₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: Do successful species over time evolve into less successful species?

The question is that simple. You can start with a yes or no and then elaborate.

You can start, as you've been trying to, with giving us a description of this 'less successful'. You say numbers? By that simplistic definition, which clearly matters not to nature mind you, homo sapiens is one of the less successful species around (ah, but that's why we need GOD!!?).

You can pretend you missed the part where I said being successful is all that's required, not 'more' or 'less' successful. Good enough to survive is all, simple. Nature will continue to throw dice, no 'will' or 'impetus' needed, sorry.

However, do they get worse at particular tasks? I think penguins are a lot worse at flying than their ancestors, yes? And flight would certainly aid their chances in various scenarios, no? So why did they loose the ability? Do species become extinct? I believe quite a few do, for a variety of reasons, while other 'lucky' ones claw on through time. Do they're populations wane? Rather frequently, I believe.

Deep Sight: Its quite obvious our atheists have no answers.

I also noticed you had non to my post. We'll get to the rest, but please, start with that.

And do note, again, we don't claim to have all the answers, but let's proceed.

davidylan: This makes no sense. Amoeba... is unipolar, it has remained so for billions of years. Why hasnt it evolved into a polar organism as you claim?

Since man was made from sand, and sand has remained sand for billions of years, why hasn't it become human as well?

davidylan: If you dont know, its ok to say so. All Deepsight asked is that you defend your "scientific" position and all you have offered is needless waffling. Shame.

Considering you have absolutely no idea as to what evidence is, I highly doubt you have the needed expertise to offer judgment on what qualifies as 'needless waffling' or even more importantly, what qualifies as 'scientific'. Non at all. No, really, please explain; what sort of scientist goes around saying there's NO evidence for evolution?

You re.tard


Random; His point in that post is very, very simple; what does this have to do with atheistic stance? Mazaje isn't an atheist, no? So, why all the glee when chasing your 'pseudo' scientists my good quack? Or do you, my good scientist?!!, have a solution as to what's responsible for speciation, life etc?

Wait...

Let me guess....

GOD DID IT!!!

A scientist claiming god did it.. Left to your ilk spirits would still be responsible for cattargh.. You're a disgrace.... You should be lynched if found anywhere near a lab...... Really, wtf are you even doing near one? You clearly aren't seeking answers but have one ready made by your jewish slave mastahs, so why are you near a lab rather than a church?

Deep Sight: In other words it did happen, but could only be accounted for by factors extraneous to that which evolution accounts for in principle.

The point: Per the Theory of Evolution, creatures with attributes that enable survival will survive and propagate. There will be no evolutionary impetus for such creatures to evolve into less successful species. This will be absurd.

You're saying it cannot happen. Why not limit anonysms?

That's clearly false. Evolution has never been about 'more' or 'less' successful, that's fairly obvious. It's simply about what is successful.

Hence the ridiculous amounts of patch work and less than stellar designs in nature. Or do you think, for instance, the human female reproductive system, with its stellar design that has led to millions of deaths through the ages, is the most successful around? Or the design of our eyes against that of species with better, healthier eyesight? Or all the other species we lord over, they have more successful designs? Or even judging by biomass, those with more are than us are better designed than we are? Etc etc.

All of these less than perfect features/species did evolve, no? Or are you saying someone went around (and is still doing so, considering micro evolution) creating/incubating these? Only the optimal designs evolved naturally?

Deep Sight: I did not say that it cannot happen, I said that the evolutionary impetus for such would not exist, going by the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution. Ergo, another external factor must account for it.


I will ask you to address yourself to the posers one at a time: You dont have to write a thesis on each, just state in one line why each is wrong or mis-footed. For the ones you consider s.illy, simply say that they are s.illy and then move on to the next.

Is this too hard a task, or you do not have the time (which would be understandable of course, we all have better things to do that prat about life and existence, which pratting changes nothing).

However, it seems to me that you cannot address the posers.

I will be back to address those I find si.lly, but exactly how does the bolded not translate to 'cannot happen'?

Op, redundant I know, but just want to say; excellent..

Random; Personally, I'm just too appalled by the nonsense usually on display in the goat mountains so I tend to stay away. It could drive one madness, and at the very least at that...

