Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,721 members, 7,955,700 topics. Date: Sunday, 22 September 2024 at 01:16 PM |
Nairaland Forum / MrAnony1's Profile / MrAnony1's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 160 pages)
Politics / Re: You Are A Baby Presidential Candidate- Doyin Okupe Blasts Peter Obi by MrAnony1(m): 1:19pm On Dec 02, 2022 |
Is there any evidence of Okupe actually saying this? When did he say this and where? 1 Like |
Politics / Re: Obi Didn’t Say He Played Football With Odili, Gazette's Fact-check False (video) by MrAnony1(m): 5:17am On Nov 19, 2022 |
Moh247: I don't see the problem here. Consider this statement. Arsenal fan: "We couldn't have played football in the premier league without Thierry Henry. Anyday he’s not in the match, we have lost" Nobody who is not trying to be mischievous would interpret this to mean that the Arsenal fan is claiming to have played football with Henry. Another example: Nigerian market woman: "We couldn't have played football in the World cup without Kanu Nwankwo. Anyday he’s not in the match, we have lost" Nobody who is not trying to be mischievous would interpret this to mean that the Market woman is claiming to have played football with Kanu. Please let's stop being dishonest. |
Crime / Re: 5 Guys Drug And Rape 2 Girls They Met Via Facebook In Lagos - Photos by MrAnony1(m): 6:05am On Oct 05, 2018 |
... |
Religion / Re: Do Animals Have Rights? [argumentative Discussion] by MrAnony1(m): 2:33pm On Sep 21, 2016 |
I SEE AND i LIKE. . . . AND I WISH I WASN'T SO CHOKED UP WITH WORK. Anyway Godspeed. Lemme just follow the thread. |
Religion / Re: Who Lives In Enugu? Let Us Link Up. by MrAnony1(m): 4:36am On Sep 02, 2016 |
Joshthefirst:Woooow! I would never have pegged you down for an 042 man. Here's my email address: dibsdadon@yahoo.com. Give me a shout asap. |
Religion / Re: Who Lives In Enugu? Let Us Link Up. by MrAnony1(m): 7:50am On Aug 31, 2016 |
johnydon22:Yes. Same venue, same time. |
Religion / Re: Who Lives In Enugu? Let Us Link Up. by MrAnony1(m): 6:56am On Aug 31, 2016 |
sonofluc1fer:Ah cool cool, we should link up soon. Is your Indian number still your number for whatsapp? |
Religion / Re: The Robot Vs The Atheist. by MrAnony1(m): 6:33am On Aug 31, 2016 |
Just a few things to correct Logicbwoy:Ok Mr Stein; I suppose robots are atheists since they are logical beings.Wrong. Atheists are not necessarily logical beings. Having an opinion about the existence of God doesn't magically inject logic into one's being. Robot; Well, you created me, and so, it is possible a creator created you.Yes it is possible but it doesn't follow. Mr Stein; That is faulty because I am not like you. I am biological and you are not. You can be built again, while I cannot, for I was born organically and will live only once.Being a biological being doesn't make Mr Stein impossible to have been created. Robot; You cannot prove that you cannot be built. We are both made of of chemicals and atoms are we not? Just as you can create me from steel, there could be a greater creator that can create from flesh.Exactly Mr Stein; But there is no evidence for such a creator that can create human beings.The evidence is right there in the specified complexity of the being. Robot; But what if you created me and left me alone before I became conscious? What if you dumped me on an empty planet before I became conscious? I would be arguing that I have no creator, just like you are doing.The Robot would be wrong to make this argument. All he has to do is look at how his complex parts have been specifically combined such that he functions. Mr. Stein; Interesting. But when you study yourself, you would find that you are not organic. That you have been created....."Organic" has nothing to do with whether a thing is created or not. Robot; What if I told you that I feel organic? That I feel natural? After all, steel is from the earth, is it not? what if one day, man can learn to merge steel and flesh? After all, there is a movie call transformers that shows that man has already dreamt this dreamYeah what if whatever this robot is talking about here? Mr Stein; Dreams, eh? But isn't that what God is? Dreams and fantasy. Things that one can never prove.......Here Mr Stein upon failing to answer his robot, resorts to his preconceived assumption that God must be a dream/fantasy. Hello Logicboy. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Religion / Re: Who Lives In Enugu? Let Us Link Up. by MrAnony1(m): 6:08am On Aug 31, 2016 |
johnydon22:Oh it went well actually. The next meetup happens to be tomorrow evening incidentally. Topic is "Is It Ethical To Genetically Modify Our Children?" It will be nice to have you around if you can make it. |
Religion / Re: Who Lives In Enugu? Let Us Link Up. by MrAnony1(m): 6:04am On Aug 31, 2016 |
sonofluc1fer: What's up Muskeeto? Interesting new username there. I see you've fully gone over to the dark side. Are you back in the country now or still in India? |
Religion / Who Lives In Enugu? Let Us Link Up. by MrAnony1(m): 7:03am On Aug 30, 2016 |
Hi everyone, It's been ages. Sadly these days I hardly have the time to show up on NL. Anyways, since my days of being active on NL, I've moved back to Nigeria and I now live in Enugu. I'm looking to link up with Nairalanders on this Religion forum who are in Enugu and who would love to hang out and discuss a little theology/philosophy. If this is you, let me know on this thread and we can arrange a meet-up. Cheers y'all. |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 2:31pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Kay17: No sir, complex systems are not necessarily functional. A goat for instance is a complex system with specific interconnected parts such as legs, ears, eyes, a brain e.t.c. each of these parts are distinct and specifically work together in such a way that they are functional. e.g. the goat's eye's function is sight, and it is specifically located and connected in such a way that it performs this function quite well. i.e. it is not located inside the intestine for instance where it wouldn't be able to function properly. Similarly, the goat's legs are for specifically connected and located so that they can perform the function of movement. The same can be said for all the other parts of the goat. A goat is not merely a complex system, it is a complex FUNCTIONAL system. Now please can you tell me... 1. How exactly are Mountain ranges and Rift valleys complex, functional and a system? 