₦airaland Forum

the secret222: ...i love your logic man... So if we have free will, would you agree that we are our own gods?

Freewill is ultimate freedom so, probably yes, if we must use the term "god "

^^^the guy's comments were so irritating that I refused to quote him.

^^^Joblessness

[quote author=Pastor Olu T][/quote]The earth still stands but its kills the life in it by natural disasters, showing imperfections.

We will find the original of life. that is what I think.

For you to live, you have to kill other life forms.

Reyginus: Fixed again.

smh

ok

the secret222: life consist of imagination, everything ever made, was imagined before created, the world consist of abundance. For example the Wright brother, imagined and created a plane... Thoughts are things.

Thoughts are illusions. If life is not real, then it remains an abstract, so if what we see are illusions, how much more is god that we can only think about.

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

Perhaps the meaning of chance beats you. chances means spontaneous, without aim. This is exactly what is observable in nature.

davidylan: This statement is the epitome of idiocy. Read this 2-3 times... does it make sense?

The purpose of life is the creation and preservation of more life? What does that mean? The purpose of rain is to create and maintain rain? Senseless

This line of thought is very dumb.

Since a clock was designed to tell time, and it does that, then its purpose is to tell time.

If life replicates and if it was designed, then its purpose is to replicate.

if rain fall and if it was designed, then its purpose is to form and fall.

ihedinobi: 3. Lol. Ooman, were you not insisting
that man's being part of the design
meant that the only viable options were
the system and the designer? So, how is
my pointing out that even though man
was part of the design he was separate
enough from the system to be a third
option not the point? Amusing.

Ok, so according to you, if a newly designed computer system is faulty in its cables, the cable is to be blamed- Makes perfect sense.

ihedinobi: Well, when someone you assumed was
at least thirteen starts telling you that a
five-year-old could fault something and
himself for some reason fails to actually
fault it, you wonder if he's implying that
he's less than four, didn't you know?

Oh, so you who is like 59 years old still debate with someone you assumed was thirteen years old?? you are soooooo funny and senseless

ihedinobi: If you
can't disprove design, attack the
intelligence of the designer
My friend, the very existence of a design
evinces an intelligence behind it.
Whether you're more intelligent than it
or not, it's an intelligence and it exists
per the argument.

As per the argument, automation is possible in human intelligence, which is the direct answer I gave your question of couldn't a designer make a system to be continuous? But such designed automation isn't observable in nature. We see mistakes causing variations and not some set parameters and we know that algorithms cause automation in intelligently designed systems, bit such algorithms never occur in nature. This is why there is no designer in nature, however you want to view it.

ihedinobi: Lololol. Are you perhaps tryong to say
that whenever the word 'kind' is used to
speak of groupings of living things, it
must mean that they can interbreed?

yes, kinds are species.

ihedinobi: Sure they were. I'm just curious about
hpw an attack on the designer's level of
intelligence helps you conclude that he
doesn't exist.

because it destroys the infallible, omnipotent, supercomplex, sovereign almighty monster yahweh character, who is called perfect. so its either man is wiser than god or he does not exist

ihedinobi: 2. That He brought the animals to man
is confirmed by the Bible. That He did it
to see what man would name each is
also confirmed by the Bible. That He did
it with the intent that man should name
them is not.

What dumb logic is this? God took the animals to Adam to see what he would name them WITHOUT intending that Adam should name them?? Your god must be really thoughtless then, just like you, which fits if your god is only made up in your head. Religious logic = waste of free time.

ihedinobi: 3. Right. And ooman displays some
more unintelligence. You want to tell me
how, say, taking new toys to your little
kid to see what he'd do with them
translates into an order that he do
anythong with them.

Another dumb input. God and Adam are now Father and baby and creation is now toy for Adam to play with-pathetically senseless, but amusing though.

ihedinobi: 4. Right And given that we're
hardwired to reproduce, nobody can
choose to not reproduce too, right?
Smart ooman

Another dumb input. Not willingly reproducing though hardwired to reproduce doesnt mean loss of reproductive ability, doesn't mean failure of reproductive parts.


Hardwired with raw abilities and its failure means such an idea is just another myth.

ihedinobi: Not under the circumstances of the
discussion. You took it into origin of life
to confuse issues. I offered "the thing
that started the whole evolution thing"
which I subsequently explained as the
first ancestor of all species and finally
as the first species to exist. Now, unless
you intend to say there was never a first
species, there's really nothing more to
say.
All the talk about how this first species
came into being only serves to obscure
the fact that it does not owe its genome
to any prior ancestor which is all the
hullabaloo is about.

