Is there any evidence of Okupe actually saying this? When did he say this and where?

Moh247:


Yes, and I don't claim on National TV to meet my past seniors or Brag about their football matches we lost without the said senior even as a 6 year old primary school pupil

We couldn’t have played football in CKC without Odili. Anyday he’s not in the match, we have lost.

I don't see the problem here. Consider this statement.

Arsenal fan: "We couldn't have played football in the premier league without Thierry Henry. Anyday he’s not in the match, we have lost"

Nobody who is not trying to be mischievous would interpret this to mean that the Arsenal fan is claiming to have played football with Henry.

Another example:

Nigerian market woman: "We couldn't have played football in the World cup without Kanu Nwankwo. Anyday he’s not in the match, we have lost"

Nobody who is not trying to be mischievous would interpret this to mean that the Market woman is claiming to have played football with Kanu.

Please let's stop being dishonest.

...

I SEE AND i LIKE. . . . AND I WISH I WASN'T SO CHOKED UP WITH WORK. Anyway Godspeed. Lemme just follow the thread.

Joshthefirst:
Hey Anony. Long time no see. My home is in Enugu but I'm currently in school. I was in Enugu on the 13th. Looks like I missed a meet up opportunity. Smh

You dey PH? Correct. No time zone difference. We can play any evening you're free

Woooow! I would never have pegged you down for an 042 man. Here's my email address: dibsdadon@yahoo.com. Give me a shout asap.

johnydon22:


Same Venue and time?

Yes. Same venue, same time.

sonofluc1fer:


Back in the country, PH to be exact.

Ah cool cool, we should link up soon. Is your Indian number still your number for whatsapp?

Just a few things to correct

Logicbwoy:
An atheist constructs a robot that can think logically. The atheist then chooses to have a philosophical conversation with the robot;

Ok

Mr Stein; I suppose robots are atheists since they are logical beings.

Wrong. Atheists are not necessarily logical beings. Having an opinion about the existence of God doesn't magically inject logic into one's being.

Robot; Well, you created me, and so, it is possible a creator created you.

Yes it is possible but it doesn't follow.

Mr Stein; That is faulty because I am not like you. I am biological and you are not. You can be built again, while I cannot, for I was born organically and will live only once.

Being a biological being doesn't make Mr Stein impossible to have been created.

Robot; You cannot prove that you cannot be built. We are both made of of chemicals and atoms are we not? Just as you can create me from steel, there could be a greater creator that can create from flesh.

Exactly

Mr Stein; But there is no evidence for such a creator that can create human beings.

The evidence is right there in the specified complexity of the being.

Robot; But what if you created me and left me alone before I became conscious? What if you dumped me on an empty planet before I became conscious? I would be arguing that I have no creator, just like you are doing.

The Robot would be wrong to make this argument. All he has to do is look at how his complex parts have been specifically combined such that he functions.

Mr. Stein; Interesting. But when you study yourself, you would find that you are not organic. That you have been created.....

"Organic" has nothing to do with whether a thing is created or not.

Robot; What if I told you that I feel organic? That I feel natural? After all, steel is from the earth, is it not? what if one day, man can learn to merge steel and flesh? After all, there is a movie call transformers that shows that man has already dreamt this dream

Yeah what if whatever this robot is talking about here?

Mr Stein; Dreams, eh? But isn't that what God is? Dreams and fantasy. Things that one can never prove.......

Here Mr Stein upon failing to answer his robot, resorts to his preconceived assumption that God must be a dream/fantasy.


Hello Logicboy.

johnydon22:


Hello brother

How did the "Biafra, yes or No" debate go?

I'm sorry i didn't make it, a lot of things came up at work. . . Please send me the date and topic of the next meet up so i can check of i'll be there.

Oh it went well actually.

The next meetup happens to be tomorrow evening incidentally. Topic is "Is It Ethical To Genetically Modify Our Children?"

It will be nice to have you around if you can make it.

sonofluc1fer:
Hi anony, muskeeto here

What's up Muskeeto? Interesting new username there. I see you've fully gone over to the dark side.

Are you back in the country now or still in India?

