₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
Yes he did , with hands :

Genesis 2:7

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Psalm 8:4-6

4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,human beings that you care for them?
5 You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet:

Light and darkness

Isaiah 45:7

7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things.

form verb

make or be made into a specific shape or form

"Let there be light " . This might give you the perception of magic or something coming from nothing but continue ...

Meaning : Made visible

The earth was restored 6,000 years ago not created ; let was used to restore the orderliness of the once-created . Everything ... universes , planets were created billions of years ago

Isaiah 48:13

13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens ; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Dinosaurs , mammoths , were created far back . Now Ive understood their purpose of creation (everything has a purpose of existing because God made it so). To provide resources needed for man to create or give the ability of functionality to his creations . Cars , planes , just name it

Psalm 82:6

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

... this shows we have the ability to create just like Him

Genesis 1:26 a

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness ... "

Likeness - meaning : outward appearance of ; resemblance

We have hands just like God ; we can create with our hands or form .

We form dough into balls - with our hands . Their circular shape was as a result of dexterity ; same with other hand made stuff

In conclusion : Our ability to create - a reflection of man's resemblance to God

C'est fini !

Where are God's hands today?

AllNaijaBlogger:
It was a lie by omission.

*You claimed that one would last a few hours after his/her DNA is completely removed from the body
*I then countered that one would die immediately on a cellular level.
*You then said that trillions of cells function without DNA
*What you failed to mention was that 10 times more cells (majority of cells) need DNA. It is only red blood and cornified cells that can function without DNA.

What do you think they do with DNA that would make them die instantly at the cellular level but red blood cells live for weeks without it? I still don't see how I lied.

AllNaijaBlogger:
So when British or American people say "he is literally a dead man walking", does that mean that the man walking is exactly dead? No it doesnt mean that the man is exactly dead but has something that will essentially make him dead soon. Literally does not mean exactly.

That is a misuse of the word and that is what the dictionary will tell you. Secondly, that isn't the meaning that was implied in the use on this thread.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Also, the definition is clear- "literal" refers to the essence of the character (nature) of something. When they say "literally a dead man walking", this is what they mean- A man walking around with terminal brain cancer is a dead man walking; the brain cancer is essentially death for the man. Terminal brain cancer is not exactly death but it will bring about death.

So if you were to shoot a man walking around with terminal cancer, would that be murder? After all, everyone will die at some point so are you literally a dead man walking just because you've not been diagnosed now with terminal cancer?

AllNaijaBlogger:
You misunderstood the definition and retorted in derision that "eba/DNA has character". The definition is not using "character" in the sense you used it. It means "character" as in the "nature" of something.

More rubbish.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Also, Eba is not exactly garri but you agreed that eba is literally garri. Eba is 40% water and 60% garri.
Why then will you argue that your DNA is not literally you? When your DNA defines your physical self?

So what can you do with eba that you can't do with garri?

AllNaijaBlogger:
Very clearly before, I stated that your DNA is not exactly you- about 2 posts ago.

Can you DNA type on a keyboard?

timonski:
Thehomer you never still burn out. You don lose this case since page 19

Thank you for your concern. Please can you tell me what I lost and how exactly I lost it?

UyiIredia:
Losing the original function is vestigiality itself. The reason for that belief is the assumption that the organs have little or no function.

What would you say is the function of legs?

UyiIredia:
Similarity doesn't conclude common ancestry moreso if all that is observed is that species vary within limits their genes allow. Common design is a better inference given the level of sophistication of what you've mentioned, we also know that humans can deploy a given technology in multiple ways such as the use of Java in devices ranging from remote controls to laptops.

That isn't the only line of evidence. Recall that there are other lines of evidence. Using your example of Java, is it not the case that native applications generally run better and faster than Java programs?

UyiIredia:
Even assuming bad design is correct, it doesn't eliminate the fact of design. A poor design or a flawed design still is a design. Furthermore, such 'blunders' are based on an ignorance of design constraints or functions which we are unaware of till they are brought to light.

Bad design is evidence of a bad designer thus cannot be the work of a perfect person. God shouldn't have any constraints should he?

UyiIredia:
For example, it is now understood that the backward wiring of the retina helps in focusing light to it while also averting severe irritation to light-sensitive photoreceptors. See here, here and here.

But there are better designs available so why should humans and other organisms along that lineage have that similarity? That is bad design or even malicious design when we know that there are better designs available.

UyiIredia:
Recurrent laryngeal nerves serve to enneervate other nerves and likely take the circuitous route due to developmental constraints in embryos. See here and here

And those constraints are there because the organism evolved. A good designer won't take the circuitous route.

