₦airaland Forum

Mr Troll: I'm a JEALOUS troll
Thou shalt have no other troll before me

And yo! You don't tell me how to do my job.last warning.

But you are lousy at it. For instance, you just quoted yahweh. That's like bringing an FTL starship to a foot race. That kindly granny that would never harm a fly would look like a world class troll by simply quoting yahweh. True pro trolls would never use such a cheap tactic

Then again, nls heavyweight champion of trolling, 'oh he of many ids', approves. There might be hope for you

Mr Troll: I'm surprised it hasn't gotten to facebook yet, center of crazy gullible nigerians. I'm watching you Wiegraf. You take pleasure in laughing at stoopid. Make una continue. I see u want to corrupt Muskeeto too. Sadist!

What sort of troll disapproves of...... trolling?
True folly. You're a fine example of why I despair for 9jarians. You best be trolling..

musKeeto: Heehe... See the responses we get from the sheeple who are at least acquainted with modern devices..

Some head-sheeple for expose themselves as well.....

And these same people would laugh at kids for believing in santa.. Actually, they even laugh at other more reasonable gods.. Calling those followers 'gullible'..

Logicboy03: NO!

It will spread the hoax to already gullible minds. Never underestimate the destructive power of misinformation

You're no fun....

Think about it, they genuinely believe this....

No, think about it, really, they actually BELIEVE this...

I know I should be inured by now, but think about it.... They BELIEVE this

They actually read that and think it reasonable......

What could you possibly accomplish by engaging them?

a certain arrogant mecken:
No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.

Head sheeple will simply tell them something else next week.. They already believe in talking snakes and fires...


Consider, this is a population that features members who thought they could do this and get away with it. Members of your own species, your very own countrymen, actually thought that a reasonable stunt to pull ....

Again, others believe stone tablets with a message from god exist on mars..

Listen, we, Nigerians, we stooooopid... perhaps d only 'originahl' thing that is nigerian is the sheer scale and quality of our folly...

Can't face this much stoopid... I suggest just laughing at them..

musKeeto: If the hoax thread makes front page, please submit this for front page too.
I fear that this Sunday, JoAgbaje and his fellow pastors would insert this into their sermons...

Can't we just let them do that, then laugh at them?

Considering the amount of interest this thread engenders, consider putting it on the front page please.

https://www.nairaland.com/1349007/nasa-finds-message-god-mars

Week so busy IRL, no vex oga.

Deep Sight: Surely not. You would not expect humans and other living things to exist in a void, would you? And, as far as we can see in terms of strict logic, they, since existing, would have to exist somewhere, and that somewhere could not exist if it did not also exist somewhere - to wit - a universe.

Correct, but is this the most prudent universe? One meant to achieve this particular goal, that of a personal god; us. His very special children.

So long as other permutations are allowed by science and logic, obviously not.

Humanity itself creates 'heaven' in its bid to try and rationalize the flaws, haphazard crazy, etc, that is this universe. The vast majority of people who espouse 'heaven' are, more or else, admitting this universe is inherently flawed and could be improved on. Therefore; heaven! Where everything is right. Of course, as with a lot of other stuff, it's simply wishful thinking.

Deep Sight: Evolution, as it truly occurred, has nothing to do with chance, my friend. It has to do, with programmed logic.

I couldn't put it better than @plaet did. To add though, programmed logic, true in a sense yes, but which intrinsically relies on chance. Imagine leaving everything to the chaos theory? How is that sensible in any way whatsoever as far as predictable, definite outcomes are concerned?

And on another note, even the initial programmed logic was probably subject to chaos as well. We cannot show that conclusively at the time though, so of course don't accept that as fact. But it likely was, and hence the need to show the multiverse exists (pehaps even a multiverse of multiverses sef). That would explain cosmological constants, etc.

Deep Sight: You forget, ofcourse, that the creating being may not experience time in the way that we do. Even we do not experience time in the same way that other creatures right here on earth do, and so this only stands to reason. The creating being may experience your billions of years as a fraction of a second, especially as an eternal being.

Achieving something similar is perhaps possible even today due to SR. One could get into a rocket moving fast enough and billions of years in another time frame would have passed away. But it's still incongruous with the rest of the picture.

Evolution, etc, are intrinsically probabilistic, so fly around for billions of years (in our reference frame) and keep a tab on us, how? And to what aim? Could it not have simply bioengineered humanity and gotten it over with? It makes very little sense.

As for other options with time, like above says

plaetton: Please ,if you cannot offer us a biography for this creative being, I suggest that Santa Clause would suffice, or better still, the almighty FSM.

It's both needless and counter-intuitive.

Deep Sight: No it is not, because evolution has no need or requirement for things like the capacity for philosophy, music, art and the varied aestheic appreciation which are key qualities of the human mind. If you think about it, you will find that there is no human being on earth who has ever lived his life on the presuppositions that you are making. Every human being from birth, has experienced life as a thinking, feeling being cognizant of a past and future, elements which are ALL recognized as immaterial realities. This is awfully personal, my friend, and you have only to pause for a second to recognize it.

Evolution has no impetus for consciousness, much less the sentient sapience that humans have.[quote author=Deep Sight]Evolution has no impetus for anything, that's nothing new. Even single celled life which you mention below, evolution is not compelled, in any way whatsoever, to produce it. It's just matter interacting, simple. The inevitable conclusion of simple laws.

