Most religions of the world see science as a threat to their faith. Science depends on observation, data, asking questions, not assuming the answers in advance. So we test, we test again. Hypotheses that fail the tests wind up discarded. If we disprove an idea, we leave it behind. But this cannot be said about religion.

Science does not have an anti-God bias. Remember, science depends on observation. Can one observe God? No. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves demonstrate that God works in arbitrary and sometimes contrary ways, almost as if to frustrate the attempt to find him and understand him, this is one of the measures religion take to manipulate narratives to justify their conclusion. Since science can’t find any evidence of God to study, and everything we do study appears (evidence!) to have natural causes and to be natural phenomenon, God simply cannot be a part of any hypothesis or any conclusion.

Nor is science “pro-evolution.” Evolution is “change over time.” Populations change. Science studies those changes. It can’t deny that change has happened, because that is what the evidence clearly says. It isn’t a “bias” to accept that things change, including populations of organisms. We see it in the laboratory. We see it in the fossil record. We see it in farming techniques. We see it in the genetic records. It would be a “bias” to deny it.

What your religious teachers are trying to do to you is to make you come to your conclusions first, then try to find evidence that supports it later. If you can’t find evidence that supports your conclusions, then you make stuff up, or lie about the evidence, lie about the science, lie about the scientists, lie about your own credentials. Creationists — especially the ones writing the books, collecting your money — lie. It is their livelihood. They literally make a good living by lying.

I’m someone who likes to see evidence in all ramifications without special pleading for the existence of a god. If god has to exist then there must be a testable way to measure that and that’s why I would always tilt toward atheism and believe science most of the times. If a structure that follows evidence like science makes you uncomfortable, it means there’s something wrong with your belief system and you are trying very hard to cling to it.

You are not alone my brother, I gave up on religion a long time ago.

This what I'll tell you religion is a scam. Being a Christian has nothing to do with churches or what pastors tell you. It's simply about worship and building your relationship with God.


Many people from time immemorial have been looking for evidence that a God exist some have found him while others left disappointed. I for one don't believe in what pastors say, I call it indoctrination.


However, no matter what my experience is knowing God, it won't be enough to convince you. In your own way continue to search for him. But I'll leave you one thing, you won't find him in any complicated phenomena. Have you heard of hiding in plain sight? If you keep an open mind, you will find him right in front of you.

From the very little things of your everyday life, in things you consider insignificant and when you do, you'll ask yourself how you missed it all this while.

People find God even without knowing a word from the bible, people find God searching the ends of the earth for facts. If you are truly searching and not just sitting around waiting for proof, you will find him.

FatherOfJesus:
Most religions of the world see science as a threat to their faith. Science depends on observation, .

That is why this thread is very important!

https://www.nairaland.com/6479051/why-did-white-man-bring#100249726

For all men have been deceived and the deception is quite very successful.

The Only Truth that is True is that which is seen and experienced in Nature!

I

peggywebbs:
This what I'll tell you religion is a scam. Being a Christian has nothing to do with churches or what pastors tell you. It's simply about worship and building your relationship with God.


Many people from time immemorial have been looking for evidence that a God exist some have found him while others left disappointed. I for one don't believe in what pastors say, I call it indoctrination.


However, no matter what my experience is knowing God, it won't be enough to convince you. In your own way continue to search for him. But I'll leave you one thing, you won't find him in any complicated phenomena. Have you heard of hiding in plain sight? If you keep an open mind, you will find him right in front of you.

From the very little things of your everyday life, in things you consider insignificant and when you do, you'll ask yourself how you missed it all this while.

People find God even without knowing a word from the bible, people find God searching the ends of the earth for facts. If you are truly searching and not just sitting around waiting for proof, you will find him.

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them. If you replace every point where the Bible mentioned God with the Invisible Pink Unicorn, you immediately start seeing this topic from a critical point.