UyiIredia:
. And whale hip bones are now though to serve a role in supporting whale sex organs who typically have sex at high pressures in the ocean's depths. See here and here.

I talked about whale leg bones. Again, the fact that they've been repurposed isn't why they're vestigial in the biological sense.

UyiIredia:
Bad design arguments wilfully ignore several instances human inventions were reverse-engineered from living things. The 3-axis control systems that allowed the Wright brothers build the first working airplane was derived from birds.

"On the basis of observation, Wilbur concluded that birds
changed the angle of the ends of their wings to make their
bodies roll right or left." - Wright brothers Wikipedia page

So what?

UyiIredia:
You can always go to Wikipedia's biomimetics page to see other designs scientists copied from living things.

Again, so what?

UyiIredia:
Finally, It is very stupid to assert bad design of systems we don't even come close to designing ourselves and in numerous ways are still ignorant of. The correct disposition_and the prevailing one_ is that living things reveal an exquisite design.

It is foolishly dense and ignorant to assert organisms that evolved over millions of years were designed by an intelligent person. It is also buffoonish to say that one cannot point out bad design when we've seen good design.

UyiIredia:
Answer the question please. Is consciousness a chemical compound or a form of energy ?

It is neither.

UyiIredia:
It refers to patterns as exhibited by various objects.

Just make your point or a summary of what you're trying to get at.

timonski:
What one has to go through to deny existence of the Almighty Creator. SMDH!

What do you have to show for your creator?

UyiIredia:
My mistake, they aren't fatal. Are these precursors present in living things ?

Yes amino acids are present in living things.

UyiIredia:
I've made the argument. You denied its premise.

Yes and have you rectified that problem?

UyiIredia:
You are being deceptive. I clearly stated there was a second argument where God was inferred from the role intelligence plays in humans building functional systems. The analogy wasn't flawed
, you ignored instances where design was biological in nature, you ignored similarities between living systems and human designs.

That isn't being deceptive, that is being factual. Evolved systems are different from objects designed by humans. Making that analogy will always fail because it a poor one. You've not shown how intelligence can even exist without a material substrate i.e a brain.

UyiIredia:
How is it an argument from ignorance ?

It is an argument from ignorance because whether or not I prove you wrong doesn't make you right. You still have to show your God.

UyiIredia:
I stated why the refutation was wrong, you continued in your denial.

The reason you gave wasn't reason wasn't sufficient as my point above shows.

UyiIredia:
I don't need to show God, inferring God is sufficient.

No it isn't because firstly intelligence needs a material substrate. In the case of humans, we have the brain. Does your God have a physical substrate that you can show for you to even begin to make the comparison?

This cleric must be a stupid fellow. How can he say the looting of billions of dollars from a poor country is just an excuse? Does he think Nigeria gets money by tithes? This man thinks that asking for international support in recovering stole funds is a statement of failure.

What a joker.

UyiIredia:
And the basis for that was the assumption that certain organs had little or no function, mostly the latter. Weidersheim's list is still on Wikipedia and over time functions were found for the so-called vestigial organs listed there.

No, the basis is that they've lost their original function. e.g hind legs in whales that can't walk on land is vestigial. You've simply still not understood how that term is used in biology and that is the source of your current confusion.

UyiIredia:
This is a poor answer and a non-starter. We already know of the similarity between embryos and adults and in conserved proteins across species. Why do you infer evolution from such similarity ?

Common ancestry is the best inference to be made. What would you infer from it?

UyiIredia:
Not to mention that vestigial organs vary wildly from man's appendix to the whale's pelvis. Conserved proteins don't mutate and random mutations is undesirable in embryos, it could result in death or serious illnesses.

As far as we have seen, species diverge within limits. They may vary in some traits but remain
morphologically and genetically identical. What are these so-called features designers won't do that evolution can ?

The recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe, hind legs in whales etc. Why would an intelligent designer make such blunders?

UyiIredia:
I see. Is consciousness is a chemical product or a form of energy ? B'cos that's what chemical reactions usually result in.

Consciousness is an effect of the complex brain. Why do you say it contradicts chemistry when it can be changed with chemicals?

UyiIredia:
Okay. Keep in mind that for this for the purposes of argument, complexity requires that it isn't liable to predictions and specifity requires that it performs a given function. Do you agree ?

What does "it" refer to in your talk about complexity and specificity? After you've answered that, please just make your point or a summary of it. Whether or not I agree would depend on that summary rather than these vague ideas.

