mazaje:

First of all you did not even address any of the things I said instead you went on rambling about nothing. . .Did Jesus tell his followers that he will come and establish his kingdom during their life time? Yes he did and that was 2000 years ago so what does that tell you? It says that Jesus LIED. And as for your other ramblings all I have to say to that is, Of course the writers of the bible need to explain away the non fulfillment of the coming of Jesus by assuring those that believe that they alone are covered or have the ability to see while others that point out to the fallacies of their mythical assertions are blinded or lost and can not se, how else do you expect them to keep people in line and make them to keep on believing in their stories and lalala tales? You definitely will expect them to say that their god works in mysterious ways or is slow to act or what ever excuse they can throw around no? T

The bible does not describe me, The writers knew for sure that their assertions were false and looked for ways to make light of their falsehood by claiming that some people wil laugh and scoff at those that believe. . . The koran is full of such statements too. . .And when and where was the earth created from water?

Better make your arguments from outside the bible, for your can never defeat the word of God. Again the bible answers your bolded statement above.
Act 1:6-9 So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.


The problem with you atheists is that in your vaunting pride and worship of your flawed intellects; you can not even distinguish between what the bible actually says and what other fallible men say the bible says. It is a book. Read it for yourself and stop presenting third-hand fictions about what the bible says.

OLAADEGBU:

Science is just catching up with the Bible and it still has a long way to go.  Let us see the history of science compared to what the Bible has revealed.

When you tell LIES like this then be prepared to be exposed. . . .

The Bible that has been verbally inspired between 2,000 to 3,000 years ago made certain statements that science during those times did not get right.

This is false. . . .Greek philosophers have made far more accurate predictions about science in antiquity that any thing that can be found written in the bible. . . .

[list]
[li]The Bible then stated that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).  Science then, said the earth was a flat disk.  Science has now discovered that the earth is a sphere.[/li]
[/list]

The bible DOES NOT say that the earth is a sphere, it only says that god sits upon the circle of the earth"". . . the earth is not a cricle by the way is it? Where does the bible say that the earth is a sphere? If the author of Isaiah meant sphere or ball, he would have used the Hebrew word 'duwr', which means a sphere or ball.  Which science is it that says that the earth is flat? By the way is it not the same bible that says the world can not be moved because it is firmly established? Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved"{Psalm 93:1} The same bible says the earth has four corner. . . .1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.Revelation 7:1. The ancient Greeks used what we now call observation, reasoning and science. Anaximander was the first recorded person to suggest the Earth is a sphere. Erastothenes basically worked out the circumference. It was proven 1800 years later by Magellan's voyage.

[list]
[li]The Bible maintained that there were innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22).  Science then insisted that they were only 1,100 stars.  Now they admit that there are innumerable stars. [/li]
[/list]

[/quote]

This is a LIE. . . .Anaxagoras thought that the sun was not just a small glowing circle of light. He thought of it as a large glowing rock, larger than the Peloponnese peninsula. For that belief he was exiled.

Aristarchus suggests that the heavenly bodies revolve around the sun and calculated (because of the lack of parallax) that the stars were extremely far away. Your bible says that the sun revolves around the earth and that stars will someday fall into the earth. . . .  

[quote][list]
[li]The Bible described the Free float of earth in space (Job 26:27).  Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal.  Science now has discovered the free float of earth in space.[/li]
[/list]

Which science is it that says the earth sat on the back of a large animals? Will you stop LYING? Which science is it that said that? Thales: The first of the Greek philosophers, c. 629-555 B.C. He thought the planets, stars, sun, moon, and earth were all composed of different forms of water. He appears to be the first to assert that celestial bodies were not gods, but were made of familiar substance. In those mystical times, this was a radical departure.

[list]
[li]The Bible declared that Creation was made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3).  Science then was ignorant on the subject.  Science now agrees that Creation is made of invisible elements (atoms).[/li]
[/list]

Aristotle (c. 384-322 B.C.): Called "The Philospher" by the learned of the European Middle Ages and Renaissance, his ideas were considered as reliable (and sacrosanct) as Bible passages. His chemistry consisted of four elements, earth, air, water, and fire, plus a fifth element (quintessence) for the stars because the stars were believed to be immutable and unchanging. His physics stated that the natural state of motion of any thing was to be at rest, and that elements possessed a natural affinity for themselves. This latter idea became Aristotle's theory of gravity: earth attracts earth, so all solid bodies fall to earth, and a body that is twice as heavy will fall twice as fast to the earth. Likewise, water seeks the ocean, and fire attempts to fly to its natural home above the atmosphere. In cosmology, the Earth was a stationary sphere surrounded by other spheres that carried the planets and a final sphere upon which the immutable stars were fixed. The Greeks postulated the 'atom' as the smallest particle of a substance.

