shout faith.

Please does it take faith to believe that plants must have appeared on earth before animals? If not so, then what will the animals feed on, or can animals make their own food and absorb energy directly from the sun?

I am trying to explain things as simplistic as possible so that any person that is interested can seek more information.

If we want to leave the realm of simple high school biology and venture into more complex biology, then we will have to discard the simplistic classification of living things into plant and animals. The classification should then be Archaea, Eukarya and Bacteria.

Archaea Are the most basic and simplest of all living things (except virus - with is very difficult to classify). They have no cell nucleus or any other organelles within their cells.  Archaeabacteria are the only creatures capable of withstanding the very harsh conditions of the primitive earth, where we had very high atmospheric pressure and temperature and in fact utilize these conditions to produce its own energy.  Archaeabacteria are still living today in hotsprings and very harsh environments.

As conditions on earth improved and temperature decreased, eubacteria evolved from pre-existing archaeabacteria, that was capable of utilizing energy contained in inorganically produced organic compounds dissolved in oceans, either bysimplifying their molecular structure as in fermentation or by oxidizing them as in respiration.  It was these eubacteria that evolved most of the biochemical processes on which life rests.

In a relatively short period of time eubacteria must have run out of suitable organic compounds to "feed" on as the formation of organic compound from inorganic compound is a slow time consuming process. So life met its first major crisis. It was then photosynthesis came to the rescue as chlorophyll was rapidly included in the bacteria cell structure, giving rise to cyanobacteria.  i could go on and on but this is a forum and not a course on biology.

Most of the remnants of these processes can be found on earth today.

A truly concise explanation on how life started on earth  will require many text books. 

For some more information regarding evolution go the the links below;
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-beginnings-of-life-on-earth/1 

I implore David to study it before shouting, and highlight points he disagrees with instead of screaming "faith" or were you there?

davidylan:
I wrote only 3 lines and you're talking of me getting "worked up"? Do you dudes come here with prepared talking points?

1. Fossils, bones and teeth of ancient creatures are themselves the problem with evolution - all the fossils found to date are all of fully formed, highly advanced creatures . . . where are the intermediate life forms that the theory of evolution predicted?

2. The study of animal and plants do not tell us they came from the same origin, scientists arrived at that conclusion for baseless reasons. I have argued here before . . . does man and bacteria evolve from the same origin? Afterall they have thousands of proteins in common.

3. Its odd that you say "animals and plants had a common ancestor but changed to survive in different environments and conditions" . . . what condition made a plant to become a plant and left the rat as it is? Both man, animals and plants grow and survive in the same environmental conditions!

To be honest, your above explanation is just too poor.

I am sorry to say this but attempting a debate with you on this issue is like trying to argue with someone without a clue of what biology is ( and i am trying to be civil here).

It is AMAZING that you did not know that the conditions on earth is always changing. So you do not know that plants were on the planets way before any animal. It was plants that cleaned up the primitive atmosphere of poisonous gasses and put out oxygen, which allowed animals to thrive. The primitive atmosphere did not have free oxygen. The condition of the early earth was very much different from what we have now.

Please try and do some reading instead of using blind faith to reason out issues. We have millions of resources out there both online and offline. i do not think i have the time to teach you basic science.

davidylan:
Is evolution itself a science?

the astounding amount of rubbish you read on these boards never ends. What data is used to maintain the apparent LIE that man evolved?

You get so worked up when you hear of see the word evolution. The scientific data used to validate Evolution, includes a study of fossils, bones and teeth of ancient creatures. It also enabled us to know that creatures do not remain static or the same forever, but changes in tune with their environment, i do not think any reasonable person can argue against that. Also a study of animal ( and plants) families and groups is enough scientific data to know that such animals and plants had a common ancestor but changed to survive in different environments and conditions. That is physical science and not faith.

I have not seen where creationists get there data from before we talk of interpreting such data.

Was it a course on its own? Under what branch of science was it taught - Biology?. What data was used to present the theory and what textbooks were you referred to?. Are there practical demonstrations of the theory?.

Please let us know

noetic2:
intelligence design is more scientific than evolution. . . . . .infact there is nothing scientific about evolution.

I think the question should be. . .why EXACTLY is evolution taught as science in our schools?

Is that your personal belief or a general view among scientists. Are you the person giving science a whole new definition and deciding what is definition should be?

As i say that your personal view is highly unpopular, because i do not know a scientist in the world or any educational board that view intelligent design as scientific and go on to teach it in a biology class.

Also i have not seen a detailed theory of Intelligent Design being taught in any university as a science course. So since you are more knowledgeable in science and what science entails, i think you should start with your university to change the wrong perception of Evolution as science instead of intelligent design, you might get a Nobel price for it.

