₦airaland Forum

MightySparrow:
I don't think you did elementary science.

Hypothesis
Theory
Law

What are they and differences

Dalton Atomic Theory
Relativity Theory
Theory of Everything.

Can you explain these in line of your thought?

He actually told you what a theory means in science. It is you who don't understand it.
A theory in science is the explanation for a fact after evidence has been repeatedly tested. Theories are fallable but the fact remains constant.

Theory of everything does not exist. It's a proposed theory that physicists are working on to unify all the theories that we have. It's not a thing yet. The theory of everything will explain a fact called "everything".

Dalton Atomic Theory explains a fact call "Atom".

Theory of relativity explains a fact called "gravity".

Modern synthetic theory of evolution explains a fact called "Evolution".

A theory in science always explain a natural fact.

A law predicts what happens while a theory proposes why. A theory will never grow up into a law, though the development of one often triggers progress on the other.

Techobeys:
I actually do have a BSc. Industrial Chemistry so I know about these things more than you can imagine. I find them ridiculously flawed and that’s why I’m questioning you. How does supernova works pls? And who’s the “we” who has seen planets form?

if you understand how supernova works, then you should not be asking me.
Since you understand how it works, can you kindly discuss the problems you have with the idea of supernova it can created a planet. I will love to hear from you.

I don’t think it was reasonable for you to bring the Adam and Eve story into this discussion. I’m simply questioning you about your idea using reasoning and proper analysis of whatever postulate you believe.

I know that's where you are going to, because it's the only alternative idea most people, especially Christians who have issue with evolution or abiogenesis try to sell.

When the time for Adam and Eve comes, I’ll notify you and you can start to ask the questions then.

Bro, You will observe that I am ignoring a lot of people on this thread because they are just bent on baseless argument. The moment I observe that one is a foolish person who always argue baselessly and never stays in th topic, I will ignore the person. I am here to debate substance and not argue with scientifically illiterate people who will never grasp basic concepts.
It's difficult to win an argument with an intelligent but it's impossible to win an argument against a fooool. You know why? Fooolll don't change their mind, they are just bent on arguing and validating their opinion irrespective. So I don't even bother arguing with one.

The reason why I'm saying this is because you have started showing gross misunderstanding of the actual concept we are discussing and you are assumming that you understand it hence the reason you are asking me many irrelevant questions that do not really relate to the topic: the topic is evolution, you have taken me to abiogenesis and the formation of planet and supernova, I don't have strength for the endless back and forth you are about starting. I don't want to think that you re a foooll because the purpose of argument is to learn and not to drive your own opinon. If you don't know the difference between Evolution and abiogenesis, you can browse reliable sources on Google, we don't have to argue about it.

Since you will never agree with me on this topic, I want to know what you think about thr Adam and Eve story (which is still a topic related to evolution since its the alternative that biblical literalists from Africa see as an alternative) from the Bible, probably maybe you can change my mind.

After this comment, if you don't stay on the topic and discuss it exhaustive by actually researching about it on Google before you make any comment, you will observe that you may not get responses from me anymore.

Techobeys:
I didn’t say you said abiogenesis is a lie. I’m simply saying that if you say it’s not the truth, then you’re indirectly admitting that it’s false. There’s no in-between between truth and false, it’s either this or the other. If something is not true, then it’s false.

Don't you think that an option of I don't know if it's true or false exist?
Don't be streamlined with the way you reason.

I don’t think I have mistaken abiogenesis and Evolution. I think you’re not understanding my text and I’m sorry about that. Texting can be crazy sometimes.

the topic is about evolution and not abiogenesis. They are two different topics.
Abiogenesis is a strawman that is not even the actual topic. The actual topic is evolution

Techobeys:
You’re only imagining these things in your head. You’re only imagining that CO2 was so much in the atmosphere at one point. This imagination will hinder you from thinking straight my friend. Have you thought that perhaps, CO2 have always been the same?

the evidence suggest that CO2 was enormous. It's common sense.
Did you pass chemistry in school?
Do you understand how supernova works and formation of planers?
We have seen planet forming using telescopes. Try educating yourself on it

Can see how you’re creating a scenario in your head and assuming that that is how life started? A tank full of CO2 as if CO2 is the only gas in existence.