Shakes my head, dust my fingers, am done with this iddiot.

Btw, there is no such species which popped into existence from nothing and started evolution this isnt Star Trek kid. Another myth of yours debunked.

ihedinobi: Oh sure you are. Some people are
sadomasochists, I know.

You mean you are?? Never thought i'd meet one! Nice meeting you though

Reyginus: Fixed.

Silly iddiot edited my comment. Dumb religious logic.

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]your opinion. Good so you are Yoruba. Yorubas tend to have this intellectual blood. It runs in them. Their belief system is itself proof.

ofcourse this might be base generalization and I might be wrong, but just saying this out of experience.

btw Olodumare is neither good nor bad. Olodumare is just right. [/quote]Of course am Yoruba.

sorry but I do not see how someone will be right without being good first.

The Ijebus nevered had their origin from the bible, that is a lie.

As an atheist, I of course disagree with the existence of spirits whatsoever.

But as a yoruba person, I love and want to learn more about Ifa and other Yoruba Gods. I must confess that I know more about the Jewish monster called yaweh and the Arabic vampire called allah.

I disagree with the veracity of money ritual because it cannot be shown to logically be true without belief in some spirit system

It involves frauds/death of one person for wealth of another, I know Eledumare to be a good God, He will not allow that.

Irumoles cannot be proven to exist.

Therefore, there is nothing like money rituals, only hard work pays.

[quote author=m.k.o2005]God,help this lost soul ! It will most definitely be difficult but with you ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE !
God help him even in his unbelief ![/quote]The flying spaghetti help us all.

well am not surprised, no good can come from religion anyway.

ihedinobi: 1. You don't know what a red herring is
or else we would still be discussing
exclusively how your "mistakes"
disprove the existence of a designer of
nature.
2. Man corresponds to the key, the
tumblers and the king in the analogies.
3. Even though all four are part of the
design, the scheme, the they are unique
in being somewhat apart from the
mechanism or system to which they
belong and can be treated as a separate
thing in itself?

1. You would do your ego a great service if you explain to the workd what red herring means

2. How does design and a designer correspond to ruler and the ruled? The ruled and the ruled remains the system so who is the designer here??

3. Thats not the point, the question is if a part of a system is faulty, do you blame that part or the designer of the part.??

ihedinobi: No. I could ask if you are four if I
wonder if you think you are four.

Why would i think am four when it was you who asked if i was four. This is dishonesty on your path.

ihedinobi: I did not change anything. I think I have
referred to man as a ruler before.
However, administrator of creation is
used to mean lord of the material
realms in this discussion. They mean the
same thing per my use.

What ever man. Whats important is that both argument have been destroyed by me

ihedinobi: If the power cord of the computer could
and did, in fact, decide to to disconnect
from the power source, the computer
would go off even if the power souece
remained live. (It was you pointed out
that man is part of the system,no?)

You said god is the sustenance of creation, if that is true, which it should be, then god is the electricity. If the connection between power and the system be broken, then the WHOLE SYSTEM will crash, not function. If such is the case in nature, then the whole of creation will STOP functioning, it will not function half way, it will not function AT ALL. So, its either the whole of creation be destroyed when man fell, the power source was broken, or such falling never occured or your analogy is dumb.

ihedinobi: Please explain how that qualifies as a
rejection.

It qualifies by me telling you to not offer me such dumb logic but take it to a five years old, who would still reject it. do i have to tell you that ?

ihedinobi: Inhuman or not, insensitive or not, it
would still class as purpose which
evinces the existence of a designer and
destroys your position.

It destroys the concept of an intelligent designer because using a such mechanism would lead to total extinction of creation, destroying the "intelligent" part of such designer.....

ihedinobi: The chimp is an ape, the gorilla is an
ape, the orang utan is an ape, man is an
ape but they're not all of a kind? Feel
free to explain.

Kinds can interbreed. All those you listed cannot interbreed.

ihedinobi: If improvement is not the goal of
evolution why does natural selection
preserve only the "better-adapted"
species?

Evolution is not a process with a particular goal because it lacks intelligence.
Natural selection isnt some agent out there selecting better species. Only species that reproduce much survives.

ihedinobi: That you regard my answers as myths
does not make them any less answers.
Where did I say that I don't know what I
should be replying?

You could ask me what 10+10 is, i could tell you its 10000, then you would tell me its an answer anyway - makes perfect sense

ihedinobi: But what were you addressing with an
argument for man's greater intelligence
compared to that of a hypothetical
designer outside nature?
I remember you said the following

And you went on to deny that you said
anything in the comment that contained
it to the effect that there was no
designer. What ecxactly then did you
mean by it?

