₦airaland Forum

autotrader014:
APC and lies is like bread and butter.. very pathetic..

What was the lie told?

UyiIredia:
Whales don't have legs.

They have leg bones. What do those support?

UyiIredia:
I agree with the similarity but it's important to note there are differences as well. Simply saying 'that's how inheritance' works tells nothing about why you infer evolution from certain similarities. Inheritance as far as has been seen only involves variation within a species.

That is why we infer evolution because the organisms are descendants of related ancestors. If you understand the concept of inheritance, then my point should be clear. But with evolution, we know about the process of speciation.

UyiIredia:
All the links. It isn't absurd to be limited by constraints one sets up: any person can set a rule, and apply himself to that rule.

Pick the best three and provide the relevant quotes. It is absurd when the constraints lead to bad design of things one cares about.

UyiIredia:
Is there good design in living things ?

Living things evolved by natural processes so weren't designed. I'd rather use design in this context to refer to artifacts and artificial objects to avoid confusion.

UyiIredia:
It's a poor response, precisely because it ignores the problem consciousness poses given constraints on physical laws (esp that of chemistry).

I still don't see what your point is.

UyiIredia:
Nonsense. Darwin wasn't a naturalist when he wrote 'Origin Of The Species'. As it happens you've presented the best evidence, in your opinion, for evolution. On further questioning, the evidence is shown to rest on poor reasoning.

I presented a few broad lines of evidence. As I said, there's a full article and there are books on this topic so simply denying the evidence doesn't help you. Whatever Darwin was is also irrelevant. You've not shown the evidence rests on poor reasoning especially when you're not even qualified to start assessing the evidence.

UyiIredia:
.

The enzymes are made of those L-amino acids, pointing to its conformation does not explain what mechanism ensures L amino acids are used over D amino acids. And by the way, it's circular logic.

That is the mechanism. Again, I'm not making an argument so talking about circular logic is useless. I'm giving you the factual answer. Your next best bet would be to look up the answer yourself.

UyiIredia:
Again, you have failed to show why your statement is true.

Why which statement is true? Aren't you the one saying that there is a God out there?

UyiIredia:
Both require electricity, both have chambers through which fluid is pumped in and out. Artificial hearts are structured in a manner quite similar to human hearts.

Are they both made of cells? Do electric pumps grow? What you're talking about are functional similarities not structural.

UyiIredia:
It isn't. State the definition of 'argument from ignorance', show how it applies to my arguments. If you won't, then maybe your accusation is empty.

Did you miss the quote from Wikipedia in my response? I even put the relevant part in bold for you. This sort of ridiculousness is sad.

UyiIredia:
No, I'm saying you can't say I'm wrong when you haven't shown how so.

What haven't I shown you to be wrong about?
And I'm telling you that such a statement is fallacious. It commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. It is up to you to show that you're correct whether or not I have shown you're wrong.

UyiIredia:
I can't show God to you. But I have presented good arguments as to why God does exist.

But your arguments have all failed so far and it looks like you're relying a lot on a fallacious argument from ignorance.

UyiIredia:
A body.

What do legs support in a whale?

UyiIredia:
2 questions. What is this 'greater structure of things' ?

Essentially other living things.

UyiIredia:
Why must the similarity coherent with this 'greater structure of things' suggest evolution of all life from a common ancestor ?

The similarity is a fact. Because that is how inheritance works.

UyiIredia:
Once again, the links I posted make nonsense of your claims of bad design. Furthermore, there's no way God could work around such constraints, these constraints are pre-requisites for design. For example, the physical laws of the natural world God made which are necessary for life to exist but would constrain the design of living things.

Which quote from which particular link does this? So God is limited by constraints he himself set up? That is absurd.

UyiIredia:
One thing I say is that perfection is a state of mind. One wonders what a perfect design would have to be like.

We don't need to know perfect design to recognize bad design and what you've attributed to your God is bad design.

UyiIredia:
That's the best response you have Maybe it's because you don't have a case at all.

That is an appropriate response because I simply don't see what your point is.

UyiIredia:
There's no evidence for this. The so-called overwhelming evidence amount to nothing when their premises are analysed.

