Emusan:

I believe something went wrong when you're typing this statement....hummm!

Do you believe the same thing happen when a theist try to explain God in a simple language?



I can smell something here! Don't you believe atheist lack some SPIRITUALITY concept which they fail to verified? The samething apply here.



People are being speaking in tongues, people have provided afterlife expirence, many verses have been quoted from Bible. Yet pleaton still asking for evidence.




Wowww.... What do pleaton want again after many simple language about God?....I guess magical explanation......Christians should go to heaven and bring God and present Him to pleaton ritght..

The very complex and rigorous processes of biology, chemistry and physics is too much for most people to comprehend, let alone accept.
That is the problem.

The very complex and powerful manifestation of God is too much for atheist to comprehend...they resorted to NO GOD that's the point.

Speaking in tongues, spiritual manifestations, after life?
You are kidding right?

I hope you are not expecting a rebuttal from me.
Sorry, I cannot.
Your thoughts are like anti-matter to my thoughts.
Our minds do not operate in the same universe.
Sorry.

mkmyers45:

Now you understand why no sane atheist, theist or deist will be busting his head over a question that only be answered with questions? Obviously its open for debate but i bet my two cents that NO atheist can successfully counter all points raised by Deepsight....Including the BB and Evolution crusaders

Largely correct, but just note, a few of those questions are fairly si.lly. Of the anonysm, time wasting mold; eg multi-cellular being less successful therefore it cannot happen. Even if true, being less successful != cannot happen. Not at all. I mean, one ought to have noticed there are myriad species less successful than homo sapiens currently around, no?

I.Joan:


Op... You are on point! Everything on earth is just too precise and perfect for us to effectively ignore the presence of a supernatural being!

Until Science has a perfect solution to no. 13 and an explanation for no. 12......

Sorry sis, nothing is precise and perfect. We have imperfections all around us. Some people are pretty and some people are ugly, some tall some short. Some fat, some thin.
Some are born healthy, some are born with a genetic disease. Volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, heavtwaves, cancer from sunlight, airbourne diseases,and the list goes on.
Where is this precision and perfection?
What about sickle cell anaemia, is that god's perfect work?
NO sister, the universe is chaotic. And within that chaos, one gets order once in a fleeting moment.
The so-called perfect alignment between the earth and the sun took billions of years to achieve and is not guaranteed to to remain so in another few billion years.

Also sis, it makes no sense to say that because something looks perfect, we must invent a supernatural being to account for it.
For example i showed on a previous thread that the random flux of temperature, atmospheric moisture, pressure and motion coagulate to produce very symmetrical mathematically precise and very beautiful geometrical snowflakes within days and hours.
No supernatural being required for that process.

mkmyers45:

Oh Please.....I don't expect to hear you say this.

Its downright questioning of your atheism.

My atheism is not based on the big bang or evolution. . .God and Gods as presented or portrayed by all religions are man made as such they do not exist in reality. God and Gods remain ideas humans invented and use to explain things away, organize their society and to give them some spiritual meaning in life. I do not believe in evolution or big bang as factual events, i see them as plausible explanations and my atheism does not depend on them. . .

plaetton:

Deepsight:
I was trying to reply your post and i got banned by the spambot.

I figured so...eventually.

I find it very very amusing that you would call me an escapist without even waiting to hear from me.
The irony is that you have recently earned that title over the last several weeks.
You confirmed that by opening this very thread.

I had opened thread a few weeks ago to discuss the possible origin of consciousness, and invited you to participate. But for some reason, you kind of shied away without addressing so many valid points that I put forward on that thread.


I wonder if you opened this particular thread as a backyard way to slam the theory of evolution without having to address my own points put forward on the other thread.

I told you the truth: namely that the issue of consciousness is so profound that I wanted to take my time. I explained this to you and even confessed that I found it confusing. So I took my time, and came back finally with my thoughts as to why it is simply untenable in my view to hold evolution alone responsible for consciousness.

That response was made in that same thread after weeks of thinking on it. I decided to make that post into a thread of its own in order to attract the opinions of other evolutionists on the question raised, because the other thread had cascaded down.

I dont think that is fair to the topic and to the other people who might not be able see this discussion in a broader perspective that includes my own postulations.

