₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: And where did I say your opinions are useless, or at least completely so? (to me they are, but that's besides the point, see?) I am saying they are definitely NOT as valuable as informed opinions. So when the pros come out and say they will find solutions (or even that they've found them already), I'd be more inclined to take their word for it over yours.

Doesn't mean they can't be challenged, doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but you definitely don't know what you're on about. And again, you proved that when you claimed there was no 'impetus' for the development of se.xes even after reading an article you yourself recommended to kay which has several good ones. In fact, from that article, it would seem that given the right conditions, it is not a question of 'will' they develop, it's one of 'when'. It would seem division of labor is advantageous in many situations out in the wild, as expected...

You're at best a dilettante. Nothing wrong with that, in fact curiosity should always encouraged (so long as it doesn't control your life ie), but you are definitely not as informed as a professional who's spent years dealing with these complexities, let alone a whole community of these folk that have been providing successful solutions for some time now. Division of labor, and they are the pros.

And btw, I speak not of opinions per se, I speak mostly of facts...

As for the new year, my resolution is to graduate from annoying to full a.rse, so f you. But happy new year.

And yet neither you nor him can extract the points from my link and match them as answers for any of my posers? You think I didn't read them before posting them? Lol, comedians. You simply don't have the brain cells required for this task. You didnt have them in 2013 and clearly, so far, you don't have them in 2014.

Anyway, let me stop. I have made new year resolutions. I have repented of my terrible ways.

May God be with you.

Ege te absolvo.

wiegraf: No, this is nonsense. People spend years training for these, and you think you're immediately as qualified as they are? I know various fats can clog up arteries and cause a heart attack, I've read quite a few articles on the procedure, now allow me to perform hearts surgery on you. Am I not qualified enough?

Good thing with science, anyone can confirm any theory provided you put in the effort, but the investment required clearly isn't always as simple just reading a few articles. It is relative. Many would read articles about say QM or GR for months and still not grasp even their most basic premises. Evolution is built around simple principles, but the details aren't always as simple as that, obviously. Even people regarded as rather intelligent, eg Popper, think evolution unscientific until they actually pore through the details.

Programming likely has even more self taught professionals than law, I'm more or else self-taught myself, but don't pretend these situations are as black and white as you portray it. While I might know the concepts of how so and so language may work, I certainly cannot know the details without (sometimes considerable) investment. You think you can declare their efforts futile just because you've read a few articles? You already claim there is no 'impetus' for generating gender despite reading the same article @kay did, so quite clearly, you're already lost.

Yawn. Delete all your opinions on subjects you don't have a degree in, then.

Happy new year.

Let's start afresh, you annoying fella.

Double Post

Oduduwaboy: @deepsight ....please i will like to know if your degree is in the sciences or not? The scientific process may be strange to the non-scientific mind .

The fact that lacunae exist in theories does not detract from the power of those theories. And science is not a religion ....it is only common sense which the black man has chosen to renounce.

Did you know that Charles Darwin was planning to go into the priesthood? Are you aware that Wallace, one of the earlier workers on inheritance was an anglican priest?

My point is that am not sure you qualify to delve into those depths you are delving into.

THIS is nonsense. You can actually ignore my posts and read the work of scientists which I posted. I hope you understand that your post renders that non-scientists cannot and should not have an opinion on any scientific matter. You know, all learning is nothing but an application of logic and as such, any keen and studious person can discuss matters outside his specific academic training, so long as he applies himself to reading and understanding. As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer by training, but I know many non-lawyers who have and who do argue very soundly on legal issues just by the application of simple logic - because at the end of the day - legal issues are simply based on logic. Same with science.

*In MFM booming voice* - "I hereby banish every spirit of olodoishness posessing you and following you into 2014!!!"

AMEN!

Chrisbenogor: Many pages, many words yet no constructive arguments.
This thread does not belong in the religion section IMO.

O I made mine. The responses were simply cowardly and puerile. How EVERY atheist on the thread can find reason not to ATTEMPT just one of my questions, says it all. Prefering instead to pretend that there is nothing to address. . . . Even while real life top grade scientists sweat over same posers. . . . Is just disgusting.

