butterflyl1on:


Everyone knows the quran is a MAD COPY of the Bible with removed and altered contents so no surprise there that it also copied that man came from clay.

However when did science emerge and when did this your "THE TRUTH HAD BEEN LAID DOWN EVEN BEFORE I WAS BORN" come from? Was I born a little over 2000 years ago?

I must be that old for the Bible and science to confirm clay as a major component for life of which humans are Chief

Is modern science a little over 2000 years old? This discovery is in modern science era so say something less dumb next time.

Everyone knows that the Quran is a copy of the Bible? Lol, what a Barbarian you are. So Islam is a copy of Christianity? You are more ignorant than I initially thought. No wonder plagiarism is your forte.

I knew you wouldn't comprehend the statement I made in my previous post. Well, as usual, I will help you again one more time.

The facts about clay being used as a catalyst that helps biochemicals react or polymerize is not a new truth in science. Do you think as advanced as science is they wouldn't have discovered that? Well, what can't a dumbster like you think? I'm still bemused at your dumbness.

Science is more than a thousand times older than you, and before you were born, Chemistry had been studied and definitely clay had been studied. Simpletons require simple answers always.

butterflyl1on:

The Bible was SPECIFIC when it said CLAY. it did not say SILT OR HUMUS OR LOAMY OR ANYTHING ELSE BUT CLAY. why this specification? That's a very direct declaration and here we have modern science confirming an over 2000 year old UNSCIENTIFIC declaration.

Go figure.

Can't deny that the Bible was specific on a lot of things, yes it has misguided you to the state of obscurity. I don't blame, I blame it.

It was also specific on the fact that a spirit just started existing for nowhere, started waving its hand and speaking, and then things started appearing from nowhere, and then finally the spirit molded clay and created man. LMAO

Judaism was the first religion and the proponent of Clay as humans, this was where Christianity and Islam emanated from. Jesus himself was a Judaist. But then, I don't expect you to know because you cannot comprehend anything.

Now that it has been established that you are an intellectual philistine, I will desist from hobnobbing with you because nothing good can come out of it. You are a waste of time.

AgentOfAllah:


Okay, now that you've defined "undirected" more clearly to mean "with no foresight or purpose", then yes, this presupposition is justified, and should be the natural starting point, following the principles of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor does not confer justification. It is only a protocol.

AgentOfAllah:
Let me invoke just one reasons why evolution seems purposeless to an objective observer: Now, bear in mind that current evidence puts the percentage of extinct species at around 99% (W. E. Kunin and K. J. Gaston, 1997). This extent of wastefulness does not exude any sense of purpose.

"Exude any sense of purpose" is woolly.
Also, according to the ToE, extant species, like humans, would not exist if it were not for a whole line of extinct species. So your argument is groundless.

Can you specify examples of both definitions, and cite their sources. I need context to better understand the equivocation you're referring to.

I will look for description of ToE or within ToE and post up what I find.

EDIT: A good example is Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design is a 1986 book by Richard Dawkins, in which the author presents an explanation of, and argument for, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

AgentOfAllah:
So you don't accept that something which is pointless has no purpose?

Don't shift your point. Let us debate fairly and diligently. Your original questions says "ends up being pointless".
You recognize that something can be given a purpose that "ends up" pointless in some sense. One could also argue that the point may have been to discover its inappropriateness -- i.e it was a deliberate exploration or learning experience for better success.

Your line of argument then has to explain how you get from pointlessness to undirectedness. They are different concepts. A child can talk to himself and do a crazy dance in the middle of his backyard. His behaviour may be considered pointless, but it is directed.

Wilderman:


Everyone knows that the Quran is a copy of the Bible? Lol, what a Barbarian you are. So Islam is a copy of Christianity? You are more ignorant than I initially thought. No wonder plagiarism is your forte.

I knew you wouldn't comprehend the statement I made in my previous post. Well, as usual, I will help you again one more time.

The facts about clay being used as a catalyst that helps biochemicals react or polymerize is not a new truth in science. Do you think as advanced as science is they wouldn't have discovered that? Well, what can't a dumbster like you think? I'm still bemused at your dumbness.

Science is more than a thousand times older than you, and before you were born, Chemistry had been studied and definitely clay had been studied. Simpletons require simple answers always.



Can't deny that the Bible was specific on a lot of things, yes it has misguided you to the state of obscurity. I don't blame, I blame it.

