₦airaland Forum

It's a ideology of misogynists created by misogynists for misogynists. Basically their whole schtick is to blame their romantic failures and inadequacies on women.

AlbertNewton:
It's apparent you know so much, so you always have so much to say to justify your position/points. I prefer brevity though. Just make your argument clearly and logically without too much story (especially when the argument is presented in writing).

Fair enough, and I totally get your point. Like I told you before, I'm working towards doing my best to keep things short and nice. My biggest worries in any conversation is being misunderstood or being seen as unclear or careless with words, hence I find myself prone to over-explanations and/or prevaricating over things until they get too verbose or lost in the conversation. Comprehensive persuasion has always been imperative for me and I'm also obsessed with bulletproofing arguments, if that makes sense.

At the bolded, I will appreciate if you address me as an individual based on what I specifically say, rather than lumping me together in the same group with some other folks you've had encounters with.

You'll have to pardon me there because the sentiments are frankly very similar, and that's why I have felt the need to address in general. Many, if not all anti-AI brigades (overt or covert), often stem from the very same unfounded presuppositions or expectations, as I will try to demonstrate shortly. Nonetheless, if I have offended you with my categorization, then I duly apologize.

You see, personally I don't care so much if you use AI assistance or not. I was just disappointed when I found out you had been using AI in your debates. The first time I came across your post, I was really impressed that there's a Nairalander that could write so beautifully while expressing intelligent point. And it is on that basis that I have been following and reading your posts. If I knew it was AI that was doing the job, I wouldn't have been as impressed cos I'm quite familiar with what chatGPT is capable of. It's like the feeling you get when you watch a human perform complex mental maths compared to when a computer or calculator does the same thing!

But I have already reiterated that I wasn't using it to brainstorm for replies! And I'm sure this might make me sound naive or disingenuous -- as I am honestly yet to see any evidence to the contrary -- but as far as I know, ChatGPT is actually terrible when it comes to intellectual debates. I know because I've tried it! It repeats itself endlessly and often makes stuff up. It says some interesting things from time to time, but it's often common knowledge that's already available on the internet. ChatGPT lacks true soul or creativity, so 100% dependence on it would be senseless in all honesty, and I posit that only people who lack critical thinking skills will take everything ChatGPT says wholesale without a single grain of salt. In such case, it's arguably more convenient for someone like me to just read a study I've downloaded in PDF from Google Scholar, note or memorize the important parts, and present the findings here in a debate. It's far more convenient for me. The only reason ChatGPT sounds so convincing and enticing is because of the way it plays with words, and that's the aspect of it I always find interesting. It's better than the most elegant human wordsmith, and it's also so grammatically and structurally astute. That's the only thing truly enticing about it, the rest is just filler. ChatGPT is not going to solve world cancer or brainstorm Nigeria's way out of international debt. There might be AI designed specifically for that in the future, but ChatGPT itself -- along with all its many variants (Gemini, Copilot, Grok etc.) -- is simply a local language model (LLM). It can generate short essays about various subjects or facts, but that's about it. And speaking of facts, they're concepts that are entirely independent of the vehicle that carries them. With all due respect, I think it's dumb to be disappointed about the source of information, especially if that piece of information can be verified independent of the source, and has no direct ties to the source. 2+2 = 4, and that's indisputable in classic mathematics. It doesn't matter whether I calculate it with my head or a calculator, or whether I calculate it with my hand but I use a pencil or an ink pen. And this is precisely where I think you -- and others who share similar views with you -- miss the plot. Does the fact that AI can produce coherent arguments diminish or detract from the merit of the argument or ideas themselves? I think if you can answer this question, you'll start to see why I think your anti-AI stance, as you've elucidated here from your own subjective standpoint, is fundamentally ridiculous. In case you can't see it yet, I'll spell it out: People like you are more worried about the human behind the argument, and not the argument itself. And this is actually a very poor way to approach scholarly debates because it's easy to resort blindly to ad hominem tactics this way. For me, the biggest indicator of intelligence is the ability to connect dots and patterns to build up to a solid, indisputable point. I personally respect a guy who reads debates online and knows the exact websites or articles to copy from and disprove my argument soundly and accurately without having to go back a second time, than a guy who argues from his head but doesn't even know what he's talking, or can't go three seconds without committing blatant logical fallacies unwittingly.

You may disagree with me here but that's fine. We don't have to agree on everything.

What I said was that "debate is akin to a game". Here is what I meant when I said that:
When people engage in a debate, the implicit goal is for the opposing sides to corroborate and substantiate their own arguments , while simultaneously refuting and rebutting the opponent's argument. So it is not so much about the truth as it is about who can present more convincing and forceful arguments. This is why winning a debate is not just about your points, but also how you present the points. And this is why I will insist again that using AI assistance will clearly give you some advantage over your opponent as your presentation will be more superb .
When the purpose is to really learn something from the other person, I prefer to refer the the interaction as a discussion rather than a debate. When a conversation takes the form of a debate, the opposing parties will generally try to hold on to their preconceived notions and beliefs about what is right/wrong and what is true/false regardless of any strong arguments the opponent presents. That is why it's usually hard to change people's mind/belief through a debate. On the other hand, if it is a discussion, we can easily find points on which we agree, freely express our uncertainties, try to listen sincerely and see things from the other person's perspective, and you're not really trying to be the one who wins the argument, also using AI assistance to polish your arguments become completely unnecessary .
I should you this opportunity to say that the sort of conversation I wish to have with you is a discussion and not a debate. Besides I don't have enough energy for certain kinds of debates again as I get older.

If this is the way you choose to see it, then that's okay. It's just further testament to the difference in our educational culture, or perspective towards learning. So far, I've observed that when you talk about debates, you're primarily alluding to the kind of debates we had back in secondary school, where it was a kind of sport. I'm very aware that those debates were structured like a contest where the winner gets an award, but I'd argue that it was structured that way because of the school setting. In theory, I believe those rewards were simply meant to encourage the students to improve their oratory skills, as well as their knowledge on a particular topic. I can back up this belief by pointing to the fact that such rewards don't exist in higher level debates. Take the theological debates that happen between secularists and religionists for example. There often isn't any winner declared between both parties. It often just ends with members of the audience asking questions and then the crowd just dissipates and returns individually to their regularly scheduled programmes. That's exactly how debates are here in Nairaland too. Nobody is really keeping score and everyone leaves with his own belief on who won. And even these debates don't happen out of the blue. They're planned in advance and the debaters often prepare extensively using information and data before they show up. They don't just say things from their heads. They test their ideas against each other using facts and information. So I don't agree with your performative description of intellectual debate, because to me it sounds, well,... performative. You make it sound like debates are just an avenue to make yourself look good and make your opponent look bad. Of course I can understand how you see it as trying to win or avoid losing, but at the end of the day, the biggest winners to me are the audience because they can gain a lot through the exchange or experience. They may even change positions if they're confronted with enough superior evidence or reasons. Just because there's an adversarial structure inherent to formal debates doesn't relegate truth-seeking to irrelevancy.

I'm not following GothamChess, but I've seen some of his videos. Earlier this year I watched some YouTube videos on Gukesh, the current chess champion from India, and also watched the Joe Rogan podcast with Carlson, subsequently I started seeing random chess videos in shorts, including some from GothamChess. Generally, I don't follow chess events or chess players passionately, I just love (or rather used to love 😢) to play the game and that's all. Do you play chess actively ?

To be honest, I'm not particularly active anymore, at least not as much as I was in 2020 during the pandemic. Many other hobbies and interests have commandeered my attention recently. When it comes to chess, I'm mostly just a spectator now. I may go back to playing competitively in the future, but for now... meh.

You're trying to show here that chess is different from debate, but I think there are many similarities between them. Chess is about weakening your opponent's position and strengthening your own position using all the tactics and strategies your knowledge and experience afford you. This is very similar to what happens in debates: you use all your knowledge arsenal about the subject to weaken (refute) your opponent's argument and strengthen (corroborate) your own arguments.

Yes, that may be true. But you're also exposing the flaws of your opponent's arguments to benefit the understanding of everyone else (the audience). That's why I said debates aren't a zero-sum game like chess, because there is potential for everyone to gain something, including your opponent. And like I just said some paragraphs ago, there's really no objective winner at the end of a serious high-level intellectual debate. It always ends arbitrarily, with the conclusion left open to interpretation by the audience to decide for themselves who won. You might say William Lane Craig won, and I'll argue that Sam Harris washed him. But in chess, nobody is going to foolishly argue against Magnus' victory and say that he lost after he just delivered a checkmate or after his opponent resigns on his/her own accord. The results are fixed, and "winning" is definitively measurable in chess. Again, this is just another instance of us having different cultural approaches to debate, for better or worse. For me, it's truth seeking and establishing knowledge about reality. For you, maybe it's about the tactics and showmanship.

Nice submission 👍
In my contemplation about life, I have come to the realization/conclusion that there is no special purpose to human existence, we ultimately die like other animals and life goes on. Sometimes, this realization makes me feel sad and disheartened and I wish there were a higher purpose to our existence. On the contrary, when I go to church sometimes and I see people singing and dancing joyfully, full of hope that there's a God in heaven that cares about them and that there's a wonderful place they will go to when they die, I feel really jealous. I see no reason why I should try to convince such people that their beliefs are based on lies and falsehood. If their ignorance is making them blissful, why should I expose them to a knowledge that could make them feel hopeless ?

I find it quite amusing how you can say all these things and decide to be jealous of the Christians? Lol, If anything, given what you've rightfully observed here, you should be brimming with overwhelming pity for them, because they're far beyond the realm of ignorance, and deep into tragic self-delusions, reinforced by high steel walls of cognitive dissonance. I mean, these guys derive their joy from elaborate fantasies that are not only demonstrably false but worse still, prevent them from honestly and wilfully enjoying the world as it is. Their religious dogma and bigotry has shut them out from exploring the beauty of the universe and unending complexity of the full human experience. Some of the strict fundamentalists among them, especially those living in the U.S Bible Belt, have deliberately shut themselves out from interacting with the real world. How can you possibly be jealous of these types of people, lol?

This got me thinking that maybe believing in a higher purpose to existence by the majority of people might actually be good for the world after all. So I love to hear what other people think about this matter.

Lol, it's arguably much worse. We're talking about the anti-vaxxers. The people who deny climate change. The people who'll run to the church altar when a family member is sick instead of getting immediate and responsive health care. The people who witch-hunt LGBTQ+ and deny them their free will. Where do we even begin? Lol, ask Galileo. These are people who will willingly attack and boycott any scientific research as long as it doesn't cater to their infantile beliefs. My dear, universal religious fundamentalism is going to be a million times worse. If people are willing to put "divine revelation" on the same pedestal as rigorous scientific investigation, do you have any idea how many people will wilfully be taken in by deceitful charlatans and conspiracy theorists over spurious, unfounded nonsense? Much more than there are now, that's for sure.

I'm also positive that an atheistic world will be more scientifically oriented, and therefore scientific breakthroughs will be more common. The issue with this however is that scientific breakthroughs are not always good for the world because of possible misuse/abuse of a technology or the accidental/unintended adverse effect it might have on the environment. Good examples are weapons of mass destruction, pollution caused by over use of fossil fuels, general environmental degradation caused by urbanisation.

The problem with this paragraph is that you seem to be arguing based on the unstated assumption that atheists are more morally bankrupt than Christians, and it's bizarre how anyone would realistically believe that after learning about stuff like the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the KKK. Hell, I'm even going too far... Read the Bible! God repeatedly commits acts of genocide, infanticide and whatnot. I've said this elsewhere but morality supersedes any religion or theological predisposition. We have serial killers that are atheist. We have those that are Christians, and so on.

And because I'm not quite sure how a godless society would be like morally and in terms of values, it's a little hard for me to predict what kinds of scientific breakthroughs we will seek.

As I've already noted, morality does not depend on your religious affiliation or lack of it. That being said, I believe a godless society will place more emphasis on humanistic and/or utilitarian values that will ultimately enhance the standard of living for everyone because I doubt godless researchers will bother to waste resources on religiously-motivated pseudoscience. They also won't be constrained by pressures of theological conformity that may limit the extent of things they can research. As I said earlier, there'll be no sacred cows.

AlbertNewton:
Sorry I failed to go on with the debate, despite being the initiator 😔. I was just a little busy at the time and wasn't sure if I have the energy to engage in a text-based debate that will most certainly entail spending hours putting my thoughts to writing (a process that can be considerably mentally draining for some of us that don't use AI assistance ☹️ ). And since the planned debate (actually I prefer to see it as discussion) wasn't really that serious nor was it about a specific matter, I forgot about it eventually. Again, sorry I disappointed.

Now that it appears you're still interested in the discussion, let me open by asking you the following question that I often find myself thinking about:
Will the world become better or worse if everyone becomes an atheist, believing that there's no life after death, no hell or heaven, so no sky daddy is going to punish you for any evil you do nor reward you for your 'good' deeds ?

AlbertNewton:
I'm just seeing this mention from you today.
It is very sickening 🤢 that you had to write (or use AI to generate) everything up there just to justify your use of AI assistance in debates.
The simple fact you're missing/ignoring is that debate is not just about the points you make, the structure, organization and expression of those points are also crucial. A well structured false argument might seem more intelligent than a poorly structured true argument. It is because of this that I stated that the use of AI assistance will give you unfair advantage over your opponent, making it seem that your arguments are superior. Also, you claim AI only helps you put together the points you come up with yourself. Knowing a little about how generative AIs work and having used some of them for different tasks, I'm sure the AI will often subtly or noticeably add points that aren't exactly yours.
How would you feel if you play chess against an opponent that uses computer assistance (secretly or openly) ?
Keep in mind that debate is akin to a game!

You said a bunch of other things that I don't have the energy to start responding to. Perhaps you should endeavour to make your responses to me in the future much shorter (unless there's really something important you have to say). I see no reason why you had to rant so much about your frustration with Nairalanders in your response to me.

Once again, I will apologize in advance if this response ends up being too long or verbose for your tastes. This is what I sound like when I'm not using my AI proofdesk to quicken things up, so you'll have to bear with me. Over time, I'll learn to try and keep things short, but for now this is the best I can do. But first, I'll start by challenging you to present the evidence that I've generated my latest response with AI, since you've subtly hinted at it here again at the start of your second response, despite me repeatedly stating that I don't use it any longer, and why I used it back then when I did. And I know you tried to be clever by encasing your allegations in parentheses, but I know scandal-phishing and fake tea when I see it. You guys should put your money where your mouth is for once and pull up with fresh, new receipts instead of these tired, months-old redundancies that I've already trashed and discarded. By the way, I'm aware that I usually rub people off the wrong way because I often make remarks that I feel are precise and objective without recourse to sentiments, emotions, or other personal factors. But at the end of the day, I mean what I say. And I appreciate others when they do the same for me, provided they don't have to lie or poison the well to make themselves look morally superior. To be honest with you, I read your latest comments and realized unfortunately, that in a couple of ways, you may exemplify part of the problem I have with general discourse on this site. Take for example, your suggestion that debate is a game like chess. I'm sorry my dear, but any true intellectual debate is 100%, without a shadow of doubt, NOT a game! I don't even know why you'd say something like that. This is exactly what I'm talking about: everyone on this forum thinks that a debate must be a zero-sum game with objective win conditions like chess where there's a winner and there's a loser, but what nobody talks about is the actual substance of the debate. I don't do debate to win. I do debate to search for knowledge. I do debate to discover truths, to see what makes other people tick, to pick their brains, to see how they handle information and facts and connect the dots to make a logically consistent argument, to see how they react to contrary evidence and if they're honest enough to admit when they're wrong. That's the element of real debate that makes it a scholarly engagement: exchanging ideas and sharing knowledge (not fantasies, mind you). You think I always enjoy having to call people out for being dumb or intellectually destitute? You think I enjoy going back and forth with jokers like Dtruthspeaker who constantly makes stuff up, contradicts himself and then tells all sorts of lies to make sure he "wins" an argument? Alright, let's take it for granted that debates are a game. What would even be the objective win condition in a debate if nothing is learned at the end of the day?

Anyway, let's talk about the chess you mentioned.

Do you follow GothamChess (Levy Rozman)? He's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) chess streamers and/or content creators on YouTube for the past decade or so. He's also an international master, soon to become a grandmaster. Hikaru Nakamura is probably a better example though because he's an actual grandmaster and even Magnus sees him as his biggest rival. How often do you watch their videos, hmm? Are you aware that Levy and Hikaru learn their preparation and opening lines from Stockfish AI? They memorize openings, learn variations and tactics directly from Stockfish into their games. Obviously prohibition of AI still exists during live tournaments but that's because chess relies strictly on memory and calculating under pressure. The setting is entirely different. When we talk arguments in debate, we talk about the quality of ideas and information at your disposal, not your capacity to generate them. It's all about your ideas and their logical coherence and your ability to weave them all together and form a cohesive, convincing narrative.

As I told you earlier, if any of you feel some type of way over the fact that I used AI back then and that it gave me an unfair advantage, then what stops you from using AI yourself? After all, debates are a game, not so? What's holding you back? Is it the lack of resources? The lack of technical know-how? You also said and I quote: "well-structured false arguments might seem more intelligent than poorly structured true arguments". This is true! Unfortunately for you however, this doesn't detract from my point. If anything, it undermines your entire position because a well-structured false argument is still what it is: false. Anyone who isn't carried away by flair and style can easily see that. My love for colorful language is strictly my preference, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my core intelligence. We don't have to sacrifice clarity for accuracy or vice versa. We can strive for both.

