Afrobasic:


Or just maybe, just maybe you do not understand how scales work?

The god-had-to-do-it-because-I-cannot-comprehend-it, is a lazy hypothesis.

Did I even mention any God

And what's there u can't comprehend

I studied Biochemistry, had Masters in it, so I wonder how I'd struggle to understand basic Concept of DNA

JessicaRabbit:


You've presented a fascinating fact about DNA's length, but I'm particularly curious if you really believe this somehow supports "intelligent design"? Are you perhaps implying that the complexity of DNA is evidence of a creator? That's a classic God-of-the-gaps fallacy. Do you know what that is? Are you even familiar with the scientific explanations for DNA's structure and function? Knowing you, I'd wager that you're not.

DevilsEqual, EmperorCaesar or whatever you call yourself these days, I'll have you know that "random explosion" and "organic soup" are rather poor representations of the actual scientific theories. Abiogenesis and evolution are well-studied fields with evidence-based explanations. I'd have advised you to explore the scientific consensus instead of relying on watery caricatures, but I don't know if you really want to do that, because from what I've parsed from your behavior since we first interacted many months ago, you seem to find more comfort in pointless shadowboxing, as opposed to having straight and honest dialogue around a subject. Your second moniker's failed debate promise has unfortunately morphed into sad and childish attempts at drive-by insults, and I couldn't be more unimpressed. It's a telling indication of your insincere duplicity.

Lemme start by rendering my apology first

You misunderstood me, the insult wasn't for u and it's never an insult too

I already dropped the messaged, and had to come back three days later to tag u to it so u could see it

I just added your name randomly to it, and i somehow added it to what made it read like an insult


I'll never for any reason insult u.... I remodified the post already

I'm sorry please .


Can we go on with the discussion now??

I'm sorry once again, it's not directed at u

EmperorCaesar:


Lemme start by rendering my apology first

You misunderstood me, the insult wasn't for u and it's never an insult too

I already dropped the messaged, and had to come back three days later to tag u to it so u could see it

I just added your name randomly to it, and i somehow added it to what made it read like an insult


I'll never for any reason insult u.... I remodified the post already

I'm sorry please .


Can we go on with the discussion now??

I'm sorry once again, it's not directed at u

Listen, I'm not impressed by your "rendering my apology" phrase. It's a vague and insincere expression. You tagged me in a comment that directly addressed me with a condescending tone, implying I'm not a logical thinker. Do you think I'm blind?

DevilsEqual:
JessicaRabbit, I guess we could all agree you're not a logical thinker. Atheists aren't smart at all

^^^^^^^
|||||||
If that wasn't intended for me, then I must be the Queen of England. Your "apology" just seems like a weak attempt to save face, and I've not seen where you modified the original post contrary to your claim. If you're genuinely sorry, then demonstrate it through your actions and words. I'm willing to put this aside and engage in a discussion, as you requested. But let's make one thing clear: I won't tolerate any more passive-aggressive comments or backhanded "apologies".

Now, regarding the topic of discussion here, I'm still waiting for your coherent explanation of how the complexity of DNA supports intelligent and purposeful design. Enlighten me with your scientific evidence and logical reasoning. I'm eager to see if you can provide something more substantial than an argument from incredulity.

JessicaRabbit:


Listen, I'm not impressed by your "rendering my apology" phrase. It's a vague and insincere expression. You tagged me in a comment that directly addressed me with a condescending tone, implying I'm not a logical thinker. Do you think I'm blind?

^^^^^^^
|||||||
If that wasn't intended for me, then I must be the Queen of England. Your "apology" just seems like a weak attempt to save face, and I've not seen where you modified the original post contrary to your claim. If you're genuinely sorry, then demonstrate it through your actions and words. I'm willing to put this aside and engage in a discussion, as you requested. But let's make one thing clear: I won't tolerate any more passive-aggressive comments or backhanded "apologies".

Now, regarding the topic of discussion here, I'm still waiting for your coherent explanation of how the complexity of DNA supports intelligent and purposeful design. Enlighten me with your scientific evidence and logical reasoning. I'm eager to see if you can provide something more substantial than an argument from incredulity.

My other Moniker has been banned since July1 till July 30 and thats why i was unable to later edit it...I can only do that on 30th as soon as the ban ends...Trust me, I'm not that uncivil, plus I have seen your pic and i wont even insult my mate, let alone an older person

Again, I already dropped the message before coming back to modify and add your name to it randomly

Im sorry once again


Back to the discussion, I have a link to a science website about the evolution of Cells/DNA, an argument and counter argument by Pro-evolutionist and Anti-Evolution Scientists, and why/how they concluded that the existence of DNA would fail evolution theory

Can i drop the link for u? I'm asking cause i noticed you tend to lean more towards using Philosophy and Art to disprove the existence of God, a method that seems abstract to me cause it lacks practical and experimental analysis and facts

I'm asking again, cause it has all science jargons and that would trouble u a bit if u arent science inclined or never studied anything science at Uni level at least


My slow reply is so due to the fact that i get exhausted typing heavily while responding to u, if not, i for dey quick dey reply pass this one

Reading your comment is always scary...its always sounding like u wanna dra

EmperorCaesar:


My other Moniker has been banned since July1 till July 30 and thats why i was unable to later edit it...I can only do that on 30th as soon as the ban ends...Trust me, I'm not that uncivil, plus I have seen your pic and i wont even insult my mate, let alone an older person

Again, I already dropped the message before coming back to modify and add your name to it randomly

Im sorry once again


Back to the discussion, I have a link to a science website about the evolution of Cells/DNA, an argument and counter argument by Pro-evolutionist and Anti-Evolution Scientists, and why/how they concluded that the existence of DNA would fail evolution theory

Can i drop the link for u? I'm asking cause i noticed you tend to lean more towards using Philosophy and Art to disprove the existence of God, a method that seems abstract to me cause it lacks practical and experimental analysis and facts

I'm asking again, cause it has all science jargons and that would trouble u a bit if u arent science inclined or never studied anything science at Uni level at least


My slow reply is so due to the fact that i get exhausted typing heavily while responding to u, if not, i for dey quick dey reply pass this one

Reading your comment is always scary...its always sounding like u wanna dra

For the record, I'm not afraid of "science jargons". I don't know why you would make that assumption. As a matter of fact, I've routinely studied and explored scientific concepts enough to understand the relevant facts, even if I didn't major in a specific scientific field.

Also, I need to make one thing clear to you here: philosophy and logic are very essential tools for evaluating arguments and evidence, including scientific ones. I consider them important because they help to strengthen my cognitive muscles to reason efficiently and prevent me from committing logical fallacies and also to ensure that any conclusions I make follows from the evidence. And I believe it applies to other people as well. So, I don't believe you have a strong basis to dismiss my philosophical inclinations as "abstract" or lacking in practical analysis.

As for the claim that DNA's complexity supports intelligent design, linking a website doesn't constitute an argument. You could cite it as a reference if you want, but I need to see your own coherent explanation, understanding and articulation of the concept.

JessicaRabbit:


For the record, I'm not afraid of "science jargons". I don't know why you would make that assumption. As a matter of fact, I've routinely studied and explored scientific concepts enough to understand the relevant facts, even if I didn't major in a specific scientific field.

Also, I need to make one thing clear to you here: philosophy and logic are very essential tools for evaluating arguments and evidence, including scientific ones. I consider them important because they help to strengthen my cognitive muscles to reason efficiently and prevent me from committing logical fallacies and also to ensure that any conclusions I make follows from the evidence. And I believe it applies to other people as well. So, I don't believe you have a strong basis to dismiss my philosophical inclinations as "abstract" or lacking in practical analysis.

As for the claim that DNA's complexity supports intelligent design, linking a website doesn't constitute an argument. You could cite it as a reference if you want, but I need to see your own coherent explanation, understanding and articulation of the concept.

I'm back today and I've modified it
Seeing now that you 'didnt major in a specific scientific field' and since all my arguments from Day1 has been based on experimental results, scientific articles and everything around that sphere, its gonna be very hard debating with you

That was also the initial issues we had then. You were always quick to runaway from those to dwell on philosophy and Arts and with those, its always about imaginations and propositions that can never be verified or denied

How do i discuss Gene coding,Replication and Cellular Evolution with a Novelist?

JessicaRabbit:


Listen, I'm not impressed by your "rendering my apology" phrase. It's a vague and insincere expression. You tagged me in a comment that directly addressed me with a condescending tone, implying I'm not a logical thinker. Do you think I'm blind?

^^^^^^^
|||||||
If that wasn't intended for me, then I must be the Queen of England. Your "apology" just seems like a weak attempt to save face, and I've not seen where you modified the original post contrary to your claim. If you're genuinely sorry, then demonstrate it through your actions and words. I'm willing to put this aside and engage in a discussion, as you requested. But let's make one thing clear: I won't tolerate any more passive-aggressive comments or backhanded "apologies".

Now, regarding the topic of discussion here, I'm still waiting for your coherent explanation of how the complexity of DNA supports intelligent and purposeful design. Enlighten me with your scientific evidence and logical reasoning. I'm eager to see if you can provide something more substantial than an argument from incredulity.

Stop arguing with my member he is more intelligent than you X100 . See proof below

https://www.nairaland.com/8117580/reason-bateria-gave-us-political

Read and apologise to him immediately

JessicaRabbit:


You've presented a fascinating fact about DNA's length, but I'm particularly curious if you really believe this somehow supports "intelligent design"? Are you perhaps implying that the complexity of DNA is evidence of a creator? That's a classic God-of-the-gaps fallacy. Do you know what that is? Are you even familiar with the scientific explanations for DNA's structure and function? Knowing you, I'd wager that you're not.

DevilsEqual, EmperorCaesar or whatever you call yourself these days, I'll have you know that "random explosion" and "organic soup" are rather poor representations of the actual scientific theories. Abiogenesis and evolution are well-studied fields with evidence-based explanations. I'd have advised you to explore the scientific consensus instead of relying on watery caricatures, but I don't know if you really want to do that, because from what I've parsed from your behavior since we first interacted many months ago, you seem to find more comfort in pointless shadowboxing, as opposed to having straight and honest dialogue around a subject. Your second moniker's failed debate promise has unfortunately morphed into sad and childish attempts at drive-by insults, and I couldn't be more unimpressed. It's a telling indication of your insincere duplicity.

The use of words and vocabulary here is top notch

DevilsEqual:


I'm back today and I've modified it
Seeing now that you 'didnt major in a specific scientific field' and since all my arguments from Day1 has been based on experimental results, scientific articles and everything around that sphere, its gonna be very hard debating with you

That was also the initial issues we had then. You were always quick to runaway from those to dwell on philosophy and Arts and with those, its always about imaginations and propositions that can never be verified or denied

How do i discuss Gene coding,Replication and Cellular Evolution with a Novelist?

Many brilliant scientists throughout history have made significant contributions without having formal degrees, so while formal training can be helpful, it's not the only way to gain knowledge.

And your reductionist revision of philosophy and logic to "imaginations and propositions" is ridiculous. You do realize that they provide the tools for evaluating all arguments, including scientific ones?

When are you going to start presenting anything concrete to discuss here? Or are we just going to be stuck on this (un)merry-go-round?

JessicaRabbit:


Many brilliant scientists throughout history have made significant contributions without having formal degrees, so while formal training can be helpful, it's not the only way to gain knowledge.

And your reductionist revision of philosophy and logic to "imaginations and propositions" is ridiculous. You do realize that they provide the tools for evaluating all arguments, including scientific ones?

When are you going to start presenting anything concrete to discuss here? Or are we just going to be stuck on this (un)merry-go-round?

Jus dey enjoy

Bignuell:
The use of words and vocabulary here is top notch

does it mean she cant use shorter lines



What sorta excitements that?


Hmm


She mus be related 2 dem elites

Always typing with so much joy

EmperorCaesar:

Did I even mention any God

And what's there u can't comprehend

I studied Biochemistry, had Masters in it, so I wonder how I'd struggle to understand basic Concept of DNA

can u help me with 10k

pls

CyrusVI:


Firstly, The absence of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is evident in the fact that no one has ever witnessed it occurring.. If it was a true process, evolution would still be happening and there should plenty of "transitional" forms for us to see. Instead, of course we see a diversity of "kinds" or plants and animals with variations within each kind... . With distinct and seemingly overwhelming differences, among each categories. That is, we have a lot of different breeds of dogs and lots more of cats and nothing like an intermediate or transitional form from say, one with a characteristic combination dog and cat before eventually becoming dog. Neither now in 2Ist century, nor at any point in our history was any discovered via Fossil records

Well, you're wrong. Transitional fossils do exist, and plenty have been discovered over time. As a matter of fact, the fossil record actually shows a clear pattern of gradual changes in life forms over time. Look up Tiktaalik, a fish-tetrapod transitional form, or the Archaeopteryx, or the Ambulocetus etc. These discoveries have been extensively documented and verified by the scientific community, so I'm not sure what you were on about there. The "lack of transitional fossils" argument is typical creationist propaganda of pointing out alleged flaws in opposing theories, rather than presenting any evidence to support theirs. The lack of intermediate forms between dogs and cats is not entirely surprising, following the theory that they diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago. The fossil record is incomplete, and surely we wouldn't expect to find every single transitional form. Nevertheless, clear patterns of gradual changes in the fossil record have been seen, consistent with the theory of evolution. Another thing you probably need to understand is that the concept of "kinds" or "categories" is a subjective human construct, and not a scientifically defined boundary. The diversity of life on Earth is a continuum, with species blending into one another. And just because you have never observed evolution happening in real-time doesn't automatically mean it never occurred and isn't still occurring. Evolution is not a magic spectacle that unfolds before our eyes. It's a gradual process spanning countless generations. You must have heard this axiom before, but the absence of evidence for something is not evidence of its absence.

