₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Yes. Evidence and research has shown that people who witness an event can be mistaken in what they report, or be deceived by what they are shown, or not understand what they have seen, or have vested interest so lie, or be on drugs or deluded.

Consistency in witness reports is not evidence of validity. And increasing my witness sample may involve brining in those less close to the event who just parrot what they are told.

Nope, I'm referring to increasing the sample size of "eye-witnesses" and not those who are reciting what they were told...

budaatum:
The question has nothing to do with atheism! And I am not stopping anyone from engaging with it if they so wish!

You don't have to be defensive if you cannot connect the dots based on the question I'm asking...

Afterall, most atheists pride themselves on being intelligent dudes...so at least I expect a reasonable feedback from them on the question I asked...

And you perhaps stop projecting. You can't expect me to connect dots of random irrelevant questions. If you have dots to connect, please do so and stop this merry-go-round of yours. Its becoming rather tiring.

OkaiCorne:
You don't have to be defensive if you cannot connect the dots based on the question I'm asking...

Afterall, most atheists pride themselves on being intelligent dudes...so at least I expect a reasonable feedback from them on the question I asked...

budaatum:
And you perhaps stop projecting. You can't expect me to connect dots of random irrelevant questions. If you have dots to connect, please do so and stop this merry-go-round of yours. Its becoming rather tiring.

Let me break it down for you if you are finding it difficult to understand...

Atheists believes a Creator called "God" or whatever does not exist...

Furthermore, they bullshit the Biblical account of the story of creation as though there is no element of truth in it...

As for me, I am neutral on the story of creation...but atheists are certain the story of creation is false with zero element of credibility in it...

Hence, I am asking them to prove the absence of this creator God and the Biblical story of creation with this;

Between the Chicken and the egg which one came first?

I am expecting these atheists to feign ignorance on the matter and tactically dodge this question...

OkaiCorne:
Let me break it down for you if you are finding it difficult to understand...

Atheists believes a Creator called "God" or whatever does not exist...

Furthermore, they bullshit the Biblical account of the story of creation as though there is no element of truth in it...

Please note, I am an atheist. I do not "believe a Creator called "God" or whatever does not exist".

There are very many creation myths. Quite a lot of them have nothing in common with the Biblical creation myths. Do they all have elements of truth in them? Why do you believe the biblical accounts only. Do you think all other accounts are false? What exactly is the truth of the Biblical creation myths?

Oh, and if you don't mind, do educate me on your chicken and egg question, and show how it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

budaatum:
Please note, I am an atheist. I do not "believe a Creator called "God" or whatever does not exist".

There are very many creation myths. Quite a lot of them have nothing in common with the Biblical creation myths. Do they all have elements of truth in them? Why do you believe the biblical accounts only. Do you think all other accounts are false? What exactly is the truth of the Biblical creation myths?

Oh, and if you don't mind, do educate me on your chicken and egg question, and show how it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

You don't believe in these creation myth...neither am I asking you to...but at the very least, you should have some research work or plausible theory you rely on that could help answer the chicken and egg question...

Atheists are intelligent people, so I'd like to see that intelligence on display...but if you can't give me an answer, then give your fellow atheists a chance at it...or make reference to science journals you can lay your hands on to tackle the question I asked...and by extension, disposing off these creation "myths"

OkaiCorne:
You don't believe in these creation myth...neither am I asking you to...but at the very least, you should have some research work or plausible theory you rely on that could help answer the chicken and egg question...

Atheists are intelligent people, so I'd like to see that intelligence on display...but if you can't give me an answer, then give your fellow atheists a chance at it...or make reference to science journals you can lay your hands on to tackle the question I asked...and by extension, disposing off these creation "myths"

are you trying to discredit evolution?

vaxx:
are you trying to discredit evolution?

Nope...I am also not discrediting the creator theory or whatever...and I don't see the evolution theory nor creation story as mutually incompatible events per se...

any answers to the chicken and egg question?