Hi everyone,

It's been ages. Sadly these days I hardly have the time to show up on NL. Anyways, since my days of being active on NL, I've moved back to Nigeria and I now live in Enugu.

I'm looking to link up with Nairalanders on this Religion forum who are in Enugu and who would love to hang out and discuss a little theology/philosophy.

If this is you, let me know on this thread and we can arrange a meet-up.

Cheers y'all.

Kay17:


Wikipedia.



Dictionary.com



Complex means composed of interconnected parts. So system covers both complex and functional. Now mountains and the watery cycle can be identified not just as a whole but divided into parts which work together. A river feeds the ocean which in turn feeds the river and its source via evaporation. A mountain similarly is naturally forged from multiple bits, it stands on a foundation etc

No sir, complex systems are not necessarily functional.

A goat for instance is a complex system with specific interconnected parts such as legs, ears, eyes, a brain e.t.c. each of these parts are distinct and specifically work together in such a way that they are functional.

e.g. the goat's eye's function is sight, and it is specifically located and connected in such a way that it performs this function quite well. i.e. it is not located inside the intestine for instance where it wouldn't be able to function properly.
Similarly, the goat's legs are for specifically connected and located so that they can perform the function of movement. The same can be said for all the other parts of the goat.

A goat is not merely a complex system, it is a complex FUNCTIONAL system.

Now please can you tell me...

1. How exactly are Mountain ranges and Rift valleys complex, functional and a system?
2. How exactly are a rivers and their tributaries complex, functional and a system?
3. How exactly is forestation complex, functional and a system?
4. How exactly is Continental drift complex, functional and a system?
5. How exactly are Cloud formations, movement and dissipations. complex, functional and a system?

Kay17:


Maybe "natural"

"Natural" doesn't work as well as "accident" when trying to contrast against "intelligent design". especially when the question is whether Natural processes suggest intelligence. To use the word "natural" as in Whether goats originate naturally as opposed to by intelligent design begs the question as it assumes one of the positions that it is required to prove.

Thanks for your suggestion anyway, but I'll stick with the original phrasing.

plaetton:


Yes.
Plenty.

Cloud formations, movement and dissipations.

Mountain ranges and Rifft valleys.

Rivers and their Tributaries.

Forestations.

Continental drift.


These are all complex functional systems whose origins are underpinned by random chaotic events.

I see,

1. How exactly are Mountain ranges and Rift valleys complex, functional and a system?
2. How exactly are a rivers and their tributaries complex, functional and a system?
3. How exactly is forestation complex, functional and a system?
4. How exactly is Continental drift complex, functional and a system?
5. How exactly are Cloud formations, movement and dissipations. complex, functional and a system?

Kay17:
Mranony1


Is Nature intelligent? I would presume intelligence is a preserve of life. Only living things are capable of intelligence in all of human experience.

Are goats a consequence of happy accidents? What is an accident other than unplanned undesirable unintended consequences. Unplanned and unintended by whom?! Now if you notice keenly, the language which you use poisons your thoughts. If you consider events within Nature as unintended or unplanned, you are implicitly suggesting an intelligent designer whose plans have gone AWOL.

When you remove words like happy accidents, you tend to see better.

Erhm...what word would you rather have me use in place of "accident"?

Scholar8200:

Apologies to the op, I am not an expert here.

However, I see nature as the response of all Creation to the ordinances/laws set by the Creator with respect to changes in the Divine order of creation, after the fall.

If it were all energies , chaos and then order, whence the perfectly reasonable and constant laws (eg Gravity)? Who set those laws?

(You mentioned the Goat? I believe those animals underscore the fact of a Creator! Why? If man evolved from Apes, I would have expected that Apes, NOT Goats, would have a goatee!)

I think I agree with what I think is the spirit of what you are saying. Thanks for replying.

CoolUsername:


There are no eyewitness testimonies in this matter, we don't live for millions of years. What we do have is a crime scene of what happened, and scientists piece the case with available evidence. And you see, eyewitness testimonies are in no way superior to inferences. DNA sampling, has helped to exonerate hundreds of condemned murderers ever since it was developed. In summary, we don't have to place all the burden on eyewitness testimony when we have logical inference.

