₦airaland Forum

menesheh:
All i see are hate speeches everywhere. Seems i ve touch some people where it pains.

If you're angle, so fuccking what?


Here we are, let me know how you later joined bunch of people who want to sell invisible commodity to us


My advice is that you should not take it personal. Am addressing some sets of believes propagating falsehood as if it is true. Am not attacking anybody but rather attacking the ideology itself that's why i desist from using words directly to anybody.

The same people who extol rationality and sobriety won't touch pseudoscience with a ten foot pole. This hypocrisy stinks to high heavens

AlfaSeltzer:
doG did it
I don't know how but he did

Steve Jobs and his gang did it. Now m0ron, please find a better place to piss and blaspheme

timonski:
@op. Why is everything finetuned for I-pads?

It is the iPad that is fine tuned for me and not the other way round. The reason it is fine tuned is because it was DESIGNED for use by intelligent primates like myself. I have an iPad Air and I want to give it away and upgrade to Air 2.

ValentineMary:
Are u saying these just to make urself happy or u believe that stuff Then why has it not been approved by national science bodies like NASA?

The US told everyone that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Do I need NASA to know that an active volcano CAN NEVER spew out a Subaru in a trillion years?

You are committing the fallacy of appealing to authority to bail you out

FOLYKAZE:
I guess the reason why vooks and winners were hitting menesheh is because menesheh like other atheists categorically termed religion account as myth while the big-bang alternative is illogical, dumb and plain silly as something cannot come from nothing.

Atheists clings on science as tag it as truth while he calls religion accounts myth.

Notice on one among the theists argued against there account been myth. They rather argued;

- your alternate explanation is fallacy. Something/nothing thang. This is hypocrisy when one myth is seen as truth and other is seen as superstition.

- Menesheh turn around to say he is not a scientist. Then he have no right to call religious account myth when he has no counter theory. Hence he should shut the hell

If most of these amateur critics of the cross were honest enough to call out science myths (often called theories but given the weight of facts), I'd reason with them.

Have you seen Menesheh appealing to authority? 'The scientific community can't be wrong'. This is lame

ValentineMary:
Have u been following modern trends in physics I don't think so. Modern research has shown that it was not only 1 hot point but multiple dense hot points. Each dense hot point gave birth to the universe. How can u then explain red shift and blue shift which has been observed if u think big bang is a myth

I have shown you highly educated peeps who have demonstrated how Big Bang is contradicted by observations. The problem Witt you is that you are hopelessly wedded to a paradigm hat you take if for fact and react violently to discordant views.

Redshift or blueshift is an observation. It is the interpretations thereof that are affected by your EXISTING presumption. In short, these observations don't prove Big Bang. This is complex stuff and I will try and share a simplified account;

http://aoi.com.au/bcw/RIPExpanding/

menesheh:
What's this guy even talking about.

Pay me to give you a crash course on comprehension classes. You badly need them

ValentineMary:
Smh. Who told u nothing came from nothing? How can u be this ignorant about science Big bang explains that the universe began to expand from a dense hot point. The expansion was due to instability. This expansion released energy into space and it began to expand. After about 130,000 years the first sub atomic parilticle was formed. at least E_MC^2 explains this laat part. Funny enough there is proof of the big bang. Our expanding universe proves that this expansion started from a point. Do more reading bro. Am a student of biochemistry but at least we ought to have basic science knowledge. Thank you.

Why do people make a hobby out of displaying their ignorance?

A 'hot point'?
So, what else was there besides the 'hot point'? Vacuum,space, other cold points?


Inflation is another hypothesis invented to explain away the horizon problem. What is the Horizon Problem? Scientists were shocked to discover that the temperature of the entire universe is EVEN. Now, if he beginning of everything was a 'hot point', then heat must have dissipated in all directions in from there to evenly warm our universe.

