Well I no blame them, when your brother is in power and giving you the military backing you need, dem for don kidnap all of una finish including ur cows nonsense!

guy fuel dey na price oh! 155, 160

Oluwaseytiano:
maybe it it. BT the theory of evolution seems less ridiculous than the creation story

Well if you see it that way, but no one tried to pass the creation story as science and force it into the scheme of work of students

Oluwaseytiano:
the thing about evolution is no one really understands it.

The funny thing about it is that they call it science

Oluwaseytiano:
its classifying millions of atheists based on the actions of a perverted mass murderer.

I don't know where you got that from, I never said Hitler did what he did because he was an atheist. I said he did it because of his strong belief in the evolution theory and the theory also appears to give some backing to his actions.
Everyone agrees that what hitler did was wrong including those who believe in the evolution theory, but there's one question that arises
If the evolution theory is true, how then do you tell if what Hitler did was right or wrong, (that is based on the evolution theory how do you tell right from wrong)

Because the way I see it the evolutionists and atheists are basking in the morality rules established by God, and yet they claim God is their greatest problem or there's no God

CoolUsername:


Yeah, because scientists are known to be a dishonest bunch of people whose only agenda is to disprove God /s



The only insane thing is that you can't define the upper limit of micro-evolution. Sympatric speciation has been observed in the lab but creationists still term it under micro-evolution. Evolution is evolution is evolution.



This only shows how uninformed you are about this theory. Evolution never states that one specie would give birth to another.
That is a claim made by people who are either too ignorant about the theory of evolution or who, dishonestly misrepresent it in order to argue against his own botched definition.



Sure, you're only just implying that the entire atomic theory is off the mark, who knew? Maybe we just got lucky with the atomic bomb, and all that safe nuclear energy that advanced countries harness, and also all those delicate medical equipment based on radiation and electromagnetic waves. Who knew? /s



So how did the Kangaroos make it back to Australia, then?
I'm not sure if the Trilobite is an ancestor of the Horseshoe crab. I never implied that, I only said that the has a similar eye-structure. Once again, you're misinterpreting my words.



You're not really following my argument, are you? I simply stated that DNA sequencing is based upon similar principles and knowledge as paternity testing.

And once again, once species doesn't give birth to another. If you are that ignorant on the theory of evolution, then you should read it up, rather than argue for or against it on internet forums.

Well you are right about the scientists part, not all of them though.
Secondly, the limits are quite obvious to you, wolfs, chihuahuas, ansaltians etc are all dogs aren't they? Well if you can't see this then I don't think I can help you.

Thirdly, if species don't give birth to another, how did it occur in Nature because last time I checked nature didn't have a lab of its own? Perhaps I could learn something new.

Again I never said anything about the atomic theory being wrong, I don't know where you got that from. Its application in radiometric theory is faulty not because of the atomic theory but because of the assumptions made in the radiometric process which renders the entire process a failure
*The assumption that the amount of C-14 in the
atmosphere has always been constant.(Even though
there's more C-14 in the atmosphere today than we had
years ago)
*The assumption that the rate of decay has always been
constant.
*The assumption that the earth is already a million/
billion years old therefore you have to go that back in
time when calculating the half life
If you were not implying that the Trilobite was an ancestor to the Horseshoe crab, and you couldn't come up with an intermediary specie either and yet you see a trend then that trend is a common designer who decided to give them something similar.
Finally, you brought up the DNA sequencing and was implying that it was supposed to reveal ancestral ties but somehow the creationists were denying this and now you are talking about it just being based on similar principles because you ve seen that it does not favor ur argument, well that's up to you

Oluwaseytiano:
Hmmm. Am not an atheist bt I feel the thread is stupid

please may I know why you feel that way?

ValentineMary:
Dude be sure of ur facts well. Hitler was a catholic who attended mass daily. He even once attempted to be a catholic monk. And he did not kill the jews because of evolution rather because of some bibilical prophecy that made a point of Jews being d choose people. But he would not accept that because he wanted to take over all of Europe. So he began to exterminate the jews.

