₦airaland Forum

@KAG
Why do evolutionists use arguments like the snowflake to cover unexplainable gaps in thier theory?
First of all, a snowflake dovetails exactly with entropy. the very formation of an ice crystal involes a loss of energy which leads to a reduction in temperature which leads to a decrease in entropy. Thermo 101!
This cannot be used to explain entropy in genetic material cos temperature and pressure do not play a significant role in mutation and genetic transformation
Other examples of molecular complexing occur in nature: the various forms of carbon (graphite, diamond etc), sulphur, metamorphic rocks and so on. U will agree that all these are brought about by extreme physical conditions of temperature and pressure. So they cannot be compared to what goes on inside a cell

Idekeson:
Help! I'm loosing interest in soccer faster than I can explain. Other sports like football, baseball and basketball are threatening the continued existence of soccer in my life. I am afraid soccer is losing the battle because I can't watch a 90 minutes game anymore except Nigeria is playing.

BLASPHEMY!!!

Idekson u need to seek absolution for ur pursuit of strange sports. baseball ? basketball? these are all heretical activities. U need to take a pilgrimage to the holy land (Brazil)

TO THE FAITHFULL

Do not be perturbed if the women refuse you food and other pleasures at this time. Football shall sustain us through this holy period.
Also it is a great pity that our great country NIGERIA will not be at this great event (thanks to Galadimma, Chukwu and the rest) but this should not discourage us from supporting our Ivorian, Ghanaian and Togolese brothers.

Nwoke, do not remove rule 13 pls.It is my personal favorite

i have heard of rubbing the inside of ur wrapping paper with aspirin before u roll up. the guy that tried it couldnt feel his extremeties for a week. his mother thought it was a spiritual attack and he was in a white garment church for a month.

So i dont know what will hap if u smoke the stuff itself. You may finally get to see God. So why dont u give it a try man

Important Rules For All Women During The World Cup!

Extremely important advice and recommendations to be passed on to wives, girlfriends, fiancés, mothers, sisters, daughters, etc. (to all women in general)

These rules are to be communicated prior to the World Cup in June/July this year, [/b]

List Of Rules.

1. From 9 June to 9 July 2006, you should read the sports section of the newspaper so that you are aware of what is going on regarding the World Cup, and that way you will be able to join in the conversations. If you fail to do this, then you will be looked at in a bad way, or you will be totally ignored.
DO NOT complain about not receiving any attention.

2. During the World Cup, the television is mine, at all times, without any exceptions. If you even take a glimpse of the remote control, you will lose it (your eye).

3. If you have to pass by in front of the TV during a game, I don't mind, as long as you do it crawling on the floor and without distracting
me. If you decide to stand nude in front of the TV, make sure you put clothes on right after because if you catch a cold, I wont have time to take you to the doctor or look after you during the World Cup month.

4. During the games I will be blind, deaf and mute, unless I require a refill of my drink or something to eat. You are out of your mind if you
expect me to listen to you, open the door, answer the telephone, or pick up the baby that just fell from the second floor, it wont happen.

5. It would be a good idea for you to keep at least 2 six packs in the fridge at all times, as well as plenty of things to nibble on, and please do not make any funny faces to my friends when they come over to watch the games. In return, you will be allowed to use the TV between 12am and 6am, unless they replay a good game that I missed during the day.

6. Please, please, please!! if you see me upset because one of my teams is losing, DO NOT say "get over it, its only a game", or "don't worry,
they'll win next time". If you say these things, you will only make me angrier and I will love you less. Remember, you will never ever know
more about football than me and your so called "words of encouragement" will only lead to a break up or divorce.

7. You are welcome to sit with me to watch one game and you can talk to me during halftime but only when the commercials are on, and only if
the halftime score is pleasing me. In addition, please note I am saying "one" game, hence do not use the World Cup as a nice cheesy excuse to
"spend time together".

