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

Pelecius:

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

I asked the question, what does genetic complexity mean?

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

Pelecius:

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

I do understand your last statement. I myself have been an atheist from birth with deep interest in theism due to the need to understand those around me. Belief, however, is not what I'd advise as an antidote to skepticism because it implies laziness, to me.

If one is to be honest one would admit that one's belief might be one's 'knowledge' but that does not make it the truth, contrary to what we are made to believe. When one is told to be skeptic and ask and knock and seek, it is not so one may find what one should believe, since we are given beliefs from birth already and need not even bother to ask and knock and seek. In fact, I'd say beliefs are toxic, after all we do read that it is a thing demons do and tremble, so why emulate them?

Truth and understanding, are much more important, I'd say, but belief gets in the way often, stopping one from even seeking so one may actually know. My classic example is Eve the Skeptic, who did not believe she would surely die on the day she ate and so asked and knocked and sought the truth for herself and went on to populate the entire earth, we read.

Another example is of course Jesus Christ who refused to believe as those around him did to the extent that I say he was atheistic to the beliefs of his time. But I guess one would need to understand the unevolved meaning of the word to even consider Christ as an atheist.

As to what we seek, I guess we need eyes that see in order to recognise it, but when one does, selling all one has to purchase the field it is in becomes an option. It would however be silly to insist that those who see not purchase it.

Pelecius:


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

Go to a science community and tell them to that you believe in speciation but not in evolution if you won’t be checked for mental issues.

LordReed:


I asked the question, what does genetic complexity mean?

Smiles
You again have tried to cleverly change ground.

You didn't really ask this question you claim to ask. Rather, you use down syndrome as a rebuttal (though in question form). But it didn't work as it wasn't a good rebuttal (I used an analogy to question and show the invalidity of your question).
Now, you are shifting ground by asking a question I have already talked about in long sermons, while avoiding conceding to the fact that your rebuttal has been refuted.

Pelecius:

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?

Before I wrote what I wrote I did check but apparently you didn't, you never mentioned divine nature until the Jesus humanity came up. And also you apparently don't know the meaning of cognitive dissonance, I suggest you look it up to be well informed.

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)

LMAO! OMFD! It's so obvious you are completely blinded by your cognitive dissonance. How does adding not equal change especially when you are adding something completely different from the original? Golly! This thing has eclipsed your reasoning really well.

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

My objective has always been clear, to show that the gaps in your reasoning are so huge you can drive a trailer through it and not feel a thing.

Pelecius:

Smiles
You again have tried to cleverly change ground.

You didn't really ask this question you claim to ask. Rather, you use down syndrome as a rebuttal (though in question form). But it didn't work as it wasn't a good rebuttal (I used an analogy to question and show the invalidity of your question).
Now, you are shifting ground by asking a question I have already talked about in long sermons, while avoiding conceding to the fact that your rebuttal has been refuted.

Are you so forgetful? It's right on the same bleeding page!

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.

Workch:
Go to a science community and tell them to that you believe in speciation but not in evolution if you won’t be checked for mental issues.

Band wagon?

Just answer our questions O "learned" one. Provide the evidence, so you won't be running here and there and applying logical fallacies to stay afloat

Pelecius:

Band wagon?

Just answer our questions O "learned" one. Provide the evidence, so you won't be running here and there and applying logical fallacies to stay afloat

it has been answered but you dont understand science.you don’t get it

LordReed:


Before I wrote what I wrote I did check but apparently you didn't, you never mentioned divine nature until the Jesus humanity came up. And also you apparently don't know the meaning of cognitive dissonance, I suggest you look it up to be well informed.



LMAO! OMFD! It's so obvious you are completely blinded by your cognitive dissonance. How does adding not equal change especially when you are adding something completely different from the original? Golly! This thing has eclipsed your reasoning really well.



My objective has always been clear, to show that the gaps in your reasoning are so huge you can drive a trailer through it and not feel a thing.

