₦airaland Forum

JovialJune:
So how come rainbow doesn't always form everytime it rains? Or you think sunlight doesn't always reflect in water droplets when and after it rains?

There is a religious meaning attached to it, formed for the very first time as a covenant to Noah.

It doesn't always form because the conditions for their formation are not always met.

The knowledge concerning this was given to you when you did elementary science in JSS or even primary school.

Chai !

So, in this time and age where any kind of knowledge is easily accessible to educate ourselves about the world around us, we still have people in this part of the world who attended schools were, at least ,they did elementary science ,but still believe as true that a rainbow was created for the first time after Noah's flood?

Hei! Hei! What's this now? ehn

Haaa! No,no no, no

Please for God sake,the Bible is a book of faith and not science.

MaxInDHouse:
Jews were defaming the temple with their businesses Yahweh was patient with them but Jesus entered just one day and drove them out using a rope he tied as whip.

Who said Jesus is gentle?

So JW now support the carrying of weapons to fight their enemies?

DeepSight:
I warned you to be careful of any one who will ask you for the meaning of the word "intelligent."

I have learnt the hard way for not listening to you.

He's desperate to cast me in the mold of creationist so he call himself, not me , illiterate believer.

Everyday247:
That's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking you for the source explaining your version of "intelligent design". If there were other versions of "Intelligent design" like your own, why can't we find it online?

Because aside from you, I've not heard it anywhere else.

I haven't presented my own version of intelligent design, but described what's observed in nature using words in English.

Are your bodily systems operating intelligently as if created by humans?

Answer yes or no and you know why I have used the phrase

I cannot be arguing for and against evolution which I subscribe to.

There are non creationist scientist who have also like me mentioned the intelligence in natural occuring phenomenon. It doesn't mean they're arguing for what you think.

Everyday247:
Can you post source?

Where did you get all this from?

I can't continue to repeat myself. I already gave examples of what you're asking. Your bodily systems operate intelligently. If you think they don't , forget it.

I'm not arguing for creationism,but highlighting evolutionary marvels that appears purposefully engineered in nature. But creationist are saying they are created by God in a matter of days. I haven't said, so why for God sake you won't allow me to use everyday language , intelligent and design, to describe what's obvious in nature.


I asked you to limit your search to what operate intelligently in nature if you can't do that then get help from chatbot.

This is the last time I will reply you on this matter.

Everyday247:
I looked it up, and it's showing me creationists sites that rejects evolution and the big bang and then aserts an intelligent designer.

Oga, I'm not arguing for an intelligent designer like creationist, and that's why you have been searching for what doesn't concern me.

If it's difficult for you to get what I specify: examples of naturally occurring phenomenon that operate intelligently or have intelligent design not designer, use Chatbot to help you get them.

The meaning of a word is determined by the context it's used. If creationist are using the phrase, intelligent design ,to argue for an intelligent designer for all things and you disagree, please face them not me.

Thank you

Everyday247:
I got all these from wikipedia 👇
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And here's britainnica 👇
Intelligent design (ID), argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.” Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design

Check if your definition of intelligent design is the same as what's found online.

You are struggling to understand me. Google for examples of intelligent design in nature and show your results here please.

You have searched for intelligent design argument, what it's, instead of intelligent design

Everyday247:
That's the definition of intelligent design. You need an intelligent designer to get intelligent design.

NO. Provide the source of where you got it from that everything that's labeled intelligent design must have an intelligent designer separate from it

That's not how the definition of "intelligent" in intelligent design works.
You're essentially redefining the definition of intelligent design.

It's not a working but a descriptive term which refers to something which I have explained. So I haven't redefined it. You probably think so because of the people you have listening to.

These biological functions came about through natural processes.

I didn't say they didn't come about through natural process. I said they operate intelligently

The fundamentals assertion of intelligent design is that these biological functions can not occur naturally and requires an intelligent designer.

You didn't complete it. "requires an intelligent designer (GOD) outside of it" That's what the people you have been listening to have educated you with.

But I said it's possible the intelligent designer is something that's an inseparable part of the natural process which resulted in those intelligent systems seen in nature.

First of all, biology textbooks talks about naturally occuring biological things in nature.

Bodily systems which I described are exactly that. I didn't mention anything manmade.

Secondly, it's not textbook knowledge I was asking for. These are things that anybody can just say on a whim. Examples of intelligent design are : Vehicles, Electronic, buildings etc.
They are called "intelligent designs" because they can't occur naturally.

Are you even aware that some of the systems which operates in manmade objects were copied from naturally occurring phenomenon?