[quote author=Deep Sight]Evolution would have no impetus for the existence of non-unicellular life, as unicellular life has always been and remains the most successful life. Not to speak about the evolution of beings cognizant of abstract concepts which have nothing to do with matter whatsoever. Evolution cannot possibly account for the existence or development of such in any coherent manner whatsoever. You would simply struggle to show the evolutionary impetus for such things: they do not exist.

And evolution has never set out to achieve anything, it's simply what happens when certain conditions are met. It did NOT set out to create multi-cellular life, at some point in time it simply happened, just as it did with single celled life. Under a certain condition said feature (multiple cells working together) were good enough to survive in the environment, maybe even more successful than single celled life (size has been mentioned, for instance), and the rest is history. Rare perhaps, and shared ancestry supports this, but certainly not impossible. Various hypothesis about how it could have occurred, advantages, etc, on wiki.

Deep Sight: If you do not know the purpose, you cannot discuss the question of whether it is optimal for its purpose or not.

For a personal god in particular, the purpose would be us, at least primarily. The universe would have been created just for us

Deep Sight: However, infinite universes are conceivable.

Leading to important questions, assuming a conscious will is behind it ie. Eg, why this one?

Deep Sight: One thing I do notice however, that seems to be missing in your thought development processes is the simple fact that one thing follows upon another. You seem to expect that if God exists, it would wave a magic wand and just create all things, abracadabra. The reverse is what is true: if God exists, it would be the sum of self existent laws and as such would only proceed from logical cause to logical effect throughout eternity: as such you will only have one thing naturally and logically following another, a la evolution, and a la, the existence of the vast cosmos.

For a personal god, it would clearly be a case of a parent abandoning offspring. Gross, gross irresponsibility.

Mr Troll: I'm crying for wiegraf.













PS: expect him to post another repeat whargabl on that one sentence.
PS2: I think his butthurt has grown into a boil. It needs bursting
PS3: @wiegraf, what do you think that long boring post up there has achieved? Dohohohohohoho!

Don't worry. You might not see the value of the post, but there are people around with actual brains who could put it to use.. troll...

I'll give it you, you're a decent troll. You've got a healthy dose of natural foolishness. You could go far in this trade

Deep Sight: ^^^ Could evolution happen outside a planet. Could humans exist without the earth. Could the earth exist without the sun and could the sun exist outside of a galaxy, and could galaxies exist absent a universe, and could a universe exist without the big b.ang, and could the big b.ang have happened without a singularity?

These answer your question on purpose, size and waste, re: the universe and us.

It is thus perfectly conceivable that to create one human being, you need an entire universe.

Still hard to swallow.

For instance, why even evolution in the first place? It's not the most surefire way of coming up with humanity; chance. Hundreds of millions of years of throwing dice? No way a conscious intelligence was behind that. Even our breeders are more efficient. Waiting millions/billions of years for nebula to turn to stars, scouring myriad of them, fingers crossed, hoping planets in goldilucks zones spring up. Letting 99% of species die before arriving at us, why? That many were needed to die, why? Leaving us to the mercy of a meteor obliterating us, or many other possible extinction level events, events that have actually taken place on this planet. Etc etc..

These are definitely not the actions of an intelligent consciousness with the purpose being us, not at all. The personal god concept in particular is flawed no matter how you look at it.

Also, before you can even assert this you have to show that this universe is the only conceivable one, or at least the optimal one for whatever the purpose may be. We certainly can't show that. Considering support for multiverse theories (yes, eediot @mr troll, these ones aren't proper scientific theories like evolution but hypothesis, learn the difference) it would seem quite a few (tentatively) don't think this is the only possible universe, or the only universe in existence sef. In fact, most theists/deists/etc don't think so as well, as this 'spirit' realm(s), heaven, hell, etc, would qualify as a separate universes as well by (probably) most definitions. So why this? And of course, in this fashion?

you m.oron:
I de shame for you. Really? You could stoop so low? You know, I saw the typo after I've submitted the post but on second thoughts just decided to leave because I didnt wanna go through the stress of modifying. But being the painfully immature adult(that's a compliment) you are, you just had to grasp at something.
Butthurt much? dohohohohohoho

For once, an accurate statement (my immaturity). Everything else....

You consistently show an inability to think on your own, thoroughbred sheeple style. So that's not stooping low, it's just pointing out that your stoopidity manifests itself in all shapes and sizes. You post something stoopid, expect to be treated like you deserve. Don't play the victim, it's silly. Not my fault you're foolish.

you m.oron:
how do you know for sure that evolution as we know it is undirected, totally random and purposeless?

Because, great genius (not that one, that one is actually a lot smarter than you, even if misguided), there's absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to suggest it is guided by any sort of conscious intelligence. ANYWHERE. Anyone suggesting so is simply adding his baggage. In fact, there's evidence pointing in the other direction. For instance, consider the just the fact that it relies on CHANCE... It is completely haphazard in its operations. No aim or purpose anywhere..

If you cannot show a purpose anywhere, especially when there are GLARING design flaws like vestigials ,gargantuan time frames and dice rolling involved, then shut up instead of making one up.