You are free to provide your own postulations here as well. In fact, if its too much work, i can go fetch them for you.

Now, you are pretending to put forward posers that demand answers?

I am not pretending to put forward posers: I have actually put forward posers - and very simple, clear and lucid ones too.

Most of you posers have been fully or partially addressed on my various postings on the my previous thread on this topic.

That is not true, AND EVEN if it is true, then simply answer the ones you believe have not been addressed at all so far.
You neither acknowledged nor rebutted them.

Like I said before, your take on this topic on this thread seems more like a legal summation for an uninformed jury , rather than a coherent argument for or against the theory evolution.

It appears that you simply do not wish to address the questions.

wiegraf:

Largely correct, but just note, a few of those questions are fairly si.lly. Of the anonysm, time wasting mold; eg multi-cellular being less successful therefore it cannot happen. Even if true, being less successful != cannot happen.

I did not say that it cannot happen, I said that the evolutionary impetus for such would not exist, going by the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution. Ergo, another external factor must account for it.

I will ask you to address yourself to the posers one at a time: You dont have to write a thesis on each, just state in one line why each is wrong or mis-footed. For the ones you consider s.illy, simply say that they are s.illy and then move on to the next.

Is this too hard a task, or you do not have the time (which would be understandable of course, we all have better things to do that prat about life and existence, which pratting changes nothing).

However, it seems to me that you cannot address the posers.

plaetton:

Did you read the article?
It has great bearing on the topic being discussed.
It means that although not experimentally proven, that there is strong scientific basis to consider my personal theory that consciousness arises from quantum mechanical processes in the brain, and is therefore a product of evolution.

And to be brutally frank, one who rejects evolution for religious grounds is quite understandable.

But a person who accepts evolution but has a compelling need to sneak in and substitute the omni omni skydaddy of ancient fairy tales into the process , without any evidence whatsoever, with just simple fantasies, is to me, more ridiculous, more dogmatic, and more fanatical than religious zealots that we are accustomed to.

Read the bold again. Then read it yet again. Read it very slowly. Then close your eyes and think about that statement for just one minute only. One full minute.

Then please revert to me, identifying the disastrously large circular contradiction in that statement.

Deep Sight:

I did not say that it cannot happen, I said that the evolutionary impetus for such would not exist, going by the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution. Ergo, another external factor must account for it.


I will ask you to address yourself to the posers one at a time: You dont have to write a thesis on each, just state in one line why each is wrong or mis-footed. For the ones you consider s.illy, simply say that they are s.illy and then move on to the next.

Is this too hard a task, or you do not have the time (which would be understandable of course, we all have better things to do that prat about life and existence, which pratting changes nothing).

However, it seems to me that you cannot address the posers.

I will be back to address those I find si.lly, but exactly how does the bolded not translate to 'cannot happen'?

wiegraf:

I will be back to address those I find si.lly, but exactly how does the bolded not translate to 'cannot happen'?

In other words it did happen, but could only be accounted for by factors extraneous to that which evolution accounts for in principle.

The point: Per the Theory of Evolution, creatures with attributes that enable survival will survive and propagate. There will be no evolutionary impetus for such creatures to evolve into less successful species. This will be absurd.

Deep Sight:

In other words it did happen, but could only be accounted for by factors extraneous to that which evolution accounts for in principle.

The point: Per the Theory of Evolution, creatures with attributes that enable survival will survive and propagate. There will be no evolutionary impetus for such creatures to evolve into less succes
sful species. This will be absurd.

Is that all you understand about evolution?
Evolution is very broad and all encompassing to every process of change. Within those countless processes of change, there is much more that we are yet to fully understand. What we know so far makes scientific sense, and based on we know, we can make acceptable inferences and projections of what is possible and probable.

Yours, on the other hand, relies on the same old discredited god of the gaps as your extraneous facilitator of all that are unknown.

platoon:

The truth is that all the points can be answered in plain language.

I concur.

platoon: The problem I find is that people will not accept what they want to accept no matter how you present it to them.

Same goes for you.

platoon: It then became obvious to me that everyone, including the very intelligent among us, are seeking a magical explanation. The very complex and rigorous processes of biology, chemistry and physics is too much for most people to comprehend, let alone accept.
That is the problem.

