₦airaland Forum

nicetohave:
youre kidding right? how can that be?

He tries to mimick the Bible

I'm from Belgium. Fire away your questions

goodguy:
So you actually celebrate [b]Christ[/b]mas.

Yes, we do have the right to relaim the winter solistice the Christians stole from us, no
Peace

nicetohave:
what a wonderful and concerted effort by the creature to explain the creation of his creature

Non sequitur
Try again

donnie:
Nferyn,

I do believe in evolution because i have considered the facts that these scientists have brought forth. The theory does not contradict my bible.

You do not believe in the Theory of Evolution if you do not believe in common descent or in the fact that evolution is still happening today. I'm glad though that you have opened your mind for at least part of the evidence.

donnie:
But i do not believe like you and the rest of your atheist folk will have us believe, the errounous conclusion and assumption of some scientists that we evolved from certain micro organisms or ape-like beings. I am aware of the homo-erectus discoveries and i do not find any problem with them. I have seen the ape-men discoveries and i do not agrue with them.

Please explain mitochondria, non-coding DNA and fragments of viral DNA in our genome. These are clear markers for common descent from micro organisms.
The differences in DNA between chimpanzees and humans point to a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. We have markers for other 'points of contact' in the tree of life and they all match up with the fossil record and the geometric dating of these fossils. There is currently not one example that contradicts these findings. Only one find that doesn't fit the tree of life would falsify common descent. None have been found yet (and you know that a lot of fossils have been found)

donnie:
The point here is that, those creatures lived on this earth long before Adam was created by God. There have also been fossils of cities and animals that existed on the earth long before Adam. Again, i do not find any problem with these discoveries.

If we were all descendants of Adam and Eve, this would be visible in our genome. It isn't. Mitochondrial Eve (the common human female ancestor of all humanity - I won't carry the full argument here, because explaining this mechanism would take a few pages - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve for more info) lived about 150.000 years ago.

donnie:
According to the bible, there was a world before the world of Adam. This is the world in which evoluation was in process. This world however, was destroyed and turned upside down by God. God then put a stop to the process of evolution.

there is no physical evidence for such an event. God must have pulled quite a trick out of his sleeve to deceive us so profoundly.
Anyway, evolution is still happening today, even in humans, e.g. sickle cell anemia, smaller jaw, lactose tolerance, wisdom teeth becoming less common)

donnie:
There was then a re-creation of the wrold in Genesis, in which Adam was created and put in. This adam was created in God's image and formed from the dust of the earth. He did not come as a result of evolution. Man has been that way since then.

Again, the evidence points in another direction.

donnie:
When scientists come up with facts, we do not argue with them, but when they come up with assumptions, we test such assumtions according to God's word and prove them to be true of false.

Scientists don't work with facts, but with evidence. Assumptions are either supported or not supported by the evidence. Only supported assumption make it into the scientific body of knowledge, usually in the form of theories (theories explain the evidence in a coherent and falsifiable way)
Proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science and certainly not for religion.

goodguy:
Despite all the evidences of the scriptural prophecies being fulfilled, you still aren't convinced?

You do have a funny standard of evidence, goodguy. You'll believe anything as long as it somewhat supports your belief system.

LadyC,

I will answer your posts in detail. Even though you apparently didn't fully comprehend my post, I cannot really fault you. I was probably not precise and clear enough. Instead of addressing your remarks indirectly I should have put arguments forward that expose the irrational nature, logically inconsitency and epistimiological and metaphysical impossibility of the Christian God.

Your understanding of the scientific method is incomplete and completely off the mark though. Historical sciences apply a different method than the one posted. This line of thought is repeatedly used by creationists to refute the evidence for evolution. Maybe you should read some Popper to better understand what science is all about.

Anyway, more to follow (but it won't be today or tomorrow, I have presents to pack, shopping to do and a family party to attend for christmas)

ijebuman:
Followers of the Sacred Coconut
This can't be a true Religion!!!! where are your predictions about the end of the world

Heretic!
The world has ended already. Everything we perceive here today is but an elaborate dream of the sacred coconut. We are here only because the brain of the sacred coconut is in a REM phase. Let's just hope the coconut almighty doesn't wake up. Now go and stay dead.

Seun, you know this only applies to the non-chosen peoples. By choosing the life and virtue of the coconut you will be saved, regardless of your behaviour on this earth.

Glory be to the Nutcases of this earth

dejiolowe:
I am almost sure that online international funds transfer wouldn't be very available for a long time. The issue doesn't have to do with technology but regulations.

