₦airaland Forum

Mr anony: I don't see what this list has to do with the question I asked you

Then you might need to upgrade your OS, or get a more powerful CPU, etc etc

Mr anony: First of all, you don't know how consciousness works. What do you mean by "consciousness is housed in the brain"? Would "sight is housed in the eye" be a similar statement?

i.e. Are you saying that the consciousness is housed by the brain in the sense that the brain is a tool or that the brain actually creates the consciousness? Just like how an eye is the tool used to see but the eye does not create the sight itself. Get my drift?

So what exactly do you mean when you say that consciousness is housed in the brain?

CPU, OS, hard disk, keyboard, web cam. etc etc

Mr anony: I don't know (how consciousness came) therefore evolution did it.

dubious tool.

I don't know how consciousness works. I do know it is housed in the brain. I also know the brain came about via evolution.

Do the math.

Uyi Iredia: Baby whargarbl $hit$ in his diapers. Let's see if he'll be cleaned up.



So you are a human after all. Baby worships who baby likes. It's easy to worship the God you fantasized: just do it.



So baby knows mammy-water. Baby's hard on's came a tad to early. It's okay, one knew baby was special from the day Darwin's stork evolved him from goo.




Okay. Baby wants a visible God probably like Leon Schuster, betyer yet like Brandon Routh plus all those cool powers: then he wows baby by saving people from all disasters or better yet stops them all. Like his fellow babies: he wants a God with personality.



Baby is so $tupid. I have problems with goo-to-you evolution not beings who determine their purpose: men determine their purpose because they have the level of consciousness required for such. Baby may understand later.



Says the doofus who believes purposeless evolutionary mechanisms made things with purpose. Baby's relatives understand, unlike baby whargarbl, that only purpose births purpose and discerns unpurpose. But baby likes Gods with ray guns so rays of suns effecting men from soups is quite okay.

And you call me mr. whargarbl? The only thing I gleaned from this was that I like gods with ray guns. And I would hope you're not holding that against me considering your penchant for telekinetic superheroes.

Other than the obvious delirium, you seem to have problems. Perhaps you need an immaterial material e-hug?

Uyi Iredia: To the first question: God is consciousness itself and He imputed it to humans by telekinesis.

Does he use a contraption similar to say a ray gun? I'd worship a god that uses a ray gun, well well sef. That's immaterial material science right there.

Also, mammy-water. Is he in contact with the marine kingdom? Does that mean the ray gun works underwater as well? Because of its immaterialness non-existence existence? That's pretty cool

Uyi Iredia: You can't do that, you are contingent. Of course, the only known place where God did such is on Earth and in the unlikely event aliens are found we will have another licatiin where God did something.

A great god indeed. I'm still considering the IPU though, she must have some fascinating devices that enable her to make herself invisible and yet remain pink to the mortal eye. Also because she's a she, because I say so.

Uyi Iredia: Eating from the feet of intelligent fools who consistently confound themselves by stating evolution is based on purposeless mechanisms whilst ALWAYS talking about how organisms evolve in terms of PURPOSE. The irony is usually lost on (or ignored by) them.

You seem to have problems with how beings conscious, capable of determining their own purposes, evolve. But god? No. He's exempt. How did god acquire the tools to determine his own purpose? More immaterial material ray guns?

Or perhaps you just wish to remain a slave, incapable of determining your own purpose?

See slaves telling oyinbo man how to handle his religion

davidylan: which again begs the question... you claimed deepsight's post was replete with basic errors WITHOUT POINTING OUT A SINGLE ONE. You had a second chance to point out these "errors" and all you could come up with was a vacuous repetition of an empty claim?

To say deepsight's post did not "address" alfa seltzer's ignorant claim is baffling considering deepsight's post is a clear explanation as to why that POV is baseless.

WTF do you do this?

wiegraf: But, but, this still reeks of desperation, albeit of a slightly different variety. As I can't help but notice that you still did not address the post. Rather, you seem to be looking for an excuse to run away, see.

What post could I have been speaking of? Which post was @ds responding to?

wiegraf: And this reeks of desperation. So many basic mistakes..
Address the sickle cell scenario then

Which post by @alfa mentions sickle cell? Did you even fucking stop to comprehend anything at all??

Next we know, a reply from you projecting, talking about how atheists are 'fuming at the mouth' whenever we see xtianity and become unreasonable (and xtianity in particular, not even religion in general, the arrogance, etc etc)

Now, do you want me to repost that post which touches on 'more successful' and death for the 3rd time in ~2 pages before it gets addressed? There's good reason I asked him to address it; it addresses some of the basic errors I speak of.

Frankly, addressing most of said errors properly would require quite a lot, and would also be somewhat redundant.

Considering your expertise, perhaps you can help? Also, I still await your ground breaking paper on how there's no evidence for evolution.

Thank you

Random: I don't think y'all are genuinely concerned with that. Seems this is some (desperate) excuse to buy time. For what? Oho, and that remains baffling, as 'no be by force'. But to claim we're unreasonable is... well..

This whole exercise is some form of the internet version of a filibuster, with 12 mostly useless 'posers' and other oddities flung in, then complaints about how no one has responded to all of them (at times, all at once sef...), while ignoring the responses.

And thank your for pointing out @alfa's post had not been addressed.

Op, did you just quote, verbatim, a group of folk tales belonging to (or more accurately, stolen by) some goat herdsmen so ignorant they likely thought the earth flat, which was compiled ~2000 years ago?

Imported tales used to justify slaving your ancestors and all manners of other nonsense no less, without any input from your learned self whatsoever, did you just copy/paste said tales then call agnostics 'shallow'?

