DeepSight's Posts
Nairaland Forum › DeepSight's Profile › DeepSight's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 (of 809 pages)
alfaman2: Ah, you mean the fossil of this guy?Alright, i see you are having a laugh. You can of course come back whenever you are serious. Otherwise you may leave it to those who may wish to educate my ignorance in all seriousness. Good morning, sir. |
Logicboy03:O please do be careful to read that which I wrote and not that which you imagine me to have written. I do believe in evolution, but as stated above, I believe in directed evolution. In other words, that the process in its entirety could not have occurred without external intelligent imperative/ impetus. My view is that the lifespan of the earth so far can hardly accommodate the amount of time required for random mutations and chance developments even and including natural selection, to have developed the full range of flora and fauna that have been, and still are, on Earth. |
alfaman2: It is good that you realised that you are an id.iot here. So I will answer your question. There aren't any intermediate fossils. ooman: Or the intermediate link between him and his mum, since they are different from each other and he came from her.Are you guys being for real here? Tell me you are not being serious? Surely I don't need to explain what an Intermediary Fossil is supposed to be? Remember I am the student here. I can only assume you are cracking morning jokes? |
ooman: Deepsight common, this plagiarized writeup of yours is old and settled already. Will post answers for you soon when am back on my computer.Plagiarized? That's funny. Please I will appreciate pictures. They are really easier to see and understand for slow students like myself, thanks. Pictures (and the sources) of intermediate fossils. So that if you gather enough such pics here, you can always use this thread in future as a bank to refer others to, who ask similar "plagiarized" questions. Cheers and thanks. |
So much talk of evolution on this board recently. The grand behemoth in the mind of the atheist that solves the problem of intelligent life. Alright, I want a really dumbed down class for myself to learn one or two things about evolution. As in, give me Evolution for Id.iots, 101, the most possibly simplified version. Before I go further, let me state that I have never previously contested evolution on this forum: that is because I believe in it. There must be evolution of some sort or the other. Heck, even growth is evolution in some other way. As such, I have never seen the point denying evolution. If humans did not exist on this planet 4 billion years ago, and they exist now, there is probably some form of evolution or the other involved. However, I have never considered evolution to be mutually exclusive from intelligent design. Nor do I accept either - 1. That there is sufficient evolutioanry impetus - unaided save by nature alone - to produce the human being and mind 2. That there has been sufficient time in the timeline of the existence of the earth, to result in the span and stretch of creatures that have dwelt, and dwell upon the earth. As such I believe, and have always believed, in some form of evolution, but only that which is necessarily guided by an obvious supervening intelligence. The make-up of the flora and fauna of the earth give me to believe this; and I regard it as only reasonable to any human being acquainted with such. Nevertheless I digress too far already, as is my wont. Like I said before, what I want here is Evolution for Id.iots. I believe in evolution, but I do not believe that the entire process could have occurred un-aided by external intelligent impetus. I believe that there glaringly was. Now, being an evolutionary id.iot, who cannot understand (quite apart from the fact that the Theory of Evolutions does not, and was not intended to discuss the origin of first life) how natural selection alone would lead to that which we have today (starting of course with a unicellular organism and ending - or perhaps continuing) with space-age beings who wear Armani Suits, drink champagne and enjoy Caviar & Sushi. Aside from write philosophy, build nuclear craft and discombobulate the atom. Or perhaps my more specific problem is believing the idea that mutations can and do lead to the sort of complexity we have today within the time-frame referenced. In that regard, please remember that the earth is about 4 billion years old, and even if we accept the pre-biotic soup idea of the origin of life, that could hardly have occurred as soon as the earth came into existence - that would have "chopped" out of the time as well. So we are talking about - 1. Earth forming and cooling 2. Life originating within pre biotic soup 3. The said first life gradually experiencing so many mutations, that it eventually turns into human beings and many other creatures - - - all within the said time-frame. I respectfully submit if we draw out the amount of mutations required to fulfill this miracle, the age of the earth cannot realistically support this conclusion from the point of view of statistical probabilities. Nevertheless, once again, I digress, as is my wont. So back to Evolution for Id.iots. Alright, the following are the basic facts and inferences behind the Theory of Evolution - Darwin's theory of evolution is based on key facts and the inferences drawn from them, which biologist Ernst Mayr summarised as follows:[3] Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact). Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact). Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact). A struggle for survival ensues (inference). Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact). Much of this variation is inheritable (fact). Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference). This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species [b]Okay, to begin this class on Evolution for Id.iots, (I am the Id.iot-student, not teacher here; I am expecting certain evolution-inclined atheists to be the teachers) - I start with my first and most basic question. Where are the intermediate fossils? By this, I mean the intermediate fossils between the largely distinct groups of species - Unicellular[____] Basic Multi-cellulars [______] Fish [________] Amphibian [___________] Reptile [_______] Bird [_______] Mammal. Evolution having occurred over millions or perhaps even billions of years on earth, it would be expected that there would be a staggering collection of intermediate fossils showing clearly the transition by various mutations and extinctions, the development from Unicellular Organism to man. So please, can any teacher help me fill in the blanks above, and where not possible, give me plausible reasons why there is a paucity of intermediate fossils - whereas there should be a deluge of same?[/b] We start with these. More to follow. Many thanks. |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! |
alexleo: This is just my thought about the reason the pope resigned. I believe he must have told himself the truth about how some of their doctrines and traditions runs contrary to the bible and the danger it poses for him at the judgment throne. He must have told himself the truth about the unbiblical and unholy hidden practices that is attached to the personality and office of a pope and the danger it poses for him at the judgment throne. He must have reminded himself of the truth that GOD IS NOT A RESPECTER OF PERSONS. At this last lap of his life's journey, he must have thought it wise that its better he steps out of this office and make a genuine repentance that will make him truly a heavenly candidate than retaining the office with whatever sinful strings attached to it and going to hell, hence the resignation. He must have told himself that an eternal rest with God still remains the most important thing than going to hell. He must have heard the testimony of Pope John Paul in hell and decided not to wave it off with hands as other catholics are doing. He must have told himself that fighting the ungodly practices in catholic might lead to a total chaos that will shake catholic and christianity at large and opted to rather step out and work out his own salvation while praying too for the church to be liberated from the grip of those ungodly practices. This might be a wise pope indeed. I pray God to use this period of his private life to revive him, visit him with genuine salvation and prepare him for heaven. This is just my humble thought. I may be right or wrong, totally right or totally wrong, a little right or a little wrong. ONLY GOD KNOWS THE TRUTH.SHARRAP |
Logicboy03: Yawn.Well in case you forgot, you actually wrote a lot of them out here on Nairaland a while ago. I think you are a little bothered inside by those issues and others. Just my thoughts anyway. Nevermind, I'll mind my business. Sorry for asking. #Epic Fail! #Debunked! #Butthurt! # Foolish waste of time! #Try again! |
all4naija: Another one of funny excuses! You keep making fool of yourself all the time. Whatever that means to you it still like begging the question. You wrote The Cowardice of Atheism without having any meaningful reason in your head of what your title suggest. However, I need a better explanations for that[size=32pt]PLEASE STOP POSTING, YOUR TERRIBLE ENGLISH IS WORSENING MY HANG OVER.[/size] |
Logicboy03: You are delusional.I did not say mental problems. I said there is a personal problem somewhere. This simply means you may have an issue with something or the other. Like we all do anyway. |
Logicboy03: lol.....this is why people dont prosper in Nigeria. Someone talks about his feeling and then we stigmatize the person that the person has mental conditions and if the "diagnoser" is a christian, he will recommend you to a pastor to slap the witch/demon out of you.I was actually serious and sincere about that post. I guess, u have decided to pass. Fine then. |
Logicboy03: First of all, I want to say that this letter is to say thank you for making me a better atheist. I am actually happier based upon a certain realization which I could have only come across by discussing with you guys. Thanks guys!My Son, you need help. I am seriously concerned about your state of mind. No kidding, no jibing. I mean it. There is clearly a personal problem somewhere. What is it? At this point, I am ready to talk to you. Ask Anony for my number. Life is confusing, but please dont ruin yourself with anger. Trust me, I have been there. |
ooman4: God on the contrary expects me to believe in ancient mysticism[b] without updates.Bruv; what kind of update are you looking for? An update on your phone, by text message or an update on Nairaland? If you got such an update, surely u would conclude it was a human being, and not God, no? Every moment in time that passes, is an update from God.[/b] |
^^^ What have I denied, my friend? |
^^^ Well i have said my bit. I don't see anything contradictory in what I said. You may make of it what you will. |
^^^ Solarin's trials were not on account of his atheism, but on account of his political activism. Same as Soyinka, Fawehinmi, Beko, Fela and even my own father who was a Journalist. I am not speaking from both sides of my mouth. It is true that there is no evidence of public or political discrimination against atheists in Nigeria. It is however socially wise in my view to dumb down the evangelistic atheism in matters such as marriage. What's it needed for? You asked for my advice and I gave it based on my personal experience. Mind you, I said Enigma and David are right on Solarin - That does not mean I agree with the whole of their views on the discrimination matter. AsI said above, a dim view is indeed taken of atheists socially in Nigeria - so you are right on that. And by socially, I mean in matters such as marriage, etc. |
