₦airaland Forum

Alfa Seltzer: What exactly do you have against evolution? It's good to point out flaws and shortcomings but are you saying that because of these shortcomings, the whole theory should be put in the bin?

If you read my OP, you would see that I clearly said that I believe in Evolution. So does the Catholic Church, by the way.

wiegraf: We should indulge the sheer, illogical nonsense spouted on these boards

Hmm, such as universes that spring suddenly out of a dot without a purpose and thinking beings that emerged from dead rocks.

Clap for the brilliant and oh-so-logical atheist.

Alfa Seltzer: There must be. We are still searching. We may never find, but all ideas and theories and fairy tales advocated so far are either wanting or pure balooney.

ALL ideas?

You sir, are too much. You are obviously the greatest genius to have ever lived: indeed: you are omniscient.

plaetton: Along this line of discussion, here is an intriguing and timely scientific , and for me mind blowing, article on possible origins of consciousness.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/intriguing-consciousness-theory-skeptics-want-evidence-6C10486211


An intriguing consciousness theory, but skeptics want evidence


Tanya Lewis, LiveScience,

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
GooglePlus
Email

June 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM ET

Brain
NBC News

NEW YORK — The idea that consciousness arises from quantum mechanical phenomena in the brain is intriguing, yet lacks evidence, scientists say.


Physicist Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff of the University of Arizona propose that the brain acts as a quantum computer — a computational machine that makes use of quantum mechanical phenomena (like the ability of particles to be in two places at once) to perform complex calculations. In the brain, fibers inside neurons could form the basic units of quantum computation, Penrose and Hameroff explained at the Global Future 2045 International Congress, a futuristic conference held here June 15-16.

The idea is appealing, because neuroscience, so far, has no satisfactory explanation for consciousness — the state of being self-aware and having sensory experiences and thoughts. But many scientists are skeptical, citing a lack of experimental evidence for the idea. [Consciousness to Sleep: Top 10 Mysteries of the Mind]

The Orch OR model
Penrose and Hameroff developed their ideas independently, but collaborated in the early 1990s to develop what they call the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model.


Penrose's work rests on an interpretation of the mathematician Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem, which states that certain results cannot be proven by a computer algorithm. Penrose argues that human mathematicians are capable of proving so-called "Godel-unprovable" results, and therefore human brains cannot be described as typical computers. Instead, he says, to achieve these higher abilities, brain processes must rely on quantum mechanics.

But Penrose's theory didn't explain how this quantum computing occurred inside actual brains, just that the phenomenon would be needed to solve certain mathematical equations. Hameroff read Penrose's work and suggested small fibrous structures that give cells their structural support — known as microtubules — might be capable of carrying out quantum computations.

Microtubules are made up of units of the protein tubulin, which contains regions where electrons are swirling around very close to each other. Hameroff proposed that these electrons could become "quantum entangled," a state in which two particles retain a connection, and an action performed on one affects the other, even when the two are separated by a distance.

In the Orch OR model, the mathematical probabilities that describe the quantum states of these entangled electrons in microtubules become unstable in space-time. These mathematical probabilities are called wave functions, and in this scenario they collapse, moving from a state of probability to a specific actuality. In this state, the microtubules in one neuron could be linked to those in other neurons via electrical connections known as gap junctions. These junctions would allow the electrons to "tunnel" to other regions of the brain, resulting in waves of neural activity that are perceived as conscious experience.

"Penrose had a mechanism for consciousness, and I had a structure," Hameroff told LiveScience.

Problems with the model
Interesting as it sounds, the Orch OR model has not been tested experimentally, and many scientists reject it.


Quantum computers — computers that take advantage of quantum mechanical effects to achieve extremely speedy calculations — have been theorized, but only one (built by the company D-Wave) is commercially available, and whether it's a true quantum computer is debated. Such computers would be extremely sensitive to perturbations in a system, which scientists refer to as "noise." In order to minimize noise, it's important to isolate the system and keep it very cold (because heat causes particles to speed up and generate noise).

Building quantum computers is challenging even under carefully controlled conditions. "This paints a desolate picture for quantum computation inside the wet and warm brain,” Christof Koch and Klaus Hepp of the University of Zurich Switzerland, wrote in an essay published in 2006 in the journal Nature.

Another problem with the model has to do with the timescales involved in the quantum computation. MIT physicist Max Tegmark has done calculations of quantum effects in the brain, finding that quantum states in the brain last far too short a time to lead to meaningful brain processing. Tegmark called the Orch OR model vague, saying the only numbers he’s seen for more concrete models are way off.

