₦airaland Forum

BossTtdiamonds:
Definately "A" and "a" are not the same, the same way "God" and "god" are not the same.
Just like in programmin', the variable "x" (lowercase) and the variable "X" (uppercase) are different pockets for holdin' values.
So yes that makes him different from the rest of you guys. You're an athesit anywayz, you don't believe in God do you, why should you care?

I care because I believe in you...
Any action you take....you take based on the internal model you've created in your mind.
And when your mind is filled with intolerance and absurdities....you begin to portray that..

davidylan:
Senseless... if you think the paper is not legitimate, you can simply write a letter to the editor. the email is on the website and these are usually published in the next edition of the journal or almost immediately online. Perhaps you can also request a review of the original peer-review of the paper.

At this point, you are simply flailing... you have no substantive scientific objection to the papers other than the ridiculous noise that the papers necessarily lack credibility ONLY because the authors do not agree with ToE? Yeah what a "scientific" approach by you.

Lol....so because I object to a paper forwarded by a creationist that means I'm for the ToE?

I'll leave you to your bedrock assumptions.....

davidylan:
A paper on chromosomal rearrangements published in the annual reviews of genetics... perhaps one of the most cited review journals on genetics in the world... is not a creationist paper. This basically exposes the vacuousness of many of you. It basically shows that science is not the driving factor in your embrace of ToE... other than the fact that it is the singular alternative that excludes God.

I'm not talking about the journal here....but the paper reviewed....creationists don't have a track record of legitimacy on their publications...an example is behe..your big daddy of creationism.

davidylan:
you read abstracts lol, thereby missing the introduction (which defines the hypothesis and the logic behind it), methods, results, discussion and conclusions... there is no point debating with this guy.

I can't really give much time to a creationist paper....

davidylan:
lol you read them right? I know for a fact that the Annu Rev Genetics and Elsevier papers are behind a paywall and the only way you could have read them is if you went ahead and purchased them for close to $60 for both. Why are you folks such inveterate liars? The fact that you didnt read them is evident in the fact that you cannot really articulate what the papers were about lol.

The elsevier paper by Lonnig 2002 describes ACTUAL EMPIRICAL DATA conducted to question one of the basic tenets of the ToE... so to say that they have simply drawn a priori conclusions is quite stupid.

I read abstracts from the papers....you can find them easily with a google search..

davidylan:
you could simply read the papers and learn something rather than the usual pretense.

I have actually....they opposed some points on previously accepted macroevolution mechanisms...
But to draw an a priori conclusion from them is what I can't do..

honourhim:
I am a believer in God.

And that makes you different from the rest of us?

shadowgwalker:
well, that is ur belief what religious people believe. so, explain more so that I might be able to belief on ur belief of what people believe in.

I have no belief...

Elijah348:
m not gonna argue with you, buh let me just say this, if the previous generation were homosexuals then we wouldnt be having this conversation would we

we would...

PastorAIO:
I have no idea, but that is rather out of the scope of this thread, don't you think.

It is...but then again how can one say anything certain about "god" when it represents many paradoxical statements?

sinequanon:
Maybe there is in some culture and language. Not all languages/cultures have a word for something.

I am not thinking astral projection if that is what you mean.

I am thinking more along the lines of the absence of obstruction, and the absence of the TIME creating engine -- certain brain interference that invokes TIME.

How then can we have a frame of reference towards objects and events?

PastorAIO:
Duuuuuudddeee!!!! I don't believe that I was emotional in the slightest. In fact as I wrote it last night I was feeling quite tired and made myself respond because I believed that if I didn't respond there and then I might not come back to the thread again. I made very objective arguments based on the philosophy of identity. I tried not to bring God into my argument but simply spoke on the relationship between identity and location.

Your example of a kid and a father is excellent. It demonstrates exactly where you're missing the point.

No one in their right senses with dispute that the kid has a father. only someone that believes in immaculate conception with entertain the notion that his father doesn't exist.