What options are left then? Simple, matter and energy doing what they do; interact. Water down a hill will form a river, I'm pretty sure simple physical laws had nothing to do with that. It was all in some wizard's plan, nature does not interact on its own. It needs a wizard capable of popping out of nowhere (or existing through eternity), a wizard magically capable of interacting himself, to enable it to do so. (please note; sarcasm)

me: We've seen the effects of artificial selection and breeding in very short time frames (see even dogs)

you m.oron:
simulations by intelligent humans to show that other designed beings and species were undesigned and random. Hmmmm...and I'm the brainless olodo here.

Again, as it gives me much joy, let me use this opportunity point out that you are indeed a brainless olodo. Your words and, as with the truism I noted earlier, one of the few places where you are actually correct.

No, genius, it shows you (among other things) what can be achieved in a very short space of time when CONSCIOUS INTELLIGENCE is involved. In less than what, 4-5000 years max humans have taken wolves and turned them into hairless toy dogs. This we achieved using, simply, breeding. Artificial selection, if you will.

Imagine (and I know it's hard for you to use your brain, but try) if we played about with their genes instead of waiting for generations to observe the changes, an ability any society more advanced than us/GOD!!! should easily posses. Consider, when did the age of enlightenment begin? Yet we humans have already spliced human genes into cows, so as to give them the ability to produce something akin to human milk. Soon enough a 200+ year old human lifespan may become a reality, perhaps even within your lifetime. Yet here you are, suggesting the ultimate intelligence took billions of years planet forming, 100s of millions of years fumbling through mutations and natural selection to finally come up with....us.

Or are you saying mutations/natural selection do NOT exist? That these are not the agents of evolution, the process responsible responsible for biodiversity? If they do, are you in any way implying that they are the logical way to go about achieving this purpose in particular; creating us??

me: I hope you don't assume you're the center of the universe. That all this was created...... just for you?!

you m.oron:
ah! Assume for me then go ahead to 'debunk' the assumption. Classic Wiegraf!!!

Wait, what is that again? You never said we were the center of the universe? My good fool, if you insist we are the purpose, then we are the center of the universe. And when you insist that I do not know for sure that we aren't the purpose, then you are indeed insisting we are (or could potentially be, doesn't matter) the center of the universe. Why this has to be pointed out is beyond me. This is basic abc...

Everything around would have been built just for us, not the other way around, simple. The sun (which produces the same amount of energy as about a trillion 1 megaton bombs, every second.. And you know just how many trillions of sun's are out there, yes? Just how much of that power do we use?) would be shinning just for us. 99% percent of every species that has ever existed is now extinct. All those species would have existed and become extinct... just for us. Etc, etc, etc... There a long list of similar examples of astronomical, mind numbing inefficiency and waste so long as one assumes we are the purpose. Now, knowing all this, you dare look another in the eye and tell them that WE ARE THE PURPOSE?! Really? I'd like to meet this nonsense designer responsible. Human engineers seem a lot saner.

So, when I say we are definitely not the purpose, I am as sure about that as I am as sure of the sun rising tomorrow. When you ask for proof (and not 'theorize'*, che), I point you towards the haphazard and inefficient nature of evolution, and the ridiculous size of the galaxy and waste, and you have the gall to not consider that proof? What the 4k do you want, a written statement from god claiming he did not do it?

I will even ignore the inanity of you suggesting we are on religionist backs because they assert there's a purpose to the universe (which is ridiculous as well, but we can ignore that. and I hope don't need me to show you were, in your infinite foolishness, you unwittingly assert this...). You well know that's not the extent of they're folly, they insist WE are the purpose.

me: Making claims like vestigials don't exist

you m.oron:
who made those claims in bold?

You have to understand it's hard to remain calm when facing folly such as this...

If you assert vestigials have a purpose, just how the Bleep are they vestigial?? Use whatever contraption you use as a brain, set it to max, and try to think please....

By their very definition, THEY ARE PURPOSELESS. Again, once they have a useful function, then just how do they remain vestigial?

So what is it, do vestigials have a purpose or not? Once you assert they do, they are not vestigial anymore, in which case you are denying the EXISTENCE OF VESTIGIALS. Is that clear?

Why the f^kc one has to explain simple things like this bewilders me..

you m.oron:
now your captain mr wiegraf 'mumuishly' jumped into the fray and when i asked him, how do you know for sure that evolution as we know it is undirected, totally random and purposeless? the best he could come up with was well...a great many many top scientists say so and because they are infinitely smarter than the general public they must be right.

No, you dolt...

Did you even try at all? Did you note the words I bolded?

you m.oron:
Nobodys talking about the theory of gravity here because the word 'theory' as used in 'the theory of gravity' is very different from when its used in 'the theory of evolution'

can you print this and paste it on Wiegrafs forehead? Although i wouldn't say science is being hypocritical. Just the baby pseudoscientists on this forum being all presumptuous and haughty. grin

When @lb posted this;

lb: Guy shut up.....Weigraff schooled you on your ignorance about theories

Did your 'brain' process anything reasonable at all? Perhaps the fact that he didn't talk about evolution per say, but about THEORIES?