Hitler was an atheist, he was born and baptized in the catholic church though. Hitler never openly denounced his catholic faith because he needed their support in other for him to rise to power. His genocide against the jews was clearly on the grounds of racism backed by the evolution theory. I am very sure of my facts thank you very much

CoolUsername:


Firstly, that foot print is most definitely a [url=paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm]hoax[/url].

Secondly, micro-evolution is the go-to term for creationists for any observed evolutionary change. Unfortunately, they have failed to define a boundary between what we call 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, therefore every single evolutionary change observed in the lab or in nature is shoe-horned into micro-evolution. This is not honest science. Micro-evolutin is just evolution. They put the successive additive mutation of E.coli to absorb citrates in certain conditions as micro-evolution, they put the 3-decade change of Podarcis sicula from insectivore to herbivore after a change of environment as micro-evolution. So what are the defined limits of micro-evolution sir?

1. The geologic column is gotten by dating different igneous rock material present in each sediment.
2. Traces of erosion are not found in deep rock after years of compaction. But on the other hand, if there was a global flood (that some peple believe in) there should be traces of erosion. So why aren't they there?
3. Trilobite eyes were pretty, compound eyes like arthropods. I don't know about 'most sophisticated ever known'. The closest living analog we have today is the horseshoe crab. Shows a trend to me.

Once again we have another atrocious assertion here. DNA sequencing is used for paternity tests, but for some reason it doesn't show ancestral ties when it comes to evolution, right?

Use the internet, and don't only read Christian apologetics sites.

Firstly, no one was expecting the scientists to accept it was a footprint off cause they accepted that the trilobite was true and debunked the footstep. Totally expected from them.

Secondly, you say micro-evolution is the go to term for creationist when its actually the foundation and the only evidence evolutionists have of cause by attaching the time factor "...Billions of years ago, a the lions ancestor was a mango tree..." That's insane
Thirdly, I don't know what boundary you are asking for. Over time cockroaches get immune to a pesticide, but do you think they will ever get immune to a sledge hammer?. The limit here is that animals will always produce offsprings of thesame kind, we are yet to observe a lizard give birth to a bird and that's because its not possible.

I don't subscribe to radiometric dating cos it doesn't work.

Collect a reasonable amount of sand sample, put it in a transparent jar, shake vigorously and allow to settle, it will definitely be in layers.
There are no erosion marks because it happened rapidly like in the little experiment above during the flood in the days of Noah.
The Horseshoe crab right, so what intermediary specie(s) whether living or fossil existed between a Trilobite and the Horseshoe crab, or did the Trilobite just sleep and wake up only to find out that its now a Horseshoe crab.

As for the DNA sequencing in a paternity test, Have there ever been a case where the test came out and the result said that the father of the child was a monkey or plant or bacteria etc? It always said that it was a HUMAN BEING
You seem to be pouring out what you were told in school learn to ask the right questions.
Read articles from scientist and christian apologetics and make comparison

McSterling:


The bolded is blarney. Are bridges or iron organic? Have you observed bridges begetting young ones. Very crude and vacuous analogy there. Assuming a designer only raises an infinite regress of questions. A designer who is outside the universe is beyond the scope of science. For that designer to be within the scope of science, it would have to be testable or observable. Since this isn't the case, it becomes non germane to our purposes. Occam's razor mandates that we cut it out. Science leaves that to metaphysics.

I had to separate this because this is a clear rebuttal of the entire evolution theory made by someone who believes in the theory. You are asking me if bridges are organic that's the same question we have been asking the evolutionist for ages now "If rocks are organic"
Evolutionist believe that life came from an inanimate object in this case a rock (your prebiotic soup).
If you have problem believing that bridges can't beget young ones how did you end up believing that a rock begot a life form or an inanimate object came to life. And I am totally with you on your conclusion about such analogy its ridiculous.
You see I wasn't exaggerating when I said you guys are filled with contradictions
God is indeed outside the scope of science because He actually exists outside the universe and not bounded by space and time so you really can't prove His existence scientifically.