I know say e no go hard u, considering your plenty deepness, to get my point, yes?

Deep Sight: He says, without pointing out a single one.

Same pattern, all thread long.

Tiring, empty, hollow and boring, you vacant, vacuous, shallow lot.

I am signing off this thread, before i am tempted to name you all for what you really are.

Adios amigos.

But, but, this still reeks of desperation, albeit of a slightly different variety. As I can't help but notice that you still did not address the post. Rather, you seem to be looking for an excuse to run away, see.

wahabian: Were u born of Homosexuals? Its an abnormality,desiring ur own kind.People hide under 'don't judge me' that's ђã†̥ has brought the society to where it I̶̲̥̅̊s̶̲̥̅̊ today.If I do wrong judge me,if you do wrong I'll judge U̶̲̥̅̊. Trying to divert a simple question,its clear ur gay !A thing of disgrace !

You didn't answer the question.

I'm waiting, is it your almighty lord of Piss?

wahabian: There's nothing good about being Gay,get it ! Don't look for flimsy excuses for them

WTF are you to make that judgment? Perhaps you own their lives?

Deep Sight: You must admit you edited your post and said prey and then predator. So I never knew what you meant, now its quite simple. Your example does not answer my question. How does a split into a duo-cellular organism prevent the organism from being prey? Secondly, how does such a split even occur, does it just spontaenously occur (random mutation) as a result of being hunted? Do antelopes for instance spontaneously (or perhaps over generations) split themselves into two to avoid being prey to lions? Now, assuming that this occurs (it actually does through normal se.xual reproduction in their case), where can we glean the impetus for this? Because it would not rest with the organism itself - i.e: the organism would have died at the hands of the predator or still die of natural causes, anyway, and only its descendants would survive. What interest does a unicellular organism have in the survival of its kind? What drives this?

Now, even where it is easy to see an advanced being such as man being concerned about its descendants, it is hopelessly absurd to accept a unicellular organism as having any impetus for such: any desire or impetus "to propagate its genes" and worse still, if such an impetus exists, it must be wondered - from where, and why would a unicellular organism have such an impetus, and WORST OF ALL: It must be wondered exactly how such a unicellular organism begins such a division (as.exual reproduction) and what triggers this at all!

It therefore must be wondered whence parental instinct derives from, and in arguing that the unicellular organism bears an impetus to reproduce, then it is actually being said by the atheist that unicellular organisms have a parental instinct of some sort!

This, in itself, discloses an indication of a higher sense of the existence of all things already, but no matter!

You see, this thread is a laugh. It is a huge laugh to atheism and strict materialist evolutionists. When one thinks about it, one realizes that there is nothing at all, not even the existence of nairaland, that can be intelligibly explained by the atheists.

I talked about the age of the earth. Resounding Silence. I talked about se.xuality and the division of as.exual organisms into male and female creatures. Resounding silence. And so much more. Only laughter, mocking chants, appeals that we should try Google (I am particularly embarrassed at Plaetton for that one) and ofcourse, the bed-wetting juvenile logicboy, finally showing up with expletives like the unbalanced and mentally ill teenager he truly is.

There is nothing within any of these reactions to command any respect. The best that has been said by you lot was actually said by ooman: namely that you do not know.

And this reeks of desperation. So many basic mistakes..
Address the sickle cell scenario then

Deep Sight: Yeah I did, but that was a while back, why do you ask?

No vex, [size=4pt]I need to lay off the drugs,[/size] I could have sworn it was bumped or something similar when skimming through earlier..

This is excellent, front page material. But one wonders why god bothered saving paper yet he let all those children get molested in his churches. Perhaps he was busy at the time?

Tsk, tsk. That's bad. What would abdulsleek do in such a situation?

FrostyZonn: [img]http://4.bp..com/-MPC8CP_0Og0/Tke4-ft5kgI/AAAAAAAAAgI/Q7mDox9E75M/s1600/atheism.jpg[/img]
The perfect definition of atheism.

If you don't know what atheism is, consider you sharrap rather than embarrass yourself.

FrostyZonn: https://godwillbegod.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/bizarro-atheist.jpg

This is bad, how?

FrostyZonn: https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/wp-content/blogs.dir/470/files/2012/04/i-730c0ada500d9893aed8f66430b27592-bousquet_atheist.jpg

This is bad, especially how?

Actually, I don't even think the purpose of the last 2 was to denigrate or criticize atheists, but you're so drunk on religious delusion that you missed it. If they were, then well... Thanks for giving us more reason to ponder on why sheeple are so foo.lish.

You do realize their implications, yes? That we won't go around bothering people with pamphlets out of sheer joblessness or stoopidity, or go about rioting for asinine reasons? Indeed, we have virtually no need to go rioting over anything at all directly related to atheism as, and you may have missed it, there is no such thing as 'atheistic dogma'. Or can you think of any doctrine all theists would go rioting over other than the right to believe in whatever fairy tale god fathers/mothers you respectively slave to?

But no, I suppose you're right. These are great, great evils. Bothering others over silly reasons and rioting are, on the other hand, good. We can start by lynching you because you dare claim there's a god.

That's not what brings me on this visit though. I want to address the foo.lishness of stating we're here because of a clearly non-existent god. Gods don't exist, true, no real need to get your pantsu all up in a twist over that. Religions, on the other hand, very clearly do, no? And they are oftentimes a pernicious cancer. So, as long as you guys cannot curb the excesses of your various religions, expect us saner folk to challenge those beliefs. As those beliefs feature a god as their basis, expect said imaginary god to be justly criticized as well, as it's a belief. And again, all such silly beliefs will be questioned so long as you're incapable of controlling yourselves.