What I still don't understand though is the selectivity with which you guys judge tools like AI. You're all too happy to quote excerpts and journals in a debate, but somehow you draw the line when it comes to AI. It's quite fascinating really, especially given the fact that in most cases, science journals are often ten times more reliable than an AI chatbot. I mean you're more likely to come across fresh new information with a science journal than you will with a chatbot. AI just regurgitates already existing ideas. It can't come up with new ideas. At best, it will hallucinate stuff that you can't verify or are demonstrably false. So if you want to talk about "subtly adding points", AI is arguably inferior to most other external sources like academic papers and even dictionaries because when you consult the latter, you're actually incorporating ideas and formulations that aren't yours. I mean, if you're really worried about the influence that external resources can have on the quality of an argument, then we should be more consistent with our rules, don't you think? We should stop quoting definitions from dictionaries, for instance. We may also need to stop citing YouTube videos that explain whatever argument we're making. In my personal opinion, these are even more potent, reliable contributors to a debate than an LLM or AI chatbot. Although I think the more likely truth here is that you've created a post-hoc rationalization for your hidden technophobia. I suppose for people like you and triplechoice, you'd rather see other people handicap themselves to match your preferred methods, rather than evolve or adapt to new tools that can enhance human capacity and potential. In fairness to you, this is just another chapter in human history of new technology being widely rejected because it "strips down our humanity". They did it with CGI and mobile phones as well. Nothing new to see here, I guess.

To answer the question in your first quote: I don't know for certain. I'm aware that most Christians tend to be utterly close-minded bigots, averse to things that are strange and unfamiliar to what they grew up with (like AI). But these faults are still a result of their cognitive bias/es as humans. Atheists are humans too - which means that we're also subject to these bias/es. We are susceptible to emotional reactions and fighting over competing interests. Basically humans are humans. And since morality precludes religion, I don't rate atheists higher than Christians or vice versa. The only thing I can guarantee in a world full of atheists is possibly more scientific breakthroughs (because critical thinking will be more valued and there will be no sacred cows in the search for knowledge), and more practical policies to reduce pain and suffering, rather than resignation and claiming certain things to be "beyond human control".

@triplechoice

Please take responsibility for your own actions and stop mentioning me to moan like a child whose favourite toy has been taken away.

Do your thing and just ignore me. Thank you

Apparently I haven't blocked you yet with this moniker.

I only mentioned you in passing because I was recounting a past incident. If you take exception to being referenced in a discussion about gossip, tea and scandal-fishing, then maybe you should consider not making it your signature move whenever important discussions are being had. I derive no joy in quoting or talking to you anyway, as you've only ever been a nuisance and a soul-crushing bore in all the threads I've watched you in. Obviously this will be my last response to you. Godspeed.

CyrusVI:
Wow, You're back!

I saw where the other guy keep hitting your other moniker(TheDevilsbride) till you were forced to say you were no longer gonna visit here and I felt bad about that because, One person's constant attack shouldn't be enough reason to starve many curious-minded individuals the chance to still read from your great perspective of things


As much as I do not(and will never) agree with you on this God's existence matter, it's actually nice reading your thoughts on neutral matters and especially your use of big big words


What you said about every argument you presented with this moniker being your own Intellect. The only time you did that was when you were using the other Moniker Uche40.

Also, no one is debating the fact that you know a lot and have probably be doing this for long. We're just saying the use of AI gives you an unfair advantage, especially in Science-related debates. It's an intellectual discussion,not a battle for superior knowledge. Show your mettle

Do not compare the use of AI with drawing knowledge from other websites and research article. No educational institute would accept a thesis/project written with any AI articles and that's not the case with making references to other websites, as there's always a section or even chapters for references in whatever Project or thesis written for educational purposes




Cool to know you're back. We didn't conclude our discussion the last time. I'm sure you'd not mind restarting that with me now but no A.I and yes, you can use any excerpts, journals, annuals or whatever references you so wish to use

Witch-hunting and desperate scandal-phishing aside, I've grown jaded and gradually lost interest in the forum already, so I wouldn't give all the credit to triplechoice for my absence. This forum just hasn't been for me lately. Maybe it's Nairaland and the banal, mundane subject matter that people discuss here on a daily basis, or maybe I've just evolved beyond the back and forth business, especially with people who are seemingly too ignorant and primitive to even keep up in the first place. I do come back from time to time but it's mostly to sit back and read. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't always enjoy bickering and arguing endlessly. It's just something I'm forced or compelled to do whenever I come across flagrantly dishonest arguments or when I witness pompous and insufferable mediocrities who decide for some reason to pontificate on topics well beyond their intellectual pay grade. On a normal day, I'd prefer a simple, harmonious conversation where we can exchange knowledge and have a point of agreement or convergence. It's very hard though because most people here simply have no patience or respect for logic or intellectual debate. They just say stuff and pretend it's true without carrying out their due diligence and whenever I read stuff like that, it always grinds my gears. It's just how I was programmed. And that's why, as much as I've grown weary of debate, I often find myself sucked back in because I have to call out the lies and gibberish being peddled. I guess you could say I have a chip on my shoulder or something. Generally though, I've grown bored of this website. Triplechoice's tiresome prevarications just gave me more of a reason to abandon it completely. I'm not sure yet if I'm back for good, although to be frank, I'm probably not. It just bothered me that AlbertNewton was looking for a debate, piggybacking off the AI argument, and then when I reached out, he ghosted. It made me wonder why he never responded. I'm not forcing him to have the debate, but if he would have just declined, maybe I wouldn't even feel the need to say anything at all. Given the circumstances, I had to assume that he must have disengaged because of the whole AI nonsense, and that's what prompted my latest reply.

And as for triplechoice, I had to cease correspondence with him because it was becoming clear to me that he was on a mission to tarnish my character and destroy my name, even after I already admitted to using AI in previous posts, and in spite of my insistence that I never used it with TheDevilsBride. I detected his pretentiousness when I observed that he couldn't legitimately substantiate his AI accusations regarding TheDevilsBride and had to resort to guilt-by-association tactics, relying on the history of my other monikers to make his point. That's when I understood that he was just thirsty for drama, drunk and intoxicated by his own self-importance and the attention his manufactured controversy was generating. So I had to cut him off, and then block his account.

At any rate, thanks for responding to the post, even though it wasn't directly aimed towards you. As I have previously emphasized, your theological proclivities do not concern me. I don't have a problem with your belief in god/s. I'm very happy to mind my business and let every believer and non-believer go on his own merry way. If you will recall, the very first time I engaged you was when I read a comment that seemingly represented atheism. I had to comment and set the record straight and we've been on a back and forth ever since. We don't have to agree on matters concerning the existence of god/s. Reading your latest submission, I'm glad that you can at least acknowledge that I'm not in the wrong if I choose to reference journals, articles, studies, excerpts of studies, and other research materials in a debate. Obviously it would be weird if you disagreed about that since you have done the same yourself. But I'm afraid you still haven't given me a good reason why you draw the line at AI assistance, but give the green light to using dictionaries and spell checkers, research databases, and any other tool that can provide information, or even enhance how we express ourselves. Can you walk me through that logic? I know you already alluded to academic institutions rejecting AI articles, but that's because they are centered around the construction and contribution of original research and individual competency. But we're not writing dissertations here. Nobody is going to come and award us with a degree for the amateur skirmishes we engage in here on an outdated internet forum like Nairaland. Ultimately the conversations we have here are trivial. We're fighting facts with facts. Evidence with evidence. And even AI can't guarantee you correct facts and evidence. Infact, anyone who relies 100% on AI for a discussion would be a mental vegetable because AI says a bunch of nonsense that can be checked and debunked. The goal here is to force others to examine opposing views and angles. Whether this is achieved through normal conversation, traditional research, AI assistance, or even divine inspiration is monumentally irrelevant to the subject matter.

Sorry about the long riposte anyway, I simply can't help myself sometimes. My thoughts are often so scattered and jumbled up and they tend to cascade into verbose walls of texts when I write, and that's why it takes me a lot of effort to sit and draft responses. I can't guarantee you consistent engagement in any debate right now because of real life obligations and the fact that this forum does little to hold my interest or attention these days, but I'll try to engage the best that I can when I'm free. That's all.

AlbertNewton:
Thanks for making these clarification.
I've also been awed by your responses, not particularly because of the points you make, but by how elegantly and beautifully you put words together to express complex thoughts.
Of course, I realized later on that your responses were consistently too perfect grammatical to be human. So I' concluded overtime that must be using some sort of AI assistance, but I wasn't sure to what extent.

When it comes to arguments and debates, it's not only the points you make that are important, but also how you make those points. Even if you've been giving the AI the points to develop, your use of AI has given you unfair advantage over your opponents in your debates nonetheless.

Henceforth, I think you should announce to your co-debater upfront that you would be using AI assistance in composing your responses (even though the points will be your brain child ). Perhaps you can even advise them to do the same.

I actually think you set out to impress and oppress by the use of AI assistance. Otherwise, why is it compulsory for you to engage people in debates when you know you don't have the time to type your responses yourself ?

A part of me still feels you're an intelligent person, especially because you're an atheist like myself (I believe all atheists whose atheism resulted from their personal contemplation about life, universe and existence in general are intelligent!).

If you promise not to use AI assistance , I would love to have a discussion with you about the universe and human existence . Of course, this would naturally lead to debates in areas where we disagree.

I never addressed this mention properly when I first saw it, and so I'll carry out my due diligence now, as I feel obligated to point out certain concepts to you and the rest of your "you're-using-AI-therefore-you-suck!" bandwagon. But first, let me start by reminding you that you reached out to me in your last paragraph here, extending an invitation for intellectual engagement. And I accepted this invitation with my alt moniker right here:

TheDevilsBride:
This is Jessica Rabbit. What do you wish to talk about?

I was curious as to why you never followed through, and usually I'd have my suspicions why you never did, as I'm quite the queen of paranoia, but I'll just assume you never saw the mention. Now, I will admit that at first, I deliberately ignored this particular mention I'm responding to today, because I simply considered this whole AI witch-hunting from you lot to be ridiculously pedestrian, particularly to the topic of this thread while I was neck deep in my debate with EmperorCaesar a.k.a DevilsEqual a.k.a CyrusVI. If I'm being truthful, I only see these critiques as a tired intellectual crutch that people are tempted to reach for invariably. It especially works wonders when they've maneuvered themselves into a corner during a debate and they desperately need a way out. It's predictable as clockwork. And it's not just me. I've been on this forum long enough to see how these games play out. People find themselves in a debate that's well above their paygrade, and when they find that they don't have any substantive rebuttals to an argument (obviously), they become forensic experts all of a sudden, digging into the texture of your person, into your past misdeeds, searching for any pretext to delegitimize the conversation, by any means necessary. Throw dirt on people's name and avoid responding to them. I would call it a waving the white flag, if the goal wasn't to poison the well and cast aspersions on the opponent to save face.

Seriously let's rub minds here, if you're willing to put your prejudice aside. What difference does it make whether my thoughts are articulated via AI refinement or through manual writing? How is it relevant to the veracity or merit of the core discussion?

I'll make it perfectly known again: every argument I present on this forum with this moniker emerges directly from my own intellect, informed by all my extensive engagement with academic literature from anywhere you can imagine (websites, textbooks, research works, Google etc.). My well of knowledge draws from years of debating philosophy, theology, cosmology, epistemology, sociology... it's innumerable. I do this, and have been doing this for years. Infact, this response I've just made to you was human written in its' entirety, just to prove a point. I can do this, with or without AI. AI just makes it faster. It's like an editorial instrument for me -- same way I use a dictionary or thesaurus to find a more befitting synonym or expression that better conveys what I intended to say.

And it's about time you guys shelved that infantile idea that AI gives advantage in debates, because it sure as hell can't. As a matter of fact, AI makes up stuff a lot. A huge chunk of what it says is not even reliable and/or entirely accurate. It's also limited in terms of the subjects it can discuss (it avoids numerous substantial discussions, particularly those centered on race, sexual assault, politics, lgbtq etc). So basically, apart from saying boring, unoriginal stuff that we've heard over and over with stylistic polish, what advantage can AI really bestow you in any debate? And if you really feel that way about AI, then what stops you and the rest of the anti-AI mob from using it?

Also, why do I have to announce my method of posting upfront, especially when I'm not plagiarizing anybody? I understand prefacing comments if the content is culled from external websites (that are obviously not yours). But AI? Lol. Going by your logic, writers should equally indicate moments where a dictionary or thesaurus was implemented. This even brings me to a broader observation I've made about the intellectual culture of Nairaland. Many of you guys here have a distressing tendency to avoid actual substance and fixate on peripheral nonsense. It's almost as if the collective attention span of the users here has been so thoroughly compromised by dopamine-driven feedback loops of social media. It's almost impossible to see sustained engagement with complex ideas on here. Most people here can't do anything better than search for scandals, rhetorical traps, sleights of hand, procedural violations, in fact anything but the kitchen sink. Anything that will afford them the liberty of not actually engaging in critical thought.

I'm just going to opine that if you're truly bothered about the supposed advantages AI assistance gives me, then nothing prevents you from using ChatGPT or any other language model yourself. Use it and articulate your own thoughts with precision and eloquence, provided your posts are logically coherent and you don't misfire. It would even help the both of us, as I personally have an eyesore for poorly written prose that is not formatted properly. Except that's not your style, or you're secretly not confident in your technological competence.

All of this reminds of my past encounters with EmperorCaesar a.k.a DevilsEqual a.k.a CyrusVI, who is often fond of suggesting that my use of English makes me out to be a manipulative bully who enjoys browbeating others. I think there's a tendency for people to harbor the strange and insecure belief that eloquence and intellectual sophistication are somehow suspect. Even in real life situations, I've noticed some people try to put others down or clown them if they have an inclination towards more technical styles of using English. Imagine my amusement when I caught you doing the exact same thing when you said I'm trying to "impress and oppress." Like, do you guys have a problem with sophistication, lol? How am I being oppressive? Because I like my posts to look structured and articulate? If you obviously feel threatened by demonstrations of superior language, then what do you think this tells me about your attitude towards intellectual competence?

Why don't you boys pick a struggle, huh? You say you admire my eloquent expression and then you're still demanding me to abandon it at the same time. If you have any profound insights you feel the need to share, then you are at liberty to present them. If you have any substantive criticisms of anything I've said so far with respect to the debate on this thread, you are also at liberty. Beyond any of that, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of these tedious meta-discussions about the aesthetics of my comments that contribute nothing to the actual topic.

PartnerusIsBack:
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I don't do PMs. Sorry.

Alone. However, I can't help the fact that a lot of people do try to be friends with me IRL. Fundamentally though, I have just 2 or 3 really close friends that I actually enjoy hanging out with.

Naya25:
Dem say every married woman gets one guy wey she like pass her husband

Ngbo, naija ladies is this true...

We've been over this topic countless times. If women are inherently duplicitous, then I don't see why you men must desperately seek our validation constantly. How about avoiding us entirely, hmm?

njelrapheal:
can nothing beget something??.

Can a virgin birth beget a god?

EmperorCaesar:
FIrstly,
Aunty Jessica/Uche, I know words dont move you, but i will still go ahead to say this

I used to admire your intelligence and smartness, your use of words is top-notch and the depth of your knowledge is outta the world,In fact, those were the reasons why i felt compelled to argue with you but now, I'm very much confused about the whole thing.

I read this response more than 10times and i was wondering how you could know this much, especially the examples you gave and also, I noticed it took me two hours everyday to read and look for articles to respond to your arguments, while it takes just 10mins for you to give another reply. In fact, you last 4 responses came in under 30 mins, same thing it took me 2hours x 4days to come up with .

Those were the major reasons why did a lil check that exposed things to me via an AI detector and i realized all your responses are from AI.

Of course, I was expecting you to know it all off-hand, but its worrying seeing that aside your snide insults (the one you call "fair assessment", every single response from you is 100% AI generated.

More funny is the fact that you keep asking me to ditch Articles, stop appealing to Authorities and to come up with my own reasoning. Your own comments arent even from your understanding, just copy paste my responses my comment on AI, ask it to respond and then you copy it back to Nairaland, word for world and paragraph for paragraph. What you accused me of doing is even far better than this


What then is the essence of the argument if you 100% of you responses is AI generated. I mean, not even 1% of your own comment is present


For a person that complains about Intellectual dishonesty, its even more worrying to see that you used another AI to paraphrase the contents so as to appear Original and I am say this because when used [i]['Undetected-AI/i], its appears 100% human but when i used another AI detector, it came out as 100%AI.

That shows you werent honest enough to even paste it directly, instead, you paraphrased it to make it seem like yours, whereas, higher AI detector could see through that

Its even more funny, when i ran all your responses to my socalled "Emotional Self-immolation" comments through the AI detector and it came out as 0.4%AI, that means, the thread where you bashed me about being 'pathetic with disturbing fetishes' was 99% your original comments but all your Science responses were 100% AI written

Isnt that dishonesty?

Well, I'm happy I saw this sha, the scales have fallen off my eyes. I no longer feel intimidated by you and i no longer see you as a god to be revered. You prolly on same level as me sef and nothing special. Even me sef no dey use AI
















Firsr Screenshot: I ran this very whole response that I'm quoting through an higher AI detector and it came out 100% AI generated

Second screenshot: I ran the same response over "Undetected AI" and its came out 100% Human(It means you paraphrased it with a paraphraser, so smaller detectors like "Undetected AI" wouldnt detect it, hence it seee it as 100% human

Third Screenshot : I ran some part your response on the other thread where you called me a fetishist, pathetic and depressing. I ran that comment through the same higher AI detector and its came out as 0.4% fake; which means, its 99.96% human. Of course, I wouldnt expect you to to attack me with an AI. its a normal response, so AI isnt needed

Fourth Screenshot: I ran the whole of that same response from the other thread were you called me Pathetic, I ran the whole response(Including that paragraph where you called my pathetic, that came out as 0.4%) through the AI, and it came out as 73% AI generated.