It was also specific on the fact that a spirit just started existing for nowhere, started waving its hand and speaking, and then things started appearing from nowhere, and then finally the spirit molded clay and created man. LMAO

Judaism was the first religion and the proponent of Clay as humans, this was where Christianity and Islam emanated from. Jesus himself was a Judaist. But then, I don't expect you to know because you cannot comprehend anything.

Now that it has been established that you are an intellectual philistine, I will desist from hobnobbing with you because nothing good can come out of it. You are a waste of time.

So chemistery has been studied? Clay has been studied? When? By who? By ancient people with no equipment, no knowledge of the chemical elements, no knowledge from microscopes, no laboratory for proper testing and documentation?

So where is this study since you know it had been done and that it is thousands of years older than I am. I thought you always said the Bible was UNSCIENTIFIC so now SCIENCE predates the Bible and could be possible that aspects of the Bible are actually scientific?

You are beyond a slowpoke.

Confusion is running riot in your senses.

AgentOfAllah:


Okay, now that you've defined "undirected" more clearly to mean "with no foresight or purpose", then yes, this presupposition is justified, and should be the natural starting point, following the principles of Occam's razor. Let me invoke just one reasons why evolution seems purposeless to an objective observer: Now, bear in mind that current evidence puts the percentage of extinct species at around 99% (W. E. Kunin and K. J. Gaston, 1997). This extent of wastefulness does not exude any sense of purpose. You may be tempted to argue that the wastefulness is justified if this is a self correcting process that iteratively produces better results, however such an argument does not take into account that the phenotypic pressures that cause any particular species to be well-adapted to its environment are dynamic and ever changing, so today's optimally adapted species can quickly become tomorrow's fossil record (if they are lucky enough to fossilise, that is). From this observation, the only thing that can be inferred is the absence of purpose. Now, since a strong causal link is established between environmental factors and evolution of species, one would have to: (1) Demonstrate that there is purpose in environmental dynamism and that (2) the consequences of this dynamism were intended; in order to argue for direction (as defined by you).


Can you specify examples of both definitions, and cite their sources. I need context to better understand the equivocation you're referring to.


So you don't accept that something which is pointless has no purpose?

Claps hands @ however such an argument does not take into account that the phenotypic pressures that cause any particular species to be well-adapted to its environment are dynamic and ever changing, so today's optimally adapted species can quickly become tomorrow's fossil record (if they are lucky enough to fossilise, that is). From this observation, the only thing that can be inferred is the absence of purpose. Now, since a strong causal link is established between environmental factors and evolution of species, one would have to: (1) Demonstrate that there is purpose in environmental dynamism and that (2) the consequences of this dynamism were intended; in order to argue for direction (as defined by you).

Excellent thesis, Jesus, i have someone else that sees things how i see them. Well done..

Are you in Lag ? We should hook up and chat over a drink. It will be like Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms meeting, or rather Physics and Chemistry

Eeyah wilderman the bot must have caught your copy and paste material and booted you.

Keep up with the garbage in garbage out syndrome. Na observe mode I dey.

Wilderman if it's the annoying bot problem, send a mail to the supermod and you would be reinstated immediately.

butterflyl1on:
Eeyah wilderman the bot must have caught your copy and paste material and booted you.

Keep up with the garbage in garbage out syndrome. Na observe mode I dey.

The Bots actually caught this mighty bomb I dropped on you. If the bots catch copy and paste, DOCTORaLIEN WOULD NOT HAVE A CHANCE AGAIN IN HIS LIFE

Not only your IQ marvels me, you understanding capability also bemuses me.

Where did all these Jargons come from? Ask your fellow morons who accidentally did chemistry at one time or the other if they didn't touch clay.

Science has been around for over 350 years, or are you 350 years old?

About 10 different religions had existed for over 1500 years and all their gods performed magic with clay. Yet their gods are different. The clay idea is just a lucky guess that all theists want to masturbate_ to. Come on, go ahead and cum on it.

If credibility should be given to any religions at all, then Judaism will get it, but what does such a moronic guess deserve?