Hope that's clear?

@op, I thought you opened a new thread on the morality/animal issue, or was I mistaken?

plaetton: Any experiment that involves artificially simulating a rare and an uncommon environmental condition is bound to be imperfect.
Ofcourse it was not perfect, but it was a small step in the right direction , in that it showed plausibility.

It confirmed the plausibility of a far-fetched idea. That was the small success of the experiment irrespective of the technical limitations of the experiment.
The scientific process measures and advances with tiny successes one at a time.

So, to answer your question, it actually reinforced my position.

The experiment made me to expand my mind to the possibility that the first protolife could have possibly arisen under same or different conditions in another planet, or star system with different gravity and different electromagnetic conditions.

Not to mention it serves as a sort of proof-of-concept, even if incomplete. Nature can organize itself into complex patterns. Even if we got that particular environment wrong, it has at least been shown that nature can do that. Next step is finding the correct environment and performing various tests in those scenarios, etc.

davidylan: Well i wonder how this craven appeal to authority actually addresses ANY of the 12 points deepsight put up?

Indeed, it's as much an appeal to authority as your intrepid claim of NASA debunking Miller-Ulrey. Or your other claim of no serious scientist taking Miller-Ulrey seriously for 40 years now. I guess 'serious scientists' and NASA are not authorities, perhaps?

Please, again, limit the foo.lishness.

And that was not the only, or necessarily even the primary, point of that post.

I await a response from you, an authority, on just exactly how there is no evidence for evolution. Please prove all your colleagues wrong. Your extremely insightful paper on the subject will surely enlighten me, and I could use some of that nobel prize money as well. Thank you.

davidylan: Oh dear... rather than answer the questions, all you have done is mock, denigrate and laugh at others? You assert there is evidence for evolution... you've had 8 pages to produce this evidence... where is it?

Unfucking believable. Here we have the 6 ft dwarf in flesh. A scientist that asserts there's no evidence for evolution. Note, even the @op does not do that, he asserts it's not enough to explain certain phenomena, not that there's no evidence for evolution.

No sane informed homo sapien, or any sort of intelligent consciousness for that matter, asserts there is no evidence for evolution. Non.at.all. Let alone a supposedly highly trained expert. I hope you aren't here blatantly lying just to get into heaven? Makes me wish it existed, and god put your a$$ in there for wearing different fabrics and LYING. Or better yet, it turns out to be allah and you roast eternally for not seeing the great islamic 'truth'. You'll be in fine company, don't worry (can't say the same for us though)

Now, do note, again, this thread isn't even about the evidence for evolution existing, it's about the vigor, capabilities, etc etc, of which he raises his 12 'posers'. 'Posers' we've clearly been attending to, mind you, even if not all at once. The more lies you tell the likelier you end up in hell. Perhaps you think us all completely jobless and willing to indulge trolls.

But regardless, 8 pages of no evidence? Are you fucking blind. Again

[quote author=ME, AND NOT LONG AGO EITHER]

davidylan: There are 12 questions on the first page... plenty of space for you to pick just one and lay out the "evidence for evolution". Go right ahead and educate us. Surely it shouldnt be that difficult. Afterall you have been here responding to every comment except those that are germaine to the thread itself... surely it cant be because you have no answers no?

Really?

me: Let's consider a mutation that is ostensibly helpful; sickle cell. Had black man continued in ignorance and isolated, eventually branching off, and assuming malaria was left to spirits to cure (like dolts like @david would have us do), what could that have meant for us?

The changes could have been drastic, our populations vastly reduced, we'd likely be less successful by your definition (also dependent on environment), yes? Does that mean we'd be extinct?

I highly doubt it, other factors would come into play. We'd likely still be successful, and that is all that matters. If it's good enough to survive, then it does, simple. 'More' or 'less' is irrelevant, no perfection evidenced anywhere, just 'good enough'. I have asked you what happened to flight for penguins? Do you really think they wouldn't find that ability useful, that it won't make them more successful?

The vast majority of mutations serve no purpose, that much is obvious, I don't think you're the carbon copy of your parents, yes? Some changes may occur which may aid your survival atm, some not. And this is still ignoring population control, etc.

This is a complete non-point, and I'll be dropping it unless something better is thrown in.

Next up on my list, though bear the time thingie, do you really think there's no evolutionary 'impetus' for death (this from one who believes suffering is necessary, no less, not that death necessarily equates to suffering)? And indeed, do you think nature had much of a choice in affecting this fact; living things die?

See his 'posers' 3 and 13

me: There's even some experimenting with rats, which show that males, when they over populate an area, stop doing anything. They stop bleeping, etc. I know they stop going out, not sure if they even stop eating completely as well. I'm on mobile atm so I'll have to get back with the links.

As for talk about preprogrammed behavior, that $hit is common everywhere. Eg certain dogs will chase cars (mistaking them for sheep, their ancestors usually being herders), others won't. No training whatsoever involved, they would do that naturally, other won't. Simple behaviors encoded into their dna... (Just as is likely with a significant part of human personality, the nature vs nurture debate)

But nah, magic is necessary to produce any of that...

See his 'poser' 11

Here's more on those rats

wiki: Many [female rats] were unable to carry pregnancy to full term or to survive delivery of their litters if they did. An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep. The social organization of the animals showed equal disruption. [...]