As far as I can tell, there is no difference between the religionist and the atheist in terms of fear of loss of worldview and duplicity in defending stark nonsense.

You were banned for that post

Happy New year Enigma. I wish you a prosperous and rewarding 2014.

Kay 17: @ds

I have read your links

Here is a favourable valid scientific explanation/subtheory from just one of the links you posted


There lies the advantages!

None of my posers dwelt on advantages or disadvantages. Take my posers and show me the answers from the articles. Start with Posers 1 and 2.

Happy New year bro.

Kay 17: Deepsight, you are jumping the gun here.

Those explanations and theoretical models are scientifically valid, and bear consistency with the overall theory of evolution and diversity of life. The evolution of sexes must have been an advantage, and to ward against deletrious mutations.

Same as the flexibility and frequency of sex change amongst some species. Some species go as far parthenogenesis. The aim is the same, furtherance of life.

I don't have the energy to start all over again.

Please address these questions, to understand the issues properly -

12 Posers

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction#20521482

After that, read these articles ->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/intimate-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/advantage/index.html

- - -> Which all give proposed scientific answers.

Finally have a look at the disputation put together by the Microbiologist and neurobiologist here -

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

Then extract answers to the posers for me.

Thank you.

Doing some light reading, I see that it is even suggested by researchers that the book of Job chronicled events over centuries before 1000 BCE.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/docs/39_job.pdf

Elihu was the youngest of those who were alive at the time and his ancestral line back to
Jacob is the longest. Elihu’s ancestor Hezron was alive before Israel went to Egypt (Genesis 46:12)
but there is no mention of Hezron’s son Ram in the list of those who went to Egypt with Israel so,
at a minimum, Ram was born in 1385 - 65 = 1320 BC. At a minimum, the age of Ram at the birth
of Barachel was 15 years. Likewise, a minimum age for Barachel at the birth of Elihu would be
15 years. Elihu himself, at a minimum, would have had to have been about 10 years old when the
events of Job took place. 1320 - 15 - 15 - 10 = 1280 BC. So, the minimum age for Eliphaz when the
events of the book of Job took place would be 1365 - 1280 = 85 years. Because Job/Jobab was two
generations from Eliphaz, he would have been at least 30 years younger than Eliphaz. Because Job
lived another 70 years after the events of the book of Job took place (Job 42:16), he was probably
in his mid-thirties to early fourties at the most. Supposing that Eliphaz was 85 to 95 years old when
the events of the book of Job took place, the book of Job would be chronicling events that took
place between 1280 and 1270 BC – about 100 years before the Exodus.

As explained in the below excerpt, it is also evident from the text of the book of Job itself that
it is older than any other book of the Bible.

Excerpted from ancient-hebrew.org: Biblical Hebrew E-Magazine – Issue #019:

Q: What is the Oldest book of the Bible?

A: The books of the Bible are not arranged in a chronological order. The books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy are, by tradition, believed to be written by Moses and are usually believed to be
the oldest books of the Bible. But this is not the case. The book of Job is the oldest book, some even believing
it was originally written before the flood. The most compelling evidence for the antiquity of the book of Job
is its use of Hebrew words. In many cases the more ancient, concrete meaning of a word is found in the
book of Job. As an example the Hebrew word “pachad” is used to mean fear or awe an abstract concept but is
used in its concrete form only in Job 4:14 – “dread came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones shake”.

Seven pages and not a single take on even one of the 12 posers!

My lords spiritual, my lords temporal -

I rest.

mazaje: ^^

Roger that. . .

One more thing to note. You had to throw a very large and open field of time around most of the people you mentioned - in some cases up to seven centuries possible variation as to the time they lived and in at least one case up to ten centuries possible variation!

Contrast this with the fact that scholars date the book of Job to 4 - 6th century BCE - which means that the events and statements therein (if they occurred) would have been much older. Indeed some argue that the events occurred many many centuries before that on account of these facts -

1. Job lived 140 years after his calamities (42:16). This corresponds with the lifespans of the patriarchs. For example, Abraham lived 175 years.

