₦airaland Forum

alexis:
Since idiots insist on being idiots, I will oblige you. Can you prove scientifically by providing evidence i.e. concrete observable, repeatable and experimental evidence to prove say humans originated from fish. Remember, the criteria here is repeatable and observable. For example, I can easily prove the law of gravity; I can replicate it. Please apply the same rules to evolution

Is there scientific evidence linking man and fish? Yes! This evidence is deeply rooted in genetic, anatomic and morphological data, and such evidences are acquired independent from each other, yet, they converge. Furthermore, they are observable and repeatable; and as concrete as the DNA evidence linking you to your great-grandparents. If, however, you can show me a repeatable and observable evidence that you came from your great-grandparents that has nothing to do with your genes, anatomy and morphology; then I just might find another kind of repeatable and observable evidence for you. If you choose to ignore the things linking us to fish and all other living organisms, then you'll have to ask your god why it has chosen to confuse us with these things, some of them, unnecessary remnants from our evolutionary past.

To think that your parents spent all that money to send you to school and it's evident that it's of little use. Try and put your two feet on the ground:

1. A scientific law is almost never false or open to changes i.e. law of biogenesis, law of gravity, laws of thermo-dynamics. These laws are applied in our everyday lives and it's evident everywhere
2. Scientific theory are general hypothesis, guess/belief that something is true, not necessarily correct, some people may support it, others not.

Let me give you some examples so you can go do some reading on it before you make yourself look stupi.d online:

1. Miasmatic theory of disease: This theory holds that diseases such as cholera, chlamydia or the Black Death were caused by a miasma (ancient Greek: “pollution”), a noxious form of “bad air”. This concept was not disposed of until the late 1800s, with the rise of the germ theory of disease. Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell.

2. Luminiferous aether: Assumed to exist for much of the 19th century, the theory held that a “medium” of aether pervaded the universe through which light could propagate. The celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was the first to provide hard evidence that aether did not exist, and the theory lost all popularity among scientists by the 1920's
3. Stress theory of ulcers: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. Medical advice during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005
4. Immovable continents: Prior to the middle of the 20th century scientists believed the Earth’s continents were stable and did not move. This began to change in 1912 with Alfred Wegener’s formulation of the continental drift theory, and later and more properly the elucidation of plate tectonics during the 1950s and 1960s.
5. Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating

These are just some scientific theories that turned out to be completely in-accurate and wrong. Even Albert Einstein inserted an arbitrary constant regarding the origin of the universe until he encountered Hubble and he corrected his theory. So please, I take God beg you - try and use your common sense before you start posting rubbis.h online

I don't understand you. You try to prove a point by using arguments that do the exact opposite? Nothing you've said up there negates what I previously said about scientific laws and theories. Laws are factual observations that are codified into mathematical formalisms, whereas scientific theories are explanations for such laws. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses, and they are tested against these facts called laws. For any hypothesis to become a scientific theory, it must confirm the facts, hence, such a hypothesis must be falsifiable. But scientific theories (not hypotheses) are hierarchically superior to scientific laws because they have broader implications than laws (which have more limited boundary conditions). I think your problem is that you're conflating the colloquial usage of the word "theory" with "scientific theory". Theory is colloquially synonymous with hypothesis, but in science, there is a clear distinction between "hypothesis" and "scientific theory".

Consider my totally made up hypothesis for gravity: Gravity happens because there are invisible ninjas who love mathematical symmetry and dislike things floating if they exceed a certain mass, so every time such a thing floats, they act in such an organised and predictable fashion as to bring that thing down to earth.

The above hypothesis is one that does not contradict the law of gravity, and maybe even supports it, yet it can never become a theory because it is NOT falsifiable. No one will take me seriously if I make such a superfluous proposition.

Now, all the theories you mentioned above were falsifiable, and subsequently falsified using SCIENTIFIC METHODS, but before that happened, they were the best fit models for the observable facts which they explained. The theory of evolution is falsifiable, but also currently the best fit model that describes the presence of diverse lifeforms on earth. For you to dismiss it as false, you must show that it is false using scientific methods as I previously requested of you. So far, all biological evidences, including genetics, anatomy, physiology, fossil records and many more, point towards the theory of evolution as an accurate model. But you're free to contest this, just make sure you bring forth your own scientific arguments, not just those oft repeated cliches of yours.

Please don't come here pretending to know anything when you're clearly oblivious of even the most fundamental scientific concepts. You may think you sound intelligent, but you really don't. Your arguments are just very nauseating to read.

Cha - how stupi.d and gullible are you. Did the fox change and became a lion, did the bacteria changed and became a virus? The evolution that Darwin talked about was evolution in change of KIND - macro evolution i.e. from one KIND to another KIND. The article you posted above didn't mention that; it talked about adaptation and creation of different specie but of the same KIND - micro evolution; I don't doubt micro evolution. For example, having a German spherpard dog cross-breed with a husky gives rise to a new specie of the SAME KIND of animal and NEVER OF ANOTHER KIND.

