Pecuman:


Yes.

With the advent of Quantum mechanics, physical laws are more taken as probalistic than deterministic.

Quoting Dr Mark Worthing
"Science at least to the extent influenced by Quantum mechanics is no longer certain as to what can and cannot happen".

The most widely taught example of this is the heisenberg uncertainty principle in relation to mass and velocity but it applies to much more and can be more easily noticed in very small and unstable matter where a much smaller variation in probability can result in much larger effects.

Like for example, the relatively stable Lead atom can instantaneous transmute into Gold but it is highly improbable that an entire bar of lead will instantly transmute into Gold.

(Also the definition of miracle I used is Hume's which many still don't agree with)

So quantum mechanics is a miracle?
And your appeal to authority is evidence for that?

Do you have a background in science? Seems you are ignorant about everything in science, tell me what’s your level of scientific knowledge?
Can you now see why I said religion reaches a conclusion even before finding evidence which makes it distort facts, lie about science and scientists in order to justify their faulty experimental methods.


Go back and read my post. If you say science is inline with miracle in a good science class, you will mocked to stupor.

Do you even understand quantum mechanics? Lol
This one you are quoting Dr. Worthington, a medical doctor who wants to talk about quantum physics . It seems you didn’t read his profile

.

HellVictorinho:

The best defender of the Bible is budaatum who accuses others of neither reading nor understanding the Bible.
But I still condemn the Bible because those accusations can't withstand the fire in my head.
Even the accusation of me being lazy can't stop my condemnation of the Bible.
Furk the Bible!!

buda defends a book, lol. Pieces of paper from trees.

See buda's siggy, Hell.

Love one another! They that sayeth they are in the light and hateth another remaineth in darkness.
Human Rights

My faith in you is unwaveringly eternal.

Op, have you not heard of the first use the senses scientist, at least, according to the Bible?

There's another one known as Lord Scientist Jesus who spent his life teaching [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A22&version=KJV]use your senses and be a scientist[/url] or [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=KJV]you will lose them[/url].

Praise God that you stopped believing. You'll hopefully now begin to understand.

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.

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.

budaatum:
Op, have you not heard of the first use the senses scientist, at least, according to the Bible?

There's another one known as Lord Scientist Jesus who spent his life teaching [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A22&version=KJV]use your senses and be a scientist[/url] or [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=KJV]you will lose them[/url].

Praise God that you stopped believing. You'll hopefully now begin to understand.

What point are you trying to make?

budaatum:


buda defends a book, lol. Pieces of paper from trees.

See buda's siggy, Hell.

Love one another! They that sayeth they are in the light and hateth another remaineth in darkness.
Human Rights

My faith in you is unwaveringly eternal.

Your mental laziness and dishonesty make you repulsive.

FatherOfJesus:
What point are you trying to make?

Budaatum is just accusing you of not understanding English.
Later, budaatum will accuse you of being lazy.
Then ,deny you were accused of anything.
Budaatum is a dishonest accuser who doesn't want to be accused similarly as a result of the hypocrisy of budaatum.

FatherOfJesus:
So quantum mechanics is a miracle?
And your appeal to authority is evidence for that?

Do you have a background in science? Seems you are ignorant about everything in science, tell me what’s your level of scientific knowledge?
Can you now see why I said religion reaches a conclusion even before finding evidence which makes it distort facts, lie about science and scientists in order to justify their faulty experimental methods.


Go back and read my post. If you say science is inline with miracle in a good science class, you will mocked to stupor.

Do you even understand quantum mechanics? Lol
This one you are quoting Dr. Worthington, a medical doctor who wants to talk about quantum physics . It seems you didn’t read his profile

I did read his profile a bit but didn't think it was that important.

Also most your responses after that aren't really arguments, if I am so wrong about Quantum Mechanics, then you that see correct, how does the uncertainties in it work?

Also, I didn't say Quantum Mechanics were miracles but that they clearly show situations where the natural laws can be skipped thru.

Pecuman:


I did read his profile a bit but didn't think it was that important.

Also most your responses after that aren't really arguments, if I am so wrong about Quantum Mechanics, then you that see correct, how does the uncertainties in it work?

Can you just admit that you don’t understand quantum physics, so I can put your through?
Bro, there’s no harm in saying I don’t know instead making comments out of sciolism.

