Nairaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1238104 members, 1649950 topics. Date: Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 01:36 PM

Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed - Religion (1) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed (83937 Views)

"How Large Was Noah's Ark?" / Noah's Ark Remnants Found In Turkey - Fox News / Lost City Of Atlantis And Noah's Ark (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (1) (2) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ow11(m): 7:00pm On Aug 16, 2010
^^^
I like your enthusiasm to reconcile bible stories and geological facts BUT I would like to ask you to explain just this point.

ajoguegbe:

The earth mass was once together in what scientist (geologist) call Pangeae. Due to Continetal drifting the earth have seperated to its present state. This is a truth the scientists just discovered in the 20th century through the work of Alfred Wegener. That is why I say science will eventually grow to catch up wt the Bible. Alfred Wegener died while trying to prove that the continents were together. it was after his death that scientists discovered he was right and they brought a unifying theory called Plate Tectonics which happens to be the most important theory in Geology today. By that theory, South America is still moving away from Africa continent at the rate of 10cm a year. so these animals were togethr in a place before the earth divide. Science and bible disagree on when this division took place. Science said it happened millions of years ago while Bible said that it was after the flood. Genesis 10:25 reads
Gen 10:25
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." K
What I am saying is that all the animals were together before the continents drifted so its not difficult to understand How so many unique species got to remote islands if i'm to borrow your words

Now the emboldened says South America is moving away from Africa at the rate of 10cm/yr or 0.0001km/yr and the shortest distance between Africa and South America is approximately 2500 km i.e. Senegal to the outermost part of Brazil(Not taking into account the possible drift point from the mid-Atlantic ridge) . This means according to you, Continental drift started (2500/0.0001) years ago = 25 million years ago!

If we use the Mid Atlantic ridge as the drift point and assume both continents move away at the same rate whilst keeping 10cm/year constant, we still arrive at (4500km/2)/0.0001 = 22.5 million years ago!

Could you help me address this anomaly in your argument?
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by Zodiac61(m): 8:29pm On Aug 16, 2010
I guess one can say that the theists are just making it up as they go along.
@nuclearboy and @ajoguegbe,
It is really okay to say "I don't know" from time to time. Trying to bluff and lie your way out of questions you do not know the answers to is really unedifying.
I guess my questions cannot be answered because the biblical account of the flood is a myth, no more no less.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by wirinet(m): 8:51pm On Aug 16, 2010
ow11:

^^^
I like your enthusiasm to reconcile bible stories and geological facts BUT I would like to ask you to explain just this point.

Now the emboldened says South America is moving away from Africa at the rate of 10cm/yr or 0.0001km/yr and the shortest distance between Africa and South America is approximately 2500 km i.e. Senegal to the outermost part of Brazil(Not taking into account the possible drift point from the mid-Atlantic ridge) . This means according to you, Continental drift started (2500/0.0001) years ago = 25 million years ago!

If we use the Mid Atlantic ridge as the drift point and assume both continents move away at the same rate whilst keeping 10cm/year constant, we still arrive at (4500km/2)/0.0001 = 22.5 million years ago!

Could you help me address this anomaly in your argument?

You are just wasting your time trying to reason scientifically with people who are desperate to spread their dogma using falsehood and lies. I think it gives them a sense of self righteous euphoria convincing people with little understanding of how the natural world works, with their little understanding of science.

The continents did  not drift apart 25million yrs ago, according to geological studies (not by spiritual methods as employed by our spiritual geologist), the continents drifted apart some 180million yrs ago. So except our spiritual geologist and biologist can tell us that Noah or any other mammal for that matter was living 180million years ago.

I think religion affects the smooth functioning of the neo-cortex or else, how can someone postulate in the 21st century that enough water covered the whole planet up to the height of mount Everest. Since the earth is a sphere and mount Everest is up to 29,000ft above sea level, you would require about 30 times more water than is available on earth today. A geologist should know that all the water ( liquid, Ice and vapour) on the earth's surface is constant, so where did 30 times the volume of water come from to flood the planet?, and after the fabled flood, where did it disappear to?