In fact, Scientifically, using Laboratory techniques, the only attempts of evolutionary scientists to show how Cells evolve from a simple organism to a much more complex one is the "Stan Miller experiment of gaseous mixture in test tubes" and I would assume you know how it ended. Its even more funny that that experiment didnt give the needed result and neither has the experiment progressed any further than where Miller's ended. A dead end

From this paragraph here, it is clear that you didn't understand what the Miller-Urey experiment was all about, or what it hoped to achieve. Don't get yourself confused. The experiment was all about demonstrating the possibility of spontaneous generation of amino acids, the building blocks of life, from a primordial soup. And, surprise, surprise... it succeeded in producing several amino acids, including glycine, alanine, and aspartic acid. You seem to think the experiment was solely focused on the idea of evolving cells from simple organisms to complex ones. You've got it all wrong. I'm trying not to trigger the anti spam bots by posting links, so while I can't refer you to any link for clarification, I'll implore you to spend more time researching the experiment and studying it to know what it was really all about.

Also, the experiment's results were far from a "dead end." In fact, they sparked a new wave of research into the origins of life on Earth. The experiment has been refined and expanded upon numerous times, with scientists exploring different conditions and environments that could have led to the emergence of life. The fact that scientists have not yet fully replicated the evolution of complex cells in a laboratory setting does not negate the overwhelming evidence from multiple fields of study (fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, etc.) that supports evolution. And by the way, I'm still waiting for your demonstration of intelligent design through complexity of the DNA. How do you explain the presence of pseudogenes, vestigial genes, and other "imperfections" in the human genome if it was intelligently designed?

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates and the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

I believe I have sufficiently addressed this argument. The notion that the fossil record should be a complete, unbroken chain of intermediates is a gross misunderstanding of how fossilization works. Fossilization is a rare occurrence, and the conditions necessary for it to happen are quite specific. It's not a surprise that we don't have a complete record. Moreover, the idea that there are no intermediates in the fossil record is simply false. I have already referred you to a few examples above.

It's fascinating to think about how an invertebrate creature, in the ocean transitioned into the first vertebrate. The initial fish. With its internal hard parts as opposed to external ones.

The evolution from bodied invertebrates to the earliest vertebrate fishes remains a puzzling enigma, with various theories circulating widely.
There are plenty of spaces with no clear sequence of transitions, in sight. Instead, things remain the same way they have been from how they were being described in the earliest book ever written by men, either in historical books like the Epic of Gilgamesh or in those early biological books by philosophers like Theophrastus and Aristotle's books on zoology.

So you're saying that because the evolutionary transition from invertebrates to vertebrates is complex and still not fully understood, we must therefore attribute the gaps in our knowledge to magic? Don't you think this puzzling enigma you speak of is actually a testament to the amazing progress science has made in understanding the natural world? We've come a long way in uncovering the secrets of evolution, and the fact that there's still more to learn is what makes it so exciting. Dragging magic into the picture ruins the whole fun. You've left the realm of intellectual curiosity and settled for resigned speculation. The fact that there are still unanswered questions in science is not evidence of intelligent design. In fact, it's just evidence that we need to keep studying and learning. And by the way, I don't see the point of you appealing to ancient mythical texts as if they're relevant to modern scientific discussions. It's utterly useless. You might as well just use a map from the 14th century to navigate a modern city you're visiting for the first time.

Its not too smart to use Evolution that was rumoured to have occured years before the earliest men started writing books as the origin of human existence. When there arent live witnesses to these things and even earlier description of animals is still same now in 2024 as it was in 500BCE(Approximately 3500+ years when you add the description of animals in the Epic of Gilgamesh to it). How is diff from the religious gibberish that asked people to exercise faith and believe what they also dont see?

We don't have direct witnesses to the formation of the Grand Canyon either, but we can still study the geological evidence and understand its origins, can't we? Evolution is not just about human existence. It's about the diversity of life on Earth, and the overwhelming evidence from various fields in science serve to strengthen its position in the scientific community. It's funny you mentioned the consistency of animal descriptions over time because it is actually evidence for evolution, not against it. If species were unchanging, that would be a problem for evolution. But the fact that we see changes in species over time, even if the descriptions of those species remain similar, supports evolution. But all of that is neither here nor there. I believe you should be focusing more on your proof for intelligent design in this discussion. Firstly, it is not even a testable hypothesis, whereas evolution is. We can't design experiments to test the will of a supernatural being, but we can test the predictions of evolution. So ultimately, you still have the burden of proof here. I'm interested to see what you can come up with.

I will delve into DNA complexities in the next response.

Finally! I'll be looking forward to it.

JessicaRabbit:


Well, you're wrong. Transitional fossils do exist, and plenty have been discovered over time. As a matter of fact, the fossil record actually shows a clear pattern of gradual changes in life forms over time. Look up Tiktaalik, a fish-tetrapod transitional form, or the Archaeopteryx, or the Ambulocetus etc. These discoveries have been extensively documented and verified by the scientific community, so I'm not sure what you were on about there. The "lack of transitional fossils" argument is typical creationist propaganda of pointing out alleged flaws in opposing theories, rather than presenting any evidence to support theirs. The lack of intermediate forms between dogs and cats is not entirely surprising, following the theory that they diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago. The fossil record is incomplete, and surely we wouldn't expect to find every single transitional form. Nevertheless, clear patterns of gradual changes in the fossil record have been seen, consistent with the theory of evolution. Another thing you probably need to understand is that the concept of "kinds" or "categories" is a subjective human construct, and not a scientifically defined boundary. The diversity of life on Earth is a continuum, with species blending into one another. And just because you have never observed evolution happening in real-time doesn't automatically mean it never occurred and isn't still occurring. Evolution is not a magic spectacle that unfolds before our eyes. It's a gradual process spanning countless generations. You must have heard this axiom before, but the absence of evidence for something is not evidence of its absence.



From this paragraph here, it is clear that you didn't understand what the Miller-Urey experiment was all about, or what it hoped to achieve. Don't get yourself confused. The experiment was all about demonstrating the possibility of spontaneous generation of amino acids, the building blocks of life, from a primordial soup. And, surprise, surprise... it succeeded in producing several amino acids, including glycine, alanine, and aspartic acid. You seem to think the experiment was solely focused on the idea of evolving cells from simple organisms to complex ones. You've got it all wrong. I'm trying not to trigger the anti spam bots by posting links, so while I can't refer you to any link for clarification, I'll implore you to spend more time researching the experiment and studying it to know what it was really all about.



Also, the experiment's results were far from a "dead end." In fact, they sparked a new wave of research into the origins of life on Earth. The experiment has been refined and expanded upon numerous times, with scientists exploring different conditions and environments that could have led to the emergence of life. The fact that scientists have not yet fully replicated the evolution of complex cells in a laboratory setting does not negate the overwhelming evidence from multiple fields of study (fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, etc.) that supports evolution. And by the way, I'm still waiting for your demonstration of intelligent design through complexity of the DNA. How do you explain the presence of pseudogenes, vestigial genes, and other "imperfections" in the human genome if it was intelligently designed?



I believe I have sufficiently addressed this argument. The notion that the fossil record should be a complete, unbroken chain of intermediates is a gross misunderstanding of how fossilization works. Fossilization is a rare occurrence, and the conditions necessary for it to happen are quite specific. It's not a surprise that we don't have a complete record. Moreover, the idea that there are no intermediates in the fossil record is simply false. I have already referred you to a few examples above.



So you're saying that because the evolutionary transition from invertebrates to vertebrates is complex and still not fully understood, we must therefore attribute the gaps in our knowledge to magic? Don't you think this puzzling enigma you speak of is actually a testament to the amazing progress science has made in understanding the natural world? We've come a long way in uncovering the secrets of evolution, and the fact that there's still more to learn is what makes it so exciting. Dragging magic into the picture ruins the whole fun. You've left the realm of intellectual curiosity and settled for resigned speculation. The fact that there are still unanswered questions in science is not evidence of intelligent design. In fact, it's just evidence that we need to keep studying and learning. And by the way, I don't see the point of you appealing to ancient mythical texts as if they're relevant to modern scientific discussions. It's utterly useless. You might as well just use a map from the 14th century to navigate a modern city you're visiting for the first time.



We don't have direct witnesses to the formation of the Grand Canyon either, but we can still study the geological evidence and understand its origins, can't we? Evolution is not just about human existence. It's about the diversity of life on Earth, and the overwhelming evidence from various fields in science serve to strengthen its position in the scientific community. It's funny you mentioned the consistency of animal descriptions over time because it is actually evidence for evolution, not against it. If species were unchanging, that would be a problem for evolution. But the fact that we see changes in species over time, even if the descriptions of those species remain similar, supports evolution. But all of that is neither here nor there. I believe you should be focusing more on your proof for intelligent design in this discussion. Firstly, it is not even a testable hypothesis, whereas evolution is. We can't design experiments to test the will of a supernatural being, but we can test the predictions of evolution. So ultimately, you still have the burden of proof here. I'm interested to see what you can come up with.



Finally! I'll be looking forward to it.

I must admit that debating with you draining. I suddenly become depressed as soon as I see your response to any argument brought forward.
I wish I could have another person have a go at you while i keep supplying the person with my own points from the background and while i also dont have to read your comments myself. Must u have a response for everything?



The first bolded made me lost interest reading the whole thing you addressed there. I didnt bother reading that paragraph as the bolded is a proof you've had Xtians bring that up to you in many debates in the past and I guess you defeated them there. I dont want u to beat me with experience

For the second bolded, The aim was to first prove that the building blocks of life could be synthesized abiotically from gases, which is same as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. If that is off the the whole issues, then we can start talking about the first simplest life form evolving into the next complect life form. So what do you mean by i dont understand what the experiment is about?

The aim was to create life first, before evolution into whatever we have now and I just skipped all these in my earlier posts.

Now Millers experiment still had some flaws:

The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing.” That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why? if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly'.

Two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed"(This a mere assumption that havent been proved or confirmed across the so-called "modified and Improved versions of Millers experiment) You can search for 'THE 1953 STANLEY L. MILLER EXPERIMENT:
FIFTY YEARS OF PREBIOTIC ORGANIC CHEMISTRY'.(Screenshot below)

It is basic and common science that the sunlights ultraviolet rays that are currently blocked by the ozone layer would have damaged hydrogen based molecules in the ancient atmosphere. This type of atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide and nitrogen would not have been supportive, for the creation of acids and other building blocks essential for life to form.


Another thing is that Oxygen is highly reactive. For example, it combines with iron and forms rust or with hydrogen and forms water. If there was much free oxygen in an atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would quickly combine with and dismantle the organic molecules as they formed. So what are the proofs that those early atmosphere was actually diffrent from our current one and that it was actuallly a reducing one from what we currently have... It is just an invented assumption to prove that life actually began that way.


Also, If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent? I know you dont have to necessarily invent a creator or designer here



Another flaw is the racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) mixture of amino acids produced in a Miller–Urey experiment is also problematic for abiogenesis theories as life on Earth today uses L-amino acids.
We know that there are right-handed and left-handed gloves. This is also true of amino acid molecules. Of some 100 known amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins, and all are left-handed ones. When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules
It is even believed that Even amino acids found in meteorites showed excesses of left-handed forms.



I had the intention to talk about the "Evolution Gap between Ape and Man" but i had to quickly stop by and help show to you that in as much as Millers expriment was a classic, yet it had a few fundamental flaws and it was even founded on some assumtions that are hard to confirm.
If we couldnt create an origin of life, if the atmospheric condition then wasnt even conducive for a primordial soup to form, even though the chance of the so-called spark running across a gaseous mixture coincidentally is almost close to nothing(it is even mathematically impossible to happen as the probability is greater than 1 in 1000000), how then do we move on to the evolution of single cell organism to a complex one or do we just also assume/believe and have faith life actually came into existence under those "hard-to-replicate" condition Miller talked about?



When I'm back tomorrow from work, I go load u with more...I pity you now The most Excellent Jessica, its gonna be a long week for you. Points full ground, na to type long be my problem not the points.


DNA complexity is my last resort and the biggest in my Arsenal, i reserve it for the last argument. No one ever made it to that point and you wont either

I pray you dont have another responses to this

CyrusVI:

I must admit that debating with you draining. I suddenly become depressed as soon as I see your response to any argument brought forward.
I wish I could have another person have a go at you while i keep supplying the person with my own points from the background and while i also dont have to read your comments myself. Must u have a response for everything?

Uhm...yes? That's how debate works. If you're going to make claims, then yes, I'll respond with counterarguments and possibly counter-evidence. Are you looking for an echo chamber where your views go unchallenged? If you're unable or unwilling to defend your own positions, then perhaps you shouldn't be debating at all.

The first bolded made me lost interest reading the whole thing you addressed there. I didnt bother reading that paragraph as the bolded is a proof you've had Xtians bring that up to you in many debates in the past and I guess you defeated them there. I dont want u to beat me with experience

Lol. Okay?

For the second bolded, The aim was to first prove that the building blocks of life could be synthesized abiotically from gases, which is same as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. If that is off the the whole issues, then we can start talking about the first simplest life form evolving into the next complect life form. So what do you mean by i dont understand what the experiment is about?

You conflated two separate concepts: Abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-living matter) and Evolution (the change in species over time). The Miller-Urey experiment addressed the former, not the latter. Once we have the building blocks of life, then we can discuss how they assembled into the first life forms and eventually evolved into complex organisms.

