₦airaland Forum

bolaino: Wiegraf, sup

The roof for now. Bros, I miss your more interesting threads. How far na? No more of them??

oluwalfa: humans are funny
thinking they are important.
earth was here before us
earth will be here long after we have gone

all our shenanigans don't affect it one bit
remember the ozone layer scare
we are just harming ourselves and claiming we are harming earth
laughable

Sure, we're self-important. For instance, we are now burning through fossil fuels that has taken nature billions of years to produce, mindlessly. Because the universe was created just for special us.

Now, long after humanity has left the earth, supposing another species attained intelligence, how exactly would they attain industrialization without these fossil fuels?

Do you still think what we do doesn't matter? Really?

padeolu: Climate isn't exempted. Humans activities indeed has an influence on the atmospheric pattern. But this impact (for now) is not enough to instigate a complete change in climate pattern, rather, variation.

Let's say I agreed with you (and I can't say, as I don't have the time to check the numbers etc, and it's obviously not my field), I think the bolded is very important, and not something that should be glossed over.

And you would seem to agree, to a degree, as you state the bolded below:

padeolu: this is a sorry case. But, if we must develop, we must pollute. That is why we all must imbibe the culture of sustainable development.

However, as a whole, this statements are sort of contradictory.

If what you're trying to say is even if we have to pollute, we must do so responsibly, that would seem to be exactly what environmentalists are saying as well, no?

So, the main question I suppose would remain; are we doing enough?

padeolu: for life to exist in those planets, what they need is abundance of water. Life on earth started in water.

There is water on mars, and various moons as well. On mars its simply frozen. I forget the details of the others. Most plans for terraforming mars involve heating it up.

But that's besides the point, mostly. Main point is these are clear examples of how drastic human activity can be to an ecosystem.

padeolu: The case of Dubai is quite interesting, it simply shows we humans can cope/adapt && maybe mitigate the consequence of thermal stress or cold stress.

And we can achieve this, short term, simple weather changes. We continue to achieve this short term changes then it eventually becomes long term, rather than weather changes they become climate changes.

And that likely would be their ultimate aim, despite their culture built around the desert. They would aim to change their climate, and this is very possible.

Various governments have all manner of plans aimed at changing their climates, they even haggle with their neighbors. I forget the exact case but I remember some European governments quarreling over plans that would affect their neighbors. I remember I will post it.

padeolu: don't believe everything NASA says, wait till they do it. NASA is a home of propaganda.

I don't, but to their credit they've put people on the moon, amongst other things, so I don't think they would be out of their depth here. And they aren't the only ones who seem to think terraforming, etc is possible.

padeolu: if we cut on our emission of CO2 && other GHGs, the impact it will have on the environment will be quite minute && the cost will be so huge. A study (can't remember the author) concluded that if the atmospheric C02 concenteration were to be doubled, the resultant global average temperature won't be more than 1degC increase. That we can cope it.

Ah, but I think this study is the minority, and by some distance. Wiki, though well sourced

wiki: The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]

Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]

The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]

The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

So, again, I haven't seen the numbers myself, but it doesn't seem to be something we should just brush off.

padeolu: an asteroid once hit the earth wiping out the dinosaur population. That activity shaped the earth. If not for the extinction of those species, mammals && humanoid won't have had a place on earth. Let's just leave nature to take its course.

IIRC not a consensus that it was an asteroid, though likely. Regardless, the bolded is the point, or the ideal. Yet we seem to be interfering, and negatively as far as we are concerned. You've already stated that we must pollute in order to develop, no? So leaving nature completely to its devices seems to be off the table.

So, are we interfering positively?

Dunno. But it seems rather than sending Bruce Willis, we're helping the asteroid attain light speed. Not so sensible.

^^^

Don't know about global warming, or at least the details, but humans clearly can have dramatic impacts on an ecosystem. Why is climate exempt?

Eg, wiping out large swathes of forests, other species (whilst aiding others, true, we've likely gotten rid of billions, and most of the time for no good reason other than perhaps getting a better view), burning through energy reserves that have taken billions of years to accumulate, etc etc. General wikki

You could also try visiting Chernobyl and various parts of Japan to study just how drastic our actions can be on an environment (you might even get to meet godzilla). We even 'terraform', more or else, on fairly large scales. See Dubai (or one of those emirates, I forget which). I wouldn't be surprised if some of the scientists that claim humans play no role in global warming etc are the same ones drawing up plans to terraform Mars or some of Neptune's/Jupiter's moons etc.

We've never observed a species with our technological nous storming through a planet's resources before, we maybe are still working through the details (dunno). But to suggest we're incapable of, at the very least, inadvertently or no, accelerating a natural process, I would say is the (very) far-fetched notion.

And, just generally speaking, if we have the means of reverting a natural process which we deem harmful, exactly why shouldn't we do it? A meteor is heading for earth, do we

a- send over rockets to help boost its velocity
b- go all Armageddon on it?

