₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
You called me insolent but it turned out you're the insolent one, resorting to insults whenever you are engaging someone and then crying like a baby when the insult is dished out to you.
I explained how I became an atheist clearly, and that negated the earlier statement where you said I only became an atheist after my dad's demise.
About NARD, you are not a member neither are you a doctor, so how the fvck would you know what transpired at the NARD NEC

I don’t need to be a member to have access to their communique which is a public document which I have shown you and which didn’t capture the lies you wrote.

You should bury your head in shame for lying that the communique captured what it never captured.

I have shown you the authentic communique signed by the NARD President, Secretary General and Public & Social Secretary.


Why not show us yours, liar!

TenQ:
Software refers to a set of instructions, data, or programs that enable a computer to perform specific tasks.


The question is , can a software be said to EXIST within a suitable hardware of a Computer?

Is there any Physical method of determining the EXISTENCE of a software within a hardware without another software running on a suitable hardware?

If the software(in this case the OS) is fine, then we can determine its existence with the aid of a suitable hardware like a PC

jaephoenix:
I just showed u the communique. So r u saying the communique is showed u was fake? Lol 😆
Oga, i told you how I became an atheist. U twisted the narrative urself

You didn’t show me a signed communique. Show me the authentic one signed by the NARD President, Secretary General and Public and Social Secretary and I will show the whole world that you’re nothing but a bloody liar!

Emusan:
Good!

Do all living things on earth go through the process of evolution?

Do all living things evolve at the same time?

Yes every living thing evolves.
No we don't evolve at the same time.

Any other questions

Emusan:
I even thought you have meaningful thing to contribute.

Yes! I believe the SUPERNATURAL claims there.

You don't need VIDEO or AUDIO in BELIEVE.

Abi Bible claim to be a scientific journal or book?

So you why can't you believe evolution without a video or audio?

advocatejare:
I don’t need to be a member to have access to their communique which is a public document which I have shown you and which didn’t capture the lies you wrote.

You should bury your head in shame for lying that the communique captured what it never captured.

I have shown you the authentic communique signed by the NARD President, Secretary General and Public & Social Secretary.


Why not show us yours, liar!

I showed you a screenshot the other time yet you don't believe it

jaephoenix:
I showed you a screenshot the other time yet you don't believe it

Show me the signed communique or shut up forever. Liar

jaephoenix:
So you why can't you believe evolution without a video or audio?

because The proponent of the theory of evolution didn't attach it to supernatural but NATURAL PROCESSES.

Do you believe evolution is a supernatural process?

advocatejare:
You didn’t show me a signed communique. Show me the authentic one signed by the NARD President, Secretary General and Public and Social Secretary and I will show the whole world that you’re nothing but a bloody liar!

Advocatejare or whatever you call yourself, a communique doesn't capture the essence of a meeting or the entire NEC resolution. It is just a summary of the whole meeting, mails, demands etc.

jaephoenix:
Yes every living thing evolves.
No we don't evolve at the same time.

Any other questions

Good!

So, why we don't see evolution in action now?

advocatejare:
Show me the signed communique or shut up forever. Liar

You are just an ignorant dolt, the worse type. And very insolent at that. If you don't believe the news report I gave you then get outta my sight

Emusan:
Good!

So, why we don't see evolution in action now?

Lol. Evolution is still in action.
Humans in some parts of Europe are getting taller. Bacteria are adapting to overcome antibiotics etc.

Emusan:
Good!

Do all living things on earth go through the process of evolution?

Do all living things evolve at the same time?

Yes all living things evolve. I don't know what you mean by "at the same time" but they are all evolving, some more rapidly than others.

jaephoenix:
If the software(in this case the OS) is fine, then we can determine its existence with the aid of a suitable hardware like a PC

Is a corrupted OS still existing within the memory device of the computer?

So, how will you know a suitable hardware?
It may be that the OS is written for a microcontroller and not a computer.

Moreover, every OS is written for a particular target machine.
At least you have shown that the Blue Screen of Death isn't a proof that a software is corrupt or that the memory device is empty!




The bottom line is:
1. The fact that a software can EXIST within a suitable hardware of a Computer?

2. There is no Physical method of determining the EXISTENCE of a software within a hardware without another software running on a suitable hardware?

jaephoenix:
You are just an ignorant dolt, the worse type. And very insolent at that. If you don't believe the news report I gave you then get outta my sight

😆
In short, you can’t provide the signed documents to your lies!

Now the whole world can see you for your lies.


