₦airaland Forum

NairaLTQ:
Yes, Complexities must have a Cause!
Meteors are simple projectiles moving in their orbits: they are not complex

Atoms are complex
Cells are complex
The Eye Ball
Living things are complex
Airplanes are complex
A Ball Pen is complex
A Computer is complex

WHY?: They consist of several interdependent systems to function

Lmao. This is divine comedy.
Since complexities requires a cause, the “uncaused first cause” must be very simple. No?

He says meteors are not complex but atoms are.
I wonder if astrophysicists are aware of “atomless meteors!
Atomless eyes, atomless cells, atomless dick of the Holy Spirit!

Fvck!

LordReed:
Unfortunately the Christians do not take that particular lesson at all; they seem to internalise some kinda hatred for the universe, they want it remade so badly they think their deaths will usher them to it.

That’s how their overseers control them.

jaephoenix:
Now one defense christians have to say their own brand of god created the earth is the complexity of the universe and intelligent design.
1.Now the problem here is this. You cannot say an object is complex without comparing it to a less or more complex model. How do we know our universe is not a very rudimentary and poorly created model? What are we comparing it to?
Also the human body is said to be intelligently designed but I can tell you for free that its poorly made.
A. The trachea (windpipe) and esophagus (food pipe) open into the same space, the pharynx, which extends from the nose and mouth to the larynx (voice box). To keep food out of the trachea, a leaf-shaped flap called the epiglottis reflexively covers the opening to the larynx whenever you swallow. Now this causes food to regularly enter the lungs and this phenomenon called aspiration is one of the common cause of death in babies. I can't count the number of babies rushed into the ER where the mother was breastfeeding and slept off leaving the baby to choke on breast milk.
B. Misrouted recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) plays a vital role in our ability to speak and swallow. It feeds instructions from the brain to the muscles of the voice box, or larynx, below the vocal cords. Theoretically, the trip should be a quick one. But during fetal development, the RLN gets entwined in a tiny lump of tissue in the neck, which descends to become blood vessels near the heart

C.7. A backward retina. The photoreceptor cells in the retina of the eye are like microphones facing backward. This design forces light to travel the length of each cell, as well as through blood and tissue, to reach the equivalent of a receiver on the cell’s backside. The setup may encourage the retina to detach from its supporting tissue—a leading cause of blindness. It also creates a blind spot where cell fibers, akin to microphone cables, converge at the optic nerve—making the brain refill the hole.
D. Exposed testicles. Problem: A man’s life-giving organs hang vulnerably outside the body. This is kinda daft cos it may be crushed by even a wrong kick by a jealous housewife
E.Childbirth hurts. And to add insult to injury, the width of a woman’s pelvis hasn’t changed for some 200,000 years, keeping our brains from growing larger.
F. Problem: Our spines are a mess. They are very inflexible and cause severe back pain for most people
G. The knee joint: the most complex joint in the body is situated between two huge levers—the femur and the tibia—and you’re looking for trouble.
H. Childbirth. Why put a poopoo hole where the baby comes out? One of the reasons I detest taking deliveries is seeing poo pushing out the anus as soon as the baby pops out. And most times, the baby is not just covered with liquor and blood, but feces.
I. The appendix. Now this is the most puzzling. This organ is just useless but somehow the good Lord decides he has to fix it inside and cause appendicitis and appendix mass, with subsequent peritonitis and septic shock, for folks. Appendectomy (surgery for appendix removal) is a big surgical burden and costs billions of dollars yearly
J. The immune system. The good Lord gave us an immune system that is not only deficient but confused. They cannot fight bacteria and viruses properly without the intervention of science via vaccines. In Nigeria, measles, polio etc were major under 5 killers til vaccines showed up. Also autoimmune diseases like Hashimoto thyroiditis and other life threatening diseases came up cause the immune system cannot figure out the self cells and viruses, and our body ends up fighting ourselves just like that. Also cancers are caused by the body cells undergoing changes even in the womb. Some babies are born with cancers. You doubt me? Check out teratomas
Etc etc

I understand the “poorly made” argument but I think it is flawed. Just like you rightly stated that for one to call something complex, there has to be something else to compare it to. So for us to call the human body poorly formed, we have to have a well formed body to compare it to. The universe is simultaneously ugly and beautiful, just like the “poorly made” human body. Simultaneously simple and complex just like human affairs. It is what it is, which is what the ancient Hebrews got right in their non psychotic musings: I am that I am. The universe is what it is and you are a beautiful part of it. At least I know I am.