This is the point where you lose any iota of scientific credibility you had left. Seriously, WTF man? The difference between macro and micro evolution is the timescale involved. Both are fundamentally describing the same process. The difference between these two is the same difference you have if you plot a graph on a linear time scale vs plotting it on a logarithmic time scale. Consider my easy example: If you plot a sinusoidal function [y=A*cos(ωt)] on a linear time scale, it has periodic regions of rises and falls. On this linear scale, you will observe that at point ωt=0, y=A, but as ωt tends to 90degs, 'y' drops to zero, then to -A at 180degs and back to 0 at 360 degs. Now, if you take the slope dy/dt, dt being an infinitesimally small change in time at any point on the slope, you'll find that dy is also very small, that you may not observe a large scale change in 'y'. The slope is also periodic. call this the 'MICROevolution' of y. Now, if you convert the 't' axis to log scale (graduating at much larger intervals, by a factor of 10, say). You'll find that the periodicity of 'y' is lost, and is no longer as predictable as on the linear scale. Points on 'y' have changed forms, the whole curve has evolved such that it loses many of the properties of its linear form, and gains many new properties (like cumulative wrinkles due to non periodic slopes), It keeps other properties, like rising and falling slopes, as well as timescale magnitudes. Such a curve is still fundamentally describing a sinusoidal function, yet it bears no resemblance to its linear scale equivalent, only because I changed its timescale of observation from linear to log. Call this 'MACROevolution'. In essence, Macroevolution is the, so called, "snowball effect" of several microevolutional processes which eventually lead to what you call 'KINDS'. All kinds still share many characteristics, and have diverged in others.
Your claim that Darwin meant to suggest that one kind suddenly became another is a travestied mischaracterisation of his theory of evolution, which only exposes your gross lack of competence on the subject matter. I doubt you have read the book. You can download a copy, as it's widely available on the internet. In chapter III of his book, "On the origins of species" (page 61), he most eloquently alluded to microevolution as the driving force for speciation when he said "...Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring". He preceded this argument with the arbitrariness of distinctions between species in chapter II using the argument of "Doubtful species" (page 47), which are species that can neither be classified as one or another because they have features of two or more supposedly distinct species. Although, the modern concept of species was defined by Ernst Myers, who contended that species should be defined as reproductively isolated kinds. For example, while all felines are greatly similar genetically, they are mostly reproductively isolated. Although, we have seen that even this definition is a fine line because lions and tigers can mate and produce offsprings, so, as you can see, there is no clear distinction between species, and all species can be traced to converge on one massive evolutionary tree.

To be honest, the pseudo-education you're proudly brandishing as sensible talk makes this debate with you extremely excruciating. If you want to debate the theory of evolution, I expect minimal knowledge of its postulates from you. When you read the books on evolution, you can come and discuss the individual points. Right now, you're merely resorting to red-herring points which are irrelevant to the topic, like fish becoming humans or foxes becoming lions and you think you're making intelligent points. What you don't know is that these points are as nonsensical to the biologist as they are to you. No biologist makes such frivolous claims. Evolution is not magic, it talks about a convergent point for all species, not a linear transmogrification from one species to another.

I leave you with a food for thought: There are two versions of ignorance, one born out of the lack of knowledge, and the other, from misleading education. It can be said of the latter, that it is the more malignant form because, not only does the ignorant individual not know anything on the subject, they adamantly defend their conviction of ignorance because they tenaciously cling to the presumption that they know.

alexis:
Not at all. I am saying evolution requires a heck more blind faith and belief. How is it you believe that all life came from a single cell organism when it can't be proven?

I cringe whenever I read foolish statements like this, and that is not an ad-hominem attack!
Evolution is a scientific theory with strong and independent evidences alluding to its veracity, so please stop saying evolution is blind faith if you're not able to bring forth any scientific argument against it. Doing so merely makes an unflattering mockery of your intelligence (or lack thereof).

Stop contradicting yourself. The law of gravitation is not a THEORY - IT'S A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC LAW. The law of Bio-Genesis which state that life begats life is a SCIENTIFIC LAW and not a THEORY. Theists don't have any issue with proven science. There are genius scientist that believe in God and that doesn't affect their science.