Underaged sex is an issue. Ok, so; legalize it!! What of two consenting adults that happen to have teh ghey? HANG THEM!!! Then they have the nerve to suggest it's for the good of society and not a few ped.os. Even disregarding this, I mean wtf? Clearly, too different worlds we live on..

Usually I'm no saint, but next to them, by any standards I consider reasonable, I died for all your sins.

OlaAjia: Wow thanks for directing me to the emboldened. It made me chuckle so hard that the looks on my research partners' faces betrayed how much of an insane man they must have thought I have become! I've never actually heard of that experiment, but it sounds like a very nihilistic thing to do. I have nothing against nihilism of course, but by definition or so I tell myself, even when it is right, it is definitely wrong!
Have you come across Paul Davies' literatures? He has some pot n' shrooms kindda weird philosophies, but I find them interesting nonetheless. You might too!

Lol.. Nature has gone mad is what many would think.. Quantum 'weirdness' as a whole is a discovery on par with say stumbling across alien life, ie even ignoring obvious, practical benefits like modern electronics. But alas, most of us will miss it.

And I'd never heard of paul davies, he does look rather interesting, thanks for that... Will definitely be doing some reading soon...

mkmyers45: Now you understand why no sane atheist, theist or deist will be busting his head over a question that only be answered with questions? Obviously its open for debate but i bet my two cents that NO atheist can successfully counter all points raised by Deepsight....Including the BB and Evolution crusaders

Largely correct, but just note, a few of those questions are fairly si.lly. Of the anonysm, time wasting mold; eg multi-cellular being less successful therefore it cannot happen. Even if true, being less successful != cannot happen. Not at all. I mean, one ought to have noticed there are myriad species less successful than homo sapiens currently around, no?

Deep Sight: Hmm, such as universes that spring suddenly out of a dot without a purpose and thinking beings that emerged from dead rocks.

Clap for the brilliant and oh-so-logical atheist.

Brilliant, me? I'm honored, but I highly doubt it. Rational? I'll accept that, ty.

You are well free to not indulge my ideas. I don't force people to accept them or demand they marry whom I choose (which could include 9 year olds) as a result. Actually, you don't even indulge my ideas, so what exactly is the problem here? Under the guise of being 'critical' or 'rational', not sure which, no less.

But do note, I have sound, logical reasons for them. Reasons you're quick to run off from when confronted with them. And again, not dogma. I would discard them anytime should I find good reason to, perhaps you have some? Unlike quite a few, I do NOT claim to have all the solutions.

mazaje: Why can't atheist just agree that the big bang and evolution are plausible explanations for what we see around. . .The dogmatic approach that some atheist hold about these explanations is mind boggling. . .Big bang, evolution seem very plausible and actually explain a lot with some evidence to back them up. . . .But we do not know them to be facts, do we?. . .

We should indulge the sheer, illogical nonsense spouted on these boards, why? Being open minded does not equate to being foolish or tossing out critical thinking

Evolution occurs, that is undeniable. Unless you want to claim vestigial don't exist, mutations don't occur, etc, as well. In which case I, or frankly anyone else (except maybe imaginary friends), can help you. The only valid questions (and only to some even) are related how, ie only in some scenarios. The same, and with blurrier lines, for abiogenesis. Now, are you going to go with the evidence and look for/complete the natural solutions or are you going to claim spirits are responsible for disease or something similar?

As for bb, it is even more complicated, but I'd like to see this dogmatism you speak off. It is the best theory available atm, based on the evidence. Here, again, unless you want to claim cbr, expanding universe and relativity, entropy etc don't exist, then I fail to see the problem. If you have a better explanation, please supply it, we're all ears. Indeed, last I checked bb was not the only viable model available, it is though the most popular and the one with the most support. Also, very logical and well backed with evidence.

But nobody says any of these are perfect, and that's how science works. Refinement.

OlaAjia: All of the above is true. Sometimes, they even campaigned against the implications of their heuristic derivations. An example is the Schroedinger's cat allegory, which was intended as a polemic to the Copenhagen declaration, but served the opposite purpose. My reference to intuition was in retrospection.

It would be even funnier if einstein were around to see how he inadvertently aided their case as well. Via EPR and bell playing around with probabilities ie.

I know it's not over though, einstein might still ultimately have his day and we'll stumble upon determinism, but still funny, for now..

