₦airaland Forum

logicboy01: A circle is flat

A circle is not a sphere. A sphere is not flat

Onliie: Circle used in that context is just poetic. It means sphere. Your low intellect baffles me.

School up, guys -

The circle of the earth - Or rather, "above" (על ‛al) the circle of the earth. The word rendered 'circle' (חוּג chûg) denotes "a circle, sphere, or arch"; and is applied to the arch or vault of the heavens, in Proverbs 8:27; Job 22:14. The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet.

http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-22.htm

^^^^^ - - ->

MyJoe: I wouldn't say this at all. There is nothing to scare theists about this Higgs Boson thing. Nothing.

B[b]a[/b]ng.

lagerwhenindoubt:

I think the issue is not whether it is boring or interesting, but that it is progress in a field much in the realms of the unknown. all the articles I have read speak more on the side of "Strong Possibilities" rather than Provable FACTS . For those whose interests are not piqued in any fascinating way as the Physicists who made the "un-covery" - it won't cure cancer or cause the world to grow new brain-cells, Higgs boson is not a "God particle", it is only part of the universe in which we live. This "un-covery" allows for learning more about it and perhaps it would be like the discovery of electricity, nothing much was thought about it until 50 years on. It is worth celebrating.

I agree with all the above, but I need to point out again the innuendo behind my OP: namely the fact that some people (and as proven by the comments of Plaetton and Jayriginal) erroneously imagine that this has any bearing on theistc/ atheistic discourses.

As Davidylan summarized it -

davidylan: How? Do you understand what the point of the Higgs Boson is? Most of you dont... the only reason you care about it is that you falsely believe it is another step towards solidifying your decision to throw God out of your equation.

The remarks of Plaetton and Jayriginal 100 % proved my point: and I must say that whereas Jayriginal remarked that we don't understand what we are discussing, it is in fact both he and Plaetton who do not understand a thing about my issue.

For them, I ask again: (since they alluded to fear on the part of theists on account of this discovery) -

Which theist was afraid when the atom was discovered?

Is the atom not also a building block of the universe?

plaetton: @deppsight:
I can make speculations about the universe because the universe is real,not only to me but to you as well. So am free to speculate,imagine and play around with theories about the universe.

The universe is indeed real, but another fact that is as real as the universe is the real fact that the universe did not always exist. It is demonstrably expanding and as such commenced from a point.

You will really have to deal realistically with the real fact that it is real voodoo to really imagine that it really began to expand without external impetus. Just why would it do that? And why not before? Why was it even there as a singularity to start with? Where does a singularity come from?

Once you really address these questions you will really see that the supposition of external impetus is really real.

No scientist, as far as i have known, has gone out to try to prove the non-existence of god.

Really? And Richard Dawkins is a what?

My guy, no need for drama; you supported Plaetton's notion that there was something to be afraid of, or nervous of, on the part of theists with respect to the possible discovery of the higgs boson. Can you kindly show how this is the case?

^^^^^^ Respond to the issues if you understand them: rather than waste your time responding to personalities who you do not, and will never, understand.

My statements were simple enough. I am not the one who barged in here chorusing supposed fear in theists on account of the discovery of a particle.

Now, in light if that, whose dogma blinds one? You or me?

vedaxcool: It does not make much of a sense or are u a pantheist?

HE IS.

PhysicsQED: @ Deep Sight, I don't know if justcool is still posting or if he is on the forum anymore, but since you've stated that his position and your position are essentially equivalent, let me go through his statements and give my objections.




1. They are talking about the real time/layman's time. Scientists are trying to determine what it actually is, as opposed to what it is assumed to be.

2. There is nothing inherently irrational about concluding that it is possible for time to have existed only after this universe existed. To prove that it did exist before the universe existed would be quite a feat, which one would have to be a scientist to do convincingly. Assuming that it did exist before this particular universe, I don't think that would upset scientists too much since surprises happen all the time in science and since there are already several who theorize that there is a multiverse in which our universe is only one of several that exist. (Only that they would probably hold that time began with the multiverse, not before.)

3. Time is not defined by the speed of light. The definition of time is contained in chapter 8 and chapter 9 of this document:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html

("On the Idea of Time in Physics" and "The Relativity of Simultaneity" from Albert Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory)

Note that the value of the speed of light is irrelevant.