If the copies are intelligent design to you, why not the original?

Something that occurs naturally is called natural (or naturally designed if you fancy). while something that can't occur naturally can be called Artificial, Man made, Intelligent design etc

wrong. The natural processes which I earlier described operate intelligently, and I have explained how. If you're blind to the intelligence in those systems, sorry I can no longer continue the discussion with you.

Thank you

Everyday247:
Really?
Because i thought intelligent designs were designed by intelligent designers.

Who tells you that everything described as intelligent design is designed by a separate or external intelligent designer?

Design sometimes refers to the inherent nature of something, and If , for instance, that something can operate independently on its own, we say it has intelligence., like your bodily systems which operate independently and intelligently on their own.


For instance, if your body requires food, it starts to flash images of it on the screen of your mind so you're forced to go looking for it. If it's sex, oh! you will struggle to resist its command as it will continually flash the images of that big breasted girl in your neighborhood you fancy across the screen of mind to excite you sexually so you're forced to go looking for a her or any one who could give it to you or na soapie go end ham o, if not no peace for you o

If it's ill, you know what it does now, it sends you signal so you act before it becomes too late.

So can you kindly tell me the how intelligent design comes about?

For a start, read your biology textbooks, but mind you, science says it doesn't know everything yet. So who am I to tell you how intelligent design in nature came about?

Everyday247:
It looks like you don't understand how language works. What does "intelligent" mean?
What does "designer" mean?

What does the term "intelligent designer" mean?

Are the laws of nature "intelligent" or "sentient"?

If you can call the laws of nature an "intelligent designer", does this mean we can also call the earth a God?

You have misinterpreted me.
Intelligent design is not the same as intelligent designer. Re-read me again. Thank you

plaetton:
I agree that the OP is pointing out limitations to TOE. So are we all.
No one disagrees that there are unknown or yet to be discovered mechanisms in TOE. That's why it continues to be a scientific enquiry: A never ending enquiry.

Is the OP here to merely discuss the limitations to TOE or simply wants Nairalanders to answer nagging questions for him ?

Nairaland is not a science academy.

You still never get my point .
You keep insisting that I answer his question.

Answer his question or what?

If the OP is sincere about getting his answers, I assure you that he is resourceful enough to find it.

It's your responsibility what you want to do on this thread. Nobody is forcing you. You might as well abandon it if you no longer want to participate.

plaetton:
I don't know where you get your own facts.
Who said that their flight project was not grounded of science?
You seem to making up your own stuff as you go.
I think you're making these erroneous arguments from from a false premise.
I never stated that one had to be grounded in science to challenge a scientific idea. No.
What I continue to state is you must argue or refute a scientific idea with science( whether you're a scientist or not).

Saying that something shows evidence of design is an opinion, but it not a scientific argument.

The Wright brothers were not the first to attempt controlled flight, neither did they succeed at first try.
It was a trial and error, with adjustments in the wings ,the flaps, etc.
Indeed, there were plenty of skeptics who didn't think they would achieve controlled flight.

The idea of controlled flight did not originate from the Wright brothers. That idea ,that dream had been for thousands of years.

Oh my God. I didn't say their invention wasn't grounded in science, I said mainstream scientist prior to the time they succeeded in flying regarded their project as scientifically impossible.

It was only after they succeeded we now then knew the science behind it

I will say this again, you don't take time to read before replying. I won't accuse you of lacking in comprehension but say you are more focused in looking for fault where there's none and so keep misrepresenting me.

Talking of refuting science with science, the op hasn't refuted or rejected TOE like religious fanatics . He already demonstrated a fair understanding of the theory and highlighted the gaps in it and sought for answers from those of you who claim to understand it better. That's all

So why using argument used against religious fanatics who completely reject TOE for someone who hasn't?

DeepSight:
Intelligent Design is not the stupid retarded idea that many atheists or scientists try to make it out as. There is much in nature that strongly suggests design. I don't like the attitude of many that Intelligent Design is somehow the preserve of idiots or illiterates and is somehow taboo.

Personally, I believe in both evolution and some level of design and programming inherent in the world around us, I don't however believe that that design or programming is all encompassing or perfect or even necessarily made for good. Much of it in my sight is downright flawed, morbid, sadistic and barbaric.

I also don't believe that GOD, which I see as the source of all existence, directly created this world and I think it is far more likely that it is the work of vastly lesser beings. I also believe that our existence could be many possible things including a scientific experiment or even a source of cosmic entertainment.