Pecuman:


I did read his profile a bit but didn't think it was that important.

Also most your responses after that aren't really arguments, if I am so wrong about Quantum Mechanics, then you that see correct, how does the uncertainties in it work?

Also, I didn't say Quantum Mechanics were miracles but that they clearly show situations where the natural laws can be skipped thru.

lol, quantum physics do not show situation where natural laws can be skipped.

It’s in fact the basis for most natural laws. Lol, you don’t understand doesn’t mean it’s a miracle

FatherOfJesus:
lol, quantum physics do not show situation where natural laws can be skipped.

It’s in fact the basis for most natural laws. Lol, you don’t understand doesn’t mean it’s a miracle

I guess by the very nature of natural laws as the summary of observed events that is true. As Quantum mechanics too have been added into that summary of observed events.

So I guess the correct way of putting it is that it shows that natural laws are more probalistic than deterministic and that most things we call impossible would more accurately be called improbable.

Pecuman:


I guess by the very nature of natural laws as the summary of observed events that is true. As Quantum mechanics too have been added into that summary of observed events.

So I guess the correct way of putting it is that it shows that natural laws are more probalistic than deterministic and that most things we call impossible would more accurately be called improbable.

how does this explain a virgin giving birth? Lol

FatherOfJesus:
how does this explain a virgin giving birth? Lol

Like it doesn't prove anything necessarily, more just makes it possible. We do know that Parthenogenesishttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis is possible but again, doesn't necessarily prove anything, just makes it possible.

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.

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.

Op I must tell you nothing but the whole truth that God Almighty is in existence. Religion make it complicated for us to understand him. I am not religious but I must always know that God exists.

Pecuman:


Like it doesn't prove anything necessarily, more just makes it possible. We do know that Parthenogenesishttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis is possible but again, doesn't necessarily prove anything, just makes it possible.

So Mary underwent parthenogenesis?

Tell me one known case if parthenogenesis in any mammalian specie?

Religious people and distortion.

SILVERLINES:
Op I must tell you nothing but the whole truth that God Almighty is in existence. Religion make it complicated for us to understand him. I am not religious but I must always know that God exists.

Which if the gods are you referring to?
We have more than 4000 gods worldwide.

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,

He made you in his own image and likeness. You are not distinct from him. Except you don't believe the bible.

Whataboutism is you saying because man can create a phone and torch, therefore man should be a creation. In that sense, the creator of man should have a creator and so on.

Pecuman:


It is a miracle.

Something won't be a miracle if it was simply natural.

By a virgin, you mean never had sex right? of course there are many other means of administering sperm without actual penetration or even sex.

I

naijapips04:


By a virgin, you mean never had sex right? of course there are many other means of administering sperm without actual penetration or even sex.

even at that, a virgin will have to give birth via caeserean section because they birth canal will be too tight

FatherOfJesus:
Ieven at that, a virgin will have to give birth via caeserean section because they birth canal will be too tight

I doubt that this is an absolute. And who says caesareans aren't possible then?

naijapips04:


I doubt that this is an absolute. And who says caesareans aren't possible then?

so Mary gave birth to Jesus via ceaserean? Lol

Nothing wey person no go hear
The first Caeserean was performed in 1610 and the patient died. Lol

I want to see more of the distortion of facts

FatherOfJesus:
so Mary gave birth to Jesus via ceaserean? Lol

Nothing wey person no go hear
The first Caeserean was performed in 1610 and the patient died. Lol

I want to see more of the distortion of facts

Oga I said your statement isn't an absolute that a virgin must give birth via caesarean.

Besides, what you posted is the first time it was written and recorded. And it's not 1610 but 1598. Doesn't mean it wasn't happening before then.

I don't even believe in the crap but for someone that claims to follow science, you mind is as closed asf.

Cesarean section has been part of human culture since ancient times and there are tales in both Western and non-Western cultures of this procedure resulting in live mothers and offspring. According to Greek mythology Apollo removed Asclepius, founder of the famous cult of religious medicine, from his mother's abdomen. Numerous references to cesarean section appear in ancient Hindu, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, and other European folklore. Ancient Chinese etchings depict the procedure on apparently living women. The Mischnagoth and Talmud prohibited primogeniture when twins were born by cesarean section and waived the purification rituals for women delivered by surgery.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/cesarean/part1.html

naijapips04:


Oga I said your statement isn't an absolute that a virgin must give birth via caesarean.

