₦airaland Forum

hakeem4:
Natural selection and Big Bang are scientific theories! Not an hypothesis oooo
i have never said they’re the first cause.
ID actually started when people saw complex life and they thought how did this things get here. Paley brought about the watch maker argument. Natural selection explains how complex and diverse life came to be. So except they’re using the ID for the first cause argument in which there’s no evidence for that also

Natural selection explaining how complex organisms evolved to be doesn't necessarily make it a valid evidence to refute ID.If I asked you as an atheists how the universe and life came to be,would you just humbly say you don't know yet or would you sight the big bang and evolution as an valid explanation in a bid to disapprove of an ID? Let's not drag this any further. I've made my point which is to clarify that evolution just like gravity,matter,light and not as if it's an occurrence created to refute ID..Maybe it's just me misinterpreting things and if that's the case I apologise.

hakeem4:
Emperorharry Yes, not all theist or deist are creationists. I said these are most of the fallacies used by them to defend the existence of any god.

To answer your question why I feel evolution is valid theory ?

Let me give you some evidence of evolution by natural selection
1) DNA’s
2) transitional fossils
Etc.
IF you check out most scientific peer reviewed paper. You don’t see anything about the intelligent design.

Now intelligent designer is just another name for god in which evolution by natural selection has refuted.


As an atheist, I do not need any authority to tell me what to do. If Richard Dawkins , Sam Harris, Seun, capslocked and many other Nairaland atheist decide to become deist or pantheist. This doesn’t invalidate my “lack of belief”

If you noticed I mainly used Big Bang and evolution because these are one of the scientific theories that tells us that we do not need any form of intelligent designer ( god ) for the creation of life and the universe.

hakeem4:
if Richard Dawkins and others have tried to do it and people didn’t get enlightened. Then I do not think people would listen to message

Well there are peeps who are open minded and are ready to change their perspective if you would only shine a little more light in their darkness.

What natural selection observed is that no one influences the selection process. Nature does that perfectly

It's still an assumption but Okay!

Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with how life came into existence. You are talking about abiogenesis. Neither did Big Bang claim to be the first cause.

Now evolution isn’t an assumption. Do you assume that the sun produces heat ? No. Evolution is a fact!

Its now your claiming that evolution has nothing to do with origin of life when you use it to support your arguments when refuting ID. The big bang has never been a first cause but it becomes a problem when it is used to refute ID as an alternate "valid" explanation as you have done in the past.

vaxx:
Guy, quit smoking, it is not good for your health. Friendly advice .

Lol..He's got a point tho.Same line of thought I'm currently researching.

hakeem4:
truth is that I wouldn’t like to argue with my intelligent design proponent.

It doesn't really have to result in an argument but enlightenment of the "ignorant" on something you're much knowledgeable on.

If you read this article well I stated that ID is just another term for god.

Okay but god in the sense of an intelligence influencing nature and the universe and not the religious understanding of a god with personality traits,seeking worship,sacrifices and offerings etc.

And at best most ID proponents don’t have any valid argument to give.

Well at this point the ID theory and your evolution can explain the origin of life coupled with the big bang theory are pretty much made up of assumptions.
Evolution is still a work in progress(I feel I've said this too many times already) and should not be used as a counter evidence against ID without clarification.This misinforms observers,propagating the idea that evolution refutes the influence of ID which is like saying gravity refutes ID.Next time you use evolution to refute ID try to separate the phenomenon from the origin of life aspect.There are too many things yet to be discovered as regards to evolution.
One of the major reasons for disagreements between evolutionists and creationists is the young earth theory.This theory seeks to refute evolution by stating the earth is not billions of years old but just a few thousand years old.This shows that evolution could not have occurred in such a short time.
I feel you should look up the misconceptions associated with ID by evolutionists.

Loollll..TV01 this is one of the evolutionists that I'm referring to as the problem.Oga Hakeem I've been looking for you for some days now due to the bustle on buda's evolution thread.You have been nowhere to be found which is disappointing since evolution is kinda your area of expertise. You boldly stated as the subject of topic "ID refuted" but you haven't refuted anything to the best of knowledge but recycled the same old fallacy fallacy being commited and arguments.