Heat like everything else travels at a maximum speed of light. So if Big Bang is true, we can measure the size of the universe assuming your 'hot point' was in the middle of the nothing. How so? If we know WHEN this 'hot point' happened (13B years ago) and we know the maximum speed of heat dissipation, we multiply the speed by time to get the radius/diameter of the universe! Assuming we get a radius of XYZ

Where does inflation come in all this?
Because we have observed stars that are further from our galaxy by more than XYZ contrary to the predictions of Big Bang and your 'hot point'. So it's either some stuff can travel faster than light explaining how heat from Big Bang got that far or, those distant stars were once near and since Big Bang they have been moving away AFTER heat dissipation.

Inflation theory in short was invented to spin away why empirical observations contradicted Big Bang.

Meditate on this and then I will teach you on why inflation is EQUALLY if not more ret@rded

menesheh:
What and what are the pseudoscience. As naive as you are and me too about evolution and big bang, we don't have the expertise to call evolution and big bang a pseudoscience. Even if we should, scientific community that have the expertise don't see it as a pseudoscience.
If you see any flaw that disprove evolution, you're a celeb already.

Pseudoscience is false science
Thank me later for adding a new vocabulary to your arsenal.

You only said that. Some biologist are striving on daily bases to disprove those things so as to bag popularity but to no avail. You can say that evolution and big bang are unprovable, untestable all you want, i dont care.

I don't care whether you care sir.
What is the difference between Big Bang,evolution and any creation narrative?

Walk me through the difference(s)

bronzegoddess:
Why were u looking at him to see what he put in d envelop. Ok, maybe u saw the first one by accident, but ur amebo-ism cldnt let u keep urslf frm looking the second time.





Its people like u we hide our offerings from.

Excellent response

SirWere:
Truly, a little knowledge is a bad thing.

Yessir
And silence makes everyone mistake you for a genius

[size=1pt]

ournaijablog:
What has religion done for the human race? How does one choose their religion? What are the criteria for being religious? I have found myself thinking about this the more I grow older and wondering if religion has done more harm than god in our society.

I was born in a Christian home so automatically I became a Christian, ‘a Catholic Christian’. Every Sunday my dad{God bless his soul} would wake us up for the 5am mass, so by 4am we were up and by 4:30am we were on our way to church by foot with our rosary and hymn book in hand, we had God on our side so we weren’t scared of the dangers of leaving home that early.
I have had so many doubts about the Christian faith, sometimes I would want to think they are hypocrites who preach love with fire and brimstone but never practice it, most of these churches never marry from other denominations saying it is against their ethics, aren’t we all serving one God? I have been told by these lots that because I do not go to church I have a special place in hell fire reserved for me ‘can’t I worship God in my abode?.

Most Christian churches are scam, they manipulate you, give you problems you do not have and extort you. Few weeks back I read about a pastor who was caught in porthacourt for fake arranged miracles, how low can one go to dupe others who have sincere problems, the reason I stopped going to church was I no more understood what they were preaching about because all I kept here was ‘PROSPERITY’ ‘MTCN’ ‘MONEYGRAM’I don’t have anyone abroad how can I be expecting mtcn and moneygram well we all know who they are referring to, and ‘VISA’. And ‘DIE DIE DIE’, most criminals come to church to give testimonies and corrupt politicians come to grease the hands of these men of God well as long as you’re rich you are righteous and holy. After all these proclamations then come the ridiculous taxation known as offering, now am not saying this is bad but it becomes dubious when you have to give about 5 different offerings and you don’t know what they are for. You hear the pastor say things like do not embarrass God with your offering, give him something that will move him, don’t give God 100 or 200 naira, my God is not a 20 naira God neither is h a 50 naira God, move the lord I say move him; damn how will my offering move God when I don’t even have in the first place.