Clay itself is a combination of dirt and many chemicals. Clay is chemicals, so how does it elude your low IQ that clay is carrying out a chemical function by helping biomolecule to evolve? I am so sorry for your imbecilic state cheesy

Abeg, I take your god beg you, I don't want to hobnob with a backward mind. Hold to your moronic idea, "god molded you with sand"

LMAO desperately changing monikers from wilderman to wildatheist

You would soon change to wildatheistmonkey or wildbonobo

Na observe I dey

MY QUESTION TO THE EVOLUTIONISTS HERE IS WHAT YOUR ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION WHAT DO YOU REALLY KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION .....PLS ANSWER ASAP AM NOT A BIASED PERSON LETS REASON

Wildatheist:


The Bots actually caught this mighty bomb I dropped on you. If the bots catch copy and paste, DOCTORaLIEN WOULD NOT HAVE A CHANCE AGAIN IN HIS LIFE

So now it's 350 yrs and no longer THOUSANDS OF YEARS older than me ba?

Plus clay is made up of dirt and chemicals as declared by who? Modern science or Ancient UNSCIENTIFIC men who put down the scriptures?

If the Bible says man came from clay and today science is confirming clay to be the binder to chemical reactions that brought life then indeed your brain needs hypo bleach so you can understand how confused you are.



Now you are shifting to God molded me with sand? You forgot you even said this below

The Bible clearly declared that God molded clay and breathed into it

Now you are shifting to "God molded me from sand" and no longer clay.

Mr Biochemist even your internet biochemistry should have shown you that clay is not sand.

Ferisidowu:
MY QUESTION TO THE EVOLUTIONISTS HERE IS WHAT YOUR ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION WHAT DO YOU REALLY KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION .....PLS ANSWER ASAP AM NOT A BIASED PERSON LETS REASON

How will this help?

sinequanon:


How will this help?

Now let me give an analogy .... An old illiterate was told that the moon does not produce light like the sun it only reflects light from the sun ...Instead of the illiterate to allow the educator explain he started railing curses and argument ...... Until he was given a Polariscope ..... So it's obvious we discern things with an instrument different from our senses .. . a basic degree holder knows less than 10% of evolution only the things they read online which they themselves can't explain

Ferisidowu:


Now let me give an analogy ....

Analogy to what?

You haven't even made any statement. You have only asked a question about qualification.

sinequanon:


Analogy to what?

You haven't even made any statement. You have only asked a question about qualification.

Alright then answer my question what's your qualification

Ferisidowu:


Alright then answer my question what's your qualification

Tell me how your question is relevant to the veracity of anything I have said in this thread.

butterflyl1on:



So now it's 350 yrs and no longer THOUSANDS OF YEARS older than me ba?

Because of the bots, I will go easy on you. You should really thank the bots.

Science had begun before the word was coined.

butterflyl1on:

Plus clay is made up of dirt and chemicals as declared by who? Modern science or Ancient UNSCIENTIFIC men who put down the scriptures?

You cannot ever hide your ignorance, can you?

"Clay materials are composed of solid, liquid and vapour phases. The solid phases are of mineral and organic phases that make up the framework of the clay materials. The mineralogy can be broadly subdivided into the clay and non-clay minerals, including poorly crystalline, so-called ‘amorphous’ inorganic phases. By definition, minerals are crystalline solids with well-ordered crystal structures but clay minerals and other inorganic phases in clay materials are often poorly crystalline compared to minerals such as quartz and feldspar."

http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/content/21/1/13

butterflyl1on:

If the Bible says man came from clay and today science is confirming clay to be the binder to chemical reactions that brought life then indeed your brain needs hypo bleach so you can understand how confused you are.

If the Bible claims that God MOLDED clay and breathed into it, and today science is saying clay MAY have acted as the catalyst that bounded BIOMOLECULES that are the main precursor of all life and not specifically MAN. Give me an intelligent reason why you don't need a head transplant? Since you are too blind to see that they are two different things.

butterflyl1on:

Now you are shifting to God molded me with sand? You forgot you even said this below

Now you are shifting to "God molded me from sand" and no longer clay.

Mr Biochemist even your internet biochemistry should have shown you that clay is not sand.

As a matter of fact, I have been giving you an edge by saying God molded clay, we all know, or better still people who can comprehend know that the Bible claimed God used sand.

So, yes, I am changing from Clay to sand

See it below.

Genesis 2:7 specifically claimed that God molded man from the dust of the ground and breathed Oxygen into his nostrils

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-7.htm

Wildatheist:


Because of the bots, I will go easy on you. You should really thank the bots.

Science had begun before the word was coined.



You cannot ever hide your ignorance, can you?

