Heartbreaking.

basilico:


I have gone through the opinions of tens of attorneys in the media.They are all saying the judge should be quartered. His every action was to aid the prosecution. I will take their opinion, not from NYT or Jessica.rabbit.

Please suit yourself. It's no secret that you'd rather listen to those who confirm your biases than consider alternative perspectives.

ThothHermes:
Yes. Her delivery triggered men. How did she disrespect men's agency and consent? She only said she sleeps with a certain calibre of men. The men who did not fall into that group brought out their knives.

I felt like her objectification of men as mere ATMs was the primary disrespect here. I guess that's what I was trying to convey when I said it undermines their agency. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. I'm just trying to acknowledge the perspective of those who might be offended by her comments.

Tame26:
It’s a criminal opinion, she went against social medias usage rules. Do you know that she can go to jail in some countries for that her controversial takes? She’s spreading falsehood, promiscuity, body for money, hatred for men and so on. You need to watch her videos to know that she deserves whatever she got

Criminal opinion? LOL. Let's not get overly dramatic, please. She only just stated her own personal opinion, which isn't intended to constitute any form of danger to anyone.

I don't get why people are attacking SAMBARRY over writing a long post. If reading lengthy comments is not your speed, why not just scroll past and find another comment else to read? Are you guys funding his internet services?

ThothHermes:
She said she only sleeps with men with money. That's free and protected speech. It's her right to sleep with whoever she likes. How does that violate their terms and conditions?
If enough people report your account, you will get blocked regardless of what you did. That's what happened here.
Nigerian men are just angry that the amount she was calling was above their range. What has self-respect got to do with it?

I think the issue here may be with her delivery. Obviously Saida Boj has the right to set her boundaries and expectations, even if it completely disregards social norms. I have absolutely no problem with that. But I feel there are better ways she could have communicated these expectations, without making it look as if men were simply just tools or objects to be used for her self-satisfaction. I think it's the lack of respect for men's agency and consent in her comments that's riling guys up. She really does come across as conceited in that regard. At least, to me.

That being said, I think it's funny how many posters here are using this lady's comments to judge women as an entire category. Not that I'm surprised though. Most people simply do not understand the concept of having personal opinions that may not resonate with everybody.

TenQ:

No comment!

Don't worry, I won't take it personally. Keep on keeping quiet, my friend. Silence is golden, especially when you're out of arguments.

How then did it acquire consciousness?

You're assuming that consciousness is a property that must be acquired by some entity, implying that there must be a conscious entity to begin with, which as far as I can tell, you can't provide any lick of evidence for.

How did dumb atoms acquire consciousness?

They held a weekend seminar on self-awareness. Next question?

The they suddenly found out how to store data and instructions of how to replicate themselves in their DNA.

Since you clearly want me to spoon-feed you: self-replication led to variation, variation led to selection, and selection led to the emergence of complex molecules like DNA, which just so happen to be incredibly efficient at storing genetic information.

You still cannot fathom that life wouldn't be with just one of them missing!?

"This slot machine was designed just for me because I once won the jackpot!" 🤡

That's exactly how you sound.

i understand.
Like given enough gibberish, correct information acting on data will come out of it.

You think you're making a point about the emergence of order from chaos, but really, you're just illustrating the concept of "garbage in, garbage out". Yes, with enough random data, some correct information might occasionally arise by chance, but that's not exactly a compelling argument for intelligent design. Try again, with a bit more intellectual rigor this time.

The DNA is extremely complex!
Of course we know that AND the simple binary code cannot be made to illustrate the complexities!?

So you acknowlede the limitations of the comparison, yet you still cling to it, despite its inability to capture the essence of genetic expression.

The binary codes were designed by humans.
Thus if we do not know the programmer of a code, it is a reasonable proof that no one programmed the machine! SMH!

Flawed assumption. The two "codes" operate under different contexts and rules, as I mentioned earlier. The presence of a programmer is not a necessary condition for a code to exist. The chemical and physical properties of DNA and its cellular machinery are sufficient to explain its functionality.

Okay!

Even mutations usually are not positive but destructive to the organism, how much more a random sequence of DNA sequence.

It's really just a numbers game. Mutations can indeed be harmful, but they can also be neutral or even beneficial. And it's precisely the accumulation of those beneficial mutations over time that drives evolution forward. Besides, a random sequence of DNA isn't necessarily equivalent to a mutation. Plus, the very existence of functional DNA is a result of random processes that have been filtered by natural selection. It would be incredibly absurd to conflate the two.

I will like to plead that we end this discussion. I have some targets to make and it might take a while.

Have a beautiful day

No biggie. It was fun while it lasted. For all its' flaws and foibles, I enjoyed the back and forth.

TenQ:

You did not answer my question:
Let's say that A non material Alien exists and the Alien is the One who Created Everything seen and unseen in the Universe: How do you expect Him to look like?

If we're talking about an "Alien" creator, I'd expect it to be, well, alien! Not some vague, intangible, invisible entity that just so happens to have human-like qualities like consciousness and intentionality. If we're talking about a being capable of creating an entire universe, I'd expect it to be bound by different physical laws, not just conveniently invisible to our detection methods. I wouldn't expect such a being to "look" like anything, precisely because our understanding of "looking" is bound by our physical reality. But I would expect some form of empirical evidence, some tangible manifestation of its existence, something that doesn't rely on philosophical hand-waving and hypotheticals.

It is good at least that you agree that the software is not tangible nevertheless it is REAL.
So also,
God as a spirit is not tangible nevertheless REAL.

There exist no known physical means of proving that a software exists within a Computer.
You have taken for granted the fact that almost everyone know that a software is programmed by programmers.
A question for you:
When an Ignorant Aboriginal man say to you-
"Show me the software inside this computer. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
Is he correct in his logic?

I used the law of entropy to show that the universe had a beginning and will have an end. The implication is that it had not always existed. The Questions to you is what suddenly caused the universe to start expanding 13.8 billion years ago? Whatever that was does not obey the laws of physics, chemistry or biology

You're still chasing your tail here. I already told you that software and spirits are fundamentally different. Software, as I mentioned earlier, is a series of instructions that a machine interprets, with observable effects and testable results. It's a product of human ingenuity and can be studied, replicated, and improved upon. Spirits are extraordinary claims that require, well, extraordinary evidence. You can't just say "God is real, just like software" and expect me to nod in agreement. Regarding your Aboriginal man example, I'd say he's correct in demanding evidence, but his understanding of software might be limited. I'd explain to him that software is a human-made creation, not a physical entity inside the computer. Take note of this fundamental distinction! It's a set of instructions that makes the computer do things. I'd use an analogy like a recipe book: just as a recipe book contains instructions to make a cake, software contains instructions for the computer to perform tasks. But, I'd also tell him that demanding evidence for extraordinary claims is a universal principle, and it applies to all claims, not just software. So, if someone claims a magical spirit lives inside the computer, I'd ask for evidence, just as I would for any other extraordinary claim.

You've continuously implied that God is a being that exists outside the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, yet you've refused to demonstrate how we can even discuss or understand this entity using our human language and reasoning, which are bound by those very laws. Even if we assume that the cause of the universe's expansion is unknown, it's a huge leap to attribute it to a supernatural entity. The Big Bang theory is well-supported by observational evidence from many fields of science, and it's a natural phenomenon that can be explained by physical laws. We may not know what triggered the expansion, but that's a gap in our knowledge, not a justification for inserting a deity.

How do you convince me of a programmer if I do not know anything about computers AND I adamantly refuse to accept that softwares are intellectual works written in the memmory of the washing machine.

What kind of evidence will you show me?

A washing machine's function, unlike the universe's existence, can be traced back to human ingenuity and scientific principles. We have empirical evidence of human innovation and problem-solving at play.

