₦airaland Forum

Reyginus: Good for you. But you asked the wrong question.

Enigma: ^^ But Kay, you should remember my point on that issue on that other thread!

Anyway, refresh your memory here https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/1#11156971

frosbel: ^^
No one is questioning the mechanics , rather we are debating on the source and design of this process.

This process which you described is not a random happening , only those who are confused and intentionally dishonest will refute the truth about it's source.

truthislight: apart from your "irrational" rant, it is obvious that you have answered your self.

Matter is either intelligent or it is not intelligent.

We have living things in water, without this characteristic of water and the water becomes ice, i wander what will become of the fishes and living things therein.

No need to west my time. It is either it came by chance or it was designed.

Atheism = irrationality. QED

davidylan: and that water just randomly appeared from nowhere?

truthislight: Lol. What a way to escape from the obvious folly of you irrationalities"?



what are you up to now?
was this not what you said to therhomer:


(adding chance to that ^^ was rhetoric and contradictory)

from which i said:



so why are you shading feathers now?

Is it now possible that thehomer was no longer making a beautiful point? :



well, judge for yourself.



and i never made reference to "freewill" in isolation In my post, my used of the word "freewill" was to define "man" and his peculiarity.

davidylan: If there was no purpose then why did it evolve?

truthislight: from that ^^, matter seems and in actuality follows a definite partan over time that is predictable in science.

what then is responsible for matter attaining intelligence of its own/freewill in the form of man, since the beheavioural partan of matter is absolutely predictable?

Which Ofcouse is a deviation.

Care to explain or you will chicken out?

Dont disappoint erm pleasssssssssss!

davidylan: Ice crystals are not created by chance, it is the fine-tuning of precise physical laws. Is temperature by chance?

davidylan: That was formed by intelligent design. Care to form your own miracle in the lab?

thehomer: What? Water turning to ice at low temperatures occurs due to intelligent design? Okay so who is this intelligence and what is the purpose of this design?

Notice that it is actually an example of what I said.

With the absence of substantial physical evidence to topple d the literal interpretation the court ruled against galileo and made him vow not to keep away from d arguement

My Very Reverend Father,

          It has been a pleasure for me to read the Italian letter and the Latin paper you sent me.  I thank you for both the one and the other, and I may tell you that I found them replete with skill and learning.  As you ask for m y opinion, I will give it as briefly as possible because, at the moment I have very little time for writing.

          First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and no absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke.  For to say that the assumptions that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run the risk whatever.  Such a manner of speaking suffices for a mathematician.  But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures ….

          Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers.  Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless.  Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek….

          Third, I say that, if there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true.  But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me.  To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming the sun at the centre and the earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the sun is in the centre and the earth is in the heavens.  I believe that the first demonstration may exist, but I have very grave doubts about the second; and in case of doubt one may not abandon the Holy Scriptures as expounded by the hold Fathers

"I affirm, therefore, on my conscience, that I do not now hold the condemned opinion and have not held it since the decision of authorities....I am here in your hands--do with me what you please."

davidylan: obviously you are not science-oriented. Nature tends towards a state of entropy/chaos. To say that it organizes itself with such precision for absolutely no purpose whatsoever is to have blind faith in nature.

frosbel: well who did it ?

You keep dodging my questions.

truthislight: this are your words, i only wish you lived up to it:



so, it means : "experience is the sole criteria for knowing things, according to you.

So, state that part of things in nature that are intelligent that came by chance that hence informed your decision based on experience that intelligent things in nature came by chance. QED.

Very simple question i think.

truthislight: I want to belief that you are an adult.

So, as an adult with mental faculties, can you point out an intelligent thing or part of nature that you have seem and believe came by chance that should informed your decision that the things of the natural world around us came by chance?

Dont forget, that you said that rational thinking and extractions are and should be a function of experience.

So, state what informed your stance above.

Please do, we are waiting.

frosbel: I start with mine :

1. Using logic, reason and scientific evidence, kindly trace back to the beginning , the origin of MAN.

2. In your own words, describe how you think human reproductive organs evolved into what it is today

3. If we came from monkeys , how come we still have monkeys around today


Thanks,

davidylan: This is quite senseless. The water cycle is an amazing example of intelligent energy conservation... gravity is precise down to a decimal point... but somehow they are all just accidents of nature? Incredible stupidity.