The common source of these disturbances became most dramatically apparent in the populations of our first series of three experiments, in which we observed the development of what we called a behavioral sink. The animals would crowd together in greatest number in one of the four interconnecting pens in which the colony was maintained. As many as 60 of the 80 rats in each experimental population would assemble in one pen during periods of feeding. Individual rats would rarely eat except in the company of other rats. As a result extreme population densities developed in the pen adopted for eating, leaving the others with sparse populations.

[...] In the experiments in which the behavioral sink developed, infant mortality ran as high as 96 percent among the most disoriented groups in the population.[4]

And of course, the ubiquitous fight-or-flight, responsible for dogs vs cars (with certain breeds having that behaviour filtered out). Or one could just look up nature vs nurture, and the many research papers in this field. Then again, you're supposedly a trained biologist, so you should know a hell of a lot more about this than I, no? We'll get to that.[/quote]Could you, trained biologist, please address these rather than bury your head in the sand? And the others from @alfa, @plaet and @ooman? The only thing I've noted you do is take on a technicality from @ooman (and I'm surely not just going to take your word for that, considering).

Or if you really need to go back to the basics and look through the evidence for evolution, buy a secondary school level biology textbook. Or just use google or wiki. These are basics we shouldn't be wasting time on. As you can see, wiki doesn't even waste time listing out the evidence, as only mo.rons should have a problem figuring it out and they apparently don't indulge those of your caliber.

davidylan: Bonus points if you are not shamelessly copying and pasting the thoughts of others.

Again, no bibles please. I've no issue with 'copy and paste' from valid sources for references though. Actually, as a scientist, I would imagine so should you.

Mr anony: Which of the points in the op does it specifically address and how exactly does it address them?

It addresses the op, not the points. You may have missed the amount of ground he attempts to cover in the op. Other posts address the points, like this one. Just in case you're genuinely blind, here it is again;

[quote author=ME, AND NOT LONG AGO EITHER]

davidylan: There are 12 questions on the first page... plenty of space for you to pick just one and lay out the "evidence for evolution". Go right ahead and educate us. Surely it shouldnt be that difficult. Afterall you have been here responding to every comment except those that are germaine to the thread itself... surely it cant be because you have no answers no?

Really?

me: Let's consider a mutation that is ostensibly helpful; sickle cell. Had black man continued in ignorance and isolated, eventually branching off, and assuming malaria was left to spirits to cure (like dolts like @david would have us do), what could that have meant for us?

The changes could have been drastic, our populations vastly reduced, we'd likely be less successful by your definition (also dependent on environment), yes? Does that mean we'd be extinct?

I highly doubt it, other factors would come into play. We'd likely still be successful, and that is all that matters. If it's good enough to survive, then it does, simple. 'More' or 'less' is irrelevant, no perfection evidenced anywhere, just 'good enough'. I have asked you what happened to flight for penguins? Do you really think they wouldn't find that ability useful, that it won't make them more successful?

The vast majority of mutations serve no purpose, that much is obvious, I don't think you're the carbon copy of your parents, yes? Some changes may occur which may aid your survival atm, some not. And this is still ignoring population control, etc.

This is a complete non-point, and I'll be dropping it unless something better is thrown in.

Next up on my list, though bear the time thingie, do you really think there's no evolutionary 'impetus' for death (this from one who believes suffering is necessary, no less, not that death necessarily equates to suffering)? And indeed, do you think nature had much of a choice in affecting this fact; living things die?

See his 'posers' 3 and 13

me: There's even some experimenting with rats, which show that males, when they over populate an area, stop doing anything. They stop bleeping, etc. I know they stop going out, not sure if they even stop eating completely as well. I'm on mobile atm so I'll have to get back with the links.

As for talk about preprogrammed behavior, that $hit is common everywhere. Eg certain dogs will chase cars (mistaking them for sheep, their ancestors usually being herders), others won't. No training whatsoever involved, they would do that naturally, other won't. Simple behaviors encoded into their dna... (Just as is likely with a significant part of human personality, the nature vs nurture debate)

But nah, magic is necessary to produce any of that...

See his 'poser' 11

Here's more on those rats

wiki: Many [female rats] were unable to carry pregnancy to full term or to survive delivery of their litters if they did. An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep. The social organization of the animals showed equal disruption. [...]

The common source of these disturbances became most dramatically apparent in the populations of our first series of three experiments, in which we observed the development of what we called a behavioral sink. The animals would crowd together in greatest number in one of the four interconnecting pens in which the colony was maintained. As many as 60 of the 80 rats in each experimental population would assemble in one pen during periods of feeding. Individual rats would rarely eat except in the company of other rats. As a result extreme population densities developed in the pen adopted for eating, leaving the others with sparse populations.

[...] In the experiments in which the behavioral sink developed, infant mortality ran as high as 96 percent among the most disoriented groups in the population.[4]

And of course, the ubiquitous fight-or-flight, responsible for dogs vs cars (with certain breeds having that behaviour filtered out). Or one could just look up nature vs nurture, and the many research papers in this field. Then again, you're supposedly a trained biologist, so you should know a hell of a lot more about this than I, no? We'll get to that.[/quote]Perhaps you and your pals could address this and others by my fellows rather than tell silly, conspicuous lies about the op not being addressed? Or is this another case of willful blindness?

-------------------------------------

Now, as to how it addresses the op. Like the lead up says

[quote author=me, that very post]It touches some of the basics the scientific stance on evolution, something some supposedly erudite fellows are familiar with[/quote]It's all been said, but I'm simply reinforcing various points and providing what is the default stance on this issue (and broadly speaking other theories) from the scientific community. In this particular case, this bit

AAAS: Is there "evidence against" contemporary evolutionary theory?

