₦airaland Forum

Hiswordxray:
How did you know your mother gave birth to you and not your father?

Because females have a womb...
How do you know "satan" is the bad guy,"god"(allegedly) killed way more people..
Is the best killer the good guy in your reality?

sinequanon:
Secular ideals are good, which is why I question your religion of materialism.

Unfortunately, I can't find a confident and balanced atheist with whom to discuss the benefits, if any, of materialism. What is it about materialism that produces ranters? You don't get that impression from, say, Buddhism, do you?

If materialism, empiricism and naturalism were so great, you would not be struggling and ranting so hard to "justify" them. Your argument is the same one Christians make in the UK. They say that the country was founded on Christianity and you are "enjoying" the fruits of Christianity, every day (two words ). Suddenly, you can see the gaping hole in your argument (not that you are going to admit it). People who don't believe and have a better outlook have to make the best of a bad job -- that is not "enjoying".

Those bolded words make you even more hilarious than you are.... "religion of materialism"...lol
And I never ranted nor struggled to defend materialism....maybe in your delusions,calling somehow out as hypocritical is a "rant"

UyiIredia:
B'cos you ignore the implication. It rules out the possibility of life having arising or evolving naturally since living things are systems based on a code.

No it doesn't....the evolution of life and beginning of life are two seperate things....the former is a known function of inheritance....the latter is not fully understood..it has not been demonstrated to be impossible....nor possible...so it is left not fully understood..

Okay.

okay

It does. In fact, it is an inductive inference. Artificial codes require intelligence, therefore biological codes do, ESPECIALLY since the only other option (biological codes evolving naturally) is ruled out.

That is special pleading...not an inductive inference...and like I said above,the beginning of life and evolution of life are totally different.....DNA does evolve...that is a fact of life..
So its best you present something evidential about your "codes" being created(without special pleading)

See above.

don't dodge the question...

davien:
you claimed a "mind" is required to
make biological codes...where is the evidence for such a
mind?...and since it isn't a human mind(or any other known
animal),then what mind is it?

Sinequanon,why are you always a case study for illogical concepts?...though it's amusing,your hatred of secular ideals is pathetic and hypocritical when you enjoy the fruits of materialism...empiricism and naturalism everyday.

Macelliot:
So pathetic. May her soul RIP.
Plaetton, mmsen, davien, ooman, wordcat, weah96. What do you all have to say about this. What would a ritualist be doing with human head?

This is sad...It doesn't differ from aztecs sacrificing human beings every sunrise....its what they strongly believed in and that belief(like the one in this case also) has lead to the death of countless lives..
If they had at least questioned their beliefs enough to suspend them,then no lives would have been lost.

UyiIredia:
Codes have never been seen to be made by blind natural processes.

We've gone past this...and the answer is yes...why do you keep bringing it up as though anyone objects to this?

Codes require intelligence to be made as seen in humans.

Artificial codes require intelligence to be made(out of pre-existing structures)

Given the fact that living things are coded systems it makes sense to conclude that they were created by an intelligent being.

What makes sense to you have no merit in an argument....
Living things manipulate pre-existing things to create non-biological codes...
Now the fact that living things are analogous of artificial codes tells you nothing about how they originated...unless you can demonstrate your claim to be the case.

I really don't have to detail HOW they are created. That's speculative.

I am not asking for specifics....you claimed a "mind" is required to make biological codes...where is the evidence for such a mind?...and since it isn't a human mind(or any other known animal),then what mind is it?

UyiIredia:
20% of the atmosphere isn't minute.

"However, based on today's volcanic evidence, it is now thought that the early atmosphere would have probably contained 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen (mostly in the form of water vapour), 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen sulfide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen,
carbon monoxide, free hydrogen . . ." - from Wikipedia's abiogenesis page.

How isn't it minute when the 20% is mostly water vapour?

UyiIredia:
It's an inference based on the fact of men making codes. And animals to a lesser extent. I really don't need to detail it for it to be true.

The burden of proof is on you my friend....educate me on how biological codes are known to you to be created and by what mind?

UyiIredia:
However, early earth had oxygen. Neither do I believe there was a reducing atmosphere.

True...bear in mind that oxygen was only in minute quantities...
And you don't have to believe the earth had a reducing atmosphere,your DNA reeks of a reducing atmosphere....hence being deoxygenated.

Emusan:
And since 1950's nothing can come out of this.

I will ask you this again why will Miller-Urey CAREFULLY chose those substances and a better ENVIRONMENT for their experiment when nobody was there at early earth to do so?
.

The environment chosen was due to how dna is deoxygenated,therefore a reducing atmosphere is required to produce the building blocks of life......