"Clay materials are composed of solid, liquid and vapour phases. The solid phases are of mineral and organic phases that make up the framework of the clay materials. The mineralogy can be broadly subdivided into the clay and non-clay minerals, including poorly crystalline, so-called ‘amorphous’ inorganic phases. By definition, minerals are crystalline solids with well-ordered crystal structures but clay minerals and other inorganic phases in clay materials are often poorly crystalline compared to minerals such as quartz and feldspar."

http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/content/21/1/13



If the Bible claims that God MOLDED clay and breathed into it, and today science is saying clay MAY have acted as the catalyst that bounded BIOMOLECULES that are the main precursor of all life and not specifically MAN. Give me an intelligent reason why you don't need a head transplant? Since you are too blind to see that they are two different things.



As a matter of fact, I have been giving you an edge by saying God molded clay, we all know, or better still people who can comprehend know that the Bible claimed God used sand.

So, yes, I am changing from Clay to sand

See it below.

Genesis 2:7 specifically claimed that God molded man from the dust of the ground and breathed Oxygen into his nostrils

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-7.htm

You must have a hydra forked tongue.

From saying science is thousands of years older than I am, you switched to 350 yrs and now you are saying science began even before the word was coined. WHO DOES NOT KNOW THIS? (IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF TIME FRAME ANYMORE SO NOW ITS SWITCHING TO AN INDEFINITE TIME) LWTMB. indeed you are a wild one.

Then you first said man was made from clay. Then you switched to sand but now you are switching to dust which is a composition of sand and dirt . Oh what a wild hydra

Meanwhile per clay and your sand confusion

Job 10:9

'Remember now, that You have made me as clay; And would You turn me into dust again?

Job 33:6

"Behold, I belong to God like you; I too have been formed out of the clay

If the Bible was specific about clay why would it have to even focus on clay? Of course unscientific ancient men would have no means of knowing the process and coining names of the chemicals but they knew the main ingredient and were spot on. Plus man is Chief where life is concerned but of course all other life is inclusive.

It's like when the Bible said in Genesis during creation that life began from the water.

Genesis 1:20

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven

Today modern science is talking about the ORIGIN OF LIFE being from water aka the primordial soup.

In case you lack knowledge of this let me give you a brain boost.

The Primordial Soup Theory suggest that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species.

Here we have modern day science also confirming an ancient UNSCIENTIFIC book

What they do not know about is that God is that which they call SOME FORM OF ENERGY.

Keep on roaming while I am plugged in to truth known before now. It must still be quite some tingling sensation to have this fresh knowledge upon you by science. We have known thislong before now so no surprises there.

Na to dey look you as you dey use your hydra forked tongue dey mumu yourself around

butterflyl1on:


You must have a hydra forked tongue.

From saying science is thousands of years older than I am, you switched to 350 yrs and now you are saying science began even before the word was coined. WHO DOES NOT KNOW THIS? (IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF TIME FRAME ANYMORE SO NOW ITS SWITCHING TO AN INDEFINITE TIME) LWTMB. indeed you are a wild one.

Sorry sir, I forgot that it's you I am responding to. The man with zero capacity to understand sentences.

When I said science was more than 1000 years older than you, I meant it.

When I said science was over 350 years, I also meant it.

The problem is that you're too peripheral, it's actually an innate ability, if you lack the ability to comprehend statements, there's nothing any god can do about it.

Now, science is the study of the natural world. This has started transiently as long as intelligence began. This definitely was not 350 years ago.

Again, the word science was just coined about 350 years ago. Would you say people have not been studying the natural world before then?

In a broader sense, do you know how vast the word science covers? Politics na science, Sociology na science, Philosophy na science. And before the coining of the world, people have studied the use and disuse of various chemicals and natural herbs, and they have been using them for treatments of diseases.

So, my friend, the guy with a parallel brain, Science(the practice) is a million times older than you. But science(the name) is just about 400 years old. You too like simple explanations, no wonder your brain is not complex enough

butterflyl1on:

Then you first said man was made from clay. Then you switched to sand but now you are switching to dust which is a composition of sand and dirt . Oh what a wild hydra

Meanwhile per clay and your sand confusion

Job 10:9

'Remember now, that You have made me as clay; And would You turn me into dust again?

Job 33:6

"Behold, I belong to God like you; I too have been formed out of the clay

If the Bible was specific about clay why would it have to even focus on clay? Of course unscientific ancient men would have no means of knowing the process and coining names of the chemicals but they knew the main ingredient and were spot on. Plus man is Chief where life is concerned but of course all other life is inclusive.

It's like when the Bible said in Genesis during creation that life began from the water.

Genesis 1:20

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven

Permit me to ask, do you support Dundee United?