If you're unwilling to accept the analogy, that's okay, but don't pretend it's because you're unaware of computer programming. That's a very dishonest red herring. The real issue is that you're struggling to provide empirical evidence for your divine programmer claim. So, let's get back on track: where's the evidence for this cosmic programmer? Stop hiding behind a veil of ignorance. Confront the logic and your lack of evidence head-on!

Can you explain how inorganic chemicals can suddenly have consciousness and store data and several instruction sets.

You're pretending to ask a question, while actually trying to shift the burden of proof. Another class act from you, and I'm not buying it.

Have I done any of such redefinition?

You're the one who claimed atheists on Nairaland twist definitions, so the onus is on you to provide evidence.

My submission was simple:
If a kind of computer was found on Mars, we would conclude that it was brought there by some intelligent creatures and not that the computer evolved after trillions of years from the martian soil.
Do you disagree with this?

Of course, I disagree with the implication that the only two options are:

(1) A computer was brought to Mars by intelligent creatures.

(2) A computer evolved from Martian soil over trillions of years.

Agreeing with you here would be tantamount to committing a false dichotomy. Again, you're making me repeat myself! What about other possibilities, such as:

(3) A computer was created by a previously unknown form of Martian life that doesn't fit our conventional definition of "intelligent creatures"?

(4) A computer-like device was deposited on Mars by a natural process, like a meteorite or a comet, carrying materials from another celestial body?

(5) A computer was left on Mars as a remnant of an ancient civilization that has since gone extinct?

This is exactly what you ask for as evidence of the Spirit realm.
You demand a physical evidence for what is clearly not physical.

It's a good thing we do not apply your sort of logic to other complex phenomena like gravity or electromagnetism, else humanity would still be stuck in the Dark Ages. Just because we can't directly observe or measure something with our senses doesn't mean it requires a supernatural explanation. Our understanding of the world should be guided by evidence and testable theories, not gaps in our current knowledge.

Only an Ignorant mind can lack a belief about a subject.

Just because science CANNOT relay to me my dreams does not connote that I did not have my dream!

Atheism isn't about being ignorant of deities. It's about recognizing the lack of empirical evidence for their existence. Similarly, just because we can't fully understand dreams doesn't mean we must accept your dream as objective reality. That's a textbook case of the argument from ignorance fallacy. So, the question remains: where's the empirical evidence for your extraordinary claim?

It is simple my dear.
If the Universe will come to an end at a point when Entropy is maximum, (Heat Death of the Universe), automatically, Cause and Effect ceases.

Thus , cause and effect cannot continue indefinitely!

The heat death of the universe suggests that usable energy will eventually run out, not that the fundamental laws of cause and effect take a permanent vacation. Consider that even in a universe where stars have all burned out and everything's lukewarm, gravity will still pull objects together, black holes will still evaporate (albeit very slowly), and particles will still interact. Cause and effect might be sluggish, but they won't be taking a dirt nap just yet. More importantly, the heat death scenario only applies if the universe is finite. If it's infinitely vast, well, there could always be some crazy corner where stars are still forming, defying the whole "everything fizzles out" shebang. The vastness of the cosmos is a mind-bender, after all. Therefore, the jury's still out on the infinite regress question. One thing is certain though: your attempt to tie it neatly to the heat death with some philosophical duct tape simply won't hold.

My point was that man just discovered the guiding laws of mathematics
BUT
You are saying that man invented the guiding laws of mathematics
SMH!

When I say "invent," I don't mean that humans conjured up mathematical concepts from thin air. Rather, we developed a system to describe and apply those concepts. The laws of mathematics, as we understand them, are a product of human cognition and ingenuity. You're just attempting to draw a distinction without a difference. The physical principle of gravity existed before Newton, but the equation F=ma is a human invention. We didn't "discover" the equation inscribed on a stone tablet in the cosmos. We derived it through observation, experimentation, and mathematical abstraction. Similarly, the relationship between numbers and quantities is an objective feature of the universe, but the number system itself, with its symbols, operations, and rules, is a human construct. We didn't "discover" the number 4; we created a symbol and a concept to represent the idea of "four-ness". What this clearly means is that: without a mind to create and utilize mathematical concepts, they remain mere abstractions, devoid of meaning or significance. The universe may contain patterns and structures, but it's up to us to recognize, describe, and apply them through the lens of mathematics.

Does logic exist because we realize its application or logic exist whether we realize its applications or not.

The question isn't whether logic exists independently of our realization or not. The question is whether logic has an objective existence beyond our tool-making minds. We create logical frameworks to describe and make sense of the world, much like we create maps to navigate territories. The laws of logic, like the laws of physics, are descriptive tools, not inherent properties of the universe. Logic exists because we've realized its applications and continue to refine it as a tool.

Maximum entropy occurs when dE=0 everywhere in space. (E=Energy)

You're mistaking a mathematical concept for the actual state of the universe. dE=0 doesn't mean the party's over, just that the energy's evenly distributed. The molecules are still vibrating, just at a different frequency.

You dont get the poijt.
The fact that you have a whole community of Ignorant fools does not invalidate LOGIC!

Trying to imply that your critics are "ignorant fools" only weakens your argument, not mine. At best, you sound like a toddler throwing a tantrum because his blocks won't defy gravity.

Anyways, now that you've conceded that consciousness isn't the key to cause and effect, then what is it? Is there a divine breakfast fairy who judges the toast's doneness with a celestial timer? Or perhaps a pantheon of carb-loving deities residing within your toaster, arguing over the perfect shade of golden brown?

Of cause Life and consciousness is like an AI program operating on a hardware called our biological body.

Okay. So how do you explain the emergence of complex life forms through non-biological means?

You have made God according to your imagination'

Projecting...

How can the creator be just a symphony of subatomic particles conducting the cosmic orchestra when matter was created just 13.8 billion years ago?

Are you making a bet on possibility that the creator might just be some perhaps a swirling vortex of pure information?
Can information exist without a mind?

Well, first of all, I should probably point out here that the notion that matter was created 13.8 billion years ago is a rather narrow view of the universe. What about the possibility of eternal inflation, or the concept of quantum fluctuations giving rise to our universe? The origins of the universe are still a topic of much debate and exploration in the scientific community.

And as for the symphony of subatomic particles, I'd argue that it's precisely the emergence of complex systems from simple rules that makes the universe so fascinating. The conductor, in this case, is the laws of physics themselves. Regarding the swirling vortex of pure information, I'm not making a bet on possibility. I'm merely highlighting the limitations of our current understanding. Information, in the context of the universe, can be thought of as the intricate web of relationships between particles, forces, and energies. It's a bit like asking whether a melody can exist without a mind to perceive it. The music is still there, even if no one is listening. The question of whether information can exist without a mind is a classic example of the mind-body problem. I'd argue that information is an emergent property of the universe, much like consciousness itself. It's a product of complex interactions, not a fundamental aspect of reality that requires a mind to exist.

This is the logic of the Atheist.
Something as complex as the Silicon chip you say it evolved. But you wouldn't answer the question how inorganic chemicals reacted together and somehow gathered data, information and consciousness

Scientists have already made tremendous progress in understanding the processes that lead to the self-organization of complex systems, from the origins of life to the development of complex technologies like computer chips. They've also made progress in understanding the neural correlates of consciousness, the evolution of cognitive abilities, and the complex interplay between brain, body, and environment. It's called science, and it's based on evidence, experimentation, and rigorous testing, not wishful thinking or divine intervention. So tell me why, TenQ. Why in the world, do I still need to invoke an imaginary concept and shoehorn it into a discussion where it has little to no relevance?

TenQ:

All I am asking is that you give us an alternative EVIDENCE that consciousness can self evolve from inorganic chemical reagents.