TV01:
Thanks for your response, @EmperorHarry, You previously stated this...
...essentially claiming that "evolution" is "observable" and "verified", as well as having "overwhelming evidence" backing it.

Yup

You have subsequently stated this;

Repeating your description of evolution as an observable phenomenon. All I asked for was some insight and, or, evidence of the mechanism that drives this phenomenon.

Well I cannot provide you with that evidence but I think there are evolutionist videos on YouTube that can if you care to research.

Is evolution not an explanation, and claimed on this very thread as the consensus amongst creditable and reputable scientists, for the origin of all species by descent from a common ancestor?

Did you really read the key areas I gave you in that link.If it is an explanation for the origin of all species would religious institutions adapt it to their creation stories? The evolutionists that use it as an explanation of the origin of life or to refute ID are the one's that are the problem.I stated this earlier on my first post on this thread.

If so, ther emust be a mechanism by which creatures acquire the new genetic information that enables them to undergo wholesale changes in morphology, such that an entirely new creature is the result.

You should prolly reread the article I referred you to.

Apologies if I may have read you incorrectly and for my clunky articulation - I'm not scientific or even technical. And thanks for the link. I did read it, but it didn't speak to my question.


Cheers
TV

Uhm it wasn't meant to answer your question but to enlighten you about the common mistakes people who have an objection to evolution make and even evolutionists themselves. I've always been sceptical about this theory cos of the gaps and missing links which are yet to be filled but in light of the evidence put toward it's actually plausible and in no way afffects ID except to a creationist who believes the earth is 6000 years old give or take.

budaatum:
Larmack's theory of evolution is not quite as "crappy" as you claim. It's survived in one form or another for over 2000 years so something must be seen in it.

Lamarck's theory isn't crappy(except to supporters of the Darwinian theory) and could just be plausible in light of recent evidence(an article I read about the epigenome or something] but when compared to Darwin's theory it tends to have a rather shaky theoretical foundation.The Darwinian theory explains in more verifiable details how evolution occurs through natural selection.This is one of the advantages Darwin's theory has over Lamarck's theory.You can find out more by googling this.

Buda's two shoulder four heads on the other hand, is less than a day old having been formulated today, and honestly speaking, you are the only one willing to consider it, and I doubt you are seriously considering it at that since unlike vaxx who at least did ask for some evidence, you haven't asked for any.

Lol..I'm pretty sure you aren't convinced of how plausible your claim is.My unscientific mind would say your losing one or two bolts for making such a illogical statement considering all humans only have one head but my scientific mind would be curious to know why you made such statement and would be open to any evidences backing this claim.After observation, testing,verification of these evidences I would come to conclusion either in favour of or against your claim which temporarily promotes it from a hypothesis to a scientific theory or discard it as just an hypothesis(this decisions are liable to change in light of new evidences).

I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of today you too don't label me and my two shoulders and four heads, delusional perhaps, or just outright claim buda is gone bonkers in all four heads. I'd like to be wrong though. Between us, we just might be able to make something of my ludicrous not even theory of two shoulders and four heads.

Can we call it Emperor's Theory please?

Lollll on this one...If your serious about this "four heads two shoulders theory of yours" which it seems you aren't (lol) then we might just be able to make something out of it and silence the naysayers sitting in their ivory towers of logic and rationality.Lmao
"We" prolly should just call it the Cerberus theory.

budaatum:
I don't think any scientist would consider buda's two shoulder four head unless buda actually presents some evidence actually. If buda just asserts two shoulders and four heads like buda has done on here, most scientist would just label buda a crackpot and not give buda the time of day. That is what credible scientists do with creationism, at least, and creationism has a lot more going for it than buda's two shoulders and four heads.

Read here to see how scientists treat buda's two shoulder and four heads if you care.

I doubt that science would dismiss your claim without objectively verifying it's credence.The larmack's theory of evolution is still been researched till today even though it has been called a crappy theory since Darwinism became mainstream. There are creation scientists who research and test evidences that support creationism.They are scientists and also use the scientific method and if they come up with irrefutable evidence in support of creationism it becomes a valid theory once tested and verified by different scientists to cancel out subjective biases and errors.

budaatum:
So, you do mean the dead, the sort that is not kept alive by any means whatsoever because its dead, so cremate it or put it in a box and put it in a hole so it don't stink and where it becomes worm food.

