huxley2:

Absolutely, the 10 commandments are allegorical. Why else would God command his people not to cook a baby goat in his mother's milk. Does this sound like a REAL commandment to you?

I quite understand your presuppositions and there is no doubt about that, my question to ~Lady~ or anyone who shares or sympathises with her beliefs remains unanswered.

Bobbyaf:

@ Tudor

Christians don't really deny the existence of large animals at all ever having existed. The confusion rests with the time we say they existed, and what destroyed them versus what the advocates of evolution hold.

Noah's flood happened to have destroyed them since it covered the earth. No life form survived except those that entered the huge ship that Noah built. There is ample evidence to explain the universal flood. Just look at the fossil formations and you will notice that the larger animals were found at the top including the bones of dinosaurs. These large beasts were able to climb up to the highest points in order to escape the flood, while the smaller animals perished.

There is absolutely NO evidence for a universal flood. creationists don't understand mountains basically. they find fossils in the tops of mountains and think that that is proof of noah's flood. now why they're in the mountain tops instead of on the mountain tops is something they rarely answer at all.

Ever heard about the K-T boundary? Its a layer of sediment all over the earth. All the fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct creatures happened to have been found below the sediment layer, and never above. How come? MOre and more scientists are becoming convinced that the Bible is as accurate as it comes.

less and less scientist are now sticking to the myth of the noah's flood. . . it NEVER happened where are your scientific evidence for it? all you guys have are assumption based on your opinion and not actual proof, evidence, or facts. you can't prove that the great flood ever happened yet it has been proven, scientifically, that it's impossible on a world-wide scale. and, for the ark to hold 2 of each animal, it'd have to be as big as a Continent (or bigger) to do such a thing. not only is there the problem of how do you get all of the species of land animals into the ark, the primitive people who created the flood myth in the first place, in the fourth millennium B.C. or whenever, they didn't realize that plants were living things, and they didn't realize the implications of noah not taking fishes and marine organisms into the ark. . . . .  

If we limit ourselves to just the water that is known on the planet, and the volume of sedimentary strata that we know of, and if as the creationists claim, all these sedimentary strata were deposited during that one year, the ocean at that time would have been actually two parts water to one part mud. now, if that were the case, with a world-destroying flood, how would the whales have stayed alive?. . . .  they could not have been swimming through, straining out plankton and so on, to feed. delicate corals die if there is just the tiniest bit of silt in the water, or change in water temperature, and so forth. so noah would have to have had enormous numbers of aquarium in the ark to keep the whales going, to keep the marine fishes from dying because of the dilution of the salt water with fresh water, to keep the fresh water organisms alive because of the salt coming in, and all these noxious things that the volcano are throwing out. . . . . . incidentally, if all the volcanic lava beds that we see interspersed between these sedimentary rocks were laid down during one year, the amount of heat released from that lava would have heated the water of the ocean to several thousand degrees centigrade. . .  and so noah's ark would have had to have been air-conditioned.

creationists believe that the world was drowned, was destroyed by a flood, a world-wide flood just a few thousand years ago. now that's something that supposedly happened in the past, but we certainly can test that today. we can go and look at the continents. we can see where the continents have been eroded. We know that falling water erodes,  . . . . . we can calculate how much water had to fall in the amount of time given to drown the whole world and drown it all the way up to the top of mount everest. We realize that wouldn't be rain, that would be hydraulic mining. and we wonder then, why isn't every river valley on the continent of north america the size of the grand canyon? . . . . . . why are not all the sedimentary rocks distributed equally around the margins of every continent?. . . . . . .  we should have the continents completely denuded. you see, we can test these things. these hypotheses about the past are testable in the present. You creationist have to prove that light does not refract when it comes in contact with water droplets or moisture prior to the noah flood. since the bible says that rainbow first appeared after the noah's flood as a sign of covenant. . . . . .

pilgrim.1:

Hallo huxley2,

I'm doing very well, thanks. And you?