They peddle the ridiculous argument that since most societies in the middle east have flood stories, so it must be true. If we use that logic, then we must accept fire breathing flying lizards or is it snakes called Dragons as being true, since the stories pervades both far east and the whole of Europe. We must also accept santa as true, since most people have heard of santa.

Finally, this tread is very misleading as it is just an attempt at evangelizing and nothing more. The poster did not even tell us why the fabled Noah's ark floated and the Titanic sank. Also he should have gone on to tell us why the Concorde crashed, why challenger crashed, why the twin towers fell, why the atomic bomb fell, and many other grave human tragedies  to support his religious dogma.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by Okija_juju(m): 8:52pm On Aug 16, 2010
Bookmarked!! grin
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ow11(m): 9:09pm On Aug 16, 2010
@wirinet

I was just trying to help him not appear too silly by pointing out simple errors. It is plausible to argue on the side of the YEC rather objectively although some of their claims are downright ridiculous.

I read on another thread where the OP insisted he was a geologist and one wonders whether he has ever heard of sequence stratigraphy. undecided
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ajoguegbe(m): 11:26pm On Aug 16, 2010
Now the emboldened says South America is moving away from Africa at the rate of 10cm/yr or 0.0001km/yr and the shortest distance between Africa and South America is approximately 2500 km i.e. Senegal to the outermost part of Brazil(Not taking into account the possible drift point from the mid-Atlantic ridge) . This means according to you, Continental drift started (2500/0.0001) years ago = 25 million years ago!
If we use the Mid Atlantic ridge as the drift point and assume both continents move away at the same rate whilst keeping 10cm/year constant, we still arrive at (4500km/2)/0.0001 = 22.5 million years ago!

Could you help me address this anomaly in your argument?
Well your judgment is based on what geologists call the principle of uniformiterianism where you assume that if i say 10cm,then it must have been 10cm from the onset. what you also fail to acknowledge is the fact that some scientific principles is based on  ceteris paribus(i.e all things being equal)but you and I know that all things can never be equal. Cataclysmic events happen ones in a while to disrupt the sequence of events. unlike physics and chemistry that can be controlled in the laboratory and results verified,some geologic interpretation of the past are based on speculations. The same goes with the prediction of the future.
For instance, The popular believe that dominated the 20th century was that climate change is responsible for natural disasters.This judgment was based on the report by the UN Climate Change panel. but on 24th of January this year UK Timesonline reports it was a hoax. for proof, read the link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
In fact, the UK Telegraph reports
Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was forced to admit it made a mistake by claiming the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. It made the assertion two years ago, saying it was based on detailed research into global warming, but has now conceded it was an error and the claim would be reviewed.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/7074446/UN-report-on-climate-change-and-natural-disasters-was-balanced.html.
So how dare you trust scientific analysis of the past and future.they are blurred and shrouded in speculations. I will expose them in my next blog(Global Warming or Global Warning)
Though this may still be hard for you to swallow but Only the Bible is a dependable source in telling the past and forecasting the future
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ajoguegbe(m): 11:52pm On Aug 16, 2010
@Wirinet
You are just wasting your time trying to reason scientifically with people who are desperate to spread their dogma using falsehood and lies. I think it gives them a sense of self righteous euphoria convincing people with little understanding of how the natural world works, with their little understanding of science.
I hail your vast understanding of the workings of the natural world. but consider your next statement,
The continents did  not drift apart 25million yrs ago, according to geological studies (not by spiritual methods as employed by our spiritual geologist), the continents drifted apart some 180million yrs ago. So except our spiritual geologist and biologist can tell us that Noah or any other mammal for that matter was living 180million years ago.
You debunked both the geologic and the scientific points of view. so where do you stand? and where did you get your own evidences?Or may be you were alive 250million years ago to have observed it. look at the authoritative statements you make. Now consider your next statement
I think religion affects the smooth functioning of the neo-cortex
I really don't know whose neo-cortex is malfunctioning now, when you have no evidences to back up your belief. you dont believe in God and you are very dogmatic about it.another believes in a God with proofs and you say he has brain problem.