The aim was to create life first, before evolution into whatever we have now and I just skipped all these in my earlier posts.

Now you're talking from two sides of your mouth. You initially claimed that the Miller-Urey experiment was a failure because it didn't demonstrate the evolution of complex cells from simple organisms. Now, you're saying that the experiment was actually about creating life from scratch, and that's a different topic altogether. And by the way, creating life from scratch is exactly what the experiment was trying to do -- but not in the sense of creating a fully formed organism. It was more about generating the raw materials necessary for life to emerge. So, you can't just dismiss the experiment's findings as irrelevant because they didn't achieve something they were never intended to achieve in the first place.

Now Millers experiment still had some flaws:

The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing.” That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why? if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly'.

So? Even if the atmosphere was not entirely reducing, it's not like the presence of some oxygen would completely negate the results. The experiment still produced amino acids, didn't it? And subsequent experiments have refined the conditions to account for various possibilities. The experiment wasn't even meant to be an exact replica of the primordial conditions in the first place. It was just a demonstration of the possibility of spontaneous generation of amino acids.

Two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed"(This a mere assumption that havent been proved or confirmed across the so-called "modified and Improved versions of Millers experiment) You can search for 'THE 1953 STANLEY L. MILLER EXPERIMENT:
FIFTY YEARS OF PREBIOTIC ORGANIC CHEMISTRY'.(Screenshot below)

I'm sorry but Miller's later speculation about the Earth's atmosphere doesn't invalidate the experiment's significance. The experiment sought to demonstrate the possibility of abiogenesis, not the certainty. The specific conditions on early Earth might have been different, but the experiment provided valuable insights into the potential chemical processes that could have led to the formation of organic molecules. Subsequent research has expanded upon the Miller-Urey experiment, exploring a wider range of atmospheric conditions and energy sources. While the exact composition of Earth's early atmosphere is still debated, these experiments have consistently shown that the building blocks of life can be formed under various conditions.

It is basic and common science that the sunlights ultraviolet rays that are currently blocked by the ozone layer would have damaged hydrogen based molecules in the ancient atmosphere. This type of atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide and nitrogen would not have been supportive, for the creation of acids and other building blocks essential for life to form.

Well, this is probably why the experiment simulated an atmosphere without UV radiation, using a closed system that shielded the reactants from harmful radiation. And guess what? They still managed to synthesize amino acids! Besides you're incorrect in assuming that an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide and nitrogen wouldn't be supportive of creating building blocks for life. Scientists still propose various mechanisms for how life could have emerged despite these challenges. There have been theories about life beginning in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where the chemistry is more favorable.

Another thing is that Oxygen is highly reactive. For example, it combines with iron and forms rust or with hydrogen and forms water. If there was much free oxygen in an atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would quickly combine with and dismantle the organic molecules as they formed. So what are the proofs that those early atmosphere was actually diffrent from our current one and that it was actuallly a reducing one from what we currently have... It is just an invented assumption to prove that life actually began that way.

You're getting it all wrong. When you have well-supported hypotheses based on geological, experimental, and biological evidence for something, you can't continue to call it an "assumption". Scientists have studied the composition of ancient rocks and minerals, which suggest that the early Earth's atmosphere lacked significant amounts of oxygen. You also have the existence of stromatolites, which are layered structures created by ancient microbial communities, which also supports the idea of a reducing atmosphere. These microorganisms would have thrived in an environment with minimal oxygen levels.

Also, If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent? I know you dont have to necessarily invent a creator or designer here

They weren't trying to simulate an entire universe though. The experiment was just a simplified model to test a specific hypothesis: whether organic molecules could form under conditions believed to exist on early Earth. The scientist's role in the experiment is more like a researcher studying a natural phenomenon in a controlled environment. It's not about creating life from nothing, but about understanding the potential processes involved. If you want to understand how a car engine works, you don't need to build the entire car from scratch. You can just isolate its specific components, study their interactions, and learn about their functions. The Miller-Urey experiment was a similar approach to understanding the origins of life, and it was designed to mimic natural processes. Even if they didn't fully explain the entire process, the results have at least contributed to our understanding of how life might have originated.

Another flaw is the racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) mixture of amino acids produced in a Miller–Urey experiment is also problematic for abiogenesis theories as life on Earth today uses L-amino acids.
We know that there are right-handed and left-handed gloves. This is also true of amino acid molecules. Of some 100 known amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins, and all are left-handed ones. When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules
It is even believed that Even amino acids found in meteorites showed excesses of left-handed forms.

How is this a flaw exactly? The experiment produced a racemic mixture of amino acids. Okay, and? Don't you think it's a natural consequence of the abiotic chemical reactions that occurred? It's not surprising that both L and D enantiomers were produced, as the reaction conditions didn't favor one over the other. You seem to be having a fundamental misunderstanding of the implications of the experiment. The fact that life on Earth uses L-amino acids doesn't mean that the primordial soup had to produce only L-amino acids. It's possible that the selection of L-amino acids occurred later, through chemical or biological processes that we don't yet fully understand. Funny enough, amino acids found in meteorites showing excesses of left-handed forms is actually evidence for the idea that the building blocks of life were delivered to Earth on comets or meteorites, and that these building blocks were already biased towards the L-enantiomer. This is a fascinating area of research that could potentially shed more light on the origins of life on Earth.

I had the intention to talk about the "Evolution Gap between Ape and Man" but i had to quickly stop by and help show to you that in as much as Millers expriment was a classic, yet it had a few fundamental flaws and it was even founded on some assumtions that are hard to confirm.
If we couldnt create an origin of life, if the atmospheric condition then wasnt even conducive for a primordial soup to form, even though the chance of the so-called spark running across a gaseous mixture coincidentally is almost close to nothing(it is even mathematically impossible to happen as the probability is greater than 1 in 1000000), how then do we move on to the evolution of single cell organism to a complex one or do we just also assume/believe and have faith life actually came into existence under those "hard-to-replicate" condition Miller talked about?

First of all, the experiment was not attempting to create an origin of life, but rather to demonstrate the possibility of spontaneous generation of amino acids. I've addressed this above. Secondly, it succeeded in producing several amino acids. As for the probability of the "spark" of life occurring, you're still relying on a classic creationist trope. The emergence of life is not a single event, but a complex process that likely occurred over millions of years. It's not about a lightning bolt striking a primordial soup, but rather the gradual accumulation of chemical reactions and interactions that eventually gave rise to self-replicating molecules. Furthermore, you're "mathematically impossible" claim is just you cherry-picking a specific calculation that suits your narrative while ignoring the vast body of evidence from multiple fields of science that supports the fact that life can emerge through natural processes. I'll clue you in on something you probably haven't considered yet: Even if you've manage to poke some holes in the Miller-Urey experiment (and let's be real, it's a 60-year-old experiment, so it's not like it's the only piece of evidence for abiogenesis), you still haven't presented any evidence for intelligent design. You're still relying on "god of the gaps" reasoning, where you point out the limitations of scientific knowledge and then insert your preferred explanation without providing any testable evidence.

When I'm back tomorrow from work, I go load u with more...I pity you now The most Excellent Jessica, its gonna be a long week for you. Points full ground, na to type long be my problem not the points.

You don't have to be melodramatic. Just present your best arguments and let's examine them critically. You're not impressing or intimidating anybody here with this pointless chest-beating.

DNA complexity is my last resort and the biggest in my Arsenal, i reserve it for the last argument. No one ever made it to that point and you wont either

I pray you dont have another responses to this

Dude, just get to the point already. Thanks.

Effect of Islam

JessicaRabbit:


Uhm...yes? That's how debate works. If you're going to make claims, then yes, I'll respond with counterarguments and possibly counter-evidence. Are you looking for an echo chamber where your views go unchallenged? If you're unable or unwilling to defend your own positions, then perhaps you shouldn't be debating at all.



Lol. Okay?



You conflated two separate concepts: Abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-living matter) and Evolution (the change in species over time). The Miller-Urey experiment addressed the former, not the latter. Once we have the building blocks of life, then we can discuss how they assembled into the first life forms and eventually evolved into complex organisms.



Now you're talking from two sides of your mouth. You initially claimed that the Miller-Urey experiment was a failure because it didn't demonstrate the evolution of complex cells from simple organisms. Now, you're saying that the experiment was actually about creating life from scratch, and that's a different topic altogether. And by the way, creating life from scratch is exactly what the experiment was trying to do -- but not in the sense of creating a fully formed organism. It was more about generating the raw materials necessary for life to emerge. So, you can't just dismiss the experiment's findings as irrelevant because they didn't achieve something they were never intended to achieve in the first place.



So? Even if the atmosphere was not entirely reducing, it's not like the presence of some oxygen would completely negate the results. The experiment still produced amino acids, didn't it? And subsequent experiments have refined the conditions to account for various possibilities. The experiment wasn't even meant to be an exact replica of the primordial conditions in the first place. It was just a demonstration of the possibility of spontaneous generation of amino acids.



I'm sorry but Miller's later speculation about the Earth's atmosphere doesn't invalidate the experiment's significance. The experiment sought to demonstrate the possibility of abiogenesis, not the certainty. The specific conditions on early Earth might have been different, but the experiment provided valuable insights into the potential chemical processes that could have led to the formation of organic molecules. Subsequent research has expanded upon the Miller-Urey experiment, exploring a wider range of atmospheric conditions and energy sources. While the exact composition of Earth's early atmosphere is still debated, these experiments have consistently shown that the building blocks of life can be formed under various conditions.



Well, this is probably why the experiment simulated an atmosphere without UV radiation, using a closed system that shielded the reactants from harmful radiation. And guess what? They still managed to synthesize amino acids! Besides you're incorrect in assuming that an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide and nitrogen wouldn't be supportive of creating building blocks for life. Scientists still propose various mechanisms for how life could have emerged despite these challenges. There have been theories about life beginning in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where the chemistry is more favorable.



You're getting it all wrong. When you have well-supported hypotheses based on geological, experimental, and biological evidence for something, you can't continue to call it an "assumption". Scientists have studied the composition of ancient rocks and minerals, which suggest that the early Earth's atmosphere lacked significant amounts of oxygen. You also have the existence of stromatolites, which are layered structures created by ancient microbial communities, which also supports the idea of a reducing atmosphere. These microorganisms would have thrived in an environment with minimal oxygen levels.



They weren't trying to simulate an entire universe though. The experiment was just a simplified model to test a specific hypothesis: whether organic molecules could form under conditions believed to exist on early Earth. The scientist's role in the experiment is more like a researcher studying a natural phenomenon in a controlled environment. It's not about creating life from nothing, but about understanding the potential processes involved. If you want to understand how a car engine works, you don't need to build the entire car from scratch. You can just isolate its specific components, study their interactions, and learn about their functions. The Miller-Urey experiment was a similar approach to understanding the origins of life, and it was designed to mimic natural processes. Even if they didn't fully explain the entire process, the results have at least contributed to our understanding of how life might have originated.



How is this a flaw exactly? The experiment produced a racemic mixture of amino acids. Okay, and? Don't you think it's a natural consequence of the abiotic chemical reactions that occurred? It's not surprising that both L and D enantiomers were produced, as the reaction conditions didn't favor one over the other. You seem to be having a fundamental misunderstanding of the implications of the experiment. The fact that life on Earth uses L-amino acids doesn't mean that the primordial soup had to produce only L-amino acids. It's possible that the selection of L-amino acids occurred later, through chemical or biological processes that we don't yet fully understand. Funny enough, amino acids found in meteorites showing excesses of left-handed forms is actually evidence for the idea that the building blocks of life were delivered to Earth on comets or meteorites, and that these building blocks were already biased towards the L-enantiomer. This is a fascinating area of research that could potentially shed more light on the origins of life on Earth.



First of all, the experiment was not attempting to create an origin of life, but rather to demonstrate the possibility of spontaneous generation of amino acids. I've addressed this above. Secondly, it succeeded in producing several amino acids. As for the probability of the "spark" of life occurring, you're still relying on a classic creationist trope. The emergence of life is not a single event, but a complex process that likely occurred over millions of years. It's not about a lightning bolt striking a primordial soup, but rather the gradual accumulation of chemical reactions and interactions that eventually gave rise to self-replicating molecules. Furthermore, you're "mathematically impossible" claim is just you cherry-picking a specific calculation that suits your narrative while ignoring the vast body of evidence from multiple fields of science that supports the fact that life can emerge through natural processes. I'll clue you in on something you probably haven't considered yet: Even if you've manage to poke some holes in the Miller-Urey experiment (and let's be real, it's a 60-year-old experiment, so it's not like it's the only piece of evidence for abiogenesis), you still haven't presented any evidence for intelligent design. You're still relying on "god of the gaps" reasoning, where you point out the limitations of scientific knowledge and then insert your preferred explanation without providing any testable evidence.



You don't have to be melodramatic. Just present your best arguments and let's examine them critically. You're not impressing or intimidating anybody here with this pointless chest-beating.



Dude, just get to the point already. Thanks.

Your 50 paragraphs of argument is loaded with and full of "Probabilites and possibilities". Which took us back to my earlier question that are we supposed to just believe this probabilities and also pass them as factual occurrences just cause its coming from scientists?


If all these were in a religious context or prolly written to support some claims from those religious books, You would start to tell us how its dumb to take probabilities as facts.

you still haven't presented any evidence for intelligent design. You're still relying on "god of the gaps" reasoning, where you point out the limitations of scientific knowledge and then insert your preferred explanation without providing any testable evidence.

