Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,373 members, 7,781,047 topics. Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 08:02 AM

The Atheists Test - Religion (8) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Atheists Test (19210 Views)

Dear Christians, Doesn't The Front Page Prove The Atheists Point? / What Will The Atheists Say After The Rapture? / 5 Clear Proofs That God Exists: To The Atheists (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 2:55pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukasBlog:


You are trying so hard to preclude the existence of a creator . Anyway you can continue wallowing in your delusion .

Let me explain to you how dumb you sound :

Its like breaking codewords to characters and claiming that these characters gave the codes that propensity to carry out a particular function .

These codes below carry out a particular function



Now breaking down these codes to characters i , m , p , o , r ,t and making unintelligent claims that they gave the quoted code the ability to carry out its function is asinine .

For the quoted codes to carry out a function , it should be the right syntax and appropriately as regards to the programming language .

Again . You dont understand the words "derive" and "propensity"

Here we go again another dumb comparison of nature to computer ...

Lol..

If after explaining the tiniest bit of natural manifestation and it's role in the diversification of natural interactions and you still could not grab it, it is very obvious that it's only a dumb clutch as willful delusion.

You are using a complex creator who somehow do not need to be also designed in other to actively and beautifully exist and be intelligent enough to create a lesser complex system... lmoa grin

Aaaaah sorry, you are just the one having a hard time comprehending basic particle physics even after i have broken it down to a language persons of any level can comprehend knowing fully well what i was dealing with..

3 Likes 2 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 3:04pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


Here we go again another dumb comparison of nature to computer ...

Lol..

If after explaining the tiniest bit of natural manifestation and it's role in the diversification of natural interactions and you still could not grab it, it is very obvious that it's only a dumb clutch as willful delusion.

You are using a complex creator who somehow do not need to be also designed in other to actively and beautifully exist and be intelligent enough to create a lesser complex system... lmoa grin

Aaaaah sorry, you are just the one having a hard time comprehending basic particle physics even after i have broken it down to a language persons of any level can comprehend knowing fully well what i was dealing with..

Computer Science is under Natural and Applied Science cheesy . Sometimes , you need to have basic understanding of something before you refute a concept it postulates .

Smh

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 3:04pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukasBlog:


You dont even understand the 7-day-creation story , so let me not bother engaging you . You create your own interpretation of any verse and ridicule it . grin

I tire oo .

Hahahahahahaha there is no interpretation at all, it is a story, a folklore, a myth. we say what the story says.

what ever interpretations you conjure for a simple jewish myth can only strengthen your bond in the belief of outright absurd myths.




And you keep beating around the bush any time I introduce computer science . Every one has his strong suit . I believe if nature is being emulated by man and he says his emulation is intelligently designed then its blatant disingeniousness to say what is being emulated is not intelligently designed .

"Its like you are emulating your mum who has a good behaviour and someone commends your good behaviour and then you say that your mum whom you emulated does not have a good behaviour ."

The above does not make sense ... so no matter the rigmarole you'd spew ... its still dumb gibberish to me

..No it will continue to sound gibberish because no matter how much you try to explain simple calculus to a kid it never ceases to sound like gibberish.

Deriving inspiration from something does not equate the source of inspiration to the product of inspiration.

You have been shown time and again nature do not need an assembly line but derive complex structures from simple interactions of random properties..

smaller galaxies collide to form bigger galaxies, from these chaotic reactions the whole becomes more complex.

Even if you look into a puddle in a random hole in the ground you could also pass it out as a design ..

In nature simpler values randomly interact to make complex values, no assembly line and no external humanoid freak needed in the equation who somehow does not need another designer even though it allegedly inspired nature like nature inspired artificial entities.. dayuum grin

You can find somewhere else to place your god, this cosmos is simply too big for your little humanoid.

Try again? grin

4 Likes 2 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 3:09pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


You are using a complex creator who somehow do not need to be also designed in other to actively and beautifully exist and be intelligent enough to create a lesser complex system... lmoa grin

You are not making any sense young man . Since God is eternal it is illogical to question his attributes - where he got his powers from because they have always been , is , will always be with Him .

Energy has very significant properties - its eternal , cannot be created or destroyed but transforms from one form to another , can be measured etc - do you question its properties ?

Smh

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 3:10pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


Computer Science is under Natural and Applied Science cheesy . Sometimes , you need to have basic understanding of something before you refute a concept it postulates .

