₦airaland Forum

sunjai:
just like I stated before, fools think they are wise in their own eyes.

Its true as that applies to people who believe in imaginary friends

sagenaija:
I asked about Darwin.

Darwin didn’t talk about origin of life

sagenaija:
How am I wrong about what a scientific theory is?
You haven't said it.
You're only deflecting issues.
Show us where I went wrong.
You're the one who should prove your claim, not me.

Is a scientific theory explanation of fact or not?

TenQ:
You are the one who brought out the phrase " irreducible complexity" I didn't.
I only gave you characteristics common to living things such as

2. All living things have organs that
i. Take in Energy
ii. Digest and store the energy
iii. Excretes wastes as a result of digestion of energy source
iv. Possess means of replicating themselves
It doesn't matter if they were Amoeba, bacteria, plant or animals

So, stop using google without your common sense behind it

I am an expert in this field dude.
I have background in biochemistry, so this is literally my field.
I have sequenced several proteins and mapped many genes in my course of study. If you want to have discussion with me in molecular biology or biochemistry then you can be my guest because you will be lost. You barely can differentiate organs from organelles.

There’s literally nothing you want to tell me about metabolism in organisms either prokaryotes or eukaryotes that I don’t know and I don’t see the point you are trying to make with this post.

All living things are the same at the molecular level, it’s evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

TenQ:
You are the one who brought out the phrase " irreducible complexity" I didn't.
I only gave you characteristics common to living things such as

2. All living things have organs that
i. Take in Energy
ii. Digest and store the energy
iii. Excretes wastes as a result of digestion of energy source
iv. Possess means of replicating themselves
It doesn't matter if they were Amoeba, bacteria, plant or animals

So, stop using google without your common sense behind it

All living things don’t have organs.

That’s not science.
Only higher multicellular organism have organs.

How would I engage you when you don’t even know what organs are?

TenQ:
So lame an argument:
If you remove your hair you'll still live
If you remove your nails, you'll stive live..

Naa...
How about removing your Brain, kidney, Stomach, Lungs! Will you still live?
Didn't I give your examples that are common to all living things?

One can remove several things from a car and it will still function as a vehicle. eg. Windscreen, Wheel cover, Trafficator, Brake-light etc. It doesn't mean they have no use, but it doesn't stop them being a vehicle

Irreducible complexity has been debunked by that already.
You can remove some parts of a system and it’s still functions, however some parts are very vital to the function of that system.

We have evidence that if nature removes a part of the brain, it will function in another way. If you remove a part of the heart naturally it will function in another way which makes your comparison with a car ridiculous.

Reptiles have just two chambers of heart compared to humans with 4 and it still functions. If nature removes two chambers of the heart over time, it will function like a reptilian heart.

If nature removes the brain overtime, it will function like seen in invertebrates. Everything will be reduced and still function. If nature removes the neocortex part of the brain that is responsible for higher function and consciousness then you will hav a function similar to Lowe vertebrates.

So irreducible complexity is nonsense and the comparison with a car is a product of low IQ. The removal of any part of a system in nature will either cause it to lose its function or make it function in another way depending on natural selection.
And that’s basically what evolution teaches. Arguing with irreducible complexity is lame, it has been discarded in science since it was invented by Behe

TenQ:
Then it could be the same designer using same templates for creation of every living being. (I believe you know a little of Object Oriented programming)
Since you don't know, you don't have an answer!

We don’t know if it’s a designer, but one thing we are sure about is that if a designer exist then he must have designed it through the process of evolution.
Secondly, it will also show that the designer is not perfect because we can observe thousands of errors in form of mutations in this design.

However, there’s still no evidence for a designer, and we cannot assume that there is. What we have evidence for is that living organisms including humans have and are still evolving. We have to stick to what we know for now

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Just present facts man!, just present FACTS!
Don't attack the man.
The thread is about evolution. I have presented here more about evolution and Darwin than any of you.

Have you accepted that you don’t know what a scientific theory is?
Say yes and I will teach you theory of evolution. Be humble and let’s teach you

MaxInDHouse:
When the Wright Brothers first thought of a flying vessel that will carry people through the air, can a person like you reason with them?
NO! Because you will keep arguing aimlessly but after they've put what they BELIEVE into action not even your professors in that useless coven of atheists can come out to argue!

The Bible says it's from the Creator, even if we want to doubt it due to things we found strange why not solve the problem the JWs have used this book to solve so that everyone can see that we don't really need the book?

”The Bible says doesn’t mean anything to me” Because it’s fiction.