This is another example of your celebration of ignorance! There's Isaac Newton's "law of universal gravitation", and there's Albert Einstein's gravitational theory; it's called "the theory of general relativity". We also have electromagnetic theory, which drives everything from your microwave ovens to your mobile phones, your lighting needs, access to internet, space missions, etc. The relationship between laws and theories in science is such that laws state 'what is', usually by means of mathematical formalisms, whereas theories attempt to explain the laws. So, by their very nature, the explanatory power of theories make them hierarchically superior to laws. The more a scientific theory confirms established laws, the more compelling it is. For all intents and purposes then, a scientific theory is therefore a falsifiable piece of explanation that has not been falsified, and to which all facts/laws point. Ergo, in order for science to discard a theory, it must be debunked using scientific methods, not boring clichéd rhetoric.

The issue here is that evolution is a theory that you can't prove in a science lab.

You're wrong again. You can prove it in a science lab! Here

If I ask you for an example how humans originated from say a fish; you can't provide any concrete evidence - you will tell me that we share 96% DNA gene with Chimps - can a human and chimp mate and produce an off-spring? Never!. It takes a lot of faith to say we came from a fish without evidence - that is why evolution is a theory and requires faith.

Can you provide any concrete evidence that you came from your great-grandparents? That's a stupid question, you see, not any less so than requiring concrete evidence that humans evolved from fish. Nevertheless, there are still remnants of our fish ancestry in us. An example is the gill slits that all human embryos develop at some stage in their development. As a matter of fact, this is true for all members of the chordata phylum, to which all vertebrates belong. Read the Pharyngeal section here.

A human cannot mate with a chimp. This fact is robustly catered for in the theory of evolution, and is consistent with it. Read on speciation. You may pick especial interest in the artificial speciation section, where humans have, from a single species, induced new species of flies and sheep that do not reproduce viable offsprings with their split-off groups.

Listen, you need to define which evolution you are talking about. Evolution includes and encompasses so many areas. So, please define the evolution you are referring to so we can debate on a specific topic.

There's only one kind of evolution, but it is informed by various processes.

That is simply not true. My belief in God doesn't stop me from being a scientist.

In general, no, belief in god does not preclude one from being a brilliant scientist. Isaac Newton is a stellar example.
So far though, all you have done is bore us with your glamorised strain of ignorance; and demonstrated a curious propensity to regurgitate pseudo-intellectual, thought terminating clichés, and it's debilitating.

Yet, if you still wish to claim you're a scientist, then please debunk the theory of evolution using scientific methods. Do this and I assure you of two things: my respect and a Nobel prize in medicine and physiology. Start with the five proofs contained in the link I gave under "Strong and independent evidences".

plaetton:
Abraham was also a pervert who committed incest by marrying his half sister.

Abraham was also an irresponsible husband who who sexually molested his female servants, sired children through them, and then later threw them out of his household without a care for the future welfare of the mother and child.

Abraham was also the most irresponsible father who agreed to sacrifice/kill his own son to show some bogus faith to so some bogus deity.

A man with such obvious character flaws is a man that most civilized people should be ashamed to be associated with, let alone honor.

Hahaha...very well put

abdulwastecx:
what about if God is some kind super intelligent alien from solar system thousands of years ahead of us... we may just be some experimental lab of a baby alien

Maybe that could explain why the gods of the bible and quran behave like immature individuals with excessive teenage hormones.

davien:
Arbitrary knowledge such as "everything observed is causal" therefore the "universe is also"....this perceived knowledge is then presented with a make believe answer... "therefore god"

can one make good decisions based on these few points?

Making good decisions? Depends on how well they compartmentalize. Having good circular conversations on the other hand...hmmm

Religionist: Everything is caused, therefore the universe is caused. Therefore, god caused the universe.

Skeptic: If everything is caused, what caused god?

Religionist: God is uncaused.

Skeptic: So everything is not caused then?

Religionist: Yes, god is not caused.

Skeptic: So why do you assume the universe is caused?

Religionist: Because everything is caused.

Skeptic:

podosci:
Noted.
But do u deny the the killings of hundreds of people for the crime of blasphemy by the catholic church? and its murderous war waged against pagans and protestants in the early years of the split?

I do not deny. I merely corrected a particular error.

podosci:
When Galilio proclaimed the sun has the center of the universe, the catholic church was quick to denounce it and Execute him but after many years it is now Generaly accepted.by all? that the Sun is the center of the universe even witout the Bible or Quran bcking it up. i believ the way science is going change is inevitable

Don't spread misinformation. The church placed Galileo under house arrest, but didn't execute him.

alexis007:
a religious folk calls it 'Adaptability'...an atheist named the same thing 'Evolution'...somehow we are saying the same thing....if you are not so hell-bent on glorifying Charles darwins as I am so aversed to hearing the word 'Evolution/mutation'.....next time you post to me...drop the word 'evolution' 4 'adaptability' or i'd personally review and censor your lines lyk a NL super-mod