No. There are still many puzzles in biology about the particular pathways of the evolutionary process and how various species are related to one another. However, these puzzles neither invalidate nor challenge Darwin's basic theory of "descent with modification" nor the theory's present form that incorporates and is supported by the genetic sciences. Contemporary evolutionary theory provides the conceptual framework in which these puzzles can be addressed and points toward ways to solve them.

Succinctly, that is the main dish with regards to the op.

---------------------------------------------------------

[quote author=ME AGAIN, THAT VERY POST]In before 'it does not address the op', it does. And that's not the only purpose.[/quote]includes reinforcements like this for instance:

deep sight: To be further clear: I actually believe in evolution. There must have been evolution of some sort.

@ds states he agrees with evolution. Or does he?

deep sight: However I do not believe that it was blind or unguided. I believe in an evolutionary universe and an evolutionary process guided by a definite and intelligent hand.

.........

That which is set forth by current scientific thinking - starting with the Big B.ang and all the way through to evolution and humanity, does not account for the existence of life and consciousness as we know it today.

Evolution is a scientific theory, with a focus on the natural. Even if his 'posers' (please note the quotes) were valid, he now expects supernatural elements be thrown into the mix; a creator.

That's not how it works, and he should know this. For instance, evolution has a clear cut solution to the gaps, this;

AAAS: a process of descent with modification

Not knowing the particular process in some situations does not in any way make evolution invalid. Just as not knowing how a particular germ causes a disease does not in any way make germ theory invalid. It will be worked on and eventually figured out. Hope that's clear?

To bring the point home, this;

AAAS: The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

And broadly speaking, he agrees with this. So, again, if deep sight asserts;

deep sight: However I do not believe that it was blind or unguided. I believe in an evolutionary universe and an evolutionary process guided by a definite and intelligent hand.

.........

That which is set forth by current scientific thinking - starting with the Big B.ang and all the way through to evolution and humanity, does not account for the existence of life and consciousness as we know it today.

Then he does not accept evolution, but something else. Evolution makes no room for sky-daddies, it's all natural. This points to @plaet's

plaetton: @Deepsight:

If you believe that universal evolution occurs at all levels then I believe all your prior arguments are contradictory and void.
If you believe in evolution, then I have no argument with you.

The onus is now on you to offer reasonable proof that skydaddy is on the wheels of the evolutionary train.

I am asking you for hunredth time to give us your own version or understanding of how evolution works, what it does and what it does not do, and of course, how it is piloted by skydaddy.

So back to you.
And no escapism this time.

If he wants the scientific community to take him seriously, then he has to show how GOD!!! exists or even came into the equation, rather than expect them to drop extremely VALID, natural avenues of research when gaps are encountered.

That's how we figured out spirits were not responsible for disease, and a lot of other phenomena as well.


---------------------------------------------------

Logicboy03: You people should stop hailing Deepsight just because he rants nonsense about evolution and the big bang.

The very title of the thread is silly. No scientist will tell you that evolution explains how the first life arrived. No. Evolution starts from the first life already existing.

As for the big bang, it is the best theory available for the origin of our universe. No scientist will tell you that the big bang explains everything about the origin of our universe. The big bang theory still remains to be improved as we find out more and more about the universe. The core theory of the big bang remains valid but more information could be added. For instance, I read that the estimated age of the universe was some millions of years off.

So, it is hard to see what Deepsight is arguing about. The descent of deepsight is beginning. I hope he doesnt go down like Anony who has become a self parody. No one takes him seriously anymore due to his incessant Anonyism

And again the @op agrees and reiterates most of this, so what exactly is the problem?

For the most part, it would seem to be this

ds: the existence of life and consciousness

And other philosophical rambles. Yet he tries to mask that with a puerile attack on evolution (in particular), abiogenesis and the BB, when he understands how the scientific method works.

Well, actually, this is an attack on the scientific method in general, masked as something else. That won't do, and is potentially insidious even. Again, see germs.

etc etc


PS: I won't waste any more time on any of your silly antics, so if you respond, please attempt to be at least reasonable.

I'll just leave this here, for general reference. It touches some of the basics the scientific stance on evolution, something some supposedly erudite fellows are familiar with

AAAS: Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design

What is evolution?

Evolution is a broad, well-tested description of how Earth's present-day life forms arose from common ancestors reaching back to the simplest one-celled organisms almost four billion years ago. It helps explain both the similarities and the differences in the enormous number of living organisms we see around us.

By studying the sequence of changes in fossils found in successive layers of rock as well as the molecular evidence provided by modern genetics, scientists have been able to trace how ancient organisms — through a process of descent with modification — gave rise to profound changes in populations over time. Many new anatomical forms have appeared, while others have disappeared. In a very real sense, we are distant genetic cousins to all living organisms, from bacteria to whales.

Evolution occurs in populations when heritable changes are passed from one generation to the next. Genetic variation, whether through random mutations or the gene shuffling that occurs during sexual reproduction, sets the stage for evolutionary change. That change is driven by forces such as natural selection, in which organisms with advantageous traits, such as color variations in insects that cloak some of them from predators, are better enabled to survive and pass their genes on to future generations.

Ultimately, evolution explains both small-scale changes within populations and large-scale changes in which new species diverge from a common ancestor over many generations.

Is evolution "just a theory?"

In detective novels, a "theory" is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word "theory" means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Is there "evidence against" contemporary evolutionary theory?