2. How exactly are a rivers and their tributaries complex, functional and a system? 3. How exactly is forestation complex, functional and a system? 4. How exactly is Continental drift complex, functional and a system? 5. How exactly are Cloud formations, movement and dissipations. complex, functional and a system? |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 2:16pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Kay17: "Natural" doesn't work as well as "accident" when trying to contrast against "intelligent design". especially when the question is whether Natural processes suggest intelligence. To use the word "natural" as in Whether goats originate naturally as opposed to by intelligent design begs the question as it assumes one of the positions that it is required to prove. Thanks for your suggestion anyway, but I'll stick with the original phrasing. |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 1:20pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
plaetton:I see, 1. How exactly are Mountain ranges and Rift valleys complex, functional and a system? 2. How exactly are a rivers and their tributaries complex, functional and a system? 3. How exactly is forestation complex, functional and a system? 4. How exactly is Continental drift complex, functional and a system? 5. How exactly are Cloud formations, movement and dissipations. complex, functional and a system? |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 1:06pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Kay17: Erhm...what word would you rather have me use in place of "accident"? 2 Likes |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 12:52pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
Scholar8200:I think I agree with what I think is the spirit of what you are saying. Thanks for replying. 1 Like |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 12:49pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
CoolUsername:Ok so you admit that no observation has occurred only inferences have been made. How do you know that you have made the right inferences? If complex functional systems have never been observed to begin to exist without intelligent design, then upon what basis do you infer that intelligence was not involved in the origination of any given complex functional system? Ah, but cells are just products of molecular self-assembly. Self-assembly of lipids and proteins form the cell membrane and DNA material, respectively. No outside interference is necessary.Molecular self-assembly you say. How can anything that lacks agency possibly assemble itself in a specifically ordered mannaer? Or are you suggesting that molecules have conscious agency? A scientific theory is pure not speculation, DNA sampling, radioisotope dating, and therefore the entire atomic theory all have to be wrong for the evidence that they bring to be discredited.I don't have a problem with evolution neither am I arguing against it here. 1 Like |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 12:37pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
plaetton:Good to see you again Plaetton. If as you claim, nature itself is a complex functional system and it is NOT a product of intelligence, what evidence convinces you of this? Are there other examples of complex functional systems that have come to be by random chance whose origin was observed? |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 12:10pm On Mar 20, 2016 |
PastorAIO: I'll accept that answer but still I must ask: How did you arrive at the conclusion that natural processes are teleological? What evidence convinces you of this? |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 5:25am On Mar 14, 2016 |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 5:16am On Mar 14, 2016 |
CoolUsername: Thanks for replying to my questions I have a few things I would like to point out though.... 1. Who observed this process take place? Can you provide any evidence that this is actually how the eye came to exist and not merely someone's guess? 2. The most basic micro-organisms from which you kick off your argument are already complex functional systems themselves. You were asked to show how a complex functional system could come from base elements without intelligence. I didn't ask you to show how a complex functional system can become a more complex functional system. 3. I don't think it is good scientific practice to propound theories when no actual observations have been made. Yes, the eye could well have evolved exactly the way that you claim it did but this remains pure speculation unless the process has actually been observed. So once again, I'll restate my question highlighting the parts I need you to pay attention to... "If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats (or eyes) came by a series of happy accidents acting upon non-living base elements over a very long period of time, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist without intelligence?" |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 4:48am On Mar 14, 2016 |
FOLYKAZE:An illusion by definition is something that is not real. How can complex functional systems only exist in thought when the very thing that makes thought possible (i.e. the brain) is a complex functional system? |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 10:25am On Mar 13, 2016 |
Joshthefirst: Good to see you again bro. I agree with you but please can you post a link on the robots you are talking about? @Reyginus, I hail thee! |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 10:22am On Mar 13, 2016 |
FOLYKAZE: Thanks for your response. Please could you continue by answering the questions following i.e. If nature is not intelligent, then how do you explain the existence of complex functional systems such as are goats? |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 10:18am On Mar 13, 2016 |
UyiIredia:While I agree with you, I must press you further to name a specific example of a man-made complex functional system. |