So your problem is with the word 'evolution'? I wonder why. I suggest you look up the linguistic meaning of the word, starting with its root, Evolve. Evolution is in fact, a direct consequence of adaptation. Crudely, you may think of evolution in terms of water spread out one-dimensionally over an adiabatic flat surface. Now, since the surface is flat, the most meaningful spatial property of that water-spread, say you wish to estimate the quantity of water molecules, would be its 2D area. Now, let's suppose our adiabatic surface starts to curve inwardly, and there is no net heat transfer to the water, what do you think will happen to the water? Gravity will make it start to flow towards the centre of the curvature so that eventually, it'll will occupy far less 2D area than before. How then will you estimate its spatial property without losing information? You'll now have to estimate its 3D volume.
In describing this process of change, you may say the water had adapted to the new reality of its container. Another way to put it is that the water has evolved from a 2D entity to a 3D one, hence evolution has taken place.
In living organisms, many things drive change, and they include atmosphere, temperature, diseases, predators, availability of food, 'random' mutations and so many more. These things are sure to cause living things to evolve with time. For example, humans used to be hairy like the rest of our hominid cousins, but our habitat increasingly became savannah lands with short trees and bright sunny days. Since hairiness isn't favourable in hot climates, we lost our hair. Meanwhile, our primate cousins continue to have theirs since they are confined to forests and trees that shield them from the heat. In this regard too, we can say humans have evolved (changed).

alexis007:
you can be a specie of an ape...that's your business.

Gorillas, chimps, humans and bonobos are all a sub family of great apes (homininae), which belong to the family known as hominidae, all linked by intersecting genetic groupings in the animal kingdom. Feel free to deny the facts unraveled in decades of biological research if that massages your ego.

and did i come across a part of your lines where you asserted that eating raw meat is now a past mode of feeding because of darwin's evolutionary joke?......I'd been thinking that you boast of a very high IQ till you dropped that self-destructive argument [you know,you'd make a good suicide bomber]...Now lemme kill you with your own lines......jose salvador alvarenga[google him if you like] fed on uncooked fishes and periwinkles for 13 months to stay alive after he got lost @ sea and miles away from shores.Now that was a 2013-CNNnews-headline,before you begin to think that i'm talking about a homo-habilis who existed in the b.c.'s......and do i really need to make a compilement of cannibals who lived in our times?.......bro,i don't think you understand it fully....UNDER EXTENUATING ECONOMIC/PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS,21st-century homo-sapiens can eat raw meat and digest it properly...and thank God for the gift of adaptation he endowed we humans with....IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME B4 AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD PREFER THE RAW UNCOOKED MEAT TO THE TASTY WELL-COOKED ONES!

Perhaps my language was slightly ambiguous, but I did not at all intend to suggest that humans can't eat raw meat, what I implied was that the changes in our anatomy and physiology are gradually expressing themselves due to changes in our survival requirements. This is how speciation occurs, and you'll find this in our increasing involuntary intolerance for raw meat. Read about raw foodism. You'll find that many suffer severe food poisoning as a result of consuming raw meat and unpasteurized milk. Of course, many others are adapted for such diets and this may eventually lead to further speciation of the human species. A pretty recent physiological change which can be observed in humans, even as near as 12,000 years ago is the obvious reduction in our teeth sizes due to change in dietary habits and processing methods. You can read on that here. This is obviously due to evolution.

Now, ignoring your silly remark about suicide bombing, you touched upon a very interesting aspect of evolution: Adaptability. While man has definitely seen a lot of physiological and anatomical changes as a result of evolution, we haven't stopped being humans. We owe this to our remarkably flexible adaptability. Since evolution only rewards adaptability, this would explain why humans are the apex predators. This is very consistent with the postulates of evolution, not opposed to it.

On a fairly grim note, and in the spirit of Halloween, supposing there was severe global famine, those humans better adapted for cannibalism will fare much better than the rest of us, and humans would likely mutate to cannibalistic primates as a result...food for thought.

StealthyMe:
Yes,you're right...am totally ignorant in matters regarding evolution

So,you said apes haven't stopped evolving into humans
Please what is your proof and how certain are you ?

If they are still evolving into humans,why then are there still apes that grow old and die without evolving?

And since you stated that 'humans' are apes still evolving,which animal would human evolve into next in the evolution chain?

There are several types of apes, right? Humans are just one species. All apes are still evolving, including humans. Evolution is not a discrete interval point, it's a continuous chain. We may not stop calling ourselves humans, but our physiology and anatomy are changing ever so gradually. For example, there was a time humans could ingest raw meat with no problem, now, such exotic diets are increasingly becoming a luxury our systems can't accommodate.

Evolution does not require one species to end in order for another to thrive. Their environments are vastly different so too are their resulting evolutional paths. Mind you, in the case of humans and all the other existing apes, our common ancestor is no more, so while existing apes will thrive in the environments they are suited for, they will not do very well in environments adapted for humans.