The truth of the matter is that you just don't understand how science works. We don't fill in the gaps in our knowledge with supernatural explanations. Instead, we continue to explore, research, and gather evidence. As for your request for alternative evidence, I'd like to point out (for the umpteenth time!) that the burden of proof is on YOU! You're the one proposing the existence of an Intelligent Mind, not me. I'm not required to provide evidence for something that's not been proven to exist in the first place. That being said, there are plenty of scientific theories and evidence that suggest consciousness can arise from complex systems. For example, Integrated Information Theory (IIT) proposes that consciousness is an emergent property of the integrated information generated by the causal interactions within a system. It's a theory that's still being explored and debated, but it's a fascinating area of research that doesn't require the intervention of a divine being.

You don't have a proof of God BUT the fact that you don't have a proof does not mean that others do not have the proof of God.
What is a blind man's argument about colours amount to?

False equivalence. The existence of colors is an empirical fact, verifiable through the senses of those who are not blind. On the other hand, the existence of God is a metaphysical claim, not an empirical fact. And, might I add, the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim, not with those who question it. The fact that I don't have proof of God's existence doesn't mean that others have it. It's not a matter of personal perspective or individual experience. If there were indeed objective proof of God's existence, it would be universally accessible and verifiable, not limited to select individuals or groups.

Nicely summed up
Meaning that you do not lack a belief in the subject of God.

You're invited to keep splitting hairs on this topic. Apparently, in your own book, not actively chasing squirrels qualifies as complex philosophical thought.

You have just giving me a reason for your position. Thus you do not lack a belief in a talking teapot. You actually have a negative belief about it enough to reject the idea.

It's posts like this that tempt me to come to the conclusion that you're logically inept. You're trying to spin my position into something it's not. Maybe an illustration will help here. Imagine we're looking at a blank map. Now, I don't have a negative belief that a particular island exists on that map. Instead, I simply lack information about it. If someone claims the island exists, I'll ask for evidence. If they provide none, I won't fill in the map with a big "X" indicating the island's non-existence; I'll just leave it blank, awaiting further information. I don't know if it's your lack of understanding, or if you're just a dishonest debater looking to prove your point by any means necessary, but this part of the conversation has been stretched far enough already and is getting tedious.

Cause and Effect my dear.
The Universe expanded from the gravitational singularity 13.8 billion years ago and not earlier because there was a Cause that made it change state and begin to expand..

Cause and Effect relies on a temporal framework, where one event precedes another. But, my friend, you're trying to apply this framework to a moment when time itself was still in its infancy, if not nonexistent. The gravitational singularity you mentioned is thought to be a point where our current understanding of physics breaks down, and the laws of causality as we know them cease to apply. In other words, you're trying to impose a causal relationship on a phenomenon that defies our conventional notions of cause and effect -- a classic case of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The universe's expansion may have had a trigger, but to call that trigger a "Cause" in the classical sense is a stretch, if not a outright misapplication of the concept.

How do you know that bacteria do not contemplate on their lives?

As far as our current scientific understanding goes, they lack the cognitive machinery necessary for self-awareness, consciousness, and complex thought processes.

It's still your image of God according to your own understanding.

LOL. So, it's my image of God, but it's also the exact same image your holy book describes? That's some impressive mental gymnastics right there. It's like saying I created the image of a square circle, but the circle is still round. Logic really isn't your strong suit, is it?

Unfortunately, it is impossible to invalidate any subjective experience.

Yet I'm guessing you'd be the first to dismiss the subjective experiences of, say, a Scientologist or a Flat Earther, or a Hindu worshipper. The selectivity of your skepticism is almost as impressive as your ability to sidestep the burden of proof.

And you'd be the first to protest if I pay you back in kind.
It's a choice to be civil in speech ma.

My assessment of your argument is the only reasonable conclusion I can parse from your comments. It's not a personal attack. You're just not good with logic, and you've shown that repeatedly.

Points you debunked!?
LOL!!

Well, it looks like the only point you grasped was the one about kindergarten.

Madonna - La Isla Bonita


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpzdgmqIHOQ&pp=ygUWTWFkb25uYSBsYSBpc2xhIGJvbml0YQ%3D%3D

A classic.

Tyler, the Creator (feat. Kali Uchis) - See You Again


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGgcC5xg9YI&pp=ygUfdHlsZXIgdGhlIGNyZWF0b3Igc2VlIHlvdSBhZ2Fpbg%3D%3D

Kilo Kish - Elegance


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuBbsHb8ya4&pp=ygUSS2lsbyBraXNoIGVsZWdhbmNl

TenQ:

Just responding to:
"The simplicity of your logic is almost charming, but unfortunately, it's still so very misguided. It also strikes me as intellectual laziness because your argument amounts to nothing beyond guesswork, if you're really being honest to yourself."

When I called your logic simplistic and charming, I was making a valid critique of your argument's substance. I was not, however, attacking your character or emotional state. That's a crucial distinction you seem to have missed. On the other hand, your response of "You're just being emotional" was a blatant attempt to discredit my argument by attacking my emotional state, rather than addressing the points I raised, which is a form of ad hominem. So, while I was making a substantive critique, you resorted to a cheap, fallacious trick to avoid engaging with my argument. And now, you're trying to play the victim by claiming I started it? Please. If you can't keep up with the intellectual rigor, it's better to concede than to resort to such transparent evasions.

Can you please tell me how the atom self-assembled itself?

The atom didn't "self-assemble" in the sense of a conscious, intentional process. Rather, it formed through the natural interactions of its constituent parts, governed by the laws of physics. The proton, for instance, is composed of three quarks held together by the strong nuclear force. These quarks aren't conscious entities that chose to form a proton; they simply interacted according to the laws of quantum chromodynamics. Similarly, the structure of atoms arises from the interactions between these subatomic particles, governed by the laws of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. No intelligent mind is required to explain the formation of atoms; only the laws of physics and the inherent properties of the particles themselves.

This just proves that there was an Intelligent Mind behind it else there would be no life here on earth.

Actually, the existence of these interdependent systems doesn't point to an intelligent designer. It points to the remarkable properties of our universe and the ingenuity of life to exploit them.

#Water Cycle

Consequence of basic physics -- the sun's energy heating water, causing evaporation, condensation due to cooler temperatures, and precipitation.

#Energy Cycle

Energy flows and transforms according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. Plants capture sunlight, animals eat plants, we all release energy back into the system.

#Reproduction

Like dominoes falling, complex molecules self-replicate based on their structure. Natural selection then favors those replications that best suit the environment. It's a brutal but effective system, not a divine baby-making factory.

#Carbon Cycle

Carbon literally gets everywhere. It cycles through the air, land, water, and living things. It's a natural process driven by geology, biology, and chemistry.

#Carbon Dioxide-Oxygen

Plants take in CO2, release oxygen, animals breathe in oxygen, release CO2. It's a beautiful cycle, but it's nothing more than a byproduct of how these lifeforms function.

Tell me if there would be Life here on earth with just ONE of these missen

So what if some of these cycles were different? Perhaps with a slightly less efficient water cycle, life as we know it wouldn't exist. That doesn't mean a designer got it "just right". It simply means in this particular universe, with these particular physical laws, these are the cycles that emerged. The vastness of space likely holds countless universes with wildly different conditions, some with no life at all.

From where does these rules and patterns come from?

Rules come from intelligent minds else everything will be random chaos.

This is you begging the question. Rules and patterns in nature can arise from inherent properties and interactions within the system itself, without the need for an external intelligent mind. Think of the laws of physics, the structure of crystals, or the branching patterns in trees. These are all examples of emergent properties, which can be explained by the interactions of their constituent parts, not by an intelligent designer.
As I said earlier, even if we can't explain the origin of these rules and patterns, it doesn't mean we get to insert an intelligent mind as a default explanation. That's not how science or logic works.

Is it untrue that in the the DNA, Each gene's code uses the four nucleotide bases of DNA: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) — in various ways to spell out three-letter “codons” that specify which amino acid is needed at each position within a protein.