OlaAjia: Uncertainty does not imply Quantum collapse, but the idea of quantum collapse presupposes uncertainty before observation, from the observer's point of view. So the eigenstates are all simultaneously existing prior to perturbation (observation, measurement or probing). However, when you perturb the system, since your perturbation operator can presumably only measure a single (not strictly speaking) property of the total eigenstates, the observation at that point will just be one of the numerous possible eigenvalues associated with the unperturbed state, perhaps alluding to a stochastic nature of the wave functions, hence, quantum collapse has occurred. The determinism we observe in classical physics is probably because certain kinds of perturbations will always result in predictable kinds of responses.


'Mind over matter' or otherwise, is a philosophical take on all that. I simply am not well informed enough to claim that it is an accurate representation of Quantum collapse. Here's my philosophical musing (unscientific claim) which might lend some credence to 'mind over matter': Imagine us (human observers) to be mechanical devices with so many sensors attached to us with which we use to perturb the systems, which then result in quantum collapse. Our sensors of course, cannot sense outside of what they have been conditioned -by nature or other forces- to sense.

But how does the gaddem universe know it is measured?! There's the quantum eraser experimenting I think.. In which a measurement is made, but the results are destroyed before it gets to the observers. However the measurement is indeed made. Upon viewing the system eventually, results? Weirdness. How the hell did it figure out the measurement results were destroyed??!

But, and I'm sure you wouldn't notice, you just put it in one of the simplest and clearest ways I've seen it yet. I'm just going to have it at the back of my mind that the other events do play out, we just notice only one of the possible outcomes. The universe doesn't know it's been measured, we simply inadvertently do the measuring. Suddenly, many worlds doesn't seem like complete madness.

I'm not saying you subscribe to many worlds mind you, I'm just saying from reading your synopsis (and the hard data obtained), I can now see why many consider it reasonable.

OlaAjia: Forgive this response. It was a rush job, and I haven't given it as thorough a thought as I would love to because like you, I'm really busy.

I probably have enough actually, ty for your time. There are books I should get off my a$$ and read as well. If there's more though please don't hesitate to add when free. I, at least, but likely many others as well, will definitely find it useful.

Thanks again

FearGodAndLive: The atheists are not worth our time. Christians should move on and learn to ignore them. There's nothing to be gained from arguing with fools.

Indeed, I agree. You should stick to spending an inordinate amount of time and other resources using scripture to figure out which hand to use to wipe your a$$ with after taking a $hit. It's of dire importance. As with wearing mixed fabrics, trousers if you're female or eating shellfish; it could land you in hell.

I understand learned nonsense about 'fools' like this one are acceptable though, and in fact encouraged and the norm.. So pls, proceed good sheeple!

Errm, yes, good op. Not that I have the time, but even if free will existed, and do note you have not in any form whatsoever shown that it does, merely speculated, how does that equate to GOD!!!?

As for the evidence bit, do you honestly expect to be taken seriously?

And for some reason you guys typically cannot escape the 'atheism is a religion' drivel.

Oga, abeg no vex. When not procrastinating I've been rather busy. And I'm now back on mobile sef.... Anyways

OlaAjia: Allow me to say, claiming certainty is the most self-indicting statement of an arrogant ignoramus. The last person to claim certainty is a scientist. That said, you know that in visualisation techniques, I can reproduce practically any shape using a series of superposited (constructive and destructive) sinusoids? Of course it will be complicated, but it's doable. Likewise, you can use particles in form of tiny dots (say pixels) to achieve the same. The wave/particle duality are mutually complementary. The one you choose to use largely depends on the perspective. In the nano world, it's more instructive to use waves because it is comprehensive and explains many observable phenomena like the formation of bandgaps better than particles. In the macro however, particles are simpler, yet produce the same end result as waves (As bohrs correspondence theory suggests).

The bolded, and in your typically rather precise, lucid style, says it all.

My interpretation though is probably the issue. So it likely is that I, as the messenger, failed. He might be attempting subtlety, in that he's saying something akin to what you state; ie you could use either for visualization, as approximations ie (and judging by the success SM, apparently the most accurate ever). But yes, he does seem to me to be indeed insisting the particle view is only useful as a teaching tool (in a manner of speak), that the 'wave' theories generally are a far more accurate/rational portrayal of what is actually happening. But again, don't take my word for it, as I'm basically the 'unreliable narrator' in this case.