Am great.  Thanks for asking.   You done with all ya exams now?

pilgrim.1:

The distinction is simple enough: science is an endeavour while scientists are its practitioners. The endeavour cannot of itself do anything other than what its practitioners do with it.

I'm not sure that is the case; for some 'scientists' who have demonstrated that they are unwilling to consider new findings (for whatever reasons) are not doing theology. I think you're mixing up ideas here. The example you gave about Fred Hoyle attests to the fact that while he was disinclined to consider other models and theories on his enquiry, he nonetheless was not doing theology (we remember he was an atheist, but later leaned toward the Panspermia of agnotic deism). He simply did not start out as a theologian arguing against other models, and his obstinacy cannot be described as 'theology'.

I erred here with my use of the word "theology".  I should have put that in quotes to indicate that I did not mean it in the normal sense of the word.  I was looking for a word that combines the sense of dogmatist and some sort of personal commitment of an idea couched around the kind of sophistry of religious theology.  I could not find it, so I wrote just theology without putting them in quotes.   Put I hope you get my point.  

pilgrim.1:

Glad you know that - and it's not peculiar to scientists with a religious/theistic worldview.

This is quite a hot and vexing issue  - the question is - given a certain truth about the nature of reality how should one live or derive a worldview based on that truth.  Consider the following;

1) For instance, supposing it is shown categorically using the tools of science that women and genetically "inferior" to men with respect to mathematical abilities.  Should we define public policy based on such results?

pilgrim.1:

Religions of themselves have not and do not make such "mistakes" - any religious person could make pontifications, and please always keep in mind that religion covers even atheistic religions as well. That aside, we know that there are dogmatic atheists without a religious leaning who nevertheless do the very same thing that you just described above.

Are you kidding me?  Does not the Abrahamic religions make claim about the origin of the world, humanity and other life?  C'mon, you cannot be serious.   What was all this business of six-day creation all about if this was not a claim about our origins?

pilgrim.1:

I don't think you're actually holding a gist here, my apologies. I may understand that you meant the opposite of your statement above, because you're saying that these things are "capable of being verified" and are regarded as "factual claims". I don't know. However, if that's what you actually meant without editing, then what then is the problem if one makes a statement that is a "factual claim" or one that is "capable of being verified by science"?  All the same, the one issue that I see here is that you're again making the very same mistake I hinted at earlier to Krayola - one should not just make reactive assumptions in the idea that one worldview is superior to another, because it seems that's what you're pointing to in your premise.

What does "holding a gist" mean?  That is a strange turn of phrase.

"Capable of being verified scientifically"  means just that.  It means it cann be taken into the lab and subjected to testing, probing, measuring, x-raying,  mathematical analysis, etc, etc, etc and shown to be true or false.  The fact that something is capable of being verified scienctifically does not mean that it should or must be verified.  There may be other concerns that override our search for the truth about the entity in question - issues like cost, ethics, etc, etc.

pilgrim.1:

First, you would have to understand your own question before making a sweeping assumption. Scroll back: if, as you said, the claims under investigation are regarded by you to be "factual claims", what then is the substance of a "variance" from what is "factual"? This is why I often take a cautious approach when using language that may becloud one's reasoning.

It is easy to see what a factual claim is.  A factual claim is a claim whose outcome are typically of a quantitative nature or objective nature.  For instance - Noah stay in the ark 50 days,  a bat is a bird,  diamond is composed of nitrogen atoms.

pilgrim.1:

However, a second consideration would be to examine the veracity of one's approach: on what grounds would a an atheistic naturalist assume that his own worldview has all the answers about the "true"  state of reality?

I doubt if there are any naturalists who claim that their worldvew has all the answers.  I don't know of any and I am sure I will NEVER meet any.  I would hope that anyone who describes themselves as naturalist informs their worldview from the sciences. Consequently, they are subject to the success and shortcomings of science.  But more to the point, I would hope that their philosophy puts human interests first if there is a conflict between "truth" and human interest.

