Workch:
The book written by Stephen Meyer is not only largely philosophical but fallacious in that regard

He argued Based on cause and effect to explain intelligent design which will philosophically lead to an infinite regress of infinitesimal causes. He didn’t even provide evidence for this.

Secondly, dude said since we have not found evidence for chemical Evolution, chance is that intelligent design must have occurred. That’s a serious case of fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Because we haven’t find the evidence is not evidence that god did it. You have to find evidence for your “god did it” still.


Thirdly, he did not argue against evolution, you seem not to understand his premise. He argued against abiogenesis, he didn’t say that evolution didn’t occur, he only concluded that the process must have been designed. He’s just an average Christian trying to look for evidence for his conclusions instead of the doing it the other way. You see why he can’t be taken seriously?

so what do you think is the original of the biological information found in the DNA

FreedomArmy:
thanks for the correction.its Stephen Meyer who wrote the book. This guy holds a PhD in the philosophy of science. His argument is consistent with the latest scientific discovery. You cant just dismiss him until you have red the book. He has engaged with notable scientist in the subject of origin of life and looking at his background,you can't just dismiss him. You can also look up his videos on YouTube and listen to his argument.
Signature in the cell by Stephen Meyer. You need to read it

Even in his philosophy, he committed serious fallacies. He’s so funny.

I laugh whenever I remember him and his argument.

How can you fill the gaps with intelligent design because chemical evolution hasn’t been proven? You are filling the gaps of an ideology that hasn’t been proven with another one that hasn’t been proven. Doesn’t make sense. That’s wack philosophy

kingxsamz:


Why didn't you people control the spiritual to prevent Buhari from becoming president?

It has to do with the individual and your purpose in life. Everything has its purpose and destiny.
Mind you, our collective spirituality is what is sustaining this nation till now.

FreedomArmy:
so what do you think is the original of the biological information found in the DNA

I don’t know, we don’t have evidence for it yet, we only have hypothesis called abiogenesis and panspermia.
What we have evidence for is that evolution occurred and every living thing on earth share common ancestry.

It’s better to have questions that has not been answered than have answers that cannot be questioned. Religion provide answers that cannot be questioned, that’s not a good way to learn.

FreedomArmy:
google signature in the cell by Stephen Meyer. Read it and see his argument against the theory of evolution. You must not be an atheist just because you didn't have everything clear.
I have also red quantum physics and came to understand that at the base level,we all are made of discrete particles not different from one another. Infact it seems as if we are in a digital simulation.

This reveals the awesomeness of God. Who else can cause it to be, except God.

Workch:
I have faith that unicorns exist.

How do you intend verifying that?

Have faith in God and that God exists. The word of God is true.
Demons are real, I hope you know

Iyasaburi:


Have faith in God and that God exists. The word of God is true.
Demons are real, I hope you know

There is no method to verify what you are saying is true, same way you can’t tell me that unicorns don’t exist because I believe they exist by faith.

Just like one of my lecturers that did his doctorate degree abroad, he came back home as an atheist.

You learnt about Big Bang, theory of relativity after graduation?

Omo! It shows why a lot of people are really ignorant. I learnt about theory of evolution and big bang theory as a senior secondary student.

Heroes, a movie series really helped in that regard. Of course, you can't learn these theories and remain thesame knowledge wise.

Workch:
There is no method to verify what you are saying is true, same way you can’t tell me that unicorns don’t exist because I believe they exist by faith.

It seems you are a follower of the pink invisible unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster.

All these atheists sha.

Karleb:


It seems you are a follower of the pink invisible unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster.

All these atheists sha.

how else can we show our religious folks how Russel’s teapot works?

Iyasaburi:


It has to do with the individual and your purpose in life. Everything has its purpose and destiny.
Mind you, our collective spirituality is what is sustaining this nation till now.

Perhaps you should write your first sentence in a term everyone would understand.
Also, the country is worse than it was 60 years ago. Where has the spirituality gotten us?

Karleb:
Just like one of my lecturers that did his doctorate degree abroad, he came back home as an atheist.

You learnt about Big Bang, theory of relativity after graduation?

