₦airaland Forum

Workch:
Self delusion is when you believe in speciation but not in evolution.

Comment of the year

You are still repeating this. No amount of information you are exposed to will change what you've fixed in your mind? This is your equivocation is funny.


To avoid all this running here and there, just explain how speciation would bring about fish from the first single cell.
We want to learn from you, O "learned" one

budaatum:
This, Pelecius, would be the issue here. The truth should not have a perspective, or at least, one should not colour it with perspectives, but if one does, one must acknowledge that those with other perspectives would hardly agree with one since a perspective is a kind of blindness that stops one seeing other's perspectives. It's an allegation I'd make against you and those debating with you by the way, myself included.

Still, here's a perspective for you. Unless one becomes an unbeliever of all that which one has been taught to believe, one would not understand God. Sound familiar? "As a child", is how the text puts it, but we must know we are not expected to literally degenerate to childhood, but just clear our minds of junk.

Evolution is not only genetic. One evolves when one becomes born again. You take on a new body (they might have written genes if they'd evolved to genetics, and it spiritually can mean mind), and become a new 'species'. Societies socially evolve or de-evolve too, in which case complexity may increase or degenerate just as a born again person may lose their born againism if they do not watch and pray.

Sceptism is healthy, is the point here, or one would just keep going in the path one has been told to, thereby repeating the errors of one's ancestors.

This is of course a perspective, and not a Christian one I dare say, and in no way truth.

I agree with you about perspective and which was why I explained how the others too will see it differently. And also agree that truth should not be colored by perspective (I would actually prefer using worldview).

I have actually passed through the phase of unbelief, and I think I understand you there

Of course, evolution is now being used to refer to every form of CHANGE (maybe that's necessary to engrave it in our hearts? ), Just that I don't agree with the equivocation or bait-and-switch tactic that folks employ. It's a simple fallacy, not perspective/worldview based this time (lol).

Like I explained before, I have passed through that stage of skepticism and even unbelief. But skepticism cannot be infinite, else, there won't be anytime one can hold on to a truth. I believe wise Budaa understand what I mean with the last statement

LordReed:
What you don't understand is that it is your cognitive dissonance that leads you to these half baked explanations. When did you start to talk of divine nature if not when you realised that Jesus' death was going to rubbish your position on the unchanging nature of your god. You stated quite clearly that he doesn't change his being yet he became a human being, what is that if not change of being but no you bring "divine nature" to fill in the gap. Which still holds no water because he aged and died, if he was fully divine how is that then possible.

What I do have knowledge of is that your book of favourite mythological tales is a jumble of half assed concepts that you will continue to struggle to explain to yourself in the mess of cognitive dissonance you choose to ride in.

When did you start to talk of divine nature if not when you realised that Jesus' death was going to rubbish your position on the unchanging nature of your god.
Now you just described what you are calling another. I never for once have what you said in mind when I was addressing your friend's fallacy. Now, giving explanation to your objections seem not okay with you and said earlier that you want to apply gymnastics on his behalf.
Now, if you had done a little home work to check when I used divine nature, you'd have seen that I used it as early as using being. But you have to find a way to justify not being wrong, I believe to the extent of forcing your favorite phrase?

You stated quite clearly that he doesn't change his being yet he became a human being, what is that if not change of being but no you bring "divine nature" to fill in the gap. Which still holds no water because he aged and died, if he was fully divine how is that then possible.
This can work only if you rip my statements so as to fit what you want. Go back to read how I first explained unchanging nature of God. I didn't invent "divine attributes" along the way as you WRONGLY claim now.
Secondly, you are doing same thing of ripping out of context so as to force your claim the he changed his being. If you had either read clearly, the last post, you should see "ADDING" humanity to his being, not just becoming human. Explaining further that this qualify him to be the mediator of God and man. And that the last scripture reference talks about his flesh (humanity) dying, yet, alive in Spirit (divinity).
Either you didn't understand (hence taking the pain to explain again) or your are doing what you do best: changing grounds to hold on to what you believe in your head (talk about cognitive dissonance)

What I do have knowledge of is that your book of favourite mythological tales is a jumble of half assed concepts that you will continue to struggle to explain to yourself in the mess of cognitive dissonance you choose to ride in.
I predicted this, so I'm not surprised.
I only need to clear myself for anyone reading to understand what I'm saying. I knew you would reject any explanation from it anyway

LordReed:
What then is this genetic complexity you speak of because you seem to think loss of traits makes an organism less genetically complex, conversely I am pointing out if gain of extra genetic information indicates increasing genetic complexity. You can clarify, I am all eyes.