For example Genesis chapter 1 vs 1:
In the beginning the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the heavens and the earth...and the Spirit of the Invisible Pink Unicorn was hovering over the waters. And the Invisible Pink Unicorn said, "Let there be light," and there was light. The Invisible Pink Unicorn saw that the light was good, and she separated the light from the darkness.

On what basis would you now say that the Bible God exist and the Invisible Pink Unicorn � doesn’t? And what if i say one need faith to experience the evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn

This is the problem with existence of God and why your personal experience doesn’t count as it can be tinted with bias. There’s no basis to say that your own god is the real god over others. It’s just your opinion and not evidential.

FatherOfJesus:
Most religions of the world see science as a threat to their faith. Science depends on observation, data, asking questions, not assuming the answers in advance. So we test, we test again. Hypotheses that fail the tests wind up discarded. If we disprove an idea, we leave it behind. But this cannot be said about religion.
Science does not have an anti-God bias. Remember, science depends on observation. Can one observe God? No. Furthermore,

the Scriptures themselves demonstrate that God works in arbitrary and sometimes contrary ways, almost as if to frustrate the attempt to find him and understand him, this is one of the measures religion take to manipulate narratives to justify their conclusion. Since science can’t find any evidence of God to study, and everything we do study appears (evidence!) to have natural causes and to be natural phenomenon, God simply cannot be a part of any hypothesis or any conclusion.

I’m sorry but the highlighted is a gross misrepresentation. The common saying “God works in mysterious ways” has no basis on the book(Bible).
According to this book, God will not do a single thing unless he has revealed it to his servants(Amos 3:7) that means we can easily know more about him since the Scriptures implore us to “Search for him with our whole heart” (Isaiah 55:6) meaning that he can be found if our heart condition is right and in order.
1Chronicles 28:9

Nor is science “pro-evolution.” Evolution is “change over time.” Populations change. Science studies those changes. It can’t deny that change has happened, because that is what the evidence clearly says. It isn’t a “bias” to accept that things change, including populations of organisms. We see it in the laboratory. We see it in the fossil record. We see it in farming techniques. We see it in the genetic records. It would be a “bias” to deny it.
What your religious teachers are trying to do to you is to make you come to your conclusions first, then try to find evidence that supports it later. If you can’t find evidence that supports your conclusions, then you make stuff up, or lie about the evidence, lie about the science, lie about the scientists, lie about your own credentials. Creationists — especially the ones writing the books, collecting your money — lie. It is their livelihood. They literally make a good living by lying.
I’m someone who likes to see evidence in all ramifications without special pleading for the existence of a god. If god has to exist then there must be a testable way to measure that and that’s why I would always tilt toward atheism and believe science most of the times. If a structure that follows evidence like science makes you uncomfortable, it means there’s something wrong with your belief system and you are trying very hard to cling to it.

I believe me and you have had a chat on this topic some time in the past where I proved to you that the religious book(Bible) is not anti-Science since it agrees with the fundamental laws of nature but you turned against me and said
“It’s just my own interpretation” even though it was the most palatable and reasonable explanation out of the other commentators that day.

FatherOfJesus:

Most religions of the world see science as a threat to their faith. Science depends on observation, data, asking questions, not assuming the answers in advance. So we test, we test again.

I am certain that you do not know that Science means "To Know" or "To Learn"!

Thus, it is about the acquisition of information of and about things in Nature!

But the observers of these started telling Lies by using The Truth to lie eg after teaching us the Truth of 1 + 1 and all the other Truths then they snuck in "Square Root" and thus when I ask what is the Square root of 7 or 3, they can not answer Naturally and Truthfully anymore.

