₦airaland Forum

UyiIredia:
So they couldn't have made living things which use a given type of chirality. That's an example of how abiotic natural factors lack the ability to effect biochemicals.

Both types are available in nature.

UyiIredia:
Sure, but they don't exist as they do in the body, which makes them irrelevant to the problem.

And there are things that are out on the earth that don't exist that way in the body. Does this mean that the earth was specially created?

UyiIredia:
Brains and computers apply the same principles, processing inputs to get output. Hearts and pumping machines apply the same principle of using differential pressure to transport fluids. Furthermore nanotech and genetic engineering feats are as close to life as it gets.

Let me get this straight. You're saying brains are designed because computers are designed? And that hearts are designed because pumping machines are designed?

Two things.

1.The theory of evolution explains why brains and hearts look designed to us in the way man-made objects are.
2. You're making a weak analogy because like I said, hearts and brains function very differently from pumps and computers. If you abstract things enough and stop wherever you want, you can arrive at whatever conclusion you want. e.g the intestines are designed because pipes are designed and they both transport fluids through hollow containers open at both ends.

UyiIredia:
That said, the inference stands as long as one recognizes that intelligence is absolutely crucial to designing functional systems and life is such a system.

The theory of evolution explains why intelligence isn't absolutely crucial to designing functional systems.

UyiIredia:
The lack of evidence of natural processes effecting life and the observation that they typically degrade living things and corpses supports that assertion.

Actually the degradation of living thing things and corpses is done by other living things. A dead body in space won't decay if it were sterilized and would take a very long time to get decomposed. Just like other natural processes. On the creation of life, the fact that we don't see it happening now is not an argument against it having happened in the past since the environment today is very different from what it used to be.

UyiIredia:
It falls apart if you have no evidence showing me how naturally began. If you don't want to accept that then it's not surprising you insist life wasn't created.

There are philosophical reasons for not accepting your creator and for favouring natural processes. Secondly, you've not actually shown how your God did what you claim he did. That means you have no evidence showing me how life supernaturally began. If you don't want to accept that, then it isn't surprising that you insist life was created.

KingEbukasBlog:
You as a person are evident enough that the human body is a design .

The theory of evolution explains that.

KingEbukasBlog:
Lol .... Wait till science tells you how life originated billions of years ago . It hasn't dealt with present problems facing life and its gona tell you what happened far back . As far as you are not there its a belief , as simple as it is .

Not all beliefs are created equal. Some beliefs are more veridical than others.

MrAnony1:
But truth be told, you ran from davidylan. Are you afraid of him because he has superior knowledge in the field you are discussing?

I ran from davidylan? Please sing his praises. Sure he has superior knowledge. If you have the time, you can ask him about our previous encounters of just scroll through our history together. You can resurrect those topics if you like or ask him to resurrect just the ones where he revealed my fear and his superior knowledge.


You've literally made me laugh out loud in my house.

MrAnony1:
But it was you who defined hunger as the perception of the desire to feed. How then do you define appetite?

Appetite is a desire to eat. What exactly is your point besides definitions of words?

MrAnony1:
But it was you who claimed that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs. So please tell us what other physical properties of hunger inform you that it is hunger you are feeling apart from hunger pangs?

Why exclude hunger pangs? That is an acceptable physical property and should be enough for you to make your point if you have one. So, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

MrAnony1:
It was you who claimed that hunger pangs are a physical property of hunger and length is in-turn a physical property of hunger pangs. Please kindly explain how a physical property can also have a physical property or are you just christening "physical property" on anything you like in order to help your argument along?

And here you reveal the fact that you're unable to actually think things through and it looks like I'll have to make you think things through. Hunger pangs are physical contractions. Contractions have the physical property of changes in length. Unless you're saying hunger pangs aren't a physical property or that length isn't a physical property, then you're simply demonstrating that inability of working through clearly stated propositions.