UyiIredia:
Life uses only L-isomers of amino acids. D-isomers are fatal to it. Water and salt are inorganic, biochemicals are typically organic.

D-isomer aren't fatal, they're not used. Organic chemicals are those that carbon atoms and their precursors can be found all over the place.

UyiIredia:
So the earliest organism could have been created ? If it's the case that natural factors couldn't effect relatively simple living things, one can be skeptical of the claim that more complex lifeforms naturally evolved.

To make the argument that they were created, you need to make an argument for the creator. Be skeptical all you want but the theory of evolution has already been shown to be the case.

UyiIredia:
It's not just an ignorance of the steps, there is simply no aspect of abiotic nature that in principle can effect life. As I said much earlier, the inference to God rests on 2 key arguments: the inability of natural factors to synthesize and organize life and the crucial role intelligence plays in designing functional systems akin to life.

And what is the evidence for your God? So far, your arguments are based on ignorance i.e we don't know how natural factors can synthesize organic life therefore God. And an argument based on a flawed analogy that still says nothing about your God. Thus, both arguments are based on ignorance until you can actually show your God.

UyiIredia:
You can prove me wrong by showing how they can actually result in life. They can't.

An argument from ignorance. Whether or not I prove you wrong doesn't make you right. You still have to show your God.

UyiIredia:
Evolution explains nothing, it's a poor theory through and through and I can show that. I've already stated the basis on which we infer God, you failed to refute it.

I told you it was based on a bad analogy. That is the refutation.

UyiIredia:
You failed to show that natural processes can synthesize or organize biochemicals into life. You denied the fact that human designs and inventions are similar to living systems, despite my addition of feats of genetic engineering that were clearly biological in nature.

Regardless of what you think I failed to do, it is still up to you to show that your God did what you're ascribing to him and for you to do that, you need to show your God. You've not done that so your arguments have no weight. Now, can we talk about the problems with your God doing anything that makes that idea untenable?

AllNaijaBlogger:
You can lie!

Most cells have DNA. The only ones that don't are some red blood cells and cornified cells. You say trillions of cells function without DNA as if 10 times that amount of cells do not need DNA .

Which statement was the lie? Is it not a fact that red blood cells live for months without DNA? What exactly is wrong with you?

AllNaijaBlogger:
Strawman alert! How did you arrive at "DNA having character" from the definition of "literal" that I gave? Are you literate at all


Here is the definition again-
Adj. 1. literal - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something literal - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something;


From the definition, I could say that eba is essentially garri, therefore eba is literally garri- does that now mean that I am saying that eba has character?

Stop being obtuse

You stupid ignorant buffoon. The definition you presented was talking about character. Didn't you read it before you posted it as your definition? It's clear that you don't know what literal is because your example demonstrates my point and shows your confusion. Eba is literally garri since whatever applies to Eba applies to garri. I showed you that some things that apply to DNA do not apply to you and vice versa. Your ignorance is what prevents you from understanding this simple point.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Irony or should I say hypocrisy?

Neither. Looks like you don't know what those words mean too.

AllNaijaBlogger:
You are not deceiving anyone with your false bravado. You made an incorrect statement and now you are trying to bully your way out by calling others "ignorant".


You claimed that someone can still live for a few hours after all his or her DNA is removed. That is blatantly false. You need DNA to be alive in the first place. The moment it is all gone, you are dead.

This is ignorant. Trillions of cells function without DNA for months. Saying you need DNA to be alive in the first place ignores the basic premise of the hypothetical. If you still don't understand this then you're just lost.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Secondly, we can all see the inapplicable definition of "literal" you used (word for word). Here is a better definition-

Adj. 1. literal - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of somethingliteral - being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something; "her actual motive"; "a literal solitude like a desert"- G.K.Chesterton; "a genuine dilemma"


Your DNA is essentially you....hence it is literally you.

So DNA has character? Look, just stop and learn how to use words because you're no longer communicating with meaning here.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Did you and Davidylan go to the same school of science?

I don't know where davidylan got his science from but he's sorely lacking.

MrAnony1:
So you are saying that millions of years of undirected events managed to specifically create objects such that they have purposes. Basically, you are claiming here that purposeful objects have resulted through no purpose. How exactly does that work, Please explain, how exactly does a purposeless process create purposeful objects?

By the process of evolution. Now how does this fact lead to your God?

MrAnony1:
No they don't.

Please make your argument.

MrAnony1:
I don't understand, what exactly does it mean for the GPS to be more independent? Also, can you tell us exactly what this computing power is in terms of the processing speed and storage capacity? You don't have to be exact. Just give us an estimate to help us understand so that we can know what a mindful GPS is when we see one.