Well said like the laity of the mediaval era. Decieving yourself that you are privy to some esoteric knowlwdge that enables you comprehend how matter made men with consciousness.

Deep Sight:

Read the bold again. Then read it yet again. Read it very slowly. Then close your eyes and think about that statement for just one minute only. One full minute.

Then please revert to me, identifying the disastrously large circular contradiction in that statement.

At a point we must revert to circular reasoning: I opine that people aren't won't to note this. If as David Christian and certain physicists now state the universe caused itself from nothing we have arrived at circular reasoning. If God is uncaused: we use circular reasoning. Positing uncaused beings involves assuming their existence.

Deep Sight:

In other words it did happen, but could only be accounted for by factors extraneous to that which evolution accounts for in principle.

The point: Per the Theory of Evolution, creatures with attributes that enable survival will survive and propagate. There will be no evolutionary impetus for such creatures to evolve into less successful species. This will be absurd.

You're saying it cannot happen. Why not limit anonysms?

That's clearly false. Evolution has never been about 'more' or 'less' successful, that's fairly obvious. It's simply about what is successful.

Hence the ridiculous amounts of patch work and less than stellar designs in nature. Or do you think, for instance, the human female reproductive system, with its stellar design that has led to millions of deaths through the ages, is the most successful around? Or the design of our eyes against that of species with better, healthier eyesight? Or all the other species we lord over, they have more successful designs? Or even judging by biomass, those with more are than us are better designed than we are? Etc etc.

All of these less than perfect features/species did evolve, no? Or are you saying someone went around (and is still doing so, considering micro evolution) creating/incubating these? Only the optimal designs evolved naturally?

wiegraf:

You're saying it cannot happen. Why not limit anonysms?

That's clearly false. Evolution has never been about 'more' or 'less' successful, that's fairly obvious. It's simply about what is successful.

Hence the ridiculous amounts of patch work and less than stellar designs in nature. Or do you think, for instance, the human female reproductive system, with its stellar design that has led to millions of deaths through the ages, is the most successful around? Or the design of our eyes against that of species with better, healthier eyesight? Or all the other species we lord over, they have more successful designs? Or even judging by biomass, those with more are than us are better designed than we are? Etc etc.

All of these less than perfect features/species did evolve, no? Or are you saying someone went around (and is still doing so, considering micro evolution) creating/incubating these?

Good points.
If there is such a thing as evolution, there is evolution. You cannot have " little or some form" of it.
If it happens, then it is all encompassing. No Bs required.
If one , just just like many of us , do not understand all the complex intricacies involved, that is still ok.

Knowledge itself evolves.

People would rather easily accept simple things like god than the complex and countless processes involved in scientific investigation.

In the chart below, most people would ignore the right hand column and focus on the left hand column, or even settle for god instead of focusing on the the numerous complex processes of the right hand column.
So it is not surprising at all that majority of Nigerians would settle for the god of the gaps in order to avoid the complex rigors of scientific investigation.

Uyi Iredia:

I concur.



Same goes for you.



Well said like the laity of the mediaval era. Decieving yourself that you are privy to some esoteric knowlwdge that enables you comprehend how matter made men with consciousness.

The difference is that I pitch my tent with science, and since science is an evolving body of knowledge, I am free and opne to evolve with it. That means that I accept that I could be wrong when new knowledge is advanced to correct or contradict previously held ones.

Let me repeat. Science never ever set out to explain everything.
Science set out to ask questions, questions and more questions.
It just so happens that when you ask the right questions and apply scientific principles to investigate, viola! you find answers.

And the process continues.
And it is working just fine so far.
Look how far we have come in the last 300yrs ever since brave men and women decided to put the "Extreneous sky daddy" in the box and began to think outside of that very box.

Since science is about asking questions, it is the wise men claim to have figured it out, that have the onus to demonstrate and share their knowledge of how the universe began, how life began, and how human life began.

No fairy tales required.