Xcapist: An atheist was rowing at the lake, when suddenly the Loch Ness monster attacked and grabbed him from his boat. He panicked and shouted "God help me!", and suddenly, the monster and everything around him just stopped.
A voice from the heavens boomed "You say you don't believe in me, but now you are asking for my help?"
The atheist looked up and said: Well, ten seconds ago I didn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster either!

The version I'm familiar with is;

An atheist was spending a quiet day fishing when suddenly his boat was attacked by the Loch Ness Monster. In one easy flip, the beast tossed him and his boat at least a hundred feet into the air. It then opened it's mouth waiting below to swallow them both.

As the man sailed head over heels and started to fall towards the open jaws of the ferocious beast he cried out, "Oh, my God! Help me!"

Suddenly, the scene froze in place and as the atheist hung in midair a booming voice came out of the clouds and said, "I thought you didn't believe in Me!"

"God, come on, give me a break!" the man pleaded, "Just seconds ago I didn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster either!"

"Well," said God, "now that you are a believer, you must understand that I won't work miracles to snatch you from certain death in the jaws of the monster, but I can change hearts. What would you have me do?"

The atheist thinks for a minute then says, "God, please have the Loch Ness Monster believe in You also.

"God replies, "So be it."

The scene starts in motion again with the atheist falling towards the ravenous jaws of the monster. The Loch Ness Monster folds his claws together and says, "Lord, bless this food You have so graciously provided . . "



Here's another from the underbelly of the internets;

Genie in the Lamp

An atheist buys an Ancient Roman Catholic lamp at an auction, takes it home, and begins to polish it.
Suddenly, a genie appears, and says, "I’ll grant you three wishes, Master."
The atheist says, "I wish I could believe in you."
The genie snaps his fingers, and suddenly the atheist believes in him.
The atheist says, "Wow. I wish all atheists would believe this."
The genie snaps his fingers again, and suddenly atheists all over the world begin to believe in genies.
"What about your third wish?" asks the genie.
"Well," says the atheist, "I wish for a billion dollars."
The genie snaps his fingers for a third time, but nothing happens.
"What’s wrong?" asks the atheist.
The genie shrugs and says, "Just because you believe in me, doesn’t necessarily mean that I really exist."


...though the fact he made them believe by snapping his fingers would mean he (likely) exists. Still funny though, for other reasons

davidylan: Over 500 words (wasted i might say) and yet he provides not a single shred of evidence for his belief in evolution other than to play the "how can you not believe it" canard. Amazing.

A few notes

That is not a canard. Don't use words you don't understand. In fact, I'd suggest you simply don't discuss matters you don't understand, eg evolution, and stick to your talking donkeys.

I don't believe in evolution in the silly way you entail. It is fact. You might as well ask me to present evidence for my belief in gravity.

That was not meant to present evidence for evolution to you. Despite your claims of a PhD in microbiology, it clearly is beyond you.

For instance, you ask for evidence for evolution while pointing out you share 48% of your DNA with a banana (or whatever it was).

Please, please, david, abeg, think about it slowly...

What is shared ancestry again? And what does your sharing 48% of your DNA with bananas (or whatever) imply?

Who's supposed to be the scientist here? Was Homer Simpson the one who personally oversaw your entire education? Or maybe it was the guy who was asking us to show us our piss evaporating to prove the water cycle exists (what was his name sef?)

The post was meant to shame you, as clearly logic doesn't work for you. You even admit as much, admitting you base your beliefs on (blind) faith. But it seems that would be a waste as well, so meh...

thehomer: Your denial of the evidence for evolution and your request for a "definitive proof for evolution" make me suspicious of the sort of involvement you've had in the biological sciences since 2005.

This

How can one claim to be a scientist yet state this?! It completely befuddles me. No amount of poetry can describe the state of consternation this harebrained statement, from a supposedly trained pro, evokes from me. A trained biologist, a role model in an environment that desperately needs descent role models, looking others square in the eye and telling them 'there's no evidence for evolution'....

Different thing to contest it. Though foo.lish in this case, frankly, considering the sheer amount of evidence available, from all corners, that he has been well exposed to. That would at least be somewhat palatable. No, instead we get "LALALALALA evolution is silly because I'm not a banana". And there is no evidence for it? Really??

I could claim javascript is a great, huge pile of the most finely crafted, consummate dog s.hit (and many would agree), specially designed by some sadistic skydaddy to troll mortals, but I cannot deny it's a scripting language. Ruby, whose creator happens to be a (somewhat) born again xtian/mormon (I forget) and uses paradigms that are not the default of the trypical, making it alien to many not trained to think in that way. Assuming he also went all re.tard and also added that god sent gabriel to him with instructions on how to design it, that stops Ruby from being a programming language how?

