₦airaland Forum

hakeem4:
well I hope your evolution by jesusjnr theory will come with evidence

Dude, when you are discussing the conceptual or logical possibility of something, there is no physical evidence required only a logical validity of the point is required to make the argument.

When someone says: Evolution is compatible with design.

This is a subject to logical proof in the discussion because it deals with ideas "evolution" and "intelligent design"

Seems like you like using the word "evidence" a lot even where it is not necessary.

And yes, one can easily prove that evolution is compatible with design.

Take a look at a car

LordviccoDaGuru:
God has already judge the devil and commended him into the lake of fire where he will serve his punishment when the world comes to an end...

Now if the devil decide to repent today and ask God for forgiveness, Do you think he will be forgiving and not be sent to the lake of fire ??

CC;lalasticlala

Read the book of Job, the devil don't need forgiveness, dude strolls in to heaven anyhow he wants any time. He attends the meeting for the sons of God and carries out God's convoluted orders verbatim.

helinues:
Both.

Something must have triggered something before the big bang

So, you are arguing cause and effect transcends this space and time?

shadeyinka:
I am saying that the information you got wasn't true: I wasn't castigating you

Take it up with DoctorAlien.

It wasn't my idea, I'm simply arguing over it.

shadeyinka:
That is not true. Your information should be from the bible shouldn't it?

God of mercy. I was discussing what DoctorAlien said.

What is wrong with you?

You are a very dangerous person.

Ask yourself.

Why does an all powerful God need you to defend itself?

If God doesn't want your religion insulted, it has the power to strike the blasphemer dead innit?

How come God can't do this and you somehow think God needs your help to defend its faith?

This should tell you all you need to know about yourself. You are insanely idiotic.

You need help.

shadeyinka:
I don't know where you got this from BUT the earth nor the Universe isn't 6000 years old. It is far much older!

You don't know where i got it from? It was right there on DoctorAliens comment i quoted. Jesus!

DoctorAlien:
Okay here we go.

I subscribe to creationism, and in particular Biblical creationism. I believe that the universe which we observe was created by God in 6 literal days, as Genesis describes. (Is this my view classified under intelligent design (ID))? Therefore, because of the Biblical account, this earth, and this universe which we observe, cannot be more than about 6000 years old.

I hold this view first and foremost because the Bible teaches it. Yes! That is the primary reason why I hold this view. I believe that the Bible contains truth. Therefore what it says about origins is true. The second reason is that observations seem to agree, and is not at odds, with what the Bible said about the universe, and with what would be expected if the Biblical narrative is true.

I think other views of origins are wrong primarily because they don't agree with the Bible, which, I believe, contains truth.

See where i got it now?

FOLYKAZE:
Evolution and Intelligent Design both have no tangible evidence.

What's your idea then? Any alternative?

hakeem4:
then the ID Proponents should give an evidence for any life that did not follow the process of natural selection

Basically all life including microbes is the example

hakeem4:
truth is that I wouldn’t like to argue with my intelligent design proponent. If you read this article well I stated that ID is just another term for god.

Lol it is almost like your problem here is that intelligent design implies God.

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

Actually they do have a valid argument. An argument is valid if it follows a consistent logical train of thought.

I believe i have given you quite an elaborate logically valid argument for the design theory of which you are now attempting to refute.

hakeem4:
now you’re red herring here. These your examples have nothing to do with what I stated up there. I said they commit the special pleading fallacy in which god god is given an exception. He designed something complex. He’s complex and he must require a complex designer and this will continue to regress.

Don't you think that is weird?

Actually No. I am not, you are more guilty of it.

Whether God (designer) is designed or not, simply has no bearing on the argument of design.

The argument is; Design is recognized to be likley when something is made of specific parts or systems that perform specific specific function.

And the intelligent design argument follows that premise; Humans have specific parts and systems that perform specific functions.

Conclusion: Humans are likely to be designed.

Bringing in the special pleading to this argument is non sequitur, it has nothing to do with the argument above.

You can only bring it up if the person is failing to maintain the implication of their logic but as a reply to the primary argument of design above? Naaah, not even close.

