₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
I did say I will not go on in circles on this forever and I will not. I have said all I have to say and thus have nothing further to add - unless you introduce a point I have not yet heard. Good luck.

We can move on to the the evolution of sexual reproduction.

I'd rather stick to this topic as again, you've not addressed the issues I've raised. I don't see why we should move on to another topic. If we can't deal with this topic that is more clear cut then lets draw the curtains here.

DeepSight:
I can't carry on in circles forever. If you wish to kid yourself so be it. If you go back to the example of a balloon expanding, you will find that the space within the balloon (and thus the particles within it) are moving outwards. In this two things are inescapable. One, is that that something is being injected into the balloon. Two, is that, if there was no space outside that balloon it would not be able to move outwards.

And this remains simple.

Motion cannot occur without space. It's simple. Where anything moves from one point to another that already discloses the existence of space. Otherwise there would be no points to move to or from.

You can kid yourself and be as arrogant as you want. It only rebounds on you.

I know facts look like arrogance to those who don't understand but it can't be helped. You're not paying attention to what I've posted before. I'll post it again. Your thinking relies on the fallacy of composition.

https://fallacyfiles.org/composit.html

You're relying on a logical fallacy to make your point and you still don't recognize this after I've pointed it out several times. All I can say is you need to read the information already available. Do you understand the logical fallacy I shared with you? Universe type objects are different from objects within the universe. They act differently and with universe type objects the information we can obtain about them is limited. If you're proposing special knowledge, try to understand what we already know and how we came to those conclusions.

DeepSight:
Again, the big bang itself, was an event which is said by orthodox science to have created time itself. An event cannot occur if time is not already existing. The very words "occur" or "happen" should suggest this to you and I am midly irritated to have to explain it. Events can only occur within time. Thus, for the event of the bang to occur, there was time already. Thus, the bang could not have created time itself. That is as absurd as a creationist saying that God created himself. An event cannot create the time within which it happens.

As I have said with reference to space above, I will not go round in circles on this forever. Res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. If you choose to delude yourself, thats your cup of tea.

Once again you're demonstrating how superior your knowledge is compared to actual cosmologists in the field. You're declaring that time didn't start with the expansion of the universe. Do yourself a favour and study first. Actual scientists recognize that there is a limit to what is knowable and it is explained as where the laws of physics breakdown but you refuse to accept this and propose your theory. I asked to elaborate on this and you ignored my request. If you know better, provide your explanation or model. Keep in mind that if there was time outside the universe, then there would be space, i there's space then it will have some effect on this universe.

DeepSight:
@ thehomer -

Repeating that your co-discussant is ignorant a zillion times over does not equate sound reasoning. It is neither here nor there, so long as you are unable to address the logic of the matter. Let me keep it simple:

Pointing out your ignorance isn't for reasoning, it is to encourage you to resolve it by studying the required material. There's no "logic of the matter" to be discussed without understanding some of the physics concepts.

DeepSight:
Just explain to me -

1. How anything can move without extant space

2. How any event can occur without extant time

Its that simple. No long thing.

1. The question is malformed. The universe is expanding. The space we observe is between bodies within the universe.

2. Events within the universe occur within time.

If it so simple, why are you confused?

DeepSight:
PS: If you cannot do this, stop wasting my time by bleating the word "ignorance" over and over again.

I think this is your attempt to evade the clear questions I asked you in response to your questions. If you engaged in answering the questions, you too might become enlightened with knowledge.

DeepSight:
Let me just point out to you that I did not say the space-time of Einstein does not exist. I said they have appropriated words to describe something else - obviously a thing that is, as Einstein described it - a fabric.

So what has been described? I didn't say you said space-time of Einstein does not exist.

DeepSight:
Please lets keep it simple and just address the red above. if we scale that hurdle (I suspect we will not, due simply to your pompous assumptions) then we can move on to other matters.

I haven't made any assumptions. If you think I have, then show them to me or prove them wrong. I'm sorry you feel my responses are condescending but you don't see the problem with your attempts at ridiculing scientific work. If you can't take it, don't dish it.

DeepSight:
Except this (especially the bold) bears no resemblance to what I actually said. If we are to have a discussion, please try not to misquote or misrepresent me.

It is what you said. Or do you wish to clarify what you meant here?

DeepSight:
It is not sufficient to mouth all the platitudes physcists and cosmologists do in saying that "the laws of physics breakdown" the closer one gets to the singularity, etc. It must be shown exactly how and why - and that it even happens at all in the first place. Beyond this, this matter of the question of what the universe expands into is so basic and fundamental that the usual ruse about the laws of physics breaking down simply cannot suffice to side step it.


It is very unlike you to make assumptions. Because here you are assuming that the space must be of such a solid nature that it must be pushed away. How do you know it cannot be permeated?

This once again shows your lack of understanding. The space between galaxies contains particles. If something is growing in such a low density part of the universe, it will have to move things out of the way.

DeepSight:
Secondly, even if it is in fact pushed away, how is that an issue? Yes of course in that event it must move on into some other space. And then how does that become an issue. Do you know or do you want to circumscribe the limits of all infinite space in extant reality?

It is an issue because it will have an effect on this universe.

