₦airaland Forum

OnionBandit:
These people celebrate every evil that befalls others. They celebrated the death of even Yaradua back then, but today, they tell us Yaradua is the best so far. Nigeria has only one problem, these people!

DeepSight:
I am warning you to disembark now. I said climb down now. Come down now from that horse. Jump down now.

Yes it was a query.
No, you link does not answer.

Discuss Salmon.

DeepSight:
This is from your link -



Is this what you want anyone to take as a serious answer?

At all events, note the last paragraph.

DeepSight:
How did you conclude that this is a discussion or a debate and why?

I trust you see from my flip of the script how ridiculous your responses have been.

DeepSight:
Let us flip the script for a moment.

How would you see it if you pointed out some flaws and gaps in logic of some religious doctrines and the adherents of that doctrine came back to you saying the following -

- Nairaland is not a theological academy if you want serious answers you know where to research

- We dont have to answer your questions

- You are ignorant of theology

- You are resourceful enough to research and find the proper answers

- You are not sincere in your inquiry

I hope you realize that this is exactly all you have done on this thread.

Whereas, flipping the script again, the proper thing for the adherent of the religious doctrine you queried to do, would simply be to provide a proper explanation for why it is sound.

Of course, if he is not so inclined, he should simply walk past and keep silent.

triplechoice:
You still don't get it . As at the time the Wright brothers we're perfecting their craft it was regarded as not science, not scientific , by those within the scientific community. Go back to read history and come back and tell what I just said isn't true.

You don't take your time to read before replying.

triplechoice:
please on focus on the main thing, TOE so you stop arguing deceptively to win an argument.

Your comparison is inappropriate. The op is highlitimg real issues , the limitations, within TOE and seeking for answers. Instead of focusing on that to provide relevant answers, you're all over the place deflecting to an imaginary and not relevant object, Uranus ,together with gravitational theories.

Sincerity of him not wanting to know the answer shouldn't stop you. For the sake of others like myself following the thread, please provide the answers

Thanks in advance

triplechoice:
The bolded is incorrect. It's similar to the usual excuse used by incompetent teachers to dissuade their students from questioning them about a topic they can't explain very well. Religious people also use the same tactics when they say one must have the holy spirit to understand biblical text


There's no where it's stated in the sciences that " You question science with science. You just invented that yourself.

What it takes to question science is an inquiry mind and the ability to ask the right question concerning any scientific theory that one find inconsistent with the evidences that support it.

The Wright brothers were ordinary bicycle repairers who aren't supposed to question science according you, but through their project to invent something new, they question the prevailing scientific theory of their time which stated that nothing heavier than air can float in the sky ,and the result was the airplane.

Well, you already answered the op without realising it. You can't explain it and so waiting for other scientist who know better to come up with an answer so you can re-echo it.

DeepSight:
I already told you that the question you should be wondering about is if the physical laws that make such occur are random.

Everyday247:
Again I'm not talking about facts.

You earlier said that people can't subscribe or unsubscribe to scientific theories because they are facts.

My point is that to "subscribe" meant to "agree" with as opposed to that your reply.

DeepSight:
Its possibly done by a civilization that was obliterated before this current civilization arose.

DeepSight:
A valid question and while I cannot account for it, it stands to reason to me that there exists an ultimate source of all things, and that is what I personally call God. It is not the Abrahamic version of God, it is not a person as understood in the anthropomorphic sense either. It is a transcendantal and ineffable element.



There are actually things in nature the complexity and specificity of which actually logically presuppose design. Its not a question of a God of the gaps argument - rather the question should rebound to those who claim that certain evidently designed things were not designed. There is an age old analogy about this, but I dont want to cite it. It has to do with a watch or a clock. Suffice to say that if you investigate the workings of a single cell within your body, not to speak of the staggering workings of the human brain - which far exceed the workings of the most complex computers, you will find that it is rational to presuposse that there is evidence of design in these things. You will find that it is that person who claims that there is no element of design who really has questions to answer.



Questioning evident gaps in the Theory of Evolution does not mean one does not understand it.
Observing evidence of design in nature also does not mean that one does not understand evolution.