Job said this, Job said that. Do you have a recording of that? Look at how you were quoting the book of lies as if it's a credible book.
We are talking about the origin, Genesis, don't bring in Job whom your god decided to make suffer despite he did not do anything. What's the credibility of your story? Oh, don't bother, I know it, it's INSPIRATION

butterflyl1on:

Today modern science is talking about the ORIGIN OF LIFE being from water aka the primordial soup.

In case you lack knowledge of this let me give you a brain boost.

The Primordial Soup Theory suggest that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species.

Here we have modern day science also confirming an ancient UNSCIENTIFIC book

What they do not know about is that God is that which they call SOME FORM OF ENERGY.

Keep on roaming while I am plugged in to truth known before now. It must still be quite some tingling sensation to have this fresh knowledge upon you by science. We have known thislong before now so no surprises there.

Na to dey look you as you dey use your hydra forked tongue dey mumu yourself around

Ode, that's what you are. I knew you didn't read the clay articles links you pasted here. Why are you in such a hurry to disgrace yourself. Let's take it slow, okay?

The articles pointed that clay MAY have been involved in binding biomolecules, they didn't say it bound them.

It is not a fact, it's a hypothesis. Are you saying the hypothesis is confirming the Bible? Seriously, I will not argue it

Lol, Thank you for the bolded words. So Energy is God? We are getting somewhere.

I knew no matter what your ignorance will expose you. So God is Energy, then I agree with you on this premise that God was responsible for the big bang. Now, come on, hit me

Meanwhile, any creationist can try his or her luck on this one...

So, for those here who are Creationists and believing in "intelligent design", I have a few questions:
1. Why didn't God design us to be able to devour anything we want, and anything we'd devour would be equally benificial to our body?
2. Why don't we have any protective sheet for our genitals?
3. Why don't we have bodies adapting to the heat or cold instead of wearing clothes?
4. If wales didn't evolve from land mammals, why do they breath air? Did God just have a weird sense of humor when it came to them?
5. Why can humans be born disfigured or damaged?
6. Why are we not immune to all diseases?
7. If God designed us after himself, does that mean God is a naked humanoid floating around in space? And does that mean he poops?
8. Why do we specifically have 5 fingers on each hand and 5 toes on each foot?
9. Why is our esophagus connected with our trachea?
10. Why do we release pee from our sexual organs?
11. Why are our eyes so sensetive?
12. Why are there so many animals with better musculature and/or teeth and/or ears than humans?
13. Why can we only survive on SOME places on earth?
14. If being gay is wrong, why did God locate men's pleasure center up our anus?
15. Why do we have a tailbone?
I could keep this train going for hours, Creationists. Try me. But, silly me.... none of you Creationists in this group have the spine to debate properly.

sinequanon:


Occam's razor does not confer justification. It is only a protocol.

I did not claim that it confers justification. Justification was given in the line that followed. You're correct that Occam's razor is a protocol. Precisely, it is one whose point is to sanitise scientific propositions by eliminating as many assumptions as possible. Do you accept that Occam's razor is a fundamental tenet upon which scientific method is necessarily predicated?

"Exude any sense of purpose" is woolly.

Then let me rephrase: "This extent of wastefulness alludes to a lack of purpose".

Also, according to the ToE, extant species, like humans, would not exist if it were not for a whole line of extinct species. So your argument is groundless.

Sorry, but I don't see how this renders my argument groundless. It's almost as though you missed the next line where I remarked upon how ever changing environmental factors can change the fortunes of any species from extant to extinct. It seems you assume those extinct species were somehow not well-adapted before their environments evolved and killed them off. This assumption is incorrect, for the only reason there is an abundance of fossil records is because they must have been abundant in their time, thus well-adapted to their environment! My position is simple: you cannot find purpose in biological evolution without first finding it in environmental changes.
If you cannot show me that there is deliberation behind earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, depletion of the ozone layer, rains, comets and so on, then you'll have a tough job making a case for purposeful evolution, I'm afraid.

EDIT: A good example is Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design is a 1986 book by Richard Dawkins, in which the author presents an explanation of, and argument for, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

I asked for two examples, one providing an instance where the idea of "undirectedness" (as defined by you) is used and another where it is not, but you've only provided one example in which it is used, so I don't quite know where the equivocation lies. Recall that your claim was that these two ways of definition create a problem of equivocation. Or did I misunderstand you?