McSterling:

So, your brain doesn't tell you that in the long term, these little changes will sum up into a large one? Simple mathematics: If we continue adding a small decimal like 0.00000001 to say 2, it will gradually approach 2.1. There's an adage which I'm sure you know: little drops of water make a mighty ocean.


I don't know what you mean by artificially. Do you think geologic columns are inferred without evidence? Nature has already done the assembling. All we have to do is observe and infer. It is from these observable strata that we make inferences about geologic columns and section geologic time into Eons, Eras, Periods and Epochs. Ever heard of the
Grand Canyon? The ages of these layers and the fossils found in them are estimated from radiometric dating, I'm sure you know. They aren't precise values as they come with error margins, but they do give us an estimate which cannot be too far from the exact value. For example, carbon dating has been observed to correlate with historically dated documents.


There is a phenomenon geologists call "unconformity". It is a break or hiatus in the deposition of rocks. Sometimes this hiatus is marked by an erosional surface, sometimes it isn't, depending on the rapidity and mode of deposition. So, actually there are traces of erosion in layered rocks.
By complexity I mean the level of organism development or sophistication. You find less sophisticated organisms like
trilobites in lower layers, and more sophisticated ones like mammals in upper layers which correspond to later times in the geologic time scale. If trilobite's aren't ancient, why are they found several layers below in the Paleozoic Era while hominid fossils occur many layers above in the Quaternary? Why the huge gap?
The bolded is blarney. Are bridges or iron organic? Have you observed bridges begetting young ones. Very crude and vacuous analogy there. Assuming a designer only raises an infinite regress of questions. A designer who is outside the universe is beyond the scope of science. For that designer to be within the scope of science, it would have to be testable or observable. Since this isn't the case, it becomes non germane to our purposes. Occam's razor mandates that we cut it out. Science leaves that to metaphysics.


The Catholic Church doesn't distinguish between macro or micro evolution. Here is what they say:

[b]Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an
official position on whether various life forms developed over
the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop,
then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and
their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite
teaching. It allows for the possibility that
man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under
God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of
his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of
the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present
state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and
discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of
evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human
body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the
Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately
created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the
human body was specially created or developed, we are
required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human
soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not
inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or
developmental creation on certain questions, it in no
circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. [/b]

You'd notice the definite position on "human evolution". I suppose that is what you'll call "macroevolution".


Calm down. Why the constant allusion to atheists claiming to be smarter? Do you feel intimidated by atheists?

First of all my brain does not tell me that because we are talking about changes here not addition of numbers. You look at a plant cell and an animal cell and tell me after billions of years that plant cell changes into an animal cell? Well I have a big problem believing that.
Again if genetic traits are not contained in the gene pool there's no way, its going to be added from no where over time.

Secondly, thesame radiometric dating that's based on assumptions that rendered the entire process a failure? Sorry but I don't believe in the radiometric dating because it doesn't work.
*The assumption that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant.(Even though there's more C-14 in the atmosphere today than we had years ago)
*The assumption that the rate of decay has always been constant.
*The assumption that the earth is already a million/billion years old therefore you have to go that back in time when calculating the half life sorry but radiometric dating does not work. If you doubt it take the shell of a snail to the lab for carbon dating and see what number of years you are going to get, but we still have snails crawling around today. There have even been cases where the different body parts of a fossil dated differently.

As for the erosion: how can a surface not be marked? you see the degree of erosion happening around us today and you still believe that its possible that surfaces in the geologic column can end up not being marked by erosion? Wow! Anyway see picture of petrified trees in those layered rocks as further evidence that those layers didn't form over billions of years. And by the way your buddy above thinks otherwise "that there are no erosion marks on the surfaces" guess someone is confused

Your post on the catholic view seem to be rather strange, but I just got to ask what is atheistic evolution?