As for proof, the wiki page is a good starting point.

StealthyMe:
Okay...so Evolution might just be true


My question is why then has it stopped?
Or why have apes or whatever stopped evolving into humans ?

The way you have framed your question betrays a deep lack of understanding. Apes haven't stopped evolving into humans, humans are apes that are still evolving. So it hasn't stopped. The humans of 100,000 years ago aren't the same as today's humans.

Oduduwaboy:
Okay. i now understand where you are coming from; you were in the 0.1%...you were won over by Reason!

There you go.

Misogynist2014:
Even flying monster has not claimed it exist. So to me its a fiction until proven otherwise.

Good man, now substitute "flying monster" with "yahweh", and presto! We now understand each other

In a sense, you're an atheist to all the gods whose existence you deny, yes, including flying spaghetti monster. The only difference between us both is that I deny one extra god, yours.

Oduduwaboy:
I will agree with you. But after two or three exchanges with some people we must quickly determine whether they lie within the 'hopeful' 0.1% or the 'hopeless' 99.9%. I discovered that most of the entities we debate in this section of nairaland sadly fall into the 99.9% and often times they drag one into the mud-pit of hauling insults & invectives. It may not be worth it you know.
Anyway, on a lighter note,why your moniker? If Ayatollah Khomeini were still alive , am sure a price would be on your head.

I literally used to be an agent of Allah...I'm now a rogue agent though.

Oduduwaboy:
Life is simpler for me these days because i stopped debating religious folks. @ Plaetton please take note.
Anybody who chooses to practice religion for more than 20years and does not see the intense lies in it should be left to himself/herself.
Summary: its a waste of time and effort debating 99.9% of religious people. They do not operate with reason but with an 'imaginary' faith in an 'imaginary' daddy. Parallel lines do not meet.

The debate is worth it, if only for the 0.1% that may become reasonable. By "Law of large numbers", regression to the mean will always assume preponderance.

Misogynist2014:
Let me educate you. Claiming an all-knowing God doesn't exist means u are all-knowing. Tell me the address of where I am 4 a start.

Now, let me educate you. Claiming an all knowing flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist means you're all-knowing. Tell me the band gap of an AlGaN multi-quantum well semiconductor material with well width of 3nm and 65%Al concentration for a start.

BraveGuy:
Go and look in the mirror..... the person you see is a living FACT/PROOF that you are creation not an accident.

Actually, my mum told me how I came to be. Apparently, I was an accidental discharge

Ask that person how you got there?

Huh?? So you talk to images?

Ask the mirror, too.... how it got there?

And you also talk to mirrors?

That is the most minimal fact/proof that you need.

SMFHFY!!! Pfft. Your religious delusions know no bounds!

BraveGuy:
That is their prerogative. It's YOUR problem if you want to disbelieve there is a spiritual world or not. Continue to claim your foolishness that there is no God in the face of facts.

What facts?

I am yet to see any of you so-called atheist prove there is no God

No atheist can prove there is no god any more than you can prove that there is no flying spaghetti monster. It is simply impossible to prove a negative.

in fact, how many of you carry a mobile phone device around (I am sure all of you), which of you has ever seen the wireless frequencies connecting you to the Internet? None!

Errr..I have seen the frequency. With an oscilloscope, you can as well.

Yet you try to argue about a spiritual world someone claims to see because you have not seen it?

No, it was YOU who tried to ram the existence of an ever elusive spiritual world down our throats without evidence. Check the title of your thread.

Continue in your foolishness (Psalm 14:1).

Alright clever guy.

asalimpo:
issues about the existence or non existence of God will eventually bother on some core questions which if couched in lay logic,common sense, would disqualify certain absurdities pushed by science and atheists.
Like, where did man come from?
How did this world come to be?
Why is there evil in the world?
Why does man die?
Etc

some questions are more fundamental than others.
The bible view is more complete and persuasive than the materialistc world view.
Wat's more is the real life corroborations of the bible (amidst fakes) tht cannot b objectively disqualified by any rational argument.
Added together, there's no case for sayg God doesnt exist.

Dude, your target is at the centre, but you keep shooting in all 360 cardinal directions. Let's focus on one thing at a time to make the conversation manageable for us both. Our focus is evolution for now. When we're done, we can talk more about god.

Your arguments about, requirg substantial education to understand evolution is a smoke screen ur usg to dismiss an argument.

I made no such argument. In fact, by trying to engage with you, I'm doing the exact opposite of dismissing your argument.

Askg me to not mention evolution, is like sayg i shud stay hush about an absurdity.

Au contraire, I'm not asking you to hush about evolution, I'm actually quite interested in what you have to say about it, which is why I'm engaging you. So please, spell out the supposed "absurdities".