Now that I’ve proven that you lied that the Residents Doctors’ strike was due to insecurity and not because of Dr. Ganiyat that was kidnapped, let’s talk about how you became an atheist because your father who destroyed many lives with his alcoholic business also died and you got disappointed in God for allowing your father to die

TenQ:
Is a corrupted OS still existing within the memory device of the computer?

So, how will you know a suitable hardware?
It may be that the OS is written for a microcontroller and not a computer.

Moreover, every OS is written for a particular target machine.
At least you have shown that the Blue Screen of Death isn't a proof that a software is corrupt or that the memory device is empty!




The bottom line is:
1. The fact that a software can EXIST within a suitable hardware of a Computer?

2. There is no Physical method of determining the EXISTENCE of a software within a hardware without another software running on a suitable hardware?

Noted. So how does this apply to our debate about soul

jaephoenix:
No, the PC won't display any OS. So what is the import of this on our discourse?

The output of the computer will be the BSOD irrespective of whether the HDD if empty or full of Softwares. As long as the CPU cannot read the content of the HDD, it is lost and will freeze causing the BSOD.


There is no Physical method of determining the EXISTENCE of a software within a hardware without another software running on a suitable hardware?

This is the bottom line.
The absence of physical proof is not the evidence that a software is not present within the system.

@Jaephoenix you lamented that “ This man was a vibrant Christian. Left his booming alcohol business to become a Christian and from there his health dwindled….
Then I started digging.”
https://www.nairaland.com/7942670/why-became-atheist

From what you wrote, it was because your dad “left his booming alcohol business to become a Christian “ was the reason his health dwindled.

So you’d rather he continue using his alcoholic business to destroy peoples’ lives and not stop to become a Christian. You’re a selfish person, you’re only concerned about the gains your father was making from selling alcohol to destroy peoples’ lives,

But when he eventually died, you now started digging and the digging led you into atheism!

jaephoenix:
Noted. So how does this apply to our debate about soul

Good!

The SOUL is similar to the SOFTWARE that runs the body of an orgasm where the Brain serves more or less as the CPU and HDD.

Just like for the Software in a System, There is no known physical means of determination it's existence.



All Atheist argument focus on the Hardware (Brain and Chemicals) but forget that a software (SOUL) runs under the hood.

Why do you think that even though we learn as we grow, Babies seems to come with some limited pre-programmed behaviours that aren't a product of learning by experience.

I just have a simple question to ask the Christians here on this thread.

Please, without ad hominem, goalpost shifting, strawmen, reversing the burden of proof, and outright lying, can you tell us exactly what the Theory of Evolution has to do with proving your God's existence?

jaephoenix:
I have gone through his posts and I cannot see such statements. If you think I'm lying, kindly show me. If you don't show me, then you're lying once again(which isn't surprising)
We have given you a link about a unicellular turning multi but you rejected it. Thus I asked you for the definition of macro evolution.
About the existence of god, obviously you don't even know the title of the thread you have been commenting on for about a week. If you can't provide a proof just hide your face in shame

Don't be daft.
It's not necessarily within this thread.

I have had a conversation with one of your colleagues where he alluded to that.

You must be blind for you not to see that I have given my two cents on the God discussion.

I have asked you lot to provide an evidence yet you can't.

Also, I don't lie.
I might make errors perhaps attributing one person's post to another or skipping some certain things in my thought process.

I don't have all the time in the world but the little I have, I make sure to attend to useful things.

In my spare time, I join in on discussions.
There are plethora of "indirect evidences" for God.
From "probability of occurrence, to intelligent design"

When I am chanced we will discuss all these but first, present your own evidence.

I am not the one that forced you to take on my question 🤨; your zeal to sound smart has put you into a quagmire.

jaephoenix:
So the scientists that believe macro aint educated?

They have reasons to believe it based on "indirect observational proof"👀; the same way I have reasons to believe in God, based on "indirect observational proofs" 🙃.

Don't blame me for applying scientific dogmas to demand for "concrete" proof!!!
What's good for the goose is good for the gander! 🤔

FiveFootNinja:
I just have a simple question to ask the Christians here on this thread.

Please, without ad hominem, goalpost shifting, strawmen, reversing the burden of proof, and outright lying, can you tell us exactly what the Theory of Evolution has to do with proving your God's existence?

It's a side topic🤔.

It doesn't necessarily diminish or prove God's existence but it acts as a "get away" for 'materialist' to dismiss the God argument!

The problem is not in the process called evolution but in the way it's being wielded by some as concrete proof for the non-existence of God.

Although not all atheists are on the far extreme, some are just atheists because they haven't found conclusive "direct" proof for God!