UyiIredia:
At best, my argument can infer that living things are designed. I don't need to detail how biological codes are made for it to be correct.

On the contrary you do....otherwise it becomes an assertion...
How were they designed?

Emusan:
You thought I attacked your post blindly but I did not.
You're not for nor against, so which side are you?

It remains a testable hypothesis.....that's It.

"god" is a subjective opinion...

Emusan:
If truly the life we know today comes through this process I wonder where some Atheist put their brain for unable to ask a simple question, why will Miller-Urey CAREFULLY chose those substances and a better ENVIRONMENT for their experiment when nobody was there at early earth?



@bold-NO ATHEIST CAN PROVIDE a reasonable answer to that question.
@underlined-That's what they do. They purposely ignore this and still believe the conditions for early life arouses from chemical can be melt.

If you had paid more attention to my posts and did not attack it blindly you'd notice that I am not for nor against abiogenesis,as the process is but a testable hypothesis...

UyiIredia:
I see no reason to believe them.



Okay.



Such contexts don't bother to replicate natural conditions. They only claim to. Nature lacks that very precision that is used in the labs. I don't even believe in early earth scenarios. But even assuming it were true I would expect it to occur because given the number or living things available one would expect natural processes to fairly easily replicate living prototypes.




So I take it you admit that adverse conditions to life prevailed on early earth.




True. But the lifeforms resistant to them are negligible compared to those that will be harmed by it.



And where in Nature would you find all these elements in one place ? One wonders how natural processes will know when or how to add the sulfuric acid and co to remove impurities. Not to mention the fact that the presence of chemicals like oxygen (also said to be present in early earth but in lower quantities) would hamper such a reaction. I wonder why Urey declined to put oxygen and UV rays in his experiment. If you must simulate natural conditions you can't ignore the parts adverse to life.



Isn't that what scientists are doing ? Ignoring favorable prerequisites while ognoring unfavorable ones. And showcasing it as proof that life originated naturally. That meets your definition of ignorance.



No. Abiogenesis presumes life comes from non-life.



Ofcourse this remains a testable hypothesis...

It's a bogus hypothesis. One you are yet to prove.



I didn't equate intelligence to biological codes. I inferred that life was made since it's based on codes that have only been seen to require intelligence to make. What's important is that you are yet to show how natural processes can make codes. Simply begging for early earth doesn't work. And you are yet to show where my argument fails. You made a mistaken claim of equivocation.

It's good you understand the position....
Further more it is not known if the process took place or not(hence I said it remains a testable hypothesis)
And biological codes aren't known to require intelligence..artificial ones are..can you point out the process a mind can use in making biological codes?

Image123:
No, i've not forgotten the comment. The ONLY question indeed, let's see how truthful you are. God didn't command anyone to smash any head. Don't be stupid, go back to that thread and read what i wrote on that.

Whether ordained by "god" or not,you yourself approved of that evil act and it was just simply to cover up for the bible...how pitiful that one that touts about morality would try to offer apologetics for smashing baby's heads into rocks...

How do you know "god" is the good guy and "satan" is the bad guy?

JEITO:
Then God is not God because that would be a contradiction of his word.

Btw, Islam started later so if there'll be a contest for "true religion" on judgement day, then the competition, should be between Christianity and the religions that existed before it.

Judaism existed before christianity...so what happens if they are right?...

Image123 have you forgotten this comment...

Image123 :
No, innocent babies went to a better place while their parents
reaped what they sowed. That is just and merciful as it gets.
Your morality is baseless and fickle, very much subject to change
in whim. Indeed, emotion can deceive.
Psalms 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the
wicked every day. 7:12 If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he
hath bent his bow, and made it ready. 7:13 He hath also prepared
for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows against the persecutors.

https://www.nairaland.com/1932478/reason-why-atheists-dont-cant/3#26911559

The only question I would ask you,is what you would have done if you were the one commanded by "god"(as speculated in the "bible" ) to smash a baby's head on a rock as the child's mother is screaming and begging you not to......would you still smash the child's head because "god"(allegedly) said so?

UyiIredia:
No, they don't.

Like I said....the experiments do not match early earth environments perfectly but only partially,because we don't know of all the factors involved....only speculative assumptions.

Current models
"There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently
accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework
laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and J.B.S. Haldane (in 1925),
who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.
In the atmosphereproposed by Oparin and Haldane, electrical activity can catalyze thecreation of certain basic small molecules ( monomers ) of life,such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey
experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey reported in 1953."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

This is demonstrably false. Anyone is free to Google 'Origin of life experiments'. You will see claims that the conditions match early earth.

They do not...not all factors are even known to be involved...