An absurdity, strongly presented can bcome acceptable, but the initial reaction to it ,is usually geniune and unadulterated.from the heart. Remember how people initially reacted to instances of homosexuality?

Yes, the same way people (and especially the church) initially reacted to Galileo Galilei's heliocentric argument. Their reactions were, of course "from the heart"...except he was right and they were wrong! So much for genuine unadulterated reactions, eh?

Your question on evolution and morality is barren at most . You are are sayg, evolution imputed this trait in man,how? By juxtaposition of man's genetics (since its a materialistc world view) but this defies the very nature of randomness, which shud have distributed varyg quantities of the same trait in other species!

My question is not barren at all (I don't even know what that means...lol). I really want to know why you think evolution cannot account for morality. 'Morality' is a beneficial behaviour that ensures the continued survival of the homo-sapient species. Of course, other animals have been suggested to exhibit apparently moral behaviours too, the homo sapient species is unique in its ability to abstractify morality and, as a result, adopt excess moral baggage (like religion) as long as it believes there's some kind of benefit to be gained. Although, in a very interesting 1967 study, "Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys" by G.R. Stephenson, other primates were shown to acquire excess "moral" baggage even when they didn't know why. What this proves is that morality is not a 0/1 attribute, it is actually a spectrum, with humans having the highest degree of it, and (co)incidentally, the highest capacity for destruction too, as a result.

There shud be other species rivalling and/or surpassing man in intellect. That's how randomness and chance work.
That man only has the highest and non-negligible concentration of a developed intellect destroys any argumnt for chance/accidental design but to purposeful design.

Yes, I agree that randomness/chance cannot explain man's intellect, or the diversity of life for that matter. But whence comes the presumption that evolution is a random, chance dictated process? It is far from. While mutations may occur by chance, evolution doesn't. It favours the mutations that prove beneficial to the organism, and if such a mutation doesn't prove beneficial, the organism might still keep it provided the organism has other mutations that provide net benefit. Otherwise, the organism would do away with it or die out eventually. As a result, you'll find a lot of unnecessary complexities in organisms (no intelligent designer makes things unnecessarily complex). Imagine you made a t-shirt, and sewed another t-shirt to that t-shirt for no reason. This is the sort of complexity we find in biological organisms, and this is consistent with evolution, which forces organisms to shed harmful mutations or die out (dormant mutations, e.g male nip.ples and wisdom teeth may needlessly remain).

Attributg purposeful design from chance, by injectg the element of time is hogwash. Even, scientists know this. It's only supported because of course nobody can go back in time to observe the process - to prove it. So it's a theory (a conjecture).
On a small scale, evolution is scientifcally unreplicable. E.g,
take basic life forms, suspend them in an observable medium for a long time, say 50yrs, will they morph into higher more advanced life forms? No.
Assumg, by fluke of chance they did, are u sayg, there's a law that basic life forms+time = progressive more advanced life forms?
Wat injected the element of progressiveness into the trend? Time?
Theyre only 3 states those organisms cudve sunk into:
no progress, retrogression/decay,
advancement.

I hope, from my previous explanation, we can now agree that evolution is not chance/random process. For more information on this, click HERE
Another misconception you seem to have is what constitutes scientific theory. Scientific theories aren't conjectures at all. They are explanations built upon experimentally demonstrated facts. Actually, attaining the status of 'theory' in science is the highest possible scientific acknowledgement any proposition can achieve after extensive, rigorous scrutiny (e.g. electromagnetic theory which has provided us with mobile phones, internet, GPS and so on).

And contrary to your false assertion, evolution has actually been witnessed on small scale in labs here's an example. I hope you change your stance on that. It is a lot more difficult to witness it on macroscale as this takes several thousands of years to manifest, which is beyond the timescale of a human's lifetime.

Finally, while basic lifeforms may evolve and change their methods of adaptation, they do not always have to evolve into complex lifeforms. In fact, this hardly happens, as it does seem there are more unicellular organisms than multicelullar ones in existence. This supposition is difficult to confirm mainly because we don't have a full list of the more readily observable multicelullar organisms, talk less of unicellular ones.

I dont even want to talk about the assumed multiplicity from a singularity, evolution glides over.

I don't know what you mean.

asalimpo:
As an evolutionist you hav no business talkg of peace. because, morality is pointless. Life is pointless. Livg is aimless.
It's all just an endless meaningless cycle. Animals prey on others, to satisfy their cravgs, the violence is necessary to achieve the objective - quench hunger for one. One falls victim. The carnivore dies to become manure which nourishes the grass another victim will feed fat on to bcome prey for anoda carnivore .... Process brgins ad infinitum.
No moral element,no lastg peace,just survival.
Corporate greed is all survival.
Stealg is all survival.
By the theory of evolution and the atheistic perspectve,it is out of sync and hypocritcal to crave , higher states like morality,peace, fairness.