Were your eyes open to where i said IN THAT PARTICULAR COMMENT in caps. Of course your dishonesty wont allow you to notice.

ihedinobi: Failed or not, what was your intention
for dragging this?

Intentions?? No more intentions man, i told you i have achieved the purpose of this thread, am just catching fun with you man. No hard feelings man.

ihedinobi: What in the bolded suggests that man
was/is omniscient?

What is confirmable in the Bible?

No, he was not ordered to name the
animals.

Anyhow, if man was built to be lord of
the material realms/administrator of
material creation, he'd come hardwired
with the raw ability to do so, wouldn't
he?

1. You said "if god demanded anything of man, man MUST HAVE KNOWN IT " suggesting prior knowledge

2. That god brought the animals to Adam to name them.

3. God took the animals to him to name, that is an order not some coaxing.

4. Well, was he hard wired with raw ability? Apparently no because he failed.

ihedinobi: I waz saying ok to "I have already dealt
with this". I didn't think there was any
good reason to pursue the same
argument in two places in the same
post. But apparently you need this false
feeling of victory that has you stretching
everything into absurdity. Don't let me
spoil your fun

Whatever man, doesnt matter

ihedinobi: 1. Calling an argument a myth does not
make it one nor does it prove the
absence of logic in the argument.
2. What purpose was that and where did
you achieve it?
3. Regardless, I am not subject to your
demands. That's the point. So, don't go
on waiting for me to tailor my
arguments to suit you.

1. Of course myths are logical to you. Isnt that why your salvation is based on a mythical character??

2. That freewill and omniscience are mutually exclusive and that was achieved in multiple pages on this thread.

3. Whatever man, you believe in myths, that makes my demands different from yours

ihedinobi: Said ooman, "why would I want to
impress you?"
Said I, "young man, I never said you
needes or wanted to impress me."
Said ooman, "of course you did. The
word's right there."
Said I, "There are more meanings of the
word than the meaning you read into
it."
Said ooman, "I'm letting you off..."
Said I, "dude, you aren't the one to be
lettin anybody off. This is the meaning
of the word per my use of it."
Said ooman, "Right. So, why would I
want to (inserts meaning here) you?
Said I, "I don't know why you would
want to..."
Said ooman, "that's what I'm asking
you. Why would I want to..."
Say I, "

story story. Gush you are amusing i couldnt stop laughing at your dumbness

ihedinobi: Some examples are your argument for
the greater intelligence of man
compared to that of any designer
outside nature; your insistence that I
answer why you need to "impress" me;
your effort to turn the argument toward
whether or not God is caring etc. I try
not to keep count or track of them, you
see.

Sorry but you lied. What you called red herrings in my comments were where i asked that what did god come from if nothing comes from nothing and that god is too complexto come from nothing i still remember quite well.

ihedinobi: I changed my words, ooman? I am no
longer offering a species that owes its
genome to no prior ancestor species?
We're debating origin of life? Not
whether or not there is a species wich
by not owing its genome to any prior
ancestor proves design per your
parameters?
Was there a first species, ooman? To
which ancestor did it owe its genome?

Duh ?? Doesnt this dunce know that this first "species " of his would therefore be the origin of life ?? Dang, u have been wasting my time.

ihedinobi: Sure you are. That's why you just sued
for peace, isn't it?

I fight no war man, am just catching fun here man

I also love this discovery. It shows that speaking in tongues is true insanity because it is loss of reality and entrance into an illusion as the experiment proves.

striktlymi: G morning ooman,



So many ke? Okay o...



I didn't ask for a history of Pope Johnpaul II.



Even secondary school kids know that evolution has gone beyond the stage of being an hypothesis, so guy this is not new.



The above is still on the 'hypothesis' thingy...



The above site cannot be taken seriously cause they did not quote the pope directly but made their own assumption as seen below:

"What the Pope has done, as you will see, is elevate Darwinian evolutionary theory to that of undeniable scientific fact, or truth."

The bold was not stated by the pope.



The above is still on the same 'hypothesis' thingy.



Which fact exactly? Can you show us where the pope said "evolution was right" as you claim below:





So?

whatever man. It doesnt matter what the pope think about evolution anyway.

Ihedinobi: A key is also part of the lock mechanism, the tumblers are also part of the safe and the king is part of the kingdom.

How does this attend to my input If a part of the system is faulty, do you blame that faulty part or the designer is the question.

To raise a king and kingdom analogy is a red herring on this subject matter because we are debating a design and its designer, not rulers and the ruled.