DeepSight:
It still befuddles me that you imagine bodies moving away from one another does not imply that they must be moving into existing space of some sort or the other. Anything else is so beyond illogical that it is worse than any voodoo thinking you can ever accuse any religionist of. Tell me, how does the fact that it is "bodies" moving away from one another change the fact that they must move somewhere?

How is movement even possible without space to move into?

Does this make any sense to you?

It seems to me that just the way the religious will believe absurd "miracles" because their pastors claim them, you will also believe any absurdity you read from the priests of science.

Frankly I am not going to go back and forth on this eternally. It is clear that there can neither be movement nor expansion of any kind without space.

If you wish to delude yourself in such an illogicality, that is your business.

I understand. It will continue to befuddle you but your ignorance or inability to understand this concept doesn't make it incorrect. Mobile phones and the concepts that underpin them will look like miracles to humans in the 1200s. This doesn't make them miracles. The inability of those people to understand the underlying concepts wouldn't mean that they're just like the priests who teach transubstantiation.

DeepSight:
I am no cosmologist or physicist and I dont have any special model of the universe of my own - I am just telling you something which can never be logically controverted, that any movement of any kind requires existing space.

Therefore, to the extent that the initial expansion which is called the big bang was movement, was an expansion, then there must have been already existing space and therefore space cannot be said to have been created by the bang.

Also to the extent that it was an event, and events can only occur in an already existing timeline then time could not be said to have been created by the bang either.

Summarily, whatever the scientists are referring to as space-time is actualy something else. They have simply appropriated that term.

Conscisely: I am saying -

1. There cannot be any movement without existing space - and -
2. There cannot be any event without existing time

Therefore -

Since the big bang was an event and involved movement, both time and space must have already existed.

Beat this logic.

Your ignorance of a cosmology is not the equivalent of an expert's explanation of phenomena in cosmology. Since you have no model, I'll suggest you study the available model first before making more ignorant statements.

DeepSight:
Why would a brain be needed for consciousness, even plants are conscious. What do you understand by consciousness?

I mean:
awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consciousness

What do you understand by consciousness?

DeepSight:
These kinds of responses are insufficient and quite tiresome.

I'm sorry you feel that way but ignorance is not a demonstration of knowledge. By the way, can you address this?

How would you say the theory of evolution explains the common ancestry between gorillas and chimpanzees?

DeepSight:
And yet one such as you would be quick to censure a religionist for special pleading.

That will depend on the context.

DeepSight:
Why can you not prove or substantiate exactly what exempts the universe from such iron cast logic?

It is not sufficient to mouth all the platitudes physcists and cosmologists do in saying that "the laws of physics breakdown" the closer one gets to the singularity, etc. It must be shown exactly how and why - and that it even happens at all in the first place. Beyond this, this matter of the question of what the universe expands into is so basic and fundamental that the usual ruse about the laws of physics breaking down simply cannot suffice to side step it.

You're demonstrating the fallacy of composition

https://fallacyfiles.org/composit.html

The fact that within the universe, an object like a balloon expands into surrounding matter doesn't mean it applies to the universe as a whole.

Saying that the special state of the universe in the first few seconds can't be demonstrated today therefore all the calculations that went into understanding and explaining that special state must be wrong is an example of extreme hubris. You seem to think your ignorance of physics is as good as the expertise of physicists who have studied and explained these phenomena.

DeepSight:
I dont know whether or not it will be pushing that material "out of the way." What is iron-clad is that nothing can expand without space. Such a statement is inherently self contradictory.

You're being self contradictory. I'm not sure if this is deliberate on your part. If the universe is expanding into something, then material has to be pushed out of the way. "Nothing" is an absence. You're writing here as if it is a presence.

DeepSight:
The very word "expand" in a physical sense already connotes growth into larger space. No one can logically speak of a physical expansion without larger space. It is impossible.

Ordinarily, no one would argue this point save for the fact that you all see the problem: that it represents a challenge to the existing scientific model of the existence of the universe, and thus, exactly as religionists would do when their theology is challenged, you come up with absurdities and special pleadings.

In cosmology in reference to the expansion of the universe, "expand" means that bodies within the universe are moving away from each other. Not that there is some extra material outside the universe being moved out of the way.
You haven't provided an actual challenge to the existing scientific model because you're unqualified to do so and in your ignorance, you seem to think you've provided some special solution.

Can you clearly state what your model of the existence of the universe is? And how do you explain the observed expansion?

DeepSight:
All organisms are conscious to varying degrees.

To be clear, you think a brain isn't needed for consciousness. What organ would you say is necessary for consciousness?

DeepSight:
Yes. The sort of changes described within the ToE would require next to an eternity to move from a unicellular organism to a human being. It would be akin to a monkey seeking to win a chess game by random moves or a monkey writing the complete works of Shakespeare by picking random letters one at a time from a bag.

This does not mean I am saying that evolution works by chance. I am explaining probabilities and timelines involved.

You're demonstrating that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Again you think your ignorance is as good as the expertise of millions of actual scientists.

How would you say the theory of evolution explains the common ancestry between gorillas and chimpanzees?

DeepSight:
Please task yourself on the rationality of this. Because now you are saying that a thing expands without expanding into either anything or nothing. If this is not the same kind of voodoo we accuse religious people of, what else is?

How can a thing expand neither into anything or nothing?

You know that is an absurd statement.

An expansion of anykind presupposes space available for such an expansion.