4. As I posted in an earlier link, a massive particle would need infinite energy to actually reach the speed of light and a (real) massless particle moves exactly at the speed of light and not faster. Time only stands still from the point of view/reference frame of massless particles.



5. This can't really be proven.

The idea that time must exist, even if nothing else does, is just an assumption.

If there was a "universe" that existed in such a way that everything that ever happened was to happen at once (instantaneously), and not need to appear or disappear, we wouldn't even need time. Time is relevant to a particular kind of universe where space or objects appear/form, persist, and disappear or don't disappear, i.e. a universe in which either objects or even empty space has some kind of persistence/duration - and we do happen to live in such a universe.

But just as you can conceive of time existing without the universe, I can conceive of a "universe" existing without time.

Consider an alternate universe where everything was just there - without needing to take time to appear - and within the same instant not there, without taking time to disappear. Is that hard to think of? Of course. Now let me really define this alternate "universe". Consider this alternate universe as being where the "everything" (which was there and not there instantaneously without having to appear and then disappear) was actually nothing - not objects and not space. Since there is nothing there, why must there be time? Is time even necessary for this universe? Is it required for it to "exist"? Absolutely not.

And without asserting the existence of time either directly or indirectly - that is, without employing circular logic - could it be proven that this "nothingness" has to have a duration or persist for a time period? No.

Time does not necessarily have to exist where it is not relevant.

Now the counter argument one could make is that even the nothingness of this universe has a duration or a time period over which it is persisting, but that would be based on thinking influenced by our current universe and a misconception that nothingness - a perfect void - is equivalent to what we would consider a perfect vacuum or truly empty space. Even any kind of empty space has actual physical properties and characteristics (dimensions and their relations to one another) - it's not really nothing and not really a complete negation of existence. Real nothingness is hard to conceive of because of the fact that it doesn't seem to exist within our universe, but when one starts to understand what it would entail, it becomes clear that it would not necessarily need duration.

Time may be necessary for "anything" - including existence ( physical or "spiritual" ) itself - to exist, but there is certainly no reason why time must exist in a situation where there is no such thing as existence to begin with.

6. The fact that time can be dilated by mass (gravitational time dilation has been proven repeatedly in experiments) within our universe does suggest very strongly that within our universe time is actually physically connected to space. When space is distorted by mass, time is also distorted. For example, any kind of clocks in the strong gravitational fields of planets run slower than any kind of clocks far away from them or another strong gravitational field. You and Deepsight seem to think that scientists define time by movement/motion, but when nothing is moving, mass distorts space and consequently, time, anyway.





7. As stated above, time is not defined by the speed of light.

8. There is no strong evidence of alternate universes actually existing. Of course, if one is into the idea of the existence of membranes or multiverses (a la David Deutsch), then these statements above need to actually be analyzed. As I don't subscribe to multiversalism, I'm not really interested in speculating on what the specifics of a multiverse would be and whether there would be some "ultimate multiversal time frame" that would necessarily have to be different from or greater than the timeline of the universes within it.

9. You and Deepsight believe in eternal time. You both seem to subscribe in some way or another to the credo "Time precedes existence".

As I stated above in another manner, the idea that time must precede existence is either based on the confusion of empty space with nothingness or is based on the assumption that non-existence (what I called an alternate "universe" of nothingness) must persist and endure through time - an assumption which does not seem warranted at all. If there were no time, there could still be nothing (and please don't incorrectly imagine "nothing" as blank empty space after reading this sentence, otherwise this sentence may become confusing and one may start thinking that "nothing" needs to be qualified by time or given duration). It may be hard for us to conceive of absolute and total negation - real nothingness - but when we get our heads around the concept, we understand that it doesn't have to be qualified by time.


10. For an interesting perspective on time, without unnecessary detours into issues of hypothetical multiverses, please read "The Beginning of Time" by Stephen Hawking:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Reading this may not convince you that time is an artifact of existence and not something pre-existing ( or as Deep Sight would put it "self-existing" ), but it should at least let you know that the "real time" or "lay man's time" is what scientists are talking about and it's directly connected to the space of our universe.