We cannot locate the father. That does not mean that the father doesn't exist. (you get my drift). Location and ontological status are not so connected as you seem to believe.

We might believe various characteristics of the father, or we might disbelieve the neighbours accounts of father, BUT that has no bearing on the ontological status of the father. That has no bearing on whether he exists or not. We might even hear contradictory accounts of the father but they do not affect the ontological status of the father.

Who is "god's" alleged father? itself?

honourhim:
Sorry dear I don't have a god.

You aren't a believer?

Honourhim....is your "god" real?

So being enraged to the point of making a whip(on the spot) to lash at vendors in a temple is a "proper form of anger"?

karma is garbage...why?
On the principle of karma anything that happened to you(good or bad) is what you deserved...
You're raped?...t's just your karma..
You're poor?......that's your karma...
Babies born without heads?....it's their karma...
You won a lottery?...that's your karma....

The point is reality isn't fair at most times....those who impose karma posit a cosmic "that's what you deserve"..

When we've been wronged....we seek to enact a punishment and when that isn't feasible...most people resort to thinking "oh he'll get it one day when jugadu avenges me" or "what goes around comes around".

The zeal to avenge being wronged have caused some to believe that....while some of us who know that life isn't fair... seek to reward good when performed and enact punishment to the full extent of the law in sight of crime.

When a theist says criminals that escape the judiciary system,only shows why "gods" ultimate justice is the best...they miss the fact that the criminal could also escape the "ultimate justice" by repentance.

When someone who believes karma,states that criminals who escape the law will still meet a suitable punishment,they also miss the fact that karma isn't about proper justice...but any state you're found in is a deserved one.

shadowgwalker:
what is a 'god ' please? I don't even understand you.

"god" is a purported unknown religious people define according to their respective faiths..

I encourage homosexuality...it is as natural as heterosexuality and asexuality @elijah348
You're condemnation of them is only religiously inspired.....maybe if you had a conversation with one you'd understand them better.

Shadowgwalker lets say for the sake of argument that indeed somehow an unproven intelligent agent had a hand(or tentacle) in the creation of the universe....can you now link it with the "god" of the bible? or that link requires faith?

shadowgwalker:
https://www.nairaland.com/2010775/absolute-proof-
gods-existence

He is correct though(in the sense that practical vacuums are causal)...
The vacuum of space however is something that is an inherent property of it....and its energy is eternal(as with all energy cannot be created nor destroyed)....the very expansion of this vacuum and everything in it is still a by-product of the inflation of the universe from its initial stages..

davidylan:
pointless comment that adds nothing to the debate.

wow,you actually believe i'm debating you? lol..
Creationist logic... reply=debate

which is quite funny in the sense that it is exactly what you and others here have done. Dawkins/Darwin say it is true so it must be true. What really is new?

Lol... pointing fingers at me and saying "well you believe dawkins" is a pathetic conjecture and a presupposition on your part.
Dawkins is probably your goto-argument anytime you are called out on your BS.

This is an illogical statement.

passing it off as an illogical statement without telling me why seems like a good defensive tactic don't you think..?

Again more senseless comment affirming that most of you dont read. If you note, not a single one of the publications cited actually says anything about ID.

That is why they have been used on the discovery institute to boost their track record of failed credibility.

They are scientific articles laying out reasons why evolution cannot necessarily be true.

And all done by creationists reaffirming your stance that "it must be true if creationist x" said it.

For example, Lonnig 2002's paper deals with the implausibility of transposable element-induced complex chromosome reorganizations in combination with gene mutations as a template for the origin of species.

You pulled out what you thought was a discussion of implausibility when she was merely pointing out difficulties faced in light of macroevolution to previously accepted data

Can you provide an alternative viewpoint rather than bleating about ID which is not a part of the paper?

They were addressed at your creationist big daddy discovery institute as ID prospects when they weren't

The basic problem is that you cannot even provide any credible scientific argument for your position so expecting you to engage in serious scientific debate on the articles posted is futile.