From the very beginning you've being going on about how we should not "THEORIZE" and how we should give you proof*. About how the word 'theory' applies to evolution; not the same way as when referenced with gravity. My good m.oron, the point of that post was to show that the scientific community CLEARLY uses the word theory in the very same manner it uses it with GR... Unless you, in your all encompassing wisdom, know better than they do, and they do not know what they classify as a scientific theory. I went out of my way to stress this, bolding out the related statements, yet you completely missed it....

Evolution is a proper THEORY, scientific, not a hypothesis. Near unanimously accepted by the scientific community (except for the odd quack like @david, if he really is a scientist ie), with proof and evidence EVERYWHERE. But wait, you don't want anyone to 'theorize' the way we 'theorize' about evolution (in real time 2013!!! *gasp*), and all the various bits of evidence I've been going on about, eg vestigials, don't exist....


Your folly is actually greater than this.. For instance, this

me: But do note, evolution is a FACT.

you m.oron:
Mr wiegraf, did you actually write this? In real time 2013?

Ok, lemme not go off the handle now. Do you mean, undirected random evolution from the big bang up till man is FACT?

Then you have the nerve to complain when I show you how, claiming it being irrelevant... That is even ignoring the inanity of not recognizing that evolution is only responsible for speciation, not everything from the BB till now...

Kayi..foolish troll...I'll concede you live up to the name. This is all I have time for, for now. Addressing all your folly would truly require a novella.

This week is going to busy irl. Kudos.


* that condition is a contender for the most asinine request posted on these boards. Similar to, and up there with, this one from the good-natured (even if, well..) onyfrank

onyfrank: Yes! If the earth was billion of yrs old, humans & animals would've drank it all up. We would have no oceans. Yet d oceans take up 75% of d globe.
I think u could also make a similar argument with oxygen. If humans existed 4 billions of yrs like d Darwinists claim, we would 've ran out of air too.
I knw many of u will show up here and claim dat all d water we drink is eventually given off as sweat and urine. Well, jst think abt it - that would mean that all our lakes, oceans, rivers and streams would consist of urine and sweat. Evry time it rains and snows there would sweat and urine falling from the sky. The entire earth would b a giant cesspool of sweat and urine - we would b making our coffee 4rm fresh urine 4rm our faucets, and bathing in sweat and urine.
Logically u hav to go with d bible on this one.

He wanted us to show us where all the sweat and urine went to. Yes, you often are as ridiculous..
Don't use theories to explain a scientific process...wtf..

Mr Troll: dohohohohoho
yo man, lemme school you a bit. i know you have a windows '95 brain and due to the fact that i have a soft spot for you i'll explain it in dumbo terms...

first of all my OP was trying to tell you atheists that while you go about b'itch slapping the theists when they start spewing their 'god of the gaps' nonsense, you yourselves do not have all the answers because man, you dont know for sure if anything caused the big bang. now your captain mr wiegraf 'mumuishly' jumped into the fray and when i asked him, how do you know for sure that evolution as we know it is undirected, totally random and purposeless? the best he could come up with was well...a great many many top scientists say so and because they are infinitely smarter than the general public they must be right. if that is not Appeal to authority then i dont know what is. maybe it tickles his fancy when they put up a 'scientists vs the public' polls forgetting that the said 'public' might be doctors, lawyers, engineers, philosophers who in fact despite not being 'scientists' might know something about the cosmological argument and therefore might not be quite as illiterate as y'all like to imagine.
now tell me again what mr wiegraf schooled me on? what again is his iron cast irrefutable proof that you atheists are not spewing the evolution of the nonsense? eh...some top top scientists BELIEVE so? how did they come about their belief? whargabl whargabl whargabl.

honest advice logic boy: anytime you wanna sign up for a 'team wiegraf' make sure his smart enough. kapisce? i hope so!

After all that, this is all you got?

I can't blame the school for this.. seems it wasn't their fault..

Indeed, not that I quibble about stuff like this usually, but mentioning intelligence while using "his" that way..

davidylan: Lets all laugh at wiegraf... evolution is a "fact" that unfortunately you have no proof for ei?.

DAVID!!!

You've not cured your rabies, still running on blind foolishness hate, it seems. This is another senseless post.

Btw, you wouldn't address me for how long now, because I was 'rude' to you??.

DOHOHOOHO... Pot and kettle no do

And a scientist saying there's no proof for evolutio...(No, PCs are logic devices, so they could crash if it came across such an absurd sentence.)
A scientist saying there's no. Proof for evolution? Wow (Lucky. PC didn't crash.)

davidylan: If it was "logical and natural" i wonder why that "seminal experiment" isnt in every serious biology textbook today. For such a natural explanation of how the earth began, it seems to have relegated to the dustbin of history.

Obviously you have never read the experiment... because NASA wrote a rebuttal to it in the 1980s showing many of its initial premises were not likely to have been possible.

Are you saying it was not logical? Assuming it really has been proven false (and I'm not saying it has, it would be rather foolish of me (or anyone else for that matter) to take your word for it), are you saying that a solution cannot be both wrong and logical?

Every hypothesis put forward that was ultimately proven wrong was illogical then, yes? In fact, every theory that has ultimately been proven false would then qualify as illogical as well, yes? That would make Newton an illogical dolt then, as strictly speaking his theory of gravity was ultimately proven to be...wrong. In fact, when we find a quantum theory of gravity, Einstein's GR would also be proven to be illogical, yes?