Some use evolution as a razor to trim down the God argument since evolution explains, in simplicity, the processes involved while christians argue that evolution among others follow the owner's(God's) script!!!

Hence both sides, poke holes into each other's premises and conclusions.

For the christians, a good way is to show that evolution is insufficient to explain all physical biological things, some use the "Cambrian explosion" as proof against this. Some also argue using giants, some use " stasis" and the list goes on.

Evolutionist have also come up with better ways to defend against the refutations subject on the Cambrian explosion among others.

Others, use intelligent design, philosophy, music etc as proof for God, this self same evidences in a different view🤔 can also be used to support "evolutionary stands" implying that humans prioritized features necessary for their survival.

Hence it's a two-edged sword.
And the famous "observer bias" comes into play.

For the creationist, it's the hand of God.
For the atheists, it's the hand(👀) of nature.

One argues, that the observation of the physical processes is sufficient for all things.

While one argues, that 'the other' is just studying the 'factory processes' and not the creator of the factory!!!

With the yardstick always leading to the flaw of materialism - "consciousness" 🤔 or abstractions which cannot be empirically proven!!!

LordReed:
Yes all living things evolve. I don't know what you mean by "at the same time" but they are all evolving, some more rapidly than others.

What I meant by "at the same time" is if human and tree evolution started at the same time.

If it's not. For instance; it means, either trees evolved first then human or human evolved first before trees.

Do you understand?

jaephoenix:
Lol. Evolution is still in action.
Humans in some parts of Europe are getting taller. Bacteria are adapting to overcome antibiotics etc.

Growth has been part of living things, it's not a proof for evolution.

The same part of Europe that are getting taller can be grown smaller in few years time.

Have you recorded transition of one animal to another thing as you claim about living things evolution on earth?

Emusan:
What I meant by "at the same time" is if human and tree evolution started at the same time.

If it's not. For instance; it means, either trees evolved first then human or human evolved first before trees.

Do you understand?

Ok I understand.

Yes trees evolved before humans so yeah some species will emerge before others even though all living things are evolving.

Gabrielshow24:
It's a side topic🤔.

It doesn't necessarily diminish or prove God's existence but it acts as a "get away" for 'materialist' to dismiss the God argument!

The problem is not in the process called evolution but in the way it's being wielded by some as concrete proof for the non-existence of God.

Although not all atheists are on the far extreme, some are just atheists because they haven't found conclusive "direct" proof for God!

Some use evolution as a razor to trim down the God argument since evolution explains, in simplicity, the processes involved while christians argue that evolution among others follow the owner's(God's) script!!!

Hence both sides, poke holes into each other's premises and conclusions.

For the christians, a good way is to show that evolution is insufficient to explain all physical biological things, some use the "Cambrian explosion" as proof against this. Some also argue using giants, some use " stasis" and the list goes on.

Evolutionist have also come up with better ways to defend against the refutations subject on the Cambrian explosion among others.

Others, use intelligent design, philosophy, music etc as proof for God, this self same evidences in a different view🤔 can also be used to support "evolutionary stands" implying that humans prioritized features necessary for their survival.

Hence it's a two-edged sword.
And the famous "observer bias" comes into play.

For the creationist, it's the hand of God.
For the atheists, it's the hand(👀) of nature.

One argues, that the observation of the physical processes is sufficient for all things.

While one argues, that 'the other' is just studying the 'factory processes' and not the creator of the factory!!!

With the yardstick always leading to the flaw of materialism - "consciousness" 🤔 or abstractions which cannot be empirically proven!!!

From your entire writeup, I think it won't be out of place to conclude that you seem to have a fundamental problem with the Theory of Evolution. It's very easy to look at something you don't understand and conclude that just because you can't explain it, then God must be the only thing that can explain it.

But it's still a cop-out. It simply smacks of ignorance and intellectual laziness for me.

I'd rather we all just admit we don't know the facts about something, instead of imagining things just to satisfy our ego. I will admit, I don't fully understand evolution myself, but I don't feel the need to. Personally, I didn't become an atheist because of evolution. I became an atheist because I haven't come across any solid evidence that can convince me God exists. And the evidence presented by Christians so far have been lacklustre to me.

While I don't give a shít about evolution, I firmly believe there is stronger evidence attached to it, than there is attached to religious creationism. You can mock evolution all you want, but you'd be out of your mind if you seriously think that God creating the world in just 7 days is a far more plausible hypothesis.

Let me ask you then, since you're obviously on the side of religious creationism, if God truly created all species on this earth as they appear today, then can you provide a very solid explanation for why God will create vestigial structures in human beings and animals (appendix, wisdom teeth, coccyx). If there is no apparent purpose to these organs (and some are even harmful in some cases), then why did your God create them?