Which means, not even all the responses to a normal discussion is originally yours. I mean, You even had to use an AI to respond to ordinary comment where i hailed your humiliating prowess/comments, the only place you used your original comment is the part you called me pathetic and fetishist, the other paragraphs are AI generated too

I know words dont move you but that doesnt change anything

Lol. I'm actually curious what you thought this lengthy riposte was supposed to accomplish for you here? More importantly, I find it amusing that you think my comments being AI generated somehow detracts from the substance of my arguments. At any rate, I'm pleased that you've already taken notice that antics like this don't phase me. Go through my post history. You're not the first person to complain about me using AI and you won't be the last. I'm just waiting for someone to actually demonstrate how this affects the substance of my arguments. It's not like the trail of our correspondence lacks coherence. In fact, you admitted that the reason you bothered to check if my post content was 100% original was because you were taken aback by the time difference between my comments, and the reason for that is because I compile my responses on Word before posting them on the site back to back. I do it like this to prevent people from interjecting in between planned responses and possibly distracting me from a point I'm trying to tie together across said posts. As we speak, I'm already preparing a response to your previous comments and I'll be publishing them as soon as you make a response to the fourth comment I mentioned you in some days back. I'll publish them all together. My preference for using AI in my more lengthier responses is to save me the time and effort of writing and editing my posts. So I just use a prompt like "I'm arguing for/against X, these are my points: A, B, C (I put them in short bullet points)...", and then I ask the AI to help create the responses. It affords me the time and effort to attend to my busy schedule in the real world, while passing my thoughts across online in a coherent and organized manner. So you can drop the insinuation that my entire comments are fake because the substance of my rebuttals is strictly from my head.

Now, you seem to want to push the agenda of me being dishonest, and if I'm being perfectly honest, I don't really care what you as a person think of me, first of all. I wish I could, but I don't. Only reason I'm bothering with this response is because it's starting to seem like you've finally seen a convenient excuse for you to abandon the debate and claim you're not obligated to make any further responses. Secondly, you obviously do not understand what intellectual dishonesty actually means in the context of a debate. An example of intellectual dishonesty would be me wilfully denying or twisting an obvious fact just to push a spurious narrative or agenda. I have not been "intellectually dishonest" in the history of our conversation. The best you could accuse me of being is "intellectually lazy", which would be right and wrong. Right, because I'm using a bot to assist my responses; wrong because the thoughts I've submitted thus far are solely mine, albeit written by AI. It's basically me telling it what to write. If I were to go through the arduous task of typing it all out by myself, I'd have a full day wasted all because I'm trying to respond online to some generic stranger I don't even know or care about. I'm happy you subtly referenced my original moniker uche40. You can go and take a look at the moniker. I was pretty much making the same arguments I still do with this moniker but none of my responses there were AI generated. AI just helps me get more done with little effort, and that's it.

Quite frankly, I think it's hilarious calling people out on stuffs like plagiarism or AI use. I can relate to the compulsion to do so but personally, I think it's nonsense. In discussions such as the one we're both having, thoughts are mostly not original. Everything you've written here didn't come from your head. You're just parroting generic apologist arguments mostly based on teleology (design) or cosmology (origins of the universe) that you've encountered in some places and came up with your own unique understanding of. And for the avoidance of doubt, I never actually told you to ditch science articles and not cite them. This is just one of the ways you keep quotemining my comments, twisting them and putting fresh words in my mouth. What I asked was for you to make an actual coherent argument as opposed to the constant name-dropping of scholars you were accustomed to. I just wanted to see you put the knowledge you gleaned from the books you read into actual use in an argument. That's literally all I said. Now this is a very good example of the intellectual dishonesty I kept calling you out on, where you take what I say and give it an entirely different connotation.

njelrapheal:
he is saying it an intentional design to keep it that way. if by calculation the earth and moon become locked due to their relationship is that not a thing to think about.

Intentional design by whom, or what? Can you tell me? And can you show any actual proof? Tidal locking is a well-documented, mathematically predictable consequence of gravitational interactions in celestial mechanics. It's not a "thing to think about" in the sense of implying agency or purpose. If you're suggesting that the Earth-Moon system's tidal locking is evidence of intelligent design, then you'll need to provide empirical evidence and a testable hypothesis. Otherwise, you're just venturing into the realm of pseudoscience.

DevilsEqual:
Concerning the bolded about Design and Undesign

Take a quick look at the Infinite Monkey Theorem:

Prominent scientists(Leucippus, Blaise Pascal, Jonathan Swift) proposed that if monkeys were given enough time to pound away at typewriters, they would eventually—possibly over billions of years—manufacture a book like Shakespeare's Hamlet by accident. Thus, the scientists reasoned, random chance would eventually generate this complex world if given enough time.

However, Like Aristotle, Physicists in Thermodynamics field noted this:

Kittel and Kroemer in The Nature of the Physical World (1928), writing:
Even if every proton in the observable universe (which is estimated at roughly 10^80) were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons might no longer exist), they would still need a far greater amount of time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10360,641 observable universes made of protonic monkeys.[g] As Kittel and Kroemer put it in their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys,[5] "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event ...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers."

In fact, there is less than a one in a trillion chance of success that such a universe made of monkeys could type any particular document a mere 79 characters long



In other words, if you wanted these monkeys to have a 1 in a trillion probability of success—which is still incredibly unlikely, 10^360,641 universes full of monkeys typing would be required(from the beginning of Big Bang till when Protons no longer exists). It is nearly unlikely given how enormous this number is, thats even if you’re only asking the monkeys to randomly type a document just 79 characters long (about the length of a tweet)

It was a rhetorical illustration of the fact that below certain levels of probability, the term improbable is functionally equivalent to impossible.



Even young children understand that using toy "building blocks" to construct a "house" is not as simple as throwing the bricks into the air and hoping they land in the right place. It's possible that two or three blocks will stack on top of one another during a particular toss. However, what are the chances of a well-organized "house" being constructed?
In reality, unless the child guards the few blocks that just so happened to stack up, they could be undone by the next toss. It takes creativity or Intelligence to arrange the blocks into a sophisticated, well-planned "house."

Like Cicero agreed, It means that some Philosophical Scientists were right when they noted "just how long the monkeys would be expected to take would depend on exactly how the selection was done." You would need someone to recognize when they [the monkeys] had done their task. Yes, the material created by the monkeys must be chosen and arranged into the masterpiece by a knowledgeable person who is familiar with the contents of the book.
Without a “selector,” the monkeys would never really produce the book. Their attempts would, at most, produce a jumbled alphabet or just lines of fragmented or disconnected words.


That best explains the probability of something meaningful and organized coming out of a sheer randomness with zero design



Its fine if you think this Intelligent force is just a "Guided/Directed Evolution"(Most Atheist Scientists use this term), and trust me, you'd have a more solid argument with this, than opining that organized structures and entities came from 'years of undesigned evolutions and random piling ups'.

All the screenshots and only the comment from Kittel and Kroemer are from the wiki page of "Infinite Monkey Theorem". You can look it up to see diff Mathematical calculations, actual monkey experiments carried out and also the Scientific views of even the most vocal Atheist in the Evolutionary Biology field, Richard Dawkins, as well as others and what he said after trying out the experiment with his Monkeys

Thanks for the response. Now, let's examine it to see if it has any merits. But first, I'll have to correct you on something. This Infinite Monkey Theorem is ultimately a thought experiment designed to illustrate the concept of probability and the potential outcomes of random events over an infinite amount of time. I don't suppose it's a scientific experiment that can be conducted in a laboratory, and neither was it meant to be. Its primary purpose is to provoke thought and discussion about the nature of probability, chance, and the universe.

Now, while the probability of a monkey typing Hamlet in a reasonable amount of time is incredibly low, it's not impossible. The notion that a monkey typing Hamlet is impossible is a common misconception. Impossibility and low probability are distinct concepts. Even events with extremely low probabilities can occur given enough time and opportunities. The monkey typing Hamlet may be an unlikely scenario, but it's not a logical or mathematical impossibility. Skeptics might argue that the timescale required for such an event is unrealistically vast, making it effectively impossible but this overlooks the fundamental nature of probability. As the number of attempts increases, even the most improbable events become increasingly likely. It's crucial to recognize that probability operates on a continuum, with no clear boundary between possible and impossible. Instead, events transition from highly unlikely to likely as the number of trials grows.

The analogy between creating complex systems, such as life or the universe, and building a house is fundamentally flawed. A house is a designed structure, created with a specific purpose and plan in mind. Every element, from the foundation to the roof, serves a deliberate function. In contrast, the Infinite Monkey Theorem, which suggests that random chance can produce complex outcomes, operates in the realm of unpredictability and lack of direction. This crucial distinction renders the house analogy inadequate for illustrating the probabilistic nature of complex system emergence. A more fitting analogy would have been the random sequence of letters and numbers forming a coherent sentence or paragraph. I believe that scenario would do a better job capturing the point of the Infinite Monkey Theorem you've cited, where chance operations produce unexpected, meaningful outcomes. Although even in this analogy I just created, the probability of generating a coherent text remains extremely low, but it's not impossible! But at least it acknowledges the role of randomness and highlights the improbability of complex systems emerging without direction. The house analogy is more misleading because it implies a guiding intelligence or purposeful design, which is precisely what's absent in the context of the Infinite Monkey Theorem. Furthermore, it's true that a "selector" is necessary to recognize and choose the correct sequence of letters. But I still don't think this negates the possibility of a random sequence eventually forming a meaningful pattern. It simply means that the selection of that pattern is a separate process.

What most of you who argue against natural selection, evolution and the Big Bang fail to realize is that complex systems arising from simple interactions is actually a highly pervasive theme in various scientific disciplines. Many events illustrate this, for instance, the formation of snowflakes, where the straightforward process of water molecules freezing yields intricate and unique patterns. The simplicity of the initial conditions -- water vapor cooling in the atmosphere -- belies the complexity of the resulting crystal structures, and this dichotomy highlights the universe's inherent capacity for generating complexity from elementary rules. Similar examples abound in nature. Flocking behaviors in birds, schooling in fish, and the growth patterns of branching trees all demonstrate how simple interactions among individual components give rise to complex, emergent properties. In each case, the local interactions and basic rules governing individual behavior collectively produce remarkable global patterns. Complexity can be an intrinsic product of simple, iterative processes rather than requiring external direction or design. The implications of this concept extend far beyond natural phenomena, speaking to our understanding of the universe's fundamental nature. If complex systems can emerge from simple interactions, it challenges the notion that intricate structures and phenomena necessarily require a designer or external guidance. Instead, the universe may possess inherent mechanisms for generating complexity, operating through principles like self-organization and emergence.

This perspective should shift our focus from seeking external explanations for complex phenomena to understanding the underlying processes that enable their emergence. If we can just recognize the universe's capacity for self-organization, we may gain insights into the origins of life, the formation of galaxies, and the evolution of complex systems. We are limited by our own human understanding and perspective. It's possible that there are aspects of the universe that we simply cannot comprehend. And this is why, I as an atheist, prefer to withhold belief in phenomena that I can't immediately understand through testable and reliable methods of understanding reality. It's not out of a vendetta against religion, it's out of a respect for knowledge and reality.

I was warned that my post was "too long", so here's PART 2 of my original reply:

DevilsEqual:
2)On the Dichotomy Between Intelligent Design and Natural Selection:
I agree that natural selection and intelligent design aren't inherently antagonistic. Most Creationists that I know of and the few i read about, believe an intelligently planned framework governs the processes of natural selection. According to them and what I also believe , the origin of life and the emergence of large systems cannot be explained by natural selection, but it can explain small changes and adaptations within species(Variation, mutation or everything Microevolution). Although organisms may adapt to their circumstances through natural selection as seen in the wild, the fundamental complexity of life itself suggests a higher design

An example to this, is "Darwin Finches". I saw a Journal by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States and i followed through because it modeled what Darwin did from Day1 and it turned out to prove some Microevolution

Thing is, As one who understand Scientific concepts and all, its unreasonble and impossible to discard Natural Selection entirely, cause of Microevolution, only that its hard to rely on it as the answer to everything, especially when Researchers and Some notable Scientists who have explored our Universe themselves were forced at a point to agree that these things are highly organized
I agree these Natural selection may have done its part, but it still did it under someones guide and direction

This position undermines the primary argument for intelligent design, which often relies on the premise that complexity cannot arise through natural processes. As for your assertion that natural selection explains "small changes and adaptations within species" but not the "origin of life and the emergence of large systems," I'd argue that this distinction is arbitrary and does not have any empirical basis, so I'm not really sure how you came up with that. The scientific consensus is clear: natural selection, coupled with genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow, has been instrumental in shaping the diversity of life on Earth. As for your claim that "the fundamental complexity of life itself suggests a higher design": this is where the argument from ignorance creeps in. Just because we currently don't fully understand the origins of life or the emergence of complex systems doesn't mean we must invoke supernatural explanations. The scientific community is actively exploring alternative explanations, such as abiogenesis, RNA world hypothesis, and others. I'll continue to repeat this obvious banality until it finally registers on your subconscious.

In his book "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. In Chapter 1, "The Rules of the Game," on page 7 of the 2011 edition, Hawkings said something about Law of Universe and the Principle guiding them


in his book "The Nature of Space and Time" (1999), Stephen Hawking said again that:

“The idea that the universe is governed by a set of principles is not merely a concept but a fundamental aspect of reality. The organization we see in the universe arises from these deep-seated principles.

Einstein said same about our highly organizational Universe when he said "The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism."

I dont even want to start with Kepler, Copernicus and Newton and thats because we all know they were Theists with limited Knowledge in an era where disbelief is considered heretic. I deliberately left out quotes Modern Biologists and Evolutionists cause you may not know most of them

The quotes you've cited here only serve to highlight the universe's governable principles and organization. Okay, cool. But this is merely a statement of an obvious fact. Once again, this doesn't even come close to establishing a supernatural designer. The laws of physics, while remarkable, are just the rules of the game. They don't explain why the game is being played. You're working with guesses and assumptions based on gaps in knowledge which is the very definition of an ad ignorantiam fallacy. Hawking also argued that the universe's origins can be explained through spontaneous creation, where the laws of physics are self-contained and require no divine intervention. As for Einstein, he was a pantheist and his views were mostly inspired by Spinoza, and Spinoza's philosophy, as outlined in his work "Ethics," describes God or Nature as a unified, underlying substance that governs the universe through necessary laws and principles, rather than through purposeful design or intervention. Einstein's own views on the nature of God and the universe closely mirrored this perspective.

My point is that , I'm trying to Appeal to Authority here to show you that not only the laymen with zero understanding of Science would biasedly see everything as Intelligent design, but that even the most highly revered and most notable Scientists agreed that our Universe and everything in it is so structured that everything screams a "Grand Design" and they did this even in their unbelief

So its not just me...They inclusive

You can't just commit a fallacy and handwave the fact like it doesn't matter. We call them fallacies because they're flaws in logical reasoning that can undermine your entire argument. The term "Grand Design" can refer to the elegant laws and structures of the universe, not necessarily implying a designer. There's a subtle difference there. If you observe closely, many scientists who use that term do not even endorse intelligent design or creationism outrightly. They may just use the term as a colorful expression in a literature. It doesn't matter how many scientists you can selectively quote in isolation to make your point, you are still ignoring the broader scientific consensus supporting natural evolution and cosmology.

"Assume you were informed that an unabridged dictionary was created when ink from the explosion splattered onto the walls and ceiling of a printing company. Could you believe it? How much more incredible is it that a random big bang created the ordered universe and everything in it?"

We already know that dictionaries are human creations, compiled through meticulous effort and intelligence. How do we know this? Because we have witnessed the creation of dictionaries. We know how they're made and we know that the processes involved are repeatable. So the analogy in this question is dead on arrival because it is predicated on a false equivalence. The universe is much greater and larger in scope than a human dictionary. According to our current understanding of physics and human knowledge, the universe's evolution from the Big Bang is well-supported by scientific evidence and our understanding of natural laws, and it is the best theory we've got so far to explain how our universe came to be. If you've got something better, you'll have to show it.

Okay, lets move away from big bang, let explore Richard Dawkins Organic Soup formation theory

According to evolutionary theory, the two main processes leading to the emergence of life are
(1) the presence of the appropriate primitive atmosphere and
(2) the concentration of an organic soup of "simple" molecules required for life in the oceans.
)3)These give rise to nucleotides and proteins, which are complicated chemical substances that
(4) unite and acquire a membrane,
(5) generate a genetic code, and (6) begin replicating.
Whats the probabilities of all all these coming up randomly?

Actually, the theory of evolution doesn't propose that life emerged randomly or spontaneously. It only suggests that life arose through a series of chemical reactions and interactions governed by physical and chemical laws. It relies only on the predictable outcomes of these laws. I mentioned this in previous posts, but the conditions on early Earth were very different from those today, with a reducing atmosphere, intense radiation, and frequent chemical reactions. As for the "organic soup", that concept is mostly outdated. Research suggests life likely emerged in hydrothermal vents or other environments with energy gradients. Nucleotides and proteins aren't complicated substances that suddenly appeared; they're the result of gradual chemical evolution. Calculating probabilities for these events definitely won't be easy due to the vastness of time, chemical diversity and complexity of interactions involved. However, scientists have demonstrated in experiments and simulations that (1) simple organic compounds can form through abiogenic processes, (2) RNA and DNA nucleotides can assemble and replicate without enzymes, and that (3) Vesicles and membranes can self-assemble from lipid molecules. The probability of life emerging may be low, but definitely not impossible. Have you considered how vast the universe is, and the number of potentially habitable planets?

I would have like to break them down from you using already carried out experiments but u go talk say I dey poke holes for Science, I just wanna debunk the "Undesigned" myth or can i carry on?


Its fine if you dont want that. I still have more evidences of design. I will now add Our Universe and The Human Eyes to the list

1)Our Universe
2)Animal Eyes
3) Human Brain
4)DNA complexities in that order

And no, Im not throwing God into the mix, na calculations, pattern checking, weaving and arrangements we wan do. We want to see how architecturally and mathecatically precise this socalled Designer is

Looking at your bullet points, I can take a good guess where you're going with each of those points but I'll wait to see if you might surprise me this time.

