₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
How can I make this any clearer? BBT is NOT A FIRST CAUSE MECHANISM AND NEVER WAS. What is so hard to understand about this? BBT IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE ID. But by all means keep your strawman, it must be very comforting to you.

Lol...I'm pretty sure I've clarified this already.

EmperorHarry:
Comprehension of the BBT as a likely event that occurred is easy. So I don't have any problems with the theory independent of it's use as evidence that refutes the intelligent designer theory.

Crystal clear...I'm not sure why you keep denying the obvious and I apologised for the initial misconception but it's all good tho..I'm not dragging this any further.
A good day to you sir.

LordReed:
BBT had as one of its proponents a priest so no it wasn't proposed as a way to negate ID argument, in fact it still leaves room for ID because it is not set up as a first cause mechanism. That is what you may need to understand. BBT is not a first cause mechanism because itself was caused by some other mechanism we don't know. We dont know because all extrapolations breakdown beyond Planck time (a time threshold beyond which what we know of physics seems to cease to make sense).

Comprehension of the BBT as a likely event that occurred is easy. So I don't have any problems with the theory independent of it's use as evidence that refutes the intelligent designer theory. I apologise for the initial ambiguous statement about it being the original position of evolutionists".When I said evolutionists,I meant "people who use evolution and the big bang to refute the intelligent designer theory" which then makes the big bang the [b]first cause[\b] for the existence of the cosmos(I explained my opinion on this earlier which remains the same). Evolution is compatible with the intelligent designer theory on some level.

Note: @bolded In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...God remains the first cause until we are certain of what caused his existence. The uncreated creator makes him the first cause whether it is valid or invalid.
Unknown-Unknown-Unknown-God-Universe etc. Now the unknown could be the nothing. I would have explained this further if I didn't have to type these things out. Anyways I rest my case.

LordReed:
Unless the atheist in question does not understand what BBT and evolution represent, the 2 are not related. Evolution says nothing about origin of life so how is it related? BBT doesn't say it is the first event so how is it a first cause? Nobody who understands these things will mean what you say they mean.

If I asked you as an atheist how the world(cosmos and life)came to be without an intelligent designer,what theories would be your go to theories? BBT is most likely.The BBT is one of the theories created to refute an intelligent designer theory when question in such a context is asked.

But maybe I'm just speaking vacuously and as such I ask you to pardon my misgivings.

jesusjnr:
Emperorharry I was looking for your comments to respond to but couldn't find them.

I believe you should now fully understand what i meant by spiteful, for this is it, Lol!

Listen and be blessed.

Lmao..Congrats on your union tho
You defo got the best lady..lol

LordReed:
Why do you seem so eager to set everything on equal footing? Especially as it means you need to create strawman and apply deliberate misunderstandings.

I have not heard any "evolutionists" say the BBT is the start or first cause primarily because BBT and evolution are not tied together. Also you seem to want to make BBT the same as a god speculation when they are not even in the same ballpark. That we don't know what caused BBT has not automatically made BBT the first cause that's an absurd interpretation. We don't know remains we dont know and leaves all manner of first causes up for speculation. Unlike the god speculation where the religious assert the god is an uncaused cause. How you able to just say the 2 are the same is baffling.

I believe I clarified it by using the word atheist evolutionist. Well the big bang and God theories are in the same category when comparing possible explanations to why the is universe what it is today.

As for theories being over turn you seem to think they are just discarded willy nilly. When relativity superseded Newtonian gravitational observations it did not render Newtonian theories invalid rather it gave further information about conditions and observations that Newtonian theory could not account for. Similarly, tum mn't invalidate relativity instead provides explanations for places relativity can not.

Observations can not be rendered invalid (if done under the right conditions of course), explanations can.

I fully understand what you're saying regardless of my opinion.

hakeem4:
no! A scientific theory explains the phenomenon. If you still think gravity is a force in 2019 then

Newton's theory of Gravity was a theory then a fact then a theory when it showed obvious gaps as more information was collected.

So back to the discussion no matter the evidence in this world you give a scientific theory can never become a law.

True but who's fault is that? The earth is flat was a fact then it was disproven and became a theory.So science has taken extreme measures to prevent errors like that in the future.

hakeem4:
but gravity is also a scientific theory. Why don’t you say gravity is not a fact ?

Hmm..gravity was a fact but became a theory.

LordReed:
Are you trying to be funny cos it's not working. How does we don't know how it started translate to it doesn't have a cause?

Nope.I'm just stating the obvious which is the cause that precedes the big bang is unknown so there's no rational explanation that supports or refutes the unknown cause.So saying the big bang is the starting position to an atheistic evolutionist is logical until further evidence or data is provided about the cause that precedes.
Just like a theist would say God created the universe but has no logical explanation or information of what occurred before God could exist or a lack thereof.