An old friend of mine told me about a particular church she and her mother went to in search of miracles, this church is along badagry expressway “Barracks’” precisely and the owner of this church all his family members are pastorpreneurs, well you might know this church or not I do not care but the extortion going on in most of this churches are ludicrous. This pastor had poured anointing oil on the ground and said “those who want to give the lord 500,000 should come out they would be the first to touch this miracle oil and their blessings will surpass others” well you should see the crowd that came out, this pastor went on till he got to 200 naira, my friend and her mother rushed out to go drop their money and touch the already finished oil, well, their life is still the same or maybe their money wasn’t enough for God.

Congregants are coerced to give all they have to their pastors, I know they would say they do it willing but they do not know about the power of manipulation, they give out their houses, cars, and most times their ATM all in the name of pleasing the man of God, and then these men of God buy houses on banana island, buy jets, build universities and live the life and they keep preaching prosperity to you. In these churches they sit by class, the rich have where they sit and have direct access to the pastor, well the poor rarely get to see the pastor only on the pulpit or the live screen, the single ladies sit differently from the married ones, read about a Nigerian comedienne that was embarrassed in her church because she wasn’t married.

Africans now practice religion more than the white man, who brought it to us, a father would send his mother, wife, or kids out of the house all because he’s been told they are witches. No war has been fought more than a war based on religion, I don’t even want to get started on the radical Muslims and how not all Muslims are terrorist but all terrorists are Muslims.

I am going to stop here for today, I think we have got this whole religion issue wrong and we should go back to our drawing board to figure out what went wrong, people go to church naked, pastors wear the latest designers, no charities in the church they all want to take and make more from their congregants, no one preaches about heaven and salvation.

Christ has died for us already and he didn’t request a dime, heaven is free and we do not need to pay to get in. Religion is overrated and we should begin to ask ourselves if Religion has done more harm than good to the human race.

ournaijablog.

[/size]
Am interested in 3 things you have done for betterment of humanity.

menesheh:
You are forcing words into my mouth. Reread my comments here again and point out where am making argument on big bang. Am not a scientist. That i trust scientific findings to some maximum degree doesn't automatically made me a defender of scientific findings.

So my concern here is what you believe and why, because all religious believes are in conformity with fairies, superstition, myth etc.

Am also not a scientist so that makes two of us. But that does not disqualify me from calling out pseudo-science whenever and wherever.

Do you need ten PhDs in science to know that this iPhone 6 Plus am using is not a product of accident?

Big Bang and evolution are as mythical and religious concepts as Abrahamic religions. Do you agree with this?

Both are unprovable,untestable, yet they are FIRMLY held as truths

menesheh:
I don't know. I've been repeating myself severally here but to deaf ears. Am only disbelieving your unsubstantiated claims of a deity that caused all. I never asserted anything.


The difference between me and you is that i disbelieve in your religious claims and desist from doing anything with it because it is utterly useless but you attack science and still live every bit of your life on the product of such nonsensical science.

I respect REAL science but pseudo-science pretending to be science is something my highly developed brain can't accommodate and I never hesitate to call it out.

Go back to Origins.
Since you don't know where you came from, does that mean you are open to every nonsense such as ' in the beginning NOTHING....'?

menesheh:
I give you that credit for not shrinking my comment for now.
Good of you boi.

When you are arguing, you dont commend yourself and refer your opponent's other side of the argument as rant but you'd rather point out the flaws and fallacious in such argument. Hope you get?

So if you are angry with my comments, so fuccking what? Am still waiting to hear your arguments.

If you are any literate, it should have been apparent by now that calling the IMPOSSIBLE science and calling its alternative mythical is hypocrisy

menesheh:
I dont know and am still waiting patiently to hear your arguments on how you came to the conclusion that it is a sky fairy that created it all.

Am still patiently waiting to to hear which of these is more ret@rded
1. 'In the Beginning God....'
2. 'In the Beginning Nothing...'

You come across as a wannabe thinker and am pressed to know how any thinking primate entertains 1 as mythical and 2 as 'science'.