8. The replays of the goals are very important. I don't care if I have seen them or I haven't seen them, I want to see them again. Many times.

9. Tell your friends NOT to have any babies, or any other child related parties or gatherings that requires my attendance because:
a) I will not go,
b) I will not go, and
c) I will not go.

10. But, if a friend of mine invites us to his house on a Sunday to watch a game, we will be there in a flash.

11. The daily World Cup highlights show on TV every night is just as important as the games themselves. Do not even think about saying "but
you have already seen this, why don't you change the channel to something we can all watch??", the reply will be: "Refer to Rule #2 of this list".

12. Please save your expressions such as "Thank God the World Cup is only every 4 years". I am immune to these words, because
after this comes the Champions League, Italian League, Spanish League, Premier League, etc etc.

13. And finally,do not ask me if I consider football more important than you. In a contest between you and football, FOOTBALL ALWAYS WINS !!!

Thank you for your cooperation.
Regards,
Men of the World

Greatpeter:
Ok let me offer you the last advise I have for you, Just give her a dirty slap and bite her so hard on her nipple.

She will think you a vampire and run away from afar if she gazes at you , 

that was precious.
But i prefer this: she walks in and she sees u with a machete, a hot iron and a big stick on the coffee table (or bed). u greet her cheefully, walk over give her a kiss and then bite her on the nipple. she will not return after that

Pls dont y'all crucify me now, i know someone that actually did something along this line.very effective with minimum violence

he has probably felt it wasnt really going anywhere from the beginning but he was trying to be practical and logical. so he tries to make it work in his own silent way. as time goes on he sees more and more that it is a mistake. by this time the girl is totally hooked on the relationship and she thinks all is well. so when he finally decides all his lost, he silently picks up his bags and walks away. the girl is in shock cos its all so "sudden"

but its not really sudden, there have been signs all along.

Nice win, to  be honest
But, two premierships? So what, Arsenal Have three, Man U have how many? 8?
No FA cup, No Championsleague, 600 mil pounds for two premierships, a good bargain?
Dont get me wrong u have to respect chelseas' consistency and hard work but the CL finals has shown that the beauty of footbal will always win
Go Gooners !!!!!

jagunlabi:
. Many have tried to dig into the precious few clues as to Jesus's identity and come up with a biographical sketch that either bolsters faith or reveals a more human side of this godman to which we can all relate.

@jagunlabi
He is just as human as u, he is just as "GOD" as u. this is exactly what the bible says. he is as much like u as ur brother or ur sister. if there is more "relation" than this, i dont know of it.

Jesus is not a far-off mystical figure. he is a friend and a brother, he speaks to us everyday, he laughs with us, he cries with us, he knows how i feel when ogle a girl i see on the streets of PH. But of course all this is "blind faith" and "unscientific" and "the opium of the masses" and "religious hogwash" so u really dont have to accept it. but that is what the bible says. so if anyone cant "relate " to Jesus, it is his choice, he has chosen the "sensible" way

@wellborn
God bless you

my guy
not bad, not bad at all
keep up the good work

@KAG
sorry for my silence, i was away
u asked how evolution flies inthe face of other scientific fields?
lets keep it simple
thermodynamics- the tendency of systems is for entropy to increase with time. i believe u will not argue that a genome can be considered as a thermodynamic system? more importantly it is not a closed system. genetic material is constantly under "attack" by elements in the environment eg radiation, free radicals in the body and all sorts of factors that lead to degradation or an increase in entropy. this process is essential for mutation which u say is the basis for evolutionary change

like in said b4 the natural tendency of systems is toward an increase in chaos and so for a species to maintain its integrity (becos the very essense of an organism lies in an exact ordered arangement of nucleic acid base pairs) over time, mechanisms have to be in place that will go against this trend. these error checking mechanisms are well documented. if in doubt pick up any book on molecular biology

the mutations we percieve in life forms are an interaction between entropy and  the degree of freedom allowed within the genetic framework. ( i believe we do not have to go into a discussion about the relationship between number of elements in a system and the degrees of freedom or permutations possible). this relationship is fixed. so mathematically we can predict the maximum amount of deviation a mutant can have from its parent gene. any mutation outside this must mean than the total entropy of the system has increased due to external pressure to such an extent that internal cohesive forces cannot cope with. this will always lead to increased disorder

