₦airaland Forum

Why do you guys argue a lot?

mrvitalis:
The reason they can't push for tax is simple they were not popular candidates... Soludo is doing it

When you steal mandate you would be scared to tax the people

Second is they don't know what exactly to do with the taxes... You and me know u can never steal tax of ndigbo and go free

Tax is the only way to grow an economy not natural resources

What are you even taxing?

Gas is the future. In another 10 Years, Gas would have effectively replace fuel as the mainstay source of fuel.
Gas is so versatile because its way cleaner than petrol and diesel and more eco-friendly. It's also very suitable for power generation.
It's the only hydrocarbon source of energy than can thrive in an Era of renewable energy.
Nigeria has the largest gas deposit in Africa. Imo state has the largest gas field in Nigeria and west Africa.

If the government of Imo state can exercise patience and manage the revenue that is coming, they will progress massively. The world is moving away from crude oil with speed. To solve the energy problem of Nigeria, Nigeria need large and Imo will become so influential in making this possible.

Aemmyjah:
https://apologeticspress.org/darwin-in-light-of-150-years-of-error-1148/

I challenge you to demonstrate it

Aemmyjah:
My God is not the God of the white man
I worship the Creator of the universe
I understand your school of thought says life emerged by accident. Therefore your existence has no meaning. Go and find meaning to your life sir

yes, it's what they say when they brought the message to Africans. He's the creator of the universe.

Lol, Jesus christ of England 😂

Aemmyjah:
See olodo
Am I worshipping a whiteman god?
Go and worship mother nature

I gave you evidence and you deny
Servant Darwin

keep defending white people's God when they already moved on. 😂

MightySparrow:
Things evolve.
Can we ever trace the first language spoken?

sincerely, lets stay on the topic. I don't know how the emergence of the first language got to do with biological evolution.
We cannot achieve anything in hmthis conversation if you keep digressing.

How, where, when.?

Why are all living things except few have male and female. At what point did it start?

I don't know, this doesn't mean that evoli9is not fact as observed and explained to you earlier, we still don't understand every bit of it and that's a genuine admission

Evolution seems to me to take care of only species not emotions, language, spirituality etc.

you are correct

Apart from biological sciences, these also are fields of study.
There are so much knowledge also in these fields.

For example, in cat family, there different species. Are to still expect different variants. Or we going to help nature to do that?
There is cross - breeding going on. Has evolution been having agent's like human to work?

I don't understand the question here, kindly rephrase

wegevv:
I think you’re still conflating the “theory of evolution” with the facts that the theory is based on lol.

I say this because of your last paragraph; I don’t know many Christians who reject the facts that the theory of evolution are based on. I only know those who reject the “theory of evolution” itself. There’s a difference between those two things because you can acknowledge the facts and reject the theory.

Many of those who reject the “theory of evolution” chose to explain the facts that the theory is based on in a different way.

Yes, I agree with you that you can acknowledge facts and reject the theory. Are you getting me point or what?

Is that not the essence of fallible tbeory?
Science will not be science if theory can not be rejected. How is that hard for you to grasp that I'm not disagreeing with you

wegevv:
Indeed it’s a simplification to say “humans evolved from monkeys”. Regardless, evolution as pertains to humans and other species we see today is a theory not a fact as with viruses etc. Hence why scientists say “evolution is a theory and a fact”. So just correcting the “theory of a fact called evolution” you said in your previous post that implied evolution as a whole was a fact.

I think you don't understand what I meant.
I already started it, evolution is a theory because a theory existed called theory of evolution. The fact call called evolution is what it explains.
There's no basis for any debate here that you are trying to create because I'm not arguing this.

Despite that, you are right in that the theory of evolution is not a mere hunch. Scientists have studied various facts we see today and have extremely strong reasons and evidence to believe that that is how humans and other species we see today came to be.

That doesn’t change my faith personally but I’ll save that conversation for another day. Still worn out from the last one lol ❤️

good, I have seen many Christians who accept evolution as well and I'm impressed.
If your likes are the majority, maybe we may not have seen many people leave Christianity. In the presence of literalist, who are majority in Africa, they see facts like evolution and try to deny it, many people will start doubting Christianity because of their actions

MightySparrow:
Theory simply means in the face of no better arguments, we accept this for now.

Does this make sense?

yes, but it doesn't not mean that what the theory tries to explain changes.and most times, these theories are not change outrightly, they are edited as we learn more.

