johnydon22:

Oh please enough with the people with superior knowledge in science believe these theories.

Not everyone in the scientific field agree to a theory until all possible reviews, studies, observations, experimentations, discoveries has been properly carried out on this theories.

I am one of those who maintain a skeptic nature and we even try finding faults in these theories to make sure a close approximation of truth is reached through these studies.

So to answer again: I am YET to agree with the Big Bang theory, evolution or the hypothetical abiogenesis or biogenesis because these subjects are still under heavy study and there are still many more to uncover in order to perfect these or ultimately find out a better answer.

If evidence against evolution arises and is reviewed to be correct evolution would be discarded by the science community, nobody would hold it to be true or believe it.

Science means study boy not dogma. .

so i am sure this childish hang on a thread has been addressed in full here.

Science recognize answers through careful study of the subject and religion establish answers without study and shielded from questions. . This is a clear open ground to establish comparison of both method of knowledge deduction.

So please na stop the fear and answer me ..


Which is better; Science that agrees it doesn't have answers and is working
towards knowing

or religion

that insists its dogmas must be taken as truth...?

Hahahahahaha chai... [/b][/i]

johnydon22:


That is correct People needs to laugh naaaa... You are doing a great job giving them what to laugh over

KingEbukasBlog:

Butthurt already

Why don't you agree with the proofs of evolution . Talk science please

**Face palm** How many times will one repeat the same nonsensical childish question. .

The 1001th time i am answering Because like many in the scientific world i do not agree to a theory until all possible
reviews, studies, observations, experimentations, discoveries has been
properly carried out on these theories.

It is a position of honesty because a theory can change or modify with more discoveries until it arrives at a truthful approximation..

Am not sure you understand science as you claim you do

Am sure it is obvious here. .

One who knows science is a mode of knowledge deduction through systematic approximations

or you who make out science to be a dogma. . . it is evidently clear who understand science here..

If not evolution how can you account for fossils and the similarity between fossils or extinct animals and modern animals . E.g Mammoth and elephant

I'm a computer science student . And I don't read off google and try to be condescending

Actually googling is not good for your eyes, try books..

My girl friend is also studying computer science nothing special about that, this is not web design..

Stop making illogical comparisons

Oh meeehn this is an eye sore
first i have shown how my question is a very valid and logically sound question, you still cannot demonstrate how it is logically wrong but desperately hanging on bandwagon to dodge it.

Common mehnnn...this is not what i have been teaching, how to dodge questions...let me repeat the question again and hope to get an answer this time..

Which is better; Science that agrees it doesn't have answers and is working towards knowing

or religion

that insists its dogmas must be taken as truth...?

Or if you ask me i advice you save yourself the embarrassment and agree you don't know

KingEbukasBlog:


Again , Johnny ...nobody gives a sh.it

Sunnystooth:

Actually, a lot of us following this thread do. And i must say, it's quite educative. So just give your most honest answer to that his question and stop 'dodging' it. *in Johnydon22 voice*

BeastOfNoNation:


You say black men were busy worshipping stones and rocks. As opposed to now where we're supposed to worship the air and a crucified dead man. Please I don't want to offend but I just wanted to point that out Why could God not find a more peaceful way to spread his religion? Before Christ, the Jews suffered for being God's people. When Christ came, he suffered on the cross. After he died, the Catholics suffered and were killed for practicing their religion in Rome. After the fall Rome, Charlemagne forcefully converted people to Christianity or threatened to beheaded them if they chose otherwise. During the medieval ages, common folk in Europe suffered under the rule of the Catholic church. During the Holy Crusades, many black people were taken from West Africa, tortured, enslaved, killed and forcefully converted to Christianity. During the Holocaust, most of the world's Jewish population was wiped out in concentration camps. Aboriginal people in Canada were almost completely wiped out by 'Christian' people and then the children were put in residential catholic schools where the nuns and priests would routinely abuse them. The world's current situation where countless Muslims are running away from their homes because terrorist groups are suicide bombing and trying to kill them. What is the benefit of the Abrahamic religions again? Please answer it for me because I don't know.