By more independent, it would be less predictable. Enough for it to be less predictable.

MrAnony1:
Yes it is but that is not the same thing as saying that the GPS creates information. My printer outputs information too. Would you say that my printer creates information? To say that the GPS creates information is to say that the GPS purposefully arranges data with the purpose of instruction and creating meaning i.e. the GPS or my printer would have to be a purposeful things in order to actually create information.

The output is information. Well the GPS purposefully arranges data with the purpose of instruction and creating meaning. The GPS purpose is to get you to your destination.

MrAnony1:
Actually it is you who is wrong here considering what my claim actually is. Which is that minds are the only things that can create information. It is not an empty assertion as you cannot deny that minds create information, you can only dispute it by suggesting that other things that are not minds can create information. Where you are fail to produce something else other than mind that creates information (and you have failed so far), then we have absolutely no reason to believe you but my position remains probable.
Anyway, since you claim that there can be more fundamental philosophical reasons to go with your position, maybe you should present them to us for consideration.
So what fundamental philosophical reasons do you have that should convince us that other things apart from minds create information?

Actually my reason is that minds don't exist without physical structures. So, unless you can show me a mind without a physical structure, you're still wrong.

MrAnony1:
How exactly does this show that minds arise from brains? What if it is the case that as a brain develops, that minds have a better tool to work with? (which by the way is what I mean by non-physical minds functioning through a physical brain)
Remember that you said that minds are non-physical so how do you know that the mind (which you cannot physically observe) is developing and not just that the brain brain is developing. Aren't you merely assuming the point you are supposed to prove by claiming that a brain development equals a mind development?

Experimental psychology shows that minds develop as brains develop. That is one of the focus of the field of the theory of mind. Where are these minds that are functioning through a physical brain? How do they pick a brain to interact with? Can they switch brains? Where do they go when a person dies? Are there multiple minds or just one mind split into multiple bodies? Seriously your proposals raise more questions than it answers.

MrAnony1:
Actually, I was never confused about what you were saying. The fact remains that DNA contains actual information that effects living things and this information is not merely the human abstraction which is our way of representing it.

The fact remains that DNA is an actual molecule that interacts with other molecules.

MrAnony1:
This assertion is misleading. While it is true that physical laws act on everything physical, they do not determine information or the sort of specificity and precision we find in DNA. To say that is like saying that it is physical laws that determined this website Nairaland.com. While it is true that physical laws acted on Seun's keyboard as he typed out the code, they were not the determining factor of what the code is judging by it's specificity and precision. So NO, physical laws are not an acceptable answer here.

A website is very different from a biological organism.

MrAnony1:
Looks like your problem is in understanding how language is used. I meant "Information that defines you" in the sense that the information determined what you eventually became i.e. how your body is and how it functions. "information about you" doesn't play this sort of determining/causal role. But then being the dishonest fellow that you are it is understandable that you would try to use that strawman in order to shift away from the actual argument while pretending not to understand what is actually being said.

Ah yes. The classic distinction without a difference. As I've said before and will say again, you are not your literally DNA.

MrAnony1:
Except that the phrase I actually used is "quite literally". Uyi has pointed this out but I noticed that you keep trying hard to misrepresent him as well. It is clear to everyone observing that you are being disingenuous.

I am suspecting that all this brouhaha over the meaning of the words is because you hope to avoid dealing with the fact that the information in your DNA defines you. By specifically instructing your cells on how your form and function ought to be.

This is more rubbish. Unless "quite literally" means the opposite of literally, then you're still saying rubbish. You are not literally or "quite literally" your DNA. DNA is a physical molecule interacting with other physical molecules. DNA is not some conscious entity "instructing" cells, those terms are shorthand for the entirely mechanistic process by which DNA works.

MrAnony1:
Merely asserting that it has everything to do with what I am discussing doesn't make it true. So once again, what exactly does God having a body or not have to do with our discussion on whether or not you are mindfully created?

It has everything to do with it e.g where did this God come from and what is the direct actual evidence for this God itself since it has a physical body?

MrAnony1:
Please show where I claimed that the human conception came before the physical objects.

Each time you say the information defines me.

MrAnony1:
I see, so today is the day of boldfaced lying.

Here is exactly what I said


Please highlight exactly where I said that WE should assume that God has a body.

This is why I said before that you don't know how to have a conversation. When you said I should assume he had a body, that implied you were happy to go along with that premise.