As for natural, please, do show the supernatural elements of miller-ulrey. I'll be here all day.

You, a scientist, need me to tell you about the scientific method? It is a one of refinement, built around..... falsifiability. If your scientists rebutted it, it was because it was a logical premise that could be falsified. Illogical premises need not be falsified as by they're very definition, they're false!! It also had NO supernatural elements as, obviously, those cannot be falsified. So, thanks for proving my point, that it's both logical AND natural. Again, if it weren't, the scientific method could not be applied to it...

As for your use of the word 'likely', read back a little to my posts about odds, etc. You've just admitted it's conceptually possible, naturally, but unlikely. So, again, thanks.


Random ramble;

It seems that as usual, you just jumped in foolishly. It seems you think me stating that miller-ulrey was the only viable candidate for abiogenesis, and that it was perfect. Think before you post.

And let me talk about stuff that's illogical, supernatural and unfalsifiable which folk try to shove down our throats as science. Most prominent example being your nonsense in particular; yah'weh. Please, do tell me how we'll go about testing for (any) god that can retreat to immaterialness? Or how logical propositions like; the earth's age is about 10,000 years old; a man survived in a whale for 3 days; millions of species survived on a boat, probably wooden even, for 40? days; omniscient with free will; man from mud, woman from rib; evolution not occurring, etc etc, qualify as logical?

Mr Troll:
When common sense fails, use mockery and insults. Changing my moniker? Hmmm, Mr wiegraf.
Well as a personal rule, I don't troll on my own threads. So bye

You at least noted that common sense failed on you. Well done, there is hope yet..

^^^^

mr m.oron:
nice one there. Trying to introduce a red herring. You know, bringing gravity into this will do you no good. Nobodys talking about the theory of gravity here because the word 'theory' as used in 'the theory of gravity' is very different from when its used in 'the theory of evolution' so Mr wiegraf I jump your red herring pass.

mr m.oron:
can you print this and paste it on Wiegrafs forehead? Although i wouldn't say science is being hypocritical. Just the baby pseudoscientists on this forum being all presumptuous and haughty. grin

Again, yes, I'm sure evolution is not a theory. Indeed, true pseudoscience.

Mr Troll: so basically all you've told me now is that a great many many scientists accept evolution as totally random and meaningless by actually observing the evidence and then this:

wiegraf:
We've seen the effects of artificial selection and breeding in very short time frames (see even dogs)

that is, simulations by intelligent humans to show that other designed beings and species were undesigned and random. Hmmmm...and I'm the brainless olodo here. Ok.

Yes. Thank you for proving my point.

Uyi Iredia: Massive support for a theory doesn't make it correct. That's precisely what was the case in the geocentric theory of the Earth's solar system.

As usual, you're confused..
Who asserted this?

Mr Troll: can you print this and paste it on Wiegrafs forehead? Although i wouldn't say science is being hypocritical. Just the baby pseudoscientists on this forum being all presumptuous and haughty.

Ooh, I forgot about this. Same page as before, my good and proper scientist..

wiki: The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[29][30]

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[39][40][41][42] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[25] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.[43][44]

I like how they have so many sources.
What do they think of ID?

wiki: Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[31] pseudoscience,[32][33] or junk science.[34][35] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[36] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[37] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[38]

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[26]

But of course, you know better. Like the various proudly ignorant

wiki: There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public."[45]

Like all these folk, you know better, yes you do
You also know they don't consider evolution a scientific theory. No they don't

NO!!!

Human beings are his property, filthy and sinful. Catarrh is more useful and possesses more dignity. Perfect god regretted given us free will as soon as he did. etc etc. Therefore, god can judge us as we see fit. Eg, kill 42 children for calling a bald man bald, kill everyone on a planet except the greatest sycophants, etc etc.

For gays, yes, we should stone them to death first. This way we could break their bones, making them nice and malleable. Sort of like suya; no bones. Easier to put on the spits so god can roast them forever in hell. God appreciates touches like that. He's so wise and good.

Mr Troll: really?
Do you care to show how?

really? You do? Awesome!!!
lemme break it down for you man...does this in essence give iron cast irrefutable proof that evolution as you know it Mr wiegraf is undirected, purposeless, totally random and the universe in fact has no meaning? Do you know this for a fact? You really need to look beyond my seemingly trollish OP and really SEE what its about.

Errm, yes. This is why I ask which school did you go to. From the top of my head

vestigials
shared ancestry
fossils (Btw, fossils map out changes as time progresses (and do note, not ever, not ONCE, have fossils been discovered somewhere that would contradict evolution))
micro evolution which we observe and in fact even manipulate. Simple things like new strains of resistant bacteria alone show this
We've seen the effects of artificial selection and breeding in very short time frames (see even dogs)
Indeed, we've done the simple math. Combine mutation, selection and time, the inevitable conclusion is evolution.
Probably other stuff I've forgotten

Now, do the math.

As for the 'theory' bit, well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

wiki: The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[29][30]

Here, a list of scientific societies that actually went out of their way to get the cancer that is ID some treatment. Featuring organizations like the royal society.