Antiparticle:
Bros, I appreciate your kind attitude.
You say we should disregard the Old Testament. Why? Didn't Jesus say he came to fulfill the law?
Granted, Jesus (supposedly) came to fulfill the spirit of the law not the letter of the law as had been done in the Old Testament. In any case, the Old Testament God was a merciless genocidal and infanticidal maniac.

So let's only focus on the New Testament: I would agree with you that Jesus was nice dude who created a revolutionary template for how people should love each other. But he wasn't the only such dude to have walked the earth. Also, he was not divine. The oldest Gospel, Mark, was written decades after Jesus died, and the oldest Mark manuscript doesn't even have the resurrection story! In addition, in Mark, Jesus did not claim to be God. It was in the newer Gospels, particularly The Book of John (written several more decades later), that the unquestioned divinity of Jesus was asserted. Also a lot of Christians think that Messiah means God; in Judaism, Messiah didn't mean God... in Mark, Jesus claimed he was Messiah not God.

Also, up until the Nicene Creed in the 4th Century, the idea of Christ's divinity wasn't even a universally agreed upon belief among practitioners of Christianity at the time! It was at this conference that a bunch of people decided that Christ was divine and the trinity was real. Think about it again... it was 300-400 years after Christ died that his divinity and his part of a so-called trinity became a standard part of Christian belief.

My point is that Christianity has had a revisionist history since inception. I don't disagree that Jesus was a great man (if he existed), but he provides no evidence to prove that he is/was God. Tell me about any miracles he claimed to have performed, and I will tell you about miracles other humans/deities at that time claimed to have performed. The Bible's claims about his wondrous works are as true as Buddha's or Sango's claims.

If the Christian God exists, it befuddles me that "He" would create rational empirical beings yet expect them to worship "Him" without providing them proof of "His" existence.

If this doesn't raise more questions, I don't know what will. Just wanted to share my thoughts bruv. No offense intended.

PS: I can talk theology if you want to... when I was Christian I read as many expositional theology and apologetics books as I could get my hands on (excluding books by materialistic pastorpreneurs such as Oyedepo, Oyakhilome, and their Nigerian & American ilk). I really thought I was getting closer to God, until I found myself across the proverbial Rubicon.

bstringz:



Happy independence day
In the Jewish times, the blood of lambs, goats and birds were used as sacrifice to cleanse sin, now if your an avid bible reader you would see that the blood of those lambs didn't cleanse sin, rather it only Covered sin and that wasn't what God wanted from his people, he wants a deep, loving, holy relationship with us. So Do you know what he decided to sacrifice himself so he could put a stop to all the goat sacrifice. A part of the old testament God could be heard saying "I do not take pleasure in burnt offering, obedience is better than sacrifice"
What God wants from us is obedience not even sacrifice so he came down in form of man JESUS CHRIST
Note:The trinity is God but in three forms (person).
If I toast egg, Fry egg, boil egg it doesn't mean it's no longer egg, it's still egg
So Jesus paid the price and was the ultimate sacrifice. It wasn't cruel. Jesus wasn't killed. He laid down his life for you and I. Jesus said in th book of John. "I lay down my life, no one takes it from me..."

Now to the crusades, you know we human mind is so broad and we tend to abuse most things even religion. However Christianity is a way of life. If people really follow the precepts of it, the crusades wouldn't have come up. The crusades were even more political than religious. God doesn't need anyone killing for him. Y did christ fix the ear of the man Peter cut off... He picked it up and fixed (that's a miracle that can't be faked) it. When Hitler killed Jews he said God told him to do so... My God couldn't have told him that. He was under the influence of the devil.