Smh

Lmao.. I am dead .. cheesy cheesy

Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description,
prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena

Branches of natural science

-Chemistry
-Physics
-Biology
-Astronomy
-Earth science
-Atmospheric sciences
-Oceanography

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

I am dead... grin computer science is natural science? how dah fucq do you pass exams grin grin grin

4 Likes 3 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 3:14pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:



..No it will continue to sound gibberish because no matter how much you try to explain simple calculus to a kid it never ceases to sound like gibberish.

Deriving inspiration from something does not equate the source of inspiration to the product of inspiration.

You have been shown time and again nature do not need an assembly line but derive complex structures from simple interactions of random properties..

smaller galaxies collide to form bigger galaxies, from these chaotic reactions the whole becomes more complex.

Even if you look into a puddle in a random hole in the ground you could also pass it out as a design ..

In nature simpler values randomly interact to make complex values, no assembly line and no external humanoid freak needed in the equation who somehow does not need another designer even though it allegedly inspired nature like nature inspired artificial entities.. dayuum grin

You can find somewhere else to place your god, this cosmos is simply too big for your little humanoid.

Try again? grin

Even random "chaotic" processes can be designed to work in that way . It might appear as chaotic to the observer but not necessarily to the designer .

Try harder smiley

I apply studies in Nature wink

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 3:16pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


You are not making any sense young man . Since God is eternal it is illogical to question his attributes - where he got his powers from because they have always been , is , will always be with Him .

A super complex entity eternal and has always been complex is the murder of logic itself and the most illogical of all thoughts.

Now you are shooting yourself on the foot because if you assume up a super complex entity that doesn't need to be designed then precision and complexity is not a property of design as you have shown but if you argue complexity must connote design then this super complex entity cannot be exempted.


Energy has very significant properties - its eternal , cannot be created or destroyed but transforms from one form to another , can be measured etc - do you question its properties ?
Smh
every attributes of energy as recorded and measured are observed facts as we know it ..

Energy do not exists fundamentally as a complex value, that is the first thing to mind.

Energy develops from fundamental states to more complex states ... It's that simple, it didn't just become eternally complex from no where.

chai...

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 3:19pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


Lmao.. I am dead .. cheesy cheesy

Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description,
prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena

Branches of natural science

-Chemistry
-Physics
-Biology
-Astronomy
-Earth science
-Atmospheric sciences
-Oceanography

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

I am dead... grin computer science is natural science? how dah fucq do you pass exams grin grin grin

Computer Science is under natural and applied science ... Guy , Don't embarrass yourself . Its now certain you didnt pass through a university

cheesy grin grin

Rotfl ...

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 3:20pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


Even random "chaotic" processes can be designed to work in that way . It might appear as chaotic to the observer but not necessarily to the designer .

Try harder smiley

I apply studies in Nature wink

Hahahahahahahahaha it's no longer that the universe is orderly .. Now you are trying to clutch on weak "random is design" grin

Natural interactions are not only random and chaotic but spooky... grin

I understand you are trying so hard to make sure you keep a not needed "god" in the equation.

Well that's cool in sunday schools but not in science classes... grin

You wanna try again? grin

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 3:29pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


Computer Science is under natural and applied science ... Guy , Don't embarrass yourself . Its now certain you didnt pass through a university

cheesy grin grin

Rotfl ...


Hahahahahahahahahaha Computer science is an Applied science oooo... Applied sciences utilize the already know scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications like technologies and inventions.

Please Natural and Applied science are distinct branches of human science not the same ..

Jesus christ and you are in the university shocked we need to get the Lecturer and shoot him in the head for this grin

Who ever taught you computer science is under Natural Science Branch of science that studies nature really got you slow.

You need a refund grin

4 Likes 2 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 3:29pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


Hahahahahahahahaha it's no longer that the universe is orderly .. Now you are trying to clutch on weak "random is design" grin

Natural interactions are not only random and chaotic but spooky... grin

I understand you are trying so hard to make sure you keep a not needed "god" in the equation.

Well that's cool in sunday schools but not in science classes... grin

You wanna try again? grin

Where did I say the universe is orderly ? I said designed . Man emulates nature and describes his emulation as intelligently designed but denies that nature is intelligently designed - that has been my stance , which none of you have refuted .

