Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,554 members, 7,955,058 topics. Date: Saturday, 21 September 2024 at 03:42 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Christianity; The Reason For Science (20337 Views)
Ozubulu Catholic Church Shooting In Anambra: Police Reveal Reason For Attack / Exposing Christianity; The Truth About "Jesus Christ" / Christianity; The Religion Not Founded By Jesus (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by samsard(m): 8:19pm On Mar 13, 2016 |
TopeEmma15:How does this relate with what i said? Seeing you choose emotions over tested reason, it might be best if I just ignore you. |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by OBAGADAFFI: 9:48pm On Mar 13, 2016 |
DabELLs: It's easier to pick on Christianity because they're more tolerant then other religion. One of the First book to ever come from the first printing press (Johannes Gutenberg) is the Bible. Even the Quran, made reference to the old testament of the Bible 1 Like |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by Nobody: 12:57am On Mar 14, 2016 |
OBAGADAFFI:Quran made reference to the bible as the book that was currupted and full of contradictions. 1 Like |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by Nobody: 1:07am On Mar 14, 2016 |
OBAGADAFFI: The Noble Qur’an says the following of the books that came before it:"Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates,who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those whowrite the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it for a miserable price!Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.”(The Noble Qur'an, 2:77-79)The Book refers to the book of the People of the book(aka Men of Faith), which section 9 in Chapter 2 talks about. The Noble Qur'an clearly says that the Book was corrupted by men, “those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,”. It can’t get anyclearer then that! |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by AgentOfAllah: 8:22am On Mar 14, 2016 |
DabELLs:Where is it said in the Quran that the earth is spherical? |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by Nobody: 9:06am On Mar 14, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah: “And the earth, moreover, hath He made egg shaped.”[Al-Qur’an 79:30] The Arabic word for egg here is dahaahaa which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’an correctly describes the shape of the earth. But your bible said the shape of earth is flat. This should explain better to you.
|
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by AgentOfAllah: 10:35am On Mar 14, 2016 |
DabELLs: First of all, the earth is an oblate spheroid, and an ostrich egg is a prolate spheroid, these two shapes aren't equivalent, so your analogy is wrong. Secondly, the word "دَحَاهَا" ("dahaahaa" ) was translated by all the classical translators of the Qur'an to mean "spread out", that is, a verb, not a descriptive word. This means this is how it has always been understood by scholars of the Qur'an. The suggestion that the Qur'an claims the earth was spherical is a convenient modern day reinterpretation of something that was at best vague. This is a form of cognitive bias, confirmation bias, to be precise. That is, affirmation after the fact! To put this dahaahaa nonsense to rest, the word "dahaahaa", like "duhiya" ("ostrich egg" ), comes from the same root word, "دحاوا" ("dahawa" ), and it literally means "spread". Look it up in any major Arabic dictionary or translator (google, bing) if you don't agree. That word is simply not derived from ostrich egg. No serious Arabic speaker thinks it is, only phony, desperate apologetics. 1 Like |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by Nobody: 11:33am On Mar 14, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah: I don't know why Christians always lie and twisting things ح-ى The root, its derivatives may be used to mean "expand-extend" or"egg دحية"Most arabic speakers use the word baid بيض for eggs while dahya دحية is still used in many countries |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by AgentOfAllah: 12:16pm On Mar 14, 2016 |
DabELLs:I am not a Christian, and I have neither lied nor "twisted things". Actually, the only person doing the twisting here is you. Or by synonymous substitution, 'spread'! And this is the context of the Qur'ans usage, as attested to by all classical translations. By the way, you forgot the 'Dal' and 'alif'. The root word, as I said, is "د-حا-وا", not "ha-y" as you have written. ...or"egg دحية"Most arabic speakers use the word baid بيض for eggs while dahya دحية is still used in many countriesI've not come across any reference where "دحية" ("Duhiya" ) is used to describe "egg", as you claim, but if you have, please share! It is specifically used to describe the place in which an ostrich lays its eggs because before ostriches lay eggs, they "spread out and flatten" ("الأُدْحِيُّ" or "ud-hiy" ) the earth, which goes back to the root, "د-حا-وا". I believe ostriches are the only birds that do this, which is why some desperate apologetic wrongfully synonymised the word with the egg of an ostrich. Please read about the proper interpretation of that verse HERE, before you callously spread falsehood out of desperation! Like I said earlier, even if that word meant ostrich egg, it would definitely be wrong because an ostrich egg is a prolate spheroid, while the earth is closer to an oblate spheroid. These two shapes are markedly distinct. So you're better off sticking to the classical interpretation of that verse. At least, this way, you can always assert the earth is somewhat spread out, and no one will dispute that. Even though, it's not exactly a remarkable revelation. 1 Like |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by professore(m): 6:36pm On Mar 16, 2016 |