Evolution is based on the premise that random genetic variation modified by environmental forces leads to speciation. this is plausible only within an entropy basement (a minimum level of entropy). random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy. yet what we see across species is progressively decreasing levels of entropy (or  increase in orderliness) in the genetic structure.

let me elucidate. the simplest forms of viruses have a few strands of RNA or DNA in thier nucleus. As life appears on earth with time, we have increase in the order structure and complexity of nuclear material in living things. this cannot be accounted for by random variation. in fact the very energy of the sun infusing into the earth everyday should ensure the breakdown of nuclear material cos infusion of energy into a closed system increases entropy.

Thus the difference  in number of elements,  and entropy between a bacterial DNA and a human one cannot be explained away by randomness and environment. in fact randomness and environmrnt should lead to a de-evolution of life forms

another paradox is science has shown that there is more variation within lower level life forms than higher level ones. there are  probably a million more species of bacteria than mammals. also there are lots more species of fish than reptiles. if the supposition of evolution was true, the organisms with more genes to play with should speciate more than those with less. in thermodynamic terms, more genetic material = more degrees of freedom.

let us use the analogy of a  tree. a stem may have 5 boughs, a bough should have at least five branches, a branch should have many more leaves. but this is not what we observe. as time goes by, across-species variation reduces. Is evolution winding down?

hold on

@SYRUP
pls i would like u to review my posts on this topic and see if they really are as stupid and confusing as KAG and co would like me to believe. KAG especially seems to have a one -liner for every challenge. one-liners in the vanim of "no it isnt" and "why why why" and such incomprehensible , i dont know
nferyn at least tries to give the semblance of a rebuttal

they still will not face the issue of evolution going against every thing we know in more established fields such as mathematics (simple probabilistic theory) , thermodynamics (with respect to entropy and the kinetic theory), the theory of uncertainty, molecular biology (wrt to the kinetics of protein formation and gene replecation), computer programming, everything!!.

Evolution marches on in the face of all common sense ( and even some uncommon)

2cents, thanx for the reply
i guess all u have said is true, i will keep them in mind. but sometimes we just have to dance to the clients tune. corporate bodies in nigeria seem to be obssesed with flash intros. as u an see from the madeforman site, there are no flash anis at all cos its my brothers site and i could dictate the content to an extent.
i will try and implement more css as i become more comfortable with it. then i am guilty of not even including meta tags at all, i will correct this too.
ecommerce is a bit out of the scope of the average nigerian developer now, too many issues.
anyways thanx for the help.

pls can u share ur thoughts on these sites. my humble efforts. www.madeforman.com (not SEO'd yet, workning on it, but def not using 100% CSS)
www.chesroc.com (one of my earlier efforts,bit flash-heavy), www.holpace.com, www.maximizedyouth.com

KAG and nferyn

by the nature of ur posts i am either very confused of confusing! Either way, i think i will throw in the towel here cos the "i dont know what u r implying ' answer is , exasperating. but let me point out a few contradictions

[There is no necessity in evolution it is a function of mainly random genetic variation and selective pressure by a changing environment.

Evolution is not random; monkeys didn't evolve from rodents

Really?

That should be, evolution doesn't necessarily lead to complexity, variation isn't random

There is no intention or direction in evolution.

That should be, evolution doesn't necessarily lead to complexity, variation isn't random, and selection helps to weed out the bad mutations in the population, while promoting benficial/neutral ones.