I was warned that my post was "too long", so here's PART 1 of my original reply:

DevilsEqual:
Lol....The ban for this is over, so I'll be quoting you with this going forward. This one can handle u better than the rest



Lemme start this way. I bumped into a thread yesterday where they analyzed the Trump vs Harris debate and they made mention of a debating tactics called Gish Galloping. That shii best defines your method of argument and it even highlighted every single feeling i've complained about as regards debating with you. It means 'A Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, often without regard for their accuracy or strength. This rapid-fire delivery makes it difficult for the opponent to address each point effectively, potentially leading to confusion or the appearance of being unprepared. Gish galloping can be a powerful tool for someone who is less knowledgeable about a subject, as it can create the illusion of being well-informed and knowledgeable. However, it's ultimately a dishonest and ineffective debating tactic.'. Thats you.

I don't see how I've "gish galloped" you anywhere in this discussion. I presented specific questions, targeted towards your understanding of the word "design". They're not a barrage of random, unrelated points -- which would have made it an actual gish gallop fallacy. So once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. My question was intended to uncover your understanding of design, and how complexity is supposed to demonstrate design. That's literally it.

Now back to your questions.

Firstly, I am not saying that there are no alternative explanations for complexity. I acknowledge other theories but the problem is that the other theories have too many gaps, assumptions, inconsistencies and are so incoherent that its hard to even use them to prove complexities in any logical debate. Evolution and Natural Selection/Creationist arguments seem to be more sound than the rest and thats why most people Naturally lean towards them

Well at least you've conceded that alternative explanations may exist, although your concession is promptly undermined by the assertion that these alternatives are inherently flawed. Your criticism of alternative theories as "incoherent" and "full of gaps" is a curious case of pot-and-kettle logic. You do realize that intelligent design, your preferred explanation which you've been touring as superior, relies heavily on an untestable, supernatural entity -- a notion that is, by definition, incoherent within the scientific framework. You realize this, right? The "gaps" in other scientific theories like Natural Selection and Evolution are, at the very least, acknowledged and actively researched. Intelligent Design's gaps, on the other hand, are fundamental and irreconcilable with empirical evidence. Also, kindly spare me the blatant appeal to popularity. The truth of a scientific theory isn't determined by its popularity, but rather by the strength of its empirical evidence and predictive power. I would have expected you to know this since you claim to value science so much.

Lets assume we go with Big Bang: The Big Bang theory explains the creation of the universe but falls short in explaining how life first evolved. Furthermore, some scientists have stated that the Big Bang theory is insufficient to explain how the universe came into being. Some even went so far as to say that "to explain the original creation of the universe, another theory describing even earlier times will be needed."

The Big Bang actually has nothing to do with the origins of life. You should probably learn the distinction between cosmology and abiogenesis to understand this. Cosmology focuses on the origins and evolution of the universe as a whole, while abiogenesis explores the emergence of life from non-living matter. Conflating these two fields will only create unnecessary confusion. The Big Bang makes a good case explaining the formation of subatomic particles, atoms, and eventually, the large-scale structures we observe today. However, it does not, nor does it pretend to, address the origin of life. So to suggest that the Big Bang theory "falls short" in explaining life's origin is a misplaced criticism. Regarding the claim that some scientists find the Big Bang theory insufficient, this is a classic case of cherry-picking. A handful of dissenting voices do not undermine the overwhelming consensus among cosmologists and physicists. The Big Bang theory has withstood decades of rigorous testing and observation. The fact that a handful of scientists acknowledge the limitations of the theory doesn't render it useless. In fact, it just serves to reflect the inherent nature of scientific inquiry. Theories are refined or expanded as new evidence emerges, and scientists actively explore areas beyond the Big Bang, such as quantum gravity, inflationary theory, and multiverse hypotheses. These investigations are simply meant to refine our understanding, not force us to simply pick and choose between competing scientific theories.

Also, when you consider most of the things written in Stephen Hawkings books like the A brief history of time or On the origin of the universe, you'd see man made more bogus claims than Bible Believers.

Interesting. According to you, a work backed by extensive scientific evidence has little merit compared to a book about talking bushes and men turning into pillars of salt. It's quite remarkable how some of you guys don't see the ridiculousness in statements like this.

Plus(I know you'd cancel this but make i still talk)...When a nuclear bomb explodes, matter is converted uncontrollably into energy, leading to chaos, as was demonstrated in 1945 when these bombs completely destroyed Hiroshima and much of Nagasaki in Japan. But the universe is lovely and harmonious, far from chaotic! That theory wouldnt answer many questions about life on a molecular level sef.

Sorry, but the transformation of matter into energy is not chaos. It's a fundamental principle of physics, and a predictable, measurable process governed by the laws of thermodynamics. If that's chaos, then I'll have to wonder what your definition of order is? And what does this statement even mean: "the universe is lovely and harmonious"? Are you referring to the aesthetic appeal of, say, supernovae or the movement of planetary orbits, because those are also the result of deterministic physical processes. At the molecular level, I'm still waiting for your explanation of how intelligent design accounts for the myriad inefficiencies, contradictions, and vestigial structures found in living organisms. The vestigial pelvis in whales, the recurrent laryngeal nerve's detour, or the molecular machinery shared across domains of life -- do these scream "design" to you? I also asked you a question about the instincts of a moth which you're yet to reply i.e why do moths constantly feel compelled to endanger themselves by flying into flames?

ll) Another one is Panspermia: This one is easily discarded because it also didnt address the topic of how life first began, also, its proposition that life on Earth could not have originated spontaneously but that it had to have come from the outer space and then floated into Earth, only serves to relegate the issue of life's origin to a more distant and forbidding context. We all know that life in the harsh atmosphere of outer space would face several hostile. So, is it possible that life originated on its own somewhere in the cosmos, made it to Earth under extremely difficult circumstances, and eventually evolved into life as we know it? Of course not. Who would lean towards this

With all of it's imperfections, panspermia is still an alternative explanation worth exploring. And I wasn't looking for a specific example. I just wanted to know if you're open to the possibility that there might be other explanations beyond your dichotomous view of intelligent design vs. natural selection. Your casual dismissal of the theory is just another reflection of your lack of intellectual curiosity.

Theories of life emergence by philosophers(Artists and the Ancient Grecian guys) is total bull crap.

That's a nonsensical claim, considering many of the foundational concepts in modern science were first proposed by philosophers. You should really brush up on your science history before uttering such ridiculous pronouncements.

There might be a middle stance for one to consider outside Evolution or Creation, it vould even still be under Science but I assume that theory hasnt just been developed by anyone so far, so yea, we all are either for evolution or Creation. No other third stance.

The universe is a pretty big place with a lot of room for innovation and the discovery of new knowledge. I think it's highly presumptuous of you to casually assume that we've already exhausted all the possibilities.

This isnt from my standpoint and it has nothing to do with my subjective assessment and thats the reason why i dropped multiple Scientific reasech articles to prove to you that even they, in their conclusions agreed that these things are too Complex to be explained away by just fictionally throwing in Natura Selections

I didnt in any of my argument speak from my own perspectives and thats because i know i'm relevant in the grand scheme of things. That led me to bring in those screenshots and in every one of them, the Scientists agreed they were Complex.

Those scientists may agree on complexity, but that's where the consensus ends. What's missing is the leap from complexity to intelligent design, which you are struggling to demonstrate so far. Correlation doesn't imply causation, my friend. Don't hide behind "the scientists said so". They're not oracles. Their findings are open to interpretation. Where are your thoughts? Citing studies doesn't absolve you of critical thinking, I hope you know that. By the way, how do you really define fiction, because you seem to be confusing natural selection, an observed, documented and experimentally confirmed process, with intelligent design, which, conveniently, has no testable hypothesis, let alone empirical evidence. How much longer are you going to keep up this wilful self deceit?

If a researcher , after all his experiments documented that that Natural selection didnt apply, why why should i agree with you, a zealous Atheists with no known journal written from experimental researches, one who is only wishing that Science should remain perfect with zero failure. You can check those weblinks I dropped

If a researcher, after all their experiments, documented that natural selection "didn't apply", then I'd be the first to question the validity of those experiments or the researcher's methodology. But until then, I think I'll just stick to the overwhelming, peer reviewed body of evidence that actually, you know, supports the theory of evolution. And maybe you're right about me being a "zealous atheist". I am quite zealous about the idea that we should base our beliefs on reason and evidence, rather than on ancient texts or creative fantasies.

I've been sitting on this response for close to a week now. It's been an eventful week for me, and there'll probably be more ahead given my schedule. So don't expect a quick response after this.

EmperorCaesar:
I laughed widely while reading this. You sound funny and harsh. Unreal and amusing combination

Like you said in your reply to Negroid01 on his thread, You said "Speaking for myself, I enjoy arguing with people who I believe are clearly bent on winning by any means necessary, even through sheer duplicity, because I want to give their ego a run for its money. In my experience, these kind of people can't deal with someone who's willing to go back and forth with them for lengthy periods,... ",


Now, thats the situation we currently have here. Not like i run out of points, but your replies are usually so full and with many questions that i get really overwhelmed and do not know how to start the defense and If it wasnt for this " I call it the way I see it, and if you don't like it then maybe you should stop talking to me for the sake of your mental health. Besides, you're not being consistent with your own words. You said you're a masochist, didn't you? So why the incessant complaints? By your own admission, you enjoy your arguments being exposed and shot down without mercy, or did I misunderstand you?", I would have stopped replying long ago, just like i ran away in February

This bolded is my sole Motivation in this argument. I debate with you because those harsh words from you really makes me high not neccessarily because of the God Argument, I deliberately resume the debate after seeing what you did to Dtruth (The bashing was heavenly and I wish those comments were for me. i envied him). I have screenshots of most of your attacks at me and I read them whenever I'm less busy, just to feel good.

And yea, when i complain, its not because i dont want it, Its actually because I know that the complains would subsconsciously send the message to you that I'm vulnerable and that would make you double the attack....And yea, you've always done that Thanks a lot and I expect to read more humiliating comments from you.

I hope this continues tho and dont run away. Topics full ground to discuss and sure, I have cogent points to use in any debate

Please read this part of your response very closely and see how pathetic and disturbed you really sound. Being a perpetual star victim is not something I'd imagine any mentally stable person would wilfully admit to. Although it's a remarkable feat of mental gymnastics -- convincing yourself that you are powerless while actively seeking out anguish. I wonder what the ultimate goal of this grand exercise in self-destruction is. You just sound like an obsessive attention seeker here, and it's really not the flex you unfortunately seem to think it is. Not only do you dishonestly insist that my comments are insults even after I have taken the time to explain what I'm saying, you still refer to them as statements that placate your weird and disturbing fetishes. You're just a scared hypocrite that can't own up to genuine criticisms. Please cultivate some genuine self-esteem, and for the love of all that is sane, stop embarrassing yourself. Only reason I still bother responding to you is for the sake of the debate we are having about intelligent design. Going forward, I will desist from responding to any more comments from you indulging in emotional self-immolation. Your twisted performance has reached its curtain call with me.

The most interesting thing about you is how you go over a particulars person's argument with few reasonable points thats are relatable in the world of Physical Science and still manage to say that they dont have a decent argument

The reason you keep tripping over yourself in these conversations is because you can't understand subtle differences between concepts. Having "reasonable points" is not the same thing as presenting a convincing counter argument. What you're calling reasonable points are just individual statements that may hold merit in isolation. But any merit those points may have do not count if they can't be cohesive, relevant, and effective enough to address an opposing viewpoint. It's very possible to make reasonable points that lack contextual relevance, depth, and persuasive power. I'll try to give an example here. Imagine I'm a doctor and you're a patient coming to me for a diagnosis. I might make several reasonable statements about the symptoms you've told me, but if my observations can not culminate in, and/or provide an accurate diagnosis or effective treatment plan, they're of limited value. You keep asserting that you have reasonable points, yet you can't properly demonstrate how they collectively strength your argument. So the way I see it, the substance of my critique remains unchallenged.

Stop talking down my argument abeg. And you're even lucky that I'm really quick to skip arguments and jump to other points cause if i actually took out time to reply most of your counter-Argument, you will get tired of your almighty science concepts and that too is because I have too many points to debate with. Had i have just one or two, you for hear am

I already knew this for quite some time, but it's funny to see you finally admitting that you're skipping over the parts of my argument where I'm actually making a case. Another duplicitous tactic used by those who can't adequately defend their positions. It's sad that you'll sacrifice everything within you, including your integrity, just because you want to "beat me" in an argument. You're really going out sad here, you have no idea.

As for the bolded, if it was that easy, the last time i threw numerous questions about 'instinctive animals behaviours' at you, you would have highlighted them one after the other and start responding to all, Instead, you lump them all together and assigned a variable to them. Natural selection.

I did address the topic of instinctive animal behaviors by pointing out that natural selection is a well-established mechanism explaining many of these phenomena. You're not entitled to a lengthy, point-by-point response when a single, well-established concept can elegantly address multiple related queries. Ever heard of parsimony? Insisting on elaborate responses to what essentially boils down to the same question demonstrates your lack of understanding of the principle of parsimony. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why natural selection doesn't adequately explain the phenomena you questioned.

At the bolded, thats exactly who you are. You are just tryna project your own weakness on me.

You may not neccessarily be in this to win a debate but, but every other thing you said here describes you. You said it then that "I understand your concerns, but don't fret. For someone of his cognitive level, It really doesn't take me more than 15 minutes to dismantle any pathetic argument he tries to present, so it's no skin of my nose.". You size up peoples intellectual level after their first two replies to you and if you notice they arent as high as you think, you go straight into asserting dominance in the argument, while constantly questioning my intellectual level

You've done it to every single person you've debated with and you once told me that "Knowing who i am, you wouldnt expect me to pull out some kinda argument you feel were for intellectually higher people". Now, how does this action not relate with trying to prove intellectual superiority. Again, Most of your comments are the true definition of who you are. Read them up again and see the true and unbias you

Are you sure you really understand what projection means? Take a good and careful squint at your post above. Your response is practically a verbatim recitation of my own criticisms, only with the pronouns reversed. It's almost as if you're holding up a mirror, but instead of merely gazing into it, you're merely reflecting your own intellectual laziness. If you're going to accuse me of pedantry, at least have the intellectual courage to define what that means in this context. You must be having a laugh trying to equate my assessments of people's argumentative style and competence to me trying to win a debate. It's a hilarious non-sequitur that proves you're utterly clueless here, throwing every single unfounded and/or unsupported accusation you can think of towards me, and hoping it sticks.

On this NL, you are the only one thats questioned my intellectual level multiple times and still go away with it without getting attacked,have yours questioned or even getting battered heavily for it and I have my reasons.

So me no dey follow you drag Einstein brain, and Ye, you're right, I badly wanna win the argument and I will. A loss to you would shatter many things in me.

Lol. I'm sure keen readers with a good sense of humour will appreciate the irony of you claiming that you're not "dragging Einstein's brain with me" and still admitting a weird obsession with "winning" me and proving a point, rather than engaging in an honest and meaningful exchange of ideas.

Nothing impresses you, so forget this. You act like a robot, like you only scan through arguments and like you dont read them at all

I tried to Impress u in March and i almost ran mad. Now, I'm bigger than that and i dont have to keep showboating to prove one irrelevant point to a random stranger online. I just drop my points and expect the usually "Your argument is baseless and devoid of logic" review from you.

It's okay. I'm very familiar with the scent of sour grapes. Instead of getting defensive, may I suggest actually getting better with providing substantive arguments? I definitely do not just "scan through" your posts, and if you really think I do, then maybe you're the one projecting your own lack of attention to detail because my responses have been poignant criticisms of your views, which you either don't address adequately, or don't even address at all.

Dont misunderstand me. I didnt admit to anything. You just know how to use plenty words and good English to sweep home your points and thats why I said you could easily argue for God's existence and still win vs some Atheists

I guess this is one skill you took your time to learn and you keep improving on it while praying for days like this to come and thats why you vould easily call out any Theist to test out your skills on them

If my arguments are merely "sweeping" due to vocabulary, then I'm curious why you've been having so much difficulty countering with facts, as opposed to assertions about my language skills. After all, sound reasoning and evidence shouldn't be intimidated by grammar or syntax. I love the backhanded compliment, by the way -- implying I could convincingly argue for God's existence. That's precisely the point: in a debate, one must address the arguments, not the person's perceived skills or biases, using them as a springboard to support your own position.

The bolded is condescending, objectifying and dehumanizing.
You said Dtruth was like 'Your target practice' and now I'm a circus show for your entertainment. Dont let me vex,put you in your place abeg

Same argument I'm putting my all is what you refer to as an "Entertainment till you are bored" to you. Thats disrespectful?
And please, If you really mean it that you are using me to pass time, lemme know now, so i can disengage already, cause its gonna make me feel dumb if you suddenly pull out just because you are "bored".

A whole human is what you see as source of entertainment . So, when u call us out, You only see us as Punching bag and circus show till you are bored. Who do you even think you are? You overrate yourself and its annoying.

Once again the context of my response eludes you. I wasn't even talking of the debate, I was specifically referring to your constant whinging about me always having a counter and having good argumentative skills as if it's a bad thing. At this point, I think it's safe to say that your fragile ego has been thoroughly exposed over the past month by your own very self. It's funny how it didn't take very long for the veil of intellectual pretension to lift, revealing the emotional instability beneath your facade. And yes, your responses have been weirdly entertaining to an extent. The outrage, the needless offense-taking, the appeals to emotional validity... it's all so hilarious when you take a step back to really observe. Anyways, I actually don't "overrate" myself. In fact, I don't consider myself very smart. I'm just someone who values truth, facts and evidence. My knowledge is not original. Everything I've said here are basic criticisms made to basic arguments from Christian apologists. It's nothing new for me. If you feel like a "punching bag," that's because your positions are weak, not because I'm exceptionally skilled.
If you're really that upset about what I said, then you can take your ball and go home. I promise you I won't be "bored" -- As amusing as it was, I'll just be relieved of the pity of watching you flail. Your dignity will survive, I assure you.

EmperorCaesar, DevilsEqual, CyrusVI (I'm quoting all three monikers because I don't know which of them you'll be logging on with next.