No. There are still many puzzles in biology about the particular pathways of the evolutionary process and how various species are related to one another. However, these puzzles neither invalidate nor challenge Darwin's basic theory of "descent with modification" nor the theory's present form that incorporates and is supported by the genetic sciences. Contemporary evolutionary theory provides the conceptual framework in which these puzzles can be addressed and points toward ways to solve them.

Is there a growing body of scientists who doubt that evolution happened?

No. The consensus among scientists in many fields, and especially those who study the subject, is that contemporary evolutionary theory provides a robust, well-tested explanation for the history of life on earth and for the similarity within the diversity of existing organisms. Very few scientists doubt that evolution happened, although there is lively ongoing inquiry about the details of how it happened. Of the few scientists who criticize contemporary evolutionary theory, most do no research in the field, and so their opinions have little significance for scientists who do.

What is intelligent design?

"Intelligent design" consists of two hypothetical claims about the history of the universe and of life: first, that some structures or processes in nature are "irreducibly complex" and could not have originated through small changes over long periods of time; and second, that some structures or processes in nature are expressions of "complex specified information" that can only be the product of an intelligent agent.

Is intelligent design a scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory?

No. Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory. While living things are remarkably complex, scientists have shown that careful, systematic study of them can yield tremendous insights about their functions and origins (as it has in the past).

Intelligent design necessarily presupposes that there is an "intelligent designer" outside of nature who, from the beginning or from time to time, inserts design into the world around us. But whether there is an intelligent designer is a matter of religious faith rather than a scientifically testable question.

Why did AAAS boycott the recent Kansas State Board of Education hearings on evolution?

The Kansas State Board of Education, which is dominated by intelligent design advocates, scheduled a series of hearings beginning May 5 on proposed revisions to state science standards. AAAS was invited to testify and "provide expert opinion regarding the mainstream scientific view of the nature of science." After much consideration, AAAS respectfully declined to participate, honoring a boycott called by the grassroots pro-science organization, Kansas Citizens for Science. We saw little purpose in a forum where evolution would be juxtaposed against "intelligent design," an unsubstantiated alternative that is a matter of religious faith, not facts. The State Board established a format which implied that scientific conclusions could be based simply on the weight of witnesses' opinions rather than on scientific evidence. We chose to support leaders of the Kansas science community, who promoted the boycott and described the hearings as rigged by proponents of intelligent design. In the end, with the exception of a Kansas civil rights attorney, who pointed out the farcical nature of the proceedings, only ID proponents testified.

Aren't scientists really just afraid to debate proponents of intelligent design?

No, scientists actually thrive on debate, but only according to the norms and standards of scientific investigation and discourse. Scientists are bound by existing facts while the opponents are not constrained by sticking to the verifiable evidence and data.

Scientists see no point — and much danger — in pitting a scientific concept like evolution against a non-scientific article of religious faith like intelligent design. By agreeing to debate evolution, scientists would be offering proponents of intelligent design a veneer of scientific respectability that has not been earned in the rough-and-tumble of everyday science. They also buy into a situation where the public might expect an either-or outcome between science and religion.

Doesn't fairness require that alternatives to contemporary evolutionary theory be taught in the public schools?

No. This is not about fairness. Science requires adherence to standards of research conduct and process. Intelligent design has not met those standards and should not be taught in science classrooms. If anything, it is unfair for proponents of a non-scientific claim to try to force their views into science classrooms.

Still, it appears that scientists are arrogant or elitist when they refuse to participate in debates.

Scientists recognize that they can appear aloof by refusing to appear in debates with intelligent design advocates in any and all forums they demand. But scientific inquiry and debate is not subject to the same ground rules as a media talk show. Scientific discourse demands experimental evidence.

Scientists, including officials at AAAS and other groups, have been very willing to talk to reporters, community groups and others about their reasons for supporting evolution and their misgivings about proposed school board actions in Kansas and elsewhere. We trust the good judgment of parents and community leaders when all of the facts are known.

Are scientists trying to stifle discussion of intelligent design?

We do not want to censor discussion of intelligent design in the proper setting but the school science classroom is not that setting. Nor do we want to portray evolution as some carved-in-stone dogma. Science is an ongoing process, with new evidence accepted and weighed constantly. Intelligent design advocates have yet to contribute in a scientifically rigorous manner to that process.

AAAS has worked hard to guarantee that children get a first-class science education. We've helped set the objectives for what should be taught and learned in science classrooms. We want to prevent an erosion of the quality of science education. In the case of Kansas, that would be unfortunate at a time when the state is trying to attract high-tech industry and it, like other U.S. states, is trying to nurture more homegrown science talent.

Are science and religion inherently opposed?

No. Science does not take a position on an intelligent designer, which is a matter of religious faith, and is not testable scientifically. AAAS and other scientific groups do not want to create the impression that religion and science are inherently in conflict. They live together quite comfortably, including in the minds of many scientists.

Science and religion ask different questions about the world. Many individual scientists are deeply religious. They see scientific investigation and religious faith as complementary components of a well-rounded life.

Can science stimulate religious thought?

Yes. A particular religion's understanding of the world provides the context from which questions of meaning emerge. A development in science may provide a new more reliable explanation of the structure and processes of the world. This may be different from the understanding of the world that is presumed in a particular religion. What may appear to be a conflict between science and religion is actually a contrast between earlier and more recent understandings of the world (e.g., between an earth-centered universe and a sun-centered universe) and can be a constructive stimulus for religious inquiry. In fact, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu scholars have sought positive ways to relate evolutionary theory with their religious traditions.

Is the science classroom the appropriate place to discuss the religious interpretations of science?

No. Religion is a subject of inquiry in historical, philosophical and social studies, not in science. So, discussion about religion is most appropriate in the social studies or humanities curriculum, not in the science curriculum.