Ihedinobi: I asked you if you were four. That's not the same as saying that I think you are four.

So you talk without thinking Nice

Ihedinobi: If man was the lord of the material realms, his rebellion would be the rebellion of the whole realm. And God's constancy does not change this because as the administrator of the realm,, man would be God's connection to the material realm.

Why have you change your words here from 'administrator of creation' to the 'lord of the material realms'. But its no problem, i can still handle that

If man was the lord of material realms and if creation is still sustained and ran by god, who remains valid, then man's disconnection from god would affect man only, never creation because the sustenance and runner of creation remains constant.

If the user of a computer died or stopped using his computer, that doesnt mean the computer cannot work anymore, the computer will stop working ONLY when the electric power source that [b]sustains/powers[b/] the computer becomes terminated.

Ihedinobi: Where did you reject it as an answer, ooman?

Where i said a five years old can fault it

Ihedinobi: If the reason some species die off is so that new ones can replace them, that in itself is purpose.

Of course it is, however inhuman and insensitive. So once again, that this designer of yours is a god of love is a myth, according to nature, this is what i debate here. We are all god's little test subject, if its true that nature was 'designed' that way.

Ihedinobi: Does your science regard man as an ape?

Yes but we are not the same kind cos i understand that is your argument.

Do you really think we are the same kind with chimpanzees, our closest relative?? Perhaps we are even clones
You are quite amusing.

Ihedinobi: Does your science not regard the new organisms it purports to result from"adaptation" in the old ones as improvements upon the old?

Sorry once again, but NOT NECESSARILY the improvement of the old, evolution is NOT a goal oriented process. Evolution does not occur because some species need improvement, so like i said, whenever i need some science fiction joke, i will call on ya

In fact, what seems as an improvement in one habitat might be a hinderance in another habitat, this is why some newly evolved species become extinct while their ancestors survive like in the big five mass extinctions so sorry, all adaptations are not improvement of old structures.

Ihedinobi: I think you accused me of not responding to some point. I only asked you to show me the point.

well then, read again, dont think. I asked you for answers not myths and you said you dont know what you should be replying. Great and amusing

Ihedinobi: You said,

My argument is that the existence of these things you call "mistakes" does not invalidate the argument for a designer for nature.

which is also what i was talking about IN THAT PARTICULAR comment. That this hypothetical designer of yours (assuming it exist in that comment only) is insensitive to living organisms by just killing old ones and bringing about new ones. That means he cares about no one. That was my argument on that ONLY not in any other place.

Ihedinobi: Isn't it the same system vs designer thing you were whining about?

Where you have failed completely

Ihedinobi: If God demanded anything of man, man must have known it, thus he wouldn't have been ignorant and he couldn't have been tabula rasa if he could do some things without being told, e.g., name the animals and name his wife.

I'll roll with your argument for punishment for now.

Are you claiming that man was created with prior knowledge and experiences?? and that man was/is omniscience by the bold?? and what exactly did he do without being told?? was he not ordered to name the animals?? all this are confirmable in the bible.

Ihedinobi: Ok

why not, your own input failed you

Ihedinobi: Your demands, my demands, anybody's demands may not coincide with the demands of logic. And given that, at least, we pay lip-service to logic, it takes priority here.

You really think you are being logical by your answers?? I must have really made you feel important by debating an intelligent designer/bible god with you.
You offered no logic but myths, which i find amusing. I continued this argument for fun, i have already achieved the purpose of this debate long before.

Ihedinobi: Not necessarily according to me. Your conclusions may be based on a wrong appreciation of what I have said.

Duh?? What then could we conclude, according to you

Ihedinobi: Alright. I have explained it in this post.

guess again, you explained nothing but in fact changed your words, which i have once again, exposed the irrationality and inanity in it.

Ihedinobi: Ok.

Ihedinobi: And the other ad hominems are necessary? As for the English lesson, I have no idea why you would want to urge upon anyone your need for lessons in humility.

this is exactly what am asking you why would i want to

Ihedinobi: And I ask again, "quote you about what?"

About the so called red herrings you claim.

Ihedinobi: If species exist right now, then there was a species that was first to exist, as far as your science is concerned. Or else there are no species today,because before you count the hundredth you must have counted the first

Duh You have changed your words again. We were debating the origin of life and not evolution of species.

So sorry still, there was no species that had its genome built from scratch, what we had was protocells from which life originated spontenously and which has been evolving. And protocells are not living systems, they are links from life to nonlife.
No species had its genome built from scratch. Not a single one.

ihedinobi: It's still war, man.

