Budaatum's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Budaatum's Profile › Budaatum's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 (of 1630 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: Do Creationists Publish In Notable Refereed Journals? by budaatum: 5:27pm On Jun 15, 2019

johnydon22:
To me, any idea that bears the courage to attempt answering questions that we need to explore should be given an equal platform to be heard according to the merits of its argument.

I do not agree with censorship in anyway.

What! Because one is bold one's research should be published? You are aware that scientific research is peer reviewed before publication, right, as in even before publication, one would get someone who knows of the topic to critique it? Should quality not matter?

No scientific journal will publish just anything, especially if it does not meet up to prescribed standards which all scientific journals have. Just as one wouldn't expect to read about gods in a science textbook, so too would one not expect to see god under any guise in a scientific journal unless it is presenting compelling well researched evidence never before heard and according to established scientific standards. But unfortunately, the gods don't seem to do science or stand up against scientific scrutiny.

And its not not published because its about gods and is censored, but because its not usually presented as a scientific paper or according to proper scientific research methods. If it were any good it would eventually be published despite all attempts to censor it. We learnt this from the likes of Copernicus and Galileo both whose works were censored but which eventually did see the light of day.

Crap science will just never get the same consideration as good science gets, fortunately, or someone might just pass pseudoscience off as science. And good science cannot be censored because someone will eventually publish it anyway. Competition is just way too good and thriving to kill off good science, in the long run.

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolution 101 by budaatum(op): 5:03pm On Jun 15, 2019

On Unconscious Bias In Science

by Prof. Jaboury Ghazoul, ETH Zurich

Science is never truly objective. Charles Darwin and his failed theory on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy can provide an excellent role model, writes Jaboury Ghazoul.

"One long gigantic blunder": that's how Charles Darwin described his 1839 paper on the parallel "roads" of Glen Roy. Three perfectly horizontal terraces run along the slopes of Glen Roy, a valley in northwest Scotland. Explaining how they got there was a puzzle that perplexed geologists of the day. Darwin, recently returned from his round-the-world voyage on the HMS Beagle, was captivated by Charles Lyell's "actual causes" theory of geology, whereby landforms such as mountains arise from small successive episodes of uplift.

In Chile, Darwin had himself seen marine beaches recently elevated by earthquakes. Keen to prove his scientific credentials, the young Darwin set out to confirm the validity of Lyell's theory by showing that Glen Roy's parallel roads were marine terraces uplifted in the geologically recent past.

Wishful research

Darwin looked for seashells and barnacles to provide the evidence of marine origins. During eight days of fieldwork he found none. This he dismissed as simple lack of preservation. Lack of preservation also explained the absence of equivalent terraces in neighbouring glens. Nonetheless, Darwin wrote to Lyell, "I have fully convinced myself … that the shelves are sea-beaches, – although I could not find a trace of a shell, & I think I can explain away most, if not all, the difficulties." (9 August 1838.)

The "sea-beaches" turned out to be nothing of the sort. Soon after Darwin published his Glen Roy paper, Louis Agassiz using his glacial theory explained the roads as wave-cut platforms from glacial lakes impounded by ice dams. How did Darwin get it so wrong? His acute powers of observation and interpretation were subjugated by his desire to marshal facts in support of a favoured theory.

"Shoehorning" observations into theory

Science is never truly objective. We have favoured theories that we abandon reluctantly, and we interpret evidence through this prism. New ideas in science often attract excitement that engenders demand for confirmation, and before long a plethora of studies corroborate the new theory. Authors publishing such studies secure recognition, and journals secure citations. In the early development of a theory it is difficult to publish studies that go against the prevailing trend, creating a publication bias.

None of this implies intentional scientific fraud. Rather, researchers might give added weight, albeit unconsciously, to outcomes or data that meet preconceived expectations. Stephen Jay Gould called this "shoehorning" data into theory. Once a theory becomes entrenched, the most novel studies become those that challenge it. Publishing negative results becomes more acceptable with time, and a theory is adapted or ultimately rejected. Karl Popper's emphasis on refutation is all but forgotten, until refutation itself becomes novel.

The case of conservation

None of this matters much in my field of plant ecology, beyond taxing the pride of the researchers concerned. It is more serious when derived conclusions have applied relevance, by influencing resource management or environmental policies. In applied fields of research, there is more pressure to deliver evidence, and more to be gained in doing so – which can increase the likelihood of unconscious bias. This might explain contrasting conclusions on, for example, toxicity of pesticides on bees from studies funded by corporations or environmental organisations.

This brings us to value-laden sciences such as conservation. Conservation scientists have an agenda. Our science provides an evidence base for conservation action, set within the value that global biodiversity ought to be protected. Conservation science aims to justify this value by demonstrating the benefits of biodiversity to local and global communities. But how credible can these claims be if research serves a normative conservation agenda? We are not dispassionate observers. If we question the veracity of studies funded by agrichemical industries, then shouldn't the objectivity of research by avowed conservationists be subject to similar scrutiny?