Don't shift your point. Let us debate fairly and diligently. Your original questions says "ends up being pointless".
You recognize that something can be given a purpose that "ends up" pointless in some sense. One could also argue that the point may have been to discover its inappropriateness -- i.e it was a deliberate exploration or learning experience for better success.

I'm sorry you perceive it that way, but there was really no intent to shift my point. Yes indeed, something can be given a purpose which ends up being pointless in some sense. As it turns out, the sense of our conversation is evolution by natural selection, nothing else. But let's leave abstraction for a moment, shall we? Would you say there is purpose in a gene mutating to form non-functional proteins (such as in point-nonsense mutations)? Also, as it has recently been shown that more than 75% of the human genome is nonfunctional (D. Graur, "An Upper Limit on the Functional Fraction of the Human Genome," Genome Biology and Evolution, vol. 9, pp. 1880-1885, Jul 2017.), then I ask, who or what is supposed to be discovering the inappropriateness of this wastefulness, and to what end?

Your line of argument then has to explain how you get from pointlessness to undirectedness. They are different concepts. A child can talk to himself and do a crazy dance in the middle of his backyard. His behaviour may be considered pointless, but it is directed.

No, I don't feel I have to explain the transition from pointlessness to undirectedness. The definition you provided adequately explains this connexion: You previously stated that "undirectedness" means the absence of "foresight or purpose". These were the words you used. So since, by definition, anything that is pointless lacks purpose, the transition from pointlessness to undirectedness is already established...by you, no less! Your example is irrelevant here, because a child dancing crazy in the courtyard is doing it to maximise pleasure, minimise pain or because he is really crazy. The former two aren't pointless, whereas there is no deliberation in truly crazy behaviour as far as I know (I may be wrong).

Jupxter:


Claps hands @ however such an argument does not take into account that the phenotypic pressures that cause any particular species to be well-adapted to its environment are dynamic and ever changing, so today's optimally adapted species can quickly become tomorrow's fossil record (if they are lucky enough to fossilise, that is). From this observation, the only thing that can be inferred is the absence of purpose. Now, since a strong causal link is established between environmental factors and evolution of species, one would have to: (1) Demonstrate that there is purpose in environmental dynamism and that (2) the consequences of this dynamism were intended; in order to argue for direction (as defined by you).

Excellent thesis, Jesus, i have someone else that sees things how i see them. Well done..

Thanks man.

Are you in Lag ? We should hook up and chat over a drink. It will be like Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms meeting, or rather Physics and Chemistry

Lol...who is the hydrogen and who is the oxygen in this your analogy? Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near Lag. Maybe if I come visiting I shall holla!

AgentOfAllah:

I did not claim that it confers justification. Justification was given in the line that followed. You're correct that Occam's razor is a protocol. Precisely, it is one whose point is to sanitise scientific propositions by eliminating as many assumptions as possible. Do you accept that Occam's razor is a fundamental tenet upon which scientific method is necessarily predicated?

No. I will say that it is ill-defined, in that the notion of assigning number to assumption is ill-defined. So Occam's razor is a rather qualitative protocol. One assumption can be argued to be two, three, four... assumptions, depending on your philosophical framework.

AgentOfAllah:
Then let me rephrase: "This extent of wastefulness alludes to a lack of purpose".

Sorry, but I don't see how this renders my argument groundless. It's almost as though you missed the next line where I remarked upon how ever changing environmental factors can change the fortunes of any species from extant to extinct. It seems you assume those extinct species were somehow not well-adapted before their environments evolved and killed them off.

No. I have explained, already.
You earlier cited extinct species as "just one reasons why evolution seems purposeless to an objective observer".

I said that just because they became extinct does not mean that they had no purpose. Then I gave you the specific fact that the extinct ancestors of man gave rise to man. That could have been the purpose of the extinct lineage.

AgentOfAllah:
I asked for two examples, one providing an instance where the idea of "undirectedness" (as defined by you) is used and another where it is not, but you've only provided one example in which it is used, so I don't quite know where the equivocation lies. Recall that your claim was that these two ways of definition create a problem of equivocation. Or did I misunderstand you?

I can concisely cite an inclusion of the fact, but not an omission in what is an extensive definition.

The wiki discourse omits the point. But obviously, I can't pinpoint where it is omitted, as there is no rule as to where it should go. Feel free to search through it. All I can say is that it is a sufficiently important premise that it would certainly have been included if intended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

You can also read the wiki article on the teleological argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology

AgentOfAllah:
I'm sorry you perceive it that way, but there was really no intent to shift my point. Yes indeed, something can be given a purpose which ends up being pointless in some sense. As it turns out, the sense of our conversation is evolution by natural selection, nothing else.