So now you are equating scientific theories that are rigorously figured out with intuition?

More or less(when comparing all available explanations for a phenomenon/subject) cos they can be rendered invalid no matter how many rigorous tests and experiments were initially carried out to ascertain it's feasibility&authenticity.

Dick stopped having fevered dreams.

Lol...Nice

LordReed:
We don't know because it is beyond our current powers to investigate.

Wow...So the the big bang is the original position as the first cause to modern evolutionists.

When I see someone say "its just a theory" it sounds to me like they do not understand the rigor that is undergone to establish them as theories. The colloquial use of theory has turned every Tom aand Harry's fevered dream into the equal of scientific theory which cannot be further from the truth.

Now that's what really differentiates a scientific theory from a nonscientific theory..So comparing both scientific and nonscientific theories that try to explain or explain a phenomenon/subject is a valid comparison but scientific theories have verifiable facts as a foundation for an assumption(said theory) while nonscientific theories tend to be assumed based on intuition or just hunch. They can both be valid and invalid,now that is the point I'm trying to make.I'm not discrediting the efforts made in establishing scientific theories.
@bolded2 What happened to Dick?

LordReed:
How can it be a first cause when itself was caused by something else?

Oh really? Interesting.. What preceded the big bang?

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Buddy, a scientific theory is not like every other nonscientific theory.

Dude trust me I totally get the scientific theory thing but I'm pretty sure it is still just a theory which has the potential of becoming a fact. Theory of relativity has not been disproven but is still a theory cos science doesn't want to make errors where assumptions are facts which is then disproven over time.

LordReed:
What then did you mean?

Original position as a first cause by "Modern" evolutionists...

First off, the word theory in scientific terms is different from its more common colloquial use. A theory means it is pretty much established fact based on the available data. Does theory mean it is immutable? No, it means there is more support from the available data for it than there isn't. The general theory of relativity superseded Newtonian gravitational theories and itself was superseded by special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Science is ready to modify its positions based on fact not on baseless assumptions.

A scientific theory is a regular theory cos it's not yet a fact but based on other related facts.It can be rejected or modified which means it's technically assumptions based on said related facts.

BBT is what the facts indicate as far as we know. The expansion event we call the big bang may not have happened but that will mean the facts point to a different conclusion. If that conclusion is a god then it needs to be demonstrated.

BBT is still just a regular theory which makes it a possibility just like every other scientific and nonscientific theory.

hakeem4:
do you even understand what a scientific theory really means ??

I dunno..do you?

hakeem4:
. Well whether you like it or not evolution by natural selection is as real as the heat from the sun.Secondly no evidence for the intelligent designer. I have told you to show me any peer reviewed scientific journal that supports intelligent designer.

Well I'm not for or against the intelligent designer theory just yet..I'm collecting and comparing the data provided by both sides.

well I do not have any issue with any god. The truth is that the universe is fine the way it is and I would not even want to live in any universe created by god

I doubt that and I have my reasons too.

LordReed:
It is not the original position as a first cause by evolutionists. Darwin was no longer alive when the BBT was 1st proposed.

I wasn't insinuating that it was included in Darwin's original theory. Don't misinterpret it.

The BBT is the best explanation that fits the facts as we know them now. It is possible in the future that it will be revised as we gain more knowledge of our universe or it is completely overturned by a better model/theory.

So the big bang theory is only a theory? And not facts and as such the first cause position is still up for grabs and any opinion is still a possible outcome even the theistic God.

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

Natural selection is a possibility among many other probabilites we are faced with but natural selection can occur regardless of your opinion of the intelligent designer theory.

As an atheist, I do not need any authority to tell me what to do.

Its pretty obvious you have issues with the mainstream version of God and is therefore bias in your analysis of the evolution theory.

If Richard Dawkins , Sam Harris, Seun, capslock and many other Nairaland atheist decide to become deist or pantheist. This doesn’t invalidate my “lack of belief”

This only proves the point I made earlier

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.

I don't think there is any reason to talk any further. It's obvious you're really not concerned about evolution.You're just looking for ways to refute God so I don't think you're a solid evolution or a ride or die evolutionist.

LordReed:
I am not really concerned with whether it is compatible, that is a problem for them to solve. What I am concerned with is the facts as we find them, evolution is fact.

So would you say that the big bang is also a fact? Cos that's the original position as a first cause by evolutionists.

Chudichu:
When next someone asks you what churches do with the money they get. Show them this picture.

Nice...
We just need more of these philanthropic activities in more churches.
No eye service, just about the welfare of others(not only church members)

Waaawwwwwww(In Luca's Voice)

LordReed:
May be this can illustrate the fact that evolution is not an attempt to disprove the god because the religious bring it up as though it was meant to do that.

