₦airaland Forum

TLuzzie:
You didn't answer my question.

TLuzzie:
I've read your previous comments and none answered the question I asked, unless you don't understand the question. There are people who follow exactly what Jesus said in the scriptures, and will choose prayer OVER medical intervention to demonstrate their faith in God and show their unflinching trust in his power, only to end up harming themselves in the process. What do you think of such Christians? Are they wrong, even though Jesus told them that they can perform wonders and get anything they want, as long as they have the faith?

LightandDarkness:
Bacterial resistance is a product of selection pressure, like any "self-defense" mechanism. Bacteria sometimes express entirely new proteins or upregulating the production of existing proteins to combat the mechanisms of antibiotics which is only possible with a change in the bacterial genome that can arise through random mutations. Antibiotic use presents as selection pressure killing off vulnerable bacteria and leaving resistant bacteria to thrive, these bacteria then pass on resistance genes to other bacteria, essentially why we are running out if antibiotics. Resistance also occurs in viruses like HIV too. Pretty much what NPComplete said but you've somehow managed to completely misunderstand.

LightandDarkness:
Macroevolution has been- I will rephrase for your benefit-
significantly substantiated. We have fossil evidence that shows different species in transition, we have DNA analysis that infers close genetic relationships with other primates, finally evidence of micro evolution is also proof as macroevolution as the product of several microevolutions. So to speak. It was speculation when Darwin proposed it but certainly not now. I'm not quoting science unduly, Google anything I have said.

And I argue the "complexities" of the genome are the product of thousands if not Billions of years of evolutionary processes. Now you're making an assumption which of course is where we fundamentally disagree, you would say it was designed, I will say it wasn't although admittedly I cannot prove it's exact origins.

TLuzzie:
Have you ever heard of people who put faith healing over medical science because they believe in the efficacy of prayer and have absolute faith in it, as demanded by Jesus? Do you know what tends to be the end result? Many Christian parents have KILLED their babies because they trust Jesus that their prayers will work, and as a Christian you can't reprimand them for this behaviour since they simply followed the teachings of your religion, which you've been trying to deny here, because you know that it is HARMFUL bullsh!t! Science and Religion may be seperate like you said, but [color=darkblue]what happens when they CLASH[/color]? As a Christian doctor (to be), whose side will you take? That of science or religion? This is the entire thrust of JackBizzle's challenge. He merely gave those questions in page 1 to make you catch a glimpse of what he's getting at. Those questions were NOT the main thing. But some Spacetacular was 'too smart' to get the crux of the thread, and was busy jumping around painting the whole place in reeking blood as she suffers menstrual cramps, accusing everyone of illogic, only to end up exhibiting gross dishonesty in her 'debate' with CatfishBilly.

Again, I ask, whose side do you take when Science and religion CLASH? To the best of my knowledge, [color=darkgreen]Science has ALWAYS emerged victorious whenever such happens[/color].

LightandDarkness:
The bold I agree with, yes we have not been able to explicitly show DNA could or did originate from RNA or the early earth environment, this is a gap. However this "DNA does not offer evidence of macro evolution" is not true, DNA has been used to construct phylogenetic trees that show and prove that all life originate from a LUCA and greater divergence from the last common ancestor is evidenced by less genetic similarity, to put it basically.

The argument itself is based on the absence of knowledge, we do not know where DNA came from therefore it must be intelligently created.

felixomor:
Thanks for this re-clarification
I just finished explaining DNA to that dude on another thread and I kind of confirmed he knows nothing on it.
At first, he was surprised that I compared DNA with codes

Now, Imagine someone saying DNA can arise from "natural processes"

Where do these people get this type of confidence to spread misinformation?

LightandDarkness:
First off these comparisons are false equivalencies. Comparing something, DNA and the genome, which originated through billions of years of natural selection to an obviously designed code, this code argument is like a repeat of the watchmaker analogy.