I'm just giving an example. If it's that's not how it Happened. It's still doesn't mean that Adam and Eve story Bible is true.
It's a lie and all evidence points towards that Adam and eve story never happened sir

Techobeys:
Since you’ve said abiogenesis is not the truth, are you consenting that it’s a lie. This only truth and lie. There’s nothing like educated guess in reality. Something either exists or it doesn’t.

Also, the idea that aliens exists is ridiculous. It’s for children. I think those who believe it have just watched too many cartoon to think efficiently.

Lastly, I’m telling you that it’ll be impossible for humans to exists if plant had already existed. This goes beyond evolution.

show me where I specifically said abiogenesis is a lie?

You re even finding hard to differentiate abiogenesis from evolution probably because you didn't get proper education

Techobeys:
Thank you for taking your time to answer my question. I really appreciate it.

So your points are these:

1. Abiogenesis is logical yet there’s no evidence for it.
2. Plane came first bc the blast of chemical reaction that occurred made CO2 available.

So here are my follow up question with respect to your points.

1. Since we think abiogenesis is true even though we have no evidence to prove it, does that means abiogenesis is merely a belief we accept to be true without any reasonable evidence? Does that mean we’re employing religious system of belief to establish it?

2. Do you realise that there billion possible combinations of atmospheric gases yet the single one that can allow human to exist came to be.
—-Do you realise that if plants had already existed before animals and humans, they will destabilise the atmospheric CO2, making it impossible for humans & animals to exist. How do you think we came to exist?

I don't see how the existence of plants and the destabilization of CO2 would mean thsy animals cannot exist.
Animals would not have existed in an atmosphere that is over-concentrated with CO2. The emergence of plants was the reason why the CO2 drop and concomitantly releasing oxygen that enabled the existence of animals.

Look at it this way: if you have a tank filled with CO2 only, if a plant capable of surviving emerges, it will start photosynthezing hence to release oxygen. The oxygen release by the plants will be what will enable the emergence of animals.
Then the animals will start production CO2 in return to make sure that the CO2 in the tank is not exhausted so the plants can also survive as well.

Techobeys:
Thank you for taking your time to answer my question. I really appreciate it.

So your points are these:

1. Abiogenesis is logical yet there’s no evidence for it.

exactly, no evidence for it. Just like it's logical that aliens exist elsewhere based in probabilities but we can't still find thr evidence because are limited by technology. We are limited by many things to actually find the mechanism that abiogenesis took.

2. Plane came first bc the blast of chemical reaction that occurred made CO2 available.

So here are my follow up question with respect to your points.

yes

1. Since we think abiogenesis is true even though we have no evidence to prove it, does that means abiogenesis is merely a belief we accept to be true without any reasonable evidence? Does that mean we’re employing religious system of belief to establish it?

we don't think abiogenesis is true. Don't get it wrong.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, an educated guess that is very plausible. In science, hypothesis are not taken as truth until evidence is available to test it. So abiogenesis is smart guess but it's not fact yet.
Don't misconstrue it.

2. Do you realise that there billion possible combinations of atmospheric gases yet the single one that can allow human to exist came to be.

nope, combination of Gases did not make humans exist, it made the first organism to exist. The constant change in this combination gave rise to other organisms that posses the features to adapt to the environment inlcuodng humans.

—-Do you realise that if plants had already existed before animals and humans, they will destabilise the atmospheric CO2, making it impossible for humans & animals to exist. How do you think we came to exist?

Do you actually understand the rudiments of evolution or do you mind if I explain it do you?
I'm asking because you are sounding so naive about how it works

paxonel:
I know!

Atleast let them be aware that Europe who imported the religion to Africa are currently doing very well now, while Africa practicing the same religion is lagging behind for this same reason

those things don't matter with someone without brain. Do you think that they are not seeing it?