No, you're denying the evidence for this. That is why there's a full article on evidence for evolution on Wikipedia. You can read that and refute the premises but you don't have the required expertise to even begin to critique what is written there.

UyiIredia:
This is circular reasoning. 'the conformation of the enzymes' is what L amino acids are, that usage requires an explanation.

No, the conformation of the enzymes is the three dimensional shape of its amino acid sequence.

UyiIredia:
That's your opinion. You have failed to show why it's true.

You're the one proposing the existence of the entity so it is up to you to show that it exists.

UyiIredia:
There are similarities in structure. The said intelligence is inferred from facts I've explained earlier; I can't reveal its existence but I certainly can explain how its existence is inferred.

What is the structural similarity between a heart and a pumping machine? What I'm asking for is whether or not intelligence can exist without a material substrate. If it cannot, then your inference automatically fails.

UyiIredia:
Post the definition of 'argument from ignorance' on Wikipedia and show that what I've done fits it.

This is ridiculous. Couldn't you look it up yourself? Or do I have to explain how to use language too?

Wikipedia: Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

You seem to think that your proposition is true because it hasn't been proven false.

UyiIredia:
The same applies even moreso to your stance, should we just assume that the universe exists uncaused ?

My position is that your God isn't needed. In fact you've not shown that your God exists.

Taylor86:
we voted buhari cos GEJ was incompetent right!?

what has been buharis effort to ensure those loopholes and lapses are recovered?

he has refused to appoint his saints to the appropriate positions

holding all portfolios to himself

and gullible nigerians thinks by splitting his salary by50% is justifiable enough

at the end of this year we'll all compare and contrast between GEJ and dullardino

una never see anything

Don't you have to identify the problem before you can fix it?

They leave the Nigerian health system in shambles and run abroad for treatment. Now she can't use her phone because she might get infected from it? Has she been using the phone in the gutter? Or is she licking it?

I really hope these people are probed and exposed.

UyiIredia:
Movement and support.

What are legs supposed to support?

UyiIredia:
This is about the best evidence and the reasoning behind it. If similarity is all you can point to then your case is weak. I don't know if native applications are faster, my point is that Java is deployed across multiple devices is an example of common design.

It isn't some random similarity or planned similarity, but similarity that we've observed that is coherent with the greater structure of things.

UyiIredia:
If you want to remain wilfully ignorant feel free. In the meantime, it's clear you did not read the articles I posted since they make nonsense of the rubbish up there. Any designer, God inclusive, has to design a system with certain parameters which are constraints: this doesn't make God less perfect or powerful no more than the laws of logic do.

Actually, it does since he could have chosen to ignore those parameters or constraints. Your God isn't a perfect designer. Even worse, you've not shown he's out there. What part of the article explains why a good designer would design things badly? Do you have a quote?

UyiIredia:
Good. If consciousness is neither one of them it's clear that the chemical processes in the brain aren't sufficient to account for consciousness, since as anyone knows chemical reactions usually limited to producing chemical compounds
and a release/use of energy.

So what?

UyiIredia:
I made my point earlier. Complex and specific information require minds. We don't know of natural processes making them. I described CSI initially.

Evolution produces them.

UyiIredia:
This doesn't help your case as you've not stated what is responsible for living things using only L amino acid isomers.

I already told you that it was due to the conformation of the enzymes.

UyiIredia:
It's your problem if you deny the facts not mine.

The creator you've introduced isn't a fact.

UyiIredia:
No, it's being deceptive. The fact is that there are similarities between human designs and living things. The fact is that some human designs are biological.

The similarities aren't in structure or in how they emerge. You've also not shown that intelligence can exist without a material substrate.

UyiIredia:
And if you can't prove me wrong how can you say I'm not right ? It doesn't make sense. Not to mention that this is doesn't show how my argument is based on ignorance.

The fact that you think I have to prove you wrong shows that you're making an argument from ignorance. That is the meaning of making an argument from ignorance. As I said, whether or not I can prove you wrong doesn't make your argument good.

UyiIredia:
If he has a physical substrate he would be contingent and as such his existence would require an explanation.

Of course your God requires an explanation doesn't he? Or are we to just assume he is out there because you really want it to be so?