DappaD:


I’m sorry but the highlighted is a gross misrepresentation. The common saying “God works in mysterious ways” has no basis on the book(Bible).
According to this book, God will not do a single thing unless he has revealed it to his servants(Amos 3:7) that means we can easily know more about him since the Scriptures implore us to “Search for him with our whole heart” (Isaiah 55:6) meaning that he can be found if our heart condition is right and in order.
1Chronicles 28:9



I believe me and you have had a chat on this topic some time in the past where I proved to you that the religious book(Bible) is not anti-Science since it agrees with most fundamental laws of nature but you turned against me and said “It’s just my own interpretation” even though it was the most palatable explanation out of the other commentators that day.

ok from your position, you certainly do not share the opinion of lot of Christians who think their god works in mysterious ways whenever they cannot grasp the basic concept of science.

You also share the opinion that the Bible is not anti-science. I would like to have this discussion because I am of the opinion that Bible is pseudoscientific and anti-evidential in every ramifications and this is the basis for my disbelief in it.

I want to understand the scientific explanation as to how marsupials like the kangaroo hopped from Australia to Middle East to join the Noah’s ark without leaving behind any form of evidence that it happened and if you have evidence to this, please let’s discuss it

FatherOfJesus:

Science does not have an anti-God bias. Remember, science depends on observation. Can one observe God?

I have answered you before and you could not offer any reasonable counter, for we can and yet can not Observe He Whom we call God, because a Creator is Always Separate and Distinct from His creation.

Your phone, torch car can only know some of you when you come close to them and touch them.

When you go away,. that's all, no further information!

For that is what it means to be A Creator and the creation, a creation,

Dtruthspeaker:


I am certain that you do not know that Science means "To Know" or "To Learn"!

Thus, it is about the acquisition of information of and about things in Nature!

But the observers of these started telling Lies by using The Truth to lie eg after teaching us the Truth of 1 + 1 and all the other Truths then they snuck in "Square Root" and thus when I ask what is the Square root of 7 or 3, they can not answer Naturally and Truthfully anymore.

how does this provide evidence for the existence of your god?
You just committed the fallacy of “whataboutism”, this fallacy is a form of tu quoque logical fallacy where you try to discredit an opponents proposition by charging them for hypocrisy without directly disproving their argument.

Assuming that your position about manipulation in science is right, and you see that as a hypocrisy, has that proven the existence of your god on basis of providing testable evidence? No

https://www.facebook.com/RussellBrand/videos/477562696563027/?app=fbl
I love this

Dtruthspeaker:


I have answered you before and you could not offer any reasonable counter, for we can and yet can not Observe He Whom we call God, because a Creator is Always Separate and Distinct from His creation.

Your phone, torch car can only know some of you when you come close to them and touch them.

When you go away,. that's all, no further information!

For that is what it means to be A Creator and the creation, a creation,

Every single statement you make is one fallacy or the other. You need to learn how to avoid fallacies before arguments. It’s a waste of time engaging someone who can’t identify and avoid them.

I’m not here argue for argument sake, I’m here to learn and you obviously have nothing to teach

FatherOfJesus:

If god has to exist then there must be a testable way to measure that and that’s why I would always tilt toward atheism and believe science most of the times...

Can your torch put you in its lab or can your car pour acid on you or can your phone put you in fire or in water to test and measure you?

That is what it means to be A Creator! You are Always Above and beyond the reach of your creations just as you will NEVER SUBMIT YOURSELF TO BE EXPERIMENTED UPON BY YOUR BIRO OR PENCIL OR TOY CAR!

Dtruthspeaker:


Can your torch put you in its lab or can your car pour acid on you or can your phone put you in fire or in water?

That is what it means to be A Creator! You are Always Above and beyond the reach of your creations just as you will NEVER SUBMIT YOURSELF TO BE EXPERIMENTED UPON BY YOUR BIRO OR PENCIL OR TOY CAR!

So who created the creator, since everything has to be created. If no one created the creator then it means it’s possible for the universe not to have a creator.

I expect another fallacy from you. Fallacy of special pleading.

FatherOfJesus:
Every single statement you make is one fallacy or the other. You need to learn how to avoid fallacies before arguments. It’s a waste of time engaging someone who can’t identify and avoid them.