Yet here we are. With a driver claiming a honda is not a car. Yet his mule, and a supposedly talking mule at that (ID), is.

Which kind scientist be dis?! Where the f is the professionalism here?!?

PhD my nyash. Fing disgrace

Man, those drugs are leaving my system

Misogynist2014: My dear brother, if God doesn't exist, how did magic come into existence? I want to learn.

how does one explain the existence of magic?

with fairy tales, Herr Einstein...

you nearly had us there

davidylan: Excedrin for headaches? sure. You?

You don't want to know, methinks.

I'm not complaining mind you. It can be quite fun

davidylan: well well dear old mr wiegraf, back to his usual scaremongering. He is becoming quite the evangelist isnt he?

scaremongering?

David, I hope you've been taking your medication

Some assert quite a few were mother fackers

Peterken05: yeah, true
i shouldnt be saying this hear, but i dont seem to remember you where you and davidylan argued, i was reading it yesterday when my phone died.

(hello bro/sir, i want to know why you still waste your time arguing with davidylan on evolution, genetics and related topics, its so conspicous that the guy is a creationist, he claims he has a Phd in Microbiology and he still argue blindly. I know alot of people like that even one of my lecturers, a professor in fact the 1st female professor of breeding and genetics in africa. I was very shocked whe she said evolution is rubbish. The question that 1st came to my mind was 'how did she became a prof?' its so sad that people cherish certificates and title more than knowledge. Imagine biology teachers or lecturers teaching creationism in class.
Do you think there is a solution?)

davidylan: this is the hallmark of the dumb and easily misled. A serious science student would have engaged the professor to find out why she does not believe in evolution. The problem is you have no clue either so of course its impossible for you to ask any intelligent question that would have helped understand the professor's viewpoint. You have been brainwashed into believing that your form of pseudo-science makes you "intelligent". You believe the theory by blind faith, if i asked you right now to mention just two reasons why you think evolution is true, i would be shocked that you would have anything to say.

@peter, as you can see, @david has over 40000 posts here, lots pertaining evolution. He is (supposedly) a trained biologist. That means years of work. Thousands of dollars spent on education. Also, when not discussing fairy tales, he's not completely foo.lish (well, most of the time). Yet he still asserts you believe the sun shines on blind faith.

IMO, the best solution lies in security. These people (ie religious of this variety, not all are so brazenly blind) are just scared and therefore turn to skydaddy for every answer. Without addressing that nothing gets solved. Affluent, educated societies have less fears about their families, security, etc, therefore less gods. Not a coincidence.

There are many other issues of course, but I think that solution is the one that would reach the most people. Much more easier said then done though.

Some folk, though, are simply ignorant. Shielded and bamboozled away from knowledge by those perpetuating their cycle of fear and insecurities, or simply don't know better. Educating those few brave, rational but ignorant, could go a very long way.

Efforts like our little crusades on nairaland do have some value, however little they may be. I have had closet atheists for instance, regular NL members, PM me. That's the best mere mortals like me can do for now, at least until I get a bit more power (which is what I should be doing right now, actually. Also, inb4 a clown thinks power = force)

(Mind you, my personal aim with these excursions being people focus on humans. Humanism first (eventually all life, however difficult/impossible that may be), for starters, before selfishness and fairy tales. Not that they become atheists.)

This is very simplistic break down mind you, ignoring stuff, but meh.

finofaya: What, actually, is the mind?

Chickens are fruits

I wish I could help, but topping the folly of the established judeoxtians, for drama, nonsense, hipocrisy etc seems impossible. even Mormons and scientologists dey bow. pikiwokki, Zeus et al decided to retire sef. etc etc

small beginnings sha. good luck

LordReed: I don't know why so many people who accept and promote evolution have such a dim view of phylogenetic systematics.

How else to explain why I so often hear the canard, "Humans are apes"?

My children can tell what an ape is. I work very hard to tell them why apes are different than monkeys. When they see a chimpanzee in a zoo, and other parents are telling their kids, "Look at the monkey!", my children say, "That's not a monkey, it's an ape!"

Phylogeny is the relationship among different species. Phylogenetic systematics argues (among other things) that our taxonomy should reflect phylogeny. The result in anthropology is that we have rejected some taxonomic ideas. In the past, many anthropologists categorized chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans together as "pongids". Today, we recognize that these are not a natural group. Phylogenetically, humans are part of the group that includes orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. Many anthropologists call this group "Hominidae", although others would put this at a different taxonomic level than the family level (the level implied by the "idae" ending).

None of this is especially controversial. We disagree about the taxonomic level -- some would retain "hominid" to refer to the human branch, and assign the great apes and humans to a higher-level taxonomic level. But the phylogeny is perfectly clear. Humans are hominoids, and hominids, and anthropoids, and primates.

Are we apes?