OkaiCorne:
Nope...I am also not discrediting the creator theory or whatever...and I don't see the evolution theory nor creation story as mutually incompatible events per se...

any answers to the chicken and egg question?

with the way you discuss, i do not think you can discredit evolution. unless i am mistaken. the evidence is so overwhelming to be totally discard . i can engage you on the question but i am not an atheist, do you throw it to every one.

vaxx:
with the way you discuss, i do not think you can discredit evolution. i am mistaken. the evidence is so overwhelming to totally discard it. i can engage you on it but i am not an atheist, do you throw it to every one.

Read my previous post carefully...I thought I stated I am not discrediting the evolution theory...neither am I discarding the creator theory as well...

These are not incompatible events...Rather, I see the Creator as the initiator and much later on, a catalyst in the process (my own perspective)...

Back to my chicken and egg question...what is your point of view...and what does the body of science say on this matter?

OkaiCorne:
Read my previous post carefully...I thought I stated I am not discrediting the evolution theory...neither am I discarding the creator theory as well...

These are not incompatible events...Rather, I see the Creator as the initiator and much later on, a catalyst in the process (my own perspective)...

Back to my chicken and egg question...what is your point of view...and what does the body of science say on this matter?

in bllonaire thread, i told you that your perspective is still not different from that of abrahamic believe. it will be difficult to relate evolution theory with creationist theory why? science provide a set of rules in which its own theory can be refuted, in science world today , some scientist has refuted the evolution theory just because the flaws also meet scientific standard. though their evidence is not solid enough . if you must set hierarchy using the creationist theory amd evolution theory as you said. you must treat them with the same standard. can creationist theory be flawed scientifically?

now to your question> i am asumming you asking about chicken egg here. the research that was carried out by the British scientist indicate the chicken come first. they said that the formation of eggs is only possible due to protein found in chicken’s ovaries. That means eggs have to be formed in chickens first.The protein speeds up the development of the shell. you can read ahead here.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201000679/abstract

but note that this research is not absolute, another research tomorrow can invalidate this one. but if i am to come with my own perceptive, i will also agree with the findings why? it is because an egg can not come before the chicken that laid it. it must be chicken first. chicken laid the egg. there is protochicken that lays the foundation

vaxx:
in bllonaire thread, i told you that your perspective is still not different from that of abrahamic believe. it will be difficult to relate evolution theory with creationist theory why? science provide a set of rules in which its own theory can be refuted, in science world today , some scientist has refuted the evolution theory just because the flaws also meet scientific standard. though their evidence is not solid enough . if you must set hierarchy on them creationist theory with evolution theory as you said. you must treat them with the same standard. can creationist theory be flawed scientifically?

now to your question> i am asumming you asking about chicken egg here. the research that was carried out by the British scientist indicate the chicken come first. they said that the formation of eggs is only possible due to protein found in chicken’s ovaries. That means eggs have to be formed in chickens first.The protein speeds up the development of the shell. you can read ahead here.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201000679/abstract

but note that this research is not absolute, another research tomorrow can invalidate this one. but if i am to come with my own perceptive, i will also agree with the findings why? it is because an egg can not come before the chicken that laid it. it must be chicken first. chicken laid the egg. there is protochicken that lays the foundation

Beautiful! You are up to date on the chicken and egg question...and that is the position of things for now which I find reasonable.

Next thing is, I really don't care whether the creation theory is an Abrahamic belief...besides, there are stories of a Creator running across almost all cultures and religions around the world which in terms of details is not the same narrative with what obtains in the Bible or the Torah...but the central theme points to the existence of the Creator...

On to the next thing, let us work back...what could bring about the existence of the chicken? an aggregation of single celled organisms over a period of time?

OkaiCorne:
Beautiful! You are up to date on the chicken and egg question...and that is the position of things for now which I find reasonable.

Next thing is, I really don't care whether the creation theory is an Abrahamic belief...besides, there are stories of a Creator running across almost all cultures and religions around the world which in terms of details is not the same narrative with what obtains in the Bible or the Torah...but the central theme points to the existence of the Creator...

On to the next thing, let us work back...what could bring about the existence of the chicken? an aggregation of single celled organisms over a period of time?

please before we go ahead. what is your interest with this questions? i cannot just be answering question for answering sake. i love the questions anyway. At the end what do you want to proof?

vaxx:
please before we go ahead. what is your interest with this questions? i cannot just be answering question for answering sake. i love the questions anyway. At the end what do you want to proof?