It is commonly accepted that we need to save our declining bees for the sake of global food production. Without crucial pollinators, crops produce less fruit. Yet global crop production continues to increase. The issue is clearly more complex than meets the eye. Perhaps studies that show no decline in crop production with fewer pollinators are less likely to be published. Factors unrelated to pollinators might affect crop production at large scales, or perhaps crops are declining in some areas but the shortfall is met by increased production elsewhere. Whatever the reason, the "pollination crisis" has been marketed to the media and policy makers as an urgent environmental problem that threatens food production, despite at least some evidence to the contrary. Is this environmental issue overstated, and does unconscious bias play a role? I don't know, but it would be naïve not to consider this possibility.

The wider concern is that unconscious bias in presentation of evidence could undermine the credibility of conservation science. This is critical when we seek to persuade those who do not share our values to come round to our way of thinking – that conservation is necessary. Our desire to conserve life's riches might incline us, however unintentionally, towards particular ways of collecting, interpreting, and presenting data. We should remind ourselves, as conservationists and as scientists, that we are vulnerable to unintentional bias even as we seek objectivity.

Darwin as ever provides an excellent role model. He reluctantly but completely acknowledged the failings of his own Glen Roy theory: "I give up & abominate Glen Roy & all its belongings … I do believe every word in my Glen Roy paper is false" (14 October 1862). On occasion, we might need to do the same, and we would be better scientists for it.

Christianity Etc › Re: Do Creationists Publish In Notable Refereed Journals? by budaatum: 4:39pm On Jun 15, 2019

johnydon22:
Oh, I think it is unfair then to censor any idea and it is dangerously problematic

Even if that idea has no scientist basis? Should just anything be published in a scientific journal then?

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 4:27pm On Jun 15, 2019

EmperorHarry:
Yes buda..you may rest now

Thank you sir. We, will live!

1 Like 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: Desperate Attempts To Discover ‘the Elusive Process Of Evolution’ by budaatum: 4:26pm On Jun 15, 2019

Q&A: intelligent design
The theories behind intelligent design

What is intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design says that life is so complex that it must have been designed by a higher intelligent being, and not evolved by natural selection - as Charles Darwin argued and the vast majority of scientists now believe. Followers argue that the scientific community is not as convinced by evolution as we are led to believe, and urge that we should be more critical in our consideration of evolution.

Is there any scientific evidence for intelligent design?
No.

Is there any scientific evidence for evolution?

There's an HIV strain mutating as you read this, there's a fossil record going back millions of years - where do you want to start?

So why do intelligent people believe in intelligent design?

Many Christians and Muslims see the theory of evolution as undermining belief in God - a view militant atheists, like Richard Dawkins, the bestselling British biologist, and the American philosopher Daniel Dennett, are also keen to promote. On the other hand there are plenty of distinguished scientists who believe in God - Lord Winston or the late Stephen Jay Gould, for instance. The mainstream churches, including the Catholic church and the Church of England accept evolution.

There is also a widespread misunderstanding that the process of evolution is somehow random and "God doesn't play dice". Mutation of genes is random, but there is nothing random about the operation of natural selection - if an organism isn't fit for purpose, it doesn't survive.

Is intelligent design another name for creationism?

Intelligent design does share a number of similarities with creationism, and the phrase appears in several examples of creationist literature. They both argue that evolution is unable to account for the vast array of species, and both promote the concept of a designer.

There are differences. First, intelligent design accepts that the earth is millions of years old, not adhering to the creationist, biblically derived argument that the earth was created some 6,000 years ago. But this was not enough to convince a court in Pennsylvania that intelligent design was scientific as opposed to a religious belief, and in 2005 schools in the town of Dover were banned from teaching it.

Intelligent design accepts that species do undergo small amounts of change, whereas creationists believe that all forms of life were created in their current form at the time of the earth's creation. However intelligent design claims that these changes are the result of a guiding hand, not the result of random genetic mutations and natural selection.

Is intelligent design taught in UK schools?

There were accusations that creationism and intelligent design were being taught in academies funded by the Christian philanthropist Sir Peter Vardy, although the schools denied this.

Earlier this year the government - prompted by revelations in the Guardian - stepped in to forbid the use of teaching materials advocating intelligent design circulated by a group called Truth in Science.

However intelligent design and creationism can be discussed in religious education lessons or under the heading of history of science. This is what the Church of England's head of education, the Rev Jan Ainsworth, is apparently advocating.

What does flying spaghetti have to do with any of this?

A recent development has been the growth of so-called Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, a satirical "religion" created by Bobby Henderson, a physics graduate of Oregon State University. He wrote to the Kansas Board of Education in June 2005 alerting them to the many people who believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and demanding that science lessons be split three-ways: "One third time for intelligent design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Henderson's point is that the concept of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is every bit as rational a concept as intelligent design. He has received sympathetic responses from members of the board who also oppose intelligent design, as well as attracting overwhelming support from "followers" all over the world.

Guardian

2 Likes 2 Shares

Christianity Etc › Re: Desperate Attempts To Discover ‘the Elusive Process Of Evolution’ by budaatum: 4:14pm On Jun 15, 2019

Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design in Public Schools

Science and religious faith need not be seen as mutually exclusive, but public schools are currently at the center of a struggle between groups that seem to feel that they are. Religious groups hold strong feelings about certain scientific concepts and have fought to try to eliminate or alter curriculums that include them. Educators and scientists have opposed religious groups' attempts to adjust or eliminate curriculums they find offensive, citing the constitutional separation of church and state.