There is no war here, am just catching fun

davidylan: lol you seem to be confused here ooman. Evolution states that evolution started with prokaryotic organisms... err

Amusing. Evolution started with prokaryotes not LIFE, junky.

When you dont understand an already started debate, you dont just jump in and make silly comments and jump out again, such is a dumb act.

Peace

striktlymi: Can we have some quote from the good pope?

So many

Pope John Paul however maintained that the soul of man was from some sort of god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II

Evolution is more than an hypothesis - Pope JP2 - http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm

More??

Evolution is a fact - Pope JP2 - http://biblelight.net/darwin.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

However, this fact, like all other facts, never went without contention

Catholics deny Pope JP2 said such a thing - http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/catholic/scandals/993-qevolution-more-than-a-hypothesisq-never-said-by-pope-john-paul-ii

Capisce??

jacobscros: front page pls. lets give hawking a chance to reply

you really think Hawkins is got time for rubbish??

striktlymi: Good day ninja,

This hopefully will be another thread to remember...

The article you read, did it state an official position of the Catholic church or its just the opinions of individuals?

Pope John Paul said evolution was right but that it was God who controlled the evolution of new species.

While his take on evolution was right, he was wrong for saying it was god who controls speciation because evolution of new species comes with death of another. This depicts vanity and purposeless design, as Solomon called it, purposeless and vanity are not part of the properties of intelligence. This is why there is no intelligent designer in nature.

Peace.

Rexyl: Oh Christians! The master Jesus says the harvest is plentous but laborers are few. Oh God of harvest send laborers to win this beloved but dying soul and his likes.

Oh Flying Spagetti, save this lost soul and his likes so they can come to accept you as their lord and savior.

Ihedinobi: My dear ooman, pointing out that somebody is trying to entrap you is not necessarily the same as being scared.

And I did not ask for reprieve from your questioning. You wasted your time giving it.

So, let's do a small study of your question to see if it was an attempt at entrapment or not, shall we?

You asked me what was to blame if a system was fault and offered two options, namely the system and the designer.

I responded that it was not a sensible question. I neglected to say from the onset that it was actually an obvious trap set ratherr stupidly. Let's look at the options that you have insisted upon without letup.

Option 1. The system. This is obviously an absurd choice. A system, not being its own maker nor responsible for itself, cannot be to blame that it has faults.

Option 2. The designer. Indeed a designer could make errors in his designresulting in a faulty system. So this is a valid option.

So I have a choice between an obvious absurdity and one valid option. It is obvious then the answer that is expected of me. I have a choice to either indict the designer's intelligence or indict mine.

But the two options are actually not the only "possibilities" And the remaining possibility(ies) were not shown to have been eliminated at all. So I raise one more possibility trying to use an analogy to explain its validity.

But ooman wouldn't hear of it and did his utmost to kill the analogy. And you, my friend, have done your best to keep insisting on the two options even after I have made an argument for a third option and you have not succeeded at faulting the argument.

You know, i relieved you of that already, but it seems you have a stiff neck. But what you dont understand is that the reason why i only gave you two options: the design or the designer is because man is PART of the design. And because man is part of the design here, the faulty system, we only have two options of who to blame when the system is faulty. Do we blame man that he wasnt designed perfect and with enough experience and so fell or do we blame the designer who failed to design man perfectly?? So even if man EVER TRULY did anything wrong, he is part of the design. So once again, we all know the system is faulty, but who do we blame, the design (man/other things) or the hypothetical designer.??

Hope you understand now

ihedinobi: Man, you got you serious comprehension issues. [size=15pt]Where did I suggest that I think you're four? [/size]And where did I evince knowledge of the fact that my logic does not surpass a four-year-old's?

Seriously, man. Don't answer posts when you haven't got your "binoculars"!

Ah, you did that here:

ihedinobi: You keep claiming that a five-year-old can fault my submissions while you yourself are not even proving how easy it is to do so by actually faulting them? [size=15pt]What, are you four?[/size]

There you go junky

ihedinobi: Do you know what straw men are? They're an opponent's misrepresentation of a debater's arguments so that he can fault them. The whole thing up there is a rash of straw men!

I started out coloring the various straw men then I realized that I might as well mark the whole if the last two paragraphs. Didn't seem worth it so I decided to stop.

Now, fact is the whole thing in your response above can be answered with "where did I say that?"

However, you also threw in one or two red herrings. I advise you to take them up in another thread.

The question here is this: "if God was the sustenance of creation and the power on which it ran and man was creation's administrator, would creation not go awry if man separated it from God?"