MrAnony1:
So how do you know that other humans that have not revealed themselves to you exist? You can't claim that you have no reason to believe God exists because he hasn't revealed himself to you and at the same time, you have reason to believe that other human beings who haven't revealed themselves to you exist. What are these reasons for believing in the existence unrevealed human beings that an unrevealed God does not share?

So many irrelevant diversions.
You asked for what God revealing himself to me would look like I answered here and followed you down this trail. Now can you answer the question I asked there? Can your God do these things?

MrAnony1:
Secondly, please stop lying and show where I said that God has a body.

Where you accepted it for the sake of argument.

MrAnony1:
EDIT: By the way, have you ever sincerely sought God and didn't find him? And if you have, how exactly did you go about seeking him?

This is irrelevant. Your God has revealed himself to people who didn't seek him so he should have been able to reveal himself to me whether or not I sought him. Just ask him to reveal himself to me.

UyiIredia:
It does when such vestigial organs were presumed to have no function whatsoever.

That is not how it is used in biology. Vestigial organs have lost their original function.

UyiIredia:
I'll rephrase the question just to be sure you got it.

You point to so-called vestigial structures, similar structures in embryos and adults and protein conservation across various lifeforms as evidence for evolution. What's the basis on which you infer evolution from such facts ?

Keep in mind that you are inferring that all lifeforms evolved from a common ancestor from the said facts.

They are similar structurally and mutate as the organisms diverge. Then there are certain features that actually intelligent designers simply won't do but are explained by the mindless process of evolution.

UyiIredia:
No, that's not all I said. I also said consciousness is immaterial and I said chemistry is constrained to effecting chemical products while using or releasing energy. I stated consciousness contradicts this principle then I asked if you agreed with me. If you do I will move on, if you don't there's no point moving on since that's the premise.

No I don't agree that consciousness contradicts chemistry. What happens now since your God is still nowhere to be seen?

UyiIredia:
The type of patterns is what's in question. I'll try a step-by-step approach.

information: what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.

Do you agree with this definition of information ?

Sure. Just as long as you know that based on that definition, you're talking about communication too.

UyiIredia:
Examples of such precursors please.

Amino acids, water, salt etc.

UyiIredia:
In other words, you refuse to consider, much less accept, the facts. Suit yourself.

Suiting myself already. Get a better analogy.

UyiIredia:
Abiogenesis may be different but it is linked to evolution since both require that life is a result of natural mechanisms. Since they are different, you can't assert life evolved to do away with the design argument as it applies to life's origin.

There are different design arguments. The theory of evolution works when we have the earliest organisms. However those organisms came about.

UyiIredia:
All hypotheses on abiogenesis are have serious problems which is why several have been discarded, the only popular one which is the RNA world scenario is still a work-in-progress and even at that has flaws and obstacles as stated by both creationists and evolutionists respectively..

What is the evidence of your God doing anything at all? As I've said, we don't know the exact steps that still doesn't make your God more plausible.

UyiIredia:
There's nothing about geothermal energy and carbon fixation showing that they can result in life.

You don't actually know that.

UyiIredia:
Evolution assumes living things so using it to explain life's origin is poor reasoning. Not to mention that evolution is outrightly ridiculous. As I've said before abiogenesis is fraught with problems which make it untenable.

Evolution explains why life appears designed. Sure it is ridiculous to you since you're tied to your creationism. Yes we've not worked out abiogenesis. Now, can we talk about the problems with your God doing anything that makes that idea untenable?

AllNaijaBlogger:
I thought I was the only one who noticed.

Really now. So when someone else throws insults its all okay but when I do it people start moaning about my tone. Or didn't you notice when you and others flung insults?

MrAnony1:
But it was you who said that hunger is different from appetite yet both are a desire to eat. I want clarity and your contradictions are not helping.

Let me quote you:





So please can you explain how two things that (according to you) have the same definition are different?

I will when you tell me what your point is besides the definition of words.

MrAnony1:
Now the evasions have begun. Do I also scare you like davidylan does?

Let me remind you what you said in case you have forgotten:


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?

Again, what exactly is your point beyond word definitions? You've still not said what your point is.

MrAnony1:
Yes I am saying that hunger pangs are not a physical property while you on the other hand, claim that they are a physical property and also have a length. So how aren't you saying that physical properties can have physical properties? Or is it that you don't actually understand what you are saying?

I understand what I'm saying and you've just said length isn't a physical property. Is length then non-physical?

MrAnony1:
The physical effects of water include dissolving, soaking, diluting etc. A physical property of water is it's boiling point. The physical effect of fire include burning and melting, the physical properties of fire include temperature and colour. One describes what matter does while the other describes how matter is. Do you get the distinction now?