Appealin to authority (in this case science) doesn't exclude you from the mistake. Science is much prone to procedural errors, bias and outright data fabrication (despite measures to prevent it). In any case, I shouldn't touch on this thread: your thread covers the same thing. I'll address your arguments there later.

plaetton:


I went in some detail to show how these repeating processes [size=14pt]could[/size] have led to the first protolife and eventually to the first simple micro-organism.
But my friend Deepsight turns a deaf ear to that scientific information and is still asking for an explanation as to how life started.
It then became obvious to me that everyone, including the very intelligent among us, are seeking a magical explanation. The very complex and rigorous processes of biology, chemistry and physics is too much for most people to comprehend, let alone accept.
That is the problem.

The problem is you. You just stated a possibility but are actually trying to force people to believe unproven theories just because things in it are possible. The fact that a reapeating process could have led to the first protolife and eventually to the first simple micro-organism does not mean that a reapeating process led to the first protolife and eventually to the first simple micro-organism.

When explained properly, science is not that difficult to understand depite its rigours and complexities.

Uyi Iredia: Appealin to authority (in this case science) doesn't exclude you from the mistake. Science is much prone to procedural errors, bias and outright data fabrication (despite measures to prevent it). In any case, I shouldn't touch on this thread: your thread covers the same thing. I'll address your arguments there later.

Isn't that what I just said. the process of asking questions also involve making mistakes, and most importantly, acknowledging and correcting such mistakes.
The same cannot be said of other body bodies knowledge that start from absolute knowledge and then makes up and invokes a self-existent supernaturals to fill in the gaps.

plaetton:

Isn't that what I just said. the process of asking questions also involve making mistakes, and most importantly, acknowledging and correcting such mistakes.
The same cannot be said of other body bodies knowledge that start from absolute knowledge and then makes up and invokes a self-existent supernaturals to fill in the gaps.

All knowledge involves asking and anwering questions even knowledge (so-called revelations) of mystics.

Alfa Seltzer:

The problem is you. You just stated a possibility but are actually trying to force people to believe unproven theories just because things in it are possible. The fact that a reapeating process could have led to the first protolife and eventually to the first simple micro-organism does not mean that a reapeating process led to the first protolife and eventually to the first simple micro-organism.

When explained properly, science is not that difficult to understand despite its rigours and complexities.

Nothing that is said here is by any means a scientific treatise. So no one is being forced to accept anything.
In my original thread. I made it clear that I wanted to discuss and speculate.

Afterall, everything idea starts out as speculation.
There are some processes that are scientific facts, some are theories, some are hypothesis, and some are outright speculation.
A reasonable person is expected to weigh all.

I will not argue with theists that tell me that god is great idea or notion. Infact, it is.
Deeepsight and others postulate god, not as a theory but as fact, claiming intelligent design is evidence of an unseen, immeasurable, god.

I was quite surprised and glad to see that my wild idea of the origin of consciousness had already been given scientific consideration by scientists that quantum mechanical processes in the brain might be the origin of consciousness.

So every idea deserves to be considered by anyone who is honesty seeking knowledge and understanding.

Well I have given my very simple and clear posers. If anyone has something serious to say they should address the posers.

plaetton:

Nothing that is said here is by any means a scientific treatise. So no one is being forced to accept anything.
In my original thread. I made it clear that I wanted to discuss and speculate.

Afterall, everything idea starts out as speculation.
There are some processes that are scientific facts, some are theories, some are hypothesis, and some are outright speculation.
A reasonable person is expected to weigh all.

I will not argue with theists that tell me that god is great idea or notion. Infact, it is.
Deeepsight and others postulate god, not as a theory but as fact, claiming intelligent design is evidence of an unseen, immeasurable, god.

I was quite surprised and glad to see that my wild idea of the origin of consciousness had already been given scientific consideration by scientists that quantum mechanical processes in the brain might be the origin of consciousness.

So every idea deserves to be considered by anyone who is honesty seeking knowledge and understanding.

Did you read again your statement which I asked you to read again?

Is the light emitted by a projector not explained by the internal mechanism of the projector? How does that show the projector to be undesigned?

Your statement reads like saying that a phone receives signals and the explanation for that is the phone. Circular and unhelpful reasoning in this matter, for the question is why and how the phone came to do that, and for what purpose.

Deep Sight:

Did you read again your statement which I asked you to read again?

Is the light emitted by a projector not explained by the internal mechanism of the projector? How does that show the projector to be undesigned?