You know, i really love how you make up stories in your head and try to turn them into arguments with me. How exactly is man the administrator of nature?. There are things greater than man in nature, places that man must not thread, like a blackhole or he is dead. So, where did you get the idea that man could every administrate nature?

And for your question, here is why it is dumb: If GOD is the SUSTENANCE of creation and the POWER on which it ran, and man administrates it, then MAN broke off with GOD, CREATION will NOT go awry because CREATION'S SUSTENANCE AND POWER ON WHICH IT RUN IS GOD, who remains constant.
IF MAN broke off with GOD, then the only thing MAN would LOSE is his ADMINISTRATIVE POWER. CREATION WILL REMAIN PERFECT, IN ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN, because its SUSTENANCE AND THE POWER on which it ran remains valid, constant and whatever Do you now understand, my dear friend

ihedinobi: I think the trouble here is self-evident. Did I offer an answer? Well, I did. Whether ooman liked the answer or not, I offered one and ooman saw it and ooman later lied that I offered none at all, not even one that he considered wrong.

Therefore, ooman is a liar.

I told you that you offered dumb analogies and myths as answer which i refused to accept as answer. So that remains valid no matter how much you deny it.

Therefore, i am not a liar but you

ihedinobi: Ok. Let us, for the sake of argument, agree with ooman that we had not understood this hypothesis of his.

Well, ooman, if new creatures are constantly replacing old ones by mutations and whatnot, nature continues to be perpetuated, no?

So, how does it negate design to have old species go out of existence to make room for new ones?

Where it negates an intelligent designer is that extinction of an old species, by diseases or other catastrophic event to give space for new ones, whatever that is, doesnt depict purposeful design and if nature lacks purpose, then it lacks intelligent design. The fact is that - extinction negates purpose and we know that every design comes with purpose - and so, if one species dies and another live, till none can live anymore is what is observable in nature, which it is, then nature lacks purpose, which it does and therefore lack intelligent design. This is how extinction negates the presence of an intelligent designer. Capisce??

You would know why an intelligent designer could not have done that when man goes extinct and another species comes off him.

So if this designer of yours hasnt been said to be a god of love who wants the best for us, there wouldnt have been any problems. We would have accepted that we are just test subjects living in an experimental world of this your designer. But love and risk of extinction do not align. Vanity upon vanity, all is vanity, a man who died an agnostic said. Vanity couldnt have been a work of an intelligent designer, that is the idea in that.

ihedinobi: Well, I don't know, but doesn't your science say, for instance, that apes and humans are of the same kind?

Kind in science means species. Science NEVER SAID MAN AND other APES BELONGS TO THE SAME SPECIES OOOO Where did you get that from
A species is defined as interbreeding populations or at least, populations with enough morphological similarities. Each kind - species, has its own distinct morphology, which is why animals of different species dont normally interbreed when they meet in the wild, except they are experimentally made to do that. So how can science say we belong to the same KIND or SPECIES with other apes?

What science says is that because we look similar and share genes, we all share similar ancestor. AN ANCESTOR THAT GAVE BIRTH TO OFFSPRING THAT IS NOT ITS OWN KIND OR SPECIES, as a result of mutation, which therefore results in speciation - reproduction of organism NOT after the parent's kind.

So one again, you failed to force your myth in here and nature doesnt obey your mythical god character to always reproduce its own kind - species.

ihedinobi: I think your evolution holds that each successive evolved generation is essentially a species' improvement of itself so that it is actually one kind getting better and better constantly reaching for some perfect realization of itself, does it not?

Sorry but that is your own interpretation of evolution and this is too spiritual for me to take seriously. Realization of itself?? Dang, we dont believe in spirits man, speciation occurs as a result of adaption and not as a result of some sort of self realization.

Are you trying to imply that it is each organism that induces mutation that makes it extinct and change its offspring only so the already extinct - dead - organism can realize itself in some spirit world?

When i need some jokes, i will call on ya

ihedinobi: Er, I was only saying that it makes no sense to repeat the same matter in different places in the same post. What's there to be surprised about in that?

Which is why i want surprised

ihedinobi: You know, I was gonna blame your English teacher, but then I realize that you probably always skipped class to go read cartoons about dinosaurs and didn't learn how to read properly even with guides.

Look again, man. [size=15pt]I did not say anything like you changing your arguments.[/size]

Uh, that was a lie, you said this:

ihedinobi: [size=15pt]They (the words 'could' and 'if') are meant to indicate that the argument the opposition (that is, ooman, in this case) is insisting upon as the only explanation for a matter is not necessarily the only one and, in fact, might actually be revealed to be wrong in the face of another argument (that is, my own alternative to ooman's argument)[/size]

so now, who skipped english class, you dumb liar!

ihedinobi: What point was I supposed to be replying?

you dont know what to reply and you think you are really debating?? am speechless to your dumbness, it is however amusing.

ihedinobi: Um, so nature is what then? A better designer than God or a better design than God could have produced?