"Many people seem to feel that consciousness is a mystery and quantum mechanics is a mystery, so they must be related," Tegmark told LiveScience.

The Orch OR model draws criticism from neuroscientists as well. The model holds that quantum fluctuations inside microtubules produce consciousness. But microtubules are also found in plant cells, said theoretical neuroscientist Bernard Baars, chief executive officer of the nonprofit Society for Mind-Brain Sciences in Falls Church, Va., who added, "plants, to the best of our knowledge, are not conscious."

These criticisms do not rule out quantum consciousness in principle, but without experimental evidence, many scientists remain unconvinced.

"If somebody comes up with just one single experiment" to demonstrate quantum consciousness, Baars said, "I will drop all my skepticism."

I really never knew you could be this escapist. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the questions raised in the OP. Tackle the questions head-on if you will.

I have come to the regrettable conclusion that atheists here tend to be far more dogmatic, fanatical, fundamentalist and unreasonable than the theists.

For all the fairy tales that Theists believe, it would appear that the atheists believe in even more astonishing fairy tales.

nteresting how nobody is bothering to even attempt any of the several posers raised?

spongeback: That maclatunji guy is an I.diot am sure he already betrothed to a 12 year old girl.

Of that, there can be no doubt.

Hurry up Maclatunji, come and lock this thread, Islam is in danger again, and if people discuss this matter, the skies may fall down, armaggedon will ensue and the world will come to a sudden and terrible end.

So lock the thread.

Make sure you also hide this comment when doing so.

The subject of the possibility of Child Marriage as triggred by recent events before the Senate, is a huge issue currently in the public sphere: indeed, the matter is so topical that the Guardian today has it as its headline.

In view of this, can the Muslim Mod, Maclatunji kindly explain why he locked a thread discussing this same matter?

https://www.nairaland.com/1366657/islam-under-age-marriage

Does the Muslim Mod Maclajtunji believe in Freedom of Expression and excahnge of ideas or does he seek to gag everyone once his Religion is under the microscope?

Can the Muslim Mod Maclatunji show exactly why this matter should not be discussed, and give reasons for locking the thread?

Why does the Muslim Mod Maclatunji want the rest of the world to tolerate his intolerance?

I hereby petition the Admin to please remove the radically intolerant Muslim Mod Maclatunji if he cannot show proper reasons for locking the thread.

Were there some expletives in your post? How come its been hidden?

GooseBaba: Baba Lagoshia..!! I troway salute..

This is what I got from your reply.
Aisha was jealous of the prophet's dead wife
Aisha wants to be seen as the prophet's favorite

In order to accomplish this ^^^^ she came up with receiving the prophet general in her honey pot at the tender age of 9.

Was she mentally disturb that she will distort the prophet's image while striving to be seen as his favorite? Because of this story wey no make sense. Grown men Sunnis and Shia are busy killing themselves like chickens. Wahala dey oo

GBAM!

1. Chinua Achebe

2. Gani Fawehinmi

3. Wole Soyinka

4. Fela Anikulapo Kuti

5. Ken Saro Wiwa.

This is the authentic list.

BetaThings: When France outlawed the Hijab, Christians cheered: "Yes France, you are a correct country"
Why does the Hijab elicit such a strong interest/reaction from people who worship God?

Because the Hijab is a barbaric symbol of the oppression of women.

Perhaps because people go to Church in spagetti

And so what? Did God create you with any clothes on?

Anyway, France has now approved same sex marriage. So what do you say?

We curse them for it.

France is not the beacon of right and wrong. As surely as they, being human, have done right in the past, so surely will they also do wrong.

baba dey: Now uve spoken . WE are not the ones who is giving it a religious tone. Your elders in north(senators,imam) said,it is right in islam and allowed,all they did was putting it on the basis of religion. Aint they muslims or they are different types?

Ask am for me o.

vedaxcool: Spain
The age of consent in Spain is 13, as specified by the Spanish Penal Code, Article 181(2). However, if deceit is used in gaining the consent of a minor under 16 years an individual can be charged under Article 183(1) upon parental complaint.

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

And this makes you sleep well at night abi? If at all this is true, then it rebounds on you as Spain is historically the only European country to have been ruled by muslims for centuries. So that will explain such a tradition!