Today I read Jerry Coyne, writing about a silly column ("Washington Times denies that Richard Dawkins is an ape":

I believe it was William Jennings Bryan who denied during the Scopes trial that man was a mammal. That one statement laid him low, exposing his Bible-ridden ignorance for what it is. Of course we are mammals, and of course Richard is an ape. The Wikipedia definition is as good as any:

Apes are Old World anthropoid mammals, more specifically a clade of tailless catarrhine primates, belonging to the biological superfamily Hominoidea.
Last time I looked, I was also a tailless catarrhine primate, so that makes me an ape as well. The only thing Id take issue with is Richard [Dawkins]s statement that hes an African ape. Hes an ape who is descended from African apes, but hes currently an Oxford ape. (Richard was an African ape when he was growing up in Kenya.)
Holy moly! But I disagree with Coyne and Wikipedia. Apes are not a clade. (UPDATE 2012-03-18: My original post said something snarky about biologists relying on Wikipedia for their systematics. I later decided that the odds of me not consulting Wikipedia for fly taxonomy are statistically indistinguishable from zero.)

Jerry is far from alone in this -- many evolutionary biologists state as if it were an unquestionable fact that humans are apes. I disagree.

Humans are hominoids. Hominoidea is a taxonomic group. Phylogenetic systematics holds that taxonomic groups should be monophyletic -- meaning that they include all the descendants of one ancestor, and don't leave any descendants out. Humans are closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos, more distantly to gorillas, then orangutans, then gibbons. All these living creatures are crown hominoids. The Hominoidea includes all these, together with extinct animals like Australopithecus, Proconsul, Dryopithecus, and many others.

Chimpanzees are apes. Gorillas are apes, as are bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. We routinely differentiate the "great apes" from the "lesser apes", where the latter are gibbons and siamangs. Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren't monkeys.

What's the difference?

"Ape" is an English word. It is not a taxonomic term. English words do not need to be monophyletic. French, German, Russian, and other languages do not have to accord with English ways of splitting up animals. Taxonomy is international -- everywhere, we recognize that humans are hominoids.

In French, apes are singes. So are monkeys. In English we differentiate these terms. In both languages humans are different from other primates. Does that mean French is right and English wrong? Does it mean both languages are wrong?

No, it means that colloquial languages have no problem describing paraphyletic groups. It is useful to have languages that can make these distinctions.

If we must accept that humans are apes, then we must equally accept that chimpanzees are monkeys, and those awful parents at the zoo are right. I don't. I see value in precision about phylogeny, and for that purpose I have taxonomic terms. Humans are hominoids, and anthropoids, and haplorhines, and primates. And mammals.

We shouldn't smuggle taxonomic principles into everyday language to make a political argument. That's what "humans are apes" ultimately is -- it's an argument that we aren't as great as we think we are. Whether humans are special or not should be derived from biology; I don't think we need to make the argument by applying Orwellian coercion to the meanings of English words. Biologists control taxonomic terminology, and that's where science should aim. I don't think I'm being old-fashioned, nor am I promoting the idea that humans aren't part of the primate phylogeny. I'm only promoting the idea that we use taxonomy for its intended purpose, and not insist that English do the job instead.

We aren't apes. And it's OK to teach your children that chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys. Because that's what I do.

SOURCE

Not going to waste too much time atm.

You've already posted this before. It adds nothing new. It now just shows just how much of a farce this all is

He's studying DNA, no? Well then, here's a simple fact; chimps share more in common with us than they do with gorillas, let alone orangutans. Yet chimps remain apes, gorillas as well, but we? No.

Simple fact...

Please and please, tell me exactly how that makes sense without making a lame argument, especially one that is built solely around taxonomy? And even at that, it beggars belief, as the taxonomy in this case is extremely similar. He acknowledges that yet goes on to double speak about anthropoids? Really, that's all he's got? It's really, really ridiculous....

Listening to this dude, species that resemble each other, a la convergent evolution, would qualify as being under the same genus....

While I can stomach your case, you're simply a religious dude trying to inject GOD?!? into everything, this guy is supposedly a pro. Who's his oga? DavidDylan? [s]I doubt even he would resort to this folly, then again[/s]. It's f-ing inexcusable.

And if you're using him as an authority to appeal to, he at least mentions he's at odds with 2 others with greater reputations than his in this field; Coyne and Dawkins. So even if you resorted to that, though silly as evil brain points out, even if you resort to appeals to authority...

And that's all the time I've got today. Kudos

LordReed: Where is the arrogance please?

I don't accept we are apes same way we are not bananas regardless that we shared a common ancestor. Speciation occurred far back enough for a whole new specie to emerge. If this is true for bananas and humans then I hold it true for apes and humans as well.