In no particular order:

1. The flood's impossible, and there are exactly zero signs of it in the geological record.

2. The boat would break up and sink. Sorry, that's what wooden boats that big do, no matter how “strongly" you make them…and especially when the makers have zero previous shipbuilding experience. To constitute seaworthiness of the hull of a vessel in respect to cargo, the hull must be so tight, staunch, and strong, as to be competent to resist all ordinary action of the sea, and to prosecute and complete the voyage without damage to the cargo under deck. A ship made of wood cannot survive the pressure

3. Recreating all the world's ecosystems would take millions of years, at least. It would make the KT event that killed the dinosaurs look warm and inviting. Basically, “life" on Earth would currently be mostly single celled with a handful of multi-cellular species.



4. There's literally no reason for an omnipotent god to kill things in such a pointless way. He could just “Thanos-snap" every one he considered a sinner away, without drowning so much as a single puppy, let alone all life.

5. Noah would have to have been one of the richest men in the world just to buy the lumber for the ark.

6. I should mention his lifespan was impossible. Oh, and he'd have no teeth for about 90% of it.

7. Eight people can't care for millions - or even just hundreds - of animals by themselves for a year. The fact that they'd be dead from all the toxic fumes of the animal waste within days doesn't help. Go and ask Obasanjo how he manages his farm, eight people cannot run it.

8. After getting off the boat, what did, say, the lions eat until the zebras had bred enough children that taking one down wouldn't extinct the species ( which would take several years, at best)? Heck, what did the zebras eat, given all grass was killed by the flood?

8. Did I mention God comes across majorly schizophrenic in this story, wanting to both wipe out all life and helping Noah to save it? That's a remnant of the original Sumerian version of the myth where the gods doing the killing and the god doing the saving were different entities.
That's just off the top of my head. Basically, nothing about the story is either possible nor makes the slightest bit of sense.

9. You can't fit two of every species on a boat that size…and two isn't enough to successfully recreate the species anyway (can you say “inbred as all f*ck?”).

paxonel:
God created them, who knows when?

Probably they must have evolved from other species

you are wasting your time trying to educate conservatives.
They are the African literals I am talking about in the OP

BiafraAburi:
This is for the illiterates, especially the OP that can't research before spewing nonsense. Gas is the future and over 80% of the gas found in your country is deposited in IGBO soil, and Biafra must be restored for us to make proper use of our God given money.

Autogas is priced at half the price of petrol. Using LPG is particularly common in the European Union (especially in Poland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Lithuania or Croatia), Turkey, Australia, South Korea, Hong Kong, India, the Philippines, Serbia or Macedonia.

What does this have to do with using LPG and petrol to run generator at home? Are you an illiterate?

You lack ability to comprehend?

Faber:
Oga na lie. You lie pass lie Mohammed. I did the experiment myself. I used 12kg for 5 days from 8:00 am to 7:00pm @700, per KG, total is 8400.

Then I use 10litres on the same Generator for the same time, 8:00 am to 7:00pm @500 per liter at 5000 naira daily. 5 days is 25,000

LPG on Gen for 5days is 8400
PMS on Gen for 5days is 25,000

How did you use 12kg of fuel for 5 days when 1kg only produces 20.7megajoules of energy. You people think we are fools?

Convert LPG MJoules to kWh: 1 MJ = 0.278 kWh of power from LPG.

It mean that 20.7 megajoules contained in 1kg of LP= 5.7546kWH.

12kg will give 69.0552kWh of power

The EIA aggregates data for the entire U.S. In 2021, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. home was 10,632 kilowatt-hours (kWh).

That's 29kWh per day. Your 12kg of LPG will only last for about 2days+ some hours in an average home in United States. (I'm. Using united states because they usually have 24hours electricity).

Most generators have energy efficiency of average 50%, it means that the amount of energy that is usable is 50% (the remaining is lost to running the generator itself and entropy) , so your 12kg of LPG will probably last for less than. 1day+.