Smayee: D rate christain criticise evrytyn abt islam is alarming muslims hardly abuse jesus or mary but only try to reason wit christain concernin dat dey dnt undastand. I hate wen christain refer to d holy prophet anyhow u guys shuld beta watch it or it might turn into religion. Islam doesn't force anyone to practise we d muslims accept wot ws revealed to us withou question n average muslim will neva force u 2do wot we r doing.whats ur concern?

O really? You would not force others against their will, and yet, you will tolerate the marriage of minors? How is that not force? What minor has a say in that, be honest, for once. Also the punishment for apostasy (leaving islam) is death, no? How is that live and let live?

vire: I wonder why we have to break our necks over someone's ideology .........their religion gives them the right to have the girl child as wives...whats your own with it....they southern part of this nation should understand that even our culture supports underage marriages and because we don't explore that part of our culture doesn't mean its not there...Britain forced two different cultures together like they did in India,Pakistan and Nepal until they went their individual ways.....At least they are not asking for your daughters hands in marriage and even if they do you have a right to say no......Lets live and let them live....When they introduced Sharia Law it was as if we should all die but right now we can live with it....so we will also live with this Law.

You have no conscience.

plaetton: This sounds more like a legal summation for a jury rather than a simple coherent argument against the theory of evolution.

Ironically, in the process you did indict yourself and weaken whatever point you were trying to make.

Since you believe in some kind of evolution, kindly offer us a little bit of detail how you think it works, that way, we can see how your own idea of evolutionary change dovetails with or contradicts all that you have written above.

No sir. No escapism. There are serious posers in there. Address them.

And o, they are also very simple and logical.

Well this was actually a response (slightly edited) to Plaetton's thread asking if consciousness cannot be explained by evolution only, without the need for some Divine attribution. However I think that these questions merit a discussion of their own; and I believe that they are cardinal questions.

To be clear: these posers seek to show that current scientific explanation for existence as we know it alone and by itself - from the big b.ang through to evolution and mankind, does not and cannot account for life as we know it.

To be further clear: I actually believe in evolution. There must have been evolution of some sort. However I do not believe that it was blind or unguided. I believe in an evolutionary universe and an evolutionary process guided by a definite and intelligent hand.

________________________________
I have tried to adumbrate the argument against the idea that Evolution accounts for consciousness; particularly sapient and knowing consciousness of the human kind.

That which is set forth by current scientific thinking - starting with the Big B.ang and all the way through to evolution and humanity, does not account for the existence of life and consciousness as we know it today.

Perhaps I may expand on each of the points in further posts: However, I leave them in all their bare simplicity below for you and others to reflect closely on.

These are the fundamental pillars of reasoning whereat I say that current scientific thinking, from the Big Bang through to evolution, cannot, and does not account for consciousness as we know it.

The reasons are reduced to these very simple posers:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on the Big B.ang:

1. The Theory of the Big B.ang proceeds with an expansion from the point of a singularity. It does not, and cannot, address whence the singularity derives from, or why it exists at all. It does not address the question: why something instead of nothing.

2. The Theory of the Big B.ang offers no answers as to what exactly triggered the expansion from the singularity: the question as to why that event occurred is not addressed at all.

3. The Theory of the Big B.ang asserts that space began to exist with the expansion from the singularity. This fails to address the question: into what is the universe expanding, if not already existent space?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on The Theory of Evolution:

1. The Theory of Evolution does not account for first life. The origin of first life remains unknown. It is often repeated that the Theory of Evolution is not meant to address first life at all. That is understood: however - if that is the case, then the Theory of Evolution is not an explanation for life in the first place. It is absurd to try to explain the existence of life with a Theory which does not touch on the origin of life at all.

2. Since the Theory of Evolution does not explain first life, it is and remains inchoate as far as explaining our existence is concerned: for it leaves a huge gap in the overall story: to wit: the origin of life.

3. Assuming that bare matter somehow, miraculously, unguided and magically combined, and brought a living thing into existence - the first unicellular living thing/s: the principles of evolution do not account for the diversification into less successful multicellular living things. This is because evolutionary impetus works towards the extinction of less successful organisms and the propagation of more successful organisms. As such, unicellular organisms being the most successful organisms at all times, would simply and logically lack any evolutionary impetus for evolution into less successful multi-cellular organisms.

4. Assuming again, that notwithstanding the foregoing, multicellular organisms came to exist by some improbable evolutionary quirk. There remains the question of how such organisms would develop towards consciousness - with attributes such as optical, olfactory, auditory senses and senses of taste, and the like. Not to speak of the capacity for thought - and very advanced thought.