Armoured Personnel Carrier ko, Armoured Aircraft Carrier ni. Those scraps of metal on wheels is a joke, the tires look like ordinary dunlop tires( i hope they are not tokumbo), while the exposed tank will be good for target practice ( I hope they have extra armour).

It is a nice attempt sha.

Intelligent Design a new synonym for belief in a God designing and creation of the universe, has gained some level of popularity among a small group of scientist and a large number of the religious public.

Intelligent Design theory holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Some scientists in this forum like davidylan believes Intelligent Design is more scientific than The Theory of Evolution, he has supporter in people like Noetic, Mr Olaadegun, prizm and a host of others. So we are waiting for david and co to provide the scientific basis of their theory. Also i am asking them if the Theory of Intelligent Design should be put in the science curriculum of secondary schools in place of evolution theory. What a about in the university, the theory of Intelligent design should replace evolution in such disciplines like Paleontology, geology and all other courses.

In the US, the supreme court ruled in 2004 against teaching intelligent design in US school as science, but as a religious view.

I think our greatest problem apart from corruption, is that of pride and over blown ego. I think we need to employ Japanese or Chinese people to school us on humility, even the Europeans are more humble than us.

Fact whether we like it or not, The US is still the "Numero Uno" nation on earth, militarily, financially and any other wise. So if countries like Japan, Germany and even Great Britain, readily acknowledge that and begs US for assistance every now and then why are we so pompous?.Even China is not claiming to be on the same level with the US.  I think the oil we have in the Niger Delta is giving us false pride.

As i said I am not a very great Fan of the US, but i would prefer to deal with the US than China, who do not care about anything other than their narrow parochial  interest. I even trust the US than Britain or France.

In this world you have to be humble, diplomatic, astute, and relevant to succeed, either as an individual or a country. That is why the Israelis are always on the side of every world power the world had ever produced, they humble themself.

Our politicians, footballers, professionals, religious leaders, everybody needs to be humble.

noetic2:
1.The nature of number can only be gasped from it uses and perceivable representation.
100 is universally the numerical addition/subtraction of other values to arrive at a figure. This figure is representable by anything as agreed upon by users. . . .but the VALUE remains 100/one hundred.

2. The £ or $ signs add a very different meaning to the number in question.
The value and significance of the number remains 100. . .  .but its meaning is redefined when annexed with other symbols.

3. The nature of a number is therefore defined as a value that is explicitly representable and acceptable to respondents. Number can also be represented using various symbols and notions. . . the symbols and notions are only relevant in the context of the numerical usage. For example. statements A,B and C carry different meanings but numerically have the same value

statement A: Ade wants to sell 100 apples.
statement B: Ade wants to convert 100 dollars.
statement C: by the injunctions of the sharia court, Ade was given 100 strokes of the kain.

4. Based on the above it is safe to state that number is explicitly different from any other value and significant or insignificant notion used with it in any expression. meaning that 100 is independent of dollars, when the expression $100 is written.
As such number (100) is an entity on its own.

5. being an independent entity, number therefore exists.

6. The representation of number, though divergent depending on the language and mode of communication. One thing is certain the numerical value of number is universal, regardless of the language.

7. Number as an entity, simply EXISTS.

Numerical or pictorial representation of numbers do not dispute the value of this numbers.
pronunciation of a number is subject to the language in context. . .it has no connection to the VALUE of the number.

Your example has several flaws;

First all numbers are nothing in themselves,but is used to describe something else, that is why in the mathematical sciences, if you engage in complex calculation and you arrive at at number without what that number describes, your answer would be wrong. My teachers in secondary school then would tell you that what you wrote is meaningless, if you calculate lets say velocity of an object or charge of an electron, and you write 100.

The problem with you is that you are trapped in your familiar world, the figure 100 has a certain meaning in our western civilization, but it is either meaningless or means other things in other civilizations.

Prizm,

Your site is not working, even when i cut and past it in the address bar.

jamiru:
thanks winiret

but looking at the line i highlighted, evolution is at best a guess work - inferrance & suspect not on hard facts that one can lay his/her life on. hope u have heard this phrase - asumption is the mother of all f**k up! if u accept and live on assumption, u know that that cant be of much help.

my question is not ridiculous becos i am not into all those advanced wordings but simple and it may sound foolish.
In addition, if evolution is true, why are scienctist crying that an animal is going extinct (just like the dinasaurs) and so they must protect it but this animal cant evolve into another specie to continue? just like they say homid evolved into man and hence homid has continued in another form as man?

it simply shows evolution does not exist becos if it did at least a single rat will mutate/evolve from one form to another  (since at least mammals have existed years before homid arrived), but u have decieved your mind that becos our ideas change therefore evolution is real.