EDIT
To further clarify my position:

One of the most persistent myths, however,
concerns the relationship of humans to great
apes, a group of primates that includes the
gorilla, orangutan and chimpanzee. Someone
who believes the myth will say, "If evolution
exists, then humans must be descended directly
from apes. Apes must have changed, step by
step, into humans." This same person will often
follow up with this observation: "If apes 'turned
into' humans, then apes should no longer exist."
Although there are several ways to attack this
assertion, the bottom-line rebuttal is simple --
humans didn't descend from apes. That's not to
say humans and apes aren't related, but the
relationship can't be traced backward along a
direct line of descent, one form morphing into
another. It must be traced along two
independent lines, far back into time until the
two lines merge.
The intersection of the two lines represents
something special, what biologists refer to as a
common ancestor . This apelike ancestor, which
probably lived 5 to 11 million years ago in
Africa, gave rise to two distinct lineages, one
resulting in hominids -- humanlike species --
and the other resulting in the great ape species
living today. Or, to use a family tree analogy,
the common ancestor occupied a trunk, which
then divided into two branches. Hominids
developed along one branch, while the great
ape species developed along another branch.

SOURCE

I'm confused here, but mostly because you seem confused. Also, this is just half of the story, contorted in various ways to push an agenda. But I'll try to refrain from addressing every little niggle and focus on a key one.

You say humans didn't descend from apes, that speciation was far away, "enough for a whole new species (or family of species, which is what I think you mean) to appear". That's not exactly true.

It's already been pointed out to you that orangutangs diverged first, yes? Roughly 10-12 million years ago from an 'apelike' (but, according to you, not ape!) ancestor.

Orangutangs are apes, no? Goot. So, this species they diverged from, a direct ancestor of theirs, was not an ape? Yet orangutangs were? Do you know how evolution works?

Anyways, moving on, these other species, apelike but not apes, continued to evolve. Orangutangs by and large remained the same (I think, need to confirm). Gorrillas then spun off as well, from this same 'apelike but not apes' line. Gorillas are apes as well, no? But their direct ancestors, and immediate cousins to orangutans (and gorillas too, in a sense), were not? Curious.

After that, roughly 4-8 million years ago, these apelike creatures that were not apes, yet cousins to gorillas, then spun out chimps, bonobos and the 'homo' family. Yet, these homos are not apes, but chimps and bonobos are? Better yet, and again, the ancestors of these homos, despite being direct, immediate cousins to gorrillas and orangutangs, despite consistently spinning off other ape species, were not apes?

you seem to be saying that one that constantly gives birth to black kids, heck even his kids keep on birthing black kids, isn't black.

really?


When you use language like 'myth' in this context, even as you're just quoting, your intentions look pretty clear to me. and the convolted logic with donkeys sef....

Combine 'myths' and the fact that you make no sense and it seems rather clear that this is just hubris. "I can't be an ape because apes stoopid hurr durr". Simple.

Well, no. And thankfully science doesn't care about your opinions. Nor does nature, or facts etc, so meh

And are you sure what 'great apes' are scientifically speaking? How the classification and naming system, works? I'm not sure you do, but I won't get into that atm. Or the fact that wolves still exist today, not all wolves evolved to dogs, no? Can you see the implications of that with regards to some of the statements you've made? But, like I stated before, I'll ignore that for now. Enough said already it seems to me..

Randomly; video of feral kid. A homo(nin, I think) without language skills and socialization.

Looks mighty familiar I would say...

LordReed: That classification has been revised several times over the years and probably will in future as more data is found.
For here and now I would say no humans are not apes.

aaaand while the details have been debated, please, whose ever claimed hominids aren't apes?


and atheists are the arrogant ones? mayhaps we aren't mammals as well..

Fulaman198: I don't think God is ever uncertain. What I do believe personally is that God gave human beings the ability adapt to the ever changing world. We are the only animals in the world capable of that. Every animal (save homosapiens) are the exact same way they have always been. Human beings on the other hand continue to make greater strides in both technology and science. Human beings can use their never ending expanding mindset to discover new things that can prevent chaos.

As humans, we are much better off than we were from a technological perspective 100 years ago. We have advanced so much even from 10 years ago. Can you imagine how humans will be another 100 years from now? We are constantly innovating and developing new things at such an astounding rate. I hate to say this, being a semi-religious person myself, but religion is quickly becoming a thing of yesterday. All thanks goes to God though for making human beings the way we are.

That's not the sort of uncertainty I speak of, but it's not important.

This here is random, somewhat relevant tangent.

There is a documentary I saw featuring dolphins training their kids a particular hunting technique. This was not something innate, they were the only family employing this technique, and over various generations. It involved beaching then riding the waves back. It was dangerous, as if they did not beach properly, they would be unable to ride the waves back to the sea and would therefore die within a few minutes/hours (i forget). This process involved, of course, mama's carefully observing, coordinating and directing, using their now well documented rudimentary language skills to interact.