You clearly didn't get my question.
There's no gain of genetic information for down syndrome. It's just duplication of a certain chromosomes and not addition of a NEW chromosomes.
That's why I asked if duplicating a page of your text book add any new information to such text book

HellVictorinho:
What is the essence of all of these back and forths?

I really can't say. But anyone reading our exchanges should see what's happening.

He never address or refute anything I say most time. If he tries to do, it'll be filled with inconsistencies. And when I show such errors, he revert back to not addressing my point, but revert to subtle adhominem.

That's how I can explain the back and forth.

It's difficult for folks to agree that they can err, especially when arrogance is high. And in this case belief is more important.
FYI, he made a challenge, promising to change his mind about his initial write up. I addressed it and you man just ignored it, just to hold on to his faith, I believe.

Workch:
I have meant scientifically illiterates but yours is outstanding

Enjoy your self delusion Bro

LordReed:
So is someone with Down Syndrome genetically more complex than you?

Smiles
I'll ask that does having an extra copy of a page in your text book make it have more INFORMATION than same text book of another, that doesn't have any duplicate page?

Workch:
he still didn't get it even after explaining in dummy language

I really can't stop laughing

LordReed:
So his divine nature accommodates him being able to age and die after you pointed out that this same divine nature makes him ageless and undying? Your cognitive dissonance is so glaring. LoL. Which is why you introduced the concept of divine nature after claiming that his being and attributes undergo no changes. LMFAO!

I had the feeling that it'll lead to me explaining Biblical concepts to you, and it'll be meaningless since you clearly don't want the Bible, especially if it'll be used to explain what you reject a priori.

Secondly, you seem to love this "cognitive dissonance", just that your inability to understand Biblical concepts (and sometimes, ignorance of what many Bible believing Scientists actually teach), I believe, make you to use such phrase. Whereas you have been the one fond of doing gymnastics and changing ground to keep up.

Now, the Bible explained that Jesus added humanity to himself (Paul explained that in Phil 2: 7-.
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross! NLT

Hence, he was fully Divine and human at same time, which was necessary for him to fulfil the role of the mediator between the God and man.
So the man Jesus died, but he never lost his divine attributes as explained in 1 Peter 3:18. It says he died in flesh but was alive in Spirit

In turns out that you don't have the simple knowledge of this, else you won't jump to use your (favorite?) Phrase.
Sorry Bro, you could attack the Bible or question the explanation with a materialistic bias as a defense mechanism, I won't be dragged into that with you. It's simply a case of conflicting worldview

Workch:
you are not genetically complex than your ancestors, you are more genetically adaptable to this environmental condition than your ancestors. We don’t use the phrase “more complex” in evolution because that’s not the case. Only biologically illiterate think they are more complex genetically than monkeys.

If a big enough asteroid should hit earth today, every human will become extinct and most burrowing animals and deep ocean species will survive, it’s an indication that you are not genetically more complex than them and vice versa. They are just more adaptable to that hazardous environment than you.


You copied and pasted the explanation for speciation and still didn’t understand what was written in it. You are still talking about complexity. Where in the explanation did you see complexity?

You copied and pasted the explanation for speciation and still didn’t understand what was written in it. You are still talking about complexity. Where in the explanation did you see complexity?
Is your arrogance not alarming and its level astronomical?
I'll ask (though I know you CANNOT provide answer) to provide where I copied and paste this from.
Again, if you are really the "LEARNED" one as you've been implying since, you should see that what I wrote was not very precise (in the sense that saying "a MAN gave me money" is different from saying "FRED gave me money) as I was writing from memory.
I'm surprised you don't have any rebuttal to that and maybe was even impressed, such that you believed that I wouldn't be able to write that. And WRONGLY concluded that I copied it somewhere.