Your statement reads like saying that a phone receives signals and the explanation for that is the phone. Circular and unhelpful reasoning in this matter, for the question is why and how the phone came to do that, and for what purpose.

No. It implies that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology produce consciousness when a unique electromagnetic threshold is reached. This also implies that it must have been possible only at a certain point in the biological evolution of the species.
Furthermore, it means that the universe did not begin with consciousness, but consciousness came much later as an evolutionary bi-product.

plaetton:
No. It implies that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology produce consciousness when a unique electromagnetic threshold is reached. This also implies that it must have been possible only at a certain point in the biological evolution of the species.
Furthermore, it means that the universe did not begin with consciousness, but consciousness came much later as an evolutionary bi-product.

Same thing really. You still dont get that you are explaining a thing by referring to its engine, which is what needs to be explained.

Why dont you start by addressing my posers?

Pick one. Lets say the one on sexuality, reproduction and s.exual reproduction?

@deepsight a very interesting and insightful write-up and I guess it will make atheists confused for along time.
It's very funny (bin laughing reading the posts) that no one can even answer one of the possers u raised. Pls where are atheists campaigners O! let them come out we need answers pls!
Funny but we that believe in God have always supported ur claims with evidence from the scriptures. Guess the truth is becoming clearer.

plaetton:

Nothing that is said here is by any means a scientific treatise. So no one is being forced to accept anything.
In my original thread. I made it clear that I wanted to discuss and speculate.

Afterall, everything idea starts out as speculation.
There are some processes that are scientific facts, some are theories, some are hypothesis, and some are outright speculation.
A reasonable person is expected to weigh all.

I will not argue with theists that tell me that god is great idea or notion. Infact, it is.
Deeepsight and others postulate god, not as a theory but as fact, claiming intelligent design is evidence of an unseen, immeasurable, god.

I was quite surprised and glad to see that my wild idea of the origin of consciousness had already been given scientific consideration by scientists that quantum mechanical processes in the brain might be the origin of consciousness.

So every idea deserves to be considered by anyone who is honesty seeking knowledge and understanding.

Actually science has proven the existence of a supreme being any future prove will only confirm his existence.

I'm just astounded at how the virulent atheists here have largely remained in the shadows. Obviously they really dont understand the science they claim to hold on to.

Deep Sight:

Same thing really. You still dont get that you are explaining a thing by referring to its engine, which is what needs to be explained.

Why dont you start by addressing my posers?

Pick one. Lets say the one on sexuality, reproduction and s.exual reproduction?

Honestly speaking, asking to explain sexuality in the context of evolution is a bit childish to me. BUT i will indulge you.
Sexuality is just a simple matter of polarity, a phenomenon that is just very simple to understand. Atoms and molecules have polarity, so what so mysterious about complex organisms showing polarity?

noblefada:
Actually science has proven the existence of a supreme being any future prove will only confirm his existence.

Yeah, I suppose the Flying spaghetti monster they told you about in your bible school science.

plaetton:
Honestly speaking, asking to explain sexuality in the context of evolution is a bit childish to me. BUT i will indulge you.
Sexuality is just a simple matter of polarity, a phenomenon that is just very simple to understand. Atoms and molecules have polarity, so what so mysterious about complex organisms showing polarity?

Actually you completely ignored the context of his question... what was the evolutionary benefit of polarity when unicellular organisms could simply replicate by simple cell division? Why would it be more advantageous for an elephant to carry a 2 yr pregnancy that produces only one offspring?

davidylan: I'm just astounded at how the virulent atheists here have largely remained in the shadows. Obviously they really dont understand the science they claim to hold on to.

It's been repeated here many times that one does not need to be a master of science to understand the simple theory of evolution, nor does he require it to easily dismiss religious superstition .
The habit of asking atheists to this, that or else... is quite silly.
If you don't know something, then educate your self on it.
If you know better, then come and state your positions.

davidylan:

Actually you completely ignored the context of his question... what was the evolutionary benefit of polarity when unicellular organisms could simply replicate by simple cell division? Why would it be more advantageous for an elephant to carry a 2 yr pregnancy that produces only one offspring?

Polarity is not an evolutionary trait. It is part of the process of differentnation.
C'mon Davidilan. Should already know that.
There are billion possible reasons for the billion diverse lifeforms with their diverse traits.