MrAnony1:
And I said; Not in the physical sense, it can't. Physical properties and physical effects are two very different things.

Please explain with some examples.

MrAnony1:
Because it doesn't describe matter

Oh your God. Hunger pangs describe the contractions the stomach undergoes under certain conditions. Unless you don't think the stomach is matter, then you're very confused. Please tell me, is the stomach matter? Do hunger pangs describe the stomach under those conditions?

MrAnony1:
I know I am hungry the same way you know your mind even though your mind is not physical (according to you). And yes, hunger pangs are an effect of hunger just like how your non-physical mind can propel your physical body to act.

What exactly do you mean by you know you're hungry the same way I know my mind? Can you rephrase that? Also, what is the point of putting (according to me)? 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:
While I may not know what your purpose is, I know that the purpose of your eye is sight, the purpose of your brain is to think, the purpose of your legs are for walking e.t.c....all of them are complex and specifically arranged in order to perform those functions. Do you deny this?

No I don't since they've been shaped by millions of years of evolution and have helped my ancestors survive so it isn't surprising. How exactly does this lead to your God?

MrAnony1:
Question is do they create information?

Yes they do.

MrAnony1:
I see, so according to you, the GPS actually creates information yet you don't think it has a mind. Why do you think this? What would a GPS that has a mind look like?

It would have more computing power and more independent than a GPS device. You didn't answer my question. Is the output from a GPS device information?

MrAnony1:
Yes it is true, your inability to prove me wrong does not prove right however it gives us no reason to believe your position but leaves mine probable.

You're wrong on that too. There can be more fundamental philosophical reasons to go with my patterns of thought than yours. Yours doesn't become more probable simply because you've made an empty assertion.

MrAnony1:
I see. How do you know that they arise from a physical brain as opposed to functioning through a physical brain?

Because minds arise and develop as the brain develops. What do you mean when you say minds function through a physical brain?

MrAnony1:
It seems your amnesia has set in again. My claim was that the DNA carries information that instructs the cells on how to function, your reply was that the information I was referring to was only a human abstraction of the molecule. Hence the question. If anything is wrong with anyone here, it is you. The question is justified. I am happy that you now realize that the information exists and functions apart from the human abstraction used in describing it.

If you weren't confused, you won't have even formed such a ridiculous notion.

MrAnony1:
Well since the physical laws are a constant and apply to every other physical thing in the universe, latching them onto your answer doesn't help you at all. I'd say it is really the specific arrangement of the molecule that is effective in the form and functioning of all living organisms, wouldn't you agree?

Why aren't the physical laws an acceptable answer? After all, the arrangement of the molecule is determined by those laws and they explain the structures at the molecular level.

MrAnony1:
It is not confusion at all. It is a strawman fallacy because while I was talking about "information that defines you", you rephrased it as "information about you" and argued against that instead. Secondly, you will need to explain this "confusion" you keep throwing about. How exactly am I confused?

Wow. Looks like your problem currently lies with the use of language. A definition of an object is about that object. e.g the definition of a ball is about a ball. That is how you're confused.

MrAnony1:
Lol, you are only being disingenuous here. I think davidylan's calling you out on this should suffice.

davidylan? Suffice? You must be joking. Your problem is with the language and the word "literally". Please look it up. Here's one source. Please tell me if you think your usage makes sense.

Dictionarydotcom: actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:

MrAnony1:
What exactly does God having a body or not have to do with whether you were mindfully created or not?

It has everything to do with it given the topic at hand. 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:
And I have also told you that you are wrong. Now can we go back to actual logical arguments or would you rather we just call each other wrong and call it a day?

You've not made a logical argument and I've shown you that you were wrong and explained that you have assertion the wrong way around. You've not shown how the human conception come before the actual physical objects.

MrAnony1:
So you have started lying again. Please show me where I said that God has a body.

Where you said we should assume he has a body.