Okay. Am I to take this as meaning that there are no physical properties of what we perceive?

MrAnony1:
You seem to be finding it difficult maintaining a consistent strand of thought or maybe you are just trying to shift the goal posts. You never described hunger pangs as the physical properties of the stomach but as the physical properties of hunger. So the question is not whether the stomach is matter but whether hunger is matter. Is hunger matter?

No hunger is not matter but it can have some physical effects as I've said before. Please will you answer my question?

MrAnony1:
I said I know hunger the same way you know your mind (as they are both non-physical). Do you know your mind exists? How do you know that? Your answer to that question is similar to how I know my hunger exists.

I know about my mind because I'm conscious. Can you just answer my own questions?

As usual, I've been answering your questions but you avoid answering mine. I will start enforcing that as part of this exchange.

MrAnony1:
Please educate us, what does DNA actually do in cells?

Is this a serious question or are you actually ignorant?

MrAnony1:
The bolded most accurately describes thehomer.

We also didn't fail to notice that he had to lace his response with personal insults in a failed attempt to make himself sound knowledgeable.

Dear thehomer, you should know by now that calling someone an idiot does nothing to make your argument valid. Your fear is beginning to show.

This is the sort of dishonesty and moaning I've come to expect from people in your position. Was my response inaccurate? Was davidylan actually correct? The fact that I laced my response with insults when I'm insulted shouldn't be a cause for concern. Since you wish to paint yourself as a neutral third party, why don't you address the substance of my statement? You can drag davidylan back to actually show my errors rather than you continuing down the ignorant path he began.

MrAnony1:
Yet you were the one evading him. Pretending to laugh doesn't hide your fear

Sure I was. Go through his comment history and expose my fear by linking to the relevant thread.

MrAnony1:
I see, so you admit that living things actually appear designed (which makes it apparent that living things have a designer). But while we hold that they appear designed because they are designed, you argue that they aren't actually designed rather they evolved (an undirected process) to look as if they were designed.

No appearing designed doesn't mean it was actually designed.

MrAnony1:
The burden of proof now lies upon you because you are urging us to reject what is apparent to us (you included) in favour of an explanation that isn't readily obvious. So please explain to us how a purposeless process can create purposeful things.

Your burden of proof is to show that the theory of evolution is actually wrong. The theory of evolution explains that. As I've said before, I'm not going to give free biology lessons online to anonymous strangers. There are books and articles on the theory of evolution available.

MrAnony1:
Please explain to us how a human being and a bacterium for example both evolved. Mind you, your explanation must describe how they evolved (without design) from a non-living thing to a living thing. Showing me a living thing to evolving to another living thing will not count as both already fall within the apparently designed category.

Abiogenesis is different from the theory of evolution. Please explain to me how humans came to exist using your own point of view. You now say even showing you evidence of evolution doesn't count because it is evolution in action. What a joke.

MrAnony1:
So you admit that something created the universe. Does this thing have physical properties? If so, what properties what are they? . . . .or are you saying that the universe has always existed?

No I'm saying there's no reason to think that nothingness was ever the case. Do you think nothingness was ever the case? If so, how can something come from nothing?

MrAnony1:
You didn't answer his question. He wanted to know how fossils explain evolution but all your answer shows is that there were once some animals which are now dead. It doesn't explain in any way how the dead animal progressed to currently living ones. Your claim that these fossils are transitional is a baseless one as you haven't actually shown a transition.

That is how fossils explain evolution. Do you know what a transition is?

MrAnony1:
The bolded is the part in Uyi's response that thehomer is just about to conveniently miss in order to help his lie along.

And your response shows the self delusion that you people like.

MrAnony1:
Actually "quite fast" means "fast to an extent". Why are you so dishonest? Why is it so hard for you to accurately represent what your opponent is saying?

Does "fast to an extent" mean slow or something else? Why are you so ignorant? Why is it hard for you to accurately represent facts of the matter? Do you think you are literally your DNA?

AllNaijaBlogger:
I dont have time to waste with you.

Neither do I have time to waste with you.

AllNaijaBlogger:
You are dishonest and very pretentious.

You are very ignorant and proud of it.

AllNaijaBlogger:
When did "literally" mean "exactly"? Please go and read a dictionary

You ignorant joker. Which dictionary have you been using?