(Random note: Yes, I know. Frankly, there's no way he can be absolutely sure. And when did science begin dealing with absolutes? Especially in cases such as this. But I do love love his blog because (and like you) he tries not to insult the intelligence of his readers. Then again, most of us (and unlike you) are mere mortals. Catching 22 all round..)

For us lay folk, visualizing say curving spacetime alone can be quite the task, and when compared to the nano world where weirdness is the norm, curving spacetime seems like child's play. I'm not sure if some of these things can even be intuited, as sometimes even the people who discover them do not intuit them per say. From playing with some formulas, they discover that the math says this particular weirdness must occur. They then test this out in the field, and to the consternation of a great many oftentimes including even themselves, it's true! Physical evidence right there! And I'm not sure the math can be translated to 'common sense', though you all do try.

One could accept these axioms, sort of like cramming them, but cramming is usually rather useless. One would not, for instance, be capable of making (what should be) simple predictions of what could happen in a given scenario, as he'd have no real understanding of how it works, and does not possess the tools (usually the math, 'years upon years of training needed' math) required for the task. Remember, even the person who discovered the phenomenon wasn't using intuition primarily, but math.

We curious among the mortals will continue to try though, it cannot be helped

OlaAjia: Quantum collapse is very intuitive actually, you might laugh if I say what I think of it. It is nothing more than a scientific way to express uncertainty. It fundamentally means all possibilities within the framework of possible eigenfunctions are true. As you may know, Schroedinger's equation deals with both temporal and spatial evolution. Hence the only possible outcome you observe depends on the operator (spatial/temporal) you choose to apply to your wave functions.

THE MOON IS THERE WHEN I'M NOT WATCHING!! GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE!! ETC ETC. (Btw, this is what we mere mortals consider intuitive)

Assuming I understand you correctly, this is mind over matter. Surely you can understand why this could be hard to digest? It's potentially too much for one, but let's take it slowly, if you'll indulge me please ie. How does uncertainty imply quantum collapse? What other implications of uncertainty are similar to collapse? (I'll assume 'everything is a wave' is one of the implications of uncertainty. That makes sense, no? And actually, also aids the case of the physicist that insists waves are the more accurate, 'true' scenario)

OlaAjia: Your questions are valid and actually quite poignant.
You can see particles as quanta of their said fields. Of course, different fields interact to create some sort of sometimes predictable; other times, aberrant, stochastic effects. As for what is responsible for propagating energy at all? My obvious educated guess would be that they are guided by laws of thermodynamics. We do not fully understand these interactions yet, otherwise, physics and quantum mechanics in particular would be complete and dead. It's not a dogma though, it's a close fit approximation approach. The better our understanding of the phenomena, the better our approximations.

His language indicates he's fairly certain of the 'field' theories, though I might be misunderstanding him. So, for instance, for the laws of thermodynamics, in say the macro world, the agents of these laws are, for the most part, the forces. So what are the laws like for these bosonic fields themselves? What are the agents in this case? All this compounding on the confusion

The main issue though is indeed accepting that everything is a wave (as he insists), as particles somewhat explains more easily (or just more intuitively to the lay man) how energy propagates itself. But I think I can grasp a bit how waves could explain these, thanks.

OlaAjia: I hope you're spending time to further research these.

Even if I tried not to, I would fail. I do understand though that there are some things that cannot be understood without the math, and accept that.

One last question, is there any remotely intuitive way to explain the mechanism behind quantum collapse, or does that still remain an 'x' for now? Something that just happens?

ooman: after you take your psychotic pill, schizo

Ah, yes, and another thing, mastah scientist. You seem to be equating entropy to work. Basics; they are not the same thing.

ooman: however dumb you understand this, the point is you still grab the laws relating to life...this is my point and this is what Logicboy is against ...everything other thing is gibberish in support of your master LB, but it seems you now have different opinions, dumbnuts...

Just please endeavor to take your diarrhea medication as instructed by the good doctors. Kudos

OlaAjia: I think I now understand your question better. Your question seems to presuppose a strictly particulate identity for matter. Of course, to determine what the particles in the field are, the kind of field in question has to be ascertained. The simple answer to your question is that particles are broadly either Fermions or Bosons.

