₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
This is a fallacious argument. The Fallacy of false dilemma and that is why such a thinking is wrong, rubbish and unacceptable.

So, basically you atheists have no valid argument to make against it.

In case you don't know the meaning of fallacy

fallacy
/ˈfaləsi/
A fallacy is a false idea, or erroneous reasoning that makes an argument logically unsound and untrue.

That's a fallacy but believing a donkey spoke because it's written in a book is not? Are you serious right now?

erad:
That's a fallacy but believing a donkey spoke because it's written in a book is not? Are you serious right now?

Now you are committing the fallacy of red herring, off point and departure from post all because you want to say something.

And you are just proving that atheists do not/cannot reason or argue well. Always committing one false reasoning or the other unlike normal people.

In case you don't know the meaning of fallacy

fallacy
/ˈfaləsi/
A fallacy is a false idea, or erroneous reasoning that makes an argument logically unsound and untrue.

Dtruthspeaker:
How do you mean we can't prove that He is the very God described in the Bible?

It is one thing to prove that an ultimate source exists and quite another to prove that it is that same hideous character described in scripture, who is yet still benevolent and loving, allegedly.

I mean no offense but I concur with chieveboy that these discussions are not for you.

DeepSight:
It is one thing to prove that an ultimate source exists and quite another to prove that it is that same hideous character described in scripture, who is yet still benevolent and loving, allegedly.

I mean no offense but I concur with chieveboy that these discussions are not for you.

Yes, it is true that proving God exists is different from proving that He is the one one in the Bible Whom you falsely accuse of being evil, when the facts prove that He did only the good which when I have put to you many times, and you could not give any VALID COUNTER exactly how the atheists here could not validly rebut the proof of God in this thread.

I even showed you threads where people confessed that the same things you wike.dli call hideous are the very things people called good eg

https://www.nairaland.com/8741825/many-terrorists-dead-boko-haram#140543420

https://www.nairaland.com/8657929/nigerian-air-force-bombs-terrorists#139170443

Or is it this one about a stubborn child.

https://www.nairaland.com/8602510/father-kano-murder-suspect-demands#138196160

Same thing happened to the dev chieveboy which you can see in the thread he has gone kols.

So, you are talking rubbish.

Dtruthspeaker:
I Don't care besides this is Fallacy of red herring/Off Point.



Now you are trying to play for reargument, distortion and confusion as you pretend to forget that that you were the one stated that
The first step of science and all. And that you confessed that "you agree".

So, it is laughable that you would go against your own confession and admission and now turn around and claim that “you have never observed a thing creating itself".

Since you agreed with me, then there is nothing more to prove.

And everything after the XXXX in red is
1) a reargument
2) FALLACIES OF RED HERRING/OFF POINT
3) DEPARTURE FROM POST.
4) FALLACY OF REVERSAL OF BURDEN OF PROOF.

And if you want to dispute that everything must NOT be created by another thing and all that THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF lies on you to prove the Truth of your belief, for you are the one who is now claiming something else which requires Valid Proof. And so your attempt to reverse the burden of proof backfires to you.

And you have no such proof, so then it means that the only valid standing proof and Truth, both in science (observation) and Law of logic, is the theory of “No thing creates itself”.
And no where did i say "You cannot prove me wrong, therefore I am right". Rather, following your inability to provide a valid counter, i simply recited the the Law of logic and Truth which states "There is no valid argument against the Truth" therefore, we Christians have won.

So, unless you provide a valid counter, we Christians remain winners and this argument is res judicata and you cannot reargue (relitigate) it.

Okay, Celebrate the Trophy you've won.

Let it bring peace and healing to the world.

That's all we're after.

yeshuasfootstep:
Okay, Celebrate the Trophy you've won.

Let it bring peace and healing to the world.

That's all we're after.

Since 2019 i have been celebrating the win as since then till tomorrow i have been waiting for atheists bring a valid counter, but alas, there is no valid argument against the Truth.

Further, we Christians know that there won't be peace and healing in the world until after God Comes to clear all the evil people away.

Meanwhile, we Christians have peace, healing, goodness, love and every good thing so, we are not bothered

DeepSight:
You sound pretty confident almost as though you were there.
I am confident that you are wrong.

Evidence please.

Alright, perhaps my memory is off, tell me what he said and lets see if its any better. Its not far from that. It was plain idiocy.
PS: Are you sure we are talking about the same speech? I think I refer to an extract from his book, "The God Delusion." Either that or "The Blind Watchmaker."

PS: I checked, he said "a patch" . . . how is this different from or better than "skin?"

Because skin would be a weird thing for evolutionary biologist to say in this situation as skin cells are relatively far along the evolutionary path. Skin cells are already specialised cells.

It never will be. Because of the below.


You missed my meaning. I mean that the evolution of sexual reproduction presents a chicken and egg problem in an analogical sense - namely, we would have to ask which came first, the sperm or the egg, the penis or the vagina, the testicles or the womb - all of which are complimentary and how the evolution of one in one sex stimuated the evolution of the other in the other sex, never mind the fact that there would be no creature to speak off during the process of evolution without those organs being there ab initio. Its an unsolvable conundrum.