Have scientists underestimated the impact of the intelligent design movement?

Many scientists probably have been caught unawares, in part, because they don't see an inherent conflict between science and religion. They often are more comfortable in the laboratory, doing science and communicating it to students, than they are in the public arena. But it is clear they can no longer afford to ignore the political reality of the intelligent design movement and its effort to sway school boards and curriculum committees in many states and communities. The AAAS is determined to remain engaged on this issue and encourages other scientific groups to do so as well, particularly at the grass roots level.

What are the stakes?

The risk, if intelligent design is incorporated into school curricula, is to undermine scientific credibility and the ability of young people to distinguish science from non-science. And that is what matters more, in the longer term, than the specific battles over intelligent design versus evolution. In Kansas, advocates of "intelligent design" are attempting to redefine what is and is not science, in direct conflict with the science standards recommended by both the National Academy of Sciences and AAAS in earlier work. They are pushing the board to reject a definition that limits science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world. They want to define it so that science will include supernatural explanations.

In before 'it does not address the op', it does. And that's not the only purpose.

Kudos...for now..

davidylan: There are 12 questions on the first page... plenty of space for you to pick just one and lay out the "evidence for evolution". Go right ahead and educate us. Surely it shouldnt be that difficult. Afterall you have been here responding to every comment except those that are germaine to the thread itself... surely it cant be because you have no answers no?

Really?

me: Let's consider a mutation that is ostensibly helpful; sickle cell. Had black man continued in ignorance and isolated, eventually branching off, and assuming malaria was left to spirits to cure (like dolts like @david would have us do), what could that have meant for us?

The changes could have been drastic, our populations vastly reduced, we'd likely be less successful by your definition (also dependent on environment), yes? Does that mean we'd be extinct?

I highly doubt it, other factors would come into play. We'd likely still be successful, and that is all that matters. If it's good enough to survive, then it does, simple. 'More' or 'less' is irrelevant, no perfection evidenced anywhere, just 'good enough'. I have asked you what happened to flight for penguins? Do you really think they wouldn't find that ability useful, that it won't make them more successful?

The vast majority of mutations serve no purpose, that much is obvious, I don't think you're the carbon copy of your parents, yes? Some changes may occur which may aid your survival atm, some not. And this is still ignoring population control, etc.

This is a complete non-point, and I'll be dropping it unless something better is thrown in.

Next up on my list, though bear the time thingie, do you really think there's no evolutionary 'impetus' for death (this from one who believes suffering is necessary, no less, not that death necessarily equates to suffering)? And indeed, do you think nature had much of a choice in affecting this fact; living things die?

See his 'posers' 3 and 13

me: There's even some experimenting with rats, which show that males, when they over populate an area, stop doing anything. They stop bleeping, etc. I know they stop going out, not sure if they even stop eating completely as well. I'm on mobile atm so I'll have to get back with the links.

As for talk about preprogrammed behavior, that $hit is common everywhere. Eg certain dogs will chase cars (mistaking them for sheep, their ancestors usually being herders), others won't. No training whatsoever involved, they would do that naturally, other won't. Simple behaviors encoded into their dna... (Just as is likely with a significant part of human personality, the nature vs nurture debate)

But nah, magic is necessary to produce any of that...

See his 'poser' 11

Here's more on those rats

wiki: Many [female rats] were unable to carry pregnancy to full term or to survive delivery of their litters if they did. An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep. The social organization of the animals showed equal disruption. [...]

The common source of these disturbances became most dramatically apparent in the populations of our first series of three experiments, in which we observed the development of what we called a behavioral sink. The animals would crowd together in greatest number in one of the four interconnecting pens in which the colony was maintained. As many as 60 of the 80 rats in each experimental population would assemble in one pen during periods of feeding. Individual rats would rarely eat except in the company of other rats. As a result extreme population densities developed in the pen adopted for eating, leaving the others with sparse populations.

[...] In the experiments in which the behavioral sink developed, infant mortality ran as high as 96 percent among the most disoriented groups in the population.[4]

And of course, the ubiquitous fight-or-flight, responsible for dogs vs cars (with certain breeds having that behaviour filtered out). Or one could just look up nature vs nurture, and the many research papers in this field. Then again, you're supposedly a trained biologist, so you should know a hell of a lot more about this than I, no? We'll get to that.

david: We are patiently waiting for your erudite refutation of all the "retarded nonsense" deepsight put up. I trust your intelligence.

I believe I've been involved, as of course have @alfa, @ooman, @plaet and any others I might have missed. However, one cannot escape the feeling that the pablum that is the op is some sort of cheap propaganda trick aimed at sheeple or just a troll, as the folly I highlight above is just the beginning. Indeed, @oga sight seems to acknowledge these distinguished army of straw-men when he adds

[quote author=@deep sight]Although all the posers above are cardinal, I would particularly like the strict materialist big b.ang exponents to give answers to the posers on the big bang, and for the strict materialist evolutionists, the posers on Evolution, Nos 1, 3, 10 and 14 above.[/quote]Perhaps he did not expect any serious person to attend to these?

One can only imagine this as mr @sight while posting that op

[img]http://sociusrider.files./2012/12/1tzln8nzcu2abdq2dhii3q2.gif[/img]

He does like that wine. And he may have succeeded, as we've now had 7 pages of this 'retar.ded nonsense'

Anyhow, in the meantime, while he attends to us, other than the comical circle-jerking amongst yourselves, perhaps you could address this, oh learned one.