Jamiru, it is obvious you do not understand how science works especially in areas where direct physical observations is not possible. Inferences are drawn based on obtainable data. Most of Einstein's laws are based on inferences obtained from Maxwell's equations and other equations, Einstein was never able to travel at the speed of light, not to talk of comparing the masses, lengths and velocity of objects traveling at the speed of light. Also most of the planets outside Jupiter was discovered first from inferences of their motion and their orbits. It was after the inferences that the planets were discovered where the calculations said it would be.

So inferences is not comparable to guesswork.

As of your question, animals evolve and not transform. Animals can only evolve through mutation of its offsprings, and mutation is a slow random process that happens through many many generations. So if a feature of the environment should change drastically quickly, say within 50 yrs. Lets say temperatures suddenly falls to a few degree above zero, most animals in hot zones would not have enough time to grow a fur coat, and they would be in danger of extinction. But animals in the cold zones would survive as they had already adapted. Another factor responsible for extinction is an imbalance in the eco-system, thereby disrupting the food chain and habitat of certain animals, making then in danger of extinction also.

Human activities is responsible for most of the problems we have in regard to animal extinction today.

In the Jupiter case, Physical condition at certain altitude is conducive to the formation of organic acids, but as not probe had been sent there to bring back samples, we can only speculate. But one day that would be done and we can confirm it. But my arguments were never based on that. I had already given concrete proof that organic molecules is not unique to earth. And that organic molecules can easily be formed from simple inorganic gasses.

Black_Revo:
@winret

If they cannot impose democracy on saudi arabia why are they imposing it on iraq and afghanistan? if saudi has a right to the type of government they want so do nigeria ( Not that i am supporting a corrupt government okay)

Obama visited egypt,  so i ask is egypt a democratic government? You said the secretary of state might be more important than the president but thats not in our dictionary. We want the president and not the secretary of state.

if obasanjo was there do you think small obama will try that stupid stunt.

@nex

Imagine an ordinary foreign woman ( without any form of royalty)  for that matter wants to address the sarduana of the sokoto caliphate, The oba of the benin Kingdom, The oni of Ife, the oba of lagos and many more. That is very embarrassing. Even obama bowed to the kind of saudi arabia so what will hilary do to our traditional rulers?

If MRS Clinton wanted to address royal fathers, why did we not oblige her. You may never know what she wants to tell them. She might have intelligence report linking them to religious crisis in Nigeria. Also you cannot compare royal fathers in Nigeria to the king of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi king has executive powers, in Nigeria a Local Government chaiman is more powerful than an Oba or Emir

Why is it that Nigerians base their opinions on ego massaging and sentiments, instead of the reality on the ground. In foreign policy issues, the Secretary of State is very important, if not more important than the president. A serious government should have taken advantage of Clintons, visit to ask for assistance, in the area of the aspects she has problems with; namely, the Niger Delta crisis, Electoral Reforms ( after all it was the US that gave the world the modern form of democracy practiced in the world today), Educational, Technical and Technological Assistance, even financial assistance.
We have to face reality, every country ( especially developing countries need the US), go ask the Israelis,( who seeks the support of the US in every thing the do),  the south Koreans, the Japanese. The difference between North Korea, and between the former East Germany and West Germany is US assistance. It was even the US that help Europe win the World War 2 and help the reconstruction of Europe after the war. So those of you saying to hell with the US must be a relative of Yaradua - Clueless. I am not particularly a fan of the US, but when the US sneezes, the world catches cold.

About Saudi Arabia, I do not think the US can impose democracy into a nation that had been autocratic for hundreds of years if not thousands. The US can only help the citizens if they clamour  for democracy. Are the Saudi people clamouring for democracy?. Also if the Saudi's run into problems like they did under saddam, who do they run to? - The US of course.

Look at Libya, a more organized country than Nigeria, what happened after being a US antagonist for over 20 years, they retraced their steps and became an allay.

The funniest thing is that most of those abusing America today, would be ready to lick her foot ( Mrs Clinton) if she says come and collect a green card. Also most of or Government official's children hold's US Passport or Green Card, so if there are annoyed at Mrs Clinton, they should withdraw their children from US and burn their passport, so as to experience "the lies" being told by Mrs Clinton.

Larez, i appreciate your modification of your views on Ribadu, it is a sign of greatness to argue and accept ones errors of judgment based on arguments. Most people here see debates as an ego contest and sometimes resort to abuses when presented with cogent arguments. Sir, i respect you the more.

I am looking at the Townhouses now and will make my input after i had studied them.

noetic2:
I think u are going too far with ur premise in defining and using the term "existence" ?

What does it mean to exist? do u refer to been felt by the 5 human organs. . . if so u are far from reality.
Numbers do EXIST. they are symbolically represented by literate pictures/pigments. . .this representation does not mean they exist, but it reflects the basis of their existence.