At present, the fight centers around evolutionary theory, generally supported by scientists and educators, which states that life developed through a series of natural phenomenon resulting in adaptive change over time. Religious groups opposing evolution promote creation science or intelligent design, the theory that life developed with the assistance of an intelligent, effectively divine, creator or designer.

Banning Evolution

The modern line of cases on this topic begins with the 1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas. The state had introduced a law that forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools. Epperson was a public school teacher who sued, stating that the law forbidding the teaching of evolution was a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech. The court agreed with Epperson and also found that the portion of the law permitting the teaching of creationism violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process protections, which prevent the state from advancing or promoting a religion.

Requiring Equal Study of Creationism

A district court in the 1982 case McLean v. Arkansas frequently cited Epperson in its decision. Educators and parents had sued because of a law that required public schools to provide equal time to creation-science and evolution-science studies. The plaintiff's prevailed in overturning the law as an unconstitutional violation of Free Speech, Due Process, and Equal Protection guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The decision speaks at length about the motivations of the law's proponents and, at the time of the decision, it was unclear whether a law prepared less explicitly for the purpose of introducing religious teachings into the classroom would pass constitutional muster. Cases such as 1987's Edwards v. Aguillard, in which the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law requiring biology teacher to teach 'creation science' alongside evolution, continued to find such requirements unconstitutional and frequently analyzed the purpose of the laws at issue.

Intelligent Design as Science

Some groups began to advance the notion of intelligent-design as a scientific theory. Evolution, they argue, is itself only a theory. Intelligent-design proponents support their theory that life developed through the intervention of an intelligent designer. Through examples of "irreducible complexity" in nature. These developments, they claim, are unexplainable without the assistance of a larger consciousness. However, opponents argue that intelligent-design is not science, since it is not based upon discovering natural causes through observation and testing. They also contend that the emphasis on evolution's classification as a theory is misleading; they argue that evolutionary theory is termed a theory not because many doubt its correctness, but because of more technical reasons relating to scientific standards of proof.

The federal courts first addressed intelligent design in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005. A local school board in Dover, Pennsylvania voted to require teachers to read a statement about intelligent design prior to discussions of evolution in high school biology classes. The judge found that the practice violated the Establishment clause, concluding that intelligent design is not a science because it fails to seek a natural cause for observed phenomenon, among other reasons.

Limited Creationist Successes

While the Alabama Board of Education has approved the teaching of evolution starting in 2016, the board currently includes a disclaimer sticker on science textbooks that states that evolution is an unproven theory. The sticker is the subject of a referendum scheduled for 2016. Georgia's textbooks included a similar disclaimer sticker that was challenged in Selman v. Cobb County School District. After some losses under the Establishment Clause, the board decided to drop the it, though it isn't clear that the practice is necessarily unconstitutional.

Indeed, not all attempts to influence how evolution is taught have failed. Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas all require in their science standards that students "critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory." In addition, Louisiana and Mississippi have legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of evolution.

1 Like 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 4:03pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
when you improved. Hit back at me.

Lol. I love you vaxx.

1 Like 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 4:01pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
case closed Buddha. Hardly can I welcome this no more. I don't spoondeed adult.

You can't close a case vaxx. You always come back and hit me with the same tripe under a different guise and buda shall be patiently waiting.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 3:58pm On Jun 15, 2019

EmperorHarry:
Its the dead dead we're talking about.
Everybody dies from brain death.

So, you do mean the dead, the sort that is not kept alive by any means whatsoever because its dead, so cremate it or put it in a box and put it in a hole so it don't stink and where it becomes worm food.

Shall buda rest?

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 3:54pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
primary data ( DNA sequence), keyhole sequence, blood transmission sequence.

Secondary data ( Replication of trait, pre determined event). Yet you said i don't present any data. I doubt you do science at school not write a literature reveiw for once.

When it comes to learning, you need that advice very fast than i do.

Like I said, did I dig up the wrong post?

I don't see any "(DNA sequence), keyhole sequence, blood transmission sequence" nor "Secondary data (Replication of trait, pre determined event)" in your post which I've replicated below so future readers might point it out to me if you don't!

There's nothing in what you presented below that could possibly qualify as "science at school" or "literature review". Not only is it not "science", its not even "literature" either!

vaxx:
The Yoruba afterlife consists of Reincarnation. However, what distinguishes the yoruba reincarnation concepts from Indian versions is that yoruba version explain that you reincarnate from your ancestors and into your descendants. The Indian version is a lie crafted by Aryans to deceive the Black Indians into believing that they can reincarnate into other castes so there's no reason to fight against the higher castes but just hope to reincarnate into it in the next life. This is all lies and propaganda.

The truth is that you can only reincarnate thru your clan or extended-family descendants. It doesn't have to be your direct great grandchild (it can be, for example, the great-grandchild of your second-cousin for example). It just has to have enough of your DNA code for you to transfer your spirit into it. In theory, you can transfer to anyone who shares your ethnic group DNA code. However, most genetic DNA theories are racist manipulation of science. DNA is not just a physical code but like a keyhole that allows you to open doors in the next reincarnation.