From this lot, the the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

wiki: The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is an international non-profit organization with the stated goals of promoting cooperation among scientists, defending scientific freedom, encouraging scientific responsibility, and supporting scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world's largest general scientific society, with 126,995 individual and institutional members at the end of 2008,[1] and is the publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science, which has a weekly circulation of 138,549.[2]

We have:

AAAS: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[2]

*Note: that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.

So, as you seem to be a scientist, or at least claim to be one, you apparently know something the rest of your colleagues don't. You assert there's no evidence for evolution, no? Then please explain why you haven't collected your nobel price? Surely, this is ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting stuff, and undeniably so. So I hope you aren't here SHAMELESSLY LYING to poor sheeple that haven't gotten the same level of education you claim to have.

At the very least, please show us some of your brilliant peer-reviewed papers (not by colleagues from one of your madrasas mind you), so us mere mortals can begin to fathom your position, even if just a bit.

Do note though, I shouldn't be here atm, and it might be days before I return, but please enlighten us, oh great sage (bonus points for not using a bible).

davidylan: Deepsight laid out 12 detailed questions, you ignored them to whine about God? Says a lot about your ignorance.

Oh, yes, and this. A scientist that can look one in the eye and say 'there's no evidence for evolution' speaking about 'ignorance'?

Please, clap for yourself oga...

Have to leave, just for now..

davidylan: This is more irrelevant piffle meant to escape the fact that atheists have spent over 7 pages unable to answer the simplest questions underpinning their claims. Struggling desperately to make it about the bible is quite lame to be honest.

Try to limit your foolishness, did you notice that YOU mentioned the bible, not me?

As for claiming we're not addressing, I hope your problem is just slight comprehension problems and not genuine re.tardation

davidylan: I thought you were quite aware that christianity lays no claims to science? You were the one hogging all the science and logic to yourself so try and answer the questions pls rather than waffling.

I've known you to be a bumbling re.tard, but I did not know the extent...

You have one of those bible things? That book instructs you on what to wear (or face hell!!)? Let me help you

[quote author=GOD!!!?]New International Version (NIV)
The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.[/quote]Or perhaps you want to try another translation? And please, non of that nonsense about non-literal interpretations. You, and despite the supposed years of schooling, would be interpreting it literally if you thought you could get away with it. But as it's obvious nonsense suddenly.... the bible makes no claims to science.

At least the years of schooling saved you from complete folly..

And when, in your infinite wisdom, was I hugging all the science?

Deep Sight: Nope: when the question is the change, mutation and survival of species, then it is spot on. You cannot have such a successful species develop gradually into a form that renders its species less successful. That would be an evolutionary absurdity: and this is what has happened with development from unicellular life to advanced multi-cellular life. There would have to be an X factor that compels and even necessitates such a development or progression.

Let's consider a mutation that is ostensibly helpful; sickle cell. Had black man continued in ignorance and isolated, eventually branching off, and assuming malaria was left to spirits to cure (like dolts like @david would have us do), what could that have meant for us?

The changes could have been drastic, our populations vastly reduced, we'd likely be less successful by your definition (also dependent on environment), yes? Does that mean we'd be extinct?

I highly doubt it, other factors would come into play. We'd likely still be successful, and that is all that matters. If it's good enough to survive, then it does, simple. 'More' or 'less' is irrelevant, no perfection evidenced anywhere, just 'good enough'. I have asked you what happened to flight for penguins? Do you really think they wouldn't find that ability useful, that it won't make them more successful?

The vast majority of mutations serve no purpose, that much is obvious, I don't think you're the carbon copy of your parents, yes? Some changes may occur which may aid your survival atm, some not. And this is still ignoring population control, etc.

This is a complete non-point, and I'll be dropping it unless something better is thrown in.

Next up on my list, though bear the time thingie, do you really think there's no evolutionary 'impetus' for death (this from one who believes suffering is necessary, no less, not that death necessarily equates to suffering)? And indeed, do you think nature had much of a choice in affecting this fact; living things die?

Deep Sight: I do not know if God is self aware. That question is too transcendent to be addressed or even contemplated by any human being.

I was always under the impression you knew. This is good

Ps, note, this doesn't mean I endorse your view

Deep Sight: Sustained numerical success.

That's silly

@sight

Still waiting for your definition of 'more' successful boss. Please, do you mean to imply apex predators, which usually have less numbers than their prey and indeed biomass, are 'less' successful. Perhaps you have some special insights to counter my piffle?

Deep Sight: Piffle. Empty waffle.

Do successful species evolve into less successful species.

Simple question.

Stop hiding, running and obfuscating. That only shows that you know the question has you undone. Your responses are wearisomely unintelligent.

Really? Dohohohohohoho

Alfa Seltzer: I wouldn't call lack of birth control a "success", . But on a serious note, I think ooman has given a good response about a population not outnumbering its food source.

And seeing the number of species that perform sexual reproduction and the ever increasing number of them under the right conditions, I'll say there's definitely an evolutionary reason why this method of reproduction is preferable for these species. (Maybe pleasure? )

There's even some experimenting with rats, which show that males, when they over populate an area, stop doing anything. They stop fucking, etc. I know they stop going out, not sure if they even stop eating completely as well. I'm on mobile atm so I'll have to get back with the links.

As for talk about preprogrammed behavior, that $hit is common everywhere. Eg certain dogs will chase cars (mistaking them for sheep, their ancestors usually being herders), others won't. No training whatsoever involved, they would do that naturally, other won't. Simple behaviors encoded into their dna... (Just as is likely with a significant part of human personality, the nature vs nurture debate)

But nah, magic is necessary to produce any of that...