It is like in our computer program that uses TWO states TRUE and FALSE to generate every command and Data withing the computer. The DNA uses Four.

These four DNA bases form coherent commands, instructions and data.

Again and again, your comparison is a non sequitur. Both systems use symbolic representations to convey information, sure. But they don't operate under the same principles or logic. Besides, the complexity and nuance of genetic expression, regulation, and evolution can't be reduced to a simplistic comparison with computer programming. The beauty of DNA lies in its intricate, dynamic, and context-dependent interactions, which can't be captured by a straightforward binary or quaternary code.

The two states of the computer TRUE and FALSE also is NOT like the human language: is it?

Another clever attempt to shift the goalposts -- this time, with a red herring. Those binary states are still part of a human-designed system, created to represent and process information in a way that's meaningful to us. The rules and meanings assigned to TRUE and FALSE are arbitrary, but they're agreed upon by convention and used consistently within the context of computer science. On the other hand, the DNA code wasn't designed by humans. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon that's been shaped by millions of years of evolution. The rules and meanings assigned to the nucleotide sequences aren't arbitrary, they're determined by the chemical and physical properties of the molecules themselves and the cellular machinery that interprets them. So yes, it may seem like both computer binary and DNA sequences can be thought of as "codes". However, they operate in fundamentally different contexts and are governed by different rules and meanings.

I am actually saying the opposite. The DNA contains INFORMATION and DATA. It is not a random assembly of sequence of the A, C, G, and T.
From your understanding, can a random sequence of A, C, G, and T contain information and data?

If not, do you know a single instance where a random sequence of ZEROS and ONES can be both Instruction and Data within a computer hardware?

A random sequence of A, C, G, and T can contain information and data in the sense that it can still be subject to chemical and physical rules that govern the interactions between nucleotides and the cellular machinery. But without a specific context and a predetermined set of rules, a random sequence would not contain meaningful information or data in the same way that a specific DNA sequence does. Also, random sequences of zeros and ones can be both instruction and data within a computer hardware, but only because we've predefined a set of rules and a language (machine code) that gives meaning to those sequences. In the same way, the chemical and physical rules that govern DNA give meaning to the sequence of nucleotides, but it's not the same as human language or machine code.

TenQ:

It is amazing how humans see only what they want to see and choose to be blind when they do not want to see.
Using your case for gravity:
Can we not see the effect of LIFE, CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE in man?
You think this ns not a sufficient proof that man was made to be so by an Intelligent Mind?

Jessica, you are the evidence that you were made. You are not just a random assembly of atoms. Everything about you had been assembled to make you able to function as a living being.

Until you can show me a computer that self assembled itself, you are just having wishful thinking.

Pretty much everything you've said here has been addressed and debunked at many junctures of our discussion thus far. To start with, it has been obvious for a long while now that you're just suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias. It's very convenient for you to see the complexity of life and ignore the mountains of evidence for evolution through natural selection, just to cling onto "intelligent design". Nature doesn't need some divine engineer to tinker with pre-built parts. Evolution works through incremental changes, building on existing structures. It's like starting with a paperclip and, through a series of bends and folds, ending up with a ship. As for consciousness? Philosophers and neuroscientists have been grappling with that conundrum for centuries. We don't have all the answers yet, but the beauty of science is that it's constantly seeking them. So, the choice isn't between absolute knowledge and blind belief. It's between embracing the wonder of the universe with a critical eye, and settling for a pre-written story that feels comforting but lacks the thrill of discovery.

The point is that we hold a position of believe when we think we hold a reasonable position that our position is the best of other alternatives.

Like you hold a believe that there is no entity called God who created everything without an objective proof.

Well, I'd say that believing in a God without objective proof is like holding a map without a compass -- you might think you know where you're going, but you're just navigating through faith alone.

Just test it out.
Is there anything you hold a position of believe on without an iota of reason?
It doesn't exist!

Babies, Animals and Imbe.ciles cannot hold a position of belief in a Deity and the reason is obvious why they lacked a belief. But certainly not Jessica.

Your test is highly ineffectual because the fact that I don't believe in deities doesn't mean I believe in their absolute non-existence. It's like asking if I believe in fairies without wings and translucent tutus -- sure, I can acknowledge the concept is unlikely, but that doesn't mean I hold a fervent belief in their absence. You're right that babies, animals etc. lack belief in deities. But why? Because they lack the cognitive capacity to grasp complex concepts like gods, not because they hold some inherent "position" of disbelief. A dog doesn't disbelieve in Odin; it simply doesn't have the mental framework to process such an idea. I, on the other hand, do have that framework. I've examined the concept of deities through the lens of science, philosophy, history and so on. And after that critical analysis, I'm left unconvinced. That's not a belief in non-existence, my friend. It's the very definition of reasoned skepticism.

I'll give you a simpler analogy: I don't believe there's a talking teapot orbiting Pluto. Not because I believe there definitively isn't one, but because there's no evidence to suggest its existence. Is that so hard to grasp?

Matter, Space, Time were simultaneously created 13.8 billion years ago. If God existed before matter,how can he be made of it?

No, no, no, no, no, TenQ. Now, you're just moving the goalposts. First, the creator was beyond the reach of science. Now you need it existing before the very concept of "before" existed. 😂

You make yourself of something while you are nothing before your Creator.
Your "suffering" isn't different from the suffering of the Bacteria you killed in your toilet. Your apparent suffering is inconsequential ma!

The earth is a school or place of selection: thus you must experience hard things. Did your parents send you to school because it was easy?

You have created an image of God in your shead and you rejected the same image you created. No wonder your stance of atheism.

Last time I checked, the natural world operates strictly on principles of survival and adaptation. Hurricanes don't sit you down for a post-devastation lecture on wind resistance. Predation isn't exactly a "character-building exercise" for the gazelle. And by the way, comparing my existential angst to the "suffering" of bacteria wouldn't win any awards for scientific accuracy. Bacteria don't contemplate the meaning of life, they don't write angsty poetry about the cruelty of the universe. They just...exist. Their "struggle" is a basic biological process. My "suffering," on the other hand, can be a complex interplay of emotions, memories, and social interactions. Big difference.

And finally, this whole "you created your own image of God and rejected it" business is a very interesting case of psychological projection. The God you describe -- the one who's both omnipotent and apathetic -- isn't one I invented. That's the God presented in your own holy book, the one who allows innocent children to be slaughtered and then demands their parents praise him for it.

If anything, I'm simply rejecting a character whose moral compass seems perpetually stuck on "Lawful Evil."

And unlike you. Some of us have found God from the so-called ancient myths and He is real to us.

Let me put it this way: just because you've found solace in a particular brand of mythology doesn't make it an objective truth. I mean, I've found comfort in a good plate of jollof rice, but that doesn't mean it's a fundamental aspect of the universe. And as for your "He is real to us" retort, well, that's the thing about subjective experiences -- they're subjective. I'm sure the Easter Bunny is very real to some people on Easter morning, but that doesn't mean I should start worshipping a giant rabbit.

I have just shown you that because you have several cogent reasons to choose not to believe in God the Creator,
You successfully proved that you do NOT lack a belief in the existence of a Creator: Your reasons support your Belief (as you dont lack it)

Addressed above. You proved nothing, except the fact that your capacity for logical reasoning leaves much to be desired.

My Question was:
Will you agree to the proposition that: Every position of Belief is either FOR or AGAINST a position!

All you needed to do was to give me some real examples of how you held a position of belief without ANY reasons

Repeating yourself after your points have already been debunked doesn't accomplish anything for you here, my dear. That tactic might be very effective in a kindergarten show-and-tell, not in grown-up debates. Here's a question that should be easy for you, since you want to double down on your ignorance: Can the sky be both blue and… not blue at the same time, depending on the lighting? If you can answer that, we can maybe move on to the complexities of human belief.