[list]
[li]The Bible says each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).  Science then claimed that all stars were the same.  Science now has come to the conclusion that each star is different.[/li]
[/list]

Which science claimed that all the stars were the same? STOP lying all the time. . .Aristarchus (c. 310-230 B.C.): boldly attempted to find the relative sizes and distances of the moon, earth, and sun. (1) The earth-moon relative size was obtained from the curvature of the earth's shadow cast on the moon during lunar eclipses. (2) The earth-moon distance was found from trigonometry to be 25 earth diameters. (3) The sun's distance was obtained by trying to find when the moon was at exactly first quarter phase. At that point the earth-moon-sun angle must be 90 degrees exactly, and Aristarchus thought that this position differed from where the moon should be halfway beteen new and full by 3 degrees. If 3 degrees is accepted, the sun is 20 times further than the moon, and (4) also 20 times larger in diameter. Beyond these amazing attempts, Aristarchus also proposed in a serious way a Sun-centered (heliocentric) cosmology, motivated by the observation that the sun is much larger than the earth. A prediction of this model is that the stars are enormously distanct, since they cannot be seen to shift as the Earth swings in its wide arc around the sun.  

[list]
[li]The Bible declares that Light moves (Job 38:19,20).  Science then said Light was fixed in place.  Science has now admitted that light moves.[/li]
[/list]

This is pathetic the bible does NOT say that light moves at all. . . .Hipparchus (c. 194-120 B.C.): The first great observational astronomer compiled a catalog of positions and brightnesses of 1080 stars as well as the sun, moon, and planets that remained unparalled until the late 1500s. He discovered the effect of precession by comparing to older star charts. With his data on planet positions, he realized that simple motion around a sphere was comletely inadequate to explain the loopy motion of the planets among the stars and invented the "epicycle", a smaller sphere centered on the main sphere, on which the planet moved so that it was periodically carried backwards with respect to its usual direction.

[list]
[li]The Bible states that Air has weight (Job 28:25).  Science then said that air was weightless.  Science now says that air has weight.[/li]
[/list]

Where is your evidence that ancient scientist did not know that air has weight. . . .surely the felt the weight of the air around them no? This attempt to discredit science is really pathetic. . .

[list]
[li]The Bible says winds blow in cyclones (Ecclessiastes 1:6).  Science then said that winds blew straight.  Science now confirm the Bible by saying winds blow in cyclones.[/li]
[/list]

If you read the passage you will realize that you are lying because the bible says no such thing at all. . .which science says that the winds blow straight? Why are you just lying all over the place?

[list]
[li]The Bible reveals that blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11).  Science then was convinced that sick people must be bled.  Science now agrees that blood is the source of life and health.[/li]
[/list]

This is a LIE stop lying. . .which science says that sick people must be bleed to death? is it not the same bible that says that evil spirits cause diseases?

[list]
[li]The Bible says ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Sam.22:16; Jonah 2:6).  Science then claimed that ocean floor was flat.  Modern science now confirm that ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains.[/li]
[/list]

Which science says that the ocean floor was flat?

[list]
[li]The Bible says ocean contain springs (Job 38:16).  Science then said ocean fed only by rivers and rain.  Science now admits that ocean contains springs.[/li]
[/list]

Which science makes this claim. . .pls show us. . . stop lying. . .

[list]
[li]The Bible says when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13).  Science then said hands must be washed in still water.  Science now says when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.[/li]
[/list]

Which science said that? Is it not the same bible that says that evil spirits cause diseases?

With all these facts you will think that scoffers would have learnt a lesson or two and realise that the Bible is not only far ahead of modern science but is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper.

The bible knows nothing about science talk less of modern science. . .With the way you are busy lying through your teeth I know you will come back and tell us that the formula for computing was found in the bible. . . .Pathetic Liars

aletheia:

Better make your arguments from outside the bible, for your can never defeat the word of God. Again the bible answers your bolded statement above.
Act 1:6-9 So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

I laugh. . . . . . . .Did jesus not tell his disciples that he will come back and establish his kindom before the finish going through the cities of Israel? Why are you quoting verses that talk about some imaginary deity establishing his kingdom in Israel? Did you not see the word Israel? Are you an Israeli? . . .You clearly see where it was stated that Jesus was talking about Judea and Samaria etc. . .No mention of Nigeria there. . .The same jesus told Caiaphas the Chief Priest, that hereafter he shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. . .That was 2000 years ago. . . .and who ever Caiaphas was he did not live to see that day. . .

The problem with you atheists is that in your vaunting pride and worship of your flawed intellects; you can not even distinguish between what the bible actually says and what other fallible men say the bible says. It is a book. Read it for yourself and stop presenting third-hand fictions about what the bible says.

The problem with theist is that in your vaunting and worship of flawed myths, imaginations and legends you can not even distinguish between reality and the myths, legends, imaginations and fantasies that were written in the bible. I have read the bible so many times and I once subscribed to the christian delusion. . .so no thanks. . .

aletheia:

Apologies. ^{*Egg on my face*} I concede your point.

I like your attitude when shown what you took for granted.

@OLAADEGBU,

I earlier said I was done with your repetitious humour that addresses nothing and is at best a display of an upgraded circus show. Should we ride your spin? Okay, if you may.

OLAADEGBU:

Science is just catching up with the Bible and it still has a long way to go.

Wrong and thrice holy wrong, my guy!   If you noticed, my initial statement that you quoted was that "the Bible was not way ahead of modern science - on the contrary, modern science has left tradionalists far behind."