A blind unconscious process is a better designer than your hypothetical complex character god, that is exactly what i said nature is. Evolution beats god in design and logic. This is proven by what the bible says and what we observe evolution to be

ihedinobi: So why did you attack it? And where did I make any argument for the comparative intelligence of any designer?

I attacked it to show you that, there couldnt have been a designer in nature and that the only intelligence in nature is man.

ihedinobi: Answered.

you wish!!!

ihedinobi: Where in all the above have you shown that man was created tabula rasa, that he was ignorant and that the designer demanded perfection of him?

I dont need to show those, the bible already did that for me.

First, you cant deny that man was created without experience and knowledge, he was in fact restricted from the tree of knowledge!

He was ignorant because he listened to the devil

The designer demanded perfection from him, this is why he punished his first and only mistake. Capisce??

ihedinobi: Where have I not satisfied the demands of the problem of "mistakes" in nature?

you offered that man breaking off with god caused mistakes and i said a five years old will fault that because i dont see how creation, that is sustained and powered by god could now contain mistake because man, the administrator, according to you, broke off with god. Since it is god that sustains and powers nature, man shouldnt therefore be able to cause problems. I have dealt with this already

ihedinobi: Should I be trying to satisfy you? I don't think that's the purpose of debate and it certainly wasn't even implied in my post.

you should be trying to offer me reasonable answers that satisfy my demands. This is why am debating with you since we dont have panel of judges. Dont be dumb

ihedinobi: So nature had the tendency to experience cancer before man broke with God? How so?

because according to you, if god powers nature and god remains valid, man's action couldnt have altered anything in nature, except if man is much more powerful than god. All these are according to you oooo

ihedinobi: Well, fact is, your rant about the fruit is a straw man here. And your insistence that.my position implies that everything changed overnight is plain old ooman dishonesty.

And i became lenient enough to say that even if the change was gradual, how did man breaking off with god cause it if nature was indeed SUSTAINED AND POWERED BY GOD.

ihedinobi: This was what you said:


As I have said before, I have already explained how man's break with God affected creation. It is now up ti you to explain how animals cannot change because man broke with God.

I have done that above, watching you stab yourself with your own knife, my dear dumb oaf.

ihedinobi: Let me off indeed! You feel that you are the one to let someone off here. You! Lol. You whose command of the English tongue is such an embarrassment.

From the Free Online Dictionary, impress means, among other things, to stress (something to a person); urge; (e.g) to impress the danger of a situation on someone.

So, who was letting who off again?

since you dont wanna let go without realizing that you are the failure here - the questions remains that why would i want to 'urge' you or 'to stress' anything on you about me.

These are unnecessary ad-hominess

ihedinobi: Talk about the multiplication of talk to escape responsibility

Ah well, I'm leaving that for now. Might not even return to it.

Dear iddiot, why did you find it hard to quote me except there was nothing to quote

ihedinobi: Run! You wish.

cool.

ihedinobi: Oh, I don't know its name. But I'm certain you know what it is. It's unmistakaable, you see, it's the very first species from which everything else evolved, according to your science. It does qualify, doesn't it?

PS. There was a first species, wasn't there? One that precedes all others, right?

Sorry my dear failure, but once again you failed. That there was a first "SPECIES" from which all other species came is a total impossibility in evolutionary science. Since evolution hold that all complex systems are combinations of simple systems, which they are, how come then a "species" will just pop into existence from nothing and then every other species will start evolving from it. Are you writing science fictions.??

There was only protocells which serve as the link between life and nonlife. They were not species because they were not organisms, they cannot be said to be alive, they are simply links.
This area is still under research, i cannot say more than we have observed.

So, that there was a SINGLE species, which had its genome built from scratch is another myth. Once again, there is no where in nature where you can force your designer concept.

Peace

Ihedinobi: Er, dude. The issue ooman and I are tangling over is the existence of "mistakes" in nature. He started out claiming that the existence of "mistakes" proved that there could not have been a designer.

I offered an alternative explanation for these "mistakes" with my "hypothesis", if you like, about man's responsibility. It is not yet relevant whether you guys agree that man is the user/adninistrator/operator of nature. The question right now is whether or not his ever being so could possibly explain the existence of these "mistakes".