Johnydon22 , resorting to lies is demeaning . Again , rationally , the universe obviously requires an eternal creator - it has a beginning , it has a cause , the functionalities of its systems and constituents etc etc etc

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 3:33pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


Hahahahahahahahahaha Computer science is an Applied science oooo... Applied sciences utilize the already know scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications like technologies and inventions.

Please Natural and Applied science are distinct branches of human science not the same ..

Jesus christ and you are in the university shocked we need to get the Lecturer and shoot him in the head for this grin

Who ever taught you computer science is under Natural Science Branch of science that studies nature really got you slow.

You need a refund grin

Lmao ... I said computer science is under natural and applied science - its a department in Universities ,which off course you dont know about

Again ... I said I apply studies in nature .

You have been running around with your own misconceptions like a headless chicken - though its embarrassing , I found it hilarious though .

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 3:39pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


Where did I say the universe is orderly ? I said designed . Man emulates nature and describes his emulation as intelligently designed but denies that nature is intelligently designed - that has been my stance , which none of you have refuted .

Johnydon22 , resorting to lies is demeaning . Again , rationally , the universe obviously requires an eternal creator - it has a beginning , it has a cause , the functionalities of its systems and constituents etc etc etc

.. It has been shown times and numbers again and again that nature does not need an assembly line but derive results from random reactions.

Man evidently enough develops the systems that he regards intelligently designed and draws basic inspiration from his environments.

This does not equate the source of inspiration into the same circle or level with the product of inspiration.

A rubber flower can never be equated to biological flower... One developed from a simple state to a complex one in response to varying factors the other didn't..

Times and again the universe has been shown not to require any freaky humanoid, it has a cause which also is a simple fundamental energy known as a Dark Energy in science and the universe also heads towards a violent end.. what a design grin

The random manifestations remain subjects of random interactions and so nature defines itself and needs no external help ..

It is very fine for you to try fix your "god" myth in your sunday schools, it never enters the science class... that's just the best part..

find somewhere else to fix your "god" there is no need of it to explain the cosmos grin Sorry grin

try again?

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 3:45pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


Lmao ... I said computer science is under natural and applied science - its a department in Universities ,which off course you dont know about

Again ... I said I apply studies in nature .

You have been running around with your own misconceptions like a headless chicken - though its embarrassing , I found it hilarious though .

A department in the University grin

Now let i that has never been to the university teach you that little thing.. Natural and Applied science are distinct branches of science.

That you have Natural and Applied science as a department means your university placed all disciplines of scientific inclination on one umbrella (department)

Learn this today, that it is under Natural and Applied science department does not mean Natural and Applied science are the same or used together, it is just the name of a department.

Natural sciences does not include computer science but only sciences that deals with nature..

..I have laughed my head off hearing someone equate Computer science as natural science because of the name of a department in a university ..

I wonder the embarrassed one here grin Seriously how do you pass exams when you have no idea the name of a department does not make computer science a natural science grin

if you like when asked next time what branch of science is Computer science ... The answer is not Natural and Applied science .. Nooo shocked the answer is simply Applied Science

When it comes to Natural sciences you are just a complete juvenile that thinks computer programmes is same as natural manifestations..

Chai grin grin

4 Likes 2 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 3:47pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


.. It has been shown times and numbers again and again that nature does not need an assembly line but derive results from random reactions.

Man evidently enough develops the systems that he regards intelligently designed and draws basic inspiration from his environments.

This does not equate the source of inspiration into the same circle or level with the product of inspiration.

A rubber flower can never be equated to biological flower... One developed from a simple state to a complex one in response to varying factors the other didn't..

Times and again the universe has been shown not to require any freaky humanoid, it has a cause which also is a simple fundamental energy known as a Dark Energy in science and the universe also heads towards a violent end.. what a design grin

The random manifestations remain subjects of random interactions and so nature defines itself and needs no external help ..

It is very fine for you to try fix your "god" myth in your sunday schools, it never enters the science class... that's just the best part..

find somewhere else to fix your "god" there is no need of it to explain the cosmos grin Sorry grin

try again?



Dark Energy is theoretical . Most of this gibberish you are spewing here are scientific assumptions which get modified or are changed completely . I am impressed you are in line with the latest modification wink

There are no generally accepted theories about the genesis of the universe . DEAL WITH IT

cool

Again man emulates nature and describes it as intelligently designed but denies that nature is intelligently designed - you seem not to understand this , one bit .