So, why not wait for the person to commit the blunder of special pleading before bringing out that refutation because this doesn't refute the argument of design.

back to the model you gave me. You gave me a house. First of all a house is not designed by one person. The design process consist of different designers such as architect, structural engineers, mechanical engineers , electrical etc. Using your model then even if natural selection is wrong then we do not have one designer. We have groups of designers in which there’s no evidence for.
when I meant types of eyes I meant the evolutionary stages

See, whether house took 1 or 50,000 people, the argument is that it was designed and this design is deducted due to the presence of specific parts and systems that perform specific functions.

hakeem4:
Evolution is a fact natural selection is the scientific theory


Trilobite, etc. They are many I cannot remember them off hand

LOL ok

CAPSLOCKED:
THE CAR DESIGNER IS NOT HAILED AS PERFECT, INFALLIBLE, OMNI-THIS AND OMNI-THAT.

GUY SOMETIMES YOUR COMPARISONS ARE MEANINGLESS.

LOL, your argument is simply saying the designer isn't perfect, it is not per say refuting the argument that it designed what it is said to design.

My comparison are mostly top notch and is an implication of the premise i am presented with.

Your primary premise: There is flaw in this design

Implication: It simply means the designer isn't perfect as said, doesn't refute the argument that it designed something. The comparison demonstrated to you the presumed flaws do not preclude design.

So, you have to try and make specific arguments: Are you arguing that the designer isn't perfect or that it didn't do what it is said to have done? Because both are entirely different arguments that have no bearing on each other.

hakeem4:
Johnydon22 gave me an a typical exam most creationist use in the defence of the intelligent designer. Mind you intelligent designer is just another term used for god

Ok ooo let me see your refutation bro.

The popular one I see here is that “ have you ever seen an iPhone come by a random process?”

ok

I took a look into the history of the intelligent design and one of its popular proponents was William paley who talked about the watchmaker argument .

Some people might use the example of the eyes because it is very complex and if you remove any part of the eyes, it won’t function properly again.

First and first and foremost they commit a special pleading fallacy. Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle
If were to accept the human eye is complex and it was created by an ID, then the force behind the creation of the eye must be created by another ID.

This is a very weird argument because it is non sequitur to the primary argument made.

Let me demonstrate:

Primary premise: Wright brothers designed and created the aeroplane
Your refutation: Therefore wright brothers must have also being designed and created by something.

Your refutation didn't address the premise of the argument, it simply created a new one which doesn't really have anything to do with the primary argument.

That the Designer also should have a designer is blatantly irrelevant to the subject being discussed. J.k Rowlins having a designer is irrelevant to the idea that she must have written Harry Potter.

So, brining up that the ID must have a designer is a different argument and has nothing to do with it designing anything if it did in fact design something.

How are you refuting an argument with a point that doesn't really refute the argument but is simply at best creating an entirely different argument?

Don't you think that is weird?

Secondly they commit an strawman fallacy
This is just another religious argument from ignorance. Let’s assume that most biological organ couldn’t evolve by natural selection. The only thing this does is to only discredit natural selection and it doesn’t give any evidence for any ID

Are you arguing against the model i gave you or some other arguments you've had with some religious folks?

Thirdly they misrepresent natural selection
Most of all the ID proponents misrepresent evolution by natural selection and this is actually annoying . Most creationist claim that complex organs like the eye can’t come from natural selection. But the truth is we know a lot about the eye and you can read on types of eyes
1) eyespot
2) cup eyes
3)pin eyes
4)lens eyes

I don't see how this refutes the argument by an ID proponents that the eyes is designed. Again, this is a weird argument because it presumes to preclude design with the presence of variation.

types of cars:
1. SUV
2. Pickup
3. Sedan
4. Crossover
5. Hatch back
6. Wagon.

How again do you presume to refute design by bringing forth variations?

You are repeating the same blunder as on my thread which i showed you.

The last but not the least flaw the ID proponents commit is the personal incredulity fallacy. Now most creationist don’t understand evolution by natural selection. And because you do not understand it is not an evidence for god it is an evidence of lack of understanding

See, understanding A is only important when you are trying to address A

You are not necessarily required to understand A if you are not addressing it but simply proposing B as an answer to the same question A presumes to answer.

It is almost like this.

You: I think humans evolved because of this and this and this.
Someone: You don't understand Intelligent design.

This is exactly what you are doing. You are saying someone doesn't understand evolution because they are proposing design as the answer to the same question evolution presumes to answer.

I must say this your refutation is quite poor, it doesn't really address the argument made by my elaboration of the intelligent design argument. Most of the things you listed here are either non sequitur or simply doesn't logically hold sway.

jesusjnr:
My own belief is that it's neither here nor there but a combination of both evolution and design with respect to how humans first came into existence and how their lives has panned out since then.