Yes there is some blood shed on the trail of Christianity, but I bet you those people either have another motive or they are not Christ-like(Christian)
Where did you see christ kill anyone in the bible??
Those killings where not from God. They were just being humans who doesn't even understand what they claim to believe

Finally, do u know the use of the old testament (Abrahamic religions)
Is so u can appreciate what christ came to do in the new testament. The old testament should not be read and put in practice now, no. It should only be read as a reference, wen u read it also read the new testament you would then appreciate wat christ did for us.

johnydon22:
Lmao. . .you are getting schooled here boy...
**Face palm** How many times will one repeat the same nonsensical childish question. .
The 1001th time i am answering Because like many in the scientific world i do not agree to a theory until all possible
reviews, studies, observations, experimentations, discoveries has been
properly carried out on these theories.
It is a position of honesty because a theory can change or modify with more discoveries until it arrives at a truthful approximation..
Am sure it is obvious here. .
One who knows science is a mode of knowledge deduction through systematic approximations
or you who make out science to be a dogma. . . it is evidently clear who understand science here..
You see? Evolution is a theory explaining this observed facts. And showing how little you know of scientific postulations you do not know theories can take a drastic turn when a new discovery is made.
Evolution as a theory can be modified and improved upon until it reaches a close range of approximated truth. . .till then it doesn't make claims of absolute truth or unchanging dogma that but be believed because it is still under study..
Common meeeehn you can do better than this, you want to force evolution down my throat?
Hehehehehe not every science inclined individual agrees with evolution YET...
Actually googling is not good for your eyes, try books..
My girl friend is also studying computer science nothing special about that, this is not web design..
Oh meeehn this is an eye sore
first i have shown how my question is a very valid and logically sound question, you still cannot demonstrate how it is logically wrong but desperately hanging on bandwagon to dodge it.
Common mehnnn...this is not what i have been teaching, how to dodge questions...let me repeat the question again and hope to get an answer this time..
Which is better; Science that agrees it doesn't have answers and is working towards knowing
or religion
that insists its dogmas must be taken as truth...?
Or if you ask me i advice you save yourself the embarrassment and agree you don't know

donnffd:


You want to wait till evolution is complete before you can believe it but I am sorry to burst your bubble but evolution can never be complete, its just the best guess, that's all science is , a best guess based on the evidence and measurements taken. If you believe gravity then why can't you believe evolution, Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravity 400years ago,it worked in all the scenarios we could have measured until late 18th century when it failed to explain the constant speed of light, Albert Einstein brought out his theory of gravity called the general theory of relativity which expanded on Newtons own and it has passed almost all the test given to it, but those that mean its the last straw,I think not,we still don't know what dark matter and dark energy is, when we do,we might have to revise Einstein's theories, but that doesn't mean Einstein or Newton for that matter was wrong and doesn't mean we should not believe it because it's not complete. Like I said earlier, its the best guess based on all the known evidence and measurements and so it would do for now

johnydon22:
Lmao. . .you are getting schooled here boy...

first i have shown how my question is a very valid and logically sound question, you still cannot demonstrate how it is logically wrong but desperately hanging on bandwagon to dodge it.

Common mehnnn...this is not what i have been teaching, how to dodge questions...let me repeat the question again and hope to get an answer this time..

Which is better; Science that agrees it doesn't have answers and is working towards knowing

or religion

that insists its dogmas must be taken as truth...?

Or if you ask me i advice you save yourself the embarrassment and agree you don't know [/i][/b]

bstringz:


Jesus=God. God=Jesus
Jesus came to earth as God-man. He was God but in human form.
When he made that statement he wasn't saying it from the God
Point of view. He was saying it knowing he was a man here on earth.

The sun and gravity which u make reference of was made by God. So the sun is as certain as God is.
Yes, she speaks of God Cos she has encountered him. I don't know you now cos I haven't had an encounter with you. Until I seek an encounter with you, I won't know you.
So why don't u seek an encounter with God. Then that way u would know him. If u honestly and open mindedly seek he would reveal himself to you, he wants to. He loves you even if you don't love him he still loves you.
So am by evidences concerning the existence of God. But lemme wait for her to share some with you and I would also share mine.

