₦airaland Forum

MacDaddy01:

I love you men.....I have been laughing stright for 5 minutes. You knew you were debunked and so, you start trolling


Anyways, did anyone tell you that imitation is the best form of flattery?

Yawn.

More empty rhetoric. . . shows you have nothing to say! Maybe you should read thru mine to thehomer. . . but as proven, you do not read anyway, so that's a vain hope.

You have been debunked.

Try again.

MacDaddy01: And with this comment, we can see the liar that Deep Sight is. So, your statement that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce is based on something Dawkins didnt say?

I would like to know where Dawkins made the argument that evolution makes God unnecessary in the CAUSE of FIRST life.


I suspect that Dawkins probably said one of the following arguments which you misintepreted

-God is not necessary for the origins of the human species since we know that we evolved from apes. That process of evolution works fine without the involvement of a God.

-The beginning of the universe can be explained without God. God isnt necessary in the big bang.
-Evolution is explained without god

Empty rhetoric! No evidence!

Epic fail. You have been debunked.

Try again.

thehomer: Ooh. Deep Sight the merciful.

Compassionate, patient, merciful and kindly to his wards indeed is thy tutor. Master of the school of the deluded, to thy master alone you look for help, he will guide you to the straight path, and not the path of those who have gone astray.

This logic is not to be doubted. It is a guide for the deluded, who must now have faith in logic.

Repeating the question won't make it clearer. What you need to do is to either rephrase the question or let me know what answer you're looking for because I don't see any common denominator other than something as trivial as saying that they're all described by humans. In the same way that speaking slowly in a language foreign to someone won't make them understand you any better.

Do you seriously mean to assert to me that you know of nothing, no concept, no idea, no common denominator whatsoever that these three have in common? Not even the fact that they are all processes of development? Not even the fact that - as you already said - none of them is an initiative phenomenon? Not even the fact that they are all represent the change of living things over periods of time? Not any other thing?

It can only be concluded by any sane observer that you dishonestly refused to see any common denominator. And it is useless engaging in a debate where parties willfully make such lamentable pretensions.

Must I painfully break down every thing for you? Please don't give me deja vu.

Actually, what you're showing is that you are deficient in your knowledge of biology. The theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain the origin of life. And in developing the theory of evolution, God hasn't been necessary.

Lol, you really do bring a smile to my face all the time. A wry one though.

You and I are very well acquainted with the fact that the theory of evolution does not touch on the origin of life. THAT is exactly the point - namely that since evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, then it cannot be a reference point for dismissing that which is referred to as the origin of life! Simples!

In fact, I elaborated on this in the thread I referred logicboy to - the thread which his quaking fear and congenital epilepsy has frigtened him from reading up till now. It is in fact not just the origin of life at issue. It is the origin of the entire universe at issue.

Because the cosmological question of God's existence centres around the existence of the entire universe. And the cause for that. It is therefore starkly unimaginable that one would state that the evolution of species on a speck of a planet - obviates the need for God! - When that need, arises from a question about the existence of anything at all - as opposed to nothing!

It thus beats belief entirely, that as we very well know, the TOE does not address either the origin of life or the origin of the universe - and was never meant to - and yet it is held up as sufficient reason to obviate the questions that it was never meant to address! - - - and does NOT address.

Amazing, my son, amazing! I hope you can clearly see the illogicality here.

And no - the argument is not that which you have tried to rephrase it as - namely that God is not necessary for evolution to take place or continue. God may very well not be necessary for that (not my position though), just as Bill Gates may not be needed in your bedroom for your computer to make automatic updates. That is neither here nor there; for the question of God's existence has never been about how things work, but about from whence they started to exist and work in the first place. And thus, to the extent that evolution is not about that, then it is philosophically dumb to hold it up as a factor that obviates God's existence.

And this is exactly why I have said he is effectively arguing that demonstrating how photosynthesis works or how a child grows means that neither the tree nor the child needed a cause.

Haba, thehomer, did I really need to spell all this down word for word for you?

What exactly is the contradiction you're trying to demonstrate? How does anything I've said contradict the other?

As above.

I'm sorry but it looks as if you're one of those teachers teaching nonsense, professor.

Now now, you best be careful for I have purchased a new and excellent whip specifically for you and your ilk. You don't want your family asking you where those scars on your back came from, do you? They just might conclude that you are into kinky stuff. Your arguments are certainly kinky enough.

ooman: this shows your own little comprehension if the experiment. no one says the experiment made life but LIFE MOLECULES. its shows that life molecules can arise without help from your silly god.

you are the fool here, you lack basic understanding of what you argue against

Lol, stop resorting to outright lies.