The possibility of making mathematical,accounting and other calculations using numbers . . .and the acceptance of the figures (outcome) by several parties involved simply implies that numbers do EXIST.
why do u accept the account balance of ur bank statement as the true figures of ur account? u do simply because u believe/subsribe to the numerical representations presented on ur statement. That my friend is evidence for the existence of numbers.

whether u subscribe to the existence of this numbers is another thing. . . .but one thing is that numbers do EXIST.

If you insist that numbers do exist, then define for us its nature. Also can numbers stand on its own, like what is 100. Does a number mean the same thing to all people or a certain class of people that has agreed to its exact meaning. If my account says $100, or N100, or Y100, do they mean the same thing to everybody at all times.

Now which is the true representation of the number two? is it  2, ii,貳( ,二, ١, and hundreds of other symbolic representations. Also the pronunciation of the number two is as varied as its symbolic representation. I thinks God and Numbers have the same characteristic. It is a symbolic representation of nature unique to the particular group of persons doing the representing.

That's why goats are more practical than Humans, goats do not concerned about who or what created them or how to get favours and from him, nor are they concerned with which creator is superior. they are more concerned with finding and eating good green grass and finding a suitable mate to leave their genes behind.

It is not a rumour, the rift had started not so long after Fashola was sworn in, Tinubu wanted to still be the defacto Governor, making all the appointments and making all important decisions. The rift had not blown over because Fashola knows Tinubu controls, the party and the House of Assembly,and so had to learn to accommodate Tinubu. Tinubu even appointed most of the commissioners and Local government chairmen.

You can remember at one time Tinubu was policing Fashola wherever he goes. If all important event, tinubu always sat next to Fashola. He seems to have reduced his policing for now.

Wait a few months more when politiking starts for 2011, we well then know the truth. Because i suspect Tinubu will attempt to change Fashola for a more loyal godson.

I was watching AIT this morning and was shocked to learn that Hilary Clinton was not received on her arrival by any Nigerian official, not even a foreign ministry official. Is that as a result of the observations she raised a few days earlier about Nigeria inability to refine her own petrol being 6th largest crude oil producer in the world?. If it is, then the yaradua government apart from being clueless,is very immature. To me it is a very embarrassing diplomatic blunder. Yaradua needs to be schooled in basic diplomacy. even when two countries have serious diplomatic conflicts, decorum demands warm reception in public.

Clinton is the third highest US official, and the most important in terms of US foreign policy. So how do you think the US will relate with Nigeria after this.

I strongly condemn the movement of this post away from the religious section, and i am reporting the moderator to seun. We expressly begged the moderator not to move it and he ignored our pleas. If you live it here the thread is as good as dead.

henrykent:
hello,do u really want to interact with numbers?then go pick up your primary one reader for maths,and seriously dedicate your time in it,i swear one number will definitely jump out,don't try that,its psycho,

hello henry, welcome to the battle zone of Nairaland.

So you that have consumed and digested primary one reader for maths, can you tell me what a number is or any number you have interacted with, please share the details of your experience.

chukwudi44:
My argument is based on the theory of superoirity .As the specie Homo Sapien is far superior to the goat (physically,intellectually and spiritually)so is God superior to Homo sapiens.

I know that goats loking at the moving vehicles,computers and other technological works of Man might think these things just[b] evolved[/b]  and were not designed by man.

No matter how a goat thinks He cannever understand how a computer was designed or how it operates,likewise the human mind cannever understand how God came into existence or how he created the world.

Simple put it Man canner understand How God operates,we were only created in his own image not in his own nature

That is the main difference between creationists and evolutionists, while you creationists believe in superiority, evolutionists believe in equality. Homosapiens is not superior to anything, our evolutionary path lead us to having the largest brain( especially the neocortex), thereby giving us the highest intelligence.  Other species has other parts of their brains more developed than our own, dogs have a highly developed sense of smell, our own olfactory is primitive compared to that of a bloodhound. same with eagle and the eye.

Yes i acknowledge that a combination of our, highly developed brains, our opposing thumb and our efficient communication skill, make us have physical collective dominance over all other species, that does give us the right to feel superior.

This feeling of superiority is what is responsible for a lot of the conflicts we have in the world today, one set of people feels their Gods are superior  to all other Gods, making them superior to all other people. And all sorts of atrocities is committed in the guise of this superiority.

Prizm,

Please explain to me the existence of NUMBERS, where can i interact with numbers  in the physical universe. Has any body ever seen, heard or felt a number.

Numbers just like God is convenient expression, used to explain some properties of the physical universe

m_nwankwo:
Hi Tudor. If you accept that you do not know as your above post seems to suggest. Is it not reasonable to also say that you do not know whether God exists or not? Best wishes.

Hello Mr m_nwankwo, i hope you do not mind me answering the above question, because i was there once, and still today after much searching, there are still many things i do not know.