This only stands to reason.

Frankly this question has always led to the most absurd answers even from the most acclaimed scientists, such as Lawrence Krauss.

The universe is a special case.

DeepSight:
It is not possible to know its properties, but it is certain that no expansion can occur without space to expand into.
This is the same way in which we can infer the existence of dark matter without knowing what it consists of.

How do you know this? Is this because you've observed expansion of bodies within the universe?
We should be able to know something about its properties as it will have to interact with this universe. Afterall, the universe will be pushing that material out of the way wouldn't it?

DeepSight:
Let us leave this question for when we come to the evolution of sexual reproduction, as it is part of it.

Ok

DeepSight:
From all that we can observe, consciousness will appear to be the aim.

But according to you, the most successful organisms which are unicellular are not conscious. Lots multicellular organisms aren't conscious either. Are you arriving at this conculsion because you're a conscious human?

DeepSight:
Yes - not unless there are very new and recent developments.

Good to know.

DeepSight:
From the current best estimates of mainstream science - the same which assess the age of the universe at about 14 billion years.
(PS: Its over four billion years old)

To be clear, you think 4 billion years isn't enough time for evolution.

DeepSight:
@ Thehomer -

Reproduced from questions I laid out years ago on the evolution of sexual reproduction.

------


1. Why were the first unicellular organisms (which supposedly arose spontaenously from some pre biotic soup - [proposition not within ToE]) self replicating organisms at all?

2. If they were not self-replicating organisms, what factor led them to evolve the faculties of self replication at all.

3. If they were not self-replicating in nature, after first coming into existence, then they would have died, and the existence of any other such would depend on fresh flukes supposedly in some pre biotic soups.

4. Why is life self replicating at all? What accounts for this?

5. Further down the evolutionary path (and with great astonishing bounds and leaps of faith, I might add), why did se.xual organisms evolve?

6. In the case of se.xual organisms, which sex evolved first - male or female. Or did they evolve simultaenously, and how and why so? What evolutionary impetus drove this process, what caused this to happen at all. Or did females evolve from males only or males from females only or both from sexually neutral organisms?

7. Is it possible for a sexually neutral organism to evolve into two different and complimentary sexes?

8. Taken that separate sexes emerge, what evolutionary impetus drives and informs the aggregation of reproductive se.men in one sex while simultaneously driving the formation of a se.xual reproductive system complete with a womb in the other sex?

9. Further on, what evolutionary impetus would be responsible for the development of the pe.nis and testicles for the male, and simultaneously form the (admittedly eminently fit for purpose) va.gina and womb for the female?

10. What evolutionary process would cause the bodies to evolve such DNA transfer mechanisms as to be able to create the full copy of a complete creature through a se.xual process? What evolutionary impetus leads to this? What evolutionary explanation would there be for the coming to existence of umbilical cords?

11. What evolutionary pressure at the same time as all this also led to the formation of mammary glands (br.easts) for the female only, suitable for the nutrition of new born babies?

12. Where it is explained that men and women have all the foregoing se.xual differences on account of differences in hormones, what evolutionary explanation is there for the difference in hormones in the first place? And with this last question bear in mind that if they were not male and female already, there would be no separate male and female needs to drive such evolution of separate and different hormonal systems ab initio!

A careful dwelling on each of these questions from the standpoint of the holistic supposed process of evolution - and in line with the principles of evolution as taught, is that which you guys need to do: and therewith see with immediate clarity that which I contend, namely that these are phenomena completely outside the purview of any evolutionary principles whatsoever, which is why they do not have any possible evolutionary explanation.

Let's first deal with one part of the discussion.

DeepSight:
Regardless, the point remains that the theory should therefore not be taken by anyone as an explanation of existential questions of origin as far as the universe is concerned.

It isn't taken as such. I know I haven't done that.

DeepSight:
This is an absurdity. A thing cannot expand into nothingness and nothingness cannot even exist.

Another way of putting it is that the universe is expanding. No need to talk about it expanding into anything or nothing.

DeepSight:
Yes. It could not reasonably be otherwise.

This space it is expanding into, what are its properties? Does it contain atoms, quarks, men?

DeepSight:
As with the BBT mentioned above, its just a note to clarify to those who don't understand - or those who assume that evolution explains life - that it does not.

Ok

DeepSight:
Multi-cellular organisms are evidently not only less successful in terms of number but also require more complicated systems in every respect.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. There are more bacteria in your gut than the entire earth. Why would more complicated mean less successful?

DeepSight:
Well in the same way as there is a theory of directed panspermia in terms of how life came to the Earth, I subscribe to what call directed evolution.

In this directed evolution? What is the aim of this idea of evolution? Unicellular organisms?

DeepSight:
Most emphatically sexual reproduction is NOT explained by evolution. I created a thread years back where I questioned this and will replicate the questions in a next post for ease of reference.

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction

Have you read up on the current knowledge of the topic?


How old do you think the earth is?

DeepSight:
Hundreds of millions of years.

How did you arrive at this figure?

DeepSight:
Sure seems to be you and that meets me with immense happiness has there has been a dearth of quality discussants on this board for years now.
You were always able to make serious points with great brevity. Master of one-line rebuttals.

I will briefly respond to your post now. Christ. After 12 years!