The theory of evolution and the Creationism doesn't contradict one another...they are intertwined...
Unless there is a superior argument to counter it...

And mind you, I am not appealing to you to see the Creator through the lenses of religion...

vaxx:
with the aid of the GPS technology, google map cover a limited dimension of the earth. i agree not absolute but very much. google map has been useful. thanks to military and aviation sector. the tracking system adopted by mobile giant like APPLE and Samsung is a proof of the progress.

Your honest input is well appreciated, thank you. Let the maker give the redeemed absolute knowledge in the shape and pattern of the Earth. Father, thank you for your words are TRUE and your word is TRUTH.

I wish to see beyond, by that, I mean, seeing the TRUEST PERSPECTIVE about the earth and the Universe, it is very possible. All I need to do is sync with supersonic intelligence the scientist are not aware of, I see them, I know they have tried to give a message.. I believe I am due and ready for that wisdom and knowledge to shed more light on Earth to the confused. Only if they would let it flow in them by how it will be given

Don't mind me,just me HALLUCINATING... KIKIKIKI

What a world!!

OkaiCorne:
The theory of evolution and the Creationism doesn't contradict one another...they are intertwined...
Unless there is a superior argument to counter it...

And mind you, I am not appealing to you to see the Creator through the lenses of religion...

i actually get your point. i know you want balance the two theory..but it is impossible....why? the evolutionary theory is simply the explanation of how species ,individual organisms and molecules changes over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. its less concern about how these aforementioned element appear in the first place. while creationist on the other is an explanation of the beginning of all these element.

why they can not be intermingled? evolution theory works with a data at hand( empirical evidence) while the creationist theory works with divine data that can not be empirically tested. both of them do not use the same tools.

back to your question, chicken earlier ancestor is called jungle fowl and chicken itself evolve through selective stages. science is not interested in seeking for infinite regress of explanation, so they are less concern about the origin of jungle fowl. unless the data is available. that is the limitation. (i.e) creationist and evolution theory cannot be balance since they are not using the same parameters. i have no problem if you agree with the two. since evolution theory do not give the concluding answer. you may rely on the creationist evidence on that. but do not treat them as if they were together and cannot be broken.

vaxx:
i actually get your point. i know you want balance the two theory..but it is impossible....why? the evolutionary theory is simply the explanation of how species ,individual organisms and molecules changes over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. its less concern about how these aforementioned element appear in the first place. while creationist on the other is an explanation of the beginning of all these element.

why they can not be intermingled? evolution theory works with a data at hand( empirical evidence) while the creationist theory works with divine data that can not be empirically tested. both of them do not use the same tools.

back to your question, chicken earlier ancestor is called jungle fowl and chicken itself evolve through selective stages. science is not interested in seeking for infinite regress of explanation, so they are less concern about the origin of jungle fowl. unless the data is available. that is the limitation. (i.e) creationist and evolution theory cannot be balance since they are not using the same parameters. i have no problem if you agree with the two. since evolution theory do not give the concluding answer. you may rely on the creationist evidence on that. but do not treat them as if they were together and cannot be broken.

That's the problem...

What if the origin of the jungle fowl happens to be the "dust of the earth" used to create the jungle fowl...

Mind you "dust of the earth" is an aggregation of simple life forms in tissues then into systems and then the whole creature...

But for lack of better words by ancient writers...they cannot use words like atoms or cells...hence "dust of the earth" not sand of the earth ooo...

The "dust of the earth" could relate to the collection of simple life forms being aggregated to form a complex life form...

By the way...lack of data already points to the limitation of the evolution theory as there's a missing link to how the jungle fowl came to be in the first place...

The again...this has nothing to do with Abrahamic religion...as there are other creation stories with a similar pattern across cultures, traditions and religions...

OkaiCorne:
That's the problem...

What if the origin of the jungle fowl happens to be the "dust of the earth" used to create the jungle fowl...

Mind you "dust of the earth" is an aggregation of simple life forms in tissues then into systems and then the whole creature...