The genome and DNA is naturally self-replicating, naturally self-repairing, naturally passed on, and is key to evolution. There are regions of DNA where the order of the AT/GC pairs are irrelevant because they have no function and these regions are highly susceptible to mutations. There are regions of DNA that are highly conserved and whose base pair order are almost always exact, these regions are highly conserved and mutations rarely occur or are rarely replicated in this region. This part is a good example of natural selection, mutations in those highly conserved specific regions of DNA are possible and can also be lethal, once a mutation occurs in these sequences the organism will die and thus cannot or is unlikely to pass it's genes. Therefore, it is easy to imagine that the DNA we now possess is a product of hundreds of thousands of years of homo sapiens with genetics detrimental to survival dying and those with more beneficial genetic traits surviving to pass on their DNA and so on and so on, which is how it is imagined early life developed and survived. An immediate example of natural selection and micro-evolutionn pertinent to Africa is the sickle cell gene. The sickle-cell gene is more prevalent in areas where malaria is endemic, why? because carrying a mutant sickle cell gene causes increased resistance to malaria therefore AS individuals are less susceptible to the disease. However this mutation is also proof that evolution is not perfect because possessing 2 mutant genes-SS-results in a condition that naturally leads to reduced survival but, again, also ensures that such individuals are less likely to survive live long enough in the wild to pass these genes to offspring. All amazing considering Darwin himself did not even know DNA existed and yet was proven right by DNA.

I am raving a lot here but essentially my point here is DNA can arise through natural processes, DNA maintains it's fidelity through natural processes, DNA offers evidence of natural selection and macro and micro evolution . Furthermore though the current thought is that DNA was not the first carrier of genetic information but rather RNA was, life switched to DNA simply because it is better at storing genetic information than RNA. Now I will acknowledge that current scientific knowledge has not figured out every step of this process, but considering that the theory of evolution was developed in 1859, DNA was discovered in 1869, and the double helix structure in 1962 we have come a long way. But if you are relying on gaps in knowledge as the base of your faith and argument what happens when those gaps are closed?.

Anyway I hope I have been able to convince you of something and not confuse you. If you are a paper scientist that doesn't understand DNA please avoid talking about nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous DNA. Thanks.

sonofluc1fer:
Don't just say it is 'destructive'.. Show how it is. Remember that phraae 'everything under the sun is meaningless'. Sure you won't. An atheist wrote it.

sonofluc1fer:
Show how you reached this conclusion. It seems you are getting into that habit of attackinf arguments no one made.

sonofluc1fer:
You are not just theist.. You are Christian. That comes with ideas that will contradict them. That they promise much, doesnt make them true. Like prayers, these promises are subjective.


A good belief, with great intentions, I must say. If that makes you happy, good. BUT mangoes dont turn to poison because you find apples to be tastier.
These are all subjective feelings, just like your purpose.

sonofluc1fer:
And therein lies the problem.. Bred in the cage of faith all your life, you have no idea how a life without faith is possible.
Your ignorance causes your fear and hatred. A life without God can be a life of purpose... One you create.

sonofluc1fer:
For me, I have a dream to create an academy where I can provide kids the opportunities in education I didnt have when growing up. I don't need to believe in God to know that there are benefits a society derives when its citizens are better educated.

Do I feel fear, doubt, hope, disappointment? I do. I'm human too. Rejecting God doesn't mean denying my humanity. If anything, I understand my 'humanness' - - hope this is the right word - - much better.

sonofluc1fer:
I am not Christian. I am neither Jewish nor Gentile. I know I am not a failed clay product of a Jewish god.
I appreciate life more and nature too.. And knowledge quenched my fears.

Maybe I might be wrong on God. But life got much better when I embraced hell.

sonofluc1fer:
Seriously. I wonder why many are uncomfortable with this other. Atheism, on its own, is an empty philosophy, just like theism too.

Our ability to create meaning and derive pleasurable feelings doesn't make life meaningful. At the end, whether theist or atheist, we will all be forgotten. Our marks on earth would be erased. We just random instances in time's unending cycles.

Whatever meaning or joy you derive in this short existence you call being alive, is just fleeting. Atheism says its ends here. Theism says no.. There has to be something better.. Or worse if you picked the wrong God.

Seun:
God probably* doesn't exist.


Atheists don't say life has no meaning. Who've you been talking to? Human beings have the ability to create meaning in their own lives.


Atheists care because they are decent human beings who feel sad that their fellow humans are investing their precious lives in false beliefs.

sonofluc1fer: Oh and yes, life is pointless. You can believe in the after-life, if that gives you a sense of purpose and usefulness...

sonofluc1fer:
If its readily measurable, how can you say it works? How do you know your prayers work? That would be impossible to know. You really don't know if prayer works or not. But one thing is for sure.. Prayer feels good. Whether it works doesnt really matter, does it?