I treat it same way I treat shegz and Spider-Man comic books

MaxInDHouse:
This is why smart people don't see any sense in ATHEISM, because instead of thinking about what will work for benefits you will just like to keep arguing aimlessly!

The Bible can be a fiction to you but to any wise person, a book used to resolve disparities that's been leading people into raising weapons against one another must be from a higher intelligent being "GOD"

The Bible is fiction non-believers.
If you seek evidence then you have no business with the Bible. The Bible is like a Spider-Man fiction to such person

sagenaija:
It is NOW CLEAR that chinasaekpere, Workch and their friends on this thread are not here to reason with others.

First, he started out by accusing people of paying "little attention to facts". When now asked to PROVIDE FACTS about his stance on evolution he resorts to labelling, deflection tactics and maligning.

ORIGINALLY, Darwin's theory emphasised how SPECIES came about. It was not just about having warts on your skin or pimples. The two major focus were on CHANCE and TIME as instrumental factors. Evolutionists have to talk about millions and billions of years because, other than linking evolutionary phenomena to deductions from OBSERVATIONS, no concrete evidence or experiments can support or prove evolution.

That is why today, proponents end up running to the cellular level to want to prove evolution. In so doing they try to avoid how such changes affect organisms to produce CHANGE in life-forms.

Unlike other scientific studies where you have REPLICABLE experiments to support or prove a position, NONE of that exists for evolution. That is the PLAIN TRUTH why these guys here will rather dance round issues, refer people to Google or resort to other tactics than be upfront with their 'facts' if any.

At the end of the day, they believe in evolution by simply accepting it, not based on any rational or empirical basis but on the same basis they accuse others of accepting their religion - FAITH.

They have NO PROOF to show how an organism has evolved from a previous one. If they did they will give us EXPERIMENTS that have been made to show this. Maybe they should start first by giving us their definition of EVOLUTION. But then, that itself might even be an uphill task for them.

You don’t know science dude.

Correct yourself on the theory blunder and we will teach you the science you should have learnt in secondary school.

You can’t be arrogant in ignorance and still expect that we teach you.

Theories are facts in science and that’s why it is.

TenQ:
There is no doubt that ALL living things have a common origin and source.

My question is :
Taking a bacteria for example, it consists of some basic minimum number of interworking systems of which if just one is missen, the bacteria cannot be alive. Its just like a car must have a minimum number of interwoking systems for it to be a vehicle wheels, engines, steering, transmission etc if just one component is missen, it cannot be a car.

Darwin's theory of evolution starts with SPECIES but my question is about how the species came into existence from simple chemical reactions

But asking how species came into existence is not a topic in evolution.

That’s like another topic entirely and science doesn’t have that answer. What we are sure about is that evolution happened and it’s still happened.
We don’t know for sure how the first species came and evolution is not the topic to discusss that and this thread doesn’t aim at discussing that either.

TenQ:
There is no doubt that ALL living things have a common origin and source.

My question is :
Taking a bacteria for example, it consists of some basic minimum number of interworking systems of which if just one is missen, the bacteria cannot be alive. Its just like a car must have a minimum number of interwoking systems for it to be a vehicle tires, engines, steering, transmission etc if just one component is missen, it cannot be a car.

Darwin's theory of evolution starts with SPECIES but my question is about how the species came into existence from simple chemical reactions

You are making argument from irreducible complexity of intelligent design.
It’s false that if you remove one part of a bacteria organelle that it must stop functioning.
If one part of an organelle is removed naturally, it either stop functioning, acts as a vestigial organelle or served another function.

This argument you are using was put forward by a controversial Colleuge of mine called Michael Behe and he use the flagellum of a bacteria to make his points. He has been disproven by with evidence that a bacteria flagellum is not irreducibly complex, if the motor of a flagellum is removed, it could still serve as an organelle for insemination of toxins and other proteins as seen many bacteria.

The matter of irreducible complexity is also false in terms of vestigial organs.
If I remove your appendix, you will still function properly.
If I remove your tonsils, you will still function properly.
If u remove Your coccyx, you will function properly. So what’s the irreducible complexity in this?

So the equivalence with a car part is false and doesn’t work like that in nature. Cars do not adapt to changing environment conditions like living cells. It’s a false equivalence fallacy

MaxInDHouse:
Well it's not that's why Jehovah's Witnesses are using that same book to find solution to the killings going on throughout the world today!

If it's fiction it will never work out such thing in the world that's filled with people from different races. For JWs to have used that book to settle disputes leading to killings among all the people who aren't ready to study the book diligently then that book is much more than what you think!