But for lack of better words by ancient writers...they cannot use words like atoms or cells...hence "dust of the earth" not sand of the earth ooo...

The "dust of the earth" could relate to the collection of simple life forms being aggregated to form a complex life form...

By the way...lack of data already points to the limitation of the evolution theory as there's a missing link to how the jungle fowl came to be in the first place...

The again...this has nothing to do with Abrahamic religion...as there are other creation stories with a similar pattern across cultures, traditions and religions...

well, is your hypothesis reliable and demonstrable under any scientific method? i will like to know?

firstly, durst contain silicon that is not found in any appreciable amount in jungle fowl or any other living organism. so is it possible that jungle fowl was made from durst that has higher amount of silicon and metal presence ? well you may argue all living things are made from the star dust that busted in the supernova fine. i have no issue with it. but most of the material found on earth do not posses equal element. for example? iron and cooper. they are both created from the star both the material content are not the same. on a serious note, every living creature possess carbon, hydrogen and oxygen . and all these comes from things that are not dust but air and water. therefore i will argue jungle fowl was created from air and water. how does it happen i cannot say. maybe there is dust, i cannot also tell. science is limited in this area. NOT ALL RELIGION SUBSCRIBE TO THE DUST CREATION. but it is popular among abrahamic faith and also in Yoruba myth. please do not treat creationist theory as scientific evidence.both of them do not use the same means of verification.

vaxx:
well, is your hypothesis reliable and demonstrable under any scientific method? i will like to know?

firstly, durst contain silicon that is not found in any appreciable amount in jungle fowl or any other living organism. so is it possible that jungle fowl was made from durst that has higher amount of silicon and metal presence ? well you may argue all living things are made from the star dust that busted in the supernova fine. i have no issue with it. but most of the material found on earth do not posses equal element. for example? iron and cooper. they are both created from the star both the material content are not the same. on a serious note, every living creature possess carbon, hydrogen and oxygen . and all these comes from things that are not dust but air and water. therefore i will argue jungle fowl was created from air and water. how does it happen i cannot say. maybe there is dust, i cannot also tell. science is limited in this area. NOT ALL RELIGION SUBSCRIBE TO THE DUST CREATION. but it is popular among abrahamic faith and also in Yoruba myth. please do not treat creationist theory as scientific evidence.both of them do not use the same means of verification.

You're still taking "dust of the earth" as literal dust without considering the fact that these ancient men wouldn't know whether this dust is an aggregation of simple life forms that cannot be seen on a microscopic level...

How can complex life forms be formed from literal dust? It's common sense to note that complex life forms are a walking mass of interconnected simple life forms...

The aggregation of simple life forms results to complex life forms. For lack of better words used by ancient men, do you expect them to use words like atoms, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, single celled organisms e.t.c. instead of dust of the earth?

Did they even have microscopes to know what constitutes the "dust of the earth"?

I'm simply saying that due to limitation in knowledge back then, the best words that could be used is "dust of the earth"


Unless the evolution theory can give us a thorough explanation of how a jungle fowl came to be in the first place...

The clue to this lies in how a planet is formed...and how single celled life forms later on exists on the planet given suitable conditions...

Also bear in mind that these single celled organisms would be existing in water too...thus accounting for complex marine life forms such as fish and other creatures

Then how a chain reaction in the process triggers aggregation of these simple life forms into complex life forms...

vaxx:
well, is your hypothesis reliable and demonstrable under any scientific method? i will like to know?

firstly, durst contain silicon that is not found in any appreciable amount in jungle fowl or any other living organism. so is it possible that jungle fowl was made from durst that has higher amount of silicon and metal presence ? well you may argue all living things are made from the star dust that busted in the supernova fine. i have no issue with it. but most of the material found on earth do not posses equal element. for example? iron and cooper. they are both created from the star both the material content are not the same. on a serious note, every living creature possess carbon, hydrogen and oxygen . and all these comes from things that are not dust but air and water. therefore i will argue jungle fowl was created from air and water. how does it happen i cannot say. maybe there is dust, i cannot also tell. science is limited in this area. NOT ALL RELIGION SUBSCRIBE TO THE DUST CREATION. but it is popular among abrahamic faith and also in Yoruba myth. please do not treat creationist theory as scientific evidence.both of them do not use the same means of verification.