Cheers.

bstringz:
@keen, @beastofallnation
You both, made the same point in how I know "My God" is the one true God.
Now, do u believe in the existence of the Devil? I doubt if you don't believe in the existence of a God you would believe in the existence of the devil. That's why some of the things I would say now to you may sound posposterous just as the concept of God also sounds like that to you.

Now when the Muslims and traditionalists tells you Allah or Amadioha is the one true god. Don't throw it away yet. Pick up the quaran, pick up the bible(preferably the new testament), pick up also the Jewish Torah. Now do a study and ask the one true God to reveal himself to you. As you read them

The devil manipulates nature, if u read the Bible and some studies you would find out that the devil was thrown out of heaven due to his disobedience and when he fell he took with him about 1third of the angels and they became demons. Now the devil rules the earth, hence the need for the second coming of christ.
Devil and his demons has so much manipulated human beings that the devil had made people worship all sort of things (gods). This doesn't make them GOD. HENCE the numerous gods we have today. They are all manipulations of the devil. The devil craves worship, he wants to be worshipped like God but I bet if he comes in his true form and character, nobody would worship him so he disguises in form of sango, Amadioha, e. t. c and does "good" and people worship hereby decieving people

Even Jesus tells us that we should be beware that Satan can come in form of an angel of light.

Don't be deceived all this other gods are not God. The human mind loves to work and so the the need to create this things. But in the spiritual anything we attach any form of worship to becomes a god. Humans started attaching worship to stones, birds and the devil sees this as an opportunity to be worshipped.

Christian origin stated from the roman empire spread down to the geeks and spread further in Europe. So don't u think it's only normal for the white men to have brought us Christianity.
Though their motives were not pure. But christ sees this as an opportunity to reach out to the black men who were busy worshipping stones and rocks.

There is only one God. And that God is the God of the bible. Not Allah, not Amadioha. You can only reach God through Jesus Christ because he is God.

To your question @keen. The boy is physically challenged. So he's parents should seek for him if they love him
The human challenge is sin and do u know that God has already seek for you, he came down and died for you, felt what u felt went through the same challenges as you so he could understand you. Ain't that seeking? He's made himself available. He's already at the hospital bed (if he were the boys parent) standing next to the bed. The boys part in the seeking is just for him to open his eyes and see Jesus standing next to him

So keen Jesus has already seek you by dying for you, your part in the seeking ain't hard just accept him and that's all... Bam!! So easy and your automatically a friend of God. Christ doesn't want to "rule" you. He wants to be your friend. You have nothing to lose if at the end christ is myth (he's not) if u accept him. But think of just what if Christ (God) really exists (He does) what would u have to say. You have everything to lose

Cheers.

KingEbukasBlog:


Your posts contain so much unnecessary fatuous rigmaroles which give a false impression of being knowledgeable

Just like Omnipotence paradox , this comparison is derived from your inability to understand that Religion and Science are different concepts . Apparently , your wrong stance on Religion-Christanintiy - as dogmatic can be drawn from ludicrous misconceptions and poor understanding of intricate issues due to the manner they were/or arw being portrayed in the bible or by christians .

How exactly is Christainity dogmatic ?
1. There are discrepancies in the presented historical events in the bible due to various possible reasons which even I have admitted to . A quick example :
The death of Asa Baasha in the bible . Two different verses in the bible hold what appears to be different time or periods of his death .
2. There are different concepts of Yahweh , Jesus , Hell believed by Christians . Some believe hell exist , some believe hell does not exist .
3. There are various practices performed by some christian institutions , churches , and even lifestyles of some christians that are not generally accepted .