The Bible is fiction is the topic.
No one has asked you whether Jehovah witness wants to solve killings or not

TenQ:
Just two simple questions:
1. Can you please explain how chemicals acquired CONSCIOUSNESS?
2. All living things have organs that
i. Take in Energy
ii. Digest and store the energy
iii. Excretes wastes as a result of digestion of energy source
iv. Possess means of replicating themselves
All the above have to be simultaneously present for an organism to be alive. Therefore, did all these systems EVOLVE separately or simultaneously in the first living organisms.

I am willing to learn please, not for any argument: I've been practicing critical thinking lately!

Your number 2 point goes further to present the evidence that all species have common origin.

All living-things are the same at the molecular level. They have the same nucleic acid backbone and similar form of metabolism which is directed by the instructions in the DNA.
If you take a “glucose kinase” enzyme, (one of the key enzymes for the metabolism of glucose) from a bacteria and compare it to that from Humans, you will still see similarities in their amino acid sequences. If you go further to study their DNA sequence, you will find similarities in their nuclear bases, there’s no other logical way to explain that unless in the light of evolution but for someone who believes in magic, he may want to invoke a spiritual being into it.

sagenaija:
[size=8pt][/size]
Even Science calls it a "THEORY".
What does that tell you?

Almost immediately after posting this, you and a number of others on the thread have ALREADY VEERED OFF from 'evolution' into some other TOTALLY UNRELATED issues.

If your brains work like this, how do you expect to appreciate the right answers to your questions?

You are scientifically illiterate if you don’t know that all scientific theories have one or two facts in them.
If it doesn’t explain a fact then it can’t be a theory in science.

MaxInDHouse:
Says the atheist who can't find any solution to the killings going on even within people he considered "SMART"

The topic is “Bible is fiction”.
No one is trying to find solutions to killing here.

jmoore:
Clap for yourself.

If Z evolved from B and B evolved from A, if you keep going on and on you will have infinite regression. Does it make logical sense?

BTW, why haven't humans evolved into another creature? Evolution has expired?

You guys claiming critical thinkers but have limited perspective.

Smh

You don’t need critical thinking to know that evolution is fact, you only need proper education and lack of religious indoctrination.
A large number of Christians who are not literalists accept the theory so it’s not impossible that you can be a Christian and still accept scientific facts.
People will lie IQ like yours accept those that do not contradict your faith and reject others.

The major reason why your reject evolution is not because it doesn’t have evidence, it’s because it reveals the lies in Genesis story. You believed the Genesis stories without evidence, so evidence doesn’t matter to you

sunjai:
1. Job 36:27, 28
27He draws up the drops of water; They condense into rain from his mist; 28Then the clouds pour it down; They shower down upon mankind.

2. Job 26:7
7He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing;

3. Matthew 24:6, 7
6You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet. 7“For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another.

4. Isaiah 13:19, 20
19And Babylon, the most glorious of kingdoms, The beauty and the pride of the Chal·deʹans, Will be like Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah when God overthrew them. 20She will never be inhabited, Nor will she be a place to reside in throughout all generations. No Arab will pitch his tent there, And no shepherds will rest their flocks there.

The Bible is a book of fiction, even smart Christians of our time agree that the passages of the Bible are allegories and shouldn’t be taking literally.
If you take the Bible literally then you will end up contradicting reality in many instances.

Literality of the Bible contradicts all reality of science in astrophysics, biology, geology and physics. It’s the reason literalists always have problem with science because they acknowledge the contradictions and most times science is fact because it’s observable

oladele239:
I hope I am not wrong here but I have come to the conclusion that only the rich proclaim atheism..i haven't see any poor man in his right senses say there is no God! When some rich folks become satisfied with wealth they turn atheist!

There is no evidence for god.
I’m not even rich

Newyorkitis:
The second law of thermodynamics is running counter to the law of evolution. By definition and interpretation, evolution shouldn't occur.
In other words, evolution is a miracle.

Science has advanced over time and what science couldn't agree with hundreds of years ago, science now agree to it after more in depth study.

Dear OP, what if in the future, another scientist proves you wrong? will you become an irrelevant scientist?

Ok, create another thread to discuss that strawman.
This topic is about Noah’s flood.

Science advanced, correct.
Noah’s flood is a retrogression and science doesn’t retrograde. Science cannot go back to Bronze Age ridiculous beliefs

Note: Your comment about evolution and law of thermodynamics is incorrect. A little more enquiry from your will reveal the error

Steep:
This is actually not correct.

1.The statement, "water boils at 100°C is not thermodynamically correct."
It is actually, "water boils at 100°C at 1 atm"
When pressure drops, the boiling point of water also drops. This means that water can boil at about 30°C depending on the pressure.
For example water boils at a much more lower temperature on top of mountains.

you created this argument by yourself, no one is disputing with you. You created it and you want to be arguing it with yourself.

