₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
It is not chance and is not design, it is outcomes based on constraints. If you can't understand that I have no help for you.

Please read carefully



When identifying the cause of things in everyday life—an object, an event, a signal from space—there are only three possibilities: (1) Constraint, (2) Chance, or (3) Design.

Everything exist either by constraint or by chance or by design.


(1) Constraints/ Necessity /Coercion/ Compulsion

To say that something is caused “by constraints or necessity” requires that it can happen in one and only one way. In other words, only one possible outcome exists, and that possible outcome must always occur. There is no any other alternative outcome that can compete with the only possible outcome.

The following are all examples of "Constraints" ;
(i)"Heads" come up while flipping a two-headed coin.
(ii) 2 + 2 = 4.
(iii) Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
(iv) Massive bodies exert a gravitational force according to a specific formula.
(v) Sun rises in the east and set in the west.
(vi) All living things will die

In our universe, these events cannot have alternative outcomes. It is impossible for any other outcome to occur.


(2) Chance/Luck/Accident/ Coincidence
For something to be caused “by chance or accident” requires the event or outcome to be:

(a) Contingent: There must be more than one possible outcome.

(b) Plausible: There must be a reasonable probability of the outcome occurring “at random” or “by accident.” If the probability is exceedingly small, i.e. beyond plausibility, then “chance” is not an acceptable explanation.

The following are all examples of "Chance";
(i) "six" come up while tossing a fair die
(ii) falling of a leaf from a tree on a particular spot
(iii) a beautiful pattern formed by the flock of birds flying in the air

(3) Design
In order to attribute something to design, the event or outcome must be:

(a) Contingent: The must be more than one possible outcome.

(b) Complex: A complex event is one that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance, so low that we consider it implausible. (Example: Flipping "heads" 100 times in a row using a fair coin.) High complexity and low probability go together.

(c) Specified: Something is “specified” if it conforms to a specific recognizable pattern, or has evidence of structure. Something specified is more than just a random pattern; it matches a distinctive pattern that we recognize.

The following are all examples of "Design" ;
(i) a written information found on a sheet of paper
(ii) a sculpture of a man sitting on a horse
(iii) a vehicle produced in an engineering company


Here's a simple example of Constraints vs. chance vs. design;
Let’s assume that you win the lottery. Depending on the circumstances, your "win" could be the result of Constraint, or chance, or design:

Constraint : You were the ONLY PARTICIPANT in the lottery; thus, you had to win, by constraint or necessity. Only one possible outcome exists, and that possible outcome must always occur. There is no any other alternative outcome that can compete with the only possible outcome.

Chance: There were MANY PARTICIPANTS, the lottery was conducted fairly, and you just happened to win at random by chance.

Design: There were also many participants but your friends RIGGED the lottery so that you were chosen the winner by design.


Now having understood the THREE causal possibilities, then the type of reproductive structures found in male and female ducks was caused by what ?


Constraint or Chance or Design ?


If it was by constraint, then ONLY THE TYPE of reproductive structures found in the ducks must exist on the earth. This is because if something exist by constraint, then as explained above using an illustration of a lottery, only one possible outcome must always exist. However, there are many other types of reproductive structures that exist on the earth. Therefore, the existence of ducks' reproductive structures was not caused by constraint or necessity as you claimed.


Again, if it was by chance, then there should be NO PERFECT CORRELATION between the male and female ducks' reproductive structures. But such perfect correlation exist. Therefore, the creation of their reproductive structures was not by chance.


Pls do you also have any logical explanation why they could not have been caused by design ? If you have, tender it as I have done with constraint and chance.


After the elimination of "Constraint" and "Chance", the only option remain is "Design or Purpose" . And design or purpose can only exist in a MIND. But according to your own world view, such mind does not exist.

If ducks really wage genital warfare as the author declared, was it by process of CHANCE mutations in their DNA ?
Yet there must be a warfare in their genotype (DNA )before such warfare can be reflected in their phenotype.

So what other factors that can cause the genotype to change apart from CHANCE mutations if not INTENDED mutations ?

@ LordReed

Honestly, what you're bringing to counter my points has a serious devastating effect on your belief .