But they are done in highly artificial contexts, even the chemicals have to be produced and don't occur naturally.

Ofcourse they are done in highly artificial contexts...how else do you replicate a process that requires utmost precision?
And you don't expect such to occur naturally today when the environment has greatly changed.

Your talk on the ozone layer reeks of ignorance. Please go to Wikipedia's article on abiogenesis and search the page for UV rays and radioactive.

Again I keep asking you if you have flint for eyes....
Read my comment again below and see if I objected to the prescence of UV rays..

Davien:
factors like the strong UV were flunctuating till the ozone
layer could sufficiently block it...hence the factor would be
irrelevant since an equilibrium was reached

Does fluctuation imply reduction only?

The early earth had lots of UV rays and was strongly radioactive. Elements which are harmful to life of any sort.

This is only partly true...some forms of life don't find UV rays or radioactive materials harmful...take for example extremophiles.

"An extremophile is an organism that thrives in
physically or geochemically extreme conditions that are detrimental
to most life on Earth"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

And most notably the characteristic domain of which extremophiles belong to,Archeae.

Their phylogenetic tree(which shows their history as among the first life forms) corresponds to their ability to withstand harsh environments present at the early earth.

[img]http://www.upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Phylogenic_Tree-en.svg[/img]

That said, organic matter simply acquiring energy does not result in a protein. You are simply asserting that, that will be even more unlikely if there was truly a primeval soup since cross-reactions would prevent any meaningful results.

Here is the list of starting materials that were used forto the experiment...you'd find that it needed organic compounds and energy(note: the "matter" in my earlier post was a typo)

"experiment used water (H 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3 ),
and hydrogen (H 2 ). Continuous electrical sparks were fired between the
electrodes to simulate lightning in the water vapour and gaseous mixture'
After a day, the solution collected at the trap had turned pink in
colour.
At the end of one weeks of continuous operation, the boiling flask was removed, and mercuric chloride was added to prevent microbial contamination. The reaction was stopped by adding barium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, and evaporated to remove impurities. Paper chromatography revealed the presence of glycine, α- and β-alanine."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

Actually many eg Saturn and Jupiter have a stable magnetosphere so that's not an excuse. Even the presence of water doesn't guarantee that a form of life will evolve. Some moons in our solar system have water in them and yet are lifeless.

Picking one prerequisite and then touting why that factor does not yield the same result....while ignoring the bulk of prerequisites needed,does not prove a compelling argument against the scarcity of life, but your ignorance of the subject...
The point here is that I only listed a few prerequisites among an unknown number of factors required for life....picking one factor and then expecting that to cover for the rest is foolhardy..

Actually it does. Especially when we know that in principle Nature (excluding living things) is incapable of making anything remotely reminiscent of a lifeform.

Exactly..the only thing that we observe to make life is life....not "supernatural life"..
The point with abiogenesis follows this analogy...
A diseased cell can make other cells diseased...so the process might have started with a healthy cell that was never diseased but became so...

Hence organic life can make organic life...so the process might have started with organic life that was never organic life but became so...

Ofcourse this remains a testable hypothesis...

The muscle in one's arms is analogous to the rope in the lever.

But one doesn't equate it to a rope as you would equate intelligence to biological codes.

UyiIredia:
Abiogenesis experiments fail on 3 fronts. They don't mimic the environments thought to yield life. They only claim to do so. The experiments have a high degree of intelligent input and in many cases don't bother to mimic natural conditions, and almost always weed out adverse factors eg strong UV rays. Two, where they do mimic the environmental conditions as Miller's experiment did, they yield little or no chemicals, Miller BTW stopped heating his chemicals at a point if not they would have just blackened into tar the way burnt food does. Three, even with different factors the result would still be the same one can see this in the billions of lifeless planets and moons around each with their different environments.

One,the abiogenesis experiments do mimick early earth abiotic factors albeit not entirely(hence my use of "partially" to describe it in my reply).....

Two,your knowledge of abiogenesis is outdated...newer experiments that match the early earth conditions more accurately,have yielded more organic matter and DNA constituents...and also being that the earth was dynamic then...factors like the strong UV were flunctuating till the ozone layer could sufficiently block it...hence the factor would be irrelevant since an equilibrium was reached and the organic matter would have already acquired sufficient energy to form proteins...guanine etc..

Three,most planets,moons etc are not dynamic I.e they do not have a stable magnetosphere,nickel-iron core etc...and are not situated to allow liquid water to form....those that do meet the prerequisites are too far away to be investigated for life...

While thinking agents don't poof DNA. They do design systems similar and we have that as a good basis to infer that life must also have been designed.