2. Evaporation is not boiling, evaporation takes place at any temperature, apart from temperature increased wind speed, increased surface area can increase evaporation rate. For example water evaporate very fast during hamattan season even though the temperature is low.

keep creating more argument, strawman. This doesn’t relate to the topic. No one is arguing this with you

3. Evaporation alone is the thing that can made water to dry after the flood there were other forces. During the flood, earthquakes leading to the shifting of the earth crust and splitting them took place, this might have led to land depressions and elevation water does move to areas of low depression forming rivers, lakes, etc

junk science

4 water forced out under the earth due to the massive pressure must have found their way back.

we don’t have enough water on the planet to reach the peak of Mount Everest and that’s not how water operates in dynamics and osmosis. Get a proper science book and study.

5. Higher ground would dry very fast since water would flow from it, plains would have take a longer time to dry but due to heavy east wind, and the large surface are of the earth surface, water would dry very fast at an optimum speed.

hence latent heat will still sterilize the biosphere though this science is still junk.

The bible is correct.

the Bible is correct only in your church not in reality. Coming from a guy who doesn’t even know that we have pictures of atoms now.

Oksman:
I don't know how old you are young man but I want you to know that there are higher knowledge that your understanding of physics would never have answers to. Science deals mostly with empiricism making it completely at loss with what it cannot prove yet it exist.

Thank you.

There are no higher knowledge, you can’t prove it. You are stuck to it because you cannot think, you have been indoctrinated from your childhood to believe that. Grow up and start thinking for yourself, be an adult and question those nonsense.
Discard things that you cannot substantiate, that’s how to be a grown up.

hupernikao:
I agreed, but you aren't one. You are only an angry fellow looking for fellowship.

Your story is summarized in the saying.
the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

i don’t think you are a theist, you are an atheist trying to form theist.
You need to learn a lot about life

Dtruthspeaker:
hahaha Translation: "I did not know that water cycle only explains what happens in our cooking and boiling pots" hahaha

"You know Nothing, John Snow!"

Are you not ashamed that to say that rain fall from heaven?
You are making the whole matter worse by validating the premise that those who believe the flood and those who wrote the story are illiterates of how things actually work.

How can rain fall heaven? Are you kidding or you are serious?

Dtruthspeaker:
Oh you fell for my trap here! .

If water cycle was True, then it Must be raining everyday in the world.

The Sahara and the oceans should have their equivalent quantity of rainfall, extracted from them.

Famine should be impossible, for the sun comes up and heats up everything everyday, yet, no rain falls! Why?

Floods caused by Excessive Rainfall would not exist either because, BY THE FOOLISHNESS OF YOUR SCIENCE, THE QUANTITY OF RAIN DEPENDS ON THE QUANTITY OF HEAT ABSORBED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, SO GOING BY THAT REASONING, WE OUGHT TO SEE FLOODS POUR OUT FROM OUR COOKING AND WATER POTS WHEN HEATED BASED ON YOUR WATER CYCLE THEORY.

AND THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED. NOT EVEN ONCE HAVE OPENED THE COVERS OF OUR HEATED POTS, DID A FLOOD OVERWHELM US.

So you see, you are a fool to think that science reaches up to God's Work!

seriously I am so embarrassed on your behalf, If in 21th century we still have people who believe rainfall comes from heaven then humanity is failing.
You are a setback to humanity and what you showcased today is a wake up call to our government to start investing genuinely in education.

It’s heartbreaking to see that a homo salients still believes rain drops come from heaven.

Dtruthspeaker:
science did not cover this area, if not, I dare you, repeat what science told you to say and see if I would not rip it to shreds making you look stupid.

I am sure majority of Christians here will be embarrassed at your level of illiteracy. No one expects you to know science comprehensively but at least it’s expected that an adult who has seen the walls of university should know how rainfall works.

It a jss1 topic for god sake and it’s not even hard to grasp. How will you be saying that rain comes from heaven in 21th century?

This is no longer a joke, you are a dumbass nigga. I am embarrassed to the core. It’s unbelievable

Dtruthspeaker:
A Fool just must always display his foolishness!

You are illiterate, keep quiet.
Simple water cycle you still do not understand. No wonder illiterate are adherents in Christianity.
How can you not understand basic science of rainfall? Damn

Dtruthspeaker:
Why doth thou lovest to advertise that thou art foolish, rainfall cometh from the heavens and not from the earth.

Scientific illiterates are more likely to be religious. It would have been better if you didn’t comment