Two things here, without excuses:

(a)  'modern science' is not 'ancient science'. The latter has been shown for its many inaccuracies about the world and the Universe, while the former is a systematic approach to understanding the natural world. Therefore, in stating that the Bible is not way ahead of modern science, one needs to know what the latter has found out and then see how the Bible has already explained such phenomena accurately without interpolations from religious zealots.

(b) the term 'traditionalists' does not mean the entire Bible, but rather refers to people (like you) who would hold on to a religious interpretation of the Universe even in the face of evidence to the contrary. The texts are not the problem: rather, 'traditionalists' present far more problems to themselves and everyone in any field of enquiry bar none!

Once you begin to understand the quote you took from my post above, then you know where to stand and not just fire away presumptiously at what you least understand.

Let us see the history of science compared to what the Bible has revealed.

'Science' has never been the problem, because real scientists never claim to have 'ultimate truth' to any thing. Nor does the Bible itself - because the Bible does not claim to have revealed ultimate truth about everything concerning the Universe.

The problem has been with 'traditionalists' who try to bend everyone and everything to 6,000 years old and yet arrive at nothing! Just watch the reaction of these same 'traditionalists' when they are presented with irrefutable facts - they never address any question but just stand limply as declare all sciences "wrong", yet they cannot show how or why those sciences are wrong! We have seen this again and again in other threads where I asked you questions on this same thing - especially the one where you were patently confused about 'the ten scientific laws of information' in Dr. Gitts' talk. Up until now you have never ever attempted discussing anything, other than either quote devotionals from HMM or AiG, or just return insults and brand viaro all sorts of names (evolutionary bedfellow, spiritual rebel, etc., etc.).

The Bible that has been verbally inspired between 2,000 to 3,000 years ago made certain statements that science during those times did not get right.

Please stop confusing science for scientists - they are not the same!   Even reknowned scientists today acknowledge that 'scientists' in the past clearly did not understand certain scientific facts, and they have pursued their endeavour until they got it right - yet, they do not claim that they know it all and everyone is wrong! So, when you say that 'science' did not get this right or wrong, you're confusing matters for yourself, and also forgetting that some of the scientists of the past who failed to grasped scientific matters accurately were also CHRISTIANS!

[list]
[li]The Bible then stated that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).  Science then, said the earth was a flat disk.  Science has now discovered that the earth is a sphere.[/li]
[/list]

Science never claimed that the earth was a flat disk. If I ask you to show me where "science" ever said so, I bet you will quote "scientists" who made such assertions.  Even CHRISTIAN authorities who read that verse (Isaiah 40:22) were all preaching a flat earth and threatening to burn philosophers at the stake for having a contrary view.

Tongue-in-cheek sort of way, what happened to Galileo? Or, leave that for a minute and search to find that many Christians today still believe in a flat earth! Samuel Rowbotham of Zetetic astronomy taught vigorously in the 19th century that the 'Earth Not a Globe'. After his death, the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church took up Rowbotham's 'flat earth' ideas - and that is as late as from the 19th century where everyone knows the truth about the sphericity of the planetray bodies. See this article again from the BBC website.

[list]
[li]The Bible maintained that there were innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22).  Science then insisted that they were only 1,100 stars.  Now they admit that there are innumerable stars. [/li]
[/list]

Science never insisted anything of the sort - what you should be saying is that some 'scientists' possibly once thought the stars were far less than we know today; and among these were some religious people. It would shock you what some of them taught about the stars: was it not in Christianity that religious people once thought that stars would start falling upon the earth after reading Revelation 8:10? They forgot that Revelation is a book speaking symbolically - OLAADEGBU, you can add that to the literalism of your YEC/YUC career!

[list]
[li]The Bible described the Free float of earth in space (Job 26:27).[/li][/list]

Do you have a Bible where Job 26 is more than 14 verses? I can't find verse 27 in that chapter of Job.    But I can help you: "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing" - verse 7 it is.

[list][li]Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal.  Science now has discovered the free float of earth in space.[/li][/list]

Don't be silly! Please show me where "science" ever said so.

[list][li]The Bible declared that Creation was made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3).  Science then was ignorant on the subject.  Science now agrees that Creation is made of invisible elements (atoms).[/li][/list]

Dunce! Atoms are not "invible", and it is modern science that has enabled us to capture them in pictures. Enjoy:

                [center][img]http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/imagegallery/afmimages/th-harmonische.jpg[/img]
                  Subatomic structures are visible within single tungsten atoms.

                       

                IBM Fellow Don Eigler is the first to controllably manipulate individual atoms
                on a surface, using the STM to spell out "I-B-M" by positioning 35 xenon atoms,

                [img]http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/imagegallery/afmimages/th-afm-image-graphite.jpg[/img]
                Revealing the hidden atom in graphite with AFM showing all atoms
                within the hexagonal graphite unit cells[/center]

You should always carefully do a check before you open your mouth and confirm the gap in your thinking.  Besides, an atom was once thought to be one of the elementary particles - but no more: science has now brought us to see that there are other particles that could be more appropraitely called elementary particles: the quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons, to name a few. Even an elctron has today been captured on picture:

              [center]  [/center]

So, OLAADEGBU, where have you been in this Universe and making assertions of 'traditionalists' that have become nothing more than museum artifacts??