It takes special effort to miss this hypocrisy

menesheh:
Strawman. They are making crazy arguments. Is not about taking sides. If there are votes on that note, then...

Fallacies everywhere but i dont care, i care much about audience reading through.

Not exactly crazy but above your pay grade

More evidence of how Big Bang is fatally flawed
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Remember these are not Christians refuting it but scientists.

chuna1985:
.

Am waiting

menesheh:
Is that the best way to argue? You can still do the same by bringing up more valid points to overwhelm mine.
You have been making the most crazy arguments here but i dont complain or go on a bashing spree like you always did. That means if we are to argue one on one, you may start flexing muscle to blow me.

So if we can continue exchanging comments, desist from doing such.

When you make a mishmash of submissions, I have to try my best not to ignore any and that is exactly what I did. Try and organize your thoughts and be focused on whatever point you want and we will tackle it amicably. You should give me credit for trying bro. This is a hard job poring through your rants

chuna1985:
From bible records, as @ d tym wen Cain killed Abel, Adam n eve had just 2 kids.

M0ron, show me which part says this. Am waiting

[quote author=Judas2013 post=40738748][/quote]Fool,you are not creative

menesheh:
U wanted to start lecturing on how we recognize design, but i may have the chance to do that right now but let's take this shortcut.

Who design it?

Before we get to WHO, let's agree there is no DESIGN without DESIGNER

menesheh:
Stop shrinking my comments when replying to it so that anyone can read through both arguments. It doesn't show maturity.

I did that trying to disentangle the many wild claims you make without thinking or blinking

Dekatron:
Nigga, Fvck that shiit!! Don't tell me shiit . . .



Newton was an Alchemist. He died of mercury poisoning . . . Will an Alchemist go to heaven??



Its like Vooks telling me he is not going to hell, but he can say YOU FOOL & Matt 5:22 said he is going to hell!!



Both you & vooks are hypocrites . . . .



According to Christianity, NEWTON IS IN HELL . . . If an Achemist can make heaven, I can also become U.S president. . . Mtchewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!

FOOL
Why will alchemists end up in hell?

malvisguy212:
they probably will say "it a luck" or the law of nature wrote it.

Luck my foot!

chuna1985:
I know people like u wella, u can wallow more n more in self deceptio. The questions n answers are clear, Cain could not havr been afraid that his unborn siblings will kill him n besides he should not be afraid of his sibling born or unborn, they are his relatives.

He was afraid because there are some people living elsewhere that are aggressive to him n his family, that's why he was scared.

God also placed a mark on him, telling him that no one will kill him but if de do, they will get cursed...

Point is, bible is a Hebrew book n its version of creation is for the jews

Adam had many kids besides Cain and Abel so exactly what's your point?

jayriginal:
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Douglas Adams

Like I said, downplaying it is essentially diversionary.

The analogy has long been dismantled. Check

Refuting the Puddle Analogy
AUGUST 3, 2013 BY JASON PETERSEN

Written by Jason Petersen

Updated: 11/23/15

Introduction

The puddle analogy is an analogy that was developed by an atheist named Douglas Adams as a response to teleological arguments. Teleological arguments are arguments concerning the fine tuning of the universe or other things such as the complexity of living organisms.

The Analogy

Douglas Adams wrote:

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Now, the puddle analogy was developed to show what Douglas saw as a short coming of teleological arguments. It is more of a satirical and rhetorical analogy so to speak. I am going to briefly lay out some of the issues with the argument.


Specified Complexity

What is complexity? It is quite common for people to conflate (confuse) the word “complex” with “complicated.” Complexity involves something that has multiple interrelated parts. The Christian can point to scientific data to show that 30+ constants that are independent of the laws of nature falling into the range that allow for life to exist is not only implausible, but rather, statistically impossible. If any of these 30+ constants were off, life would not be able to exist.