I do not need a scientific argument to explain why a "creation scientist" paper will always be full or close to BS.

the usual nonsense from these ignorant mules. A paper is peer-reviewed exactly ONCE BEFORE it is published. After that, the best you can do is publish a rebuttal if you think the paper is wrong. So no, papers do not go through "years of peer review"... perhaps in your own universe.

Perhaps in your creationist universe the peer review process is at light speed in evaluation of papers...

All 4 papers are published in JOURNALS which are ALL require peer-review before publication. There is no such thing as "peer-editing" in a journal. Again highlighting the vacuous ignorance of these sheep.

Exactly the point. the papers do not explain ID (that is a purely religious argument). Rather all 4 are science-based evaluations of the fallibility of the ToE as the origin of species. I wonder why you did not provide substantive review of the portions you found problematic here...


You're laughing, however this point is the CRUCIAL POINT many of us here have been trying to explain to many of you block heads for years here. That a huge problem with the ToE is that it lacks empirical data! There are many aspects of the ToE but no one has ever been able to prove them in the lab... that is the whole point. That you're laughing, thinking this is a flaw of the paper, shows how poorly you even understand your theory.


Having published review articles myself, i know for a fact that you are talking rubbish. Review articles are peer-reviewed (i am in the process of correcting a 200-page review paper i and 2 colleagues wrote for the journal critical reviews in toxicology and it was peer-reviewed by 4 blind reviewers). Secondly, it is true (and i even stated same in my last post) that Annu Rev Gen publishes reviews (that fact is already noted in the journal name duh!), but to then assume that this makes the work of less importance is nonsensical. Prestigious journals like Nature, Science, Cell... also publish reviews. Does that make the work of less value? If you're not aware... Annu Rev Gen has an impact factor of 18... that is similar to that for the 3 papers i mentioned earlier... but of course i would not expect you to understand the import of that point.



senseless considering the paper discusses (in detail) two gene sequence experiments conducted to test a particular hypothesis. Again indicating that you have no clue what these papers are about but merely making noise just to be seen.



I pointed you to answersingenesis and you whined about scientific data... i posted 4 peer-reviewed papers and you dismiss them... not because they dont provide credible scientific alternatives to some of the ideas supporting the ToE, but because you dont understand the science at all and thus have a lot of trouble articulating anything of substance. So logically, you resort to the lowest common denominator - false mockery.

The rest of this is just more creationist ad hominems and pathetic rebuttals..
Pointing me to a flintstones museum'(answersingenesis) is just a huge laugh.. I'm sure you'd toss another big daddy creationist behe's "peer reviewed paper.

Unibenstudent,people don't fear death of their bodies but rather fear an end to the story of themselves....the end of their very existence and biography is what they fear...

davidylan:
What question? You havent asked a question. You have simply, lazily and quite bizarrely posted all 42 videos from someone's youtube channel then folded your hands and asked others to respond to his comments. Why are you not about to articulate YOUR OWN points? Are you that pathologically and intellectually lazy that you have to rely on the comments of others?

If i wanted to comment on the videos (which i am not interested in watching for the sheer length), i would prefer to do so on his youtube channel.

You got me....I was too lazy....that is why I keep asking you how volcanoes can transport animals as "creation scientists" have said and you keep diverting the topic.

davidylan:
the problem is many of you are hare-brained empty barrels. I deliberately selected those publications PRECISELY expecting such a comment.

I'm sure you did....because mentioning ID proponant papers' who backed out under oath to prove ID authenticity sounds like a good idea
I guess your presupposition is if "creationist x" publishes it...it must be true..

Whether you think Michael Bene is credible or not... he has published his paper in a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL...

Publishing in a scientific journal doesn't stop anyone from being a creationist....it only creates an illusion of credibility.

it is up to you to read his paper and provide a CLEAR, SCIENTIFIC, PEER-REVIEWED response to rebut him rather than whining in the relative obscurity of a forum.

ID isn't science....you'd know that if you followed your creationist big daddy on the dover court case.
So telling me to disprove ID pseudoscience is pathetic.

Secondly those papers were published in PLOS One and the Annual Review of Genetics.