I believe that God created the universe |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by winner01(m): 7:39am On Mar 20, 2016 |
professore:Only an irrational person wouldnt. |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by KingEbukasBlog(m): 8:53am On Mar 20, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah: No , I missed the magical transformation from ape to man part
|
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by winner01(m): 9:42am On Mar 20, 2016 |
KingEbukasBlog:I dont bother quoting such people. When he wrote "micro-evolutionary events (mutations) which were acquired over time, which then became macro-evolutionary. " And couldnt give a single benefial mutation that has ever occured or been observed in nature. I had to ignore his lame pseudoscience. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by KingEbukasBlog(m): 9:44am On Mar 20, 2016 |
winner01: Exactly bro . Pseudoscience ! In fact , he shifted from observation to belief - exactly what evolution requires . |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by AgentOfAllah: 1:27pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
KingEbukasBlog: But man is not any more or less an ape than a lion is any more or less a cat. The suggestion of a magical transformation is as ridiculous to me as it is to you. 2 Likes |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by KingEbukasBlog(m): 1:49pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah: Isn't that why evolution theory is a joke ? In coming years we would laugh at the theory and wont believe time was actually spent making researches on myths |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by AgentOfAllah: 3:49pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
winner01:My intention was clearly to have a civil academic discussion with you, and while you are entitled to feel justified in not "bothering to quote such people", it is no less unfortunate that you consider dismissal a virtue over seeking mutual understanding through clarifications. This disposition is telling on your general attitude towards science.
I cannot read your mind to know what kind of examples you require, which is why you need to be forthcoming and ask before characterising people's work as "lame pseudoscience". Actually, the fact that the clarification you accuse me of not providing is completely irrelevant to my original point (i.e. that micro-evolution is an inexorable precursor to macro-evolution) suggests you didn't really understand the point in question, which makes me wonder what yardstick you've used in your unfair charaterisation. Nevertheless, I will, at this time, address the specific topic of "beneficial mutation", since it seems to trouble you. Actually, you are on the right track if you believe no mutation is beneficial. Mutations happen on DNA strands all the time, and are caused by a number of reasons, including by spontaneous alterations {Beth Montelone (1998)}, Error from strand repairs {Michael Lieber (2011)}, induced alterations (chemical {A. Pfohl-Leszkowicz and R. Manderville (2006)} and UV radiation {S. Kozmin et al.}). The vast majority of these mutations are believed to be ineffectual (neutral mutations in Bio-speak), although, the position that mutations can be "neutral" in the true sense of that word is quite polemic. This is however, the best case scenario. In the worst case, evidence has suggested that most mutations are harmful. One estimate by S. Sawyer et al. puts this value at ~95% in a specified species, while attributing 5% to beneficial/"neutral" mutation. To me, "neutral" mutation simply means "we haven't detected any effect yet", and since neutral mutations are more likely to be harmful than beneficial, I think even the 95% is probably an optimistic estimate. As you can see, you are mostly correct, and only slightly off the mark to think mutations are harmful. The statistics are stacked in your favour! In simple short terms, nature conspires to kill every living thing! This is so because living things are highly ordered systems. An ordered system is any system that creates negative local entropy by consuming energy. In nature, entropy must be positive, everything tends towards positive entropy, so if nature is to deal with living things, it will mostly be by trying to kill us in order to increase our entropy (Second law of thermodynamics). This, in fact, is the reason why it is estimated that 99.9% of all species are extinct {W. Kunin and K. Gaston, "The biology of rarity:Causes and consequences of rare common differences" (1997) Ch. 7} Existing species are the anomaly, and they only exist because every now and then, however improbable, beneficial mutations do happen, and when they happen, they do what they do best: allow the living thing that should naturally not exist another go at survival. But make no mistake, we are only among the lucky 0.1%. Now, back to your 'almost' question. Are there observable examples of beneficial mutations? Most Definitely! One such example is the increasing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics as a result of reproduction by lucky bacteria species whose random mutations allowed them to become resistant to current antimicrobial formulas {Center for Disease Control and Prevention}. These mutation, while providing no benefit to human populations, is obviously beneficial to the bacteria species that acquired them. For obvious reasons, mutations are a lot easier to spot in unicellular organisms that in multicellular ones, which explains why many lab experiments are able to demonstrate evolution more effectively on such small scales. 5 Likes 2 Shares |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by AgentOfAllah: 3:57pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