Here is your exact statement below -

ooman: @deepsight; organic evolution explains origin of life. the experiment was made and living molecules spontaneously formed without help from any scientist. google stanley- urey experiment.

The bold show your frantic attempt to deny your own mis-apprehension of the experiment.

You said "Organic evolution explains the origin of life" - Fact is - it does not.

You said "Living Molecules" appeared.

What? ? ? Are you ok? Where did you see "living molecules"? ? ?

Now you attempt to re-phrase your statement, even so, falsely and disastrously.

"A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the back of the fool" - Proverbs 26:3.

ooman: @deepsight; organic evolution explains origin of life. the experiment was made and living molecules spontaneously formed without help from any scientist. google stanley- urey experiment.

You see, this is why it is said that a little learning is a terrible thing indeed. This is one of the foolish posts I have ever read on this forum. Kindly go back and read again about the experiment you referred me to.

It does not in anyway prove or show the origin of life. It shows the formation of amino acids, proteins, organic compounds. All that is within the realm of lifeless chemistry. None of these is a single living thing.

"A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the back of the fool" - Proverbs 26:3.

thehomer: It is good that master Deep Sight is patient.

Wise and patient indeed, is thy master; the compassionate, the merciful.

I don't understand the question.

Come now, and practice the sincerity I have drilled into you since you were a child, but for which I and your guardians forever remain exasperated not to ever see in you.

That question was written in English, and very simple English to boot. You give me to believe that you are terrified of the calamity that answering the question must necessary bestow upon the head of Dawkins, and I verily suspect that you already see clearly exactly why he is a philosophical dunce within that very light and simple question alone.

Gird thy loins: do not be paralyzed by fear my son.

The question again - What is the common denominator between these: (a) evolution (b) the growth of a child (c) the growth of a plant

Now answer me, or the rod awaiteth thy back (Proverbs 26:3).

None of them.

END OF DISCUSSION.

This answer singularly teaches you why Dawkins is a Philosophical dunce.

When you say that Evolution does not explain the origin of life, how can you then not see the flawed reasoning in Dawkins holding up evolution as that which renders a cause of life such as God, unnecessary? It surely cannot be that which renders such a cause unnecessary, if it is, as you say, no explanation for the cause of life!

Yes he does and the vast majority of evolutionary biologists agree with him. Do you agree or disagree? And why?

And with this my dear Homer returns to his long history of vicious and wildly contradictory notions.

- - -He says in response to me above that NONE of (a) evolution (b) the growth of a child (c) the growth of a plant - explains the origin of life

- - -He then says that indeed "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" believe that evolution renders God unnecessary - in spite of the fact that thehomer acknowledges that evolution DOES NOT explain the origin of life.

As such, it is either that theHomer does not agree with "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" - - - or else, as usual, he is wildly confused.

And finally, if "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" believe such a thing, they must be mad, because the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of first life.

Student, Capisce??

Need thy master say more? Stop embarrassing me. Do not let people know that my years of tutelage have been wasted, son.

thehomer: I don't think that is what he said. Just scan through the article you named here and tell me how you arrived at that conclusion from reading it.

Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou playful minion of thy master, thou proddest thy master into teaching thee what thou ought to know?

Thy master is patient, benevolent indeed.

Now, lesson 1 - Answer thy master this -

1. What is the common denominator between (a) evolution (b) the growth of a plant (c) the growth of a child?

2. Which of these three processes explains the origin of living things?

3. Does Dawkins not argue, that on account of the process of evolution, "God just isn't necessary"?

When you are done with this lesson I shall take you to lesson 2 on Physics vs Biology.

Run along now little Peter, will you, and catch the school bus. Don't forget your sandwiches.

MacDaddy01: Small by small, we are seeing that these theists have no backing or evidence for the attacks and harsh claims they make of Dawkins.

This is good.

-philosophical dunce (yet not one example of an illogical argument from Dawkins)
-theological dunce (when there is no right or wrong in theology)
-Dawkins made a comment (which Deepsight can not point to or prove with a link)





Good times

Not one example? Lol, you are a disgrace to your education. I gave loads of examples, but obviously your fingers froze over the link as some ancient congenital epilepsy must have seized you when you tried to click the link.

If you can keep saying this, despite the presence of that link on that thread, I am sorry, but you are a stark raving frothing lunatic.

As to photosynthesis and growing babies; yes: this is exactly what Dawkins contends in all his works. Exactly. Not a dime of a difference. Spot on.

thehomer: So far you haven't given me a good reason to say or think otherwise.