I actualy believe in evolution but I dont believe it's all that accounts for life as we know it. In my view, it works side by side with many obvious elements of programming and design.

Everyday247:
It's not about what's true or false. It's about opinions.

Eg. Take the question: did aliens build the pyramids?
Some believe so while other do not.

We can also say that some subscribe to the idea while others do not.

Everyday247:
It's not about disbelieving in the gravitational theory, it's about replacing the theory with something else.

If someone doesn't believe in the gravitational theory, they can simply make up an alternative explanation to it. Kind of like intelligent design to counter evolution.

DeepSight:
As I said science can be questioned with logic and indeed science is based on logic.

It is with logical questions that science gets replaced eventually with better science.

DeepSight:
You are all over the place.
Come down from your horse, I said come down now.

DeepSight:
There is much in nature that strongly suggests design.

DeepSight:
This lazily suggests that the TOE is as complete and proven as is Gravity.

And that is false.
Unequivocally.

DeepSight:
The for Pete's sake drop the pretentious arrogance.

DeepSight:
Who says it is not questioned.
Did Einstein not propound a newer version than Newton's?

DeepSight:
And yet not once has there been evidence that you yourself have done this.

I have repeatedly cited even evolutionary biologists when I raise my questions.

Yet you revert with the same old tired tropes.

Everyday247:
The bolded is wrong because the world is filled with billions of people who do not subscribe to scientific theories.

To subscribe means to agree with.

triplechoice:
But DeepSight hasn't rejected TOE completely and so ,why but him in the same category of those majority whom you say has?

Top scientist right from the very beginning till this very moment have been questioning certain parts of the theory not because they reject it but because they want to improve on it, yet you want to suggest it's only those with zero knowledge that challenges it. That's not true.

The thing is that,you are too quick to assume that anyone who challenges some aspect of TOE is a religious person who has already rejected it. A lot of atheist think that way and I call it knee- jerk rejection.

triplechoice:
Finally, scientific theories isn't for picking and choosing, It should be questioned. That's what I said. Any science that cannot be questioned is not science but dogma.

Everyday247:
By saying "science is not a subscription service that people subscribe to".

This is not the meaning of subscribe as used in the statement. "Not all atheists subscribe to TOE".

Everyday247:
By saying "science is not a subscription service that people subscribe to".

This is not the meaning of subscribe as used in the statement. "Not all atheists subscribe to TOE".

DeepSight:
I dont know why it is so hard for them to admit.



Very well said.



Here you are implying that if one understands the Theory of Evolution properly, then it has no gaps.
This is very wrong - the theory is limited and has profound gaps - which even evolutionary biologists acknowledge.

Everyday247:
What is the meaning of the word "subscribe"?

Do you think it has only one meaning?

I think that it's petty to point out grammatical errors when the meaning is clear.

triplechoice:
Atheism older than theory of evolution and the big bang?

No, that can't be true. Atheism is old as theism. They both feed from each other. One cannot exist without the other. Without theism, you won't know what it means to be an atheist and vice versa.

The talk that atheism is the default position is usually made by dogmatic atheist to postulate others from joining their them.

DeepSight:
Beautiful and delightfully written. You took the red right out of my school of thought. It's exactly how I think, and it's heartwarming to read this from another.

@ LordReed, find this interesting? Re: other universes? Sound familiar?

@ AlbertNewton. I see what you did with your moniker. Einstein and Isaac.

AlbertNewton:
By describing such instincts as "inexplicable", is that based on your own ignorance of what the explanation is or are you making a claim that the instincts cannot be explained by anyone ?
Are you trying to come to a logical understanding of the underlying processes (physical, biological and chemical) behind such complex instincts or you've already concluded that there is no plausible explanation and want to make a point out of that conclusion ?
Have you tried to make findings on what relevant experts have to say about the "inexplicable" instincts or you are more interested in what Nairalanders (many of whom most likely know little about evolutionary biology and genetics) have to say ?
While many natural phenomena are clearly complex to understand, do you believe it is possible to gain some scientific, logical understanding of such phenomena and do you believe that scientists have already made a lot of progress in understanding the universe we live in ?

Your answers to the questions above will guide how I engage with the thought-provoking topic you have created.