@ Pilgrim1,  Please let us not get caught up on technicalities. I don't want to spend valuable time debating semantics.

Please,please, please, guys,  I don't want you to get the impression that I am anti-religion. My beef is not with religion, or the faithful,  it is with the manipulation of minds by the custodians of the Christian faith, especially in Nigeria. I was raised Christian, my whole family is. Due to my familiarity with the bible, I use it as a primary source for advice, though i use other "holy" texts as well. I recognize that the origins of religion are sincere, and that they have much value in any real quest for meaning. I believe in a higher power, I just refuse to reduce it to something that can be defined. My purpose here isn't to ridicule the faithful (that would be counter-productive and a waste of my time), but to hopefully get them thinking about things so that they start to investigate deeper instead of believing what they hear on the pulpit from people whose careers depend on their (faithful) misinformation.

Christianity can be practiced without denying reason. A loving God will not make it mandatory to suppress a God given faculty in order to fully appreciate him. That sounds, to me, like a man-made idea. The bible has to be read with literal and historical sensitivities.  To read a book written so long ago, by people we don't know (we know the books were not written by the people the bible claims did) without appreciating that expression of ideas was done differently back then isn't honest.



"the Christian faith is no authoritarian, uncritical, unreflective set of answers to the human predicament. Genuine faith does not suppress any questions; it may give people more questions than they had before. Thus the anxiety of simple piety is misplaced. The sort of thinking that Christian faith sets in motion does not replace God but acts as a critical ingredient that helps distinguish faith from mere illusion or pious evasion" Daniel. Migliore (a born again Christian),  from "Faith Seeking Understanding",

There are lots of devout Christians that believe in the same Bible, but not in the same context,  like I said my beef isnt with the faithful,  I love them which is why i'm putting this much effort into this. Its not about winning a debate,  its about hopefully getting people to challenge these crooks that deceive them.

Bobbyaf:

So being religious doesn't allow one to be scientifically qualified and competent to produce evidence for creation?

Where is your scientific and competent EVIDENCE for creationism? Please provide them.

Which is true by virtue of their own confession of not accommodating that the universe has a central point. Now you tell me who is hiding something from the students? If anything there are being audacious before the Creator. Now since you're some bright alleck tell the fora why the galaxies are not expanding. Tell us why our galaxy isn't expanding? The only time the universe expands is  when the Creator makes it expands, and in this case our galaxy was the last addition to what was already there before. In their attempt to explain the doppler effect they came up with an expanding set of galaxies which doesn't make sense.

How do you know that there is a creator in the first place? what makes you think that the universe must behave like the human society? who created the creator?

I quite agree with you but this time they have made so much of a blunder that their pride will not allow them to confess their folly. I am yet to see an explosion that brings out order, or design. Wasn't the big bang some sort of explosion that supposedly began the universe? How boring!  

Its a plausible theory at least, what are your own evidence of the creation of the universe as recorded in the 2 different creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2? The bible says in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth, what does that tell you? You should expect creationism to have some scientific evidence no?

I wish you'd stop making yourself sound so silly. That Roman must have been a genius. How do you explain that the bible pronounced the earth was round long before any scientists came to that knowledge? How do you explain that modern archeology confirmed that the biblical figures that were once thought to be fictitious were indeed real personages that existed. Even their language and culture were found in unearthed tablets. Where did this Roman acquire such knowledge might I ask? I could go on,

the bible says NO such thing, pls stop lying for jesus. instead we have the bible saying that the sun moves from place to place.

Krayola:

@ Pilgrim1,  Please let us not get caught up on technicalities. I don't want to spend valuable time debating semantics.