With all due respect, this all sounds a bit dated. It sounds like something one might read in one of Immanuel Kant's writings - a subordination of the outside world's realities to the human mind's natural or unrefined perception and conceptualization of them. Claiming - without actually stating so - that how the mind perceives and initially understands certain concepts ( such as so called "eternity" ) is how they must apply to reality, without either experimental confirmation or theoretical proof. Well, anyway, I don't want to get too much more philosophical, so I'll just say I disagree completely with virtually everything in this quote.

The second post by justcool that you quoted (responding to KAG) is essentially a restatement of, and an elaboration on, the first post that you quoted.

The third is also more or less the same except that it goes on to mention the supposed connection of time to spirituality.

Since I responded to the 1st quote and the 2nd and 3rd are quite similar to it, it will be unnecessary to respond to those two as well.

So I guess that sums up my response.

I am sorry to keep sending you to other posts, I am just trying to make certain I don't have to repeat things I have labored to write in the past all over again.

Please review this thread and we will take up the issues from there, thanks.

https://www.nairaland.com/577313/thehomer-now-lets-discuss-big

Sorry for the trouble: really just don't want to repeat myself extensively.

vedaxcool: you argument is an absolute fallacy because it mistakes better understanding to be equivalent to cause,

Honestly, this summarizes everything I am trying to say perfectly.

Pastor AIO: Because the universe is subject to process.

Pefect. B[b]a[/b]ng on point.

I am not sure that either Plaetton, Jayriginal or persons such as thehomer or Idehn will ever grasp this exceedingly simple and SELF EVIDENT explanation.

plaetton: No one ever said so.

In your very first post, you clearly insinuated so: do not withdraw from it.

Understanding how matter is held together may shed more light on how the universe began and forces(known and unknown) that made it possible.

And such forces definitely exclude the spiritual?

Now, for theologians who say they already have the answers, I expect them, as has always been the case, to be nervous. It is just human nature.

Nervous at what exactly? You are annoyingly repeating the irritating notion that made me open this thread. Who was nervous when the atom was discovered?

What is there in the discovery of any particle to make any theist nervous?

Honestly, I still see knee jerk reactions here.

It is dumbfounding how anyone will imagine that his discovery of how something works poses a theistic problem. Science has been discovering how things work throughout the ages and will continue to do so. How does that answer the eternal question: why something instead of nothing? How does that resolve the sudden expansion of the universe from a dot?

But what is your definition of a creator?

What is your definition of a universe.

Who or what is the creator, and ofcourse, who could have created such a creator?

What is a universe, and who could have created such a universe?

I continue to say that it is absolutely absurd [/b]to say that there must have been a creator who created everything, [b]BUT, the creator first had to create himself or is self-existent(whatever the hell that means).

I continue to say that it is absolutely absurd [/b]to say that there must have been a universe which created everything, [b]BUT, the universe first had to create itself or is self-existent(whatever the hell that means).

If the creator can be self created and self-existent, why the hell can the universe not also be self-created and self-existent?

If the universe can be self created and self-existent, why the hell can the creator not also be self-created and self-existent?

Point: Every single question you pose against a self existent creator can be posed against a self existent universe.

And at all events: the universe, for the umpteenth time: had a beginning, and is demonstrably finite and mutable and as such could not be self-existent.

plaetton: . . . no scientist goes into any study with pre-conceived notions of what the results should be.

Can you thump your chest with certainty and say that there are no scientists who absolutely and adamantly reject even the remotest possibility of a spiritual cause of phenomena?

Is it not the case that the vast majority of western scientists would be adamantly opposed to even countenancing such a possibility in their investigations?

Has it not been our joint experience even here on NL, that even mentioning such a possibility will result in basket-loads of mockery from adamantly materialist "scientific" apologists?

Was it not you who once said, in a given thread, that the scenario whereby one closes one's mind to any possibility is close minded?

Is it not true that many "scientists" minds are absolutely closed to the possibility of a spiritual cause and angle to this existence?

Is it not also true that the totality of human existence, experience and consciousness, does not warrant such a posture to the possibility?

Theology, on the other hand, claims to have conclusions of everthing and then makes up, amends, and edits facts and fables to fit their conclusions.

Are you sure that there are not well recorded cases of scientists who have embarrassingly done same?

The above falls apart for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum anywhere observed in the universe - ever. Dont take my word for it, research it.

As such, your surmise fails.