All of the atheist who think intelligent design is for idiots have been miseducate about it by religious people who often use it as proof for their gods. Those are the people they have been listening to, and so don't know it themselves.

Once you mention intelligent design, the immediate and unthinking response is , "who created the designer? LOL

plaetton:
We are 100% in agreement here.
Questions and more questions and more questions is what has gotten us this far in scientific achievements.

But if someone comes here and says if I cannot explain to him or her why Uranus has a retrograde orbit, then all the theories of Gravitational are half truths.
I would gently ask the person to go and study the subject itself.
As you can see, the person asking the question is not sincere about wanting to know the answer.

please on focus on the main thing, TOE so you stop arguing deceptively to win an argument.

Your comparison is inappropriate. The op is highlitimg real issues , the limitations, within TOE and seeking for answers. Instead of focusing on that to provide relevant answers, you're all over the place deflecting to an imaginary and not relevant object, Uranus ,together with gravitational theories.

Sincerity of him not wanting to know the answer shouldn't stop you. For the sake of others like myself following the thread, please provide the answers

Thanks in advance

Everyday247:
There's your problem right there, you claim that you understand how evolution works, but you can't use natural selection to explain this?

If you understood natural selection this would be a no brainer for you.

I ask again do you know how natural selection works?
If Yes, please explain how it works.

If you know it very well, what's stopping you from explaining it yourself. I think you also have the problem you have accused him of having, but want to lie to yourself that you know it better.

Everyday247:
The dude's lowkey trying to gently force intelligent design into science through the back door.

What do you even know about intelligent design other the misconstrue version used by religious people to miseducate people like you who don't bother to investigate things themselves?

Unlike others ,I don't accept there's a separate designer existing somewhere in an invisible plane.

For me, the designer is in the designed object. It's inseparable from it. Science calls it the force of nature, certain religion have personified it as God. They are both saying the same thing but expressing it differently.

plaetton:
Lol.
Imagine the false twist to the Wright Brothers story.
In fact the story of the Wright Brothers vindicates my position.
The Wright Brothers did not attach feathers to their backs to defying conventional understanding of physics.
Rather, they scientifically ( yes, scientifically) demonstrated in the most practical way how the laws of aerodynamics acts upon objects in the air.

You still don't get it . As at the time the Wright brothers we're perfecting their craft it was regarded as not science, not scientific , by those within the scientific community. Go back to read history and come back and tell what I just said isn't true.

You don't take your time to read before replying.

Everyday247:
What did the wright brothers use to disprove science?
Is it not science?

Do you think science is like religion were a prophets hear prophecies from infallible deities?

Science relies on repetition also known as peer to peer review to confirm something.

Only faculty scientific experiments give you faulty answers.

A few years ago, scientists updated the age of the universe from 7 billion to 13.8 billion after observations were made with the then new James Webb telescope. Was science wrong about the universe or was it flawed observations caused by the weaker Hubble telescope?

So apart from science, what else can use to disprove science?

You didn't get it. They used science to dispute science, but from the way you sounded , it's certain if you lived during their time you would have also joined other scientist to mock their first attempt to fly as foolish and impossible since their invention was going to run contrary to established scientific fact as at that period.

You looking for excuse and just want to argue that only trained scientist can debate and question scientific theories while the others wait to be spoon-fed.

I'm sure you think you know more than top scientist from different parts of the world who have consistently adviced people consulting with medical personnel to always ask question about the kind of treatment they are getting so they know better. Have they said if one isn't a scientist one can't question a medical doctor who's trained scientist?

Answer me, Mr "you can only question science with science."

plaetton:
I agree to some extent.

But Intelligent Design is not a scientific alternative to TOE. It is not based on any testable science.
Is is just wishful thinking by people who cannot accept the absence of a Creator or designer in the scientific Theory Of Evolution.

I disagree with this. Intelligent design isn't wishful thinking as you think. The way I see it, it's an explanation put forward by those who can't provide rational explanation for how nearly everything in the universe seem to be working in perfect order. They know it by intuition but can't explain it rationally.

What intelligent designer's are saying is that random chance couldn't have been the cause. Maybe something, another form of energy yet unseen working at the background to set the blueprint for how everything should evolve in perfect order. This unknown something, energy, shouldn't be mistaken for an invisible deity in an invisible plane needing our worship.

The ancients ,who founded some of the world's major religion , made use of stories to encode or hide certain truth about our world These truths were perceived intuitively during their time.

Some of the truth they discovered still find relevance till this day. But when you focus on my stories or whether religious god's exist , you also miss it just like nowadays religious people.