jaephoenix:
The Bible is a book adored by Christians. It has been found to contain a lot of errors, lies and contradictions and thus not a reliable book. I made a thread about it here, in case ya'll wanna check it out and debate on the points there. Unfortunately for Christians, the gaffess were so many, and they could not come up with any defenses.
But in this thread, I'm gonna concentrate on the creation story, cos a Christian challenged me to(Just like another christian challenged me to open a thread about the bible errors and in the end he never gave any defenses). The errors are so much that I have to take them in parts. So this is only Part 1

What are the factual errors in the Genesis creation account?
There are several errors, since it’s a creation myth based on the knowledge, superstitions and misconceptions of the people who wrote it, just like any other creation myth. Let’s consider just some of them:

1. Duration time for the creation. This is the first considerable problem. Genesis says that, from the early stages of the earth’s formation to the dawn of man, only six days passed, which is obviously wrong. We know this whole process took about 4 billion years. Many apologists try to solve this crude mistake by declaring that the word “day” has a more vague meaning, such as six general divisions of time. We don’t know this, however, and the whole context of the story seems closer to 24 hour days (for example, we constantly read “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”).

2. The order of creation days. The order in which the creation events happened in the bible and the true geological and biological evolution of the earth are completely different. Some examples follow:

a. In Genesis 1:7 it says God divided the waters above and under the firmament. The only logical way to interpret this “firmament” or “heavens”, is the atmosphere, where water in vapour form is stored and eventually falls as rain. If this was done in a subsequent stage of the earth’s formation (day two), we would expect that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere should increase over time. We however know that the exact opposite happened, as carbon dioxide and water vapour were partly replaced by oxygen.

b. In Genesis 1:11 it suggests that plants were the first form of life to appear, what is obviously wrong. It also suggests that plants and animals appeared in different times, what we know not to be true. Last, if compared to Genesis 1:16–18, it indicates that plants came before the sun, which would be impossible since sunlight is a fundamental ingredient to the process of photosynthesis, which is how plants produce their food.

c. In Genesis 1:16–18, as discussed before, the sun comes only after the plants appeared on the planet, which is obviously absurd. Some apologists try to save this by alleging that the sun already existed but wasn’t visible until the fourth day, since the earth’s atmosphere was thicker. First of all, the atmosphere was already transparent enough to see the sun when the first plants appeared in the planet. Moreover, the organisms from which plants evolved had already “invented” the process of photosynthesis and hence needed a substantial amount of sunlight. Finally, there are several studies who show how a plant’s growth is deeply affected by an increased period of cloudy days, and so it’s absurd to suppose that big trees and others could have appeared in a time of thick atmosphere, where the portion of light entering the planet was so weak that the sun wasn’t even visible.

d. Genesis 1:20 and 24 suggests that flying animals came before land animals, which is just wrong due to the fossil and DNA knowledge we have.

3. Magical elements. Some apologists argue that the creation myth in Genesis has a special status, since it’s much more “sober” in terms of reality than the creation myths of other religions. First of all, what matters is the truth. To construct a fable with elements closer to reality doesn’t change the fact that it is a fable. Secondly, the fact that the Genesis account seems less mesmerizing than others is just because the israelites followed monotheism (or at least monolatrism), and hence their creation story was devoid of the many struggles between gods that commonly take place at the beginning of other myths. Finally, it’s important to remember that there are many magical elements surrounding the Genesis story: the book of Revelations talks about a war in heaven between a dragon and his hosts and an angel and his hosts; Genesis itself, just a few pages afterwards, talks about talking serpents, magic fruits and a universal flood that occured just because God was in a bad mood with humanity

Nlfpmod
Seun
Emusan
LordReed
KnownUnknown
Maynnmann
TenQ
Aemmyjah
Olaadegbu
Elated177
Maxindhouse
FRANCISTOWN
Advocatejare
Lawag3
StillDtruth
Triplechoice
Workch

Etc

Im way beyond the point of pointing out how this Bible stuff is mostly bullshit.The musings of ancient greedy Hebrews are of little value to me so the nonsense in at the beginning of genesis is a non starter.

What I find absolutely detestable are the stories and protagonists from Abraham to Moses to “the lord”. I find their god to be the one of most deplorable characters in all of literature. Given the actions of the “heroes” of the Bible, I’m not even surprised by the depraved nature of Judaism as reflected by these Jews and the apartheid rogue nation they call Israel. When you believe atrocious things you do atrocious things. Talking about Israel, I find it pathetic how some Nigerians who once opposed apartheid in South Africa are now cheering on apartheid and genocide in Israel just because of their ridiculous religious beliefs. They’ve been turned into perpetual slaves through the psychology of religion.

Regarding the accuracy of the book, I don’t see why accuracy is an issue. Mythology is
fiction even if based on true events and that is due to the fantastic elements in stories. The Genesis story bears the hallmarks of mythology and arguing about the accuracy of a myth is useless. There is no reason think the god of the Hebrews is any more responsible for the universe than the leprechaun sitting on my shoulder dictating what I write. There is no reason to venerate the musings of some incestuous psychopaths when I’m not a part of their culture. If I needed a “creation” story, I’d look in my own backyard.