Ok so you admit that no observation has occurred only inferences have been made. How do you know that you have made the right inferences?

If complex functional systems have never been observed to begin to exist without intelligent design, then upon what basis do you infer that intelligence was not involved in the origination of any given complex functional system?

Ah, but cells are just products of molecular self-assembly. Self-assembly of lipids and proteins form the cell membrane and DNA material, respectively. No outside interference is necessary.

Molecular self-assembly you say. How can anything that lacks agency possibly assemble itself in a specifically ordered mannaer? Or are you suggesting that molecules have conscious agency?

A scientific theory is pure not speculation, DNA sampling, radioisotope dating, and therefore the entire atomic theory all have to be wrong for the evidence that they bring to be discredited.

But all these theories have been proven to be correct in many different and separate applications. Why do they suddenly have to be wrong in the case of evolution?

I don't have a problem with evolution neither am I arguing against it here.

plaetton:
Nature is not a distinct entity. Rather, nature is a loose generic term we use to describe the END-PRODUCTS of cosmic interactions in our celestial locality.
As such, nature encompasses all cosmic phenomena .

Since we know that all cosmic phenomena are products of chaos, it naturally follows that nature is an offspring of chaos.

Therefore, by simple deductive logic, it is scientifically obvious that Nature, a COMPLEX FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM, is BEGOTTEN, Refueled and continuously Maintained by the perpetual dance of mother ENERGY and father Random CHAOS.

So, nature itself, is the proof that random choas can and do create and evolve complex functional systems.

This basically answers all your questions.

But, my instincts tell me that these answers are just too simplistic for you, considering how you phrased your questions and the made-to-fit answers you're likely looking for.

In case you need more elaboration, I would be happy to oblige you.

However, I would only do so in purely scientific terms, involving complex scientific and mathematical facts ,ideas and theories .

Good to see you again Plaetton.

If as you claim, nature itself is a complex functional system and it is NOT a product of intelligence, what evidence convinces you of this? Are there other examples of complex functional systems that have come to be by random chance whose origin was observed?

PastorAIO:


Again Intelligence is a ill defined term that is often used without much deep thought into what is being said.

The above question presumes that Nature is an entity of which we may say it is intelligent or not. That's my first gripe.

Second gripe, There are actually two distinct things that are given the name intelligence.
1) The ability to perceive distinctions, and the ability to derive (or perceive) generalisations.

2) Intelligence is also used to refer to an entity that has Intention/s.


https://www.nairaland.com/294887/what-intellect-ona-kan-o#4191856

So it follows that when I see the question 'Is Nature Intelligent?', I can also interpret that to mean, 'Are Natural Processes Teleological?'. To which I would answer with a resounding 'Yes'.

I'll accept that answer but still I must ask: How did you arrive at the conclusion that natural processes are teleological? What evidence convinces you of this?

UyiIredia:

In that case, a computer is a good example.

Joshthefirst:
cleanup robots

Many thanks.

CoolUsername:

Let's talk about the evolutionary hypothesis of the eye, the eye started out as a simple photo-sensitive spot, capable of detecting shadows on the body of a microorganism, the second step was an indention of that spot which helped a descendant of the original microorganism detect the direction of light, step three was the partial closing of that indentation to form a rudimentary pinhole, to produce images, while the final involves the formation of a lens.

This shows how series of beneficial genetic mutations in a population, could have been preserved over time through natural selection (eyes help to detect predators) and refined into what we know today.

This hypothesis is solid because there is a known organism for each evolutionary 'step' that was talked about.

Thanks for replying to my questions I have a few things I would like to point out though....

1. Who observed this process take place? Can you provide any evidence that this is actually how the eye came to exist and not merely someone's guess?

2. The most basic micro-organisms from which you kick off your argument are already complex functional systems themselves. You were asked to show how a complex functional system could come from base elements without intelligence. I didn't ask you to show how a complex functional system can become a more complex functional system.

3. I don't think it is good scientific practice to propound theories when no actual observations have been made. Yes, the eye could well have evolved exactly the way that you claim it did but this remains pure speculation unless the process has actually been observed.