See what Brennan said in your reference "Ducks wage genital warfare"

"I became very GOOD at PREDICTING what the genital structure of one sex would look like by looking at the other sex first".

If Brennan can GOODLY PREDICT how the genital structure of one sex would look like by merely looking at the other sex, then there must be a PERFECT CORRELATION between the male and female genital structures.

Now can this perfect correlation exist by process of chance ?

Can you continuously make good prediction about something that is base on chance ?

If something is not by chance, then it must be intended. But intention can only exist in a mind. Yet according to your own world view, such mind does not exist .

Blabbermouth:
You should draw the curtains, I warned you about his ignorance but it seemed as though I wanted to derail everything. By the way, I really would want us to talk {outside NL}.

Here is my Gmail address; abdulgaffaradebayo@gmail.com

LordReed:
So if I use a corkscrew drill bit to drill into a wall what shape of hole do you expect it to have, square, circle or corkscrew?

Honestly you're an atheist by ignorance. You didn't know anything about genetics. An acquired trait is not hereditary in nature.
If a man get his right arm amputated through an accident, then can his children inherit this amputation ? Certainly not. This is because there is nothing wrong with the DNA that codes for the construction of the two arms during embryonic development.

Similarly, if it was the first male duck' s phallus that caused the first female duck' s vaginal tract to be corkscrew as you think, then there is no way for this trait to be inherited by the subsequent generations of the female duck. Besides, do you think the phallus of the male animals are so strong to make a permanent shape of hole in the body of the female animals ? Was it the shape of human penis that created the shape of the human vagina ?

Sorry ! You get it wrong

The corkscrew shape of the male and female duck' s reproductive structures is already encoded on their DNA just like shape of male human' s penis and shape of female human' s vagina are already encoded on human DNA.

The creation of two complex biological structures ( like male and female duck' s reproductive structures and male and female human' s reproductive structures ) which are COMPLEMENTARY with each other is beyond the work of chance.
It is definitely the work of intelligence to those who have inner eyes to see things

LordReed:
Oh, I see it now. Even if they were able to exactly replicate the move from mere prebiotic molecules to biotic, you'll claim it required an intelligent agent. SMH. I think I have been wasting my time discussing with you.

But what am I trying to prove since all this time? Is it not to prove that an intelligent agent is required for the life to evolve from non living materials ?

Well let me just give you the final evidence for the existence of intelligence guiding the creation of all living things;

Take a look at six classes of animal we are familiar with;
# Invertebrates (like worms, snails and insects)
# Pisces ( like fishes and other marine organisms)
# Amphibians ( like frogs and toads)
# Reptiles (like lizards, snakes, crocodiles and alligators)
# Birds (like eagles, ducks and chickens)
# Mammals ( goats, dogs, elephants, horse and apes)
All these animals have male and female with their reproductive structures which must be anatomically compatible with each other in terms of SIZE and SHAPE
For example, while male ducks have corkscrew-shaped phalluses, female ducks have anti-corkscrew-shaped vaginal tracts.

If there is no any intelligence guiding the creation of different sets of reproductive structures found in all these animals, there is no way for male and female reproductive structures to be compatible with each other in terms of SIZE AND SHAPE

Can process of chance accomplished this difficult task ?

It is left for you to change your mind and believe in God before it is too late for you. I have tried my best.

LordReed:
Then why are you mentioning decaying process as if I said it was the mechanism? Decaying process cannot because that was not the process.

The building blocks were assembled in more complex structures as time went on. Having proved that the building blocks can arise from non-living material, I am more inclined towards that projection than towards your assertion that it cannot be done.

Have you forgotten that Miller Urey experiment has already demonstrated that the creation of such building blocks required the assistance of an intelligent and conscious agent ? Did all those complex apparatus in the experiment exist 3.8 billions years ago ?
Again, see the unbridgeable gap between a dead cell and the few organic molecules produced in Miller Urey experiment !

LordReed:
Did I say it was a decaying process? Did I not repeatedly stress that the process and conditions for the process are different?

Did I quote you saying decaying process brought the first living cell into existence ?