Besides, what you posted is the first time it was written and recorded. And it's not 1610 but 1598. Doesn't mean it wasn't happening before then.

I don't even believe in the crap but for someone that claims to follow science, you mind is as closed asf.

So the conclusion is that Jesus was born via Caesarean section?

Pecuman:

, few things we know now really contradict it and the more we will know about the world the less so.

Actually it's the other way round, the more we know of the world the less the Bible seems accurate. It is now accepted by mainstream Isreali archaeologists that there is no evidence of the exodus or Hebrew occupation of any portion of Egypt. Also no evidence of any of the people or events from the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve all the way to Moses and the exodus.

naijapips04:


Oga I said your statement isn't an absolute that a virgin must give birth via caesarean.

Besides, what you posted is the first time it was written and recorded. And it's not 1610 but 1598. Doesn't mean it wasn't happening before then.

I don't even believe in the crap but for someone that claims to follow science, you mind is as closed asf.

Jesus was also probably conceived via artificial sperm insemination.

LordReed:


Actually it's the other way round, the more we know of the world the less the Bible seems accurate. It is now accepted by mainstream Isreali archaeologists that there is no evidence of the exodus or Hebrew occupation of any portion of Egypt. Also no evidence of any of the people or events from the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve all the way to Moses and the exodus.

One of them as been trying hard to make me believe that Jesus could have been born via artificial speed insemination and given birth to via Caesarean section

There’s nothing you won’t hear from these people

FatherOfJesus:
So the conclusion is that Jesus was born via Caesarean section?

It's either you can't read or you are an absolute a.hole. I said your statement that a virgin must give birth via caesarean is not an absolute truth. Still indulging you, who said it's couldn't even be via caesarean.

I speaking solely now based on the facts of the issue you provided not on the context of where it happened.

First you said that it's not possible for a virgin to conceive, I proved to you that that is an incorrect statement. Then you make another claim that the virgin must give birth via caesarean and I indulged you further to say that that's a possibility and your statement isn't an absolute truth.

Don't be too full of your little knowledge. Science is approached with an open mind.

FatherOfJesus:
Which if the gods are you referring to?
We have more than 4000 gods worldwide.

I don't know any other God neither on earth or in heaven, under the waters or beneath than the only true God who created heaven and earth. His name is Jehovah and him alone I know.

FatherOfJesus:
Jesus was also probably conceived via artificial sperm insemination.

You are really annoying. Can a virgin give birth without penetration? Very possible. If you actually do doubt this, then I'm doubting your IQ. You like to believe that you are smart, but honestly you are not impressing me at all.

naijapips04:


It's either you can't read or you are an absolute a.hole. I said your statement that a virgin must give birth via caesarean is not an absolute truth. Still indulging you, who said it's couldn't even be via caesarean.

I speaking solely now based on the facts of the issue you provided not on the context of where the happened.

First you said that it's not possible for a virgin to conceive, I proved to you that that is an incorrect statement. Then you make another claim that the virgin must give birth via caesarean and I indulged you further to say that that's a possibility and your statement isn't an absolute truth.

Don't be too full of your little knowledge. Science is approached with an open mind.

Its impossible for a virgin to conceive and give birth, you don’t even need a MBBS to know that. Only a few knowledge in anatomy would have revealed that.

I’m full of little knowledge because I refuse to believe that a virgin sometime 2000+ years ago gave birth to a child. Lol

FatherOfJesus:
Its impossible for a virgin to conceive and give birth, you don’t even need a MBBS to know that. Only a few knowledge in anatomy would have revealed that.

I’m full of little knowledge because I refuse to believe that a virgin sometime 2000+ years ago gave birth to a child. Lol

and you are basing your statement on? dude I'm heavily disappointed. It's impossible for a virgin to conceive because she doesn't have ovaries or she doesn't have womb?

naijapips04:


You are really annoying. Can a virgin give birth without penetration? Very possible. If you actually do doubt this, then I'm doubting your IQ. You like to believe that you are smart, but honestly you are not impressing me at all.

So a virgin can give birth without penetration in 2000years ago?

Mary probably had the best surgeon then to do the surgery