This just exposed you totally with your "he doesn't understand evolution" or "have you ever entered a lab" defense for your inability to provide evidence for what you believe and claim to be well informed on. It's pathetic.

Now I'll address your points again by His grace, though you hardly do that (at least, not without logical fallacies)

you are not genetically complex than your ancestors
This has not been my argument with you in the first place. And if I grant you this statement, what ancestors are you talking about?

you are not genetically complex than your ancestors, you are more genetically adaptable to this environmental condition than your ancestors.
So as not to reap your post out of context, I reproduce the statement in full.
Now, I'm not sure you read my response to Budaa or if you did, you clearly did not comprehend what I wrote.
I'll just post my response to him, if it'll help you understand my point.
Now, I think I gave examples on how a species formed becomes less genetically complex than it's ancestral parents; citing two classic examples. And concluded that such species have lost the ability to adapt to other variable habitats which could be different from that which it has been specialized to. On the other hand, the parent population could easily be genetically "controlled", coupled with selection pressure to become such new species, while a new species don't usually revert to it's more complex ancestral parent (as their is no mechanism for it to gain the lost genetic information that has been lost).
I'll advise you read it clearly and with my previous post as background.

We don’t use the phrase “more complex” in evolution because that’s not the case.
Of course, anything that would cause stumbling block must be avoided (junk DNA comes to mind). Again, saying it as if evolution is an absolute reality only beg the question of the discussion at hand.

Only biologically illiterate think they are more complex genetically than monkeys.
Here he is with question begging epithet and elephant hurling.
Again, since I don't believe that humans are result speciation from monkeys, you are only attacking straw man. And if you claim of not referring to me (the surest defense mechanism), then it's still a non sequitur. Since it has no relevance to what we are discussing

If a big enough asteroid should hit earth today, every human will become extinct and most burrowing animals and deep ocean species will survive, it’s an indication that you are not genetically more complex than them and vice versa. They are just more adaptable to that hazardous environment than you.

I have to laugh at the "learned" one here. For heaven's sake, my argument is that "no newly formed species (especially, those accompanied by loss of genetic information) is complex than their ancestral parent population".

So you are only attacking what? Your response does not just address what I am talking about.
And to address the logical error in the post. Darwin (and the new Neo-Darwinsm) provided mutation plus natural selection as the mechanism that will make a SIMPLER life form become complex. Though there has not been any empirical evidence for that (all the "evolution in action before our very eyes" hype has largely been evidence for design or loss of information). With this small background, Darwinists know that a mammal is a higher live form than E. coli for example. So how does the exposure of a mouse to deadly radiation from an asteroid impact on earth change the fact that it is a higher life form even according to Darwinists than the bacteria which can have population in a place where they won't be exposed to such deadly event?

And finally, it's not because they are adaptable to such deadly event (though, there are extremophiles which thrives in extreme climatic condition, but don't definitely thrive in other condition because they have been specialized to such extreme climate), but what ever survives could be organisms who thrives in extreme heat or those which does not have exposure to the event at all.
That they survive such cannot be solely attributed to them being adaptable to it. Else, you'll be commiting the fallacy of affirming the consequent, O "learned" one

budaatum:
Well, I'd claim you have adapted to survive in an environment your ancestors couldn't even dream of, so I'd tentatively say you are more complex than your ancestors pending an assessment of said ancestors.

Complex is an odd word to use however I must say, because I don't really see how humans are more complex than say chimpanzees, especially since it opens one up to complexity due to colour, or differences in ability between humans of the same time. An example would be like claimimg an Ijaw person is more complex than an Ibo, or to be absurd, that an atheist is more complex than a theist.