Did you notice how the "knowledgeable atheists" who keeps shouting delusional up and down are suddenly quiet... I was hoping they answer me on chicken and egg question, but you that is not an atheist has covered up for them...

There'll always be another chance to engage them again...

OkaiCorne:
You're still taking "dust of the earth" as literal dust without considering the fact that these ancient men wouldn't know whether this dust is an aggregation of simple life forms that cannot be seen on a microscopic level...

How can complex life forms be formed from literal dust? It's common sense to note that complex life forms are a walking mass of interconnected simple life forms...

The aggregation of simple life forms results to complex life forms. For lack of better words used by ancient men, do you expect them to use words like atoms, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, single celled organisms e.t.c. instead of dust of the earth?

Did they even have microscopes to know what constitutes the "dust of the earth"?

I'm simply saying that due to limitation in knowledge back then, the best words that could be used is "dust of the earth"


Unless the evolution theory can give us a thorough explanation of how a jungle fowl came to be in the first place...

The clue to this lies in how a planet is formed...and how single celled life forms later on exists on the planet given suitable conditions...

Also bear in mind that these single celled organisms would be existing in water too...thus accounting for complex marine life forms such as fish and other creatures

Then how a chain reaction in the process triggers aggregation of these simple life forms into complex life forms...

what I am basically telling you is do not not try to demonstrate creationist theory using scientific lens. It is a wrong tool for a different job...... Scientist do not do with metaphorical phenomenon. They deal with observable substances. Scientist are materialistic minded, anything that can not be observed using the five senses and with the aid of assisted computerised object is consider non scientific........

I agree with you the dust may not be the single literal form we all know. It may be a combination of diffrent molecules and ions both known and unknown. But all these are just mere assumption. Science is still in its infancy.....and science do with literal substance. Maybe when science met philosophy once again. The thtuth will be accelerated.

Do science even have a benchmark?

OkaiCorne:
Did you notice how the "knowledgeable atheists" who keeps shouting delusional up and down are suddenly quiet... I was hoping they answer me on chicken and egg question, but you that is not an atheist has covered up for them...

There'll always be another chance to engage them again...

lLol

OkaiCorne:
Did you notice how the "knowledgeable atheists" who keeps shouting delusional up and down are suddenly quiet... I was hoping they answer me on chicken and egg question, but you that is not an atheist has covered up for them...

There'll always be another chance to engage them again...

You aren't exactly saying anything worth responding to with your random irrelevant questions. However, if you believe your point, whatever it may be, is proven, so be it. I am sure anyone who goes through the thread would see and understand it, or not.

vaxx:
But all these are just mere assumption. Science is still in its infancy.....and science do with literal substance. Maybe when science met philosophy once again. The thtuth will be accelerated.

Do science even have a benchmark?

Science is the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

The benchmarks are that it be testable, and that its predictions are verifiable. It has never departed from philosophy. The two go hand in hand.

What we are discussing here is an attempt to demystify the past. Early 'science' said a god done it. More recent science has made claims that are much closer to the truth than early science gave us. And, considering the greater opportunity early scientists have, and their opportunity to stand on the shoulders of all those who came before them, it is only personel bias that would make a reasonable person deny all the evidence provided and accept the earliest myths as being more accurate. And that's ok as a personal choice in ones personal realm.

Would I allow, if I were in the position to be allowing that is, the early science to be taught as opposed to modern day science? My answer is no! Countries that don't teach and practise modern day science tend to not create much for starts as they have no factories and more places of worship. Their people are unemployed and end up purchasing from those who do teach and practise modern day science. Such countries are called third world and considered underdeveloped at best, and the young would rather emigrate than stay in such countries that worship the gods but seem to be god forsaken!

garden of Eden doesn't have any social or economic value to us, so we don't really care if it exist or not

budaatum:
Science is the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

The benchmarks are that it be testable, and that its predictions are verifiable. It has never departed from philosophy. The two go hand in hand.