My point is this; decaying process would never give room for any of the natural process that would give rise to the first living cell irrespective of any condition. Even the amino acids and few organic molecules produced in Miller-urey experiment required the assistance of an intelligent and conscious agents

The early earth conditions can only give room for the creation of the building blocks ( like amino acids and few organic molecules). The condition can never ASSEMBLE those building blocks into organelles talk less of PUTTING those organelles in their respective location.

Edybleketara:
google is ur friend bro

Definition of atheism

(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes, excluding other religious beliefs).

(broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist)

(very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).

(loosely) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).

As you have seen, you gave a loosely definition

LordReed:
Yes. The conditions on earth at the time this was happening is very different from what they are now. They have tried to replicate such conditions in a lab setting and the results suggest that abiogenesis is possible. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

# Shortly before their decay, a dead cell is made up of organelles like nucleus, ribosomes, mitochondria, golgi apparatus, lysosomes, smooth endoplasmic reticulum, secretory vesicles, centrosomes cytoplasm etc

# These organelles are made up proteins, fats, nucleotides and other macromolecules.

# The proteins are made up of chains of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence.

Yet the final product of Miller - Urey exeperiment are nothing but amino acids and few organic molecules.

See the "gap" between a dead cell and what the scientists were able to produce in their well equipped laboratory

What a dead cell contains is far far greater, yet DECAYING process causes the dead cell to decompose. Would such decaying process allow such amino acids and other macromolecules to build up gradually until they reach the level of a living cell ?

LordReed:
Because the process will not be the same.

So there was a particular natural process that existed before and does not exist now ?

Edybleketara:
Then there is no reason for atheists to change their minds after reading ur post since atheism is simply a lack of believe in a particular God.

Give us the Oxford dictionary meaning of atheism

LordReed:
No. The process that made non-living material give rise to living material is not a reversal of death.

As you agreed, if it is impossible for the non living materials produced by the dead cell to become a living cell irrespective of the time it would take, then are you saying these very non living materials (produced by the dead cell) are totally different from the non living materials that gave rise to the first living cell 3.8 billions years ago ?

LordReed:
That there are reversible reactions doesn't mean that all reactions must be reversible. Also, the conversion from non-living material to living was a long drawn out process that possibly took billions of years so you cannot compare it to a much more instantaneous process like death

Pls let me rephrase the third question and I want you to answer it by saying yes or no ;

If a dead cell is decaying continuously until it COMES DOWN to the level of non living materials, then is it possible for the SAME non living materials (produced by that deadcell )to REVERSE back and come back to life without any intervention ?

Edybleketara:
love how the op just sticks to facts devoid of religious sentiments. but op, while u've tried to provide evidence for the existence of a supernatural being responsible for the creation of the universe, hope u know no one has found out who this creator is?

Knowing who is the Creator is another topic on its own; it is different from what we are treating here

LordReed:
Death and life are 2 different things that much is evidence


No, because lowering entropy can happen naturally. Freezing weather occurs naturally does it not?

Are you saying saying non living materials have a greater tendency in becoming a living cell more than the dead cell ?

Are you saying non living materials would suddenly jump to become a living cell without gradually passing through the stages that decaying dead cell have once been before ?

If a dead cell is decaying continuously until it reaches the level of non living materials, then is it possible for the same non living materials to reverse back and come back to life without any intervention ? Have you not agreed before that death is an irreversible process ?

Blabbermouth:
Recall, why God, why not gods?
You said: if there are Gods, there will be CONFLICT OF WILLS
My question: How do you prove that "There are no conflict of wills?".

1. If there are conflict of wills, the universe would have been in a state of chaos.

2. If there are conflict of wills, there would be no evidence of common design (existence of DNA code) from the simplest life form to the most complex life form (human being)

LordReed:
Nope, endothermic reactions need the energy to effect the reaction, no energy no reaction. Ice block melting is not a chemical reaction.

Agreed!

But endothermic reactions increases the entropy of the reactants. And if entropy has increased, then energy coupling system is useless

LordReed:
Because death is not a reversible process (At least not yet) and you can practically halt decay by lowering the entropy.

If death is not a reversible process as you just said, then non living materials (which are no way different from dead cells) can never become living by natural process.