TenQ:

I have at least proved to you except if you still disagree that:
1. Not everything that Exist is Tangible.
2. I have a simple question for you:
Let's say that A non material Alien exists and the Alien is the One who Created Everything seen and unseen in the Universe: How do you expect Him to look like?

Let's play along for a thought experiment. This all-powerful, all-knowing being... why would it be invisible and intangible? Throughout history, humans have generally depicted their gods as reflections of themselves: powerful, jealous, sometimes even petty. Appealing to the invisibility of the creator is quite simply a blatant and obvious dodge. Point, blank, period. It is nothing more than a way for you to avoid the glaring lack of evidence for a physical deity. As for science, it doesn't need to know what an alien creator looks like. With science, we can explain the formation of galaxies, the evolution of life, the dynamics of subatomic particles etc. It's a much simpler, more elegant explanation that actually aligns with the evidence we do have. If you want to believe in an invisible, intangible super-being, that's your right. But claiming such a being exists based on philosophical musings and hypotheticals will NEVER hold water. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a vague "maybe it exists" just doesn't cut it.

Interestingly, you just failed the same basic test:
Can you show Entropy decreasing without an external influence?
A software is real BUT certainly not Tangible: can you show us how a software look like within a computer memory?

The beauty of demanding evidence for extraordinary claims is that it doesn't require me, a humble atheist, to have all the answers. Software is real, demonstrably so. It runs this very conversation, for goodness sake! The question of how it "looks" within the computer's memory is like asking what the wind sounds like on Neptune. It's a category error. Software exists as a complex series of instructions the machine interprets. Just because it's not tangible doesn't make it any less real. The existence of software has observable effects. It can be tested, replicated, and used to build things -- like, say, the very internet that allows us to have this little debate. That's a big world of difference from your many god claims.

As for entropy, as you likely know (being a beacon of logic yourself), it is the natural tendency for disorder to increase over time. It's a fundamental law of thermodynamics. Now, I'm not claiming to be a physicist, but the existence of a closed system where entropy might decrease for a brief period wouldn't disprove the existence of deities any more than your favorite brand of toaster proves Zeus throws lightning bolts. So I'm afraid, the challenge still remains. Can you provide any evidence for your extraordinary claim? Because the laws of physics and the logic of demanding evidence seem to be a rather formidable tag team against your argument.

Apart from the fact that we know that programmers must have programmed our washing machine: can you show with some objective proof that the washing machine is run by a software?

I am curious (don't tell me its the effects it produces) or it will be used against you (and you should honourably accept the conclusion).

A washing machine's function does imply a programmer. But guess what? That programmer is demonstrably human. We have blueprints, patents, and maybe even receipts from the hardware store! Washing machines are built on established scientific principles. We understand electricity, mechanics, and yes, even the logic of software. The existence of a universe, however, is a whole other ball game. We're grappling with dark energy, quantum mechanics, the origin of everything -- it's miles beyond what our tiny little minds can fathom. So demanding the same level of proof for both here only serves to further demonstrate your poor grasp of the logic. But perhaps you can prove me wrong and shut me up for good. Show me evidence of a divine programmer with the same level of traceability, and we'll be in business.

You can take the lead as I have defined my terms: Atheists on Nairaland have ways of twisting simple and concise definitions to serve their purpose.

I see. So, you've defined 'concrete' and 'objectively' as... 'whatever I say they mean'? Well, I suppose that's one way to avoid actually engaging with the complexity of the issues. Do go on, I'm eager to see how you plan to redefine the laws of physics and philosophy to suit your purposes, rather than deal with the nuances of reality.

All I am saying is stating the obvious:
If a computer was found on mars, we would conclude that it was brought there by some intelligent creatures and not that the computer evolved after trillions of years from the martian soil.

LOL. That's a risible and narrow definition of "intelligent creatures" you've conjured there. Are we talking about beings who craft sonnets and build spaceships, or are we open to the possibility of a different kind of intelligence? After all, here on Earth, we have complex ecosystems teeming with creatures who excel in their own unique ways, even if they don't write code. Perhaps a Martian intelligence wouldn't look like a human with a pocket protector, but it could still be incredibly sophisticated in its own right. Furthermore, the "trillions of years" bit is a bit of a strawman. Evolution doesn't have a set timeframe. It depends entirely on the environment and the selective pressures at play. If Mars once had a suitable environment and the right building blocks, who are we to say a complex device couldn't emerge over a very long period?

Are you concluding that consciousness is NOT real?
Other than "effects" what is your physical and objective proof of consciousness (What is its mass, colour, frequency, dimensions etc)?

This is just like asking for the color of sound. It's a different kind of experience altogether. We can measure brain activity that correlates with consciousness, just like a seismograph can measure tremors that point to an earthquake. Basically, we might not be able to bottle consciousness and sell it on the open market, but its effects are totally undeniable.

No madam.
You can only know when a person is likely dreaming because of the movements of the eyes during sleep, otherwise, there is NO way to determine the content of anyone's dream.

I guess, Dreams do NOT exist by the application of you Atheists philosophy!
IS their any instrument that can narrate any ones dream?
No!

Need I remind you that YOU are making the extraordinary claim that your dream dinner with esteemed political figures was some objective truth. The burden of proof, as they say in court lies with YOU. Just because science can't definitively tell us what you dreamt about doesn't validate your dream as reality. And sure, eye movements during REM sleep can be an indicator of dreaming, but it's not a dream decoder ring. Plenty of non-dreamy eye twitching happens at night too. There's no "dream-o-meter" because frankly, dreams are the product of your own brain firing its nonsensical neurons.

Oh, and atheism doesn't have a position on dreams. It's simply about the lack of belief in deities, not the regulation of the nocturnal mind.

What a contradiction?
Increase in Entropy is increase in disorderliness. At maximum entropy, there is no single energy difference between one point and another. Energy difference is zero. Matter ceases to exist.

It is not a mere philosophical argument: it is simple physics
If the Entropy of the Universe is increasing, it proves that Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible.

Except you can show me that somehow a physics exist where the Entropy of the Universe will start decreasing at a point.
I am waiting

Hold on a minute! It seems we need to have a quick crash course in the difference between throwing physics jargon about and actually understanding it. You're assuming infinite regress hinges on the universe endlessly chugging along, forever generating new causes and effects. That is a strawman argument. The concept of infinite regress deals with the theoretical possibility of causes stretching infinitely backwards in time, not some perpetual motion machine. Imagine a never-ending line of dominoes toppling each other. Each domino is a cause, the next one the effect. That line can theoretically stretch back forever, even if there's a perfectly good reason why the dominoes eventually stop toppling (maybe the last one runs out of steam, or maybe a net force intervenes). The heat death of the universe is like the net force or object -- it puts a stop to the domino-effect, but it doesn't negate the possibility of there being an infinite line in the first place.

You also mentioned wanting to see a universe where entropy decreases. Interesting thought experiment, but unfortunately, it's outside the realm of our current understanding of physics. However, the fact that we haven't observed such a universe doesn't disprove the possibility of infinite regress in abstract, logical terms.

See how you praise the god of Science.
Nature indeed abhors a vacuum.

When a person rejects the Creator, he automatically replaces Him with something far less, an idol.

"Nature abhors a vacuum" is a fun turn of phrase, originally used to describe a now-obsolete theory about physics. Sorry to disappoint you dear, but in the real world, nature seems perfectly content with vacuums, as evidenced by the vast emptiness of space. You obviously think when people abandon religion, they need to fill that void with something else. To an extent, that may be true. But something seems to keep flying steadily over your head in this debate: science isn't a replacement for religion. It's a separate methodology for understanding the natural world. If someone doesn't believe in a creator, it doesn't automatically mean they need to worship the "god of Science." It simply means they prioritize evidence and reason over faith. By the way, it's funny you talk about idols. I must say, that's a very rich accusation coming from someone who reveres a book written and rewritten by countless humans over millennia.