Quantum collapse tells us that the universal eigenfunctions continue to be a superposition of wavefunctions in which all states are equally true until an observation occurs in which everything then collapses in space and time to the state observed. Like the classical analogy of Schroedinger's cat in which the cat is both dead and alive until an actual observation takes place. The sum of the cat's state is therefore a superposition of |dead> + |alive>.

This is good, thanks.

I think my issue is with the nature of physical fields in particular, and what are they really made of. I know of fermions and bosons, with bosons in particular being peculiar (with their ability to share the same spacetime, is that correct?). But this view, of all matter being the result of waves interacting in fields, a view you sort of allude to earlier, puts everything in context for me.

I'll try to get my head around the concept of fields and what these 'ripples' are in particular, but let me attempt to put my issue this way. Let me use a body of water as a field, a particle being somewhat similar to a wave, or a 'ripple' in it. My question is, more or else, what's the wave, the ripple itself, made of?

For instance, a bubble moving through the water, while not exactly a wave (though causing one), isn't comprisd of water, it's air. Are these 'ripples' made up of other elements from other fields, just as bubbles in water, or are they just water excited? If it's just water excited, the question of how the force propagates comes up again. Bosons are responsible, I understand that, but if one claims everything is a wave you run into issues. What is responsible for propagating energy through fields of bosons themselves, and are the bosonic fields responsible for manipulating the fermionic ones?

With water, collectively, yes, a wave, but that wave involves individual molecules being flung about by bosons (for the most part). It's water molecules themselves that form 'ripples', aided by the force carriers, yes? So what is responsible for propagating energy through a field of bosons itself, surely particles themselves no? These ripples being comprised of particles, no?

But what he seems to be saying isn't such. He seems to be saying everything is of a field, field first and field whole, and when you're picking out a particle you aren't really slicing out a bit of the field. That bit cannot exist without the field and must be linked to it, even if you can't detect any other particles of said field for astronomical distances. That bit is just a part of the field at a particular intensity, and the field exists everywhere through the galaxy. But what is responsible for these ripples themselves? Surely particles, no? Must they always be part of a whole? This is chiken and egg $hit to me..

Don't bother with this btw, as it's obviously not clear. But I'll leave it as just an attempt to illustrate my issues with comprehending the 'everything is a wave' view. Putting it down though does help. In fact, perhaps I get it now sef

And double slit is really, really strange (inb4 any fool and GOD!!! did it!!)

ooman: The bolded is the only thing intelligent from you and its exactly what Logicboy is against, claiming 2nd law does not apply to life so take it up with him.

I'm having flashbacks as well. I seem to remember telling you the problem would occur if you thought me intelligent. Usually needless to say, but now I'm a bit worried you thought any of that intelligent.

Let's consider something you might be familiar with; $hit. Now you $hit, a lot (especially verbally, but we aren't talking about that type, we're talking of physical $hit), as do all animals with an anus (at least, I think), it's natural. Now, is your $hit responsible for say your consciousness? Or your black hair, or your copious verbal $hit? No, it's just $hit, a process all life must go through; getting rid of waste.

Same thing with entropy, all matter/energy must go through it, just as all biological life (I think) must get rid of waste, simple.

In a manner of speak, it can be said to be matter/energy taking a $hit. (Eventually though, there may probably be nothing left except said $hit, which is useless.) It is NOT responsible for the universe expanding or biological life. Really, wtf is wrong with you?

Anyways, meh. Looking forward to your saner attempts, good hooman

Double

ooman: exactly, this is where you contradict your self again...how does an open system expand without someone doing it? and we are atheists, we dont believe in god, therefore for the universe to expand, it must be closed and entropy must always increase hence the expansion...

do you get it now?

I also understand physical laws are not constants.

debate with you seem peaceful, compared to Logicboy...

Ooman, my good clown, we need more knowledge? I seem to recall one that had no idea as to what the second law was and spouted whargarbl about abiogenesis, narrowing down the definition.

You've leveled up a bit, which is commendable. In fact you are even sometimes insightful, well done. But with this, what does god have to do with it? Since when did a 'will' have to be involved, and where from this credo (other than the obvious don't believe in supernatural gods) all atheists must believe? When did entropy cause expansion?