No we don't....that is an equivocation fallacy...because one can make things with resemblance to nature doesn't mean nature is "created"...


AN ANALOGY
Your arm may be similar to a lever...the two function similarly but are derived differently and are composed of unlike parts....so one can't say since an arm is like a lever and levers need a rope to operate...therefore your arm does too...
They may work on the same principles but are entirely different in origin and property..

UyiIredia:
Based on their similarities and the fact that abiotic natural processes eg sun, wind, geysers etc have never been seen to make any codes of any kind.

True...then again those factors were vastly different at the time DNA was known to have appeared...and experiments to partially mimick those environments yield the same constituents found in DNA..

Also thinking agents are not known to poof biological DNA from scratch.....

Abiogenesis demonstrates that the organic components of DNA can be derived naturally....is there a similar experiment where thinking agents can make the components of DNA from no starting materials?

sinequanon:
It is no surprise to me that some infrared capability is present. However, I believe that intent is required for things to develop.

You like to take a stretch with your imagination, don't you?
Under certain conditions humans can do many things not normally done..
Under certain conditions you could lower your heart beat,temperature etc...this does not necessarily make such abilities an intent,but a conditioned anomaly.

So, we must pay attention and make use of the capability for it to develop.

I thought larmack's theory of "use and disuse" was ousted long ago....yet,here you are on the same path that a function can be greatly expressed by its use...care to explain what physical function....human or otherwise became more prominent by its use?

I believe that we can also detect some ultra-violet light and definitely detect ultrasound. We simply don't pay attention and these things become or remain subliminal.

UV is detected by animals and plants(through eyes,skin,etc)....I believe I read a paper on ultrasound boosting human sensory perception....detection of ultrasound itself is not normally done in humans(perhaps in another certain condition)...

Some of us can hear the sound coming from electrical networks (I can). Other people cannot. I think we have a number of latent capabilities.

Sound from electrical networks?!....please do enlighten me on that...
And your conclusion that there are latent abilities is what I cannot agree on,atleast not in the sense of functions being "latent" but rather an anomaly arrived at by certain conditions...

Would that question make sense 3000 years ago?

Maamin:
Really! So our naked eyes are evolving so we could now see I.R lights?

When will our ears be able to hear Ultra sound?

Perhaps this could help a great deal in detecting boko girls with IED under their hijabs

Atheist and fables..Xmen comes to mind! Smh

The finding was published in a peer reviewed journal....and it isn't as simple as you think it is....light as we see it is a packet of photons that have a specific wavelength...how we "see" infra-red light is merely applying the same method for perception of light.
And I would also like you to exclude "Xmen" in this conversation...because hollywood portrays evolution as a goal or intended process...

UyiIredia:
Its presence in nature is what needs explaining and my argument profers a solution. How am I making an equivocation fallacy ?

Its presence in nature is indeed in need of an explanation...

You on the other hand have equated the point of a mind needed in artificial codes to account for the one found in nature...

How did you deduce the one found in nature to also be from a mind like the artifical ones?

UyiIredia:
Your first point is a false assertion (ie if you mean codes in living things originated naturally). Your next point states the obvious. Your conclusion misses the whole point of my argument which was an inference based on point 2.

Sorry for the delayed posts(working at the moment)...

Uyilredia,my first point was about the fact that DNA is a natural biological function(i.e it is present in nature,in biological systems).

The second point was about human made codes not being present in nature nor in biological systems....they require a mind because they are not naturally present in the environment..

Then my conclusion is to point out that you cannot use the point that since we make artificial codes which require a mind...therefore biological codes also require a mind...that is an equivocation fallacy.

UyiIredia:
* Living things have codes in them.
* It takes intelligence to make codes eg humans making computers
* By inference, living things were made by an intelligent being (God).

Premise 1 is a natural biological function...
Premise 2 is an artificial function....
Your conclusion is false...

UyiIredia:
I have given a proof to back it up. Feel dree to go through my previous posts for it. Have you forgotten hoq we ended up talking about codes ?

Could you give the proof again,because your posts were filled with assertions....not proofs.

sinequanon:
Looking at your record, if you shared my views, I'd be worried.

Irrelevant...

sinequanon....your views are subjective...do not expect everyone to share your views,you have to discuss how you arrived at those views and rationalize why others do not agree...otherwise you'd just be talking to yourself..

UyiIredia:
Actually, the chemicals are codes. In any case, what specifically are you rebutting in my argument. It sint enough to claim you are rebutting my argument my code is from God when so far you've done nothing of that sort. Go back to my initial argument I presented and do your 'rebutting' there.

Am I to disprove that which is merely asserted as a fact,prove that the "code" is indeed from a "god"...