KAG thanx for the link, here are some selected quotes from the article on the BBC website

Mankind has evolved over millions and millions of years from single-celled, water-bound organisms, to primitive primates, and then to apes. Venturing out of the forests, early man started to walk on two feet and exposed the scalp to the harsh rays of the Sun.

so walking on four feet somhow protects one's scalp from the sun? (note here the picture of evolution drawn here, single celled --- >early man)


Our prehistoric ancestors were very attracted to someone with thick hair as a potential mate. The likelihood is that the person with the thick hair had the genes for thick hair as well, and therefore passed this natural Sun protection to his or her offspring, thereby increasing their chances of a long life in which to procreate.

this is an example of the all-powerful natural selection process. there is nothing here to suggest any beneficial trait was enhanced that lay outside the hardcoded combination of genes already inherent in the animal ( in other words non-mutative within-species traits). anybody who knows a little about genetics will agree that genes have meticulous mechanisms to ensure no errors creep into the genetic code. so there is a very big jump in logic between that primordial amoeba and nferyn

If, however, the person displaying a thick head of hair did not have the genes for thick hair, this is not to say that he or she is less of an attractive offer. Hair is made of protein, predominantly one called keratin. Rich sources of protein include meat and eggs. If a person had thick hair, it meant they had a protein rich diet, and the only people with a protein rich diet were the best hunter-gatherers. They also had the best overall health since their diet was good. They made brilliant mates since it would mean that the offspring would be well fed.

is this  science or somebody's overactive imagination. by this thinking bald individuals should have been weeded out long ago. and african hair that in not as groomable as europian hair should also have been weeded out. dark skinned individuals should also have an advantage over light
this is the kind of reasoning the whole ToE is based on. Judge for urself

invectives again darkman tut tut tut

let me pull some more stuff out of my arse

KAG and nefyryn
so complexity is one of the many products of evolution right? it is only neccessary in a strawman?

so if these variations in traits were truly random they would all apear equaly. for instance if we could trace a line from a rodent to a monkey to a hominid we should also trace a similar line backward from more complex to less complex ( i know u said complexity is not neccesary but we have observed "evolutionary" changes in complexity so let us use that for now) . i know u will also counter by saying that there is no selective pressure to force such a backward change just like u asked why a virus would want to become something else.  

now the dilemma is if we map evolutionary change to time the major observation that sticks out is changes in complexity. lateral changes that do not necessarily imply increased complexity are more or less insignificant compared to the time frame. example trobolytes (unchanged for eons) amber-fossilised mosquitoes (and i am not refering to juraisic park), crocodiles, the common dog and many others have remained basically unchanged through various evolutionary cycles. do we then assume that nature is indeed cognate and is in cahoots with animals to push them towards complexity and circumstances never arise for the revese or at least the diverse to happen?

even the variation in the beaks of the famous galapagos finches are not more significant a survival adaptation than the difference btw the nose of a european and an african (or is one more evolved than the other? )

so u cant eat ur cake and have it by saying
1. complexity is not necessary for evolution
2. variation is random but selective pressures ensure only the necessary changes occur
when what we observe is an increase in complexity over time (or would anyone argue that a progression from amoeba to fish to frog to rodent to ape to man has no underlying thread of increase in the complexity of the biological process of the species?) and this random pressure-controlled mechanism has not shown any significant move in other directions?

Also no-one has offered any explanation for the statified and discreete nature of the fossil evidence. Saying the evidence is small is a cop out becos even if it is small it should at least be representative. yet what we see are familly trees of direct lineages to what we see today the number of extinct varities we see do not make up statistically for the possibilities a truely random scheme would give us. even then the extinct species almost always have close re[b]latives around today (dinosaurs may be an exception though). so where are all the failed experiments that were deselected?