I find gods to be convenient conventions created by people for different purposes. When I decide to be frank, I call gods absolute nonsense and if I needed a god, I would look in the mirror.

TenQ:
The question is too much for your immature mind to comprehend!?

The question is straight out of the mind of a ignorant person who doesn’t even realize how benighted he is.

TenQ:
Okay: Its a matter of English Language
The apparent gravitational pull on the moon reduced by 5% because of the presence of a large asteroid passing beside it, how much energy will a man of 60 kg use to jump up by 1.1 m?

Christ fucking Jesus!! SMH

Krismas:
Nancy Pelosi: Netanyahu should resign, he is responsible

"We recognize Israel's right to protect itself. We reject the policy and the practice of Netanyahu — terrible. What could be worse than what he has done in response?" she said. "He should resign. He's ultimately responsible," she added.

"I don't know whether he's afraid of peace, incapable of peace, or just doesn't want peace. But he has been an obstacle to the two-state solution," she added.

His just a disgusting, self-righteous, supremacist Jew piece of shit just like Judaism inspire the scumbags to be.

Good.

LordReed:
We have no evidence for the conditions that preceded the formation of our universe so why should the formation of the universe convince me of a god? Why can't I be fine with accepting that the formation of the universe follows the pattern of all the other processes which we see all the time i.e. natural processes borne out of physical constraints?

I always find it hilarious that these imaginary friend of theirs is one of one and it’s always a man never a woman. If one god can exist, then multiple gods can exist.

YoshihideSuga:
Forbes states its methodologies used in ranking wealthy people. Methodologies used for privately owned companies differ from individuals or dynasties or jointly owned businesses. Forbes also excludes individuals who are part of monarchies for obvious reasons. So, it's absurd to state that Forbes doesn't consider the bold. What is even baffling is how you outrightly state that Forbes Magazine is wrong when you haven't published your own ranking stating which methodologies were used.

If their methodology was sound they’d at least print pro forma financial statements to back up their nonsense. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that though.

And the fact that they’ve been publishing their rubbish list since 1978 means nothing. The Catholic Church has existed for almost 2000 years and published dogmas and doctrines that are absolute nonsense. So doing something for a long time doesn’t mean it’s factual or accurate.

YoshihideSuga:
Forbes Magazine which has ranked billionaires, actually invented the concept, since 1987 isn't an authority because one random KnownUnknown said so? So, who should the public believe, one random KnownUnknown or Forbes, the initiator of assessing wealthy people?

Lol, if you could think critically or know anything about banking, financing, or fiduciary duties of people who would be in possession of these financial records, you wouldn’t be lapping up every crap you read.

Public records used to determine the wealth of owners of publicly owned companies are the only estimate that’s reasonable.

Lmao. According to Judaism, the man can pay the kike bitch’s father 50 shekels then marry her. Praise Yahweh!

YoshihideSuga:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2021/08/04/fentys-fortune-rihanna-is-now-officially-a-billionaire/?sh=6f6a348b7c96

Rihanna is a billionaire. Why didn't you search on Google first before being so authoritative?

Because Forbes magazine is not an authority and don’t have access to the private financial records that would allow them to make a reasonable estimate.

$720k?! Is the school on Mars?

Didn’t read past the first line but the word “billionaire” is thrown around too carelessly.

She is not a billionaire!!

TenQ:
Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects

Examples of Real things that are [b]NOT Tangible
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields[/i]

No need to go into any back and forth with you. The snippet above shows your ignorance and arrant stupidity.

You are not even intelligent or knowledgeable enough for your delusions to be called Dunning Kruger effect.

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740

Like I told your partner, you are too stupid for me to be even bother with. Sayonara you stupid SOB. Lmao

triplechoice:
I announced at the beginning when I quoted you that I also subscribe to the idea of spirit,but our understanding of it is different .

I missed that too. So, what is a spirit?
How do you know that your understanding is different (what does that even mean?!) since TenQ’s “understanding” has not been stated.

triplechoice:
You have more of insults to dish out to others than to teach what you claim to know very well.

Extending your expertise in computer softwares into areas you're not competent to speak on is overreaching yourself.

What expertise?! Lmao. Nothing he wrote shows he has any expertise in computer software.

[quote author=MindHacker9009 post=129555065 ]6,000 virgin girls, of whom 32 were the YHWH’s share. Numbers 31:40

So why did YHWH the father of Jesus had to get Mary another man's wife pregnant when YHWH already had 32 virgin wives?

