₦airaland Forum

Krismas:
Evolution cannot explain a lot about the human being cos he hasn't been around for more than 10thousand years. Such time is too brief on the evolutionary scale. The transition from MAN to HUMAN is by another process which should not be called creation either. The Human was CO-PARENTED not created.

That sounds kinda of fair to state but the problem is it hints at an external agency which is unevidenced.

DeepSight:
It is one thing to prove that an ultimate source exists and quite another to prove that it is that same hideous character described in scripture, who is yet still benevolent and loving, allegedly.

I mean no offense but I concur with chieveboy that these discussions are not for you.

I don't bother responding to him because it ends the usual parrot on a chessboard style.

DeepSight:
This is not an explanation. Not even remotely and you have not shown that you grasp the conundrum I described.

DeepSight:
All you have done here is mention the benefits. You have NOT explained the process. Nor have you surmounted the conundrum presented.

That is the explanation, how it happened is different and there is scant evidence for it.

DeepSight:
Where is the explanation? Pls don't repeat the one you offered, it says nothing.

PS: Sorry, I will try have time.

Very simply, exchange of genetic material between 2 geneticaly differentiated individuals has more evolutionary and survival advantage than to continually use a single strain of genetic material. You get better adaptability, disease resistance and mutation purging in the population.

DeepSight:
I will dedicate a post or even thread to this.
It may not be so much evidence of the kind you like but it will be an explanation of the evident gaps in history and the reasons why it is absurd to think humans and human civilization are as young on this planet as science says.

Hope that is not another project you won't have time for.

U know you havent said anything here.

Not sure what you were expecting.

This does not even begin to address the conundrum I raised and I fear you didnt understand the conundrum at all. Many have failed to anyway. And they all say the same thing - "You dont understand evolution."

Evolution has no explanation for sexual reproduction, period.

It does have an explanation. What it doesn't have is evidence of when sexual dimorphism occurred. Mostly likely because it occurred much earlier in microscopic organisms, which are not very easy to find fossils of.

DeepSight:
You sound pretty confident almost as though you were there.
I am confident that you are wrong.

Evidence please.

Alright, perhaps my memory is off, tell me what he said and lets see if its any better. Its not far from that. It was plain idiocy.
PS: Are you sure we are talking about the same speech? I think I refer to an extract from his book, "The God Delusion." Either that or "The Blind Watchmaker."

PS: I checked, he said "a patch" . . . how is this different from or better than "skin?"

Because skin would be a weird thing for evolutionary biologist to say in this situation as skin cells are relatively far along the evolutionary path. Skin cells are already specialised cells.

It never will be. Because of the below.


You missed my meaning. I mean that the evolution of sexual reproduction presents a chicken and egg problem in an analogical sense - namely, we would have to ask which came first, the sperm or the egg, the penis or the vagina, the testicles or the womb - all of which are complimentary and how the evolution of one in one sex stimuated the evolution of the other in the other sex, never mind the fact that there would be no creature to speak off during the process of evolution without those organs being there ab initio. Its an unsolvable conundrum.

Again you seem to be struggling with the evolutionary idea. Systems are built on other systems and don't come as an already integrated system. For example mitochondria in cells didn't develop within cells they were absorbed into the cell structure and began a symbiosis. We wouldn't be looking for a fully built reproductive system as we see it now in the past. We instead would see something akin to how some worms reproduce with a single individual carrying both male and female gametes and then over time the population separating into individuals specialising in carrying 1 type of gamete. This is evidenced in the development of a human fetus. For the first several weeks of development, all embryos look exactly the same internally and externally. They possess "bipotential" tissue, meaning it has the potential to become either male or female reproductive organs.

DeepSight:
An evolved social construct of human co-dwelling and interaction with established norms, laws and notable intellectual advancement.

No there was none at 100,000 years ago.

His explanation sounded daft and unconvincing and even he himself did not sound convinced.
Infact it is better to say his attempt at an excuse rather than his explanation because he sounded so terribly furtive, obviously because he knew he was talking trash in that instance. He talked about skin becoming sensitive to light and this supposedly accounted for the evolution of the eye with its complexities and its backend interpretation of signals in the visual cortex of a brain.

I am sorry, its a laughable joke.

Bro you should listen again, he didn't say skin.