It not unreasonable to also say that you do not know whether God exists or no,t because the actual definition of what a God is has not been adequately explained. We hear all sorts of nebulous definition like God is a spirit, God is the creator of everything we do not understand, and so on. The description of a God by most cultures, especially ancient ones, is very  similar to a very powerful but egocentric and highly insecure warrior kind, who sits on an expensive throne, wearing expensive crown, in his court, and forces people to love, fear,revere, worship, and continuously sing praises to him. He then dishes out punishment/reward based on his mood or how happy is with his subjects. Examples that fits that description includes Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, Sango, Odin, Thor, Jupiter, and lots of others. That image of a God does not fly with lots of people even they do not know the origin of the universe or existence, they are sure this "man" or king or spirit cannot be it.

A lot of people derive their power (political) from being a member of the inner court or a representative of this God King.

Even today some people like Olumba Olumba claims to be God and creator of the universe, and try telling his believers he is not and just because someone does not understand the universe does not make it mandatory to believe olumba olumba created it.

Pastor AIO:
Concepts of Deity are so easy to bash and that is probably why militant atheists are so keen to hear of various concepts. But it is not necessary to have a concept of something in order to accept it exists. All that is required is the experience. The experience itself might shatter all preconceptions previously held.

Pastor AIO my favourite theist on Nigeria, how you dey?

Experience and its interpretation is the bane of religion. Because how you interpret your experience would be different from how i would interpret the same experience. Experience is predominantly our emotional responses, and emotional responses are varied depending on our expectations, our present state of mind and our belief systems. lets me give examples of some experiences; Happiness, joy, sadness, love, likeness, pain. All these experiences are determined by our expectation, our social systems. etc. An experience that makes one person sad would make another person happy, even the same experience can make a person happy at one moment and make the same person sad at another moment.

The problem of religions is that you are telling me to accept the interpretation of the experience of other people (long dead). it goes even worse, you are telling me to accept the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the experience of some persons, as written down.

If a person tells me his experience and its interpretation thereof, it is called evidence, since i was not there during the experience, i might believe, but nobody would blame me for not believing( remember thomas - no body blamed him). But if someone told me of the experience told to him by someone else, it would be termed hearsay, i would seek out the original person to confirm the story. But if i could not confirm the story, i would accept the story with a pinch of salt. But if the story is told "according to" someone else, then unless i get the same experience and can interpret it the same way, i am not at liberty to believe the story.

Yes tudor, this is one thread where our religious divide does not into play.

Justtcool and seeklove have valid points. But the problem goes even further than that.

Like i have said evolution ensures the best and most healthy genes are used to produce offsprings, so tampering with that process might have undesirable consequences.

Let me explain, to produce an embryo requires two healthy gametes, the female releases a egg once a month and the best once are released early in a matured girls life, from teens to mid 20s. The male gamete is more complex The quality of sperm also degrade but only at very old age, but the male releases millions of sperm. So you have millions of sperm swimming across the fallopian tube ( a distance similar to swimming across the Atlantic ocean - relatively) to get to the egg. So at the end of the day you have the strongest and fastest sperm (best genes out of millions) fertilizing the egg, thereby relatively ensuring that high quality babies are produced.

But when you randomly pick 20 sperm cells out of millions and fertilize a random egg, as is done in In-vitro fertilization, it is very unlikely you will get the best set of genes. And subsequently the babies you will get might not be of the best quality. That is why a very large number of eggs is fertilized to ensure a least one good zygote Most of the time a clinical report of the baby is never known, as the baby and parents disappear after conception, and information about the baby being conceived invitro is kept both from the baby and medical records.

I am not, against invitro fertilization, at times it is the only option left to a couple. It is just that i am not convinced on its necessity just to have well designed babies.

Evil genius at work again, IBB is clearing his path to the road to Aso Rock, after all he only stepped aside in 1993. He is getting his staunch critics on his side and attempting to rewrite history. I think Fashanu on his own side has political ambitions and IBBs is still very relevant in Nigeria's political equation.


IBB has positioned his daughter at the heart of the hausa/fulani oligarchy. Watch out for more of IBB's antics in the very near future

larez:
I wish people will read what they are saying before posting. Just how in the world can you justify that statement while tackling Ribadu? It is very hypocritical at the very least. As far as i am concerned, Alamesigha should be rotting in jail for the rest of his life. The wealth that he stole could have prevented many lives lost on the highways if it was used to fix them. As I have said before using Ribadu's words: "Crime fights back when you try to fight it".

Most of us (the incorruptible ones) will not even bother responding to this thread if we were indifferent about Ribadu. The Energy some people are using to debase him obviously show that it is a personal thing. In my many debates online and offline, I am still yet to meet a honest Nigerian ho wasn't happy about Ribadu. There may be some "buts" but, overall, we are happy that there was a Ribadu.