Finally, this tread is very misleading as it is just an attempt at evangelizing and nothing more. The poster did not even tell us why the fabled Noah's ark floated and the Titanic sank.

If you say its misleading because its an attempt to evangelize, then you are wrong.Yes it is an attempt to evangelise and there is nothing misleading about that purpose. Why do you think i will spend hours online answering questions about my belifs. You think i'm jobless? NO! The reason is because I want people like you to be saved and come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. I belief its the truth you have not known thats why you have failed to embrace Christ. My point is that Religion makes more sense than atheism. And christianity(though not a religion in the true sense) holds the key of knowledge and of life
You say i didnt tell you why the Ark floated, and titanic sank, that is because you didnt read the blog i refered you to in the thread. READ IT, It will help your life. Link once more
http://judewatchman.blogspot.com/
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by OLAADEGBU(m): 11:53pm On Aug 16, 2010
As it was in the days of Noah so is it today.

Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ajoguegbe(m): 12:22am On Aug 17, 2010
@Olaadegbu I like that. I had thought your posts were only directed towards Obama.lol
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by Okija_juju(m): 3:18am On Aug 17, 2010
Reading thru this thread, I have seen people who claimed to be geologist say that there is evidence to support the Noah story and yet they never even bothered to elaborate.

Please all pro-Noah supporters should state scientific proof of the Noah story, cos an event such as that would have left geological markers for all to see.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ow11(m): 7:22am On Aug 17, 2010
@ajoguegbe

Good answers but yet again you fall into the trap of conjectures and selective belief. Scientists once believed the earth was the centre of the universe, the atom was the smallest indivisible part of a compound and plate tectonics was rubbish!

People who challenge established laws and principles do so without conjectures else you open a lee way to be pilloried. Which is what you are doing. It would be nice to present your facts in a rather scientific way.

Human cause of climate change is debatable and would continue to be till tangible evidence is brought forward by one side of the argument to shut the other up forever. Bill Gates once said people would not need more than 256KB of data personally, now we know better.

My point is this, If you want to prove scientifically the plausibility of a global flood, you would have to do a better job than what you are doing right now. It is not convincing and has so many holes that if I begin to pick at them, we would go down the path of two obstinate fellows refusing to listen to learn rather than listen to find faults. You can not say geologists mainly speculate and then turn around and use same geological principles to explain away a hole in your story.

Point is, stop being lazy with copy and paste jobs. If you are really a geologist, think and look for reasons why you think the Cambrian rocks are not 500 million years old and why there should be a major MFS and SB in the geological column unique to all basins. Or something better than that!
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ajoguegbe(m): 9:13am On Aug 17, 2010
Good answers but yet again you fall into the trap of conjectures and selective belief. Scientists once believed the earth was the centre of the universe, the atom was the smallest indivisible part of a compound and plate tectonics was rubbish!, It would be nice to present your facts in a rather scientific way.
You agree that scientists sometimes make mistakes and you expect me to follow science always. NO!!!Those that made such flaws you pointed out above also presented their arguments in a scientific way.
Human cause of climate change is debatable and would continue to be till tangible evidence is brought forward by one side of the argument to shut the other up forever. Bill Gates once said people would not need more than 256KB of data personally, now we know better.
One of the areas covered by the blog link I sent is why we should not always trust the experts
You can not say geologists mainly speculate and then turn around and use same geological principles to explain away a hole in your story.
We are created as spirits that have a soul that lives in a body. as spirits we deal with the immaterial world, but we have a soul (where the mind is)with it we deal with the physical universe.that is where science comes in. A man who depends only on science to direct his life is very blind, the same way a man who only depends on the spirit while he is still living in a physical universe. As a spiritual man I use science appropriately and recognize it has limitations. The Word of God is both Spirit and life (John 6:63) and helps me to draw the demarcation. Hebrews 4:12 says
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The Word of God helps me to divide what is spiritual and what is soulish(scientifically explained)