If you do not have the proper key (DNA), you cannot open the keyhole of someone who doesn't share your DNA sequence. This is why many Yoruba names point to the reincarnation of people, but always thru the extended-family. Nameslike Babatunde (father has returned) reflect the Yoruba notion that reincarnation is a family affair.

This is why ancestral veneration is important in Yoruba. You are not just talking to dead people; you are remembering and learning from your past.

If you do not learn from your past (in this life and in formerones), you will repeat mistakes. That is the purpose of ancestral veneration (egungun) in IFA: Yoruba Scientific Spirituality.Also, Yoruba reincarnation does not believe that once you reach "nirvana" you will stop reincarnating.

So don't believe you will escape that way either. The Odu Ifa tells us that we will all reincarnate until every single human has reached. enlightenment. We are a communal species.

When you don't understand this truth about reincarnation, you will not take efforts to improve the conditions of your clan or ethnic group because you think you will escape it in death's heaven or join another ethnic group in reincarnation. Then when you return to Earth in the same oppressed ethnic group, you complain even though in your former life you did not fight to liberate your ethnic group.

You must understand this cycle. Though the Europeans and Beige race pretends to be Christian, they understand true Reincarnation very well. This is why their clans establish strong dynasties and they accumulate wealth not just for them, but for the next three generations after them. They know they are coming back and they want to be wealthy while they sell you the lie that you can die and go to heaven to escape this cycle.I.e., Black folks. You will not escape your oppression in death's heaven nor in Indian reincarnation.

You are going to continue coming to Earth as a Black person and you are going to continue to struggle as Black until you begin to plan for the progress of Blacks three generations into the future (that you have enough prosperity that you can take care of your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren).
A true devotee of the egungun plans for the next 16 generations of prosperity.

In fact, after reading it again, I laugh, vaxx!

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 3:44pm On Jun 15, 2019

EmperorHarry:
Nope.If you claim to have four heads on two shoulders then it's a possibility until evidence is provided that either supports this claim or refutes and renders it invalid. It would be prejudice on my part to dismiss your theory based on what I feel is logical or illogical.That's the scientific method.

I don't think any scientist would consider buda's two shoulder four head unless buda actually presents some evidence actually. If buda just asserts two shoulders and four heads like buda has done on here, most scientist would just label buda a crackpot and not give buda the time of day. That is what credible scientists do with creationism, at least, and creationism has a lot more going for it than buda's two shoulders and four heads.

Read here to see how scientists treat buda's two shoulder and four heads if you care.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 3:35pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
I found your rebuttal not interesting. Seriously. I provide data and info to back up my claim. I didn't cough it out my throat Buddha. A well thought out individual will engage me on the possibility of my presentation by looking at the data I presented and how explicabe and applicable they maybe. And not replying ne with ludicrous response no ones learn that way.
.

You presented no data at all. What you presented, in your own words was, "speculation", which you claim was a "possibility", but which so far in the entire human history has never been shown to have possibly happened. And to be honest vaxx, as usual, you don't intend to learn, but expect to ram crap down buda's throat! And you must forgive buda for stubbornly resisting!

Go read about Jung's psychological perspective on reincarnation. You'd see it's an idea that has value despite it not ever happening in the real world.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 3:27pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
A complete loss of brainstem function and consciousness and permanent cessation of circulation cannot be restored or reversed. No one has ever fully undergo biological death and still come back to life. Not even pope or mother Theresa.

Emperor, please see definition of 'dead' as given by vaxx. This is the 'dead' I am talking about.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 3:21pm On Jun 15, 2019

EmperorHarry:
I mean brain dead after the heart stops cos the brain could still be alive for minutes after the heart stops circulation of blood and oxygen to the brain hence the need for CPR and other resuscitative techniques.

It's not the same as the dead dead we were talking about! Let me know if you are asking what happens to the brain dead. There is a clear difference.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 3:18pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
Scienctifc fact are not base on element of truth, scienctifc data are approximation not certainity. If you want something to be true, you better deal with theology and philosophy.

Once you have data and info. Bring it fourth. We can examine the level of certainity of your ludicrous thought of having four head on your shoulder.

You are the one making a claim about the possibility of reincarnation. And since it's a free for all, I figured it was a good time to bring up my equally ludicrous and impossible two shoulders and four heads especially since it seems no evidence was required for either claim which, according to you, need "not be based on elements of truth".

I'd call it fantasy world myself, where one can't blatantly lie and anything is a possibility. But I honestly don't know nor live in such a world where buda has two shoulders and four heads and pigs have wings and fly!

Christianity Etc › Re: Do Creationists Publish In Notable Refereed Journals? by budaatum: 3:07pm On Jun 15, 2019

Taking on creationism.

Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?

As the noted geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975) famously commented, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” However, creationism in its many forms insists that everything in nature was created by a deity: from the movement of chloride ions through a channel in response to the binding of a ligand, to the bizarre life-forms that were deposited in the Burgess Shale more than 500 million years ago. To any mainstream biologist, creationism sounds ludicrous and scientists have repeatedly fought attempts to introduce the teaching of creationism generally, and intelligent design particularly, into school curricula. However, like many scientists and commentators, Jerry Coyne, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, IL, USA, fears that the social impact of these movements could extend far beyond the purely scientific debate. Therefore, scientists need to counter the claims of the proponents of creationism and determine which arguments best support the case for evolutionary theory and, more generally, support science itself in the public arena.