Me intimidated by atheist? I rather feel sympathy for them. Well my tone was quite harsh I admit but I told why I was furious my team lost but am over it

McSterling:
You are pained, eh? Evolution has no evidence, yet it can be observed on a small scale in the lab. Why isn't Fleming's penicillin used to treat malaria today? Of course the causal organisms evolve new ways of combating the medicine, and thus there must be continued medical research in order to beat it. Evolution has no evidence and yet we observe layer upon layer of sedimentary rocks housing fossils in an increasing order of complexity from bottom to top. Never do you find a more complex fossil below a simpler one. NEVER! Evolution has no evidence and yet the genome of organisms derived from DNA sequencing tell us all organisms descended from a common ancestor and speciation only occurred as time passed. Evolution has no evidence and yet reputable scientists the world over believe in it. Evolution has no evidence and the Catholic Church acknowledges it. Evolution has no evidence and many believers who are also scientists believe in it and have sought ways to reconcile it with scripture. Evolution have no evidence and Christian apologists argue that god directed the entire process of evolution.

But really, why should I take you seriously? With the internet and all the information at your finger tips, you have wilfully chosen to wallow in ignorance. In the 21st century, you say something as vacuous as, "there is no evidence for evolution". It is your prerogative though. You know nothing, John Snow.

first of all whatever evidence you think you are observing in the lab is micro-evolution no one has any qualms with that fact, it is true and observable the evolution attached to it is just meant for deception to deceive gullible minds like yours because when they attach the time factor that's when they tell you macro-evolution will occur which till today has no proof whatsoever.

Secondly, the layer of sedimentary rocks you are talking about alongside the fossils is the geologic column. For your information that was assembled artificially by geologist and even at that its still not complete, you will think someone who claimed to be enlightened as you do would know that, I am not going to go deep into that but I will just ask you:
How did you know for sure that the Jurassic rock layer for instance is 70million years old, how did they arrive at that figure?
and how come in the geologic column if it was actually formed over millions and billions of years as they claim, how come there are no traces of erosion, don't you think the rain would have left some marks? Learn to ask the right questions.
I don't know what you mean by more complex fossils I personally don't believe in that. the Trilobite is considered an index fossil by the evolutionist and very ancient, how is it that such an ancient organism ended up with one of the most sophisticated eyes ever known? Perhaps you didn't know about that



Thirdly, DNA sequencing doesn't tell you anything about ancestors that's one atrocious logic common with evolutionists. The Niger bridge and the third mainland bridge are both made of iron, therefore the Niger bridge is an ancestor of the third mainland bridge that's how ridiculous you guys sound.
If DNA sequencing should tell you anything its the fact that "a common designer is involved who decided to use thesame sequence".

Scientist can believe whatever they want they are the ones coming up with the theories to avoid the God question so if they don't believe their theory who will.

The Catholic church believes in micro-evolution which is a proven truth.

Finally, take your own advice, the internet and all informations are at your fingertips make good use of them and stop paddling a boat in ignorance. Ask the right questions. You guys are the ones to always claim to be smart and enlightened but when you start talking ignorance starts oozing out of all your orifices.

Meanwhile below is a picture of a trilobite ur index fossil, and yes thats a human foot, apparently "millions of year ago" humans existed side by side with these trilobites

BiafraudExposed:



lol una no sabi argue from here una wan implicate your client...
for example I told u Kanu said "the God of the Christians is pure rubbish " on the 31st October 2015 on a rebroadcast.. You wouldn't believe right until I play it to u. And this is it in my part 1 he did.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHZVm_a4Wk8