The Nigerian forex space is tightly regulates, especially becuase of our Yahoo! friends.

But I know a bank who is looking for ways around this issue so that the customer can be satisfied.

Actually the banking systems of most countries are tightly regulated. In Belgium, when making a transfer over €3500, national or international, it automatically gets registered and the info is sent tho the central banking commission and investigated (you need to have a plausible source of these funds). If it's over €5000 the federal financial crimes division gets a notification and these transactions are regularly investigated. For all funds over €3500, the bank needs to have proof of origin.

Oh, why's that... you're not doubting the cocnut, I hope. If you do, you'll be turned into coconut carpet for eternity with dirty feet all over you .... the horror ....

Food for thought.
Please stick to page 4 for the info relevant to this thread. The whole thing is worth reading, though.
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/page4/200512_an_atheist_manifesto

nicetohave:
because they have already been addressed, there is no need to continue to multiply words where i cannot possibly exhaust!!!

Well obviously not satisfactory. Scoffing at other people's reasoning is not helping the dialogue further.

nicetohave, you have a tendency to laugh at or look down on anything you do not agree with. Why don't you address the arguments instead?

As long as you carry the cocnut in your heart, it remains for eternity

Paris is a wonderful city to visit, especially in summertime, but, as with most of these things, you need enough money to enjoy yourself. And if you don't speak French, you won't get the service you expect.
Don't go to the suburbs, it isn't safe and you'll get depressed in a heartbeat. Stick to the center.

goodguy:
2Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

It must be fantastic to be a Christian. You can pick anything from the bible you like and the things that don't suit you[i] [are] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness[/i]

The most flexible religion on earth (except of course for the Temple of the Sacred Coconut - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-1989.0.html)

LadyC:
What's wrong with a priori knowledge? Common sense is based on a priori knowledge.

A priori, there's nothing wrong with a priori arguments, but you cannot use them to prove something if this something needs these a priori arguments to start with.
Anyway, common sense is [b]wrong [/b]in very many instances, especially when it comes to science. there is nothing common sense about the Theory of Evolution. That's probably why so many gullible people reject it even without looking at the evidence in it's favour.

LadyC:
I don't see how that thread disputes my previous post. Also, not being a Christian does not automatically mean you are somehow enlightened, as many seem to believe nowadays. Christianity makes a lot of sense. Here's why. We all have a sense of right and wrong. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to say something is “fair” or “unfair”. The question is where does this sense of right and wrong come from?

Never did I say that not being Christian makes one automatically enlightened. I am yet to see the first person that claims such a thing. Anyway, atheism does not imply a specific worldview. It is just the absence of a God belief. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no moral implications to being atheist, neither positive, nor negative.
The differences among atheists are wide and large.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair once said that

Organizing atheists is like hurding cats

Contrary to what CS Lewis thinks, his analogies on morality do not imply the existence of a Christian God.

It is not true that everybody knows what is right and wrong. This differs between cultures and over time. This (rather volatile) sense of right and wrong is an evolutionary implication of language and living in cooperative groups of humans. Anthropology and Sociobiology define this phenomenon as reciprocal altruism.

Of course, you cannot fault CS Lewis for not being aware of this research as it is fairly recent, but in this day and age anyone researching the origins of morality should be aware of it. The current usage of this argument from objective morality is very similar to creationists talking aout Darwin's Theory of Evolution without looking at the additions and refinements that have been made to the theory since.

LadyC:
Some say the sense of right and wrong is just a cultural norm. But why do the different cultures agree so much on what is right and wrong? Doesn't that hint at some kind of baseline standard?

See above. And no, they do not agee as much on this as you may think. Practices such as about culturally sanctioned polygamy, infanticide, cannibalism, wife beating, self mutilation, castration, incest and war do exist. There is very litle common ground between cultures regarding this. On top of this our morality has evolved considerably over time, as our attitude towards slavery shows.

LadyC:
Some say our ideas of right and wrong are merely social conventions. But, social conventions (e.g., manner of dress) usually differ widely among cultures and time periods. Our ideas of right or wrong have not. Although there have been differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, those differences don’t vary all that much.

As I pointed out, they do vary significantly and they are not mere social conventions, but rather biological imperatives that are necessary for our survival as a species. Since the development of large, organised, technologically more advances societies, our moral codes have evolved and do include several cultural adaptations, just look at the moral imperatives of the Bible (especially the old testament) and compare that to our current moral stance. The roots of our morality have not changed though and that's why current morality regularly clashes with the uglier parts of our human nature.