5. The faculties observed in an advanced creature such as man far exceed that which would develop based on any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. The capacities for such abstractions as advanced mathematics, philosophy, music and literature are not faculties for which any evolutionary impetus can be discerned. Man existing in a state of nature has no natural or biological need for such faculties: no need that can be explained with reference to the natural environment and the survivalist pressures it places on man.

6. The senses of conscious beings such as ourselves evince the sensory organs as tools serving a being, and not tools forming a being.

In simple terms, evolution as you read it would start with a unicellular organism, which, in reproduction, produces more complex organisms: as such: the physical matter itself which forms the organism is what the organism is, and nothing more. Basic logic denies this: for if the eventual result in advanced creatures such as us, leads to the formation of senses such as sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, then these are faculties which a being requires to sense its environment, and not faculties existing purposelessly in a void and serving nothing but their own existence - which is what strict evolutionary logic should infer. This leads us to see that we are beings: and not simply the agglomeration of physical parts: for which evolution would have had no need or impetus in the first place.

Who is reading these words? Your eyes? Your brain? Or you? Where is that you. In your eyes? In your brain? Why is that you interested in these words? Is the brain a creature by itself that has these sorts of hobbies and interests for its own exclusive pleasure. Or is it not rather true that it is you, the complete integrated being, that uses these tools to sense and apprehend the world about it?

7. Organs such as the eye and the brain will eternally befog and defy any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. Forever. The intricacy involved is far too improbable to be countenanced by any serious thinker. Especially when considered in terms of their fitness for purpose and function. It is, actually so benumbing that it leaves the serious thinker numb, to think that others could suggest these to be the result of blind chance acting upon matter without purpose.

8. The improbability of ALL life forms, right to the simplest single cell, gives a lie to evolution as conceived by scientists. It is statistically more probable for you to fling a clump of sand into the air, and have the particles randomly form a Boeing 747, than it is for random effects on matter to form a single cell, not to speak of a single organ such as an eye, a brain, a heart, a liver, or lungs.

And when that statistical probability is then stretched to having all these organs fit neatly into one integrated body governed by one integrated super computer which is a mind of thought and reason called a brain, to deliver the existence of a living feeling, breathing thinking being, then any suggestion that all of these are random chance events acting on blind matter becomes absolutely untenable, weird, absurd, and even comical. It frankly becomes a hilarious joke.

9. Evolution does not account for the abstract realm of ideas in which every human being lives his entire life: it does not account for the existence of thoughts: which exist and are not physical things: it does not show how a physical thing may produce non-physical things: with evolution only, the existence of non physical things which derive from physical things will be absurd and untenable, because evolution works with the physical only. The existence of thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, and passions are inexplicable based on evolution only - as these are nonphysical things allegedly being produced by physical things - which evolution does not countenance.

10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

11. Evolution cannot account for the many pre programmed faculties we take for granted in our lives. It cannot account for how babies of mammals know to seek a b.reast and derive milk therein - as soon as they emerge from the womb into a world they have never known before. It does not account for how baby turtles know to head for the sea as soon as they break from their eggs. It does not account for how or why the body does not just keep growing throughout life, but stops at an age. These are pre set programs amongst billions of pre set programs obvious in life which are undeniable and which evolution alone can never account for.

12. Most of all, evolution does not account for the mind, which is the most amazing thing of all, and the wellspring of our consciousness.

13. Evolution cannot explain the phenomenon of death, and it summarily renders meaningless every human life as it refers in total to the sum of material parts forming a purposeless whole which ends in death: meaningless, purposeless walking corpses in effect.

14. The age of the Earth cannot accommodate the time span required for evolution from unicellular organism to mankind.

When one really thinks about it, one realizes just how stupendously and shockingly presumptuous and thoughtlessly shallow the position of the atheist is. It is a position of the deepest ignorance and the most breath-taking st.upidity. Most of all, it simply betrays a lack of thought: and worst of all: a lack of perception of the most basic factors of existence known to every human being instinctually from their childhood. The reasons I listed up there are but the tip of the ice berg as far as this matter is concerned, and when taken together with the preceding questions behind the big b.ang, evince the only logical conclusion that human beings of all ages have instinctively and logically known: namely the existence of a pre existent intelligence beyond ours, which is called, in a million different human languages: God.










Although all the posers above are cardinal, I would particularly like the strict materialist big b.ang exponents to give answers to the posers on the big bang, and for the strict materialist evolutionists, the posers on Evolution, Nos 1, 3, 10 and 14 above.