And then there is also the issue of these people pointing fingers and looking for faults in the man, I am certain that many of these people have highly flawed characters, which makes them very hypocritical when they seek the perfect human being in Ribadu. With the enormous burden of being within the power play of Nigeria, and constantly being sought by people with mega-amounts of cash, Ribadu has come out with flying colors. With all their loot and power, not one of them could compromise Ribadu with cash. If they had, we'd have heard it ages ago. If these power houses cannot find one instance that they can use to degrade Ribadu, other than going after Obasanjo's enemies, who happen to also be crooks, then eat your hearts out.

Ribadu has still been the best we have had so far!!!

Larez,

Being my one of my favourite persons on Nairaland, i was disappointed by your above post.

First, i am not Ijaw, and my people and the Ijaws do not get along well. Secondly i am from Delta State. So i have no reason to defend Alamiesegha. My driving force in life is Justice and Equity. So from your assertion that Alamiesigha should be rotting in jail for the rest of his life, then i should add that Ibori, should spend many life times maybe three or four life times, because he stole far more than Alamiesegha. Same with Odilli and Igbenedion. Among ex-Nigerdelta Governors i can say Alams theft would rank among the lowest. So thought Ribadu's supporters should demand for the files of investigation carried out on these governors, at least let him explain why Odilli's name was not in his corruption list.

It was not the wealth that Alams stole that cost many lives on the highways, because firstly, highways fall within the purview of the federal Government, and secondly, the budget of a state cannot accommodate the construction of highways in a difficult terrain like the Nigerdelta. Your accusation should be directed at Tony Anineh and past minsters of works who spent billions maintaining the roads to give us pot holes.

I oppose to your categorization of people into incorruptible and corruptible based on which side of the Ribadu divide one falls into. There is no basis for it. It is like me accusing all Ribadu supporters as Lawless and human rights violators.

I am sure if a poll is carried out among Nigerians living in Nigeria, i do not think Ribadu's supporters would carry the day. I wish the governments stops its vindictive persecution of Ribadu and allow him to run for office, then all Ribadu's human rights abuses would come back and hunt him.

Yes I acknowledge that no human is perfect, but we should always strive for perfection - that is my motto. But we should not us that to justify any abuse. That is why i am often surprised that Ribadu has a lot of supporters from Nigerian,s in Diaspora, because someone of Ribadu's hypocrisy would not make it near any elective office. Of course their excuse would be that Nigeria is different and you need a certain amount of lawlessness to make things work. but it was the same people that labeled the Idiagbon/Buhari government as draconian, and rejoiced when it was overthrown.

Yes i acknowledge Ribadu did not steal personally or accept bribes, or the government would have happily used it to hang him. That i give to him. But he was corrupted with position, power and ambition.

In terms of Integrity, i would put the late Idiagbon and Okonjo Iweala ahead of him. Imagine what would have happened if OBJ made Idiagbon EFCC chairman then, I am sure people like IBB, Abdulsalami, and lots of others would book their flights out of Nigeria before he assumes office. A i am dead sure OBJ would not have been able to remote control him.

Ribadu can be compared to Dora Akinyuli, when she was at NAFDAC, she was fearless and uncompromising, she got everybody's support (including mine), but what happened when she got a federal appointment, she became a government stooge. So you can see that she was more ambitious than principled.

jamiru:
hi wirit

noetic asked you a question an [size=15pt]you have refused to respond to it [/size] in all your subsequent post. pls answer i have posteded them for conveninence.

•Prokaryotes (simple cells) emerged on earth about 4 billion years ago
•Eukaryotes (complex cells) emerged 2 billion years ago
•Multicellular life emerged 1 billion years ago
•Simple animals about 600 million years ago
•Arthropods (ancestors of insects and crustaceans) about 570 million years ago
•Complex animals first showed up about 550 million years ago
•Fish have been on earth since 500 million years
•Proto-amphibians have been here just a little less than 500 million years
•Insects showed up 400 million years ago
•Amphibians emerge about 360 million years ago followed by
•Reptiles, which have been around for 300 million years, and
•Mammals have been on Earth for 200 million years, whereas
•Birds were the last to arrive and have been here only 150 million years •And the direct ancestors of man (hominids) probably have been here for maybe 2 million years.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/article_3_rev2.php

Now if athiest agree/disagree that dinasurs are related/evolved to chicken, my question is this, why have man not evolved into another species but remain as he is since man was able to communicated/documented writings.


could it then be that evolution is a farce all allong, decieving many to thier damnation in hell?

Jamiru, I decided not to respond anymore to Noetic's question because i will hate to undertake an exercise in futility, noetic has template responses and questions to all issues concerning evolution and science in General. We would just be moving in a vicious cycle, he will ask questions like how was the first inorganic compound formed, even if you explain and write the equation, he will still ask were you there to witness it?. It is impossible explaining scientific terms to a person who never understood any science more complex than integrated science.