Now even if it's a rebroadcast after hearing that nothing can ever make u deny that... True or False ? True lets continue...
Not everyone listened to that rebroadcast... Like some people before were arguing Kanu never said Jesus was an idol I have the rebroadcast on YouTube now they're mute saying let's live that aspect.
Even if it's a rebroadcast you can't say it and it becomes generally accepted as truth unless u play the tape...
Wike said if Jonathan should loose there is no need contesting to be a governor... It was open it was in a campaign... It was rebroadcasted and it was used as a tool for APC challenging him to fulfil his word. It was broadcasted over and over on rstv. Should APC say o is a repeat broadcast and not needed...
An evidence is an evidence... Hence it remains indubitable

guy carry am go give them for abuja make we hear word, I don't know anything about ur previous arguments so I dnt know why u are telling me all these.
You got a video on youtube and ur jumping up and down as if you dug up gold from the ground. Are u the only one who has access to youtube for you to think folks have not seen that video b4

BiafraudExposed:
He said they actually killed...
This is what the Nigerian government have been looking for. Threat to kill and killed can't carry equal Consequence.
I will keep pushing this video forward till it gets to Nigerian government... To kill the claimed god of thunder... who inveigled u with freedom...
I will keep posting this link anywhere. give me Wednesday you will see this video on the front page of YouTube... I will pay and advertise it...
You don't know what the law says about terrorism
..

please that video was very open and was never hidden so for ur naija govt to be looking for it shows how dumb and inept they are unless you are saying the dss intelligence is even more dumb and inept than we thought then I can agree with u

McSterling:


Oga, Hitler wasn't an atheist. Even if he was, how does that affect the theory and fact of evolution? You want us to dismiss a theory for which there is an overwhelming body of evidence because one psychopath chose to use it to further his genocidal aims? Hitler also used the antisemitic writings of the reformer Martin Luther to justify his pogrom. Why don't you dismiss Luther and the reformation then?

Next time, do your homework well before coming here to spew drivel.

Oga you go and do you homework, evolution has no evidence not to talk of overwhelming, you guys claim to know it all and are the smarter ones yet all ur arguments reeks of contradictions and fallacies, believe me if I begin to ask you questions on that theory you won't be able to answer one and will as usual resort to ad hominem. No make me pour the vex of my team wey loose match on you this night mtcheeeew!!!

This is bullshiit

Suarez na thunder go fire you

Madrid come out and play ball bus ti destroyed

Goooooooaal Shakira don shut them up oh! Sorry Pique

Wetin be this na, ramos suppose don collect airtel recharge card

xordik:
d guy mata tire I swear.,,even my grandma will score that ball...

loool @grandma

Suarez, the only player that gets you so angry and at the same tym make you happy, how could he have missed that first chance, and yet he scores difficult ones

SirWere:

Please do. Please please do. Mtchewww

Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
You sir make me laugh

*sighs* A couple of books...... Dude, Tell me any book you see that contradicts my already stated above statement




I agree with the above. What a pity you say such profound things without applying such ptinviples personally.






Hahahahahhhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhahaaa..........................


You have a box. It is square in shape and a bit small. You hypothesized and finally came to the conclusion its a phone box.
And then someone comes round and says that all earlier hypothesis are wrong, that there is actually a laptop in that box.

Wouldn't you mock the sh!t out of the dude

Funny you think you ever made any useful statement other than trying so hard to tell me how smart you are and how ignorant I am without even making any meaningful contribution to the topic. And now am supposed to find that in a book? Who can argue with such reasoning

Weah96:

False dichotomy.

Really! How is that?

SirWere:

There is no issue to adress here. Hence my non adressing....
If I said I understood anything you said above, I'd be deceiving you

The reason I speak like "the smart" one is because I hace actually read you about this things and so can confidently tell you that you're saying bullshit!!!

Again, go read a history textbook, and educate yourself.


I bet you'll cringe when what you posted before.