[list]
[li]The Bible says each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41).  Science then claimed that all stars were the same.  Science now has come to the conclusion that each star is different.[/li]
[/list]

Where did science make sucha  claim?

[list]
[li]The Bible declares that Light moves (Job 38:19,20).  Science then said Light was fixed in place.  Science has now admitted that light moves.[/li]
[/list]

Please stop stealing ideas from scientists and making up for your gap theory!
Those verses (Job 38:19,20) are not teaching that light moves. Rather, quoting them, they ask: "Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof," - it does not say that light moves. If that is what that verse was saying, then we should also say the same for darkness and claim that 'darkness moves'. This is one of those 'beautiful lies' you tell on God's behalf in order to mock Him. Well done.

[list]
[li]The Bible states that Air has weight (Job 28:25).  Science then said that air was weightless.  Science now says that air has weight.[/li][/list]

Where did "science" make such a claim?

[list]
[li]The Bible says winds blow in cyclones (Ecclessiastes 1:6).  Science then said that winds blew straight.  Science now confirm the Bible by saying winds blow in cyclones.[/li][/list]

Where did "science" make such a claim, sir?

[list][li]The Bible reveals that blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11).  Science then was convinced that sick people must be bled.  Science now agrees that blood is the source of life and health.[/li][/list]

Please don't try to gull your audience. The Bible speaks of women bleeding - such as in their menses. That was not claimed in Leviticus as 'science'; and yet, it is the same Bible that teaches us that the menses of a woman are "her sickness" (Lev. 20:18). What do you think would happen if a healthy woman never had her menses? Huh? Besides, science shows us that in emergency first-aids situations like treatment of a snake bite, when no antivenin is available, the patience bad blood can be sucked out and a tourniquet applied around or near the bite. What are you babbling about?

[list]
[li]The Bible says ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Sam.22:16; Jonah 2:6).  Science then claimed that ocean floor was flat.  Modern science now confirm that ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains.[/li][/list]

Where did science make such a claim?

[list]
[li]The Bible says ocean contain springs (Job 38:16).  Science then said ocean fed only by rivers and rain.  Science now admits that ocean contains springs.[/li][/list]

Where again did science make such a claim?

[list]
[li]The Bible says when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13).  Science then said hands must be washed in still water.  Science now says when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.[/li][/list]

"Science" never made such a claim - please show where it did, thank you.

With all these facts you will think that scoffers would have learnt a lesson or two and realise that the Bible is not only far ahead of modern science but is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper.

The reason why scoffers are multiplied is because TRADITIONALISTS tell beautiful lies to make their dogma sound 'scientific'. The Bible was not given as a science journal, and if traditionalists like you can understand that simple message, you will not need a global flood of lies to trouble Everest - ever again!

OLAADEGBU begins by spreadıng ridiculous and pathetic lies that sound ''true'' to the gullible and blind, once his petty assertions are checked they all turn out to be baseless lies. . . . . .Pathetic. . . .

aletheia:

I just love how the bible has an answer for every one of your rantings:
2Pe 3:3-9 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
This describes you mazaje to a tee. The Lord is patiently holding out his hand towards you, that you should repent of your foolishness.

This is an example of how the Bible is fresher than tomorrow's newspapers. See how it predicted that scoffers that we now see here attacking the Word of God will be behaving true to their type. Brethren, be vigilant for the last days are now here.

"Only about 3% of the earth today is habitable for man.  The rest is under water, ice, deserts, mountains, etc,.  If the earth before the Flood were, say 70% habitable, it could have supported a huge population.  The vast amount and worldwide distribution of fossils shows that the Flood was global and that God hates sin enough to judge the entire world."  -- Dr Kent Hovind

"About 85% of the rock surface around the world is made up of sedimentary rock, indicating that at some time in the past, the world was covered by water." -- Peter and Paul Lalonde, 301 Startling Proofs & Prophecies.

OLAADEGBU:

This is an example of how the Bible is fresher than tomorrow's newspapers.  See how it predicted that scoffers that we now see here attacking the Word of God will be behaving true to their type. Brethren, be vigilant for the last days are now here.

^^^more lies.    The Bible prophesied about folks like you who would come from within the Christian Church to tell beautiful lies that God never commissioned you to do - read Acts 20:30. When people point out the unclothed lies you tell, you whine all day that they are attacking the Word of God, as if OLAADEGBU's lies have suddenly become God's Word.

It reveals that scoffers in the last days will be willingly ignorant of how God created the heavens and the earth.

That describes you - even when facts are presented, your willfulness to be ignorant of the evidence is astonishing! Where did God ever tell you that atom is invisible, OLAADEGBU?

They would also be ignorant of the Flood.

This is a laugh - to be 'ignorant' of something is to be unaware of it. If you want to make anyone aware about the Flood, it is not be telling beautiful lies of YEC that you do that job.

These two great events must be considered before making statements about the conditions on earth today.  Only about 3% of the earth today is habitable for man.

You obviously did not consider what you were yapping about before making unfounded statements about the earth today. The '3% of habitable earth'  is another one of those beautiful lies from LivingWaters/Way of the Master - how did they do their science to come to that conclusion?