I have attached the screenshot of what I was talking about. Though I used attributes and nature interchangeably, I definitely mean same thing. And before you protest, you can google "synonyms of divine nature". One of the site (specifically, the one of free thesaurus, specifically the third) have a headline reading "synonyms of divine nature and attributes".
So do your homework and check again. By the way,I'm not ignorant of cognitive dissonance. I applied it back to you because you are the one who seem to have been convincing yourself of not being wrong by shifting grounds whenever you are being refuted. To explain further (before you latch on straws) the fact that you ignore any thing that refutes your ideas and then shift a bit to start a debate which is though similar, but is in reality, different from your refuted idea. So as to not feel the effect of being wrong


It's obvious you are bent on proving yourself right, and has refused to open to anything contrary.
I thought of a good analogy to explain where adding something to another does not change the behavior of the latter but I couldn't find any good one. But the one I'll use is that of cars. If an engineer add electric power source to an existing fuel driven car such that the car can toggle between any of the power source, does the new addition change the fact characteristics of the fuel engine? Especially of the addition can be removed at any time?
Try to remove your prejudice so you can see what I have explained clearly. Adding humanity to himself does not change his divine attributes.



Very funny. Your objectives just exposed and confirm what I've been saying. It doesn't matter if you are wrong, you just must show (by any means) that I can't be right and you're the one who is right. Very funny

Workch:
it has been answered but you dont understand science.you don’t get it

Let me make it interesting. Please show me where you answered it. You could make it easy for me "who doesn't understand science" by making a screenshot of where you said it and even just circle it. It'll help a lot

My prediction: you won't do it

Just to make it easy for anyone reading to see the brilliance of our "learned" one

Pelecius:



Let me make it interesting. Please show me where you answered it. You could make it easy for me "who doesn't understand science" by making a screenshot of where you said it and even just circle it. It'll help a lot

My prediction: you won't do it

Just to make it easy for anyone reading to see the brilliance of our "learned" one

i won’t even have to show a grade 6 student tha passé comprehension where I answered your question.

But you don’t get it, you are worst of all I have seen.

LordReed:


Are you so forgetful? It's right on the same bleeding page!

I repeat that you didn't initially ask that. (No point asking because I already talked about it. In fact, your initial response/question was to one of those posts where I was clarifying it)
You making ONLY the new question in bold is being intellectually dishonest as you have changed the context of such question like that.

You attempted to show how my argument that losing information implies less complexity does not hold ground by giving a wrong example of how apparent gaining of "information" in real life cause problem.
Now that I showed that there's no information gained with your example and hence have not succeeded in your plans, you are now trying to shift ground by asking me to explain what I have explained.
Go through my posts again and see it for yourself

Workch:
i won’t even have to show a grade 6 student tha passé comprehension where I answered your question.

But you don’t get it, you are worst of all I have seen.

Prediction correct again

Pelecius:



Prediction correct again

Who takes the predictions of someone who believes in speciation but not in evolution seriously!

Pelecius:



Prediction correct again

Did you think about that statement properly before typing it?

I believe in speciation but not in evolution.

Pelecius:

If asked the evidence that evolution occurred, we may get evidence for adaptation or speciation which no informed one disputes, yet the "enlightened" ones want to tell us that it is evolution - the type that brought about all life forms from the first single ancestor.

But do we need to talk about the evolution when we can't even get how the first cell came to be? Worse, materialists have definitely reduce science to physics and chemistry, claiming that whatever can't be observed, tested and experimented is unscientific. But of course, same should go for evolution (it has never been observed and it'll never be, because no one can live for millions of years that's believed for it), abiogenesis (more researches are making the little hope fleet away, but that's the only atheistic myth for origin of life; so they have faith that it'll be cracked one day), panspermia (only pushing the problem of origin of life to outside of the earth. Again, no evidence of aliens, but the faith believe that given the vastness of the universe and the faith that abiogenesis occured even without evidence, then life must have arose in other places).

It's not lack of evidence for God' that makes people abandon Christianity, it's mostly the rebellious nature of man that kicks in. Then one use materialism to justify oneself in an intellectual manner.

That’s the statement that showcased your gross ignorance. How can you not dispute speciation and still be asking how evolution led to all species?

Think about it, you tried to sound informed but that was where you messed up. Take all the time in the world to think about it

Pelecius:

I have attached the screenshot of what I was talking about. Though I used attributes and nature interchangeably, I definitely mean same thing. And before you protest, you can google "synonyms of divine nature". One of the site (specifically, the one of free thesaurus, specifically the third) have a headline reading "synonyms of divine nature and attributes".
So do your homework and check again. By the way,I'm not ignorant of cognitive dissonance. I applied it back to you because you are the one who seem to have been convincing yourself of not being wrong by shifting grounds whenever you are being refuted. To explain further (before you latch on straws) the fact that you ignore any thing that refutes your ideas and then shift a bit to start a debate which is though similar, but is in reality, different from your refuted idea. So as to not feel the effect of being wrong

Where in what you screenshot did you mention divine nature? You wrote being and attributes, we now come to where his being and attributes have changed then you now introduce divine nature because the Jesus humanity clearly shows that this so called unchanging god actually changed according to your previous definition.