Omo! It shows why a lot of people are really ignorant. I learnt about theory of evolution and big bang theory as a senior secondary student.

Heroes, a movie series really helped in that regard. Of course, you can't learn these theories and remain thesame knowledge wise.

I didn’t learn much in school seriously, Nigerian schools are almost useless in sciences.

I learnt most of the things I know after I graduated, of course with the basics I got as a graduate of biochemistry with strong knowledge in chemistry.

Workch:
I don’t know, we don’t have evidence for it yet, we only have hypothesis called abiogenesis and panspermia.
What we have evidence for is that evolution occurred and every living thing on earth share common ancestry.

It’s better to have questions that has not been answered than have answers that cannot be questioned. Religion provide answers that cannot be questioned, that’s not a good way to learn.

do you know that all we know about life from the study of science is from less than a 5% sample? Scientist talk like they have done a wholistic study of everything and come to a conclusion. The truth is that the theory of evolution is like a religion in the scientific community and everyone who wants acceptance must conform.
Please what is the evidence of a common ancestry to all biological organism?

Iyasaburi:


It is faith, my brother. You only believe! Our lives doesn't ends here. Be humble!

Then no point trying to defend it.

FreedomArmy:
do you know that all we know about life from the study of science is from less than a 5% sample? Scientist talk like they have done a wholistic study of everything and come to a conclusion. The truth is that the theory of evolution is like a religion in the scientific community and everyone who wants acceptance must conform.
Please what is the evidence of a common ancestry to all biological organism?

Dude, we don’t know and we are not ashamed of saying we don’t know but one thing we know is that science has provided more answers than religion and because we don’t know it today doesn’t mean we won’t find out tomorrow, we have always proven this. Religion always want to answer all questions with one unquestionable answer of “god did it”. Which is unacceptable

Evolution is not religion, it works and has been applied in various fields of science. I am confident that you don’t understand the topic like every typical person hence you comment.

Without theory of evolution, we can’t research new antibiotic molecules. I’m saying this as a clinical Biochemist.

Without theory of evolution, no organisms will exist today. All would have been extinct.

If you still do not understand how it works, I can run you through it.

Workch:
Dude, we don’t know and we are not ashamed of saying we don’t know but one thing we know is that science has provided more answers than religion. Religion always want to answer all questions with one unquestionable answer of “god did it”. Which is unacceptable

Evolution is not religion, it works and has been applied in various fields of science. I am confident that you don’t understand the topic like every typical person hence you comment.

Without theory of evolution, we can’t research now antibiotic molecules. I’m saying this as a clinical Biochemist.

Without theory of evolution, no organisms will exist today. All would have been extinct.

If you still do not understand how it works, I can run you through it.

i do have a knowledge of evolution. Even Darwin didn't have the wholistic data to back it up. You can't make a conclusion from insufficient data and call it it truth. The problem is that any contrary view againt the scientific community accepted standard are met with a stone wall. Stephen Meyer has given his argument using well established scientific method of thought but here you are dismissing him just like others. I am happy that there are well red scientist ( I mean PhD guys who agree with his argument )

To me evolution is just a believe system. There are not enough to call evolution the truth. Infact its still a theory and theories are open for debate.

Workch:
It’s no surprise that I am an atheist, but one thing people don’t know about me is that I was a Christian for 28years. Yes 28years.

I was not just a Christian, I had full membership in my church and was a member of the choir. I was born into a Christian home, we had morning and evening devotions everyday as a child. My dad personally tried indoctrinating us a lot, we read the Bible every single day and then he explains but seriously even as a child a lot of the stories didn’t add up but I was scared that I was being blasphemous.
I remember a day my dad was teaching us about Noah’s flood and then we got to that point where god said he’s using the rainbow as a sign to remind humanity that he would never destroy earth with flood. Even as a 9years old, that part didn’t make sense to me, because I see it in the news frequently of flood destroying farms, properties and even killing people. I asked my dad and he didn’t give me a reasonable explanation.
As a teenager, I started teaching Sunday school to kids in church, I taught them that god never change but in my mind, I wasn’t convinced because while reading the Bible, there many instances of god changing his mind and even regretting his decisions. I always think about it that the god of Old Testament seems different from what is portrayed in the New Testament, something changed. I kept a lot of things to myself because people around were so religious and would quickly rebuke me for such reasoning.
As time goes on, I joined the choir, I learn drums and keyboard, I sang choir ministrations and even wrote songs for my church choir. All these while, it wasn’t clear, I was just scared to come out fully.