MrAnony1: Maybe God is a mind with a body or without a body. That's besides the point. The point remains that since information defines you, you are mindfully created. Whether God has a body or not is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether you are mindfully created or not. However, if you keep stumbling over this and you believe that a mind cannot exist without a body, then feel free to assume that God has a body. It doesn't change the fact that your creator has a mind.

Since you say God has a body, then he too is bound by physical laws and would need an explanation of how he came to exist. Secondly, did your God create me specifically?

MrAnony1:
Are you saying then that there are no good reasons to believe that persons who did not grow up with you, you never spoke to, and never touched exist? Is revelation (in the sense that you described) the basis for existence?

No. Again what is wrong with you? Do you really have such a poor understanding of simple statements? I asked for your God to reveal himself to me the way my friends have if he wants me to believe he exists. This has no bearing on other human beings since I already know that other human beings exist but not your God. Especially given your acceptance of him having a physical body. Sheesh.

timonski:
See as Kay17 and thehomer dey flee from davidylan. Oga david, you too much joorh.

You should compose a song about davidylan's victories.

KingEbukasBlog:
even when it begs for it with concrete evidence ? Is there a trophy for one's unbelief in God .Maybe that's what y'all are vying for . Or maybe you feel calling yourself an atheist makes people see you as a incredulous

Concrete evidence for a supernatural actor? Please what is this concrete evidence? Just so you know, pointing at stuff we don't know isn't evidence of a supernatural actor.

davidylan:
Actually, biological systems NEVER generate the right-handed forms. that was a basic problem with the Urey-Miller theory. The amino acids found in nature (outside of biological life) are the simplest forms (like glycine), which are all but useless. The point, i would guess, is that if life simply appeared by chance, why were the left-handed amino acids the only ones that are compatible with biological life? What was the evolutionary driver for this specificity?

The L-isomers are the ones used in biological organisms. The specificity is due to the shape of proteins. But what exactly is your point? If both isomers were used, what would that imply?

davidylan:
There are bibles on the web... if you're that interested.

I know and you're welcome to use them if you think it'll help your argument.

davidylan:
I think you are being unreasonable here because, as Anony said, you are quite literally your DNA. DNA may not be able to type on your computer but DNA is the reason you have the ability to type on your computer at all! The fact that you cannot comprehend such a simple fact is evidence of the closed nature of your mind.

And you're demonstrating a problem with communicating in English. To say I am literally my DNA means that my DNA should be able to do what I do. Clearly my DNA cannot do everything I do therefore I am not literally my DNA. The fact that you cannot comprehend such a simple statement is evidence of your confusion.

Compare that statement to saying General Buhari is literally the current president of Nigeria. Is there something the president of Nigeria can do but General Buhari cannot do?

davidylan:
Your DNA is what dictates what you look like,

Your environment also contributes because malnutrition can also affect how you look.

davidylan:
whether you are male or female,

Exposure to certain hormones, chemicals and surgery can change that.

davidylan:
whether you will be fertile or not

Certain diseases can affect that

davidylan:
and whether you will develop the intelligence to type on a computer.

This can also be affected by diseases or even accidents.

davidylan:
Your DNA is constantly making proteins that ensure you are alive to type on a computer. If you are in doubt... please try a simple experiment... eliminate all your DNA and see if you can still write anything on a computer.

Actually, you can survive for a couple of hours at least without your DNA but you will eventually die.

davidylan:
In fact the truth is the other way round. I was VERY careful to avoid any discussion of God or religion and i made that clear several times to thehomer who simply wanted to talk about God all day. All i wanted was a discussion centered purely around the science. So, no i see this as an absence of evidence to support the scientific speculation of how the earth and life was formed. The only reason God keeps getting dragged into these topics is because you and your ilk would have zero to say, because you do not understand the science.