What we are discussing here is an attempt to demystify the past. Early 'science' said a god done it. More recent science has made claims that are much closer to the truth than early science gave us. And, considering the greater opportunity early scientists have, and their opportunity to stand on the shoulders of all those who came before them, it is only personel bias that would make a reasonable person deny all the evidence provided and accept the earliest myths as being more accurate. And that's ok as a personal choice in ones personal realm.

Would I allow, if I were in the position to be allowing that is, the early science to be taught as opposed to modern day science? My answer is no! Countries that don't teach and practise modern day science tend to not create much for starts as they have no factories and more places of worship. Their people are unemployed and end up purchasing from those who do teach and practise modern day science. Such countries are called third world and considered underdeveloped at best, and the young would rather emigrate than stay in such countries that worship the gods but seem to be god forsaken!

You yourself already separate them in your writing, science deals with with observable and experimentation of data, philosophy focus on nature of knowledge{ reality, existence and experience) which largely fall into logic and intuition.

many field are limited to science. example? ethics, moral and so on.

Historically, philosophy is the queen of all sciences. Newton referred to himself as a "natural philosopher", while the term "scientist" did not emerge until the 19th century . However, today science and philosophy are two roughly dividable cultures of epistemic activity. the former is reflective while the later is empirical. they are two distinct different field. but both of them can be combine to study the assumptions, implications and limitations of natural science itself.

the benchmark of science is logic and intuition. it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective.... happy Sunday bro

Funny. You yourself already combine them when you state "both of them can be combine[d] to study the assumptions, implications and limitations of natural science", and also when you claim, "the benchmark of science is logic and intuition. it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective".

Goes to show how intertwined philosophy and science is, and should be, and separating the two, or doing one without the other can be perilous.

Good Sunday to you too dear friend.

vaxx:
You yourself already separate them in your writing, science deals with with observable and experimentation of data, philosophy focus on nature of knowledge{ reality, existence and experience) which largely fall into logic and intuition.

many field are limited to science. example? ethics, moral and so on.

Historically, philosophy is the queen of all sciences. Newton referred to himself as a "natural philosopher", while the term "scientist" did not emerge until the 19th century . However, today science and philosophy are two roughly dividable cultures of epistemic activity. the former is reflective while the later is empirical. they are two distinct different field. both of them can be combine to study the assumptions, implications and limitations of natural science itself.

the benchmark of science is logic and intuition. it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective.... happy Sunday bro

budaatum:
Funny. You yourself already combine them when you state "both of them can be combine[d] to study the assumptions, implications and limitations of natural science", and also when you claim, "the benchmark of science is logic and intuition. it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective".

Goes to show how intertwined philosophy and science is, and should be, and separating the two, or doing one without the other can be perilous.

Good Sunday to you too dear friend.

YES i agree it can be combine, but in its actual sense its a two different field of study

tspouse:
I'm sure most us Christians read this in the bible ,God chased Adam and Eve out after they ate the forbidden fruit.the place was locked and was guides by the angels,

The question now is.

Where exactly is the garden

why do you want to know?

vaxx:
YES i agree it can be combine, but in its actual sense its a two different field of study

I would not agree, and separating them makes for either a bad philosopher or a bad scientist. They may be different aspects of study, but in practice, the two, as methods of enquiry, must go together or that enquiry is not as wholesome or robust as can be. Even courses in either include the other.

Newton himself eventually combined the two, philosophically seeking the philosophers stone then scientifically applying the knowledge he derived to make himself a very wealthy man.

budaatum:
You aren't exactly saying anything worth responding to with your random irrelevant questions. However, if you believe your point, whatever it may be, is proven, so be it. I am sure anyone who goes through the thread would see and understand it, or not.

There we go again with the needless insults...

Perhaps my questions are random and irrelevant to you because your mind isn't broad enough to accommodate certain things yet...

Never mind, everyone has their growth rate in various aspects of life...

Furthermaths can't make sense to someone who is still struggling with Arithmetics...

No insults intended...

vaxx:
YES i agree it can be combine, but in its actual sense its a two different field of study

I agree with this...

Knowledge obtained from different fields of study can be synthesized to arrive at accurate findings...or achieve certain objectives...

But then, this doesn't also apply in all cases...