MacDaddy01: Keep speaking from both sides of your mouth.My dear, I shared with you my personal experience and advice which you requested on the matter. If you wish to tread the dishonorable path of sharing private discussions in public you are free to do so. You will not be the first to do so with my communication on this forum. You have the email and you are free to publish it here: I have no objections whatsoever. In fact, I grant my express permission for you to reproduce every word I wrote here. None of that will take away anything from what Enigma and David have said on Solarin: he was a professed atheist and this was a notorious fact. Not only was he appointed by the Government, he was in fact a celebrated Nigerian: and there are physical monuments built to him in Lagos by the Government even today. One is in Tai Solarin Park, in Anthony, Maryland, Lagos, on the way to the 3rd Mainland Bridge. As I said in my email, there is no need to bother your colleagues at work, and particularly your marriage, with outspoken atheism. It's frankly useless. That does not mean that outspoken atheists are discriminated against in public affairs in Nigeria. I do agree though, that a dim view is taken of atheists socially in these parts. My once-upon-a time fiancee's friends and family were all alarmed that I might be an atheist: and even though I wasn't, the religion issue brought great strain on our relationship, as she was a fiery Pentecostal and I was not interested in going to church at all. As I told you in my email, in such contexts, you might as well keep a low profile on your fiery atheism as it does no one any good in such relationships. Unless of course your significant other is like-minded or liberal enough. Don't give up; it can happen. I heard you ask if there are female atheists in Nigeria. THERE ARE, surprisingly. Last year I met an earth shaterringly beautiful and profound woman who is firmly agnostic and completely irreligious. Prior to that I also met another earth shaterringly beautiful Nigerian who is not just completely agnostic and irreligious, but even totally anti-convention. And both from very good homes too. And as I told you in my email, you can of course share your views with liberal minded people, open minded people and people who are not judgmental. Heaping your views on the conservative and judgmental is just unnecessary and this i say is not limited to atheism. Why not focus on social ills? What good will a dis-belief in God do anyone, such as to make you an evangelist of such? By the way, everybody who knows me, knows ALL my views. |
Logicboy03: Deepsight's God- creates the world from nothing and then f4cks offFinal evidence that you do not read. In this same thread I have rejected the idea of creatio ex nihilo |
aletheia: Here is an example of the inconsistent, illogical atheist worldview. So "the rail tracks would be evidence for the train &c". . .and yet the Cosmos in all it's multi-arrayed beauty and order is not evidence for God?Aha! ! ! |
By the way, @ all, I had a very long and very interesting conversation with Anony today over the phone and we went into many of the questions here (derailed questions, not the OP) regarding the nature of God. I had already proposed a new thread on the nature of God with respect to several key issues for which I specifically invite thehomer, Anony and Ihedinobi. At all events, I took notes of our conversation and we agreed that, after clearing my notes with Anony, I will post the summarized transcript as a new thread to form the basis for a discussion on the nature of God. Once its done, I'll drop the link here. Cheers. |
Enigma: Going back to the main point of this thread, I'd like to point something out for the records ---- especially considering that some were shouting that Tai Solarin is the only example of an atheist that has held political office in Nigeria. Their point of course was another example of poor thinking and closing eyes to both facts and logic.On point. |
I refer of course, to primordial LOVE, primordial TRUTH. |
[quote author=Mr_Anony]My dear friend deepsight. surely you do realize that "God is Love" and "God is Truth" are not the same as "Love is God" and "Truth is God". If you are free to talk right now, I'll give you a phone call. Perhaps my speech will express it better than my typing.[/quote]Yes I am free to talk, but will still like to address other wider issues on the nature of God in a thread i will create, if you do not mind. Please note: when you say - - that "God is Love" and "God is Truth" are not the same as "Love is God" and "Truth is God".- Please note that this is why I spoke about the intrinsic, intangible nature of God. |
Logicboy03: Wouldnt it be a boring thread? It would be Anony vs the rest. Too easy to destory their points. See how Ihedinobi is fumbling......No, the topic, the nature of God, should be very interesting because I have a lot of questions and issues which have been simmering over the last six months or so, which I want to bring up. BTW, I still have an itch for debunking you that needs to be scratchedWhy should you be interested in debunking liars like me who spew empty rhetoric? Surely all your grand arguments have done that severally, and clearly on record, no? Anyway, we still have an abandoned thread on Dawkins I have been meaning to return to and will get to it through this weekend. You can smash my head open there and eat monkey soup. |
Mr_Anony:Anony, this, in the words of the Jews who heard Jesus speak, I must say that this is a hard saying indeed. A very hard saying. For what indeed, causes the very distinction between right and wrong, if not a recognition of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, hmmm? |