Religion / Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 10:16am On Mar 13, 2016 |
emrain:Ok I see. |
Religion / What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 3:04pm On Mar 12, 2016 |
Hi everyone, been a while. (Free time seems inversely proportional to age these days....or is it a bell curve? Lol) Anyway, I have a question to ask. I keep hearing people appeal to nature as an explanation for complexities that they find in the operation and function of non-manmade things. So my question is: 1. What is Nature exactly? 2. Is Nature intelligent, such that it can deliberately create a complex functional system such as is a living goat? 3. If Nature is not intelligent then how do we explain the existence of goats? 4. If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats came by a series of happy accidents acting upon non-living base elements over a very long period of time, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist without intelligence? 5. If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats came by intelligent design, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist with intelligence? 6. If you think that the two explanations are equally plausible i.e. complex functional systems such as is a goat can come about either by a series of accidental co-incidences or by intelligent action, then how do you consistently identify and differentiate between that which has been designed and that which hasn't been designed? Or do you think that it is impossible to make this classification just by observing the product. P/s: I will only respond to genuine and serious replies to the thread. I WILL NOT respond if your answer contains mockery, blasphemy, or use of foul language. I want the conversation to be strictly about what Nature means and whether there is evidence of intelligence in the creation of natural things or not. Any replies that have nothing to do with the questions in this topic will be ignored. Cheers |
Religion / . by MrAnony1(m): 2:56pm On Mar 12, 2016 |
. |
Religion / Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 6:10am On Jul 21, 2015 |
Kay17:If that is the case, then you haven't answered my question in any meaningful sense. This was my question: What reasons do you have that convinced you that the universe is not designed despite the fact that it appears designed to you? First of, to say that because we don't know what design constraints the physical laws have shows that the universe isn't designed is absurd mainly because design constraints are not a necessary component of design rather they are external things that inspire amendments to an already conceptualized design. Secondly, even if I was to assume (though I am not) that the fact that we don't know the design constraints of physical laws shows that it is undesigned, the fact still remains (and you admit this fact) that fishes, trees, planets, galaxies, supernovas e.t.c. appear designed and equally have the universe as their platform and the physical laws as their constraints just like human designed things such as aeroplanes, houses, oil rigs e.t.c. So seeing that they both appear designed, they both operate on the same platform and they both have the same physical constraints, what then specifically is this distinction that should make us believe that one category is designed while the other isn't? |
Religion / Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 12:15am On Jul 20, 2015 |
Kay17: I have read and reread your answer. It seems to me that while you agree that the physical laws governing the universe show enough structural complexity to suggest design, your argument is that for us to properly assume design we must first explain what design constraints these physical laws are based upon since our designs are based on these physical laws. Have I represented your position accurately? Please correct me if I haven't or if I've overlooked anything. |
Religion / Re: Three Arguments For God's Existence by MrAnony1(m): 11:46pm On Jul 19, 2015 |
thehomer:My point is that you are contradicting yourself. Now can you explain how two things that (according to you) have the same definition are different? Again, what exactly is your point beyond word definitions? You've still not said what your point is.Evasion number 7: What are you so afraid of? Since you claim that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs, then please what are these physical properties of what you are experiencing that inform you it is hunger when the hunger pangs are absent? Or is the hunger you are experiencing non-physical? Can you please answer my question and stop dodging? I understand what I'm saying and you've just said length isn't a physical property. Is length then non-physical?Another lie. Please show where I said that length isn't a physical property? You were the one who said that hunger pangs are a physical property of hunger and that length are a physical property of hunger pangs. So please explain to us how exactly you aren't saying that a physical property has a physical property. Okay. Am I to take this as meaning that there are no physical properties of what we perceive?How did you get that from what I just explained to you? No hunger is not matter but it can have some physical effects as I've said before. Please will you answer my question?If hunger is not matter, how then does it have physical properties? Are you suggesting that there are physical properties that do not describe material things?Also, what question are you referring to? I know about my mind because I'm conscious. Can you just answer my own questions?Similarly, I know my hunger because I am conscious. Hunger pangs are an effect of non-physical hunger on the physical body. Again what questions are you referring to? As usual, I've been answering your questions but you avoid answering mine. I will start enforcing that as part of this exchange.Osheyy "Mr Enforcer" . Actually it is you who has been dodging my questions, I have pointed out 7 clear instances of you evading my questions (not counting the posts you ignored entirely). Please make sure you answer them meaningfully before you start enforcing whatever it is you want to enforce. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 160 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 126 |