LadyC:
This hints at a common standard. By the way, it’s important to distinguish between differences in morality and differences in fact. For instance, putting witches to death in England hundreds of years ago because of their evil powers might be seen as bad now. But, we might still do it today if we actually believed witches were that powerful and used those powers for evil.

No, we would certainly not do such thing nowadays, as our standards for evidence have drastically changed. The witch hunts were a political tool, used by the church to get rid of independent thinkers (usually women who practiced herbal medicine) and at the same time appropriating their posessions. You should really read a bit more about that period. Very intresting.

LadyC:
Some say this sense of right and wrong is just an instinct that’s been developed over time. But, the sense of right and wrong is beyond mere instinct. It tells us which instinct is the right one to follow. For instance, let’s say we see someone on the train tracks while a train is fast approaching. One instinct (the herd instinct) urges you to help the person. Another instinct (self-preservation) urges you to stay away from the tracks so you don’t get hit. Now, you have two instincts competing inside you. But, then a third thing tells you that the instinct to help is the right one. Likewise, the instinct to fight can be either good or bad, depending on the situation. The instinct to help can be either good or bad, depending on the situation. Something above the instincts guides us in determining when it would be right or wrong to fight or to help.

That's why situational ethics, combined with utilitarianism is a better proposition than rigid carved in stone moral laws. Anyway, it is not either/or. Instinct is part of the equation, but not the only element.

LadyC:
Some say the concept of right or wrong comes from what we think is good for society as a whole. If someone asked you what the point of behaving decently is even if behaving decently might not personally benefit him or her, it is not helpful to say in order to benefit society. Because, trying to benefit society - in other words being unselfish - is one of the things that is part of decent behavior. All you’re really saying is the point of behaving decently is in order to behave decently. The idea that behaving decently is good must come from something else.

I have already explained where it comes from. I don't think there are very many people that use what is good for society as a guiding norm. Those that do, are rationalising their behaviour post factum. If you take a hunter gatherer group as unit of analysis though, there is definitely a benefit in working for the best interests of the group even though you may not directly benefit from it.

LadyC:
What I’m leading to is that this inherent sense of right and wrong (moral law) must come from Something. Something is directing the universe and appears to urge us to do right and make us feel responsible and uncomfortable when we do wrong.

This is sloppy thinking, based on false premisses. Even under the assumption that this objective morality would exist, you cannot draw such a conslusion. It is an argument from ignorance: if I cannot conceive any source for it, it must [/i]come from God. There is an evolutionary source for our morality.

LadyC:
It is more like a Mind because mere matter is not likely to be giving us instructions.

Matter can definitely [i]give instructions, as the mind is nothing but matter. Again, CS Lewis could not have been aware of current research in neurology, but you shouldn't dig up this argument in view of our current scientific knowledge.

LadyC:
From the moral law this Mind has put into our minds, we can conclude that this Mind is good.

How can you conclude that? And what mind are you talking about? the similarities in our moralities (even though they are far fewer than you assume) are caused by the wiring in our brains: part is genetical, part is developmental biology and part is culture.

LadyC:
But that doesn't mean this Mind is soft or indulgent because the moral law isn't soft or indulgent. It tells us to do the right thing, no matter how painful or dangerous or difficult it is to do. This Mind is absolute goodness but we are not. If this Mind is purely impersonal, there is no sense in asking “It” to make any allowances for when we are not good.

This makes absolutely no sense. this Mind you are talking about does not exist as a separate entity and your deductions are not based on any solid data.

LadyC:
It is after you've realized that there is a real moral law and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power, that Christianity begins to make sense.

Your premisses are incorrect. That Power is a non-entity unless you start from the assumption that a supreme being exists. And even then you cannot deduce that Christianity uniquely makes sense, any supreme being - even the infamous[i] flying spaghetti monster[/i] makes sense in that unsubstantiated context.

LadyC:
Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. Christianity offers an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating gyoodness and loving it. It offers an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind behind the moral law and et also a Person. Christianity tells you how the demands of this moral law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf; how God himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God.

Yes it gives [b]an [/b]explanation of morality from incorrect assumptions and premisses. [b]Any [/b]internally consistent value system can do that. And to be quite honest, Christianity isn't even internally consistent

LadyC:
What I’ve posted is, for the most part, from the book called Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (who used to be an atheist, but became a Christian).

CS lewis never really was a conscient atheist. He was an weak agnostic atheist that was unimpressed with the tales coming from the main religions. His Christanity has also never been fundamentalist, as he did not believe in the infallibility of the Bible as God's word and certainly wouldn't fall for any end-times prophecies.