I got admitted into the university to study biochemistry. Being someone that is very inquisitive, I started asking so many questions in respect to the relationship between living organisms. After having background knowledge in genetics, molecular biology and biological metabolism, it was clear that every living thing are the same basically. At this point, I didn’t even understand the theory of evolution properly but I had seen the a fairly clear picture. I had to go back and then study the theory of evolution properly (took weeks), because the impression I had from secondary school was that an ape turned into human. Our biology teachers, just like every other biology teachers in Nigerian schools, were so bad at teaching the theory of evolution. Seems like a lot of them didn’t even understand it.

Fast forward, I graduated, I still believed god existed. since after I properly studied the theory of evolution, I started holding the notion that God presided over evolution and the Bible is somehow consistent with the theory of evolution. This idea was born out of the sheer fear of not wanting to sound blasphemous to my beloved ones. After I graduated, I started reading wide, I didn’t like physics in school but I started reading physics (specifically quantum and astrophysics), I discovered about Big Bang theory, theory of relativity, string theory etc, it took a lot of time before I could grasp them but when I did, it became clearer that the Bible is not consistent with anything in reality.

It was difficult for me to accept this truth because I didn’t want to be seen as a blasphemer, not until I had the opportunity to run my masters degree abroad in clinical biochemistry. I met with lot of renown and brilliant people in the field of biochemistry. They were realistic in their beliefs and will not believe anything unless you can back it with evidence. I became bolder with time, we shared ideas as I studied. Th society gives everyone liberty and I was very free to come out clean with my realistic traits. A lot of my lecturers didn’t believe in god. I became a full fledged atheist in Europe by the time I finished my program.


Today, I have done several works and I still keep reading to find the truth, so far I haven’t seen anything consistent with the Christian God. I am back in Nigeria and trust me, I don’t have lot of friends for this reason. I have just two friends and they are both agnostic ( I made them agnostic because they are open minded and also brilliant Phd holders in biochemistry).

So they converted you into atheism religion abi? Sorry to tell you that you are still not free from religion. Science is a religion and the scientific method with a little bit of arrogance is the god.

Enceladus:


So they converted you into atheism religion abi? Sorry to tell you that you are still not free from religion. Science is a religion and the scientific method with a little bit of arrogance is the god.

Define religion?

Workch:
Define religion?

A system of faith.

And please don't add in a superhuman being.

FreedomArmy:
do you know that all we know about life from the study of science is from less than a 5% sample? Scientist talk like they have done a wholistic study of everything and come to a conclusion. The truth is that the theory of evolution is like a religion in the scientific community and everyone who wants acceptance must conform.
Please what is the evidence of a common ancestry to all biological organism?

To answer your question on the evidence of common ancestry to all biological organisms.

Isolate a neuronal cell from a human and rat, a phloem parenchyma from plant, an euglena and any algae. Give them glucose sugar and monitor their metabolism. It’s will be exactly the same until We get to the stage where Phosphoenolpyruvic acid is been converted to pyruvic acid.

Why is it the same?
The answer is in the genetic make up, go there and identify the genes responsible for the identical metabolic pathway, they are variations from commons sources. These genes will still bear the common marker in all the cells.

The identity can also been seen in gene replications, protein synthesis and gene transcriptions. Whenever we go back to check the genes responsible for these metabolic processes, we discover that they are all identical in every organisms hence the statement “ all livingthings are the same at the molecular level”

FreedomArmy:
i do have a knowledge of evolution. Even Darwin didn't have the wholistic data to back it up. You can't make a conclusion from insufficient data and call it it truth. The problem is that any contrary view againt the scientific community accepted standard are met with a stone wall. Stephen Meyer has given his argument using well established scientific method of thought but here you are dismissing him just like others. I am happy that there are well red scientist ( I mean PhD guys who agree with his argument )

To me evolution is just a believe system. There are not enough to call evolution the truth. Infact its still a theory and theories are open for debate.