In evolution by natural selection, a species can serve the purpose of giving rise to another species, and then become obsolete! So it has "served its purpose", and you can then say that it "ends up having no purpose". This is quite different to what you later wrote, that it was pointless.

So, when I say "in some sense", I am still referring to the context of evolution by natural selection.

AgentOfAllah:
But let's leave abstraction for a moment, shall we? Would you say there is purpose in a gene mutating to form non-functional proteins (such as in point-nonsense mutations)? Also, as it has recently been shown that more than 75% of the human genome is nonfunctional (D. Graur, "An Upper Limit on the Functional Fraction of the Human Genome," Genome Biology and Evolution, vol. 9, pp. 1880-1885, Jul 2017.), then I ask, who or what is supposed to be discovering the inappropriateness of this wastefulness, and to what end?

Even if we are to accept this study, you are misinterpreting it. It says that the 75% is NECESSARY! So it has at least the function of buffering deleterious mutations. By "non-functional", they are referring to more specific coding functions.

Also, what they are calling a "non-functional gene" can later, through mutation become functional.

So, that is two reasons why your characterization of the DNA as waste does not follow logically.

AgentOfAllah:
No, I don't feel I have to explain the transition from pointlessness to undirectedness. The definition you provided adequately explains this connexion: You previously stated that "undirectedness" means the absence of "foresight or purpose". These were the words you used. So since, by definition, anything that is pointless lacks purpose, the transition from pointlessness to undirectedness is already established...by you, no less! Your example is irrelevant here, because a child dancing crazy in the courtyard is doing it to maximise pleasure, minimise pain or because he is really crazy. The former two aren't pointless, whereas there is no deliberation in truly crazy behaviour as far as I know (I may be wrong).

"foresight or purpose" in the logical OR sense. BOTH must be absent.

As for the example, YOU cannot assume why the child is acting the way he is. It is my example.

How do u explain miracles that happens in churches and other places of worship worldwide, or are they all scams?

Akin1212:


How do I explain morality? Just what are you asking here? Because I don't really understand what you want.

Do you want me to tell you what morality is? Or you want me to give a justification for it?

Evil and good are two relative terms. But evil and good are judged by the consequences of the action commited. How will you feel if the action you are about to carry out is done to you?

For example, If my laptop is stolen, will I be happy? Hell no, in light of this, stealing another person's laptop is bad.

Again, if I am hungry and I need food, and then you came and give me food. I will be happy. Therefore, giving hungry people food is good to me.

Tell me, do you need a god before you know these things? Hell no.

And of course, if this your god created evil like he declared publicly in the book of Isaiah, then your god is evil. No arguments because he said he was the one who created it.

The question you would ask your god is this, why create evil if he doesn't want it? Is that not a sign of confusion?




How do you know what happens to me and other atheists? How many atheists have you investigated to ascertain these facts? Are you just assuming this illusion to be facts? Did god tell you?

I know atheists who died without giving a fig about your god. How many gods can someone even give a fig about? There are about 5000 valid gods to those who worship them.

I never wished a god does not exist to judge me, I became an atheist when I withdrew from fairy tales. How hard is that for you?

Does it make sense to you that a god who said incest is a sin created just two people to sleep with themselves and their children to multiply 7 billion people?

Does it make sense to you that your loving god made the heart of Pharaoh hard, even though Pharaoh did not know it was god that was doing it to him, and this same god killed him? Does it? Just tell me how grown you are. It's just like a good person giving people poison, that's the greatest contradiction ever.

What is sin in the first place? Eating a pair of fruits? LMAO

Wilderman:


The presence of water cannot cleave water until after 600 years, remember? Meanwhile, from your link, I copied this, since it's your tactics.