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 3:50pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


A department in the University grin

Now let i that has never been to the university teach you that little thing.. Natural and Applied science are distinct branches of science.

That you have Natural and Applied science as a department means your university placed all disciplines of scientific inclination on one umbrella (department)

Learn this today, that it is under Natural and Applied science department does not mean Natural and Applied science are the same or used together, it is just the name of a department.

Natural sciences does not include computer science but only sciences that deals with nature..

..I have laughed my head off hearing someone equate Computer science as natural science because of the name of a department in a university ..

I wonder the embarrassed one here grin Seriously how do you pass exams when you have no idea the name of a department does not make computer science a natural science grin

if you like when asked next time what branch of science is Computer science ... The answer is not Natural and Applied science .. Nooo shocked the answer is simply Applied Science

Chai grin grin

My God ! The department is Natural and Applied Science . Computer Science basically applies studies in Nature . What the hell is wrong with this one lipsrsealed cry cry

This is so shameful

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 3:58pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


Dark Energy is theoretical . Most of this gibberish you are spewing here are scientific assumptions which get modified or are changed completely . I am impressed you are in line with the latest modification wink

There are no generally accepted theories about the genesis of the universe . DEAL WITH IT
cool

When using the word "theory" understand that theories are explanations built on observed facts in that regard.

Dark energy are called so because it is unknown as of today's knowledge but are calculable even from measuring large scale wave patterns of universal mass density ..

Science is not a religious dogma or belief, when a scientific thesis is falsified it becomes discarded as bogus and thrown in a trash can of nonsenses, but when a religious claim is falsified it becomes allegory, metaphor grin grin

we all know the most dependent method of truthful deductions are ones open to scrutiny, accept ignorance and never establish a dogma which is science.

Your "god" can never be used as a placeholder of scientific ignorance, man has gone pass that stage of lunacy..


Again man emulates nature and describes it as intelligently designed but denies that nature is intelligently designed - you seem not to understand this , one bit .

Haaaaaaaa.. Just like Rubber flower indicates biological flowers must have been assembled in a workshop grin

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 4:03pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


My God ! The department is Natural and Applied Science . Computer Science basically applies studies in Nature . What the hell is wrong with this one lipsrsealed cry cry

This is so shameful

Hahahahahahahaha aaaaaaaah calm down and don't freak yourself out... You have already murdered yourself trying to lay claims to natural sciences using computer science as a basis. grin

Applied sciences bank on already know scientific knowledge, computer science is even a secondary applied science as a matter of fact.

Next time don't disgrace yourself by trying to gain a little credit in natural sciences using a department as a basis.. grin

You are still a kid when it comes to natural sciences wink I wonder who is ashamed grin

"It's a department!!! " grin

2 Likes 2 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 4:15pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


Hahahahahahahaha aaaaaaaah calm down and don't freak yourself out... You have already murdered yourself trying to lay claims to natural sciences using computer science as a basis. grin

Applied sciences bank on already know scientific knowledge, computer science is even a secondary applied science as a matter of fact.

Next time don't disgrace yourself by trying to gain a little credit in natural sciences using a department as a basis.. grin

You are still a kid when it comes to natural sciences wink I wonder who is ashamed grin

"It's a department!!! " grin


Lmao ... It seems you are back to your senses grin . So lets continue . Like I said Computer Science is in the Department of Natural and Applied Sciences and we apply studies in Nature .

We understand Nature better than ever because we emulate it and have artificial replicas - models , artificial systems , algorithms etc .

So when I say its blatant dishonesty to assert that nature needs no designer with no evidence I know what I'm saying .

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 4:22pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


Lmao ... It seems you are back to your senses grin . So lets continue . Like I said Computer Science is in the Department of Natural and Applied Sciences and we apply studies in Nature .

We understand Nature better than ever because we emulate it and have artificial replicas - models , artificial systems , algorithms etc .

So when I say its blatant dishonesty to assert that nature needs no designer with no evidence I know what I'm saying .

Oh crap not again!!! **Face palm**

You have fuc_king not the slightest clue of natural sciences, Nature is never same as a computer programme.

When you are equating Computer sciences to Natural sciences it is obvious you have not the slightest idea ..

Natural manifestations are random, chaotic and spooky..