Practically stopping the decaying process by lowering the entropy involves the act of conscious and intelligent agents like human being. This is called embalmment.
But according to your own world view, such conscious and intelligent agent that can miraculously lower the entropy of non living materials for a living cell to emerge did not exist at the beginning of life.

Blabbermouth:
I'm sorry. Henceforth, I will watch from the stands and say nothing. How about my question, is there an answer.

Honestly, I didn't get your question. Pls reframe it

LordReed:
When an endothermic chemical reaction occurs are you aware that energy is leeched from the environment? So how can you say there is no energy coupling?

But endothermic reaction only increase the entropy of the reactants due to energy they absorbed from their environment just like ice block receive energy from the sun.
Would you say ice block posses an energy coupling system since it absorbs energy from the sun to become liquid ?

If non living things can receive energy from its environment to decrease their entropy as you claimed, why not dead cells also receive energy from their environment to decrease their entropy and thereby preventing their decaying process ?

LordReed:
Excellent. You need the intake of energy because your body is not an isolated system. If you do not continue to intake energy your entropy will increase and you will die. Well, non-living things are also not isolated systems and thus can receive energy, this shows how the "miraculous" transformation can occur.

Living things use chemical energy to decrease their entropy because of the energy coupling system (mitochondria) already present inside their cells. This is the reason why living cells cannot decay. But such energy coupling system is no longer function in dead cells and completely absent in non living materials. This is the reason why dead cells tend to decay and their entropy increase with time. Therefore, if dead cells and non living materials receive energy, this energy will increase their entropy because there is no energy coupling system that will make them to make use of the energy judiciously.
For example, when ice block receive heat energy, their entropy increases and become liquid.

Blabbermouth:
You see Alhaji LordReed, I predicted correctly.

Honestly, I don't like the way you handle things. You're just mocking. Do you really have interest in his salvation ?

LordReed:
Why does your body need it?

My body need their nutrients for energy, growth and repair

LordReed:
Don't get ahead of yourself. Why do you eat non-living material and dead cells to sustain your life?

You should have asked; why do you eat dead cells ? And I will answer to sustain my life. Or say : why do you sustain your life ? And I will answer; I don't want to die

But now you have lumped everything together. I don't know the precise answer you want from me

LordReed:
Lemme ask you this, why do you eat non-living material or dead cells to sustain your life?

There is already a recycling system in a living body which recycled the nutrients gotten from dead cells. But such recycling system is no where to be found in non- living materials. Therefore, there is no way for non living materials to make use of the
recycled nutrients .

LordReed:
Dead cells.

Good ! Dead cells are closer to living cells than non living materials.

Now if, despite its closeness, a dead cell is always PREVENTED from returning back to the world of living by decaying process , then would non living material, which is farther away, ever move to the world of living ? Remember, non living material has to pass through the stage of decaying dead cell before becoming a living cell

LordReed:
I have no scale on which to base such a comparison. Higher in quality in what way?

Okay let me put it in this way: which one is CLOSER to living cells ; dead cells or non living materials (not in their functions but in their structures) ?

Today is Friday. I have to prepare for the jumat service. So later

LordReed:
Of course.

Good! Dead cell tends to DECAY as time passes by.

Again do you agree that a dead cell is HIGHER IN QUALITY than non-living materials because some of the organelles (which are no where to be found in the non-living materials) may still be present in the dead cell ?

LordReed:
It is not an isolated system.

Whether isolated system or not, do you agree that dead cells undergo DECAYING process as time passes by ?

LordReed:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not prevent life from arising from non-living thing. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. This in no way gets you to assume life did not arise from natural processes.

Now what causes the dead cells to DECAY as time passes by ?

LordReed:
Nobody knows how life arose. Jumping from what we don't know to certainty about some intelligence is staggering arrogance.

.

How did we get to know that an ordinary stone cannot be flying in the air by itself ?

Apart from the fact that we have never seen such a thing before, we also know that law of gravity would never permit such a thing.

Similarly, apart from the fact that we have never seen how non living thing became living through natural process, we also know that law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics), which caused many things to DECAY as time passes by, would never permit such a miraculous transformation to happen.

Even if we don't know the precise details of how life arose, we know that it was not through natural process. Yet since life began to exist, there can only be two options ; natural process or supernatural process.