For instance, modern science says everything contains energy while the ancients personified it by saying God is in all things. Energy is not created nor destroyed. God is also not created nor destroyed.

So, the same truth as before but expressed differently by both religion and science.

plaetton:
Let me say this for better understanding.

For my friend DeepSight to question or proclaim the inexplicable instincts, he first has obligation to take a deep dive into the subject of protein synthesis, understand it, and then be able to say that the body of accumulated knowledge in protein synthesis and its fundamental link to natural selection and evolution is wrong and incomplete.
You question science with science.

The bolded is incorrect. It's similar to the usual excuse used by incompetent teachers to dissuade their students from questioning them about a topic they can't explain very well. Religious people also use the same tactics when they say one must have the holy spirit to understand biblical text


There's no where it's stated in the sciences that " You question science with science. You just invented that yourself.

What it takes to question science is an inquiry mind and the ability to ask the right question concerning any scientific theory that one find inconsistent with the evidences that support it.

The Wright brothers were ordinary bicycle repairers who aren't supposed to question science according you, but through their project to invent something new, they question the prevailing scientific theory of their time which stated that nothing heavier than air can float in the sky ,and the result was the airplane.

Well, you already answered the op without realising it. You can't explain it and so waiting for other scientist who know better to come up with an answer so you can re-echo it.

Everyday247:
Check his posts, it was as if he was implying that some biological phenomena couldn't be explained by TOE, and was hinting at intelligent design.

No. He only highlighted certain inexplicable phenomenon in nature and seeks to know the answer .

You think he's hinting at intelligent design because his argument seems similar to those of religious people who completely reject TOE.

plaetton:
It's like deja vu all over again.

I think you missed the part in a previous post where I said that TOE is not a complete package. It has never been. Most scientific Theories do not come as a complete package. What it does is set a starting point of our enquiries and understanding.

The truth remains that majority of people who say they reject TOE have either zero or very limited knowledge of its mechanics.
Funny,I confess that as a science student, as was once in that category. I rejected because I didn't want to accept it, not because I had scientifically valid counter Theory.

But DeepSight hasn't rejected TOE completely and so ,why but him in the same category of those majority whom you say has?

Top scientist right from the very beginning till this very moment have been questioning certain parts of the theory not because they reject it but because they want to improve on it, yet you want to suggest it's only those with zero knowledge that challenges it. That's not true.

The thing is that,you are too quick to assume that anyone who challenges some aspect of TOE is a religious person who has already rejected it. A lot of atheist think that way and I call it knee- jerk rejection.

plaetton:
Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.

Secondly, to say that not all atheists SUBSCRIBE to TOE is laughable.
A scientific theory does not offer a SUBSCRIPTION service. It is not a membership service.

By the way, which scientific theories do you currently SUBSCRIBE to ?
The Gravitational Theory, The Germ Theory, The Atomic theory?
Do you think it's a pick and choose subscription service?
It is not.
These are deep and complex scientific ideas that the far majority of human population are hardly aware and have zero or very limited understanding.
Failing to understand something, a scientific theory, does not weaken the veracity of the theory itself.

Honestly, it's like you don't take your time to read before replying.

Reread what you responded to and ask yourself if they align with what you just said now.

First of all, I never said," not all atheist subscribe to TOE.

Secondly, no where did I suggest atheism is a philosophical preposition. I said without theism there won't be atheism. If people don't talk of God, there won't be those to oppose the idea.

Finally, scientific theories isn't for picking and choosing, It should be questioned. That's what I said. Any science that cannot be questioned is not science but dogma.

Everyday247:
This doesn't invalidate what i was saying.

I was pointing out that TOE and BBT are not necessarily atheistic theories, because it looked like he was making the assumption that they were linked with atheism.

I never implied the bolded.

I think it's you that's assuming that, maybe from past experience with religious people who have tried to discredit TOE or dismiss it in place of creation science ideas

He's not doing that here or linking it with atheism, but asking for explanation for some parts of it which he refer to has inexplicable.

Everyday247:
Well first of all atheism is older than both the theory of evolution and the big bang theory. Which means that evolution and the big bang are scientific facts and no atheistic philosophies.

Secondly, not all atheists subscribe to evolution and the big bang theory.

Also, what are these problems?

Atheism older than theory of evolution and the big bang?

No, that can't be true. Atheism is old as theism. They both feed from each other. One cannot exist without the other. Without theism, you won't know what it means to be an atheist and vice versa.