I’m not here argue for argument sake, I’m here to learn and you obviously have nothing to teach

I have laid no fallacy because what I say is Natural True..

AND OF COURSE YOU CAN NOT ARGUE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY VALID COUNTER ARGUMENT AND CAN NOT HAVE ANY!

You are trying to go beyond the limits of your capability like your phone trying to go get a Visa and escape from your hands.

You are Over-Reaching!

Dtruthspeaker:


I have laid no fallacy because what I say is Natural True..

AND OF COURSE YOU CAN NOT ARGUE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY VALID COUNTER ARGUMENT AND CAN NOT HAVE ANY!

You are trying to go beyond the limits of your capability like your phone trying to go get a Visa and escape from your hands.

You are Over-Reaching!

The purpose of argument is not to be right but to find out what is right.
It doesn’t matter what you think is right. You argue like someone who wants to be right and does not want to learn. I don’t engage in such arguments of the blind.

As much as I don’t believe in the existence of God doesn’t mean that I believe everything in science. The reason for not believing in god is because there’s no evidence for it, people like you distort facts, deduce conclusions before providing evidence and then ignore vehemently any form of evidence against what you believe because you only want to be right irrespective of what’s right. I’m grown beyond that.

I’m not in for that abeg, I would attend to other mature opponents who are interested in sharing and accepting ideas instead of wanting to be right.

FatherOfJesus:

So who created the creator, since everything has to be created .

See, Over, Over-reaching!

You have not yet obtained sufficient information about your Creator, yet you still attempted to go beyond Him.

Exactly as a child who has not yet written and passed common entrance and yet he is asking about JSSCE, Every Reasonable and Responsible Parent Screams and Shouts on him saying "go and pass your Common Entrance Fool!"

FatherOfJesus:

If no one created the creator then it means it’s possible for the universe not to have a creator.
.

"If" that word if is your death for if means "Fabrications and imaginations" Not Solid Truth, meanwhile you said you you just wanted Truth, so it falls.

And clearly you are still operating and running on very old operating system, get the updated version, which is "since we did not even create ourselves how then can we know all about our maker?"

It is asking us to do the impossible!

Dtruthspeaker:


See, Over, Over-reaching!

You have not yet obtained sufficient information about your Creator, yet you still attempted to go beyond Him.

Exactly as a child who has not yet written and passed common entrance and yet he is asking about JSSCE, Every Reasonable and Responsible Parent Screams and Shouts on him saying "go and pass your Common Entrance Fool!"



"If" that word if is your death for if means "Fabrications and imaginations" Not Solid Truth, meanwhile you said you you just wanted Truth, so it falls.

And clearly you are still operating and running on very old operating system, get the updated version, which is "since we did not even create ourselves how then can we know all about our maker?"

It is asking us to do the impossible!

Whether or not I have sufficient information about the creator, it doesn’t in any way address this statement “everything must have a creator”.

FatherOfJesus:
ok from your disposition, you certainly do not share the opinion of lot of Christians who think their god works in mysterious ways whenever they cannot grasp the basic concept of science.
You also share the opinion that the Bible is not anti-science. I would like to have this discussion because I am of the opinion that Bible is pseudoscientific and anti-evidential in every ramifications and this is the basis for my disbelief in it.


I want to understand the scientific explanation as to how marsupials like the kangaroo hopped from Australia to Middle East to join the Noah’s ark without leaving behind any form of evidence that it happened and if you have evidence to this, please let’s discuss it

Great question! First of all, this book(Bible) said that Noah had 120-years to accomplish three daunting tasks before him. Genesis 6:3

The first one was to source out the materials to be used to make the Ark before he could begin construction which would require significant manpower because Ark had to meet all the specifications that God gave to Noah. Genesis 6:14-16

The second was to proclaim that impending doom was awaiting the society of ungodly and wicked mankind at that time. 2Peter 2:5

The third was to gather all the animals that God instructed Noah to gather. Genesis 6:19-21

Now, coming to your question it can be resolved in two ways.