A hypothesis for the evolution of language is just exactly that. ie, it's hypothesized the primary impetus was mamas fussing over their children, (especially as human young are particularly weak and as helpless as they come), just as those dolphins are doing to a lesser degree (it also explains why women can't sharrap).

Now, do you know what feral kids are like? Thankfully there aren't many of cases of this (very much so, especially when you consider it's usually a result of abuse of the unspeakable type), as those confirmed aren't pretty. They're no Mowglis. Crucially, their (verbal, in particular) language skills are non existent. And apparently, once a certain period passes during childhood and you don't acquire these skills, it becomes nigh on impossible to get them later.

now think about it; you use language to arrange your abstract thoughts. How exactly then would you function without language? Feral. Not much unlike our chimp cousins. And that's what feral kids tend to be like. Smarter, of course, but still rather similar.

I'm not saying if you socialize a chimp it will turn to mojojojojo. The other apes lack a few tools, eg (and crucially) lack certain genes which give our vocal cords our range, certain parts of their brains do not possess the processing power of ours and vice versa, etc etc. I am, however, highlighting the importance of language, socialization, etc etc. how possessing certain tools would nudge a species towards acquiring greater mental prowess. Eg aforementioned vocal cords, free flexible limbs for tool usage, etc. We are the first (or amongst the first), to possess the tools necessary to enable us to conceptualize as we do.

Considering dolphins already go down that path; teaching, socializing, using language etc creatively even if at an rudimentary level, this while using less impressive tools than ours, (I mean, they don't even possess free limbs, have no access to fire, etc), one can see how, little by little, as evolution works, higher mental functioning could be attained. Other animals evolve too, they do not remain the same, obviously.

With the evolution of the eye, one can actually show you different species with eyes at the various of stages of evolution. Showing a map of how the more 'evolved' eyes come to be. Overall point of this ramble is to point out the same can be done with our sort of intelligence, or at least its nascent stages as we are (maybe) the first (and only so far) to have attained intelligence of this scale.

We won the lottery in a sense, as our intelligence give us what appears to be an unprecedented advantage over other species. We're now perhaps the most apex of all apex predators that have existed on this rock. All this makes us seem spectacular, but it's not particularly so. We simply stumbled there first.

Unlucky dolphins were stuck in water, else they might have been the ones lording over us and worshiping the great sky dolphin swimming through the clouds who, seemingly, created the universe just for them. Unlucky neanderthals had to compete with us, and it seems we developed certain brain functions just before them. It likely ended up being either them or us, and we know how that tends to end up. Otherwise they would be the ones currently debating if they were apes or no. etc etc blah blah blah

PS: This is all conjecture. Don't take it seriously, some may be BS as I have to recheck some of the claims, and some may be leaps. Plus I'm somewhat high. When it did get this fing long? anyhoo

kayi....

Fulaman198: It's typically those that are too much into their religion that do not want to associate themselves with "animals" even though human beings themselves are the worst of animals. I personally thoroughly believe that we can't argue with science and modern technology. God gave us the ability to explore these things with science and technology.

that's cool, though I still think there'll be inevitable clashes. eg how does god deal with chaos, or uncertainty (if it holds) etc etc

but again, that's a 'meh' provided the believer does not interfere with science for frivolous, especially nonscientific, reasons

LordReed: Exactly, you can say we shared a common ancestor with apes but you can't say our ancestors were apes.

really?

what exactly is your understanding of the word 'great ape'? scientifically speaking, of course.

and are you simply trying separate humans from the rest of the great apes? are you claiming humans are not apes?

LordReed: Our shared ancestor could not have been a banana same way it could not have been an ape.

yeah, this is the silly bit. basically boils down to 'can't be ape cos apes are stoppid lalalalala I'm so special'

we're also rather stoopid, look around. stoopid apes to be precise...

elephants are special too, or do you know of another species with such awesome trunks?

etc etc blah blah blah

and technically speaking, our ancestors weren't bananas, we share common ancestors with bananas...

LordReed: So at some point our ancestors were bananas since we share 50% genetic similarity with it?

you ever hear of the juju called common ancestry? alluded to in the post you quote....

this is quite silly BTW, even by your standards

boobs! boobs! boobs!

post moar

tbaba12345: You have rambled through a lot of topics but failed to address the issue of the subjective inner consciousness and why it falls outside the scientific process

i. Even the world's best neuroscientist can not tell where consciousness came from or explain the inner subjective states, yet you can? They call it a hard problem for a reason. Those questions lie outside the scientific process.

ii. Have you ever asked yourself where that 'single cell organism' came from? How its consciousness came about?

iii. I do not think, you know that much about the induction process or the philosophy of science. If you did, you will know that an induction process can never give you certainty. The induction process involves making conclusions from the particular to the general and hence can never give you certainty.

iv. . Science is a limited method of study with its own scope and sphere.That is why things like subjective consciousness lie outside that scope.

v. The philosophy of science brings to light a whole range of issues and problems concerning the theory and study of knowledge (epistemology).