But please do address yourself still to all posers.

I read that statement of WS' in the papers this morning, and, while we may all rightly criticize the first lady and her uncouth ways, the Hippo remark from WS was absolutely overboard, low, childish and greatly diminishes him in the sight of any right thinking person.

Anony, the video seems to stop midway...@ 1.12 minutes. . .do you have a full version, or is this a problem from my end. . .

I have tried to adumbrate the argument against the idea that Evolution accounts for consciousness; particularly sapient and knowing consciousness of the human kind.

That which is set forth by current scientific thinking - starting with the Big B.ang and all the way through to evolution and humanity, does not account for the existence of life and consciousness as we know it today.

Perhaps I may expand on each of the points in further posts: However, I leave them in all their bare simplicity below for you and others to reflect closely on.

These are the fundamental pillars of reasoning whereat I say that current scientific thinking, from the Big Bang through to evolution, cannot, and does not account for consciousness as we know it.

The reasons are reduced to these very simple posers:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on the Big B.ang:

1. The Theory of the Big B.ang proceeds with an expansion from the point of a singularity. It does not, and cannot, address whence the singularity derives from, or why it exists at all. It does not address the question: why something instead of nothing.

2. The Theory of the Big B.ang offers no answers as to what exactly triggered the expansion from the singularity: the question as to why that event occurred is not addressed at all.

3. The Theory of the Big B.ang asserts that space began to exist with the expansion from the singularity. This fails to address the question: into what is the universe expanding, if not already existent space?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on The Theory of Evolution:

1. The Theory of Evolution does not account for first life. The origin of first life remains unknown. It is often argued that the Theory of Evolution is not meant to address first life at all. If that is the case, then the Theory of Evolution is not an explanation for life in the first place. It is absurd to try to explain the origin of life with a Theory which does not touch on the origin of life at all.

2. Since the Theory of Evolution does not explain first life, it is and remains inchoate as far as explaining our existence is concerned: for it leaves a huge gap in the overall story: to wit: the origin of life.

3. Assuming that bare matter somehow, miraculously, unguided and magically combined, and brought a living thing into existence - the first unicellular living thing/s: the principles of evolution do not account for the diversification into less successful multicellular living things. This is because evolutionary impetus works towards the extinction of less successful organisms and the propagation of more successful organisms. As such, unicellular organisms being the most successful organisms at all times, would simply and logically lack any evolutionary impetus for evolution into less successful multi-cellular organisms.

4. Assuming again, that notwithstanding the foregoing, multicellular organisms came to exist by some improbable evolutionary quirk. There remains the question of how such organisms would develop towards consciousness - with attributes such as sight, hearing, smelling, taste, and the like. Not to speak of thought.

5. The faculties observed in an advanced creature such as man far exceed that which would develop based on any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. The capacities for such abstractions as advanced mathematics, philosophy, music and literature are not faculties for which any evolutionary impetus can be discerned. Man existing in a state of nature has no natural or biological need for such faculties: no need that can be explained with reference to the natural environment and the survivalist pressures it places on man.

6. The senses of conscious beings such as ourselves evince the sensory organs as tools serving a being, and not tools forming a being.

In simple terms, evolution as you read it would start with a unicellular organism, which, in reproduction, produces more complex organisms: as such: the physical matter itself which forms the organism is what the organism is, and nothing more. Basic logic denies this: for if the eventual result in advanced creatures such as us, leads to the formation of senses such as sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, then these are faculties which a being requires to sense its environment, and not faculties existing purposelessly in a void and serving nothing but their own existence - which is what strict evolutionary logic should infer. This leads us to see that we are beings: and not simply the agglomeration of physical parts: for which evolution would have had no need or impetus in the first place.

Who is reading these words? Your eyes? Your brain? Or you? Where is that you. In your eyes? In your brain? Why is that you interested in these words? Is the brain a creature by itself that has these sorts of hobbies and interests for its own exclusive pleasure. Or is it not rather true that it is you, the complete integrated being, that uses these tools to sense and apprehend the world about it?

7. Organs such as the eye and the brain will eternally befog and defy any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. Forever. The intricacy involved is far too improbable to be countenanced by any serious thinker. Especially when considered in terms of their fitness for purpose and function. It is, actually so benumbing that it leaves the serious thinker numb, to think that others could suggest these to be the result of blind chance acting upon matter without purpose.