AllNaijaBlogger:
I see that you are ignorant about the fact that 2 million red blood cells are produced per second- all of them starting with DNA. Yes some of the red blood cells will stop functioning- those ones still in the early life cycle.

You have trillions of red blood cells functioning for months without DNA so what is your point? Do they work without DNA or not?

AllNaijaBlogger:
Radiation poisoning or cancer doesn't kill all your DNA at once, does it?

I didn't say it did. That was one of my points.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Wikipedia shouldn't be the backbone of your logic. You should know that multiple organ failure is a general name. If your heart, lungs and brain failed, you'd be dead within seconds. If your liver and kidney failed you could survive for hours.

You're still saying rubbish and trying to rescue your ignorant speculation. How on earth is what you've said equivalent to the sudden disappearance of DNA from cells?

AllNaijaBlogger:
Common sense is not common.

Obviously it isn't and you're proof of it.

AllNaijaBlogger:
What you fail to understand is that without DNA, your cells are as good as dead. They will malfunction and such a malfunction across one's whole body will cause death.

I didn't say the cell would live forever, I said the person won't die immediately as if e.g the person got decapitated.

AllNaijaBlogger:
A dictionary definition that doesnt work? Oxymoronic

In the context, it works.

A misused definition doesn't help you.

AllNaijaBlogger:






Figurative as in metaphorical?

Guess what? The end of the universe is also a metaphor for death. However, the end of the universe literally means death of all life.

Cancer (terminal) too is a metaphor for death. But having terminal cancer will literally kill you.


What? Did I just blow your mind?

You just amaze me with your profound ignorant ramble.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Don't mind the huge text, I just want everyone to see the liar you are

Yet to actually show the lie.

KingEbukasBlog:
You seem not to understand what "universe" is

Can you use a dictionary or google? If you can, why have you asked me that pointless question?

KingEbukasBlog:
So show me using science

1. The initial conditions of the big bang
2. How life came from the non-living
3. How the DNA arose naturally
4. The ancestry line of monkeys using evolution
5. Reincarnation (This has already been verified )
6. Dreams
7. Why other animals are not as intelligent as man

Just deal with these ones first

Lots of these questions are vague and useless. Others you can look up. Reincarnation has not been verified so could you please verify that?

KingEbukasBlog:
God's hands are attached to his body

And what is his body made of?

KingEbukasBlog:
Obviously not flesh and bone ... No one has seen God - Yaweh ... But He can communicate to man in different forms

Well what are they made of?

KingEbukasBlog:
@ thehomer : What is the universe ? Define universe ...

What is the point of this question?

KingEbukasBlog:
Where are your hands today ?

Please answer my question.

My hands are attached to my body.

KingEbukasBlog:
What are your hands made of ?

Please answer the question. What were God's hands made of? Flesh and bone.

KingEbukasBlog:
Because they are correct , what makes you think scientific answers are correct ?

Religious answers are correct because they're correct? I guess that means Zoroastrianism is correct.

Scientific answers are correct because they match the real world.

AllNaijaBlogger:
First, red blood cells need DNA at the first stage of their life cycle. Clearly, you are ignorant of this. If your DNA disappears, a significant amount of your red blood cells will malfunction or die.

I know that but as I said, red blood cells function for months without DNA. By significant do you mean up to 40% or what? Do you think that the cells stop functioning immediately?

AllNaijaBlogger:
Secondly, radiation/cancer messes up your DNA, if the damage is so much that your DNA fails to repair itself properly. Now imagine if the dna disappears totally. Imagine if most of your organs were malfunctioning because its cells have all lost DNA. Multiple organ failure is death within seconds or minutes, especially if the organs that fail are 3 or more. In this case, your brain, kidney, liver, skin etc will all be affected.

And how long does it take to die from radiation poisoning or cancer? DNA disappearing doesn't mean the cells stop functioning immediately. That is the fact that you've still failed to understand. Multiple organ failure is not death within seconds or minutes. These are the sorts of basic errors that you keep making that just shows your profound ignorance on this issue. As you can see from that article, it occurs in stages and isn't instantaneous.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Yes, just make empty declarations. Please don't waste my time with your feeble attempts at dodging the facts. I did not misuse the word and I gave a dictionary definition with examples. Please.