What can I say? Life happens. Glad to be a source of happiness.

DeepSight:
@ thehomer - Is it really same you from years back?

I mean, your penultimate post on this thread was 12 years ago!

What do you think?

DeepSight:
AlbertNewton

Comments?

I have some time today so let's have a look at this. Firstly for this to be fruitful, you'll need to be more specific with the questions you wish to ask and be ready to answer some questions about your own answers to your questions.

DeepSight:
Posers on the Big B.ang:

1. The Theory of the Big B.ang proceeds with an expansion from the point of a singularity. It does not, and cannot, address whence the singularity derives from, or why it exists at all. It does not address the question: why something instead of nothing.

The theory was not supposed to address this question.

DeepSight:
2. The Theory of the Big B.ang offers no answers as to what exactly triggered the expansion from the singularity: the question as to why that event occurred is not addressed at all.

Again the theory wasn't to address this question.

DeepSight:
3. The Theory of the Big B.ang asserts that space began to exist with the expansion from the singularity. This fails to address the question: into what is the universe expanding, if not already existent space?

This is a malformed question based on the failure of your imagination. You confuse the nature of the entire universe itself to the nature of a part of the universe. A balloon being inflated will expand into surrounding air. The universe itself will simply expand.

Do you think the universe itself is expanding into already existent space?

DeepSight:
1. The Theory of Evolution does not account for first life. The origin of first life remains unknown. It is often repeated that the Theory of Evolution is not meant to address first life at all. That is understood: however - if that is the case, then the Theory of Evolution is not an explanation for life in the first place. It is absurd to try to explain the existence of life with a Theory which does not touch on the origin of life at all.

It was not supposed to account for the first life. You state you understand this yet try to force the theory to do more than it is supposed to do. The Continental drift theory which explains the shape of the continents doesn't explain the origin of the earth itself.

DeepSight:
3. Assuming that bare matter somehow, miraculously, unguided and magically combined, and brought a living thing into existence - the first unicellular living thing/s: the principles of evolution do not account for the diversification into less successful multicellular living things. This is because evolutionary impetus works towards the extinction of less successful organisms and the propagation of more successful organisms. As such, unicellular organisms being the most successful organisms at all times, would simply and logically lack any evolutionary impetus for evolution into less successful multi-cellular organisms.

The theory of evolution does account or the diversity of life. The propagation of more successful organisms will mean the extinction of other organisms. Multi-cellular organisms aren't less successful.

Why do you think there are unicellular and multicellular organisms?

DeepSight:
10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

Actually sexual reproduction is explained by evolution. Why it happened is also explained by the theory of evolution. Exactly how it happened is lost in the mists of time.

DeepSight:
14. The age of the Earth cannot accommodate the time span required for evolution from unicellular organism to mankind.

When one really thinks about it, one realizes just how stupendously and shockingly presumptuous and thoughtlessly shallow the position of the atheist is. It is a position of the deepest ignorance and the most breath-taking st.upidity. Most of all, it simply betrays a lack of thought: and worst of all: a lack of perception of the most basic factors of existence known to every human being instinctually from their childhood. The reasons I listed up there are but the tip of the ice berg as far as this matter is concerned, and when taken together with the preceding questions behind the big b.ang, evince the only logical conclusion that human beings of all ages have instinctively and logically known: namely the existence of a pre existent intelligence beyond ours, which is called, in a million different human languages: God.

How old do you think the earth is?

blueAgent:
Gbam!!!!!

You would do well to actually make an argument. You should have considered my response to that character further down the thread. I've posted my response to him below.

thehomer:

davidylan: As is usual, those who blab about being "educated" would rather refer you to websites even they dont understand. Its way too difficult to expect them to actually sit down and analyse their position.

We know all about the big slam . . . that was not the question of the thread. The question is quite simple - where did the big slam come from? Nothing?

Just to humor myself . . . i got this off the wikipedia page thehomer links to . . . of course since he has no knowledge of his own . . .

thehomer: And I guess you have all this knowledge of your own? Beware the Dunning-Kruger effect.

davidylan: According to the Big slam model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today.

this is a silly claim - where did this "extremely dense and hot state" come from? So is the claim that matter and energy have ALWAYS existed? How did this "dense and hot state" result in the complex organisms we have today? How did it create such a delicately balanced universe that depends on such fine tuned laws of nature with very little room for flexibility?

thehomer: Which part of the claim is silly? You're one hilarious fellow. Are you disagreeing with the fact that the universe expanded or that it continues to expand? How's that for comprehension?
It could be that this matter and energy always existed in some form. Do you not understand this possibility?
Delicately balanced universe? That is an example of what is known as "puddle thinking". I wonder what your answer is.

davidylan: How then can we claim that net energy in space = 0 if matter had ALWAYS existed in the form of a "dense and hot state"?

thehomer: So this is the root of your entire problem. The point isn't that the net energy in space is zero because recall that space is as a result of the expanding matter and energy. Hawking's point is that gravity when considered as negative energy counterbalances the matter and energy of the universe. Keep in mind that it wasn't matter that was in that hot and dense state but the universe in another state.

davidylan: Hopefully thehomer isnt going to answer by telling us to "link here". That's all he seems capable of doing despite bleating about "knowledge".

thehomer: No. Since you were able to clearly point out what you were unable to understand, I simply had to try to help you along. I hope you're now better informed.