Thing is, I couldnt go further again after reading this and thats because you invented probabilities to fill in the gaps of most lapses seen in those very limited scientific experiments and explanations, same way religious folks invent God to fill in answers to questions they dont understand



In the end, Atheists cant prove that God doesnt exist, same way Theist cant also nor practically prove his existence and both would at a point reach a juncture that they either need to bring in probabilities or faith as they cant really explain things that happened millions of years ago without any witness documenting anything

Its a draw abeg....





Cant you drop your points without having to call my argument baseless? Must u erode peoples confidence during debates?
No testable evidence yet i dropped screenshot and a the title of the research journal i used to support my claims. Its even funny that the journal was actually a scientific paper from some scientists that did worked on modifying Millers experiment


Your argumentative pattern was one reason i ran away earlier this year. You know how to talkdown on ones point by constantly throwing subtle shades into your texts while making it seem like the opponent keeps giving watery and baseless points. Dont kill my self-esteem on top ordinary online debate



No kill me abeg. Its gotten to a point where my hearts skips anytime I see your moniker. So bad i had a dream yesterday night were u keep hitting me on arguments

Could come back when my head and mind are free from anxiety and sense of worthlessness. Will respond to your other post at night before i sleep

CyrusVI:
Your 50 paragraphs of argument is loaded with and full of "Probabilites and possibilities". Which took us back to my earlier question that are we supposed to just believe this probabilities and also pass them as factual occurrences just cause its coming from scientists?

You're only saying this because you don't understand how science works. In science, probabilities and possibilities are not about believing something without evidence. They're about assessing the likelihood of a particular outcome based on the data and evidence we have. It's a fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry, and it's what allows us to refine our understanding of the world. When it comes to science, we don't deal in absolute certainties. Instead, we operate on a spectrum of confidence, with evidence and experimentation guiding conclusions being made. When we talk about probabilities and possibilities, we're discussing the relative likelihood of different explanations based on the available evidence. So, when I discuss probabilities and possibilities, I'm not asking you to "just believe" something without evidence. I'm asking you to consider the cumulative weight of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry, which collectively support the idea that life can arise through natural means.

If all these were in a religious context or prolly written to support some claims from those religious books, You would start to tell us how its dumb to take probabilities as facts.

What does atheism have to do with this? Can't you just relax and examine the facts? I apply the same standards of evidence and critical thinking to both scientific claims and religious ones. As a matter of fact, I could argue that you're the one being inconsistent here by trying to exempt your beliefs from scrutiny. I'm not dismissing the experiment's limitations because I'm an atheist. I'm only interested in a nuanced understanding of the science. What you don't understand is that in science, probabilities can indeed be taken as facts when they're based on empirical data and testable hypotheses. The probability of amino acids forming under certain conditions, for instance, can be calculated and experimentally verified. But the probability of a supernatural entity creating life? That's not something that can be measured or tested, and therefore, it's not something that can be taken as fact.

Thing is, I couldnt go further again after reading this and thats because you invented probabilities to fill in the gaps of most lapses seen in those very limited scientific experiments and explanations, same way religious folks invent God to fill in answers to questions they dont understand

Scientific inquiry is a self-correcting process that seeks to refine our understanding of the world through evidence and experimentation. Religious explanations, on the other hand, are often static and unchanging, relying on dogma rather than empirical evidence. Obviously they're two very different things, but if you don't feel the need to respond because of this fundamental misunderstanding you seem to have, that's your prerogative.

In the end, Atheists cant prove that God doesnt exist, same way Theist cant also nor practically prove his existence and both would at a point reach a juncture that they either need to bring in probabilities or faith as they cant really explain things that happened millions of years ago without any witness documenting anything

Its a draw abeg....

This isn't a game where we award points for effort, so I don't get what you mean by "it's a draw". You can't have science and critical thinking, without evidence and testable hypotheses. If your explanation relies on faith or unproven assumptions, then it's simply not a valid explanation. By the way, we don't need to document events from millions of years ago to understand what happened. We have evidence from geology, paleontology, and other fields that help us reconstruct the past.

Cant you drop your points without having to call my argument baseless? Must u erode peoples confidence during debates?
No testable evidence yet i dropped screenshot and a the title of the research journal i used to support my claims. Its even funny that the journal was actually a scientific paper from some scientists that did worked on modifying Millers experiment

We've been through this already. I've already addressed the experiment's significance and limitations, and none of your points so far validate your claims. You don't prove an argument by poking holes in alternative theories. If you're going to claim that intelligent design is a viable explanation, then provide some testable evidence. So far, I've seen none.

Your argumentative pattern was one reason i ran away earlier this year. You know how to talkdown on ones point by constantly throwing subtle shades into your texts while making it seem like the opponent keeps giving watery and baseless points. Dont kill my self-esteem on top ordinary online debate



No kill me abeg. Its gotten to a point where my hearts skips anytime I see your moniker. So bad i had a dream yesterday night were u keep hitting me on arguments

Could come back when my head and mind are free from anxiety and sense of worthlessness. Will respond to your other post at night before i sleep

Listen, I'm sick and tired of hearing these sad songs about your fragile feelings, It's beginning to make this discussion a boring chore for me. If your mental health can't handle having a rigorous exchange that prioritizes critical thinking and focusing on the facts, then I'm left to wonder why you continue to suffer yourself in these conversations. Are you a glutton for punishment? Obviously, your self-esteem is tied to these frivolous arguments and that's why you take any pushback against your arguments as a personal attack, when they're actually not. You need to grow up and stop expecting people to pet you because your ego can't handle criticism. If you don't want to continue this debate, that's fine. I don't have to be responsible for your mental health.

JessicaRabbit:


You're only saying this because you don't understand how science works. In science, probabilities and possibilities are not about believing something without evidence. They're about assessing the likelihood of a particular outcome based on the data and evidence we have. It's a fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry, and it's what allows us to refine our understanding of the world. When it comes to science, we don't deal in absolute certainties. Instead, we operate on a spectrum of confidence, with evidence and experimentation guiding conclusions being made. When we talk about probabilities and possibilities, we're discussing the relative likelihood of different explanations based on the available evidence. So, when I discuss probabilities and possibilities, I'm not asking you to "just believe" something without evidence. I'm asking you to consider the cumulative weight of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry, which collectively support the idea that life can arise through natural means.



What does atheism have to do with this? Can't you just relax and examine the facts? I apply the same standards of evidence and critical thinking to both scientific claims and religious ones. As a matter of fact, I could argue that you're the one being inconsistent here by trying to exempt your beliefs from scrutiny. I'm not dismissing the experiment's limitations because I'm an atheist. I'm only interested in a nuanced understanding of the science. What you don't understand is that in science, probabilities can indeed be taken as facts when they're based on empirical data and testable hypotheses. The probability of amino acids forming under certain conditions, for instance, can be calculated and experimentally verified. But the probability of a supernatural entity creating life? That's not something that can be measured or tested, and therefore, it's not something that can be taken as fact.



Scientific inquiry is a self-correcting process that seeks to refine our understanding of the world through evidence and experimentation. Religious explanations, on the other hand, are often static and unchanging, relying on dogma rather than empirical evidence. Obviously they're two very different things, but if you don't feel the need to respond because of this fundamental misunderstanding you seem to have, that's your prerogative.



This isn't a game where we award points for effort, so I don't get what you mean by "it's a draw". You can't have science and critical thinking, without evidence and testable hypotheses. If your explanation relies on faith or unproven assumptions, then it's simply not a valid explanation. By the way, we don't need to document events from millions of years ago to understand what happened. We have evidence from geology, paleontology, and other fields that help us reconstruct the past.



We've been through this already. I've already addressed the experiment's significance and limitations, and none of your points so far validate your claims. You don't prove an argument by poking holes in alternative theories. If you're going to claim that intelligent design is a viable explanation, then provide some testable evidence. So far, I've seen none.



Listen, I'm sick and tired of hearing these sad songs about your fragile feelings, It's beginning to make this discussion a boring chore for me. If your mental health can't handle having a rigorous exchange that prioritizes critical thinking and focusing on the facts, then I'm left to wonder why you continue to suffer yourself in these conversations. Are you a glutton for punishment? Obviously, your self-esteem is tied to these frivolous arguments and that's why you take any pushback against your arguments as a personal attack, when they're actually not. You need to grow up and stop expecting people to pet you because your ego can't handle criticism. If you don't want to continue this debate, that's fine. I don't have to be responsible for your mental health.

Firstly, I understand how Science works. You dont know my field of study or what where i even work, so stop saying i dont understand how science works just because i asked you some valid questions. You could go on with your point without having to outightly dismiss my knowledge of science. That statement wasnt needed and its a fallacy


Secondly, You keep mentioning probabilies as if there were only ome likelihood for those events. You cant bring in one probability to fill in those gaps in such a way that it would perfectly fit into your narrative. It makes it sound like you're writing a script of a fictional story
We couldnt have known for sure what the atmospheric condition was when it all started, but to assume that it was same as what was simulated in the lab, especially when the condition outside the test tubes looks different, is too big an assumption to make and theres never gonna be any invention or "refining experiment" in the future that can be used to ascertain what it was.


Now, to my main point.
Thing is, presenting my proof for intelligent design is gonna be hard now, My plan was to bring all that up after "poking holes in all the scientific theories" I have read about. That would give me a soft landing


So, Would u allow me move on to the next theory now(lets put Miller-Urey experiment behind), but I promise that if you could still find a way around this one, then I might just have to go the hard way by bringing up the intelligent design defense i have

What do you say, ma

Listen, I'm sick and tired of hearing these sad songs about your fragile feelings, It's beginning to make this discussion a boring chore for me. If your mental health can't handle having a rigorous exchange that prioritizes critical thinking and focusing on the facts, then I'm left to wonder why you continue to suffer yourself in these conversations. Are you a glutton for punishment? Obviously, your self-esteem is tied to these frivolous arguments and that's why you take any pushback against your arguments as a personal attack, when they're actually not. You need to grow up and stop expecting people to pet you because your ego can't handle criticism. If you don't want to continue this debate, that's fine. I don't have to be responsible for your mental health.

For the bolded, the answer is Yes.
I'm a Masochist too and thats why our chat could last this long. Those harsh words break me but somehow, I like getting broken



And for the entire part i quoted, I promise to stop whinning about it. I will learn to handle them now without complaining. Those were actually the reason i ran away the first few times and i even wanted to run away since yesterday sef, but i had to quickly do some meditations to calm my nerves. Not scared anymore, my Self-Esteem isnt tied to this

CyrusVI:


Firstly, I understand how Science works. You dont know my field of study or what where i even work, so stop saying i dont understand how science works just because i asked you some valid questions. You could go on with your point without having to outightly dismiss my knowledge of science. That statement wasnt needed and its a fallacy

I didn't say you don't understand science. I said you don't understand how science works. There's a subtle difference. You're talking as if I said the former. Understanding science is about knowledge, but understanding how science works is about methodology. It's about grasping the principles and processes that guide scientific inquiry. The fact that I don't know your field of study is irrelevant. The point is, when discussing scientific matters, the methodology is what matters. It's not about your personal qualifications, but about the validity of the arguments presented. Now you've declared my pronouncement to be a fallacy, and I beg to differ with you on that claim. When I said you do not understand how science works, I'm making a hypothetical explanation for your viewpoint, based on the observed behavior of you dismissing evidence that doesn't align with your preconceptions. So basically you're wrong. And what do you even mean by "that's a fallacy"? You can't just make ambiguous accusations like that without backing it up with a solid demonstration of how I defaulted. What type of fallacy did I commit? Does it have a name? And can you sufficiently demonstrate how I committed said fallacy using a valid reference to the rules of logic?

Secondly, You keep mentioning probabilies as if there were only ome likelihood for those events. You cant bring in one probability to fill in those gaps in such a way that it would perfectly fit into your narrative. It makes it sound like you're writing a script of a fictional story

No, this is not what I'm saying! You keep suggesting that just because we can't predict every single detail of a complex process like the origin of life, we must therefore resort to a "fictional story". You're misrepresenting my position by oversimplifying it and that's the very definition of a strawman fallacy. I'm not presenting any fictional story here. I'm discussing the overwhelming consensus among scientists based on decades of research and experimentation. The idea that life can arise through natural processes is not just a probability, it is a well-supported scientific theory. While there may be gaps in our understanding of specific details, the overall framework is firmly grounded in evidence. To say that because we can't predict every single step in a complex process, it must be fictional is like saying we don't understand how a car works because we can't explain the exact trajectory of every atom in the engine. The overarching principles are clear, even if the specifics are complex.

We couldnt have known for sure what the atmospheric condition was when it all started, but to assume that it was same as what was simulated in the lab, especially when the condition outside the test tubes looks different, is too big an assumption to make and theres never gonna be any invention or "refining experiment" in the future that can be used to ascertain what it was.

I'm not sure why you're having so much difficulty grasping this basic concept. The fact that we don't have complete knowledge about the early Earth's atmosphere doesn't mean we can't make informed, evidence-based hypotheses, and the conditions outside the test tubes looking different doesn't invalidate the experiment. Laboratory conditions are often controlled and simplified to isolate variables and better understand their effects. The goal isn't to perfectly replicate the exact conditions of the early Earth, but to test whether certain conditions could have led to the formation of life-building molecules.