------------------------------------------
Science is the study of nature . Discoveries of obscure facts made through science you brag about have always been there or are bound to happen .
Now look at this :
1.Through science it was discovered that liquid water flows in mars after the planet was thought to have only dry land . Now former studies showed that the planet only had dry land and new evidence confirms the presence of liquid water . Does it change the fact that water has been present all this while on the planet ? This progress made is as a result of proven failed scientific studies and observations which had preceded it .
2. The escape velocity has always been 40,270 km/h and science discovered that . If science had earlier proposed the escape velocity as 36,000 km/h and people once believed that it is due to the level of ineptitude shown by scientists .
3. Through science we understood how the body works - the functions of cells , organs and systems . If science had once proposed through various observations that the lungs was a reproductive organ and then found out it is actually used for respiration , its failure on its path because the lungs have always been a respiratory organ .
4. Through science we understand that the earth is not flat but spherical . But does it mean the earth has not been spherical all this while even before the "discovery"?
Facts/possibilites/event outcomes in nature have always been /will always be true or present . Science just discovers and explains how these facts/possibilites/event outcomes are to be seen as true .

johnydon22:


Lmao. . .this should not be a guise to dodge the question any further.

What you listed above simply are contradictions in the christian bible and interpretations of yahweh concepts and these are no dogmas regarding scientific counterparts

Christianity remains dogmatic by holding on to an assertion based on primitive superstition that some God created the earth.

that a woman and a man got moulded from the ground and they gave birth to the human race.

Is this what you have been writing since? ... lol..

Actually this has always been my position here and which affirms my position in evolution theory owing to the fact that more discoveries has not been made on it therefore there is room to improve.

As always you have now affirmed just as i have been saying your religious beliefs and scientific methods are quite different concepts in terms of knowledge deduction and so makes my question as valid as ever..


Which is better; Science that agrees it doesn't have answers and is working
towards knowing

or religion

that insists its dogmas must be taken as truth...?

Antiparticle:
@OP:
I have no certainty about the existence of a creator either. But if there is one, he/she/it is definitely not the God of the Bible or Koran or any of the religions marauding themselves as truth. This is not to say I hate religion. I don't. Religion can be good for people if and only if it helps them become better people and lead better lives.

Unfortunately, almost every religion claims that it is its own truth claims that are correct, and in order to ensure followership from the masses, most religions uses fear and extortionist tactics to suppress questions and critical thinking. This is what I have my biggest problem with.

Religion in Nigeria (particularly Pentecostal Christianity which I was once an avid part of), unfortunately has created a people who prefer superstition over science and elevate prayers over hard work.

Also, if God exists, he/she/it wouldn't make it so hard to find him/her/it. It makes no sense for a God to make so many threats against unbelievers yet refuse to provide clear, convincing, unfakeable, and unquestionable evidence to prove his/her/its existence.

My conclusion is thus:
1. If the Abrahamic God exists, and "He" indeed plans to punish me for not believing in "Him" (in spite of "His" refusal to provide me unfakeable evidence to pacify my earnest search for "Him" ), then "He" is a psychopathic entity that I wouldn't want to worship anyways. Think about it, does it make any sense that most Christians in the world today (including in Africa, South America, and even many European countries) are so solely because their ancestors were conquered by murderers, enslavers, colonialists, and tyrants?

2. If certain populations would go to hell because they aren't Christians (e.g. because their ancestors weren't conquered by other Christian nations), then either the Christian God (who supposedly is a God of justice) is not just or He doesn't exist. Either way, I'm not interested in worshiping an unjust entity or a nonexistent God. The preponderance of evidence points to the likelihood that a personal & interventionist God (a la the Bible or Koran) doesn't exist.