KAG[/b] ok, so i made a historical error, chew me out on that but dont ignore the argument

i would also want to know what selective pressure led to curly african hair and straith caucasian hair , cold? (this is a genuine question, not part of the argument)

KAG
anytime someone says something that opposes u and u dont have an aswer to u say the person doesnt know what he is saying. thats cool.

about galileo, maybe i meant before that, columbus. besides at the time the earth was supposed to be the center of the universe(an equally erroneous suppositon) so becos 99% of biologists support evolution now doesnt really mean anything if it is untrue. human beigns have an infinite capacity for mass deception. why do u think religion is such a big issue.

fossillation is rare right yet it so conveniently documents a long direct line from the fruit to  the root of a big tree without any sign of the many boughs and branches and shoots that exists on that tree. so u can conveniently brush away this argument by "u dont know what u r talkin about" and "fossil evidence is rare"

Evolution 100yrs, Abiogenesis 40yrs!!! oh golly what a big non-hair-splitting difference. Give me a break

KAG:
Close, but not quite. /the theory of evolution suggests that living organisms evolved over time. No simple and complex. Now, the important aspect of the ToE is, all it needs is life and an unperfect replicator, how the life appeared is immaterial when discussing the ToE. It could have been started by aliens, the Tetragrammaton, Zeus, Brahma, the IPU, anything.

So now u admit the origin of life must have been brought to earth by something

and for ur information i am not a creationist (in the sense that u are thinking)

KAG:
Yes, I was the one calling about 99% of all biologists fools, *rolls eyes*

The evolution of virii are used in the study of evolution (e.g. infectons and resistance of virii like the AIDS virus), but it's nonsensical to suggest that modern virii would follow the evolution path that lead to humans, ther's absolutely no reason for that to happen.

What makes a virus 1000 times less complex than an ape? What's your criteria for complexity? By the way, what you've proposed makes absolutely no sense, at least to me, as virii are as evolved as apes.

has the aids virus evolved into a more COMPLEX life form? Let me explain complex. has it developed the capacity to manufacture its own nucleic material or its own biochemical pathway for manufacturing food? has it developed any sexual characteristics? the "evolution u have mentioned is change strictly confined to the limits of what we know to be a retrovirus, it hasnt elevated itself even to the level of another type of virus like say a mimivirus. how is an ape 1000 times more complex than a virus please calculate the number of base pairs of material in a virus, the number in an ape, make a simple permutation of traits there from and see that 1000 is an overconservative estimate. and i used this means of measurment cos the argument following was based on a simple mathematical calcullation relating random combinations of nuclear material to time.
which seems to be lost on u

anybody else thinks my calculation is illogical
another little tidbit- frozen samples of flue found in victims of the 1918 pandemic in greenland were found not to have differentiated significantly from those found today. significant beign measured on assumed differentiation of viruses in the pleistocene. any explanations

nferyn:
1. Evolution theory does not equal abiogenesis.
2. Have you ever thought of the time it took for life to start on earth? How vain would it be to think we would observe it in a mere 300 years since the scientific revolution? How old exactly is abiogenesic as a scientific field?

nferyn
i have always considered u one of the more intelligent people on this forum but this is weak
that is all u can come up with. splitting hairs on evolution not beign abiogenesis. so u see it is vain to draw conclusion on the origin or development of life in only 300 yrs and yet u have been touting how evolution has been scientifically proven with observations withing the same 300 years!!
how old exactly is evolution as a scientific field
To clarify, evolution suggests that living organisms evoled from simple to more complex over time. are u sayin that the foundation was somehow imported to earth and afterwards evolved pls educate me

nferyn:
You mean 99% of the scientific community working in Biology?