I can challenge you to an experiment on two new generator sets tuning of petrol and LPG, LPG will be more expensive. Or maybe you were only running bulbs in your generator

Joey4321:
Can you use 1 liter in 3 hours?

If you like, go and be following marketing.

I have given you the energy values of both. Petrol is still cheaper than LPG. Unless petrol becomes 800 per litre. This is why LPG powered generator don't even fly in countries that have been buying petrol more expensive than Nigeria even before the subsidy was removed

LPG is has very low density, hence the calculation we have is 1kg of LPG contains 20.7megajoules of energy.
PMS is denser hence produced more energy per KG than LPG.

1 litre of PMS produces 31.5 megajoules of energy.

1 litre of fuel is 500
1kg of LPG is 550.
Fuel is still cheaper unless you have an explanation for energy efficiency with LPG cuberator.

The advantages of LPG is that it's neater and does form carbon deposit on carburetor and for those who want to be storing it for a long time, it doesn't degrade and evaporate from carburetor.
Most of us dont leave fuel in our generator for long hence petrol is still cheaper than LPG.

jceesquare:
Can you break it down in simple English?

I enumerated the amount of energy 1kg of gas and 1litre of fuel willl produce.

1 litre of fuel still produced 31.5mjoules of energy while 1kg of LPG will produce 20.7megajoules.

Fuel is still cheaper

GAZZUZZ:
I conducted test with 1kg of LPG and you can view the results here.

3HR:17mins


https://www.nairaland.com/7724720/converted-generator-lpg-tested-fuel

LPG is has very low density, hence the calculation we have is 1kg of LPG contains 20.7megajoules of energy.
PMS is denser hence produced more energy per KG than LPG.

1 litre of PMS produces 31.5 megajoules of energy.

1 litre of fuel is 500
1kg of LPG is 550.
Fuel is still cheaper unless you have an explanation for energy efficiency with LPG cuberator.

GAZZUZZ:
I conducted test with 1kg of LPG and you can view the results here.

3HR:17mins


https://www.nairaland.com/7724720/converted-generator-lpg-tested-fuel

I doubt that 1kg of LPG can last longer than 1 litre of fuel.
We will do the maths together

Aemmyjah:
Don't mind him
He just follow mummy to church and did not understand anything
Where he had doubts, he did nothing

From his posts, he wrongly attributed the start of Christianity to the Europeans

show me where I attributed the start of Christianity to Europe in the OP and win 1milliom naira.

paxonel:
neither did the theory said man was a monkey
how long did it take God to made man?

No!
check your bible again, man was the last creation God made.
He had created every other creation before saying let's create man in our own image and likeness
the problem is, Christians fail to reason along.
A lot of scriptures in the bible are presented figuratively, examples are parables and some prophecies that needs literal interpretations. So it is very possible that Genesis chapter 1 is just one of those scriptures.
But the literal meaning of these kind of scriptures is what is most important to acquire.

For instance,

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

this scripture might just be written this way for a lay man to understand. But in reality, the explanation might go beyond this simple explanation as one may ask, how long does it take for God to form man?
Remember, another scripture says a thousand years is like one day to God?..

So, how long did God really take to form man?

Technically, we evolved from monkeys.
Ape family and the new world monkeys evolved from old world monkeys called catarrhines?

Albeit, I get your point, we didn't evolve directly from monkeys but if you go farther back, we actually did evolve from monkeys and I don't see how that should be a problem for Nigerian christians.

.

Techobeys:
I have this question for you:

If evolution is true, you you’ll also imagine abiogenesis to be true.

yes, abiogenesis has to be the cause of life logically, because life cannot just keep popping from another life ad-infinitum, however, we still do not understand the mechanism hence still don't have evidence for it

If that’s the case, how did plant survive millions of years without humans and animals, especially bc they need our CO2?