Reconciliation of God and evolution theories is preposterous for a strong believer in a supreme being that is concerned with the affairs of men and can have relationships with them I.e. a Christian,Islamic and mainstream religious God but they both lack enough rational evidence to explain the big question...What started it and why? The uncreated creator title is equal to the big bang as far as I'm concerned.

There was a time I declared myself an atheist but evolution was never a theory I found credible. So I'm pretty much dabbling in beliefs within the neutral zones... Agnosticism, pantheism etc.

Not all supporters of the intelligent designer theory are are mainstream religious theists or deists.
I have a question for you tho...Why do you feel the evolution theory is a valid one? I'd like to learn one or two things.
"Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver,and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated,and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters.

Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church, but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

Dayumm!!

MuttleyLaff:
Bats dont mind natural light. There used to hundred of bats upside down perching on this huge tree when back in days, I was in boarding school. New students easily mistake for birds, when they first see them fly in and out of the tree during day and they make a hell of noise too if I do remember correctly

Seems they are just suckers for heat which also explains the vampire connections.

Screwing around is a total no, no. Why would you want to be screwing around, huh? Who does that, cha. What does actually help, aside fôreplay, is kegel exercise and other mastering techniques

Lol...Screwing around is almost the same as pre-intimacy without the storylines and sh!t in case your taking it the wrong way.

You'll be surprised the number of 45 seconds men suffering in silence and embrassment out there.

Lmao...I hear you bro..I've said my own.It's only a dysfunction that can cause a man to be a "45 seconds man". A quickie is man's natural state excluding exceptions and rare cases but a quickie is more than 45 seconds.Somewhere between 3-10mins.

Just like you, I too do muse over quite a range of lots of different subjects, from the mundane to the fascinating, this 45 seconds man, happens to be one of them. Nature is very very interesting, why are dogs locked in, like say, for 10-40 minutes. Everything has its reasons, and like you earlier said, and this is paraphrasing you, to understand them from a human perspective but also keeping it in mind that we most probably wouldn't know jack about the it.

Word @bolded..I spend most of my free time on the discovery channel and Nat geo.

MuttleyLaff:
The geek, nerd or "anorak" way of describing it, is what's called sonar (i.e. sound navigation ranging)

I've know about echolocation(in animals) and how visibly impaired have learnt to use it to move around but I always thought bats had this thing for light in sunlight regardless of echo location I knew that artificial light is a huge disadvantage to bats but seems natural light isn't so bad after all.Thanks for the enlightenment,I'm crossing off bats from my examples when making a related argument about Light and Darkness.

Trust me, man was designed as a 45 seconds man. Imagine, man spending all day at bumping and grinding, when there's lot of work that needs getting done. No siree!. Thats not on, it has to be wham, bang, thank you ma'am, and get back to the field to labour but you, I guess, like the among the smart ones like us, acquired the ability to last longer than 45 seconds, holding back, waiting for missus or madam to catch up with us, so we both can land at the promised land, seventh heaven or cloud nine together or almost at the same time

Well pre-intimacy and screwing around does help in elongating the duration of coitus but we certainly don't beat the meat within 45 secs bruh even with pornos. You've probably drawn a comparison with other male species like the legendary cockerel(hats off) along the line which could have influenced your position. But it's all good tho whether it's the true nature of man or not.

MuttleyLaff:
Bats are nocturnal animals, and dont necessarily need sight to clearly see, as its echoed back sounds, they use in knowing which way go or direction to move. The underlined emboldened sums everything up.

Oops..Would you look at that? I learnt something new today.Rad.

The fly thing is about survival. It has to do with nature's "built ins", and so similar to, why men, literally are 45 seconds men. Men arent naturally expected to be spending all day bumping and grinding, we learn and develop the 'natural" ability to last longer than 45 seconds, holding back waiting for missus or madam to catch up with us before we both land at the promised land, seventh heaven or cloud nine.

@bolded A reference to design but I don't agree that we're 45 seconds men by nature..Lol.. Give men a little credit.

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://s3/images/HeightView.jpg[/img]

[img]https://s3/images/DiffHeightSameView.jpg[/img]

Even if you havent ever seen the ocean or salt, have you not tasted salt in food?

But what if it's not just salt that's salty in taste?

If you dont know what an elephant is, dont recognise an elephant trumpeting?

Humans and mammoths can produce almost the same sound as the elephant.
A once had an argument with a nairalander about the natural state between light and dark. He argued that darkness is the absence of light and light needs a source therefore darkness is the natural state.This a very logical argument and wouldn't need any further premises. This conclusion would only be reasonable from a human perspective. To a bat for example,the presence of light is darkness because it's ability to see becomes limited or hindered. The light bulb switch now goes both ways.To a human,switching the light bulb on makes it the source of light and improves our ability to see but to a bat,the reverse is the case. So you see the thing is you can't necessarily conclude that anything/phenomenon is a given or fact if you don't take into consideration the different perspectives available.The only option is to try to understand the universe from a human perspective but also keeping it in mind that we most probably don't know jack about the it.