You know I could recommend a couple of books for you to read but you seem like the unteachable type, you claim to be smart yet you can't understand a simple sentence, just because you read a couple of books on world war II does not mean you read all the books on world war II. For someone to actually learn you need to be able to un-learn and re-learn and this seems to be the problem with folks today and obviously with you.
Not surprised though actually its very much expected because, if u should fault the evolution theory, the only other alternative will be the creationist view and that's the last viewpoint you want to accept

SirWere:




And you go and pick hitler, neglecting Bill Gates, Paine, and so many other humanist who have enriched the human race for good.


@the bolded, listen to yourself. Have you read about the cause(s) of the World War II from any reputable historian who attributed hitler's aggressive action to jews towards evolution??





Reveive sense, receive wisdom, enlighten your mind.

Typical. You bring up other examples without addressing the issue. Just because these guys are not behaving like hitler doesn't make hitlers' actions any less significant.
You are telling me to receive sense and playing the smart one well go and read up books and articles about hitler, the Nazis and evolution theory then receive your sense.

BodyKiss:
Well, Hilter and Darwin are not alive anymore, I think you should be worried about your sky daddy. Given that he practiced same "natural selection" against the Egyptians, and the entire world with the Noah's ark sh! tt. He killed thousands of people, selected just mere 8 people and thousands of animals. It is obvious he thinks less of you over other "lower" animals.

wow! God is always the one to blame isn't He? He seems to be your greatest problem
Even when the topic is about, hitler, darwin and evolution theory. Well He gave you the right to choose for yourself which path to follow and pointed out for you which is right and wrong.
I urge you to choose wisely

SirWere:
Hitler was an atheist

Darwin was a racist

How the Bleep does it concern me


It's like saying


Nnamdi Azikwe was a seccesionist(to the british)

Ojukwu was a secessionist


Hence, all Igbos are secessionists




That make sense to you

you don't get it do you?
Its not just about Hitler being atheist, its also about the theory that propelled him to act the way he did. You guys are defending a theory which belittles you as an individual and yet you guys turn around and say God is ur greatest problem

BELLICKS:
The US Secretary of State on Friday, made the
pledge during a meeting of the US/Nigeria Bi-
national Commission on the sidelines of the
Nuclear Energy Summit in Washington DC.
According to Mr John Kerry, the sum is expected
to cover health, education, energy, food, security
among other sectors.
The US Secretary of State also held talks with
Nigeria’s President, Muhammadu Buhari.
Mr Kerry said that he is greatly encouraged by
President Buhari’s commitment to diversifying
Nigeria’s economy.
The Nigerian President joined over 50 world
leaders in attending the Nuclear Energy Summit.
Top on the agenda of the summit is the North
Korea’s nuclear programme and the threat of the
Islamic State gaining access to the nuclear
weapons.

Point of correction- 600million dollars to our politicians to boost their economy.
On a more serious note though. So US just woke up and decided to give nigeria 600 million akpalakpala and we are giving nothing in return? Hmmm #trojanhorse

fleshbone:
Calabar and Dog

who said so? I have been to both calabar and taraba and trust me taraba is worse of when it comes to consuming dog meat, those guys even eat bat. Calabar still dey learn work where dem dey

Lalasticala OAM4J a vital question here www.nairaland.com/3025342/question-atheist-evolutionist

Perhaps many of you don't know this but Hitler was an atheist and he believed very much in the Big bang and evolution dud. One ideology that propelled his actions was that "The jews hadn't evolved properly and he had to apply natural selection to eliminate them lest they contaminate the German gene"
Now going to the evolution theory you will find out that his ideology was in place and according to the theory no one can really fault his actions. One can confidently say that this theory played a major role in the second world war because of Hitlers' stance on eliminating the weaker species. This same ideology was also shared by many whites during the slave trade era (even Charles Darwin was a racist).
My question is how would you feel if someone considers you a lower specie to other humans and goes ahead to treat you like a piece of junk with this theory backing his actions owing to the fact that you have also defended this same theory for the better part of your life?

I mean if Hitler and Darwin were alive today they would have thought less of you and likened you to a weaker specie based on this theory and here you are defending this same theory which is an obvious lie and unproven in every respect