2. Job's wealth was reckoned in livestock (1:3; 42:12) which was also true of Abraham (Gen. 12:16) and Jacob (Gen. 30:43).

3. The Sabeans and Chaldeans (Job 1:15, 17) were nomads in Abraham's time, but in later years were not.

4. The Hebrew word (qsitah) translated "piece of silver" (42:11) is used elsewhere only twice (Gen. 33:19, Josh. 24:32). Both times are in reference to Jacob.

5. Job's daughters were heirs of his estate along with their brothers (Job. 42:15). This was not possible later under the Mosaic Law if a daughter's brothers were still living (Num. 27: 8 )

6. Literary works similar in some ways to the Book of Job were written in Egypt and Mesopotamia around the time of the patriarchs.

7. The Book of Job includes no references to the Mosaic institutions (priesthood, laws, tabernacle, special religious days and feasts).

8. The name (sadday) is used of God 31 times in Job (compared with 17 times elsewhere in the Old Testament) and was a name familiar to the patriarchs.

9. Several personal and place names in the book were also associated with the patriarchal period. Examples include (a) Sheba - a grandson of Abraham, (b) Tema - another grandson of Abraham, (c) Eliphaz - a son of Esau, (d) Uz - a nephew of Abraham.

10. Job was a common West Semitic name in the second millennium B.C. Job was also a name of a 19th-century-B.C. prince in the Egyptian Execration texts.

So you should bear that in mind when comparing the statements made therein to statements made much much later by very distinguished minds who you admit were very rare for their time!

@ rationalmind, take note.

Logicboy03: @ bold....why do you lie like an apologist?

Why are you a desperate red eyed cultist? What is your obsession with lies?

1) The bible describes the earth a circle not a sphere

There is a huge debate among historical linguists and translators - many say that the word translated circle refers to s sphere.

2) Even the first caveman saw the moon and sun suspended on nothing. How can you claim without evidence that the earth being hung on nothing was not a common view held by the men of the time?

The fact is that whereas you can easily reach that conclusion today after centuries of science, that was not the view held by the ancient world. They had no idea that the Sun and Moon were bodies similar to the earth in shape and form. Absolutely no idea. That is why for ages sailors were afraid of sailing too far and "falling off the edge of the earth!" And many other such.

3) Space is not nothing and as such, the view that the earth is suspended on nothing is still damn ignorant.

Of course space is not nothing, but it is a perfect description all the same, for a person of that time to say that the earth is hanging on nothing - whereas contemporary ideas imagined all sorts of animals and foundational supports holding up the earth.





PS: Please don't draw me too far into this discussion. I am no Bible apologist. The bible is not my creed. Rationalmind made a statement about how every statement in the bible can be accounted for by stone age thinking. I just thought to point out to him that there are statements in the bible that are beyond stone age thinking.

Other than that, please don't harass me on top bible issue. Thank you.

davidylan: Deepsight's original post was a DETAILED, FACT-BASED analysis of a gaping hole in evolutionary theory... he also followed up with 12 key questions that the ToE needed to answer... how did your response address ANY of the issues raised?



Merely an unwarranted ad hominem. How did this address the OP?



Claim - state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.


Deepsight did not make a "claim" since he provided scientific evidence (there are at least 3 separate links provided) to back up his assertions. So to assert that his points are mere "claims" is dishonesty. Again, how have this addressed the OP?



This type of fallacy is called "ignoratio elenchi"... just because the ToE has been shown to explain other aspects of genetics does not necessarily mean that it must also explain every aspect of genetics, even though there is no proof. Again, how was this able to address the OP?



Circular reasoning. How has this addressed the OP?



Circular reasoning. All you have done is tell us that the ToE encompasses a broad range of issues... how has this addressed the OP?



It will be "addressed in the long run" means? How has this addressed the specific issues raised by the OP?