[quote author=emöfine2]Boring? On the contrary I find this news quite exciting and intriguing.[/quote]not with respect to atheistic / theistic discourses. My point is that many ill schooled people imagine that this has any bearing on the question of the existence of God. It doesn't.

The fact that even my dear and respected Plaetton would imagine that this is an issue for any theist - and chorused by Jayriginal - just seals my point. As a physiscts issue, its interesting, just as surely as dicovering the atom was. By boring, i mean that it is irrelevant to theistic / atheistic debates. Its just the same thing as if, at the discovery of the atom, anyone thereby imagined that that posed a theistic problem.

Clever by half? Nah. It truly escaped you then.

I was referring to the lousy fact that some people repeatedly conflate the whats and hows with the whys and wherefores.

As crude example, a person who discovers exactly what makes a car work cannot for that reason conclude that it had no maker. It is a repeated trend amongst baby atheists; the assumption that discovering nature's secrets renders nature self existent.

@ Plaetton and Jayriginal, you guys are too damn funny. What on earth does the discovery or non discovery of that particle have to do with the existence or non existence of God?

You see, these are knee jerk reactions on your part, and they confirm the innuendo i was making in my one line OP. I knew very well that that innuendo would be lost on most, as it has on you both.

plaetton: I think he is a law student

He's a fully qualified lawyer i believe.

lagerwhenindoubt: Now F'ing way - Frosbel is a girl a very Brave and Bold one at that

He's a man. He once posted smthing about how his kids report him to his wife saying "Mummy, daddy is on nairaland again"

Ptolomeus: My favorite theist is Olaadegbu .
Olaa discussed until it has no discussion, he does not bother to read what you replied, repeating the same thing over and over again, when he is in a difficult discussion, he presents those pictures over and delusional ... again ... on a string and another ... Copy and paste, paste and copy ...
Sometimes he gets angry, and that's very funny ...
or this reason I like to discuss with my dear friend ... who also Olaa think it is a strong supporter of Obama.

Olaadegbu is really very funny indeed. The day he stops posting cartoons, i go pop champagne

(CNN) -- Scientists say they are almost certain they have proven the existence of the Higgs boson -- a never-before-seen subatomic particle long thought to be a fundamental building block of the universe.

Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider under the Alps are unveiling their latest results on the so-called "God particle" at an eagerly awaited seminar at the CERN particle physics laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland.

Experts say finding the elusive particle would rank as one of the top scientific achievements of the past 50 years.
What is the Higgs boson?

The Standard Model of particle physics lays out the basics of how elementary particles and forces interact in the universe. But the theory crucially fails to explain how particles actually get their mass.

U.S. scientists 'closer' to Higgs particle The Number: Search for the God Particle

Particles, or bits of matter, range in size and can be larger or smaller than atoms. Electrons, protons and neutrons, for instance, are the subatomic particles that make up an atom.
Scientists believe that the Higgs boson is the particle that gives all matter its mass.

Experts know that elementary particles like quarks and electrons are the foundation upon which all matter in the universe is built. They believe the elusive Higgs boson gives the particles mass and fills in one of the key holes in modern physics.

How does the Higgs boson work?

The Higgs boson is part of a theory first proposed by physicist Peter Higgs and others in the 1960s to explain how particles obtain mass.
The theory proposes that a so-called Higgs energy field exists everywhere in the universe. As particles zoom around in this field, they interact with and attract Higgs bosons, which cluster around the particles in varying numbers.

Higgs boson is the last missing piece of our current understanding of the most fundamental nature of the universe.

Imagine the universe like a party. Relatively unknown guests at the party can pass quickly through the room unnoticed; more popular guests will attract groups of people (the Higgs bosons) who will then slow their movement through the room.

The speed of particles moving through the Higgs field works much in the same way. Certain particles will attract larger clusters of Higgs bosons -- and the more Higgs bosons a particle attracts, the greater its mass will be.

Why is finding the Higgs boson so important?

While finding the Higgs boson won't tell us everything we need to know about how the universe works, it will fill in a huge hole in the Standard Model that has existed for more than 50 years, according to experts.

"The Higgs boson is the last missing piece of our current understanding of the most fundamental nature of the universe," Martin Archer, a physicist at Imperial College in London, told CNN.