Of course I have. I summarized your wild and excitable contradictions on the matter for the sake of posterity before leaving that thread. So you can go back and read them, I will not waste my energy restating them here. Or re arguing them.

The fact that you're a deist doesn't mean that others share that view with you. The gods you named have been asserted theologically to be reasons for the origin of the universe whether you agree or not. And that indicates one of the huge failings of theology. If you have something to add, I'm willing to hear it.

You see, this reminds me of a certain respected poster here years ago who had the habit of making me explain everything at least ten times before he would grasp it. I have already explained to you previously that as far as theistic - atheistic discourses on the existence of God go, the common denominator is that God is said to be an eternal being that caused the universe to come into existence. Not one theistic position or rendition of God holds otherwise. As such, stalling the discussion by pandering to the details of Islamic or Christian or other further notions about the nature of the said deity is at best pedantic, on the average, pathetic, and at worst intellectually dubious.

The question, as far as these discussions are concerned, is whether an eternal being caused the universe. Period.

You cannot seriously canvass as a point, disputes on whether that being prefers amala to pounded yam.

thehomer: Where did he say this?

This is what he has said in all his works and debates and speeches and also in his article, The Improbability of God.

thehomer: Where did he say this?

This is what he has said in all his works. Particularly in his article, The Improbability of God.

thehomer: The ultimate origin as far as we know is explained by the big bang theory.

Thou wicked and slothful servant, I gave thee a talent, and knowing me to be a hard master, thou did nothing with the talent that I gave thee. How is it that after our discussions on the big b.ang and time, you could still say this?

And there's no consensus on the God that did it.

I see you are indulging in self deceit here. I know you are surely more intelligent than this, or has logicboy or Idehn hacked into your account? Are you looking for Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, Brahman, Krishna, Olodumare, Chineke, Zeus, or other such names in a cosmological discussion about the origin of the universe? If you wish to stall the discussion at that, then you cannot be taken any more seriously than the religionist you condemn.

thehomer: Neither Dawkins nor other atheists say this so it is looking like a strawman argument.

On the contrary this is exactly what Dawkins says. Exactly to a tee. Nothing more and nothing less.

MacDaddy01: Is that how Dawkins phrased it?

Can you post a link or something?

Empty Rhetoric. Logicboyism.

You have been debunked.

Next!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The fact that you personally have no respect for theology and philosophy doesn't make it therefore impossible for someone to be bad at it.

I might have little or no respect for fields like theater arts, political science or military strategy but that wouldn't mean that one can't possibly be bad at it. I would also say that one will be justified in calling me a theater arts dunce if I jumped into the field and started criticizing their work with little or no knowledge of the basis of it.[/quote]^^^ Especially when your criticism runs something along the lines of claiming that their script writers do not exist since you can see everything needed for the stage scenes already on set.

thehomer: What exactly makes someone a "dunce" in philosophy?

Explaining photosynthesis and thereby concluding that Trees are self existent. Or explaining how nutrition helps babies grow and thereby concluding that they weren't born.

That's what makes someone a philosophical dunce.

thehomer: Several points to be made here. Many other western nations aren't predominantly Christian nations other than their citizens being culturally Christian. In fact, the U.K and the U.S aren't christian nations unless your only criteria for determining what makes a nation Christian is the number of people who self profess to belong to a certain religion.

^^^ How did you miss the word "predominantly"?

davidylan: Really? Is that why the sun is still going billions of years after and your scientists where only able to keep the generated heat for only 1 billionth of a second?

Even that does not go to the pith. When a scientist creates such things, he is working with things already existing. The question is that which caused anything to exist in the first place?

[quote author=ondo_boi]nice piece. but such dialogue cant happen in nigerian tertiary institution settings[/quote]Maybe to you. I did worse to one of my lecturers in Unilag years ago. Not on a religious topic though. Guy was being rude to the class and stood up to tell him very well off.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]So much for the christians poor macdaddy (a.k.a logicboy) was hoping to convert



Even funnier is this response.... First logicboy asks for an explanation, he is presented with one by DeepSight, next - without engaging with the explanation presented - he demands for an explanation of the explanation from Neddivine . . . .just like his master dawkins. Recall what Reyginus said at the beginning of the thread?

It is very easy to bet £1000 that he'll fail if all you'll do is shout "fail!" irrespective of what he says.


If you cannot see that demanding the proof of a proof is irrational then your case really can't be helped. . . . I know that even after showing you this you'll come up with an even more irrational defense spiced up with personal insults to justify your irrationality. As they say, "a foolish fool is one who doesn't know that he is a fool......and dare I say; foolishly defends his foolishness"


Alas, it is really a difficult thing to show a logical dunce that someone else is a logical dunce. How does one go about it?[/quote]Ol boy, e tire me o. I still cant get over his inability to click on a link and respond to "my own words" posted there. Like someone pointed out, he must click on links everyday to see Dawkins Arguments, no? In fact, he must click on links to post on any thread, no?