Well, I accept evolution to an extent. I simply dont accept that it accounts for certain things. As you know, I am not alone in believeing it can NEVER logically account for the evolution of sexual reproduction as an insurmountable chicken and egg conundrum would arise.

It doesn't matter if you are alone or not, that is not a decider of what is a fact.

Yes the sexual dimorphism issue has not been solved but the chicken egg one has been sorted. Spoiler alert: it's the egg.

DeepSight:
This present civilization under present recorded history of max ten thousand years or so.

Ok so what do you mean by civilisation.

I dont think it makes any sense to attribute the development of the brain or the eye to an unguided process. For me, people who do simply have not thought about the matter sufficiently or even do not understand the complexity of these organs.

Richard Dawkins himself tried to explain the evolution of the eye and in spite of my admiration for him, he ended up sounding daft. At least he admitted it was difficult to think of in evolutionary terms.

Perhaps you are the one who hasn't given it sufficient thought. I understood Dawkins attempt to explain it to a lay person so maybe it is something you need to study further.

That is an assumption. The things humans make are rarely as complex as humans for example.
Is a Barbie Doll as complex as a human who made it?
That alone torpedoes your premise.

Please note that I do not discountenance evolution. I simply say that there are other factors at play.

I said made from not made by. If you understand evolution then I don't see why you struggle with the fact that more complex biological processes evolved from simpler ones.

Goo0dHardDick:
Is it just me or anyone else?

I watch animation movies (cartoon videos) far more than any other video online or offline. Nigeria nollywood is like complete nonsense to me. Hollywood and horror movies are ok but you see cartoons? They're the best for me. One would think they are meant for kids but I'm adult and I enjoy watching cartoons alot. Cartoons such as Nezha, checkered nigga, rio, Big hero etc are all supergreat!

Does anyone feels the same?

You are watching those made for a +13 so it shouldn't be a surprise. I watch them as well but not with any kind of frequency.

DeepSight:
So let me start like this - do you think or believe ours is the first human civilization on Earth?

What do you mean by ours?

Also very much on recognizing its technical nature, the put-together-parts, the functionality and the purpose it delivers - all of which are present in things like a brain and which no sane person will attribute to either chance or any process absent mindful intent.

I do attribute the emergence of the brain to a non intentional process. People who attribute it to intelligence are like the puddle analogy, simplistic reasoning assuming that their circumstances were engineered specifically for their benefit when instead the circumstances engineered their benefit.

Unlike most religionists, I do not think our creators or their designs are / were perfect.

I choose the solution that doesn't use complexity to try to explain complexity when our universe indicates otherwise. In this universe, complex things are made from simpler things.

DeepSight:
Within this civilization.
There is evidence that there have been civilizations before this civilization.

Of course, much of the smaller details of functionality of such civilizations would be lost via whatever disasters evicerated those civilizations.
If an apocalyptic meteor hit the Earth today, most evidence of everyday functionalities of this civilization would also be lost.


I dont need to satisfy a randomly selected timeline by you. It is sufficient that Ooparts exist and also sufficient that we can infer civilizations before this one.

You do. If you must successfully counter my argument you must produce evidence of these civilisations from 100,000 years ago. The date was not randomly selected by the way. I selected it specifically because writing didn't exist then.

I did say it would be simplistic to you.
But the argument of the watchmaker is not made on account of having seen the watchmaker. Absolutely not. In fact the original argument states that the watch is found in a deserted place and no watchmaker seen. The argument is made on account of knowing by logic that a watch with the functions it displays would require a maker.

It is predicated on recognising it is a watch and knowing that watchmakers exist.

For me, the intricate functions of certain things logically disclose an intelligent maker. The eye is one of those things. But there are many. I dont know if you have stopped to look into the structure and interior of a single white blood cell.

Have you stopped to consider why an intelligent maker would choose such unintelligent schemas for biological systems? Look at the vagus nerve in giraffes.

^{[/sup][sup][/sup][sup][/sup][sup]}[sup][/sup]

erad:
One of the tricky things about the creator theory that most religious people will never accept is that it is a never-ending loop.

If you insist the world and how it works is so beautiful and intricate and therefore must have been created by a creator... You also have to be willing to welcome the idea that that creator didn't just appear one day and must have been created by another creator... And that creator by another creator... At what point does the loop end?