It seems you dont get this point:
Does it matter if a person is a 100% numerical illiterate, 2+3 will always be 5.

What I was saying in other words is: Even if no humans existed in the world, 1+3 will still be 4.
Mathematics exist regardless of whether we know it or not.

Mathematics is just a discovery of some of the numeric laws on which our reality is founded. Pythagoras theory had been in operation well before it was discovered.

Even a person who can't perform the calculation understands the basic concept of "more" and "less." They can point to four distinct objects and recognize it as different from three. Numbers are a human abstraction built on that foundation. Secondly, the Pythagoras example is a wonderful case of mistaken causality. The physical principle Pythagoras described -- the relationship between sides of a right triangle -- existed before humans, sure. But mathematics isn't just about passively observing reality; it's about actively constructing a system to describe and manipulate those observations. The theorem itself, the elegant equation, is a human invention.

Gravity existed long before Newton, but that doesn't mean there was an apple hurtling towards the ground with a tiny "F=ma" label slapped on it. So effectively, my point still stands. Without a mind to create and utilize the concept of "4," or the relationship between addition and quantity, "1+3" is just a meaningless scribble. It doesn't magically transform into "4" in the cosmic void.

LOGIC does NOT require humans to be TRUE?
The implication is that the coherence of LOGIC was not a human construct: it is fundamental to the universe.

Ugh. C'mon now, TenQ. This is basic comprehension in English, so how do you keep missing the point? Confusing a map with the territory is a classic explorer's folly. Logic is a tool we use to navigate reality, not some inherent property of the universe whispering sweet nothings of truth. You might need to spend less time worshipping logic and more time observing the universe it (hopefully) describes.

It does ma!
Please check!

Check what, exactly? Thermodynamics 101 or basic logic? Entropy is like a room reaching maximum chill -- it doesn't mean the air molecules stop moving, just that their chaotic dance is less energetic. So brush up, then maybe we can discuss the ever-after of a lukewarm universe.

No!
Because they are not conscious!

Wow. So consciousness is the magic ingredient that grants an understanding of burnt toast, but not the complex electrical and mechanical processes that went into browning it in the first place? Wow. Very interesting.

LOL!


Why dont you answer he question:
Atoms and Molecule is the building blocks of any cell: at what point did they acquire data and instructions? (I need you to explain the evolution from atoms to DNA)

Well, your question is a classic bait-and-switch, assuming life needs pre-written instructions like a computer program. But let me indulge you. The beauty of evolution is its elegance in simplicity. Interactions of atoms and molecules are governed by the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. These laws dictate how atoms with specific properties bond, react, and organize themselves. Are you familiar with Legos? Those plastic little bricks themselves don't hold instructions, but their shapes and properties determine how they can connect and build complex structures. Similarly, the building blocks of life i.e. atoms and simple molecules, have inherent properties that, under the right conditions, lead to the formation of more complex molecules like amino acids, the precursors to proteins. Plus, the emergence of DNA as the information carrier is a gradual process, not a single step. Early life forms might have relied on simpler information storage mechanisms, like RNA, before transitioning to the more robust DNA molecule.

You've just said this:
Even though we don't yet know the answer to how the Universe got created, we are working on it. Any other theory is better than "God Created the Universe"!

You argue so passionately like someone who knows the answer!
I asked a question:
Let's say that A non material Alien exists and the Alien is the One who Created Everything seen and unseen in the Universe: How do you expect Him to look like?

😂 So, you're ditching the whole, you know, fiery chariot and white beard get-up from your Bible for a formless entity? Now that's a plot twist even the writers of ancient mythology wouldn't have dared to dream up!

But I just have to ask you this question TenQ: If this all-powerful creator isn't bound by the physical realm, why bother to anthropomorphize it at all? What if it's just a symphony of subatomic particles conducting the cosmic orchestra? Or perhaps a swirling vortex of pure information? Are you a hundred percent confident that neither of the above two options are possible? Personally, I think the possibilities are as endless as the universe itself.

Now, if you insist on a visual aid, I'm partial to a good fractal pattern myself. Fractals are infinitely complex and self-similar, a bit like the universe.

It did: the computer chip had evolved from a primordial soup of silicon, and the hardware had assembled itself through natural selection..
Silicon and the dopants Boron and Aluminium are elements abundant in the earth!

Perhaps you're thinking of a different evolutionary process? Because the one that involves chip designers spending years crafting intricate blueprints, photolithography etching circuits onto silicon wafers, and then meticulously assembling the hardware... well, that sounds suspiciously like intelligent design to me. So, unless you have a compelling explanation for how these elements spontaneously organized themselves into a functional computer chip, complete with transistors and logic gates, I'm afraid your analogy is still dead on arrival, and your "primordial soup" theory might need a bit more seasoning.

Tkay Maidza - Where Is My Mind? (Pixies Cover)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFfGf1-y1Bs&pp=ygUcdGtheSBtYWlkemEgd2hlcmUgaXMgbXkgbWluZA%3D%3D

Cash Cobain & J Cole - Grippy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wn_ARfYMw4&pp=ygUNSiBjb2xlIGdyaXBweQ%3D%3D

I'm utterly disappointed in J Cole here. This has to be the most bland and underwhelming hip hop record I've heard in years. Right up there with the likes of YBN Nahmir and Kodak Black.

The so called Big 3 is officially a wrap.

TenQ:

You are just being emotional

Dismissing valid criticisms as emotional is just you trying to poison the well and make it seem like I'm incapable of making rational points. Not only is it a pitiful deflection on your part, it's also downright disrespectful and arrogant. I thought you were better than this.

All you have to do is to show me one example that can be shown from nature where
1. A an interdependent set of systems exist without an intelligent mind behind it

How about the structure of atoms? Protons, neutrons, and electrons work together in a delicate balance, and we've understood the physical laws governing their behavior without needing to invoke an intelligent mind.

Or consider the water cycle: evaporation, condensation, and precipitation all work together to distribute water across our planet. How can you honestly try to shoehorn an intelligent designer in all of the above phenomena?

2. That given an unlimited set of alphanumeric characters and an infinite time to juggle them up that you can find any string of intelligent statement. (A sentence is enough)

Do you seriously think you can just casually ignore the fact that natural processes operate under specific conditions and constraints, not random chance? The emergence of complex systems in nature follows rules and patterns, not arbitrary juggling of characters. And, by the way, even if an infinite number of characters did produce a sentence, it wouldn't imply the existence of an intelligent mind. Again, you're making me repeat myself.

It is easy to juxtapose several alphanumeric characters to form a string.

Indeed, just like it's easy to string together a few words to form a sentence, but that doesn't mean you've necessarily formed a coherent argument.

The question is:

Is the string an Information?
What is the decoding language?
What lexicon are you using?

Without these three simultaneous answers to these, the DNA is no code but a random assembly of atoms.

You might help me translate the sentence below

[u]Yon werj kkneds hgdnsi watsh is mobbrerting wserjs do mux![/su]

You're still demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of chemical information and the DNA code. The string of alphanumeric characters, in this case, the sequence of nucleotides (A, C, G, and T), does represent information, but not in the same way that human language does. The decoding language is not English or any human tongue; it's the chemical and physical rules that govern the interactions between nucleotides and the cellular machinery that interprets them. The lexicon is the set of chemical and physical properties that define the behavior of these molecules. And as for the sentence you provided, it's just a collection of letters cobbled together carelessly, not a real sentence in any language. It's a classic example of a meaningless sequence, much like a random assembly of nucleotides would be. But, unlike DNA, this sequence doesn't have any chemical or physical properties that would allow it to be interpreted or translated into meaningful information.