It is already proven that man began to migrate from the Middle East to other parts of the earth with their different cultures, languages, belongings(including animals) and the Bible only made mention of such migration after the Flood of Noah’s day. Genesis 11:1-9
So before then, the humans and all the animals lived close to one another before the migration to other parts of the earth took place.

Second, I need not remind you that science has given evidence of the movement of tectonic plates i.e. the movement of huge land masses apart or toward each other so due to environmental factors(such as earthquakes, typhoons etc), the distance from Africa to North America today won’t be the same distance it was 500years ago.

And as earlier stated, Noah had 120-years(not 120days or 120months)—120YEARS to prepare in advance for the Flood that was coming so movement to other parts of the earth was relatively accessible so that means it was easy for Noah to gather all the animals that God commanded him to gather since the continents were relatively close to one another until after the Flood and due to other environmental factors. Genesis 8:4

DappaD:



Great question! First of all, this book(Bible) said that Noah had 120-years to accomplish three daunting tasks before him. Genesis 6:3

The first one was to source out the materials to be used to make the Ark before he could begin construction which would require significant manpower because Ark had to meet all the specifications that God gave to Noah. Genesis 6:14-16

The second was to proclaim that impending doom was awaiting the society of ungodly and wicked mankind at that time. 2Peter 2:5

The third was to gather all the animals that God instructed Noah to gather. Genesis 6:19-21

Now, coming to your question it can be resolved in two ways.

It is already proven that man began to migrate from the Middle East to other parts of the earth with their different cultures, languages, belongings(including animals) and the Bible only made mention of such migration after the Flood of Noah’s day. Genesis 11:1-9
So before then, the humans and all the animals lived close to one another before the migration to other parts of the earth took place.

Second, I need not remind you that science has given evidence of the movement of tectonic plates i.e. the movement of huge land masses apart or toward each other so due to environmental factors(such as earthquakes, typhoons etc), the distance from Africa to North America today won’t be the same distance it was 500years ago.

And as earlier stated, Noah had 120-years(not 120days or 120months)—120YEARS to prepare in advance for the Flood that was coming so movement to other parts of the earth was relatively accessible so that means it was easy for Noah to gather all the animals that God commanded him to gather since the continents were relatively close to one another until after the Flood and due to other environmental factors. Genesis 8:4

How do you explain the absence of any fossil record for marsupials outside of Australia in respect to your explanation? Does this not contradict the idea of having people move these animals around the world, because I these animal would have reproduced , die and even obviously their extinction from other continents will be found in fossil records.

You made a point about continental drift and then concluded that Australia was probably closer to Middle East when the flood happened. To address this, we need to determined when the Noah’s flood happened and how close were the continents as at that time. This will give us a clue to how possible for marsupials to hop there and whether we had Pangaea as at the time Noah flood happened.

So now I asked again, when did the Noah’s flood happen?

FatherOfJesus:

The purpose of argument is not to be right but to find out what is right.

It doesn’t matter what you think is right. You argue like someone who wants to be right and does not want to learn. I don’t engage in such arguments of the blind.

Not just Right Alone but Right and True like the Ground Under and Clean Healthy Water to be Drunk.

I do not care to be Right but I Need my Food and Drink Pure, Clean and Healthy. Cockroaches and Dirt renders it to be thrown in the fire.

I will never eat or drink them and I will so caution others not to eat and drink them

FatherOfJesus:

As much as I don’t believe in the existence of God doesn’t mean that I believe everything in science.

You have an unfettered power to believe that the ground under your feet is an ocean while the ocean is the sky, but when I hear it, you are going explain the Truth of it and immediately I see it, that's I will follow you to call the the ocean, sky.

Like the Americans call that glass in front of a car "Windshield", I call it "Windscreen" but we are both Clear on What The Truth is!

FatherOfJesus:

The reason for not believing in god is because there’s no evidence

I compell no man, it is after all it is your bed but if you keep your bed in your house, it would not be a subject of comment.