YHWH Commandment is:
You shall not commit adultery.[/quote]This is hilarious. You have no problem with kidnap and rape but draw the line at adultery.

Yahweh had sex slaves so he obviously didn’t have any need for Mary-
MindHacker9009

jaephoenix:
Which spirit? The one we drink or the one christians convulse about on Sundays?
If its the former, its very much tangible. The later is not tangible by any stretch of the imagination. Why? Can we see, touch, hear, taste it? No. Can we appraise it? No. In fact ask 10 christians in the same denominations what the spirit is, and you'll get 11 definitions or properties. And if you ask 10 christians from different denominations, you'll even get 50 definitions. This is cos its not an entity that is tangible and thus everybody and his dog can say or describe it how he feels

Spirits are not only intangible, they are also non physical and invincible.

The Holy Spirit is also non physical except for the physical dick it used to fvck Mary. So if you ever meet the Holy Spirit, all you’d see is a floating BBC.

jaephoenix:
Software is tangible.
What things exist that lack tangibility?

Starts with S and ends with pirit.

TenQ:
But you admit that it takes another software to be able to view or interact with a software within the hardware of an AI machine.
This is sufficient!


Your problem is that as a lay man, you are splashing about thinking you know something while you know nothing.

Softwares in a machine do NOT do anything: it is the Hardware in the Machine that does things. It is the hardware that switches, turns on, varies signal. it doesn't even UNDERSTAND the signal it is receiving. It is a dumb slave.

The fact that you have never programed a computer is glaring!


Tell me then how you can quantify the instruction of Tiunubui in terms of Mass, Energy or Dimension with time. ANYTHING that is tangible can be characterised with this.

Over to you?



Leave out spirits from this. We are talking for now on things we should both scientifically agree on as facts.
Unfortunately, your lack of understanding is slowing everything down

If it is true that:
The information it NOT the paper on which it is written,
The information it NOT the ink by which it is written,
The information it NOT the language by which it is written,
The information it NOT the style which it is written,

What then is the TANGIBLE instruction given by Tinubu on Paper?


Do you concur that sa long as an information is NOT decodable by a person, to him, it is just gibberish!

Do you agree that if you do not understand English language, then there is no difference between
1. The Rain in Spain falls mainly in the Plain
and
2. Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune!



Your lack of experience with programming and understanding how a computer work is a limitation to this discussion.


INFORMATION is REAL but not TANGIBLE
MATHEMATICS is REAL but not TANGIBLE
LOGIC is REAL but not TANGIBLE

Can you bring yourself to understand this?

This is amazing. I admit that you are very skilled at obfuscation. You should take up the preacher profession.

After seven pages and all the software shenanigans, I conclude that intangibility is another attribute of this spirit thing.

The working definition of spirit is “non physical, invincible, and intangible” aka nothing

Buda is right about tangible
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible

1
a
: capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : PALPABLE
b
: substantially real : MATERIAL
2
: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
her grief was tangible

I wonder if they will go back to the topic of spirit after the software diversion. Hmmmmmm

Page 5 and not one explanation of what a spirit is.

AuthorMan:
And can you see the oxygen you breathe ?

Can you see the air you breath?

Is it visible?

You are guys are actors.
You act smart but remain the most stupid of humans.

Lol

AuthorMan:
The guy you call stupid is wise. You are the fool.
You started a topic and you can't defend it. How unwise you are!

What topic did I start?

TenQ:
Mr KnownUnknown who deliberately cropped out my post to present a DISHONEST view of what I said:
Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

You don't even have any Intellectual Dignity or Honesty to speak the TRUTH!
Like a Pig grafted with a Donkey's head, you bray like the animal devoid of shame!




It is NOT surprising for me anyways : this is why I stopped entertaining DUMB atheists like you!

More nonsense from our resident expert. Lol, you should stick with arguing with Muslims about your former faith. Anything else is obviously beyond your capabilities.

By the way, I just used a spiritometer to measure all the ghosts and goblins in my vicinity.

TenQ:
Answering an Intellectually Dishonest Fool according to his folly!

You describe yourself very well. Lol

TenQ:
Oya answer my own questions.
1. What is spirit?
ANSWER: Many atheist think spirits do not exist because it cannot be quantified

Lol

TenQ:
Again my Challenge to Atheists:[i]
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does it prove it doesn't exist?

I love how you write senseless statements and ask others to oppose them. This sentence takes the cake.

If a wetness is not tangible does it prove it doesn’t get wet?

If a dryness is not tangible does it prove it doesn’t get dry?

If a hardness is not tangible does it prove it doesn’t get hard?

If a brightness is not tangible does it prove it doesn’t bright?

If a dullness is not tangible……..Actually, TenQ is the proof of dullness.