Shall buda rest?

Yes buda..you may rest now

TV01:
Hi @EmperorHarry, @All,

Agreed that adaptation is an observable and verified phenom. Is your point that be extension "evolution" is also? Adaptation happens within the confines of already extant genetic information.

So, I visit the gym, pump some iron, as do my offspring, and theirs after them. Over generations we become more muscular. Yet we remain humans (homo muscularis ). I would see that as adaptation

For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans (apes I know, but different by a degree of magnitude), requires the acquisition of new genetic material. Or more strikingly say a flightless/wingless creature, evolving into one able to fly.

Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?


Thanks
TV

You need to read extensively the concept of evolution.It's not necessarily an explanation for anything but an observation of a phenomenon that has occurred over billions of years hence it's flexibility as it can be accepted by both religious and nonreligious institutions. Like I stated initially it's still a work in progress but that doesn't mean it's not a theory that has been agreed upon by the scientific community. You should read carefully this article.Most especially the history,definition,scientific acceptance and status. You might just gain a whole new perspective on evolution.

budaatum:
It's not the same as the dead dead we were talking about! Let me know if you are asking what happens to the brain dead. There is a clear difference.

Its the dead dead we're talking about.
Everybody dies from brain death.

budaatum:
It doesn't? I guess unlike that stubborn vaxx, you would not rule out my two shoulders and four heads then?

Nope.If you claim to have four heads on two shoulders then it's a possibility until evidence is provided that either supports this claim or refutes and renders it invalid. It would be prejudice on my part to dismiss your theory based on what I feel is logical or illogical.That's the scientific method.

budaatum:
A brain dead person is not a dead person, and in some countries you can't just dispose of a brain dead person!

Ancient Egypt buried quite a lot of dead bodies in it's very long history. They made for good fertiliser.

I mean brain dead after the heart stops cos the brain could still be alive for minutes after the heart stops circulation of blood and oxygen to the brain hence the need for CPR and other resuscitative techniques.

budaatum:
I'm talking dead dead. The sort of dead that attracts flies and produces maggots and tends to stink a lot and rots.

I do know that when one dies that sort of death, we dig a hole and dump dead body in it. I suppose it might be because I've never seen a mind without a body. Have you seen a mind that doesn't have a body, Emperor?

No buda I haven't seen a mind without a body although this doesn't rule it out as a possibility. Afterlife is all about a mind without the physical body and that's what this thread is about so it's possible one can misinterpret statements with such bias.
A brain dead person can be disposed of in many ways which doesn't necessarily have to be put in a hole or cremated.I recently learned that dead bodies can be recycled to become manure(not new tho since that is the natural method) and there are people signing up for their bodies to be used once confirmed to be brain dead.

budaatum:
Nice try! Where did I say "the mind isn't transcendental" ? Have we defined "transcendentalism of the mind" somewhere and I missed it?

The question was about death, and not whether the mind transcends or not. There are various techniques for transcending the mind. There's however only one state of dead.

I may have misinterpreted your statements pointing towards no existence after death.One of which was the "I know there's no beyond!".One might think you are implying that brain death=non existence.
Transcend
1a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of
b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : OVERCOME
c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)
You stating that there's no beyond is a very straight forward statement but I'm open to clarification.

budaatum:
Through observation. Every dead person I have ever known has died, and either been buried or cremated. The end.

I'm not one to fill reality with idle speculation.

Now that's still a speculation ya know.
You've speculated that the mind isn't transcendental and as a such is only physical or material.

budaatum:
I know there's no beyond! You die. You rot. Worms eat you. The end!

LMAO...Really buda? How did you come about this strongly verified conviction? Indulge me

felixomor:
No thanks.
I am too busy trying to be a better person

There ya go
Why don't you incorporate such a commendable mentality into your religious system by advocating for the valid points you deem rational and are not an attempt to damage or degrade your religion instead of telling the OP he's not a christian and as such whatever his saying doesn't count whether it's useful or not.

budaatum:
I'm sure someone must have said on here that noone knows what happens after one is dead too. Except me, of course.