Noetic questions are very basic, so as not to accuse me of running away i will answer them, but i know a barrage of other cynic questions will follow;

a. If physical observation is impossible. . . what form of observation suggests that the first evolution process EVER took place?

As i had had explained earlier, it is very absurd and cynical  to ask if  someone observed physically, the first first chemical reaction of life. The only way a such chemical reactions can be inferred is through experiments like the Miller Experiment which was able to create all 20 protein forming amino acids necessary for life, and through the discovery of amino acids and many organic compounds in meteorites brought in from space, meaning a similar process occurred in the planets from which the meteor broke off. Also Jupiter is suspected to be awash with amino acids and organic compounds ( not life). So the process of simple inorganic compounds forming complex organic compound is fairly common in the universe.

b. what were the substances involved in this first evolution that took place?

The compounds involved in the formation of life is Amino acids, phosphate groups, Ribose and Deoxyribose Sugars, bases,  Glucose, etc. These compounds dissolved in the primordial oceans to form "The Primordial Soup". And continuous and polymerization went on to produce the first RNA .

RNA is autocatalytic, meaning that once RNA forms by accidental dehydration, can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short strands of RNA(virus) were probably the first self reproducing systems(life) to come into being on the young earth. In RNA strand was protected by a sheath of specific proteins.  From there the RNA and proteins went on to form more complex organisms and DNA.

This experiments cannot be replicated today due to the enormous size of the laboratory ( the entire earth), the very high density of the early earth's atmosphere, the relatively high temperature and the time span needed ( about half a billion years).

c. Since according to you, the first evolution process took place before the first single celled organism was formed. . . .how could non-living substances produce these pioneer organisms? how could non-living substances produce life (organisms)?

This question had been answered above

a. by "not noticeable", do u mean invisible and unseen and unknown processes?

By not noticeable, i mean the process is too slow to be noticed with the naked eye within the time frame we are viewing

b. where are the repeatable and verifiable scientific evidences that suggest that short lived plants and insects including plants and animals evolve?

Short lived plants and animals change physical characteristics like colour when placed in a different environment to adapt to that environment.

a. How was the simple amino acids formed?

Had already explained it above, but if you want details google "how to make amino acids"


Sorry to say, but your questions are more ridiculous than noteic's, i do not mean to be disrespectful, but how can someone answer the questions you ask below;

jamiru:
In addition, if evolution is true, why are scienctist crying that an animal is going extinct (just like the dinasaurs) and so they must protect it but this animal cant evolve into another specie to continue? just like they say homid evolved into man and hence homid has continued in another form as man?

Because what you understand by evolution is tantamount to witchery and wizardry. If you want to study that kind of evolution, go to Benin or Ijebu, I hear that some humans there can transform to a goat, owl or snake at will.

Look i am not trying to convert anybody, I will happily teach interested persons on evolution or any other branch of science, and will readily learn from others about what i do not understand. I view this forum an interaction of ideas and not a competition.

jamiru:
hi wirit

noetic asked you a question an [size=15pt]you have refused to respond to it [/size] in all your subsequent post. pls answer i have posteded them for conveninence.

•Prokaryotes (simple cells) emerged on earth about 4 billion years ago
•Eukaryotes (complex cells) emerged 2 billion years ago
•Multicellular life emerged 1 billion years ago
•Simple animals about 600 million years ago
•Arthropods (ancestors of insects and crustaceans) about 570 million years ago
•Complex animals first showed up about 550 million years ago
•Fish have been on earth since 500 million years
•Proto-amphibians have been here just a little less than 500 million years
•Insects showed up 400 million years ago
•Amphibians emerge about 360 million years ago followed by
•Reptiles, which have been around for 300 million years, and
•Mammals have been on Earth for 200 million years, whereas
•Birds were the last to arrive and have been here only 150 million years •And the direct ancestors of man (hominids) probably have been here for maybe 2 million years.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/article_3_rev2.php

Now if athiest agree/disagree that dinasurs are related/evolved to chicken, my question is this, why have man not evolved into another species but remain as he is since man was able to communicated/documented writings.


could it then be that evolution is a farce all allong, decieving many to thier damnation in hell?

Jamiru, I decided not to respond anymore to Noetic's question because i will hate to undertake an exercise in futility, noetic has template responses and questions to all issues concerning evolution and science in General. We would just be moving in a vicious cycle, he will ask questions like how was the first inorganic compound formed, even if you explain and write the equation, he will still ask were you there to witness it?. It is impossible explaining scientific terms to a person who never understood any science more complex than integrated science.