If it could, then ooman's claim might not be true if man was ever administrator of nature. If it couldn't, then, I have to either produce another possibility or accept ooman's claim to be right.

Now, if we have established that my "hypothesis" is a possibility, the next thing is to find out if indeed man is or has ever been nature's administrator. That will decide whether or not ooman's claim is incontrovertible.

Man CANNOT be the administrator of nature, nature in fact does not need an administrator because it existed before man exist - This is enough reason to show that man cannot be the administrator of nature.

Now do you see how dumb your logic is??

Ihedinobi: As it stands, your protege who has truly surpassed you in sttupidity has been doing his utmost to bog down the discussion with straw men and red herrings so that it is not very clear yet what his response to my "hypothesis" is. Until that argument is done with, the argument about whwther or not man could indeed be or have ever been nature's administrator cannot be handles cleanly.

However, the fact that ooman has already been attacking it suggests that he has no real arguments against the claim that an administrator could be responsible for the "mistakes" he complained about since by doing so he lends relevance to that argument thus confirming the claim that an administrator might have been responsible.

So, if you wanna get back in the ring, my man, suit up real good. I don't think it's ending well for ooman or anybody that sides with him. The poor dude got too careless and is coming undone around the edges.

amuse yourself to boost your ego, the defeated normally need it.

Miss Ope: U've still not answered my question Even If I believe God exists but in the real sense he does not... why should it bother U?...

Duh, it doesnt bother me that U believe in god, the cumulative effect that your dumb believe has, which is poverty in Africa is what bothers me. It is believe in god that makes people lazy and think that some sort of miracle will happen. : D

Miss Ope: Majority of the christians preaching to u on this thread are keen on converting u...to their religion because they believe there's a reward or gain waiting for them in heaven when they die...

That there is a reward waiting for you after death is a bed time story. They are keen on converting me so that they could make names for themselves on nairaland.

Miss Ope: But U'RE here burning ur energy proving the non existence of God,, Infact I see u doing it with Zeal and Enthusiasm like U'RE waiting for a reward somewhere..
I'll ask again OOman why do u prove with great hatred and resentment the non existence of God?

I catch fun doing that, its what i do in my freetime and i do it because it means freedom, peace and unity to the whole of human race.

god is the villain that causes wars and this is why i fight the idea of the existence of god. i hope i answer you now

Miss Ope: How will my belief in the non existence of God free me from calamity and help relieve my burden? waiting.

Because then, you would approach problems and whatever comes your way logically and proactively rational and not wait for some miracles.

Rexyl: Ooman still in the history of endlessly proving a point that is not available! Saying God does not exist. Your coming up to this community is probably to seek African facts to substantiate your dead doctrine about the universe and who owns it. Thank God many had gone the way of scriptures to purge your heart of deception of devil still you are not convinced. Many took you through the way of tradition which is evident among many tribes in Africa that if people doubt God they can not doubt the devil or if they miss God they can not miss the devil. Now from all the points if you still doubt existence of supernatural being(s) you are not complete to be called a man. I have discovered in you that when people pray and something happens in an extra ordinary way, all your assumption is... it is science or when traditionslist makes incarnations and something strange happens you still say it is science. Now I have discovered that you made great mistakes for coming here and looking for partners. You may get some, but they are not bold enough to bail you out of self inflicted delusion as you often define people holding on to sound doctrine of existence of three in one God... let me now go your physical way... omnipresent, omniscince and omnipotent (God). With this fact you will always be beaten a million times and again. We have told you the truth that your white colleagues might not find time to tell you cos of the perishingable things of the world they are occupied with. Now know the truth, accept it and let it set you free as the Bible tells you and I.

I see you begging me to accept your dumb idea as if there is some sort of reward in it for you if you convert me, which there is, rooms in heaven right. Sorry man but those are delusions.

There are no spirits and that is a fact, you begging me isnt the way to go. You'd do much better just showing me a spirit or at least logically prove how an omnipotent, omniscient god can come into existence from absolute nothing and make everything from nothing.

Your believe is too dumb that even the animals dont believe in god, so why should i, an intelligent being, believe in such an impossibility.

meetdonald: if you know history well, then point out a group that hv been in existence before any known cvilisation, in which their believe is that no god exists.

so you think that atheism started in the 21 century??

well, think again, atheism has always existed through out history.

Miss Ope: @ OOman I'm wondering what u stand to gain or get by proving to people dat God doesn't exist.......... Tell me why U love spending ur time and energy proving the non - existence of God...

Its simple, its because god does not exist and you so much believe and wish he does, so to free you from your calamity and help relief your burden, i offer proof of the non-existence of god