The rest is under water, ice, deserts, mountains, etc,.  If the earth before the Flood were, say 70% habitable, it could have supported a huge population.  The vast amount and worldwide distribution of fossils shows that the Flood was global and that God hates sin enough to judge the entire world.

God hates sin - including the sin of YEC duplicity. We can be thankful for the fact you know about it, even if you're willingly ignorant of it.

God Gave Them Up

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." (Romans 1:28)

This is a terrifying verse, climaxing the awful indictment (in Romans 1:18-32) of God against a world in rebellion against its maker.  This burning passage begins with Paul's declaration that God's wrath has been revealed against all those who "hold the truth"--[/i]or, more explicitly, [i]"hold down or suppress the truth" in unrighteousness.

Then, in a rising crescendo of testimonies of wickedness and resulting condemnation, one fearful clause appears no less than three times: "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts. . . . For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections. . . . God gave them over to a reprobate mind" (vv. 24, 26, 28).

As terrible as such judgments seem, the provocations were infinitely worse. They "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God" into idols depicting His creatures (v. 23).  They "changed the truth of God into a lie" and rejected Him as Creator (v. 25).  They subjected Him to critical philosophical scrutiny, and chose not "to retain God in their knowledge" at all (implied in the Greek "did not like" (v. 28).  Thus it was that our God of all grace finally had to give them up!

But the frightening thing is that this dark scene describes more than ancient paganism.  Every verse is also a precise indictment of this present, evil "post-Christian" world, as we almost seem to be reading therein a documentary of the present age.  What a picture it draws of modern evolutionary humanism in practice!

Yet the apostle Paul was still preparing to go to Rome, "not ashamed of the gospel of Christ," for that gospel was then--and still is[i]--"the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"[/i] (Romans 1:16). HMM

This is what a scientist who is a Christian that has not sacrificed his faith on the alter of Darwinism but believes in the creation account of the book of Genesis and has allowed him to interprete the evidence of God's world in the light of God's Word.

Modern Science in an Ancient Book
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?" (Job 12:9).

The book of Job is one of the oldest books in the world, yet it contains numerous references to natural systems and phenomena, some involving facts of science not discovered by scientists until recent centuries, yet recorded in Job almost 4,000 years ago.

A good example is in 26:7. "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."  While ancient mythologies may imagine the earth to be carried on the shoulders of Atlas or on the back of a giant turtle, Job correctly noted that it is suspended in space.  The force of "gravity" is still not understood, and it is quite reasonable to believe that God Himself holds it in the assigned place in His creation.

There is a reference to the rotation of the earth in 38:14. "It is turned as clay to the seal."  This speaks of the smooth turning of the globe to receive the sun's daily illumination.

"The springs of the sea" are mentioned in 38:16, even though it has only been discovered in recent decades that there are springs of water emerging from certain parts of the deep ocean floor. The fact that mountains have "roots," consisting of rocks of the same nature and density as the mountains themselves, is noted in 28:9.

The infinite extent of the stellar heavens, contradicting the ancient pagan notion of a vaulted sky with stars affixed to a sort of hemispherical dome, is suggested in 22:12. "Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are!" (see also Isaiah 55:9, etc.).

There are many other scientific insights in this remarkable book and no scientific errors.  The logical conclusion, as our text says, is that "the hand of the Lord hath wrought this." HMM

Nothing wrong with reposting devotionals, especially when there is a thread for you to do so. One would have hoped that you would discuss the topic of this thread, but no - when you fail to show evidence for your assertions, the usual thing is to resort to devotionals complaining about 'evolution' when the thread is not even about that.

OLAADEGBU:

What a picture it draws of modern evolutionary humanism in practice!

This is why I said earlier:

viaro: Everything about AiG and HMM must by about 'evolution' if it does not square with their YEC/YUC

viaro: Up until now you have never ever attempted discussing anything, other than either quote devotionals from HMM or AiG, or . . .

@ Viaro . . do u think species evolve? Do u think we share a common ancestor with chimps?

^^^I do not 'think' whatever. People are free to 'think' this and that and argue all day long: even so, no single argument is water-tight either way as to be the most accurate presentation of 'truth'.

viaro:

^^^I do not 'think' whatever. People are free to 'think' this and that and argue all day long: even so, no single argument is water-tight either way as to be the most accurate presentation of 'truth'.

Do you think Evolution explains how we got here? I'm not trying to argue with you. . . I don't care if it's water tight or not. . just wanna know what u think

This isn't about what others think, its about you. . . na simple kweshun. . . If u don't want to answer just say so.

If I didn't want to answer, you would not have read the previous response - that was an answer, and all you had to do was ask for further gist.

Krayola:

Do you think Evolution explains how we got here? I'm not trying to argue with you. . . I don't care if it's water tight or not. . just wanna know what u think

Personally, I don't think evolution explains how we got here.

hehe. very simple. Kai. . .all u people with ur dodging tactics. Are u Jackie Chan?

U think Homo Sapiens just popped into existence, or have we been here the whole time? I won't ask u for details, I just want a general overview of what u think. . . I think I may have lots and lots and lots to learn from u.