Noetic questions are very basic, so as not to accuse me of running away i will answer them, but i know a barrage of other cynic questions will follow;

a. If physical observation is impossible. . . what form of observation suggests that the first evolution process EVER took place?

As i had had explained earlier, it is very absurd and cynical  to ask if  someone observed physically, the first first chemical reaction of life. The only way a such chemical reactions can be inferred is through experiments like the Miller Experiment which was able to create all 20 protein forming amino acids necessary for life, and through the discovery of amino acids and many organic compounds in meteorites brought in from space, meaning a similar process occurred in the planets from which the meteor broke off. Also Jupiter is suspected to be awash with amino acids and organic compounds ( not life). So the process of simple inorganic compounds forming complex organic compound is fairly common in the universe.
[quote]b. what were the substances involved in this first evolution that took place?

The compounds involved in the formation of life is Amino acids, phosphate groups, Ribose and Deoxyribose Sugars, bases,  Glucose, etc. These compounds dissolved in the primordial oceans to form "The Primordial Soup". And continuous and polymerization went on to produce the first RNA .

RNA is autocatalytic, meaning that once RNA forms by accidental dehydration, can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short strands of RNA(virus) were probably the first self reproducing systems(life) to come into being on the young earth. In RNA strand was protected by a sheath of specific proteins.  From there the RNA and proteins went on to form more complex organisms and DNA.

This experiments cannot be replicated today due to the enormous size of the laboratory ( the entire earth), the very high density of the early earth's atmosphere, the relatively high temperature and the time span needed ( about half a billion years).

c. Since according to you, the first evolution process took place before the first single celled organism was formed. . . .how could non-living substances produce these pioneer organisms? how could non-living substances produce life (organisms)?

This question had been answered above

a. by "not noticeable", do u mean invisible and unseen and unknown processes?

By not noticeable, i mean the process is too slow to be noticed with the naked eye within the time frame we are viewing

b. where are the repeatable and verifiable scientific evidences that suggest that short lived plants and insects including plants and animals evolve?

Short lived plants and animals change physical characteristics like colour when placed in a different environment to adapt to that environment.

a. How was the simple amino acids formed?

Had already explained it above, but if you want details google "how to make amino acids"


Sorry to say, but your questions are more ridiculous than noteic's, i do not mean to be disrespectful, but how can someone answer the questions you ask below;

jamiru:
In addition, if evolution is true, why are scienctist crying that an animal is going extinct (just like the dinasaurs) and so they must protect it but this animal cant evolve into another specie to continue? just like they say homid evolved into man and hence homid has continued in another form as man?

Because what you understand by evolution is tantamount to witchery and wizardry. If you want to study that kind of evolution, go to Benin or Ijebu, I hear that some humans there can transform to a goat, owl or snake at will.

Look i am not trying to convert anybody, I will happily teach interested persons on evolution or any other branch of science, and will readily learn from others about what i do not understand. I view this forum an interaction of ideas and not a competition.[/quote]

Chrisbenogor:
Hello wirinet,
I do not quite fully agree with your position on how evolution can deal with the problems of man, yes in time it will manage it just for the time being like the sickle cell anemia. I am sure if more research is done there would be other possible less life reducing ways to deal with malaria for instance, is a more concerted approach to the whole issue not possible. I mean like a consensus, because I think that nature is only looking for ways to eliminate man and man constantly evolves to try and meet these challenges, for instance a violent strain of a virus can wipe out the human race no?

Thanks chrisbenbogor, let is refreshing to be rubbing minds, and not engage in emotional and verbal jousts. It will be a bit difficult to deal with the malaria parasite unaturally, because the malaria parasite also had evolved well enough to ensure its survival, it is very plastic and versatile and any drug we throw at it is only effective temporarily, the parasite soon learn to resist the drug.

Nature is not looking for ways to eliminate man or any specie, nature is an impartial arbiter, if a specie is not versatile, strong or smart enough it will die naturally. Man is all of those things and that is why we are the must successful specie on earth. The purpose of the universe is survival, the universe is adverse to and resist anything that threatens its survival, same with animals, both individually, group wise or specie wise. The malaria parasite is trying to survive and had fashioned out ways to ensure its survival, it employs the ubiquitous mosquito as its mode of transmission since the parasite cannot survive outside a body, unfortunately it threatens the survival of a race of humans - the Black race. The humans affected has to fight back evolutionarily to ensure its own survival, at the end of the day there is a truce, until one of them fashions out a new way to gain advantage.

It is unlikely that a violent strain of virus can wipe out the human race. Because it would be evolutionary suicide for the virus to completely wipe out its host, how will the virus itself survive. Besides humans also are highly plastic and versatile, in time some would develop resistance to the virus. for examples in areas of high HIV prevalence, a certain percentage of the population is completely immune to the virus. Even the HIV virus makes sure it does not kill the host too fast to ensure its propagation before the host dies.