1. Line 7 of the 1st post on this thread states thus - "There are many theories on how mammary glands evolved...". Essentially you have simply restated the OP's point without really saying anything new.

2. Line 8 of the 1st post on this thread states thus - "Since mammary glands do not fossilize well, supporting such theories with fossil evidence is difficult...". Again you have simply copied and pasted the exact same premise that the OP made clear without adding any new information of your own.

3. Mind projection fallacy. Your claim that it is a fact that humans and animals evolved DESPITE a lack of fossil evidence and CONSENSUS on the evolution of the mammary glands is false as this "fact" has not been conclusively established in scientific literature.

How did the above points address anything the OP said? All i have seen above is irrelevant hand waving.



You have neither provided these theories nor given us your own thoughts as to how they disprove the OP's points. Again no attempt to address the OP outside of empty hand wringing.



You have accused Deepsight of "ignorance" yet provided ZERO to show up this alleged ignorance.



Other than desperate hand waving, how does this address the OP's point?



Appeal to authority. How did this address anything the OP raised?



You have simply recycled your initial pointless canard. Other than unnecessary shouting, how have you addressed the OP?

Abi o, thank you o. I honestly did not know where to start with him o.

^^^ Girl. Get over it.

Logicboy03: They couldnt guess or assume that all planetary bodies were like that? When that is all they can see about planetary bodies- hung in space?
Wow, you have become so dishonest

mazaje: That is because you haven't read much about it. . .Aristarchus of Samos c.310 – c.230 BC. He presented the first known model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe with the Earth revolving around it (see Solar system). He was influenced by Philolaus of Croton, but he identified the "central fire" with the Sun, and put the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun.[1] His astronomical ideas were often rejected in favor of the geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy. (Wikipedia). . .
Anaximander (c. 610 – c. 546 BC) was the first recorded person to suggest the Earth is a sphere. Erastothenes basically worked out the circumference. It was proven 1800 years later by Magellan's voyage. . . .
Some of these guys new these things b4 they were every written down in the pages of the bible. . .That doesnt mean they got their knowledge from supernatural sources. . .Some of the ideas in some parts of the world were foolish but some were also on point. . .After all the same bible if it is to be taken literally falsely states that the earth was created before the sun. . .

rationalmind: Thanks for bringing out the point better. That was the same thing I pointed to him.
Even if we admit the general consensus was that earth was on something, it will be wrong to say not one person was right about the "nothing" and it will be equally wrong to say the bible writers were not exposed to that person or that line of thought.

mazaje: Very true, they mingled with others, to claim they alone knew it is just false. . .For example Democritus (c. 460 – c. 370 BC) held that the earth was round, and stated that originally the universe was comprised of nothing but tiny atoms churning in chaos, until they collided together to form larger units—including the earth and everything on it. He surmised that there are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some with no sun or moon, some with several. He held that every world has a beginning and an end, and that a world could be destroyed by collision with another world. (Wikipedia) . . Some of these guys even at that time knew things that were just extra ordinary. . .People worshipped some of them because of their knowledge and discoveries, movements were formed after them e,g Pythagoras. . .The writers of the bible knew very little about the earth and the universe compared to the ancient greek philosophers. . .That doesn't mean that the ancient greeks were inspired by their pantheon of greek gods. . .

I accept.

None of this however, explains that reference in the book of Job as "knowledge available to stone age men" - the truth is quite simply that no such proposition was current in such days at such places. Where other astronomical and cosmological propositions existed such as you mentioned, they were very rare indeed: and were certainly not accepted in conventional thinking of the time which was, not only very superstitious, but also very deluded on the matter of the earth. The writer of Job would have to be in a special class to accept and make that allusion, especially as you noted (mazaje) that such men were extremely rare and even worshiped (even long after Job's time).

It has never been my argument on this board that the bible is the inspired word of God - indeed I have argued the reverse excessively. I have been a thorough basher of many things therein, even. So don't mistake me - I am not arguing for necessary Divine Revelation. However I do state that there are many gems of wisdom and truth in the bible. Intuitions deep, profound and ahead of their time. And many rare insights, especially for it's time. Such as Job's.