So maybe you have a first right there.

But in my own belief, the evolution theory only comes up after the design theory.

God bless.

So, we can say man is subject to design but still evolves.

What informed this position?

DoctorAlien:
I don't speak Latin But I believe that the universe was created out of nothing by God.

Ex nihilo. Lol. So something can come out of nothing then?

That's weird

Primarily because the Bible says so. I believe that the Bible contains truth. The Bible informs my belief. Observations seems to agree with, and solidify, it.

1. You believe the Bible contains truth therefore whatever the bible says must be true. That's devoid of any logical chain of thought.

Wouldn't real knowledge transcend belief as a background and allow questions to be answered based on verifiable qualities of its method and not because this thing right here says it is so and i believe this is so and therefore it is so.

Doesn't this lead to a form of circular reasoning? Example: I believe this Batman vs Superman comic to be true, this comic book says someone can shoot laser from his eyes, therefore this must be true.

Do you still a problem with this?

2. Outline some of these observations.

I think the best way for me to answer this is to say that if the evidences come, I will recognize them.

I'm not sure you can recognize something except you have an idea of what exactly you are looking for.

But a good place to start is to try to show that the Bible is dubious (both in its origin and in what it teaches).

But the problem is, your attachment is based on belief, how can someone effectively show that the Bible isn't true when belief bypasses the importance of the subject of belief being true?

Can I really list all of them right now? [url]Creation.com[/url] I believe is doing a good job of documenting them.

1 or 2 doesn't hurt.

The primary reason, not exactly, the "only" reason.

Doesn't this primary reason belief necessitate dogma?

I admit that my worldview is creationism. It is based on the Bible. Through that lens I look at things. This does not mean that I am not able to receive other people's arguments on their merits, and critically examine them.

But when the only thing that clashes is the worldview, I take the side of creationism. Thus, the geologic column may serve as evidence of evolution to some, but it may as evidence of Noah's flood for me.

I think this demonstrates the problem with belief, it gives you a lense by which you look at things and if the primary basis (subject of belief) is untrue, the whole chain is likewise untrue. But you can't really explore this since the subject isn't held as truth by some deductive means of determining what is most likely to be true, but rather an exercise of trust on the conveyor of the subject hence belief.

Other people have other worldviews, like materialism, naturalism, etc. And if creationism is dogmatic, these other worldviews are just as, if not more, dogmatic.

Dogma is demonstrated when your fundamental reason is based on belief on the conveyor of the subject.

Argument of design can/cannot be a dogma
Materialism/naturalism likewise.

It depends really and how your train of thought starts.

If it starts by assuming the conveyor of the idea is true then it is a dogma.

Deductions have certain starting assumptions. Those assumptions have roots. I have only been very candid with my views. Suffice it to say that my worldview in no way prevents me from engaging the real world which we observe. But it may prevent me from taking a position that is built on a conflicting worldview.

I actually admire your honesty about your view

hakeem4:
If you’re being honest you’d know evolution has been tested and it’s a scientific fact just like heat from sun is also a scientific fact

Lol No. A theory is the most logical or deductive explanation for observed facts.

Evolution is the theory that explains the facts, that's what a scientific theory means.

I do not want to turn this place to a biology class. So I actually expected people to read up on this. But since you’ve asked me to explain then I’d have to.

So what is a fossil? A fossil is the preserved remains of a dead organism from millions of years ago. Evidence for the first form of life were given by fossils.

So, what fossil records made you agree that life forms changed from one form to another?

Like I have an example while I was discussing with capslocked the laryngeal nerve and many other examples

Primary premise: Similarities between organisms connote evolution.

Secondary premise: Cars have similarities, but can still be deductively identified as a design.

So, you see, the syllogism of the primary premise falls short when the secondary premise is brought out therefore, similarities does not necessarily connote evolution.

Savvy?

Thank you. Then if natural selection isn’t true then it would be the greatest conspiracy theory ever.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be untrue.

I’m particularly going to create a thread about this. Thank you for elaborating it. There are evidence for millions of complex life that came from natural processes but there’s no evidence of a single life designed.

You can make your argument refuting that argument of design right on this thread, that's exactly what the thread is about

LordReed:
Exactly. It is the same way we learn what design is.