I have made absolutely NO christian stance. I have quoted NO bible verse, i have not attributed anything so far to any god whatsoever. If at all there is a "harebrained christian stance", you most likely imagined it... because you would have nothing else to contribute otherwise. For you, its all about science vs. religion... when the truth is we should be digging deeper than the superficial nonsense that populates this threads. Lets get the physics and chemistry textbooks out and discuss... you cant... you'd rather whine about christianity while blaming others for dragging God into the matter.

Boo hoo. The name of the topic is "Three Arguments for God's Existence". It says God right in the title so what are you afraid of? Quote the Bible if you think it will help you but don't pretend to be asking questions while trying and failing to hide the fact that you're trying to make an argument for your God.

All I ask is that you make the argument for your God rather than trying to hint that there are things we don't know.

UyiIredia:
No, they can't. Even when they do (such as amino acids found in meteorites) they are useless. For instance, life uses left-handed amino acids the amino acids found in meteorites contain a mixture of left and right handed amino acids.

So we have both chiralities available in nature what is your point?

UyiIredia:
Proteins.

Okay but their precursors do.

UyiIredia:
They are. The brain computes and hearts pump blood. I make the inference to God since intelligent humans build systems analagous to living things.

Computers function very differently from brains. Hearts also function very differently from water pumps. Well that inference is unjustified since you only have information about humans not about some God.

UyiIredia:
I have. If natural processes can't make life they can't evolve it. I did say the first argument was a negative one. It's the second argument the positive case for design rests on.

But you don't know that natural processes can't make what we consider as life you can only assert it.

UyiIredia:
If you don't have evidence showing how DNA naturally arose then your stance that DNA and life came about naturally falls apart.

No it doesn't fall apart. It simply means that I don't know. The fact that I don't know exactly how something happened doesn't mean I have to accept a supernatural actor.

UyiIredia:
The human description IS the law. Physical laws describe the physical world. Kay17 made the mistake of attributing causality to them and that's wrong. The fact becomes even more obvious considering that some laws have been wrong and so were dropped or modified. For example, the conservation of mass law was upheld until nuclear reactions showed lost mass could be converted to energy and the law was modified accordingly.

This is not up for debate. Physical laws being contingent on human understanding can be changed or erased, the physical world can't. Physical laws lack causal power, the physical world has causal power. In trying to defend Kay17 you've made a fool of yourself.

It isn't. The inference to creation rests on two arguments.

1) The argument against the ability of natural processes to make living systems: This is based on the constraints of natural processes as observed. Coecervates, volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, sunlight and other ABIOTIC natural factors can effect mountains and naturally-occuring chemical compounds etc. They can't effect the sort of compounds seen in living things given the high risk of cross-reactions, lack of availability of starting materials etc.

This is incorrect. Natural factors actually can produce the compounds seen in living things. The current unavailability of starting materials doesn't necessarily mean that these things couldn't have happened naturally. It could simply mean that given the age of the earth, the conditions found in the early earth simply are no longer available.

UyiIredia:
This is the problem of synthesis and it is evidenced by the virtual lack of biochemicals outside of living things. Furthermore, assuming biochemicals existed these natural factors lack the foresight to organize such materials into a living system. Natural factors that supposedly made life would just as quickly kill it and not resurrect it. This is the problem of organization and it is evidenced by the billions of corpses natural factors ONLY degrade and never repair.

What biochemicals do you have in mind?

UyiIredia:
2) The observation that intelligent agency is crucial to making systems analagous to living things and understanding them: Indeed the intelligent agency we refer to are humans. However, we isolate intelligence since it is this human property that's sine qua non to man's ability to make devices and understand living systems. Being human isn't enough, babies are humans and so are mentally-disadvantaged persons. It is through intelligence we can make things like Velcro, pumping machines, computers, pulleys etc that are comparable to organs and systems in livings like the heart, brain etc. It is also through intelligence we can understand the systems in such living things and treat them when they are sick, modify them (as in GM foods) and incorporate some of their traits in systems we design. From this we infer a similar intelligent being created us.