…the fervour of the anti-evolutionary lobby means that it is now a question of how, not whether, biologists must educate the public about evolution and natural selection

From its heartland in America's ‘Bible belt', creationism is slowly extending its reach. “It's difficult to quantify, but my strong sense is that creationism is spreading across Europe,” said Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Ten years ago the movement was negligible. Today, it is clearly more substantial.” Last year, the Guardian reported that 59 schools in the UK were using information about intelligent design as “a useful classroom resource” (Randerson, 2006).

Biologists have long-debated whether and how to respond to claims that the theory of evolution must be taught together with more or less biblical interpretations of the origins of life on Earth. However, the fervour of the anti-evolutionary lobby means that it is now a question of how, not whether, biologists must educate the public about evolution and natural selection. Yet, scientists face a dilemma. The danger is that if scientists engage the proponents of creationism and intelligent design in direct debate, they risk giving further credence to anti-evolutionary arguments by inferring that the ideas are worthy of discussion. Conversely, a failure to engage in debate could allow creationists to argue that biologists cannot, rather than will not, counter their arguments.

Creationism itself is not a unified movement; its various incarnations encompass a gamut of philosophical positions (Scott, 2000), including intelligent design. As Michael Coates, in the Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago, IL, USA, noted: “[intelligent design] covers a wide spectrum of beliefs—just as creationists include anything from believers in a god that did no more than light the blue touch-paper of life, the universe and everything, through to a strongly interventionist deity who counts dead sparrows, answers prayers and directs the occasional thunderbolt.”

The Catholic Church—one of the most historically ardent opponents of Darwin's grand theory of evolution—has made its peace with the subject. Before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote that, “[w]e cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities” (Ratzinger, 1995).

Proponents of intelligent design might accept some minor aspects of evolutionary theory. However, intelligent design by definition denies that mutation and natural selection can explain, for example, the evolution of chordates from echinoderms. It draws its intellectual roots from a teleological argument that has been supported by some philosophers since Plato's Timaeus. The English theologist William Paley (1743–1805) formulated the most famous example: if one found a watch, the order, complexity and purpose would argue for a watchmaker. Similarly, because the universe shows order, complexity and purpose, there must be a creator.

…scientists face a dilemma…a failure to engage in debate could allow creationists to argue that biologists cannot, rather than will not, counter their arguments

According to Conway Morris, such teleological seeds often fall on fertile ground. “Many creationists are genuinely astonished by the diversity of living organisms,” he said. “[A]s biologists, we tend to use mechanistic metaphors, which implicitly encourage the idea of a maker. So, one can see why the idea of an intelligent designer appeals to someone not versed in evolutionary theory. [Intelligent design] is not science and I think it's bad theology, but I can see why people hold the view.”

This might explain why so many educated people take intelligent design seriously, as Coyne commented: “Intelligent design is attracting some serious attention, it's not just a few quacks who think that the earth is flat.” During a debate held in May, three out of the ten Republican candidates for the US presidency said that they did not believe in evolution. “We should worry when the fundamentalists start to run public budgets and gain, or attempt to gain, political influence,” Coates said.

Intelligent design and creationism do not just limit themselves to refuting the theory of evolution; the attack on science extends to other fields including geology, astronomy and even scientific materialism. The Center for Science and Culture (Seattle, WA, USA), which describes itself as “the nation's leading think-tank challenging various aspects of evolutionary theory” comments on its website: “We think the materialistic world view that has dominated Western Intellectual life since the late 19th century is false and we want to refute it […] Materialism is a dehumanising philosophy” (Discovery Institute, 2003). Coyne commented, “[c]reationism is an attack on the materialistic basis of science […] This carries forward into [the creationist] view of other evidence. Many creationists believe that global warming is a hoax, for example. They simply don't accept scientific evidence.”

Coyne agrees with the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, one of the staunchest defenders of evolutionary theory, that engaging creationists in direct debate is a waste of time. “The whole history of the debate shows us that such debates of rhetorical fencing are futile,” he said. Conway Morris, however, objects to the intellectual arrogance of some biologists. “Some of the more extreme secularists who effectively say that anyone who believes in [intelligent design] is stupid don't help to move the debate forward,” he said. “It's insulting and it's not surprising that the debates become acrimonious.”

A better strategy might therefore be to let the scientific evidence speak for itself. “It's hard for anyone to claim that evolution hasn't taken place when they're presented with the evidence,” Coyne agreed. “And it's worth pointing out that many people who believe in God also regard evolution as fact. The two aren't incompatible.” However, countering the rhetoric of the proponents of intelligent design and creationism with scientific evidence is not an easy task; evolutionary theory does not quite stir the belief and passion in most people that the grandeur of an Almighty does. Given the difficulties, what evidence can biologists use to counter creationist dogma?