vi. The philosophy of science – most of the time – doesn’t produce certain knowledge. The philosophy of science, when applied to evolution, exposes it as not reaching the level of certainty.

vii. Many of the truths we hold on to are not via empirical testing.

viii. I have a much higher degree of certainty in my beliefs via pure deductive reasoning

viii. If the premises of deduction is true, then you can reach certainty

e.g Boys are male

Adam is a boy

so Adam is male.

ix. For instance, i can make the following claims

1. A miracle is an event that lies outside of the productive capacity of nature

2. The Qur’an’s literary form lies outside of the productive capacity of nature

3. Therefore, the Qur’an is a miracle.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence for each premise so i can arrive at certainty about this. Plus, i have studied the Qur'an relatively in depth.

not sure if troll or you actually believe this...

consciousness beyond the scope of science... really?

deductive reasoning aids your case for Allah. generally speaking I assume? really? then you present your storybook as an example...

good lawd

RayMcBlue: -You were at a train station and the train was running late.
-A very attractive woman was sitting beside you reading a religious magazine.
-You struck up a conversation with her.
-But somehow, she cleverly maneuvered the conversation into a sermon.
-You tried to tell her that you don't believe in God, but she persisted.
-You know her sermons to you were efforts in futility, so you humoured her and pretended to listen, maybe in the interest of peace, or maybe you were just being polite.
-The train finally arrived,
-Here's your chance! You swiftly disappeared through it's doors without so much as a "Goodbye." The end.

That's a fine analogy on how to handle a delicate situation without relegating to a bìtchy persona.

@the bold, a lot of people don't know this, but American version of Democracy has a religious past. America’s Founding Fathers believed that Liberty, freedom and religion were inseparable. True story.

Majority of atheist like myself know and accept this, since - apart from a few public religious recitations here and there, many of which are getting amended as we speak - secularism promotes liberty and freedom.

Quit playing the victim cards already. Atheists are not victims and can never be. I'm an atheist living in a secular community and I don't feel threatened. If I don't feel threatened, then why should you?

...Unless, you live in Iraq.

what are you smoking my good clown. where do you see me playing the victim? perhaps you think my concern relates only to atheists, in which case I have to point out that's rather foolish for a variety of reasons. err, even thinking xtians would be worried sef, considering denominations. pls , slowly in case its much for you, think on why I mention islam.

and even if my concern was atheists only....

I've seen a lot of sillyness on these boards, and I must say this is one of the finest displays on show. your analogy was really, really....well.... nothing whatsoever at all like the situation on ground. you for instance ignore that the woman is in a position of power, and amongst many other things, could prevent you from reaching your destination simply because you don't share her delusions.. I now expect you to tell me about your boat trip to the moon.

and do you speak of the founding fathers, those that broke a limb in order to explicitly separate church and state? who well acknowledged, who well know that theirs is a society built argely by people fleeing religious persecution?? featuring people like Jefferson, who despite living in that age, with all the superstition and ignorance that entails, well went out of his way to print a version of the bible that did not feature anything supernatural?

which majority atheists do you speak of sef? what is wrong with you?

nah, never mind.. my bahdt

RayMcBlue: Wasn't I explicit enough?

Let me tell you a story, then.

-A law with a religious undertone was passed down to a secular community, most of whom are christians.
-The christians among them accepted the law readily enough.
-Some of the citizens with atheistic background shrugged it off since it doesn't really affect their daily lives.
-A tiny minority of the atheistic populace disagree and decided to sue the government.
-What is the law?
-The law simply enforces one to say "God bless America" after every speech or prayer as the case may be.
-A law that was formed to instill and propagate patriotism among the citizenry.
-A law that was universally accepted, save for that certain tiny minority that are of the perception that the law threatens their constitutional human right.
-A tiny minority so selfish that they want the law abolished in order to suit their personal ideology.

Sounds familiar? Now put atheism in "law's" shoes, then put religion in "tiny minority's" shoes. We would have a scenerio whereby atheism is trying it's utmost best to survive and religion on it's part playing it's bìtchy role to a tee.

Hypocrisy 101.

where to even begin...

if the vow is as meaningless as you imply, then surely it shouldn't matter if I choose to invoke pikiwokis name, no? better yet, I get them good xtians to vow using pikiwokis name, no?

doctors, lawyers, school children, legally binding documents, etc all should use his noodliness.

this is a policy they even got rid off, the only reason I see them using to revert to relative barbarism is that great scourge: Islam. why should the rest of us suffer because Muslims refuse to grow up?

and I would think claiming you're a multicultural society whilst shoving your gods down peoples throat readily qualifies as hipocrisy. is that the 'hipocrisy' you speak of, as I really can't see your point...

make no mistake about it, I'm proudly hipocritical when it comes to islam, for justifiable reasons from my POV (and I dare say any right thinking person, right in my view obviously, should be worried considering what their culture entails), but this is easily taking it too far

what makes you think only a minority of atheists have a problem with this in the first place? and even if so, that automatically makes said minority wrong??