Actually, the items you listed aren't comparable to organs like the heart and brain. I still don't see the justification for that inference in the last line. You're saying humans make pumping machines, humans can understand something about human hearts therefore some God created humans? How exactly do these things follow?

UyiIredia:
As you can see, the first argument is a negative one against abiogenesis, and by extension, evolution. If creationists only used the first argument to assert that there was a God, it would be an argument from ignorance. But as it is, the second argument is a positive one for design, or creation if you will.

You've not actually made an argument against evolution. And that first argument is simply an argument from ignorance until you actually say how life began.

UyiIredia:
This is a poor argument. Natural processes also affect man-made machines, do they make them ? To be specific, I'll need you to show natural processes that can, at least in theory, make a DNA. The evidence would be stronger if they've been observed making it, but at least we'll have a good start. A basis to discuss to plausibility of natural processes making life.

There are several hypothesis about how DNA arose. I can of course post a few links but I don't know how DNA actually arose. It still doesn't mean your God did it.

Joshthefirst:
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me?

I understood you well enough. When you say something didn't arise by natural means, how would you say it arose? Please answer that question. It will help clarify any misunderstanding.

Joshthefirst:
The only assertion I have made is that DNA is designed. Simple.

Why don't you defend your assertion?

Joshthefirst:
And I have asked you to tell me why you deny its design, but you've only been trying to distract me with talk about supernaturalism.

Because it isn't obvious to me that it is designed as other objects are designed. It is as designed as other natural objects. Please read the title of the thread. Last time I checked, your God is supposed to be a supernatural entity so how is talking about him a distraction? Or are you afraid of him being exposed?

Joshthefirst:
Please stick to the subject at hand, or just admit you have no reason to deny obvious design.

I've stuck to the subject at hand you on the other hand seem scared of discussing your "supernatural" God. Let us also talk about your God.

MrAnony1:
Wrong. It is funny to watch you try so hard to avoid what I am saying. . .What I am saying is that not only are you made up of certain physical structures, those physical structures have purposes and are specifically formed the way they are in order to function according to their purposes. Do you deny this?

You'll have to be clearer. Saying something functions according to its purpose is uselessly vague. Crystals are specifically formed and function according to their purpose. Please can you tell me what my purpose is?

MrAnony1:
Good

Are you saying that computers don't merely create data rather they create purposefully instructive meaning? Because that's what it means to create information (as you admitted in your comment above).

Yes computers present information.

MrAnony1:
...So if you are really saying that computers generate information in the true sense of the word, then please explain to us how they do not have minds even though they create information (in the true sense). If not, then my claim still stands that only mindful entities can create information

What sort of explanation are you looking for when there are numerous examples all around you? A GPS device uses data to create navigation information for you to use. Or isn't the output from GPS devices information?

Your claim doesn't stand even if I'm unable to show you're wrong because that is making an argument from ignorance. But as I've shown above with the example, you're wrong.

MrAnony1:
Ok, so are minds physical or non-physical? And if you think that they are physical, then what are their physical properties?

Minds are not physical but they arise from the physical brain.

MrAnony1:
I see, so are you saying that an abstraction of a physical molecule (NOT the actual information encoded in the molecule by the specific arrangement of the nucleobases) is what instructs your cells on how to form your body?

No that isn't what I'm saying and what is wrong with you? How did you arrive at that conclusion from what I said? How on earth can a human abstraction be what makes cells function?

MrAnony1:
Again, is it the abstract manner humans have represented it that instructs your cells or is it the information represented by the specific arrangement of nucleobases in your DNA that instructs your cells on your body's form and function? Which is it?

Neither. It is the physical arrangement of the molecules and the physical laws that all these molecules follow.

MrAnony1:
Strawman. I wasn't talking about "information about you". The specific arrangement that defines your DNA structure is information. . .and yes it defines you. You quite literally are your DNA.