FatherOfJesus:

for it, people like you distort facts, deduce conclusions before providing evidence and then ignore vehemently any form of evidence against what you believe because you only want to be right irrespective of what’s right

Before a thing is consumed, it is very wise to inspect and examine it and if you have the opportunity to test it, do so for it is a fool who buys and consumes a thing that he did not properly examine.

FatherOfJesus:

I’m not in for that abeg, I would attend to other mature opponents who are interested in sharing and accepting ideas instead of wanting to be right.

I have reasonable presented the errors of your position and if you are unable to provide a valid counter neither are you able to accept the difficulty experienced in countering it, then that is not my fault, it is your burden which you have to resolve!

FatherOfJesus:
How do you explain the absence of any fossil record for marsupials outside of Australia in respect to your explanation? Does this not contradict the idea of having people move these animals around the world, because I these animal would have reproduced , die and even obviously their extinction from other continents will be found in fossil records.
You made a point about continental drift and then concluded that Australia was probably closer to Middle East when the flood happened. To address this, we need to determined when the Noah’s flood happened and how close were this continent as at that time. This will give us a clue to how possible for marsupials to hop there and whether we had Pangaea as at the time Noah flood happened.
So now I asked again, when did the Noah’s flood happen?

I said the question could be resolved in two ways and my first point which is more palatable than the second is that the migration of humans with their belongings and animals to other parts of the earth took place. Genesis 11:1-9
The second point is already resolved because they were means of transport(land/sea) in those days from one part of the earth to another so I’m surprised you asked the question in the first place.

I’ll ask you a question based on fossil records since we are going to put everything on a pedestal now. I’m not trying to discredit fossils or anything but why was it that the so-called Neanderthals who were believed to be ape-like men(homo-habilis/homo-erectus) in the past, have in recent times been discovered to just be REAL homosapiens? Can we now say that humans can be mistaken in their findings about fossil records?
Or can you categorically state that humans today have discovered all forms of life on land and in the sea? Including the fossils of ALL the ones that went extinct and died in the time past both on land and in the sea? If the answer is no, then your question is already solved.

Dtruthspeaker:


Not just Right Alone but Right and True like the Ground Under and Clean Healthy Water to be Drunk.

I do not care to be Right but I Need my Food and Drink Pure, Clean and Healthy. Cockroaches and Dirt renders it to be thrown in the fire.

I will never eat or drink them and I will so caution others not to eat and drink them



You have an unfettered power to believe that the ground under your feet is an ocean while the ocean is the sky, but when I hear it, you are going explain the Truth of it and immediately I see it, that's I will follow you to call the the ocean, sky.

Like the Americans call that glass in front of a car "Windshield", I call it "Windscreen" but we are both Clear on What The Truth is!



I compell no man, it is after all it is your bed but if you keep your bed in your house, it would not be a subject of comment.




Before a thing is consumed, it is very wise to inspect and examine it and if you have the opportunity to test it, do so for it is a fool who buys and consumes a thing that he did not properly examine.




I have reasonable presented the errors of your position and if you are unable to provide a valid counter neither are you able to accept the difficulty experienced in countering it, then that is not my fault, it is your burden which you have to resolve!

ok thanks, your opinion is well acknowledged.

FatherOfJesus:
Whether or not I have sufficient information about the creator, it doesn’t in any way address this statement “everything must have a creator”.

Then A Nursery school student should not ask his fellow Nursery School Students about JSSCE it is not reasonable and neither can he get a True-Full Answer nor Should Any Fellow Student Come to give Lies about it, since None of them can Truly Know!

FatherOfJesus:
ok thanks, your opinion is well acknowledged.

Glad to help!

FatherOfJesus:

how does this provide evidence for the existence of your god?