I'd still like to see you make an attempt at the question I posed in my last riposte (the one about the instincts of a moth). But meanwhile, your entire "Intelligent Design" narrative has made me recall important questions that have arisen in my past debates on this topic. Questions that, as far as I can tell, nobody has managed to provide a sufficient answer to. Now, you keep latching on to the notion of "design", using "complexity" to reinforce your standpoint. Ignoring the fact that your idea or concept of complexity could just be based on your own subjective assessment of what is considered complex, I need to understand what your definition of complex is, and what tools you use to measure complexity. More importantly, I want to know how you can recognize design, and how you can tell a designed object from a non-designed object. Basically for you to understand what is classified as a living thing, you have to understand what is classified as a non-living thing as well. The same logic applies. Can you show me an example of something that wasn't designed? I'm interested to read your answer. Also, are you certain that intelligent design and natural selection are truly dichotomous? Are you making the assertion that there are no alternative explanations for complexity that do not involve supernatural design?

EmperorCaesar:
This is the first time i had an argument so strong and overpowering that you just had to throwing baseless counters. In fact, this is the shortest response you've ever given to any of my arguments since February(Day1) and thats because i used references, and too many overwhelming evidences that you couldnt even shread them apart like the typical you but just had to lump them together and throw in your undocumented probabilities as usual. Now I know what it feels like to be you for the first time(It feels sweet seeing you struggle to come out with a factual counter-argument that could either be referenced or presented as the sole and true answers to my questions.

If anything, the fact that my responses are terse and/or brief should let you know that you're not giving me anything tangible to work with. If you were the least bit self-aware, you would have discovered that your entire argument boils down to this: X cannot be explained, therefore God exists. It's basically a rehash of the same creationist logic, and I've repeatedly pointed out to you that you're committing a God of the Gaps fallacy. Not that you care to address this point anyway, because it is a distraction from your inane propaganda, and you have insisted on doubling down on your ignorance. Your arguments are not hard to figure out. Whenever you encounter something you are finding difficult to comprehend, you conveniently jump to the conclusion that it must be the work of a supernatural being in a sad attempt to avoid the hard work of critical thinking. You don't even realize that you're stuck chasing your tail here. As for me, I'll just keep pointing out your flaws to you, until you finally take a step back and realize that you've walked yourself into a self-inflicted minefield with this argument. It's funny seeing you stroke your ego though. Then again, we both know you can't help it because your sense of worth is tied to this discussion.

Also, Its funny that you think I've run out of points. Sis, I still have two bigger points to present
1)Human Brain/Coordination of the Endocrine System
2)My biggest weapon, DNA complexities.

Just to show you how predictable your arguments are, I'm going to take a wild guess and assert that you'll probably try to wow me with some half-baked, surface-level "facts" about the brain's complexity, utterly ignoring the vast amounts of research on neuroplasticity and adaptability. Following this, you might attempt to link it to the endocrine system, hoping to create some sort of vague, pseudoscientific narrative about "balance" and "harmony." Your DNA is also likely going to be another "it's too complex, therefore God" type of argument where you cherry-pick some stats about genome size, base pairs, and whatnot, without grasping the underlying principles of molecular biology or the sheer amount of scientific evidence that might contradict you. Now surprise me and prove me wrong.

I could have added the Human Eye, but i wont cause i could deduce from your earlier stories that you already defeated some xtians on that.

If you're so confident in your argument, why not tender it anyway? Are you so certain you won't be able to convince me? Or do you suspect deep down that you're just blowing hot air?

75% of your total response, the same one thats being quoted here, is just the repetition of your past responses. You keep claiming that Theists brings God into any argument they dont understand or into any arguments that Science itself cant explain for the meantime. I agree with that but like i said earlier too, Atheists or Scientists too are always quick to do same , by filling every gaps with with Natural Selection and evolution, same processes that still has many unresolved questions

You keep saying scientists are just filling in the gaps, ignoring the fact that the scientific method is a product of rigorous thought and experimentation, unlike intelligent design which doesn't even have a testable hypothesis, and is heavily based on imagination and speculation. Trying to insinuate that these two methods are the same by comparing theists with scientists is straight up hilarious. Natural selection and evolution might have their limitations and unanswered questions, but at least they are grounded in empirical evidence and the scientific method. You are comparing apples to oranges here. As for my responses being repetitive, I'm glad you took notice. Nothing you have said here is new, and when I point out the flaw in one argument, you end up bringing up yet another argument based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that complexity must imply design. So the same criticisms will apply. You're making my job easy here, because you're practically repeating the same arguments albeit in different dressings and appearance.

Although many elements of evolution may be explained by natural selection, the evolution of highly specialized behaviors is not entirely explained by it. Why, for instance, do arctic terns migrate thousands of miles on instinct? Sometimes it's unclear what the precise genetic and evolutionary paths are.

One thing is certain: you are quite imaginative. However, your imagination cannot and will not make up for your lack of understanding about evolutionary biology. The migratory patterns of the Arctic terns is not a solitary feat. It only just constitutes a wider range of adaptations, including their specialized physiology and their remarkable endurance. Over millions of years, countless variations have been tested, refined, and passed on to successive generations so yes, we can actually posit that the terns' migratory instinct is just a culmination of this long, arduous process. You're severely underestimating the power of time and the ingenuity of evolution if you think that such adaptation is beyond the reach of natural selection.

For example, I deliberately mentioned the Arctic Tern and it was the Number1 on my list and thats because till today, they still dont understand "how complex behaviors (like migration patterns or social cooperation) evolved. Some scientists argue that these gaps suggest we don’t fully understand the mechanisms behind instinct, especially in this very bird and few other groups of animals". I know you just pulled out your own watery defense from your head cause if you had look it up at all, you would know why i made it top of my list

Actually my explanation aligns perfectly with the prevailing scientific consensus, so I'm not pulling anything from my head. Natural selection and the genetic drift involve basic mechanisms that can provide a framework robust enough to understand how complex behaviors like migration evolved, in spite of nuances we still need to explore. The basic mechanisms of migration are well understood. Birds use a combination of magnetic fields, and learned landmarks to navigate vast distances. Also, I hope you're well aware that the concept of instinct is itself a subject of ongoing debate among biologists. Some define it as innate behavior patterns that are genetically determined, while others view it as a complex interplay of genetic predispositions and environmental influences. Regardless of the definition, the fact remains that these behaviors are shaped by evolutionary processes. You seem to share the opinion that science is all about proving absolute truths. That's probably the biggest misconception about the scientific method in history. Science is strictly all about developing the best possible explanations based on available evidence. As our knowledge grows, our understanding of complex phenomena like migration will undoubtedly become more refined. Science evolves too, and past knowledge can be overwritten based on new data. So it is safe to say that your understanding of the subject matter is deeply flawed, and your attempts to undermine the scientific consensus are misguided. But do you care? I don't think so. Your most recent comments suggest to me that you have ulterior motives in this discussion and are not particularly concerned if you're actually making valid points or not. Also, you might have missed it the first time I asked, but I'm still curious to know your answer to this question: why would a god design instincts that sometimes lead to self-destruction, like the instinct of moths to fly towards light, often leading to their demise?

That you discarded all the questions I asked about Arctic Terns and even just randomly and blindly tied Natural selections to it shows you really dont understand how Scientific theories work. It is not by attributing every damn thing to evolution, it is by experimentally testing this concept on every presented anomaly to check the consistency of the theory and if it applies to all cases, and when it doesnt, it raises argument about the validity from other evolutionary scientists and this is what makes science stands out against philosophy and Art, as it can be tested overtime and must valid at all times. And in few cases, like in this Bird's case, they have failed, prompting evolutionary Scientists alike to acknowledge same thing Darwin did over 200years ago, that this trait is too complex to be explained away by just Natural selection and that the Genetic pathway for it is unclear. Same as my last post on this. Your counter-attack for this is too weak to even scratch a part of the surface, not to talk of poking some imaginary holes in it...Not any diff from using a cotton bud to drill a hole through a tortoise shell. Ineffective.

Now you're just setting up straws and knocking them down all by yourself. The theory of evolution does not claim to explain every single trait of every single organism. I don't know where you got that weird idea from. The only thing the theory of evolution seeks to accomplish is to understand the diversity of life. You might as well argue that because we cannot explain the origin of the universe, we must discard the laws of physics. That's not how it works. And how can you demand a controlled experiment for, a process that cannot be easily replicated in a laboratory? A process taking place over millions of years? Experimental testing for every phenomenon is a laudable aspiration, but one that is often impractical, especially when dealing with historical events or complex biological systems.

I dropped three other screenshots from recent Scientific researches dedicated how and Natural Selection failed to explain these things, One of the Conclusion from the researches claim "How connections (such competition or cooperation) amongst species affect migration is another area of incomplete knowledge. How these interactions affect the reasons behind or the modes of animal migration is not well understood. Researchers must determine whether this deficiency in understanding stems from their own ignorance or from the insufficiency of empirical facts to support the development of models."

Even a child can deduce that social interactions influence behavior, but to claim that this is sufficient to disprove Natural Selection is like saying that gravity doesn't exist because people jump. I still don't see what the big deal is here. So the research paper ends with this statement: "Researchers must determine whether this deficiency in understanding stems from their own ignorance or from the insufficiency of empirical facts". Well, that's an interesting dilemma. But wait a minute! What if we just *gasp* continue conducting scientific research and gathering more data? I mean, isn't that how progress is made in science after all? By the way, I think it's hilarious the way you're trying your hardest to completely refute natural selection, considering that Darwin's theory has been the cornerstone of evolutionary biology for over a century. You're scoring own goals here.

Lemme help you with the conclusion of that Britannica Science article(Screenshot below and the website is 'ww-britannica-
com/science/migration-animal/Navigation-and-orientation'): "Two theories have been formulated to explain how birds use the Sun for orientation. Neither, however, has so far been substantiated with proof. One theory holds that birds find the right direction by determining the horizontal angle measured on the horizon from the Sun’s projection. They correct for the Sun’s movement by compensating for the changing angle and thus are able to maintain the same direction. According to this theory, the Sun is a compass that enables the birds to find and maintain their direction. This theory does not explain, however, the manner in which a bird, transported and released in an experimental situation, determines the relationship between the point at which it is released and its goal.

Make sure u read the screenshots below and also visit those science site too


My Point is, In as much as I wouldnt just drag God into any Science failings, I also wouldnt rush in with Probabilities of Natural Selections, especially in cases where some Scientific researches couldnt find evidences to support those claims

I'm fine with not rushing into conclusions on anything. I'm not the one who has that problem. It's you. By suggesting that the limitations of our current understanding somehow justify invoking the divine, you're essentially saying, "Science can't explain it, therefore God." As for me, I only follow where the evidence leads, and there's more evidence to support natural selection than there is to support intelligent design. Furthermore, it will do you a lot of good to realize that the scientific method is designed to accommodate uncertainty and revise our understanding as new evidence emerges. It's okay to say "we don't know yet" without conjuring up supernatural explanations. The history of science is replete with examples of mysterious phenomena eventually yielding to natural explanations, once our tools and knowledge improve.

If I would have to go with that as an Atheist, then i see no difference between me and a Theist who is quick to bring in the God factors into everything.

And this my point agrees with what Stephen Hawkings said about the God argument on September 7,2010 that "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” In discussing the book, he told ABC News: “One can't prove that God doesn't exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”

Theists and Atheists are both right and wrong. Both are cant disprove or prove God's existence. So, Na Draw the thing finish.

I would actually agree with you here if it weren't for the concept of the burden of proof in theological discussions. Claiming that theists and atheists are equally right and wrong oversimplifies the dialectic. The burden of proof lies with those positing the existence of a deity. Atheism, by definition, merely withholds belief in the absence of empirical evidence.

In the end, its funny to think that in this kinda debate, one with zero references so far and with 20% AI content for her defense, is quick to attack the other person with multiple references, with 1% plagiarism and 0% AI content with having "a laughable and weak baseless arguments"(U fit argue this one o, make i drop screenshots from AI detectors)

You don't measure the validity or strength of an argument by the number of references, but by the soundness of the reasoning and the evidence provided. I've engaged in various types of discourse over the years. I personally do not bother myself about people who use online resources like Google or bots, as long as their arguments are coherent and are not convoluted. You can have all the online resources available to you and still end up making an argument that is dead on arrival because you do not have a fundamental understanding of what the argument is supposed to be about.

EmperorCaesar:
I have read this response for three days now yet i dont even know how to reply.

Actually, it's very easy to explain why you're having this difficulty. The truth is you're out of ideas, but you've refused to concede. It's a common condition where one's ego outweighs their arguments. At this point, you're just trying to squeeze water from a stone, which means you're probably just going to end up with a handful of nothing. But don't let me stop you. Watching you get emotional and melodramatic about a random stranger online supposedly having better arguments than you is entertaining to watch for the meantime, until I get bored at least. Obviously your self-esteem is tied to these arguments.

My Cyrus Moniker was banned again and I will have to use this one. I do wish tho, that It got banned for showing you pepper but then, other weaklings got hit by the spear and they had to cry to the Mod. I cant wait to punish you so bad that you'll have to run to them too

First of all, let's even address your "punishment" fantasies. Your threats are as laughable as your arguments. Let me guess, your "punishment" involves yet another fundamental misunderstanding of basic facts and ideas? Or yet another run-of-the-mill apologetics argument without evidence? Or maybe even resorting to outright insults because you've completely run out of tangible points to make? Perhaps you'll even try to outsmart me with a particularly profound observation about the weather? Surely you don't believe you're fooling anyone here with your tough-guy act? If you want to lash out with petty insults, please go ahead. You'll be doing me a huge favor honestly because it means that my previous comments about you are completely justified. You can't handle the heat of a critical debate, you just expect people to take your arguments at face value and agree with you because you don't want your feelings hurt. In your mind, you share the same identity with your arguments and that's why every form of criticism feels like an insult to you. Listen, if you reeaaally want to "punish" me, please try coming up with solid empirical evidence to prove your points for once, instead of relying on guesses and resigned speculation. You're the one trying to prove things to me. I'm the one examining your claims. Do you understand how the burden of proof works? You're the one mandated to prove your case, so you better piss or get off the pot. Come up with something that doesn't involve childish, entitled behavior and delusional threats. Don't be a keyboard warrior.

I have apologized multiple times during the cause of the lil argument and thats because for everytime i called you out, you've cunningly been able turn the whole accusations on its head and make it seem like they were personal attacks, yet for every single time i tried to also point out your ad hominem attacks, you would never apologize but instead give it some palatable names like "Fair assessment" and "descriptive phrase". Whats more worse is the fact that you dont see this as manipulations and even tried to attach it with being "Logically precise"

You're wrong. I've been very consistent with my judgements here, and I've been trying to explain to you that you're having misapprehensions about what I've been saying, but at this point, it appears you've chosen to play deaf. My goal has always been to address the core issues of our disagreement, and I've tried to do so in a strictly logical manner. There's a common axiom in the science community that "bad ideas exist to be destroyed". I believe that if we should seek to establish actual undeniable facts, feelings should have no place in the discussion because they can result in bias and making up lies. If you choose to take my words personally, that's your problem. You either admit to your own faults or explain to me why I'm wrong, using convincing logic. You've made your own judgements and criticisms about my character and person. You didn't see me whinge about it, instead I used logic to show why your judgements about me were wrong and pointed out any fallacies you committed in your assertions. I've always maintained that my statements have been descriptive, not personal. You've mentioned that I don't see this as manipulation. Maybe you're right, but I believe that my approach is based on a commitment to clear thinking and honest dialogue. I don't add salt or sugar to my words. I call it the way I see it, and if you don't like it then maybe you should stop talking to me for the sake of your mental health. Besides, you're not being consistent with your own words. You said you're a masochist, didn't you? So why the incessant complaints? By your own admission, you enjoy your arguments being exposed and shot down without mercy, or did I misunderstand you?

I have always thought critically and it has nothing to do with you. My being overwhelmed comes from the fact that you asking too many questions, throw up too many false assumptions and very many accusations that i have really hard to debunk one after the other

Interesting. So if I'm the one throwing up "false assumptions and accusations", then why do you seem so desperately defensive, yet struggle to make a convincing counter-argument to prove me wrong? You're obviously articulate enough and can at least put up a decent argument, so why can't you seem to convincingly destroy my "false assumptions"? Have you considered that it's because you know, deep down, that I'm hitting the nail right on the head? Or maybe you're just not as critical as you think you are? Either way, it's clear that you're not very good at handling the truth. Do yourself a favor and look up the meaning of cognitive dissonance. I believe you'll have a better understanding of what's truly going on here if you honestly and diligently study what it means. And by the way, I'm not sure how you expect to handle the complexities of the real world if you're easily overwhelmed by a few pertinent questions.

Batter and Batter(in Baking, like Cake Batter). I like that

Thats Poetic. Word Play and Punchline that even Lil Wayne would be proud of

Whatever you say.

This one na grammar. E fit sure for you, make we leave religion matter enter my main field. Then you will understand my current feeling and why most footballers struggle when played in the wrong/unfamiliar position

I find it interesting that you're suggesting we switch fields to prove intellectual superiority. It's as if you believe expertise in one area automatically translates to authority in all others, when in reality, intellectual discourse requires more than just specialized knowledge. It demands critical thinking, logical reasoning, and effective communication -- skills that aren't limited to a single domain. I have to say though: this desperate obsession to prove your intellectual superiority to me is strengthening my belief that you feel insecure about your ability to hold a meaningful conversation without resorting to pedantry. Or maybe you're just trying to compensate for something else. Perhaps you're afraid of being wrong, or maybe you simply enjoy hearing the sound of your own voice. Whatever the reason, it's clear that you're more interested in winning arguments than in actually understanding or connecting with others. Can you not see a problem with this? Or have you just finally decided to fully sacrifice integrity and authenticity at the altar of self-validation and egoism?

I guess the major reason why you keep going harder to say belittling things is because i encouraged it with my soft approach to you and that has to stop now.
Well for me, I thought it takes greater courage to show vulnerability like i used to do(the one you call"being emotional or complaining", but i guess i was wrong. From now on, I'm never doing that again

I will start hitting you like i hit those minnows that got me banned. We all can be aggressive without being insulting.