Lol. Ok

Jump into our evolution vs design thread. I believe I mentioned you

DoctorAlien:
Okay here we go.

I subscribe to creationism, and in particular Biblical creationism. I believe that the universe which we observe was created by God in 6 literal days, as Genesis describes. (Is this my view classified under intelligent design (ID))? Therefore, because of the Biblical account, this earth, and this universe which we observe, cannot be more than about 6000 years old.

1. So, the universe to you was created ex materia (cosmos from chaos) and not ex nihilo?

2. What makes you think the earth or universe is 6,000 years? Any external pointers that informed this belief?

3. What evidences would you expect could make you understand earth isn't just 6000 years?

I hold this view first and foremost because the Bible teaches it. Yes! That is the primary reason why I hold this view. I believe that the Bible contains truth. Therefore what it says about origins is true. The second reason is that observations seem to agree, and is not at odds, with what the Bible said about the universe, and with what would be expected if the Biblical narrative is true.

What observations?

I think other views of origins are wrong primarily because they don't agree with the Bible, which, I believe, contains truth.

So, your only reason to believe in creationism is the bible and because you believe the bible is true.

Doesn't this belief effectively result in a form of bias against ideas that question this belief?

Because as you have shown, your agreement is built on primarily belief ground not any form of deductive logical chain of thoughts

That's pretty weak argument to be honest.

Read my argument to hakeem4 to see the fundamental argument for design

DoctorAlien:
What is your own response to your OP, johnydon?

I'd have preferred to stay neutral and play the devil's advocate to both school of thought but summarily I lean towards the evolutionary theory while maintaining that design is just as logical and wouldn't be surprised if it happens to be the case.

And i also think that one can argue that evolution doesn't preclude design, i have made such argument on one of my threads before.

LordReed:
Why?

Babies don't have sense. Lol. A baby is an open empty board that only gets filled up by mimicry of it's immediate influences (parents and other humans)

budaatum:
What! Because one is bold one's research should be published?

No. Because it attempts to answer a question which humanity sort answers for.

I remember one Copernicus who in his days was afraid to publish his Heliocentric hypothesis because of the censorship built around the feverish dogma of the geocentric authorities of his days.

I also remember one Monseigneur Georges Lamitre, who was ignored and mostly not taken serious when he first propounded his theory of the primordial or cosmic atom because they thought it sounded too religious.

My stance simply is, no attempt to answer a question should be censored, it only should be left to the merits of its argument to either convince you or otherwise.

When you start to hush and censor contradicting ideas in the name of science, something has gone horribly wrong.

hakeem4:
Don’t mind people who believe the intelligent designer. Intelligent design is just another substitute for god.



You’d see many of them shifting goal post. Ask them questions about the laryngeal nerve and why is it so long in the human body when the distance it’s supposed to cover is not more than 4 inches. Then the supposed “ omniscient god” made the nerve pass through a long distance about 2ft long. Now imagine in giraffes it’s about 15ft. How intelligent is he?

The laryngeal nerve is one of the evidence of natural selection cause most living things had a common ancestor who once lived in water and fishes do not have necks, so it went straight. But as living things evolved it started stretching that distance.


dont mind creationist they don’t know anything

Calm down bro, whether humans were designed or not, it doesn't really affect you on such deep level.

Don't talk as if it's a personal quarrel, make good arguments and questions against the proponents of design, that should plead your case better.

hakeem4:
Evolution has overwhelming evidence.
Now let me define some terms

Evolution is a scientific fact. This is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction.

Awesome

1)why I agree with evolution

Whether you believe it or not evolution is a true as the heat from the sun.

This doesn't really hold any more merit than someone saying design is as true as heat from the sun.

Now the theory that explains the process of evolution is called natural selection brought up by Charles Darwin.

I acknowledge the fact of evolution because of the evidence shown forth. In this thread I’m going to give you 3 convincing evidence for evolution by natural selection.

Exciting

I) Fossils

How did fossils lead you to your conclusion? What fossils?

II) similarity’s among different animals

Similarities can also connote design, Cars are similar to each other yet are designed.

So how did similarity inform your stance?

III) similarity’s among animals DNA.

Great.

If these few points don’t still convince you about evolution. Then ask yourself this question “ why is evolution not heavily debated amongst the scientific community?”

This doesn't necessarily make something true - Appeal to authority. Otherwise we could point out things once widely held as true by the scientific community of the day that turned out not to be.