But I'm sure, considering the expert you are, you know better. You know what they accept as scientific theories and what they don't. And let me make this very clear as you're obviously not as smart as you think you are.. Scientific THEORY, not hypothesis. Theory like GR or the SM, hope that's clear?

Mr Troll: is this a strawman? Did I say any god put anything anywhere? Are you trying to teach me my trolling job?

He didn't? Then please explain how an ID managed to create us without manipulating us? Or the universe has no ID or consciousness, yet it has a...... PURPOSE!

Mr Troll: not even funny. Go watch more saka videos.

Was the guy in the video laughing? He was, incredulously, serious. Just as you are now..

Mr Troll: so the universe has no purpose and is exptremely large for nothing. And you absolutely know this how, O! Most gracious Wiegraf?

Listen, this is a serious problem. You're too foolish. You make me repeat myself then complain when I do so. This will be my last post wasted on your retardation. So, again, at the very least, WE MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT THE PURPOSE.

Again, I hope that's clear? If you can actually come up with a reasonable purpose (rather than make a needless assumption just to make yourself feel warm and fluffy inside,) I'm all ears.

You can start searching from the Bible, I hear it's very logical. Good luck. If that fails I suggest you stick to the evidence. This involves; not making $hit up, including purposes when there are PATENTLY non evident.

Mr Troll: Wait! Its because well... The universe is just really big and...well, its just US in it and well...its just too big to have ANY purpose. QED abi? Dohohohohohoho!

Well.....
You did notice the bit were I said you evolved to conform to the universe, and not the other way round, yes?

Mr Troll: double post in another way. Typical of you, no surprises.

Well, actually, you did fail to grasp any of that, so it might not have been enough.

Mr Troll: ah! Assume for me then go ahead to 'debunk' the assumption. Classic Wiegraf!!!

That was close, I thought you might have actually assumed that. That's why I started that post with "I hope".

Mr Troll: ooooooooh! And here you flatter me. I, a freethinker?

In one sentence I'm a god believer and in another I'm a freethinker. Hmmmm, I must indeed be 'special'. Dohohohohohoho

Erm, that is what you call yourself. I've come up against your foolishness before. Did you think you could mask it, oga b?

Mr Troll: *straight face* Wiegraf you are still proving my OP right, to be quite frank I rated you smarter than this. This is TheHomers specialty and I had him in mind when I coined that phrase but man, you seem to fit right in too. Well...

I'm not exactly sure what you hope to achieve with this?

Mr Troll: otukpo grammar school
And they didn't teach us that evolution has been proven to be fact!
I guess they need to employ you eh?

Thanks.... Now to get @david to tell the projects he works on...


EDITS; Oh yes, I nearly forgot, that you compare the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, built around FALSIFICATION, against dudes who's usual mode of operation is to provide 'evidence' from a book of collected fairy tales by superstitious herdsmen from 2000 years ago shows the extent of your folly. You do know that while most of the scientific world had not particularly given it much thought, they for the most part believed GOD!!! did it until a better theory arrived, yes? One which made predictions and could be tested. One which has been largely spectacularly successful in explaining various phenomena, yes? You think theories built around falsification are wild speculations? I hope no one lets you anywhere near a lab..

As for deist claims, they're completely unnecessary and often times illogical. Most importantly though, again; completely unnecessary. No evidence to back them up whatsoever at all (except odds? That is FAR from good enough). For instance, people say we exist, therefore GOD!!! That's more first class folly right there. We exist, therefore, something exists. That's all existence proves. That's it. The rest is baggage, add gardens, mammy-water and unicorns to it if you wish, it remains BAGGAGE. Deist claims are similar, wishful thinking for the most part. So, as far as ID is concerned, even the marginally more tenable deist claims, no evidence? Don't expect the scientific community to indulge you.

And please use the internet as school obviously failed you, do some reading. Only folk with mental issues (usually brain washing) would deny evolution took place. It's like denying the sun shines. At the very least one would be making a case for guided evolution (like oga @ds is doing). Still folly, but at least sane. Making claims like vestigials don't exist is well..... Stoopidity alone doesn't justify that kind of folly, willful blindness doesn't cut it.. This is worse than that.. Religious people can blame aforementioned brain washing, what's your excuse?

Mr Troll: Mr wiegraf, did you actually write this? In real time 2013?

Ok, lemme not go off the handle now. Do you mean, undirected random evolution from the big bang up till man is FACT?

Which school did you go to?

Mr Troll: yo man, what I think doesn't matter. Give me proof, not theories of what they were used for. You're beginning to sound like there are ants in your pants answer me man!!!


nice one there. Trying to introduce a red herring. You know, bringing gravity into this will do you no good. Nobodys talking about the theory of gravity here because the word 'theory' as used in 'the theory of gravity' is very different from when its used in 'the theory of evolution' so Mr wiegraf I jump your red herring pass.

Do you really know what a red herring is? In case you missed it, I'm telling you that the word 'theory' in evolution is used the EXACT same way it is used in relativity.

Mr Troll: so basically we are back to evolution of the nonsense abi? Because man, you don't know for sure! Just like the theists too, except its god who did theirs

I don't know for sure that wings on chickens are vestigial and that they were used for flight by an ancestor in the past?