Well, I'd claim you have adapted to survive in an environment your ancestors couldn't even dream of, so I'd tentatively say you are more complex than your ancestors pending an assessment of said ancestors.
I decided to use this (hectic) method so as to stay on course and address points, in order not to commit the non sequitur.
Now, I think I gave examples on how a species formed becomes less genetically complex than it's ancestral parents; citing two classic examples. And concluded that such species have lost the ability to adapt to other variable habitats which could be different from that which it has been specialized to. On the other hand, the parent population could easily be genetically "controlled", coupled with selection pressure to become such new species, while a new species don't usually revert to it's more complex ancestral parent (as their is no mechanism for it to gain the lost genetic information that has been lost).

Complex is an odd word to use however I must say, because I don't really see how humans are more complex than say chimpanzees,
Though, size of genome is not necessarily a factor in determining complexity, but the difference in our genome and the ability of humans (from a Christian perspective, that we are created in God's image. Hence can think better, have a soul, respond to feelings, understand language, music etc) makes us more complex than them. Of course, an atheist who definitely subscribes to evolution would argue that and believe we are not complex than them. It's left for such to explain from his worldview.

especially since it opens one up to complexity due to colour, or differences in ability between humans of the same time. An example would be like claimimg an Ijaw person is more complex than an Ibo, or to be absurd, that an atheist is more complex than a theist.
Of course, this is a straw man as I have not define complexity in such manner, but have subscribed largely to genetic information (though not the only factor).

budaatum:
Specie usually refers to:
Coins or other metal money in mass circulation
Bullion coins
Hard money (policy)
Commodity money
Specie Circular, 1836 executive order by US President Andrew Jackson regarding hard money
Specie Payment Resumption Act
And some are definitely superior to their ancestors, but I'd assume you mean species, which is one of the basic units of biological classification, in which case I'd have pointed to yourself being a newly formed specie more complex than your own ancestor but I'm certain you'd argue you are not a newly formed specie or not superior to your ancestors, but if you had studied Biology you'd have definitely been taught about evolution.

That said, Workch is adequately educating you so I'd let him get on with it, but after he's done, here's Evolution 101 to further your education.

And remember, Jesus is Lord.

Smiles
Of course, the context of my discussion clearly showed that I was talking about biological species since I talked about speciation.

That I'm complex than my ancestor is simply begging the question at hand already. I've been asking for evidence of how speciation leads to complexity - the mechanism involved and if possible, empirical evidence that demonstrate this. But my "learned" one has not for once provide any.

Speciation is mostly a BRANCHING OFF from a lineage, so that changes due to selection pressure causes such population to be unable to breed with the parent population. And this change is definitely controlled mostly by genes. A classic example is the Darwin's finches. The different beak size and shapes are controlled mostly by the time, place and amount of expression of a certain gene during embryonic development. So a certain species which have completely adapt to a niche becomes "specialized" than a parent population which still has the variability to adapt to various habitats. Hence, the new species born have lost the ability to thrive in another environment (due to loss in genetic info).
Another classic examples is the flightless beatles which thrives in the windy desert. They lost the ability to produce wings from a winged parent population. And of course thrive since the winged ones in such habitat would be blown away by wind into the see. But then, for most which have completely lost the genetic mechanism required for producing wings would be unable to produce it again. Thus, we say that they are less complex than the winged ancestor.

That I am being complex genetically than my ancestor is really begging the question at hand.

Workch:
lol, let me engage you a bit.

How is speciation accompanied with loss of information that will lead to reduced complexity? Discuss the genetics and molecular biology aspect of that.

Great. It's obvious to anyone going through this now that you don't have answer to the simple question, as I have asked it about ten times and you never provide any evidence, but only avoid or deflect.

I'll be willing to answer your question, not until you provide yours first. (Your NECO candidate could help )

LordReed:
And did you not see my question? Is Jesus taking and putting off humanity change or not?

Your question is a subtle red herring to what I said. I said there is no change IN HIS DIVINE NATURE.
Other theists and I have been explaining the context of change according to the Bible, but you are bent on importing your own concept.

budaatum:
Really? Interesting.

Have anything contrary to it? I'll love to see it

LordReed:
What tactic? The tactic of sticking to a point while you on and on about something else?

Adding humanity and taking it off again is not change?

You are free to claim whatever you want. It's a free world


Did you read "does not change his divine nature" in my post?
So much for sticking to point

Workch:
you don’t, but when what you talk about is not consistent with astronomy, one need to ask that.