99% percent of scientists in Galileos time belived the earth was flat.

nferyn:
Random mutations under non-random selective pressure in large enough populations within long enough timespans will do. It's not because you do not see how it is possible that it isn't possible. Personal incredulity is a very weak form of argumenation.
No they aren't too complex. The eye is far more complex than the heart or kidneys, yet it is easy to propose a probable evolutionary mechanism.

operative words, large enough, long enough always streches of the imagination reason and mathematical reasoning. where are the fossils of the de-selected specimens a scheme of random mutations would generate a plethora, a continuum of traits. fossil records show a quantisized speciation over time. one form leads to another in alogical progression of traits, where are the fossils of those mutations too outlandish to survive. many of the "ancestors of animals today" exist up till know in almost unchanged condition. if natural selection gives rise to better organisms, why are some of the rejects still around. where is the evidence of the destruction of the greater majority of the rejects. nferyn, wake up and smell the angels

nferyn:
Correct, they don't do that by themselves. If you add random mutations and reproductive isolation to the mix they do lead to speciation;
Why? Just think about what compound interests can do to your savings, even within a human lifespan.

random mutation? again the unaswered question, where is the two headed ape, the horse with wing (or wouldnt that give a horse a edge over his mates) we agree the beasts of greek mythology cannot exist but still we believe, the scalles on a reptile would differentiate into feathers and in the process this freak lizard will survive long enough to turn into a bird. whereas the know example of a flying mammal we know is still alive and well!!! not to talk of the mamall that came from the sea only to return as a whale- evolution in reverse. no conclusive fossil records of intermidiate forms exist. there is always a missing link.  

@darkmanzero

u cant do better than reffer me to someone elses book?

@KAG

all u can throw is invective? fine explain to me how the lesser genetic complexitym of a virus would not act as a compressed time study the evolution that would occur in say early hominids  given the difference in orders of magnitude of the permutations of genes that would be involed in the mutation of a single trait.
translation - if a virus is 1000 times less complex than an ape, a change based on genetic combinations in an ape that took 100,000 year in an ape would take 100,1000/ 1000! years in a virus if we assume simple permutations of genes. even if we assumed environmental and sexual bias as pushed by evolutionists, the effect will still be bottom heavy in favour of the virus, shortening the time evem futher. Hence studying mutation in a virus for a 10 years will be more than equivalent to studying mutation in a hominid for a  hundred thousand. but of course i dont know any biology so all this is bollox.also known as math

@nferyn

i dont know what ia m talking about??. oblige us with ur superior knowledge then and explain how your natural selection can explain away the earliest formation of DNA from early organic matter. let us even ignore the fact that the cantenation of carborn molecules necessary for any type of organic matter has not been observed in any non-life scenario, here or in space. this is the foundation of life itself, once life appears u can draw all sorts of conjecture and nobody will be the wiser.

the irony of life is, atheist claim people who believe in God are illogical, confused and unscientific. yet they make it a point of duty to hold on to an idea, that was founded by a VICTORIAN scientist. whose only tool was his eyes and a notebook. whose whole submission were based on a limited geographical area. this was at a time when they hadnt even invented penicilin. pls what was darwins pedigree that gave him the right to exp[lain the origin of life ?. he prob knew less about biology than an A level student of today. in the sciebntific method the jump from observation is hypothesis,then experimentation, before theory can be made. darwin jumped from observatin to theory in a millisecond, and all of scientific evolution has been built on that foundation, always warping observation and experimental results to fit the mould

why? becos accepting that there is a god would make us accountable for our actions to someone else (god forbid that we be accountable for what we do)

the theory of relativity has been demonstrated empirically to some degree so has newtonian physics, thermodynamics, and others. has any part of the chain of evolution been demonstrated conclusively empirically?. Even the original synthesis of the 20 laevo-amino acids could not be duplicated in a lab under the most contrived of conditions

the usual cop-out is that it took billions of years, but even strains of viruses that mutate so many times in few years that it would be equivalent to a worm turning into a whale have not been shown to mutate into anythin more complex than they originally were. different, more adaptable but not more complex

there are so many hole in this so-called theory that only a fool would believe it. it is more plausible that life from outer space came to earth in a spaceship than organic material in the sea fused into a bacterium.

and any one out there who wants to argue on scientific facts and not mass-hypnosis can bring it on

Allonym, the whole basis of my post was that the bible does not say that God is all-powerful in this world as a lot of people claim. So u are basing ur argument on what u choose to believe.