How have I shifted ground? It was you brought up the Jesus humanity not me. I asked you for places where the god's unchanging nature was mentioned and you listed verses. I treat what you wrote and then you start accusing me of shifting ground, that's so hilarious. May be next time don't write what you know will introduce holes to what you are saying.

It's obvious you are bent on proving yourself right, and has refused to open to anything contrary.
I thought of a good analogy to explain where adding something to another does not change the behavior of the latter but I couldn't find any good one. But the one I'll use is that of cars. If an engineer add electric power source to an existing fuel driven car such that the car can toggle between any of the power source, does the new addition change the fact characteristics of the fuel engine? Especially of the addition can be removed at any time?
Try to remove your prejudice so you can see what I have explained clearly. Adding humanity to himself does not change his divine attributes.

You analogy does not correspond because according to you the one of the attributes of the god is agelessness and immortality, if Jesus aged and died then this was more than just adding a new part to an existing system. It will be more akin to removing the body of a brand new Mercedes sedan and replacing it with beat up old Volkswagen Beetle and then claiming no change occurred to the Mercedes when quite plainly you are no more looking at a Mercedes.

Adding humanity enabled him to negate at least 2 of his previous attributes but somehow to you it is not change and I am the one with the cognitive dissonance. LMAO!

Very funny. Your objectives just exposed and confirm what I've been saying. It doesn't matter if you are wrong, you just must show (by any means) that I can't be right and you're the one who is right. Very funny

I am quite willing to be proved wrong, you have not done so. I asked you what you meant by unchanging you pointed to ageless and immortal then also pointed to a place where he aged and died, you proved yourself wrong not me.

Pelecius:

I repeat that you didn't initially ask that. (No point asking because I already talked about it. In fact, your initial response/question was to one of those posts where I was clarifying it)
You making ONLY the new question in bold is being intellectually dishonest as you have changed the context of such question like that.

You attempted to show how my argument that losing information implies less complexity does not hold ground by giving a wrong example of how apparent gaining of "information" in real life cause problem.
Now that I showed that there's no information gained with your example and hence have not succeeded in your plans, you are now trying to shift ground by asking me to explain what I have explained.
Go through my posts again and see it for yourself

I wanted you to clarify what you meant by genetic complexity and used a case where extra genetic information is present in an organism that we are familiar with but for you that is changing the context. What a joke.

Complexity doesn't enter the evolution equation, its you shoehorning in an obvious foreign concept and when asked to clarify you get all defensive. Do you know what you are talking about or are you just pulling stuff out of your theological grabbag?

Workch:
Who takes the predictions of someone who believes in speciation but not in evolution seriously!

Seems our "learned" one is really ignorant of logical fallacies.

Attack the message, and not the messenger.

Another fallacy is that of equivocation. The "learned" one can learn about them

Pelecius:

Seems our "learned" one is really ignorant of logical fallacies.

Attack the message, and not the messenger.

Another fallacy is that of equivocation. The "learned" one can learn about them

You need to attack the messenger who sees evidence for speciation but doesn’t see for evolution. That messenger is very dumb.

He knows nothing and won’t ever learn anything

Workch:
Did you think about that statement properly before typing it?

I believe in speciation but not in evolution.

Like I advised earlier, read on equivocation. Evolution may incorporate speciation as part of it's mechanism, but it doesn't equate speciation to evolution.

All glues are adhesive but you can't just equate adhesive to a glue. Learn the difference O "learned" one

Pelecius:

Like I advised earlier, read on equivocation. Evolution may incorporate speciation as part of it's mechanism, but it doesn't equate speciation to evolution.

All glues are adhesive but you can't just equate adhesive to a glue. Learn the difference O "learned" one

So speciation can happen outside the confines of evolution?

You are stupider than I thought

Workch:


That’s the statement that showcased your gross ignorance. How can you not dispute speciation and still be asking how evolution led to all species?

Think about it, you tried to sound informed but that was where you messed up. Take all the time in the world to think about it

I think I only asked you to show us how speciation would lead to increased complexity, yet you are referring to my post which clearly argued opposite of what I asked you to do.