You did not ask about the Evidence of God up here for my comment was directed at the history and change of Science

FatherOfJesus:

You just committed the fallacy of “whataboutism”, this fallacy is a form of tu quoque logical fallacy where you try to discredit an opponents proposition by charging them for hypocrisy without directly disproving their argument.

Assuming that your position about manipulation in science is right, and you see that as a hypocrisy, has that proven the existence of your god on basis of providing testable evidence? No

So you were hasty up here!

DappaD:


I said the question could be resolved in two ways and my first point which is more palatable than the second is that the migration of humans with their belongings and animals to other parts of the earth took place. Genesis 11:1-9
The second point is already resolved because they were means of transport(land/sea) in those days from one part of the earth to another so I’m surprised you asked the question in the first place.

I’ll ask you a question based on fossil records since we are going to put everything on a pedestal now. I’m not trying to discredit fossils or anything but why was it that the so-called Neanderthals who were believed to be ape-like men(homo-habilis/homo-erectus) in the past, have in recent times been discovered to just be REAL homosapiens? Can we now say that humans can be mistaken in their findings about fossil records?
Or can you categorically state that humans today have discovered all forms of life on land and in the sea? Including the fossils of ALL the ones that went extinct and died in the time past both on land and in the sea? If the answer is no, then your question is already solved.

you are sure really know the characteristics of marsupials?
If really you know then you might have considered not making this statement.

I will take you through basic characteristics of marsupials and then maybe you can decide by yourself if you analogy with human/neanderthala makes sense.
We have 3 types of mammals; monotreme (example platypus), placental (examples are humans and all mammals in Africa) and marsupials (kangaroos, Tasmanian devils etc).

They are glaringly different in the morphological characteristics which determines their method of delivery their fetus. Monotremes are egg laying mammals hence there young’s develop outside of their parents in an egg. Marsupials give birth to illdeveloped young, they are nurtured in a pouch for months before they are capable of coming out and walking with mom while placental as the name goes carry their baby in their placenta until they are fully developed.

Now from the explanation I gave, you think it will be a tall order for a scientist to spot the difference in a marsupial from any other from of mammal when you see their fossils? It’s okay for a scientist to mistake a Neanderthal fossil for homo sapien because they differences are not conspicuous unlike marsupials from their mammals. Neanderthal and the closest relation of modern humans, the three types of mammals are far apart in the evolutionary tree hence have striking differences that any biologist even a rookie will detect.

You also have tried to distorted facts and trying to justify Noah’s flood based on a possible mistake from another different scenario. It’s strawman and faulty equivalence fallacy at the same time. it’s typical of religion.

Now, to put up a good argument, you would have cited with evidence fossil of marsupial outside of Australia. That will be a total justification for the possibility of how marsupials joined the ark but of course like any other religious person, you will distort narratives and never provide evidence for yours. Now, you reach a conclusion that Noah’s flood happened and now you are trying to create evidence to justify it instead of just finding evidence to flowing it where it leads.

Nawa o

FatherOfJesus:
you are sure really know the characteristics of marsupials?
If really you know then you might have considered not making this statement.
I will take you through basic characteristics of marsupials and then maybe you can decide by yourself if you analogy with human/neanderthala makes sense.
We have 3 types of mammals; monotreme (example platypus), placental (examples are humans and all mammals in Africa) and marsupials (kangaroos, Tasmanian devils etc).
They are glaringly different in the morphological characteristics which determines their method of delivery their fetus. Monotremes are egg laying mammals hence there young’s develop outside of their parents in an egg. Marsupials give birth to illdeveloped young, they are nurtured in a pouch for months before they are capable of coming out and walking with mom while placental as the name goes carry their baby in their placenta until they are fully developed.

I didn’t ask for a biology lesson. I am well-studied.

Now from the explanation I gave, you think it will be a tall order for a scientist to spot the difference in a marsupial from any other from of mammal when you see their fossils? It’s okay for a scientist to mistake a Neanderthal fossil for homo sapien because they differences are not conspicuous unlike marsupials from their mammals. Neanderthal and the closest relation of modern humans, the three types of mammals are far apart in the evolutionary tree hence have striking differences that any biologist even a rookie will detect.