For example, how can biologists counter the creationist argument that there are still many missing links in the fossil record that make evolutionary theory unworkable? Conway Morris noted that an understanding of what those missing links are is a good start. He pointed out that a marked phenotypic change, facilitating rapid evolution, might arise from a single-nucleotide polymorphism. “Life often seems as if it walks on a knife edge,” he said. “But in cases such as this there won't be an intermediate in the fossil record.” In any case, the fossil record contains numerous transitional forms that allow the reconstruction of, for example, the development of the modern whale (Balaena spp.) from the hippo-like Diacodexis spp., which existed some 50 million years ago. Missing links emerge regularly and it is quite likely that palaeontologists have simply not discovered them all yet.

Some biologists find that evolutionary convergence offers a powerful argument against intelligent design and highlights the effectiveness of natural selection. Creationists often cite the eye as a complex organ that could not have evolved without intervention. However, Conway Morris counters that, “[y]ou can track the evolution of the eye on several different occasions […] Despite very different origins, the pathways converge.” He cited the examples of the octopus and the trout; both have a similarly altered lens composition that corrects for spherical aberration. “They both produced the ideal parabola as described by physicists,” he explained. “But then again, both had to adapt to overcome the same limitation, so is it that surprising that they solved it in the same way?” In other words, the ancestors of the octopus and trout were selected for because these changes to their eye conferred increased fitness to the organism—they were better able to see and escape predators, and find food—and hence the change was propagated. No design was required, only the natural selection of a series of advantageous mutations.

During a debate held in May, three out of the ten Republican candidates for the US presidency said that they did not believe in evolution

Other examples of convergent evolution include silk, copper proteins and carbonic anhydrase. “Through examples such as this we can see the footprints of history even without the fossil record,” Conway Morris said. “There's almost a sense that these examples have to work in this way because of the environmental circumstance. Rather than being random, common phenotypes developed to adapt to common pressures.”

“In instances of convergence, evolutionary evidence is found in the detail,” Coates commented. “Molluscan and vertebrate lens composition might be remarkably similar, but vertebrate retinal structure remains ‘back to front'. A designer would orient the tips of photoreceptors so that they point towards the light source, and the parts of the retina that carry signal towards the brain should be farther removed. This seems fair enough, and this is how the squid retina is built, but vertebrate examples are assembled the other way around—perversely, light has to plunge the full depth of the retina to reach the point of reception.”

…evolutionary theory does not quite stir the belief and passion in most people that the grandeur of an Almighty does

Similarly, the HOX gene family that controls limb formation in vertebrates offers another example of evolution in action. “The evolution of paired fins into limbs with digits is a classic example of morphological transformation,” Coates said. “Evidence for homology between paired fins and limbs is compelling—from an evolutionary perspective, vertebrate limbs are best viewed as a specialized subset or kind of paired fins.” Indeed, the pattern of morphological change—the evolutionary sequence of anatomical transformation—is pretty well established. “This sets an agenda for developmental biology, concerning questions about differences between fin buds and limb buds, cell populations, tissues, signals and patterns,” Coates added. “As these questions are answered, the evolutionary transition from fins to limbs is likely to become an exemplar of changing pattern and process underpinning large-scale morphological change.”

However, although biologists can present good arguments for evolution, they still need to reach out to the general public and explain those arguments and engage in a dialogue. “Part of the answer is to introduce more evolutionary biology into early school curricula,” Coates commented. “Children need to grow up with the fact of evolution, and [the] awareness that it underpins biology. Teachers should be encouraged to be bold enough to talk about this early and often, from infants onwards—whatever the parents' faiths or the school governors' and/or trustees' faiths. There seems to be a widespread fear of treading on toes.” Coyne added that, “[t]oo often school science regards evolution as a given and focuses on the mechanisms, mimicry and so on […]. It rarely presents the evidence from, for example, the fossil record.”

In any case—like in any scientific field—there are still numerous areas of controversy in evolutionary theory. “Evolutionary theory remains a really fertile field,” Coyne agreed. “For example, we don't understand how species form.” His main area of research aims to ascertain whether speciation involves many or only a few genes, whether genetic drift plays a significant role, and whether the movement of transposable elements causes hybrid sterility or whether it undermines viability.

Similarly, Conway Morris has built his reputation on another controversy: the interpretation of the Burgess Shale that records an explosion of the numbers and types of life-form during the Cambrian period. His research group has recently submitted two papers that illustrate how body plans as amazingly diverse as those found in the shale might have emerged, and how nature ended up with organisms as different as starfish and fish. However, the basic question of what caused the Cambrian explosion—why life needed to adapt so quickly—remains open. “Before the Cambrian, life evolved fantastically slowly, then there was this sudden sea-change,” Conway Morris said. “An increase in oxygen levels is one possibility, but we don't really know.”

Part of the answer is to introduce more evolutionary biology into early school curricula

The British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane (1892–1964), one of the pioneers of classical population genetics, which reconciled Mendelian and Darwinian theory, once remarked that “fossil rabbits in the precambrian” would invalidate evolution. But his quip makes a serious point and highlights a key difference between evolutionary theory and creationism: as with any scientific theory, Darwinism is constantly challenged and reinforced by new evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, rejects scientific theory and new evidence and favours a more or less narrow world-view based on divine intervention. Therefore, until a Precambrian rabbit comes bounding out of the fossil record, the theories of natural selection and evolution remain the only valid explanations of how life on Earth developed.
_{The European Molecular Biology Organization}

Christianity Etc › Re: Do Creationists Publish In Notable Refereed Journals? by budaatum: 2:57pm On Jun 15, 2019

DoctorAlien:
I overrated you, your understanding, and your ability to make logical arguments anyway.