Please,please, please, guys,  I don't want you to get the impression that I am anti-religion. My beef is not with religion, or the faithful,  it is with the manipulation of minds by the custodians of the Christian faith, especially in Nigeria. I was raised Christian, my whole family is. Due to my familiarity with the bible, I use it as a primary source for advice, though i use other "holy" texts" as well. I recognize that the origins of religion are sincere, and that they have much value in any real quest for meaning. I believe in a higher power, I just refuse to reduce it to something that can be defined. My purpose here isn't to ridicule the faithful (that would be counter-productive and a waste of my time), but to hopefully get them thinking about things so that they start to investigate deeper instead of believing what they hear on the pulpit from people whose careers depend on their (faithful) misinformation.

Christianity can be practiced without denying reason. A loving God will not make it mandatory to suppress a God given faculty in order to fully appreciate him. That sounds, to me, like a man-made idea. The bible has to be read with literal and historical sensitivities,  To read a book written so long ago, by people we don't know (we know the books were not written by the people the bible claims did) without appreciating that expression of ideas was done differently back then isn't honest.



"the Christian faith is no authoritarian, uncritical, unreflective set of answers to the human predicament. Genuine faith does not suppress any questions; it may give people more questions than they had before. Thus the anxiety of simple piety is misplaced. The sort of thinking that Christian faith sets in motion does not replace God but acts as a critical ingredient that helps distinguish faith from mere illusion or pious evasion" Daniel. Migliore (a born again Christian),  from "Faith Seeking Understanding",

There are lots of devout Christians that believe in the same Bible, but not in the same context,  like I said my beef isnt with the faithful,  I love them which is why i'm putting this much effort into this. Its not about winning a debate,  its about hopefully getting people to challenge these crooks that deceive them.

@Krayola,

You seem to have essentially missed the gist in my observations. Don't get caught up with the mentality of beclouding meaning with language - that was all. That does not say the discussion now assumes 'technicalities' and/or semantics. It's not about winning a debate, we all know; nor were my observations about that. However, if one is seeking for meaning in our world, we need to be clear what essentially we're saying and not use language which do not help achieve that quest.

@ Pilgrim 1, I apologize if i misunderstood ur post,  to be honest i only skimmed i.  I just woke up and have class in about half an hour, am rushing to get out the door, so maybe I was trying to do too much at once.  I'll read it again more carefully later today. Gotta go for now though. ciao.

@huxley2,

huxley2:

Am great.  Thanks for asking.   You done with all ya exams now?

There are in stages, and a few other engagements inbetween.

huxley2:
I erred here with my use of the word "theology".  I should have put that in quotes to indicate that I did not mean it in the normal sense of the word.  I was looking for a word that combines the sense of dogmatist and some sort of personal commitment of an idea couched around the kind of sophistry of religious theology.  I could not find it, so I wrote just theology without putting them in quotes.   Put I hope you get my point.  

I get you; but perhaps the simple idea would have been best conveyed by 'dogmatism', since it is applicable to many people who themselves are outside religion. We've discussed this before, remember?

huxley2:

This is quite a hot and vexing issue  - the question is - given a certain truth about the nature of reality how should one live or derive a worldview based on that truth.  Consider the following;

1) For instance, supposing it is shown categorically using the tools of science that women and genetically "inferior" to men with respect to mathematical abilities.  Should we define public policy based on such results?

Lol, science is not about a worldview - any worldview. But taking your analogy for granted (for the mere sake of an analogy), public policies are about the dynamics of politics, a different matter from what you'd tried to envisage.

huxley2:

Are you kidding me?  Does not the Abrahamic religions make claim about the origin of the world, humanity and other life?  C'mon, you cannot be serious.   What was all this business of six-day creation all about if this was not a claim about our origins?