3kay945:
Maybe I didn't notice, cos it has been a while I read your post. Most especially when it comes to religious matters.

I do enjoy it, I must confess.

Thanks. I aim to please.

3kay945:
Where is this dude *thehomer* ?

Your favourite thread is here.

What do you want with me?

Amujale:
Nobody is claiming anything, merely opinions with hard facts on the topic.

For me, Olodumare is Allah in various ways that makes more sense expressed in this form however if you attempt to interchange, then it hardly makes sense not to mention of having to qualify in it essence. Allah is Olodumare in many ways yet if you attempt to interchange, then. it hardly makes sense not to mention of having to qualify in it essence.

According to you,

Olodumare = Allah but Allah ≠ Olodumare unless you mean Olodumare + extra qualifying essense.
But your very next sentence says

Allah = Olodumare but Olodumare ≠ Allah unless you mean Allah + extra qualifying essense.

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Either Olodumare is the same as Allah or he isn't. There's no room for adding qualifying essenses to one and not the other at the same time.

winner01:
I get it, every other person is wrong but not you, you must be right.

Correct.

winner01:
Actually it does, some atheists have claimed that they want atheism to be true and that even if "proof" existed, they still won't believe in God.

You may like it if gravity were suspended temporarily but that won't make you believe it will happen tomorrow at 10 am.

winner01:
Except the meaning of preconceived notion has changed, several atheist seem to get naturally defensive when they hear the word christian scientist as if science is atheism-based.

Has it now? A scientist can be a Christian. It merely shows their ability to compartmentalize. Science doesn't assume a God.

winner01:
Of course many atheists claim to have read the bible only for you to discover in arguments that they understand next to nothing in scriptures. Do you also care that some atheists became Christians and that many of us who hold Christianity as truth weren't always Christians?

And many atheists understand the Bible better than Christians. Many Christians became atheists by reading the Bible.

winner01:
I do not understand. Does this mean anyone who does not agree with the atheistic ideology is close minded?
This is serious.

No, it means you've shown evidence of your mind being closed due to your religious beliefs.

winner01:
That's what it seem like atheists want to do. Atheist evangelists
You'll have to have studied all religious beliefs and know all things to make such an outrageous claim. Do you now see the meaning of close minded?

Atheists pointing out that religions aren't true is good service to humanity. I'm willing to limit myself to the religion you believe since you also don't believe all the other ones.

winner01:
All these general accusations about Christians make you sound bigoted. Christianity have provided many of the brightest minds that have ever lived.

When accusations are true, you have to deal with them on that basis. Christianity didn't provide the minds, some of those people with those minds happened to be Christians. Many others weren't Christians.

winner01:
I do not understand what you mean by zombies

Dead bodies becoming reanimated to roam the streets.

winner01:
Now you have a soft spot for pseudoscience, I understand .

I was not there during the events but with historical record and evidence, hearsay, archeological evidence and existential relevancy, I have come to make my own decisions.

I still do not understand what you mean by zombies.

How did you come by this understanding?
Hearsay isn't acceptable evidence for a claim like a virgin birth. See above for zombies.

winner01:
How can you say religion requires false beliefs, this is tantamount to infinite knowledge. Science was advanced by majority of these folks whose ideology you so detest.

Because religion requires false beliefs. Science was advanced by all sorts of people.

winner01:
Lol, maybe if you have a better look at the fossil record, you'll be able to decipher that the transitional fossils required as proof of evolution of one form to another is outrightly missing. Till date, there are no examples in history or presently of "change of kinds".

This is the religion inspired blindness I've been talking about.

winner01:
Lol, that quote was in reference to the whole theory of evolution. Darwin admitted to many other inconsistencies in his ideas.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3980959_1353325912111307855847593601288972119265443n_jpeg22bb58dc800fe4501ff9a5a9384c533e

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3980960_132266881743167462609206803864670214952096n_jpeg1a7e4a245eba31b90fb39d4a415a27b6

And the Darwin quotemine continues. I don't know why you think this will impress me or add anything because it doesn't.

winner01:
Lol, you have no point you know.

Have you looked into what the theory of evolution is? Have you looked into the biological definition of species? Looking into them will show you the point.

winner01:
You examined it and found them wanting what did you examine and why did you find them wanting also why are you combating the examinations of other on scientific based atheism. Are you the custodian of truth?

I examined them with the usual tools. What did you examine your God with? Sure. You may call me the custodian of truth if you want it still won't make make the ideas of your God coherent or useful.

winner01:
Lol, Hindus have a god or gods, are you not outraged about that or is it just the Christian God?

I'm not outraged by any God. Do you believe in the Hindu Gods?

winner01:
Also you do know that a belief in God is native to humanity?

Even if that were true, it still won't make your particular God exist. Unless you believe in Zeus.

winner01:
How can you desperately want to write off the real life experiences of billions of people and claim that only yours is true. Your atheism has all the bigotry of most religions cos that's what you make it seem like.

Millions and billions of people have been lying to themselves but only you and a few others are correct. Okay, I get your point.

People misattribute experience all the time.
Thanks for getting my point. Many are called but I and a few others are chosen and correct.

If this is true, it sounds like a money laundering operation.