Anyway, lots more, but essentially most of what you have here are... assumptions. What is true is that entropy ultimately occurs in every system, one way or another, within this universe. That's, more or else, all. Also, constant energy, but considering the potential balancing act that is also not straightforward. Etc etc

OlaAjia: Thanks wiegraf for pointing out my folly. In retrospect, I think I can see what you mean. I will try to be progressively less technical with subsequent posts. It's a catch-22, I do not want to be seen to be patronising my audience either.

Also, if you aren't thorough, many easily misquote or misunderstand you. I feel your pain....

OlaAjia: I am not sure I understood your question above. Maybe I would with more clarification. If you are referring to the wave/particle duality, then, no, the presence of one does not imply the absence of the other. It is just the perspective of observation that changes. For example, the more accurate I am in calculating the position of a moving car (a point) the less accurate my calculation of its momentum (a wave) will be and vice versa. It's called Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Note however, that determining the car's position (point) at any point in time does not imply that it does not have momentum. It only means that by selecting a fixed point in time, I have made its momentum zero. Alternatively, I could calculate its momentum, but then, its position will make no sense in the momentum space, since it is perpetually in motion.

yes, no vex. I failed completely to frame that adequately. I was hoping to get away without posting much, but that would be silly considering the nature of the topic and my poor grasp of it.

From reading this blog;

http://www.profmattstrassler.com

(And I'm on a mobile, so I can't quote atm, but I'll be back to edit and present this properly.) He describes particles thus;

"A nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through space"

Basically, (I think) he views the universe as a series of fields that permeate through it*, of course all existing simultaneously. For instance, he goes on to describe virtual particles as;

"Generally, a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles"

And goes on to explain how interactions between fields generate virtual particles, and in a deterministic manner that is known.

Anyways, my question is more elementary (for now, I still want to see how double slit issues, quantum collapse fit into this model), what are these 'ripples' in a field made of? Thanks



*and the math, etc, all back him up. Put in another way, strictly speaking no such thing as a particle per se, everything is a wave, or part of a field. Particles being the smallest possible ripples of certain fields

OlaAjia: You've either utterly misunderstood me, or you have maliciously given my words drastic new twists. The crux of my claim is actually the exact opposite of what you attributed to me. Energy is not an abstract concept (read my post again). It is observable and measurable. It essentially defines the state of every matter. Seeing is an important part of observation, but it is not the only way to observe things, and it would be very unfortunate and disappointing if you actually think seeing should be THE basis for defining an observable. Optical illusions prove that seeing isn't entirely reliable.

Of course you can apply processes to things. In the most axiomatic form of the word, things that undergo any sort of process are usually said to have been processed. For something to have been processed, a process must have, by self evident definition, been applied to it. But then, this is mere semantics which does not take away from the facts I presented above. For the purpose of this discussion, you can replace process with effect, concept or whatever other suitable word is out there.

As regards the source of force for my car, I never actually defined the character of my car. For all you know, it could be a human propelled car not necessarily run by a mechanical engine. It could also be a toy car or a car that is perpetually in ignition. I don't think this information is relevant to my argument, but if you consider it important enough, then let your imagination define its character. I can also explain to you how a car gets its energy during ignition, but then again, so too can Google, so why bother?

APPENDIX:
Energy, in its most fundamental form, is a wave/particle duality. Everything can be collapsed into a superposition of many simple travelling or standing waves. Like every matter, even you sir, are a manifestation of energy (or superposition of waves). Energy is just the word we use to describe this phenomenon.
The eyes sense electromagnetic waves of certain wavelength range, roughly 350nm to 700nm. This range is what we refer to as visible light. Energies operating outside of this range will typically not be sensed by the eyes, but they can still be measured by means of other devices (eg electron microscopes).

I like you. It's not everyday I come across someone even less practical than I am. With posts this technical, you'd garner more success teaching mammy water to juggle while riding a unicycle than getting through to 99.9% of your intended audience.

With definitions that have energy as fields and particles being the smallest possible ripples in said fields, is it correct to describe particles as the absence of that particular form of energy in a field?

kachi04: In church on 14th of july @ chapel of redemption ABU Zaria, the chaplin preached on this, its really amazing. one thin is sure as he said "we are on the right track in Christianity, all we need is persevere"

DOHOHOHHO..it's a $hitstorm outside religion as well..