"Only now with the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] are we able to really tick that box off and say 'This is how the universe works, or at least we think it does'."

"It's not the be all and end all -- but in terms of what can we say practically about the world and how the world is, it actually tells us a lot."

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, added that finding evidence of the Higgs boson would be a "very wonderful success of science and of people for four centuries."

Why is the Higgs boson called the "God particle?"

The popular nickname for the elusive particle was created for the title of a book by Nobel Prize winning physicist Leon Lederman -- reportedly against his will, as Lederman has said he wanted to call it the "Goddamn Particle" because "nobody could find the thing."

"'God particle' is a nickname I don't really like," says Archer. "It's nothing to do with religion -- the only (theoretical) similarity is you're seeing something that's a field that's everywhere, in all spaces."

How are scientists searching for the Higgs boson?

For the past eighteen months scientists have searched for the Higgs boson by smashing protons together at high energy in the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.

If we don't see [Higgs], it means the universe is more complicated than we thought.

Inside the LHC, which is located 328 feet underground in a 17-mile tunnel and is the most powerful particle accelerator ever built, high speed proton collisions generate a range of even smaller particles that scientists sift through in search of a signal in the data suggesting the existence of the Higgs boson.

"You're just hoping that somewhere in these collisions that you see something ... some sort of a statistical bump," says Archer.

If Higgs bosons exist, they are elusive, popping up and then disappearing again quickly. It means, says Archer, that scientists at the LHC will only be able to observe their decaying remnants.

It has taken years for scientists to narrow down the range of mass in which they believed the Higgs boson could exist -- but during the past year a statistical bump suggests they're on the right track.

"Now they're starting to get a bump, the scientists should be able to get that result more and more," says Archer.

What if scientists don't find the Higgs boson?

The general consensus among physics academics is that the Higgs field and boson exists, according to Archer.

"It just makes sense within the framework that we've got everything set up in, given that everything else that we can describe and we can see seems to be described in this simple way," says Archer.

Nearly every scientist believes that the Large Hadron Collider will either prove or disprove the existence of the Higgs boson once and for all -- so if the LHC doesn't find it, it doesn't exist, experts say.

Martin Archer believes a failure to find the Higgs boson would be even more exciting than discovering the elusive particle.

"If we don't see it, it actually means that the universe at the most fundamental level is more complicated than we thought," says Archer, "and therefore maybe the way we've been attacking physics isn't right.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/europe/higgs-boson-q-and-a/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I don't know if its just me or all of the above is in fact incredibly boring.

PhysicsQED: There's a book called Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.

I read it about a year ago. It's a very good book. I recommend the book to all posters here. It's good to debate these issues after familiarizing oneself with the evidence and the actual claims of the theory.

I don't have any interest in joining the debate, but I should mention that evolution is not necessarily inconsistent with religion at all - it's just inconsistent with certain religions that make specific claims that seem factually untrue.

I entirely agree with this. I should repeat, for the sake of clarity, that I accept the theory of evolution. I just do not believe that natural selection alone is at play: especially with regard to the development of knowing sentient beings.

There's da[i]m[/i]n something more to the whole thing.

Speer: Much indebted as always Justcool. The examples/illustrations you give are very helpful and much appreciated. One will humbly ask for more of such examples in your elucidations in future.

Spiritual values and works are what count for ascent and in this regard, I had an example-question. A man on earth is an avowed atheist but has genuine real concern for issues such as social justice, access to education/healthcare/housing/clean environments/law..... for people/society and works actively with sincere passionate conviction on these causes through say a Communist political party, an NGO-type organization, media...........etc. That is, the person deep feeling for fellow-beings (and even animals!) but only in regard to the material aspects of earthly human existence. How does Creation "react" to such an individual?

or

what type of ethereal forms/environment would such an invdividual create for himself?

Here is your answer:

God is love. One can also say that God is the source of love. All creatures of God irrespective of race, religion, sex, nationality etc can absorb of this love of God and dispense it accordingly. In the case of human beings, what absorbs this love from God is the human spirit. This love will permeate the spirit, its clocks including the outermost shell, the physical body. Thus he who absorbs the rays of love will manifest love including love for all creations of God. Now, the recognition of this love as coming from God depends on the various radiation connection between the spirit and the various shells surrounding the spirit, the last shell being the physical body and its coordinating center, the human brain. In many of us, this radiation connections are not straight, thus the shells enveloping the spirit are not conscious of the impressions that vibrates in the spirit. Thus a man may believe himself to be an atheist because that is what his brain tells him and yet his spirit is in the recognition of God. Irrespective of his brain telling him that God does not exist, the emanations of the spirit including love still permeates his mind and body resulting in expressions of genuine love. Thus although from a human standpoint, such a man is considered by himself and others to be atheist, spiritually the man is a theist.