Okay so you agreed that humans can indeed make mistakes in their findings? Remember that fossils are just minerals found in the ground pertaining to an animal/plant of a particular class/order/genus meaning that the difference will almost be indistinguishable so are you still saying that such mistakes are inevitable, even by an experienced taxonomist?

You also have tried to distorted facts and trying to justify Noah’s flood based on a possible mistake from another different scenario. It’s strawman and faulty equivalence fallacy at the same time. it’s typical of religion.
Now, to put up a good argument, you would have cited with evidence fossil of marsupial outside of Australia. That will be a total justification for the possibility of how marsupials joined the ark but of course like any other religious person, you will distort narratives and never provide evidence for yours. Now, you reach a conclusion that Noah’s flood happened and now you are trying to create evidence to justify it instead of just finding evidence to flowing it where it leads.
Nawa o

I never knew atheists could get so defensive. I posed a question for you earlier I don’t know if you omitted it by mistake?

DappaD:

Or can you categorically state that humans today have discovered all forms of life on land and in the sea? Including the fossils of ALL the ones that went extinct and died in the time past both on land and in the sea? If the answer is no, then your question is already solved.

DappaD:


I didn’t ask for a biology lesson. I am well-studied.



Okay so you agreed that humans can indeed make mistakes in their findings? Remember that fossils are just minerals found in the ground pertaining to an animal/plant of a particular class/order/genus meaning that the difference will almost be indistinguishable so are you still saying that such mistakes are inevitable, even by an experienced taxonomist?



I never knew atheists could get so defensive. I posed a question for you earlier I don’t know if you omitted it by mistake?

Nope, I can’t say humans have found all fossils, so how does that prove Noah’s flood and also prove how marsupials moved to the ark?

DappaD:


I didn’t ask for a biology lesson. I am well-studied.



Okay so you agreed that humans can indeed make mistakes in their findings? Remember that fossils are just minerals found in the ground pertaining to an animal/plant of a particular class/order/genus meaning that the difference will almost be indistinguishable so are you still saying that such mistakes are inevitable, even by an experienced taxonomist?



I never knew atheists could get so defensive. I posed a question for you earlier I don’t know if you omitted it by mistake?

How can I be defensive to arguments full of fallacies?. I tried to explain all these to you because you seem not to understand the basis of what we are talking about.

You have shifted the goal post from, continental drift, to movement by humans, to human/Neanderthal fossils and then now you arrived at a fallacy of appealing to ignorance (because we have not found all fossils then marsupials must have joined Noah’s ark).

It’s funny how you are jumping around. You can’t seem to pin point one exact method to explain how marsupials moved to Middle East during the Noah’s flood.

It’s not very hard to explain if it really happened

FatherOfJesus:
Nope, I can’t say humans have found all fossils, so how does that prove Noah’s flood and also prove how marsupials moved to the ark?

The bolded has already answered your question for you. If that’s still not okay, then there’s a blank space for you to fill.

FatherOfJesus:
How can I be defensive to arguments full of fallacies?. I tried to explain all these to you because you seem not to understand the basis of what we are talking about.
You have shifted the goal post from, continental drift, to movement by humans, to human/Neanderthal fossils and then now you arrived at a fallacy of appealing to ignorance (because we have not found all fossils then marsupials must have joined Noah’s ark).
It’s funny how you are jumping around. You can’t seem to pin point one exact method to explain how marsupials moved to Middle East during the Noah’s flood.
It’s not very hard to explain if it really happened

If you’re not pained to the heart, you won’t reply to one message twice.
Are Kangaroos the only the animals under the subclass Marsupialia? If not, are Marsupials only found in Australia? You wanted to use fossil records to judge whether an event occurred or not meanwhile there are still a lot of blank spaces that you must fill if we must tow that direction.