Go back and see the point I made - your query was about such claims being "factual claim" or one that is "capable of being verified by science", not so? And I quipped by asking that you to consider your own question before drawing inferences (if left unedited). This all boils down to interpretations, which may be varied; and in other fields of enquiry, people derive diverse and opposing interpretations as well. At least, we all know that those who try to use evolution (Darwinian) for assert claims about the origin of the world soon find out that their dogmatic statements are not applauded widely by their colleagues.  

huxley2:

What does "holding a gist" mean?  That is a strange turn of phrase.

I meant it in the sense of consistency.

huxley2:

"Capable of being verified scientifically"  means just that.  It means it cann be taken into the lab and subjected to testing, probing, measuring, x-raying,  mathematical analysis, etc, etc, etc and shown to be true or false.

How does your own worldview do that with respect to the origin of the world?

huxley2:

The fact that something is capable of being verified scienctifically does not mean that it should or must be verified.

Perhaps, you meant rather 'Falsifiability', not verification - in context of your previous statement.

huxley2:

There may be other concerns that override our search for the truth about the entity in question - issues like cost, ethics, etc, etc.

Ah, please. Such things as 'ethics, cost, etc' are side distractions to the main concern you broached for discussions - how they are 'testable' in the science lab is just teasing the discussion.

huxley2:
It is easy to see what a factual claim is.  A factual claim is a claim whose outcome are typically of a quantitative nature or objective nature.  For instance - Noah stay in the ark 50 days,  a bat is a bird,  diamond is composed of nitrogen atoms.

C'mon, huxley2, I know what a "factual claim" is - the point in my response was your contextual meaning. That was all.

huxley2:
I doubt if there are any naturalists who claim that their worldvew has all the answers.  I don't know of any and I am sure I will NEVER meet any.  I would hope that anyone who describes themselves as naturalist informs their worldview from the sciences. Consequently, they are subject to the success and shortcomings of science.  But more to the point, I would hope that their philosophy puts human interests first if there is a conflict between "truth" and human interest.

Okay, your doubts are appreciated.

Krayola:

@ Pilgrim 1, I apologize if i misunderstood ur post, to be honest i only skimmed i. I just woke up and have class in about half an hour, am rushing to get out the door, so maybe I was trying to do too much at once. I'll read it again more carefully later today. Gotta go for now though. ciao.

No wahala. Do have a cheerful day and enjoy your classes.

@Bawomolo: Since you will not answer the questions about what and when will man emergy to, something else different in look and structure from man, or when or how did female emergy from male or male from female if it was the earlier gender, and other primary "creation" foundamental facts, because the proofs are with us, everyday presently, iI will like you  to answer this;

Can or have you seen from the cattle family; say Goat male and female producing from their fertilized union, ram or sheep or cow? If this is not something you have seen, since no cow or ram or sheep genetic production material have participated in the making of the fetus, know that evolution is an innovation fluke! In the long run, the proponent of such ackward argument will lose out, and their idea will be awashed and discarded.

Allah says that the offspring is like their parents. No Mango tree, without grafting can produce say cashew or guava fruits. And the mango seed, if planted can never germinate to become any other seedling and finally a productive tree or otherwise. The only seedling and tree it will become is what the seed was in the first place, mango.

All of this is to show that the Creator produces by creation specific things, separate and different from one another, regardless of how basically similar they are in grouping. What can be consider evolution if at all is the developmental stages, from its sexual conception action all the way to its death. Even that is different within the group's many different specific "creation." What I mean here is that humans can live as long as few hundrend of years, at best now. But no Dog can live up to say 80 years, since one dog year is about 7 for man. Figure it out, my man.

For example, Monkeys have different gestation period(s) from that of Oranguntan(s), and they are different from that of humans, which has the same because of the fact that they are humans, regardless of their skin colors, since you spoke about Black and White colors as part of your evolution argument! The lifespan of each specific specie is very similar to it specific group, regardless of color and body mass. At least it is clear that all humans agree that they are humans, regardless of color spectrum.