Whether you like it or not, the Book of Job makes a very rare and unlikely reference to the Earth -

- As hanging on nothing

- As being a sphere [Edit: I believe this reference is in Isaiah, with the word "circle"]

Both of these ideas did not gain currency until many many centuries later.

Both of these references were NOT current conventional thinking at the time. As such, the writer of the book of Job would have been much better than the average "stone age man"!

Uyi Iredia: ^^^All of them really. The usual ones: plaetton, Evil Brain, logicboy and wiegraf and new ones: rationalmind even AMFM who's in a class of his own. They all miss (by wilfull ignorance) the aptness of what you ask. It's clear actually there are gaps. The least I would expect was a discussion on solutions not special appeals to unknown solutions, or silly dismissals and pretend there's no problem.

Sad & True.

Logicboy03: For all animals that we know of

All animals evolved.
All body parts evolved.


How is evolution not going to expalin the evolution of the mammary glands?

You mistake unchangable logic for dogmatic scientism. This is your silly folly

Logicboy03: Deepsight, answer naa?

Logicboy03: Deepsight fails to understand that it is not a question of if the body systems evolved...it is a question of how. Scientists aint questioning if the systems evolved...they are puzzled on how it evolved

- - - >

Deepsight: To make people see the truth (my point of view and my argument, anyway) that based on the very principles of the Theory of Evolution, these phenomena are outside the purview of the Theory of Evolution.

And thus to set the basis for open discussion based on the recognition that other than evolution, other factors are necessarily at play. This is the basis for my belief in evolution even while I consistently point out that it cannot sufficiently explain the origin and development of species.

It is possible to have answers if one does not adopt the very closed minded attitude aptly summarized by Joshthefirst when he wrote:

"Evolution of the gaps: we don't know the answer, but evolution is true and perfect, and the answer must be connected to evolution.
Evolutiondidit"

Regardless of what you think about Josh's views, the above is perfectly apt and really shows up the atheists here as being exactly as dogmatic and closed minded as they claim the worst religionists are.

As I have said above: my purpose is to open minds to the clear possibility that I see that evolution does not answer these issues as well as many others - and may never answer them simply because they are not matters for the Theory of Evolution by natural selection and mutations as enunciated and developed.

wiegraf: This is a reply.

And don't worry, I'll make it even jucier once I get a proper PC. And you can continue to pretend you are offended and therefore won't respond, when the simple truth is you cannot address it. You've been told time and again your antics work only on sheeple, yet here you are....

Ol boy forget it. You will never be worth my typing time again in this lifetime. Never.

Uyi Iredia: How does the human brain result in consciousness ?

Well, he does not know the "how" and as such it does not happen.

BTW don't expect a response. The context of your question may elude him again, as it did the first time.

Uyi Iredia: Rebutting this sorry attempt at a comeback makes for a good sport.



This stems from the well-known nonsense of abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution because evolution is about life's devlopment. BTW I didn't beed to Google it. Your case falls ab initio because I never stated abiogenesis as part of the evolutionary theory (which I think is arguable). In all honesty, I stated abiogenesis as a problem for evolutionists given the connection to the theory. For one, evolutionists and some chemists have long argued for a 'General Theory of Evolution' which also cover abiogenesis since they think materialistic accounts for life's origins is plausible (Google 'TED Lee Kronin'). Two, a theory which claims ancestral organisms from which all life descended must explain the precursors to such organisms and so explain how such organisms came about. Which makes the case very clear_as in cdk007's video_the third reason which is how prebiological mutations and NS are invoked to explain how self-replicating molecules became living things. Only a intent fool will note such and say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.



Google Julius Rebek and summarize the relevance of his work to abiogenesis: confirm whether he invokes prebiological mutation or not.

Evil Brain is an empty thoughtless f.ool who goes about boasting about his presumed knowledge of things he imagines others ignorant of: but he turns out to be the most ignorant, empty and shallow of them all.

Like I said to rationalmind: this game, for them, is about feeling fly. Not about really sitting to think clearly.

