₦airaland Forum

oyebanji44:
Is this why you wake up early ..

Truly ..only a mad man doesn't sleep

if you read my op, you will see where I stated that Tinubu supporters don't have PVCs, they only insult people. Thanks for proving me right

Tinubu supporters don't have PVCs, they only come here and abuse people and spread tribal hate.
The real structure is going to kick APC out in February.

I got my own PVC since 2011 and I am using it for Peter Obi.

1 vote for Peter Obi in Lagos.

Peter Obi will beat Agbado in Lagos anyways, if he likes he should waste all his money on billboards everywhere like he's doing, the more I see him on billboards, the more i hate APC and then the more urge to kick them out

AirFireEarthH20:
You stupi.d people display your VIN and some even turn the back of their PVCs and display their bar code online. When your opponents, who already know who you will vote for, employ tech savvy guys to block your exposed PVCs from being read by BVAS on election day, don't blame anyone. Your stupidit.y makes your candidate lose your vote.

How? You can get everyone's Vin on inec portal.
Aren't you the stupid person here?

Do I need to vote again?
Cos be like LP Don win already

jaephoenix:
I know you didn't complete kindergarten but he wrote 'christian sect' not religion.
By the way Workch you forgot these JW pests

lol

While I don't support PDP but Wike should allow them do their thing. Wike is becoming a demon that we may not be able to control soon

MaxInDHouse:
What about your own religion ATHEISM?
Aren't you people also FANATICS?

I am not an atheist.

While we have many Christian sects, some are not very into the church of a thing, however we have few that are extreme fanatics and they can be sometime irritating to have conversations with because they act like they don't reason one but and like they are totally delusional.
My list in no particular order:

1. Lord's chosen
2. Deeperlife.
3. Jehovah witness
4. Christ embassy (these ones are always arrogant).

Aemmyjah:
Baby boy, you have right to accept what you WANT to believe right? Accept your claim

When you go to a beach and see a bench. You know someone put it there. That bench is the effect of what cause? That someone kept it there. I'm not sure if there is any fallacy that can overrule that claim so that you may believe the bench just appeared by itself

Why are you still committing the fallacy

Aemmyjah:
Nonsense
Not with someone with a very biased mind like you!
Go and follow stupid fallacies

what's bias?
Have you provided any evidence that is not fallacious?

Aemmyjah:
You're free to accept any philosophy you WANT to to support your view
It's up to you
Rock your boat

learn to make logical arguments without fallacies. It's why I won't take you seriously

KnownUnknown:
That doesn’t compute at all. No one uses “goat herder” as a metaphor for uninformed people. A metaphor such as “having cold feet” can be, and is ,used in various situations but I’ve never seen anyone use goat herder outside of slurring the Bible authors.
Any astronomical or geographical errors made by the authors are still made by people today and no one calls these people “goat herders”. Hell, you haven’t referred to Aemmyjah as “goat herder” despite him being uninformed.

What are arguing all about?

Aemmyjah:
Amd you believe the designs of this universe has no designer
That something (like our universe) came from nothing

Look at the image below. What is the chance or probability that that thing (though not a living frog) could appear in a bush just like that

more and more teleological fallacy. Because it looks designed doesn't mean it was designed

Aemmyjah:
Lol
Create a problem
Solves the problem
Create a problem from the solution

You're free to believe what you want

How, I don't hold any belief. You are person who believes that your imaginary friend created everything and fallaciously using everything as evidence for his existence.

It doesn't work that way

KnownUnknown:
Metaphor for what?

for how uninformed they were back then

Aemmyjah:
The evidence is all around you. It's like preaching to an old drunk. Hopeless!

Try not to commit this fallacy, you cannot convince any irreligious person with fallacious arguments. We are very much aware of how Christians reason.

A teleological fallacy occurs whenever you assert that, because a certain thing currently serves a certain purpose, it must have been designed to serve that purpose. Teleological fallacies most often crop up in arguments attempting to prove the existence of God (or some “intelligent designer”):

The human eye is very complicated and functions very well, therefore it must have been designed to be so complicated and work so well.
All the various systems of the human body work well together, therefore they must have been designed to work well together.
The universe supports the existence of human life, therefore it must have been designed to support human life.
Etc.
One of the problems with these sorts of arguments is that they fundamentally display an ignorance of how natural systems can self-organize and evolve according to purely natural laws. To say that some thing “couldn’t possibly happen by pure chance” is just an expression of ignorance since (a) following natural processes is not the same as “happening purely by chance” and (b) we do not necessarily know all the natural processes that could be involved.