By the way, did you enjoy my idea that since I am darker than my late father (ra), he probably evolved from me, since you argued that white people came from Black people? But I wonder why he died many decades ago, yet darker people whom he came from even me his child are still very much alive? Let me argue for the creation of people, colors and hues differentiations; We all came from Adam, the first to be created, of man, and not evolved from other pimates, because Quran indicates and Hadith explained that Adam was created last, actually indicating that all other primates were already on earth before then. Then God created a woman for him, from part of his very flesh and bone and blood, a wife named Eve. Both were created in heaven, not in paradise or earthly Garden of Eden, that the Jews and christians claim to be in present day Iraq. (Where is the very spot people? And where is the tree that they ate from?).

From Islamic understandings, Adam  and his wife Eve were ordered down to earth to live, after the incidence with the tree, which they have been warned not to even come close to. In the plan of Allah, this was made possible since the Paradise and Hellfire were already created and Satan as Isblis already existed, even before Allah announced the creation of Adam. Now when this couple desended to earth, they began to have children. 41 in total, where 40 survived them, since one was killed by hi brother Kabila (Cain). Do you not see how the 40 children could have a varied hues of color? And if you find it impossible, how about the next generations, and the next, differences in height, body structures, and of course genders? Afterall, the same earth where teir materials of creation were taken from have different colors, and corseness/grainsize and shapes of soil and sweetness and saltiness of water, with varied temperatures. Based on all of these, can you not see how noses, eyes, mouth, teeth, and other beautiful acutremens in people and their personality could be different?

How is your evolution argument valid, except you are trying to force us to accept it, without a single aota of truth, except lack of knowledge or refusal of what is actually the fact; creation?

If you still doubt this classic reality, look into your own family. I am sure not everyone looks like everyone else. My children are very different in look, yet they have the same father and mother. And I look different from my siblings from my father and mother. While I look like my mother, who looked like her father, my sister of course is a woman who looked like my father. See?. Truth is one version and not many. You don't have to shift the post, when you speak the truth. And it is very easy to defend the truth. The argument for the truth is very clear. You cant say the same for falsehood; evolution in this case. The "missing link or the link" does not give a clue about what it was before or what emerged from it? Do you see any material evidence that we can see with our eyes? Where is the half man (50% complete maybe upper portion or lower portion) and half ape (50% remaining to change to man, maybe or upper portion/torso or lower portion/torso)?

For example, Monkeys have different gestation period(s) from that of Oranguntan(s), and they are different from that of humans, which has the same because of the fact that they are humans,

You do know that's the point made by evolution right? adaptive divergence.

It's funny when people's arguments against evolution actually support evolution.

@ Krayola

That's a "straw-man" argument. I made no such claim. U're refuting something I neither said nor implied. I simply pointed out the FACT that the video was made by a religious group.

So why did you have to say it was done by religious people? So I repeat the question in a different way. Does being religious affects a person's ability to use science to defend creationism? Isaac Newton, and others who worshiped God were scientists, weren't they?

But since you bring it up, it would have to be accepted by a larger science community, and tested rigorously for credibility . Anyone that watches that video objectively, and with the necessary background knowledge should know that it is full of baseless claims.

But you're not qualified or ever will be to put the facts as well as Dr. Ventry did. In fact contrary to what you seem to be saying, is that none of the advocates of evolution has ever been able to refute his argument about the polonium halos. They have tried to use scientific terms to try and confuse people, but in truth and in fact have not been able to produce a solid argument against such arguments. Find them for me if you can, 

Like I said even with all this testing science can still be wrong,  but it has a more honest and transparent process  than  the bible which was exclusively in the hands of the church before print was invented. (let us not forget that we all know that in this period the church was the most powerful and most corrupt institution on the earth,  things that make you go hhhmmmn? )

Do not confuse the Catholic church with Christianity. Christianity is a set of teachings that came from Christ, and which was continued by His apostles. The RCC made every attempt to obscure and suppress knowledge. 