Lol.

aManFromMars: And the brilliant alternative is we were moulded from sand?

Well sir, can you please tell me exactly what matter humans and other creatures were molded from - even if by evolution alone? - if not stardust?

Your ignorance stinks.

Logicboy03: This thread should be titled

"The folly and end of credibility of Deepsight's and Joshthefirst's stances on evolution"

Lol. He who cannot even follow the discussion. Enjoy.

wiegraf: For off, why does life need to replicate? Well, wouldnt that be obvious? This question reeks of shortsightedness with regards to the implications of evolution/abiogenesis, or evem the fact that matter is in a constant flux. And it actually is a poser to ID proponents, not the other way round...

Two lights are beamed, one makes I through a hole un a wall, the other does not. N
ow, let
's grant the light beam consciousness mid flight. When it starts to ponder on reality, it might look back and say wow, just who is responsible for this? Incredible, it happened to have the correct trajectory to scale through the wall. It just about had the correct frequency to remain whole as well! As it gains emotions etc it begins to focus on the rewards, eg; it just missed an asteroid by a second, that was close, it had just the right length to avoid the right speed needed to escape that. Excellent, now I'm happy, something must be rooting for me, something wants me to feel joy, designing me for this purpose. To live and experience.

No, it was just a beam of light emitted by a star that got lucky (well, not like the other particles care, as they aren't conscious, but the particle wouldn't note that). In its bias though it wouldnt notice myriad issues, eg, why was the wall there in the first place? If it were designed purposely, should it not have been granted the ability to change speed, or switch direction, why van it exist only within a very short, exacting frequency, etc etc. Same way ds focuses only what confirms his bias bit ignored obvious flaws. Eg, gender put about intelligently and purposely, yet the reproductive system is so badly put together it is responsible for the more human deaths than any other factor. Are there really not amy much, MUCH more efficient designs for that? Or exactly why the need for gender in the first place, why can't we pick? There are species that are asexual, no? We walk around assuming it has to be so, or its best because our brains are wired to think so, in other words, simply because of our bias...

And of course we now come to why the need to live. Obvious. The particles wired with the need to live, live. They are the ones that go on to survive as clearly the other particles arent alive. And those alive that do not have the 'will' to live obviously, and again, die out.

Evolution is very, very simple at its core. Now, note here ds will miss issues with immortality. Most beings I know of would lobe to be able to live indeterminably, to decide on when to kick the bucket themselves, should they even choose to. And there ate species that are note or else immortal, it is far from impossible. Indeed many see this as a great measly humans will achieve before the turn of the next century, so, why did these intelligences not bother with that?

In fact, just what exactly was their purpose, as they've done a real terrible job if we were the purpose. Egregious. And why the mystery, why the hiding?

Questions like these are what id proponents should be answering when the claim am intelligent will is behind this

Edits later. This phone is horrid as far as posting is concerned.

Sickening thoughtless rubbish. Was tempted to dignify you with a thorough response, but then I remembered that you are wiegraf. The speaker and thinker of d.aft nonsense. As such, responding will be a waste of my time. Bye.

mazaje: This is quite simple, because they can see that the moon is suspended on nothing, they can also see that the stars are suspended on nothing. . .It is nothing extra ordinary. . .By the way the earth is not suspended on nothing. . .Gravitational forces of the sun and other planets is what makes it to suspend in space, not nothing. . .So they writers of the bible are wrong on that. . .

Nonsense, of course, because they could not know the moon and the stars to be the same as the earth. In reality, people of those days thought the earth to be a grounded permanent piece held up by mythical figures such as giant animals, and the stars to be floating about them. You are quite ignorant of the ideas of those days.

mazaje: Many solar systems have come and gone, our sun and our solar system will be no more some day, but the universe will still remains so what exactly are you on about. . .Take you and I for example, we are completely insignioficant to the whole world at large. . .If either you or me die today, the world will continue as if nothing has happened. . .The planet earth is completely insignificant, if a very big asteriod collides and destroys the plant, the universe will continue as if nothing has happened. . .