E.g. Atomic theory can be be fallable but Atoms cannot change and be replaced with something else. Atom is fact

Theory of relativity can be fallable but gravity is fact, it doednr change. It cannot be replaced with another thing.

Cell theory may change but cells can't change


Theory of evolution may change and it has changed several times but all tried explaning a fact called evolution. Evolution will never be replaced by creation as explained by the Bible

MightySparrow:
You are right.

But Evolution theory is not absolute just as the the others mentioned. All these are called theories and none of them is a final truth.

Truth is a final, unchangeable fact.
Anyway, as I said, the Bible predicted, knowledge shall increase but not as to nullify the essence called God.

Science is a good attempt by man to understand creation. We have surprises everyday at the frontier of knowledge!

there's also never going to be a day when science will find out that creation happened literally like in the book of genesis. It's why you should not take the bible literally, you will be battling to accept facts and realities

MightySparrow:
You are right.

But Evolution theory is not absolute just as the the others mentioned. All these are called theories and none of them is a final truth.

Truth is a final, unchangeable fact.
Anyway, as I said, the Bible predicted, knowledge shall increase but not as to nullify the essence called God.

Science is a good attempt by man to understand creation. We have surprises everyday at the frontier of knowledge!

Evolution as a fact is absolute. We may not fully understand it but we are sure with numerous evidence that all living species evolve

Aemmyjah:
You are funny
You de cap nonsense
You can't even dispute my argument as to religion and the existence of a higher supernatural being
Well, religion can be measured and people are choose any form of worship
If God truly exists and wants us to draw close to him, he will have to guide sincere worshippers to him
But we need to understand and find out of he accepts all forms of worship and if not, which one is acceptable to him and have his approval

Christianity did not start from white men
If I wanted to worship God the way I like, I'd probably not even accept Christianity but that of our fathers and with their fetish nonsense and customs
I'm not following whiteman religion. If not, I would have joined you to become a disciple of Darwin
If it were the one our African fathers were worshiping as true , I would not have joined any other, talk less or sharing beliefs with others

Go and listen to Alhaji Darwin. He's an African

Evolution always existed before Darwin. It's just Darwin own that sesm more plausible, Darwin was ever wrong in many thing.
Do you prefer to be a total ignoramus?

It's white ment that brought Christianity to you. These white people are leaving it because they realized that they were wrong

wegevv:
Close but misleading to say that “Modern synthetic theory of evolution explains a fact called "Evolution".”

Evolution is a fact and a theory. The evolution you’re discussing is a theory. The evolution that is a fact involves the observation of virus etc evolving.

So when they say “a theory is an explanation of facts” they don’t mean evolution as a whole is a fact lol. They mean there are several facts eg DNA sequence, artefacts etc that we can observe and put together these facts to try to explain them as a theory.

No one has observed humans evolving from monkeys or tested it. If it happens, it would take too long for any scientists to realistically test it. We haven’t had the knowledge we have now for long enough ❤️

Cc: mightysparrow ❤️

Theory if evolution does not says that humans evolved from monkeys.

What it simple explains is that "in a poplalation of organisms with variable pool, genes frequency change over many generations. This gene versatility is caused by mutations and gene recombinations and these gene fluctuations is triggered by environmental selection called natural selection. Over many generations, numerous fluctuations in gene frequency results in speciation, which means that one or more species in the parent species will not longer be genetically capable of mating with one of its relative to produce fertile offpsrings"

Basically the key words are, variation, mutation, gene recombination, natural selection and speciation. We have observe every bit of this and repeated evidence exist.

In human we have observed mutations, gene recombinations, variation and natural selection. We also have evidence in terms of DNA that humans did not just pop up from thing air

paxonel:
They have a common ancestor means that there is an extinct primate species(which is still not known) that both homosapien and monkeys or Ape originated from. That extinct primate is their common ancestor and the origin human evolution, not monkey's or Ape.

You can Google the question "Are humans evolved from Ape or monkey's ?"
Read the article from Wikipedia

we almost know the primate species. They are catarrhines.

Aemmyjah:
Who brought evolution to you? Blackman?

What has ethnicity or intercontinentalism got to do with the leadership of my organization? I have only one leader and that is Jesus Christ
I worship with my fellow man and belong to the most united force here in earth, no prejudice in terms of skin color or tribalism or language
Atheists themselves have no such unity

Lemme ask you now, how many AFRICANS are leading figures in promoting the philosophy of evolution?
Verily verily, I say unto thee, de play

So Africans were worshiping yahweh before the white men?

Sometimes you people sounds so hilarious

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.