CatfishBilly:
So, which one is more reliable?
Objectivity or subjectivity when dealing with facts?

sonofluc1fer:
spacetacular, I'm not one of them. I'm a cute innoncent fellow.


shattap. old man.

TLuzzie:
Yahoo! I can finally comment. To hell with antispam.

---

Hahahahaha. JackBizzle has given up on his thread after someone successfully painted it with stupidity.

I wonder how CatfishBilly could help not being irritated in the face of such infuriating dishonesty. Although hopeFulLanlord's disgust is pretty obvious. Nice debate with the 'smart' Christian.

I'd rather troll than get engrossed in a debate with a moron_. The latter is irritating and annoying. The former is fun and pleasurable.

CatfishBilly:
In spite of the scientific data to back up the fact that religion helps with depression, you choose not to accept it?
Why do you reject the scientific method when it comes to proving the efficacy of prayers? It works for everything else, why not prayers?

spacetacular:
Good to know! Stay true to your goal and the rewards are limitless. Strive to start your own practice no matter how small and be a people person. Most of all, keep the faith and continue to earnestly contend for it. God bless you

CatfishBilly:
I genuinely did that. I prayed, searched for him, asked him to reveal himself, then, I did an analysis of everything I prayed for and how many of them that were answered. It wasn't better than coincidence, then I started searching, then I came across the experiment which ticked all the boxes in the scientific method and I was sold.

The method you proposed for checking the efficacy of prayers will render it subjective/anecdotal, don't you think so?

BTW, you don't accept that religion helps with depression?

CatfishBilly:
I genuinely did that. I prayed, searched for him, asked him to reveal himself, then, I did an analysis of everything I prayed for and how many of them that were answered. It wasn't better than coincidence, then I started searching, then I came across the experiment which ticked all the boxes in the scientific method and I was sold.

The method you proposed for checking the efficacy of prayers will render it subjective/anecdotal, don't you think so?

BTW, you don't accept that religion helps with depression?

spacetacular:
Young but already well established in God. Very encouraging! I also gather you are a medical student?

spacetacular:
You are an old horse

Here i am still testing out my wings.

sonofluc1fer:

Been here since 2006.

CatfishBilly:
Come on, now.
You're a medical student. You know how invaluable clinical studies are in trying to determine the effectiveness of a line of therapy.
Double blind placebo controlled group trials are the best there is.
You can't just wave it off like that, you can as well wave off every single evidence based medicine plan you plan on using for your patients.

When a double blind study proved that religion was very helpful in dealing with depression, it was accepted by christians. But when it failed with prayers, it is now "We cannot completely apply limited human investigations to determine the out working of God's power."?

Besides, the prayers were proper prayers done in a church and the Bible described prayers as goal oriented, it never said anything about it being subjective.

So, in your opinion, what's the best way to measure the efficacy of prayers?

spacetacular:
Hello son of the morning star.

sonofluc1fer:
How are you doing? You sound pissed.

spacetacular:
@ joshthefirst looking at your ID I can see you have been here since 2014 and I am just fresh on the scene but I think you need to be wise. Questions are thrown at you from a position already occupied by the one asking the question.

In the midst of the question he is also making known what he thinks about the answer you would give even before you have had the chance to give it.

You are being goaded!

When anyone asks a question you have the right to also ask WHY such questions are being asked so he or she can back them up with explanations (arguments). Do not just respond when atheists ask questions. They already have an end in mind and just want to use you to prove they were right all along.

JackBizzle: Communication is a science. You can't claim that spiritual is different from science then now link them together as spiritual communication.

JackBizzle: There is no evidence for a God. No matter how much faith you have, you will never see physical evidence for God.