The pioneering experiment of Miller [1] evidenced that the first molecular building blocks could have been formed through standard chemical reactions and established a landmark in the field of prebiotic chemistry. More recently, R. M. Hazen [2] suggested that at least a sequence of four steps of increasing chemical complexity are required for the origin of life on Earth to occur: i) the emergence of biomolecules; ii) the emergence of macromolecules; iii) the emergence of self-replicating systems; iv) the emergence of molecular evolution by natural selection. The prebiotic soup theory (i.e. Miller-based experiments) only touches the first step: by applying electric discharges to a heated mixture of gases, either resembling highly reducing [1,3–6] (namely H2O, NH3, CH4 and H2) or neutral [7–9] (namely H2O, N2 and CO2) primitive Earth atmospheres, the formation of biochemically significant compounds such as amino acids is indeed possible. Similar to processes occurring on the pristine Earth, chemical processes occurring in the interstellar and nebular environments may also lead to the synthesis of biochemical monomers [10–12]. Although the detection of glycine in these media is controversial, [13,14] the presence of a wide variety of amino acids in carbonaceous meteorites fallen on Earth strengthens this theory [15,16]. At the bottom of the Oceanic crust [17], energy sources like hydrothermal vents known as “black-smokers” allowed for carbon fixation [18,19] and formation of the first biomonomers thanks to the reducing power of sulphide minerals coupled to conditions of high temperatures and pressures readily available at those deep-sea sites. Therefore, there are a variety of possibilities for the first step of the life’s emergence sequence to occur.

Fake biochemist, Wikipedia says that the uncatalysed hydrolysis of peptide bonds is very slow, taking hundreds of years. This means that the whole process of degradating the bond takes that amount of time to complete, and at the end of the "hundreds years", the peptide bond must have been fully degraded/broken. It does not say that the hydrolysis of peptide bonds happens(maybe at an instant) after hundreds of years.

At bolded above, what do you think is the first step of the life's emergence sequence? It was stated clearly in that article, and it is "the emergence of biomolecules", which are amino acids and the like.

Right after the segment of the article you quoted are the following words:

However, more problematic is to find convincing clues as far as the second step is concerned; that is, the emergence of first active biopolymers during primitive Earth from the available building blocks. Providing relevant clues to this point is not trivial, since the formation of biopolymers envisages condensation reactions (e.g. amino acids to form peptides) in which water molecules are released. Obviously these processes are disfavoured in the presence of excess water, i.e. the hydrolysis of the biopolymers is the thermodynamically favoured process.

However, if an organism found itself in the ocean, it would have reproduced many times and would have died even before the 500 years completes. And even if a protein find itself in the ocean, it would have become an organism. Or in your mighty wisdom you thought the protein would remain a protein. I'm sure you have forgotten we are talking about EVOLUTION.

Thank you. I laughed very well.




[s]

I agree completely then on this basis alone, evolution is not true because of the reasons you cited.


But on one condition only... Who was there when god created the heavens and the earth? Who was there when the spirit god molded clay and formed Adam as a grown man? Who was there when the serpent spoke to eve? who, who, who?

You, your pastors? your parents who fed you the lies, oh no it has to be Moses, or Abraham, or better still Jesus? Nonsense.

Evolution is backed up by empirical evidence, keep doing your research bro, you'll find the truth. But you may not, because yopu understand science upside down.

[/s]

You, who said that water is not involved in the hydrolysis of peptide bonds, are the one who does not understand science upside-down, right?

Fake biochemist.

CriticMaestro:
How do u explain miracles that happens in churches and other places of worship worldwide, or are they all scams?

Certainly. The miracles are questionable, we have several witnesses.

When they start performing miracles on amputees, you can wake me up.

Akin1212:


Lol, these people don't know that they are hydrocarbons o. They are clay, let them remain as clay.

Clay who started to talk and move around because god breathed into them. I never knew god breathes.

You see, bro, there are some "ignorant knowledge" we need to start learning from these folks. Lmao

This part got me cracking my ribs.

Dude, you're intelligent and also humorous, you must be our Christopher Hitchens here on Nairaland.

dalaman:


God allegedly created the Universe of over 2 trillion galaxies just to perform miracles in Middle East before the advent of cameras in mobile phones? Interesting!

This one have weak me finish, I need space to faint.

I'd like you all to watch this programme. It's so moving and real!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3mClhtUK-M

Wildatheist:


Certainly. The miracles are questionable, we have several witnesses.

When they start performing miracles on amputees, you can wake me up.

what about the blind, deaf and dumb?

CriticMaestro:

what about the blind, deaf and dumb?

Do you know someone close to you that was blind or deaf and received a miracle?

If someone was blind from birth how would he recognize colour or know that two fingers mean two?
A blind man is supposed to know that two fingers mean two fingers and not two.

Also, a blind man can never recognize colour, but what do I know, it's a miracle.

hermosa7:
I'd like you all to watch this programme. It's so moving and real!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3mClhtUK-M

He watched a video on Youtube and it suddenly became real.

Definitely, the dude thinks Spider, Batman, Superman and freakzoid are also real