You insist on bringing race into this, you might as well introduce yourself to the kkk, conveniently renamed 'Kettle', and introduce yourself as 'Pot'. Zimmerman perhaps got off a bit easy, however

op: To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe that he "intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin." That charge could have carried a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, though the jury was not told of that possible sentence.

For second-degree murder, the jurors would have had to believe that Martin's unlawful killing was "done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent" and would be "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

I doubt anyone here could show Zimmerman guilty of any of the above. Foo.lishness? Yes, a lot of it as well. But 'evil intent' or 'intentional'? No

And both parties were fairly foo.lish, over-sabi. Iirc, Martin had a phone, could he not have called the police as well? I think he even had the time to call a friend before attacking Zimmerman, no? Do you really think it advisable to attack someone you suspect is trailing you? He was fairly young though, tbf, so his behaviour is perhaps more understandable, but still silly.

So, let's switch colors now; Martin is white, Zimmerman is black, would you be calling for zimmerman's head? If you wouldn't, then you should rethink your current position.

With equal rights comes equal responsibility, simple. I believe we worked quite hard, against a lot of oppression, to regain those (stolen from us) rights, yes? Now, if you expect the white man to not consider race in issues such as trials, etc, then you shouldn't be considering it as well. End of. It works both ways.

No special treatment for anyone. Zimmerman should not be going to jail just because he's white/latino and Martin is black, just as how in all the other cases being floated about as unjust, race should never have have been a factor in them. In fact, you should be quite pleased with this decision, using this as an opportunity to call for reviews of those cases where possible. But no, please, let's bring race into everything.

On another note, we seem to be experts at crying every slight opportunity given. For instance, last I checked, a black man was 2.6x as likely to kill an oyinbo than the reverse (and more than 5x more likely to kill a fellow black man), yet I don't see as much moral outrage directed at these. This behaviour is almost as bad as muslims shouting 'islamophobia' despite their conspicuous refusal to address issues within their community.

ooman: what a b!tch ......

get employed, will ya...

I've been fired... Gaddem!!

Wait.. don't scare me like that.. not cool, my biologist turned c programmer...

That's 'bitchy'.. Not that I can't be a 'bitch', but projection much?

Why would anyone behave like you do?? Seriously puzzling

ooman: You put day in quotes because day may mean an indefinite period of time..I understand that.

If am not hearing your god, its because he's not speaking loud enough.

Tell him to raise his voice to within 80-120 decibels and I shall hear him.

He seems to be telling you you're ether not high enough, or mysteriousnessesessess.

Checkmate atheist.

DOHOHOHO

Aye, tis' a good song..

Touches so many things. For instance, you just don't have to be sheeple to be able to enjoy heaven, seems you have to be neutered sheeple to fully enjoy it..

Weak and meek all rhyme with reek (GOT book fans will understand...the rest of you have to wait till season 5)

etc etc

https://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/12/cage_fat_top_3.jpg

DO IT LB!!!



OOMAN!! DON'T GIVE UP!!!

Without your head, you couldn't be doing worse..

Rossikk: Just ditch that 'Nigeria backward' rubbish and make your point. What will you then say about the people who (allegedly) created/discovered and then published/disseminated the artefacts? Are they Nigerians?

Quit your PC crap abeg. NIGERIANS ARE FOOLISH. And unless you live under a rock, by certain standards many of us admire or (hypocritically, ie, those who criticize the fruits of those standards) rely on, we are backwards.

No one said we are the only foolish people around, did they?

We are foo.lish and something needs to be done, rather than all the si.lly 'bury your head in the sand', 'emperor without clothes' nonsense we tend to do. 'Other people are foo.lish too' is no excuse.

And do note, I'm Nigerian as well, so what does this say about me?

Alfa Seltzer: I would pretend I didn't see the bolded.

Yes, yes I know.

1st rule of troll club; "You do not talk about troll club"
2nd rule of troll club; "You do not talk about troll club"

There's also gospel like

"Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Troll, and will deceive many. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false trolls will appear and deceive many people."

Then again, a false troll is a troll to true trolls. It's quite the dilemma, we spend hours debating such issues, eg; 'do we give false trolls medals or do we just be hypocrites?', 'can female trolls wear trousers? (if they do, they'll stand out and probably be caught)' etc etc.