Another problem is that these arguments show a fundamental misunderstanding of how probability works. If you start from a point before an event has occurred and try to work out how improbable that exact event would be, it may appear to be impossibly improbable. But once you start with an event that has actually occurred, the probability of it occurring is exactly 100% and you can’t work backwards to show how improbable it might have been.

A final problem is the fundamental conflation of cause and effect. If the universe, say, appears “fine-tuned” for the existence of human life, it is more accurate to say that human life evolved to live in a universe that could support it, not that the universe was designed to support human life.

For more on this, see the following:

A Response to the Argument from Design.

A Response to the “Fine Tuned Universe” Argument.

Lack of a Better Explanation Is Not Evidence for Your Explanation.

Aemmyjah:
Look at the mirror
The person you see. Ask him if he is a product of a great, intelligent mind or a byproduct of blind Chance

I just did, I didn't see your God.
Do you want to give me a testable evidence for your God or you want to keep committing a teleological fallacy?

Aemmyjah:
It's all around you
Even the blind are 'seeing' it

It's like a deaddrunk man on a boat in the sea asking the sailor to prove that there is water. In other words, your request is pointless

show me one, I won't ask if I am seeing them

KnownUnknown:
Why are you always repeating this Eurocentric/white supremacist nonsense that the Bible was written by “goat herders”?
Why not be original if you want to slur the writers. They could have been Bronze Age farmers, fishermen, craftsmen, miners, smiths, etc . Why is it always “goat herders”?

lol, GOATherder is a metaphor

Aemmyjah:
Don't underestimate the power of the Creator as if he were a mere human
Humans have tried to defy laws,some with little success
There is nothing too wonderful for the Creator of life, animals, designer of the womb of a woman

Lemme ask you
Scientists have tried to transplant the organs of animals with man like the heart of a pig and other organs as well. Does that make us closer to pigs?

Give me one evidence that your God exist

Aemmyjah:
The person talked about something that happened to the sun in his location and also happened to the moon in another location.
This did not make sense to you cos it will not make any sense to your understanding and the Bible does not need to validation cos you don't understand as a dog cannot understand everything his Master does. A child may not understand all that the father. You seem to have sense than the Creator himself so I congratulate you in your reversed wisdom. Why not check the internet as to the possibilities of how that event could take place from scholars or Bible commentaries?

more reason why I cannot talk the Bible seriously.
Poor articulation of events.

A book that cannot properly articulate basic geography, biology and physics should be thrown into the dustbin.

Sun don't stop
Vrigins cannot conceive without fertilization
Snakes don't talk
Snakes cannot turn to stick.

. No evidence for any of these. It's all nonsense and can oy be found in myths like the bible

Aemmyjah:
Show me where the bible says the sun revolves round the Earth

I just did with Joshua.

Or do you want to explain to me what Joshua meant by the sun stopped over a city?

In relation to earth and sun movement, which one is moving and which is not?

Aemmyjah:
Lol
You're the one contradicting yourself with your last words

How?

Aemmyjah:
Because he did not describe how the phenomenon took place meant it never happens right
Sometimes, things that fellow humans do but we see as magic are not just magic. The person performing it knows what he did
I've seen so many on American gots talent and everyone is shocked as if it were grand.
How much more the Maker of the universe including the sun?
In Joshua's eye, the sun appeared to have stood still
Critics foolishly say the account is myth
Some scientists have tried to explain the possibilities for that to have taken place

Dude, the sun doesn't revolve round the earth hence can't stop. That's utter jargons that is unforgiveably wrong. The bihke is always wrong on basic things and then when you want to explain how wrong the Bible is, you have to insert magic called God.
There's no evidence that any make made any sun.

Stop making things up a d bring evidence. The Bible was written by bronze age goatherders who didn't know science. I can't trsyt such book, Joshua just proved it

The confusion of the origin of life and evolution, two very different things, is mainly due to the agenda of the some religious groups. I will explain, starting with evolution which is contrary to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

We define ‘life’ as based on cells. Life is an organised environment separated from outside by a semi-permeable membrane. It has an innate drive to survive and reproduce, and has the ability to acquire resources and to reproduce itself.

The original cells could find food, eat and divide into two by replicating themselves, including the template for doing it again: DNA. Later life got more complicated in several ways, including multicellularity and sexual reproduction.

Evolution is about how and why life got more complicated. It is a process that can only take place in living cells. It depends on the replication of DNA. It doesn’t involve anything before cells existed. The point of reproduction is to produce perfect copies. The reproductive process is good, but not perfect. The cell has many repair mechanisms for when occasional errors occur during replication, but some mistakes do happen.

DNA is a very big organic macromolecule. It is reasonably stable, but like any chemical, it will react under some conditions. Enter the environment. Earth’s surface is subject to natural radioactivity from within. It also under a constant rain of cosmic rays (actually particles). These active particles can penetrate cells and produce free radical which are very reactive. This is the source of some of the errors that can occur in DNA.