So once again, I'll restate my question highlighting the parts I need you to pay attention to...

"If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats (or eyes) came by a series of happy accidents acting upon non-living base elements over a very long period of time, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist without intelligence?"

FOLYKAZE:


Complex functional systems only exist in our thought. The system is what it is. . .vibrations and frequencies.

Thought is simply a relation of matter with matter, and is neither different nor superior to the hurtling of atoms against each other. This is a shock of material imparts creating vibration and reactions to matter. I see nothing complex in this than our mind making a mountain from nothing. The complexity is illusion.

An illusion by definition is something that is not real. How can complex functional systems only exist in thought when the very thing that makes thought possible (i.e. the brain) is a complex functional system?

Joshthefirst:

I believe nature is simply the sum total of the physical structures and processes occuring around us, living and non-living. I do not believe 'nature' is conscious or intelligent or capable of moving up in complexity and functional improvement through blind 'random processes'

Of course I give ID as an explanation for goats.

I give an example of the man-made robots made by various japanese tech groups that are currently helping clear out the nuclear zone in fukushima after the 2011 meltdown as an example of complex functional systems that came to exist with intelligence.




(waiting for someone to give a complex functional system that nature came up with.


tag:tufanja, ishilove, yourmain

Good to see you again bro. I agree with you but please can you post a link on the robots you are talking about?

@Reyginus, I hail thee!

FOLYKAZE:
On a short note, nature is the phenomena of material existence. This is include the sum of power, properties, the cause (birth) and essense of an existence.


As per if Nature is intelligent has to do with how we define intelligence. Intelligence has to do with salience and capacity of reasoning things out. . .and in particular, there is need for a brain. There is no evidence to show that nature is intelligent.

Thanks for your response. Please could you continue by answering the questions following i.e. If nature is not intelligent, then how do you explain the existence of complex functional systems such as are goats?

UyiIredia:
@ MrAnony1 You can't expect a good answer form evolution-loving atheists who exist on the intellectual low ground. In any case, I believe nature was intelligently designed and when we see man making many coded digital devices that use codes like life does and make machines with lots of interacting parts we are seeing man make complex functional systems similar to life.

While I agree with you, I must press you further to name a specific example of a man-made complex functional system.

emrain:
Nature is what scientists define as energy;

it is a property of objects that cannot be created or destroyed, but can only be converted or transform from one form to another.

Goat is a form of energy, same as maggots.

Nature's(energy) transformation can be random or influenced by several external forces... Researchs are still been carried out on this subject be patient.

Ok I see.

Hi everyone, been a while. (Free time seems inversely proportional to age these days....or is it a bell curve? Lol)

Anyway, I have a question to ask. I keep hearing people appeal to nature as an explanation for complexities that they find in the operation and function of non-manmade things. So my question is:

1. What is Nature exactly?

2. Is Nature intelligent, such that it can deliberately create a complex functional system such as is a living goat?

3. If Nature is not intelligent then how do we explain the existence of goats?

4. If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats came by a series of happy accidents acting upon non-living base elements over a very long period of time, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist without intelligence?

5. If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats came by intelligent design, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist with intelligence?

6. If you think that the two explanations are equally plausible i.e. complex functional systems such as is a goat can come about either by a series of accidental co-incidences or by intelligent action, then how do you consistently identify and differentiate between that which has been designed and that which hasn't been designed? Or do you think that it is impossible to make this classification just by observing the product.


P/s: I will only respond to genuine and serious replies to the thread. I WILL NOT respond if your answer contains mockery, blasphemy, or use of foul language.
I want the conversation to be strictly about what Nature means and whether there is evidence of intelligence in the creation of natural things or not. Any replies that have nothing to do with the questions in this topic will be ignored.

Cheers

.

Kay17:
More or less

If that is the case, then you haven't answered my question in any meaningful sense.

This was my question: What reasons do you have that convinced you that the universe is not designed despite the fact that it appears designed to you?

First of, to say that because we don't know what design constraints the physical laws have shows that the universe isn't designed is absurd mainly because design constraints are not a necessary component of design rather they are external things that inspire amendments to an already conceptualized design.