Vulnerability is about being honest and open, not whinging and complaining. But whatever the case, it's fine. I definitely won't miss the waterworks. And please, by all means, "hit me" with your best shot. I'm not looking for insults, I'm looking for substance. I'm looking for objective, rational thought, devoid of emotions. If you can manage to land a solid critical argument without resorting to petty jabs, I promise I'll be very impressed.

I ran through all our arguements and realized somethings

1)In my bid to corner you, I shot myself in the foot. You are more comfortable in debating with Theists on those topics I took to you and all you did was to use your past argument, past articles and others to tackle me. Maybe I would have fared better if i debated with Philosophy and History. It really pained me

Evidence doesn't care about your feelings or your preferred fields of discourse. It's not about being "comfortable" debating with theists; it's about being grounded in reality. I didn't need to reinvent the wheel to counter your tired arguments because the truth doesn't change just to accommodate your fragile ego.

2) You are an excellent debater. Most of your points arent even solid, still based on probabilities and assumptions that was brought forward to fill in the gaps and lapses of evolution and it all made it look like a script from Sci-Fi. The only that stood you out is your argumentative skills.

Probabilities and assumptions are simply characteristics of science. Like I said earlier, it is a constant process of refining our understanding based on evidence. Unlike certain belief systems, I don't need to rely on ancient texts or divine revelations to fill in the gaps. I simply point out the flaws in your arguments and let the facts speak for itself. After all, the burden of proof isn't on me to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place. My arguments were based on the lack of evidence for your supernatural claims. The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary assertions, not on those pointing out the holes in their logic.

I noticed that even if we swapped places(If you argued for God and I do same for Atheism), you'd still have a upper hand and even win effortlessly. A good debater, like a Lawyer, would defend even a murder case and the accused would get vindicated. Being a good debater made it easy for you to take control of any discussion(This one is your biggest weapon).I ran through your past discussions and i saw you've never played a Second fiddle in any argument before.

You dont have enough points to argue Gods existence, you are just very skilled in attacking, defending, and taking control of any debate, regardless of what topic is being discussed.

I'm flattered that you think I'm skilled, but let's not forget: I'm not obligated to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist. My role is to poke holes in your arguments, which I believe, and even you yourself admitted here, I have done successfully. And you're right. I could defend any topic with ease, not because I'm biased, but because I rely on reason and evidence. If your arguments were solid, they'd withstand scrutiny. Instead, you try to paint me being a skilled debater, as if it detracts from the substance of what I'm saying. I'm not here to "win" or convince you of my non-belief. I'm here to challenge your claims and encourage critical thinking. If you struggle to accept that, then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your beliefs. I don't need "enough points" to argue against God's existence. I simply need you to provide convincing evidence, which, so far, has been lacking. Until then, I'll continue to ask questions and expose the flaws in your arguments. That's how debates work.

Lastly, I would like to be your Nairaland Friend, I have 10000 questions to ask about the educational/academic aspect of you.

As it says on my profile page, I'm not looking for friends here. If you have a question you're dying to ask, you can go ahead and ask. If I feel the need to answer, I will. If I consider the question too personal for my taste, I'll decline.

CyrusVI:
Thats rich, coming from a Novelist and a student of philosophy. You think we are discussing the Poetic style of Homer and John Keat, Socratic method of argument, and Shakespeare writing style?

You see, now this is a very good example of the ad hominem fallacy (a personal attack on the individual rather than addressing the argument). Here, you're trying to discredit my expertise by pointing out my background in literature and philosophy, as if that has any relevance here, or it somehow negates my ability to understand scientific concepts. I don't know if you're hoping to distract from the fact that your arguments so far have been as flimsy as a house made of sand.

I will be talking about Instincts in animals and how it supports an intelligent design.

I'm already disappointed. Sounds like yet another attempt to shoehorn the natural world into a supernatural narrative. But let's see where you're headed with this anyway.

Remember, I talked about Darwins book on Natural selection in my first comment and theres a place where he said his evolutionary theory cant explain "Mental power" and that he cannot tell the readers how instinct developed and got inherited.(Check the screenshot i attached below, its a page where Darwin addressed his views on instinct and evolutionary limitations. Maybe you should read it before going through my main post)

Darwin was right to point out the complexity of instinct. However, that doesn't mean a divine watchmaker had to wind it up. Evolution, with its billions of years of trial and error, can produce incredibly intricate and adaptive behaviors. I'm more interested to see if you can explain how a divine being would have programmed instincts like migration patterns or social hierarchies. Or you could even tell me why a god would design instincts that sometimes lead to self-destruction, like the instinct of moths to fly towards light, often leading to their demise.

Now the intelligent designs are:

First is the Arctic terns. After Nesting north of the Arctic Circle, at summer’s end they fly south to spend the Antarctic summer on the pack ice near the South Pole. They might travel all the way around Antarctica before turning north to go back to the Arctic. Thus, they finish a yearly migration that covers over 22,000 miles. Given that there are abundant food sources in both polar areas, One wonders how it was ever discovered that these sources were so far apart

As usual, you've jumped into conclusions. Not that I'm surprised anyway; I was expecting something like this. There's nothing special here. As a matter of fact, I can use this exact same point to make an argument supporting evolution! Natural selection has favored terns with the genetic traits that enable them to make such long migrations over countless generations. Those that were better at finding food in both polar regions, and had the stamina to fly between them, were more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on their genes to the next generation. And as for the discovery of food sources, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that a bird "discovered" something. It's more likely that their ancestors simply evolved to exploit whatever resources were available in their environment. And since the polar regions are rich in food, it's not surprising that terns would eventually find their way to both.

Another is the Blackpoll Warbler
It is quite light—just 0.75 ounces. However, it moves from Alaska to the eastern seaboard of Canada or New England during the fall, where it stores fat and feeds on food before waiting for a cold front. The bird takes off as it arrives. It travels first toward Africa and then toward South America. It picks up a prevailing wind over the Atlantic Ocean, reaching up to 20,000 feet in altitude, which directs it toward South America.

A tiny bird, barely heavier than a dollar bill, flies thousands of miles across the ocean, using wind currents and stored fat to navigate, and you think that's evidence of intelligent design? Lol. While we're at it, let's attribute the invention of the wheel to a divine being, too. After all, it's pretty complex, isn't it? The idea that such a simple biological process requires a supernatural explanation is a classic case of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. So far, you're just using your god as a placeholder for your ignorance.

Now,
How does the warbler know that a cold front will bring pleasant weather and a tailwind, and when to wait for it?
How does it know to climb higher and higher into thin, frigid air with half the oxygen that it formerly had?
How does it know that the crosswind that will take it to South America only blows that high?
How does it know that it should fly toward Africa so that this wind might move southwest?
None of these things are conscious knowledge to the blackpoll. It is guided only by instinct on this 2,400-mile journey over uncharted waters, which takes three or four days and nights to complete.

You're assuming that the warbler can "know" anything in the human sense. It doesn't have a conscious thought process like we do. Its behavior is driven by instinct, which is a complex set of genetic traits honed over millions of years through natural selection. The idea that a warbler "knows" when a cold front will bring pleasant weather and a tailwind is a stretch. It's more likely that the warbler has evolved behaviors that are generally beneficial in certain environmental conditions. If those behaviors lead to increased survival and reproduction, then they're more likely to be passed on to future generations.

Also, A hummingbird beats its wings up to 75 times per second for 25 hours throughout its migration.


Another point is that some young birds often migrate for the first time in the absence of adults. It is said by NATGEO that New Zealand long-tailed cuckoo chicks journey 4,000 miles to Pacific islands to reunite with their parents, who left earlier.


Now, the question is
How do birds manage to navigate through these situations?
It appears from experiments that they might make use of the stars and sun. They seem to be equipped with internal clocks to adjust for these celestial bodies' movements. What if, however, the sky is cloudy?
Then, at least some birds come equipped with integrated magnetic compasses. However, a compass direction alone is insufficient.
They require a mental "map" that includes the starting and ending positions. Additionally, as the path is rarely a straight line, it needs to be highlighted on the map. However, none of this is helpful unless they are aware of their location on the map!

Aside birds, Animals like the Caribou In Alaska, go 800 miles south during the winter.
Numerous whales journey more than 6,000 miles from the Arctic Ocean to the coast.
Green sea turtles travel 1,400 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean from the Brazilian coast to tiny Ascension Island and back.

ww-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov/(replace those "-" with "." and add another 'W') I didnt this cause of anti-spam whatever and thats the main source of all my claims


The nests of emperor penguins are built-in. The female lays an egg and spends two or three months fishing during the Antarctic winter. The male deposits the egg on his heavily vascularized foot and covers it with a brood pouch that dangles from his belly. A mother never forgets her father or her child. The mother returns shortly after the egg hatches, regurgitating food for them from her full stomach. After that, the mother places the infant on her feet and covers it with her brood pouch while the male goes fishing.

More appeals to ignorance as I expected. I still don't see why a supernatural explanation should suffice here. When faced with competing explanations, the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely to be correct (Occam's Razor). Evolution, genetics, and environmental pressures provide a more parsimonious explanation for these phenomena than intelligent design. You're chasing the wind here.

Lets move away from Migration,

How can millions of blind termites coordinate their efforts to construct and cool their intricate buildings?

How does the pronuba moth know which actions to take in order to cross-pollinate the yucca flower in order to create more moths and yucca plants?

How does the blind and immature bean-sized newborn kangaroo realize that it needs to climb through its mother's fur to reach her tummy and pouch on its own in order to survive?

How do underwater "diving bell" spiders know that it needs to make a hole in its bell, let out the old air, patch the hole, and bring down a fresh supply of air when the oxygen is gone?

Not like these animals were taught. Some that were separated from birth still exhibit this same characteristics

The answer to them all is:INSTINCT

Like Darwin, modern Scientists cant also explain how "Instinct" is developed and passed down and thats cause the genetic mechanism shows no indication of being capable of transmitting specific behavior patterns/how they transmit particular behavioural trait nor explain how instinctive pattern first developed and became fixed in heredity

You know right? Intelligent Design(Check the screenshot below again)

Also, Please dont have answers to this cause if you do, chaiii

This is just a long-winded way for you to say, "I don't know how this thing works, therefore God!". It's not the mind blowing argument you think it is. You have only just confused your lack of understanding with evidence for a designer. Instinct is simply a result of genetic adaptations that have been shaped by natural selection. Behaviors that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are more likely to be passed on to future generations. And your fixation on the idea of complexity is unnecessary. Complexity doesn't imply design. Natural selection, over millions of years, can produce incredibly intricate systems. The human eye is often touted as irreducibly complex. Yet, evolutionary biologists have traced its development from simpler precursors. Also, there's plenty of evidence that genes play a significant role in shaping behavior. Think about behavioral genetics studies, which have shown that traits like intelligence, personality, and even aggression have a genetic component. So yeah, this is just more "God of the Gaps" waffle if you asked me.

CyrusVI:
This exactly is why i called you those earlier names, I wont call you those again because you said they sounded disrespectful

Are you even listening to yourself? Do tell, what exactly is wrong with having a logical justification for everything? Never heard of critical thinking before? If you find it worrying that I prefer to understand and clarify things in a way that is logical and precise, then maybe you should take a step back and assess why you're so uncomfortable with someone who values reason and evidence.

You have a logical justification for everything and its worrying. Name-calling is wrong from whatever angle you use choose to look at it. Your are really lucky that this argument is done via texting and i really dint have the strength to drag you that much, if not, I would have keep justifying every single name i called you with screenshot of multiple instances where it occured

Serious question: are you telling me that you cannot tell the simple difference between descriptive phrases for a behavior, and an unjustified attack on character?

You are also lucky this argument is taking place on a topic I have never debated/discussed with anyone before now and thats the reason why I feel overwhelmed most of the times

Oh poor you! You're overwhelmed because you're actually having to think critically for the first time ever? How ever will you manage to handle this unprecedented level of intellectual stimulation? Do you need a safe space to recover from the trauma of being challenged?

If it was my area of specialty, this whole thing would have been done since as i would have battered every single thing u throw at me

Well, I'm sure your area of specialty is very impressive. I'm particularly impressed by your ability to batter things without actually accomplishing anything. It's a truly unique talent. Maybe you should consider opening a bakery, or perhaps a battering ram rental service. I'm sure you'd be a huge success.

Its funny how i much of a monster i am elsewhere, only to get overpowered every single time I'm debating with you on your turf.

Maybe it's because your own turf is more like a puddle of insecurity, where even the most timid housefly would come out swinging. For as long as I've known you, you only seem to talk about semantics and grammar and other frivolous distractions. All you do is whinge and complain about your feelings like anybody is actually supposed to care.

Stop justifying your wrongs. Some of us are too morally conscious to go all the way with you in doing same

The moral high ground is always a convenient place to retreat to when your arguments crumble. Well done.

I would like to have a proper conversation with you. I want to ask you questions and stop making random assumptions about you
The questions is sure gonna be just about these debates and diff topics I have seen you discussed in the past, Not personal

Like, my logical reasoning have so much developed in the last few days, To be honest, When I'm debating with people in other sections, Its now looking like I emulate your writing and debating technique(not grammatically o, just logically and I mean "its now hard for anyone to corner me in debates". Its like some dusts of your qualities are rubbing off on me and its just three days of consecutive back and forth

So can i ask the questions,ma

Shoot.

CyrusVI:
Still ad hominem fallacy(you tryna undermine my perspective on science by implying that I don't understand the methodology)

Aaaand this is exactly what I'm saying. You don't even know what an ad hominem fallacy is. An ad hominem fallacy can only occur when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. In this case, I was specifically addressing your approach to scientific inquiry. I was not making a personal attack. I was highlighting the difference between knowing scientific facts and understanding the scientific method. It's a crucial distinction, and my point was that your response indicated a lack of grasp of the latter. That's not an attack on you personally, but rather a critique of your argumentative approach. If I wanted to commit an ad hominem fallacy, I'd say something like, "You're not smart enough to understand science." But that's not what I said. I said you don't understand how science works, which is a specific claim about your approach, not your character.

Again, You can pass your point across without having to dismiss my understanding of scientific methodology. They dont have to coexist in one statement

I'm not dismissing your understanding of scientific methodology. I'm simply stating that your application of that understanding is flawed. There's a difference between knowing the rules and playing the game correctly. Whenever your understanding leads to incorrect conclusions, then it's worth examining why. It's like when a surgeon can understand anatomy but still perform a botched operation. The knowledge is there, but the application is lacking.

I dont really want to go this route with you cause if i do, we might have to spend the whole year dragging minor issues and I dont want that

Or maybe you could just admit that you're out of your depth on this topic and leave the conversation to those who have a better understanding of the subject matter.

Theres nothing dishonest here. If i had brought forward my evidences with my hundreds of supports from science and historical perspectives, you'd have still tackled it straightaway that theres nothing Intelligent about it, hence my reasons for trying to tow this path first

So let me get this straight: you're admitting that you're afraid of presenting your "hundreds of supports" directly, because you anticipate that I'll dismiss them as "not intelligent"? Okay. Now ask yourself this question and be truthful to yourself: if your evidence is genuinely compelling and stands on its own merits, why assume I'd reject it without consideration? Why assume that anyone is going to reject it at all? If your argument is so airtight, why do you need to preemptively defend it against criticisms that haven't even been made yet? Well, I insist that your approach reeks of intellectual dishonesty because it prioritizes persuasion over genuine discussion. If you're so confident in your evidence, you would present it proudly and let's have a real conversation. Don't hide behind a smokescreen of criticisms and then cry foul when called out on it.

Plus, from my very first argument with you, my point was "In my search for the possible origin of life,I dumped my religious teachings to explore science teachings", and thats the reason why i talked about those Books from Dawkins and Hawkings, but then i realized there are too many probabilities in Science to my taken too seriously.

You claimed to have "dumped" your religious teachings to explore science, yet your arguments have consistently relied on strawman attacks against scientific theories rather than presenting a coherent, testable hypothesis for intelligent design. And now, you're saying that science has too many probabilities to be taken seriously? That's a classic case of moving the goalposts. You can't dismiss an entire field of study because it acknowledges the complexity and nuance of the natural world. Science isn't about providing certainties, it's about refining our understanding through evidence and observation. You're essentially arguing that because science doesn't provide absolute certainty, we should just throw it out and replace it with... what? A belief in a higher power? That's quite a leap of logic, even for someone who's already jumped ship from religion to science. Maybe you should reconsider your definition of "too many probabilities". After all, life itself is a series of improbable events. If you're going to reject science based on its inherent uncertainties, you might as well reject life itself.

Whats the diff between believing probabilities and exercising faiths like xtians

Easy. One is grounded in reality and empirical observation, while the other is often based on belief in the unseen and supernatural. It's not rocket science.

Ma, can i go on with this, I have two other topics under it.
1)Mutation
2)Amazing design of the brain.

Dont chicken out please

If they're intended to demonstrate your intelligent design theory, then what are you waiting for? You're the one who's been creating tangents for every point on a circle.

CyrusVI:
You are becoming softer than you were when it all started. Thanks for that. I now see you as human and not some monsters and I feel pleased

Thing is, I'm sorry if i ever appeared dishonest in any of my dealings with you, trust me, thats not who i am in anyway.

This is not the first time you've apologized to me on this issue. You see, apologies are like a form of currency. They can be devalued by inflation, and in this case, the inflation was your consistent history of dishonesty and evasion. So, if you really want to make amends, it's not just a matter of saying you're sorry. You have to show a willingness to learn and to change your behavior. Be more honest. Be more self-aware, and stop playing the victim, especially when you know you've made glaring mistakes.

The reason why i called you "Manipulative" is because I feel you apply double-standard in every debate. When your insult others, you call it a fair assessment and even gaslight them into believing thats what they are by bringing up references and justifications but when they do same to you, you call it " fallacy ad hominem" and start saying they are doing that cause they feel threatened by you or because they couldnt match up with you intellectually and that they are sore losers. Thats manipulating na

You're just making me repeat myself. When I call out someone's behavior or arguments, I provide specific examples and explanations to support my claims. I don't simply throw around harsh words without basis. That's not a double standard. We call that "substantiation". Now contrast this with yourself where nearly all the claims you've made about me have been unfounded and assumptive. And you really need to learn what constitutes an ad hominem attack. "Sore loser" is not an ad hominem attack when used to describe someone who can't handle being corrected or challenged. It's a descriptive phrase for someone who can't take the heat and uses desperate tactics to deflect from the point whenever he has no more convincing arguments to make.