[quote author=Dictionary[dot]com]
2. in a literal manner; word for word[/quote]

AllNaijaBlogger:
How is someone alive when he has no DNA? Removing DNA from a cell wont kill a cell (red blood cells, especially) but removing it from all other cells that have DNA would kill the person. You are assuming that all cells operate like the red blood cells (some of which dont need DNA)

This is a stupid question. Do you know what the hypothetical situation being discussed was?

UyiIredia:
As I've stated before on an old thread, vestigiality is an argument from ignorance. Over time functions have been found for vestigial structures. Also, it simply presumes evolution. The same applies to your other arguments.

Vestigial organs refer to something specific in biology. How is it an argument from ignorance? Finding other functions for vestigial organs doesn't mean those organs aren't vesigial.

UyiIredia:
What's the basis for the belief that structures in living things, homologs in embryos and adults and protein conservation support evolution ?

They are similar in structure. Protein conservation implies that certain functions have been consistently transmitted across multiple generations.

UyiIredia:
That said, I'll explain my position.

Consciousness is immaterial. It is not neural activities in the brain, it is an immaterial effect resulting from it. Chemical reactions as a matter of principle are limited to chemical products and a use/release of energy. Within brains, there is an exception to this since consciousness is a by-product. If you agree with what I've stated so far I'll proceed, if not, we need to sort things out.

All you've said here is that consciousness is subjective and that it needs brains. Unless your God has an actual brain, then you've not made an argument for your God.

UyiIredia:
Complex specified information refers to patterns that are complex in that they aren't easily predicted, and specified since one can point out their function. Intelligence is key to producing such patterns as seen in human languages and digital codes, hence the inference to design.

All you've done here is to say that humans exist and can produce patterns. Where is the argument for your God?

UyiIredia:
I'm not asking for exact steps. Simply evidence that natural processes effect biochemicals.

The fact that the precursors are available.

UyiIredia:
Actually, transistors can transmit lesser currents while off. This is a well-established fact. By your statements, you show a lack of willingness to accept the fact living systems and human designs are similar in scale, function and application of principles not to mention your constant ignorance of genetic engineering feats which are biological in nature and clearly involve intelligent effort.

More nonsense. I won't accept your ridiculous claims because they're ridiculous. Look for a better argument or a better analogy.

UyiIredia:
Nevertheless, a theory must be evaluated on its own merits, and so, it is completely foolish to say that I must present a better theory to debunk evolution.

It is foolish to say that you overturn an actual scientific theory without having a better theory.

UyiIredia:
When it comes right down to it, you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever showing that natural processes can synthesize and or organize biochemicals into living systems. The problem in question is the origin of life, so stating evolution doesn't help your case, in fact, if one can't account for how life arose naturally it is ridiculous to claim it evolved naturally.

Abiogenesis is different from the theory of evolution. You have failed to present any evidence that your God can and has actually done anything. As I've said before, there are several hypothesis about the natural origin of life. What is the evidence for your God doing anything at all?

UyiIredia:
@ bold: They only seem so because your judgement is poor.

It is actually the case. Your response is because your reasoning is poor.

UyiIredia:
I didn't ask for exact steps, I made it easier by asking for a natural process, that in principle, could have synthesized and organized life. One can't know the details of how life was created, such would be speculative, but there is a basis to infer life was created. If you won't accept the simple fact that there are similarities between human designs and living things, it's no wonder you won't see the inference to design.

Living things appear designed because they evolved. You won't see the fact of evolution because you're tied to your creationism. Natural processes like geothermal energy and carbon fixation? Simply look at the literature about the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

UyiIredia:
. . . only literally to an extent. So also fast is not fast but only fast to an extent.

Still saying rubbish.

UyiIredia:
I agreed that since Buhari is the president he can do what the president can. However, General Buhari and the president of Nigeria are 2 different things.

Who is the current president of Nigeria?

AllNaijaBlogger:
This is a serious strawman. I never said that chemotherapy and radiotherapy will kill you in seconds. What I argued for was death within seconds through the thorough removal of all of one's DNA. Two very different things.

Who's ignorant now?

You're still the one who is ignorant.

Why should death occur within a few seconds? Do you know what DNA actually does in cells?

AllNaijaBlogger:
Really? If all your red blood cells exploded right now, you would still be alive in the next 10 seconds?

Huh? Why should they explode? As I said, cellular death is a process. Look up apoptosis.

AllNaijaBlogger:
You havent given the concept good thought. Your DNA is literally you. While it is not 100% you. I would put it at least 75% you. What is an animal without DNA?

You don't seem to understand how to use the word "literally". You need to figure that out first.

UyiIredia:
Because 'quite literally' means they aren't literally the same but are only literally similar to an extent.