One does not "necessarily" need to ask that as there are several ways to point out to the person that he is wrong. One is to provide evidence that prove the opposite of what the person is saying. Figures don't lie, they say.
Even Einstein was provided with evidence that was opposite of his steady state model of the universe, which then convinced him.
Simply asking "have you used a telescope?" Won't do anything.

By the way, I am still awaiting the answer from the "informed" one. Since it looks like you've been avoiding the question.
You could "open" someone's eyes with your answer, who knows?

Workch:
Really?
Have ever entered a lab?

No be only loss of information

What has that question got to do with what I wrote, O "intelligent" one?
Do you need to use a telescope before you talk about what have been written about astronomy?

Lol

Workch:
but the answer is in the speciation and adaptation you said you believe in.

I believe in speciation and adaptation but not in evolution is like saying “thank god I don’t believe in god”. Just so funny

Simply provide the evidence nah.
I may not have come across one, but you can give us one since you are the "learned" one

It's a fallacy of false analogy.
I maintain that the first statement is just equivocation. If it's not, please provide the EVIDENCE. Remember, you are a man of evidence

Workch:
Yes, I swear

How can someone even think of believing in speciation and adaptation but not in evolution? Even after I tried explaining to him how that doesn’t make sense, pelecius stull didn’t get it and not even willing to understand the gaffe.

Clearly defining terms will avoid the use of equivocation.
I don't owe you explanation of why evolution cannot be equated to speciation and adaptation. Just as all top bonds are adhesive, but it'll be fallacious to say adhesive is top bond.
Evolution tells us that every life forms can be traced back to a universal common ancestor (which is a simpler life forms). Now the question has been that you should provide evidence of how a simpler life form can become complex using speciation and adaptation to evolution, especially that you are equating the mechanisms to evolution.

Just evidence of simple to complex. Not asking too much

LordReed:
See what I am saying, why responding to someone else when I told you I am not answering for him.



I want to understand what you mean by unchanging. Is Jesus still human?

You are always using this tactic and I gave a simple analogy to show why I can't play by your game.
And you were clearly deflecting what I was talking about and I had to clear that up

Bro, I explained already that "but Jesus adding humanity to himself does not change his divine nature." So what are you asking? I guess the statement is easy enough to comprehend

Workch:
Lol

If you are asking such question even after saying you understand speciation then you are irredeemably ignorant. We seriously need to question your knowledge of adaptation and speciation.

From the moment you replied that there’s evidence for speciation and adaptation but none for evolution, I just gave up . The ignorance can’t get worse

Very funny indeed
It baffles me that "intelligent folks" are ignorant of the fact that empirical evidence of speciation is mostly accompanied by loss of information from a more general ancestor, and that no newly formed specie is more complex than it's ancestor.

And I have been asking our "learned" one to provide evidence for the contrary - from simpler to complex, through such mechanism. What followed was adhominem.

It's just a question bro. You are the informed one, simply provide answer

LordReed:
You are talking to me and responding to what others have said instead of engaging what I said, that is as prejudiced as they come.

Others have similarly written millions of works on why the gospels are not reliable sources for proving supernatural powers attributed to historical figures. Go read them too so we can discuss it.

Again, that is what you believe about me. And I don't know how to move here and there when discussing, so I must stick to the topic.

Fine!
I'm not ready to engage in unfruitful discussion. I only discuss most times, to clear up misunderstanding. I won't engage in what I know would lead to no where

Dtruthspeaker:
You are arguing with Satan himself. He will always seek to speak against Natural Truths when it is against him that is what we are warning you about.

And he is the lord recruiter of all the Haters of God in here hiding under the name 'Atheist'!

I am happy for your concern and really appreciate it.
We had a long discussion one time like that (you actually warned earlier too), and I got to understand some of his debating techniques.
I won't dabble into any unnecessary argument since I'm familiar with him and can predict the outcome

Workch:
You are stupid, you believe in speciation and still asking this question.

Did you read half baked speciation? Can’t you see how stupid the question is?