KingEbukasBlog: A joke? Obviously, the point of my analogy is lost on you. You are gravely mistaken to think evolution suggests some magical transition. Let me be clear: Lions are cats! Humans are apes! There is NO magical transition. Transition is a continuum that has been happening, is happening and will continue to happen till we all eventually go extinct...Evolution is a game of extinction nature will inevitably win. We, the survivors, are merely buying time. 5 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by winner01(m): 4:32pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah:" bolded, Several improbabilities happened and we got lucky right? . You see, this is exactly why i wont waste my time with you. AgentOfAllah:Adaptation!!!. Just like bacterial populations grown for thousands of generations in a lab became more and more genetically adapted to their environment each generation (experiment done by Dr. Richard E. Lenski, Michigan State University). Despite all your wishful thinking, all offspring of the tested Unicellular organisms no matter how long or how many generations, have always resembled their parents. What has never been observed is the change from one distinct species to another. Observation is key in science. Don't redefine science. Good luck. 2 Likes 2 Shares |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by analice107: 6:25pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Oluwaseytiano:So why does that make you? |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by analice107: 6:29pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Judas2013:Your moniker tells the tale. |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by analice107: 6:43pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
ifenes:This man don craze finish Ooo. Dey people wey get this man no no say the case don serious? |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by AgentOfAllah: 7:10pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
winner01:Luck was a poor choice of word, on my part, but I'll explain why I used it deliberately. First, let me clarify that this is not really luck, it is a statistical inevitability known as "Regression to the mean". Random mutations happen all the time, most deadly, some beneficial! About 99.9% of all species weren't lucky enough to acquire the beneficial random mutations that a statistically insignificant 0.1% got, which enabled them survive. Evolution killed the 99.9% off. Though they are semantically equivalent, I can't help but feel "extinction of the weakest" would have communicated the point of evolution theory better than "Survival of the fittest". Evolution ultimately conveys the improbability of existence, and suggests why the improbable 0.1% still exists. If you had a big die with 100 faces, the chances of you landing on face 20 after a throw is 1%. It is highly improbable that even after 100 throws, you will have recorded 20 once. However, if you throw the die 1,000 times you will be closer to the mean expected value of 1% than after the first hundred throws. 10,000 throws will even get you closer to 1% and so on. Ultimately, given enough throws (or time), and this is the crucial bit of information, you will definitely regress to the mean 1%. Eventually, getting the expected value of 1% after 1,000,000 tries becomes less of an improbability, and more certain. The implication of this is that certainty of expected value grows with time (or number of tries if you like). "Time" is that thing which evolution has had in order to make the improbable expectation of 0.1% a certainty, so that the 0.1% that survived didn't result from luck, but from probabilistic certainty. Why did I use luck? Because from the point of view of any of those 0.1% that survived, there was always a 99.9% chance that their species wouldn't have! Remember I am part of the 0.1%, so I consider myself extremely lucky to not have suffered the same fate of the dead majority! As per the emboldened, what is evolution if not adaptation of organisms to their ever evolving environments? To be fair, your comment to which I responded begged for a single occurrence of beneficial mutation, and I gave you one. Call it adaptation if you like, it was still mutation, and it was beneficial...at least, to the species in question. If these species become impervious to the potency of the very medicine that killed them, then they can be said to have evolved. When you say the organisms "have always resembled their parents", you should be careful about digging yourself into a hole! Appearances can be quite deceptive, as a cheetah will assert that it is not running mates with the leopard! Nor is a Lion the same as mountain lions, or Bonobos and Chimps. I can go on and on. My question to you is why you think, given enough time, the mutations would not cascade into speciation? You mentioned R. Lenski's ongoing experiment. Clearly, you are out of touch if you think the E. colis haven't changed appearances {N. Philippe et al.}. One particular species has even changed its metabolism process too!! Check their WEBSITE. Please, actually read about this experiment in the links I shared before you make factually defective statements such as the one you made above. Thanks 3 Likes 2 Shares |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by analice107: 7:12pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