8. The improbability of ALL life forms, right to the simplest single cell, gives a lie to evolution as conceived by scientists. It is statistically more probable for you to fling a clump of sand into the air, and have the particles randomly form a Boeing 747, than it is for random effects on matter to form a single cell, not to speak of a single organ such as an eye, a brain, a heart, a liver, or lungs.

And when that statistical probability is then stretched to having all these organs fit neatly into one integrated body governed by one integrated super computer which is a mind of thought and reason called a brain, to deliver the existence of a living feeling, breathing thinking being, then any suggestion that all of these are random chance events acting on blind matter becomes absolutely untenable, weird, absurd, and even comical. It frankly becomes a hilarious joke.

9. Evolution does not account for the abstract realm of ideas in which every human being lives his entire life: it does not account for the existence of thoughts: which exist and are not physical things: it does not show how a physical thing may produce non-physical things: with evolution only, the existence of non physical things which derive from physical things will be absurd and untenable, because evolution works with the physical only. The existence of thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, and passions are inexplicable based on evolution only - as these are nonphysical things allegedly being produced by physical things - which evolution does not countenance.

10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

11. Evolution cannot account for the many pre programmed faculties we take for granted in our lives. It cannot account for how babies of mammals know to seek a b.reast and derive milk therein - as soon as they emerge from the womb into a world they have never known before. It does not account for how baby turtles know to head for the sea as soon as they break from their eggs. It does not account for how or why the body does not just keep growing throughout life, but stops at an age. These are pre set programs amongst billions of pre set programs obvious in life which are undeniable and which evolution alone can never account for.

12. Most of all, evolution does not account for the mind, which is the most amazing thing of all, and the wellspring of our consciousness.

13. Evolution cannot explain the phenomenon of death, and it summarily renders meaningless every human life as it refers in total to the sum of material parts forming a purposeless whole which ends in death: meaningless, purposeless walking corpses in effect.

When one really thinks about it, one realizes just how stupendously and shockingly presumptuous and thoughtlessly shallow the position of the atheist is. It is a position of the deepest ignorance and the most breath-taking st.upidity. Most of all, it simply betrays a lack of thought: and worst of all: a lack of perception of the most basic factors of existence known to every human being instinctually from their childhood. The reasons I listed up there are but the tip of the ice berg as far as this matter is concerned, and when taken together with the preceding questions behind the big b.ang, evince the only logical conclusion that human beings of all ages have instinctively and logically known: namely the existence of a pre existent intelligence beyond ours, which is called, in a million different human languages: God.

Nothing you wrote up there addresses the most fundamental conundrum of all: why something instead of nothing?

Anyhow, I am in the mood now. I will address the core question of this thread shortly.

^^^ Ok, I will address it as such.

Anony, Please what verse is your last post treating?

Is the verse being treated Luke 10:1?

Because you seem to have discussed generally many verses, and not a specific verse as we have been proceeding?

The blind leadig the blind.

Anony, we need to step up the pace, or it will take a full year to treat the verses. Remember we have only treated A1 AND D1 so far, and we have 38 more verses to treat!

plaetton: In the lord's prayer, Jesus said " Let thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven".
We usually end most of our prayers with phrase " Let thy will be done".

But on the other hand, I have seen many christian champions here on NL and outside, argue passionately that god gave man free will and that it is man's misuse of his freewill that has created evil, confusion and great suffering on Earth.

When bad things happen to us, we resign and accept them as God's will.

So my question to Christians is:
Who is the ultimate controller of destiny, man's use of his freewill or god's supreme will?
Where does god's will start and end, and where does man's freewill take over, and visa versa?

Read the Grail Message. Only in that book can a sensible answer to this question be found.

Mr anony: You know what, I agree with you. A2 isn't normally the kind of verse I would have selected if I wanted to defend Trinity anyway. If it is ok with you, I would like to substitute A2 to explore something I touched on towards the end of my last response i.e. the Lordship of Christ. If this is not alright with you, I'm happy to move on to A3 with no problems.

It is certainly okay with me. While you are at it, please also take the opportunity to substitute any other verses that I put up in your behalf in my OP. I was quite surprised that Romans 9:5 was not one of your verses - and when it came up, I had to handle it without the benefit of full responses as would have been the case if it had been cited properly by either of us as a verse for treatment by itself. As it happens, it was only treated as a subset of D1, because you alluded to it in your rebuttal.

Nevertheless I am satisfied with our treatment of it, so please do feel free to substitute any verses for a more apt verse.

I await, sire.