Now, to my main point.
Thing is, presenting my proof for intelligent design is gonna be hard now, My plan was to bring all that up after "poking holes in all the scientific theories" I have read about. That would give me a soft landing
So, Would u allow me move on to the next theory now(lets put Miller-Urey experiment behind), but I promise that if you could still find a way around this one, then I might just have to go the hard way by bringing up the intelligent design defense i have

This just makes me believe that you're not even confident in your intelligent design theory, because if you were, you would have just presented it directly. A truly compelling argument doesn't need a "soft landing". It doesn't need to throw shades at the alternatives. It stands on its own merits. You've essentially admitted, in this comment right here, that your strategy of criticizing Evolution, or Abiogenesis or both, was just a delaying tactic, and not a genuine attempt to disprove the scientific consensus. Can you appreciate how someone might view this as intellectual dishonesty?

For the bolded, the answer is Yes.
I'm a Masochist too and thats why our chat could last this long. Those harsh words break me but somehow, I like getting broken

And for the entire part i quoted, I promise to stop whinning about it. I will learn to handle them now without complaining. Those were actually the reason i ran away the first few times and i even wanted to run away since yesterday sef, but i had to quickly do some meditations to calm my nerves. Not scared anymore, my Self-Esteem isnt tied to this

This part of the conversation is boring. The question you highlighted was purely a rhetorical one. I'm really not interested in who you are or what your feelings are towards me or this discussion. Let's drop it already.

Baba is high on gum

JessicaRabbit:


I didn't say you don't understand science. I said you don't understand how science works. There's a subtle difference. You're talking as if I said the former. Understanding science is about knowledge, but understanding how science works is about methodology. It's about grasping the principles and processes that guide scientific inquiry. The fact that I don't know your field of study is irrelevant. The point is, when discussing scientific matters, the methodology is what matters. It's not about your personal qualifications, but about the validity of the arguments presented. Now you've declared my pronouncement to be a fallacy, and I beg to differ with you on that claim. When I said you do not understand how science works, I'm making a hypothetical explanation for your viewpoint, based on the observed behavior of you dismissing evidence that doesn't align with your preconceptions. So basically you're wrong. And what do you even mean by "that's a fallacy"? You can't just make ambiguous accusations like that without backing it up with a solid demonstration of how I defaulted. What type of fallacy did I commit? Does it have a name? And can you sufficiently demonstrate how I committed said fallacy using a valid reference to the rules of logic?

Still ad hominem fallacy(you tryna undermine my perspective on science by implying that I don't understand the methodology)

Again, You can pass your point across without having to dismiss my understanding of scientific methodology. They dont have to coexist in one statement
I dont really want to go this route with you cause if i do, we might have to spend the whole year dragging minor issues and I dont want that


So, I will let this slide

No, this is not what I'm saying! You keep suggesting that just because we can't predict every single detail of a complex process like the origin of life, we must therefore resort to a "fictional story". You're misrepresenting my position by oversimplifying it and that's the very definition of a strawman fallacy. I'm not presenting any fictional story here. I'm discussing the overwhelming consensus among scientists based on decades of research and experimentation. The idea that life can arise through natural processes is not just a probability, it is a well-supported scientific theory. While there may be gaps in our understanding of specific details, the overall framework is firmly grounded in evidence. To say that because we can't predict every single step in a complex process, it must be fictional is like saying we don't understand how a car works because we can't explain the exact trajectory of every atom in the engine. The overarching principles are clear, even if the specifics are complex.



I'm not sure why you're having so much difficulty grasping this basic concept. The fact that we don't have complete knowledge about the early Earth's atmosphere doesn't mean we can't make informed, evidence-based hypotheses, and the conditions outside the test tubes looking different doesn't invalidate the experiment. Laboratory conditions are often controlled and simplified to isolate variables and better understand their effects. The goal isn't to perfectly replicate the exact conditions of the early Earth, but to test whether certain conditions could have led to the formation of life-building molecules.



This just makes me believe that you're not even confident in your intelligent design theory, because if you were, you would have just presented it directly. A truly compelling argument doesn't need a "soft landing". It doesn't need to throw shades at the alternatives. It stands on its own merits. You've essentially admitted, in this comment right here, that your strategy of criticizing Evolution, or Abiogenesis or both, was just a delaying tactic, and not a genuine attempt to disprove the scientific consensus. Can you appreciate how someone might view this as intellectual dishonesty?

Theres nothing dishonest here. If i had brought forward my evidences with my hundreds of supports from science and historical perspectives, you'd have still tackled it straightaway that theres nothing Intelligent about it, hence my reasons for trying to tow this path first

Plus, from my very first argument with you, my point was "In my search for the possible origin of life,I dumped my religious teachings to explore science teachings", and thats the reason why i talked about those Books from Dawkins and Hawkings, but then i realized there are too many probabilities in Science to my taken too seriously.

Whats the diff between believing probabilities and exercising faiths like xtians

This part of the conversation is boring. The question you highlighted was purely a rhetorical one. I'm really not interested in who you are or what your feelings are towards me or this discussion. Let's drop it already.

I cant o. Whats wrong in trying to affirm to you the few things I have noticed so far...Dont be too uptight. Hear me out and dont get bored out

So, Would u allow me move on to the next theory now(lets put Miller-Urey experiment behind), but I promise that if you could still find a way around this one, then I might just have to go the hard way by bringing up the intelligent design defense i have

Ma, can i go on with this, I have two other topics under it.
1)Mutation
2)Amazing design of the brain.

Dont chicken out please

CyrusVI:

Still ad hominem fallacy(you tryna undermine my perspective on science by implying that I don't understand the methodology)

Aaaand this is exactly what I'm saying. You don't even know what an ad hominem fallacy is. An ad hominem fallacy can only occur when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. In this case, I was specifically addressing your approach to scientific inquiry. I was not making a personal attack. I was highlighting the difference between knowing scientific facts and understanding the scientific method. It's a crucial distinction, and my point was that your response indicated a lack of grasp of the latter. That's not an attack on you personally, but rather a critique of your argumentative approach. If I wanted to commit an ad hominem fallacy, I'd say something like, "You're not smart enough to understand science." But that's not what I said. I said you don't understand how science works, which is a specific claim about your approach, not your character.

Again, You can pass your point across without having to dismiss my understanding of scientific methodology. They dont have to coexist in one statement

I'm not dismissing your understanding of scientific methodology. I'm simply stating that your application of that understanding is flawed. There's a difference between knowing the rules and playing the game correctly. Whenever your understanding leads to incorrect conclusions, then it's worth examining why. It's like when a surgeon can understand anatomy but still perform a botched operation. The knowledge is there, but the application is lacking.

I dont really want to go this route with you cause if i do, we might have to spend the whole year dragging minor issues and I dont want that

Or maybe you could just admit that you're out of your depth on this topic and leave the conversation to those who have a better understanding of the subject matter.

Theres nothing dishonest here. If i had brought forward my evidences with my hundreds of supports from science and historical perspectives, you'd have still tackled it straightaway that theres nothing Intelligent about it, hence my reasons for trying to tow this path first

So let me get this straight: you're admitting that you're afraid of presenting your "hundreds of supports" directly, because you anticipate that I'll dismiss them as "not intelligent"? Okay. Now ask yourself this question and be truthful to yourself: if your evidence is genuinely compelling and stands on its own merits, why assume I'd reject it without consideration? Why assume that anyone is going to reject it at all? If your argument is so airtight, why do you need to preemptively defend it against criticisms that haven't even been made yet? Well, I insist that your approach reeks of intellectual dishonesty because it prioritizes persuasion over genuine discussion. If you're so confident in your evidence, you would present it proudly and let's have a real conversation. Don't hide behind a smokescreen of criticisms and then cry foul when called out on it.

Plus, from my very first argument with you, my point was "In my search for the possible origin of life,I dumped my religious teachings to explore science teachings", and thats the reason why i talked about those Books from Dawkins and Hawkings, but then i realized there are too many probabilities in Science to my taken too seriously.

You claimed to have "dumped" your religious teachings to explore science, yet your arguments have consistently relied on strawman attacks against scientific theories rather than presenting a coherent, testable hypothesis for intelligent design. And now, you're saying that science has too many probabilities to be taken seriously? That's a classic case of moving the goalposts. You can't dismiss an entire field of study because it acknowledges the complexity and nuance of the natural world. Science isn't about providing certainties, it's about refining our understanding through evidence and observation. You're essentially arguing that because science doesn't provide absolute certainty, we should just throw it out and replace it with... what? A belief in a higher power? That's quite a leap of logic, even for someone who's already jumped ship from religion to science. Maybe you should reconsider your definition of "too many probabilities". After all, life itself is a series of improbable events. If you're going to reject science based on its inherent uncertainties, you might as well reject life itself.

Whats the diff between believing probabilities and exercising faiths like xtians

Easy. One is grounded in reality and empirical observation, while the other is often based on belief in the unseen and supernatural. It's not rocket science.

Ma, can i go on with this, I have two other topics under it.
1)Mutation
2)Amazing design of the brain.

Dont chicken out please

If they're intended to demonstrate your intelligent design theory, then what are you waiting for? You're the one who's been creating tangents for every point on a circle.

JessicaRabbit:


Aaaand this is exactly what I'm saying. You don't even know what an ad hominem fallacy is. An ad hominem fallacy can only occur when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. In this case, I was specifically addressing your approach to scientific inquiry. I was not making a personal attack. I was highlighting the difference between knowing scientific facts and understanding the scientific method. It's a crucial distinction, and my point was that your response indicated a lack of grasp of the latter. That's not an attack on you personally, but rather a critique of your argumentative approach. If I wanted to commit an ad hominem fallacy, I'd say something like, "You're not smart enough to understand science." But that's not what I said. I said you don't understand how science works, which is a specific claim about your approach, not your character.



I'm not dismissing your understanding of scientific methodology. I'm simply stating that your application of that understanding is flawed. There's a difference between knowing the rules and playing the game correctly. Whenever your understanding leads to incorrect conclusions, then it's worth examining why. It's like when a surgeon can understand anatomy but still perform a botched operation. The knowledge is there, but the application is lacking.

Or maybe you could just admit that you're out of your depth on this topic and leave the conversation to those who have a better understanding of the subject matter.

Thats rich, coming from a Novelist and a student of philosophy. You think we are discussing the Poetic style of Homer and John Keat, Socratic method of argument, and Shakespeare writing style?

So let me get this straight: you're admitting that you're afraid of presenting your "hundreds of supports" directly, because you anticipate that I'll dismiss them as "not intelligent"? Okay. Now ask yourself this question and be truthful to yourself: if your evidence is genuinely compelling and stands on its own merits, why assume I'd reject it without consideration? Why assume that anyone is going to reject it at all? If your argument is so airtight, why do you need to preemptively defend it against criticisms that haven't even been made yet? Well, I insist that your approach reeks of intellectual dishonesty because it prioritizes persuasion over genuine discussion. If you're so confident in your evidence, you would present it proudly and let's have a real conversation. Don't hide behind a smokescreen of criticisms and then cry foul when called out on it.



You claimed to have "dumped" your religious teachings to explore science, yet your arguments have consistently relied on strawman attacks against scientific theories rather than presenting a coherent, testable hypothesis for intelligent design. And now, you're saying that science has too many probabilities to be taken seriously? That's a classic case of moving the goalposts. You can't dismiss an entire field of study because it acknowledges the complexity and nuance of the natural world. Science isn't about providing certainties, it's about refining our understanding through evidence and observation. You're essentially arguing that because science doesn't provide absolute certainty, we should just throw it out and replace it with... what? A belief in a higher power? That's quite a leap of logic, even for someone who's already jumped ship from religion to science. Maybe you should reconsider your definition of "too many probabilities". After all, life itself is a series of improbable events. If you're going to reject science based on its inherent uncertainties, you might as well reject life itself.



Easy. One is grounded in reality and empirical observation, while the other is often based on belief in the unseen and supernatural. It's not rocket science.



If they're intended to demonstrate your intelligent design theory, then what are you waiting for? You're the one who's been creating tangents for every point on a circle.

I will be talking about Instincts in animals and how it supports an intelligent design.


Remember, I talked about Darwins book on Natural selection in my first comment and theres a place where he said his evolutionary theory cant explain "Mental power" and that he cannot tell the readers how instinct developed and got inherited.(Check the screenshot i attached below, its a page where Darwin addressed his views on instinct and evolutionary limitations. Maybe you should read it before going through my main post)

Now the intelligent designs are:

First is the Arctic terns. After Nesting north of the Arctic Circle, at summer’s end they fly south to spend the Antarctic summer on the pack ice near the South Pole. They might travel all the way around Antarctica before turning north to go back to the Arctic. Thus, they finish a yearly migration that covers over 22,000 miles. Given that there are abundant food sources in both polar areas, One wonders how it was ever discovered that these sources were so far apart


Another is the Blackpoll Warbler
It is quite light—just 0.75 ounces. However, it moves from Alaska to the eastern seaboard of Canada or New England during the fall, where it stores fat and feeds on food before waiting for a cold front. The bird takes off as it arrives. It travels first toward Africa and then toward South America. It picks up a prevailing wind over the Atlantic Ocean, reaching up to 20,000 feet in altitude, which directs it toward South America.


Now,
How does the warbler know that a cold front will bring pleasant weather and a tailwind, and when to wait for it?
How does it know to climb higher and higher into thin, frigid air with half the oxygen that it formerly had?
How does it know that the crosswind that will take it to South America only blows that high?
How does it know that it should fly toward Africa so that this wind might move southwest?
None of these things are conscious knowledge to the blackpoll. It is guided only by instinct on this 2,400-mile journey over uncharted waters, which takes three or four days and nights to complete.


Also, A hummingbird beats its wings up to 75 times per second for 25 hours throughout its migration.