It ends with a special plea that the god is special. But you can't use that special plea because only their favourite god gets to use it.

DeepSight:
You dont know that there was no writing back then.
Hundreds of Out of Place Artefacts (Ooparts) give sufficient cause to consider the likelihood of civilizations having existed long long long before the present one.

I know because there is evidence of when writing started and there is no evidence from before that.

Mention some of these Ooparts from 100,000 years ago.

It would sound simplistic to you but the very watch is evidence of the watchmaker.

Another bad argument. We know there is a watch maker because we have seen the watchmaker. You cannot say the same for your factors.

DeepSight:
You dont know that there wasnt.

This is a bad argument, you can use it for anything.

I know because there was no writing back then.

I believe in evolution. I just dont believe it did it all. There was another factor or other factors at play. There are things evolution can never explain.

What is the evidence of these other factor(s)?

DeepSight:
Personally, regarding the extreme order, precision and fitness for purpose of certain things in this world, I don't buy the "billions of years" excuse. There are somethings that could never develop even with zillions of years, even with eternity without the deliberate direction of a mind.

Not even with eternity would a monkey be able to come up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare and not even with eternity would natural selection produce a brain that does what it does aside from things that have little to no correlation with survival such as poetry or philosophy.

I personally feel that there are somethings that natural selection can never explain and evolutionists in those cases hide behind billions of years.

Then why wasn't there a Shakespeare a 100, 000 years ago?

It makes much more sense to me given the history of humans. The compounding effects over time puts things into perspective so much better.

saintbillion:
Looking at the pics below, which is more. To me I think it's the ear.

D.

DeepSight:
But dont you think somethings display WAAAAYYYYYYYYYY too much order and fitness for purpose to be the result of a mindless process only?
Such as the cell, the brain, the eye?

The brain is orders of magnitude more advanced than any computer and no one would ever think that anything resembling a computer could come about without intelligence behind it.

You are looking at the end of billions of years of reiterative natural processes based on physical laws that don't need any intelligence to operate.

Maybe if we had a billion years to perfect computers they would be greater than biological brains.

jesusjnr2020:
I have already said it times without number here, that the science is in itself a proof of the Creator's existence, because science is about unravelling the hidden knowledge of the creation in order to replicate it or use it to provide solutions regarding the creation.

Therefore without the Creator, science itself wouldn't exist, because without the Creator there wouldn't be any creation for science to explore or learn from.

Therefore science itself is actually a pointer to the Creator, hence why the biggest brains or the greatest scientists in history do not just believe in the existence of the Creator but actually believe in Him, because of how fascinating His creation is, which they find themselves privileged to explore and learn a lot from.

God bless.

Science is in itself a proof of the Universe existence, because science is about unravelling the hidden knowledge of the Universe in order to replicate it or use it to provide solutions regarding the world.

Therefore without the Universe, science itself wouldn't exist, because without the Universe there wouldn't be any world for science to explore or learn from.

Therefore science itself is actually a pointer to the Universe, hence why the biggest brains or the greatest scientists in history do not just believe in the existence of the Universe but actually believe in the Universe, because of how fascinating the world is, which they find themselves privileged to explore and learn a lot from.

Universe bless.

Kobojunkie:
The content holds no elements of racism, whichever way you parse it. Pointing this out as merely a separation of concerns --- one group referred to as sheep while the other as dogs-- is meant to highlight this and, at the same time, restate the fact of what the Gospel is about. 😒😒

Then whether it was written to only Israelites or not has zero to do with it.

Kobojunkie:
Huh? The topic highlights the very passage in which this is stated, pretending it was some form of racism against one group. 😒😒

What does it being written to only Israelites have to do with it? Would it change it if it was racism or not?

Kobojunkie:
What is wrong with restating the facts as many times as one can?😒😒

Nothing but what is the purpose? Especially in a topic like this.

Kobojunkie:
I don't need to because that is implicitly understood by the majority who don't worship the Greek Gods, obviously. I have personally never met a Nigerian who believes the Greek Gods are also God of Nigerians. I find, however, that I have to keep saying that the stories of the Israelites were not made for the non-Israelites when talking to the crowd of folks out there who ignore this fact. 😒😒

Why though, what purpose does it serve?