Oh your God. What is wrong with you people? "Quite literally" means not literally but only literally? I think it is too early. I guess quite fast means not fast but only fast.

UyiIredia:
They aren't. The president of Nigeria is a position of authority. General Buhari is a person. Is your case so bad that you need to be taught grammar ?!

Are you going insane? Go back and read your response. You agree that the current president of Nigeria and General Buhari are equal in their power now you're saying the president is a position of authority? You're no longer making a serious argument.

UyiIredia:
Only to a very limited extent. That is why putting two different species in the same environment won't make them the same since their DNA is different.


Well if our DNA disappeared we would die for certain.

Did I say we won't?

UyiIredia:
You typically revel in your ignorance. Saying humans use L-isomers (that make up proteins) is because the proteins use L-isomers is clearly circular reasoning.

You ignorant buffoon, that is the fact of the matter. I'm not making a philosophical argument there, I'm telling you the fact of the matter.

UyiIredia:
Because life is the natural process in need of an explanation. Either life was created by God or natural processes made it. What's in question here is the plausibility of ABIOTIC natural factors effecting biochemicals
, you haven't demonstrated it.

I don't know the exact steps but that still doesn't mean your God did it. You do realize that you don't have the exact steps that your God used to create life and the plausibility of your God doing this is even less.

UyiIredia:
By that logic transistors aren't off, since transistors said to be off merely transmit lower currents. The basis of my comparison of human inventions and living systems is that they work on similar principles, I mentioned earlier how brains and computer both process inputs and hearts and pumps both work by differential pressure. Nanotech is comparable to biological organisms in their scale. Genetic engineering feats such as making an artificial chromosome are biological.

No, transistors that are said to be off aren't transmitting current unless they're special transistors for that particular reason. The basis of your comparison is an abstraction not the actual physical structures involved. Hearts work by contracting muscles but pumps don't work that way. Did the results of genetic engineering arise by evolution?

UyiIredia:
You are the stupid one. It is foolish to ask for a better theory in order to debunk a poor theory. Louise Pasteur didn't have to present a better theory before debunking spontaneous generation.

You must be a fool. He was working based on his theory that there were germs which caused things to grow rather than spontaneous generation. You've brought in Pasteur and an experiment. Do you have experimental evidence supporting your stupid views?

UyiIredia:
The universe being infinite doesn't help your position. One can play that game of "we'll find extra-terrestial life in the future" perpetually. The rational position would be to be skeptical of claims that alien life must exist, the rational position is that there isn't any evidence showing that vastly different environments in other planets can effect life.

I didn't say it was infinite. I was pointing out the fact that you made a stupid request.

UyiIredia:
It doesn't have to. Humans didn't always exist and any other physical beings would require an explanation for their existence given their contingent nature. Insofar as we know from humans that intellectual effort is crucial to design, and know that whatever effected life must be non-contingent, the inference to God is justified. That said, ID theory actually allows that aliens could have created life. I don't believe that and I think it only shifts the problem back.

The theory of evolution shows that intellectual effort isn't needed.
You still don't know what conclusions you're justified in drawing from what you've said. What you're saying is that all design we know is from humans (though I've told time and again that evolution shows otherwise), therefore humans were made by God. A non-physical entity. You first have to show that there is such an entity as this God and that it can actually do something in this universe for it to even start being considered. You've not done that.

UyiIredia:
If the universe not being designed is your 'philosophical reason' you are showing that your bias clouds your judgement of the facts I've stated and the arguments presented. Your other reasons are disputable but I won't deal with them now. But this fact is more important and is worth repeating you couldn't present evidence for your own position that life arose naturally.

That is a philosophical reason. That fact helps me see the problems with what you've been saying. The facts you've stated tend to be irrelevant, useless or just wrong.
I don't know the exact steps for how life arose naturally. Do you have evidence for your position that life arose supernaturally? Do you have the exact steps for how life arose supernaturally?

AllNaijaBlogger:
You are sounding ignorant. A change in DNA could take years or seconds to affect the body. What really matters is how it is changed. Evolution takes years.

You are actually ignorant. The change in DNA that occurs e.g in chemotherapy and radiotherapy doesn't kill you within seconds.

AllNaijaBlogger:
How would your organs still be able to work if all your DNA just ceased to exist? You would be instantaneously be dead on a cellular level.

Cellular death is a process. It doesn't happen instantaneously.

AllNaijaBlogger:
Sorry but you can't intimidate me with your knowledge of bioligy/chemistry. This is basic science.

I don't want to intimidate you. I want you to actually think through concepts that may be new to you.