Emusan:
Growth has been part of living things, it's not a proof for evolution.

The same part of Europe that are getting taller can be grown smaller in few years time.

Have you recorded transition of one animal to another thing as you claim about living things evolution on earth?

It is proof of evolution. The problem is you folk think evolution is a magic show where a person will suddenly sprout wings. We have hammered it over and over again it is the gene characteristics of the population of a species that changes and accumulates over successive generations. You will never see a monkey give birth to a human and no one who understands evolution will ever tell you that that is what happens. Our common ancestor continued to change and speciate to give rise to the branches of the clade that includes humans, apes, monkeys, etc. There is no magical leap from monkey to human or anything of the sort.

LordReed:
Ok I understand.

Yes trees evolved before humans so yeah some species will emerge before others even though all living things are evolving.

Good!

Why those things that evolved millions years(as the lies evolutionists always tell) before human evolved aren't observed to have evolved to another thing?

LordReed:
It is proof of evolution.

Not a proof.

For instance, many ancient tribes have giants in their storyline.

The problem is you folk think evolution is a magic show where a person will suddenly sprout wings. We have hammered it over and over again it is the gene characteristics of the population of a species that changes and accumulates over successive generations.

Of course everyone knows that's what evolutionists mean but what right thinking people are saying is that, for such to happen, there must be a change to human gene like what will make human to develop wings or something else which was never be part of our gene.

You will never see a monkey give birth to a human and no one who understands evolution will ever tell you that that is what happens.

If one to be around during the evolution of fish, what will the people see?

Our common ancestor continued to change and speciate to give rise to the branches of the clade that includes humans, apes, monkeys, etc. There is no magical leap from monkey to human or anything of the sort.

Where you're missing it is, between the transition, what will people observed?

For instance, your ancestors who continue to change, they are not human and whatever they are at that time started from something. Do they start with having two legs, one eye or even no nose at a time or just one leg, two ears e.t.c

If evolution is true, transition from those things that evolved million years before human would have been taken place by now and be observed.

That's is my point.

Emusan:
Good!

Why those things that evolved millions years(as the lies evolutionists always tell) before human evolved aren't observed to have evolved to another thing?

Because evolution is not goal oriented. We aren't evolving toward a predefined goal. We evolve as a result of environmental pressures, so when a specie evolves into its environmental niche and that niche remains largely unchanged then you don’t see drastic changes. We see this happen over and over again.

I heard of a specie of lizard that was an insect feeder that was taken to an environment that was very insect poor. The lizard start developing into a plant feeder. The jaws and teeth developed more in line with that of a herbivore. You can read more about that here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidosaur_herbivory

Emusan:
Not a proof.

For instance, many ancient tribes have giants in their storyline.

It is. Read again the definition of evolution you were given.

So what if they had tales of giants? Where is the physical evidence?

Of course everyone knows that's what evolutionists mean but what right thinking people are saying is that, for such to happen, there must be a change to human gene like what will make human to develop wings or something else which was never be part of our gene.

Yes there could be a gene develop that could make us grow wings but it won't happen tomorrow and the environment has to favour that change for it to propagate into the population. The kind of changes that are more likely are to the shape our skulls, bone density, limb length, lung capacity, thoracic size and so on. This is because we can see things already happening like our brains becoming bigger, changes in nutrient availability, changes in air quality and so on. Its not magic. Nobody is telling you humans will become flying monkeys tomorrow.

If one to be around during the evolution of fish, what will the people see?

No single person would have seen it happen all at once but if they had been keeping records of the changes they would see something like the attached picture.

Where you're missing it is, between the transition, what will people observed?

For instance, your ancestors who continue to change, they are not human and whatever they are at that time started from something. Do they start with having two legs, one eye or even no nose at a time or just one leg, two ears e.t.c

If evolution is true, transition from those things that evolved million years before human would have been taken place by now and be observed.

That's is my point.

The common ancestor of humans, apes and monkeys was a mammal that already had four limbs, 2 eyes, 1 nose, 1 mouth, 2 ears, a tail and other anatomical features you can see on any mammal. If there were people to observe and record the changes they would have see the tail get shorter and shorter till it is no longer visible. The spine will change curvature as bipedal motions becomes more and more used rather than going on all fours. Skull shape will be changing because the brain is getting bigger and diet is changing. Fingers, thumbs and toes change shape because of more terrestrial dwelling than arboreal. And so on and so forth. These changes will be observed over several million years not at once like a magic show.

What transition do you think we should have observed by now?