My attempt to run away or dodge your questions stem from my own fears actually. I do not feel threatened by you tho and i dont follow you around but i just kinda have fears about some particular things and thats why i havent being too straightforward with you since

Kindly put those rude remarks aside, I would like to make some confessions first, I guess i've grown past the anger phase and I have to accept some things that i cant change for now, pending till my further reading

So,kindly assure me that u wont look down on me after making the confession. Dont overthink it tho, its not a biggie... Its still something related to this God/Atheism arguement. So can i?

What did you want to tell me?

CyrusVI:
Firstly, I understand how Science works. You dont know my field of study or what where i even work, so stop saying i dont understand how science works just because i asked you some valid questions. You could go on with your point without having to outightly dismiss my knowledge of science. That statement wasnt needed and its a fallacy

I didn't say you don't understand science. I said you don't understand how science works. There's a subtle difference. You're talking as if I said the former. Understanding science is about knowledge, but understanding how science works is about methodology. It's about grasping the principles and processes that guide scientific inquiry. The fact that I don't know your field of study is irrelevant. The point is, when discussing scientific matters, the methodology is what matters. It's not about your personal qualifications, but about the validity of the arguments presented. Now you've declared my pronouncement to be a fallacy, and I beg to differ with you on that claim. When I said you do not understand how science works, I'm making a hypothetical explanation for your viewpoint, based on the observed behavior of you dismissing evidence that doesn't align with your preconceptions. So basically you're wrong. And what do you even mean by "that's a fallacy"? You can't just make ambiguous accusations like that without backing it up with a solid demonstration of how I defaulted. What type of fallacy did I commit? Does it have a name? And can you sufficiently demonstrate how I committed said fallacy using a valid reference to the rules of logic?

Secondly, You keep mentioning probabilies as if there were only ome likelihood for those events. You cant bring in one probability to fill in those gaps in such a way that it would perfectly fit into your narrative. It makes it sound like you're writing a script of a fictional story

No, this is not what I'm saying! You keep suggesting that just because we can't predict every single detail of a complex process like the origin of life, we must therefore resort to a "fictional story". You're misrepresenting my position by oversimplifying it and that's the very definition of a strawman fallacy. I'm not presenting any fictional story here. I'm discussing the overwhelming consensus among scientists based on decades of research and experimentation. The idea that life can arise through natural processes is not just a probability, it is a well-supported scientific theory. While there may be gaps in our understanding of specific details, the overall framework is firmly grounded in evidence. To say that because we can't predict every single step in a complex process, it must be fictional is like saying we don't understand how a car works because we can't explain the exact trajectory of every atom in the engine. The overarching principles are clear, even if the specifics are complex.

We couldnt have known for sure what the atmospheric condition was when it all started, but to assume that it was same as what was simulated in the lab, especially when the condition outside the test tubes looks different, is too big an assumption to make and theres never gonna be any invention or "refining experiment" in the future that can be used to ascertain what it was.

I'm not sure why you're having so much difficulty grasping this basic concept. The fact that we don't have complete knowledge about the early Earth's atmosphere doesn't mean we can't make informed, evidence-based hypotheses, and the conditions outside the test tubes looking different doesn't invalidate the experiment. Laboratory conditions are often controlled and simplified to isolate variables and better understand their effects. The goal isn't to perfectly replicate the exact conditions of the early Earth, but to test whether certain conditions could have led to the formation of life-building molecules.

Now, to my main point.
Thing is, presenting my proof for intelligent design is gonna be hard now, My plan was to bring all that up after "poking holes in all the scientific theories" I have read about. That would give me a soft landing
So, Would u allow me move on to the next theory now(lets put Miller-Urey experiment behind), but I promise that if you could still find a way around this one, then I might just have to go the hard way by bringing up the intelligent design defense i have

This just makes me believe that you're not even confident in your intelligent design theory, because if you were, you would have just presented it directly. A truly compelling argument doesn't need a "soft landing". It doesn't need to throw shades at the alternatives. It stands on its own merits. You've essentially admitted, in this comment right here, that your strategy of criticizing Evolution, or Abiogenesis or both, was just a delaying tactic, and not a genuine attempt to disprove the scientific consensus. Can you appreciate how someone might view this as intellectual dishonesty?

For the bolded, the answer is Yes.
I'm a Masochist too and thats why our chat could last this long. Those harsh words break me but somehow, I like getting broken

And for the entire part i quoted, I promise to stop whinning about it. I will learn to handle them now without complaining. Those were actually the reason i ran away the first few times and i even wanted to run away since yesterday sef, but i had to quickly do some meditations to calm my nerves. Not scared anymore, my Self-Esteem isnt tied to this

This part of the conversation is boring. The question you highlighted was purely a rhetorical one. I'm really not interested in who you are or what your feelings are towards me or this discussion. Let's drop it already.

CyrusVI:
Your 50 paragraphs of argument is loaded with and full of "Probabilites and possibilities". Which took us back to my earlier question that are we supposed to just believe this probabilities and also pass them as factual occurrences just cause its coming from scientists?

You're only saying this because you don't understand how science works. In science, probabilities and possibilities are not about believing something without evidence. They're about assessing the likelihood of a particular outcome based on the data and evidence we have. It's a fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry, and it's what allows us to refine our understanding of the world. When it comes to science, we don't deal in absolute certainties. Instead, we operate on a spectrum of confidence, with evidence and experimentation guiding conclusions being made. When we talk about probabilities and possibilities, we're discussing the relative likelihood of different explanations based on the available evidence. So, when I discuss probabilities and possibilities, I'm not asking you to "just believe" something without evidence. I'm asking you to consider the cumulative weight of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry, which collectively support the idea that life can arise through natural means.

If all these were in a religious context or prolly written to support some claims from those religious books, You would start to tell us how its dumb to take probabilities as facts.

What does atheism have to do with this? Can't you just relax and examine the facts? I apply the same standards of evidence and critical thinking to both scientific claims and religious ones. As a matter of fact, I could argue that you're the one being inconsistent here by trying to exempt your beliefs from scrutiny. I'm not dismissing the experiment's limitations because I'm an atheist. I'm only interested in a nuanced understanding of the science. What you don't understand is that in science, probabilities can indeed be taken as facts when they're based on empirical data and testable hypotheses. The probability of amino acids forming under certain conditions, for instance, can be calculated and experimentally verified. But the probability of a supernatural entity creating life? That's not something that can be measured or tested, and therefore, it's not something that can be taken as fact.

Thing is, I couldnt go further again after reading this and thats because you invented probabilities to fill in the gaps of most lapses seen in those very limited scientific experiments and explanations, same way religious folks invent God to fill in answers to questions they dont understand

Scientific inquiry is a self-correcting process that seeks to refine our understanding of the world through evidence and experimentation. Religious explanations, on the other hand, are often static and unchanging, relying on dogma rather than empirical evidence. Obviously they're two very different things, but if you don't feel the need to respond because of this fundamental misunderstanding you seem to have, that's your prerogative.

In the end, Atheists cant prove that God doesnt exist, same way Theist cant also nor practically prove his existence and both would at a point reach a juncture that they either need to bring in probabilities or faith as they cant really explain things that happened millions of years ago without any witness documenting anything

Its a draw abeg....

This isn't a game where we award points for effort, so I don't get what you mean by "it's a draw". You can't have science and critical thinking, without evidence and testable hypotheses. If your explanation relies on faith or unproven assumptions, then it's simply not a valid explanation. By the way, we don't need to document events from millions of years ago to understand what happened. We have evidence from geology, paleontology, and other fields that help us reconstruct the past.

Cant you drop your points without having to call my argument baseless? Must u erode peoples confidence during debates?
No testable evidence yet i dropped screenshot and a the title of the research journal i used to support my claims. Its even funny that the journal was actually a scientific paper from some scientists that did worked on modifying Millers experiment

We've been through this already. I've already addressed the experiment's significance and limitations, and none of your points so far validate your claims. You don't prove an argument by poking holes in alternative theories. If you're going to claim that intelligent design is a viable explanation, then provide some testable evidence. So far, I've seen none.

Your argumentative pattern was one reason i ran away earlier this year. You know how to talkdown on ones point by constantly throwing subtle shades into your texts while making it seem like the opponent keeps giving watery and baseless points. Dont kill my self-esteem on top ordinary online debate



No kill me abeg. Its gotten to a point where my hearts skips anytime I see your moniker. So bad i had a dream yesterday night were u keep hitting me on arguments

Could come back when my head and mind are free from anxiety and sense of worthlessness. Will respond to your other post at night before i sleep

Listen, I'm sick and tired of hearing these sad songs about your fragile feelings, It's beginning to make this discussion a boring chore for me. If your mental health can't handle having a rigorous exchange that prioritizes critical thinking and focusing on the facts, then I'm left to wonder why you continue to suffer yourself in these conversations. Are you a glutton for punishment? Obviously, your self-esteem is tied to these frivolous arguments and that's why you take any pushback against your arguments as a personal attack, when they're actually not. You need to grow up and stop expecting people to pet you because your ego can't handle criticism. If you don't want to continue this debate, that's fine. I don't have to be responsible for your mental health.

CyrusVI:
I have a thicker skin now and your words don't move me anymore...You can say anything you want and trust me, how you also feel about my socalled "snide remarks" is irrelevant to me. And next time you you hit me that hard...my response could send u outta Nairaland

This is quite funny. If my words truly didn't move you, then you wouldn't feel the need to respond with this veiled threat. Read your response here very carefully. "I'm not hurt, but I'll hurt you back" -- that's exactly how you sound. The truth here, which you seem not to realize is that I'm actually not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm simply just trying to hold you strictly accountable for your actions and your arguments. I'm trying to correct you. You're the one who can't tell the difference. The things you say are often not consistent with the things you do, and I'll continue pointing that out until you level with me. As for your threat, I'm really not impressed. I've seen more convincing bluster from a child who's been told they can't have ice cream at a birthday party.

What you refer to as "Name-calling" is nothing but my "fair assessment" of who you are.

Saying you're manipulative and Domineering are traits you've always exhibited...they aren't some sort of personal attacks

Your "fair assessment" is about as fair as a rigged coin toss. Calling me manipulative and domineering is a cheap shot, especially coming from someone who enjoys crafting spurious narratives about me. You've been dodging my questions for months now. You've assumed various things about me, but you've never backed up your claims with any true evidence. I can perfectly articulate the reasons why I think you've been dishonest with me. I can also walk through the logic that led me to conclude that you're a time-waster and shadowboxer. Can you do the same and prove to me that I have manipulated you or "dominated" you anywhere? I'm even curious to know your definition of "manipulation". Is it when someone is trying to clarify things to you in a way you never understood before? Is it when you struggle to come up with a convincing response to a decent argument?

As for your repetitive accusations of my popping up on your threads section, the only time I ever did that was when I tagged Dtruth in the other thread. The second and last time I said anything about you is in this thread, and its not likr followed you here, I already commented on this thread and you haven't, so I didnt follow you here.

Again, I didn't "keep popping up your face and running away like a coward or whatever". It happened just once, you weren't even in the second thread

That's a lie. Stop trying to downplay your history of the backhanded comments and dishonest assumptions you've made about me by claiming that you only ever referred to me twice. Prior to these two events you've highlighted here, you once asserted that I subscribe to Epicureanism without providing a shred of evidence to support your claim. Then there's the thread where you name-dropped me out of nowhere to claim that I'm not a logical thinker simply because I'm an atheist, as if capacity for logical thinking was dependent on whether someone believes in God or not. You made these claims in threads where I hadn't even participated. You were the one who went out of your way to bring me up. Before all of this, we've only ever engaged in an argument once, where you claimed that atheism was illogical, and I kept asking you to use the knowledge you claimed you obtained from certain academic literature to support your argument. If I recall properly, you still weren't able to do so up until the end of the thread. You're trying to avoid taking responsibility for your own behavior and instead making me out to be the villain, but the facts speak for themselves. You have a history of making unsubstantiated claims and random assumptions about me, and it is well-documented here.

Also, tagging you with a new moniker was because my two other accounts were banned and this is the only one I can use for now....the only wrong thing I did here was that i should have signalled to you that it's me(that would have buried off this "dishonest" tag u gave me. And also, I should have tagged u directly, as for the remarks, they were neither rude nor were they some sort of attack...I carefully selected my words


I deliberately explain this in details cause I want u to stop saying I feel threatened by you and I keep following you around...none of this is true and I stopped replying you since February until that Dtruth incidence. I have nothing against you please and I'm not a coward

This argument has made me understand what your problem really is. You see, the problem with constantly making assumptions about a particular individual without caring to ask them is that you seem obsessive, first of all. Secondly, you risk looking like a fool when all your assumptions are wrong. It can also be perceived as rude and dishonest because you demonstrate that you do not care what they think, and that you'd rather make unjustified conclusions about them instead of trying to get the facts. I hold a nuanced view on Epicureanism, and I detest people trying to retrofit me into a particular box. My atheism has nothing to do with my capacity for logical thinking. If you really want to develop a proper understanding through conversations, you must ask questions instead of making assumptions. Ask me what I think, how I feel, or what I know. Don't assume you already know the answers, because chances are, you don't.

You called me a:
rabble-rouser

A fraud that confused himself to be an enlightened individual

One with Pseudo-intelligence


And you really said these aren't personal attacks? The funny thing here is how you don't see anything wrong in all these yet you're quick to call tags like "Control-freak" a personal attack



It's either you are saying this for argumentative sake or you're just a dishonest person like me(fair assessment)


You have justifications for your verbal attacks while you expect the other person to remain mute and not go all hard against you

I called you a rabble rouser because your behavior consistently aligns with the definition of a rabble-rouser: someone who stirs up trouble or discontent. Your constant trolling by trying to get a reaction from me by making backhanded comments without mentioning me, as well as avoidance of substantive debate up until just recently are all hallmarks of rabble-rousing behavior. Your superficial references to academic works and your inability to provide coherent arguments based on those works made me conclude that you're more interested in appearing intelligent than actually being intelligent -- which is the very definition of pseudo-intelligence. That's why I called you a fraud. Thankfully, you seem to have decided to finally brace up and do the heavy lifting in the other thread, so I'm willing to re-examine these accusations if you can prove me wrong. I called you those things because they accurately describe your behavior and the way you've been conducting yourself in these forums. If you're offended by the truth, then maybe that's a problem you need to address. I like to tell it how it is no matter how painful it sounds, and I like people that tell it how it is, so long as they can backup their claims with facts. For example, your accusation of me being a bully and control-freak doesn't add up when examined closely. Just because I enjoy discussing on clear terms and conditions to avoid the risk of logical fallacies or misinterpretation doesn't mean I like to control people. Also, all I have done before now is simply point out that you've been dodging my questions and avoiding substantive debate. That's not control-freak behavior. I have the right to call out someone I perceive is being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't make me a control freak, or manipulator, or the thousand and one other aspersions you cast on me.

CyrusVI:
I must admit that debating with you draining. I suddenly become depressed as soon as I see your response to any argument brought forward.
I wish I could have another person have a go at you while i keep supplying the person with my own points from the background and while i also dont have to read your comments myself. Must u have a response for everything?

Uhm...yes? That's how debate works. If you're going to make claims, then yes, I'll respond with counterarguments and possibly counter-evidence. Are you looking for an echo chamber where your views go unchallenged? If you're unable or unwilling to defend your own positions, then perhaps you shouldn't be debating at all.

The first bolded made me lost interest reading the whole thing you addressed there. I didnt bother reading that paragraph as the bolded is a proof you've had Xtians bring that up to you in many debates in the past and I guess you defeated them there. I dont want u to beat me with experience

Lol. Okay?

For the second bolded, The aim was to first prove that the building blocks of life could be synthesized abiotically from gases, which is same as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. If that is off the the whole issues, then we can start talking about the first simplest life form evolving into the next complect life form. So what do you mean by i dont understand what the experiment is about?

You conflated two separate concepts: Abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-living matter) and Evolution (the change in species over time). The Miller-Urey experiment addressed the former, not the latter. Once we have the building blocks of life, then we can discuss how they assembled into the first life forms and eventually evolved into complex organisms.

The aim was to create life first, before evolution into whatever we have now and I just skipped all these in my earlier posts.

Now you're talking from two sides of your mouth. You initially claimed that the Miller-Urey experiment was a failure because it didn't demonstrate the evolution of complex cells from simple organisms. Now, you're saying that the experiment was actually about creating life from scratch, and that's a different topic altogether. And by the way, creating life from scratch is exactly what the experiment was trying to do -- but not in the sense of creating a fully formed organism. It was more about generating the raw materials necessary for life to emerge. So, you can't just dismiss the experiment's findings as irrelevant because they didn't achieve something they were never intended to achieve in the first place.

Now Millers experiment still had some flaws:

The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing.” That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why? if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly'.

So? Even if the atmosphere was not entirely reducing, it's not like the presence of some oxygen would completely negate the results. The experiment still produced amino acids, didn't it? And subsequent experiments have refined the conditions to account for various possibilities. The experiment wasn't even meant to be an exact replica of the primordial conditions in the first place. It was just a demonstration of the possibility of spontaneous generation of amino acids.

Two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed"(This a mere assumption that havent been proved or confirmed across the so-called "modified and Improved versions of Millers experiment) You can search for 'THE 1953 STANLEY L. MILLER EXPERIMENT:
FIFTY YEARS OF PREBIOTIC ORGANIC CHEMISTRY'.(Screenshot below)

I'm sorry but Miller's later speculation about the Earth's atmosphere doesn't invalidate the experiment's significance. The experiment sought to demonstrate the possibility of abiogenesis, not the certainty. The specific conditions on early Earth might have been different, but the experiment provided valuable insights into the potential chemical processes that could have led to the formation of organic molecules. Subsequent research has expanded upon the Miller-Urey experiment, exploring a wider range of atmospheric conditions and energy sources. While the exact composition of Earth's early atmosphere is still debated, these experiments have consistently shown that the building blocks of life can be formed under various conditions.