2) why do I think design is wrong?

Let me play the devils advocate for design. Lol

According the other camp “creationist” they proposed that due to the complexity of living things on earth then it must require a designer.

Not necessarily plain complexity. Let me elaborate the design argument.

We essentially identify something is likely to be designed when such a thing has specific parts or specific systems arranged in specific ways that they perform specific functions.

E.G: A house.

So, humans as can be observed have specific parts and systems arranged in highly specific intricate ways (arguably more intricate and precise than any of our designs) that performs specific functions - therefore, is more likely to be designed than not.

I think its fairer that i elaborated the design argument because it would be easier to refute an argument when you oversimplify it.

But using any religious story of creationism it doesn’t make any sense. For example the bible or the Quran story of creationism contradicts each other seriously. Okay creationist give us evidence for this intelligent designer then we start seeing red herrings. So with these few points I gave I hope I have convinced you that creationism is a faulty answer to how we have complex life

The bible or Quran isn't necessarily the benchmark for the design argument. What if the person you are arguing with shows you his argument as I logically outlined and makes it clear he or she isn't basing his argument on any specific religious text or even a specific deity?

CAPSLOCKED:
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION. NEVER READ MORE THAN TWO LINES ABOUT IT.
BUT HOW CAN A DESIGNER BE CALLED PERFECT WHEN IT'S DESIGNS ARE ALL AWFUL, FLAWED, AND SEEM LIKE THEY EMERGED OUT OF RANDOM CHANCE?


HAKEEM4

Let me hold the fort.

Perceived flaws don't really preclude the presence of design.

You can argue a car is flawed, it definitely isn't perfect, this surely doesn't make it less likely to be designed.

Does it?

LordReed Vaxx Buddatum DoctorAlien

LordReed:
Here's an interesting question, how does a baby learn what is food and what is not?

Simple: It doesn't. That's why given the opportunity, they eat sand.

There is no doubt that on this board, we are majorly separated into two camps when it involves the origin of species or even the universe itself.

1. Evolution Camp (Mostly atheists, a decent number of theists, agnostics and so forth)

2. Design Camp (Mostly Theists, a minority of atheists and agnostics)

The argument for both camps has been raging through the years on this board, to be honest, i quite enjoy them.

Let's say, I've grown to the point where I'd like to give everyone an equal listening ear, try not to start off an argument from a definite position, initially or probably not letting what i think get in the way of what i may discover in what others think.

So, I'm opening this thread to understand why exactly do the proponents of these schools of thought agree with them.

When you agree with a particular idea, this connotes that there are elements of this idea that satisfies your own framework or logical expectation of how that question should and can be answered.

So the question here is
Why do you agree with evolution?

Why do you agree with design theory?

And why do you think the other theory you disagree with is wrong?

P.S; No copy and paste of online articles or journals, I am simply asking you what you personally think, or isolated elements in either school of thought that compels you to agree with it

budaatum:
Even if that idea has no scientist basis? Should just anything be published in a scientific journal then?

To me, any idea that bears the courage to attempt answering questions that we need to explore should be given an equal platform to be heard according to the merits of its argument.

I do not agree with censorship in anyway.

DoctorAlien:
Not exactly. Lemme try to put it better.

First, the author(s) are Christian creationists. So they're most probably talking about Biblical views. But the gist of the OP is that creationist scientist publish in notable journals:

1. Sometimes on topics that are not concerned with origins
2. Sometimes papers that contain solid data that have creationist implications, but without overt creationist conclusions in the paper
3. Sometimes papers that openly promote creation science/scientific creationism. (at least there's the 18 which Eugenie Scott and co found)

But then Creation scientists meet bitter resistance in trying to publish their works in some of these journals. Sometimes their papers, which don't even deal with evolution/creation get rejected simply because they themselves are creationists. We all can see open-mindedness in action.

Oh, I think it is unfair then to censor any idea and it is dangerously problematic

DoctorAlien:
Highlight from the OP:

"In their study of creationist publishing practices (‘The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation “Science”’, Quarterly Review of Biology 60:21–30, 1985), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980–1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described ‘as advocating scientific creationism’ (p.26)."

So, the whole premise is that Creationism (Biblical or as a whole?) Can and is also published notable scientific journals?

That's fair.

tartar9:
Any two points can be said to be composed of infinitely many points

Lol. False. As long as these two points can be approximated, they are not infinite.