DabELLs:Maybe you should read the OP again, there's nothing Islam in it. Take a rest. |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by analice107: 7:16pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
DabELLs:Really? It was "wrote by selfish individual"? Even you will stand to trash the Holy Bible? You? Na waooo. because you see people talking, you sef go put ur mouth? |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by analice107: 7:18pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
TopeEmma15:That's because atheism is the Devils own religion. |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by analice107: 7:37pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
DabELLs:I suspected u r a Muslim from the way you talk. When you got in here, did you find anyone abusing and calling people names? Intelligent people tackle issues, but fools attack persons instead of the issues. Am very sure you have never even read your Koran by yourself, if you still don't know that your prophet instructed you muslims to enquire from Christians and Jews incase you are lost about issues in the Koran. Cc: Parisbookaddict, pls come help teach this gutter mouth Muslim a little of his Koran. |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by Blackfire(m): 12:28am On Mar 21, 2016 |
analice107: if u can understand that atheism is there to make u stronger in your theism. U will agree that with few head to head with atheist, somehow after the encounter it somehow solidify your belief in your saviour. So my dear u need the dark , to appreciate the light.. U need the law to appreciate the grace of the saviour, and Never allowing yourself to be brought back to it. Anyway i may be wrong. |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by Oluwaseytiano(m): 7:32am On Mar 21, 2016 |
analice107:someone who is not mentally enslaved |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by winner01(m): 5:58pm On Mar 22, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah:Sorry dude, this die is not even 1,000,000,000,000 faces for the simplest of cells. Dont try to downplay the impossibility of something arising from nothing. AgentOfAllah:Changed appearances huh? People can read those papers and see for themselves. Ill just repost my challenge to you. What has NEVER been observed is the change from one distinct SPECIES to another. Observation is key in science. Don't redefine science. Good luck again. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by AgentOfAllah: 6:18am On Mar 23, 2016 |
winner01:"Something arising from nothing"? Not sure what you're on about. But to the best of my knowledge, evolution is silent on the origin of life. If you don't know this, then your knowledge of the subject is severely defective. I suggest you educate yourself on the subject matter instead of debunking the imaginary "flaws" you've fabricated. Changed appearances huh? People can read those papers and see for themselves.Yes, I encourage people to read the papers themselves, which is why I have included links at any given opportunity. Ill just repost my challenge to you. What has NEVER been observed is the change from one distinct SPECIES to another. Observation is key in science. Don't redefine science. Good luck again.I'm not sure I understand your challenge, but if your reference to "distinct species" is about the biological taxonomic rank, then your statement makes you out to be utterly ignorant about the subject you so ferociously disdain. I want you to ask yourself what you mean by species, then spend some time pondering upon the product of crossing a panthera Leo and a panthera Tigris, which are clearly "distinct species". Listen, you seem confused about the basics of this subject, and to be sure, ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing though. I'm also ignorant about a lot of things. It only becomes dangerous when it is mixed with arrogance, in which case you're in danger of promoting fallacies with confidence. I recommend you take a breather and actually do some reading, so that even when you disagree, it'll not be on silly fabricated assumptions that a high school biology student shouldn't make. |
Re: Christianity; The Reason For Science by winner01(m): 10:41am On Mar 23, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah: Exactly, the expected reaction. Just cut the crap and provide examples of one distinct specie changing to another. 40,000 generations was not even enough to DELIBERATELY/CONSCIOUSLY change one specie of bacteria to another distinct specie. It becomes funny how you then try to downplay the impossibility of BLIND/UNGUIDED process to change one specie into another under the guise of time. What has been OBSERVED in reality are the coelacanth, the horseshoe crab, the caddisflies, the trilobite and other embarrassments to evolution which have each lived for not less than 200 millions years and have been thought to be extint millions of years ago until re-discovered. Normally, they have retained their wonderful features and have disgraced evolutionists. There is no point wasting anyones time, when evolutionists actually OBSERVE one specie changing into another distinct specie and not rely on blind faith that macro-evolution must be true, then you can continue with your pro-evolution epistles. 1 Like 1 Share |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)
Why Is Sex Attached To Sin By Most Religion? / Anointing Oil Used By Some Churches: Wrong Or Right. / Working Wives Should Submit Salaries To Their Husbands - Pastor. Nigerians React
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 142 |