I simply stated the fact that you misused the word. You gave a dictionary definition that didn't work.

AllNaijaBlogger:
@ bold- what a marvelous strawman!

Common sense should tell you two things

First, you cannot as a Nigerian, claim to know English more than English people and their dictionaries. I gave a common example of a phrase used in UK/US and you are now claiming that they are wrong. Not only that, I backed it up with a dictionary definition. Mr Homer, please learn to humble yourself before your humiliate yourself.

But common sense didn't show you anything apparently. That example shows the flaw in your thinking. The dictionary definition you gave didn't help your point. The word "literally" was being used in that sentence in a non-figurative manner and it is that fact that keeps eluding you.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Secondly, a normally healthy person could die anytime within one second to 70 years. Death with such a person cannot be said to be imminent. However, a person with terminal cancer will die in the nearest future. Death is both certain and imminent. There is a vast difference.

But you said the person with cancer was literally a dead man walking not that he was figuratively a dead man walking. It is simply becoming clear to me and anyone else reading this that the language is difficult for you.

AllNaijaBlogger:
What is wrong with you?

Nothing.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Does your husband/wife give you raw garri to eat with soup? Or can you mould raw garri into a bowl shape?

You can add water to garri or eba and eat it with soup. You can add water to raw garri or raw eba and it will achieve the shape.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Please, think before you type

Clearly you didn't think before you typed.

davodyguy:
How?

It suggests that plants existed before the sun. And that it is appropriate for people to be enslaved.

davodyguy:
No

What does it mean?

davodyguy:
This part killed it. We can keep going round and round in circle or cycle, we would still go back to default of ' what happened in the beginning of time'?

If it evolved, what propelled it to evolve?

The bible is not a scientific material, neither will it try to prove anything scientifically. But it rather gave explanations, which can be aligned with in the absence of any scientific contradiction about the origin of the universe

It isn't simply that the Bible isn't a scientific source, but that it also presents wrong information. What happens when scientific information contradicts the information in the Bible? Does that mean the information in the Bible is wrong?

KingEbukasBlog:
So why do you mock people that say the supernatural is responsible . Science tries to explain how it was done and religion explains why it was done

Lemme give you a quick example :

1. Why was the universe or earth formed?

Science : No answer

Religion : To be inhabited by intelligent , free moral agents to whom God will reveal Himself to

2 . How was the universe or earth formed

Science : accretion ; big bang

Religion : No answer

We were born into this earth ; science just tries to explain how all these came into being (how) . Religion tells us the cause (who is responsible ; who is in charge ) , why (the purpose of life ) and other stuff like understanding the purpose of life , how we should live our lives etc

What makes you think the religious answers are correct?

MrAnony1:
My point is that you are contradicting yourself. Now can you explain how two things that (according to you) have the same definition are different?

If those two things can be synonymous.

MrAnony1:
Evasion number 7: What are you so afraid of?

Since you claim that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs, then please what are these physical properties of what you are experiencing that inform you it is hunger when the hunger pangs are absent? Or is the hunger you are experiencing non-physical?

Can you please answer my question and stop dodging?

The physical dimension would be the appropriate signals in the brain. What is your point with this question?

MrAnony1:
Another lie. Please show where I said that length isn't a physical property?

You were the one who said that hunger pangs are a physical property of hunger and that length are a physical property of hunger pangs. So please explain to us how exactly you aren't saying that a physical property has a physical property.

Where you said hunger pangs weren't a physical property. As usual, I've answered your question but you didn't answer my simple question. Here it is again. Is length non-physical?

MrAnony1:
How did you get that from what I just explained to you?

Because you only gave examples of physical objects. Please answer my question.

MrAnony1:
If hunger is not matter, how then does it have physical properties? Are you suggesting that there are physical properties that do not describe material things?Also, what question are you referring to?

Here are the questions again. Please tell me, is the stomach matter? Do hunger pangs describe the stomach under those conditions?

MrAnony1:
Similarly, I know my hunger because I am conscious. Hunger pangs are an effect of non-physical hunger on the physical body. Again what questions are you referring to?

This is why you should answer my questions when I ask them rather than just throwing about questions and irrelevant statements. Here are the questions again. Don't you agree that the mind is non-physical? Do you mean that hunger pangs are an effect of the mind not the physical body?