To start with, let's clarify a few of your crude conceptions of evolution.

1) Evolution is NOT a way of life or a religion, it is a theory that attempts to explain natural phenomena in living organisms.

2) It states that nature will only reward those species with a good survival strategy, and eliminate those without. This explains why around 90% of species that ever lived have gone extinct. They couldn't cope beneficially!


3) Evolution is not a linear, one size fits all process. It postulates that the diversity of needs in the kingdom of the living is as vast as the various environmental conditions. For this very reason, the theory of evolution cannot prescribe the elixir of survival to any species, rather it tries to understand, and subsequently describe their survival strategy.

4) The ultimate goal of all evolutionary processes is survival. In other words, evolution is long term adaptation. Hence, if morality aids survival of any species, it will necessarily be adopted as part of their behavioral template.

5) While evolution has many practical applications, like mastering how to conquer the evolutional paths of living things and making them more useful (eg in antibiotics, antiviruses, manure, disease resistant food crops etc), evolution is a fundamental science at its core, only driven by a need to know. Fortunately, this fact about evolution means it can be discussed, debated and discarded for a more comprehensive theory.

Now, you seem to have something against evolution, yet you're having difficulty articulating yourself. Let me make it easy for you by asking questions systematically.

So, my first question to you is why you think evolution precludes morality?

These guys just don't get it... When evil is mentioned, god becomes little helpless purring kitten (awww so cute). Not one paragraph after painting the image of a defenseless powerless god, it suddenly morphs into an omni-everything.

asalimpo:
your thinkg is skewed really.
I had addressed ur lop sided logc in the post. Besides, evolution is ridiculous. If u wanted to b honest,you'd admit it's tattered broken logic.
For 1,assuming God prevented the collpse what difference wud it make to the atheists viewpoint?

You keep bringing in the evolution straw man out of desperation, as if accepting the postulates of evolution is a prerequisite for being an atheist.

Allow me to indulge your desperation and take you up on your straw man. What do you understand of evolution? And what do you disagree with, regarding the theory?

abdulwastecx:
I like this guy....when are we going to just be human that uses our brain tot reason instead of some books and religious dogmas

Only religion can make otherwise intelligent people defend incredibly dumb things.

ketekete:
Holy Miracle?, a baby was born in a church in Ibadan but guess what was found in him hand? – Holy Quran.

In an interview with journalists in Ibadan, A preacher based in Ibadan, Oyo State, Dr Dawood Amoo said this is a miracle that allah does exist. He said although the development was not strange, the boy named Ismail was unique as the said mini Qur’an contained all the 114 chapters in the holy book.

[url]http://ketekete.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Holy-Qur%E2%80%99an-found-in-a-new-born-babys-hand-Ibadan.jpg[/url]

The father of the baby, identified simply as Semiu, said he thanked Allah for the blessings, saying it was an indication that Allah wanted them back in the fold of Islam. he said they will convert to Islam because its a sign that Allah loves them. He said with the signs directly from Allah, “I have resolved that my wife and I will revert to Islam and be worshipping our Creator till we answer His call.” He said the people living nearby have turned their house into mecca of sort as they all want to see the new born baby. They all keep saying seeing is believing for them.

Oh... What a miracle! I think its even a bigger miracle that the new born baby is putting on clothes and has beaded bracelets on too, and has the Quran tied to his hand with rope...too many miracles in this picture than can be counted!!! Praise Allah for his underwhelming miracles.

Man has learned to defy gravity, Allah is still handing babies Qurans...lol

asalimpo:
how is he suppose to verify the claim? Visit the boy physcally, get the hospital records? Get a video showg the boy in d operating theater? Give d boy a polygraph test shwg he isnt lying?
You tht blve in evolution, have u subjected your own belief to this level of rigour?
At what point of testg will it b accepted tht the boy is telling the truth?

If you can't verify a claim, you shouldn't believe it is fact.

I believe in evolution, what? I don't believe in evolution, anymore than you believe that gravity exists. It is a scientific model, a theory that explains why there are several species. It's not a perfect theory, but a best fit one. I don't need the theory of evolution to function, and if it is scientifically falsified, I'll welcome the new theory that takes its place. I'm not an evolution-biologist myself, so I don't carryout tests on the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, I read about it routinely, and there are some pretty elegant demonstrations of its occurrence, eg, convergence of genetic variations in all living things. You can read the Wikipedia entry on it, and you'll be amazed.

BraveGuy:
I guess you are the one who may not know the meaning of hallucination. For argument's sake here it is:
"an experience involving the apparent perception of something not present."