Just provide the evidence, then I'll easily believe evolution and all this your back and forth will cease.

I'm not trying to sound informed (it's your fantasy, I believe). I am expressing what I know is consistent with the reality and even providing empirical evidence for them.
Till date, you have done nothing than wonder how I don't buy into your fallacy of equivocation. And mostly use adhominem when you don't have rebuttal.

Pelecius:

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.

Well, some people are really untrustworthy hypocritical time-wasting unhelpful bastards on Nairaland!!!

They intentionally do all things possible to make you feel bad!!!


They accuse falsely and turn your statements UPSIDE DOWN!!!


Beware of such living defects!!!!

Workch:
So speciation can happen outside the confines of evolution?

You are stupider than I thought

I just explained how you address objections, not knowing I'll be proved right again with this your latest response

I think I'll end this here. It's obvious you can't provide the evidence you believe in, hence you deflect here and there.
Time is precious

LordReed:


It's cognitive dissonance plus being afraid to open that door, they can feel their faith quaking.

How on earth can someone with a living relationship with Jesus Christ have his faith quaking because you don't believe there's God? When will you realize that the man with an experience is not at the mercy of the man with a mere argument?

Pelecius:

Like I advised earlier, read on equivocation. Evolution may incorporate speciation as part of it's mechanism, but it doesn't equate speciation to evolution.

All glues are adhesive but you can't just equate adhesive to a glue. Learn the difference O "learned" one

ok now I think I should help you so you don’t keep embarrassing yourself and you don’t go out saying this nonsense.

These are the major components of evolution:
1. Mutations
2. Changing environment conditions
3. Recombinations.
4. Adaptions.
5. Speciation.


Now to put them together in a statement; Mutations and recombinations within a population of organism, leads to variations in gene pool. The changing environmental conditions selects the gene that is adaptable at any point in time. Accumulated mutations and recombinations over time in a constantly changing environment leads to speciation. That’s simply evolution.


The moment any population living organism starts portraying any of this components, it has already started evolving.

I don’t know if you can comprehend this but I will try harder to explain.

Speciation is like a part of a car, evolution is the car. Speciation cannot work independent of the whole car.

You see why I have been making fun of you all these while? It’s impossible to believe in speciation without believing in evolution because speciation is the final process of all evolving specie that has adapted to changing environmental conditions over time.

It’s either you don’t understand speciation, evolution or both.

Pelecius:


I just explained how you address objections, not knowing I'll be proved right again with this your latest response

I think I'll end this here. It's obvious you can't provide the evidence you believe in, hence you deflect here and there.
Time is precious

Seriously I had a lot of fun making fun of you and your supposed knowledge of evolution.

I wouldn’t have made fun of you if you didn’t show arrogant ignorance on the topic at first.

LordReed:


Where in what you screenshot did you mention divine nature? You wrote being and attributes, we now come to where his being and attributes have changed then you now introduce divine nature because the Jesus humanity clearly shows that this so called unchanging god actually changed according to your previous definition.

How have I shifted ground? It was you brought up the Jesus humanity not me. I asked you for places where the god's unchanging nature was mentioned and you listed verses. I treat what you wrote and then you start accusing me of shifting ground, that's so hilarious. May be next time don't write what you know will introduce holes to what you are saying.




You analogy does not correspond because according to you the one of the attributes of the god is agelessness and immortality, if Jesus aged and died then this was more than just adding a new part to an existing system. It will be more akin to removing the body of a brand new Mercedes sedan and replacing it with beat up old Volkswagen Beetle and then claiming no change occurred to the Mercedes when quite plainly you are no more looking at a Mercedes.

Adding humanity enabled him to negate at least 2 of his previous attributes but somehow to you it is not change and I am the one with the cognitive dissonance. LMAO!



I am quite willing to be proved wrong, you have not done so. I asked you what you meant by unchanging you pointed to ageless and immortal then also pointed to a place where he aged and died, you proved yourself wrong not me.

Maybe i'm not that experienced sha, but i've never seen anyone find Jesus this way. Maybe you'll be a first , who knows? Keep seeking all day.

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.

You don't have to reply because I don't need your reply and they can't change my thoughts.

But this nonsense remains nonsense to me.


You call the Bible a jumble yet praise someone for accusing almost all of humanity of not understanding it.


Either you are being insincere or being illogically foolishly contradictory towards yourself!!!!!


#spits#