That's ok. It won't be the first time you've been wrong doc.

You never did say. Medical doc or what?

2 Likes 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 2:55pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
i am tired of this. No where do I say reincarnation must be true and speculation either is not true . Pls spare me this.

Good. So we need not be considering an untrue reincarnation under the current discussion, right? And if we would, we'd add my equally ludicrous speculative two shoulders and four heads along with creationism, right?

You know what? We evolved while you were over in Kenya. You need to catch up it would seem.

Christianity Etc › Re: Do Creationists Publish In Notable Refereed Journals? by budaatum: 2:48pm On Jun 15, 2019

hakeem4:
First of all there is no peer reviewed paper on creationism

In a nutshell, that's exactly what he is saying, though he does not say why, or rather, claims it is because of a bias against creationism. Could it be because creationism is pseudoscience? After all, before one can claim creationism one would have to show evidence for a creator, which, outside the realm of theology, does just not exist!

Nice try Doc!

Romance › Re: My Idea Of Feminism by budaatum: 2:40pm On Jun 15, 2019

Michellekabod2:
Oh Buda, didn't know you are active on romance section,could have mentioned you....

What is your take on the points I stated?
Hope to hear from you

I agree with them all. I'd even go further and claim women are way far superior to men but my reason is biased. But so it does not seem like I hide it, men are pigs! There.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 2:34pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
Buddha. You are somethings else. It is speculative , speculative, speculative. I have repeated this over time. I don't hold it as a valid statement but a possibility.

Good. Circle squared, again. A possibility that has proven to have never ever occurred, mind, and despite you contrary claim that you provided "DNA evidence for reincarnation", which you never did! You know buda. The buda who does not mix the fantasy in the head with actual reality.

Speculation does not make a thing true. If it did you'd not be arguing that my ludicrous speculative two shoulders and four heads is not a speculative possibility. You definitely would not have argued that creationism is invalid.

So, explain to me why you'd ask me to consider your "speculative, speculative, speculative reincarnation, hell and heaven, Yomi and so fourth...." in place of a known, "you die, we place you in a box, drop you in a hole to be food for worms so you don't stink us all up"?

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 2:15pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
Not until i understand what you mean?

You don't understand what I mean yet call it "erroneous" and "ludicrous" !?

Vaxx, is what you presented there a "theory for reincarnation using DNA and complex rebirth condition", or is it just a speculative "argument".

Have you presented your DNA evidence for reincarnation somewhere else and I missed it?

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolution 101 by budaatum(op): 2:10pm On Jun 15, 2019

TV01:
Hi @EmperorHarry, @All,

Agreed that adaptation is an observable and verified phenom. Is your point that be extension "evolution" is also? Adaptation happens within the confines of already extant genetic information.

So, I visit the gym, pump some iron, as do my offspring, and theirs after them. Over generations we become more muscular. Yet we remain humans (homo muscularis ). I would see that as adaptation

For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans (apes I know, but different by a degree of magnitude), requires the acquisition of new genetic material. Or more strikingly say a flightless/wingless creature, evolving into one able to fly.

Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?

Thanks
TV

You have misunderstood evolution.
Please read some more on the topic.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 2:05pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
This is erroneous approach to thinking. Buddha. It is ludicrous to notice you are using such line as comeback.

Ok try this line from you dna evidence for reincarnation thread!

vaxx:
life itself is about probability.... The chances that it is true ... Is what i presented...

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 1:55pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
You only make a statement here without any form of back up or rebuttal. That is not how to debate. I have propounded a theory using DNA and complex rebirth condition as my argument. And likewise I also argue for what are pre destined without changes whatsoever. For example black will always give birth to black and not the other way round. So your statement is aimless and non useful. .

Here, right?

Can someone please let me know if vaxx's DNA evidence for reincarnation is any different to the 4 heads on buda's two shoulders!

vaxx:
The Yoruba afterlife consists of Reincarnation. However, what distinguishes the yoruba reincarnation concepts from Indian versions is that yoruba version explain that you reincarnate from your ancestors and into your descendants. The Indian version is a lie crafted by Aryans to deceive the Black Indians into believing that they can reincarnate into other castes so there's no reason to fight against the higher castes but just hope to reincarnate into it in the next life. This is all lies and propaganda.

The truth is that you can only reincarnate thru your clan or extended-family descendants. It doesn't have to be your direct great grandchild (it can be, for example, the great-grandchild of your second-cousin for example). It just has to have enough of your DNA code for you to transfer your spirit into it. In theory, you can transfer to anyone who shares your ethnic group DNA code. However, most genetic DNA theories are racist manipulation of science. DNA is not just a physical code but like a keyhole that allows you to open doors in the next reincarnation.

If you do not have the proper key (DNA), you cannot open the keyhole of someone who doesn't share your DNA sequence. This is why many Yoruba names point to the reincarnation of people, but always thru the extended-family. Nameslike Babatunde (father has returned) reflect the Yoruba notion that reincarnation is a family affair.

This is why ancestral veneration is important in Yoruba. You are not just talking to dead people; you are remembering and learning from your past.