The errors that occur are random; they can happen anywhere in that huge macromolecule. The errors that get through, from internal or external causes, are what we call mutations. Mutations are why a population has a range of genetic variation. And without mutations and consequent genetic variation, evolution cannot take place.

But what are the consequences of mutations. The parent has survived and reproduced. Therefore it has the genetic makeup that works well enough in its environment to do that. A mutation changes the genetic makeup. It might have no effect - there are places along the DNA where a simple change doesn’t affect function. If it does have an effect, it can make the offspring a little better or a little worse at surviving and reproducing.

Over time and generations, those that are a little better outcompete the others and produce moe offspring and become the population. And this continues, generation after generation, with random mutations, every now and then, producing offspring a little better adapted to the environment. This is natural selection.

The environment can be stable for long periods, but it can change randomly and unpredictably, for example by an asteroid crashing on the planet, or the movement of tectonic plates, or wobbles of the Earth’s axis. This means that an organism finds itself less suited to the conditions.

This is where the those random genetic variations in the population, exposed to the random environmetal variation come into effect. The conditions work to select those that are best fitted to survive and reproduce. Either in stable conditions or through major environmental change, natural selection acts on the available genetic variations to modify the population to favour those better fitted to survive. If a population does not have the genetic capacity to adapt sufficiently or quickly enough, it becomes extinct.

This process of evolution is continuous in all organisms, usually far too slowly for us to observe directly. There is, however, a huge body of evidence for this process - what Darwin called ‘descent with modification by means of natural selection’. We have continued to collect data, to review and refine our understanding of evolution. That it is the explanation of how life has developed and diversified is unassailable, and that is what leads to difficulties for some religious people.

There has been an unrelenting attack on evolution ever since Darwin. This is most obvious in the USA, where there is a powerful religious conservative lobby, including fundamentalists: those who take the Bible to be the literal word of God. Evolution does not fit the Biblical view of life created in its final, unchangeable form, or of humans being unrelated to animals.

For almost a century, there have been legal attacks on teaching about evolution in schools. In the last 50 years as the population became more educated and enlightened, legal restrictions on teaching about evolution were removed. In 1968 legislation banning the teaching of evolution was struck down because it violated the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The anti-evolution response was to come up with an alternative they called creation science. This relies on an interpretation of the scientific evidence validating evolution to support the Biblical account, particularly the creation myth and flood story in Genesis.

Creationism created explanations to refute data from biology, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history, linguistics, physics, even dendrochronology (measuring tree age by annual rings). The new legal approach became to promote equal time for creation science whenever evolution science was taught. This was dispensed with in 1982, when the US Supreme Court determined that creation science was not science because it had none of the necessary elements of science (e.g. explained by natural means, testable, open to change).

The next attempt was the invention of intelligent design (ID). This was an attempt to redesign creationism in non-religious language. Some of the literal interpretation of the Bible was moved out of the discussion. Instead of God, an Intelligent Designer was responsible for creating life. Arguments were put forward based on ‘irreducible complexity’, that is, many chracteristics of life could not have developed through serial incremental changes so must have been designed.

The approach here was that ID was legitimate science, unconnected with a religious agenda. Again, in 2005, this failed before the US Supreme Court, which indicated that the ID was simply re-badged creationism intended to get around the First Amendment.

The classic example to support ID is the eye, the argument being that either an eye works or it doesn’t and any intermediate steps would not function, so eyes could not have arisen by natural selection. It must have been designed. This was refuted by science, demonstrating that functional vision existed at each stage from the original light-sensitive cell to the vertebrate eye.

The evolution of the eye also supported the random and imperfect processes of natural selection, not intelligent design: "Moreover, the eye contains a big flaw: the retina is inside out. Why would an almighty designer do such a thing? No intelligent designer, .. would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of the hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process." ~ Daniel Dennett

Of course, those who believe in their version of faith cannot accept the reality of evolution. They do not retreat from opposing the teaching of evolution. There is another aspect of biological science, though, that has none of the certainty of evolutionary theory.

Abiogenesis - the development of life from non-living origins - is still an unknown. There are hypotheses, based on some of the steps we know must have occurred, but we don’t know how the first cell formed. We know the precursors of macromolecules were present. We know that polymers will form and that nucleic acids can self-replicate and we know that phospholipid bilayers will form cell-like globules.

But we don’t know how those things came together to form proto-cells. We have hypotheses about it beginning with an RNA world, with RNA filling structural and enzyme roles as well as genetic material, later superseded by the DNA world we know. We don’t know how, but we know it happened. Before cellular life, we do not yet know.