3. The Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, speaks of an interventionist God. I used to be a passionate Christian. But as a science-oriented person with training in statistics and physics, from observation I have now realized that miracles do not happen. Jesus said those that follow him would perform similar miracles and signs and wonders as he did. There hasn't been any unquestionable miracle (e.g. growing back of amputated limb). The only "miracles" I hear of are miracles that could equally be attributed to coincidence or placebo. Prayers, too, don't get answered... it took me a while to figure this one out too... the only prayers that get answered are for the things that one didn't need prayer for in the first place. Sigh. If the Christian God exists, then "He" is not even following his own standards as laid out in the Bible therefore he is not all-powerful which implies he is either a liar, a weakling, or doesn't exist. I don't worship liars.

If a creator exists, I don't think he/she/it cares about us. Or maybe he/she/it is dead. Or maybe there is no metaphysical anthropomorphic personal interventionist God in the way that we think about it.

I could go on and on and on....

KingEbukasBlog:


If that's what your mighty brain could deduct from my statement , then its pretty obvious why we're still lingering on this argument - religion vs science

Hahahahahahaha as usual more ad hominems even when i tried to boycott it. . This is just a question and all this higi haga is to dodge it?

This is funny

Do you even know what dogmas are . Am not sure you do

And below you just agreed to one of the dogmas...

Have you disproven that ?

Abiogenesis claims life came from the non -living without the need of the supernatural

Abiogensis here is a hypothesis that postulates life emerged from non-living matter and abiogenesis does not claim this to be true but an open ground to more study which has now vindicated my question


Which of the two is more reliable...Science that asserts it's postulations are not immutable and are open to more study and reviews in order to arrive at truthful approximation

or religion like above that has established the dogma of man coming from a deity that must be held on to as immutable truth...

Please tell us the more reliable method because you just killed all your running around here..

Am in school and the wifi is usually poor . You are now making false accusations ? Are you this insecure ?

Lmao as usual he pulls up an explanation where it is not needed...i don die!!!..

Sorry to burst your bubble between

You still dont understand my explanation after four examples . No wonder

You explanation has been shown to be one nonsensical word salads that attributes contradictions as dogma. . .

The answers are already there . Science is still searching for it

Exactly the point but religion thinks they have the answer which still boils down to my question.

Which is more reliable among the two..

One that agrees it doesn't know and is trying to know or one that thinks it already has the answer that must not be questioned... all your dodging still lands you the same place

The same way the omnipotence paradox presented itself as a valid argument for centuries . Obviously you are oblivious to the absurdity of this paradox, I think you should have a knowledge about it and then evaluate your 'logical and valid question'

Now as above i have shown how your childish clutch of omnipotence paradox in no way relates to my question which as usual even your posts a confirms to be valid.

Science agrees it doesn't know the origin of everything yet but is working towards ascertaining that truth.

Or religion that has reached a conclusive immutable assertion that is closed to question and study..

Which is more reliable?... Going round doesn't help you here

johnydon22:

Hahahahahahaha as usual more ad hominems even when i tried to boycott it. . This is just a question and all this higi haga is to dodge it?

This is funny [/i][/b]

Lmao as usual he pulls up an explanation where it is not needed...i don die!!!..

You explanation has been shown to be one nonsensical word salads that attributes contradictions as dogma. . .:

Exactly the point but religion thinks they have the answer which still boils down to my question.

Which is more reliable among the two..

One that agrees it doesn't know and is trying to know or one that thinks it already has the answer that must not be questioned... all your dodging still lands you the same place

Science agrees it doesn't know the origin of everything yet but is working towards ascertaining that truth.

Or religion that has reached a conclusive immutable assertion that is closed to question and study..

Which is more reliable?... Going round doesn't help you here [/i][/b]

trapQ:
The only reason you havnt experienced GOD is because you don't want to. GOD is alive and in heaven and your perception of him won't change the reality of this fact.

Miracles happen everyday. There are many "credible" miracles I would've loved to share, with links, but you'll refute them because they don't involve regrowing of "amputated arms or legs".
I suppose you're well aware of dimensions. GOD exists in a way higher dimension than ours. HE is outside of space and time.