Oya. . .start talking

Krayola:
Oya. . .start talking

>clears throat< Ti ringrazio.

Krayola:

hehe. very simple. Kai. . .all u people with your dodging tactics. Are u Jackie Chan?

I was not dodging anything. You asked for my opinion, and I gave it. How does that amount to ducking anything? You wanted me to be complex and launch into an epistle to satisfy you initially?

U think Homo Sapiens just popped into existence, or have we been here the whole time? I won't ask u for details, I just want a general overview of what u think. . . I think I may have lots and lots and lots to learn from u.

My dear Krayo, this is where some of you fellows just amaze and amuse me all at once. If I were to begin to say anything about existence, several chaps of the evolution brigade will quickly scream that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis - and when others do what you're doing, you end up muddying the waters by the question of something popping into existence.

Does evolution explain how living organisms 'pop into existence'? No. Now if I'm going to be charitable, it therefore shows your question does not arise, thus I take it as humourously showing that you don't seem to have a good grasp of what you want to enquire.

On the other hand, I don't think homo sapiens has been 'here' as long as 'the whole time'. That is, 'we' (as humans) have not been here 'the whole time', whatever that time may mean. Yet, I don't have any concrete reason to suppose that homo sapiens is a product of Darwinism.

Seriously all these pseudo scientists are boring the shit out of me.

viaro:

My dear Krayo, this is where some of you fellows just amaze and amuse me all at once. If I were to begin to say anything about existence, several chaps of the evolution brigade will quickly scream that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis - and when others do what you're doing, you end up muddying the waters by the question of something popping into existence.

Does evolution explain how living organisms 'pop into existence'? No. Now if I'm going to be charitable, it therefore shows your question does not arise, thus I take it as humourously showing that you don't seem to have a good grasp of what you want to enquire.

Yawn. . . .  I mentioned "popped into existence" because I want to know where u think[b] homo-sapiens [/b]came from. I ain't no biologist and I don't care about all the technicalities. I've never gone that route with anyone. Infact the simpler the explanation the better it is for me (don't mean that in a crass way of course. .  ) .  I find the simper stuff more credible anyways. A lot of these so called "deep" conversations people have on Nairaland have little to no substance in my humble opinion/

I'm asking where you think human beings as exist today came from, and not the origin of life. I ain't no philosophy expert and i'm not going to articulate my thoughts to meet your lofty standards. Where did our species come from? . . . are we related to other species, or do we go further back than the theory of evolution suggests.  . . Are we millions of years old?  Take time o. . .   I don't compare u to others, I try to treat u as an individual and with respect. Please don't bunch me up with anybody. .  i don't appreciate that. if i said something somewhere, we can deal with it one on one. I don't agree with a lot of your Christian views but I don't go around puttin u in a box with Olaagbedu and Davidylan.  

Fukc your charity. . .anwser the Kweshun    (btw i juss dey play o. . . .don't comeback with one long polite post apologizing for any misunderstanding. . .lol. . .just answer my kweshen. . u artful dodger )

viaro:

On the other hand, I don't think homo sapiens has been 'here' as long as 'the whole time'. That is, 'we' (as humans) have not been here 'the whole time', whatever that time may mean. Yet, I don't have any concrete reason to suppose that homo sapiens is a product of Darwinism.

Concrete?  Even if the evidence does not narrow it down to a point where u can say it is "concrete", do u think it, at least, points at something?

Do species change over time?
Are we exempt from this?
why?

Lol @Kraviyarola. This upcoming exchange should be fun! *popcorn & soda, front-seat view*

@ Viaro. BTW I said nothing about Darwinism. I don't think Darwin has a monopoly on evolution.

I mean evolution. . .the one most scientists believe is valid, though they disagree on details. There is some consensus that species have evolved over time

Do you disagree that modern humans are a product of this evolutionary process? If u do, how do u explain our being here and similarities with the ape family, or others.

mavenbox:

Lol @Kraviyarola. This upcoming exchange should be fun! *popcorn & soda, front-seat view*

haha. Abeg o. I just want to know what he thinks. I'm not trying to analyse anything. Thats why I was shocked when I read his last response because it felt like he thought I was trying to start some inquisition. All I want is to know is what he thinks our origin is. I won't question the validity of whatever he says.

Krayola,

I endeavour to deal with people's enquiry as they present them, not make postulations outside of what they present. I'm no magician to peep into your mind to know what exactly you want to know beyond what you present. If we're clear on that, what then is your comic about me being an artful dodger - on what? Or you don't understand the statements you make and have to be such a tard idiot to argue like a twerp? If you want to start insinuating crass in your way of presenting enquiries, then viaro will serve accordingly - I often make no apologies for my no-nonsense response even to friends.