Now contrast that with the DNA sequence. Though it may appear random at first glance, it contains a wealth of chemical and physical information that is decoded and interpreted by the cellular machinery. It's a highly specific and organized sequence that contains instructions for life, not just a random assembly of atoms. So, your attempt to equate the DNA code with a meaningless sequence of letters falls flat on its face. The DNA code is a remarkable example of chemical information, and it would be more reasonable to acknowledge its natural origins, rather than trying to impose human language and meaning onto it.

AlbertNewton:


Alright, fair enough.

Actually, upon thinking about the matter more carefully, I think I might be committing hasty generalisation fallacy.

My belief that chess has little or no impact on one's critical thinking skills is based on my personal experience as a chess player myself. I have been playing the game for many years now and in all honesty, I wouldn't say that all the hundreds of hours I have spent exerting my mental energy on chessboard have had any significant, noticeable impact on my critical thinking skills.

But here's an important point I think I was missing. Before I learned to play chess in my second year in the university, I was already fairly good at logical and critical thinking (by the way, I believe this is usually the case for most people that love and enjoy chess). I was good at maths, further maths and physics, and enjoyed solving challenging problems in these subjects. After years of playing chess, I don't think there's anything I can do cognitively that I wouldn't have been able to do just as well without playing chess.

So, I think perhaps for people who lack critical thinking skills, it's possible that playing chess might help them improve or develop the skill.

And now that I'm curious about it, I will like to make findings about schools that teach their students chess to see if such training has any significant impact on the academic performance of the students. You should do this too before you start advocating for the teaching of chess in schools.

Duly noted. Actually, I think those findings do exist already, and I'll cite them when I can come across them. But for what it is worth, I appreciate you sharing your personal experience and insights about the relationship between chess and critical thinking skills. Your perspective is valuable, and I commend your willingness to consider alternative viewpoints.

Christianoir:
I bet 99% of human Population will will found this Question extremely hard to answer

If your mother accidentally kill someone, with you as the only eye witness, somehow your best friend was arrested, and charge for the murder. note this best friend of yours donated their kidney for you (you’re living/alive because of them) and your best friend was sentenced to death by firing Squad, will you let your best friend die or tell the police/court what actually happened
How do you save your friend and mother?? will you let your friend die or let your mother face the consequences

This is a Question about BLOOD AND WATER
There is no escape from the truth..

Alright, here's my two cents. This response may or may not rub you off the wrong way, but I'll just note here that I'm answering this question from the perspective of a pragmatist and humanist. This is a question of blood and water, as you so aptly put it. But it's also a question of integrity, compassion, and the courage to do what's right, even when it's difficult.

First of all, it is important to remember that our justice system is designed to presume innocence until proven guilty, and it's crucial to uphold that principle.

Now, in this scenario, we have a moral obligation to save an innocent life - our best friend - who has literally given us a second chance at life. On the other hand, we have a familial bond with our mother, and the instinct to protect our loved ones is deeply ingrained. However, we must recognize that our mother's actions, although accidental, have led to a grave consequence, and she must face the legal repercussions. Because, if the shoe was on the other foot, and our mother was the one who was being framed for a crime she didn't commit, we would be picking up pitchforks and screaming for justice.

As a pragmatist, I say the best approach would probably be to tell the truth. We owe it to our best friend, who has shown us the true meaning of selflessness, and to the justice system, which relies on our honesty to function effectively. By speaking up, we can save our friend from an unjust fate and allow our mother to face the consequences of her actions, which will undoubtedly be taken into account given the accidental nature of the crime. Any other response is one driven by the emotional need for self-preservation.

Am I saying that if this ever happened to me, I'll sell out my mother in a heartbeat? Probably won't be that easy. I'm only just pointing out the right decision to make as a humanist.

I think people seriously need to learn how to separate the actions of an individual from their contributions to society. It makes literally no sense to retroactively rescind Soyinka's Nobel Prize based on actions that are not directly related to his literary contributions. It is irrelevant and unfair. Wole Soyinka was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1986 for his literary works, which have greatly benefited mankind. His writings have promoted social justice, human rights, and democracy, and have inspired generations of writers and thinkers. Citing his involvement in the Pyrates Confraternity as a matter of historical record is not adequate justification to revise his Nobel Prize award if you asked me.

Lauryn Hill - Doo-Wop (That Thing)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6QKqFPRZSA&pp=ygUTbGF1cnluIGhpbGwgZG9vIHdvcA%3D%3D

CuriousCart:
Jessica.Rabbit is seeking support from trolls to cover the shame she feels right now. She wants to turn this thread into a banter thread away from the FACT that she cannot show where I said the flood was global.


I dare you Jessica.Rabbit to show us the screenshot of where I said the flood was global in my write up.

I triple dare you

Do you seriously think I value your opinions of me? If you couldn't tell by now, I can't help but see you as a joke. Arguing with you is beneath me. Everyone on this thread now knows you're too stupid to engage in a rational discussion.

And to prove this, I'll leave you to keep kicking, trashing and screaming in my mentions, till you have a full blown meltdown on this thread. 😂

I would wish you sweet dreams, but I know you'll be going to bed crying. 😭

CuriousCart:
Jessica.Rabbit has realized that she is an illiterate.

She's desperately trying to use lengthy stories to cover up for her unintelligence.


She has no proof that I said the flood was global because there's none. My original write up is still up there and was quoted by many people.



I'm very good at handling dumb humans like her.

Tsk, tsk. I'm in your head. 🤪

AlbertNewton:


ME: How did the animals become inhabitants of earth? Who created them ?

FÓ0LISH YOU: Who created our creators?
I have no idea sir. I only gave mankind's creation theory.

So tell me what the question in your response implies.

You're really going out sad on this thread, CuriousCart. More users are becoming acutely aware of your intellectual handicap. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

43Ronin:
Hi OP your dealer got good stuff. All the intelligence for your pot head is really marveling. Abeg gimme ur dealer number, him get canadian loud?

CuriousCart, would you be so kind to attend to this gentleman up here? Take him under your wings and show him the light of your intellectual majesty. 😁

CuriousCart:
@ JessicaRabbit I'm still waiting...

I'm sorry, did you need a coloring book to keep yourself occupied while you wait? 🤣

I wanna go to bed soon

Oh, no! Are you tired? Did your lack of intellectual substance finally wear you out? There, there, poor baby.

I can see you viewing

Did you also deduce that the sky is blue and grass is green?

I really hope you're not busy typing another epistle because I will ignore it.

You really think you're soooo important that you need to warn me about ignoring my responses? 😂 Please, by all means, spare me the burden of your attention. I was just sitting here, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for your permission to type. How gracious of you to grant me the option to be ignored. Do go ahead and bestow your ignorance upon me, I can't wait to be dismissed. LOL.

Just quote the part where I said that the flood was global. This is supposed to take mere seconds since my original post is still up there. (See mine attached).

It was obviously implied in your post. Anyone with more than a single brain cell can see that. If you think I'm bluffing, just quote another user on this thread to confirm it for you. And if you still can't see it after that, then you're even way dumber than you look right now.

Notice how everyone on this thread is calling you out on your lack of intellectual depth. 😂

Please don't run away like a coward.

I mean, it takes a lot of courage to type out a sentence like that, especially when you're hiding behind a screen.

Thanks.

You're welcome. I'm so glad I could bother to acknowledge your existence.

CuriousCart:


@ Jessica.Rabbit the Illiterate of NL
If you can't respond to these 2 questions do not quote me again. Just show us. No extra noise.


Thanks.

For future reference, when a genius like myself graces you with a quote, consider it a privilege, not a right.

CuriousCart:


You are a stark illiterate and your comments continue to prove so.

And your intellectual prowess is like a damp sponge left out in the sun. Your comments, like a symphony of flatulence, resonates with the depth of a pothole. It's as if your brain cells are engaged in a perpetual game of hide-and-seek, but they've all decided to take a permanent vacation to the Bermuda Triangle.