Side note: I began a research after I became curious about how flies are faster than humans and spend little time in a spot except when feeding etc. The answer is pretty obvious without need of external information which is their perception of time is way faster than ours.I decided to also find out what other creatures view time differently,turns out devices with screens have a blink rate that's perceived by dogs and other animals. So when dogs watch TV they are constantly interrupted by blank screens before the next photo but you can't see the blank screen. This is just to corroborate my point.

MuttleyLaff:
The scriptural references agrees with you as regards, the paragraph above the "whether the universe is a result of intelligent design or not is still up for debate" emboldened comment.

I just found it incredulous you saying "Whether the universe is a result of intelligent design or not, is still up for debate". C'mon now, not agreeing in some semblance of intelligence and/or design, no matter how minute or small it is, behind the universe is utterly absurd and/or ridiculous. What's to debate there?

Lol guessed as much but didn't want to start jumping into conclusions.
I made that statement to show how open minded I am to the possibility of either being the truth. They are both theories and none of them a fact. The nature of the universe supports the intelligent designer theory which I stated after but maybe what we believe to be design is just an illusion created by our obsession with patterns and models which is mostly unlikely but still a possibility. We only understand the universe from the human perspective so nothing is a given.

MuttleyLaff:
"City of Ember" is a bit of a boring movie to spend almost two hours to watch over. The only connect the movie has, to what you're advancing, is the missing small metal box with a list of instructions

That's an example of how design works and how it can be recognized. I totally enjoyed the movie and it's just a suggestion cos it brings about a special kind of enlightenment about dogma,bigotry,extortion,corruption etc...Not many mainstream movies offer that kind of relative experience. It was the first thing that popped up in my head and it's been a while since I saw it so it's message really stuck with me.

"²⁴When Moses had finished writing this entire body of instruction in a book,
²⁵he gave this command to the Levites who carried the Ark of the LORD’s Covenant:
²⁶“Take this Book of Instruction and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD your God,
so it may remain there as a witness against the people of Israel. "
- Deuteronomy 31:24-26

"Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe,
“I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD!”
And he gave it to Shaphan, who read it."
- 2 Kings 22:8

Haba at the emboldened above, kilo de, why nau?

I don't get the quoted and bolded?!

@jesusjnr Oga jnr come and see your soulmate,that's if it's not you cos the antics are the same...lmao

johnydon22:
The argument of design is one of the best arguments those who argue for the existence of God has in their arsenal, I myself consider the argument of design a very profound, logical and probable argument.

You see, but i have noticed one thing, those who usually use this argument seldom define for the merit of their argument how they recognize when something is designed? Or at least, things that makes it fair to assume that something is designed.

And on the other hand, those that argue against design, I'd say do not seem to also show that they understand what the fundamental premise that leads to the assumption of design.

This thread is to vet exactly what the proponents of the argument of design mean when they make such argument.

How do you recognize design?

What are the pointers that make you think it is logical to assume something was designed?

Have you seen the movie "City of Ember"? I highly recommend you do if you haven't.It's not necessarily related to the topic but it's good.
Everything that is designed has a potential manual or guide that provides it's users/people curious as to how the designed product works with detailed information about it's functions and how to utilize said product efficiently.
Whether the universe is a result of intelligent design or not is still up for debate but man's curiosity over time through science, philosophy,experience etc has enabled him to acquire knowledge about the universe which we've used to create a work in progress guide about the universe which has substantial information about the nature and structure of the universe although largely incomplete.

LordReed:
We don't understand all the mechanisms the brain carries out but apparently dreaming is your brain acting out scenarios based on information you may not even be aware you have collected. Your subconscious is constantly trying to make patterns from the information that comes through your brain which is what we call intuition, this mechanism seems to be the one at play in dreaming, only with more vivid pictures instead of mere thoughts. Your intuition is helpful because your conscious thought process may be unable to link unrelated pieces of data while your intuition can. This is why we say "let me sleep on it" because in more relaxed states intuition seems to work better and there's no better relaxed state than sleep.

So what your saying is that the visual experience observed when dreaming is just a smoke screen for an underlying thought process that's out of our control.
If I understood you correctly...Would you say that visual aspect of dreams is insignificant?

LordReed:
It is good to dream so that your mind can work things out and give your intuition a chance to play out scenarios that can help you in problem solving. How frequently you should dream will probably be unique to your situation, there's no hard and fast rule.

Interesting, how so?

francis247:
Say what? � �

I see you tried using an emo..Seems not all emojis are available on nairaland☺