That aside... The reason you turned pagan was because you never saw the purpose of being a christian.

Quick question, do you want first hand proof of GOD's existence?

KingEbukasBlog:

You really have comprehension problems .

More ad hominems to clutch on, let us leave it to the readers here to determine that from the posts shall we?

[quote author=KingEbukasBlog post=38573990] You must shallow in reasoning . You accused me of taking the whole time
writing my rebuttal and I explained why

Sarcasm bob don't get worked up

How are contradictions dogmatic . LMAOOOOOOOOO

Now you are laughing at your own ludicrous post of listing out Asa contradiction as a way to show christianity is not dogmatic... You actually listed contradictions out for me as dogmas...look it up above

Hahahahahahaha am laughing with you on that...

I have already shown you science and religion are not related . And you still
childishly clutched to comparing both

We both agree science and religion are opposite methods of knowledge deductions of which is the real root of my question. . which of the methods of knowledge deduction is more reliable..

Stop the dodge work...

The truth has always been there

Yes and it needs to be uncovered through study and research not primitive superstition held as truth... this has always been the basis of the question you keep dodging. . you always keep proving it right ...

Stop making illogical comparisons

I see you have nothing to offer .

Lmao. . Bursted are we?

You have been shown how both science and religion postulates options of how life began and how science maintains it is still studying to know how it actually happened and religion holds it's postulation to be an immutable truth.

Everyone can see the question is so so valid that you need to dodge to save your neck ...

Which is more reliable among the two options of knowledge deduction. . Stop the mary go round

KingEbukasBlog:


Like Abiogenesis and Scamvolution ... ba ?

johnydon22:


Lmao. . Bursted are we?


You have been shown how both science and religion postulates options of how life began and how science maintains it is still studying to know how it actually happened and religion holds it's postulation to be an immutable truth.

Everyone can see the question is so so valid that you need to dodge to save your neck ...

Which is more reliable among the two options of knowledge deduction. . Stop the mary go round [/i][/b]

all4naija:

Are those even lack of understanding of physical phenomena? Jeez! I am talking about the reason why people created God is their inability to understand physical phenomena like the science has been able to do to a very high degree.

KingEbukasBlog:


As funny as it is , presently I dont even need Religion to know an always existing being is responsible for our universe

Which remains a nonsensical claim until you provide actual proof of your claim, proffer methods of deduction because people needn't believe it because you said it... Oya over to you again

According to you , science has not found out the truth of the origin of the universe . So when it finds out we will know which is more reliable :-

Chai am a gonner

is this what your little brain is telling you from my post? that is a drunk statement.

Here is the drill lets run it again..

Which of the two is more reliable...Science that asserts it's postulations are
not immutable and are open to more study and reviews in order to arrive at
truthful approximation

or religion like above that has established the dogma of man coming from a
deity that must be held on to as immutable truth...

The more you misrepresent my assertions the more you demean yourself here.. Go on ...l likey

johnydon22:

Which remains a nonsensical claim until you provide actual proof of your claim, proffer methods of deduction because people needn't believe it because you said it... Oya over to you again

Chai am a gonner

is this what your little brain is telling you from my post? that is a drunk statement.

Here is the drill lets run it again..

Which of the two is more reliable...Science that asserts it's postulations are
not immutable and are open to more study and reviews in order to arrive at
truthful approximation

or religion like above that has established the dogma of man coming from a
deity that must be held on to as immutable truth...