Again you seem to be struggling with the evolutionary idea. Systems are built on other systems and don't come as an already integrated system. For example mitochondria in cells didn't develop within cells they were absorbed into the cell structure and began a symbiosis. We wouldn't be looking for a fully built reproductive system as we see it now in the past. We instead would see something akin to how some worms reproduce with a single individual carrying both male and female gametes and then over time the population separating into individuals specialising in carrying 1 type of gamete. This is evidenced in the development of a human fetus. For the first several weeks of development, all embryos look exactly the same internally and externally. They possess "bipotential" tissue, meaning it has the potential to become either male or female reproductive organs.

LordReed:
Evidence please.

I will dedicate a post or even thread to this.
It may not be so much evidence of the kind you like but it will be an explanation of the evident gaps in history and the reasons why it is absurd to think humans and human civilization are as young on this planet as science says.

Because skin would be a weird thing for evolutionary biologist to say in this situation as skin cells are relatively far along the evolutionary path. Skin cells are already specialised cells.

U know you havent said anything here.

Again you seem to be struggling with the evolutionary idea. Systems are built on other systems and don't come as an already integrated system. For example mitochondria in cells didn't develop within cells they were absorbed into the cell structure and began a symbiosis. We wouldn't be looking for a fully built reproductive system as we see it now in the past. We instead would see something akin to how some worms reproduce with a single individual carrying both male and female gametes and then over time the population separating into individuals specialising in carrying 1 type of gamete. This is evidenced in the development of a human fetus. For the first several weeks of development, all embryos look exactly the same internally and externally. They possess "bipotential" tissue, meaning it has the potential to become either male or female reproductive organs.

This does not even begin to address the conundrum I raised and I fear you didnt understand the conundrum at all. Many have failed to anyway. And they all say the same thing - "You dont understand evolution."

Evolution has no explanation for sexual reproduction, period.

jesusjnr2020:
I believe that the overall purpose of science is to lead the creation, especially humans, back to their Creator.

However when it does the otherwise, it is as a result of ignorance because when purpose is unknown, abuse is inevitable.

If not ignorance, then it must be due to rebelliousness against the Creator, to deliberately deprive or deny Him of the credit due Him for His creation, by attributing it to someone or something else like science.

However that would always be counterproductive in the end because the indelible imprints of the Creator in His fascinating creation, would always end up pointing them back to Him, even the One who made everything that exists to be.

God bless.

And yet, people like u believe in God the father, God the son and God the Spirit. Without even knowing that God the father means Father (of) the God as read from behind and God the spirit is Mother (of) the God. So, if your God has a father and a mother, how then is he, the creator of everything? How can he be the first cause when he was birthed like everyone else?

DeepSight:
I will dedicate a post or even thread to this.
It may not be so much evidence of the kind you like but it will be an explanation of the evident gaps in history and the reasons why it is absurd to think humans and human civilization are as young on this planet as science says.

Hope that is not another project you won't have time for.

U know you havent said anything here.

Not sure what you were expecting.

This does not even begin to address the conundrum I raised and I fear you didnt understand the conundrum at all. Many have failed to anyway. And they all say the same thing - "You dont understand evolution."

Evolution has no explanation for sexual reproduction, period.

It does have an explanation. What it doesn't have is evidence of when sexual dimorphism occurred. Mostly likely because it occurred much earlier in microscopic organisms, which are not very easy to find fossils of.

LordReed:
Hope that is not another project you won't have time for.




Not sure what you were expecting.




It does have an explanation. What it doesn't have is evidence of when sexual dimorphism occurred. Mostly likely because it occurred much earlier in microscopic organisms, which are not very easy to find fossils of.

Where is the explanation? Pls don't repeat the one you offered, it says nothing.

PS: Sorry, I will try have time.

DeepSight:
Where is the explanation? Pls don't repeat the one you offered, it says nothing.

PS: Sorry, I will try have time.

Very simply, exchange of genetic material between 2 geneticaly differentiated individuals has more evolutionary and survival advantage than to continually use a single strain of genetic material. You get better adaptability, disease resistance and mutation purging in the population.

LordReed:
Very simply, exchange of genetic material between 2 geneticly differentiated individuals has more evolutionary and survival advantage than to continually use a single strain of genetic material. You get better adaptability, disease and mutation purging in the population.

This is not an explanation. Not even remotely and you have not shown that you grasp the conundrum I described.

LordReed:
Very simply, exchange of genetic material between 2 geneticaly differentiated individuals has more evolutionary and survival advantage than to continually use a single strain of genetic material. You get better adaptability, disease and mutation purging in the population.

All you have done here is mention the benefits. You have NOT explained the process. Nor have you surmounted the conundrum presented.

DeepSight:
This is not an explanation. Not even remotely and you have not shown that you grasp the conundrum I described.

DeepSight:
All you have done here is mention the benefits. You have NOT explained the process. Nor have you surmounted the conundrum presented.