How is what I said a strawman? You really need to learn not to simply name drop fallacies but to actually explain how what I said is a fallacy. Secondly, you say you're not talking about "information about me", but my DNA which you say is information that defines me. Isn't that the height of confusion?

I am not quite literally my DNA. My DNA cannot type on a computer. This sort of absurd statement really baffles me. Are you confused about what words mean or are you confused about how to use words?

MrAnony1:
Maybe God is a mind with a body or without a body. That's besides the point. The point remains that since information defines you, you are mindfully created. Whether God has a body or not is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether you are mindfully created or not. However, if you keep stumbling over this and you believe that a mind cannot exist without a body, then feel free to assume that God has a body. It doesn't change the fact that your creator has a mind.

No it is not besides the point. It is a crucial point. You keep asserting that information defines me despite the fact that I've told you that you have things the wrong way around.

How exactly is the question about God having a body a red-herring? Again, don't just name fallacies, but explain how I've committed them.

Since you say God has a body, then he too is bound by physical laws and would need an explanation of how he came to exist. Secondly, did your God create me specifically?

MrAnony1:
I don't know how your friends have revealed themselves to you and I don't want to assume. So, what will God revealing himself to you look like?

Then I'll tell you. They grew up with me, I saw them, touched them, spoke with them and they knew each other. Can your God do these things with me?

MrAnony1:
Wrong. I can want to eat without being hungry. You are confusing appetite with hunger.

Appetite is different from hunger and can sometimes be due to hunger. Looks like you're the one making this confusion in your attempt to be pedantic.

MrAnony1:
I see. So what physical properties inform you that it is hunger you are feeling apart from hunger pangs?

Hunger pangs are the physical sensations. That is why they're called hunger pangs.

MrAnony1:
So your physical properties also have physical properties too. You are confused

How is what I said confused? Is anything that I said there actually incorrect? Or are you once again demonstrating your own personal failure of thinking things through?

MrAnony1:
Not in the physical sense. Physical properties and physical effects are clearly distinct from each other

I said an effect can also be a property. Unless you're saying an effect can never be a property, then you've not countered what I said.

MrAnony1:
Wrong. That is not a physical property

How is it not a physical property?

MrAnony1:
You may....provided you understand it to mean that hunger has no physical properties.

Since hunger has no physical properties according to you, how do you know when you're feeling hungry? How do you explain the hunger pangs that people feel when they're hungry?

The arguments made in this article are bad. They're so terrible that I feel sad having to point them out to people who have nothing better to do than to moan.

If Service Chiefs who currently have a job but aren't doing it because they're afraid they'll be booted out of office, then one has to ask just how dedicated they are to the Nigerian project and why exactly they're afraid. Is it that they were incompetent in the last administration? Or they're just lazy and want to leave?

The argument about appointments not yet being made and that leading to problems is another very sad argument and one that reveals a deep ineptitude of previous admistrations. Large companies and serious countries for some reason are able to function with care taker committees. In fact, some who perform well under such situations do get promoted since they were actually able to function. Is it the case that those currently in these positions don't know what they're supposed to do and thus should be seen as being incompetent?

Large companies and countries don't come to a halt when there are changes in leadership. That is why there are deputies, job descriptions and what not that at least give some information to those intelligent enough about what they're supposed to be doing. All this I think simply shows the weakness of the institutions and the over reliance on individuals. I really hope these things change.

UyiIredia:
Physical laws are statements by humans to describe how the universe works. As such, they have no causal power, they are simply statements that describe the universe. Note that sometimes the term 'natural laws' is used instead of 'physical laws'.

You're confusing the human description of the laws with what they actually describe. The human abstraction for the actual phenomena. You keep making the same mistake and I am no longer surprised that you do so.

UyiIredia:
Through supernatural means. We can't know exactly how it was achieved but we can be sure that natural factors would have acted in a way contrary to how they usually do.

Glad to see that you admit what your fellow believers refuse to say. If we don't know how something happened, why should we assume that it occurred by your ill defined supernatural means? That is a classic argument from ignorance.