Now answer my previous question about the boy, because so far, you have failed to provide an explanation as to the facts the boy brought back with him in his glimpse of heaven:
#1. The sister he never met nor was aware ever existed.
#2. His grandfather whom he never met but was able to identify in a photo?
#3. His view of his father screaming in the chapel?
#4. His description of what Jesus Christ truly looks like?

Were these as a result of hallucinations?
If not, what was it that he experienced?

You just never listen, do you? I previously said:

Asking atheists to explain this is like me claiming to be superman and asking you to prove otherwise. It is quite impossible to prove a negative, isn't it?

Asking anybody to prove that a subjective experience is not real is asking the person to prove a negative. You can't prove a negative unless you have all possible information in the universe, and you can only prove you have all possible information in the universe to a person equally as versed about the universe. Do you see the difficulty? So the burden of proof really is on you, the claimant, especially given that you choose to ignore all the plausible physical explanations in place of the most credulous one. YOU need to show that your story is factually.

For example, you call the boy's supposed glimpse of heaven a fact, but you really don't know that, because you cannot verify such a claim.

Emmalot121:
This is my second account. Let's just say 'creature' was an human error . I don't need to view your link cos I've read stuffs like that. You call bible a fairytale? Come off it! Tell me which one is a fairytale, is it Nebuchadnezzar or crossing of red sea or the fall of the great wall of Jericho? History will explain better. Tell me a place in Bible that God told Istrael to fight for fun? Or maybe you really think God a small boy, cos his a three letter word. If he destroys the universe, what are you gonna do?

I read where after the Palestines had taken the ark of God, which slain a great number of people, they took the ark to a certain people, those people shouted and cried, their cries were heard in heaven and they were not slain. This shows you that it is sin that separates man from God. I'm sure you don't understand the story of Isaac or you're playing a fast one.

It is very sad that you don't know what is called theory and law, if you do, the law of matter(energy) is constant and as gone through all observable checks. Big bang is a theory because it still has a hell lot of questions to answer.

You say you believe in an Infinite being, who created the world, but that being is silly enough not to reveal himself. Faith is something extraordinary and scientific, if you have great faith, give it the most difficult of puzzles, it will unravel it.

I am not here to prove silly that God(of Bible) exist, but here to defend my FAITH .

So you have read such links, yet you have failed to debunk them?

All you've done here is pull off mendacious maneuvers: "Every god that demands blood and contradicts its self is fake except when it's my god"

Alas, my worse fear is confirmed. You're just another hypocrite after all.

paulGrundy:
Numerous occurences of miracles abound and there are several accounts online. Check out these videos of synagogue church website.

http://www.scoan.org/media/healing/

As per bolded it means when God uses someone to tell you details about your past that no one knows. God uses it to touch lives and provide solutions to peoples problems.

All fantastical claims, and a mesmerising display of miraculous powers. Today there are members of the same church who were victims of flagrant abuse of state laws, who have suffered incurable damage to their limbs. I'd love to see the same man heal them... When he's done, he should raise the over 100 members who met their untimely demise in that collapsed building from their deaths. Then I'll truly believe.

paulGrundy:
Incurable illnesses healed, personal experience of the gift of word of knowledge, the dead raised e.t.c.

I don't know what the emboldened means.

As for healing "incurable illness" and raising the dead, those are indeed remarkable. So, have you any source on the occurrence of such miracles?

asalimpo:
if his story is true,he proves that there's a spirit world.

The experience itself could be true, but it doesn't prove that there's a spirit world.

asalimpo:
Besides, more people from different walks of life have narrated oob experiences that indicate there's a world beyond this.
They'd all have to b lying- which they arent.
The bible explicitly says there's one.

OOB experience doesn't require you to lie. The experience itself could be real, but it is in no way indicative of "a world beyond this". Hallucinations happen and they often seem real too.

asalimpo:
there is too much minutiae here for a sickman to take note of.

Exactly!!! So there's no need to trust his claim

He has given his account. Tryg to fault it by sayg it was possibly brain induced is a cop out.
And you know that.

I simply do not know what the experience was, period. It could be anything. So the burden of proof lies with whoever wishes to pass this off as real.

Even if you doubt, the method u use is discriminatory because you accept many incidents as true based entirely on only hearsay and act on the information given without resolvg to minutiae inspection.

If I take anything as real, it's because it can be verified. Otherwise, I have no obligation to accept its claim.

paulGrundy:
Sorry! I don't chat my nairaland muslims, you banned us from your section and now you expect me to chat with you?!

No way!

Tell your oga at the top to stop forcing people to convert to islam.

I'll ignore your unabashed prejudice and directly address your misconception about me: I'm not Muslim, and if it makes you feel better, I've also been banned from the same forum, although, I wouldn't go as far as embracing guilt by association tactics. I will still engage with Muslims that feel like engaging.

Now you can feel free to chat with me.