CatfishBilly:
Joshthefirst, you're aware of the Harvard/Templeton foundation prayer experiment, right?
What do you have to say about it?

sonofluc1fer:
Of course. Science has laboratories and tangible innovations.. Prayer.. Just a huge lottery.

sonofluc1fer: Thanks to science and technology, you could transact business with a Chinese man without ever meeting in person. Prayer is a supernatural communication to nowhere; only an idea that exists in your head, one that was taught to you.

sonofluc1fer: Of course, it would be a foolish person that demands of prayers the same scrutiny science demands of itself.

sonofluc1fer: I agree. What has your prayer done?

sonofluc1fer: And science helps him achieve this. Science is with you - the phone in your hand, transmits the words you create in your mind, the electricity it runs on. Bur you import phones.. You wouldn't know how much research goes into producing this technological marvel. But you've got the Holy Spirit that reveals all things. Lmao.

sonofluc1fer: God would be a greater miracle.

sonofluc1fer: Bettet than the travesty and ridiculousness that a cross in calvary somehow freed me from God's vengeance.

sonofluc1fer: How work? Still up for a fame of chess? I dey Lag btw. Guess you're still in Enugu.

realtem:
Hmm... Nice replies joshthefirst.


To the point and simple

Tearless:
Damn! Antispam bot got me. My reply to Joshthefirst is gone. Everything. The entire post. Chai. But why?

TheIlluminatus:
The definition of MIND might not be as simple as you put it. If mind is consciousness, what about UNCONSCIOUSNESS? Is it part of mind or not? You must have heard of the Sleep-walking phenomenon.

TheIlluminatus:
Hi. Thanks for your input.

The Old Man argues that man has never had an original thought since his thoughts and reflections are reactions to external information and are therefore determined by external causes.

I believe you must have heard of the [color=darkgreen]TABULA RASA[/color] theory which states that mind is originally blank, a white canvas to be painted in any color by the external world. It denies the concept of innatism, and rather asserts that every knowledge and thought that exists in the mind is gotten from experience and perception which are externally generated. But the Old Man's argument is NOT entirely predicated on this theory. While the tabula rasa theory supports the NURTURE aspect of the [color=darkblue]nature-nurture[/color] debate, the Old Man accepts that there is such thing as nature - the MAKE, which is born in a person - but it is informed, determined and made active by external causes i.e NURTURE. So his position is not so different from yours.

So, we have:

You - There is NATURE and there is NURTURE. Both are INDEPENDENT of each other, but can INTERACT to determine the a person's thoughts and behaviour (although this is NOT always true, since NATURE alone determines it at times).

The Old Man - There is NATURE and there is NUTURE. Both a DEPENDENT on each other for meaningful effect an expression. Their INTERACTION ALWAYS determines the thoughts and behaviour of a man. NATURE is passive and is only activated as a REACTION to NURTURE. Therefore, a man's thoughts and behaviour are determined by EXTERNAL INFLUENCES.

TABULA RASA - There is only NURTURE, and it determines what you think, how you behave and what you become. There is NO innatism. You are created and informed by your experiences and perceptions only, which are externally generated. [color=darkgreen]So, WHILE ACCORDING TO THE OLD MAN, TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT NATURES WILL PRODUCE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES WHEN SUBJECTED TO EXACTLY THE SAME OUTSIDE INFLUENCES[/color], ACCORDING TO TABULA RASA, TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE WILL HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME OUTCOMES WHEN SUBJECTED TO EXACTLY THE SAME NURTURE, SINCE NATURE IS A PHANTASM. [color=darkblue]IN YOUR CASE, HOWEVER, NATURE ALONE CAN GENERATE OUTCOMES WITHOUT A NEED FOR EXTERNAL INPUT[/color].

Which is right?

In fact, for my purpose, I'll combine your position with the Old Man's and dispense with the tabula rasa idea. That will leave us with the position that BOTH nature and nuture exist and they CAN interact to determine the behaviour and thoughts of a person (let us leave out the debate on whether they're INDEPENDENT or not for now, since that's your objection against the Old Man).

Now, let's return to the Old Man's argument. According to him, we can take NO CREDIT at all, for our thoughts, behaviours and achievements because they DEPEND totally on our MAKE (nature) and OUTSIDE INFLUENCES (nurture) [their INTERACTION, that is]. Since we're NOT RESPONSIBLE for our NATURE neither can we determine how we're NURTURED, then nothing we do, including our thoughts is of our own merit. In other words, WE HAVE NO FREE WILL. WE'RE NOT SELF-DETERMINED, BUT RATHER DETERMINED BY THE ONE WHO CREATED OUR NATURE, AND THE EXTERNAL CAUSES THAT INFLUENCE IT.

What do you think of this?