You die. We shove your dead body in a box, dig a hole six feet deep and drop you in it to feed the worms so you don't stink up the living!

Lolll..SMH

budaatum:
I was stating a subjective opinion and not a verified fact. Do note that some would claim Europe is religious, yet most of Europe has life expectancies in the 80s. This disproves my claim. But we would need to define what we mean by "predominantly religious nations". And the difficulty in defining is shown by vaxx and I arguing whether Israel and Saudi Arabia are religious nations or not. By all measures, both are, but I'm saying it's not that simplistic.

Daniel, you presented above is a very good example. Afterlife stands for a whole heap of ideas, the main one being "belief", as opposed to 'understand', which is what I would say Daniel and his 3 friends understood.

It is my opinion that on the whole, people in countries that adopt a more scientific outlook live longer than those who depend more on the gods.

It's now your clearing things up..A scientific outlook does improve all areas of life but dependency on gods doesn't mean neglect or disregard of science. A deluded and consciously ignorant persons should be singled out from the whole when blame is been appropriated esp religion in Africa.
Our problems are much deeper than dependency on gods and afterlife beliefs.

budaatum:
What does life expectancy have to do with if not health and physical condition?

Over in UK they advocate healthy living and lots of exercise and people live long. Over in Nigeria we pray to God. Is there no difference in life expectancy?

Yes buda there is a difference in life expectancy but I'm just trying to make you understand that one's afterlife beliefs doesn't decrease or increase a country's life expectancy although it has a influence albeit an insignificant and subjective one.
Nigerians praying for good health whilst cutting down trees and consuming questionable food stuffs etc only shows that the physical state of one's being is as a result of one's environment. A very religious country that prays 5 times a day but take their environment and healthy way of life seriously shouldn't have any problems smashing the average life span of countries in general. Take an example from the bible,Daniel and the 3 Israelites who refused to eat of the Kings meat and wine but took only vegetables.Now the point I'm drawing out this is not the mainstream point but that healthy living and high standard of living isn't dependent on the disillusion of an afterlife even tho it can influence it.
If health and physical condition had to with life expectancy then America would score below average but it depends on how long individuals in a community live regardless of their conditions which may or may not affect their life's span

kkins25:
There have been some cases i read some time ago where a child started complaining about remembering her home and her parents. I. E in her previous life. I think her previous life parents where tracked and she could recall the names of her ex relatives.. I'd try and find a link

Same thing I was talking about.

budaatum:
No you wouldn't. What you'd find is more mothers and children dying at birth and shorter life spans in general. Not only for Nigeria, but everywhere.

Well I guess I've just proven a point here from the stats of Italy and Saudi Arabia.
Well the one's that survive live a long time. Check the stats between the life expectancy of folks in the villages compared to the busy,rowdy and hectic cities of Lagos then you can make conclusions.
Note that life span doesn't necessarily have to do with health or physical conditions of individuals in a community.

vaxx:
there are YouTube video for anything you practically want. And the only means of identify geniue video now i on YouTube s by who owns it.


Reincarnation is still a debate that has a lot of philosophical breakthru but yet to ratify the science lens. As an open minded individual, i am open to hits possibility.

Like I said,fingers crossed. But honestly I'd like to very sure about what happens after death is and I am not.Just I'd be sure of what I'm getting into but oh well.Fingers crossed

budaatum:
I've posted life expectancy of advanced China and a few other countries below for you to compare. Perhaps you'd understand why China, which used to be very heavily invested in the ignorance of the afterlife that they buried their dead with their living, now live longer than those other nations.

I got your point since but I'm only disagreeing cos I feel that if we went back in time before the colonisation of Nigeria you'd find a much longer life expectancy due to way of life.Apart from illnesses which are easily cured today by advanced medical facilities these people even till today live way past 80.The current situation is due to the stress,polluted environment,unhealthy and disappointing state of foodstuff and produce in the country. You'd find that it's developing countries that are below.Find out the life expectancy in Saudi Arabia and maybe Italy.

felixomor:
When u dont even know where your own logs are.
Abegi

Please tell me when you see huge logs in my eyes so I can remove them.I'm sure it has nothing to do with the points the Op mentioned since I'm neither a Christian nor an institution.So I don't need to remove the long in my eye before telling my brother about the speck in his eyes cos they are not similar obstructions.

budaatum:
So, the life expectancy of a society who does all those things you mentioned, which I bolded, will not be short?