In a similar vein the brain and the mind may be trained or indoctrinated or programmed to believe in God but their spirit has no recognition of God. In this case, this believer is actually an atheist even though he believes himself to be a theist. However because he, that is, the spirit has no connection with God, he cannot absorb the rays of love and manifest it. Thus, in spite of his intellectual believe in God, he still manifests the works of the flesh including hatred, anger, lust, gossip, avarice, fear, etc. The species of a seed determines the fruits that it will bear. Thus all genuine love and human beings who indulge in it believe in God even when they are unconscious of it while on earth.

Thus, all human beings who indulge in genuine love are of God and all those who indulge in hatred are not of God. By there works or fruits, you shall know those who stand in the will of God and those that oppose it or do not recognize it. This is an infallible yardstick to know who belongs to God and those who are not.

Therefore the love of God manifests in the love of all creations of God. On earth, it is possible for an atheist to love God without being spiritually conscious of it. However if such atheist continues in the manifestation of the love of God, either later in this earthly life or in the beyond on in another earthly life the emanations of the love of God that vibrates in his spirit will also permeate his earthly brain such that he also becomes conscious of the existence of God while in the physical body. What counts is how our spirit is close or far away from the will of God. Religion, nationality, sex, class and similar things that we think are very important while on earth are worthless once we drop this physical body.

In my view, there is no difference between the pope, the Christian, the mystic or an atheists when it concerns the will of God. Murder is murder whether perpetrated by a pope, a theist or an atheist. Genuine love is genuine love whether it came from an atheist, a pastor or an agnostic. Sometimes we think too much and thus think nothing. If we look around even on earth, we should find that the natural laws which are the manifestation of the will of God in nature does not give a hoot about all these artificial constructs. If a bud-hist sows yam in a fertile soil, he will reap yam. The same goes for an atheist and the theist. In an earthquake or epidemic or accident, both theists and atheists are saved and killed. A deeper look on why these things are the way they are may open our eyes to the working of God. Best wishes.

The above in red was written and posted sometime ago by the wisest man on Nairaland, M_Nwankwo.

Saw some breaking news on this higgs boson business on tv today. . . they say they have cracked the code of the universe. Make we siddon look the tory finish sha.

Freksy: It is not only documented, the process is ongoing and is the only means of human procreation.

Am still waiting to see or hear of an apes that is about to turn to a human being.

You know, honestly, it reminds me of nollywood movies where plants and animals turn into men through voodoo. Funnily enough, these same atheists will laugh at such things as superstitions: and yet they believe that with sufficient time, exactly the same such things can occur in nature - unguided.

^^^ 5/6: You got the answer wrong where you answered Jayriginal. That was Mr. Injustice Illogicality Homer.

thehomer: Obviously, your deep ignorance blinds you when you come across concepts that you do not yet understand. Fitness can DOES lead to a large population but a large population is not necessarily fit especially if there is a change in the environment. Do you know what an environment is and the importance of the role it plays?
For some reason, you're not properly reading what I'm writing.
Please try to engage your few brain cells. Don't worry, you're not likely to run out of them so soon at the rate you're going.

Abeg enjoy your abuses as a substitute for the trash that has been shown that you are saying.

Blatant goof. Fitness and population, and yet in the bolded you admit what was obvious to any toddler anyway. It probably flies over your head that when we speak of an evolving population, we are talking about what leads to its growth - which in this case is fitness as you defined it. Gosh.

You will probably fail to recognize that fitness refers to survivability ALREADY in a given environment with given pressures.

I won't waste my time on your ego tonite. Enjoy.

thehomer: I brought it up because you're confusing fitness with population size.

In fact what arrant nonsense is this. Is it not fitness (surviving and reproducing) that leads to robust populations?

You really delight in absurdity.