LadyC:
What I've said here doesn't even begin to cover what the book covers on Christianity. Please take a look at it. Even if you think that Christianity is not the only way or you're not “religious” at all, what if you're wrong? Be open-minded to the possibility of being wrong now while you have the chance to do something about it, rather than later (after death) when it’s too late.

I could certainly be wrong, but I have not even seen [b]one [/b]convincing argument in favor of Christianity. CS Lewis will only appeal to Christians that need strenghtening of their faith and do not bother to look into the latest scientific findings as a source for their knowledge, but rather use the comfortable blanket of superstition and faith.
As a sidenote, from the properties of God: onmiscient, onnipotent and omnibenevolent, I cannot draw but two conclusions, either:
1. I will go to heaven, regardles of my disbelief
2. God is internally contradictory and thus doesn't exist

"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day;
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish"
(unknown)

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
(Ned Flanders – The Simpsons)

Hi LadyC,

I guess you're addressing me, so I'll take the bait.

That thread indeed wasn't, but I seem unable to find the one with the argument. I'll have to redo my stuff

That's quite an impressive argument you've put up. Unfortunately it is full of logical errors and a lot of a priori's. Even though you can maintain a belief in a supreme being on logical grounds, it is impossible to do so for the God of the Bible. Anyway, preparing a rebuttal of your argument is going to take some time, so allow me to answer you this evening or some time tomorrow.

Regards

layi:
@nferyn
All i've got to say about Evolution is that GOD started it all. He allowed adaptation but not complete change to an entirely different animal. I do not believe all animals evolved from 1

Obviously not all animals evolved from one. Our mitochondria are an example of a merge of a single celled organism (a bacterium) into the cells of a multi-celled organism. There are also traces of viral DNA in our genome. At the beginning of life, you cannot look at evolution as a tree, but rather as a bush with many interwining branches.

See: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_24

goodguy:
No one is disputing the facts that LadyC put down.

We already did that in a few other threads, https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-3330.0.html among others>

layi:
@nferyn
Of what relevance? U might have to ignore that then..i can't put it better.Sayin i'm beyond redemption isnt a big deal...because i've always thought u are. Tit 4 tat.

Obviously this redemption thing was meant as a joke.
And yes, I really didn't understand the purpose of the second paragraph. the similarities accross [i]kinds [/i]are more of an indication for evolution than for seperate creation.

Layi,

If you want to follow that line of thought through, you have to precisely and operationally define kind. Species is operationally defined as reproductively isolated populations for multi-cellular life forms. How do you define kinds?
Moreover, knowing the mutation rates for non-coding DNA (usually using mitochondrial DNA), you cannot possibly arrive at the current biodiversity starting from Noach's Ark or creation (+/- 6600 years). This is impossible.

Also, what mechanism prevents species from evolving into several other species?

nicetohave:
to nferyn, its another work of evolution, not God.

No, according to the evidence, it is.

Obviously, God could still be the pupetmaster that stages everything and uses evolution to do his creation, but that would invalidate the Bible as the word of God.

goodguy:
God gave these same scientists the brain.

Circular thinking.
Assumption 1: God exists
Assumption 2: God gave these scientists the brain
Deduction: The scientists have that brain that enables them to come up with their thingies
Deduction: These thingies exist
Conclusion: God exists

Perfect circle

I'd rather rely on the correct ideas of science and technology. We'd still be cave dwellers without it.

layi:
I do not believe in it. If you are talking about "unchanging kinds" with regards to vestigial legs in humans/whales, then i'll say that theory only comes from the evolusionist camp. Ther are no vestigial legs at all. Its just copulatory guide for holding on during intercourse and those of whales were possibly adapted for claspers during mating.

You are beyond redemption, layi
See
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/introduction.html
for the evolution of whales

layi:
According to scriptures, there are close related land mamals whose viscera are same. They need these for the close related lifestyles they live. It still doesnt proove beyond that that they eveolved from 1 generic beign. What the proponents of such theory fail to tell us is that the viscera of all animals are almost alike just that some features are prominent and adapted for certian purpose/lifestyles.

What's the relevance of this?

nicetohave:
well back to the thread, nferyn i can see the pathetic state which youre in, i guess id just leave you to God to prove himself to you; as for me i have done my little bit

I believe in God.

Why pathetic state? I'm feeling anything but pathetic. I feel for you people that enslave yourselves to false ideas, though. May the light of reason guide you all in your search for truth.

@yemstrad
It starts with a P and ends with rejudice. What is it?

nicetohave:
I see

ehn.me touchy..................if i catch u, u go see

Is this a virus or what? Wait 'till it mutates