If you do not learn from your past (in this life and in formerones), you will repeat mistakes. That is the purpose of ancestral veneration (egungun) in IFA: Yoruba Scientific Spirituality.Also, Yoruba reincarnation does not believe that once you reach "nirvana" you will stop reincarnating.

So don't believe you will escape that way either. The Odu Ifa tells us that we will all reincarnate until every single human has reached. enlightenment. We are a communal species.

When you don't understand this truth about reincarnation, you will not take efforts to improve the conditions of your clan or ethnic group because you think you will escape it in death's heaven or join another ethnic group in reincarnation. Then when you return to Earth in the same oppressed ethnic group, you complain even though in your former life you did not fight to liberate your ethnic group.

You must understand this cycle. Though the Europeans and Beige race pretends to be Christian, they understand true Reincarnation very well. This is why their clans establish strong dynasties and they accumulate wealth not just for them, but for the next three generations after them. They know they are coming back and they want to be wealthy while they sell you the lie that you can die and go to heaven to escape this cycle.I.e., Black folks. You will not escape your oppression in death's heaven nor in Indian reincarnation.

You are going to continue coming to Earth as a Black person and you are going to continue to struggle as Black until you begin to plan for the progress of Blacks three generations into the future (that you have enough prosperity that you can take care of your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren).
A true devotee of the egungun plans for the next 16 generations of prosperity.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 1:33pm On Jun 15, 2019

EmperorHarry:
ways which doesn't necessarily have to be put in a hole or cremated.I recently learned that dead bodies can be recycled to become manure(not new tho since that is the natural method) and there are people signing up for their bodies to be used once confirmed to be brain dead.

A brain dead person is not a dead person, and in some countries you can't just dispose of a brain dead person!

Ancient Egypt buried quite a lot of dead bodies in it's very long history. They made for good fertiliser.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 1:26pm On Jun 15, 2019

EmperorHarry:
No buda I haven't seen a mind without a body although this doesn't rule it out as a possibility.

It doesn't? I guess unlike that stubborn vaxx, you would not rule out my two shoulders and four heads then?

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 1:24pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
i have been doing that with you. Especially with reincarnation. I created a hread that purposely hypothesized it scientifically and logically. Why are you confused. Science doesn’t reject the idea of reincarnation. The question is: What kind of reincarnation? Even an authority on the subject by the name , Friedrich Nietzsche already thought of it and called it, the Eternal return - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return)

You have not done anything "scientifically and logically" regarding reincarnation, and neither did Nietzsche. You both "thought" about it just as I can think of my two shoulders and four heads, but which for some odd reason, you refuse to accept yet ask me to accept your equally ludicrous reincarnation, which in fact ought to be a lot easier proved than an after life!

You speculated and so did Nietzsche, and you did a worse job than Jung who did a lot of research into the topic and wrote extensively about the psychology of reincarnation, which I would suggest you read because its invaluable. His Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious in which he discussed reincarnation is available free online.

2 Likes 1 Share

Travel › Re: Which Nigerian City Can Road Traffic Be As Discipline As This? (PHOTOS) by budaatum: 1:01pm On Jun 15, 2019

You are going to tell me what I say?

Otunba2004:
oga anytime you mention Buhari back down to 84 always tagged it Buhari/Idiagbon regime not only Buhari regime, if not idiagbon only Buhari can not achieved what you are claiming here. ,,,this Buhari can never achieve anything great alone for example since 2015 what did Buhari administration achieved? Nothing ,OK let me put it this way during obasanjo regime obasanjo reformed our banks, banks cant liquidate anymore then he paid our debts ,he was the one established EFCC AND CPC in which Buhari is using to hunt the opposition today although I didn't like obasanjo for the reason personally known to me, then Jonathan administration was the one introduced this TSA account being used by Buhari administration today, can you just tell me one policy introduced by this Buhari olodo administration ?Buhari rode on idiagbon achievement to become gold in the eyes of people who didn't know the history of Our nation, to tell you the fact Buhari didn't know anything on how to govern the nation, you can see what is happening now unless if you're a pretender, good day sir.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 1:00pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
Your four heads is a wilful thinking. I have corrected thst. You can't substantiate it.

Here we go again! Round in a circle of your notion that you haven't heard was true.

Can you substantiate "reincarnation, hell and heaven, Yomi and so fourth" ?

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 12:56pm On Jun 15, 2019

EmperorHarry:
I may have misinterpreted your statements pointing towards no existence after death.One of which was the "I know there's no beyond!".One might think you are implying that brain death=non existence.
Transcend
1a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of
b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : OVERCOME
c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)
You stating that there's no beyond is a very straight forward statement but I'm open to clarification.

I'm talking dead dead. The sort of dead that attracts flies and produces maggots and tends to stink a lot and rots.

I do know that when one dies that sort of death, we dig a hole and dump dead body in it. I suppose it might be because I've never seen a mind without a body. Have you seen a mind that doesn't have a body, Emperor?

Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by budaatum: 12:51pm On Jun 15, 2019

vaxx:
reincarnation , hell and heaven, Yomi and so fourth......

And my four heads on my two shoulders!

Beliefs, vaxx. I don't do beliefs!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 (of 1630 pages)