If this element is removed from ur argument the whole argument breaks down, this is why u doggedly hold on to this innacurate blanket-statement that God is all-powerful and thefore he can erase evil from the earth

allonym:
Riiight. . . So, why should I be convinced by you and more than the person who claims aliens are taking over the world. If i'm right, and there are no aliens, then we would lose nothing. If that guy is right, think of the consequences. Just because there are bad consequences if you are right, doesn't mean I should follow your ideas. I'm not saying you are as crazy as the person claiming aliens are taking over the world, but you can see why that is a weak argument for me coming over to your side.

i guess u r right, it is weak from that point of veiw but it doesnt decrease the validity of the statement in itself

allonym:
If my child decides to be a junky, as long as there is life in my body, I will work to cure him his idiotic ways. What is your point? That is definitely not the response of God. If God was in my position, then the child will be a junky, game over.

God has already done all he can do for the junky child. i used to be one of them, i am no longer but it was my choice, sometimes u have to cold turkey on a lot of things, especially pride. I can tell u for a certainty that i aint going to hell (unless i do something stupid like deny God). So there at least he did something about this here junky child.
Any more

@allonym
u have obviously made up ur mind and will not be confused by the facts
GOd cant control ur life and ur will cos he meant u to be exactly like him eventually. Do u have children?, do u control them. If ur child decides to become a junky, it is his choise

why are u angry at God? why dont u embrace his love instead of questioning his motives. I wrote in the post that everyone will be given a fair choise eventualy. this might be ur own chance. the facts have been presented to u with as little relegious clutter as i can manage, u can choose to hold on fanatically to ur beleif or open ur mind. the truth is never afraid of reason or scrutiny. I am not explaining things from ur beliefs, just from what the bible says of itself

Besides, if u r right and there is no God, i will loose nothing but if i am right, think of the consequences for u

i can see that for once, our illustrious bloggers are speechless? Or is this post so stupid that it is not deserving of an answer
@allonym
is that all u can come up with? did god create the auschwitz concentration camp? indirectly he did cos he created all matter and energy in the multiverse. but the responsiblity for "creating" that particular atrocity fall into the hands of man.
u r missing the point,the question is; did God create hell in the context of a place of HUMAN torture? NO. As a region reserved for angelic rebels, probably (i dont know the full explanation to that part of the story). That human spirits go there, after they have been ejected from thier bodies, is only a natural consequence of the laws of existense. Even God does not break his own laws

Contrary to popular opinion, sucide is a sin but u will not go to hell because u commit suicide just like one that just comes out of a LovePeddler house and gets hit by a car will not go to hell because of that only. there are other reasons why people will go to hell. i am not prepared to go into that right now

But please dont kill urself, life is good, it is the devil that makes people to believe there is no hope

This is partly in answer to Seuns questions about God.

Very good questions. I offer an answer to the issue of God and Hell based on my own opinion, observations and what I understand from the bible which is my scripture of choice. I will also refer to other writings, myths and legends as I see fit. This is just my opinion which might be bull****, so u are free to disagree
Firstly I have not come across anything in the bible that explicitly says that God created hell for humans or that he throws people into it for punishment of their sins or that the devil and his demons are the wardens of this subterranean place of torture.  We can say he created it from the point of veiw that HE created all things and the devil does not have the power to create. All the false ideashave been invented over the years by various religious groups (including the religion called Christianity nowadays) to scare people away from sin.

Let us go to the beginning, when Adam sinned God did not at anytime mention him being thrown into hell. The initial warning was that he would[b] DIE[/b]. But when the deed was done he did not “die” in the expected sense but we were told that one of his first actions was to hide from the presence of God. This is the crux of the matter. The “death” was one of being cut off from the source that gave him life,that breathed into him[b] (Gen 2:7[/b]). His body died some 900 years later but the death was already implanted in his nature, his genetic code.