Point is, stop being lazy with copy and paste jobs.
I have discovered that most Nairalanders use this statement when they run out of answers/points. cheesy cheesy ;DIf you have been reading through the lines of my argument, you will know there was not a copy and paste job except when i need to lift something from the internet and i normally give the source. I don't follow my faith blindly. I study what I follow. An intelligent person like you should be able to know when some1 copied in an exam hall, let alone here. Even if we are chatting I will still flow the same way. because the Word of God is living in me and the Holy Spirit is alive, coupled with the mind of Christ that I have. I have studied both sciences and history, I know my faith as well and that its superior and doesnt contradict REAL science. that is why most of the foundational fathers of science are deeply spiritual men. Learn from Louis Pasteur, the Father of Microbiology
Posterity will some day laugh at the foolishness of our materialistic philosophy.
The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator

Louis Pasteur
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ajoguegbe(m): 10:01am On Aug 17, 2010
This one is a copied work from a secular source you can verify. It is copied verbatim from Encarta Encyclopaedia under the topic: Scientific Revolution
Atheism, previously unknown in Christian Europe, gradually became an increasingly popular alternative to religion. Ironically, although all of the major figures in the scientific revolution were devoutly religious and saw their scientific work as a way of proving the existence of an omnipotent creator, the new mechanical philosophies were appropriated by atheists. Those who wished to deny the validity of the religious world-view could use the new philosophies to suggest that the world was capable of functioning in an entirely mechanistic way with no need for supernatural intervention or supervision.
Many of the central beliefs of the Enlightenment and new social sciences developed at that time owed their origins to the powerful stimulus of Newtonian science. But all too often it was a Newtonian science devoid of the God that Newton himself had believed in. Newton was especially devout and explicitly stated that his system was intended to demonstrate the existence of God, but he was powerless to prevent the irreligious interpretation of his science. From then on the secular scientific world-view became increasingly dominant.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by wirinet(m): 10:11am On Aug 17, 2010
ajoguegbe:

@Wirinet
I hail your vast understanding of the workings of the natural world. but consider your next statement, You debunked both the geologic and the scientific points of view. so where do you stand? and where did you get your own evidences?Or may be you were alive 250million years ago to have observed it. look at the authoritative statements you make.

It is you that debunk geological and scientific evidence, not me. I concur with established scientific evidences while you promote spiritual evidences as against geological ones.

Sorry, i might not be right on the figure on when the continents broke apart as i gave the figures out of the top of my head, but i am certain that it was  more than 100million yrs ago. I was just trying to correct Ow11 that it was far more than 25 million yrs ago.

See this wikipedia article to have an understanding of continental movements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

If you have alternative figures from other sources, let us have it.

ajoguegbe:

Now consider your next statement I really don't know whose neo-cortex is malfunctioning now, when you have no evidences to back up your belief. you dont believe in God and you are very dogmatic about it.another believes in a God with proofs and you say he has brain problem.

You above statement is meaningless. You make an assertion based on your religious dogma, and i reject it for lack of logic and evidence, and you turn around and accuse me of dogmatism. Do i have to believe every belief that is proposed to me?. Also what about others that refuse to accept your brand of religious doctrine, are you going to accuse them of being dogmatic also.

ajoguegbe:

If you say its misleading because its an attempt to evangelize, then you are wrong.Yes it is an attempt to evangelise and there is nothing misleading about that purpose. Why do you think i will spend hours online answering questions about my belifs. You think i'm jobless? NO! The reason is because I want people like you to be saved and come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. I belief its the truth you have not known thats why you have failed to embrace Christ. My point is that Religion makes more sense than atheism. And christianity(though not a religion in the true sense) holds the key of knowledge and of life.