Lol

LordReed:
Yeah because that was not my argument so I don't know why you brought it up.








Talking about the god not aging, is this the not changing you mean?



The same Jesus that became a human being? What is unchanging here?

I used the argument to show you the context of my discussion with him, since you seem to want to come to his rescue.


Yeah, both Psalms talks of him remaining the same - not changing with age; while others hint on his unchanging nature

You may want to see it the way you a want, but Jesus adding humanity to himself does not change his divine nature. So I don't know what you are trying to achieve

Workch:
I wonder why you still debate pelecius. Can’t you see he doesn’t understand anything outside of the Bible?

I stopped taking him seriously when he said there’s evidence for speciation and adaptation but none for evolution. The most ignorant statement I have read on nairaland.
I showed that statement to my nephew currently taking his NECO exams and we haven’t gotten over the comedy yet.

Not bad.
You are the knowledgeable one here, but all I asked was to provide evidence of how we will get complex organisms from simpler ones using those mechanisms?

My prediction: there won't be a response to the question

LordReed:
Nobody said they were the same so you were probably arguing with yourself.

Mention the other places were the god's unchanging nature was stated.

Can you just imagine? I'm arguing with myself?

Psa 55:19
Psa 102: 27
Heb 13:8
Jam 1:17
And others.
Peace out

LordReed:
This is the problem with people like you who "otherize" people, you forget you are dealing with individuals and even when your attention is called to it you are so blinded by your prejudice it affects your reasoning. I have made it clear that I am not arguing about Jesus' existence but about his purported supernatural ability but your prejudice won't let you engage my point you are still talking to me as if you are talking to some monolithic personality called atheist.

Is Jesus the first person to be attributed supernatural ability? Why should we believe his simply because the bible says so when many other people have their scriptures telling of their own favourite religious leader's supernatural abilities.

You only expressed your description about me which cannot even be found in what I wrote. I said he played atheist game of "don't use the Bible" and you still confirmed it by giving same condition. Yet, you are complaining that I lump all atheist together.
I'm not the one with prejudice here, I only stated what I've always observed, which is "prove your God without using the Bible).


Now, I'm not going to engage you with discussing whether what the Gospel wrote about him is true or not. There are millions of works on why the Gospels can be trusted. You can check them by yourself if you are truly interested in getting logical and rational reasons why we should believe the Gospels.

LordReed:
Simple fact is when people talk of changing they do not mean changing being or changing attributes even changing from good to bad is change of mind essentially.

The only scripture reference to the god changing is in Malachi talking about why the Israelites were not consumed, the only way that makes any sense is if it is referring to the god's purported covenant with Israel which is all about what the god said and the decisions he made not about his attributes or being.

What is the fallacy here?

No amount of gymnastics will work here. And this could be the last time I will respond to this topic of change, it's something which is crystal clear. Changing one's mind on decision is NOT the same as changing one's attributes and behavior. His objections are as follows:
1. God does not change, but he changed his mind (referencing were he said he was grieved that he made man).
2. God does not change but he is portrayed differently in New Testament.

Those are what I responded too. He didn't raise any objections to them because it was clear that the first does not just follow and the second was wrong (likely due to ignorance).

Lastly, Malachi is not the only reference of the unchanging nature of God.


GOD DOES NOT CHANGE

LordReed:
I am not arguing for Workch, I am stating my position as an atheist as a counter to your assertion in which you tried to lump all atheists together.

How are you different? You are still playing the same game "bring proof outside the Bible".
Is that not what atheists do?
You only helped in moving the goal post, and restarting the game with your universal rule - "no Bible"

LordReed:
Again it is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Mentioning the leader of a religious sect means nothing in the grand scheme of things. There have been very many religious leaders in the annals of history, Jesus is accorded far more significance and power than most of them so if these historical accounts can't verify these powers then they are not important.

That's your wish and opinion. I am not deflecting from my argument for presenting case of Jesus' record (directly or not) in works of ancient history.
An atheist gave a challenge, with promise attached. The challenge was met and he just waved it away. Now you are trying to help change the goal post.
I'm sorry, I'm not interested in playing a game of cheat.