[quote author=Mr_Anony]This is disingenuous of you because we both know that he was referring to an obligation relating to the creator and not the creation.[/quote]Are you really thinking carefully about what you are saying here? I know you to be a careful thinker, but are you sure you are not being colored here? For otherwise, I cannot understand how you can say that "Love is not obligatory" for a being that is in fact said to be love itself. Speaking from the point of view of the intrinsic intangible ontology of God, surely you are familiar with and understand the statements - "God is Love" "God is Truth" Just so we are clear, these statements above are statements of the intrinsic intangible ontology of God - and not statements of things that God does. In other words, TRUTH is what God IS; LOVE is what God IS, and really, with deeper understanding these things are ONE. As such, it then becomes paradoxical to say that what God ontologicaly is, he has no obligation to be. This would be like saying that water has no obligation to consist of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Or that a sphere has no obligation to be round. Or that a triangle is not obliged to have three sides. Absurdity, no? I hope you get my drift. As for Ihedinobi, I thought he meant love in a general sense, either for God or for man. Anyway, this thread wins the all-time award for derailment into a plethora of other topics and is still going strong at 35 pages. Its become too untidy and muddled up, different issues flying every where. I want to create a thread specially on the nature of God so that we can discuss some of God's attributes as discussed here - but not just on the question of moral agency. We can also sum up your and thehomer's core points there, but I have my own questions for you which stem particularly from the idea of God as having certain choices. As being perfect. As making interventions. As correcting anomalies. And much more. |
jayriginal: Subtle word play going on here. Lets make some substitutions.You and i have been on this very line a number of times and you have asked this same question in different ways. Let me try once again to make my take clearer: 1. The reason virtual particles are said to have no apparent cause is exactly the fact that they are seen to be emerging in a quantum vacuum, which represents nothingness. 2. Nobody sees anything that emerges either from or within something else and then states it to be causeless - even if they do not know the cause, and even if its emergence is unpredictable. 3. As such, the only reason virtual particles are said to be uncaused is because the are said to emerge from nothing - the quantum vacuum. 4. As proven and scientifically acknowledged, the quantum vacuums in reference are not nothing - they are something, and they have attributes. 5. Ergo, virtual particles cannot be said to be uncaused - even if the cause is unknown, and even if their emergence is unpredictable. Finally, I must also underline how much it saddens me when uncertainty is rendered as causelessness. As a crude analogy, looking up into the void of space and seeing comets appearing and disappearing would not render them uncaused just because the viewer does not know the cause and there is unpredictability. It would only render it uncaused where it emerges from stark nothingness - where that space is presumed to be nothingness. In this event, quantum vacuums are not nothingness. |
Ihedinobi: Love is not obligatory.AH. HA. Ah, ah, ah, wetin be dis ooooo. . . . 1. Are the commands of God obligatory for Christians? 2. Is Jesus not God, according to Christians? 3. Did Jesus not teach Love thy neighbour as thyself as his commandment? |
Beretta92: I suppose that a perfect god would make a perfect world,ergo,the need wouldn't arise to ask anything of him since his creation is also perfect.And so is God imperfect or Creation imperfect, or is it simply, as I suspect it is - that there is no need for prayer whatsoever and one only needs to attune oneself to natural laws given by the creator. You do not attune yasef to them, and you end up screaming "Fire! Fire! ! Fire ! ! !" and "Die! Die! Die!" IN your local Mountain of Fire Church. . . . |
Ihedinobi & Anony, I have to say that I see with thehomer on this one. Rather than seek to excuse God from morality, I would have thought that you would argue that he is the supreme morality or moral agent itself. Whilst you can argue that God's bird's eye view of creation is such that God will always have a larger, further, bigger and better perspective on the true significance of any happening than any human will. As such, the human will never be in a position to judge God's actions or inactions, because we necessarily only see a minuscule fraction of the whole. I would have expected you to also throw in overtones of Karma into this overall picture. But to address the question simply by asserting that a creator can do anything whatsoever with his creation (especially when I pointed out, and thehomer has also pointed out now, that we refer to living sentient beings here), is almost insensitive, and endears no one to such a notion of such a God. If God has no responsibility to be moral towards me, a sentient being created by God, tell me, what obligation do I have to be moral towards God or anybody? Why must any two creations of this being have moral obligations towards one another? How is it possible to even say "God loves you" and at the same time say "God has no moral obligations towards you." That is a philosophy that will swiftly lead many to detachment from God, as God becomes unnecessary in their moral worldview. |
^^^ Well let me try to clarify the question a little. - Does a perfect, omniscient and omnipotent God, who has set out the laws of his creation from the dawn of time, need to intervene within the said creation at the behest of his creatures to set this or that right? Ought not the laws of creation already be sufficient for all purposes in light of the perfection of God? |
I speak specifically of prayers of petition: wherein the praying persons request x or y help, act, rescue or favour from God. Is such divine intervention consistent with the notion of a perfect God? |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 (of 809 pages)