If you need to have a little insight of nature, try basic natural sciences like Physics cus you seriously need know what nature is about. grin

You actually don't know what you are saying because recreating a sand dune artificially does not make a natural sand dune a design of invisible artists .. Common!!! grin

Poor logic try again..wink

3 Likes 2 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 4:35pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


Oh crap not again!!! **Face palm**

You have fuc_king not the slightest clue of natural sciences, Nature is never same as a computer programme.

When you are equating Computer sciences to Natural sciences it is obvious you have not the slightest idea ..

Natural manifestations are random, chaotic and spooky..

If you need to have a little insight of nature, try basic natural sciences like Physics cus you seriously need know what nature is about. grin

You actually don't know what you are saying because recreating a sand dune artificially does not make a natural sand dune a design of invisible artists .. Common!!! grin

Poor logic try again..wink


For the umpteenth time , to the observer processes can be random or chaotic but not necessarily same to the designer . This is the same argument atheists bring up everywhere . Na wa oo !

And again , processes can be designed to be random and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

Smh . Try harder

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 4:45pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:

If you need to have a little insight of nature, try basic natural sciences like Physics cus you seriously need know what nature is about. grin

Physics may not be my strong suit but the truth remains that the cause of the universe is still unknown to Science , man still knows very little about the universe and there are theists who have far superior knowledge of Physics and are still believers in their respective religions .

So bombarding threads with assumptions which get modified frequently and upholding them as truth is ludicrous . Let me save you the embarrassment : There is no proof the universe needs no creator

The popular example I use is the formation of the moon . Five theories . FIVE . Not one or two . FIVE . Funny enough God may have created the moon differently from the five theories which science has presented .

Be Open Minded bro . Stop enshrouding your self from possibilities smiley

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 5:01pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


Physics may not be my strong suit but the truth remains that the cause of the universe is still unknown to Science , man still knows very little about the universe and there are theists who have far superior knowledge of Physics and are still believers in their respective religions .

So bombarding threads with assumptions which get modified frequently and upholding them as truth is ludicrous . Let me save you the embarrassment : There is no proof the universe needs no creator

The popular example I use is the formation of the moon . Five theories . FIVE . Not one or two . FIVE . Funny enough God may have created the moon differently from the five theories which science has presented .

Be Open Minded bro . Stop enshrouding your self from possibilities smiley

.."Gods did it" is never a placeholder for ignorance in modern science, first nobody knew exactly the mechanisms of simple celestial movements..

Ptolemy invoked intelligent design, a deity to explain the immerse depth of what he could comprehend and what was elusive to him : “I know that I am mortal by nature and ephemeral. But when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of
the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch the earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus myself and drink my fill of ambrosia.”

He invoked zeus because he was at the limits of his knowledge..

Even Newton did same when at the limit of his knowledge in explanations concerning celestial motions and orbits... His calculations has reached a limited point.

Pierre-Simon Laplace went beyond what Newton knew, travelled beyond's newtons limit in his work of celestial mechanisms.

and when asked "where does God(s) fit it?" he simply answered "i have no need of that hypothesis"

That was because he has broken the limit, the barrier Newton and Ptolemy were limited by..

Newton and Ptolemy reached the highest point of their knowledge, they were confronted by their ignorance and then invoked "god did it" as a placeholder for their ignorance.

Laplace shattered that and provided a more reasonable intel on how things were and God(s) were discarded in explanation of celestial motions.

Man does not know "how something is" yet is not a call to be filled by assumptive gods .. (those gods too even though products of assumptions becomes a subject of question and evidently cannot be measured becomes complete bogus)

Reaching the limit of your ignorance is never a call to invoke gods and fill up the gap left by your ignorance with it.

If you are only going to be placing your "god" only at the limit of scientific knowledge then surely as it has been shown through out history your god(s) will forever remain an ever receding factor in the face of scientific discoveries.

It will continue to be discarded and continue to be moved to the next level of human enquiry just to stay relevant in religious classes.

You are the one that needs to stay open minded and stop filling gaps left by ignorance with absurd superstitions and primitive assumptions cool

that you do not know means you don't and is a call to study not fill up with a dogmatic assumption.. smiley

4 Likes 2 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by taurus25(m): 5:01pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukasBlog:
2. Man emulates nature but fails to admit nature was indeed designed .