MrAnony1:
Osheyy "Mr Enforcer" . Actually it is you who has been dodging my questions, I have pointed out 7 clear instances of you evading my questions (not counting the posts you ignored entirely). Please make sure you answer them meaningfully before you start enforcing whatever it is you want to enforce.

You merely claimed they were evasions while ignoring the actual questions I asked. Oh yes you may consider me the enforcer.

MrAnony1:
Yes it true that appearing to be designed doesn't prove it is actually designed. However since you have given us no alternate explanation, we have no reason not to go with how things appear i.e. assume they are designed until proven otherwise.

The theory of evolution explains why appearing designed doesn't mean they were designed in the way human artifacts are designed.

MrAnony1:
Evasion number 5: Trying to shift the burden of proof? It is you who needs to show us a reason to deny the apparent design that we observe.
Secondly, merely claiming that the theory of evolution explains your position means nothing if you cannot actually show how it does. Seeing as you are unwilling to explain your position, you have not met your burden of proof and so we haven't been presented with any reason for us to reject design which by your own admission is obvious to us as observers.
Thirdly, judging by how you keep throwing the word "evolution" about without actually explaining what you mean, I am beginning to suspect that you really don't know what you are talking about and you hope to hide this fact by making empty audacious statements. Are you afraid that your ignorance will become exposed?

More empty rubbish. Even if I can't explain what the theory of evolution is, it still doesn't lift your burden of proof. As I said, the theory of evolution explains what you think is a problem. As I've said before, I won't be giving free lessons online. If you think the theory of evolution is wrong, then it is up to you to show that it is wrong given the fact that it has multiple lines of evidence.

MrAnony1:
Evasion number 6: Trying to shift the burden of proof again?
You are a funny character. It was you who said that living things look designed. How exactly does showing a transition from one designed object to another designed object disprove design? What you need to show in order to prove your point is a non-living thing that doesn't look designed transform into a living thing that looks designed via a mindless process.

And you're a ridiculous character. I've told you again and again that the theory of evolution answers the question you're asking. If you wish to refute that theory, then you have to understand it well enough to refute it but I won't give you free lessons online. Especially when the resources are available online. My aim is not to disprove design, but to tell you why it is the case that living organisms appear designed.

MrAnony1:
Once you have done this, then I am more than happy to explain to you how I think human beings came to exist. But first of all, meet your burden of proof.....or can't you?

I've done my part. It is up to you to do your part. Secondly, even if I can't do my part, you still have to give your explanation.

MrAnony1:
This very thread will do just fine. Let those who read it judge for themselves.

Where does it show my fear?

MrAnony1:
.....so we are now dishonest and moaning. Well the thread is here for all to read and judge for themselves. I don't expect you to admit your own fear publicly.

Also feel free to highlight which line in davidylan's post was insulting to you so as to warrant the insults in your reply

I'm sure you can read. If you don't think any line there was insulting then that's a testament to your dishonesty.

MrAnony1:
Also, since you want us to examine the "substance" of your claim, can you provide any evidence for your claim there? Specifically this one:

There are three sentences there. Which ones do you disagree with whose answers you can't find online for yourself?

MrAnony1:
Yet you conveniently omitted that part in your response. Why are you so shamelessly dishonest?



It means "fast to an extent" and yes I am quite literally my DNA. Why were you so dishonest in your exchange with Uyi? What stopped you from properly representing him the first time? Calling me ignorant hasn't masked the fact that your dishonesty had to be called out.

Can your DNA type on a keyboard?

MrAnony1:
Perhaps I don't know what a transition is. Please what is a transition and how exactly can we tell its occurrence from looking at fossils? i.e. what should we look out for in the fossils that will inform us that a transition has occurred?

Wikipedia: A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

You should look out for traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. Now do you know how to tell whether or not a transition has occurred?

You keep asking questions whose answers are easily found online. Why do you keep doing that?

MrAnony1:
Evasion number 4: If you think that nothingness was never the case then it is either the universe was caused to exist or it has always existed. So now please answer my question. Was the Universe caused to exist? If so, what properties would a thing capable of causing the universe have? . . .or do you think that the universe has always existed?