I do not condemn your attempt at evangelizing, i only quarrel with your misinformation of others in order to trick them to tow your line of belief using pseudo- science. You will cause more damage by leading many people who seek to understand science astray. Using science to support your religious beliefs is wrong, it would be logical to remain in the realm of the spiritual. I commend the efforts of my brother Mr Olaadegbu, he does a lot of evangelizing here on Nairaland, i only quarrel with him also when he uses voodoo science to preach. He can be forgiven because he does not claim to be a scientist.

Your religion make spiritual sense to you - good, but it does not make logical sense to me and billions of others. Lots of people just want to live their lives and not in need of salvation or threats from any one. You can save those that require salvation.



ajoguegbe:

You say i didnt tell you why the Ark floated, and titanic sank, that is because you didnt read the blog i refered you to in the thread. READ IT, It will help your life. Link once more
http://judewatchman.blogspot.com/

I am very busy now, but i promise to look at your blog later. But i want you to know that your global flood theory is a very hard sell outside religious dogma. There are way to many problems with it, that i could write a hole volume picking holes in it. Some examples are; how was Noah, his family, plants and animals onboard the wooden ark able to breath in the thin atmosphere of over 29,000ft, they would need to carry oxygen masks and probably pressurize the ark. Also how were they able to cope with sub-zero temperatures at such height. And you have not even answered my questions on where the huge volume of water came from and where it went after.

If you want a more comprehensive story of the mythical flood, read the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by OLAADEGBU(m): 11:18am On Aug 17, 2010
ajoguegbe:

@Olaadegbu I like that. I had thought your posts were only directed towards Obama.lol

Obama only got me going because of his socialist's agendas and recently his statement of building the mosque at ground zero.  If you have been around much earlier you would have discovered that I attempted to answer some if not all of these questions about Noah's Flood and the ark, but some folks minds have been corrupted by these evolutionary geology column that their minds are made up and as a result they don't want to be confused with the facts.

Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by MyJoe: 12:12pm On Aug 17, 2010
OLAADEGBU:

Obama only got me going because of his socialist's agendas and recently his statement of building the mosque at ground zero.  If you have been around much earlier you would have discovered that I attempted to answer some if not all of these questions about Noah's Flood and the ark by some folks minds have been corrupted by these evolutionary geology column that their minds are made up and as a result they don't want to be confused with the facts.
Highlighted, sir, is untrue. And I wonder what you mean by his "socialist's agendas". Why are you right-wingers so mad at a plan to extend health insurance to the poor?
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by OLAADEGBU(m): 12:29pm On Aug 17, 2010
MyJoe:

Highlighted, sir, is untrue. And I wonder what you mean by his "socialist's agendas". Why are you right-wingers so mad at a plan to extend health insurance to the poor?

This is not a thread about Obama if you want to know his opinion about muslims building a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero you can google it up or open another thread for it to be discussed.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by MyJoe: 12:54pm On Aug 17, 2010
OLAADEGBU:

This is not a thread about Obama if you want to know his opinion about muslims building a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero you can google it up or open another thread for it to be discussed.
Now you have spoken closer to the truth. Your earlier post was untrue I just thought I might correct it. The mosque is to be built on a private land near ground zero. While I understand all the sentiments of some Americans on the matter and I am not making this post to express my opinion on it, I fail to understand the extent to which some of you take it. Your intolerance is just as bad as that of some Muslims.

Sorry, Mr ajoguegbe, I had to interrupt to point out something and Mr OLAADEGBU has corrected his error, though not his entrenched position on the matter or his rabid anti-Obamism.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:21pm On Aug 17, 2010
MyJoe:

Now you have spoken closer to the truth. Your earlier post was untrue I just thought I might correct it. The mosque is to be built on a private land near ground zero. While I understand all the sentiments of some Americans on the matter and I am not making this post to express my opinion on it, I fail to understand the extent to which some of you take it. Your intolerance is just as bad as that of some Muslims.

Sorry, Mr ajoguegbe, I had to interrupt to point out something and Mr OLAADEGBU has corrected his error, though not his entrenched position on the matter or his rabid anti-Obamism.