When the body died, the life of God, (that Adam had corrupted through his own choice) or what we can call his spirit, was released from his body. Here is the dilemma; he could not operate in this world , this physical realm, anymore, (because you need a body to do that) and he could not go back to the “father of Spirits” (Heb 12: 9) because he had made a conscious choice against him . Thus the only way to go for him was DOWN. Remember that the bible says that Adam was not deceived but Eve was, so he was not an innocent that was hoodwinked. He made a choice of his FREE WILL. And that is the basis of the whole existence of man and the universe, FREE WILL (but that is another topic for another day).

The state of trauma that the spirit of Adam (which is really the essence of Adam) was in is the condition of darkness,and desolation that can be interpreted DEATH leads to the descent into HELL. [/b]Remember that another set of spirit beings had earlier turned their backs on God and were refuges in the realms of darkness (devil and his boys) till the “appointed time”. These were older more evil and stronger in the realm of the spirit (though Adam was a god in the physical realm before he abdicated his authority) so, naturally, they bullied and tortured him. [b]So, all the ingredients for HELL, as we know it, were complete. And that established the pattern for all from the bloodline of Adam till this day. Does this seem strange? why do we feel lonely when we are seperated from a loved one? why does this lonliness become despair if the seperation is permanent? the bible says the spiritual births all we see and feel in this realm. thus, as it is here so it is in the spiritual


In essence, GOD DID NOT CREATE HELL AS A TORTURE CHAMBER FOR THOSE THAT SIN. Hell is the natural result of the state of existence known as death. All humans are by default spiritually dead, they are just waiting to fully manifest its reality. Seun has questioned why a loving God would throw his children in hell. Very good question, but God does not throw anybody in Hell, in fact, immediately Adam messed up, God started speaking words that will solve the problem. He was already devising a solution that will save his child from the mess he had gotten into. He was already preparing another innocent free from the bloodline of Adam (not Eve) that will exist just as Adam did that will make the right choices. He was willing to sacrifice this innocent (who was really Himself in a paradoxical way) and exchange his life for that of Adam thereby satisfying all JUSTICE (which paradoxically is Himself too)
So, Seun God does love his children, and yes, a loving God would never throw his children into a place of eternal torment forever. He did not create hell for his children, and to the contrary , the bible describes death and the consequent state called hell as enemies that shall be conquered last ( Rev  19:20, Rev 20:10, Rev 20:14, Rev 20:[/b]15 ) Jesus is also described in the bible as storming hell to plunder the enemy there (doesn’t sound like a friendly prison to me). [b]
(Rev 1:18)  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Rev 20:14  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

1Co 15:26  The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

The torment that goes on forever and ever described in Rev 20:10 is as a result of the utter separation from God in the Lake of Fire as I have already explained. Now all those humans that will partake of this second death have all been given a second chance. Those who never heard of The Solution before there deaths will be given a chance in the millennial reign (you can look this up with real  bible scholars, I am just a concerned citizen) so everyone is given the same choice that Adam had.

So it all boils down to free will, either you accept The Solution or not. So, people do not “go to hell” because of their religion, race, sexual orientation etc, they “go to hell” because that is the state they were born in, except they accept The Solution of a loving Father.

Enough of all this bible quoting! There are people here who don’t even believe the bible but even our folklore (Nigerian Folklore) tells us of how the spirits of wicked people haunt dark places, crying and looking for rest. Sounds like hell to me. We are also told that good men go to meet their ancestors. Remember what Jesus said about Lazarus and the rich man? Lazarus (a good man) was in the bosom of Abraham his ancestor while the rich man was tormented. I can deduce from this that even in “hell” there was a difference in the amount of trauma experienced by a spirit based on how he lived his life and satisfied his conscience, at least till the permanent solution came. Even David, thousands of years before Jesus, talked about the assurance that his soul would not be left in hell (Ps 16:10, sorry I quoted again) but rescued someday.

Forgive me for the long post, I hope it will be useful to someone