Lack of Good Reasons to Accept the Desired Implication of the Analogy

If one were to claim that the universe was not fine tuned for the existence of life, they ought to be able to give us some good reasons for thinking that the universe is not fine tuned for the existence of life. Alas, no reasons are given in the puddle analogy. Atheists will just say “Humans think the same thing as the puddle does in the analogy and it’s rather silly.” But why? What good reasons are there to think that it is silly? Just claiming it is silly and trying to ignore all of the data that suggests the universe is fine tuned for life is not going to be enough to convince anyone that the thought is silly. There are better, more concrete reasons to accept that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of life than to accept that it isn’t fine tuned for the existence of life. False bravado gets the atheist nowhere!

Bad Analogy

We just talked about specific complexity. Read the analogy again and notice that the puddle analogy fails to address specific complexity. Rather, all it does is appeal to the naturalistic presupposition that “it just so happens that life is able to exist because the constants are where they should be to permit life.” By assuming that the universe is the similar to the puddle, the atheist effectively begs the question, for he is simply assuming what he is trying to argue.

Further, the analogy is weak. The hole symbolizes the universe and the puddle symbolizes humanity. However, the hole does not have specified complexity in the instance of this analogy. Further, there is no evidence given that the universe is anything like the puddle other than a mere assertion of “the universe/puddle can support life/water because that is just the way it is.” An unbeliver would never let a Christian assert something without basis, therefore, we have no reason to allow them to assert such a argument without proof.

Bad Logic

As was briefly mentioned earlier, the analogy is a bare assertion. Arguing for the analogy will involve assuming what one is trying to argue.

Conclusion

In light of what has been discussed in this article, some philosophical nuances must be kept in mind. First, scientific data is tentative so we should never argue that the data concerning the fine tuning of the universe allows us to prove that God exists. This is because the scientific method is incapable of proving anything. What the Christian should instead argue is that there are propositions (such as the data concerning the fine tuning of the universe) that are consistent with what has already been revealed in scripture. In contrast, the believer has no frame of reference in which to derive the notion that there is data in science that corresponds with their position. Where would the unbeliever start? Induction cannot lead to knowledge, and if there is no knowledge, how can the unbeliever say that they have data that supports their position? 1

Objections

Atheists have also attempted to defend the puddle analogy against the arguments that were given in this article. This is a list of them along with this author’s responses.

Objection: Organisms, like puddles, are constantly being eliminated, which suggests that the world is not designed to keep them alive.

Response: The objector assumes the intentions of the creator, but the objector has no way of knowing the creator’s intentions. Why is the atheist assuming that the universe was created to sustain all life on a permanent basis? Clearly, the Bible disagrees with this atheist’s assumption (Ecclesiastes 12:7). And certainly, death is a central part of the Gospel (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Since the objector has no way of knowing (or having any idea) what the Creator’s intentions are, the objection is insufficient.

Objection: Puddles conform to holes, due to the natural properties of a liquid; these holes are not intentionally designed in order to store volumes of water that have a certain shape and size. In other words, puddles are forced to fit in holes. Likewise, life has evolved to survive and reproduce within the conditions on earth, due to descent with modification. The earth probably was not made to suit our needs, especially considering the persistent struggle for survival among living organisms. The earliest forms of life did not have all of the same requirements for survival that modern organisms have. What happened was, as life evolved, some species took advantage of natural resources that gave them a competitive advantage over other species. Eventually this led life to develop a dependence on these resources present in the environment. Now, after the fact, it seems as though the environment could have been intelligently designed with the knowledge that it would allow life as we know it to exist, when in actuality life was forced by selective pressures to fit these conditions.

Response: There is a lot of question begging in this objection. How does the atheist know that puddles are not designed? God is directly behind all of the forces that are at work in this universe. God decreed that puddles form on earth on lower levels of ground just as he decreed that streams, rivers, lakes, bays, and oceans form. The forces that causes puddles to stay in place are of God himself. The objector is merely assuming that puddles form due to natural causes, but the objector has no way of demonstrating this claim. The Christian epistemology is informed by scripture. 2 Christians have a frame of reference in which they can show that the data in science (concerning the delicate balance that is needed to allow for life) is consistent with the propositions that are revealed to us in scripture. The objector may accuse the Christian of begging the question, but if the objector wishes to complain, he ought to stop begging the question.