UyiIredia:
Then let's assume no supernatural entity made it. What's the evidence showing that natural processes can effect the DNA ?

The fact that natural processes do affect DNA. What exactly did this supernatural entity do and how did it do it?

davidylan:
they have no arguments. That's why they whine about supernatural every 2 seconds... outside of that, they cant confidently discuss the scientific evidence so they have to hide under the thin skirts of noise making and false outrage.

And because you have no arguments, you hide under the claim of "I'm just asking questions" to detract from the fact that your God is missing. If you can confidently the God based reason for which you hold your beliefs, then please, let's do that.

Joshthefirst:
See why I'm saying? I'm not denying natural events or claiming supernaturalism yet. Neither was davidylan. Can you people read and understand or have you become too warped to understand issues without seeing everything as a threatening referral to the supernatural?

It looks like you've now developed the interesting inability to understand the implications of what you say. When you say something didn't arise by natural means, how exactly would you say it arose?

Joshthefirst:
Computer programs are designed by entities. I recognize design in natural processes, you deny design. Dogmatically. This is a quite futile argument, because its like arguing with a mad man.

I know humans design computer programs. Are you saying that DNA arose by natural means? The mad argument I see here is the assertion that DNA somehow requires some supernatural entity.

Joshthefirst:
How can I be recognizing order, direction, arrangement, precision, and efficiency in a particular complex system and one will run up to me and start calling me unreasonable, trying to claim it all came up by random processes without any evidence?

Because you're confusing your subjective experience and limited knowledge for some sort of cosmic order, direction, arrangement, precision and efficiency.

wiegraf:
Uyi, seriously telling even kindergarteners this twaddle would lead normal people to deep shame and embarrassment when they get the chance to reflect on their actions. Enough to cause one psychological trauma...

Do you honestly believe this deserves a proper response?

Are you genuinely this warped, confused and/or desperate?

You ain't seen nothing yet. Just you wait until he starts vomiting what he considers good sources.

Joshthefirst:
When you see a computer program like microsoft word, you immediately understand and realize that it is a design of a creator. The same thing applies for various processes, events, phenomena and the unity and co-direction of forces we see in the universe, especially DNA.

Computer programs are very different things from natural processes like DNA molecules and the formation of the grand canyon.

Joshthefirst:
Yes. And as I said, It cannot be the origin(note origin) of efficient, workable and sustainable devices, especially a device like DNA.

Well it works well enough given the diversity of life currently available and the multiple extinction events that have happened. DNA is a natural part of other natural entities.

Joshthefirst:
This is like expecting someone to teach common sense. Forget about "supernaturalism", acknowledge very obvious design first and stop being belligerent and unreasonable in a futile quest to deny transcendence.

What is the obvious design? Stop being belligerent and unreasonable in a futile quest to deny natural events.

Joshthefirst:
But you won't.
Because you don't want to believe in any thing that might lead to God, you deny order and choose to be hypocritically blind to direction and sense. Look at how you have ended up. Claiming DNA came about through random processes of evolution. You have become the epitome of dogmatism, and unreasonableness.

You don't want to believe in any thing that doesn't lead to your God. You deny natural processes due to your dogmatism and unreasonableness. You say it is your God that has done it all. Well how do you know DNA arose by supernatural intervention?

timonski:
I think seeing fellow Nigerians arguing back and forth on scientific and philosophical issues actuall brought back my love for reading. I mean, i hadn't studied a book for like a decade 'til i saw logicboy, thehomer et al talking about abstract concepts.

Glad to be of service.

Joshthefirst:
DNA is a natural molecule that arose from design by a genius creator. A common template coding for everything physical life. Reproducing itself, Even correcting itself. Genius.

Which molecules would you say are not designed? Do you have any evidence for the creator you have in mind?

Joshthefirst:
Working and Efficient Genius is not a product of chaotic substandard randomized non-directional natural events.