1. RoboScorpion vs Scorpion

2. Robodog vs Dog

3. Artificial neuron vs human neuron

4. Man's arm vs Robot's arm

The former is described as intelligently designed but not the latter Do you see why atheism is irrational and the atheists need to understand the Logic of God and EVERYTHING ?
in biomimetics man studies nature and immitates various aspects of nature in order to solve complex issues.......

it is very well known that living organisms has evolved well adapted features to suit its environment.
take for example a poke from a mosquito probosis is fairly painless because the mosquito probosis is highly serated and touches less area of the skin as oposed the smooth surface of a needle, as a result researchers developed a serated hypordemic needle that touches less area of the skin and thus cause less pain.

now, was the mosquito probosis always that way??

see , man is intelligent. in our study of nature we have seen highly adapted features due to long years of evolutionary modifications ,and therefore we copy nature to make our lives better

4 Likes 2 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by CoolUsername: 5:04pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:



For the umpteenth time , to the observer processes can be random or chaotic but not necessarily same to the designer . This is the same argument atheists bring up everywhere . Na wa oo !

And again , processes can be designed to be random and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

Smh . Try harder


Let's look at potholes on Nigerian roads for example, they are caused by gradual wear and tear from the tyres of vehicles and are made worse by rain.

So from your argument here is it safe to say that God designed those potholes? Y'know, those things that cause accidents all the time.
Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 5:06pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:



For the umpteenth time , to the observer processes can be random or chaotic but not necessarily same to the designer . This is the same argument atheists bring up everywhere . Na wa oo !

And again , processes can be designed to be random and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

Smh . Try harder

Hahahahahaha we have seen natural manifestations are not the folktales found in your religious books of creating Stars four days after earth. grin

We have see natural manifestations are not factory settings of a freaky humanoid immeasurable, imperceivable but a subject of human emotions and mind.

Natural interactions as i have explained times and again with the most basic fundamental particles strings do not run as a programme..

Randomness and spookiness of nature pays homage to the unplanned manifestations of it's mechanism in relation to the bits of nature factors in the board.

Energy as a universal value has never shown to be a creatable value so if that is so there is no need for your "god hypothesis"

you can find somewhere else to place it.. grin

try again? wink

1 Like 1 Share

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 5:07pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


.."Gods did it" is never a placeholder for ignorance in modern science, first nobody knew exactly the mechanisms of simple celestial movements..

Ptolemy invoked intelligent design, a deity to explain the immerse depth of what he could comprehend and what was elusive to him : “I know that I am mortal by nature and ephemeral. But when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of
the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch the earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus myself and drink my fill of ambrosia.”

He invoked zeus because he was at the limits of his knowledge..

Even Newton did same when at the limit of his knowledge in explanations concerning celestial motions and orbits... His calculations has reached a limited point.

Pierre-Simon Laplace went beyond what Newton knew, travelled beyond's newtons limit in his work of celestial mechanisms.

and when asked "where does God(s) fit it?" he simply answered "i have no need of that hypothesis"

That was because he has broken the limit, the barrier Newton and Ptolemy were limited by..

Newton and Ptolemy reached the highest point of their knowledge, they were confronted by their ignorance and then invoked "god did it" as a placeholder for their ignorance.

Laplace shattered that and provided a more reasonable intel on how things were and God(s) were discarded in explanation of celestial motions.

Man does not know "how something is" yet is not a call to be filled by assumptive gods .. (those gods too even though products of assumptions becomes a subject of question and evidently cannot be measured becomes complete bogus)

Reaching the limit of your ignorance is never a call to invoke gods and fill up the gap left by your ignorance with it.

If you are only going to be placing your "god" only at the limit of scientific knowledge then surely as it has been shown through out history your god(s) will forever remain an ever receding factor in the face of scientific discoveries.

It will continue to be discarded and continue to be moved to the next level of human enquiry just to stay relevant in religious classes.

You are the one that needs to stay open minded and stop filling gaps left by ignorance with absurd superstitions and primitive assumptions cool

that you do not know means you don't and is a call to study not fill up with a dogmatic assumption.. smiley

Bro .. how is it ignorance ? Acknowledging the efforts of a creator is not ignorance . Stop yarning dust ma guy .
Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 5:10pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


Bro .. how is it ignorance ? Acknowledging the efforts of a creator is not ignorance . Stop yarning dust ma guy .

Read the post again grin

filling up a gap left by your ignorance with "god did it" is a ridiculous way of solving problems and it is detrimental to human intellectual development.

"I don't know how that happened, Uuhm God did it".. grin

The only way to know is to actually study and remove variables that doesn't fit from the equation..