Worse, you do not think.

thehomer: I brought it up because you're confusing fitness with population size.



Probably because they experienced certain pressures to do so. I've already talked about this and gave you examples of things like changes in the environment. You do know that the environment isn't static.

Nada. You haven't said anything, and you know it.

thehomer: You thought success is determined by population, I simply pointed out to you that success is determined by fitness which is the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce.

O, so why then did you bring up the fitness issue - in contradistinction to my post on the success of unicellular organisms? Are unicellular organisms suffering from any challenges surviving and reproducing, or is it not the case that they in fact do this with phenomenal success? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You're making the same error here. Other species exist basically because of natural selection. You're assuming that multicellular organisms are less successful but the meaning of success you're using isn't biological.

For creep's sake, why the hell would unicellular organisms have begun to evolve to multicelllar organisms, given that with the principles of natural selection, unicellular organisms were already radically successful: more so than what they purpotedly evolved into? - for better survivability! ? ! ? !

thehomer: Did I say they were unfit? Do you even understand the question you asked? You were wondering why other species exist. That is one of the questions the theory of evolution answers via the mechanism of natural selection.

Will you stop trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the discerning.

The fact is that in response to that which I stated on the successful population of unicellular organisms, you stated that fitness and not population is what is key: thus inferring that there was an issue about fitness. What was this issue, please: otherwise WHY did you say that? ? ? ?

I am not wondering why other species exist: for the umpteenth time I am wondering how you reconcile natural selection to a scenario whereby more successful species evolve into less successful species.

Face the question like a man and stop dodging.

davidylan:

How did i miss this thread and how is it only one page?? MyJoe pls come back!!!

Honestly, such a brilliant funny relaxing thread!

Perhaps we should set new questions for the many newbies around here.

I.E:

1. Which newbie has a permanent viagra inspired er.ection for bashing religion on NL?

a) Tudor b) logicboy c) buzugee

2. Which atheist famously declared that time and space do not exist?

a) thehomer b)Idehn c)jayriginal

3. Which atheist insists that something happened existed before the big ba.ng, and yet says there was no time before the big ba.ang?

a) thehomer b)Idehn c)jayriginal

4. Which muslim is now winning a reputation as the most sensible muslim on NL?

a) maclatunji b) tbaba1234 c) Olabowale

5. Which muslim could be suspected on being part of the current Boko Haram insurgency?

a) maclatunji b) tbaba1234 c) Abuzola

6. Which Christian is largely viewed as a roaming random fanatic?

a) Jesoul b) chukwudii44 c) Frosbel

thehomer: In biology, success isn't determined by the population but by the ability of an organism to survive long enough to produce offspring. Having a large population of unfit individuals doesn't help the gene pool.

Again, I just have to laff at this nonsense.

The lengths to which you guys will go!

Are the zillions of unicellular life said to be the first life "unfit" in any way? ? ? ?

IF SO WHY HAVE THEY CONTINUED TO BE SO BIOLOGICALLY SUCCESSFUL - CONTINUOUSLY MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN MULTI-CELLULAR FORMS - FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS TILL DATE? ? ? ? ? ? ?

thehomer: Having a PhD is no guarantee of expertise.

I agree. I MENTIONED THAT only because the toddler logicboy called him a quack. Point is, you may disagree with his opinions, but he ain't no quack. BEING of the creationist view and disagreeing with evolution does not render anyone quack. Much less a scientist of doctorate qualification, thanks.

thehomer: There is no logic there because one of the things you're failing to see is that the environment changes.
In biology, success isn't determined by the population but by the ability of an organism to survive long enough to produce offspring. Having a large population of unfit individuals doesn't help the gene pool.
Based on what I've shown you that success is, do you still think only bacteria can be considered as being successful?

thehomer: The point was to show that population isn't what is considered when one speaks of success in biology.

You outrightly LIE here. No need to descend to lies and blatant falsehoods.

The FACT is that BOTH population and continuous survival and reproduction are ABSOLUTELY INTEGRAL to stating that an organism is biologically successful.

That is the scientific position, so don't spew nonsense, kind sir.

And as far as that goes, unicellular organisms remain the most eminently successfull - - - So what impetus in terms of natural selection was there to evolve to LESS SUCCESSFUL MULTI-CELLULAR FORMS? ? ? ? ?