Let me rewind:

1. You offered a question:
Viaro . . do u think species evolve? Do u think we share a common ancestor with chimps?
I answered simply that I don't 'think' whatever.
Now, if you wanted me to jump straight into explaining anything beyond that point, I was quite open to consider it - which was why I entertained your further enquiry:

2. Do you think Evolution explains how we got here?
My answer again was simple and to the point: 'Personally, I don't think evolution explains how we got here.'
If that was not sufficient, again I was happy to entertain further enquiries, even if you wanted me to explain. You don't even have a good grasp what you're mumbling about before insinuating that I was being an artful dodger - what do you want me to do? Make a Ph.D thesis elaborating on a simple question, no? Even so, I was again happy to entertain further enquiry:

3. U think Homo Sapiens just popped into existence, or have we been here the whole time?
And my answer: On the other hand, I don't think homo sapiens has been 'here' as long as 'the whole time'.
In each step of this scenario, my answers have been in point to your questions. You even went so far as to decline details or get into an argument, which was fine with me. It was a simple case of what viaro thinks/thought, and I answered accordingly. What then is all this sob story about being an artful dodger? If my answers were not addressing what you had asked, what would you do - call a funeral for your pedigree? What nonsense are you on about if you are damn too confused about what you're asking?


Now, do I answer your latest enquiry according to what you asked, or apart from what you asked? let me know, so I know if this is going to be one of those games to waste our time - I then could find time enough to play with you.

That term 'artful dodger' seems to have hit a nerve. lol!

Funny thing was that I was called that in school. 'Dodger'. I didn't find it offensive though.

Krayola:

@ Viaro. BTW I said nothing about Darwinism. I don't think Darwin has a monopoly on evolution.

I didn't infer that he did, and in one of my earliest statements about the thoughts behind evolution, there were a few names I mentioned before Darwin. When I refer to Darwinism, it is because I want readers to know what I've often stated: I'm no fan of Darwinism - and that is because almost all arguments that people make for evolution of any kind point back to the '-ism' of Darwinian evolution.

I mean evolution. . .the one most scientists believe is valid, though they disagree on details. There is some consensus that species have evolved over time

Which one exactly?

Do you disagree that modern humans are a product of this evolutionary process?

What evolutionary process? Please be clear. How does it differ from darwinism?

If u do, how do u explain our being here and similarities with the ape family, or others.

Indeed, it's hard for me to agree with the notion that we are a product of evolutionary process(es), especially the one you might have in mind. Putting that aside and just simply taking on the view of man evolving from organisms that were not human by any definition, I disagree. How so? Let me give explain:

There are indeed 'similarities' between many species today - no contest. But these 'similarities' do not prove anything about our human origins. The ape family (ie., hominoidea) reveal diversity, not conclusive similarity of our humanity with apes. One could make just about the same argument of similarities with any other specie of animals as the one between humans and apes - and the question that crosses my mind about these things is simply why evolutionists do not try to make the same connections other than the idea that we all have a 'common ancestry'. Man is uniquely complex in his class, as are all other species of living organisms.

Pastor AIO:

That term 'artful dodger' seems to have hit a nerve. lol!

Yes, it did - especially as it comes from a friend who should have known better. That was why I had to 'rewind' and show the sequence of our dialogue before the joke gets out of hand.

Funny thing was that I was called that in school. 'Dodger'. I didn't find it offensive though.

Lol, there are other terms I've been called at various times that don't offend me. But having to repeatedly infer such terms seems out of place when the caller seems not to even understand himself in the first place.

@ Viaro.  hahahah. next time a simple "Krayola, stfu", or "sharrapp!!" would have been just fine. .  I'm not worth all that trouble.

I don't care for all this getting caught up on technicalities.

I want to know how u, personally, account for human existence on this planet. If u wanna tell, please do, if not, never mind.  I find this merry go round kinda silly. But thats just me. thanks for your time.

Krayola:

@ Viaro.  hahahah. next time a simple "Krayola, stfu", or "sharrapp!!" would have been just fine. .  I'm not worth all that trouble.

I don't care for all this getting caught up on technicalities.

I want to know how u, personally, account for human existence on this planet. If u wanna tell, please do, if not, never mind.  I find this merry go round kinda silly. But thats just me. thanks for your time.

I wasn't into technicalities, that was why my answers were simple and set according to your questions. How else did you envisage my answers to have been?

Anyhow, I was about responding to your previous post when you jotted the above. Ignore my answers below and don't take any notice of me if you feel it might bore you even more.

---

@Krayo, your other points:

Krayola:

Yawn. . . .  I mentioned "popped into existence" because I want to know where u think[b] homo-sapiens [/b]came from. I ain't no biologist and I don't care about all the technicalities. I've never gone that route with anyone. Infact the simpler the explanation the better it is for me (don't mean that in a crass way of course. .  ) .  I find the simper stuff more credible anyways. A lot of these so called "deep" conversations people have on Nairaland have little to no substance in my humble opinion/

There's nothing wrong with making a point, even at the risk of being misunderstood until clarifications are offered. Perhaps I missed your point about 'popped into existence', and I wanted to be clear that this discussion would not go down the road of mixing issues up - because those who are inclined to evolution tend often to argue far too many different things.

I'm asking where you think human beings as exist today came from, and not the origin of life.

There - thank you for being clear, and there's no need for the crass talk between us. I don't know where human beings as exist today came from; I only believe that human beings were created.

I ain't no philosophy expert and i'm not going to articulate my thoughts to meet your lofty standards. Where did our species come from? . . . are we related to other species, or do we go further back than the theory of evolution suggests.  . . Are we millions of years old?  Take time o. . .   I don't compare u to others, I try to treat u as an individual and with respect. Please don't bunch me up with anybody. .