That is the explanation, how it happened is different and there is scant evidence for it.

DeepSight:
It is one thing to prove that an ultimate source exists and quite another to prove that it is that same hideous character described in scripture, who is yet still benevolent and loving, allegedly.

I mean no offense but I concur with chieveboy that these discussions are not for you.

I don't bother responding to him because it ends the usual parrot on a chessboard style.

LordReed:
I don't bother responding to him because it ends the usual parrot on a chessboard style.

Evolution cannot explain a lot about the human being cos he hasn't been around for more than 10thousand years. Such time is too brief on the evolutionary scale. The transition from MAN to HUMAN is by another process which should not be called creation either. The Human was CO-PARENTED not created.

Krismas:
Evolution cannot explain a lot about the human being cos he hasn't been around for more than 10thousand years. Such time is too brief on the evolutionary scale. The transition from MAN to HUMAN is by another process which should not be called creation either. The Human was CO-PARENTED not created.

That sounds kinda of fair to state but the problem is it hints at an external agency which is unevidenced.

LordReed:
That sounds kinda of fair to state but the problem is it hints at an external agency which is unevidenced.

This man, you seem to have an unbridled hatred for any suggestion of external input.
Abi ET collect ya babe before?

DeepSight:
This man, you seem to have an unbridled hatred for any suggestion of external input.
Abi ET collect ya babe before?

entering uncharted flameable territory

abi ET done probe ya babe before ?

GloriousGbola:
entering uncharted flameable territory

abi ET done probe ya babe before ?

No vex oh. I was just joking.

DeepSight:
This man, you seem to have an unbridled hatred for any suggestion of external input.
Abi ET collect ya babe before?

Because I find it abhorent to attribute human ability to some external agency. As in why would you do that?!

Mainly though there is no evidence of such external input.

LordReed:
Because I find it abhorent to attribute human ability to some external agency. As in why would you do that?!

Mainly though there is no evidence of such external input.

Human ability?
That strong word in bold says it all.
I fear there might be an emotional aspect to this beyond the cold logic of the matter.

DeepSight:
Human ability?
That strong word in bold says it all.
I fear there might be an emotional aspect to this beyond the cold logic of the matter.

Of course. I strongly view humanity's achievements with a certain pride. For someone to now attribute those achievements to external entities makes my blood boil.

LordReed:
Of course. I strongly view humanity's achievements with a certain pride. For someone to now attribute those achievements to external entities makes my blood boil.

But is the discussion about the achievements of humanity or how humanity, nay, the world, came to be?
I thought the latter.

DeepSight:
But is the discussion about the achievements of humanity or how humanity, nay, the world, came to be?
I thought the latter.

You mentioned civilisation didn't you?

LordReed:
You mention civilisation didn't you?

The context was evolution and it started by my side comment that a monkey could not write the Complete Works of Shakespeare even given eternity. I said that to shoot down the oft repeated excuse of "billions of years" - and you countered that there wasnt writing 100, 000 years ago which is how we got into the existence of civilizations before the current one.

Thus the context was still how humans came to exist and not what humans have acheived.

DeepSight:
The context was evolution and it started by my side comment that a monkey could not write the Complete Works of Shakespeare even given eternity. I said that to shoot down the oft repeated excuse of "billions of years" - and you countered that there wasnt writing 100, 000 years ago which is how we got into the existence of civilizations before the current one.

Thus the context was still how humans came to exist and not what humans have acheived.

So you are not saying those supposed ancient civilisations were aided by external forces right?

Anyway, it doesn't even matter since my main objection against any external intelligent agent is lack of evidence.

LordReed:
So you are not saying those supposed ancient civilisations were aided by external forces right?

Not as far as this discussion is concerned even though I believe that the theory of ancient alien intervention in human history is not without some grounds for consideration.

Anyway, it doesn't even matter since my main objection against any external intelligent agent is lack of evidence.

We will come to that but later today I would like to focus on a short discussion of civilizations older than ours.

DeepSight:
Not as far as this discussion is concerned even though I believe that the theory of ancient alien intervention in human history is not without some grounds for consideration.


We will come to that but later today I would like to focus on a short discussion of civilizations older than ours.

I wait.

DeepSight:
But dont you think somethings display WAAAAYYYYYYYYYY too much order and fitness for purpose to be the result of a mindless process only?
Such as the cell, the brain, the eye?

The brain is orders of magnitude more advanced than any computer and no one would ever think that anything resembling a computer could come about without intelligence behind it.

But you can easily swallow the believe that the universe is too complex so it must have a designer but the designer just come into existence by itself.

Your logic did compel you to think such complexity that created that design must be too complex to come into existence by itself.

BTW science origin of the universe is too complex for your mind to grasp.

Blakjewelry:
But you can easily swallow the believe that the universe is too complex so it must have a designer but the designer just come into existence by itself.

Your logic did compel you to think such complexity that created that design must be too complex to come into existence by itself.

BTW science origin of the universe is too complex for your mind to grasp.

Just as your written English is too bad for me to grasp.