Something always existed.

MrAnony1:
I think the universe was brought into existence. Since evidently we both agree that something can only come from something, which means we both agree that there must be a first uncaused cause. What properties do you think that this first cause has?

I don't know. What properties do you think this first cause has?

MrAnony1:
Evasion number 3: Maybe I am ignorant but it is definitely a serious question: What exactly does DNA actually do in cells?

You need to tell me whether or not you're actually ignorant about this question. After all, you may just be out to waste my time. So, are you actually ignorant on this?

MrAnony1:
Evasion number 1:
You have not answered my question. Merely name-dropping the word "evolution" does nothing to explain how it being a purposeless process can create purposeful objects. So please answer the question: How exactly does a purposeless process (i.e. evolution) create purposeful objects?

That is not name dropping, that is a scientific theory and I'm not about to give you a science lesson for free especially when you can read up on it online.

MrAnony1:
What fact are you talking about? Are you referring to the "evolution" that you are yet to explain as “fact”?

Again, it is a scientific theory. Denying a scientific theory doesn't make it stop being the case.

MrAnony1:
Information must necessarily have meaning therefore in order to create it, one must first conceptualize it and then output it. Conceptualization is something that only minds can do. Since computers do not have minds, therefore they cannot conceptualize, therefore they cannot create meaning, therefore they cannot create information. They can only receive data, arrange it based on certain mechanistic settings and then output the rearranged data without creating any meaning whatsoever. This rearranged data may now be read as information by a mindful being capable of creating meaning. To say that a computer is creating information is to say that the computer understands the meaning of the information that it is outputing. This clearly isn't the case.

Saying information must have meaning is a category error. Unless what you actually mean is that for someone to consider something as information, they have to understand it i.e for information to be information, it has to mean something to someone. Meaning is a subjective phenomenon that requires a certain degree of brain complexity. Computers don't yet have minds. Humans also receive data and arrange is based on certain mechanistic settings and output the rearranged data. The meaning again is a subjective component that not all humans are capable of.

MrAnony1:
Now your turn: Can you make your argument as to why you think that computers - having no minds - can create information?

The way I see it, information is subjective and so depends on whether or not the recipient can understand what they're receiving. Since computers can assemble data and present it to humans in a way that they understand, they've created information that humans.

MrAnony1:
A faulty GPS is less predictable. Does a faulty GPS have a mind?

No.

MrAnony1:
Evasion number 2: Again you haven't answered my question.

What is the computing power in terms of the processing speed (in hertz) and memory (in bytes) of a mindful GPS device?

I don't know.

MrAnony1:
I see. So you are saying that the GPS acts intentionally yet doesn't have a mind?

Yes.

MrAnony1:
I asked you what fundamental philosophical reasons do you have that should convince us that other things apart from minds create information? Your answer is that minds have physical structures. This has nothing to do with the question I asked but since it is your answer: Please explain exactly how a mind with a physical structure shows that other things apart from minds can create information.

I gave you something better. The example of a GPS device.

MrAnony1:
It is not enough to make the claim. How exactly does experimental psychology show this?

For that, you need some education on psychology. And I won't be giving you free psychology lessons online. You can read up on it. I can give you links if you want.

MrAnony1:
I see that it is red herring season again.

Irrelevant question #1.
How exactly does a non-physical object have a physical location? How exactly does location affect whether or not something is functioning through another?
Where are these minds of yours that are developing with a physical brain?

You didn't answer my question. It relevance was based on your ideas of minds existing without brains. Those minds are produced by the brains.

MrAnony1:
Irrelevant question #2.
How exactly does method of picking change whether something is functioning through another?
How do your minds pick which brain to develop with?

You didn't answer my question. Please answer it then we'll get to the problems with a mind just picking a brain to affect.
In my view, minds don't pick brains to develop with.

MrAnony1:
Irrelevant question #3.
How exactly does ability or inability to switch tools change whether something is being used as a tool or not?
Can your minds switch brains and develop somewhere else?

Please answer my question. It has implications on our justice system.
In my view, minds cannot switch brains.

MrAnony1:
Irrelevant question #4.
How exactly does whether or not something can leave another change whether it is using the other as a tool?
Where do your minds go when a person dies?