Hehe. . this chap is funny.  Krayo, I try to respect individuals and treat them in their own world without trying to confuse personalities. Maybe I often fail there, and that is one of my weaknesses, which I pray could be excused.

As regards where our specie come from, I don't know, other than my believing we are a created order of beings.

Is 'man' therefore millions of years old? I really don't know; but I have personal reasons to believe that we are far older than our traditional interpretations of a 6,000 year history on earth. If in this regard there's a need for me to explain further, I most gladly welcome the opportunity to do so in context of how you would like me to approach that subject.

Fukc your charity. . .anwser the Kweshun    (btw i juss dey play o. . . .don't comeback with one long polite post apologizing for any misunderstanding. . .lol. . .just answer my kweshen. . u artful dodger )

As above - or was there something more than that which I failed to see?

Concrete?  Even if the evidence does not narrow it down to a point where u can say it is "concrete", do u think it, at least, points at something?

Yes, and definitely yes. This is not a hop-'n-hop scenario, so let me be clear.

Often when in discussion with others on these subjects, I have argued that TOE (theory of evolution) is a scientific theory by the standards of what the term 'scientific theory' is held to mean today among scientists. A theory doesn't have to be the truth; but it should have explanatory powers about a phenomena. Thus, in that sense, evolution as a scientific theory attempts to explain the 'origin' of species - even though that attempt to explain that subject may not be the absolute truth for every scientist in the field. To be sure that I'm not playing games here and have actually stated my view on this much earlier, please see the thread:  Questions For Evolutionists And Atheists, posts #341 and #344. There you could see what I think about a 'scientific theory' as an attempt to explain something, whether it turns out to be true or false.

So, if one enquires what I 'think' about species evolving, or about 'evolution', etc., I've often stated simply that I'm not a fan of Darwinism simply because that theory does not explain the origin of man.

Do species change over time?

I don't know.

Are we exempt from this?

Possibly.

why?

Because front and back of that question is one that is about life itself - where did life come from?

Thank you for your response.  see? . . .that wasn't so hard. U DODGER!! 

haha. Oya. . . I understand where u are coming from.

Just a few more questions

What do u make of all the fossil records?

Paleontologists-- credible profession, or they just make stuff up? . . . do the fossil records that suggest evolution (human-like bidepal big brained species, and their less "developed" alleged ancestors), in your opinion, mean nothing?

Why, in your opinion, is there such a high consensus in the scientific community around the TOE (one form or another), and how do u reconcile your beliefs with this?

U don't have to answer all, just state which one u don't want to answer and I will drop it.

_{Hehehe. . you sad sob! If I had known you were winding me up with the 'dodger' thingy, I woulda killed you!! I've been having a bad day today because I had hoped to be called for extra work this morning. . . not the money, just the time to chat this damsel up. I lost! And you made things worse for me.}

Anyhow, throw the above off the cliff and let's talk, useless man!

Krayola:

Thank you for your response.  see? . . .that wasn't so hard. U DODGER!! 

I shall have my time. .  patience.

haha. Oya. . . I understand where u are coming from.

Just a few more questions

What do u make of all the fossil records?

I think fossils are an interesting bag of facts about the past - it all depends on how any professional, scientist or pseudoscientist wants to talk about them.

Paleontologists-- credible profession, or they just make stuff up?

Very credible profession, in my view.

. . . do the fossil records that suggest evolution (human-like bidepal big brained species, and their less "developed" alleged ancestors), in your opinion, mean nothing?

IMO, they do not mean nothing and cannot be swept away just like that.

For one, fossils are used to make a case for evolution by some, which is especially where the homonids connection with man come into play. Other evolutionists are not so condescending to make that same interpretation, but they understandably may not question evolution of man as such.

For me, these fossils still leave many gaps - and that is why they do not give me the confidence of tracing our present humanity to through the evolution of ape-like species to the present homo sapiens.

Why, in your opinion, is there such a high consensus in the scientific community around the TOE (one form or another), and how do u reconcile your beliefs with this?

^^^Very important question, and please endure my boredom on this.

1.  A high concensus does not mean that every scientist is inclined to every evolutionary argument (we both understand that, I suppose). Even so, if one takes into account that the definition of 'science' is constantly reviewed and updated, I can understand why the TOE is a scientific theory; and as such, I cannot argue against the rational of many scientists to be inclined to evolution.

2.  The TOE is not a religious argument; and that is what so many people forget when they propose arguments between evolution and creation. Science does not set out to make conclusive statements about religious or supernatural phenomena; and as a scientific theory, TOE was not formulated as a worldview. If TOE has left the domain of science to now argue religion, something is terribly wrong and TOE should consequently no longer be recognized as a science based pursuit.

3.  From the above, I don't try to reconcile between these two positions of TOE and spirituality, in as much as they are looking at the world differently. Indeed, some may use either of them to argue diametrically for and against certain ideas in human existence and experience, but that kind of strain does not make up everything about my faith.

U don't have to answer all, just state which one u don't want to answer and I will drop it.

Okay, thanks. . . but I still will 'murd' you for winding me up!