Secondly, even if I was to assume (though I am not) that the fact that we don't know the design constraints of physical laws shows that it is undesigned, the fact still remains (and you admit this fact) that fishes, trees, planets, galaxies, supernovas e.t.c. appear designed and equally have the universe as their platform and the physical laws as their constraints just like human designed things such as aeroplanes, houses, oil rigs e.t.c.

So seeing that they both appear designed, they both operate on the same platform and they both have the same physical constraints, what then specifically is this distinction that should make us believe that one category is designed while the other isn't?

Kay17:


I will answer both A and B together. Sorry for the long delay, do manage to relate it with the entire thread.

I think the Universe is governed by physical laws which are made known by observation. Our observation could be wrong at times but we understand that there is a systemic regularity in the manner things are run in the Universe. We are so adapted to regularity that we hardly question it. The common regularity and arrangement we find in the Universe is imposed by the physical laws, and all structural complexities and causalities are governed by it. By structural complexities, that includes man-made complexities as well as complexities we see about. And like Uyi and Davidylan who are able to see the commonality between man-made complexities and complexities we see about, I see that structural complexity binding both.

Now, Uyi and Davidlyan both think that we can extrapolate the workings and displays of human intelligence to the Universe, because both seem to have a defined structure. And to them, all structures require a foresight. There must be a guided anticipation to accomplish the function of the structure. So they argue more or less, that we should find the function and then by reverse engineering find the maker.

But humans exercise their intelligence by understanding the physical laws in the Universe, and modelling their structures to align with them. For example, when humans decided to travel every fast, we realized that there is a way things work and there are rules which we have to follow. We cannot build block cars in our F1 races, rather the cars must be streamlined just as fishes are. Similarly with houses, they function as shelters but they need foundations, weight bearing standards etc. Maybe that is why magic does not work.

In another way, the Universe is a platform for human designs. So the Universe is actually influencing our designs and not the other way round. So all extrapolations made regarding the Universe with human designs are wrong. So also, to find the Universe designed, you have to seek for another platform upon whose rules the Universe was designed to align with.

The obvious question you will ask, the origin of physical laws, and to be sincere I have thought about it but i can only speculate.

I have read and reread your answer. It seems to me that while you agree that the physical laws governing the universe show enough structural complexity to suggest design, your argument is that for us to properly assume design we must first explain what design constraints these physical laws are based upon since our designs are based on these physical laws.

Have I represented your position accurately? Please correct me if I haven't or if I've overlooked anything.

thehomer:


I will when you tell me what your point is besides the definition of words.

My point is that you are contradicting yourself. Now can you explain how two things that (according to you) have the same definition are different?

Again, what exactly is your point beyond word definitions? You've still not said what your point is.

Evasion number 7: What are you so afraid of?

Since you claim that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs, then please what are these physical properties of what you are experiencing that inform you it is hunger when the hunger pangs are absent? Or is the hunger you are experiencing non-physical?

Can you please answer my question and stop dodging?

I understand what I'm saying and you've just said length isn't a physical property. Is length then non-physical?

Another lie. Please show where I said that length isn't a physical property?

You were the one who said that hunger pangs are a physical property of hunger and that length are a physical property of hunger pangs. So please explain to us how exactly you aren't saying that a physical property has a physical property.

Okay. Am I to take this as meaning that there are no physical properties of what we perceive?

How did you get that from what I just explained to you?

No hunger is not matter but it can have some physical effects as I've said before. Please will you answer my question?

If hunger is not matter, how then does it have physical properties? Are you suggesting that there are physical properties that do not describe material things?Also, what question are you referring to?

I know about my mind because I'm conscious. Can you just answer my own questions?

Similarly, I know my hunger because I am conscious. Hunger pangs are an effect of non-physical hunger on the physical body. Again what questions are you referring to?

As usual, I've been answering your questions but you avoid answering mine. I will start enforcing that as part of this exchange.

Osheyy "Mr Enforcer" . Actually it is you who has been dodging my questions, I have pointed out 7 clear instances of you evading my questions (not counting the posts you ignored entirely). Please make sure you answer them meaningfully before you start enforcing whatever it is you want to enforce.