Must you skeptics always have to think the same way in scoring cheap points?  When I said at ground zero does it have to mean on the very spot, can't it also mean in close proximity to the ground?  This how you guys think when we say that the earth is 6,000 years old it does not necessary mean that it is precisely 6,000 years old you should be able to get the point we are trying to pass across without being spoon fed every detail.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:22pm On Aug 17, 2010
A very large boat.

Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by MyJoe: 1:41pm On Aug 17, 2010
OLAADEGBU:

Must you skeptics always have to think the same way in scoring cheap points?  When I said at ground zero does it have to mean on the very spot, can't it also mean in close proximity to the ground?  This how you guys think when we say that the earth is 6,000 years old it does not necessary mean that it is precisely 6,000 years old you should be able to get the point we are trying to pass across without being spoon fed every detail.
That ^^^ is dishonest, Mr Olaadegbu. How can you say building near ground zero and building at ground zero are the same? The first time I heard this story, it was from a fanatic like you who told me a mosque is to be build at ground zero. I wondered if a part of the land the towers used to occupy had been sold to Islamists trying to score some political points and wondered how someone could be that crazy. Then I found that it was a private land quite close to the place. That clarified the whole thing, yet you dishonestly claim here that it doesn't matter how you report it? That clarifying a sensitive matter amounts to trying to score cheap points? There are ordinances governing what type of building can appear where in New York. You want a president to override that, override the right of private citizens to sell their property to whoever they like within the law just to please you?
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ajoguegbe(m): 1:54pm On Aug 17, 2010
This is not a thread about Obama if you want to know his opinion about muslims building a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero you can google it up or open another thread for it to be discussed.
kiss kiss kiss
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by MyJoe: 2:08pm On Aug 17, 2010
^^^ Sorry your thread was derailed. There are certain lies that should not be allowed to reign freely.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by OLAADEGBU(m): 2:27pm On Aug 17, 2010
Am sure you do not want to hear the phrase "I told you so".

Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by Mudley313: 3:14pm On Aug 17, 2010
MyJoe:

Highlighted, sir, is untrue. And I wonder what you mean by his "socialist's agendas". Why are you right-wingers so mad at a plan to extend health insurance to the poor?

sad thing is mr. oladegbu is actually a nigerian living in the UK who just swallows WHITE american right wing republican/conservative political propaganda that has nothing of any sought to do with his black-nigerian-living-in-the-UK self. i guess jesus will be mad at obama for extending health insurance to the "poor" that he always spoke for cos he probably was a capitalist in the world of mr. oladegbu's and his racist white american folks. like most of your fellow christians have constantly pointed out, you're clearly carrying out the work of your mythical devil, hating incessantly on the first black U.S president like your uncle tom azz is gonna be awarded a free membership pass into the kkk.

thank goodness his myth-ridden belief system and constant propagation of unwarranted threats and fear mongering is only a fiction of his warped imagination and that on his cartoon strips, as with other imaginary tales and characters like superman, batman and daffy duck
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ajoguegbe(m): 3:33pm On Aug 17, 2010
@Oladaagbu
I love those cartoons,please post more of it. It has a big message that will bless people
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by OLAADEGBU(m): 3:35pm On Aug 17, 2010
ajoguegbe:

@Oladaagbu
I love those cartoons,please post more of it. It has a big message that will bless people

Your wish is my command, sir, wink

Faith Matters

Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by thehomer: 4:26pm On Aug 17, 2010
ajoguegbe:

Well your judgment is based on what geologists call the principle of uniformiterianism where you assume that if i say 10cm,then it must have been 10cm from the onset. what you also fail to acknowledge is the fact that some scientific principles is based on  ceteris paribus(i.e all things being equal)but you and I know that all things can never be equal. Cataclysmic events happen ones in a while to disrupt the sequence of events. unlike physics and chemistry that can be controlled in the laboratory and results verified,some geologic interpretation of the past are based on speculations.