AgentOfAllah:
Oh wow! koolJ1, shaybebaby and ModusOperandi, I am flattered beyond self-recognition to be so recognised by yous! Still, I enjoy engaging with brilliant minds such as yourselves. I have to admit though, I wouldn't say I'm always on point, as I do make lots of mistakes.

In categories, my picks are:
Philosophical depth: PastorAIO, thehomer (if this person still exists) and DeepSight

Witty ripostes: sonofluc1fer

Poignant allegories: Johnydon22 and dalaman

That person still exists.

Blogthug:
it's like I'm talking to a wall, u keep repeating this " humans can represent it as code" who is suppose to represent it as a code? your village juju? look if u discover something edible and nutritious in your backyard that no one has discovered before, won't it be categorized as food ? of coz u will because it fits description of food,pls try to think with that brain of yours.

I have to keep repeating it because you don't seem to understand this fact. You seem to think that bees represent and understand codes. Calling something food isn't coding. This is why I asked you if you thought that all communication was code but you didn't respond. It is clear to me that you're finding thinking difficult.

Blogthug:
"what you've not shown is the God u think is behind it" that's a strawman, my argument was for intelligent design try again

What do you think is the point of the intelligent design argument?

Blogthug:
no I'm not confused but you rather have just exhibited full blown ignorance about DNA, let me spoon feed u abit , thank me later

https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/gene-code/history.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/gencode.html

Yes you are confused and you've shown so far is that your confusion arises whenever you see the word "code". The first article tells you DNA is a physical molecule that can be represented as code, the second article does the same. What you've also shown is that humans can represent it as code. What you've not shown is the God you think is behind it.

Blogthug:
from your statement " The notion of a code is imposed by humans for ease of understanding " it shows u don't even know what u are talking about. who should name it a Code ? a god? words were invented by humans and understood by humans to mean specific things , codes are hidden language, words or signs used in passing specific information that must be decoded by the receiver , Scientists called the way dancing bees communicate a code because it fits the description of a code which makes it a code just like Morse codes, u don't have to like it, your being incredulous won't help u gain true knowledge , and I choose to believe the words of experts and scientist rather than believe a random Nairalander who has some ignorant opinion

It is difficult responding to your post due to your poor punctuation but I'll try anyway.
You're confused and have no idea of what you're talking about. DNA is a physical molecule that can be represented as code. What you're revealing is that you're confused because the word "code" is used.

Blogthug:
who says it's not a code, you? do u even understand the meaning of codes? or what makes sometime a code? u should research on that first

Yes me, and the dictionary. You want me to do your work for you for some reason. If you think all communication is code, then you need to actually show it to be the case. e.g is one person waving at another person code for something? How about someone nodding their head in agreement? Or are birds nests also code? How about lions stalking their prey? Is that code too?

Something you dont' seem to understand is the fact that something can be represented as code e.g a DNA sequence of physical molecules, doesn't make the molecules code. The molecular sequence comes first. The notion of a code is imposed by humans for ease of understanding.

So, you need to do the work to show that all communication is actually code.

Blogthug:
p 1. All codes of known origin is a product of intelligence (empirical observation)
p 2. The DNA is a code
p3 .therefore the DNA is a product of intelligence

Deductive logical inference

for those that would think all codes of known origin are produced by only humans :
http://www.livescience.com/3812-dancing-bees-speak-code.html

please avoid Strawmaning my Argument as u attempt to refute p1 and 2 , if u can't u should concede to the argument and prolly become and Atheist that believes in ID if that's even possible lol, good luck Atheist

Your argument fails rather obviously.

p1. All codes of knownn origin are a product of human intelligence.
p2. DNA is a physical molecule that can be represented as code. Codes are symbolic representations not molecules.
Therefore, your argument is unsound.

Note that bee communication is not code in this sense. All you're doing is failing by equivocation.

JackBizzle:


I lack thehomer's patience with your artful doging

I've learned to be patient when addressing these poor apologists.

KingEbukasBlog:
To be clear : First , I thought what you meant by zombies are ghosts or possessed people . Then I told you that we have documented cases of such occurances . You then explained what you meant by zombies as people who died and resurrected but gave me an article on ghosts and bodily possession .

You must really be confused. Which notion of zombies refers to ghosts or spiritual possession? If you were serious and wanted to properly play the game of semantics properly, you could have looked up the meaning of zombies. You're online for your God's sake. Which came first, the article I gave you after you talked about ghosts and bodily possession or my pointing out the fact that zombies are resurrected dead people?

KingEbukasBlog:
Now from your own explanation of what zombies are , what is the correlation between it and people possessed by demons and spirits and ghosts ? Again , you are the confused one .

There's no correlation but you were the one who brought up the idea of spiritual possession. Why on earth did you bring that up when the passage I quoted for our discussion talked about dead people roaming the streets? Recall that you were the one who asked for a Biblical passage. And I notice that once again, you shy from talking about these living dead bodies roaming the streets.

KingEbukasBlog:
Secondly , there is no such thing as a deist God What the heck is that anyway ? Deism is a different concept of God formed through logic and reasoning - a posteriori knowledge devoid of any divine revelation or inspiration. The question should have been : Do you accept FULLY , the deist's concept of God ?