The more you misrepresent my assertions the more you demean yourself here.. Go on ...l likey

KingEbukasBlog:


Evolution/Abiogenesis/Big Bang have provided actual proof supporting their theories . Though according to you , these theories are being modified , why don't you agree with the present proof supporting these theories



So to feel good about yourself you resort to ad hominem

lmao ... always insecure about his intellectual capabilities



Here is the drill again

Let science produce an absolute truth on the origin of the existence of man and then the argument will be valid . Its that simple though . No need to throw tantrums like a petulant child



I'm enjoying this more than you

The more you compare entirely two different concepts with arrant balderdash posing as a reason the more derogatory to logic your futile attempts appear

KingEbukasBlog:


Evolution/Abiogenesis/Big Bang have provided actual proof supporting their theories . Though according to you , these theories are being modified , why don't you agree with the present proof supporting these theories

So to feel good about yourself you resort to ad hominem
lmao ... always insecure about his intellectual capabilities

Lmao. . that post is open for people they actually can see the resounding nonsensical straw man there.. Calm down and get schooled boy

Here is the drill again
Let science produce an absolute truth on the origin of the existence of man and then the argument will be valid . Its that simple though . No need to throw tantrums like a petulant child

Now the argument has reached where i wanted..

Now it is clear that all your arguments here rest on the logical fallacy "Appeal to ignorance"

Science don't know the answer yet therefore i insist on my beliefs instead of saying i don't know. . Now i just got what i wanted.. everyone can now see it clearly here...

I'm enjoying this more than you
The more you compare entirely two different concepts with arrant balderdash posing as a reason the more derogatory to logic your futile attempts appear

Oh now it is ad hominems Aaaaaw this is so cute

I am very sure i have cleared how my question remains a very valid question of which you have just given us an incentive of your answer above..

Its not really good dodging questions like you have been doing for hours now

johnydon22:
And this is where we have landed again, after clearing this for the 1001th time he pulls up this question again... Now let me answer it again


Because like many in the scientific world i
do not agree to a theory until all possible
reviews, studies, observations, experimentations, discoveries has been
properly carried out on these theories.
It is a position of honesty because a theory can change or modify with more
discoveries until it arrives at a truthful approximation..

Lmao. . that post is open for people they actually can see the resounding nonsensical straw man there.. Calm down and get should boy


Now the argument has reached where i wanted..

Now it is clear that all your arguments here rest of the logical fallacy "Appeal to ignorance"

Science don't know the answer yet therefore i insist on my beliefs. . Now i just got what i wanted.. everyone can now see it clearly here...

Oh now it is ad hominems Aaaaaw this is so cute

I am very sure i have cleared how my question remains a very valid question of which you have just given us an incentive of your answer above..

Its not really good dodging questions like you have been doing for hours now

hahn:


Haba! Bubu, just give a straight answer to the question

KingEbukasBlog:


Lolz Hahn

Reliability in this case depends on the product . When a product is accepted by a user and it satisfies his specifications , whatever process involved in developing that product is deemed as reliable .

Science has not yet provided an absolute truth for the origin of the universe and is forced to be compared to Christianity's own .Does that sound like a reasonable thing to do ? Ins't it when science says yes this is it , there are no more further modifications or requirements . Then we can have a valid argument .

Be sincere and fair (unbiased ) , what are your thoughts ?

johnydon22:
And this is where we have landed again, after clearing this for the 1001th time he pulls up this question again... Now let me answer it again

Because like many in the scientific world i
do not agree to a theory until all possible
reviews, studies, observations, experimentations, discoveries has been
properly carried out on these theories.
It is a position of honesty because a theory can change or modify with more
discoveries until it arrives at a truthful approximation..

Lmao. . that post is open for people they actually can see the resounding nonsensical straw man there.. Calm down and get schooled boy


Now the argument has reached where i wanted..

Now it is clear that all your arguments here rest on the logical fallacy "Appeal to ignorance"

Science don't know the answer yet therefore i insist on my beliefs instead of saying i don't know. . Now i just got what i wanted.. everyone can now see it clearl...[/i][/b]y here

I am very sure i have cleared how my question remains a very valid question of which you have just given us an incentive of your answer above..

Its not really good dodging questions like you have been doing for hours now

menesheh:



i cant imagine you wasting such precious time arguing with a obstinate person. the guy is cunningly trapping you into lecturing him what he should pay for by arguing ignorantly.