You're about to misstep yet again. Cataclysmic events leave traces after they occur. No they are not simply speculations. They have evidence backing them up. If you really want to disprove it, then you need to present better evidence backing you up.

ajoguegbe:

The same goes with the prediction of the future.
For instance, The popular believe that dominated the 20th century was that climate change is responsible for natural disasters.This judgment was based on the report by the UN Climate Change panel. but on 24th of January this year UK Timesonline reports it was a hoax. for proof, read the link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

Hey did you read the article? I don't think you're using the word "hoax" in the right way here.

ajoguegbe:

In fact, the UK Telegraph reports
Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was forced to admit it made a mistake by claiming the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. It made the assertion two years ago, saying it was based on detailed research into global warming, but has now conceded it was an error and the claim would be reviewed.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/7074446/UN-report-on-climate-change-and-natural-disasters-was-balanced.html.

A mistake was made and will be corrected and you think this is enough reason to discard all conclusions reached? A better approach will be to analyze each conclusion based on the evidence presented for them. Mistakes are expected in an undertaking of such immensity and complexity regarding another complex entity.

ajoguegbe:

So how dare you trust scientific analysis of the past and future.they are blurred and shrouded in speculations. I will expose them in my next blog(Global Warming or Global Warning)
Though this may still be hard for you to swallow but Only the Bible is a dependable source in telling the past and forecasting the future

No, scientific analysis are not shrouded in speculations. Where speculations are being made, the scientists usually state it.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by thehomer: 4:32pm On Aug 17, 2010
ajoguegbe:

This one is a copied work from a secular source you can verify. It is copied verbatim from Encarta Encyclopaedia under the topic: Scientific Revolution
Atheism, previously unknown in Christian Europe, gradually became an increasingly popular alternative to religion. Ironically, although all of the major figures in the scientific revolution were devoutly religious and saw their scientific work as a way of proving the existence of an omnipotent creator, the new mechanical philosophies were appropriated by atheists. Those who wished to deny the validity of the religious world-view could use the new philosophies to suggest that the world was capable of functioning in an entirely mechanistic way with no need for supernatural intervention or supervision.
Many of the central beliefs of the Enlightenment and new social sciences developed at that time owed their origins to the powerful stimulus of Newtonian science. But all too often it was a Newtonian science devoid of the God that Newton himself had believed in. Newton was especially devout and explicitly stated that his system was intended to demonstrate the existence of God, but he was powerless to prevent the irreligious interpretation of his science. From then on the secular scientific world-view became increasingly dominant.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

What point are you trying to make here?
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by ow11(m): 6:48pm On Aug 17, 2010
@ajoguegbe

I did write to wirinet that it is possible to provide a better defence than what you are doing at the moment BUT you are just regurgitating principles thought up by Ken Ham and Kent Hovind who are NOT geologists and whose hypotheses have been roundly discredited by scientists that bother and even here on Nairaland.

Trying to prove that story would take more than 'Oh a cataclysmic event changed the rate of plate movement' OR 'geologists usually speculate' to actually replace existing principles as we know them.

If you are actually serious in using geological principles to prove that flood (which by the way will not make anyone born again ) happened as you explain, You would start with simple geological theories you agree with and work from there to your end point! It is my belief at this point in this thread that you ARE NOT interested in doing that or too lazy or maybe lack the wherewithal to do so.
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by OLAADEGBU(m): 7:20pm On Aug 17, 2010
Did some folks miss the boat?

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20001009.gif[/img]
Re: Real Reasons Titanic Sank And Noah's Ark Sailed by OLAADEGBU(m): 10:54am On Aug 18, 2010
ajoguegbe:

@Oladaagbu
I love those cartoons,please post more of it. It has a big message that will bless people

Yes.  Have you also noticed how it silences the critics, edifies the church and magnifies the Word of God?  Pictures they say speaks more than a thousand words.

(0) (1) (2) (Reply)

Nairaland Bible Quiz-you can join anytime... / . / Questions? Comments? Complaints? Talk To The Moderators Here

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2014 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See Nairalist and How To Advertise
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.