Kobojunkie:
Why should anyone unfollow a book simply because it was not written for non-Israelites? Do you stop studying a particular subject or character merely because the subject did not agree with you or your people? The book does not say that Non-Israelites are not to read up on it or accept the statements contained in it. Instead, what it makes clear is that the content applies only to Israelites. 😒😒

I have been studying and following the stories of the Greeks and their gods, who we all know had no place for non-Greeks. Do I unfollow all that because their deities and books do not apply to me? 😒😒

But you don't keep saying the stories of the Greek was not made for non Greeks. What is the necessity of announcing that it wasn't written for non-Israelites every time you speak about the book?

DeepSight:
Maybe i didnt follow the thread.
Why does occupying a;; perspectives come up?

Here

Kobojunkie:
I don't understand what part of what I said you are having a problem with. 😒

You keep bringing up that the books were not written for non Israelites yet you follow them. What is the point of stating that they are not for non-Israelites since you a non-Israelite are following anyway since it means anyone can follow it?

DeepSight:
What does this scripture disclose?

Mark 7.

24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.......

Perhaps some leading Christians can help out here.

Kukutente23/ TV01/ Jesusjnr2020

Are cultural prejudices necessarily racism?

Kobojunkie:
He isn't meant for non-Israelites. I accept that; hence, I follow what He says. 😒😒

He isn't meant for you but follow anyway? Then it doesn't matter whether books were for the Israelites alone or not since anyone like you can just follow what he says.

DeepSight:
Let me attempt an answer -

So I will approach it from morality. Objective, subjective and relative.

Objective - What remains true regardless of personal opinion or circumstances.

Subjective - What is dependent on personal opinion or view point.

Relative - What is dependent on circumstances.

So talking about relative truth, we are talking about circumstances.

An example will be -

Q: Is it true that it is acceptable for a parent to abandon his or her infant child?

Objective answer - It is wrong.

Example of Subjective Answer - Baby was result of rape and so parent does not feel responsible.

Example of Relative Answer - Parent left child in a moment of flux during a shootout in the middle of a war so it is understandable.

However something like this still makes me feel you will say this is morals and not a matter of truth. So let's do another example.

Does the Earth revolve around the sun?

Objective Answer - Yes.

Subjective Answer - I am blind, I don't know. Infact I have never felt the Earth moving.

Relative Answer - It's a simulation so nothing is revolving around anything.

But none of these would be relevant if you could occupy all perspectives.

DeepSight:
What does this scripture disclose?

Mark 7.

24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.......

Perhaps some leading Christians can help out here.

Kukutente23/ TV01/ Jesusjnr2020

I think I read an interpretation (probably in Dake's Annotated Refernce Bible) that he wasn't saying it like he was calling the woman a dog but rather in a parable format to illustrate that she was not supposed to receive the kind of gift she was seeking from him as a way to test her earnestness. And her response showed she didn't take offense and instead passed the test by recognising the lesson he was passing across.

But whatever men, the book is open to interpretation of all sorts so I won't be surprised to learn that some people would use it to buttress their own racist ideas.

Kobojunkie:
I accept that the books of Israelite Scripture are meant only for Israelites, as continuously highlighted in the message of every one of the Laws and the prophets detailed in the Books.

Then why are you, a non Israelite, a follower of Jesus? Why do you hold this Israelite scripture in any esteem since it isn't meant for you?

ManirBK:
164 nations voted yes. The UK, France, Germany – all yes. Even former colonial powers said it's time to correct the map.

The United States? No. They called it "superfluous."



| The hypocrisy is breathtaking. A nation that claims to lead the world on human rights and equality – but when it comes to showing Africa at its true size, they vote no.

They say it's not necessary. But why? Because an accurate map doesn't serve their narrative?

Africa is 14 times larger than Greenland. That's not politics – that's science. And the US just voted against science.

The map is corrected. The US can stay on the wrong side of history. 🌍🇳🇬

I daresay it is a fallout of having a disguised racist administration in charge of the US. Since this administration began how many times have you heard them condemn human rights abuses?

DeepSight:
There would still be. From perspective.
I am just struggling to find an excellent example of what I mean to you, for thou art a rigorous taskmaster, friend.

How would when you can occupy all perspectives?