AtheistD: Are you Nigerian?

Inquest/autopsy are unheard of? Every unexplained death is a heart attack.

wrong my good hiker. they're all leprechaun related, as the op implies.

or maybe gremlins, or mammy water etc

tbaba12345: This is nonsense.
In the first 500 years of Islam, Muslims were technologically, militarily and economically the most advanced in the world – innovating many new technologies and expanding the boundaries of human knowledge.
Christianity was never the reason for the European dark ages, but rather the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of barbarian tribes is the most glaringly obvious reason. Historians are generally agreed that the last great ancient, or classical period philosopher before the fall into the dark ages was the Christian thinker St Augustine!
For most of the last 500 years, technological advancement in the West started, and has mostly occurred, under highly religious non-democratic european monarchies and empires.
The vast majority of pioneering Western scientists were not Atheists, nor did they live under Secularism, but rather they were devout Catholics and even clergy (e.g. Roger Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle and even the recent George Lemaitre, discoverer of the ‘big bang theory’…) or protestant Church (e.g. Newton) – and much scientific literature and almost ALL institutes of higher education and research were under patronage by the Catholic [and later Anglican] Church!
https://www.nairaland.com/1794405/islam-muslims-side-talk-station/20#26144328

Lol. nonsense?

dealing with you clowns is like dealing with the Borg.

and during these times you mention, for starters, there were atheist societies to compare with? what is wrong with y...ahh, again, forget I ask. sorry

what a fine spread of mindless droning. impressive. what are you doing here again sef? who let you out of the cancer ward?

anyhoo, proceed abeg. thanks

Pastafarism is folly, op. Pure folly. How do you explain mud without Pikkiwoki?

There is more mud than spaghetti, so there. Checkmate pastafarians.

debosky: Once established being key - who established them? In my view God did therefore God does not have to be subject to such laws.

Already concurred. Just pointing out God must be subject to some natural laws as well, even if not necessarily ours.

And must be subject to abstract, objective, logical laws, eg our 1+1. Which we use to try to determine these things. ie a god's properties, xtics, nature's as well, etc etc

debosky: Your logic is different from mine - my view is that created things come into being, therefore excludes God by definition.

My point being all things that manifest are created. So if your God exists, takes actions and what not, then it was created. There is no way around it, unless you can show how it will deal with simple time, etc related conundrums. All the problems that infinities entail.

Only abstract concepts exist by default. They don't manifest physically, at least on their own. That is jazz....

debosky: That's your prerogative - whenever everything is mentioned, I regard that as every created thing, from which God is, of course, exempt.

Not so much a prerogative, simple logic unless you claim stuff like 1 + 1 =2 does not apply to God. In which case we're wasting our time, as anything goes.

So, once more, God is part of 'everything' so long as it manifests and takes actions, simple. Excluding it is just that; special pleading.

debosky: A programmer didn't create 1+1 = 2 and came to be after the logic of 1+1 came into being, so he can hardly change what preceded him.

That logic exists exists by default. Do you really mean to say God existed before 'existence' existed? Really? Does one really have to point out the problems there??

debosky: I haven't even argued that God is exempt from all 'natural laws' (however you may define that) - all I have said is that God did not come to be as the very attribute of God is the self-existent, eternal one with no end nor beginning.

By natural laws I mean physical laws. The laws of nature, eg gravity, physical constants like the strength of the forces, speed of light etc. These need not necessarily be the same across universes (assuming a multiverse ie).

Assuming a god created this particular universe and even others, it will still be subject to it's own physical laws, it's own restrictions, it's environments causal laws etc etc. Unavoidable as stuff begins; a logical law. A 1+1 that god couldn't have created. etc etc blah blah (said it already many times)

In this case the god in question would be little more than some sort of alien. Simple. A bit like some flavors of a deist god. That does not seem to be what you're describing, as you seem to be describing some sort magical being that supersedes 1+1. One that even created it. If it can supersede 1+1, if it created 1+1 through it's whargarble juju, then anything goes. There's no reason for it to bend to logical laws, let alone natural laws, at all. It would be capable of being an omnipotent that can build a rock it cannot lift and all the other such whargarbl absurdities. It will be capable of nonsense.

Nonsense is not possible (excepting of course the unmatched human folly)

Anyways I'll leave it at that. As we're now just repeating stuff. Kudos likely
(also, though needless perhaps, enjoy your faith. It's your prerogative. You don't seem to shove it down others' throats, important to me ie so meh)

Silkmoth33: I prefer Greek and roman myths.
They r fun to read and fantastic.

Zeus/Jupiter nah badt guy

they also a hell of a lot more sense than the likes of yahweh