I suppose you're right, god put those wings there because they are delicious. He did the same with the (sometimes artificially selected) banana. Proof, here


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

Though he probably thought it funny as well. For instance, he gets to see videos like this one and posts as inane as yours.

Mr Troll: sight problems I see. I said prove WHY the universe is gargantuan. Kapisce?

Reasoning problems I see. I should prove to you that the universe is gargantuan for a reason. This, after I told you it had NO purpose. In other words, NO reason.....

But as it seems you're particularly special, I'll have to point out I mean no CONSCIOUS reason. Or at the very least, if there were one, it certainly wasn't us. The simple fact that you were customized via evolution to adapt to the universe and not the other way round alone settles that. The product of a haphazard, inefficient, purposeless group of processes that took billions of years to produce you.

I hope you don't assume you're the center of the universe. That all this was created...... just for you?! I see, he made hundreds of billions of galaxies just so we could have a nice view at night. That's why the universe is gargantuan. God really loves us, he goes through so much trouble.

If there is a creator, you aren't even an afterthought. Do you need diagrams to digest this, my good 'free thinker'?

Deep Sight: This is an existential discussion and without his immaterial thoughts, he would have no equations to speak of.

Is it? I speak only of a scientific view, and how pure abstract qualifies as nothing on that end. It's certainly nothing useful.

But on a somewhat other note, thoughts are actions, no? They aren't really abstract, yes, unlike proper concepts?

When you have a thought or conceptualize you, or your brain to be more specific, is using its neurons/synapses/etc to make calculations, just like any other machine. Making links via abstractions, recognizing patterns and using them to solve problems. Difference here being what determines objectives. With biological machines that would be emotion, feelings, physical stimuli etc.

There is nothing there other than your brain. No brain? No tools to process information, ie no thoughts. No consciousness.

Deep Sight: Lol, you shouldnt always take me seriously o!

I'm aware of that good ser, ty. I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to me pls.

davidylan: notice also how the atheist spends most of his time simply insulting the intelligence of the OP and any other person who opposes his opinion (often masquerading as scientific "fact" rather than answering the questions with thoughtfulness and a modicum of intelligent reasoning.

I'm quite sure I didn't address the op. I'm also sure I did not mention the scientific method and falsification.

But do note, evolution is a FACT.

davidylan: to call the Urey-miller experiment logical and "natural"... now you know those who truly know their onions and those who simply copy-paste what they read from talk-origins. There is really no point discussing with people like this.

DAVID!! You speak to me again.

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=natural+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCHərəl/
Adjective
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun
A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb
Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

Do indulge me. How is it not logical and natural, oh supposed scientist? Or is all you have, as usual, ad hominems (and I nearly forgot, a healthy dose of hypocrisy and projection)?

obadiah777: NOT WITH THIS NONSENSE HE WROTE UP THERE. I SWEAR OKEYXYZ HAS BEEN SMOKING THAT SHRINE WEED. WTF IS THIS POST ABOUT TIME TO SEND THE SHRINK TO HIS HOUSE. THE MAN HAS FINALLY GONE MAD LWKM I HOPE YOU ARE TAKING YA VITAMINS SIRE. THIS POST IS SYMPTOMATIC OF SOMEONE WITH B VITAMINS DEFICIENCY

I sometimes choke when I laugh too much. Wetin dey do u? I'm not one of the elect, is that why you want to kill me?

Deep Sight: ^^^ And yet, these thoughts, which will mean "naught" to a scientist, are the wellspring from which all scientific thought and process derive!

Would there be science without thought?

No.

And yet you say thoughts would mean "naught" to the scientist.

Please go back and start all over again. Think again from scratch, independently, out of the box, and un-influenced by new age materialist incoherence.

Che... Context..
I ask again, should he add immaterial into his equations? And again, a scientist.

Also, note this isn't my worldview, but like I've been saying, it's perfectly justifiable

edits

Deep Sight: The atheistic worldview is illogical, contradictory, meaningless, thoughtless, shallow, da.ft, inane, insane, puerile, contradictory, nonsensical, delusional, self-denying, sense-defying, in short: vacant gibberish fit only for swine playing in a rubbish heap.

Now I'm sure you're just jelly of our superiar logical skills sir

But seriously, I'd have said the same thing about certain theistic/deistic views, but that wouldn't be exactly accurate. For instance, when left to themselves pigs don't go looking for $hit, however the folk I speak specifically go out of their to injest $hit. In fact, quite a few even enjoy imported $hit, expending resources to bring it into the country.

Ok, I'll get out of the way now

Deep Sight: I aint talking about no God of any gaps.

And there's nothing u have written here to show the cause of first life from mindless matter.

So when you say "conceptually possible" you are fulfilling the OP's prediction: you are speculating, and therefore living on a theory and theories of gaps as well. Simple.

I am applying the very basics of the scientific method, which is based of falsifications...very simple.

So, you tell me what's more likely.

GOD!!! Once resided in rocks and rivers, after being besought he moved to immaterialness

Or

A natural, logical explanation, like the path the urey-miller(? Can't remember name) experiments follow? Explanations that have fueled humanity's spectacular progress over the last few hundred years?

If falsified, we gladly find another option. But note, last I checked, god was immaterialness. That's not going to help.

And invoking god is, indeed, the very definition of god of the gaps. Don't know = GOD!!!