Another point is that some young birds often migrate for the first time in the absence of adults. It is said by NATGEO that New Zealand long-tailed cuckoo chicks journey 4,000 miles to Pacific islands to reunite with their parents, who left earlier.


Now, the question is
How do birds manage to navigate through these situations?
It appears from experiments that they might make use of the stars and sun. They seem to be equipped with internal clocks to adjust for these celestial bodies' movements. What if, however, the sky is cloudy?
Then, at least some birds come equipped with integrated magnetic compasses. However, a compass direction alone is insufficient.
They require a mental "map" that includes the starting and ending positions. Additionally, as the path is rarely a straight line, it needs to be highlighted on the map. However, none of this is helpful unless they are aware of their location on the map!

Aside birds, Animals like the Caribou In Alaska, go 800 miles south during the winter.
Numerous whales journey more than 6,000 miles from the Arctic Ocean to the coast.
Green sea turtles travel 1,400 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean from the Brazilian coast to tiny Ascension Island and back.

ww-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov/(replace those "-" with "." and add another 'W') I didnt this cause of anti-spam whatever and thats the main source of all my claims


The nests of emperor penguins are built-in. The female lays an egg and spends two or three months fishing during the Antarctic winter. The male deposits the egg on his heavily vascularized foot and covers it with a brood pouch that dangles from his belly. A mother never forgets her father or her child. The mother returns shortly after the egg hatches, regurgitating food for them from her full stomach. After that, the mother places the infant on her feet and covers it with her brood pouch while the male goes fishing.

Lets move away from Migration,

How can millions of blind termites coordinate their efforts to construct and cool their intricate buildings?

How does the pronuba moth know which actions to take in order to cross-pollinate the yucca flower in order to create more moths and yucca plants?

How does the blind and immature bean-sized newborn kangaroo realize that it needs to climb through its mother's fur to reach her tummy and pouch on its own in order to survive?

How do underwater "diving bell" spiders know that it needs to make a hole in its bell, let out the old air, patch the hole, and bring down a fresh supply of air when the oxygen is gone?

Not like these animals were taught. Some that were separated from birth still exhibit this same characteristics

The answer to them all is:INSTINCT

Like Darwin, modern Scientists cant also explain how "Instinct" is developed and passed down and thats cause the genetic mechanism shows no indication of being capable of transmitting specific behavior patterns/how they transmit particular behavioural trait nor explain how instinctive pattern first developed and became fixed in heredity

You know right? Intelligent Design(Check the screenshot below again)

Also, Please dont have answers to this cause if you do, chaiii

CyrusVI:
Thats rich, coming from a Novelist and a student of philosophy. You think we are discussing the Poetic style of Homer and John Keat, Socratic method of argument, and Shakespeare writing style?

You see, now this is a very good example of the ad hominem fallacy (a personal attack on the individual rather than addressing the argument). Here, you're trying to discredit my expertise by pointing out my background in literature and philosophy, as if that has any relevance here, or it somehow negates my ability to understand scientific concepts. I don't know if you're hoping to distract from the fact that your arguments so far have been as flimsy as a house made of sand.

I will be talking about Instincts in animals and how it supports an intelligent design.

I'm already disappointed. Sounds like yet another attempt to shoehorn the natural world into a supernatural narrative. But let's see where you're headed with this anyway.

Remember, I talked about Darwins book on Natural selection in my first comment and theres a place where he said his evolutionary theory cant explain "Mental power" and that he cannot tell the readers how instinct developed and got inherited.(Check the screenshot i attached below, its a page where Darwin addressed his views on instinct and evolutionary limitations. Maybe you should read it before going through my main post)

Darwin was right to point out the complexity of instinct. However, that doesn't mean a divine watchmaker had to wind it up. Evolution, with its billions of years of trial and error, can produce incredibly intricate and adaptive behaviors. I'm more interested to see if you can explain how a divine being would have programmed instincts like migration patterns or social hierarchies. Or you could even tell me why a god would design instincts that sometimes lead to self-destruction, like the instinct of moths to fly towards light, often leading to their demise.

Now the intelligent designs are:

First is the Arctic terns. After Nesting north of the Arctic Circle, at summer’s end they fly south to spend the Antarctic summer on the pack ice near the South Pole. They might travel all the way around Antarctica before turning north to go back to the Arctic. Thus, they finish a yearly migration that covers over 22,000 miles. Given that there are abundant food sources in both polar areas, One wonders how it was ever discovered that these sources were so far apart

As usual, you've jumped into conclusions. Not that I'm surprised anyway; I was expecting something like this. There's nothing special here. As a matter of fact, I can use this exact same point to make an argument supporting evolution! Natural selection has favored terns with the genetic traits that enable them to make such long migrations over countless generations. Those that were better at finding food in both polar regions, and had the stamina to fly between them, were more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on their genes to the next generation. And as for the discovery of food sources, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that a bird "discovered" something. It's more likely that their ancestors simply evolved to exploit whatever resources were available in their environment. And since the polar regions are rich in food, it's not surprising that terns would eventually find their way to both.

Another is the Blackpoll Warbler
It is quite light—just 0.75 ounces. However, it moves from Alaska to the eastern seaboard of Canada or New England during the fall, where it stores fat and feeds on food before waiting for a cold front. The bird takes off as it arrives. It travels first toward Africa and then toward South America. It picks up a prevailing wind over the Atlantic Ocean, reaching up to 20,000 feet in altitude, which directs it toward South America.

A tiny bird, barely heavier than a dollar bill, flies thousands of miles across the ocean, using wind currents and stored fat to navigate, and you think that's evidence of intelligent design? Lol. While we're at it, let's attribute the invention of the wheel to a divine being, too. After all, it's pretty complex, isn't it? The idea that such a simple biological process requires a supernatural explanation is a classic case of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. So far, you're just using your god as a placeholder for your ignorance.

Now,
How does the warbler know that a cold front will bring pleasant weather and a tailwind, and when to wait for it?
How does it know to climb higher and higher into thin, frigid air with half the oxygen that it formerly had?
How does it know that the crosswind that will take it to South America only blows that high?
How does it know that it should fly toward Africa so that this wind might move southwest?
None of these things are conscious knowledge to the blackpoll. It is guided only by instinct on this 2,400-mile journey over uncharted waters, which takes three or four days and nights to complete.

You're assuming that the warbler can "know" anything in the human sense. It doesn't have a conscious thought process like we do. Its behavior is driven by instinct, which is a complex set of genetic traits honed over millions of years through natural selection. The idea that a warbler "knows" when a cold front will bring pleasant weather and a tailwind is a stretch. It's more likely that the warbler has evolved behaviors that are generally beneficial in certain environmental conditions. If those behaviors lead to increased survival and reproduction, then they're more likely to be passed on to future generations.

Also, A hummingbird beats its wings up to 75 times per second for 25 hours throughout its migration.


Another point is that some young birds often migrate for the first time in the absence of adults. It is said by NATGEO that New Zealand long-tailed cuckoo chicks journey 4,000 miles to Pacific islands to reunite with their parents, who left earlier.


Now, the question is
How do birds manage to navigate through these situations?
It appears from experiments that they might make use of the stars and sun. They seem to be equipped with internal clocks to adjust for these celestial bodies' movements. What if, however, the sky is cloudy?
Then, at least some birds come equipped with integrated magnetic compasses. However, a compass direction alone is insufficient.
They require a mental "map" that includes the starting and ending positions. Additionally, as the path is rarely a straight line, it needs to be highlighted on the map. However, none of this is helpful unless they are aware of their location on the map!

Aside birds, Animals like the Caribou In Alaska, go 800 miles south during the winter.
Numerous whales journey more than 6,000 miles from the Arctic Ocean to the coast.
Green sea turtles travel 1,400 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean from the Brazilian coast to tiny Ascension Island and back.

ww-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov/(replace those "-" with "." and add another 'W') I didnt this cause of anti-spam whatever and thats the main source of all my claims


The nests of emperor penguins are built-in. The female lays an egg and spends two or three months fishing during the Antarctic winter. The male deposits the egg on his heavily vascularized foot and covers it with a brood pouch that dangles from his belly. A mother never forgets her father or her child. The mother returns shortly after the egg hatches, regurgitating food for them from her full stomach. After that, the mother places the infant on her feet and covers it with her brood pouch while the male goes fishing.

More appeals to ignorance as I expected. I still don't see why a supernatural explanation should suffice here. When faced with competing explanations, the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely to be correct (Occam's Razor). Evolution, genetics, and environmental pressures provide a more parsimonious explanation for these phenomena than intelligent design. You're chasing the wind here.

Lets move away from Migration,

How can millions of blind termites coordinate their efforts to construct and cool their intricate buildings?

How does the pronuba moth know which actions to take in order to cross-pollinate the yucca flower in order to create more moths and yucca plants?

How does the blind and immature bean-sized newborn kangaroo realize that it needs to climb through its mother's fur to reach her tummy and pouch on its own in order to survive?

How do underwater "diving bell" spiders know that it needs to make a hole in its bell, let out the old air, patch the hole, and bring down a fresh supply of air when the oxygen is gone?

Not like these animals were taught. Some that were separated from birth still exhibit this same characteristics

The answer to them all is:INSTINCT

Like Darwin, modern Scientists cant also explain how "Instinct" is developed and passed down and thats cause the genetic mechanism shows no indication of being capable of transmitting specific behavior patterns/how they transmit particular behavioural trait nor explain how instinctive pattern first developed and became fixed in heredity

You know right? Intelligent Design(Check the screenshot below again)

Also, Please dont have answers to this cause if you do, chaiii

This is just a long-winded way for you to say, "I don't know how this thing works, therefore God!". It's not the mind blowing argument you think it is. You have only just confused your lack of understanding with evidence for a designer. Instinct is simply a result of genetic adaptations that have been shaped by natural selection. Behaviors that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are more likely to be passed on to future generations. And your fixation on the idea of complexity is unnecessary. Complexity doesn't imply design. Natural selection, over millions of years, can produce incredibly intricate systems. The human eye is often touted as irreducibly complex. Yet, evolutionary biologists have traced its development from simpler precursors. Also, there's plenty of evidence that genes play a significant role in shaping behavior. Think about behavioral genetics studies, which have shown that traits like intelligence, personality, and even aggression have a genetic component. So yeah, this is just more "God of the Gaps" waffle if you asked me.

This is the first time i had an argument so strong and overpowering that you just had to throwing baseless counters. In fact, this is the shortest response you've ever given to any of my arguments since February(Day1) and thats because i used references, and too many overwhelming evidences that you couldnt even shread them apart like the typical you but just had to lump them together and throw in your undocumented probabilities as usual. Now I know what it feels like to be you for the first time(It feels sweet seeing you struggle to come out with a factual counter-argument that could either be referenced or presented as the sole and true answers to my questions.



Also, Its funny that you think I've run out of points. Sis, I still have two bigger points to present
1)Human Brain/Coordination of the Endocrine System
2)My biggest weapon, DNA complexities.

I could have added the Human Eye, but i wont cause i could deduce from your earlier stories that you already defeated some xtians on that.

Lol. While we're at it, let's attribute the invention of the wheel to a divine being, too. After all, it's pretty complex, isn't it? The idea that such a simple biological process requires a supernatural explanation is a classic case of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. So far, you're just using your god as a placeholder for your ignorance.



You're assuming that the warbler can "know" anything in the human sense. It doesn't have a conscious thought process like we do. Its behavior is driven by instinct, which is a complex set of genetic traits honed over millions of years through natural selection. The idea that a warbler "knows" when a cold front will bring pleasant weather and a tailwind is a stretch. It's more likely that the warbler has evolved behaviors that are generally beneficial in certain environmental conditions. If those behaviors lead to increased survival and reproduction, then they're more likely to be passed on to future generations.



More appeals to ignorance as I expected. I still don't see why a supernatural explanation should suffice here. When faced with competing explanations, the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely to be correct (Occam's Razor). Evolution, genetics, and environmental pressures provide a more parsimonious explanation for these phenomena than intelligent design. You're chasing the wind here.



This is just a long-winded way for you to say, "I don't know how this thing works, therefore God!". It's not the mind blowing argument you think it is. You have only just confused your lack of understanding with evidence for a designer. Instinct is simply a result of genetic adaptations that have been shaped by natural selection. Behaviors that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are more likely to be passed on to future generations. And your fixation on the idea of complexity is unnecessary. Complexity doesn't imply design. Natural selection, over millions of years, can produce incredibly intricate systems. The human eye is often touted as irreducibly complex. Yet, evolutionary biologists have traced its development from simpler precursors. Also, there's plenty of evidence that genes play a significant role in shaping behavior. Think about behavioral genetics studies, which have shown that traits like intelligence, personality, and even aggression have a genetic component. So yeah, this is just more "God of the Gaps" waffle if you asked me.

75% of your total response, the same one thats being quoted here, is just the repetition of your past responses. You keep claiming that Theists brings God into any argument they dont understand or into any arguments that Science itself cant explain for the meantime. I agree with that but like i said earlier too, Atheists or Scientists too are always quick to do same , by filling every gaps with with Natural Selection and evolution, same processes that still has many unresolved questions

JessicaRabbit:


You see, now this is a very good example of the ad hominem fallacy (a personal attack on the individual rather than addressing the argument). Here, you're trying to discredit my expertise by pointing out my background in literature and philosophy, as if that has any relevance here, or it somehow negates my ability to understand scientific concepts. I don't know if you're hoping to distract from the fact that your arguments so far have been as flimsy as a house made of sand.



I'm already disappointed. Sounds like yet another attempt to shoehorn the natural world into a supernatural narrative. But let's see where you're headed with this anyway.