First of all you need to accept that your "creator" is an assumption and not a verifiable fact. You are not willing to do that.  scientists are, about their assumptions.

People of faith have a history of experiences that can be counted as evidence. Moses witnessed a shaking mountain when he received the 10 commandments. Peter, James, and John witnessed the glorification of Jesus on the mount, and later wrote about it. And there are more, lifestyle health principles that the bible has written within that are sound scientific principles. 

I'm no science expert, and I don't throw phantom answers at things I cannot honestly explain. But from the little I have read we are held by gravity which keeps us at relatively same distance from others in our gravitational pull. The expansion you talk about takes place on a much larger scale.

There can be no inter galaxy expansion, and hence there can be no larger scale expansion either. The bible says God has called the constellations by name.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on May 26, 2009, 03:49 AM
I am yet to see an explosion that brings out order, or design. Wasn't the big bang some sort of explosion that supposedly began the universe? How boring!  Grin

I am yet to find any credibility in the claim that an invisible man in the skies ignores millions of starving children and answers  prayers for better paying jobs. Especially when they are offered on special service days/nights, usually as many times a week as possible and of course with collection baskets filled with money. chi-ching $$$$

Well, I don't blame you for not understanding spiritual matters, hence such responses. Don't blame God for sin's effects on humanity. We made a choice to sin and hence we must live with its consequences.

Genius he was, I wont deny that,  they killed millions across continents in the name of their God, and robbed indigenous people of their resources. They got away with it too, and somehow convinced you that they are on your side. If that isn't genius i don't know what is. Alleluia!!

Now you're changing the subject matter. Wasn't I refuting how your Roman put the bible together? Now you're adding more to his accomplishments. 

Appropriating pagan places of worship and calling them churches, while adopting their pagan holy days and giving them names like christmas, and Easter, that was also genius, i'll admit

The sacred writings came long before there was ever a Roman kingdom. Jesus and His disciples, some of whom later became apostles taught from the ancient scriptures. Other epistles were later added by some of those apostles. If you were an ardent student of history you'd have recalled that the Caesars had nothing to do with the Jews and their religion, except for Constantine in the 4th century who through political strategy bridged Christianity to paganistic principles in an attempt to unite Rome. As a result the counterfeit church which was headed by the Bishops in succession, saught political power while posing as a church.


Quote from: Bobbyaf on May 26, 2009, 03:49 AM
How do you explain that the bible pronounced the earth was round long before any scientists came to that knowledge? How do you explain that modern archeology confirmed that the biblical figures that were once thought to be fictitious were indeed real personages that existed. Even their language and culture were found in unearthed tablets. Where did this Roman acquire such knowledge might I ask? I could go on,

I won't debunk these claims just yet,  please quote the bible on these, so that i can do a more complete job. I don't want to have to do it twice. thanks  Smiley

No problem. Below you will find a few verses,

A. "He . . . hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7. This scientific fact is from Job, the Bible's oldest book.
B. "He . . . sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22. The Bible said the earth is round centuries before man found out.
C. "To make the weight for the winds." Job 28:25. Long before scientists knew, God said air has weight.
D. "By Him [Jesus] all things consist." Colossians 1:17. The word "consist" here literally means "hold together" or "cohere." Many Bible translations put it "hold together." This is the answer to the nuclear physicists' worrisome question about the atom. The real mystery of the atom does not involve its benumbing mega-power, but rather, Why doesn't the atom fly apart? Scientific knowledge says it should, but it doesn't. Some scientists are wondering what puzzling power, completely unknown to them, is holding it together. The Bible says that mysterious power is the Creator, God Himself.

In the name of civility and mutual respect, I haven't said what i really think about that video.  Smiley

I suggest you watch the video again please.


We have such a sincere thirst for the divine in Nigeria that it breaks my heart to see how people's desire for meaning is used to enslave their minds and hold them hostage by so called "Men of God" and their medieval theology