The talk that atheism is the default position is usually made by dogmatic atheist to postulate others from joining them.

plaetton:
Of course there are sticky issues and questions about the complexity of evolution.
The very fact that we have these nagging questions does not in any way contradict the core theory. Rather is only encourages us to continue to seek scientifically rational answers.

Theory of evolution is not a complete A to Z package, because it is not dogma .
In fact, similar theories such as the the Atomic theory, Gravitational theory and Germ Theory are scientifically accepted ideas for which ongoing work continues.
Science is a series of Questions, with one answer always leading to new questions.
Everyday, new scientific advances continue to peer in and answer nagging questions of yesteryears.

Like I said earlier, if you have a scientifically rational explanation for these nagging questions, we are open to hearing it.

What we will not accept is the God of the Gaps answers.

It's running away from the question asking a questioner to answer a question directed at you about something you claim to understand better. If he knew the answers himself ,he wouldn't ask it in the first place

if I say ,owls only fly at night ,but another challenges this statement by mentioning the few ones seen flying during the day, and ask me why, it's my responsibilty to provide the answer or don't say anything if I can't .

You ,just like me ,are subscribed to TOE. The theory has its limitations.

And if the op is drawing attention to it, It's better you acknowledge that, and respond appropriately and not arrogantly dismissing him with God of the gaps accusation . I'm not a religious person myself but I find his question very valid. Any science that cannot be questioned is dogma, and anyone can question science.

I will end with this. If the TOE has some gaps in it, then it only means one thing, it's half truth and not the complete truth about how life has evolved from the very beginning.

We may have all of the answers later from rational science but also possible we may never know it all.

OLAADEGBU:
Listen to the voice of reason from the fathers of science.

Did you know that the popularity of atheism is a modern phenomenon?

The Father of Science, Sir Isaac Newton said, “Atheism is so senseless.” Albert Einstein distanced himself from it, by saying, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

The Bible gives it just 11 words. It says, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1). Then it repeats those exact words in Psalm 52:1, no doubt to make sure we get the message. Atheism is foolishness—because it believes the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything. It is an intellectual embarrassment.

Ray Comfort.

Source

You have deflected to the father of science , Isaac Newton, who was human and not infallible.

Religious beliefs and science don't mix.

Whatever Newton said in the past concerning Atheist or non believers was his personal opinion influenced by his religious conviction as at that time, and not science. Science is neutral or agnostic.

The man wasn't perfect and nobody is . So stop quoting him in order to win a debate through deceptive argument


FYI , I'm no atheist. I only join the conversation because don't I see any sense in you suggesting that if a person doesn't believe in a god or fear an imaginary hell there's no point in making any effort in moderating their behaviour to live responsibly. What sort of talk is that? There are millions of people in the world who are currently living an honest live without a fear of hell or god.


According to you, Christians are afraid of judgement and because of that can easily do the right thing. But no enough evidence you're actually living your live that way.

You preach love but are quick to hate those who don't share in your believe . why?

Donald Trump a Christian whom you support is a Christian who likes to grab hem by the psy.

Majority of the Yahoo boys , hookup girls and theiving politicians plundering our common wealth in this country are members of your various churches where they pay offering and tithes regularly from the proceeds of what they do.

Most of you are currently supporting structural violence by the Israelis in Gaza which has led to the death and displacement of thousands of defenseless Palestinians ,but won't pick up arms to fight Boko Haram killing Christians in the Northern part of Nigeria.

If it's difficult for you lots to practice what you preach what's the point of asking others who live wisely without fear of eternal judgement
to join you?

OLAADEGBU:
William Lane Craig has chosen to go on his own lane, that means he has derailed. You can keep him as we have many scientists that are true Christians who trust on the infallible word of God.

William Lane fell into the moral pitfall of thinking that since God doesn't exist one is free to live life irresponsibly, and that's because he grew up amongs religious people like yourself who made him reason that way.

What this means is that, if for any reason you abandon your religion in the future, you"re also likely to follow the lane, he followed, and who knows, yours might even be worse since you're very certain that without the threat of hell or God, it's impossible to be morally upright.

OLAADEGBU:
If everyone around you deem it fit to steal, lie and cheat would you be compelled to do the same in order for you to live in harmony?

What you brought in is an hypothethical situation which is not possible in real life.

Real life has both good and bad people to relate with or harmonize with.

OLAADEGBU:
What’s the point of modifying your behaviour in order to stay within acceptable ranges if you truly believe the is no God to judge you when you die?

The point is to live in harmony with others around me. I don't need to believe in God to know my actions have consequences which I have to bear my self.