Mr Troll: can you tell me with certainty what their purpose WAS? and pls don't give me theories. Give me proof.

see question above.

see first question, and while at it pls add the how.

Like I said, head first into foolishness. What exactly do you think remnants of limbs were used for? Or what do you think wings on chickens served? I supposed they used those wings back in the day to swim, yes?

Also, the foolishness of focusing on the word 'theory'.. I suppose gravity is just a theory as well, yes? If you jump of a building you won't fall down as it's a nonsense theory. It's not really real, just speculation.

Mr Troll: ok.
Funny how you start waxing scientific when you see 'god of the gaps'. Lol

No, in fact its not clear. Can you tell me with certainty why the Universe is gargantuan? I already said it? Hell no! I only reported what the atheists say. Do you have evidence for your position that it has no purpose and is just as a result of random chance? Pls show it.

so mr Wiegraf, lots of galaxies = what again?

I can tell you, and you guys love to have one repeat himself over and over, that it is by far the more likely 'purpose' as it agrees the most with the evidence. You have a better one that explains to colossal size, randomness, and general capriciousness, then please, do share. Unlike you nutters science will gladly change its stance if shown to be wrong. You see, because it's actually looking for the real answers, not comically making $hit up then pretending to know.

As for your demand that I prove to you this universe is gargantuan........ Well....... I hope you're trolling

davidylan: notice how wiegraf, having no answers to Uyi's questions... slyly uses an over-worn trick to dodge them.

DAVID!!!

Are we back on speaking terms, am I now off your, as @uyi would call it, $hitlist? I missed you about as one could miss cancer. In other news, if you really think @uyi, whose case of rabies seems worse than yours, has anything remotely useful to add...

Well... Who do I speak to?

Deep Sight: Life is not conceptually possible at all, given the blind chance pre biotic soup model.

In fact, i positively assert to you that in such a scenario, life is impossible, and could never have arisen. I also say to you that no scientist anywhere has ever shown how first life arose from such.

Can you tell me of any proper explanation or concept that shows how the first living thing would have become living, from dead matter and though chance events?

I nearly missed this. Anyways, conceptually it is possible, a few theories are flying around. Biologists discuss the odds here

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

And this universe may be inherently probabilistic, but that is maybe not so relevant at this moment

Philosophically, your very existence proves abiogenesis did occur, no? Unless life occurred before the ingredients used to create it even existed, which obviously does not make sense. Same old; simple - complex. The question is how

Now, even if the leading theories of the day remain imperfect, invoking 'god did it' is obviously; 'god of the gaps'. How has that worked out? We'll work it out eventually, find a natural explanation, rather than continue to claim evil spirits cause diseases.

okeyxyz: Well, @bros(es); Wisdom(and christianity for that matter) is not for everybody, So I very well understand if this doesn't make sense to you guys. Cheers

You'll soon catch up to buzugee.. Wait and see...

Uyi Iredia: Comprehension problems, since I never said I was ignoring you. Quite the contrary, you are on my radar, hence my saying that you are on my blacklist. You should feel happy, thehomer has top spot.

Though you could use the word that way, the word you probably meant to use, my good confusionist, is hitlist..

Anyways..

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blacklist

blacklist
n.
A list of persons or organizations that have incurred disapproval or suspicion or are to be boycotted or otherwise penalized.

tr.v. black·list·ed, black·list·ing, black·lists
To place on or as if on a blacklist.

Doesn't the bolded definition look se.xier to you? What exactly do you aim to achieve anyhow?

Deep Sight: Then a scientist would be justified in saying that your thoughts do not exist.

Sort of curve ball here..

Obviously, physically speaking, if he believes thoughts immaterial, yes. They might exist in some form or the other, true, but not as anything that can be quantified. Certainly nothing within the realm of science

That actually is the contention of most theists, no? Like with freewill, souls are immaterial xx.xx that cannot be understood. One can break the laws of physics, gain something (physical or otherwise) from nothing physical or measurable. By say praying, sacrifices, etc. They also contend free will cannot be affected by the physical (but jazz will do), etc etc. So I fail to see how this could affect a theist/deist scientist.

Deep Sight: Do not hedge. I did not ask you if thoughts are physically based. I asked you if they are physical things themselves.

Hedge? Me? Never. The indignity!

Depends on context. It's a bit like asking if an action is physical (and thoughts can be said to essentially be actions). Yes and no.

Yes, as physical cause and effect governs all aspects of thoughts, experiences, etc. Highly subjective nature as far as experiencing and perceiving, etc, are concerned, but physically based nonetheless (therefore predictable, observable, testable, reproducible etc).

No, as these actions do involve weighing and manipulating abstract concepts.

By definition, I would say pure abstracts like math or concepts (such as the concept of thought itself) cannot be affected by the physical, and they do exist even if not physically. They still qualify as nothing to science though.

Deep Sight: But physics is not all there is to reality.

Else i really have to stop arguing against your thoughts, which do not exist in physics, else i be considered mad.

Perhaps, but it still would mean just about naught to a scientist. It's nothing that could fit into an equation.

^^^

Really, whatever happened to your ignore list? I was really excited about making it, then you had to ruin it by taking me off it....

What do I have to do to get back on it??