If you have lost on every front to stop the teachings of science that underpin evolution, what are the options? The option the anti-evolutionists lit on abiogenesis. Science didn’t know. Here was an avenue of attack, and the attack went like this: “scientists can’t prove that God didn’t create life, so how can they expect us to believe in evolution?”

Most people outside scientists have only a general notion about biological processes, and no reason to disbelieve a well-presented, articulate story told by someone in a position of respect or authority. However, because we don't know yet is not an automatic evidence that God did it, if we should settle for the God fallacy then we never know, we wouldn't have known a lot of things that we know today.

Dtruthspeaker:
When The Debate Is Lost, Slander Becomes The Tool Of The Loser

am I lying?

Are you good in biology?

Should we test your knowledge?

Aemmyjah:
There were many things that people will have taught were impossible to do by humans but we now do so now
Humans are still learning about creation
We only know less than 1% about creation
Yet, mortal man thinks his small knowledge has made him wiser than the Creator himself

you are committing a fallacy of appealing to ignorance, because you can't explain it doesn't mean it's a miracle and that we cannot explain it later

Aemmyjah:
Joshua who wrote that verse just presented what he saw from his angle. He did not know or record how the phenomenon could have taken place.
Today too, we sometimes see notice strange phenomenon regarding the physical universe and we call or invite scientists or people with knowledge regarding that field to explain how that could have happened. Joshua just wrote what he saw. There are many factors that could have taken place for that incident to happen

the sun will never stop, it will never and hs never. If it does, we are finished.

This is why I don't trust the Bible, how can I trust what a Joshua who doesn't know basic geography has to say about how the earth started. And many religious people don't even know basic science and it's why I don't trsut what you have to say.

Dtruthspeaker:
Go and look for ssce gradings in the 80s/90s. It was A1, A2, C3, C4, C5 then F9 van't precisely remember for since I took it over 30 years back, I have not looked upon it again.

you are more than 40 years old and you still reason this way?

Anyways, you must have attended a bad school since you are still very poor in biology, maybe a special centre helped you

Aemmyjah:
It was a miracle from God
Unlike you, I believe that a powerful God is behind the making of life and the design of the human system. It won't be a problem for him to transfer the life of his son into the womb of a Virgin
Today, we have surrogacy (I don't know everything about surrogacy so forgive me if I'm wrong) , we also have children that can be incubated. Science are doing things that people would not have imagined. Infact, people do not use the word IMPOSSIBLE to describe feats again. They use the word IMPROBABLE or PROBABLE

there's no evidence that miracles exist. That's what you don't get.
Miracles are made up craps by Christians.

Humans can communicate with fellow humans in space
Humans can fly from one end of the Earth to the other
We can go to the deepest part of the sea for exploration
We can see what is going on in another part of the world at the same time without any wired connection
We can see what is beyond the milky way galaxy

what's your point here?

I'm in awe to think of what we can accomplish in the next 50 or 100 years regarding engineering, chemistry, astronomy, etc
Yet, man laugh at things recorded in the Bible cos he thinks he's more powerful than God. Man think that unless he himself can achieve something, God himself cannot do it... Man has tried to defy the natural with little or significant success. Because you see something defied like the issue of childbirth from a virgin, they scoff as if they have equal strength with the Creator

What we can measure can be measured with facts and evidence.
A God and creator cannot.

That's the issue. It's all why religion is not to be trusted. They never provide evidence for anything. Religion will say 1000 things and will not drop 1 evidence for any of it.

Aemmyjah:
Show me where the Bible says that sun is orbiting

Joshua 10:

12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on[b] its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

Aemmyjah:
You pointed that the bible is just fiction
And I gave you something to consider if it is fiction or not?
The Bible description of the Earth hanging and without visible support is fraudulent right?

Is it not only in fictions we see a talking snake and a virgin giving birth?
Common, these things never happen in real life. There's no evidence that such has ever happened.
How can sticks turn to snakes and back to sticks, are these not fictions that you cannot explain unless you take the testability out of the reach of everyone?

It's hard to imagine a ball or anything hanging in space, how much more our planet Earth. How did Job know?

this same Bible said this ball has a dome and that the sun can stop orbiting (inferring that the sun orbits the earth is even ridiculous). How can the sun standstill, does that make any sense?

His contemporaries said the Earth was hanging in some creatures or on some oceans or something else. They believed the Earth had some rigid support. If the Great Aristotle had read Job words, he would have laugh at it as stupid and unreasonable. So the Bible is no mere fiction. You too should consider the evidence for yourself and not what the internet tells you or because it suits your beliefs

bros, I can show you 10 Bible passages infarring that the earth is a ladn covered in a dome and that sub orbits the earth. Stop telling me small lies