Darwin was right to point out the complexity of instinct. However, that doesn't mean a divine watchmaker had to wind it up. Evolution, with its billions of years of trial and error, can produce incredibly intricate and adaptive behaviors. I'm more interested to see if you can explain how a divine being would have programmed instincts like migration patterns or social hierarchies. Or you could even tell me why a god would design instincts that sometimes lead to self-destruction, like the instinct of moths to fly towards light, often leading to their demise.



As usual, you've jumped into conclusions. Not that I'm surprised anyway; I was expecting something like this. There's nothing special here. As a matter of fact, I can use this exact same point to make an argument supporting evolution! Natural selection has favored terns with the genetic traits that enable them to make such long migrations over countless generations. Those that were better at finding food in both polar regions, and had the stamina to fly between them, were more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on their genes to the next generation. And as for the discovery of food sources, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that a bird "discovered" something. It's more likely that their ancestors simply evolved to exploit whatever resources were available in their environment. And since the polar regions are rich in food, it's not surprising that terns would eventually find their way to both.



A tiny bird, barely heavier than a dollar bill, flies thousands of miles across the ocean, using wind currents and stored fat to navigate, and you think that's evidence of intelligent design?

Although many elements of evolution may be explained by natural selection, the evolution of highly specialized behaviors is not entirely explained by it. Why, for instance, do arctic terns migrate thousands of miles on instinct? Sometimes it's unclear what the precise genetic and evolutionary paths are.


For example, I deliberately mentioned the Arctic Tern and it was the Number1 on my list and thats because till today, they still dont understand "how complex behaviors (like migration patterns or social cooperation) evolved. Some scientists argue that these gaps suggest we don’t fully understand the mechanisms behind instinct, especially in this very bird and few other groups of animals". I know you just pulled out your own watery defense from your head cause if you had look it up at all, you would know why i made it top of my list


That you discarded all the questions I asked about Arctic Terns and even just randomly and blindly tied Natural selections to it shows you really dont understand how Scientific theories work. It is not by attributing every damn thing to evolution, it is by experimentally testing this concept on every presented anomaly to check the consistency of the theory and if it applies to all cases, and when it doesnt, it raises argument about the validity from other evolutionary scientists and this is what makes science stands out against philosophy and Art, as it can be tested overtime and must valid at all times. And in few cases, like in this Bird's case, they have failed, prompting evolutionary Scientists alike to acknowledge same thing Darwin did over 200years ago, that this trait is too complex to be explained away by just Natural selection and that the Genetic pathway for it is unclear. Same as my last post on this. Your counter-attack for this is too weak to even scratch a part of the surface, not to talk of poking some imaginary holes in it...Not any diff from using a cotton bud to drill a hole through a tortoise shell. Ineffective.



I dropped three other screenshots from recent Scientific researches dedicated how and Natural Selection failed to explain these things, One of the Conclusion from the researches claim "How connections (such competition or cooperation) amongst species affect migration is another area of incomplete knowledge. How these interactions affect the reasons behind or the modes of animal migration is not well understood. Researchers must determine whether this deficiency in understanding stems from their own ignorance or from the insufficiency of empirical facts to support the development of models."


Lemme help you with the conclusion of that Britannica Science article(Screenshot below and the website is 'ww-britannica-
com/science/migration-animal/Navigation-and-orientation'): "Two theories have been formulated to explain how birds use the Sun for orientation. Neither, however, has so far been substantiated with proof. One theory holds that birds find the right direction by determining the horizontal angle measured on the horizon from the Sun’s projection. They correct for the Sun’s movement by compensating for the changing angle and thus are able to maintain the same direction. According to this theory, the Sun is a compass that enables the birds to find and maintain their direction. This theory does not explain, however, the manner in which a bird, transported and released in an experimental situation, determines the relationship between the point at which it is released and its goal.

Make sure u read the screenshots below and also visit those science site too


My Point is, In as much as I wouldnt just drag God into any Science failings, I also wouldnt rush in with Probabilities of Natural Selections, especially in cases where some Scientific researches couldnt find evidences to support those claims

If I would have to go with that as an Atheist, then i see no difference between me and a Theist who is quick to bring in the God factors into everything.

And this my point agrees with what Stephen Hawkings said about the God argument on September 7,2010 that "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” In discussing the book, he told ABC News: “One can't prove that God doesn't exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”

Theists and Atheists are both right and wrong. Both are cant disprove or prove God's existence. So, Na Draw the thing finish.




But as per Dominatrix wey u be, I no say u no go gree...You feel say everyone gat bow before you in any debate
I dey push for draw cause na the most realistic thing be that, but U just wan add me join the long list of your conquered Christians




Note. I had screenshots that showed the web address of each articles so you can go check it up, and i ensure there are recent articles, as recent as May 2023 . One of the web address is 'ww-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov-pmc-articles/PMC10024995/'(replace the "-" with "."


In the end, its funny to think that in this kinda debate, one with zero references so far and with 20% AI content for her defense, is quick to attack the other person with multiple references, with 1% plagiarism and 0% AI content with having "a laughable and weak baseless arguments"(U fit argue this one o, make i drop screenshots from AI detectors)

EmperorCaesar:
This is the first time i had an argument so strong and overpowering that you just had to throwing baseless counters. In fact, this is the shortest response you've ever given to any of my arguments since February(Day1) and thats because i used references, and too many overwhelming evidences that you couldnt even shread them apart like the typical you but just had to lump them together and throw in your undocumented probabilities as usual. Now I know what it feels like to be you for the first time(It feels sweet seeing you struggle to come out with a factual counter-argument that could either be referenced or presented as the sole and true answers to my questions.

If anything, the fact that my responses are terse and/or brief should let you know that you're not giving me anything tangible to work with. If you were the least bit self-aware, you would have discovered that your entire argument boils down to this: X cannot be explained, therefore God exists. It's basically a rehash of the same creationist logic, and I've repeatedly pointed out to you that you're committing a God of the Gaps fallacy. Not that you care to address this point anyway, because it is a distraction from your inane propaganda, and you have insisted on doubling down on your ignorance. Your arguments are not hard to figure out. Whenever you encounter something you are finding difficult to comprehend, you conveniently jump to the conclusion that it must be the work of a supernatural being in a sad attempt to avoid the hard work of critical thinking. You don't even realize that you're stuck chasing your tail here. As for me, I'll just keep pointing out your flaws to you, until you finally take a step back and realize that you've walked yourself into a self-inflicted minefield with this argument. It's funny seeing you stroke your ego though. Then again, we both know you can't help it because your sense of worth is tied to this discussion.

Also, Its funny that you think I've run out of points. Sis, I still have two bigger points to present
1)Human Brain/Coordination of the Endocrine System
2)My biggest weapon, DNA complexities.

Just to show you how predictable your arguments are, I'm going to take a wild guess and assert that you'll probably try to wow me with some half-baked, surface-level "facts" about the brain's complexity, utterly ignoring the vast amounts of research on neuroplasticity and adaptability. Following this, you might attempt to link it to the endocrine system, hoping to create some sort of vague, pseudoscientific narrative about "balance" and "harmony." Your DNA is also likely going to be another "it's too complex, therefore God" type of argument where you cherry-pick some stats about genome size, base pairs, and whatnot, without grasping the underlying principles of molecular biology or the sheer amount of scientific evidence that might contradict you. Now surprise me and prove me wrong.

I could have added the Human Eye, but i wont cause i could deduce from your earlier stories that you already defeated some xtians on that.

If you're so confident in your argument, why not tender it anyway? Are you so certain you won't be able to convince me? Or do you suspect deep down that you're just blowing hot air?

75% of your total response, the same one thats being quoted here, is just the repetition of your past responses. You keep claiming that Theists brings God into any argument they dont understand or into any arguments that Science itself cant explain for the meantime. I agree with that but like i said earlier too, Atheists or Scientists too are always quick to do same , by filling every gaps with with Natural Selection and evolution, same processes that still has many unresolved questions

You keep saying scientists are just filling in the gaps, ignoring the fact that the scientific method is a product of rigorous thought and experimentation, unlike intelligent design which doesn't even have a testable hypothesis, and is heavily based on imagination and speculation. Trying to insinuate that these two methods are the same by comparing theists with scientists is straight up hilarious. Natural selection and evolution might have their limitations and unanswered questions, but at least they are grounded in empirical evidence and the scientific method. You are comparing apples to oranges here. As for my responses being repetitive, I'm glad you took notice. Nothing you have said here is new, and when I point out the flaw in one argument, you end up bringing up yet another argument based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that complexity must imply design. So the same criticisms will apply. You're making my job easy here, because you're practically repeating the same arguments albeit in different dressings and appearance.

Although many elements of evolution may be explained by natural selection, the evolution of highly specialized behaviors is not entirely explained by it. Why, for instance, do arctic terns migrate thousands of miles on instinct? Sometimes it's unclear what the precise genetic and evolutionary paths are.

One thing is certain: you are quite imaginative. However, your imagination cannot and will not make up for your lack of understanding about evolutionary biology. The migratory patterns of the Arctic terns is not a solitary feat. It only just constitutes a wider range of adaptations, including their specialized physiology and their remarkable endurance. Over millions of years, countless variations have been tested, refined, and passed on to successive generations so yes, we can actually posit that the terns' migratory instinct is just a culmination of this long, arduous process. You're severely underestimating the power of time and the ingenuity of evolution if you think that such adaptation is beyond the reach of natural selection.

For example, I deliberately mentioned the Arctic Tern and it was the Number1 on my list and thats because till today, they still dont understand "how complex behaviors (like migration patterns or social cooperation) evolved. Some scientists argue that these gaps suggest we don’t fully understand the mechanisms behind instinct, especially in this very bird and few other groups of animals". I know you just pulled out your own watery defense from your head cause if you had look it up at all, you would know why i made it top of my list

Actually my explanation aligns perfectly with the prevailing scientific consensus, so I'm not pulling anything from my head. Natural selection and the genetic drift involve basic mechanisms that can provide a framework robust enough to understand how complex behaviors like migration evolved, in spite of nuances we still need to explore. The basic mechanisms of migration are well understood. Birds use a combination of magnetic fields, and learned landmarks to navigate vast distances. Also, I hope you're well aware that the concept of instinct is itself a subject of ongoing debate among biologists. Some define it as innate behavior patterns that are genetically determined, while others view it as a complex interplay of genetic predispositions and environmental influences. Regardless of the definition, the fact remains that these behaviors are shaped by evolutionary processes. You seem to share the opinion that science is all about proving absolute truths. That's probably the biggest misconception about the scientific method in history. Science is strictly all about developing the best possible explanations based on available evidence. As our knowledge grows, our understanding of complex phenomena like migration will undoubtedly become more refined. Science evolves too, and past knowledge can be overwritten based on new data. So it is safe to say that your understanding of the subject matter is deeply flawed, and your attempts to undermine the scientific consensus are misguided. But do you care? I don't think so. Your most recent comments suggest to me that you have ulterior motives in this discussion and are not particularly concerned if you're actually making valid points or not. Also, you might have missed it the first time I asked, but I'm still curious to know your answer to this question: why would a god design instincts that sometimes lead to self-destruction, like the instinct of moths to fly towards light, often leading to their demise?

That you discarded all the questions I asked about Arctic Terns and even just randomly and blindly tied Natural selections to it shows you really dont understand how Scientific theories work. It is not by attributing every damn thing to evolution, it is by experimentally testing this concept on every presented anomaly to check the consistency of the theory and if it applies to all cases, and when it doesnt, it raises argument about the validity from other evolutionary scientists and this is what makes science stands out against philosophy and Art, as it can be tested overtime and must valid at all times. And in few cases, like in this Bird's case, they have failed, prompting evolutionary Scientists alike to acknowledge same thing Darwin did over 200years ago, that this trait is too complex to be explained away by just Natural selection and that the Genetic pathway for it is unclear. Same as my last post on this. Your counter-attack for this is too weak to even scratch a part of the surface, not to talk of poking some imaginary holes in it...Not any diff from using a cotton bud to drill a hole through a tortoise shell. Ineffective.

Now you're just setting up straws and knocking them down all by yourself. The theory of evolution does not claim to explain every single trait of every single organism. I don't know where you got that weird idea from. The only thing the theory of evolution seeks to accomplish is to understand the diversity of life. You might as well argue that because we cannot explain the origin of the universe, we must discard the laws of physics. That's not how it works. And how can you demand a controlled experiment for, a process that cannot be easily replicated in a laboratory? A process taking place over millions of years? Experimental testing for every phenomenon is a laudable aspiration, but one that is often impractical, especially when dealing with historical events or complex biological systems.

I dropped three other screenshots from recent Scientific researches dedicated how and Natural Selection failed to explain these things, One of the Conclusion from the researches claim "How connections (such competition or cooperation) amongst species affect migration is another area of incomplete knowledge. How these interactions affect the reasons behind or the modes of animal migration is not well understood. Researchers must determine whether this deficiency in understanding stems from their own ignorance or from the insufficiency of empirical facts to support the development of models."

Even a child can deduce that social interactions influence behavior, but to claim that this is sufficient to disprove Natural Selection is like saying that gravity doesn't exist because people jump. I still don't see what the big deal is here. So the research paper ends with this statement: "Researchers must determine whether this deficiency in understanding stems from their own ignorance or from the insufficiency of empirical facts". Well, that's an interesting dilemma. But wait a minute! What if we just *gasp* continue conducting scientific research and gathering more data? I mean, isn't that how progress is made in science after all? By the way, I think it's hilarious the way you're trying your hardest to completely refute natural selection, considering that Darwin's theory has been the cornerstone of evolutionary biology for over a century. You're scoring own goals here.