Once again you try to play language games and fail as expected. Deists think there is a deist God and that the Christian God doesn't exist. Christians think that only their God exists so my question stands. If as a Christian who believes in three / one God(s) you don't believe in such an entity, simply say so rather than trying to play a game you're clearly not able to play.

KingEbukasBlog:
Example : Xenophanes a Greek philosopher criticized theism' use of anthropomorphism to describe God . And with reason , he stated that God does not resemble humans in form or in mind , he stated that God does not involve himself in the affairs of mortals and there is no such thing as hierarchy in divinity - this is what a deistic concept of God looks like . No one told him , he just expressed his thoughts about God .

Another is Aristotle. He described God as a primary substance whose existence is ontologically based . And secondary substances can only be caused by a primary substance . And without the primary substance , nothing will exist .

These are deistic concepts of God , based on reasoning . There are so many other recondite knowledge of God the deists possess but it would b a waste of time to share them . You don't deserve to know it , you are an atheist ; one doesn't cast pearls before pigs

More useless diversions. I didn't ask for your idea of what deists believe and your attempt at introducing irrelevant information only shows just how desperate you are to avoid the questions I've raised.

KingEbukasBlog:
Apparently, your questions reek of ignorance of the subject you attack as false . Like I earlier said , acknowledging the existence of God is one thing and understanding the behavior of God or is nature is another . Because you don't understand the nature of God does mean God does not exist .

Do you understand the nature of the God you worship? Why should someone acknowledge the existence of your God at all? That is one of the questions I raised but you've as usual run away from that. And you also admit that your God's existence is separate from his behaviour.

KingEbukasBlog:
I can't answer your questions on the Bible properly because I feel like I'm wasting my time . Of course I am . Why pour out knowledge about it and it won't lead to any change . You seek not the knowledge for understanding , so why bother me ?

This coming from the person who didn't know that the Bible he belived in had actual dead people roaming the streets. I would say that you're the one who is clearly out of their depth. You lack knowledge and refuse to seek it while playing a game you're incompetent at playing. My questions remain as follows:

1. Your failure to reason logically
2. Your failure to decide whether or not you would worship a deist God
3. Your actual experience of your God
4. The failures of both yourself and your God to heal amputees
5. Your God's immorality in failing to act on his knowledge of the timing of rapists and murderers committing their heinous acts
6. Your God's decision to commit mass murders knowing it won't solve the problem he ostensibly set out to solve.
7. The fact that your trinity still makes no sense

You've run from these issues long enough. It is time for you to respond or bury your head in shame.

KingEbukasBlog:
I don't know what Zombies look like So you tell me

It isn't about what they look like, it is about what you think happened. Again I notice that you're trying to distract yourself from the issue. The bible quotation is clear. Zombies are people who rose from the dead. According to your Bible, dead people got out of their graves and roamed a city. My question to you is whether or not you believe this story. In addition to the talking donkey and other ridiculous notions.

KingEbukasBlog:
Are we talking about spirit possession or mass resurrection of the dead ? You seem confused .

You brought up the issue of ghost visitations and body possession so it seems that you're the one who is confused. Do you want a quote of that too or have you forgotten? You also know that we're talking about this mass resurrection of the dead so why are you trying to distract yourself by claiming ignorance?

I also notice that you're trying to avoid the most painful issues like:

1. Your failure to reason logically
2. Your failure to decide whether or not you would worship a deist God
3. Your actual experience of your God
4. The failures of both yourself and your God to heal amputees
5. Your God's immorality in failing to act on his knowledge of the timing of rapists and murderers committing their heinous acts
6. Your God's decision to commit mass murders knowing it won't solve the problem he ostensibly set out to solve.
7. The fact that your trinity still makes no sense

You can run but you can't hide. You may try to call these all old problems but the fact that you Christians still haven't been able to solve them actually speaks volumes.

KingEbukasBlog:
Made no sense to you .

Nope. Made no sense period. You're welcome to try and explain how three people can be one person at the same time. Or how one person can be three people at the same time.

KingEbukasBlog:
If need be , all to the glory of God .

Well, there's a need right now. I just asked for it and it will give a chance to reveal your God's glory.

KingEbukasBlog:
What are zombies ? Sometimes , the cause of an argument could be different views as regards to definition of a word

Rubbish. I quoted a passage from your Bible. Do you think that those dead people roamed the earth? Stop this attempt at obfuscation and language games.

KingEbukasBlog:
Is there any attributed to any god in History ?

Yes there is. As usual there's a good Wikipedia article on it here. Simply read it and realize that your religion is just one of many religions.

KingEbukasBlog:
Done that . Explained and posted videos . Josh even contributed . It is now incumbent on you to grasp it .

No you've not. The videos made no sense.

KingEbukasBlog:
Sure , I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me .

Good. Now when will you publicly heal an amputee or two? I would really love to see the clips on YouTube. Your failure to do so would suggest that Christ has failed to strengthen you though.

KingEbukasBlog:
Of course , event in recent times and through out history , there are well documented occurances of ghost visitations and bodily possession

So you believe that zombies once roamed the earth?
Wow. And you can say this with a straight face. How many of those visitations would you believe? Would you believe one attributed to Shiva? Or is it only those attributed to Jesus that are real?

KingEbukasBlog:
Actually it's a wonderful to think and reason logically . Just that it's apparent that atheists can't do so . That's your opinion about God , I have no problem with it . Again , a blatant appeal to common sense .