Please answer my question. It has implications on how minds are supposed to work.
In my view, minds stop when a person dies. They can even stop before death is confirmed.

MrAnony1:
Irrelevant question #5. How exactly does whether a thing has multiple users or whether multiple users use one thing change the fact that there is a user/used relationship?
Are there multiple minds or just one mind developing with multiple brains?

Please answer my question. It has implications in our justice system and on certain philosophical ideas.
In my view, there are multiple minds.

MrAnony1:
Seriously your questions have nothing to do with the premises being discussed. I too will have nothing to do with them.

They have a lot to do with the premises being discussed and I answered my part. Please do your part by answering them.

MrAnony1:
I have never denied this. Now do you deny that DNA contains actual information that effects living things and this information is not merely the human abstraction?

I didn't deny that either. Just that the information is a human abstraction of the actual things the DNA does.

MrAnony1:
Yes but still they are very analogous in the sense that both DNA and the computer code are specific arrangements of objects such that they contain information that is capable of effecting changes in the organism they are defining. Do you affirm or deny this?

Websites aren't organisms so your analogy simply fails.

MrAnony1:
As I've said before and will say again, you are quite literally your DNA

Your persistent assertion simply shows you have a problem with the English language.

MrAnony1:
The information in your DNA is specifically instructing your cells. Do you deny this? You are welcome to explain in very specific terms this “mechanistic process” by which DNA works if you think I am using the word "instructing" inaccurately.

That is a lesson on genetics that I won't be giving you for free online. Here's an [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_%28genetics%29]article[/url] on the first step of the process to get you started.

MrAnony1:
Another empty assertion. What has where God came from got to do with whether or not you were mindfully created?

It has everything to do with it. It denies the undirected nature of evolution. Please answer the question.

MrAnony1:
The information that defines you is the information in your DNA as encoded by the specific arrangements of your nucleotide bonds, so are you saying that the information in your DNA is a human conception and hence doesn't actually exist objectively?

No I'm not.

MrAnony1:
Liar. This shows the emptiness of your position. Judging by how much you are fighting to cling unto this red herring of yours. I never said that God has a body neither did I ever show any willingness to follow your red herring. What I said is that you can assume God has a body if you like, it will still have nothing to do with our discussion which is whether or not you are mindfully created. Why are you so desperate to avoid the actual discussion? Do I really scare you that much?

Now he denies what he initially accepted when I raised questions with his position. Here I'll ask you directly are we working with the premise that your God has a body or not? If not, then what is the basis of your design argument?

MrAnony1:
You mean like the lies, evasions, red herrings and petty semantic games you've been throwing about? Yeah, there are indeed so many irrelevant diversions.

Actually, all the questions I asked had good reasons and could have been answered in one or two short sentences if you actually knew what you were talking about. As usual, I answered the questions you asked but you didn't answer mine. Please make sure you answer them in your next response.

MrAnony1:
Answered here. Unless your claim is that revelation (in the manner you have described) is the only basis for believing in a thing's existence then it it is irrelevant to ask whether God can or cannot do that. So are you saying that such revelation is the basis for believing in a thing's existence?

The link says nothing about your God revealing himself to me like people revealed themselves to me. It is the basis for believing in the existence of your friends. Is your God your friend? Or are you saying your God can't reveal himself to me the way other people have?

MrAnony1:
I never did. Rather I pointed out your red herring and now I point out your lie.

You never accepted it for the sake of argument? Well I already provided a link showing where you did.

MrAnony1:
This is not irrelevant. In fact it casts doubts on your sincerity especially since you are the one demanding proof. Do you seriously want to know whether God exists or not or do you only want to argue about it?

I want to know whether or not your God exists. What is the relevance of where or how I sought him? Would that somehow stop you from showing him to me if he exists? Or will that stop him from showing himself to me?

KingEbukasBlog:
Oh davien ... understand who Christians call God and why we hold fast to the belief in Him . You just gave a wrong perception @ bold . *sigh* read my little explanation in my response to thehomer 's question "did God create humans with hands" . It should help


Watch www.chosen.tv around 11: 30 pm today

What were God's hands made of?