Man does not know the origin of the cosmos is a call to study not fill up with the ridiculous appeal to ignorance ..

If you are only going to be placing your "god" only at the limit of scientific
knowledge then surely as it has been shown through out history your god
(s) will forever remain an ever receding factor in the face of scientific
discoveries.

It will continue to be discarded and continue to be moved to the next level
of human enquiry just to stay relevant in religious classes.


You may find places to place your Gods hypothesis but when it comes to the limits of human knowledge as regards the cosmos such hypothesis is not needed and such appeal to ignorance is vague to study.

Read the post again cool

1 Like 2 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 5:16pm On Mar 13, 2016
johnydon22:


Hahahahahaha we have seen natural manifestations are not the folktales found in your religious books of creating Stars four days after earth. grin

We have see natural manifestations are not factory settings of a freaky humanoid immeasurable, imperceivable but a subject of human emotions and mind.

Natural interactions as i have explained times and again with the most basic fundamental particles strings do not run as a programme..

Randomness and spookiness of nature pays homage to the unplanned manifestations of it's mechanism in relation to the bits of nature factors in the board.

Energy as a universal value has never shown to be a creatable value so if that is so there is no need for your "god hypothesis"

you can find somewhere else to place it.. grin

try again? wink

Why are you so good at circumlocution . You need to be commended . I think you fully understand the argument but somehow , just somehow you use too many words with the purpose of evasion .

Like I said , which apparently you have not refuted :

1. Processes can be designed to be random and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

2. An observer can see processes as random , chaotic even violent , as you put it (lolz) but not necessarily to the designer .

I think these are arguments you need excogitate on then present cogent rebuttals
Re: The Atheists Test by KingEbukaNaija: 5:20pm On Mar 13, 2016
taurus25:

in biomimetics man studies nature and immitates various aspects of nature in order to solve complex issues.......

it is very well known that living organisms has evolved well adapted features to suit its environment.
take for example a poke from a mosquito probosis is fairly painless because the mosquito probosis is highly serated and touches less area of the skin as oposed the smooth surface of a needle, as a result researchers developed a serated hypordemic needle that touches less area of the skin and thus cause less pain.

now, was the mosquito probosis always that way??

see , man is intelligent. in our study of nature we have seen highly adapted features due to long years of evolutionary modifications ,and therefore we copy nature to make our lives better




This is a non sequitur to what I posted . I doubt you understand the argument .
Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 5:26pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


Why are you so good at circumlocution . You need to be commended . I think you fully understand the argument but somehow , just somehow you use too many words with the purpose of evasion .

Like I said , which apparently you have not refuted :

1. Processes can be designed to be random and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

The desired result of this supposed creator is for the universe to reach a catastrophic end?

From every cosmological knowledge the universe has only one fate A violent end This design is so random that it brews a recipe for disaster .

what a design, Neil Degress Tyson calls that The stupi_d design hypothesis

Face it the universe remains not only random but imprecise, spooky and flat out shows no evidence of an intelligent mechanics is needed...


2. An observer can see processes as random , chaotic even violent , as you put it (lolz) but not necessarily to the designer .

I think these are arguments you need excogitate on then present cogent rebuttals

..The last clutch to stick on to the stupi_d design hypothesis grin

Since the universe remains a random event of chain reactions it shows it is not a catalogued plan of a super complex intelligent plot but unsuspecting natural parts reacting to distinct vibrations of string compositions.

If you are only going to be placing your "god" only at the limit of scientific
knowledge then surely as it has been shown through out history your god
(s) will forever remain an ever receding factor in the face of scientific
discoveries.

It will continue to be discarded and continue to be moved to the next level
of human enquiry just to stay relevant in religious classes.


again Your "gods" may fit in sunday school classes but never in a science classroom.. Gain a better argument ..

Try again wink

2 Likes 2 Shares

Re: The Atheists Test by johnydon22(m): 5:27pm On Mar 13, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


This is a non sequitur to what I posted . I doubt you understand the argument .

Classical evasive tactics that has become very cliche and boring, we have heard that evasive line countless times ... You can do better .. grin

1 Like 1 Share

(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (Reply)

Can Drinking Alcohol Stop A Genuine Born Again; From Making It To Heaven? / Is It Compulsory For Me To Pay Tithe As A Student From My Small Allowance? / Five Nigerians Emerge As Richest Pastors In Africa - Forbes

(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. 141
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.