It is basic and common science that the sunlights ultraviolet rays that are currently blocked by the ozone layer would have damaged hydrogen based molecules in the ancient atmosphere. This type of atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide and nitrogen would not have been supportive, for the creation of acids and other building blocks essential for life to form.

Well, this is probably why the experiment simulated an atmosphere without UV radiation, using a closed system that shielded the reactants from harmful radiation. And guess what? They still managed to synthesize amino acids! Besides you're incorrect in assuming that an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide and nitrogen wouldn't be supportive of creating building blocks for life. Scientists still propose various mechanisms for how life could have emerged despite these challenges. There have been theories about life beginning in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where the chemistry is more favorable.

Another thing is that Oxygen is highly reactive. For example, it combines with iron and forms rust or with hydrogen and forms water. If there was much free oxygen in an atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would quickly combine with and dismantle the organic molecules as they formed. So what are the proofs that those early atmosphere was actually diffrent from our current one and that it was actuallly a reducing one from what we currently have... It is just an invented assumption to prove that life actually began that way.

You're getting it all wrong. When you have well-supported hypotheses based on geological, experimental, and biological evidence for something, you can't continue to call it an "assumption". Scientists have studied the composition of ancient rocks and minerals, which suggest that the early Earth's atmosphere lacked significant amounts of oxygen. You also have the existence of stromatolites, which are layered structures created by ancient microbial communities, which also supports the idea of a reducing atmosphere. These microorganisms would have thrived in an environment with minimal oxygen levels.

Also, If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent? I know you dont have to necessarily invent a creator or designer here

They weren't trying to simulate an entire universe though. The experiment was just a simplified model to test a specific hypothesis: whether organic molecules could form under conditions believed to exist on early Earth. The scientist's role in the experiment is more like a researcher studying a natural phenomenon in a controlled environment. It's not about creating life from nothing, but about understanding the potential processes involved. If you want to understand how a car engine works, you don't need to build the entire car from scratch. You can just isolate its specific components, study their interactions, and learn about their functions. The Miller-Urey experiment was a similar approach to understanding the origins of life, and it was designed to mimic natural processes. Even if they didn't fully explain the entire process, the results have at least contributed to our understanding of how life might have originated.

Another flaw is the racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) mixture of amino acids produced in a Miller–Urey experiment is also problematic for abiogenesis theories as life on Earth today uses L-amino acids.
We know that there are right-handed and left-handed gloves. This is also true of amino acid molecules. Of some 100 known amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins, and all are left-handed ones. When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules
It is even believed that Even amino acids found in meteorites showed excesses of left-handed forms.

How is this a flaw exactly? The experiment produced a racemic mixture of amino acids. Okay, and? Don't you think it's a natural consequence of the abiotic chemical reactions that occurred? It's not surprising that both L and D enantiomers were produced, as the reaction conditions didn't favor one over the other. You seem to be having a fundamental misunderstanding of the implications of the experiment. The fact that life on Earth uses L-amino acids doesn't mean that the primordial soup had to produce only L-amino acids. It's possible that the selection of L-amino acids occurred later, through chemical or biological processes that we don't yet fully understand. Funny enough, amino acids found in meteorites showing excesses of left-handed forms is actually evidence for the idea that the building blocks of life were delivered to Earth on comets or meteorites, and that these building blocks were already biased towards the L-enantiomer. This is a fascinating area of research that could potentially shed more light on the origins of life on Earth.

I had the intention to talk about the "Evolution Gap between Ape and Man" but i had to quickly stop by and help show to you that in as much as Millers expriment was a classic, yet it had a few fundamental flaws and it was even founded on some assumtions that are hard to confirm.
If we couldnt create an origin of life, if the atmospheric condition then wasnt even conducive for a primordial soup to form, even though the chance of the so-called spark running across a gaseous mixture coincidentally is almost close to nothing(it is even mathematically impossible to happen as the probability is greater than 1 in 1000000), how then do we move on to the evolution of single cell organism to a complex one or do we just also assume/believe and have faith life actually came into existence under those "hard-to-replicate" condition Miller talked about?

First of all, the experiment was not attempting to create an origin of life, but rather to demonstrate the possibility of spontaneous generation of amino acids. I've addressed this above. Secondly, it succeeded in producing several amino acids. As for the probability of the "spark" of life occurring, you're still relying on a classic creationist trope. The emergence of life is not a single event, but a complex process that likely occurred over millions of years. It's not about a lightning bolt striking a primordial soup, but rather the gradual accumulation of chemical reactions and interactions that eventually gave rise to self-replicating molecules. Furthermore, you're "mathematically impossible" claim is just you cherry-picking a specific calculation that suits your narrative while ignoring the vast body of evidence from multiple fields of science that supports the fact that life can emerge through natural processes. I'll clue you in on something you probably haven't considered yet: Even if you've manage to poke some holes in the Miller-Urey experiment (and let's be real, it's a 60-year-old experiment, so it's not like it's the only piece of evidence for abiogenesis), you still haven't presented any evidence for intelligent design. You're still relying on "god of the gaps" reasoning, where you point out the limitations of scientific knowledge and then insert your preferred explanation without providing any testable evidence.

When I'm back tomorrow from work, I go load u with more...I pity you now The most Excellent Jessica, its gonna be a long week for you. Points full ground, na to type long be my problem not the points.

You don't have to be melodramatic. Just present your best arguments and let's examine them critically. You're not impressing or intimidating anybody here with this pointless chest-beating.

DNA complexity is my last resort and the biggest in my Arsenal, i reserve it for the last argument. No one ever made it to that point and you wont either

I pray you dont have another responses to this

Dude, just get to the point already. Thanks.

ThothHermes:
What would be considered perverse in your opinion, or is anything under the sun acceptable provided it can be explained as "change"?

Well, I don't believe in an absolute moral framework or an arbitrary notion of what is considered perverted or not. On the contrary, I subscribe to the idea that our understanding of what is accepted should be guided by the prevailing conditions surrounding said event including basic things like the context, as well as the involvement of consent and harm. Just because I embrace change doesn't mean I'm a moral relativist. I believe in a framework of ethics that prioritizes empathy, reason, and individual rights. So, from the way I see it, not everything under the sun is acceptable, but in the same vein, I'm not afraid to question traditional norms and challenge the status quo if it means creating a society that benefits everyone positively in the spirit of humanism.

maasoap:
So what? Their newly elected representative or government or you can now step in and we all will have our peace. Are we done or we still crying after individual of us have exercised their right within the law?

It's fine. At least now we both know how clueless you are in this discussion. As for the newly elected representative you mentioned? They now have a massive cleanup job ahead, thanks to the mess left behind by that manchild, so maybe we're not done afterall.

If you don't mind, I've split your response into two separate threads. I feel like the first half of your riposte is simply an extension of our discussion in the DNA thread, and extending that part of our correspondence to this thread will practically be derailing this thread. So I'm only going to address the second half of your response here:

CyrusVI:
Now, to your entire comment
Uche, You are the most manipulative human i know, you're a Narcissist too, a Dominatrix, humiliatrix,a Bully and also a control freak.

Have you ever heard of Gloria Steinem? She was a popular journalist and social activist in the 1970s. There's a famous quote she's very well known for, which just happens to be the title of one of her books. The quote reads: "the truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!". Your desperate name-calling and accusations towards me don't bother me one bit because I can tell that you're just being emotional over the fact that I've got you cornered since Day 1. So go ahead and let it all out. If you can't handle a little scrutiny, that's not my problem. But if you're willing to have an honest conversation and clear the air, I'm here for it.

This is the first time in my entire life that i would be reading an online comment directed at me and i was moved to tears. I'm not trying to compete with you intellectually, so I see no reason why you should question my intellectual level... You'd feel bad if I did same

So you claim you're not trying to compete with me intellectually, yet you've been shadowboxing with me for months, always landing jabs but never a solid punch. You challenged me to debate you, posturing like someone wanting to engage with me in good faith, but you never followed through when I accepted. If you're not here to engage with me, then why do you keep popping up like a jack-in-the-box in every thread I'm in, making rude and dishonest remarks about me and scurrying away before the discussion gets too taxing for your fragile ego? Obviously you have some kind of problem with me. If you think you can take me down a peg, then by all means, try. As for me, I'm not here to win a popularity contest or massage your wounded ego.

I changed moniker cause the other two were banned on other sections and not to "dodge accountability" and you're not the reason for that in anyway
Also, why would i feel threatened by you? Are you my God? Are you the one I worship? Dont overrate yourself please

I'm sorry, but your actions betray your words. If you weren't threatened by me for some weird reason, you wouldn't be going through the trouble of using new monikers that I've never engaged with to make petty remarks about me. In said comments, you don't even quote me directly. Can you finally understand why I insist that you're a dishonest individual?

I cant deny the fact that I'm always scared to read your comments when i bump into them but its not like i generally look for your comment or even follow you. I dont even open that Religious section and thats why all our arguments have been here in the Romance section

Coming from someone who's been shadowing me across threads, this is hilarious. If you're not interested in engaging with me, then why do you keep showing up in my orbit? If you're not looking for my comments, then why do you always seem to find them? And why do you always feel compelled to respond with snide remarks and excuses instead of engaging in a genuine discussion? Can you give an honest answer?

I would have wanted to respond to you the way you did to me but if i dare to do that, you'll start accusing me of being insulting and uncivil, which makes me wonder how you couldnt see anything insulting in all your name-calling and personal attacks on me.

Lol. Please spare me the faux outrage and the pretentious concern for civility. Have you ever observed peer review sessions within the scientific community? Normally, I'd ask you to look up the meaning of ad hominem and understand the difference between unprovoked personal attacks and harsh, but critical examinations of an argument or presentation, but you probably wouldn't understand anyway and falsely accuse me of trying to manipulate you, so I'm not going to waste my time there. The only thing I'll tell you is this: If you can't handle the heat, then perhaps you should refrain from playing with fire. And if you're still unsure about how to engage in a substantive discussion, I can offer you some pointers - or better yet, a mirror, so you can examine your own intellectual dishonesty.

I know you'd wanna call your comment a fair assessment but even Gemini sees this as an insult(I asked Gemini a with a balanced prompt cause i wanted to be sure those are insults and not what u want me to believe it is). You'd attack people and still wanna brainwash them into believing its a fair assessment and nothing personal. Dont destroy my self-esteem. I'm not as worthless as you painted me.

I'm not sure what Gemini AI's opinion on insults has to do with anything. If you're incapable of distinguishing between a scathing critique and a personal attack on your own, then that's not my problem. A fair assessment is not about sugarcoating the truth, it's about calling out BS when you see it, and your constant evasions, excuses, and lack of intellectual honesty are all BS. I'm not here to coddle your fragile ego or make you feel good about yourself. If you want to be taken seriously, then prove to me that you're serious and that you're not trying to waste my time. Don't go behind my back, casting aspersions on my character and making unfounded accusations about me. I'm not obligated to treat such behavior with kid gloves.

CyrusVI:
Firstly, The absence of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is evident in the fact that no one has ever witnessed it occurring.. If it was a true process, evolution would still be happening and there should plenty of "transitional" forms for us to see. Instead, of course we see a diversity of "kinds" or plants and animals with variations within each kind... . With distinct and seemingly overwhelming differences, among each categories. That is, we have a lot of different breeds of dogs and lots more of cats and nothing like an intermediate or transitional form from say, one with a characteristic combination dog and cat before eventually becoming dog. Neither now in 2Ist century, nor at any point in our history was any discovered via Fossil records

Well, you're wrong. Transitional fossils do exist, and plenty have been discovered over time. As a matter of fact, the fossil record actually shows a clear pattern of gradual changes in life forms over time. Look up Tiktaalik, a fish-tetrapod transitional form, or the Archaeopteryx, or the Ambulocetus etc. These discoveries have been extensively documented and verified by the scientific community, so I'm not sure what you were on about there. The "lack of transitional fossils" argument is typical creationist propaganda of pointing out alleged flaws in opposing theories, rather than presenting any evidence to support theirs. The lack of intermediate forms between dogs and cats is not entirely surprising, following the theory that they diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago. The fossil record is incomplete, and surely we wouldn't expect to find every single transitional form. Nevertheless, clear patterns of gradual changes in the fossil record have been seen, consistent with the theory of evolution. Another thing you probably need to understand is that the concept of "kinds" or "categories" is a subjective human construct, and not a scientifically defined boundary. The diversity of life on Earth is a continuum, with species blending into one another. And just because you have never observed evolution happening in real-time doesn't automatically mean it never occurred and isn't still occurring. Evolution is not a magic spectacle that unfolds before our eyes. It's a gradual process spanning countless generations. You must have heard this axiom before, but the absence of evidence for something is not evidence of its absence.

In fact, Scientifically, using Laboratory techniques, the only attempts of evolutionary scientists to show how Cells evolve from a simple organism to a much more complex one is the "Stan Miller experiment of gaseous mixture in test tubes" and I would assume you know how it ended. Its even more funny that that experiment didnt give the needed result and neither has the experiment progressed any further than where Miller's ended. A dead end

From this paragraph here, it is clear that you didn't understand what the Miller-Urey experiment was all about, or what it hoped to achieve. Don't get yourself confused. The experiment was all about demonstrating the possibility of spontaneous generation of amino acids, the building blocks of life, from a primordial soup. And, surprise, surprise... it succeeded in producing several amino acids, including glycine, alanine, and aspartic acid. You seem to think the experiment was solely focused on the idea of evolving cells from simple organisms to complex ones. You've got it all wrong. I'm trying not to trigger the anti spam bots by posting links, so while I can't refer you to any link for clarification, I'll implore you to spend more time researching the experiment and studying it to know what it was really all about.

Also, the experiment's results were far from a "dead end." In fact, they sparked a new wave of research into the origins of life on Earth. The experiment has been refined and expanded upon numerous times, with scientists exploring different conditions and environments that could have led to the emergence of life. The fact that scientists have not yet fully replicated the evolution of complex cells in a laboratory setting does not negate the overwhelming evidence from multiple fields of study (fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, etc.) that supports evolution. And by the way, I'm still waiting for your demonstration of intelligent design through complexity of the DNA. How do you explain the presence of pseudogenes, vestigial genes, and other "imperfections" in the human genome if it was intelligently designed?

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates and the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

I believe I have sufficiently addressed this argument. The notion that the fossil record should be a complete, unbroken chain of intermediates is a gross misunderstanding of how fossilization works. Fossilization is a rare occurrence, and the conditions necessary for it to happen are quite specific. It's not a surprise that we don't have a complete record. Moreover, the idea that there are no intermediates in the fossil record is simply false. I have already referred you to a few examples above.

It's fascinating to think about how an invertebrate creature, in the ocean transitioned into the first vertebrate. The initial fish. With its internal hard parts as opposed to external ones.

The evolution from bodied invertebrates to the earliest vertebrate fishes remains a puzzling enigma, with various theories circulating widely.
There are plenty of spaces with no clear sequence of transitions, in sight. Instead, things remain the same way they have been from how they were being described in the earliest book ever written by men, either in historical books like the Epic of Gilgamesh or in those early biological books by philosophers like Theophrastus and Aristotle's books on zoology.

So you're saying that because the evolutionary transition from invertebrates to vertebrates is complex and still not fully understood, we must therefore attribute the gaps in our knowledge to magic? Don't you think this puzzling enigma you speak of is actually a testament to the amazing progress science has made in understanding the natural world? We've come a long way in uncovering the secrets of evolution, and the fact that there's still more to learn is what makes it so exciting. Dragging magic into the picture ruins the whole fun. You've left the realm of intellectual curiosity and settled for resigned speculation. The fact that there are still unanswered questions in science is not evidence of intelligent design. In fact, it's just evidence that we need to keep studying and learning. And by the way, I don't see the point of you appealing to ancient mythical texts as if they're relevant to modern scientific discussions. It's utterly useless. You might as well just use a map from the 14th century to navigate a modern city you're visiting for the first time.

Its not too smart to use Evolution that was rumoured to have occured years before the earliest men started writing books as the origin of human existence. When there arent live witnesses to these things and even earlier description of animals is still same now in 2024 as it was in 500BCE(Approximately 3500+ years when you add the description of animals in the Epic of Gilgamesh to it). How is diff from the religious gibberish that asked people to exercise faith and believe what they also dont see?

We don't have direct witnesses to the formation of the Grand Canyon either, but we can still study the geological evidence and understand its origins, can't we? Evolution is not just about human existence. It's about the diversity of life on Earth, and the overwhelming evidence from various fields in science serve to strengthen its position in the scientific community. It's funny you mentioned the consistency of animal descriptions over time because it is actually evidence for evolution, not against it. If species were unchanging, that would be a problem for evolution. But the fact that we see changes in species over time, even if the descriptions of those species remain similar, supports evolution. But all of that is neither here nor there. I believe you should be focusing more on your proof for intelligent design in this discussion. Firstly, it is not even a testable hypothesis, whereas evolution is. We can't design experiments to test the will of a supernatural being, but we can test the predictions of evolution. So ultimately, you still have the burden of proof here. I'm interested to see what you can come up with.

I will delve into DNA complexities in the next response.

Finally! I'll be looking forward to it.

ThothHermes:
Are you not tired of being an advocate of perversion under the guise of personal liberties advocacy.
Are you a pervert yourself

This might come as a surprise to you, but nature, as we know it, is in a constant state of flux. It is THE very definition of change. So your suggestion that my advocacy for personal liberties is "perverted" is to imply that progress itself is a deviation.

Perversion and unfamiliarity. There's a clear distinction between those two terms which you seem not to be aware of. I presume you'd prefer to remain in a cave, clutching your precious pearls and constantly living in fear of the unknown.