I'll go straight to the point.

Is that right? Because the way you were circling this conversation like a lost puppy, I wasn't sure you knew where the point was.

1. Show us who has ACTUAL EVIDENCE on the origins of mankind as you are requesting.

It's not my job to provide evidence for the origins of mankind. Scientists have already done that, and it's called evolution through natural selection. The evidence is overwhelming, from comparative anatomy to genetic sequencing. But I'm not here to give you a biology lesson. You're simply not worth the time or effort anyway.

However, recall that you made a specific claim about divine intervention and genetic engineering by extraterrestrial beings. That's your hypothesis, not mine. So, it's your responsibility to provide the evidence. Don't try to deflect and demand that I prove a negative or provide evidence for something I'm not claiming. That's a logical fallacy.

2. Show us the part in my original write up where I posited a global flood.

Your entire argument relied completely on the Biblical notion of a global catastrophic event (which you cleverly avoided labeling as a "global flood" that necessitated the survival of certain individuals outside of the ark. Don't try to backpedal now and pretend you never suggested such a thing when we have the receipts. No one here is half as stupid as you. Your attempt to feign indignation and play the victim only serves to further highlight the intellectual dishonesty and desperation that underlies your conduct in this thread. If you can't handle the heat, perhaps you should refrain from serving up such a sizzling mess of inane assertions with such gusto. You're nothing but a joke, and henceforth, I'll treat you as such.

Please there's no need to type epistles.
Just point out these two things.

Sorry dear, but I'm not obligated to cater to your inferior cognitive capabilities.

If you can't, then you are exactly what I know.
Dumb.

You shouldn't be insulting things smarter than you. Like a toaster, for instance. 😁

AlbertNewton:

I don't trust all these psychological research easily, compared to research in physical and biological sciences.

Anyways, you're obviously a very smart person and I presume you've been playing chess for sometime. So in your own personal experience, would you say that playing chess significantly contributed to how good a thinker or problem solver you are now ? In other words, would you say that if you had not started playing chess then you wouldn't be as smart as you are today ?

I wouldn't say that I wouldn't be as smart without chess, but I do think that playing chess has been a valuable addition to my cognitive arsenal. It has helped me develop a unique perspective and approach to problem-solving.

AlbertNewton:

Chess is a game played according to a few, well-defined rules. All the critical thinking you do when you play chess is basically centered around these rules. As you play the game more and more, you learn different strategies and tactics (still based on the rules) that enable you to play the game better.
Hence, when people get better at chess, they are NOT really getting better at thinking, instead they just become better at using the different strategies and tactics they've mastered (through experience and practice) and at analysing the chessboard. So a good chess player is one who has simply excelled in strategic thinking and tactical problem-solving within the realm of chess. The skills he has developed are highly domain-specific and not transferable to other areas.
Therefore, when you teach someone to play chess and they learn to play it well, their overall critical thinking skills may not improve noticeably. Also, someone can be resilient when it comes to chess and not exhibit that same attitude in other areas.
This is the whole point I'm trying to make.

My reference to Kasparov and Carlsen was just to further buttress the point that playing chess will not necessarily significantly improve your thinking capacity. These are two of the greatest chess players, so if playing chess is an exercise for critical thinking, then they should be among the best thinkers. But can we really say this is the case ? Well, I think they are just experts in the game of chess and nothing more !

Just because chess has its own set of rules and strategies doesn't mean that the critical thinking skills developed through playing chess are not applicable elsewhere. Strategic thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills are all valuable assets that can be applied to various areas of life, from business to science to everyday decision-making. Research has shown that expertise in chess can lead to improvements in cognitive abilities such as memory, attention, and processing speed. These cognitive enhancements can benefit individuals in various areas of life, not just in chess. So, the critical thinking skills developed through playing chess are not entirely domain-specific.

CuriousCart:






Your points 1-3 staring you in the face.
Dumb Bleep.



Better go find an equally dumb man to keep you away from making a fool of yourself online.

Bloody illiterate.

I must say, it's very sad watching you pull this pitiful "I was right all along, you just didn't understand my brilliance" move. At great pains, I've decided to give a slightly more thorough assessment of your OP, highlighting flaws in certain areas (not for you by the way, but for people viewing the thread, since I've now realized you have the intellectual capacity of a rusted iron bucket).

Now, in your most recent rejoinder, you highlighted some parts of your OP as proof of where you cited scientific evidence. Let's now examine them and find out who the real dumbo is.

(1) Addressing the "Extraterrestrial Beings".

You highlighted this part of your OP:

These beings of superior intelligence decided to experiment with the life they met on Earth by mixing their genes with chimpanzees (who happened to be the closest animal in semblance to them). So science is somewhat correct to state that homo sapiens are relatively new and evolved from chimpanzees. They just don't know the full details.

For the avoidance of doubt, I never made any comment corroborating this rubbish. Just because you've tacked on a pseudoscientific veneer to your original claim doesn't mean it's suddenly supported by evidence. Your "beings of superior intelligence" are still unfalsifiable, untestable, and unproven. And now you're trying to co-opt the very science you initially dismissed to prop up your...let's call it a "hypothesis"? Newsflash, my dear: slapping genetic engineering on your "divine" intervention doesn't make it any more plausible. If anything, it highlights your desperation to cling to an unproven idea. You're essentially saying, "I was right, but only because I'm redefining what 'right' means!".

And please, spare me the "full details" canard. If your intergalactic geneticists were real, we'd have, you know, actual EVIDENCE. Not just a hasty retrofitting of scientific concepts to salvage your original, flawed argument.

(2) Addressing your theory about white people, and the global flood:

You also highlighted this part of your OP:

Some people survived the flood without being inside the ark.


These non-ark survivors migrated to Europe and Asia away from the flood and evolved over many years while the flood people were holed up in their ark. They explored and developed skills to survive on their own instead of waiting for their creators to save them as used to be the case then.

These survivors are the Whites of today.
Their skin whitened because they moved high up into the mountains and away from sunlight/sky to avoid the flood.

This is why the White's mentality is distinct from the Black's who still have the saviour gene in him. The Blacks are only just learning to survive on their own and still lag behind Whites whose ancestors managed to figure out a way during the flood.

You posit that a global flood occurred, despite geological evidence to the contrary, then introduce a fictional group of "non-ark survivors" who migrate to Europe and Asia, conveniently ignoring the fact that human migration patterns and genetic diversity contradict this tale. You also claim these survivors evolved into modern white people, with skin whitening due to avoidance of sunlight (a clever rehashing of debunked 19th-century race theories). And, of course, you couldn't resist revealing your hidden inferiority complex, implying that white people are more advanced and self-sufficient, while black people lag behind due to some sort of "saviour gene"?

And you have the temerity to insist that you corroborated these fantastical tales in your OP with scientific references, pretending as if your narrative is anything other than a jumbled mess of unconnected ideas, ungrounded in empirical evidence? How can you claim there were scientific references when you can barely reconcile your fable with the overwhelming scientific consensus on human evolution, migration, and genetic diversity?

And then we have the bucket list of logical fallacies that consume your entire post:

- False dichotomy: You created a binary between " Whites" and "Blacks" as if these are fixed, biological categories, ignoring the fact that race is a social construct, and the concept of distinct "races" has no scientific basis.

- Ad hoc reasoning: You conjured up an unproven flood narrative to explain skin color and supposed cognitive differences. This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, meaning it can't be tested or proven wrong.

- Non sequitur: You jumped from a biblical flood story to modern-day racial differences without any actual logical or scientific connection.

I think it's very obvious who the blundering illiterate is on this topic. But, by all means, keep trying to project your mental inadequacies on to me. I'm only here to point and laugh at you for my entertainment.