It would be cos of the damage over the years like China which is largely polluted and as such inhabitants run the risk of airborne diseases etc.This doesn't really connect this damages to afterlife beliefs although it is responsible for it in some cases. The lifestyle and eating habits of an individual can increase or decrease the length of one's life.Other factors come into play like the standard of living,state of utilities in a country etc.

vaxx:
i personally believe in life after death..... And this those not have anything with the known scientific evidence which only position decaying , disintegrating and decomposing as what next after death.

I did belive in it for three main reasons, 1 for consoling myself.

2 It propel my faith as a traditionalist , likewise all most every religion have their own version of life after death. Even godless faith like Buddhism

3. It made a whole lot of logical sense...



To validate reincarnation logically and scientifically. I attempt it here.....


https://www.nairaland.com/4068046/yoruba-version-life-after-death

Interesting how you mentioned points that I did without prior knowledge on my part the post or the Yoruba version of reincarnation. Fingers crossed on the whole reincarnation thing tho cos it's only just a probability.
Although I still hold it shouldn't be seen as a consolation as you have no previous record or info of your past life subjectively but some YouTube videos I've seen have shown children that recalled their pasts lives vividly,this could just be a hoax or propaganda but that's why I still keep an open mind on the whole reincarnation theory.It could just be a valid theory.

budaatum:
A need to survive would be best served by confronting the truth and not by living lies and untruths. You'd find this borne out by scrutinizing societies that do accept the truth and comparing against those that don't. Those that do tend to have longer life expectancies than those that believe in an afterlife, as the former would do more to extend life on earth while those that don't die young, or at least, earlier, on average.

Lol...The length of life doesn't really depend on one's afterlife beliefs.People who believe in an afterlife tend to neglect and care freely damage the natural world they deem is temporary and has no significance in comparison to an infinite world.They are deluded by the grandeurs of a perfect world ignoring the fact that their generations would have to live in whatever state the world is in positve or negative.Global warming is a threat to generations yet to come but hardly are religious institutions creating enough awareness esp in Africa except JW.They have in one of those their watch tower books but it's still mixed up with the Jehovah propaganda.
Immortality has blinded Africans..Why? Because most of us are selfish people.From the politicians to the common man we tend to care only about ourselves whether it negatively affects the society at large or not.This is also a mentally that I feel hinders the negroes from progressing as a race.Some might say it's cos of religion but I partially disagree with this cos of the "first son" craze that been a part of our culture even before foreign religion.

The afterlife isn't necessarily due to a need for consolation but from a need that is inherent and the most basic needs of all living things..A need to survive.
I've planned on creating a writeup concerning this and how the need for immortality exists in different forms,one of which is the need to have a son that can carry on one's legacy thereby immortalizing oneself on earth as seen in Nigerian culture even today which may not even have to do with one's religious beliefs..Another example is the need to store up riches and wealth for one's generations which is a result of the illusion of immortality through one's offspring.This is also observable in our society today.

Truth be told though, the mind would not feel sad when considering oblivion as the end of one's existence but the body which needs to survives at all cost could influence into panic mode when considering just how infinite oblivion is.It's demoralizing to say the least.
And vaxx reincarnation is not is a consolation in that you as an identity doesn't exist anymore

vaxx:
All scienctifc theory are work in progress. Science is not an enterprises that stand still like immovable stream. Exploration, investigation , identification are non stop in science.

We're on the same page here.I hope you don't see my comments as a disapproval of the evolution theory cos on the contrary I'm approving of it to an extent which I've clearly explained.

I am not in the mood to write much today, i will explore some of your input later ...

I just wanted to make it clear that evolution is still a work in progress to whom it may concern.

felixomor:
The church is made of humans.

Correct your own short comings first before attempting to remove the log from other people's eyes.

I'm in no way trying to remove the log from anybody's eyes. I can only tell you where the logs are but I'm not fit to remove such heavy gigantic logs.You can do that by yourself when and if you realize the logs are truly obstacles to a much clearer vision.