Insofar as the appeals to a naturalistic evolution is concerned, science is not able to lead to knowledge. See this article for a a superior philosophy on science.

Footnotes:

1. In induction, even if the premises are true, the conclusion can still be false. Therefore, the induction cannot produce truth, and if there is no truth, there can be no propositions that are consistent with the unbeliever’s own position.

2. See Gordon H. Clark’s book, “A Christian View of Men and Things” for a more detailed explanation of Christian epistemology.

Notes:

[url==http://answersforhope.org/destroying-the-puddle-analogy/]Source[/url]

davien:
Funny how the criteria for determining intelligently designed systems is not given but largely ignored as the assumption itself is all that is needed...

I have seen your moniker peeping about, it's good to know you have discovered your voice after an extended leave. Hoping you are well my broda.


I just wrote this on a sandy beach. Supposing you came across it and you never saw me writing it, what criteria would you use to conclude it was intelligence behind it and not some random waves?

[size=1pt]

CoolUsername:
Maybe if you stop getting all your knowledge of evolution from pro-creationist websites then you'll have a better idea of how it works.
I strongly recommend this link:
darryl-cunningham..co.nz/2011/06/evolution.html?m=1

menesheh:
I hate abusive and jerky words in the process of driving points home. The little benefit of our devoting time here arguing is to enlightened ourselves and other audience reading through in order to make a better and thinking society.
Even if we must use harsh word, it mustn't be on the verge of a serious discussion.




The argument on design had been handled severally here. You don't recognize design by complexity, it is a logical fallacy. But let admit for a second that there's this designer that design it all. Which particular designer in the mist of many other designers should we choose?



No, not settled yet, until you demonstrate that there must be a designer, the particular designer and ways we can verify wether or not such designer exists before you can start attributing such deity to be the designer. If you don't, sorry i don't believe you. I will rather go for more propable explanation done under evidence, prove and careful observation that are consistent.





You are getting it wrong. Pick up a dictionary and check the meaning of "KNOW", "AWARE OF" and "BELIEVE".
You can be aware of something but not really know how it came about. What you're doing is guesswork rather than following where the evidence leads you. You answered a question before you started looking for any possible clue.




What's so bad about not knowing. You are sounding as if you know everything. You must be ignorant of some certain things. I said i don't know and



Now all you have been doing here is dodging the central point of the thread which is about the guilty of Christianity and other religious believes that possess those features of stories we termed myths.

[/size]

You don't recognize design by complexity?
How do you reckon design?

You do well to plead ignorance of Origins but while you may not know how something got here, you sure well do know how it never got here.

An example will suffice;
1. We don't know how pyramids got here, but we damn sure know volcanicity never made them

2. You may not know how the Subaru came about but you can bet your life and wife that no animal gave birth to a Subaru

It is one thing not knowing and it is another to admit the IMPOSSIBLE on account of your ignorance

chuna1985:
U just got to that point, when u have nothing to say n u start quoting other very useless n irrelevant scriptures

Nice day.

You got to that point where you ran out of steam and bowed out dishonorably.

You asked questions got answers and got pissed off because it's not what you expected. Piss off negro

dammyconcept:
To Me, If There Is No Poster Inside The Bus That Slated No Preaching, No Trading And He Did Not Shout Then Why Not Preaching?

Am sure there equally was no poster telling him not to pee there. Is this enough reason to empty your bladder in a bus?

chuna1985:
Lmfaooooo. I know that road too, I used to take people there too, till I discovered how stupidd the road is

We both know what d bible recorded dere.
So relax.

God has a sense of humor

I must say you are a genius. Einstein has nothing on you