Well that isn't actually true. Evolution is a non-directional natural phenomenon.

Joshthefirst:
Unfortunate man who refuses to think outside the narrow box of idi.ot naturalism.

Unfortunate man who is unable to demonstrate the core assumption of ignorant supernaturalism.

davidylan:
I made no such direct comment. I only meant to say that you seem to like to pick and choose who you want to have a science discussion with... presumably based on who you think you can easily bullshit.

No you implied it since it was UyiIredia that I had been having the discussion you're referring to.

davidylan:
As i said... i came here to talk science... you seem to be desperate to change the topic even though you keep caterwauling about how you are happy to discuss the science. We dont have to discuss both at the same time... that is madness. Lets start with the science if you have a clue what you talk about.

The topic itself talks about arguments for God. If anything, you're the one desperate to change the topic. I've not just said it, I've shown it in my discussion with UyiIredia who you've criticized. It is one discussion and we can have it right now if you're not afraid of talking about your God. Let's continue with your God if you have a clue of what he is supposed to be.

malvisguy212:
this is the point I am making here https://www.nairaland.com/2239640/why-fear-death
Christianity is the most discuss religion, as a matter of fact, your comment proved it , you said Christianity is a myth YET you are asking if I am a christian. If you want to relieve your fears about death, you should try to determine if Christianity is true or false.
there are numerous objections to Christianity, especially by atheists. It's as if they know that Christianity is the only religion that seriously challenges their atheism. So, you are going to live in fear and doubt until you deal with the question of whether Christianity is true or not. Visit the atheists' websites. Visit the Christian sites. Get informed and make a rational decision.

Ever since I was an unbeliever, I am afraid of death but since the spirit convict me of my wrong doing, I know longer afraid of death.

I also said Christianity is discussed a lot due to many of its adherents being English speakers. Yes I'm asking if you're a Christian is that surprising? Actually whether or not Christianity or some other religion is challenged depends on the geographical location. Christianity is a myth like many other myths but people still believe it is true. That is why I asked. So, are you a Christian?

I'm well informed and have made the rational decision. I advise you to also visit those sites and make the rational decision.

davidylan:
You were perfectly happy to engage in a discussion on DNA with others... as long as you knew they had no clue what they were talking about. As soon as i arrived now you want to avoid the science and talk about God all day... befuddling.

So you agree that Uyi Iredia has no clue of what he is talking about. It's nice that someone else has realized this fact. As I've shown, I'm happy to discuss the science and your God with you. Why do you find it so difficult to admit your belief in your God on an anonymous forum? What are you afraid of?

davidylan:
So what exactly are you saying then? that it appeared from what? If not via random chaos then what?

I'm happy to answer when you tell me what your God evolved from and why he evolved.

davidylan:
it seems to me that all you've done so far is basically interrogate others on this thread but very reluctant to discuss the basis for your own science. Your post is a classic case of projection.

Please can you post a link on this thread to where I've merely been interrogating others without presenting my views and answering their questions?

UyiIredia:
You are the foolish one. You are ignorant about genetic codes when you deny, despite a quote to the contrary, that it involves representation. The problem with you is that your bias prevents a proper judgement of the facts and your arrogance prevents you from admitting a mistake.

You foolish buffoon there are differences between codons, the genetic code table, amino acids and and genes. You're unable to appreciate this fact and that is why you'll always be unable to properly make the argument you're trying to make.

malvisguy212:
If you want to relieve your fears about death, you should try to determine if Christianity is true or false. I know of many atheists who are muslims before , this guys does not border them self with Islamic threat concerning their belief.

I already have no fears about my death. I'm satisfied that Christianity is largely based on a myth. Many atheists don't bother themselves with fears of the afterlife.

malvisguy212:
True christian does not fear death, because certainly, they know were they are going after death. If you are a christian yet you fear death, it mean you are NOT sure of your faith.

Are you a Christian? Are you afraid of death?