Lol, this is so s.illy. It completely misses the point of my post. I wont bother with this.

rationalmind: You will agree with me that there are billions of facts in the world. The probability that by mere chance or stroke of luck, authors of the bible may get one or two facts right is not much.

Infact, if there could be a book collating all myths of ancient times, it wouldn't be difficult to see one or two of those myths which will actually be a fact now.

And as for the other part of your reply where you talked about the general consensus at that time about the earth, you should go ahead to show me that no one at least, disagreed with that consensus based by mere intuition and that the authors of the bible were never exposed to that person or that line of thought.

Your statement was that there is nothing written in the bible that stone age men could not have written.

You obviously have no idea what it takes for a stone age man to conclude that the entire earth is suspended on nothing.

And with that staring in yoyr face you now ascribe it to luck and intuition. Intuition, which you atheists scoff at.

LOL.

Pope Xander VII: In a few billion years the Sun will become a white dwarf. Once that happens all life on earth will be gone. I guess Yahweh thought that was too "insignificant " to include in his book.

A few billion years, lol. How the heck do you know humans will tarry that long? We simply may not be here or may have developed the technology to relocate to some other real estate in the universe. An omniscient God will know this, and as such may not be relevant in its spiritual manual for our lives. . . . .

Pope Xander VII: The point i tired to get across with my analogy was that a god like Yahweh, who spent a large majority of his time in the old testament meddling in the most insignificant of human
affairs can't be the god of this infinite universe(i say this not in certainty).We only hear about Yahweh's conquests in the middle-east( around the Gaza area to be exact). Ask yourself, did other parts of the earth not exist? Oduduwa is to the Yorubas, as Yahweh is to the Jews.
You can't call black holes and stars insignificant! Dinosaurs were wiped off the earth by a Comet! A comet hitting the earth will wipe off life as we currently know it. Humans exist today because the extinction of previous organisms allowed a new wave of organisms to come forth(natural selection ). The future of the earth depends heavily on the astronomical bodies around us.

^^^ No where in my post did I call black holes and stars insignificant. Are you reading up side down?

truthislight: The fear is so obvious that it is tangible to touch from here.

Exactly. This is so so so so TRUE.

Especially of Plaeton.

Thinking about it, I came to recognize that the spectre of something like GOD, with all its transcendent and other-worldly implications, is genuinely frightening for many people (even for me!) and this pushes many people to rebel fanatically against it's existence as a result of desperate existential FEAR.

But in so doing, they fail to see that they actually rebel against their own existence.

Human spirits they are, and human spirits they will always be.

I came to this genuine recognition - of FEAR!

rationalmind: Anyway, I can only speak for myself.

I'm ready to look in any other direction as long as it is not "god did it" which of course answers nothing

You might still call that dogmatic but I wouldn't bother much.

Of course that is very closed minded and dogmatic. And the reason you would not bother is because it makes you feel cool and fly - funky and new age - to close your mind to that option. It makes you feel fly among your friends who all think its a sign of enlightenment.

You may not admit that that is the reason, but I tell you, it is.

What would be genuinely open minded would be to sit down squarely and have a genuine examination of the philosophical and logical basis for the claims on the existence of the spiritual, and extrapolate from thence into logical arguments for and against the existence of a causative intelligent designer.

Let us not render ourselves foolish simply by seeing evidently designed elements - excessively advanced and stupendous even in biotechnology - and stubbornly insisting that WE WILL NEVER consider the possibility of a designer - - - just so we can feel fly among our friends.

Such is f.oolishness.

rationalmind: Lol, a bit similar to my thread.

On the grounds that there is nothing in the bible that couldn't had been written by a man living in the stone age, it is safe to conclude that the bible was written by men who simply wrote about what was observable to them.

Really?

Can you tell me know "stone age" men could have known this -

Job 26:7 - "He spreads out the Northern Skies over empty space, He suspends the Earth over nothing."

In answering, do some light research on what most ancients thought the "foundations" of the earth were rooted in.