Lemme help you with the conclusion of that Britannica Science article(Screenshot below and the website is 'ww-britannica-
com/science/migration-animal/Navigation-and-orientation'): "Two theories have been formulated to explain how birds use the Sun for orientation. Neither, however, has so far been substantiated with proof. One theory holds that birds find the right direction by determining the horizontal angle measured on the horizon from the Sun’s projection. They correct for the Sun’s movement by compensating for the changing angle and thus are able to maintain the same direction. According to this theory, the Sun is a compass that enables the birds to find and maintain their direction. This theory does not explain, however, the manner in which a bird, transported and released in an experimental situation, determines the relationship between the point at which it is released and its goal.

Make sure u read the screenshots below and also visit those science site too


My Point is, In as much as I wouldnt just drag God into any Science failings, I also wouldnt rush in with Probabilities of Natural Selections, especially in cases where some Scientific researches couldnt find evidences to support those claims

I'm fine with not rushing into conclusions on anything. I'm not the one who has that problem. It's you. By suggesting that the limitations of our current understanding somehow justify invoking the divine, you're essentially saying, "Science can't explain it, therefore God." As for me, I only follow where the evidence leads, and there's more evidence to support natural selection than there is to support intelligent design. Furthermore, it will do you a lot of good to realize that the scientific method is designed to accommodate uncertainty and revise our understanding as new evidence emerges. It's okay to say "we don't know yet" without conjuring up supernatural explanations. The history of science is replete with examples of mysterious phenomena eventually yielding to natural explanations, once our tools and knowledge improve.

If I would have to go with that as an Atheist, then i see no difference between me and a Theist who is quick to bring in the God factors into everything.

And this my point agrees with what Stephen Hawkings said about the God argument on September 7,2010 that "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” In discussing the book, he told ABC News: “One can't prove that God doesn't exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”

Theists and Atheists are both right and wrong. Both are cant disprove or prove God's existence. So, Na Draw the thing finish.

I would actually agree with you here if it weren't for the concept of the burden of proof in theological discussions. Claiming that theists and atheists are equally right and wrong oversimplifies the dialectic. The burden of proof lies with those positing the existence of a deity. Atheism, by definition, merely withholds belief in the absence of empirical evidence.

In the end, its funny to think that in this kinda debate, one with zero references so far and with 20% AI content for her defense, is quick to attack the other person with multiple references, with 1% plagiarism and 0% AI content with having "a laughable and weak baseless arguments"(U fit argue this one o, make i drop screenshots from AI detectors)

You don't measure the validity or strength of an argument by the number of references, but by the soundness of the reasoning and the evidence provided. I've engaged in various types of discourse over the years. I personally do not bother myself about people who use online resources like Google or bots, as long as their arguments are coherent and are not convoluted. You can have all the online resources available to you and still end up making an argument that is dead on arrival because you do not have a fundamental understanding of what the argument is supposed to be about.

Years ago their kin preached against education calling it haram by claiming Islamic education is only way to success.

EmperorCaesar, DevilsEqual, CyrusVI (I'm quoting all three monikers because I don't know which of them you'll be logging on with next.

I'd still like to see you make an attempt at the question I posed in my last riposte (the one about the instincts of a moth). But meanwhile, your entire "Intelligent Design" narrative has made me recall important questions that have arisen in my past debates on this topic. Questions that, as far as I can tell, nobody has managed to provide a sufficient answer to. Now, you keep latching on to the notion of "design", using "complexity" to reinforce your standpoint. Ignoring the fact that your idea or concept of complexity could just be based on your own subjective assessment of what is considered complex, I need to understand what your definition of complex is, and what tools you use to measure complexity. More importantly, I want to know how you can recognize design, and how you can tell a designed object from a non-designed object. Basically for you to understand what is classified as a living thing, you have to understand what is classified as a non-living thing as well. The same logic applies. Can you show me an example of something that wasn't designed? I'm interested to read your answer. Also, are you certain that intelligent design and natural selection are truly dichotomous? Are you making the assertion that there are no alternative explanations for complexity that do not involve supernatural design?

This guy is what we in the business call a "LEGENDARY IDIOT"

JessicaRabbit:
EmperorCaesar, DevilsEqual, CyrusVI (I'm quoting all three monikers because I don't know which of them you'll be logging on with next.

I'd still like to see you make an attempt at the question I posed in my last riposte (the one about the instincts of a moth). But meanwhile, your entire "Intelligent Design" narrative has made me recall important questions that have arisen in my past debates on this topic. Questions that, as far as I can tell, nobody has managed to provide a sufficient answer to. Now, you keep latching on to the notion of "design", using "complexity" to reinforce your standpoint. Ignoring the fact that your idea or concept of complexity could just be based on your own subjective assessment of what is considered complex, I need to understand what your definition of complex is, and what tools you use to measure complexity. More importantly, I want to know how you can recognize design, and how you can tell a designed object from a non-designed object. Basically for you to understand what is classified as a living thing, you have to understand what is classified as a non-living thing as well. The same logic applies. Can you show me an example of something that wasn't designed? I'm interested to read your answer. Also, are you certain that intelligent design and natural selection are truly dichotomous? Are you making the assertion that there are no alternative explanations for complexity that do not involve supernatural design?

Don't you think we are moving away from Science with this?

That bolded hard o....


I'll respond tomorrow evening

JessicaRabbit:
EmperorCaesar, DevilsEqual, CyrusVI (I'm quoting all three monikers because I don't know which of them you'll be logging on with next.

I'd still like to see you make an attempt at the question I posed in my last riposte (the one about the instincts of a moth). But meanwhile, your entire "Intelligent Design" narrative has made me recall important questions that have arisen in my past debates on this topic. Questions that, as far as I can tell, nobody has managed to provide a sufficient answer to. Now, you keep latching on to the notion of "design", using "complexity" to reinforce your standpoint. Ignoring the fact that your idea or concept of complexity could just be based on your own subjective assessment of what is considered complex, I need to understand what your definition of complex is, and what tools you use to measure complexity. More importantly, I want to know how you can recognize design, and how you can tell a designed object from a non-designed object. Basically for you to understand what is classified as a living thing, you have to understand what is classified as a non-living thing as well. The same logic applies. Can you show me an example of something that wasn't designed? I'm interested to read your answer. Also, are you certain that intelligent design and natural selection are truly dichotomous? Are you making the assertion that there are no alternative explanations for complexity that do not involve supernatural design?

Lol....The ban for this is over, so I'll be quoting you with this going forward. This one can handle u better than the rest



Lemme start this way. I bumped into a thread yesterday where they analyzed the Trump vs Harris debate and they made mention of a debating tactics called Gish Galloping. That shii best defines your method of argument and it even highlighted every single feeling i've complained about as regards debating with you. It means 'A Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, often without regard for their accuracy or strength. This rapid-fire delivery makes it difficult for the opponent to address each point effectively, potentially leading to confusion or the appearance of being unprepared. Gish galloping can be a powerful tool for someone who is less knowledgeable about a subject, as it can create the illusion of being well-informed and knowledgeable. However, it's ultimately a dishonest and ineffective debating tactic.'. Thats you.
https://www.nairaland.com/8210550/trump-vs-kamala-debate-lessons#131959515


Now back to your questions.

Firstly, I am not saying that there are no alternative explanations for complexity. I acknowledge other theories but the problem is that the other theories have too many gaps, assumptions, inconsistencies and are so incoherent that its hard to even use them to prove complexities in any logical debate. Evolution and Natural Selection/Creationist arguments seem to be more sound than the rest and thats why most people Naturally lean towards them


Lets assume we go with Big Bang: The Big Bang theory explains the creation of the universe but falls short in explaining how life first evolved. Furthermore, some scientists have stated that the Big Bang theory is insufficient to explain how the universe came into being. Some even went so far as to say that "to explain the original creation of the universe, another theory describing even earlier times will be needed."

Also, when you consider most of the things written in Stephen Hawkings books like the A brief history of time or On the origin of the universe, you'd see man made more bogus claims than Bible Believers.

Plus(I know you'd cancel this but make i still talk)...When a nuclear bomb explodes, matter is converted uncontrollably into energy, leading to chaos, as was demonstrated in 1945 when these bombs completely destroyed Hiroshima and much of Nagasaki in Japan. But the universe is lovely and harmonious, far from chaotic! That theory wouldnt answer many questions about life on a molecular level sef.

ll) Another one is Panspermia: This one is easily discarded because it also didnt address the topic of how life first began, also, its proposition that life on Earth could not have originated spontaneously but that it had to have come from the outer space and then floated into Earth, only serves to relegate the issue of life's origin to a more distant and forbidding context. We all know that life in the harsh atmosphere of outer space would face several hostile. So, is it possible that life originated on its own somewhere in the cosmos, made it to Earth under extremely difficult circumstances, and eventually evolved into life as we know it? Of course not. Who would lean towards this

Theories of life emergence by philosophers(Artists and the Ancient Grecian guys) is total bull crap.

There might be a middle stance for one to consider outside Evolution or Creation, it vould even still be under Science but I assume that theory hasnt just been developed by anyone so far, so yea, we all are either for evolution or Creation. No other third stance.



2) Now, you keep latching on to the notion of "design", using "complexity" to reinforce your standpoint. Ignoring the fact that your idea or concept of complexity could just be based on your own subjective assessment of what is considered complex, I need to understand what your definition of complex is, and what tools you use to measure complexity.


This isnt from my standpoint and it has nothing to do with my subjective assessment and thats the reason why i dropped multiple Scientific reasech articles to prove to you that even they, in their conclusions agreed that these things are too Complex to be explained away by just fictionally throwing in Natura Selections

I didnt in any of my argument speak from my own perspectives and thats because i know i'm relevant in the grand scheme of things. That led me to bring in those screenshots and in every one of them, the Scientists agreed they were Complex.
If a researcher , after all his experiments documented that that Natural selection didnt apply, why why should i agree with you, a zealous Atheists with no known journal written from experimental researches, one who is only wishing that Science should remain perfect with zero failure. You can check those weblinks I dropped



2)On the Dichotomy Between Intelligent Design and Natural Selection:
I agree that natural selection and intelligent design aren't inherently antagonistic. Most Creationists that I know of and the few i read about, believe an intelligently planned framework governs the processes of natural selection. According to them and what I also believe , the origin of life and the emergence of large systems cannot be explained by natural selection, but it can explain small changes and adaptations within species(Variation, mutation or everything Microevolution). Although organisms may adapt to their circumstances through natural selection as seen in the wild, the fundamental complexity of life itself suggests a higher design


An example to this, is "Darwin Finches". I saw a Journal by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States and i followed through because it modeled what Darwin did from Day1 and it turned out to prove some Microevolution

Thing is, As one who understand Scientific concepts and all, its unreasonble and impossible to discard Natural Selection entirely, cause of Microevolution, only that its hard to rely on it as the answer to everything, especially when Researchers and Some notable Scientists who have explored our Universe themselves were forced at a point to agree that these things are highly organized
I agree these Natural selection may have done its part, but it still did it under someones guide and direction

In his book "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. In Chapter 1, "The Rules of the Game," on page 7 of the 2011 edition, Hawkings said something about Law of Universe and the Principle guiding them


in his book "The Nature of Space and Time" (1999), Stephen Hawking said again that:

“The idea that the universe is governed by a set of principles is not merely a concept but a fundamental aspect of reality. The organization we see in the universe arises from these deep-seated principles.

Einstein said same about our highly organizational Universe when he said "The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism."

I dont even want to start with Kepler, Copernicus and Newton and thats because we all know they were Theists with limited Knowledge in an era where disbelief is considered heretic. I deliberately left out quotes Modern Biologists and Evolutionists cause you may not know most of them

My point is that , I'm trying to Appeal to Authority here to show you that not only the laymen with zero understanding of Science would biasedly see everything as Intelligent design, but that even the most highly revered and most notable Scientists agreed that our Universe and everything in it is so structured that everything screams a "Grand Design" and they did this even in their unbelief

So its not just me...They inclusive


And for the harderst question you asked" More importantly, I want to know how you can recognize design, and how you can tell a designed object from a non-designed object. Basically for you to understand what is classified as a living thing, you have to understand what is classified as a non-living thing as well.

I will reply later in the evening and reply it separately but lemme quickly chip this in

"Assume you were informed that an unabridged dictionary was created when ink from the explosion splattered onto the walls and ceiling of a printing company. Could you believe it? How much more incredible is it that a random big bang created the ordered universe and everything in it?"

Okay, lets move away from big bang, let explore Richard Dawkins Organic Soup formation theory

According to evolutionary theory, the two main processes leading to the emergence of life are
(1) the presence of the appropriate primitive atmosphere and
(2) the concentration of an organic soup of "simple" molecules required for life in the oceans.
)3)These give rise to nucleotides and proteins, which are complicated chemical substances that
(4) unite and acquire a membrane,
(5) generate a genetic code, and (6) begin replicating.
Whats the probabilities of all all these coming up randomly?

I would have like to break them down from you using already carried out experiments but u go talk say I dey poke holes for Science, I just wanna debunk the "Undesigned" myth or can i carry on?


Its fine if you dont want that. I still have more evidences of design. I will now add Our Universe and The Human Eyes to the list

1)Our Universe
2)Animal Eyes
3) Human Brain
4)DNA complexities in that order

And no, Im not throwing God into the mix, na calculations, pattern checking, weaving and arrangements we wan do. We want to see how architecturally and mathecatically precise this socalled Designer is