You're not an atheist and you're failing to think and reason logically. It isn't mere opinion, it is based on the Bible and an appeal to common sense isn't necessarily wrong.

KingEbukasBlog:
You can check the first page for the answer . You can read my posts from the first page before I switched to Christian theism . I think you should study deism to understand the logic behind acknowledging the existence of God .

The first page just has a definition. I'm yet to find actual useful logical proofs or evidence for your God. Would you worship a deist God?

KingEbukasBlog:
God can manifest in different ways and I experience Him in a lot of ways especially miracles not just in my life but in the life of so many people I know .

How exactly did you experience him? Was it divine revelation or information from a third party? Since you and your God like miracles, have you guys figured out how to heal amputees yet? If not, why should I or anyone else believe these anonymous claims of miraculous healing?

KingEbukasBlog:
FREEWILL . Even Pharisees and the Sadducees were called hypocritical by Christ himself while they worked as religious leaders in the vineyard of God . Christ also warned us of false prophets and teachers ; apparently anyone who sexually abuses any member of the church isn't of God thus a false prophet or teacher .

So your God is a monster who is less moral than an ordinary human being. An ordinary person would inhibit other people's freewill to stop such acts but your God won't. How then can you say your God loves innocent people more than the person who would stop such a crime? You're committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy by claiming that anyone who commits a crime is a false prophet. This demonstrates the failure of logic I'm talking about.

KingEbukasBlog:
Christ's action correlates with the meaning of sacrifice : he gave up his position as God , ruler of the universe , to die for man so that he won't be damned forever : John 3 16 explained that clearly . And According to Job : what is man that thou shouldest magnify him and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him ? Why should an ineffably great being like God be concerned with the affairs of men ? Job couldn't fathom why God, the source of existence to all that is , is immensely interested in man .

He lost nothing and gained everything. By that line of reasoning, anyone who sacrifices themselves for someone else has actually paid a much higher sacrifice than Jesus could ever hope to achieve.

KingEbukasBlog:
God abhors sin and sin separates man from God . This same Punishment would be meted out to man not with water but with fire before the eternal reign of Christ here on earth .

He knew sin would persist after the flood so why did he go ahead with it?

KingEbukasBlog:
Your existence is self evident that God exists .

And your existence is self evident that Brahma exists. You need to do better than that.

KingEbukasBlog:
Probably tired of responding to the same questions being asked over and over again .

Then you need to answer the questions reasonably once and for all. The answers you've given so far are atrocious.

KingEbukasBlog:
I do bro . It's pretty simple

Please go ahead and explain how three people are one person. Or how one person is three people.

KingEbukasBlog:
Who said God can't make amputees grow new limbs ? People just don't have enough faith for that .

I'm saying so. Unless you think no one on earth has ever had enough faith to grow new limbs? Recall that Jesus said it was possible to move mountains with a tiny amount of faith. Do you think people don't have enough for that too?
You can easily show that God can make amputees grow new limbs by you demonstrating your faith on an amputee and making that amputee grow new limbs.

KingEbukasBlog:
Quote verses let's discuss them

Bible NIV: Matthew
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split
52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Do you really think these events actually occured?

Edit: I notice that for some reason, you skipped the response I made here. Would you like to address that too?

KingEbukasBlog:
All I see is you appealing to common sense tacitly : I can't believe God would do or is doing this , therefore He does not exist . It's like you are saying , since God does not fit into my own expectations of Him or definitions I made for Him , therefore He does not exist .

You speak as if it is a bad thing to think and act reasonably. Actually, it is more like, certain actions ascribed to a so-called good God make no sense so either the God is malicious or doesn't exist.

KingEbukasBlog:
Acknowledging the existence of God is one thing , understanding how God works to a particular level is another thing . Logic helps with the former, divine revelation helps with the latter . That's why I conflate ideas in deism and Christian theism .

Why acknowledge the existence of a God when there's no good reason to do so? What is your logical proof or demonstration of your God's existence? Did you receive this so-called divine revelation? Or was it from a third party?

KingEbukasBlog:
So what do you want to actually know ? I can't keep answering questions which would have no use to you .

I want to know why you think a good, omnipotent and omniscient God would allow child abuse in his church.
I want to know why you think Jesus' act was a sacrifice.
I want to know why God thought drowning almost all of humanity in a flood was a good idea.
I want to know why God has failed to do what is necessary to get me to believe in him.
I want to know why you've avoided addressing the clear issues I raised.

KingEbukasBlog:
I understand if you have problems with understanding the triune nature of God .

And I'm sure you don't understand it either because it makes no sense.

KingEbukasBlog:
I don't know why you have problems with donkeys talking . It's unnatural , yes , but since God can control nature , he made that possible . Atheists want unnatural occurrences to happen like amputees growing limbs as a way of God proving his power but ridicule Christians for believing that God made a donkey talk ? Funny guys

The fact that you think God can make donkeys talk or made them talk according to some stories but can't make amputees regrow their limbs doesn't make you pause and think? I think it is ridiculous to believe a donkey can speak like we were told in our stories.

KingEbukasBlog:
I don't know what you mean by zombies roaming cities 2000 years ago

You need to read your Bible then. Did you know that on Jesus' death, graves opened up and people had close encounters with zombies?