This is an eyesore!

Evolution is not a belief system. Science is not a belief system!

No one calls evolution "the truth". Only Oversabi religious people like you do.

Darwin wasn't the first scientist to work on what we know as the theory of evolution. His work also wasn't perfect, that's why we have the modern theory of evolution.


Even though atheists like to use theory of evolution and similar scientific theories to negate religious beliefs and religious people do otherwise, scientific theories and religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive if you think about it.

You can be a pastor and still be a doctor and do well at both. You people should stop seeing scientific theories as work of the devil.

Enceladus:


A system of faith.

And please don't add in a superhuman being.

its not compulsory to have a deity in religion but you have adulterated the definition as a result of your mischief.

The most important quality of any religion is to hold dogmas. Dogmas are beliefs that cannot be changed even when you present overwhelming evidence.

The moment you organize yourself to hold infallible dogmas, you become a religion and that’s not the case in science. Everything is fallible as long as you provide new evidence.


You ended up committing a fallacy of Tu quoque, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior as being inconsistent with the argument's conclusion(s). It’s also called the “you also” fallacy.


You guys should realize that we have had this debate time without numbers, we can predict every move of an insecure religious person.

FreedomArmy:
i do have a knowledge of evolution. Even Darwin didn't have the wholistic data to back it up. You can't make a conclusion from insufficient data and call it it truth. The problem is that any contrary view againt the scientific community accepted standard are met with a stone wall. Stephen Meyer has given his argument using well established scientific method of thought but here you are dismissing him just like others. I am happy that there are well red scientist ( I mean PhD guys who agree with his argument )

To me evolution is just a believe system. There are not enough to call evolution the truth. Infact its still a theory and theories are open for debate.

I doubt you have any knowledge on evolution, else you would have known that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been updated and very much complete for now. If you can drop your ego, I can teach you how it works.

Darwin’s theory or evolution was based on only natural selection but that’s outdated and has been updated since the discovery of DNA by Watson and crick to the modern synthetic of evolution. You are holding old information.


The modern theory of evolution is what is invoke since about 60years. It comprises evolution by variations, natural selections and mutations.

We have a newer model called integral model established in 2012, we have been updating. That’s how science works, you have update unlike religion.

Stephen Meyer is not a scientist, he’s a philosopher of science and he didn’t give any scientific method. He stated clearly in his book that we isn’t a scientist ( I doubt you even understand the book) and doesn’t have any method to back his claim however he’s arguing from a logical point.

My friend, it’s always better to say you don’t understand than hold sciolistic views on matters. You can never learn as a sciolist.

Sometimes I shudder at how most Nigerians believe those stories in the bible and qur'an hook, line and sinker!

As a matter of fact, biblical stories and religious tales never made sense to me right from childhood. I could remember having troubles with my mum those days, to the point she started calling me "the devil of the house" just because I never followed their religious bandwagon.

Nigeria and Africa would have been so great if not for the restrictions placed on our great minds by religion.

Workch:
its not compulsory to have a deity in religion but you have adulterated the definition as a result of your mischief.

The most important quality of any religion is the to hold dogmas. Dogmas are belief that cannot be changed even when you present overwhelming evidence.

The moment you organize yourself to hold infallible dogmas, you become a religion and that’s not the case in science. Everything is fallible as long as you provide new evidence.


You ended of committing a fallacy of Tu quoque, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior as being inconsistent with the argument's conclusion(s). It’s also called the “you also” fallacy.


You guys should realize that we have had this debate time without numbers, we can predict every move of an insecure religious person.

First, this is not a philosophical debate and I also laugh really hard at people forming atheism. Being there, done that.

I will only talk about the bolded because that is where you started getting things wrong. One thing you should know is religion creation most times is not a conscious effort. Carl Sagan once said Religions arose in part as attempts to propitiate and control, if not much to understand, the disorderly aspect of Nature.

I am not here to argue with you about religion. I don't belong to one. Though I have massive knowledge about the one's that interests me including the science religion.