Instead, the toddler expects me to go and cut and paste and quote everything I have already written in another thread: and this is his basis for failing to respond to the points therein - and proclaiming everyone else an empty barrel.

You see, when some one acts this illogically, one must be concerned for his sanity. One must also be concerned that such a person needs urgent medical attention as he may be suffering from some very serious psychological problems. To be honest - and I say this without any ill will whatsoever - I am concerned about him. Aside from the painful illogicalities, the baby-crying and attention seeking (and begging for compliments) are traits that should concern people who conduct research on potential psychopaths. No kidding here. I mean that.

Well you met logicboy at least. So you tell us. How old is he? 13 or 14? Cos he cant possibly be a day older than that.

Which is why the fellow should be left and allowed to grow up. What disturbs me though, is that even at 13 or 14, I am certain my faculties were not this under developed. Nor for 13 and 14 year olds that I currently know.

Sincerely, we are rather all the foolish ones for bothering with this chap.

Albeit that we bother from the audacity of hope.

O my word. How I long for the return on those atheists on this forum who actually used to think. We are now saddled with a gang of nursery school toddlers who cannot even understand where the milk they need is.

^^^ Speaks volumes bout the nature of the followers of Uncle Mo.

wiegraf: Really, if enough xtians want their own board, they should get their own board. Assuming they really want one, they're being punished for good behavior while the muslims are being rewarded for bad. That's not exactly the best precedence to set, do bad and get rewarded, do good and suffer. It's quite unfair

Have you not got Seun's point? Not giving the Christians a separate section is a LOUD statement from him that he reposes confidence in Christians ability to discuss issues without resorting to violence, his exact words above. Giving the Islamists their own section is also his way of advertising their anti-social nature and inability to disagree without resorting to violence!

Seun: There is no Christian and Atheist forum. We believe Christians and atheists can debate themselves without resorting to violence.

Perfect response!

Enough said! This statement alone is a complete indictment of Muslims on this forum and shows the view that the owner of the Forum has of Muslim discussants.

^^^ I am still cringing at this level of stoopidity. I never thought it humanly possible. Anyways, enuff said. Sleep well.

Seun: The notice was proposed by Christian moderators to prevent Christians and Atheists from getting themselves banned when Muslim threads make the home page. I felt it was a fantastic idea and I implemented it as soon as I could. Now if you get banned in the Muslim section, you will have no one to blame but yourself.

I know why you thought it was a fantastic idea. Just like your permitting a separate Islamic section, you are deliberately using these methods to expose the high intolerance in Islam. Brilliant, actually.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Ojigbiti, jigbiti, jigbiti. Acidtalk don FALL, FINALLY!

Super Eagles have exposed you.

Ojigbiti.

And you still have the confidence to come here barking?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You are a FAILED prophet!

This is a serious case of narcissistic self-absorption.

I dont think your comments on thehomer are fair. He has argued extensively against social issues with Religion.

He has also never said anything to render him "elitist". If you think he is elitist, then that is very likely a huge compliment to him as it could only show that you regard him as well written, intelligent, graceful and scholarly.

diluminati: The first time i'm making a post in islam for years
and i saw that on top the box.

To avoid being banned, please ensure that your post is not offensive to Islam.

if thats the case, then whats the point being here?

if there is no freedom of speech, what do i have to do here?
waste my time?

Really, its sickening. Has anyone ever seen anything like - "To avoid being banned, please ensure that your post is not offensive to Christianity" - ?

dayokanu: Retardeen is always high on kai-kai 24-7

He no get time for anything not related to alcohol and fish peppersoup

Eminently worthy pursuits, we all must agree.

MacDaddy01: Yawn. the barrel is empty.

Simple rules one can not follow;

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ! ! !

Enjoy! I have wasted enuf time. Whenever you read the arguments I gave you and respond to them, i will come and play ten-ten with you, ok?

MacDaddy01: You dont realise that I enjoy it the more you guyz comment without addressing the op. Some christian out there is losing faith by seeing your shenanigans. Frankly. keep up the Anonyism

Lol. Your question has been addressed: and exhaustively so. If you can't click a link and address the arguments, that's your bad son.

This thread will be a great reference point for future nairalanders. I will be happy to refer them here to see how discussions are held, RER style.

Sad, I actually had the time for a discussion.