I don't know what this got to do with abiogenesis but Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been present in the atmosphere since the Earth condensed from a ball of hot gases following its formation from the explosion of a huge star about five billion years ago. The availability of carbondioxide is the natural selection that caused the first photosynthetic oraganims (archeans) and plants to emanate. These photosynthetic oraganims then release oxygen into the atmosphere that later caused animals to evolve.

Conversely, if you think animals came first, how did they survive also seeing the need plant Oxygen?.

plants came first bec2 the chemical reactions from the formation of earth and volcanic activities already made carbondioxide available for plants to thrive.

LordReed:
Add to that a lack of understanding of what the theory entails. Most Christians who don't understand the theory rather get their information from apologists who often misrepresent the theory. Thankfully when I was still a Christian I decided to understand the theory for myself even though I still believed that the god created all life as we know them today.

It's mostly misinterpreted in Africa because of our shambolic educational system

gohf:
there is, elegchos 😁

okay

gohf:
but there's evidence in God 👅

There is no evidence for God

Thugnificent:
Good evening sir. Can you pls lend me 5k sir? It's really urgent. I promise to repay by month end with interest.

lol

He posted today in his Facebook page

gohf:
even if there's evidence would you still believe

You have Google, there are online books, u can do it research but u lazily sit on your ass and ask someone else to find Jesus for you?

Abeg make it make sense? Lemme guess if Jesus appeared before you the next thing you ask for it make me fly or give me a million dollars

There's no evidence on Google

KnownUnknown:
What are these teachings of christ?
What does being christ-like entail?

being kind and humane

I was a Christian for 27 years, after my undergraduate course in Nigeria, I happened to travel to Poland for my masters degree, I became irreligious while in Poland. I travelled to many parts of Europe: Germany, Netherlands, Spain etc with my student schengen Visa, in the course of travelling, I interacted with many European and debated religion with them. I have not been to the untied states but I have had many conversations with Christians from the United States of America about how they perceive the theory of evolution and these are my observations:

1. European Christians are less conservative than Christian from America and Africa. Albeit, education in America seem to have made those there to be more exposed than their African counterparts but still they are still very conservative.

2. Christians in Europe don't take literal interpretations from the Bible, they see most of the passages to be allegories which are meant to pass spiritual and moral meanings . They don't take the Adam and eve story to be literal hence they do not have issues reconciling their beliefs with the theory of evolution. Christians in America and Africa are mostly literalists, their interpretation of the Bible is literal, this is why they find it difficult to reconcile the Bible with theory of evolution.
Because to them, it means that their literal understanding of Genesis will be wrong.

3. American and African Christians are still overzealous about their religion. Probably because the religion is quite newer in these continent. Christianity has a long history in Europe, so Europeans really don't see a big deal about it anymore. It's also why they accept the Bible as allegorical interpretations instead of thr literal meaning.

EMILO2STAY:
dont fool yourself. an ant walking around a spherical object will have to face up ,down and side ways at a point. this means different directions ,positions and orientations. meaning the ant will face upwards downwards, and sides ways at a point heck even upside down. this should be our reality on the earth if it was round. take a ball and gum sticks around it on all sides and see if some sticks will not be oriented differently. the saying that everywhere is up on a sphere is nonsense. take the earth for example. have you ever heard of anything like a steep slope?' you walk up and down the slope not up and up.
the fact that we see the moon from opposing sides does not mean that we see them from a curved angel. we can still see the moon same way on a flat surface as long as we stand in different direction. example the chandelier in a big house can be seen from opposing angles even though the percivers are standing on a flat surface. so your example is wrong.



ever heard of perspective? perspective is the reason objects gets smaller as they move away from you and later disappear from sight. this is not because they are really getting smaller but because of the nature of your eye sight that cannot percive object in far away distance.

you lack defence here mr man. seems you dont know your own beliefs. newton said it is a force of attraction ,if it is a force attraction then why would it change? facts dont chang sp you dont know what your talking about.

it is a historical fact.

😂😂😂

wegevv:
This statement is clearly made in bad faith so forgive me if I chose to ignore it ❤️

Lol