Enceladus:


First, this is not a philosophical debate and I also laugh really hard at people forming atheism. Being there, done that.

I will only talk about the bolded because that is where you started getting things wrong. One thing you should know is religion creation most times is not a conscious effort. Carl Sagan once said Religions arose in part as attempts to propitiate and control, if not much to understand, the disorderly aspect of Nature.

I am not here to argue with you about religion. I don't belong to one. Though I have massive knowledge about the one's that interests me including the science religion.

so we should believe you because you quoted Carl Sagan’s opinion on religion?

That’s another fallacy, fallacy of appealing to authority.

Mention any religion that doesn’t hold infallible dogmas, I will wait.

Science is a religion is strictly your opinion and it’s not true.

Workch:
so we should believe you because you quoted Carl Sagan’s opinion on religion?

That’s another fallacy, fallacy of appealing to authority.

Mention any religion that doesn’t hold infallible dogmas, I will wait.

Science is a religion is strictly your opinion and it’s not true.

Fallacy this fallacy that. The world is literally built on fallacy if you don't know. E = mc² is a fallacy btw so stop whining about fallacy.

Also the only response you could give to my claim was that it has this and that dogma characteristics. Is that not a fallacy.

Anyways, I am not interested in this round-robin debate because it is leading nowhere.

Enceladus:


Fallacy this fallacy that. The world is literally built on fallacy if you don't know. E = mc² is a fallacy btw so stop whining about fallacy.

Also the only response you could give to my claim was that it has this and that dogma characteristics. Is that not a fallacy.

Anyways, I am not interested in this round-robin debate because it is leading nowhere.

What kind of fallacy is E=MC ^2?

Saying the world is built on fallacy is also a fallacy. But first, explain to me how theory of relativity is fallacious?

Workch:


But first, explain to me how theory of relativity is fallacious?

What kind of fallacy is E=MC ^2?

I will leave that to you to read on that. Reading about special relativity and why c's current value was assumed will help you get to the fact.

Saying the world is built on fallacy is also a fallacy.

I am referring to why everything in the world is literally built upon e=mc² .

Enceladus:


What kind of fallacy is E=MC ^2?

I will leave that to you to read on that. Reading about special relativity and why c's current value was assumed will help you get to the fact.

Saying the world is built on fallacy is also a fallacy.

I am referring to why everything in the world is literally built upon e=mc² .

Wow, you think think C current value was assumed?
Are you kidding me? Why do you lot have peripheral knowledge on stuffs and never want to dig deep?

Workch:
Wow, you think think C current value was assumed?
Are you kidding me? Why do you lot have peripheral knowledge on stuffs and never want to dig deep?

Is the current C the speed of light on a one-way trip or on a two way's trip divide by 2 ?

Also my initial statement is why did Einstein believe that the true value of C is the value of C he was using.

Workch:
I don’t know, we don’t have evidence for it yet, we only have hypothesis called abiogenesis and panspermia.
What we have evidence for is that evolution occurred and every living thing on earth share common ancestry.

It’s better to have questions that has not been answered than have answers that cannot be questioned. Religion provide answers that cannot be questioned, that’s not a good way to learn.

If asked the evidence that evolution occurred, we may get evidence for adaptation or speciation which no informed one disputes, yet the "enlightened" ones want to tell us that it is evolution - the type that brought about all life forms from the first single ancestor.

But do we need to talk about the evolution when we can't even get how the first cell came to be? Worse, materialists have definitely reduce science to physics and chemistry, claiming that whatever can't be observed, tested and experimented is unscientific. But of course, same should go for evolution (it has never been observed and it'll never be, because no one can live for millions of years that's believed for it), abiogenesis (more researches are making the little hope fleet away, but that's the only atheistic myth for origin of life; so they have faith that it'll be cracked one day), panspermia (only pushing the problem of origin of life to outside of the earth. Again, no evidence of aliens, but the faith believe that given the vastness of the universe and the faith that abiogenesis occured even without evidence, then life must have arose in other places).

It's not lack of evidence for God' that makes people abandon Christianity, it's mostly the rebellious nature of man that kicks in. Then one use materialism to justify oneself in an intellectual manner.