Publishing a paper is nothing....it has to withstand years of peer review,so you could as well shove their ID paper into a trash can.

These are well respected journals in the field. Annu Rev Genetics for example has an impact factor of 18! To disrespect these papers shows you up as largely ignorant of the very science you claim to understand.

The journals are of course legitimate....some of the papers however have only been peer edited not peer reviewed..

Upon examination of your first citation I took a look at the paper it says nothing about the classical "intelligent agent" behind ID(perhaps for fear of credibility)

Your second paper pointed out “there is still no substitute for
empirical data” when examining biological processes.. lol
Your third paper...is a peer edited garbage,infact annual review of genetics does not publish new research results; it publishes review articles, which only gives the current state of thinking on the topic.

Your last paper is a misrepresentation on your part when there is no investigation of the change in function...

You might as well point me to answersingenesis because you have no points..just plethera of creationist junk.

tevinsolt:
God by definition is the uncaused caused, an infinite regression of causes is illogical

So to stop "god" from being illogical due to infinite regression..its an "uncaused cause"?

davidylan:
this is juvenile idiocy. When are you going to articulate YOUR own views?

When are you going to stop ludicrously dodging the questions?

davidylan:
Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27

You mean Michael J Bene...the intelligent design big daddy who publishes scientific literature in the creationist organization Discovery institute...lol
You accuse people of following what "scientist x" said but it seems you follow what creationists and ID proponants say...hypocrisy much?

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

You just went to creationist cesspool
http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/ and airlifted creationist pseudoscience that you believe is eligible because it was listed as "peer reviewed papers for intelligent design"... lol.
You can list anyone on their "intelligent design" list all day...

davidylan:
I'm not sure what the whining is all about. You want a review of which creationists? All i see are videos i am certainly not bothering to watch (more than 30 in number!).

lol....okay.

If you want an objective creationist point of view then articulate YOUR position here so i can respond.

Okay...is there anything that proves creationism?

As of now all you've done is copy/paste someone's thoughts and then ask us to respond...

Stating the bloody obvious is what you've been doing since.

we can easily do that on his youtube channel's comment section.

True....perhaps you could help him rationalize how "flood waters" ejaculated to the moon...

davidylan:
I cant point out anything when you havent said anything in the first place. Pointless.

There is nothing to rationalize. All i have are 32 videos no one is going to watch. If you want an objective debate then it behoves you to provide us your premise as to why YOU (and not someone else) thinks we should laugh at creationists.

I want a review of those creationists by a fellow creationist and you keep avoiding commenting on their assertions,why?
Do you share the same ridiculous beliefs with a "creationist" from any part of the video series?.....

shadowgwalker:
magic was introduced to man by the fallen angels, the fallen angels were once God's special workforce. it's also an evidence God created the universe.
anybody that tries to prove God's non-existence is doing so at his risk, they will start explain life evolves and evolves and evolves bla bla bla, but why can't the evolution continue now. and even as they trace it back why won't these so-called intelligent guys accept the fact that 'that little spark that started the life is as a result of the word of God been made physical '?

where did "god" come from?
And what spark made "god" metaphysical?

davidylan:
then of what use is my perspective if you've already come to a conclusion without objectively looking at both sides of the argument?

You could point out if I am mistaken...
You can start by rationalizing how creation scientists claim volcanoes can transport koala's to their respective habitats..

davidylan:
It wasnt hard to miss it. There are over 30 videos... sort of meaningless to post the link to the channel when you've gone ahead to post all the videos on the channel no? Pointless don't you think?

That is clearly my choice...not yours.

It is complete idiocy to say that you have no comment because you're waiting to "see through the eyes of a creationist" AFTER you just posted 30some videos from someone essentially calling creationists dumb.

What is there left to be said?
He addressed the assertions made by creationists as dumb,or can you rationalize any of the creationist points?

Perhaps its largely because you cannot articulate the points?

Sure...especially points like a drop of water being able to cover the earth as claimed by a "creation scientist".